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.

​

 

[codo]

Ive said it before but theres a reason people keep reinventing 4e. Its because 5e is just 4e with a light brain scrambling.

4e biggest problem was always its presentation, nots actually anything to do with its rules. 4e actually was heavily influenced by video games, not some much by actual gameplay, but in how it presented the games rules. The 4e books were designed as reference books, and the designers focused on making them as easy and quick to use during play as possible. All of the rules were heavily keyworded, color coded, and neatly and clearly presented in charts and lists. That sort of rules clarity is useful and apricated in videogames, however D&D books are more than just reference books. Players also want the books to inspire them and actually read them, just for the fun of it. I did love 4e, it is my second favorite version of D&D after 5e, but my god the books were dry, boring, and almost unreadable.

 

[mamba]

Honestly? I think the success of Pathfinder 2e, which borrowed heavily from 4e design, shows that there is a market for a more 4e-style of D&D.

If you look at the marketshare of PF2 vs 5e, then I do not see a strong case for moving into the direction of PF2. Is there some interest in a more 4e game? sure. Enough to warrant WotC moving towards that? does not look like it

 

[mamba]

Ive said it before but theres a reason people keep reinventing 4e. Its because 5e is just 4e with a light brain scrambling.

so a 4e on the way to recovery then

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmm.. First you aim to deflect my criticism by saying the current edition isn't designed any differently than previous ones... and then you immediately contradict yourself by saying they're iterating over feedback.

This comes off as a non-reply, mostly as something you'd write not to have to concede the argument.

I'll just say that you don't maximize appeal to customers... by asking customers. It's baffling how anyone could sincerely believe that.

What you do when you don't want to rock the (money) boat you're sitting in, but still feel compelled to display innovation... THAT'S when you ask your players.

Mod Note:

The last two paragraphs are fine…and you should have started off with them.

Your preamble? Not exactly conducive to polite discussion. They’re confronting another poster. And for the record, some of the other posters in here are doing the same kind of thing.

Let’s try to be more civil and less proactive up in here, y’all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly? I think the success of Pathfinder 2e, which borrowed heavily from 4e design, shows that there is a market for a more 4e-style of D&D. Not exactly what 4e in 2008 looked like, but a lot of good ideas are there and were overlooked. I do think it was ahead of its time as far as some ideas are concerned, enough that even if 4e in 2008 looked more like Essentials it would have been better received.

I suspect though that 6e, whenever it arrives, will have far more 4e DNA than 5e does currently.

More power to 'em!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas I see all sorts of 4e dna in 5e but it’s rather cleverly hidden.

Two step recovery- the whole short rest thing we’ve been discussing- is a purely 4e thing. The shift away from items to class powers and the standardization of those powers is very much a 4e thing.

Why do you think we really only have three classes in the game? Full caster, half caster and martial. Each one has a standard framework. A cleric Druid, sorcerer and wizard are pretty much mechanically identical. Paladin and ranger are mechanically the same. Fighters barbarians and rogues all follow the same framework.

There are 4e fingerprints all over. Non-magical healing. Hit dice. Short rest recovery. Skills.

The problem with 4e had little to do with mechanics and 5e is proof of that.

5e is however, a decent framework to use for shifting away from 4e, if you're understandably inclined to build off D&D nowadays.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas I see all sorts of 4e dna in 5e but it’s rather cleverly hidden.

Two step recovery- the whole short rest thing we’ve been discussing- is a purely 4e thing. The shift away from items to class powers and the standardization of those powers is very much a 4e thing.

Why do you think we really only have three classes in the game? Full caster, half caster and martial. Each one has a standard framework. A cleric Druid, sorcerer and wizard are pretty much mechanically identical. Paladin and ranger are mechanically the same. Fighters barbarians and rogues all follow the same framework.

There are 4e fingerprints all over. Non-magical healing. Hit dice. Short rest recovery. Skills.

The problem with 4e had little to do with mechanics and 5e is proof of that.

I think 5e's design elements shift in priority based on the perspective (and preferences) of the viewer. Its a little quantum that way.

 

[Hussar]

I think 5e's design elements shift in priority based on the perspective (and preferences) of the viewer. Its a little quantum that way.

Oh. Absolutely. People who liked 4e look at 5e and see all the similar points. People who disliked 4e look at the same thing and see nothing but differences.

Never minding anything else, WotC has been astoundingly successful in convincing both sides that they are right. For all the boneheaded marketing that WotC has done, THAT is just jaw droppingly amazing.

 

[Valetudo]

5e learned alot from 4th and then took a couple steps back. Onednd might be making some of those failures like the vet. I dont think wotc has what it takes in the digital area to make it IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

Seriously, my prediction is that changes will become even slower and more fine as the decades wear on: sire, there will be nee publications, similar to new Call of Cthulu editions. But nothing like a revreoll of the game entire.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think 6e will be a radical reinvented edition, but I do think there will eventually be enough revision (or calls for revision) that it will no longer be 100% backwards compatible. They may want to tackle issues with rests or multi-classing or such down the line and that will break the clear 2014 - line of compatibility, even if we're not talking as radical a change as the last editions were.