D&D (2024) Upcoming One D&D: Unearthed Arcana 'Expert' Classes (Bard, Ranger, Rogue)

WotC has posted a video describing the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest document which will feature three of the core character classes, each with a single subclass.

This document is the second in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the

2014 Player's Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!

Inside you'll find the following content:

Expert Classes. Three Classes appear in this document, each one a member of the Expert Group: the Bard, the Ranger, and the Rogue. Each Class appears with one Subclass. More Subclasses will appear in Unearthed Arcana in the months ahead.

Feats. Feats follow the Class descriptions, particularly feats available to the classes in this document.

Spell Lists. Three Spell lists-the Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists-are featured here. The Ranger uses the Primal list, and the Bard potentially uses all three, thanks to the Magical Secrets feature.

Rules Glossary. In this document, any term in the body text that is underlined appears in a glossary at the end. The glossary defines game terms that have been clarified or redefined for this playtest or that don't appear in the 2014 Player's Handbook.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature

This is all I’m going to bother with. The rest is intentionally insulting drivel.

At least read my post if you’re going to pedantically multiquote it into the most tedious possible epistolary novel.

Rangers attain magic in order to protect the wilds and civilization, especially where the two meet. Not from doing so.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Rangers attain magic in order to protect the wilds and civilization, especially where the two meet. Not from doing so.

How? How do they attain magic in order to protect the wilds? The other classes explain why they have magic. Rangers basically don't.

And why don't they attain magic through protecting the wilds? Wouldn't that make for more interesting story hooks? And for better class design? Nature spirits (like Chwingas! or dryads!) could grant blessings to forest rangers for doing them a service, giving them magic. That would be more interesting than "IDK, you're like a Druid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How? How do they attain magic in order to protect the wilds? The other classes explain why they have magic. Rangers basically don't.

And why don't they attain magic through protecting the wilds?

Because there isn’t any reason to change what’s there.

Wouldn't that make for more interesting story hooks? And for better class design?

No.

Nature spirits (like Chwingas! or dryads!) could grant blessings to forest rangers for doing them a service, giving them magic.

Sounds like a fun subclass for an “even more magic” subclass more strongly associated with spirits.

Beyond that, it sounds more like the source of a boon or the like.

That would be more interesting than "IDK, you're like a Druid.

Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because there isn’t any reason to change what’s there.

Yes, there is. Giving a reason

No.

Can you please explain beyond a single word?

Sounds like a fun subclass for an “even more magic” subclass more strongly associated with spirits.

Beyond that, it sounds more like the source of a boon or the like.

Just a boon or a subclass? But what about all of the different types of nature spirits? There's a ton of them in D&D. There's Fey, that could be a subclass. Elementals could be another subclass. So could awakened beasts, powerful sentient plants, and even naturally occurring undead from the Shadowfell. That's way more than a single boon. Each of those concepts could easily be expanded to full subclasses.

Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?

I am aware and it's intentional. This is what the PHB gives as an explanation for how Rangers do magic:

Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.

In some places, rangers gather in secretive orders or join forces with druidic circles.

As you create your ranger character, consider the nature of the training that gave you your particular capabilities. Did you train with a single mentor, wandering the wilds together until you mastered the ranger’s ways? Did you leave your apprenticeship, or was your mentor slain—perhaps by the same kind of monster that became your favored enemy? Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds.

"IDK, you have magic like a druid" is an accurate summary of what WotC gives in 5e for why Rangers can cast spells. They're "familiar with the wilds, and harness nature's power like a druid, and possibly trained in mystic paths".

That is less than any other class has for an explanation of their magic. I'm being reductive because the fluff text barely gives anything and it boils down to "you're like a druid". The other half-casters aren't like that. Paladins get magic from their oaths. They often side with Clerics, but they aren't reliant on the Cleric's way of getting magic (worshipping the divine). Artificers build contraptions and use tools and magic items to channel spells. That's different from Wizards.

I don't know who I'm insulting by being reductive. I'm just saying that the fluff text for why Rangers get magic is weak compared to the other classes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you.

Mod Note:

When you start a post with something like this, it’s almost guaranteeing that whatever responses follow will be confrontational. And that’s not conducive to constructive conversations.

Let’s dial it back a bit. Thanks.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?

I am aware and it's intentional.

Mod Note:

And here’s a great example of how not to be a good discussion participant. You’re done in here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The rest is intentionally insulting drivel.

Mod Note:

Please, don’t respond to provocative posts with anger and insults in kind.

It just escalates things and potentially puts YOU in the crosshairs of the moderation staff.

 

[Starfox]

I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined

I am worried this might be the case.

 

[darjr]

I am worried this might be the case.

Sorta, but already it’s more and less. The 4e roles were strictly about combat for instance. At least initially, weren’t they? These are not.

Grouping classes provides a place to hang things on and a good idea regardless of edition.

I’m just fretting a bit about the growing complexity.

 

[Starfox]

Monk is a fighter-like class by default, its just the faster, but less health variant, that focuses on Ki resources to do extra cool stuff basically, it has a pretty consistent theme on multi-attacks procing on hits effects though

My take on the monk is that it is a rogue that trades sneakattack for speed - a scout without the bite.