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

 

[darjr]

No more than animal friendship does. Good grief it’s practically word for word copy pasted from the spell right down to the bit about food.

I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.

It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.

I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.

 

[Hussar]

I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.

It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.

I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.

But this argument got lost a long time ago. D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is. The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point. I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play. And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.

Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it. If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time. Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system. Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow. Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.

And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers. Full stop. That's just how it will be. 5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop. Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities. So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it. If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time

That fight was lost.
People should have spoke up in the 5e playtest if they wanted healing potions, animal languages, fantasy botany zoology, and geology, and nonspell teleports.

Fill out your surveys.​

 

[Remathilis]

And are not affected by things that affect ducks (an anti-duck field, for example), and aren't generated the same way ducks are, yes.

Perhaps they don't use duck slots.

Yes, the "I call this duck a goose so that I get all the duck advantages with none of the drawbacks"

I'll concede the point when I start seeing anti-martial fields and a spell that negates battlemaster maneuvers.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.

It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.

I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.

Yup.

DM: the goblin horde has a shaman and casts silence over the entire area!
Wizard: oh no! My spells are useless!
Cleric: oh no! My prayers is useless!
Fighter: I guess it's my time to shine! I use my Flaming Volley ability where I light a bunch of arrows and shoot them into the area. Everyone takes 8d6 damage, Dex save half.
Wizard...
Cleric...
DM....
Fighter problem...?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I see no problem there.

 

[Delazar]

But this argument got lost a long time ago. D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is. The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point. I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play. And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.

Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it. If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time. Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system. Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow. Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.

And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers. Full stop. That's just how it will be. 5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop. Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities. So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.

I don't like it, but I actually 100% agree with this. Still, I learned to live with it, and if I want my ranger to be "non-magical" I'll fluff my spells as mundane abilities, and only pick those spells that I can somehow explain in that way. Some DMs allow it, some don't, I just have to live with it.

As a DM, I ofc allow it all the time.

 

[gorice]

Anyone can learn to make poisons, or study the weaknesses of monsters, too.

The idea of the ranger in D&D not having magic is absurd. It’d be like saying they should’t use bows.

Magic is a tool set. Why would rangers ignore the toolset of magic when the wilds are full of magical dangers?

My brother in Christ, this is a world in which there are eldritch abominations beyond human ken living in people's basements. Going by your logic, fighters and rogues should also be wizards. Commoners should be wizards. Either magic is something special that only some people can do, or it's something everyone and everything has, in which case it's not magic.

Yes, the "I call this duck a goose so that I get all the duck advantages with none of the drawbacks"

I'll concede the point when I start seeing anti-martial fields and a spell that negates battlemaster maneuvers.

In the fiction of the game, what does a battlemaster do when they attack someone with a sword? Is it perhaps different from muttering an incantation and calling on an unearthly power? An anti-martial field already exists, it's called 'armour'.

 

[darjr]

It’s still magic in Eberron. And armor isn’t anti-martial, many martials wear it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My brother in Christ, this is a world in which there are eldritch abominations beyond human ken living in people's basements. Going by your logic, fighters and rogues should also be wizards.

Fighters and rogues aren’t trained extensively to live and work in the wilds in order to protect people from supernatural dangers.

Commoners should be wizards. Either magic is something special that only some people can do, or it's something everyone and everything has, in which case it's not magic.

“Everyone can do it” doesn’t follow from anything I said.

In the fiction of the game, what does a battlemaster do when they attack someone with a sword? Is it perhaps different from muttering an incantation and calling on an unearthly power? An anti-martial field already exists, it's called 'armour'.

None of this makes sense or relates in any way to anything I said.