D&D (2024) New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.

[FitzTheRuke]

He said that was coming "next year", so it's not in this next playtest. Hopefully it's in January's, though.

I figured I was being over-eager there.

 

[Azzy]

I still don't like the Ardling. Either give us the existing Aasimar or a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species. Stop trying to merge the two.

 

[Dausuul]

I can, for sure, given the less nebulous nature of using those skills with the new proposed Study Action.

The Study Action clarifies which knowledge skills apply to what, and emphasizes that using a knowledge skill costs an action. But that's all. The actual benefits remain incredibly nebulous;
it doesn't give any sort of guidelines for what sorts of "important information" can be obtained, or the DC of the check, or anything. The value of this benefit is entirely DM-dependent, which is one of the things they say they're trying to move away from.

Contrast the Hunter's Lore feature (ranger subclass) from the last playtest packet, which lays out exactly what information you get.

 

[Incenjucar]

I like the ardling, but I think it would help to have a non-divine beast "species" in there to provide contrast. Alternatively, create a more build-your-own beast species that gives you options that include the divine element while also offering other ones. Maybe literally give them a choice between a mundane ability (maybe second head-specific option?), and then Arcane, Primal, or Divine versions of the flexible cantrip.

Kind of odd that the damage boost to unarmed attacks doesn't convert the damage to Slashing, too. Maybe let the player choose damage type at creation time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is entirely up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.

I'm afraid that I think it needs to be excised and replaced with something more boring, but more reliable.

 

[mellored]

I still don't like the Ardling. Either give us the existing Aasimar or a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species. Stop trying to merge the two.

Agreed.
Just make the Ardling fey.

 

[mellored]

Divine Intervention is an odd choice when they called out that "Mother May I" is something that they're trying to remove from the game. That ability (while I love the story implications) is entirely up to the DM to decide what to do with. You know, if it ever happens, which will be almost never.

It's basically a down time resurrection spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not really on board with clerics gaining two Holy Orders—especially when there are only three of them. A cleric should only ever have one (except in the case of a subclass that has a feature to give them a second).

The higher level option should enhance the holy order you chose.

 

[Charlaquin]

The Smite Spells are still on the Divine List

Should they not be?

 

[Charlaquin]

• I like the "Holy Order" mechanic--basically, the decision to be a "weapons cleric" or a "magic cleric" is no longer dependent on domains, it's a separate choice made at 2nd level. However, the scholar option feels incredibly underwhelming compared to the other two. Even allowing for the fact that it's much easier to get heavy armor training now, I can't imagine picking a few knowledge skill bonuses over a) heavy armor or b) rapid Channel Divinity recharge.

Note that the scholar not only gets two knowledge proficiencies, they can also add their Wis mod to checks with those proficiencies. That’s in addition to their Int mod. Depending on your stat spread, that’s potentially better than expertise. True, it is the only option of the three that doesn’t grant a combat benefit, but I do like that this fixes the problem of the party wizard having a better religion check than the cleric simply from having high Int.