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.

 

[Minigiant]

GWM/SS/XBE/PAM nerfs

Well in the official playtest video, the extra weapon damage will be part of the base Warrior classes instead of via feats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, it took TEN YEARS to get to the point where you could talk about 4e design ideas and not get dog piled for it. And, even now, suggesting things like Skill Challenges or damage on a miss will see the usual responses. The only way to get 4e material into 5e is by steal thing them in and pretending they aren't from 4e in the first place. Too many cooties.

That was necessary back then. Sadly.
4e destroyed so much goodwill, by the way WotC handled the whole edition. Including calling 3e badwrongfun.
Sometimes you need to let something rest for a while before bringing it back.

I have played and DMed 4e for its whole run. I have not gotten skill challenges to work although I tried it often enough.
I'd like to see more damage on a miss. That was incredible.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But if less is more, then why not work with what we already have in the Shadow Magic Sorcerer?

I agree with like 90% of your content on these forms, Aldarc, and respect ya; I really don't want to get into an argument with you over this, so I'll concede the point.

Okay, I appreciate your clarification better now, and I apologize for my snark.

I did not put forth the argument that less is more. I advocated combining Necromancy and Nethermancy primarily for the sake of simplicity and consistency: i.e., "It's all Shadowfell magic." It's easy to tell players that their shadowy necromantic magic comes from the Shadowfell.

Moreover, combining them IMO gives a greater range of archetypes that can exist under that combined umbrella in a way that better reinforces the core thematic ideas. If I could, Marandahir, there would not be a Shadow Magic Sorcerer or a Necromancer Wizard or a Death Cleric. I don't think that the Necromancer Wizard does a good job at being what many players want out of a Necromancer. I don't think that the Death Cleric does a good job at being what people want out of a Necromancer. I don't think that the Shadow Magic Sorcerer really scratches the itch of a Shadow Mage. IME, having necromancy and such split between these three different classes (or even four with the Warlock) makes it difficult for players to have the full package deal, leaving many players (again IME) with an unsatisfying itch they can't fully scratch.

There would be a singular Necromancer/Nethermancer that would be the go-to class for dark, edge lord spellcasters of death, shadow, etc. with subclasses built around that theme: e.g., Dread Necromancer, Shadow Mage, Necro-Gish, Skeleton Army Necro, Healing Necro, Flesh/Blood Golem Necro, etc.

ETA: I recommend checking out the Necromancer in Kevin Crawford's Worlds Without Number (free). It's probably one of the better Necromancers I have seen lately come out of a d20 game.

 

[Marandahir]

That's certainly a different way to cut the pie.

I'm more in favour of sitting necromantic ideas within different classes, but I understand how it could be done the otherway around. Much like how the equivalents of the 4e Warlord and Swordmage have been spread around in 5e, while many folks would love them to have their own D&D classes…

 

[Aldarc]

That's certainly a different way to cut the pie.

I'm more in favour of sitting necromantic ideas within different classes, but I understand how it could be done the otherway around. Much like how the equivalents of the 4e Warlord and Swordmage have been spread around in 5e, while many folks would love them to have their own D&D classes…

I get the "different ways to do X concept" idea in theory, but I find that in practice it results in a bunch of underdeveloped concepts with a good solid building foundation or leaving the concept feeling "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Again, there are so many times I have had players tell me that they wish they could play a proper Necromancer class and spell list that was something between a Cleric and a Necromancer Wizard. I don't think that D&D has produced a good, solid Necromancer archetype, and splitting the archetype between classes, IMO, is a contributing factor to the problem rather than a net benefit.

 

[Parmandur]

How so? The only tea leaves I've seen are:

• GWM/SS/XBE/PAM nerfs
• Ranger attack nerfs
• Off-turn sneak attack nerfs
• Spiritual weapon nerf

I'm hoping these indicate that they're approaching all this in a considered, holistic way and that it entails a lower DPR environment in 1D&D. I hope this, because I think it needed some normalizing. I'm not fond of the new spiritual weapon as it stands, but if DPR (at least optimized DPR) is lower in 1D&D, a 1d8 extra attack may have much more value and be well balanced in the new game. This could be excellent, but I don't want to get in front of my skis until I see more.


Ohh, what indication is there the Adventure Day may be adjusted? I've been disappointed because I haven't seen any indication that it would be. I'm hopeful the willy-nilly mix of classes built on short- and long-rest resources may be smoothed out, but again, the rogue made me more pessimistic in this regard.

The Feat changes are more of a wash than a nerf: their damage was lowered, but they took away the hit malus, so the DPR is about the same but without being a power gaming lightning rod.

No particular indication yet, but that is a guideline I could see them adjusting without changing core math.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am still unsure, where you get information about 6e.
If you mean OneDnD, I am baffled, that you draw that conclusion.

The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks. They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get the "different ways to do X concept" idea in theory, but I find that in practice it results in a bunch of underdeveloped concepts with a good solid building foundation or leaving the concept feeling "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

Again, there are so many times I have had players tell me that they wish they could play a proper Necromancer class and spell list that was something between a Cleric and a Necromancer Wizard. I don't think that D&D has produced a good, solid Necromancer archetype, and splitting the archetype between classes, IMO, is a contributing factor to the problem rather than a net benefit.

Valda's Spire of Secrets from Mage Hand Press has a great necromancer class. I've already seen two in my games.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks. They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).

Ah. 2024 corebooks of 5e...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah. 2024 corebooks of 5e...

5e is being replaced in 2024. There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.