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]

Every time?! Not for this person.

I said that they fail to please everyone. Not that there aren't people that enjoy the updates or older versions of the Ranger (in my experience, often younger/newer players).

I once had someone online try to convince me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with how the 2014 Ranger was designed and that if it was unbalanced at all, it was because it was too good/powerful, and that the Class Feature Variants for the Ranger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything were "contaminating" the pure awesomeness of the PHB's version of the class. And that person had that opinion because they played a PHB Ranger in a campaign where the DM told them ahead of time exactly which terrains the campaign would take place in for the entirety of the campaign and he railroaded the campaign so much that the players never got an option to go to any terrains other than the ones that the Ranger had chosen as their Favored Terrain (the DM also told them exactly what enemies they would be fighting so the player could use Favored Enemy for the majority of enemies in the campaign).

There are devout fans of every version of the Ranger. The old version (strangely) has some, the Revised Ranger UA has some, the TCoE version has some, and I'm sure the newer version will have some.

What WotC is failing to do "every time" is please everyone. Because people won't agree on what the Ranger is supposed to be.

 

[darjr]

I said that they fail to please everyone. Not that there aren't people that enjoy the updates or older versions of the Ranger (in my experience, often younger/newer players).

I once had someone online try to convince me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with how the 2014 Ranger was designed and that if it was unbalanced at all, it was because it was too good/powerful, and that the Class Feature Variants for the Ranger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything were "contaminating" the pure awesomeness of the PHB's version of the class. And that person had that opinion because they played a PHB Ranger in a campaign where the DM told them ahead of time exactly which terrains the campaign would take place in for the entirety of the campaign and he railroaded the campaign so much that the players never got an option to go to any terrains other than the ones that the Ranger had chosen as their Favored Terrain (the DM also told them exactly what enemies they would be fighting so the player could use Favored Enemy for the majority of enemies in the campaign).

There are devout fans of every version of the Ranger. The old version (strangely) has some, the Revised Ranger UA has some, the TCoE version has some, and I'm sure the newer version will have some.

What WotC is failing to do "every time" is please everyone. Because people won't agree on what the Ranger is supposed to be.

Well I don’t disagree that there seems to be large bases of opposed ranger phenotype fans.

But no one succeeds in pleasing everyone.

 

[darjr]

And I don’t think I’m being to pendant.

They do take on the idea the 5e is kinda most people’s second favorite game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But no one succeeds in pleasing everyone.

Which is my point. The current Ranger debate is like the "lite" version of the Psionic debate. People don't agree on what the Ranger should be, which is why people perceive WotC's versions of the class as having an identity crisis. This isn't actually a WotC problem, it's a community problem.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe. It's just to early to tell what form the races, classes and any conversion/usage of 2014 subclasses will look like. We can't go by what they are saying is playtest. They HAVE to allow it the way they are, really. There's too much not covered by the playtests not to.

Well, yeah, sure. They are also testing mixing all of the new options with 2014 stuff, since that is a stated design goal. That's not a temporary state.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah. Both reasons are valid for why they are doing it. Either way, though, it's too early to think that the language being used is going to be the same or even resemble what will be used when 5.5 is released.

Historically, UA drops have very similar verbiage to final releases, other than mechanical refinements. If anything, I expect the final product will be more conservative than anything so far.

 

[Parmandur]

It wouldn’t even make any sense to say to test the class with old subclasses unless that was intended to work. It’s just suspicion for the sake of suspicion.

I was skeptical of how compatible Classes would be until this drop, bit now itnia clear that when they say backwards compatible, they mean business.

I do think the final version will have more clear guidelines (like changing when old Subclass options drop, or covering dead levels with a Feat), but that will come after nailing down the new Core options.

 

[Parmandur]

There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D. Also inductive reasoning of that kind easily turns into circular reasoning, which is particularly dodgy imo.

The evidence of what WotC said they found when surveying based on their early post release Ranger tests, which clearly informs what they are doing to this day. I see nonserious reason to dobut this.

 

[Parmandur]

I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.

It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.

Actually, I think k what WotC has settled on is basically just the Witcher.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Actually, I think k what WotC has settled on is basically just the Witcher.

That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.