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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Those gods were slain but remembered. A remembered god who is slain can get better. That's why you have to take their portfolio and instruct your church to wipe out theirs. Easier in the early days of a setting.

Vestiges are dead and forgotten. Vestige gods are often of fallen pantheons or purposeful erasure. That's why they can only make warlocks. They are dead and have too few people who even know about them. And the kicker is "binders aren't necessarily worshippers of them". So they stay down.

Different edition, different rules.

 

[Minigiant]

Different edition, different rules.

Sure.

But the old rules were better.

Warlock could get a pet subclass elsewhere.

The point of a Binder or Vestige Warlock is that you have multiple weak  patrons instead of 1 powerful one. Thats why they were vestiges: large wells of magic energy with little conscious influence and smaller taps of power.

Like the Level 3 Vestige spells and level 14 free summoning works as you can flavor them as 2 different vestiges.

But the dying god flavor is IMHO dumb. D&D deities don't go in a dying state per se. They are alive or dead, known or forgotten. It feels like a kludge to make a summoner warlock.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Okay, okay, okay... but what if they adapt Ravenloft II: The House On Gryphon Hill as part of the Ravenloft update?

And what if they use the original cover art?

The blond woman swooning in the vampire’s arms had dark roots in her hair, and a peasant dress with a plunging neckline. She looked like she came from an MTV music video with a Gothic horror theme, made for a 1980’s hair metal band like Cinderella or Whitesnake.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, there is no more reason to suppose the Horror UA points to a Ravenloft book (VGR only had two subclasses) than this one points to a Complete Arcane book. They would all fit into a Xanathar's style book of general player options. The simple number of subclasses currently being tested points to that.

Having more Subclasses than Van Richten's, while also updating all the options from Van Richten's, would work well for a Ravenloft product like unto Forge of the Artificer. And all the other hints around Ravenloft make that seem a likely guess. And not incompatible for the Subclass options to be in multiple books, that happened with Tasha's, Eberron, and Theros.

Having said that, I'm more inclined to think that some of these class names are just bad, rather than changed to conceal something, unless someone can come up with a convincing theory about what is being concealed.

WotC is better at game math than they are at naming things, it's a simple fact. However, if they wanted to obfuscate, say, a Universe Beyond crossover, weird names could be an effective disguise.

 

[TwoSix]

Yup.

This is a very sad version of a Binder that has zero flavor.

It’s really just a vestige of the iconic 3.5 binder.

 

[TwoSix]

This. Exactly this. That was the point of the class. A highly versatile class where you picked from a menu of powers to use for the day (or whatever period). You were never great at anything - but, it really was the best (IMO) Jack of All Trades class.

Mage Hand Press has a FANTASTIC version. I just have to find someone who will let me play it. Binder Base Class - Mage Hand Press

I had a player run one a few years back. No notes, just an awesome class.

 

[Sulicius]

Dying god sounds cool. I really dig the concept.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Having more Subclasses than Van Richten's, while also updating all the options from Van Richten's, would work well for a Ravenloft product like unto Forge of the Artificer. And all the other hints around Ravenloft make that seem a likely guess.

A Ravenloft campaign adventure, with maybe one or two subclasses, seems a much more likely option. I really very much doubt we will ever see another Forge of the Artificer. Unlike Eberron, VGR runs on core rules, nothing needs updating.

WotC is better at game math than they are at naming things, it's a simple fact. However, if they wanted to obfuscate, say, a Universe Beyond crossover, weird names could be an effective disguise.

True, but I can't think of anything - not even a crossover with Avengers Doomsday - that would call for it, given that they didn't bother for Dark Sun.

 

[Parmandur]

But, here's the thing. Binder's were absolutely nothing like druids. They shared nothing. So, making a warlock subclass that's pretty much carbon copy of a druid subclass and then calling it a binder is not really hitting the mark of what a binder is. A binder is someone who draws from the residual powers of beings that have been lost to reality. They were weird and full of flavor. "Oh, I have a pet that does fire/necrotic damage" is not at all what a binder was.

Mystic monk overlapping with Eldritch Knight makes a lot of sense considering they are very similar concepts. No problems there. But a binder shares absolutely no commonality at all with a druid.

Given that many of the main designers at this point started with 5E...I doubt this originated as an attempt to replicate a Binder. Someone probably thought it would be fun to explore a Pet Warlock, and then they found the Vestige term that hasn't been used or twenty years and several editions to hang on the idea.

 

[Parmandur]

A Ravenloft campaign adventure, with maybe one or two subclasses, seems a much more likely option. I really very much doubt we will ever see another Forge of the Artificer. Unlike Eberron, VGR runs on core rules, nothing needs updating.

Well, what did Forge of the Artificer have? It had Subclasses and Backgrounds for player stuff, then for DMs it had Bastions, magic items, Monster statblocks, and Campaign Frames. I could easily see a short book with Ravenloft Subclasses and Backgrounds, along with Bastions, magic items, Monster star blocks, and Campaign Frames. Since a Ravenloft campaign would be different than Greyhawk Standard, it would be handy to have some Gothic Fantasy equivalents to what was in Forge. I do not see any reason they wouldn't do the format again they did Planescape after Spelljammer was kind of a mess and I don't see Forge having been received poorly enough for them not to try another small book like that. It is very plausible.