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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).

This is the part that most strongly indicates bias and preference, btw.

PF2E managed to make a particular type of game. Far from a better one, though. They didn’t manage to do something 5e has failed to do, they just made a different kind of game. That’s it.

 

[Eric V]

See the bolded, above.

Staying strictly within the rules while being just disrespectful enough to goad the other person into being discourteous.

!!!

The bolded part is me saying professional game designers CAN design things a certain way (it shouldn't be be beyond them to be able to do that), so that if they don't, it's because they're CHOOSING to not do so (because of the design goal of popularity).

How is this insulting or even controversial?

As for me mentioning PF2E...you're still wrong in your assumptions about me. Again. I never said I preferred that system; I brought it up to show that making a non-spell ranger that is efficient is possible.

 

[Faolyn]

I do wish that there were slightly different rules for spells for different types of casters. I mean there already are, wizards vs sorcerers for instance, why not extend that to rangers? Say they don’t need some or many of the components and/or they are not arcane and can’t be dispelled or counter spelled.

But then what happens with multi class characters?

I suppose if you went with spells-as-powers, then there wouldn't be a big issue there. A ranger/wizard would have wizard spells and ranger magical powers. Ditto if you built most or all classes using a warlock-esque chassis or picking and choosing "invocations."

Heck, go back to Ye Olden Days where the only spellcasters were clerics and wizards, and maybe druids. Everyone else gets magical powers.

 

[darjr]

I suppose if you went with spells-as-powers, then there wouldn't be a big issue there. A ranger/wizard would have wizard spells and ranger magical powers. Ditto if you built most or all classes using a warlock-esque chassis or picking and choosing "invocations."

Heck, go back to Ye Olden Days where the only spellcasters were clerics and wizards, and maybe druids. Everyone else gets magical powers.

Well I was more leaning toward less homogeneous rules per class.

 

[grimslade]

First off: Baggins, James Baggins. James Bond is a halfling with the Lucky feat is hilarious.
Second, what are we discussing anymore? The sacred cows are all enshrined now. There will be no holy bbq in the One D&D playtest. Spells are the default resolution mechanic for anything beyond a simple d20 roll. As one of the proponents of psionics as a new subsystem, I have come to accept this slowly. So are we just spouting game design for discussion's sake?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's plenty clear nothings' really off the table by now, so I wouldn't put away the grill and humorous apron just yet. Hopefully.

 

[Umbran]

Keep your courtesy trolling.

Mod Note:
Do you get he irony here?

If someone suggests that maybe you're not being all that nice to folks, being a jerk to them in response doesn't exactly prove them wrong.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Except that I referenced the half-caster spell progression--since I looked at the ranger's spell list at the time--and used the wrong name for it.

"More spell exclusivity" isn't helpful when you can't actually get the spells you apparently need to have in order to be a ranger until much higher level, but at the same time, have no non-magical abilities to make up for that lack.

Aaaand ignored. Oh well.

Same. Pretty weird. Oh well is really the only reaction. Some other poster, I forget who, swears blind they don't have me on ignore, and I definitely don't have them on ignore, because I can see their posts, but they can't see mine! So maybe something wacky is up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I humbly request that the idea of 'preparing' spells be tied to the wizard only.

And then maybe we not have the wizard.

You have my axe!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not sure I count brief rules for specific situations as “a whole subsystem”. I mean, I guess you could; I’m not going to argue there’s a threshold of column inches required. But then let’s get rid of the word “rule” and call everything a subsystem.

The poster I'm responding to regards the subsystems within spells as subsystems - they said as much, so it's a subsystem.