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

 

[Remathilis]

Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?"

Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.

I think it's important to distinguish between systems and elements of a game. It's easy to remove elements like races, classes, feats or spells, they are distinct nuggets that can be swapped around. If sorcerer is banned, I pick wizard. Systems though touch the larger game and affect it in multiple ways. If I remove short rests or armor class, I'm going to be rewriting a lot of the games rules.

The best way to do things is a simple system with lots of elements in it. Elements can be added or removed to taste as long as the main system is there.

 

[OB1]

Been noodling on the new inspiration rules for a while. My group rejected out of hand getting inspiration on a Nat1 (they didn't like the idea of being rewarded for failure), but it made me think of an alternate rule that combines the first playtest and the 2nd.

Inspiration
Nat20 - When you roll a Nat20 on any d20 Test, you can give inspiration to another party member who doesn't already have it, as they are inspired by your great success

Nat1 - When you roll a Nat1 on any d20 Test, you gain inspiration if you don't currently have it, as you resolve to do better. However, if you do currently have inspiration, you lose that inspiration on a Nat1, as you realize your failure could have been avoided had you dug into your resolve.

This puts pressure on PCs to spend inspiration when they have it (or risk losing it on a Nat1) and also, I think, subtly discourages PCs looking to 'inspiration fish'.

Going to see what my group thinks, then submit in the survey after playtesting.

 

[darjr]

I find the less rules a game has the easier it is to home brew and add on the fly. No worries if you’re stomping on some obscure feat or corner case or accidentally nerfing or buffing up some other rule.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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

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

To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard. A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something. A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard. A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something. A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.

I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers.

For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it.

DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells.

I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.

 

[Wyckedemus]

I like D&D having D&D tropes. I like that the baseline conceit for all D&D worlds is that magic is prevalent, and many classes interact with the magical world in some way. The spell system is a solid toolbox for all D&D classes to be able to reference an non-comprehensive suite of powers within the universe, even if they access those magical powers in different ways outside of traditional spellcasting progression. I like the spellcasting D&D ranger, as it is very D&D to me. I want a spellcasting magical ranger who can alternate between their bow and two short swords who can also have a drake or other beast companion and whose spellcasting lets me keep those companions hearty and alive (and revived) instead of becoming griffon food in every other encounter. Siloing spells and beast companions into different subclasses prevents me from being able to create what I see as a quintessential D&D ranger.

If I had my druthers, I'd let the D&D Ranger be the D&D Ranger, and let 3rd party sources be the authors of "non-spellcasting" rangers if their versions better fit those 3rd party campaign conceits. And when it comes to Adventurer's League, all those campaigns take place in D&D-magic worlds, not low-magic settings, so the argument for low-magic Rangers in supported AL play is less convincing.

As a specific example and opinion, D&D doesn't need to copy Level Up's ranger. The LU ranger is already a perfectly fine non-spellcasting ranger that is completely compatible with D&D. Why are people asking that D&D copy it? I doubt that the 2024 PHB ranger could ever come close to making both spell-ranger fans and LU ranger fans happy. And why would we want it to in the first place? Just play the LU Ranger instead. It's designed to be able to be played alongside the D&D ranger.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers.

For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it.

DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells.

I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.

Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells. I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason. The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them. When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry. He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek. Let us continue looking." How cool would something like that be?

 

[Minigiant]

Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells. I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason. The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them. When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry. He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek. Let us continue looking." How cool would something like that be?

Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.


You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.

 

[darjr]

I’d sure like to know why WotC went this way. Have they explicitly stated?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.


You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.

That particular ability I would settle for it being a spell. If locate creature worked like that it would be cool rather than the anaemic husk the spell is now.