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.

​

 

[mamba]

See the whole thing with the 70% approval bar means that change really is very difficult.

Imagine that fandom is split evenly. 1/3 hates change and wants the game to stay as much the same as possible. 1/3 really wants new stuff. And 1/3 is somewhere in between.

To block change, the 1/3 that doesn’t want change only has to convince about ten percent of everyone else and changes won’t happen.

actually they have to convince no one, as 1/3 is already enough to block anything / 2/3 are 67% only

 

[MonsterEnvy]

For primarily gms though there is almost no meaningful change. Even the exceptions seem to be still functionally identical or appear to be getting rolled back in this packet. To that group wotc started out very small and is already saying that the time of "big"* change is over

We have yet to get to the DM stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

We have yet to get to the DM stuff.

It's too late to start thinking about the gm in those areas after building it exclusively for the players with an endless loop of "not your turn, just wait" for gm consideration.

What does your game of d&d look like if the gm has players with no PCs and none of the rules glossary stuff applies to gameplay?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It's too late to start thinking about the gm in those areas after building it exclusively for the players with an endless loop of "not your turn, just wait" for gm consideration.

What does your game of d&d look like if the gm has players with no PCs and none of the rules glossary stuff applies to gameplay?

No it's not. They are doing the Player's Handbook test, then they are going to do the DMG and Monster Manual Tests.

And I am not sure what you even mean with the second paragraph as that has not happened.

 

[tetrasodium]

No it's not. They are doing the Player's Handbook test, then they are going to do the DMG and Monster Manual Tests.

The players who use the players handbook for PCs and gm who uses both the phb as well as the dmg are two parts of a single whole at the table. Treating them like entirely isolated things with no impact on each other in order to completely ignore one half of it till the other is complete does a grace disservice to that half being ignored

And I am not sure what you even mean with the second paragraph as that has not happened.

I think you will find the trouble by accepting that the answer "that's not how ttrpgs work and design shouldn't pretend it does"

 

[Parmandur]

See the whole thing with the 70% approval bar means that change really is very difficult.

Imagine that fandom is split evenly. 1/3 hates change and wants the game to stay as much the same as possible. 1/3 really wants new stuff. And 1/3 is somewhere in between.

To block change, the 1/3 that doesn’t want change only has to convince about ten percent of everyone else and changes won’t happen.

For a change to go through, the pro change side not only has to convince all the fence sitters but also some of those that do t want change.

Change is going to be very slow and very incremental.

Any change is better done slowly and with consideration, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

Any change is better done slowly and with consideration, IMO.

Otoh, by adopting the 70% bar, the hobby is basically being held hostage by conservative elements.

Iow, whether you or I like something in the playtest doesn’t really matter. It’s that third that doesn’t want change that holds the keys.

And that’s what we’re seeing again. We say this in Next and again with One. Any actual changes get left on the cutting room floor and it’s all minor adjustments.

It does get a bit frustrating realizing that it’s going to be ten more years of the same problems we’ve talked about for the last ten years. Fighter types are still going to be sidelined. The game will be dominated by casters and spells. Ten more years of Potterverse.

 

[Parmandur]

Otoh, by adopting the 70% bar, the hobby is basically being held hostage by conservative elements.

Iow, whether you or I like something in the playtest doesn’t really matter. It’s that third that doesn’t want change that holds the keys.

And that’s what we’re seeing again. We say this in Next and again with One. Any actual changes get left on the cutting room floor and it’s all minor adjustments.

It does get a bit frustrating realizing that it’s going to be ten more years of the same problems we’ve talked about for the last ten years. Fighter types are still going to be sidelined. The game will be dominated by casters and spells. Ten more years of Potterverse.

I mean, it's a game, so it's not like anyone's life or wellbeing depend on change occurring.

It is fairly debatable whether there is actually any fighter/caster imbalance, but that's veering wildly off topic: WotC is right to focus on what works for most people, for a game.

 

[Elodan]

I mean, it's a game, so it's not like anyone's life or wellbeing depend on change occurring.

It is fairly debatable whether there is actually any fighter/caster imbalance, but that's veering wildly off topic: WotC is right to focus on what works for most people, for a game.

But is it truly the majority if 31% of the people can prevent the change from happening?

 

[Parmandur]

But is it truly the majority if 31% of the people can prevent the change from happening?

Simple majority rule isn't necessarily helpful: if a rule is to be changed in a functioning system, any replacement needs to be overwhelmingly convincing (like the Cleric Holy Orders change, say).