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.

​

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think that there was a number of things that wound up in 5e that would have scored lower than the equivalent from Next, but we didn't get to rate the 5e version until well after publication. (The Ranger and Sorcerer spring to mind, for example).

I'm not sure what else they can do, though. Ultimately they have to publish something.

As always, I'm of two camps: The gamer-me would love to see tons of new ideas, whether I like them or not. The retailer-me would like to see 5e with a few quality-of-life improvements.

 

[Parmandur]

The retailer-me would like to see 5e with a few quality-of-life improvements.

Makes sense that your retailer-side would be in agreement with what the publisher does.

 

[mamba]

Just because you'd like more than what we have now, doesn't mean you'd actually be happy with the end result.

that would remain to be seen, I’d like it better than what we seem to be getting though, so not sure how that is in any way countering my statement

 

[Hussar]

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.

That’s the point. It isn’t most people.

Those that don’t want changes need only convince a third of the hobby they are right and change is blocked.

So it isn’t about what works for the most people. It’s about what’s objected to the least.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s the point. It isn’t most people.

Those that don’t want changes need only convince a third of the hobby they are right and change is blocked.

So it isn’t about what works for the most people. It’s about what’s objected to the least.

If you don't want a game whose design is based on the fewest complaints, you don't want a WotC game.

 

[Parmandur]

That’s the point. It isn’t most people.

Those that don’t want changes need only convince a third of the hobby they are right and change is blocked.

So it isn’t about what works for the most people. It’s about what’s objected to the least.

But what we have already is popular with the majority of players, even the Ranger. The threshold is that a change has to be more popular than what it replaces. Why replace a Class feature that 71% of people like with one that 69% of people like...?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s the point. It isn’t most people.

Those that don’t want changes need only convince a third of the hobby they are right and change is blocked.

So it isn’t about what works for the most people. It’s about what’s objected to the least.

When we are talking about replacing a popular item with a new item that polls fairly well, a high threshold makes sense.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Makes sense that your retailer-side would be in agreement with what the publisher does.

It actually rarely works out that way. Publishers can be a real pain-in-the-keister. For example, I'm very unhappy right now with WotC when it comes to Magic the Gathering. I'm very wary of what they might mean when it comes to "monetising" D&D in a similar manner.

But if they can keep 5e selling like it used to or better, I'm on board for that! And I agree that a conservative approach to rules changes is the right way to go right now. I also think that the slow release of new books has been the perfect move and should continue going forward.

 

[mamba]

But what we have already is popular with the majority of players, even the Ranger. The threshold is that a change has to be more popular than what it replaces. Why replace a Class feature that 71% of people like with one that 69% of people like...?

I am not sure that the new one getting 69% approval in any way correlates to fewer people liking it than the current Ranger at 71%. To me it says that 69% like it better than the current Ranger. If I liked the current Ranger better, why would I approve of the new one?

 

[Parmandur]

I am not sure that the new one getting 69% approval in any way correlates to fewer people liking it than the current Ranger at 71%. To me it says that 69% like it better than the current Ranger. If I liked the current Ranger better, why would I approve of the new one?

You are missing the point: we know from what they have said over the years that even the Ranger is liked by a majority of players, just a smaller majority than, say, the Paladin. The point of any change is to increase that popularity. Equally popular but tepid doesn't even cut it, every change to the system needs to be more popular than the current equivalent option, or it is worse from WotC point of view of selling products.