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

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Ah yes, that iconic name, Hank...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

By this logic, Rangers should never have existed in the first place, because they're based on Aragorn, who does even less "Ranger stuff" than Katniss (quite a lot less), and also doesn't do magic.

I mean, I won't disagree. It's goofy to try and make a specific guy with a bloodline legacy into a class. I'm surprised the 1E ranger didnt an ability to make ghost kill an army. Wizards don't have "be friends with giant eagles" just because Gandalf did it. But the D&D ranger, as it stands, is a survivalist who combines martial ability, skill and magic to be able to operate in hostile territory. THAT is at least something to hang a hat on. Trying to split the hairs of why Katniss isnt a rogue just seems looking for any reason to not call her a rogue and arguing backwards.

You seem to be using an entirely circular definition of a Ranger, which is that, they have magic, and in order to be a Ranger, they have to have magic, otherwise they're just a Fighter.

It's completely and profoundly missing the point of classes. Classes exist to embody fantasies. WotC have said this on multiple occasions, note. They do understand that, at least conceptually. The fantasy of being "A Katniss type" or "An Aragorn type" is not handled at all by a Rogue, and not handled well by a Fighter.

Like what does Katniss do that can't be done by a rogue? All she is is an archer with nature expertise and a craft traps feature!

Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting.

If we're at the point where we're denying people who obviously fit the pop-culture archetype of a Ranger are Rangers, just because they don't have magic, we can see there's a problem.

You've described a rogue with some decent rules for crafting traps. She doesn't go for a straight up fight so completely does deal sneak attacks. Rogue doesnt mean Thief. She uses traps (bolstered by dealing sneak attack damage) and snipes with a bow. Rogue seems perfect even without a Scout subclass. If I showed up to a game as a Rogue with expertise in survival and stealth, and training in nature/herbalism kit, I'd be pretty ticked if I couldn't emulate every single thing she does (at least in the movies, never read the books). Requiring a class feature to make a deadfall, recognize and take advantage of super wasps, or lead someone into bad terrain is just taking away those options from other characters who have the skill. Expending writeups on skill usage to be equal to page count on spells would be much better than trying to have "The Katniss" class do all the heavy lifting (and walling off those abilities in the process).

She is, also very importantly, not in a magical fantasy world! So of course she doesn't use magic because that's not an option. For that matter, should bards not cast spells or magical abilities because I want to play Ruby Rhodd?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"
JUMP [ACTION]
With the Jump Action, you attempt to leap more
than 5 feet (a jump of 5 feet or less is treated as
Difficult Terrain). When you take this Action,
your Speed must be greater than 0, and you must
make a DC 10 Strength Check (Acrobatics or
Athletics). If you don’t Move at least 10 feet
immediately before this Action, you have
Disadvantage on the check.
On a failed check, you leap 5 feet horizontally
or vertically.
On a successful check, the check’s total
determines the distance in feet that you can clear
horizontally, or half that total if you’re jumping
vertically (round down). This jump doesn’t
expend your movement, but the distance you
clear can’t exceed your Speed.

"

Please, please, please.

Merge Acrobatics and Athletics into a single "mobility" skill called Athletics.

Climbing includes balancing. Jumping includes falling.

Athletics can sometimes apply to a Strength check and sometimes a Dexterity check − but it is the same skill.

(The abilities themselves are problematic. The Athletics skill is a single skill.)

Yes please. It's baffling that climbing and jumping aren't associated with acrobatics. They may as well split stealth back up into move silently and hide in shadows.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Chaosium/Nocturnal Press has a book in which the ranger loses the Spellcasting trait and gets proficiency in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom saving throws, a second extra attack at 11th level, and Expertise at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th level.

This is the Ranger I've used in my games for years and it's been pretty popular as an option.

I bet it's popular. It's way better than the fighter. Ya'll do know Dex based fighters are a thing, right?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Except that the scout knows Thieves' Cant for some reason, and is skilled with thieves' tools (not a ton of locks to pick out in the wilds!), and doesn't know how to use a longbow. The smaller hit die isn't great, either.

I was really hoping that 1D&D was going to relegate Thieves' Cant and thieves' tools proficiency to backgrounds, but so far that isn't the case. As it is, the rogue is a poor choice on which to base a martial wilderness warrior; there's just too much residue of the guild thief in the base chassis.

And my cleric knows spells they'll never cast. Most classes know weapons they'll never use. Allowing people to sub tool/languages should be the default, same as those granted from ancestry.

I do find it ridiculous that Thieves' Cant is still a thing.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

And without the ability to use long bows. Great idea.

Does Katniss even use a longbow? It seems to be a hunting bow.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I bet it's popular. It's way better than the fighter. Ya'll do know Dex based fighters are a thing, right?

Isn't the point of literally every class that isn't the fighter to be better than the fighter? That's not a very high bar.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine. Would be nice to see a little less magic and a little more crafting (or any crafting really) in service of that goal.

Like, can we get mundane poison or trap making built into a class somewhere?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine.

Huh. Interesting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine.

I never looked at it that way but yeah they are WAY more witcher then any ranger I can think of (including Drizt)