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


log in or register to remove this ad


The designers care about creating a fair play environment, but they know that very few gamers actually engage with that in a "metagame" sense. See the repeated statements from the designers over the years, but more key the D&D Beyond statistics are revealing.
Can you cite some actual examples?

I've been playing for more than 40 years. I've played with aaaaallllll kinds of players, from grognards who started in the mid-70s to zoomers who started this year. The vast majority of D&D players have cared about balance (compared to almost no one caring about it other RPGs). This doesn't strike me as at all surprising, given the kind of RPG D&D is.

I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "engage with that in a metagame sense." They realize they chose a trap option and they want to fix it. They ask to ban twilight clerics because they think they're broken. They ask to start a new campaign because Kevin's CoDzilla is stupid. They say they'll only play casters because they're better and have so many options than martials. They ask to reroll their straight-class paladin when someone brings in a paladin with a hexblade dip. They (we, in this case) decide to only play low-level AL events (or non-campaign events) at conventions because all the optimized characters with all the best available magic items turn us into sidekicks who wouldn't strictly need to be present at all. I could go on.

Is any of that "engaging in the metagame sense"?

ETA: I do appreciate the 180 on the "designers ignore it" bit. My sanity is in a less precarious position, at least.
 
Last edited:

Ideally, players should never have to engage with balance because it's already built into the system and they can just pick the stuff they like instead of having to figure out if it's optimal.
This here, but, to bring it back on topic, balance isn't going to be built into the system if one guy's bringing a 5e SS/XBE hand crossbow archer to a 1D&D game where the other ranged characters are rocking 1d8+Dex attacks.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
This here, but, to bring it back on topic, balance isn't going to be built into the system if one guy's bringing a 5e SS/XBE hand crossbow archer to a 1D&D game where the other ranged characters are rocking 1d8+Dex attacks.
True. We should expect WotC to nudge players toward adopting the newer rules to bring everyone in line. It's the right path even if you ignore the financial incentive. Not much else to be done without making everyone unhappy.
 

Aldarc

Legend
They know where the extent of the changes they're proposing. So you're either saying that your opinion is more valid than the game designers', who have designed several editions of the game and very much know what that term means, or you're saying that they're lying.
No, I'm not discussing whether or not the community will call it a new edition or .5 edition (I currently think the published rulebooks will be referenced to with a variety of terms when they're published, like they are now). I'm saying that if you think WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition, you're saying that their opinion is less valid than yours is, even though they have more experience with this subject than you do.
I'm not sure if this is a fair reading, Levistus.

I don't think it's about invalidating WotC's opinion or accusing WotC of being "liars." I don't think that this is an issue of truth or lies at all. I find that to be an unhelpful framework. Nor do I think that having the opinion that "WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition" means "that their opinion is less valid than yours is," though it does seem that you are trying to invalidate Micah's valid opinion with this argumentation. Micah says that he doesn't think that all this will go down the way that WotC thinks that it will. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him, I don't think that what you are doing here is cool.

That said, WotC is a corporate entity. There are business and marketing reasons that often go behind calling something a new edition or not that is distinct from the designers' actual experiences with the revised rules. There are a lot of complex behind-the-scenes business "shenanigans" that goes into these sorts of things. While I do want to take the people at WotC at their word, I also recognize that they work at a for-profit business with the lion's share of the TTRPG market so I do prefer having a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to what WotC as a business says.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
5e is being replaced in 2024. There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.
Well, no. It’s being revised and updated.
I think you were misunderstanding what I was talking about. Especially since I was talking to someone who was saying that you wouldn't be able to mix and match classes. You will, and at the least there likely will be no problems is some people prefer to play the 5e version of a class/archetype and some people prefer the One version.
So, what I was specifically reacting to, and should have singled out in the post, was this: “and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.”

And judging by the UA and dev statements they absolutely will be able to play a psi knight or any other supplemental fighter subclass with the revised version of the fighter.

They can do a lot with the fighter without chanlging the subclasses.
 

But...they don't ignore it. They've never ignored it! Like, forever! This is from Holmes' Fantasy Roleplaying Games:

Snip

Maybe "don't care was the wrong words here".

It is rather: "all classes need things they are good at and you are happy to play the class" kind of balance, instead of "class x mist do y damage at level z" kind of balance.
They heavily misjudged that in 4e, where they tried to balance D&D this way.

5e is actually not that bad and from the UA videos it seems, they try to improve both kinds of balance with OneDnD.

But they won't try to achieve perfect balance of the latter type only sane bounds.
 

Well, no. It’s being revised and updated.

So, what I was specifically reacting to, and should have singled out in the post, was this: “and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.”

And judging by the UA and dev statements they absolutely will be able to play a psi knight or any other supplemental fighter subclass with the revised version of the fighter.

They can do a lot with the fighter without chanlging the subclasses.

We are using the UA in our current games, and right now, using war cleric domain is a bit more update work. So we are still usining the old class. I think in some cases, using the old 5e base classinstead of converting might be the better choice. But we actually don't know.
You would still use new spells and feats and grapple rules probably.
 

Can you cite some actual examples?

I've been playing for more than 40 years. I've played with aaaaallllll kinds of players, from grognards who started in the mid-70s to zoomers who started this year. The vast majority of D&D players have cared about balance (compared to almost no one caring about it other RPGs). This doesn't strike me as at all surprising, given the kind of RPG D&D is.

I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "engage with that in a metagame sense." They realize they chose a trap option and they want to fix it. They ask to ban twilight clerics because they think they're broken. They ask to start a new campaign because Kevin's CoDzilla is stupid. They say they'll only play casters because they're better and have so many options than martials. They ask to reroll their straight-class paladin when someone brings in a paladin with a hexblade dip. They (we, in this case) decide to only play low-level AL events (or non-campaign events) at conventions because all the optimized characters with all the best available magic items turn us into sidekicks who wouldn't strictly need to be present at all. I could go on.

Is any of that "engaging in the metagame sense"?

ETA: I do appreciate the 180 on the "designers ignore it" bit. My sanity is in a less precarious position, at least.

I think all the problems you mention are less balance and instead fair play issues.

Being able to always chose the perfect class combination for a certain level and campaign and some few combinations too good too often in kind of adventures are problematic.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The actual issue is armor stat requirements and interactions. There are multiple other ways to be able to pick up armor proficiency after level one, each faces similar issues.
Subclass seems like it would be the most pertinent to this discussion. I don't think any level 2 or 3 subclasses ever gave heavy armor proficiency? None to Light or Light to Medium all function off dex so it seems you don't face the same issues there.

Feats would be the next place to look but in 5e they were intentionally optional.
Multiclassing is the same.
 

glass

(he, him)
Are they rewriting entire classes from the ground up?
Yes they are.

I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?
I think you know two things of import in this situation: What "edition" means in the context of D&D, and that you should not put too much stock in a large company's marketing spin.

Well it’s relevant for adventurers league. You haven’t been able to use a 2014 phb since at least 2018.
Is this really true? It seems unlikely to me, although I think my AL play was pre-2018.

It's being replaced in the same was as 3e was. With a half edition change.
"Half edition" is like "half pregnant" - either it is a new edition or it isn't (and it is).

No, I just think this isn't going to work out the way they've said. I could be wrong too.
We both could, but at this point it seems rather unlikely.

But you're right in that most people use 3.5, so that caught on.
IIRC it caught on before publication. They put 3.5 on the books because that was what people on the Internet were calling it, rather than the other way around.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
It was posted earlier in this thread that if newer material contradicts older material, the newer material takes precedence. So, if you showed up with a 2014 PHB and tried to use something that had been errata'd, the newer printed PHB would take precedence.

Right. You brought up the 2014 and 2018 in particular, so I thought there was something strange happening that I had missed in 2018.

Granted, it's not like the game has changed so incredibly radically that having a 2014 PHB would cause problems in most cases. I don't really track errata that closely, so, I'm the wrong person to ask.

My point though is that if we're insisting that the definition of "backwards compatible" is that I can use a 2014 PHB as is, in orgnanized play, then, well, that's already out the window and has been for years. The thing is, now they are flat out telling you what the changes are and that from 2024 forward, you can expect the OneD&D version to be the assumed PHB on the table.

That's why I keep bringing up the errata when I asked the question (posts 694, 710, and 725). All the new printings of the (5e) PHB have seemingly have their errata added to the list. Having small updates with a new printing seems to be a standard publishing thing, and putting out a printed or downloadable errata is something textbook companies seem to do and something bigger other game companies do too.

A player, as far as I know, can show up with any (5e) PHB printing, but needs to use the several pages of errata.

It's not really all that unreasonable of an assumption, is it? This is not looking like a terribly enormous change. Mostly cleaning up verbiage and another kick at the cat to fix some stuff that's been considered not terribly well done for a long time. Plus, apparently, our 2024 PHB is going to have some new stuff in it too - new races at the very least. So, it's not like we're not getting some value out of new books.

I'm fine with WotC ditching the "edition" terminology. But it seems like it's clearly not just a new "printing" by any definition or usage of printing I've ever seen, even if WotC did print out a huge errata file - which I don't picture them doing if it has new races and subclasses and would take scores of pages.

I was thinking that pondering how they could phrase it for Adventurer's League might be a way to try and guess what we'll end up with: 2024? 5e version 1.1? version 5.1? Expanded 5th edition? Swerve and call it a "Players' Guide" so that they don't have to sunset the 2014 PHB and deal with the question?

-----

Somewhere between the prospective DM saying they're thinking of running a D&D game and the dice hitting the table, the group presumably needs to say what flavor of D&D -- and often have throughout the years : 4e and/or essentials, 5e core books, 5e + Tasha's, 5e + all expansions, 1e PHB, 1e + UA, etc...

My pondering is about the question - when one wants to specify the 2024 set-up, what words will be the most commonly used to do that?
 
Last edited:


Scribe

Legend
2014 rules did a pretty good job flattening the playing field, bit they seem to be plugging more holes for 2024z to make the gap between optimized and unoptimized as small as possible.
I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.
I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".
 

Scribe

Legend
I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".
Sadly true.

The problem is, if you iron out and flatten any of this kind of thing, you absolutely are pulling out yet another aspect of the game people engage with and enjoy.

MtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.
I don't imagine that they can or will flatten the optimization curve, but I have noticed a theme developing.

* Things that should be class-based that are currently hiding in other areas of the game are being moved to classes. For example, the damage potential of martials shouldn't be hidden in feats.

* Spells and abilities that are over performing are being taken down a notch. Guidance and spiritual weapon are no-brainers for clerics and they are sky-blue on every optimizer list. That probably means they are a little too good.

* Spells and abilities that are underperforming are getting boosts, such as Resistance.

* There is going to be a little more choice in builds. For example, Separating holy order from domain allows for more build choices as far as martial, skilled or caster types.

* If something is important to the identity of a class, they will get it as part of the class. Warlock's will get eldritch blast. Rangers get hunter's mark. Clerics get a little healing regardless of spell selection. That both opens up your options (so that the warlock doesn't effectively say "pick eldritch blast and one other cantrip") and makes sure you have what's needed to be effective.

I doubt the char-ops people will be out of a job. But I think it will be easier to avoid traps and build will be less about picking the right race or feats and more about looking within the class.
 

Remathilis

Legend
lMtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.

If only.

When they went with the NWO design, where commons are draft junk and uncommons are signposts to draft, the only viable cards for any constructed format are at rare or mythic rare. It's why deck costs are skyrocketing, eternal formats are floundering, standard is dead and Commander is the system of choice. Once the format is solved, the only way to play is to netdeck a current meta-deck or accept that you'll lose more than you win.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top