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

My problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.

The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)
The Dawn War pantheon didn't start out as a pantheon - it started out as the weaker side of the Dawn War and they became a pantheon when they succeeded. The reason that the gods look like a group of PCs writ large is because that is exactly what they were - essentially a gaggle of PCs writ large who teamed up and dungeon crawled to kick out the more powerful but scattered Primordials. A potential god of the hearth and home ... will have stayed home rather than fought the Primordials and everything else so they never became a God.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike the Dawn War pantheon because of this but I am saying you're asking the pantheon to be something other than it is. Which is basically a collection of deities based on the idea that a level 20 wizard or cleric is almost indistinguishable from a lesser deity and building from there with a collection of the sort of entities that reach high level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
I'm reading an old review for a Deadlands book over on Fatal and Friends, and it has a few choice paragraphs on metaplots:


This is pretty much how I always felt, even back in the days before I truly understood what meta-plots were--I couldn't afford to buy every Ravenloft product and had no internet access the vast majority of the time, then I read the Book of S____ netzine series and where the &$@! did Necropolis come from? Where did these new classes come from and where did the old classes go? Everything had been changed and I had no idea how or why.

See, meta-plots are plenty fun if all you're doing is reading the setting like it's a novel or a fanfic and can afford to keep up with it. But if you're actually trying to play in the setting, they're terrible. Someone in corporate you've never even met, let alone gamed with, makes a decision and you have to change your entire game to either go along with it or rewrite everything new that comes out for the setting, or simply not buy the upcoming books, which is bad for the game.

It literally is objectively better to not have metaplots because it doesn't disrupt the games of potentially thousands of players. You might not think it's as much fun to read, but it literally is better for playing--and these are games for playing, not novels for reading.
See, I read the books and more or less bought them all. From my perspective metaplot was great, because I loved following the story. It was my primary engagement point with D&D, and I didn't have the issues you're talking about because when I actually played, it was homebrew and we took what we wanted from everything to make our own game.

So to me, losing the metaplot is a straight negative.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I'm reading an old review for a Deadlands book over on Fatal and Friends, and it has a few choice paragraphs on metaplots:


This is pretty much how I always felt, even back in the days before I truly understood what meta-plots were--I couldn't afford to buy every Ravenloft product and had no internet access the vast majority of the time, then I read the Book of S____ netzine series and where the &$@! did Necropolis come from? Where did these new classes come from and where did the old classes go? Everything had been changed and I had no idea how or why.

See, meta-plots are plenty fun if all you're doing is reading the setting like it's a novel or a fanfic and can afford to keep up with it. But if you're actually trying to play in the setting, they're terrible. Someone in corporate you've never even met, let alone gamed with, makes a decision and you have to change your entire game to either go along with it or rewrite everything new that comes out for the setting, or simply not buy the upcoming books, which is bad for the game.

It literally is objectively better to not have metaplots because it doesn't disrupt the games of potentially thousands of players. You might not think it's as much fun to read, but it literally is better for playing--and these are games for playing, not novels for reading.
Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
My problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.

The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)
This. I am really tired of the idea that everything in a setting has to be PC-friendly.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
See, I read the books and more or less bought them all. From my perspective metaplot was great, because I loved following the story. It was my primary engagement point with D&D, and I didn't have the issues you're talking about because when I actually played, it was homebrew and we took what we wanted from everything to make our own game.

So to me, losing the metaplot is a straight negative.
But you have to realize that for anyone who didn't purely use homebrew, the metaplot was the negative. I only used homebrewed adventures, and having the metaplot was still a negative.

You're basically asking everyone to be OK with having their games disrupted so that you can enjoy the story, which isn't even the point of the game. The point of the game is to be played, not (just) read.

Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.
And that came at a loss to most people who played the game. It was, I admit, fun to read (at times), but what it really was was TSR forcing your table to play a very specific way, which isn't really cool--especially if the resolution of that metaplot was bad. For example, the result of the Faction Wars. While I think a lot of people wouldn't mind the factions getting re-done, I don't think I've ever heard any positive comments on the factions that were the result of that adventure. And that means that, if Planescape had continued past that adventure's release, it would have made it seriously, seriously difficult for any setting/lore books to be used by the players or DMs.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I see Eberron as far more "different" than "objectively better", but as I've said before, the story of a setting is more important to me than how easily it facilitates a special group of player-controlled heroes running around.

Just more proof of how out of step I am, I guess.

I have to give you credit for recognizing that you are an outlier.

So many others might have written, "Kids these days have to be the center of attention. Because video games."
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Getting back on-topic, somebody up-thread pointed out that the Cloud Giant option for Goliaths is far better than all the other options. I'll also add that it's just more fun than bonus damage, in the way that a cool feat is more fun than a +2 ASI.

Anybody have ideas for other thematic abilities that could be used for some of the other Goliath variants?
 

Vincent55

Explorer
I think Dragon born should use d6 for breath, and give them more dice as they level. And the wings just do away with and move it to a racial feat that can be obtained at a level that its less of an issue to have, or break it up so they could increase their jump using weaker wings, and then maybe glide and then finally fly and even improving that to a point as they level. This is in line with earlier editions that made much more sense. Also as to resistance at some point give them a racial feat option to improve it to immunity after the 15th level or so, as at that point they could have obtained many magical protections as such.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
But you have to realize that for anyone who didn't purely use homebrew, the metaplot was the negative. I only used homebrewed adventures, and having the metaplot was still a negative.

You're basically asking everyone to be OK with having their games disrupted so that you can enjoy the story, which isn't even the point of the game. The point of the game is to be played, not (just) read.


And that came at a loss to most people who played the game. It was, I admit, fun to read (at times), but what it really was was TSR forcing your table to play a very specific way, which isn't really cool--especially if the resolution of that metaplot was bad. For example, the result of the Faction Wars. While I think a lot of people wouldn't mind the factions getting re-done, I don't think I've ever heard any positive comments on the factions that were the result of that adventure. And that means that, if Planescape had continued past that adventure's release, it would have made it seriously, seriously difficult for any setting/lore books to be used by the players
I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like, and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise. It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly special and unique, and that's fine. I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.
 

Hussar

Legend
I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like, and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise. It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly special and unique, and that's fine. I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.
People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack. It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed. Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that. Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like. Since about the first day of 3e.
 

Scribe

Legend
Getting back on-topic, somebody up-thread pointed out that the Cloud Giant option for Goliaths is far better than all the other options. I'll also add that it's just more fun than bonus damage, in the way that a cool feat is more fun than a +2 ASI.

Anybody have ideas for other thematic abilities that could be used for some of the other Goliath variants?

I dont know, but to me the damage could still be 'cool' assuming its balanced (scaled) well enough, OR they need to give an ability as well as have the damage bonus.

Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack. It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed. Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that. Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like. Since about the first day of 3e.
And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old? That's not what I've seen. And I like quite a bit of new stuff. I'd just prefer that it  actually be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.
I'd change their species' power to:
Frigid Breath: small cold damage in a cone, with a Slow effect for a turn.
Breath of Smoke and Ashes: Blind effect in a cone for a turn.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like, and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise. It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly special and unique, and that's fine. I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.
Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. That's what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. That's what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.
I get that. I just always used homebrew (which I believe the majority of tables still do), so this was never a problem for me. The settings were chapters in a cool story and ideas for home games. None of us felt the story in the products hurt our gaming experience.
 

The races video below.


I had originally assumed that the Ardlings were really for Planescape and Goliaths were for Bigsby's Giant book, but after Jeremy's interview, I'm not so sure about that.

If Goliaths get a place in the book as the giant's answer to Dragonborn, then Aasimar should be in as well as the Celestial answer to Fiendish Tieflings.

I mean they already have popular mechanics for D&D One Aasimar hashed out, just use the 1st Ardlings mechanics.

I'm going to give the Ardlings another look, but can we please give them a better name, like Elohim or something or hell even Lordlings (given their connection to Beastlords).

And can we get setting lore updates for all these, what do call them now, subspecies? Where do they fit into FR? eberron, etc...?

Edit: I took a look at the Ardling and I like it, but given the Lore that they are evovled Celestial Animals shouldn't they have the Celestial type instead of humaniod? Like unlike Aasimar or Tieflings they don't appear to be partially descended from mortal, material plane beings.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old? That's not what I've seen. And I like quite a bit of new stuff. I'd just prefer that it  actually be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.
No, I really don't. Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"

Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".

And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.

Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done. I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing." Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it. It doesn't matter to you. But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what. Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".

I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans. Be a positive force for what you like. Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
No, I really don't. Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"

Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".

And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.

Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done. I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing." Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it. It doesn't matter to you. But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what. Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".

I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans. Be a positive force for what you like. Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.
I don't want things removed unless its absolutely necessary (inclusion-related mostly). Adding stuff is fine.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.
Well, yes, The Dawn War's take on "do the gods exist" is the exact opposite of Eberron's take, but the takes on the religions have always felt more similar to me. They're more complex, nuanced, and there are valid reasons to worship even the evil gods.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top