Dungeons & Dragons Playtests Four New Mystic-Themed Subclasses

All four are brand-new subclasses.
616073312_1278114021018394_6254575957019215282_n.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer


log in or register to remove this ad

How much different is that from the Against the Giants keeps or Cattle Ravenloft or the Caves of Chaos? There is no time limit, not every room has worthy combat encounters nor are they required to explore every one of them to complete, and players can enter and exit freely to rest between encounters. You're describing a fundamental problem with modules since inception.

I will give pf2e/D&D4e one thing: encounter based resource attrition might be unrealistic but it's a lot easier to design encounters around.
Sure, a DM has to apply some sort of time pressure or mofivafjon to make it a challenge the players want to engage with.
 

There's no good reason not to inform people of how the game was designed to handle encounters
The 2014 guidance confused people to the extent that DMs who have been playing for years and posting on these very forums still don't see that WotC still uses the same guidelines to design Dungeons. Should they have communicated it more clearly? Probably. But if people tend to udnerzhoot the difficulty, then WotC own Dungeons just look cool and challenging, I guess.
 

The people who designed the 6-8 medium encounters per day system also no longer believe in it.
Mearls seems to be leaning towards 2-3 encounters per short rest with only one short rest.

Is there an intense desire for D&D as Attrition in the modern era? I don't know that I see it outside of people who think balance is more important than story.
I do not know how "intense" the desire is, but I doubt WotC keeps writing books that provide it if nobody were buying.
 

Not really "since inception". There was no "you should have X many encounters per day" in early D&D. None of the old adventures were designed around a particular number of encounters.
Right, 5E numbers were built around taking old Modules and making them something that a party of 4 can handle, not the other way around.
 

Town dies.
Putting every adventure on a death clock gets old real quick*. And it gets to the root of the problem with the concept - it's restricts the ability to tell stories, which is actually D&Ds biggest selling point**.


*Also, I've noticed that when there is a countdown of this sort the players will always try to stealth to the end. They don't want to waste time fighting minions when the town needs saving, they will rush straight for the boss (lots of recon tools in 5e).

**It's certainly not tactical combat, there are games that do that much much better.
 


Right, 5E numbers were built around taking old Modules and making them something that a party of 4 can handle, not the other way around.
5e numbers usually change very little, aside for the level sometimes.

Really, people here think adventure writers do complex maths to work out what to put in an adventure?! They never have done anything of the sort.
 

Putting every adventure on a death clock gets old real quick*. And it gets to the root of the problem with the concept - it's restricts the ability to tell stories, which is actually D&Ds biggest selling point**.


*Also, I've noticed that when there is a countdown of this sort the players will always try to stealth to the end. They don't want to waste time fighting minions when the town needs saving, they will rush straight for the boss.

**It's certainly not tactical combat, there are games that do that much much better.
it isn’t always a death clock. Procrastination has consequences in both real life and in game.

Took too long trying to find the treasure at the end of the dungeon? A rival party got there first. Went three rooms deep and then left the dungeon to rest? Those rooms got repopulated with reinforcements or new monsters wandered in.

There are many ways to give consequences to parties trying to abuse rest rules without making it a death clock.

Also, one of the biggest pieces of advice in the new DMG is about players and DMs respecting each others times. If you’re a DM and your players are trying to abuse a system, talk to them and tell them you’re not interested in running that type of game. Respecting each other and what we all want for the game is rule 0.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top