OneDnD One D&D Cleric & Revised Species Playtest Includes Goliath

Screen Shot 2022-12-01 at 3.48.41 PM.png


"In this new Unearthed Arcana for the One D&D rules system, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents the rules on the Cleric class, it's Life Domain subclass, as well as revised Species rules for the Ardling, the Dragonborn, and the Goliath. You will also find a current glossary of new or revised meanings for game terms."


WotC's Jeremey Crawford discusses the playtest document in the video below.

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Lojaan

Adventurer
According to the Aardling/Dragonborn/Goliath video, Goliath is being added to offer two Big Guy races. Crawford said they wanted to have several choices for a burly character.

Small: Human, Gnome, or Halfling
Big: Goliath or Orc

I wish the same for Stout but the only stout popular fantasy races I know of are dwarves, pigmen, and beaverfolk.
Aren't Dragonborn burly?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I did not play 4th edition, so it is not listed here, but I gather from Googling that spell schools went away in 4th edition? Can someone familiar with 4e confirm?

Effectively, yes.
Wizard attacks still labels of evocation, illusions, etc.. but I can't remember a single time it mattered.

That was only when they brought in essentials, right? The Mage class had subclasses that interacted with it.
4e spells had schools but they were cut down.

Enchantment
Evocation
Illusion
Necromancy
Nethermany (new)
Pyromancy (new sorta)

Spells either were tied to a school or had no school (No Abjuration for Shield). They never got to Transmutation and Conjuration. Abjuration and Divination were never happening as Wizards were controllers.

Schools were also the subclasses of the Essentials Mage class. Pyromancy wasn't a real school. It was tag for fire spells for a fire based Pyromancy subclass mage.

Bring back Nethermancy?
 


Holy Order is one of the worst kind of game designs IMO: take the option you want right away and at higher level when you're supposed to be more powerful, take the thing that you didn't really want the first time.

I know if flies in the face of traditions and sacred cows, but I'd rather the base cleric chassis have zero baked-in undead affecting abilities. As a DM, I don't want to have to include undead in my campaign or one-off just to make the cleric's features valid and as a player I don't want to play for months without engaging with a chunk of my class features because the arc doesn't have undead. If the features must be universal to all clerics, when you gain them you should at least be able to choose what kind of creature type you specialize in: aberration, fey, et al.
 



Oncewasbenji

Explorer
As of this document, there are three different versions of the goliath race in play. I hope nobody who bought the Mordenkanien book actually believed they would be the final compatible with oned&d versions - as promised.

I for one can't wait for that moment where I have to explain to a new player that this species has three versions and there's no consistency in the lore or other players choices about which one is the relevant one. Unless the game is less backward compatible than they first claimed?
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
As of this document, there are three different versions of the goliath race in play. I hope nobody who bought the Mordenkanien book actually believed they would be the final compatible with oned&d versions - as promised.
. . . It is compatible. You just choose which version you prefer, and use it. There's no compatibility problems here.
I for one can't wait for that moment where I have to explain to a new player that this species has three versions and there's no consistency in the lore or other players choices about which one is the relevant one. Unless the game is less backward compatible than they first claimed?
Why would you tell a new player that there are different versions of it? Just use the most recent version or the one you prefer.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
loosely translated; begin all campaigns at level 3.
No. They said that a major reason why they made this change was to make the newer players not feel overwhelmed with options when making a Cleric character for the first time. The "loose translation" is "levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels for what the class can do, so moving the most important decision your character will make after character creation to a later level makes it easier for newer players". Also, they were trying to shut down some of the more egregious multiclass exploits that came along with Clerics.
 

Horwath

Hero
No. They said that a major reason why they made this change was to make the newer players not feel overwhelmed with options when making a Cleric character for the first time. The "loose translation" is "levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels for what the class can do, so moving the most important decision your character will make after character creation to a later level makes it easier for newer players". Also, they were trying to shut down some of the more egregious multiclass exploits that came along with Clerics.
there is easy fix for multiclassing:

1. there is no multiclass
2. you cannot multiclass before 5th level and you must take 4 levels in new class at least before raising levels in your other class.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
there is easy fix for multiclassing:

1. there is no multiclass
2. you cannot multiclass before 5th level and you must take 4 levels in new class at least before raising levels in your other class.
So you're completely ignoring the rest of the post? Okay.

And WotC are not going to do that, for obvious reasons. That sounds like a terrible and unfun housreule at the majority of tables.
 

Horwath

Hero
So you're completely ignoring the rest of the post? Okay.

And WotC are not going to do that, for obvious reasons. That sounds like a terrible and unfun housreule at the majority of tables.
1st part of the post, I have already answered a few post back when I said that devs would break their necks if they would fell from their high horse.
 


Horwath

Hero
That's not an answer. That's an ad hominem.
OFC it is. It's also an answer.

We had some new players lately and one comes to mind.

3rd level tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with houseruled bonus 1st level feat for all.
She took shadow touched feat.

that is 6 cantrips and 11 spells known. 3 of those spells are extra 1/day usable.

it was fine.

Now when I think again:

1st level aberrant mind sorcerer with Telekinetic/Fey/shadow touched as a bonus feat is perfect complexity for 1st level character.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
OFC it is. It's also an answer.
No, it isn't. It's taking a shot at people that aren't here to defend themselves. It's bad form.
We had some new players lately and one comes to mind.

3rd level tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with houseruled bonus 1st level feat for all.
She took shadow touched feat.

that is 6 cantrips and 11 spells known. 3 of those spells are extra 1/day usable.

it was fine.

Now when I think again:

1st level aberrant mind sorcerer with Telekinetic/Fey/shadow touched as a bonus feat is perfect complexity for 1st level character.
And I've had newer players that got overwhelmed by the complexity of a level 1 fighter. Clearly, there are a variety of experiences among newer players, and WotC thinks that it's a problem often enough to warrant a change based on feedback they've gotten through the years. That isn't saying that newer players are stupid or engaging in elitism, it's recognizing a common problem and making changes to fix it.
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Hero
No, it isn't. It's taking a shot at people that aren't here to defend themselves. It's bad form.

And I've had newer players that got overwhelmed by the complexity of a level 1 fighter. Clearly, there are a variety of experiences among newer players, and WotC thinks that it's a problem often enough to warrant a change based on feedback they've gotten through the years. That isn't saying that newer players or engaging in elitism, it's recognizing a common problem and making changes to fix it.
There can be "simpler" options.

I.E. champion fighter can be 1st level subclass.
having crit on 19-20 is not really complicated.
maybe add +1 HP per level to champions HP and second wind.

Draconic sorcerer(if buffed) can be made without bonus spells and still be simpler but strong option vs aberrant mind or clockwork.

same with feats:
you can get as I mentioned; Fey/shadow touched or telekinetic for "complicated" characters and +2 HP per level for "simpler" characters.

Every class should get one sub-class that is "simpler". that is, it get more "passive" abilities than active.
extra HP, extra damage, extra AC, extra usage of already base class present abilities.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
There can be "simpler" options.

I.E. champion fighter can be 1st level subclass.
having crit on 19-20 is not really complicated.
maybe add +1 HP per level to champions HP and second wind.

Draconic sorcerer(if buffed) can be made without bonus spells and still be simpler but strong option vs aberrant mind or clockwork.

same with feats:
you can get as I mentioned; Fey/shadow touched or telekinetic for "complicated" characters and +2 HP per level for "simpler" characters.

Every class should get one sub-class that is "simpler". that is, it get more "passive" abilities than active.
extra HP, extra damage, extra AC, extra usage of already base class present abilities.
Did you not read what I said, or did you just not understand it?

I have had newer players (two separate ones, in fact) get overwhelmed by the "complexity" of playing a Level 1 Fighter for the first time. Level 1. The simplest characters that you can play. Fighters don't get their subclasses until level 3. The three things a level 1 fighter has to worry about are Hit Points, Second Wind, and the Attack Action. Less than every other class in the game.

Some newer players are either so unfamiliar with how D&D and similar games work that playing even the simplest option in 5e is too complex for them at the start.
 

Horwath

Hero
Did you not read what I said, or did you just not understand it?

I have had newer players (two separate ones, in fact) get overwhelmed by the "complexity" of playing a Level 1 Fighter for the first time. Level 1. The simplest characters that you can play. Fighters don't get their subclasses until level 3. The three things a level 1 fighter has to worry about are Hit Points, Second Wind, and the Attack Action. Less than every other class in the game.

Some newer players are either so unfamiliar with how D&D and similar games work that playing even the simplest option in 5e is too complex for them at the start.
if you get overwhelmed with complexity of 1st level fighter, then you need to read the class description again, and again if needed. And then some more.

personally, tuning the game towards people that cannot be bothered to read 1st level fighter abilities is bad design.
or just accept that those players will be bad in combat for first several sessions. or forever. Perhaps they are great roleplayers so combat will not be a big issue for them if they are not performing at 100%.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top