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

 

[WarDriveWorley]

So thought about the new spellcasting for the bard and how it could affect the sorcerer and wizard.

The new bard can effectively prepare spells from the "bard list" (Arcane spells from appropriate schools plus magical secrets spells) and doesn't have a spells known list. Effectively the Bard's list is their spells known list.

It's not a stretch to think they'll do the same for the Sorcerer, although they could be more restrictive with Sorcerers.

Assuming (yes I know what they say about assuming) that they do this with the Sorcerer that removes one of the major divides between the wizard/sorcerer classes.

I would also assume that if they do this then they should (SHOULD in caps) use class abilities to differentiate between the two, but who knows. Maybe I'm grasping at straws here

 

[Willie the Duck]

But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.

Unless we accept that Crawford thinks that the games' design can chase people, ScuroNotte's interpretation (that individuals are being called phantoms) requires an actual subject-verb-direct object mismatch. It is possible that Crawford was being mean spirited, and/or implying that SN's complaints weren't a majority opinion, but their specific complaint is genuinely not supported by the evidence provided.

This has definitely become a tempest in a teapot. I agree, it is not slander, but SN didn't support their position on Crawford calling them a phantom, or more importantly the initial suggestion that Crawford has a large ego. He may, but we simply don't have anything that shows it.

I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.

Everything that is iconic for a ranger could be represented by a not-spell. Heck, half of the ranger spells (hunter's mark, conjure volley, entangling strike, pass without trace) readily could be represented as non-magical (if occasionally extraordinary) abilities. 5e has doubled down on the ongoing D&D-ism of making things (especially most mechanical widgets that don't have a specific failure-chance like a skill) into spells. I think it would be possible to pull them all out into a warlock's invocation-like selection of abilities. It is a question as to whether that's what gamers in general really want (and I won't pretend to have a bead on that). It also would mean that the new spell-less ranger would not have a few not-particularly-rangerish spells like cure wounds, lessor restoration, dispel, etc. that I think people tend to still like rangers being able to do as the backup healer and such.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right?!

I was trying to think, has Drizzt EVER used Ranger spellcasting, and whilst I daresay, given he's been 39 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) different books, I daresay in some he did, it's certainly not a core component of the character. Having "only" read maybe 9 or 10 Drizzt books I can't think of a single example of him casting a spell, so it if happened, it was not memorable or dramatic in those.

Similarly, Rangers in podcasts and the like very rarely seem to cast spells, and when they do, they often have them reskinned as abilities.

So yeah, that they keep pushing half-caster has how Ranger works seems really wack in 2022. Even 4E was messed up in this way, I note. 4E fixed most conceptual problems with most classes, but nope, not Ranger. Ranger got a whole bunch of weird-ass magic. There may have been a version that didn't, I forget, but the main one sure did.

If only there was a version of ranger in some awesome 3pp of 5e that didn't require magic at all...

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Now, if it's just one big, same pool of Primal spells, do Druids get access to previously Ranger-only spells? Only Druids get them earlier, like lv9 Swift Quiver?

It's like making a spell out of what could've been a class feature causes weirdness...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This stuff is probably good to remember.

new weapon options is intresting... I REALLY want that home base thing now, and the revised monsters and encounters

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Anything is an improvement on the PHB, but... I preferred Tasha's Favored Foe, because its uses scaled with your level without spending your slots. The new Hunter's Mark feature is one free casting, then it's back to being the best way to use your lv1 slots (especially with free attack from TWF without spending bonus action now), no fun spells allowed.

Hunters Mark can be shifted to new targets only one casting of it per fight is needed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is a question as to whether that's what gamers in general really want (and I won't pretend to have a bead on that). It also would mean that the new spell-less ranger would not have a few not-particularly-rangerish spells like cure wounds, lessor restoration, dispel, etc. that I think people tend to still like rangers being able to do as the backup healer and such.

There's no reason a non-caster Ranger couldn't provide some healing, Aragon/Katniss-style (they both heal people). Healing doesn't need to be finger-waggling and invocations to the gods. Just have them able to apply out-of-combat healing via herbs/salves etc.

So that's a non-issue.

If you want to be a Druid, play a Druid. Or multiclass with Druid. Right now there's no real way to be spell-less Katniss-type in D&D. The closest you can get is multiclassing Rogue and Fighter, which produces a mechanically disappointing and rather flavourless result.

I strongly suspect that when this goes to actual playtest, and in the months from now, a lot of people will have negative feedback about Rangers basically being quasi-Druids. We'll see though.

5e has doubled down on the ongoing D&D-ism of making things (especially most mechanical widgets that don't have a specific failure-chance like a skill) into spells.

Sorry to be a pedant but that's not a D&D-ism, it's a 5E-ism.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Hunters Mark can be shifted to new targets only one casting of it per fight is needed.

Yes, duration of 1 hour, but usually people have more than that one fight. I guess it really encourages Rangers to keep things moving once in a dungeon, at least.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

There's no reason a non-caster Ranger couldn't provide some healing, Aragon/Katniss-style (they both heal people). Healing doesn't need to be finger-waggling and invocations to the gods. Just have them able to apply out-of-combat healing via herbs/salves etc.

Agreed. Give them something that allows healing as an ability. They can flavor it however they like, but it doesn't have to be magic.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Yes, duration of 1 hour, but usually people have more than that one fight. I guess it really encourages Rangers to keep things moving once in a dungeon, at least.

I’m at work and can’t check the UA out yet, but does HM have a cast at higher levels effect? Longer duration maybe?