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]

The Beastmaster is one archetype, and I fail to see how the rest of that contradicts the Witcher hypothesis.

There are 3 "Pokemon Trainer" subclasses: Beast Master, Drakewarden, and Swarmkeeper. And there's the summoning spells that Rangers get access to. Clearly, controlling animals is a pretty big part of the 5e Ranger identity.

And, I'm not saying that 5e Rangers don't have a lot of common elements with Witchers. I agree. I just think that 5e Rangers have a lot more than that, and a lot of them are kind of contradictory/"too much" for a single class to have in their "core identity".

 

[Parmandur]

There are 3 "Pokemon Trainer" subclasses: Beast Master, Drakewarden, and Swarmkeeper. And there's the summoning spells that Rangers get access to. Clearly, controlling animals is a pretty big part of the 5e Ranger identity.

And, I'm not saying that 5e Rangers don't have a lot of common elements with Witchers. I agree. I just think that 5e Rangers have a lot more than that, and a lot of them are kind of contradictory/"too much" for a single class to have in their "core identity".

But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.

 

[JEB]

Oh, Rangers have been 5e's "Witchers" (as in "Magical monster hunters") since before Blood Hunters. The Hunter subclass was in the PHB. The Monster Slayer was in XGtE.

I mean, the Witcher as a popular figure predates the 5E take on Rangers, and the WotC survey data on Rangers predates the Blood Hunter (which was derived from a ripoff of the Witcher).

Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)

Oh, sure and the continued growing success of the Witcher 3 and the Witcher TV show.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.

IMO, yes. And, Warlocks have a more clear niche/identity than Rangers do (especially when it comes to their subclasses). Warlocks are people that made a pact with a powerful non-deity magical entity. All of their subclasses follow that identity, except the Hexblade. Ranger subclasses don't have a single unifying identity like that. They could have. Their subclass could have been their Favored Terrain. They could have gotten bonuses that would benefit them in any favored terrain (damage resistance, additional movement types, additional senses, additional spells, etc), but Favored Terrain isn't the unifying theme of the Ranger subclasses, even though there are some subclasses that have "Favored Terrain, but more!" as their identity (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker).

They could have had Favored Enemy be their unifying subclass identity, too. They could have had Dragonslayers, Giant-Killers, Urban Bounty-Hunters, Doom-based Fiend-killers, and so on. But they didn't. There's a few subclasses kind of like that (Horizon Walker for hunting extraplanar invaders, Hunters for a generic "hunter" subclass, Monster Slayers for generic "monster slayers").

They also could have attached Ranger subclasses to different kinds of natural creatures that they draw on and have had all of the subclasses be "Pokemon Trainers". There could be Elemental, Fey, Awakened Beast, Plant, Dragons, swarms of insects, and Shadowfell-based Ranger subclasses. Instead, there are 3 subclasses that are kind of like this (Swarmkeeper, Beast Master, Drakewarden), but there's no justification for why some druids focus on having magical pets bound to them and the others just don't.

"Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game. However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)

I don't think there is any increased "witcher-ness" in the 1D&D ranger compared to the 5e one. This was just a discussion about the Ranger's identity crisis in 5e, from my viewpoint. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Minigiant]

The ranger has a identity.

WOTC just doesn't want to design something that matches the lore they and TSR both wrote.

For example.

Hunters Mark is a thing. Do you think anyone at WOTC pondered what Beastmaster's Mark, Dragon Slayer's Mark, or Horizon Walker's Mark is?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Gotta admit, I’ve never been able to quite figure out what the Ranger’s niche should be, but “magical monster hunter” is the best I’ve heard.

I just would prefer it not be standard spellcasting mechanics (slots, prepared, etc.).

Maybe something more like Warlick invocations, with plenty of choices that are spells, and plenty that aren’t.

 

[Haplo781]

IMO, yes. And, Warlocks have a more clear niche/identity than Rangers do (especially when it comes to their subclasses). Warlocks are people that made a pact with a powerful non-deity magical entity. All of their subclasses follow that identity, except the Hexblade. Ranger subclasses don't have a single unifying identity like that. They could have. Their subclass could have been their Favored Terrain. They could have gotten bonuses that would benefit them in any favored terrain (damage resistance, additional movement types, additional senses, additional spells, etc), but Favored Terrain isn't the unifying theme of the Ranger subclasses, even though there are some subclasses that have "Favored Terrain, but more!" as their identity (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker).

They could have had Favored Enemy be their unifying subclass identity, too. They could have had Dragonslayers, Giant-Killers, Urban Bounty-Hunters, Doom-based Fiend-killers, and so on. But they didn't. There's a few subclasses kind of like that (Horizon Walker for hunting extraplanar invaders, Hunters for a generic "hunter" subclass, Monster Slayers for generic "monster slayers").

They also could have attached Ranger subclasses to different kinds of natural creatures that they draw on and have had all of the subclasses be "Pokemon Trainers". There could be Elemental, Fey, Awakened Beast, Plant, Dragons, swarms of insects, and Shadowfell-based Ranger subclasses. Instead, there are 3 subclasses that are kind of like this (Swarmkeeper, Beast Master, Drakewarden), but there's no justification for why some druids focus on having magical pets bound to them and the others just don't.

"Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game. However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".

Any fluff for such a class would have to be setting-specific, and WotC doesn't really do setting-specific anymore.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Any fluff for such a class would have to be setting-specific, and WotC doesn't really do setting-specific anymore.

How would it have to be setting specific? "You are the protector of both nature and civilization. You hunt down those that pervert the balance between the two, and use tamed nature spirits to do so." That's setting agnostic fluff that could easily give a unified identity between Rangers and all of the subclasses.