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.

 

[Hussar]

I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like, and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise. It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly special and unique, and that's fine. I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.

People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack. It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed. Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that. Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like. Since about the first day of 3e.

 

[Scribe]

Getting back on-topic, somebody up-thread pointed out that the Cloud Giant option for Goliaths is far better than all the other options. I'll also add that it's just more fun than bonus damage, in the way that a cool feat is more fun than a +2 ASI.

Anybody have ideas for other thematic abilities that could be used for some of the other Goliath variants?

I dont know, but to me the damage could still be 'cool' assuming its balanced (scaled) well enough, OR they need to give an ability as well as have the damage bonus.

Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack. It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed. Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that. Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like. Since about the first day of 3e.

And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old? That's not what I've seen. And I like quite a bit of new stuff. I'd just prefer that it  actually be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.

I'd change their species' power to:
Frigid Breath: small cold damage in a cone, with a Slow effect for a turn.
Breath of Smoke and Ashes: Blind effect in a cone for a turn.

 

[Faolyn]

I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like, and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise. It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly special and unique, and that's fine. I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.

Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. That's what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. That's what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.

I get that. I just always used homebrew (which I believe the majority of tables still do), so this was never a problem for me. The settings were chapters in a cool story and ideas for home games. None of us felt the story in the products hurt our gaming experience.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The races video below.


I had originally assumed that the Ardlings were really for Planescape and Goliaths were for Bigsby's Giant book, but after Jeremy's interview, I'm not so sure about that.

If Goliaths get a place in the book as the giant's answer to Dragonborn, then Aasimar should be in as well as the Celestial answer to Fiendish Tieflings.

I mean they already have popular mechanics for D&D One Aasimar hashed out, just use the 1st Ardlings mechanics.

I'm going to give the Ardlings another look, but can we please give them a better name, like Elohim or something or hell even Lordlings (given their connection to Beastlords).

And can we get setting lore updates for all these, what do call them now, subspecies? Where do they fit into FR? eberron, etc...?

Edit: I took a look at the Ardling and I like it, but given the Lore that they are evovled Celestial Animals shouldn't they have the Celestial type instead of humaniod? Like unlike Aasimar or Tieflings they don't appear to be partially descended from mortal, material plane beings.

 

[Hussar]

And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old? That's not what I've seen. And I like quite a bit of new stuff. I'd just prefer that it  actually be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.

No, I really don't. Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"

Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".

And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.

Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done. I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing." Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it. It doesn't matter to you. But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what. Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".

I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans. Be a positive force for what you like. Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I really don't. Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"

Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".

And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.

Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done. I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing." Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it. It doesn't matter to you. But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what. Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".

I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans. Be a positive force for what you like. Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.

I don't want things removed unless its absolutely necessary (inclusion-related mostly). Adding stuff is fine.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.

Well, yes, The Dawn War's take on "do the gods exist" is the exact opposite of Eberron's take, but the takes on the religions have always felt more similar to me. They're more complex, nuanced, and there are valid reasons to worship even the evil gods.