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.

​

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. That seems like a good time to make changes. I doubt even a significant minority are frustrated with 5e(other than the glacially slow crunch release rate anyway) right now.

I doubt many want a faster crunch release rate. And there are pain points and frustrations, su h as the Rabger or the Monk, that these tests are working on.

More than rules, though, new art and less racism are what WotC will use to make sales.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I pointed out the weakness of making the argument "the majority can't be wrong".

Okay, fine. Then tell me how something subjective can be wrong when the majority support it? Or at least wrong enough that the majority's vote shouldn't win? In other words... in what manner should a minority's decision supercede the majority's on something subjective like this and whether it should be included in the game? How do we decide when the minority's decision is the one to go with THIS time, but not all those other times?

 

[Parmandur]

Part of the problem with all the UA's has been we never see what's going on except though a glass darkly. We're given something and asked how we like it without being given greater context. The Ravinca subclasses would have made a lot more sense had we known they were for Ravinca and not Faerun. Half of the UA experience is playing guessing games trying to figure out the context of the things we're testing. It's no surprise that WotC wants to know the community vibes on a given rule, but all we get are endless debating if DPS numbers and prognostication about what the next book is going to be.

To your point though: the inspiration on a crit/fumble should have been in the same test. The survey should have asked if we liked A, B, or neither. Testing A (without knowing if there was a B) and then testing B (knowing A exists but it's too late to provide feedback) seems designed less to take the pulse of the community and more to rule out the idea that the community has secretly wanted this all along. Akin to cooking a meal, letting someone try a bite, asking how they like it, and deciding if you will ever cook that meal again based solely on that person's first impression.

WotC wants to know what people think without that context: the context of Ravnica moves books in a different level, and they can find out about how that sells through other market research h (which theybdid for surveys they put out for the Planeshift documents).

 

[Umbran]

I'm not equating these things and you can't force me to be and then claim that I'm making light. Knock it off.

Mod Note:
No, you knock it off. You made the initial comparison broadly. You don't get to order people around when they take it broadly.

If you cannot be bothered to think a bit about how things will come across, or if you take it poorly when folks call you on it, you should not be in the discussion.

Engage your perspective going forward, or take a break, please.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

You are right, but to their point, I wouldn't know hack about the injection system as a regular car driver. It's all Voodoo magic under the hood. My players who don't read the books might not see much difference...

 

[mamba]

Compared to moving from D&D 3e to a TTRPG like Honey Heist, or Cthulhu Dark, or Fiasco?

no one is claiming that you could not find games that are further removed from 3e than 4e was, but claiming that two games are basically the same if they use a d20 is like claiming Monopoly and Risk are the same game because both use d6

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.

as are many others, and even more if you do not insist on the d20, that does not make them all one game

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

yes, but that is a completely separate claim, one can be true even when the other is not

 

[Parmandur]

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.

In terms of game design, it is impossible to define "perfect edition" let alone achieve it. All they can do is work to make an experience that is as satisfying to as many people as possible. And that does not necessarily mean rwdicla change, if no radical change is desired by users.

If it makes toy feel better, Perkins said the new DMG will have more price guidelines for items.

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.

Oh, I expect theybwill do the same thing in ten years, and in 20. Slight tweaks to the core Evergreen D&D engine based on what the majority of users and potential wants from the game at that point.

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

The majority can't be wrong about what the majority wants. "Ad populum" isn't a fallacy when the goal is achieving popularity.

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay, fine. Then tell me how something subjective can be wrong when the majority support it? Or at least wrong enough that the majority's vote shouldn't win? In other words... in what manner should a minority's decision supercede the majority's on something subjective like this and whether it should be included in the game? How do we decide when the minority's decision is the one to go with THIS time, but not all those other times?

The threshold is not 50%+1, it's 70%. Worse there is absolutely no direct question over A/B preference in a lot of areas like almost anything in the entire rules glossary in every packet so far.

There have been contentious areas with minor tweaks in every packet so far, given that we are on packe6 that could result in multiple conflicting rules that each amount to a cumulative score between 306% and 414% support. "majority" is a useless statistic if the polling methodology used to determine it is built on an ever shifting black box that is sometimes simultaneously white blue grey or green.

 

[TwoSix]

no one is claiming that you could not find games that are further removed from 3e than 4e was, but claiming that two games are basically the same if they use a d20 is like claiming Monopoly and Risk are the same game because both use d6

Yea, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that within the TTRPG space, 3e and 4e (and 5e) are pretty close to identical. And they are!

It's like if you changed the rules to Scrabble and said the only legal words are 4 letters or more. That's a tiny change to the overall structure of the game, and yet it would have a massive impact on the play of competitive Scrabblers, where a lot of the focus in on getting extra points using small words. To a hardcore fan of Scrabble, that rule change absolutely would "change everything".

Likewise with how changing the power acquisition rules and the structure of some of those powers from 3e->4e is pretty much just rearranging deck chairs on a cruise ship from an outside perspective, but had a massive impact on the perception of the game from the zoomed-in perspective.

It's precisely why I think @DEFCON 1's reminders to keep a bit of distance from all of the "new version" proceedings carry a lot of value. No matter how "extensive" the 2024 changes are, we're all still going to sit down at the table and keep doing the same play procedures with the same fiction.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Yeah, it's one of the worst things about it being absent in the rules, IMO - it's perfectly balanced (on its own) with what IS in the rules.

(As you can see, I don't mind anyone complaining about D&D rules here, even if they don't offer solutions! To me, this is a safe place to commiserate with fellow D&D fans, and that can take many forms -Sometimes we even have solutions!)