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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't recall ever saying what I like is good for the game. I like it, and I want things I like in the game. Its pretty straightforward.

I, on the other hand, prioritize things that are good for the game over things that I like.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings? This is your opinion. You like it better. If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior. You have to see the difference.

No. I'm not speaking for Keith Baker. I am, however, pointing out parts of the setting that are objectively better for the game than the alternatives in other settings (the Elminster/Drizzt problem, the metaplot problem, etc).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not every setting has to be Eberron, other settings have other priorities as the driving force, FR has it's transmedium interests into account and it's history as living setting to take into account.

And the fact that FR has been more successful then Eberron literally for decades attests to the strength of FRs approach.

The Forgotten Realms also had a huge headstart on Eberron.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I, on the other hand, prioritize things that are good for the game over things that I like.

Thank goodness you're such a better person than I am.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. I'm not speaking for Keith Baker. I am, however, pointing out parts of the setting that are objectively better for the game than the alternatives in other settings (the Elminster/Drizzt problem, the metaplot problem, etc).

You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things. That's all this is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things. That's all this is.

Does having a metaplot cause problems at gaming tables by making more work for GMs? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause problems as gaming tables by making it harder for players and GMs to get onto the same page because they don't just to know they are in the setting but when in the setting they are? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause bad writing where the most important events either are where the PCs aren't or are unalterable by the PCs and the PCs are there to hold the NPCs coats? Yes

Does not having a metaplot reduce the potential number of hooks and adventure starts? Not meaningfully if at all; the continents are wide enough that this limit isn't one.

Can you give me any advantages having a metaplot that exists outside the adventure currently being played gives for the actual game at the table over setting up a powder-keg environment that could blow up in dozens of different ways?

You yourself admit that you weren't actually playing the Forgotten Realms but instead using homebrew when you were enjoying the metaplot.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No. This is wrong. First the players don't have any right to input. The company owns the setting. Second, no agency is taken away since they never had any agency over the company's setting in the first place.

This. This right here. This is why Eberron is better. This to me reads as a dude in a tuxedo with a monocle and cigar saying "you don't have any right to the setting, I own it, it's mine, you're forced to go along with anything I do to the setting". Eberron, on the other hand, says "I don't care what you do with the setting, it's not mine, it's yours. Make it yours. Do whatever you want. Here, I've given you a bunch of mysteries to find the answer to, do whatever you want".

What the company did had no impact on my home game at all.

But it does impact the games of people new to the hobby. You don't know what it's like trying to get into the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance after decades of novels, video games, and game products that are all "canon". The Forgotten Realms is drowning in metaplot and canon. Eberron does not have that problem. It recognized the problem that other settings have and took preventative measures to stop it from having the same problems.

That isn't necessary in every game, though, so it's not some sort of universal issue. For the many who like the changes, there's nothing to rewind.

You can include the metaplot in your game without the owners of it forcing the metaplot into the setting books. Eberron setting products will always start in 998 YK, just like the first Eberron book did 18 years ago. Over a hundred years has passed in the Forgotten Realms. Good luck getting newer players to do 100 years of homework in order to do a deep-dive in the lore of the setting.

And if that's what Eberron points out, Eberron is partially wrong. Metaplots may not be necessary, but their are neither good or bad. They just are.

And because they aren't actually problems of the other settings. They're personal issues. Either YOU like it, or YOU don't.

No. Quality exists. You can include things in your setting that are objectively bad and harmful to playing the game there.

That's what advice is for. The solution is not to ruin things for people who aren't making those mistakes and the ones who can and do learn from mistakes(and we all make mistakes). The solution is to give good advice to the DM on how not to make them in the first place. Advice, not changes to the rules or settings.

If the setting is "ruined" for people by having Elminster and Drizzt removed, they didn't actually like the setting as a game setting. They liked it as a story setting. Which is not prioritizing the needs of the game, and thus, bad for the game.

This is objectively false. The problem lies 100% with the DM who runs a DMPC. DMPCs are not setting specific.

Newer DMs often fall into traps that veteran DMs don't. Making the setting "stupid proof" is a good quality.

Show me your objective proof of that? Because all I've seen from you so far are personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims of "metaplot bad!"

Gestures vaguely at all of the discussions over the past decades of people angry that a metaplot ruined the setting for them. The Spellplague, the Faction War, the Prism Pentad, Die, Vecna, Die!, some of the sequel series of Dragonlance, and so on.

Clearly metaplots ruin the setting for people that previously liked it. Eberron cannot have that problem, because the creators have promised to never advance the timeline or include a metaplot. If that is the result of metaplots, it's better to not include them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does having a metaplot cause problems at gaming tables by making more work for GMs? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause problems as gaming tables by making it harder for players and GMs to get onto the same page because they don't just to know they are in the setting but when in the setting they are? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause bad writing where the most important events either are where the PCs aren't or are unalterable by the PCs and the PCs are there to hold the NPCs coats? Yes

Does not having a metaplot reduce the potential number of hooks and adventure starts? Not meaningfully if at all; the continents are wide enough that this limit isn't one.

Can you give me any advantages having a metaplot that exists outside the adventure currently being played gives for the actual game at the table over setting up a powder-keg environment that could blow up in dozens of different ways?

You yourself admit that you weren't actually playing the Forgotten Realms but instead using homebrew when you were enjoying the metaplot.

Is the starting point of a setting always the best version of the setting? No.

Does a metaplot interfere with a homebrew game (which is what most players game in)? No.

Is a GM required to use  any element of a setting (metaplot or no) at their own table? No.

I don't play in an official setting. Short of a Dragonlance game back in high school, and a couple of short Ravenloft games, I have never done so. But I bought and read a lot of setting books, and I bought and read a lot of novels, and magazine articles, and I enjoyed the heck out of most of them. At no point did they at all affect my playing or running at the table in a negative way, which is what so many people tell is the most important thing.

And how could they? Its all just stuff, that you can use or not. Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This. This right here. This is why Eberron is better. This to me reads as a dude in a tuxedo with a monocle and cigar saying "you don't have any right to the setting, I own it, it's mine, you're forced to go along with anything I do to the setting". Eberron, on the other hand, says "I don't care what you do with the setting, it's not mine, it's yours. Make it yours. Do whatever you want. Here, I've given you a bunch of mysteries to find the answer to, do whatever you want".

But it does impact the games of people new to the hobby. You don't know what it's like trying to get into the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance after decades of novels, video games, and game products that are all "canon". The Forgotten Realms is drowning in metaplot and canon. Eberron does not have that problem. It recognized the problem that other settings have and took preventative measures to stop it from having the same problems.

You can include the metaplot in your game without the owners of it forcing the metaplot into the setting books. Eberron setting products will always start in 998 YK, just like the first Eberron book did 18 years ago. Over a hundred years has passed in the Forgotten Realms. Good luck getting newer players to do 100 years of homework in order to do a deep-dive in the lore of the setting.

No. Quality exists. You can include things in your setting that are objectively bad and harmful to playing the game there.

If the setting is "ruined" for people by having Elminster and Drizzt removed, they didn't actually like the setting as a game setting. They liked it as a story setting. Which is not prioritizing the needs of the game, and thus, bad for the game.

Newer DMs often fall into traps that veteran DMs don't. Making the setting "stupid proof" is a good quality.

Gestures vaguely at all of the discussions over the past decades of people angry that a metaplot ruined the setting for them. The Spellplague, the Faction War, the Prism Pentad, Die, Vecna, Die!, some of the sequel series of Dragonlance, and so on.

Clearly metaplots ruin the setting for people that previously liked it. Eberron cannot have that problem, because the creators have promised to never advance the timeline or include a metaplot. If that is the result of metaplots, it's better to not include them.

Other people agree with you, so it must be objectively true?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Thank goodness you're such a better person than I am.

I don't claim to be a better person than you are. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. However, I do think you're just clearly in the wrong. This is the "I want D&D 5e to do the things that drove TSR bankrupt" discussion over again.

I am not perfect at this. But the game cannot and should not cater directly towards my tastes. It cannot and should not cater perfectly towards the tastes of any individual person. It should cater towards the widest group of people possible and support people that are just now getting into the hobby.

You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things. That's all this is.

No. I'm pointing out aspects of it that are just better for the hobby. For the game. For newer players. I know what things are good and bad for newer players, because I lived it. The Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and other settings' metaplots are just bad for the game. They might be enjoyable when you're experiencing them as they happen, but hindsight is 20/20, and they're just bad. They are not good for the game. Liking them does not make them good. Wanting them included because you like them does not make that desire valid or something that should be catered to.

There are reasons that I prefer Eberron. Objective parts of its design that I think clearly show how competent Keith Baker and the other designers were when making it. Aspects that prove that it not only had good ideas, but the game overall would be better and more friendly to newer players to take some of them.

There are things that I like that I'll readily admit would be bad for the game if they were implemented or made core to the hobby. As an aspiring game designer, I have to separate the two. There are things that I hate are part of the game, but admit have to be because it's more friendly to newer players. There are parts of the settings that I like that I admit aren't good for the game and parts of settings that I don't like that I admit are good for it. This is important. This is good.