Dungeons & Dragons Playtests Four New Mystic-Themed Subclasses

Dungeons & Dragons has dropped their first Unearthed Arcana playtest of 2026, with four brand-new subclasses being tested. Today, Wizards of the Coast posted a Mystic Subclasses Unearthed Arcana playtest to D&D Beyond, featuring four magic-themed subclasses. The new subclasses include the Warrior of the Mystic Arts Monk subclass, the Oath of the Spellguard Paladin subclass, the Magic Stealer Rogue subclass and the Vestige Patron Warlock subclass.

The Warrior of the Mystic Arts is a spellcasting subclass that grants Monks the ability to cast Sorcerer spells up to 4th level spells. The Oath of the Spellguard is designed with protecting magic-casters in mind, while the Magic Stealer Rogue targets spellcasting and can empower their Sneak Attacks with magic stolen from nearby spellcasters. The Vestige Patron Warlock forms a bond with a dying god, with the god taking on a vestige form as a companion. The Vestige companion grows in power with the spellcaster. Notably, the Vestige Patron draws inspiration from the Binder from past editions of D&D.

There's no indication when or what this new Unearthed Arcana could be related to. There are several Unearthed Arcanas not currently attached to an announced D&D product, although two almost are certainly tied to a Dark Sun sourcebook.

You can check out the subclasses here. Feedback opens for the playtest on January 22nd.

 

[Charlaquin]

Building around the encounter as the primary mode of challenge rather than the adventuring day can absolutely work, and 4e was an excellent example of that design done very well. Though, I find that the main drawback of that approach is it tends to mean you have to win every encounter or die (or critically injured or whatever if character death is off the table). The nice thing about the attrition model of difficulty is that retreating to recover offers a failure state other than death or knockout.

 

[Morrus]

How about a list of all the games nominated? I know its in the voting page I think but I'd love to have a copy.

I want to know where my voted games showed up

I think we're in the wrong thread!

 

[Kurotowa]

Building around the encounter as the primary mode of challenge rather than the adventuring day can absolutely work, and 4e was an excellent example of that design done very well. Though, I find that the main drawback of that approach is it tends to mean you have to win every encounter or die (or critically injured or whatever if character death is off the table). The nice thing about the attrition model of difficulty is that retreating to recover offers a failure state other than death or knockout.

Also, honestly? IME a lot of players don't want every encounter to a hard fought life or death struggle. They want a majority of fights to be one-sided in their favor so they get to feel powerful and show off their cool tricks, building up to a big climactic boss fight that's challenging and dangerous. Which is, ideally, what the current design offers.

Having every encounter being legitimately challenging is what I think of as a "rare steak preference". It's what most people say they want, because it's the answer with social cachet that matches their self-image, but when put to the test the number of people that actually enjoy it is much smaller.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, honestly? IME a lot of players don't want every encounter to a hard fought life or death struggle. They want a majority of fights to be one-sided in their favor so they get to feel powerful and show off their cool tricks, building up to a big climactic boss fight that's challenging and dangerous. Which is, ideally, what the current design offers.

Having every encounter being legitimately challenging is what I think of as a "rare steak preference". It's what most people say they want, because it's the answer with social cachet that matches their self-image, but when put to the test the number of people that actually enjoy it is much smaller.

Is that true about rare steak? That’s crazy to me, I love a rare steak! I usually order medium rare if I’m at a restaurant to be on the safe side, but when I cook them myself I aim for rare.

 

[Parmandur]

Is that true about rare steak? That’s crazy to me, I love a rare steak! I usually order medium rare if I’m at a restaurant to be on the safe side, but when I cook them myself I aim for rare.

A quick search finds this from ABC:

 

[Kurotowa]

Is that true about rare steak? That’s crazy to me, I love a rare steak! I usually order medium rare if I’m at a restaurant to be on the safe side, but when I cook them myself I aim for rare.

It's been years since I saw the article, and I doubt I could find it again. But it was something to the effect of a test where they first asked subjects how they preferred their steak, then did a taste test with the same people to see what they actually preferred. And rare steaks scored significantly higher on the survey than they did in the taste test. Thus leading to the theory that people will profess a desire for things they don't actually like because of the social status associated with being the sort of person who prefers that thing.

It stuck with me because I've absolutely seen this effect play out in the MMORPGs I've played. The community will go on a crusade for something like harder raid bosses or less generous loot, because that's perceived to be the stance of a serious elite player, and then when they get it the change is wildly unpopular with nearly everyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's been years since I saw the article, and I doubt I could find it again. But it was something to the effect of a test where they first asked subjects how they preferred their steak, then did a taste test with the same people to see what they actually preferred. And rare steaks scored significantly higher on the survey than they did in the taste test. Thus leading to the theory that people will profess a desire for things they don't actually like because of the social status associated with being the sort of person who prefers that thing.

It stuck with me because I've absolutely seen this effect play out in the MMORPGs I've played. The community will go on a crusade for something like harder raid bosses or less generous loot, because that's perceived to be the stance of a serious elite player, and then when they get it the change is wildly unpopular with nearly everyone.

I hadn’t heard that with steak before, but it makes a lot of sense to me; I know for example that it’s a thing with coffee. When asked people are much more likely to say they prefer “a strong, dark roast” or something along those lines, whereas actual preferences tend towards lighter roasts brewed weaker, and then people still drown it in milk and sugar.

Personally though, I do much prefer rarer steaks. Not blue, but rare to medium rare. Coffee, I prefer medium roasts. Light tends to be too acidic for my tastes, and dark is fine but can be too bitter. I’ll drink good, fresh coffee black, but most coffee shops (at least around here) frankly have crap coffee, so I’ll add milk and sugar most of the time. I try to use as little as I can, mostly just cause you end up drinking a lot of empty calories otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

A quick search finds this from ABC:

View attachment 427732

Well, that’s based on orders, and I’d definitely be in the medium rare category there, despite preferring rare. When you’re ordering at a restaurant, there’s the complicating factor of not knowing who’s handling it, so erring on the side of being more done is just safer.

 

[Hussar]

Building around the encounter as the primary mode of challenge rather than the adventuring day can absolutely work, and 4e was an excellent example of that design done very well. Though, I find that the main drawback of that approach is it tends to mean you have to win every encounter or die (or critically injured or whatever if character death is off the table). The nice thing about the attrition model of difficulty is that retreating to recover offers a failure state other than death or knockout.

But, that's not accurate.

You don't have to make every encounter win or die at all. Some encounters will be easier, some will be harder. But, with the case of encounter balance, you, as DM, KNOW what you're getting into. Take the earlier example of crows that alert the dungeon, turning a series of fairly average encounters into one giant very deadly encounter. With encounter balance, you can much more easily predict how this is going to work out. Will a bunch of off timed (as in arriving in staggered intervals, moderate encounters be extremely deadly? Well, maybe. It's really hard to know in Daily encounters because maybe the casters get off some sort of long lasting effect like a Wall of Fire or Spike Growth, that becomes far more powerful because it winds up dealing damage over the course of multiple encounters.

In encounter balance, you should have a pretty solid idea of how this is going to play out. That's the point. So, you can modify the encounters based on the math of the situation. Because effects end at the end of encounters, a staggered attack becomes multiple encounters, maybe plonk a short rest in the middle while the baddies regroup and it plays out far less swingy.

It's just a much more granular system.

 

[Charlaquin]

But, that's not accurate.

You don't have to make every encounter win or die at all. Some encounters will be easier, some will be harder. But, with the case of encounter balance, you, as DM, KNOW what you're getting into. Take the earlier example of crows that alert the dungeon, turning a series of fairly average encounters into one giant very deadly encounter. With encounter balance, you can much more easily predict how this is going to work out. Will a bunch of off timed (as in arriving in staggered intervals, moderate encounters be extremely deadly? Well, maybe. It's really hard to know in Daily encounters because maybe the casters get off some sort of long lasting effect like a Wall of Fire or Spike Growth, that becomes far more powerful because it winds up dealing damage over the course of multiple encounters.

In encounter balance, you should have a pretty solid idea of how this is going to play out. That's the point. So, you can modify the encounters based on the math of the situation. Because effects end at the end of encounters, a staggered attack becomes multiple encounters, maybe plonk a short rest in the middle while the baddies regroup and it plays out far less swingy.

It's just a much more granular system.

It’s easier to balance encounters and make them easier or harder, yes. But other than running out of HP, how exactly does one lose in an encounter-based challenge structure?