D&D (2024) One D&D Cleric & Revised Species Playtest Includes Goliath

"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."

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

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

 

[Micah Sweet]

That assumes everyone agrees on what the bad things are, and Implies that there's some objective "perfection" that we get closer and closer to with every new iteration. It also implies that the newer something is, the better, as if "progress" was a straight line and the past should be abandoned in favor of the present.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That assumes everyone agrees on what the bad things are, and Implies that there's some objective "perfection" that we get closer and closer to with every new iteration.

No, it doesn't. There are people that disagree on objective things.

And I don't think that there will ever be a single "perfect" setting, but I do think that all of the settings can improve and perfect what they're trying to do.

It also implies that the newer something is, the better, as if "progress" was a straight line and the past should be abandoned in favor of the present.

Nope. It just admits that the pass of time is necessary for improvement. Not that newer things are inherently better. There are plenty of newer settings that I think are a step backwards for D&D.

 

[Xamnam]

In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad.

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 really could not disagree more with this sentiment. Even if what you like is largely that because it's in contrast to a widespread normal you don't care for, I think it can actively weaken the point to make that aspect the focus. "I love that the religion of Eberron is handled this way, unlike how the FR handles it like this." That stands just as effectively even if you delete everything after the comma. And if you actively call the point of comparison bad, that just invites defense of it. There are times for it, where the topic of discussion invites comparing things directly, but saying why you like something in no way requires putting something else down.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I really could not disagree more with this sentiment. Even if what you like is largely that because it's in contrast to a widespread normal you don't care for, I think it can actively weaken the point to make that aspect the focus. "I love that the religion of Eberron is handled this way, unlike how the FR handles it like this." That stands just as effectively even if you delete everything after the comma. And if you actively call the point of comparison bad, that just invites defense of it. There are times for it, where the topic of discussion invites comparing things directly, but saying why you like something in no way requires putting something else down.

Eberron only exists in the form that it does because it analyzes the tropes D&D typically doesn't think too deeply about and then changes them to make them better. A core part of Eberron is "get rid of the bad stuff from other settings, replace it with better things". The setting wouldn't exist if it didn't do that.

And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.

 

[Xamnam]

And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that critiques or complaints are always necessarily warranted or helpful.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I agree. But that didn't mean that critiques or complaints are always necessarily warranted or helpful.

I think critiques of flawed things in hope of making them better is always warranted and helpful in discussions of how settings are designed.

 

[Xamnam]

I think critiques of flawed things in hope of making them better is always warranted and helpful in discussions of how settings are designed.

Some discussions. But far more fruitful when it is desired on all sides.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eberron only exists in the form that it does because it analyzes the tropes D&D typically doesn't think too deeply about and then changes them to make them better. A core part of Eberron is "get rid of the bad stuff from other settings, replace it with better things". The setting wouldn't exist if it didn't do that.

And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.

I really don't think that a cornerstone of Eberron was, "previous settings were bad, so let's make one that's good". That is extremely dismissive of all setting work in D&D previous to Eberron. I doubt that was what Keith Baker had in mind.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I really don't think that a cornerstone of Eberron was, "previous settings were bad, so let's make one that's good". That is extremely dismissive of all setting work in D&D previous to Eberron. I doubt that was what Keith Baker had in mind.

No, it's "there are parts of previous settings that aren't well thought out and it makes the settings worse, here's the result if you do the exact opposite of that and put thought into the parts of other settings that were traditionally not done well."

 

[Scribe]

I'm pretty sure what you are looking for is the process of deconstruction. Its not "this was bad" its "lets take this apart and see what happens when each component is reviewed on its own."

There is a difference in perspective on this, that would lead to...dramatically better engagement with what I believe you are trying to convey.