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.

​

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

You didn't answer the question though. How and when we should we be using the minority's opinion then? If we can't trust the majority's opinion (in whatever level of majority the expectation is and whatever quality of opinion we got from potentially bad polling)... what's the method for deciding to go minority opinion?

And just as an FYI... I'll be more impressed with any answer given where the person giving it is actually a PART of the majority, but still thinks the minority's decision is the way to go. Because at least then it's just not "the game should be how I want it" across the board. I still might not agree, but at least it gives me the impression the person is trying to be at least a little bit objective.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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!)

I love the fact that all of us usually can come up with solutions when people have problems they want solved.

The only addendum to that though is that I wish more people would see those solutions as valid even if WotC doesn't put it in their books too.

 

[mamba]

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!

well, I disagree with the pretty close to identical. Most other games are further removed, but that does not make them close to identical.

They only are if you look from a million miles away, so you only see the core 10% they have in common (you mentioned d20, classes, levels, fantasy), but if you do that, the Earth and Mars are also pretty close to identical

 

[mamba]

How and when we should we be using the minority's opinion then? If we can't trust the majority's opinion (in whatever level of majority the expectation is and whatever quality of opinion we got from potentially bad polling)... what's the method for deciding to go minority opinion?

I don’t think there is one, I also don’t think we should.

The argument was more along the lines of ‘60% liked an option, 40% did not. Because of the 70% threshold, the 40% won’, so the current methodology does not ensure that the majority opinion wins, and it gets worse when the conclusion gets cobbled together from several vaguely related questions across multiple playtests instead of one multiple choice question.

 

[TwoSix]

well, I disagree with the pretty close to identical. Most other games are further removed, but that does not make them close to identical.

But it kind of does!

Like, I have 2 brothers. From our perspective, we're different ages, we have different interests and can tell ourselves apart pretty easily. But that doesn't plenty of people don't mix us up (because we're brothers and we do look pretty alike), and that we're not way more similar to each other than we are to the other 8 billion humans on the planet.

They only are if you look from a million miles away, so you only see the core 10% they have in common (you mentioned d20, classes, levels, fantasy), but if you do that, the Earth and Mars are also pretty close to identical

Honestly, if you don't think that being a 6-stat class and level based game based on fantasy combat using identical resolution systems makes 2 games at least 90% identical compared to the broader TTRPG space, I'm not sure what to tell you. We have vastly different perspectives of what matters in differentiating a game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it kind of does!

Like, I have 2 brothers. From our perspective, we're different ages, we have different interests and can tell ourselves apart pretty easily. But that doesn't plenty of people don't mix us up (because we're brothers and we do look pretty alike), and that we're not way more similar to each other than we are to the other 8 billion humans on the planet.


Honestly, if you don't think that being a 6-stat class and level based game based on fantasy combat using identical resolution systems makes 2 games at least 90% identical compared to the broader TTRPG space, I'm not sure what to tell you. We have vastly different perspectives of what matters in differentiating a game.

Let's be honest: who here is comparing different D&D editions to the broader TTRPG space? That's not what this thread or this forum (or most of the heavily trafficked forums in this site) are about.

 

[TwoSix]

Let's be honest: who here is comparing different D&D editions to the broader TTRPG space? That's not what this thread or this forum (or most of the heavily trafficked forums in this site) are about.

Well yes, but the entire point is that maybe people would have a better, more well-rounded understanding on how relatively minor these changes are if they did just that and took a broader perspective.

Which ties back into the other, broader point that was brought up in this thread that the community as a whole would be better off if playing other TTRPGs was normalized, rather than projecting their game desires specifically into the current version of D&D and being upset if it's found wanting. Pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, I know, but true even for that.

 

[Maxperson]

I doubt many want a faster crunch release rate.

Given that most current D&D players started with 5e, they don't know any better. If they've only had lunch meat for 10 years, they aren't going to want the steak that they don't know about, but would likely love if they actually got it.

And there are pain points and frustrations, su h as the Rabger or the Monk, that these tests are working on.

There are always going to be things that players complain about. Changing the game is only going to be switching up these pain points and frustrations. Minor things like this aren't what I would call a game frustration. Balancing the game around the adventuring day, though, would be one. Balancing the game around resource attrition would be another. Those aren't changing, so they aren't actually doing anything about the real frustration points.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

If you think this refutes what I said, you didn’t understand the point.

Changing things other than the chassis and basic layout can still be quite a bit more than a different coat of paint. 3 to 4e is not cosmetic, it is actual system changes. The way the game runs is different, the basic rules are very different.

Acting like it’s either meaningless change or total system overhaul is a false starting point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You’re reducing the games down to a level where any system specifics are meaningless, you might as well be claiming that a Honda civic and a Ford Bronco are the same thing, just a different coat of paint.

Both ere equally absurd.