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. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one-dnd


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.


log in or register to remove this ad


I crit!
Thinking on it though, the players now vs then, a non magic Ranger might see better acceptance.

Then being at the next playtest and all of D&D before this stage in 5e.
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think they should trade Freedom of Movement for Raise Dead for Songs of Rest. I'm fine with most of the changes.

It does have some interesting implications. So far we haven't seen any Priest feats, so I'm curious about that.

I think Divine Soul will likely be part of the 48 because it's more popular then one or both of the PHB subclasses, it fills a useful role, and it's one of the most effected Sorcerer subclasses by the spell list changes (will it get access to the who divine Spell list and Arcane Spell list? Will it count as a Priest? Thematically it should).

I noticed thanks to feats that Pact Magic is still a thing.

I like Epic Feats, it's clearly intended to make level 20+ easier.

Ritual caster sucks, it's kind of pointless if any source of a spell knowledge allows you to cast the spell as a ritual. There are needs to be more ritual spells,like Magnificent Mansion should go back to being a ritual like it was in the D&D next playtest.

I will also notice that the change to spell lists and class groups and the standardization of subclasses levels seems hint heavily that it's to make making new classes easier and more compatible with the 5.5e content and other feature content. Like you don't have to keep updating a class because new spells automatically get added to it's list and some with feats and so on. That they did this really shows they have plans for more classes.

TThe closest you can get is multiclassing Rogue and Fighter, which produces a mechanically disappointing and rather flavourless result.
I'm not seeing anything that Katniss does to make her not a fighter or rogue or couldn't be done with those classes, outside of class based mechanics for inspiring a revolution (which ranger also wouldn't have). She sneaks around and shoots people with a bow. She knows natural hazards and lays some traps, which is using the survival skill or tool proficiencies. She applies healing poultices with the Medicine skill or Herbalism kit tool proficiency. Yeah, she doesn't use magic. She's from a world where it doesn't exist.

I don't think that's enough to base a class and 4 subclasses on when rogue and fighter already exist. Now, if you want to argue those classes don't get enough cool stuff and meaningful choices, I would definitely agree. And sadly the rogue appears weaker than the one already out now (though Ranger and Bard also appear worse to me), so I'm not holding out any hope that the fighter won't be more of the same garbage.
Last edited:

Since Rangers get expertise, for Survival and Stealth should they choose, does that mean Wizards will get something for Arcane? Or will the Ranger(now), Bard, and Rogue still beat them out on that field?
Sure, Wizards can actually cast spells. That's their special thing for Arcana.

In the unlikely event that a Rogue decides to have an 18 Intelligence and takes Arcana as one of their two Expertise skills, I'm sure the wizard can cry themself to sleep each night on top of their vast amount of spells they get to repick each day to fit the situation, while the rogue's abilities are locked in stone.


I suggest reading the Strategic Review article where the Ranger was introduced. It is not mysterious.
I understand where the class came from. But, I think there's a long distance between there and where it is now.

There is also the Ranger as a D&D trope all on its own like the first TSR published version of it and forwards. People playing it regardless of Aragorn etc and expecting a “D&D Ranger”.
This right here. The ranger is a hollow copy of a copy, and people project all kinds of different fantasies onto it.

I came away from reading this playtest document with a lot of mixed feelings. Overall, the mechanical changes are positive. But at the same time, it feels like there is an unneeded level of overcomplication and word bloat.

Suggested spells and skills, for example, increase the word count, page space, and feel like it overcrowds a lot of class layout. Likewise, a number of feats have about 1-4 abilities that they grant the PC. And with the idea of level prerequisites for feats, class types (e.g., expert, priest, etc.), the game feels like it's adding a lot of extra complication. I suppose my own desire would have been for something that simplified, streamlined, and clarified a lot of the game. While some things are simplifying, it also feels like it's drifting in an opposite direction from many of the "easy to learn" aspects that many have lauded about 5e.

To be "that guy" once again, I walked away from reading this playtest document with the sentiment that I can't see how anyone can credibly say that learning another non-5e RPG is that difficult or time consuming, especially if they find it acceptable to learn all these rules and accompanying changes for One D&D. It's a head-scratcher.

This feels like a drift to a rules heavier system, and it's at a time when my tastes are drifting in the opposite direction, though not full rules light.
Something odd about 5e is that it seemed relatively light when I started playing it, and every successive year, it seems more bloated and finicky. I don't think it's only changing tastes (I still like a bit of crunch), I think it's that the system is superficially simple, but the years have really shown how creaky it is. It also seems (based on personal experience) like the play culture has drifted toward a more literal-minded, rules-driven kind of play than was originally envisioned, which only exacerbates things.

From reading the Light [Weapon Property] and Equipping Weapons under the Attack [Action] section it looks like the Quick Draw bullet for the Dual Wielder feat does very little. It lets you draw or stow two weapons when you could normally only draw one. But with the new equipping rules you can equip or stow a weapon before or after any attack made with the Attack Action. The Light weapon property says

"When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage."

Nothing in there says you need to already have a different Light weapon in your other hand to make use of this extra attack. So you could take an Attack action, draw a weapon with the Light property, attack with it, tell the DM your going to make an extra attack, draw another Light weapon in your off hand, and attack with it. Unless I missed something it seems like anyone can draw two weapons in a round as long as they are both Light.

I guess you could still find a use for Quick Draw if you switch between weapons, items, and foci regularly. But that seems like something separate from what dual wielding should be about, which is using two weapons simultaneously in combat. I mostly welcome the changes to two-weapon fighting in the packet but this feat seems pretty bad. Upping one weapon from a d4 or d6 to a d8 and a second feature that doesn't do much isn't worth passing on other feats.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads