D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Shows Us The New Druid & Paladin

WotC has released the fourth One D&D playtest document. This 29-page PDF includes the druid and the paladin with Circle of the Moon and Oath of Devotion subclasses.

Druid. The Druid class and Circle of the Moon subclass are ready for playtesting here.

Paladin. The Paladin class and Oath of Devotion subclass are ready for playtesting here.

Feats. Several revised feats appear here for your feedback, with more revised feats coming in future articles.

Spells. More spells are ready for playtesting, with a focus on smite spells, Find Familiar, and Find Steed.

Rules Glossary. The rules glossary has been updated again and supersedes the glossary in previous Unearthed Arcana articles. In this document, any underlined term in the body text appears in that glossary, which defines game terms that have been clarified or redefined for this playtest or that don’t appear in the 2014 Player’s Handbook.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree. There's a lot to really like here. Clear improvements over 2014 in my book include:

• Light weapons (and short sword)
• Difficult terrain
• Study action
• Search action
• the rules for Interrupting Short and Long Rests.

I've started a separate thread on the FF rules -- there are huge changes here, and they have by no means doubled down on the combat uses of familiars.

I'm aware & have written about the tennitive baby steps you note previously as my sig demonstrates in great detail. With this packet though wotc went from to reworking jump into something other than a total disaster of a problem for the GM & wotc immediately blinked vowing to rework that at some point with another attempt & as @ccooke noted in 240 they've doubled down on moving further towards pressuring an encounter based recovery system for players with classes that expect the GM to provide an attrition based experience somehow shoehorned into half minute hero style gameplay. It's gone from "You wake up in a ditch because I feel it's reasonable" to "no no it says we wake up later".

If the jump action was the point where wotc felt they spent their entire wad & have no other areas in need of improvement it's not a promising sign for 6e

 

[Kobold Stew]

With this packet though wotc went from to reworking jump into something other than a total disaster of a problem for the GM & wotc immediately blinked vowing to rework that at some point with another attempt & as @ccooke noted in 240 they've doubled down on moving further towards pressuring an encounter based recovery system for players with classes that expect the GM to provide an attrition based experience somehow shoehorned into half minute hero style gameplay.

This is a breathless sentence, with a whole lot bubbling beneath the surface. If I understand you correctly, though, there are two points being made:

a. the loss of the playtest jump rules. That wasn't mentioned in the post of mine you are quoting. I myself liked the Jump action in the Cleric pack, but we're told they are being re-worked, not that they've abandoned the idea, and there is no indication they are "doubling down" on the 2014 jump rules.

I am astounded at how much energy gets devoted to jumping in this game. It really doesn't come up in games I play, and there are many, many movement related problems that seem to me more urgent.

and
b. something about the recovery system, which I honestly cannot disentangle. The post you mention came after the one of mine that I quote, so I think I'm safe in not having answered it. But yes, there are indications of a recovery system that impacts some classes, which we have not seen the final versions of. You may be right that it's a concern, but we don't have enough evidence to be sure at this point.

I don't see either of these points as concerns about the Glossary itself or about doubling down on 2014-style play.

If the jump action was the point where wotc felt they spent their entire wad & have no other areas in need of improvement it's not a promising sign for 6e

I do not see indications that anyone is saying other things do not need improvement.

There are always going to be rules individuals don't like -- I thought the aardlings were a great idea, but they're now definitively gone. Win some, lose some. But I certainly see changes that align with some of the feedback I have given (which I take to mean that my concerns were shared widely enough to be noticed), and the changes we're seeing in the Glossary are in many cases substantive.

 

[TerraDave]

It’s a nerf for the Druid. Wildshape is weaker. Nothing makes up for it.

But no nerf for the paladin.

Obviously the least popular class is the one you nerf!

 

[RoughCoronet0]

You can chalk me down as another person that does not like the new wildshape feature. So much versatility is lost with these standard stat blocks that you can barely change. It doesn’t make me, a Druid fan, want to play this new wildshaping Druid at all. I’d rather stick to the wildshape feature from 2014.

I do like the alternate action to wildshaping, healing blossoms however.

 

[Remathilis]

like what? I don't remember many if any varriant druids in 2e?

Well, there was a bunch of variants in the Complete Druids Handbook, the Spells and Magic version that changed sphere access, the Faith and Avatars version that added spheres and weapons, and world-specific versions like Athanasian druids.

A better example is the Cleric. There was the PHB cleric, the PO:S&P cleric, the PO:S&M cleric, the Complete Priest's Handbook cleric, the Dark Sun cleric, the Domains of Dread cleric, the Faiths and Avatars cleric and the Dragonlance cleric which all featured different sphere/spell access.Some added spheres, some removed them, some changed what spells were in the spheres. And none of those were specialty priests mind you, they were all versions of generic cleric. Thus, it was possible in 2e to have four clerics, each built using a different source, to have wildly different spell lists and power levels.

2e was incompatible with itself.

 

[Pauln6]

I think generic stat blocks for wild shape are generally a good thing because trawling the monster manual for stats requires a lot of system mastery. Tiny beasts should be available from the start though.

I think level based uses for class features is a good idea to limit multi-class poaching, although maybe a feat to provide extra uses could be a thing.

Making paladin smites more versatile is a good thing but I think I prefer Tasha's optional cantrips for paladins as a trade off for fighting styles. They certainly don't need to be more versatile or more magical.

For me, neither of the problems with paladins - smite damage being too high and save bonus stacking breaking bounded accuracy - have been addressed. The existing fix (only doubling weapon damage on a crit) goes a bit too far since it means assassins can rarely assassinate anyone. I suppose it does open up a bit of design space, giving a special surprise crit class feature to assassins and maybe savage attacker type features for fighters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yea, the template is essentially "Use your Wis as your attack stat, and gain Extra Attack, but no spells". The Moon Druid buffs to it aren't that substantial; it's essentially cantrip scaling at 10th/17th, resistance at 6th, and you can cast healing spells (the Primal list is very light on Abjurations) while in animal form. Not nothing, but certainly a major step down.

I don't think it's a bad change, but it's definitely the biggest change to overall power level we've seen so far.

And a wholly unneeded set of nerfs.

Frankly, the loss of versatility makes the base wildshape strictly worse IMO.

Combine that with not getting even a little THP while I’m beast form, as a class with spellcaster HP? Um…what?

There is a lot of negative feedback coming for this, which sucks because I like the ideas, I just find the execution unacceptable.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is a breathless sentence, with a whole lot bubbling beneath the surface. If I understand you correctly, though, there are two points being made:

a. the loss of the playtest jump rules. That wasn't mentioned in the post of mine you are quoting. I myself liked the Jump action in the Cleric pack, but we're told they are being re-worked, not that they've abandoned the idea, and there is no indication they are "doubling down" on the 2014 jump rules.

I am astounded at how much energy gets devoted to jumping in this game. It really doesn't come up in games I play, and there are many, many movement related problems that seem to me more urgent.

and
b. something about the recovery system, which I honestly cannot disentangle. The post you mention came after the one of mine that I quote, so I think I'm safe in not having answered it. But yes, there are indications of a recovery system that impacts some classes, which we have not seen the final versions of. You may be right that it's a concern, but we don't have enough evidence to be sure at this point.

I don't see either of these points as concerns about the Glossary itself or about doubling down on 2014-style play.

I do not see indications that anyone is saying other things do not need improvement.

There are always going to be rules individuals don't like -- I thought the aardlings were a great idea, but they're now definitively gone. Win some, lose some. But I certainly see changes that align with some of the feedback I have given (which I take to mean that my concerns were shared widely enough to be noticed), and the changes we're seeing in the Glossary are in many cases substantive.

The fact that they didn't seem to have some other area or areas in need of improvement ready to slot in is the problem. In my initial post I noted how the rules glossary was going back rather than progressing & you responded with a list of things already present in past packets as evidence of progress. The Jump action got removed & will probably come back somehow improved?... sure totally fine! There wasn't something else to dip in the water of testing in its place?....

 

[dave2008]

Wait. Is the slowed condition out?

Why? WHY?

Well, it is at least out of this packet. I am definitely asking for its return in the survey

 

[dave2008]

Those are generic nerfs that apply to all martial characters we've seen so far.

They're bad and dumb, because they push martials further behind full casters and make the game needlessly more complex, though, I would say.

I am sure you think that. I just can't trust your opinion on these things. The only thing I can suggest is - give your feedback in the survey!