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]

the post stills says that, I fixed a typo, not hide my use of ‘infinite’. You know what that was a reply to?


so you are the one who brought it up…. limited = finite, the opposite of that is infinite. You made the ridiculous claim that 2 and non-infinite is really one and the same… I argued against that, no one argued for / about infinite

That you did not address my actual points and questions even after I pointed them out, and continue to go on about a strawman, seems to be a good indicator that you have no actual counterpoints… if you do, now would be a great time for them, just like before your current post

I addressed all your points, and have several times asked you the same question and you have never even acknowledged it, much less answered.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

2 short rests possible between every long rest. 5 min short rests.

Gives you basically guaranteed 3x usage of short rest abilities and differentiate them from dailies as you can't nova all in 1 encounter.

Design with that in mind. 6 spell slots daily is a little better than 2 spell slots short rest recharge so need some compensation for lack of nova.

Yep. You can also make sure that all classes benefit from every types of rest, but with 5 minute short rest that isn’t strictly necessary I suppose. I just greatly prefer it.

 

[Parmandur]

Sigh. If WotC always listened to "the majority" we would probably still use some kind of AD&D game, with inverted AC (THAC0) just to mention one (tired) example.

They didn't start getting serious about big data until the aftermath of 4E, so 90's development is irrelevant to modern D&D.

The point is that true innovation doesn't come from committees.

Who says that innovation is the purpose...? The purpose is to provide a pleasant gameplay experience to as many people as poasible, not to cure cancer.

Every time D&D has reinvented itself the new edition has come from a small group of designers from within WotC. Never from public surveys.

Every reinvention was the result of business failures. And the latest reinvention, that was based firmly on big data, was not a failure. Hence, iteration rather than pointless reinvention.

WotC only listens to "the majority" when it suits their purposes.

Their purpose is to please as many people as possible. So listening to the majority only makes sense.

 

[mamba]

Short rests alongside long rests and downtime (which should matter more and include an extended rest that is needed to get to 100% after a draining/challenging adventure) provide room for more types of abilities, more design freedom in terms of effects and power level compared to “everything must be balanced only for recharging on a long rest”, allow better pacing of the adventuring day (which is not narrative pacing, it’s literally just preventing PCs using 100% of thier power all at once, and then sleeping to do that again the next day), give players more choice and thus more agency in choosing and building characters, and in the adventuring day, and more besides. Meanwhile every downside you list is, as far as I can tell, hypothetical.

yeah, I see none of this, sorry, your upsides are not even hypothetical

• more design freedom in terms of effects and power level: not really, unless you do not care about balance between classes
• allow better pacing of the adventuring day: no, restricts what pacing you can have
• preventing PCs using 100% of their power all at once: yes, restricts agency (the ability to choose doing so), I mentioned that how you can even list this as a bonus is surprising
• give players more choice and thus more agency in choosing and building characters: no, not at all, as I said, you get 6 skills to use, handed out two at a time at the DM's discretion, compared to you have all 6 at your discretion, that is not more agency

I agree that my downsides are somewhat hypothetical, because it depends on the adventure and how many short rests you get whether they manifest. But they do depending on the case.

 

[Pauln6]

If rituals take 10 minutes, I'm not sure why everyone is hyper focused on 1 or 5 minutes? The optional dial already covers shortening short rests, so is this just that people feel they need shorter short rests to be the default? I've been using the lower healing dial since the start and have pretty much forgotten that it's not the default.

Turning Warlocks into half casters did not look like a popular move, removing one of the class's more popular aspects. I'm more in favour of tweaks than an overhaul. The issues that need patching can be done with a sentence in the multiclassing rules and switching the recharge to 2/long rest with a shorter time (I pick 10 mins as I think it should be a ritual rather than a rest). The only other issue then is the number of spell slots. I think there was some good stuff in the packet, making mystic arcarnum broader, giving access to all pact spells and one free daily casting. Giving a extra daily casting of a 1st level spell for pact of the Tome also helps early on and rolling popular invocations into the other pacts with higher level benefits also seems cool. I think all they need is to reach 3 slots slightly earlier and they will be really fun and versatile with options to focus on more spells for those that want a more spell-caster Warlock.

 

[CapnZapp]

They didn't start getting serious about big data until the aftermath of 4E, so 90's development is irrelevant to modern D&D.

Ah. The argument "my way of thinking has always been the right way of thinking, except you just need to exclude every single data point but the last". Right. Very persuasive.

Every reinvention was the result of business failures. And the latest reinvention, that was based firmly on big data, was not a failure. Hence, iteration rather than pointless reinvention.

You're framing this as if we're arguing. You're ignoring how my entire point is that WotC enjoys success so they will want to not rock the boat while still selling a new edition. The way they chose to achieve that is to point towards "the public" each time there's resistance to actual change, claiming "this is what people want".

"We wanted to make the new edition worth your money with actual improvement, but oh noes, you guys didn't want that, so I guess we'll have to keep selling you the same old same old, just a tiny bit reheated". Talk about convenient. How can you fall for that?

Their purpose is to please as many people as possible. So listening to the majority only makes sense.

Oh boy you're gonna have a rude awakening. Soon as 5.x sales fall, you'll see.

Every single time a corporation has genuinely thought that from now on it's simply a matter of coasting on public opinion, it has ended in irrelevancy and bankruptcy.

Now I'm not foretelling the ruin of WotC. Of course WotC will at some point start an internal project from which a new ruleset will emerge, with the public having zero say until the foundation has been laid. Since that's the only way to engineer real change.

This public playtest isn't the democratic and good thing you think it is. It is a fig leaf for WotC to stall any rules progress five or ten years in the future. It will be instantly abandoned the second WotC feels it is in their interest to stop listening to the public.

My point is: please stop worshiping "the majority". All it'll get you is stagnation and irrelevance in the long run.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is Zapp, that DnD was designed the way you say - internally- repeatedly.

And while that worked for adnd, I can’t say the same for 3e onwards. New game iterations every three to five years is a terrible business model. It’s far too risky.

WotC tried innovation and the fandom slapped them down hard. And their biggest competitor came from the folks that didn’t innovate but rather simply carried on from what came before.

What evidence do you have that internal creation that ignores consumers is a successful model?

 

[Remathilis]

If rituals take 10 minutes, I'm not sure why everyone is hyper focused on 1 or 5 minutes? The optional dial already covers shortening short rests, so is this just that people feel they need shorter short rests to be the default? I've been using the lower healing dial since the start and have pretty much forgotten that it's not the default.

My take on short rest time is thus:

1 minute. Why bother having a rest? They're basically at will at that point.
5 minutes. Again, it's so trivial as to be at-will except in waves-of-foes situations.
10 minutes. Bare minimum, and what WotC uses if they want shorter-than-short rests. Prayer of healing, rituals, and catnap all use 10 minutes.
30 minutes. At this point, you've drifted from "breather" to "downtime". Not much fundamental difference between this and the current SR except less wandering monster checks?
1 hour. Fine if you are recovering a large swath of power and expected to take them occasionally, if at all.

If rests are shorter than 30 min, then what is recovered needs to account for that. Warlocks getting two high-level spells every encounter is OP. If the rests are an hour or so, then the game should assume they are optional and not mandatory and balance around the notion a group may not get one at all. Currently, 5e does the worst of both worlds by assuming they are uncommon but available and balancing on that assumption. Which means a DM has to plan his game with appropriate rest points spaced out enough that the SR classes aren't entering every combat at peak but also not so far apart that they are running on empty or hoarding for fights.

Personally, I'd like to make SR optional but useful rather than short and mandatory.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem is Zapp, that DnD was designed the way you say - internally- repeatedly.

And while that worked for adnd, I can’t say the same for 3e onwards. New game iterations every three to five years is a terrible business model. It’s far too risky.

WotC tried innovation and the fandom slapped them down hard. And their biggest competitor came from the folks that didn’t innovate but rather simply carried on from what came before.

What evidence do you have that internal creation that ignores consumers is a successful model?

I think something should be said for incremental innovation as well. 4e was too radical a 180 from 3e. I wager a world where 5e comes after 3e (a stripped down and simpler game that borrows heavily from classic aesthetics) followed by Essentials (4e style rules with a classic aesthetic) followed by 4e Classic (new lore, new mechanics) would have been easier for many to accept. There is something to be said about the frog on the slowly heated pan...

 

[Parmandur]

"We wanted to make the new edition worth your money with actual improvement, but oh noes, you guys didn't want that, so I guess we'll have to keep selling you the same old same old, just a tiny bit reheated". Talk about convenient. How can you fall for that?

Why do you think it is dishonest? A stable Evergreen game rules set reprinted and adjusted for theme and slight variations is a well established model. Settlers of Catan and Monopoly are the examples WotC used when modern D&D first came out, and keeping all my current D&D books is extremely valuable to me.

My point is: please stop worshiping "the majority". All it'll get you is stagnation and irrelevance in the long run.

Evergreen stability is not stagnation. Look at Catan and Monopoly, and how they thrive. Hardly irrelevant to the games market. Mike Mearls opined in some interview nigh a decade ago that if TSR hadn't ever made AD&D, but kept going with something like the Badic line, they could have kept it going. What we are seeing is the achievement of Evergreen D&D for the modern rules: iteration and refinement over time, but overthrowing the rule set doesn't make business sense.