D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Document: 77 Pages, 7 Classes, & More!

There's a brand new playtest document for the new (version/edition/update) of Dungeons of Dragons available for download! This one is an enormous 77 pages and includes classes, spells, feats, and weapons.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

In this new Unearthed Arcana document for the 2024 Core Rulebooks, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents updated rules on seven classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. This document also presents multiple subclasses for each of those classes, new Spells, revisions to existing Spells and Spell Lists, and several revised Feats. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest document.

​

 

[Yaarel]

One way to keep the math but remove the constraints is to have two Long Rests per level.

Each player decides for their own character whether a particular rest is going to grant the mechanics of a Long Rest.

Otherwise, all rests, whether an hour lunch or an 8-hour sleep, count as Short Rests.

In this way, the Long Rest is narratively more like a "rally", an abrupt recovery from a setback.

 

[Hussar]

WotC doesn’t innovate because they do not allow themselves to. They could pay less attention to the 70% threshold and do what they feel is right regardless.

Use the feedback to tweak / improve on the original idea / goal, instead of abandoning it wholesale because only 63% were sufficiently enthusiastic

Of course that involves taking risks, and the threshold is designed to not rock the boat

They tried that.

And got absolutely pilloried for it. The whole "WotC hates gamers" meme that's been a constant refrain since about 1998. They really are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they make changes that aren't rock solid accepted by the community, they hate gamers, are incompetent, don't know what they're doing, etc. If they don't make changes and listen to the community, they are uncreative, boring, only doing it to chase the dollar. They absolutely cannot win this. No matter what, they are doing the wrong thing.

So, they pick the route of least resistance. By satisfying 70% with every change, they can stand there and say, "Hey, we tried making changes, the fandom shut it down, so, we listened to the fans." And the game will never have any real change in it. For all the hoopla about how D&D 5e has shifted over the years, it's not really a huge change from 2014 to 2023. Thus we get an evergreen edition.

 

[Yaarel]

So, they pick the route of least resistance. By satisfying 70% with every change, they can stand there and say, "Hey, we tried making changes, the fandom shut it down, so, we listened to the fans." And the game will never have any real change in it. For all the hoopla about how D&D 5e has shifted over the years, it's not really a huge change from 2014 to 2023. Thus we get an evergreen edition.

The 2024 DMs Guide is a place to put innovation that is popular but that didnt make the 70% minimum.

The 2014 DMG has variants for particular classes, such as spell points, as well as variants for the game engine such as mods for Rests.

Some of the 2014 variants seem like incomplete suggestions that intends the DM to figure out.

But the 2024 DMG needs substantial variants that have already underwent playtesting and work well as-is.


Variants that I want in the 2024 DMG include:
• Short Rest spell points (Level+1 pool, cost=slot, so slot 3 Fireball costs 3 points, Wish 9 points, max expenditure is level/2 round up)
• Athletics and Perception as ability scores (thus there are 8 abilities)
• Psionic spell lists
• Long Rest variant that is twice per level instead of each 8-hours


There can be variants for the Fighter class too to enjoy more noncombat powers, especially at high tiers.

 

[Pauln6]

WotC doesn’t innovate because they do not allow themselves to. They could pay less attention to the 70% threshold and do what they feel is right regardless.

Use the feedback to tweak / improve on the original idea / goal, instead of abandoning it wholesale because only 63% were sufficiently enthusiastic

Of course that involves taking risks, and the threshold is designed to not rock the boat

No, what they should do is have optional add-ons for those that want them. The 1 minute short rest is an option that has been available since the start.

The mistake you're making is believing that everyone agrees with you and even if they don't your fix will fix their game when it will probably just throw up a different set of problems.

 

[mamba]

They really are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they make changes that aren't rock solid accepted by the community, they hate gamers, are incompetent, don't know what they're doing, etc. If they don't make changes and listen to the community, they are uncreative, boring, only doing it to chase the dollar. They absolutely cannot win this. No matter what, they are doing the wrong thing.

oh, I know they cannot win this… but if I get a similar level of complaints no matter what, I might as well do what I think is right

I’d certainly like for them to be a little bolder, it seems they try so hard to avoid a repeat of 4e that they rather not change anything that does not get the mythical 70%, even if that means stagnation / not addressing long standing issues

So, they pick the route of least resistance.

Not sure they should though, sometimes you should stick to your guns. People are not always good at even recognizing a solution. It’s like Henry Ford said ‘If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.’

If you presumably are a good game designer, then design, and listen a little less to those that aren’t.

 

[mamba]

The mistake you're making is believing that everyone agrees with you and even if they don't your fix will fix their game when it will probably just throw up a different set of problems.

I purposely did not say anything about what changes they should make, because I do not want to equate the two issues. I know not everyone agrees, that is obvious.
I am also more self-aware and flexible than you give me credit for here I argue for my preferred solution, sure, that does not mean it is the only acceptable outcome.

I still think going by whatever 70% find acceptable is a bad way to innovate, regardless of what changes breaking this rule would bring.

One thing this rule does is stifle innovation and actual changes, that much is clear. I’d rather see them do that, regardless of what changes it results in.

I grant you that most of those they tried and threw out, I actually liked, but my main gripe with the 70% doctrine is how it does stifle change. I much rather see them have a good solution to a problem, even if it is not my preferred one, than for them to simply not address the problem.

The one case where I actually pushed back on it and said that the 70% is outright bad is that it grandfathers in solutions we have but never got 70% approval to begin with, instead of allowing the actually more popular solution of the two to be used, even when neither reaches 70%.
Even if you want whatever is the more popular, all of the time, that to me is something you should be able to agree with.

The other times I was disappointed that when something did not get 70%, that they abandoned it right away, instead of revising it and trying again. That too should not be all that controversial.

As to wanting a solution more than wanting ‘my’ solution, take the discrepancy between SR and LR classes. My fix is throwing out SR as a recharge mechanic. I’d still rather harmonize the classes to all benefit about equally from SRs and generally reduce the dependency on them than keep a mix, like they do.
Either solution is better than not addressing the issue, yet the latter is what we get.

 

[Eubani]

The shackles of backwards compatibility and their natural timidity for anything that is not a full spellcaster has led us to where we are, I don't see classes going further than they are. Spells for the most part that are not class specific will be largely untouched the same for monsters except for some minor HP adjustments.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Heh heh... I think at the end of the day the reason why WotC seems reluctant to make major changes is because they recognize the same thing that all of us do, although we don't want to admit it...

...all our ideas completely suck!

For every single one of us here on the boards that makes a suggestion of a "completely obvious change" that would make the game better... you will get three people responding to say the change is horrible. It's as simple as that. Not a single one of us can come up with an idea that won't get more people to decry it than to embrace it. We know this. WotC knows this. And which is why they just let all of us change things ourselves... either at home for our own table, or by trying to sell the idea on DMs Guild or any OGL release.

WotC flat out tells us to not worry about their products. Don't use them as-is. Change them. And yet so many of us just can't do that. We HAVE to use what they give us for whatever inane reason... which is why we all fight tooth-and-nail to try and convince everyone that what WE want in the game is what everyone else should want to. But it doesn't work. Because what we want are ideas that suck.

Or at least... suck for everyone else other than ourselves. So why we keep fighting the bad fight trying to convince people otherwise just so we can get it published in the official WotC version is beyond me.

 

[Yaarel]

It is easy to agree to complain about a problem.

It is hard to agree to implement a specific solution.

 

[Parmandur]

Potayto potahto. We’re largely in agreement. The market will not allow any big changes. Heck the market won’t even allow psionics.

But yeah, any actual deviation a la book of nine swords or a psionics handbook is only going to come from outside of DnD.

Which means, as a permanent dm, I’m never going to see it because players have zero interest.

Well, I think paragraph three explains paragraph one here...