D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[CleverNickName]

If the full potential of the rogue is gated behind readying an action to attack as a reaction, something is very wrong.

I would argue that "do the most damage in combat" isn't the same thing as "full potential." My games are only about 25-30% combat.

 

[ScuroNotte]

LOL sad obsession with drawing and stowing weapons from WotC continues, despite the fact that maybe 5% of D&D groups enforce that even partially.

I agree. No one enforces that restriction (in addition to donning the shield). And it's a waste of a bullet to include into the feat

 

[Burnside]

ROGUE:

You no longer get Sneak Attacks on a reaction/op attack (why?)

Evasion moves from 7th level to 9th level. Yikes.

Other than that, the base class is almost unchanged

The Subclass offered is the Thief

Second Story Work is mercifully and finally clarified as "you have a Climb Speed equal to your Speed" (which is how I have house-ruled it for years) and you can use Dex to Jump instead of Strength, making this ability actually good.

Supreme Sneak is at 6th level instead of 9th (good)

Use Magical Device is at 10th level instead of 13th (good)

Thief's Reflexes is at 14th level instead of 17th. Good, I think. This is an incredibly strong ability that basically never sees play because it came at 17th level. At 14th level, it still won't see much play, but at least a bit more. For those who don't know, this ability gives you two turns in the first round of any combat - one at your initiative, and the second at your initiative minus 10.

This version is just a straight-up upgrade for the Thief subclass in every way, but it was definitely warranted as the Thief was pretty bad in comparison to most Rogue subclasses.

 

[Weiley31]

I find it interesting that in the Rogue's Weapon Proficiencies, * they make sure to let it be known that although they get *Martial Weapon there, said Martial Weapons have to be Finesse.

Hmmm, that's interesting. If they DO end up making new classes aside from the main PHB+Artificer for OneD&D, the idea of certain classes being able to use a weapon based on the Property it has could be a novel avenue to change up the direction. This UA even mentions something about "New Weapon Options for classes."

 

[ScuroNotte]

Can you not make unfounded personal attacks on people please? Do you know him? Have you talked with him at length?

A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

This version is just a straight-up upgrade for the Thief subclass in every way, but it was definitely warranted as the Thief was pretty bad in comparison to most Rogue subclasses.

It lost its defining feature, being able to use items as a bonus action...

 

[Weiley31]

They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford

Well good thing I use it at my table then.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.

LOL. So you didn't get an answer that you wanted so you took it as a personal attack and made up things about him? OK. Either way, when you folks wonder why designers don't participate in forums, this is why.

 

[gorice]

That's one of those rules that sounds like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.

They way I would look at this is: if the players are determined not to proceed, I think the DM needs to respect that. One way of respecting that is by making their actions have consequences. If they really are camping in the Forest of Death, they've decided they want to fight everything it can throw at them. So, throw it. If they win, they get what they want. If they lose, they suffer consequences.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah I was impressed that they managed to make that significantly worse. That must have taken some serious effort.

Yea, but the changes kinda make sense, right? With the monster changes, it was pretty rare to get the reaction attack outside of some humanoid enemies. And it is a half-feat now, so some power-down was probably necessary. They kept the concentration break ability, and 1/day auto-success on a mental save isn't bad at all for warrior types.