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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Can you cite some actual examples?

I've been playing for more than 40 years. I've played with aaaaallllll kinds of players, from grognards who started in the mid-70s to zoomers who started this year. The vast majority of D&D players have cared about balance (compared to almost no one caring about it other RPGs). This doesn't strike me as at all surprising, given the kind of RPG D&D is.

I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "engage with that in a metagame sense." They realize they chose a trap option and they want to fix it. They ask to ban twilight clerics because they think they're broken. They ask to start a new campaign because Kevin's CoDzilla is stupid. They say they'll only play casters because they're better and have so many options than martials. They ask to reroll their straight-class paladin when someone brings in a paladin with a hexblade dip. They (we, in this case) decide to only play low-level AL events (or non-campaign events) at conventions because all the optimized characters with all the best available magic items turn us into sidekicks who wouldn't strictly need to be present at all. I could go on.

Is any of that "engaging in the metagame sense"?

ETA: I do appreciate the 180 on the "designers ignore it" bit. My sanity is in a less precarious position, at least.

I think all the problems you mention are less balance and instead fair play issues.

Being able to always chose the perfect class combination for a certain level and campaign and some few combinations too good too often in kind of adventures are problematic.

 

[FrogReaver]

The actual issue is armor stat requirements and interactions. There are multiple other ways to be able to pick up armor proficiency after level one, each faces similar issues.

Subclass seems like it would be the most pertinent to this discussion. I don't think any level 2 or 3 subclasses ever gave heavy armor proficiency? None to Light or Light to Medium all function off dex so it seems you don't face the same issues there.

Feats would be the next place to look but in 5e they were intentionally optional.
Multiclassing is the same.

 

[glass]

Are they rewriting entire classes from the ground up?

Yes they are.

I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?

I think you know two things of import in this situation: What "edition" means in the context of D&D, and that you should not put too much stock in a large company's marketing spin.

Well it’s relevant for adventurers league. You haven’t been able to use a 2014 phb since at least 2018.

Is this really true? It seems unlikely to me, although I think my AL play was pre-2018.

It's being replaced in the same was as 3e was. With a half edition change.

"Half edition" is like "half pregnant" - either it is a new edition or it isn't (and it is).

No, I just think this isn't going to work out the way they've said. I could be wrong too.

We both could, but at this point it seems rather unlikely.

But you're right in that most people use 3.5, so that caught on.

IIRC it caught on before publication. They put 3.5 on the books because that was what people on the Internet were calling it, rather than the other way around.

 

[Cadence]

It was posted earlier in this thread that if newer material contradicts older material, the newer material takes precedence. So, if you showed up with a 2014 PHB and tried to use something that had been errata'd, the newer printed PHB would take precedence.

Right. You brought up the 2014 and 2018 in particular, so I thought there was something strange happening that I had missed in 2018.

Granted, it's not like the game has changed so incredibly radically that having a 2014 PHB would cause problems in most cases. I don't really track errata that closely, so, I'm the wrong person to ask.

My point though is that if we're insisting that the definition of "backwards compatible" is that I can use a 2014 PHB as is, in orgnanized play, then, well, that's already out the window and has been for years. The thing is, now they are flat out telling you what the changes are and that from 2024 forward, you can expect the OneD&D version to be the assumed PHB on the table.

That's why I keep bringing up the errata when I asked the question (posts 694, 710, and 725). All the new printings of the (5e) PHB have seemingly have their errata added to the list. Having small updates with a new printing seems to be a standard publishing thing, and putting out a printed or downloadable errata is something textbook companies seem to do and something bigger other game companies do too.

A player, as far as I know, can show up with any (5e) PHB printing, but needs to use the several pages of errata.

It's not really all that unreasonable of an assumption, is it? This is not looking like a terribly enormous change. Mostly cleaning up verbiage and another kick at the cat to fix some stuff that's been considered not terribly well done for a long time. Plus, apparently, our 2024 PHB is going to have some new stuff in it too - new races at the very least. So, it's not like we're not getting some value out of new books.

I'm fine with WotC ditching the "edition" terminology. But it seems like it's clearly not just a new "printing" by any definition or usage of printing I've ever seen, even if WotC did print out a huge errata file - which I don't picture them doing if it has new races and subclasses and would take scores of pages.

I was thinking that pondering how they could phrase it for Adventurer's League might be a way to try and guess what we'll end up with: 2024? 5e version 1.1? version 5.1? Expanded 5th edition? Swerve and call it a "Players' Guide" so that they don't have to sunset the 2014 PHB and deal with the question?

-----

Somewhere between the prospective DM saying they're thinking of running a D&D game and the dice hitting the table, the group presumably needs to say what flavor of D&D -- and often have throughout the years : 4e and/or essentials, 5e core books, 5e + Tasha's, 5e + all expansions, 1e PHB, 1e + UA, etc...

My pondering is about the question - when one wants to specify the 2024 set-up, what words will be the most commonly used to do that?

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I think you know two things of import in this situation: What "edition" means in the context of D&D, and that you should not put too much stock in a large company's marketing spin.

"Ze game is ze same! Ze game is ze same!"

 

[Scribe]

2014 rules did a pretty good job flattening the playing field, bit they seem to be plugging more holes for 2024z to make the gap between optimized and unoptimized as small as possible.

I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".

 

[Scribe]

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".

Sadly true.

The problem is, if you iron out and flatten any of this kind of thing, you absolutely are pulling out yet another aspect of the game people engage with and enjoy.

MtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.

 

[Remathilis]

I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.

I don't imagine that they can or will flatten the optimization curve, but I have noticed a theme developing.

* Things that should be class-based that are currently hiding in other areas of the game are being moved to classes. For example, the damage potential of martials shouldn't be hidden in feats.

* Spells and abilities that are over performing are being taken down a notch. Guidance and spiritual weapon are no-brainers for clerics and they are sky-blue on every optimizer list. That probably means they are a little too good.

* Spells and abilities that are underperforming are getting boosts, such as Resistance.

* There is going to be a little more choice in builds. For example, Separating holy order from domain allows for more build choices as far as martial, skilled or caster types.

* If something is important to the identity of a class, they will get it as part of the class. Warlock's will get eldritch blast. Rangers get hunter's mark. Clerics get a little healing regardless of spell selection. That both opens up your options (so that the warlock doesn't effectively say "pick eldritch blast and one other cantrip") and makes sure you have what's needed to be effective.

I doubt the char-ops people will be out of a job. But I think it will be easier to avoid traps and build will be less about picking the right race or feats and more about looking within the class.

 

[Remathilis]

lMtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.

If only.

When they went with the NWO design, where commons are draft junk and uncommons are signposts to draft, the only viable cards for any constructed format are at rare or mythic rare. It's why deck costs are skyrocketing, eternal formats are floundering, standard is dead and Commander is the system of choice. Once the format is solved, the only way to play is to netdeck a current meta-deck or accept that you'll lose more than you win.