OneDnD New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.


log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Mmm. Maybe. I wonder if "Domain" and "Subclass" will remain the same thing or if they'll come up with a new thing for subclass (perhaps moving it to Level 3 and keeping domain choice at level one).

Just spitballin'.
My guess is that they'll change up Channel Divinity a bit in order to unite a mechanic throughout the Priest class category a bit. And codify what Divine Intervention can do, because it's a "Mother, May I" mechanic.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I think he said that we'd get a new definition for D20 Tests (one that he expects to get better feedback, for whatever reason).
Is that what he said? I thought that he said that they purposefully put out two different versions of it already in order to gather contrasting feedback. Both of the first UAs had different versions of the d20 Tests in them. I don't think he said that the new one would have another version. They're probably waiting until they read all the feedback from the second playtest to do another version.
 


Horwath

Hero
The Cleric class description needs to focus on the sacred community.

The DMs Guide and the Setting Guides need to focus on what kind religions exist in the region, world, or cosmology.
Why?

many D&D settings have gods, now the FR is kind of default setting with loads of them.

if any setting has no gods, it can have a footnote about how clerics there gain their power.


Default cleric should be around gods and any deviations from it should be mentioned and explained with lore and mechanics in their respective setting books.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I have always thought that the Cleric was the best-designed class in 5e, since there was such a diversity of builds available (STR, DEX, WIS, CHA can all be primary stats and the class remains viable), and each subclass really felt different to play.

I am really hoping changes to the Cleric will not be substantial. (Plus, how many subclasses will we get? If it's just one (light/life, I'd guess) it will be hard to get a clear sense of what the class holds.
My one complaint with the Cleric was how certain subclasses were forced into melee or spellcasting. With some domains it made more sense, but with others it could have gone either way.
 

It is helpful to avoid referring to "gods", when making an effort to describe human religions inclusively.
I understand what you're saying. But...

Religion is a personal preference and has deep meaning to those who follow one. There are also very many atheists in the world. I don't think attempting to apply anyone's real world religious views onto a game is a great idea.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I want clerics to be a psionic class using their Conviction to repel agents of Darkness: undead, demons, aberrations!

screw paladins, go back to being fighters on a horse.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I understand what you're saying. But...

Religion is a personal preference and has deep meaning to those who follow one. There are also very many atheists in the world. I don't think attempting to apply anyone's real world religious views onto a game is a great idea.
Polytheism is attempting to apply real world religious views onto a game. Mentioning real life gods by name, like Isis and Zeus, isnt a great idea.

A better idea is to make it clear that the player decides whatever the religion is of their own character concept.

The Cleric class description needs flavor text and focus that helps the player choose whatever sacred tradition the cleric concept officiates.

The Cleric description can focus on what kind of function the clergy serves:
• ceremonial officiate
• sage
• judge
• warrior
• psychic
• oracle
• healer
• shrine caretaker
etcetera.

Then let the Setting Guide, DMs Guide, and DM decide what religions are prominent in the setting. It is ok if the player chooses a minority religion for their character concept.
 
Last edited:


Polytheism is attempting to apply real world religious views onto a game. Mentioning real life gods by name, like Isis and Zeus, isnt a great idea.

A better idea is to make it clear that the player decides whatever the religion is of their own character concept.

The Cleric class description needs flavor text and focus that helps the player choose whatever sacred tradition the cleric concept officiates.
I don't think that's a road we should be walking down. This is not about inclusivity anymore. There are too many opinions and for some these are deep and personal ideas. I think the best choice here is to say an individual's religious beliefs are that person's choice. Too important to bring that concept into a game.
 




Clint_L

Hero
I've been uncomfortable with using real world gods as D&D characters since Deity and Demigods came out (and I've still got my first edition with all the Cthulu stuff in it). The problem is that it sort of implies that some real world gods are fair game because they are just "myth," while others are not. While people should pick and choose whatever religious systems they want at their table, I feel that WotC published material should stay away from real world religions, even largely extinct ones (and I say that as proud person of Scandinavian heritage and a big fan of the Thor films).
 


Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
Of note: starting with One D&D, they are officially dropping the term "Race". This isn't something that's being tested; they're definitely moving on from that term.

The new term they are floating is "Species" which imo is a completely lateral move that offers exactly all of the exact same baggage that the term "Race" carries.

You can however give feedback on "Species". "Race" is definitely out, but "Species" isn't necessarily in.

I'm not sure what the best solution here is really. I do think that "race" is misused when it is applied to dividing humans into different groups. However, I actually do think elves and dwarves, etc., qualify as actual different races, so I have felt the term race is appropriate for them.

I understand that the term is just too fraught for some folks and maybe it's time to move on. I think "Species" solves exactly nothing in that respect. I guess "Heritage" or "Ancestry" might be a bit better.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
Of note: starting with One D&D, they are officially dropping the term "Race". This isn't something that's being tested; they're definitely moving on from that term.
Love!

The term "race" is a problematic buzzword. It is impossible to use the term neutrally, despite a historical era when one did. Today any term is better than this.

The new term they are floating is "Species" which imo is a completely lateral move that offers exactly all of the exact same baggage that the term "Race" carries.

You can however give feedback on "Species". "Race" is definitely out, but "Species" isn't necessarily in.
I see your point.

Even so, "species" communicates exactly what D&D 5e refers to: the biology, distinct from the culture.

Different species can belong to the same culture.

Whence "species" and "background".



I'm not sure what the best solution here is really. I do think that "race" is misused when it is applied to dividing humans into different groups. However, I actually do think elves and dwarves, etc., qualify as actual different races, so I have felt the term race is appropriate for them.

I understand that the term is just too fraught for some folks and maybe it's time to move on. I think "Species" solves exactly nothing in that respect. I guess "Heritage" or "Ancestry" might be a bit better.
Heritage makes sense, because various factors contribute to it.

I suppose, the Warforge has an "ancestry" in the sense of ancients and adoptive progeny.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
I like the dual-specialization trick they pulled here. It is like the Warlock.

You have your Subclass, and then another specialization.

Scaling of channel divinity is well done. Turn undead is tweaked, with a L 5 auto scaling feature making it possible to turn them to dust.

Life domain is still too healing focused; they could have had at least 1 feature that wasn't "heal more HP". As an example, "when you cast a spell with a spell slot that restores HP to a creature, that creature gains advantage on the next d20 test they do before the end of their next turn". This matches "Life" domain in that it is tied to healing, but instead of being "more faster HP" it actually ends fights faster.

Not sure if the 3 Holy Orders are balanced. And with you getting 2 of them by the end of T2, maybe we need more than 3.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top