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

​

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your assertion that led to my response was that the DM's authority stops the second the rest of the group says it does.

However, its a bit more than that. Dmes have a lot of power just from the difficulty of their job, a lot of people flat out would not want to dm, and might not be good at it.

But that's a world of difference from "the second the group says it does". I'd estimate that the DM has as much authority as half the rest of the group combined. And the group are not in any sort of DM-opposing coalition unless things have gone very wrong. So yes, the DM has authority - but it isn't absolute authority. They are very clearly the lead but don't have it all.

If you've got a DM who ignores what the group wants and depends on holding the game hostage so they get their way, you still haven't found a good DM.

Agreed.

Yes, rules have changed, but I’m referring to fundamental concepts, like the DM’s role as Referee. Yes, it’s a subjective distinction. No, I don’t expect many others to agree with me about it.

That's only changed about three or four times in the past forty years. But the DM hasn't primarily been the ref since before Gygax left and the Dragonlance modules ruled.

 

[Michael Linke]

That's only changed about three or four times in the past forty years. But the DM hasn't primarily been the ref since before Gygax left and the Dragonlance modules ruled.

5th edition DMG, page 5: "Dungeons & Dragons isn't a head to head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role." and "As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players."

4th edition DMG, page 12: "the DM does act simultaneously as the player controlling all the monsters and as the referee. Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players."

3rd edition DMG, page 9--and 3.5 edition DMG, page 6--gives probably the most powerful explicit definition of a DM's authority: "When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook." Page 17--18 in the 3.5 book--"You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period." and "The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes."

Granted, the second edition DMG is really bad at defining the philosphical role of the Dungeon Master, but for more about 39 of the game's 50 years, the DM has been a referee. I'm not suggesting it's the DM's primary role--at least I think primary was your word, not mine though i could be wrong--but it's been A core function of the DM for most of the game's history, non consecutively, and the idea definitely didn't go away for ever when Gygax left TSR.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Granted, the second edition DMG is really bad at defining the philosphical role of the Dungeon Master, but for more about 39 of the game's 50 years, the DM has been a referee. I'm not suggesting it's the DM's primary role--at least I think primary was your word, not mine though i could be wrong--but it's been A core function of the DM for most of the game's history, non consecutively, and the idea definitely didn't go away for ever when Gygax left TSR.

I said primary and I meant primary. The DM is the one who solves rules disputes - but there is definitely an old school style where the DM at least claims to be entirely disinterested. It's that that has gone.

 

[Remathilis]

Just popped back into this thread after a break and I can say: I have no idea what you all are talking about. Calling things D&D? DM's telling Players "No" now and then? Players not accepting that? Sure, it happens.

But, I WILL say: I can't STAND it when D&D is called "DND"... it's not an N. It just sounds like one when people pronounce it lazily. Please don't spell it that way!

I picked up the habit from the old Usenet boards which didn't allow & in the title.

 

[Remathilis]

A unified group trumps the DM. This I have no problem with as a DM, and if my entire group has united to tell me no about something then I must have put my foot in it pretty badly.

The last time I basically had a united group on one thing that I didn't want was to kick one guy out, and I had wondered myself but it's a messy job. The time before that was pre-pandemic if it's ever happened.

But what's the limit on this?

"We don't accept this TPK. Find a way for us to survive it!"

"We know this is Dark Sun, but Bob's gnomish paladin is too cool an idea to waste. We say he should play his character!

"We've been talking and we agree that we think treasure has been too sparse. We want more magical items!"

How much veto power does this give the players?

 

[Neonchameleon]

But what's the limit on this?

Common cultural understandings.

"We don't accept this TPK. Find a way for us to survive it!"

"We know this is Dark Sun, but Bob's gnomish paladin is too cool an idea to waste. We say he should play his character!

You've heard the comment that when a married couple is fighting over something silly then it's not actually that thing that matters? That sounds like what is going on here. Either this is a strawman or things have gone deeply, badly wrong that it got to that point.

"We've been talking and we agree that we think treasure has been too sparse. We want more magical items!"

Is a legitimate request, not a veto issue.

How much veto power does this give the players?

100%. Just as a marriage has 100% veto power from both sides - but if people are actively using that veto power or wielding the threat of it like a club things have gone badly wrong and are almost certainly on the way.

 

[Remathilis]

Common cultural understandings.

You've heard the comment that when a married couple is fighting over something silly then it's not actually that thing that matters? That sounds like what is going on here. Either this is a strawman or things have gone deeply, badly wrong that it got to that point.

Is a legitimate request, not a veto issue.

100%. Just as a marriage has 100% veto power from both sides - but if people are actively using that veto power or wielding the threat of it like a club things have gone badly wrong and are almost certainly on the way.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of God-emperor DMs. I guess I wanted to know if the PCs could effectively Unionize and demand nothing bad happen to their characters (for example). It's one thing to say "we should get together and decide what the parameters of the campaign are" and another to say "you can't do anything bad to us because we say so!"

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of God-emperor DMs. I guess I wanted to know if the PCs could effectively Unionize and demand nothing bad happen to their characters (for example). It's one thing to say "we should get together and decide what the parameters of the campaign are" and another to say "you can't do anything bad to us because we say so!"

And I'm wondering when this has ever happened in the history of D&D that was not preceded by a God-emperor DM. The PCs in my experience never really want to unionise.

 

[billd91]

Now don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of God-emperor DMs. I guess I wanted to know if the PCs could effectively Unionize and demand nothing bad happen to their characters (for example). It's one thing to say "we should get together and decide what the parameters of the campaign are" and another to say "you can't do anything bad to us because we say so!"

Honestly, at that point, it's pretty much a veto of the whole game unless the DM wants to cater to that particular desire. So, back to the drawing board with finding a DM and a game to pitch to the players...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I picked up the habit from the old Usenet boards which didn't allow & in the title.

At least you have an excuse!

(I'm not as bothered by it as I'm making it look here. I mean, I really don't like it, it's true, but it's not like I'm actually upset about it... I was just trying to bring some levity to the thread...)