D&D (2024) 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

Faolyn

(she/her)
Its a remake of the same story. Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone. I really don't understand why that's too much to ask.
I already explained it. They write a different setting, then people who like the original setting will be angry that a copycat came out, or that their setting isn't being updated.

Also, why leave the original alone? That'll just make it die and be forgotten, and that would be a terrible waste just because you don't like the new version.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Adaptations are different mediums. Ravenloft 2e and Ravenloft 3e and Ravenloft 5e are all pen and paper role-playing games, using mechanics which are more similar than they are different, very little of which would actually affect the lore of the setting. It is  not equivalent.

I was picturing the "remakes" Hollywood makes all the time of other movies - sometimes similar, sometimes not. (e.g. Seven Samurai -> Magnificent Seven -> Battle Beyond the Stars and then a Magnificent Seven remake; see also: 10 Remakes that Changed EVERYTHING About the Original - Nightmare on Film Street although some of the originals were adaptations themselves).
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I already explained it. They write a different setting, then people who like the original setting will be angry that a copycat came out, or that their setting isn't being updated.

Also, why leave the original alone? That'll just make it die and be forgotten, and that would be a terrible waste just because you don't like the new version.
I would have been fine with a different setting, and so I suspect, would most of the new gamers WotC wants. Had I known what 5e Ravenloft would be like, I wouldn't have spent money on it.
 





Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
That's the first time I've ever heard Draenei associated with devils, as opposed to just aliens.

And how are they "good guys"? $%&@ing Alliance pond scum.
Draenei's whole thing was "Yeah, they're being chased across the universe by a bunch of jerks". Then noted villain Kael stole their spaceship, so fellow good guys the BElves who weren't with Kael went and deal with him
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
So talk about what you like about Eberron's lore, not about what you don't like about FR or any other setting. I try to avoid objectively telling others that things they like are bad. I know I'm not perfect, but I don't know why I'm getting pushback on the idea of not yucking someone else's yum.
In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad. Eberron's take on religion is good because that of the Forgotten Realms and similar settings is overly simplistic and bad. It's not enough for Eberron to just exist as its own thing when it shows that the typical approach is bad and could use improvement. I wouldn't be surprised in the Dawn War Pantheon being more nuanced and interesting than the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance's takes on religion was a consequence of the designers looking at how Eberron used religion and trying to apply that to a setting where the gods definitely exist.

In order to say "this is what I like about a setting", and to show why it is good, you have to show something else that is worse and why an improvement is necessary/good for the setting. I know that it feels like "yucking your yum", but what it feels like to me as someone that started out with the Forgotten Realms, quickly grew frustrated because there was just too much of it (and most of it was bad/unnecessary), and then discovered the genius of Eberron, it's not "this thing that people like is bad", it's "this new thing shows why the previous thing was messing up, and how to make improvements".

Progress is important. It can sometimes feel condescending, but analyzing what parts of the game and its settings are good and bad is important to making the game better. And I do think that making the game better is important. Every setting in D&D, even Eberron, has problems and could be improved in some way. Eberron is definitely not perfect, and there are valid reasons to prefer other settings. However, I do think that a lot of what it does is objectively an improvement on the things that some other settings have tried to do.

Which, to bring this around to the OneD&D playtest "analyzing what parts of the game are bad and could use improvement" is the point of making changes. The documents have changed parts of the edition that a lot of people have been complaining about for years. "Keep what's good, replace the bad stuff" is the key to progress, and is the central goal of most these changes. Accepting that the game isn't perfect, could use improvements, and then making steps to change the bad things is a good thing.
 

JEB

Legend
In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad.
No, it doesn't. Plenty of things are good in different ways for different people, depending on their preferences. There's not just one good option that renders every other option bad by contrast. That's as true for RPGs as it for ice cream flavors, or clothing styles, or anything else people can have an opinion on.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top