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.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm not amused but amazed that WotC can introduce 1e by specifically, emphatically rejecting the old "editions" model as flawed, explain their reasons at length, lay out the new parameters of what they want to do...only to have so many folks simply stuff their fingers in their ears and declare "can't be done. The old "editions" model is the only one possible." The power of paradigmatic thinking is truly impressive.

Even the title of this forum is telling: "One D&D (5.5e)."

You are amazed (imo) because you see the reasoning clearly and feel its valid.

Other folks see things that, for them, "cross the line" and in their view the reasoning is not valid.

Not a lot we can do about that over internet discussions.

I find myself in the middle, I applaud WotC for planning a departure from the "edition" model to "evergreen", and understand their reasoning, but some of their changes and inputs really stretch the meaning of ...say... compatible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are amazed (imo) because you see the reasoning clearly and feel its valid.

Other folks see things that, for them, "cross the line" and in their view the reasoning is not valid.

Not a lot we can do about that over internet discussions.

I find myself in the middle, I applaud WotC for planning a departure from the "edition" model to "evergreen", and understand their reasoning, but some of their changes and inputs really stretch the meaning of ...say... compatible.

Its a nice idea, but I don't see it being practical if you actually want people to buy new books.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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).

But WTF does “backwards compatible” even mean if something isn’t being replaced? If Windows 17 is backwards compatible with Windows 16 it doesn’t mean you can run both operating systems at the same time, it means you get rid of 16 and you can still run your apps and use your files. “Whaaaah but I like the juggling clown icon in 16! It’s not backwards compatible if I can’t still have that!”

 

[Micah Sweet]

But WTF does “backwards compatible” even mean if something isn’t being replaced? If Windows 17 is backwards compatible with Windows 16 it doesn’t mean you can run both operating systems at the same time, it means you get rid of 16 and you can still run your apps and use your files. “Whaaaah but I like the juggling clown icon in 16! It’s not backwards compatible if I can’t still have that!”

That's my point. The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three. That's what the playtest packets are about.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's my point. The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three. That's what the playtest packets are about.

And this is not a full edition change.
So if you don't want people to be confused by telling them, it is the same, you should also not tell them it is something totally different.

It strikes right into the middle. A lot of things are compatible and quite a few things are more or less heavily updated, a few things are replaced.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And this is not a full edition change.
So if you don't want people to be confused by telling them, it is the same, you should also not tell them it is something totally different.

It strikes right into the middle. A lot of things are compatible and quite a few things are more or less heavily updated, a few things are replaced.

Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e. I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books. The more people understand that, the better.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e. I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books. The more people understand that, the better.

Totally. I am with you. But I'd stick to 5.5 if you really want to give the right impression. The core stays mostly untouched. Species, classes, backgrounds, feats or not, proficiency bonus, action economy all stays the same.
I think in today's terms ADnD 2e would only be 1.5.
But back then, we did not have that much of a precendent.

Had they called 3.5 4e and 4e 5e and 4e essentials 6e and 5e 7e, then it would be 8e.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's my point. The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three. That's what the playtest packets are about.

Sure, but that is not a profound insight, nor evidence of a conspiracy. They are updating a game that will be 10 years old. As game designers they want to improve the game. As business people they hope lots of people will buy the new books.

But they clearly (from the evidence so far) are not changing so many things that anybody would have to buy the new books to stay in the hobby. You could use new class/subclass designs with 2014 rules. You could use 2014 class/subclasses with the new rules. You could show up at a One D&D table with zero knowledge of it yourself, and some things would have to be clarified during play (is offhand attack a bonus action or part of attack action?) but it would be fine.

Yes, it's change, but it's overall a pretty gentle change.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the big issue is that the last three editions of D&D were majorly different from the one before it. Basic, 1e and 2e all used similar enough mechanics that you could fuzzy use them together. (A 2e ranger and a 1e monk could go through BX Keep on the Borderlands and it would be fine if you don't look too close). 3e was a large departure from that, but it also went for a long time and had two major revisions (3.5 and Pathfinder) that again was mostly compatible. 4e was a clean break from 3e (very little was mechanically portable from 3e) and 5e a break from that. The fact that 1D&D is going back to the "close enough to use with little change" model is less a radical notion and more a return to form after the clean breaks from prior.

 

[Cadence]

But they clearly (from the evidence so far) are not changing so many things that anybody would have to buy the new books to stay in the hobby. You could use new class/subclass designs with 2014 rules. You could use 2014 class/subclasses with the new rules. You could show up at a One D&D table with zero knowledge of it yourself, and some things would have to be clarified during play (is offhand attack a bonus action or part of attack action?) but it would be fine.

Yes, it's change, but it's overall a pretty gentle change.

So, how do you think they'll have Adventurer's League run? Will they say a PHB (using latest errata in the usual errata link) or will they not have a comprehensive 2014->2024 errata document and just say PHB 2024 printing?