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.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Which features of the paladin did you rate bad? I didn't see any issues.

Mostly how weak Guardian Bond is and how at this level Cleric can access ways to half damage dealt to other creatures, and that you'd be better having protective aura affecting all allies instead. And also that Spellguard Strike is weak and doesn't do anything to actually stop the spell from beign cast.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Mostly how weak Guardian Bond is

Really? I felt that if anything it was overpowered. If you can persuade your DM that by strict interpretation of RAW you can use it on yourself it’s very overpowered.

at this level Cleric can access ways to half damage dealt to other creatures

A cleric is a full caster who can't smite enemies with a mighty sword. Different power budget. The comparison line is what other paladin subclasses can do, not what some other core class can do.

you'd be better having protective aura affecting all allies instead

That's would be missing the point of the subclass. There is no point in having a subclass that is the same as what already exists. If you want to protect the whole team rather than be a bodyguard you can choose a different subclass.

And also that Spellguard Strike is weak and doesn't do anything to actually stop the spell from beign cast.

It does if your attack kills them, knocks them down, stuns them or otherwise takes them out of the fight. It's a bit situational but reaction attacks are generally powerful. Choice of weapon makes a big difference here (try a lance), and is good with a rogue or monk multiclass. I would rate it as better than Natures Wrath.

 

[pemerton]

There is an entity within D&D that WotC refers to as “the multiverse,” and within their canon, all games of D&D are considered to take place within it. Now, you don’t have to treat that as true within the canon of your own games, and there’s really no authority deciding which of those is the “true” canon.

<snip>

But WotC does write as if all D&D games take place within a shared multiverse, which they simply refer to as “the multiverse.”

Sure, but I don't think this shows that it makes sense.

I mean, WotC could write that, canonically, there is a circular square. But that wouldn't mean that the square circle make sense.

Or, they could write that there is a box, and the number of widgets in the box, canonically, is what each D&D player thinks. But that wouldn't make sense either: given that any given D&D player might think whatever they like about the number of widgets in the box, there would be no canonical number of widgets in the box.

And when they say assert that, canonically, my game and setting that they have never heard of, and know nothing about, is part of their multiverse: well, that doesn't make sense either. Especially if I declare that, canonically, my setting is not connected to any other world or setting.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

WotC could write “there is no canon” and people would continue to argue about what is and isn’t canon.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, WotC could write that, canonically, there is a circular square. But that wouldn't mean that the square circle make sense.

amusingly, circles are square-shaped in 5e, due to the way they handle diagonals on a grid.