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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If they flipped the crit rules back to 2014 core, that suggests any design changes they planned to monsters as far as recharge abilities weren't just about compensating for lost crits.

They don't flip back. They try different things. Probably starting with the most erregeneous.

Then after actually collecting the feedback (which they did not incorporate in this packet (to a big degree), because the survey was still ongoing), they will go with the rule they think can strecht the bounds most into their desired direction, and see if this is still making the internet expolde.

 

[The Last Rogue]

Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.

Agreed. This is the way.

 

[aco175]

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.

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...

Not sure how many others are in my boat, but I did not respond since I do not have a Facebook account or use the other one Google+(?). I did not want to sign up with DDBeyond with my email and such either, but it appears that Wizards is going to be pushing them as the go-to for everything D&D.

The other issue may be like my gaming group where my father does not know how to turn on a computer and my son is not that familiar with the rules to make changes or likely cares enough since he has only seen 5e. So that makes half of my group, not sure if half the players in other groups are in the same boat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.

Nah. Rather make all spells ritual. End of it. If you want to cast a fireball as a ritual, cast a fireball as a ritual. Won't increase the damage output during a fight, but could give enemies a target to go after, tryong to stop it.
Especially if there is a rule, that you can cast spells as rituals even if you don't actually have the slots, if you put in a few pricey material components, then a siege could be a fun scenario, because when the enemy spellcasters line up to cast their fireballs, you are now at a 10 minute timer to get out and stop them.

(Of course they have other casters who protected them against arrows and simple magic. )

 

[Burnside]

The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.

It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.

The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sounds fair.

Same for the moon, but luckily it is constantly missing its target...

The moon’s actually drifting away, at about the rate your fingernails grow.

 

[OB1]

So with expertise, Experts are the classes you play if you want to be the best at skills. What if the other groups use 2x PB to also become the best in their area.

Warriors - Add 2x PB to weapon attacks. These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at hitting things with weapons.
Mages - Add 2x PB to spell attacks. These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at hitting things with magic.
Priests - Get 2x PB recharges of special abilities (assumes SR abilities all move to PB/Day). These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at special abilities. Monks, for example, would get to replenish their Ki points 4 times a day at level 2.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The numbers are easy to show and take almost no time to look at. That is a feature of them, but it's also what makes them not very interesting. They will look at the numbers for sure, but there's no reason to think that they won't read the comments.

Even so, it would be nice and easy for them to acknowledge they read them. No more difficult than crowing about 40,000 participants.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's no functional difference between

• After spending ten minutes you have set up the campsite in such a way that you will be warned if someone enters the area. This works as the Alarm spell.
• You may cast the spell Alarm as a ritual.

True, but there is a difference in feel, which is in many ways the most important thing when it comes to RPG design. That said, as a strong advocate of non-spellcasting rangers, I’m actually 100% fine with rangers casting ritual spells. That feels appropriately ranger-y to me, in a way that combat casting does not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.

It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.

The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.

Yeah I kind of agree with that. I could see the designers thinking in terms of groupings, but I wish they wouldn’t put the label on the package.