D&D (2024) New One D&D Playtest Includes 5 Classes & New Weapon Mastery System

The latest playtest packet for One D&D has just landed, and features five classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard) and the new Weapon Mastery system.

In this new Unearthed Arcana document for the 2024 Core Rulebooks, we explore material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. This playtest document presents the rules on the Weapon Mastery property, updates to weapons, new and revised spells, several new feats, and five classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard. You will also find an updated rules glossary that supercedes the glossary of any previous playtest documents.

Claim Unearthed Arcana now! - D&D Beyond

www.dndbeyond.com

​

 

[DEFCON 1]

Tough to avoid thinking about it when we're being given documents and asked to provide feedback, although I agree that very little of what we're seeing is likely to change.

Not if you're thinking about whether or not to buy the books. That's not anything any of us need think about right now or even through the rest of the year. Waste of our time to do so.

 

[Parmandur]

Not if you're thinking about whether or not to buy the books. That's not anything any of us need think about right now or even through the rest of the year. Waste of our time to do so.

Let's be real, that's a decision that for most has less to do with details about Class changes, and more about presentation. More people will buy based on the new Dragon artwork than Class options.

 

[Michael Linke]

Let's be real, that's a decision that for most has less to do with details about Class changes, and more about presentation. More people will buy based on the new Dragon artwork than Class options.

I might buy the DMG and MM at this point. But I don't think I would want the PHB changes at my table if they follow through with these proposed changes to the arcane caster classes.

Seeing the direction of the playtest tells me that I should run a campaign soon, either 5e or OSR depending on what I can get players on board with, and not hold out for the 2024 books, and not to plan to wind down that campaign in time for the new books, since odds are good I won't be interested in them.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Tough to avoid thinking about it when we're being given documents and asked to provide feedback, although I agree that very little of what we're seeing is likely to change.

Having playtested for WotC many times before, I gotta disagree. I think that MOST of what we're seeing is VERY LIKELY to change. Will it change for the better, though? THAT'S far more unclear.

In D&DNext, for example. there were some things that needed a few tweaks that they got rid of entirely, and replaced with things that weren't as good. This has also happened with a few subclasses that were published in UAs (where, IMO, the UA one needed work, but the work that it got before publication didn't really fix much, but may have ruined what was good about the idea).

Now, that's not exclusively true. Sometimes the thing makes it into print either relatively unchanged from a playtest, or made better before publication. Hopefully that will happen here. I know that it's what they MEAN to have happen.

No, the 2024 stuff is unlikely to look much like what we're playtesting here. Something like it, probably, but the details will almost certainly be very different. In some cases better, and in some cases worse. Which is which will be up for debate.

 

[Parmandur]

I might buy the DMG and MM at this point. But I don't think I would want the PHB changes at my table if they follow through with these proposed changes to the arcane caster classes.

Seeing the direction of the playtest tells me that I should run a campaign soon, either 5e or OSR depending on what I can get players on board with, and not hold out for the 2024 books, and not to plan to wind down that campaign in time for the new books, since odds are good I won't be interested in them.

I mean, that's part of the design, keeping it backwards compatible so that people can mix and match at will and just keep playing.

 

[Parmandur]

Having playtested for WotC many times before, I gotta disagree. I think that MOST of what we're seeing is VERY LIKELY to change. Will it change for the better, though? THAT'S far more unclear.

In D&DNext, for example. there were some things that needed a few tweaks that they got rid of entirely, and replaced with things that weren't as good. This has also happened with a few subclasses that were published in UAs (where, IMO, the UA one needed work, but the work that it got before publication didn't really fix much, but may have ruined what was good about the idea).

Now, that's not exclusively true. Sometimes the thing makes it into print either relatively unchanged from a playtest, or made better before publication. Hopefully that will happen here. I know that it's what they MEAN to have happen.

No, the 2024 stuff is unlikely to look much like what we're playtesting here. Something like it, probably, but the details will almost certainly be very different. In some cases better, and in some cases worse. Which is which will be up for debate.

What we are seeing over this playtrst is that if an idea doesn't go over, they tackle back towards 2014 rules. The first two packets had the moat divergent rules packets, and subsequent releases have shrunk as divergences from 2014 are dropped of they aren't popular.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

What we are seeing over this playtrst is that if an idea doesn't go over, they tackle back towards 2014 rules. The first two packets had the moat divergent rules packets, and subsequent releases have shrunk as divergences from 2014 are dropped of they aren't popular.

I think that also has to do with the plan to be "backwards compatible".

I think that they ALWAYS planned to be backwards compatible, but I suspect that they are likely to try to make the game closer to 5e now than when they started. Especially when it comes to things that "don't matter", such as Exhaustion Rules (personally I preferred the playtest version).

But it makes sense that "when in doubt" (about whether the change is bringing much to the game), go with the "old" version.

I'd like more changes myself, as I think that as good as 5e is, we're still very far from "perfect" D&D, but then, I'm also not one to freak out about any changes that I don't get. I'll play the game either way.

I'll be pretty happy with a net gain (a slightly better 5e), even if I don't get all the fixes that I'd like to see.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that also has to do with the plan to be "backwards compatible".

I think that they ALWAYS planned to be backwards compatible, but I suspect that they are likely to try to make the game closer to 5e now than when they started. Especially when it comes to things that "don't matter", such as Exhaustion Rules (personally I preferred the playtest version).

But it makes sense that "when in doubt" (about whether the change is bringing much to the game), go with the "old" version.

I'd like more changes myself, as I think that as good as 5e is, we're still very far from "perfect" D&D, but then, I'm also not one to freak out about any changes that I don't get. I'll play the game either way.

I'll be pretty happy with a net gain (a slightly better 5e), even if I don't get all the fixes that I'd like to see.

Their methodology of only moving forwards with 80% approval rating material that has good qualities commentary in the surveys means that any changes basically boil down to optional homebrew type content that most people prefer means that adaption isn't only simple, but people can do it piecemeal over time due to the modular nature of the rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

think that they ALWAYS planned to be backwards compatible, but I suspect that they are likely to try to make the game closer to 5e now than when they started. Especially when it comes to things that "don't matter", such as Exhaustion Rules (personally I preferred the playtest version).

I’d venture so far as to suggest that they went more out there in the beginning to see if any really wild ideas stuck, knowing that they’d have to tack back toward compatibility eventually regardless. Like I think they always knew that things would get closer to 2014 as the playtest went on.

Either way, though, I hope they give second chances to some stuff they’ve moved away from, like less extreme exhaustion, before the end.

And I really hope that more than 20% of people dislike the current proposed TWF rules/options and half-caster warlocks as much as I do…

 

[Parmandur]

I’d venture so far as to suggest that they went more out there in the beginning to see if any really wild ideas stuck, knowing that they’d have to tack back toward compatibility eventually regardless. Like I think they always knew that things would get closer to 2014 as the playtest went on.

And it makes sense, it's hard to know what wacky ideas will appeal unless you put them out there.