One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

55F9D570-197E-46FC-A63F-9A10796DB17D.jpeg


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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The 2014 ranger gets Spells at level 2.
That's the whole point. Ranger's exploration abilities are all spells because D&D lacks exploration pillar mechanics.

What does a +4 in Survival do again? There are no rules for Survival except the optional Tracking rules in the DMG.

Expertise in Survival is nice but core doesn't do anything because there are almost no rules for Survival Checks and its use is fully based on DM fiat. DM Fiat in a community that allows spells to bypass tracking and foraging but won't let you talk to a bird or call a wolf without magic.

What's the Survival DC to tree stride?
Is that is an issue specifically with survival or more general?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wardook

Explorer
Thief's Fast Hands lets them Search as a bonus action... but trapfinding is a Study action and not a Search action... :confused:

Also Fast Hands says that disabling traps and picking locks is a Dex (Sleight of Hand) check that is also made with thieves' tools. The tool proficiency glossary entry states "If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check."

So a thief proficient in both thieves' tools and sleight of hand gets to add their proficiency bonus twice to lockpicking and trap disarming, evidently.
I noticed that also, but decided that Study is used to study a trap, not find/notice it.
 


Anarchclown

Explorer
It is not an upgrade, now you cant use your bonus action to use items, which was in my experience the biggest reason to choose this subclass.
Also. You can't use Sleight of Hands for whatever you want. My players would unbuckle peoples belts to make them drop their pants/gear/whatever, pull their hats/helmets in front of their eyes, draw one of their weapons and throw it away etc. I realize this might come off as me being nice in my interpretation of the rules, but I figure anything that a stage magician can do in real life or a swashbuckler in fiction can do is a sleight of hand check. That is for some unfathomable reason now hardcoded into not being allowed.

Not to mention how much they nerfed the final ability. An extra turn on the first round of every combat is just incredibly much better than an extra bonus hide, disengage or dash action 2-6 times per day.
 

darjr

I crit!
Well the last time they stopped the playtest ~6-8 months before release and a bunch of stuff didn't get properly playtest out of house.
They've said as much too. That they think there was stuff they should have tested publicly but ran out of time.

They've also recognized that may happen to some extent again.

I hope that they have time to test as much as possible.
 

Weiley31

Legend
I like how Dash is in this. Like I feel like instead of saying "doubles your speed", it pretty much allows you to have another move action. Which does the same thing, technically, but is a much clearer method of doing/explaining that.
I do like how you can choose the Movement Speeds that you possess. So, Aarakorca can either walk or fly. And if said Aarakorca takes the Dash Action, they can move 30 feet (a running start) and then for the bonus move action (Dash), they pretty much "Leap into the air" and start flying through the air, wings flapping.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I love that they made it only something to use on a failed roll, that alone will cut down on the spamming enormously (especially since, with only 1d4, you know it's not worth using if the player rolled a 2), but I feel like they may have over-corrected with the once-per-day-per-target part, since it's hard to track across a whole group and will lead to "Did I already use it on you today?" discussions that will bog down the game.
One of the first things I did in my game was tell the players that cantrips were unlimited, because they weren't being used 24/7 and if they wanted to do things like spam that 4 times a minute(one per PC), they would eventually run themselves out of power. The game didn't intend for cantrips to be spammed that often.
Plus, it makes it a really weak cantrip. When you're selecting a spell that's going to have no limits on how often you can cast it, are you really going to go for the one that, realistically, you'll only be able to use 3-4 times a day in an average-size group?
Yes, absolutely. It turns failed rolls into successful ones and it's not uncommon for the failed roll to have serious or even critical impact on the game. It may be used infrequently, but it's still extremely valuable.
 

MarkB

Legend
Yes, absolutely. It turns failed rolls into successful ones and it's not uncommon for the failed roll to have serious or even critical impact on the game. It may be used infrequently, but it's still extremely valuable.
It turns very marginally failed rolls into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so the number of times it's even going to be a close enough fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal, and even on those occasions you still stand a strong chance of not rolling high enough - either because you rolled poorly on the d4, or because the DC wasn't within that margin in the first place. And succeed or fail, once you've given that character the d4, they're locked out for the rest of the day.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It turns very marginally failed rolls into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so the number of times it's even going to be a close enough fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal, and even on those occasions you still stand a strong chance of not rolling high enough - either because you rolled poorly on the d4, or because the DC wasn't within that margin in the first place. And succeed or fail, once you've given that character the d4, they're locked out for the rest of the day.
I forgot about the once per day aspect. That does make it much weaker.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
They've said as much too. That they think there was stuff they should have tested publicly but ran out of time.

They've also recognized that may happen to some extent again.

I hope that they have time to test as much as possible.
Maybe this is me being optimistic, but I recall in one of the videos they talked about the planned release schedule, and while I don't think they committed to it in definite language, my takeaway was that they were open to extending the playtesting window if they felt it necessary based on the feedback.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
It turns very marginally failed rolls into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so the number of times it's even going to be a close enough fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal,

1 in 8, I believe. Well, 1 in 5 that it’s close enough to try, but 1 in 8 that it also succeeds.

(Very low DCs mess up the numbers a little bit, but I think it’s negligible.)
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
My biggest gripe with what they got for us this time is that while I don't mind the move to prepared casters preparing as many spells as they have slots per level, it's not very clear just by reading it and the fact that a prepared caster can cast any spell they've prepared using an appropriately-levelled slot is completely glossed over. I feel like that should be explicit in and of itself, and not the kind of thing buried say, seven to eight chapters later (Wouldn't that be funny if they did that? Haha...).

Bard looks good; It's kind of sad to see Font of Inspiration move so far down the table but it's not like Bards are underperforming in terms of their ability to inspire people so I don't mind at all. Something I do kind of raise an eyebrow at about them though is the Songs of Restoration; I don't mind the extra spells, and I don't mind having a character that auto-prepares healing spells like that, even if it encourages people to be a healer when they don't necessarily have to be, but...I feel like there's a better route of implementation. For example, why not let them spend Bardic Inspiration dice out of their pool to cast one of those spells (at a cost of 1 die per spell levle) like how they now allow it to heal individuals on its own? Then it's still available on a case-by-case basis, and after level 7 they can have any of those spells ready in an hour's time and use it often enough for the whole party (unless you're rocking that 16-person configuration; Apologies). I don't mind the nerf to Magical Secrets (if you can call it that, really, since they still get a ton of spells by 20th level as-is), and I much prefer Improved Cutting Words to the extra pair of spells you used to get.

Ranger doesn't rub me the wrong way as badly as it has for some people apparently but the things that irk me about it are pretty out the gate. I feel like if anybody's getting Expertise at 1st level, it really should just be the Rogue, especially since Rangers got a bit of a buff to spellcasting thanks to sharing the same list as Druids and getting cantrip access. I would much rather see their Expertise turn on at 2nd level just to give Rogues some more leverage. Does Hunter's Mark really need to be a spell at this point? I don't think anybody is going to complain if they just got rid of it and made everything it did a mundane feature exclusive to Rangers. I wish the die scaled a little better than...twice ever...or maybe they could let you add more dice at higher levels (even if it's just like, two instead of one). I like Roving, I like Tireless (though maybe it should give more than 1d8 hit points, since they also nerfed Inspiring Leader with this packet), Nature's Veil should probably be looked at because it sounds cool but it's a bit of a silly use of spell slots, I do miss Natural Explorer (regular OR revised) and Primeval Awareness, and maybe Feral Senses could do something more or different than blindsight, but blindsight ain't bad...The Hunter is alright, too. I think maybe Hunter's Lore could at least let the Ranger's weapon attacks ignore resistances against their target, since resisting weapon damage is so common later on, but I like the variety it offers. The only other thing it could improve is maybe instead of conjure barrage they give you an option for melee damage dealing specifically; I know Barrage is technically usable in melee since it's a cone but I think people would appreciate having the option of a close or long range spell that they can use in different ways.

I'm beside myself with the rogue. I like the Thief they present here more than the original by a long shot, but the Rogue itself feels like, in spite of the fact that it didn't really change, it changed just enough to make me uneasy. But it's not offensive, and Rogues are still Rogues as I know them give or take, so maybe it's a desire to see more done with rogues overall.

My miscellaneous notes:
  • R.I.P. Inspiring Leader 😥
So warlord concept will be less supported
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Are most DMs going to let a ranger
  1. heal
  2. remove toxins
  3. remove curses
  4. speak with animals
  5. speak with plants
  6. entangle foes with vines
  7. instantly train a beast
  8. instantly befriend a beast
  9. jump 60 feet
  10. gain darkvision
  11. breath water
  12. shoot exploding arrows
  13. charge their sword with fire
  14. charge their arrow with lightning
  15. meld with stone
  16. meld with trees
  17. scry
  18. defeat scrying
without magic in a way that is still revelant in a adventure?
Do most rangers need to remove curses, meld with stone or trees, turn their weapon into an energy weapon, or scry or defeat scrying in order to be a ranger?

  1. Healing and removing toxins: herb lore (Medicine, Herbalism Kit; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that do just that).
  2. Speaking with, befriending, and training animals: understanding animals (Animal Handling; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that allow for this quickly, although not instantly).
  3. Speaking with plants: reading the signs of distress in plants, understanding what caused damage to plants (Herbalism Kit, Nature).
  4. Entangling foes with vines: building traps (Survival)
  5. Breathing water: breathing through reeds, breath holding and training (Survival)
  6. Charging weapons with energy: using natural or semi-magical reagents (weird plants and fungi or bits from animals and monsters) that react when used on weapons and produce different damaging effects).

I'm not saying that magical rangers are objectively bad, and I know that lots of people like them. But, well, they're not really needed to fill the "wilderness warrior" niche. Level Up has a nonmagical ranger with one third-caster archetype.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Do most rangers need to remove curses, meld with stone or trees, turn their weapon into an energy weapon, or scry or defeat scrying in order to be a ranger?

  1. Healing and removing toxins: herb lore (Medicine, Herbalism Kit; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that do just that).
  2. Speaking with, befriending, and training animals: understanding animals (Animal Handling; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that allow for this quickly, although not instantly).
  3. Speaking with plants: reading the signs of distress in plants, understanding what caused damage to plants (Herbalism Kit, Nature).
  4. Entangling foes with vines: building traps (Survival)
  5. Breathing water: breathing through reeds, breath holding and training (Survival)
  6. Charging weapons with energy: using natural or semi-magical reagents (weird plants and fungi or bits from animals and monsters) that react when used on weapons and produce different damaging effects).

I'm not saying that magical rangers are objectively bad, and I know that lots of people like them. But, well, they're not really needed to fill the "wilderness warrior" niche. Level Up has a nonmagical ranger with one third-caster archetype.

So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.
 

darjr

I crit!
So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.
Option 6 sounds like a poisoners kit.

Also two weapon fighting and Robin Hood level of archery from somewhere.

Not kidding. This is an interesting endeavor.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.
No, but rangers should have more access to them, get different uses out of them, and probably get bonuses to them--and the D&DOne playtest seems to give them expertise.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Sure, just like everyone with Religion is a cleric and everyone with Perform is a bard.
Except the character class versions... Have magic!

But that does help prove my point: any character can be proficient in performance and be an entertainer, but what makes a Bard head and shoulders above them is magic. Same with a priest and a Cleric, a woodsman and a Ranger.

Excellent example. Well done.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top