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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hope wizards have to chose 1 school at level 1 to specialize and need to chose two schools to ban.

love this

 

[Willie the Duck]

That's disappointing, actually. Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important. Now it's not really a big deal at all.

I think that's the reason. So many people found the even one or two levels of exhaustion so debilitating* that they effectively retreated until restored once they hit that (making the rest of the scale superfluous). It's the situation of a damage-scale to dangerous with which to engage. Symabaroum and Wraith: the Oblivion have the same issue: permanent corruption was so onerous that players don't go near the point where they risk gaining any (making most of the scale leading up to it wasted).
*In exploration/survival situations, even one level got you disadvantage on all the skills you would use to explore/survive, making people highly resistant to pressing on.

It looks like they have, in essence, ported the DMG rules for social interaction into the PHB, at least for the purpose of this UA.

Kind of has an old-school vibe to it, insofar as it is akin to having the rules needed to play the game as such in the player-facing book.

Hmm. My recollection is that that was kinda all over the map. Looking at 1E and BX, in BX most of the resolution information is in the Player section, but 1E puts most of the rules of play in the DMG.

[URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
[/URL]
@JeremyECrawford

Replying to
@XXXXXXXX
Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.


7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone

He was calling people who questioned were phantoms. By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must be cautious about how they word it. The state of the person you are responding to

He said that '[they] don't want their design to chase phantoms.' Unless you think the game design chases individual people, your interpretation of his comments literally do not make sense. The second half of the sentence clarifies what phantoms are in contrast to ('real desires held by a large number of players.'). He seems to be, in effect, saying 'we're looking into the possibility of alternate classes, but we are still in process of making sure that it would address the desires held by a significant number of people'), which is a perfectly reasonable position to have. The way he said it is a little tin-eared and clumsy, but it is unsurprising both that a gamer might be a little socially inadept or that someone shooting out a quick tweet on Twitter might accidentally step on toes (seems to be the reigning stereotypes of each thing).

More broadly, none of that has anything to do with whether the creators have big egos or not.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

[URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
[/URL]
@JeremyECrawford

Replying to
@XXXXXXXX
Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.


7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone

Yep, didn’t call you a phantom.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Unless they specify that mages can't cast in armor, getting medium and shields for one feat will be great for Sorcerers and Wizards, no need to be multiclassing or going specific races.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If it was something that PCs inflicted on enemies some of the time, attitudes to it would change drastically. Add a few PC-friendly rules for doing so and suddenly it'll become both liked and feared, rather than just seeming like a bit of a chore.

LOL my friend, WotC didn't believe Wizards were OP in 3rd edition when LFQW was in full force. So their judgement is proven bad.

In 5E, where the issue is less pronounced, I don't expect them to get it. Right now Wizards are fairly balanced in combat, but OP compared to non-full-casters in the exploration/social pillars (often by negating/sidestepping issues entirely), especially at higher levels.

All the changes we've seen here look overall to continue that.

They're full casters with access to an incredible spell list, and some of the subclasses are extremely strong. MC'ing with Fighter is not letting you "keep up", it's a great way to ensure you permanently lag behind and never see the true power of a full caster. So with no insult intended, the fact that you did that suggest you don't understand the issue on a fairly basic level.

I can't access the material until the end of the day. Do we get the spells themselves? Most of the worst issues with Wizards are specific spells, and then the spells/long rest issue that all spellcasters have compared to classes with more always-on abilities. It's possible that wizards will get a stealth fix addressed in the spell descriptions and rest rules, and stronger 'if you find you don't get X encounters per day, try ______' advice.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that's the reason. So many people found the even one or two levels of exhaustion so debilitating* that they effectively retreated until restored once they hit that (making the rest of the scale superfluous). It's the situation of a damage-scale to dangerous with which to engage. Symabaroum and Wraith: the Oblivion have the same issue: permanent corruption was so onerous that players don't go near the point where they risk gaining any (making most of the scale leading up to it wasted).
*In exploration/survival situations, even one level got you disadvantage on all the skills you would use to explore/survive, making people highly resistant to pressing on.

Hmm. My recollection is that that was kinda all over the map. Looking at 1E and BX, in BX most of the resolution information is in the Player section, but 1E puts most of the rules of play in the DMG.



He said that '[they] don't want their design to chase phantoms.' Unless you think the game design chases individual people, your interpretation of his comments literally do not make sense. The second half of the sentence clarifies what phantoms are in contrast to ('real desires held by a large number of players.'). He seems to be, in effect, saying 'we're looking into the possibility of alternate classes, but we are still in process of making sure that it would address the desires held by a significant number of people'), which is a perfectly reasonable position to have. The way he said it is a little tin-eared and clumsy, but it is unsurprising both that a gamer might be a little socially inadept or that someone shooting out a quick tweet on Twitter might accidentally step on toes (seems to be the reigning stereotypes of each thing).

More broadly, none of that has anything to do with whether the creators have big egos or not.

Now, if he had written ‘trolls’ instead of ‘phantoms’….

 

[gorice]

Absolutely not. If anything Fighter should be a Ranger subclass.

Ranger is a tremendously popular pop-culture archetype will well-defined features, none of which are spellcasting or really any kind of magic except perhaps that relating to animals.

It's more popular, I'd argue, right now, than trad warrior archetypes. Or at least comparable.

Full disclosure: I also think the paladin should be a fighter subclass, and the bard a rogue subclass.

I think the more interesting issue is: what is this archetype actually about, and how should that translate into the game? WotC doesn't seem to know.

I'm also slightly disappointed that they seem to be bending over backwards to make sure that abilities are as "easy" to use as possible. Bardic inspiration is a reaction now. But it felt interesting and appropriate when the bard could take a bonus action to give a physical die to another player--like they are actually taking the time to give a pep talk, a short song, or a witty remark instead of just shouting "Duck!" "Heal!" "Get 'em!" during combat all the time.

New houserule: bard players need to compose a couple of lines of apposite verse (they can choose the metre) every time they use bardic inspiration.

Of course players hate exhaustion. What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?

I like exhaustion! But I also like wilderness adventures, and my characters getting hurt.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

That is not how I interpreted his comment.

Exactly! What people are telling you is that you interpreted the comment incorrectly and are explaining what the comment actually meant.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the more interesting issue is: what is this archetype actually about, and how should that translate into the game? WotC doesn't seem to know.

Katniss Everdeen.

Done.

If you can't make Katniss Everdeen and similar characters into a playable class you have totally failed as a game designer, frankly. It's not hard. They're like, half-way there. (If you're going to argue Aragorn, there's not a huge difference between him and Katniss, even in terms of personality and story arc, surprisingly, it's just she's a purer example of the archetype.)

The issue is simply that for whatever godforsaken reason, WotC think Rangers have to have magic. I have no idea what that reason is, but it means the entire class gets bent around being a half-caster, which doesn't fit with the pop-culture archetypes of Rangers.

Exactly! What people are telling you is that you interpreted the comment incorrectly and are explaining what the comment actually meant.

But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.

 

[gorice]

re: Ranger

Expertise! They way it should always have been. OTOH, I second the complaints about everything else being a spell now. It's so lazy and unimaginative, and doesn't match the fantasy at all. That said, I think some kind of 'mark' ability would be OK.