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.

​

 

[doctorbadwolf]

any surface-level changes to various rules made from edition to edition are just coats of paint that either I don't care about because they don't affect the fundamental gameplay of Dungeons & Dragons (like what skills appear in the skill list), or ones I can easily change myself if I decide I have a better idea (like what skills appear in the skill list, LOL).

The differences between 3 and 4e are much more than a coat of paint. This is like claiming that changing ignition systems, or changing a manual fuel pump system to electric pump, or swapping motors, are all equivalent to a different coat of paint.

 

[CapnZapp]

My post was not talking about what parts of 5E were supposedly "broken"... it was a direct response to what you had asked in the part I quoted:

"I wonder how you justified and defended 3E when that was new and totally different from what AD&D people probably wanted fixed. And where were you when 4E completely changed everything about 3E, despite probably nobody wanting exactly what was offered? And what was your arguments when 5E was new, likely alienating approximately 110% of the lovers of 4E?"

You claimed 3E was "totally different" and 4E "changed everything" and 5E "alienating 110% of the lovers of 4E"... and I was just pointing out how completely incorrect those three points were.

YOU may think the changes made in 3E, 4E and 5E turned them into all-new games... but most of us who are not prone to hyperbole in this situation know that is just not true. The foundation of the game has never changed. Not once has an edition been released and made someone think "Huh... these seems more like GURPS than D&D!" And in my particular case... any surface-level changes to various rules made from edition to edition are just coats of paint that either I don't care about because they don't affect the fundamental gameplay of Dungeons & Dragons (like what skills appear in the skill list), or ones I can easily change myself if I decide I have a better idea (like what skills appear in the skill list, LOL).

I do not disagree that some people out there are so in the weeds over the game mechanics found in D&D that any changes off of what they prefer can send them spiraling... coming here onto EN World declaring the entirety of the game "broken", posting hundreds of times in hundred page threads arguing why some incredibly small facet of the game has to "fixed" otherwise the game (and its designers) is crap. But those are just not enough to convince the rest of us that you are right. The foundation of the game has been solid this entire time... it has always been D&D... and these coats of paint thrown on top with each revision and edition do not and will not affect it (other than get some players all worked up.)

In a discussion about changes between editions of the same game, I reserve the right to call various aspects of these editions "totally different", and even that they "change everything". That all these editions remain D&D and isn't as different from each other as GURPS is different from D&D may be true, but it isn't particularly useful or relevant.

 

[TwoSix]

The differences between 3 and 4e are much more than a coat of paint. This is like claiming that changing ignition systems, or changing a manual fuel pump system to electric pump, or swapping motors, are all equivalent to a different coat of paint.

Compared to moving from D&D 3e to a TTRPG like Honey Heist, or Cthulhu Dark, or Fiasco? 3e and 4e are both d20 based games where you pick a fantasy race and class, you level to gain new powers, you have hit points, skills, and feats, and the focus of play is encountering and overcoming challenges in the form of monsters or environmental hazards, and DM-adjudicated skill checks make up the bulk of non-combat resolution.

One can argue that 3e leans trad/sim and 4e leans more neotrad/narrative, but that's primarily a function of the culture around the game more than explicit play practice.

@DEFCON 1 is absolutely right to point out that the conversations around the changes within these editions can get a bit myopic.

Of course, counter to that, it is true that the more involved you are in a specific activity, the more small changes carry outsize weight. To someone who knows nothing about baseball, the fact that there's a clock making sure that pitchers must pitch in 20 seconds doesn't seem like anything worth mentioning; in the baseball world, though, it has a profound impact on play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The differences between 3 and 4e are much more than a coat of paint. This is like claiming that changing ignition systems, or changing a manual fuel pump system to electric pump, or swapping motors, are all equivalent to a different coat of paint.

Everyone has their levels of change or what they think is different.

Personally I see little difference in the combat for example of 4E versus 3E. You move 30' or 6 squares... you roll a d20 and add your attack modifier... you do your weapon die of damage plus modifier... you attack people adjacent to you with weapons and some spells, other spells do damage in a certain diameter from a point... some attacks for people to move, fall down, get knocked back... some of your own movement allows others to attack you as you walk away... etc. Yes, the terms used are different and the modifiers are not one a 1-for-1 basis (3E uses BAB, 4E uses half-level), but the actual rolling and additions are the same, both causing damage numbers that both reduce the enemy's number of hit points.

And even outside of combat, 4E Skill Challenges are just standard DM adjudication of success except it's formalized in how many rolls the players are going to make and need to succeed in order to "get what they want" (rather than the DM determining for themselves which individual success rolls and fail rolls impact the narrative enough to get the player what they want.)

To me, all the editions of D&D and all of the clones like Pathfinder, OSRIC, etc. are all D&D at their foundation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In a discussion about changes between editions of the same game, I reserve the right to call various aspects of these editions "totally different", and even that they "change everything". That all these editions remain D&D and isn't as different from each other as GURPS is different from D&D may be true, but it isn't particularly useful or relevant.

Sure. And had you mentioned those various aspects specifically when claiming those aspects were totally different, I'd have agreed with you. But you didn't. You claimed the entire editions themselves were different, which is why I responded. And I agree... your claim wasn't very useful.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So 5E completely allows rapier / dagger style to be used... but no one ever actually does because it's not mechanically beneficial. But if FitzTheRuke was actually meaning something else with their comment about 5E not having rapier / dagger in the game, then I'm not sure what the issue is and they'd need to clarify (if they'd care to.)

Nah that's it. I mean, I just allow the combo. There's no important difference between using two 1d6-dealing weapons, like short swords, or a 1d8-dealing weapon paired with a 1d4-dealing weapon. If no one is trying any shenanigans and just wants to dual-wield that combo, then I'm perfectly okay with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Of course, counter to that, it is true that the more involved you are in a specific activity, the more small changes carry outsize weight. To someone who knows nothing about baseball, the fact that there's a clock making sure that pitchers must pitch in 20 seconds doesn't seem like anything worth mentioning; in the baseball world, though, it has a profound impact on play.

This is a very astute point.

If we go over to the Ranger thread, we can see all kinds of people fully in weeds over things like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer. Some think you can't be a Ranger without them, while others think they are meaningless abilities that should be ditched. And should abilities like these disappear, then some people are going to say the Ranger has "completely changed" or is "no longer a Ranger". And yet you look at the class with or without those abilities and compare it to a wilderness focused character in 7th Sea (for example) and you can pretty much say that yeah, those two D&D Rangers are practically the same.

I acknowledge that for some people, getting that far down into the weeds about all these parts of D&D is the point. But that's also why none of those individuals will ever be happy, because the people who design the game and fill out the surveys almost never are that far into the weeds as that person and they just won't care.

 

[CapnZapp]

When does a change "need to be made"...? When the majority of users are frustrated. Hence, all the testing to find pain points and propose solutions. For a game designed to entertain people, change is only necessary when the majority of users desire it.

Yes, but that's a poor argument in favor of this particular level of (non-)change.

You make it sound like the testing and user involvement and WotCs desire to not ruffle even a single feather will result in this perfect edition. It won't. Not daring to tell users "no" will create D&D 5.01. At best. A rehash where loads of frustrating and mediocre stuff will be left unfixed. Nothing more and nothing less.

Likely this upcoming edition will be remembered much like 3.5 is remembered. As something that didn't really fix any of the fundamental shortcomings of the edition, and mostly meant having to relearn a lot of details with only surface-level improvements, most of which just shifted the problem areas around.

Something WotC can use to coast another 5 or 10 years before having to actually endure any type of pain in order to really fix things. I mean in the way the comprehensive and thorough reimagining of 3E that was 5E actually did fix several of the fundamental issues of d20. Where WotC proved they actually could provide meaningful improvement, even if they did it only on the verge of financial ruin.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nah that's it. I mean, I just allow the combo. There's no important difference between using two 1d6-dealing weapons, like short swords, or a 1d8-dealing weapon paired with a 1d4-dealing weapon. If no one is trying any shenanigans and just wants to dual-wield that combo, then I'm perfectly okay with it.

I presume you mean even without the Dual-Wielder feat? I'd agree with that-- standard two-weapon fighting with 1d6/1d6 dual shortswords or scimitars or 1d8/1d4 rapier/dagger is fine by me too, even without the feat needed to supposedly wield a non-Light weapon in your main hand.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure. And had you mentioned those various aspects specifically when claiming those aspects were totally different, I'd have agreed with you. But you didn't. You claimed the entire editions themselves were different, which is why I responded. And I agree... your claim wasn't very useful.

I pointed out the weakness of the well-worn "the majority can't be wrong" argument.

You responded by changing the subject; stating, and I quote, " I don't see 3E, 4E or 5E as all that different."

It is this that isn't very useful.