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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You're probably right that it will be a level 4 feat, since that's when ASI's kick in currently. That said, I really don't think it will be to avoid an 18 or 19 in a stat, given that rolling is a default method of stat generation so you can start with a 20. If high stat avoidance was a goal, rolling wouldn't have been a default method for generating stats.

But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.

 

[Yaarel]

Not at all true. The comments are all that really matter. As a former product manager, that's all we cared about. The numbers are almost irrelevant.

In your experience, what exactly were you looking for when your company was attentively reading the comments?

 

[Maxperson]

But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.

It's near to 50/50 point buy/array vs. rolling I think. And yes, they avoided +3, but probably because it would be VERY easy to get a 20 right off the bat if you rolled and could add +3. 17s are pretty common when rolling. Close to 1 character in 3 gets a 17.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is what I would like for bards. They've always(at least from 1e-3e) been a semi-caster with their magic adding to their roguish abilities.

Depending on definition, clerics also were a semicaster before 3e.
You are not wrong, but comparing editions here is difficult.

Bards in 2e were very close to a full caster until they got 3rd level spells at least. This was mainly due to a more generous xp table compared to the wizard, which was not taken into account in the 3.0 era, leading to a very underwhelming class.
To rub salt into the wound, wizards got extra spells for int, on top of the spell slots they got from the table which was exactly ported over from 2e (until level 10), while the bard had to have high charisma to even have the spells they had in 2e, because they somehow substracted 1 from each level's spell slots. So they started with 0 slots of each level. Which lead to the conclusion, that high stats everywhere was a requirement...
Also, spell slot DC was dependend on level, so gaining some spells a little earlier only partially helped. Also the spells bards got did nkt help woth defense, so they were very very mad...

Sorry got derailed...

What I wanted to say: bards in 2e were very capable casters, and they were not in 3e. I love that they were upgraded to "full caster power" in 5e. Although I'd say, only the wizard is a real full caster, as well as the land druid and the sorcerer, because they not only get the full caster spell progression, but a few spells on top and ways to make even more of their spells.

With the tasha upgrade to channel divinity, the cleric also got to "full caster +" power.

So downgrading the bard to half caster would do them a disservice, because it nerfs them below 3.x power which does them a disservice.

If you'd introduce 2/3 casters (going up to level 7) and compensate with something extra, I can live with that. But I can't let it stand that bards were always "half casters".

 

[Maxperson]

Depending on definition, clerics also were a semicaster before 3e.
You are not wrong, but comparing editions here is difficult.

Bards in 2e were very close to a full caster until they got 3rd level spells at least. This was mainly due to a more generous xp table compared to the wizard, which was not taken into account in the 3.0 era, leading to a very underwhelming class.
To rub salt into the wound, wizards got extra spells for int, on top of the spell slots they got from the table which was exactly ported over from 2e (until level 10), while the bard had to have high charisma to even have the spells they had in 2e, because they somehow substracted 1 from each level's spell slots. So they started with 0 slots of each level. Which lead to the conclusion, that high stats everywhere was a requirement...
Also, spell slot DC was dependend on level, so gaining some spells a little earlier only partially helped. Also the spells bards got did nkt help woth defense, so they were very very mad...

Sorry got derailed...

What I wanted to say: bards in 2e were very capable casters, and they were not in 3e. I love that they were upgraded to "full caster power" in 5e. Although I'd say, only the wizard is a real full caster, as well as the land druid and the sorcerer, because they not only get the full caster spell progression, but a few spells on top and ways to make even more of their spells.

With the tasha upgrade to channel divinity, the cleric also got to "full caster +" power.

So downgrading the bard to half caster would do them a disservice, because it nerfs them below 3.x power which does them a disservice.

If you'd introduce 2/3 casters (going up to level 7) and compensate with something extra, I can live with that. But I can't let it stand that bards were always "half casters".

A lot of what you say is correct. However, if you give them better "bard" skills(music, lore, charmlike abilities, etc.), that could compensate for being half casters and they wouldn't necessarily fall below 3e bards.

 

[GreyLord]

They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!! My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many. 1% is 500k. So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.

That's players for the entire history of D&D though.

40K IS 1% of 4 Million.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A lot of what you say is correct. However, if you give them better "bard" skills(music, lore, charmlike abilities, etc.), that could compensate for being half casters and they wouldn't necessarily fall below 3e bards.

I would not like that. But I can live with that, if bard skills don't just feel like a compensation for lost spell slots...
... if it is just a compensation, so why not just give slots.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's players for the entire history of D&D though.

40K IS 1% of 4 Million.

And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.

But sample size is not all that matters.

The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.

They are doing a ritual. And they should be able to do both.

The fighter should be able to do it without casting any spell or the rogue.

 

[GreyLord]

And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.

But sample size is not all that matters.

The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...

The survey is ONE source of information they are gathering...I assume.

I don't know how many ACTIVE D&D players there are, so 4 million is a pretty wild guess. It could be 5 million or 10 million (I would actually say 10 million could be on the excessively extremely high end of guesses, in relation to a PHB buying question I asked previously here, though obviously this could be a skewed sample size in relation to reality, I really need to ask how many use a PHB at the table as a follow up on that).

BUT 40K was 1% of 4 million, so went with 4 million.

However, there are other sources of information (or I am pretty sure there are). Some have been internal tests that have already been going on most likely. Another source are NDA'd testers that are out there (perhaps with a fuller set of rules than what you see with UA). Another source which may not be AS reliable, but easy to see and get commentary live are forums, reddits, facebook, instagram, and other areas of social media that fans congregate and talk about these things. Obviously, an easy one is also to check comments and statements on D&D beyond and other places like that as well.

In addition, it need not just be forums, sending people to the CONS and just listening there to what people are saying and talking about (could be passive, could be active) is another source.

Survey's are a major source I imagine, but the don't have to be the ONLY source of information or feedback they are gathering.