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

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Class identities solidified long before 3e.

For core classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, but not classes like Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc..., I mean Sorcerer & Warlock weren't even classes before 3e.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Interesting that folks are focused on the Ranger, which other folks are largely happy with with some concerns over the Hunter while issueing concerns over the Bard, like it loses a bunch spells and other host of issues.

I think the few nerfs Rogues get will be reversed, Bard's will get a huge redo and the only major Ranger change might be to Hunter.

I didn't even notice Bard's are restricted from Abjuration, Evocation, Conjuration and Necromancy.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm thinking spell schools are going to be less distinctive with these changes (though, to be fair, they have always been changeable through editions), some spells are having their schools changed specifically so that the bard and ranger can still use them with their school restrictions.

 

[Haplo781]

For core classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, but not classes like Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc..., I mean Sorcerer & Warlock weren't even classes before 3e.

Warlock was a 3.5 splatbook class. And across 3 editions, it's hard 3 completely different mechanical identities.

Bard was the AD&D equivalent of a prestige class, requiring levels in fighter, thief, and druid, plus a minimum score in all 6 abilities. Then it became a base class while still being a blend of fighter, thief, and druid. Then it was an arcane half-caster with limited healing and an OP buffing feature. Then an arcane buffer/debuffer with a bunch of forced movement. Then a full casting skill monkey with limited buffing (and possibly debuffing depending on subclass.)

 

[cbwjm]

I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works. While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence.

Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

People actually use 3PP? I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.

It turns out that there are people on the internet who say silly stuff.

 

[TwoSix]

I never looked at it that way but yeah they are WAY more witcher then any ranger I can think of (including Drizt)

That's because Witchers ARE rangers.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works. While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence.

Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.

They will definitely get an exception.

 

[Haplo781]

I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works.

It's like 4e roles but less useful!

While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence.

Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.

I mean, do paladins really need to be better?

 

[JEB]

Assorted thoughts:

• The 2E parallels continue to stack up, with the consolidation of classes into three familiar categories (and one new one).
• Strange that Mages are known for one category of spells, and Priests for two. Why not just consolidate Divine and Primal together? They do both share a lore origin as extraplanar power, now.
• New weapon options, interesting. But will they be feats, like fighting styles have become? There's precedent from 5E, after all.
• The home base rules could be cool, something that would have been very handy for our 5E campaign in 2014.
• We very much needed better encounter-building rules. Hope the third time's the charm.
• We are getting a chance to playtest, and provide feedback, for monsters. Good.
• Multiclassing remains, and also remains optional.
• I do like defaults being provided at every choice point, but they do also make for clutter while reading. Maybe consolidate them into a bigger "quick build" sidebar? That'd also make it easier for players to reference, I think.
• Now that I'm seeing it in class writeups, the term "d20 Test" bugs me for some reason. Simply "Test" would be more appealing (especially since game terms are now underlined).
• So will 3-6-10-14 be the standard subclass slots for all classes, or only for expert classes? This is a potentially important question, because clerics and fighters have five subclass slots at the moment. Four slots becoming standard means either their subclasses lose a feature, or they're doubling up on one slot.
• A related question - the bard only had three subclass slots before, but now they have four. If you use a legacy subclass, do they just have a dead level at the level 14 slot?
• Fighting styles are now feats... but remain exclusive to warrior classes... yet rangers (experts) get them anyway? Curiously, some feats are specifically Expert or Warrior accessible, so they could have given the same prereq for the fighting styles, if they wanted to keep them out of Priest and Mage hands.
• Were there a lot of complaints that Sneak Attack was too good? I'm not clear on why it's being nerfed.
• Also disappointed to see Use Magical Device still a Thief feature, but I seem to be in the minority there.
• While I'm not sold on feats as a 1st-level thing, having some feats like Actor and Observant being 4th-level feels odd.
• I'm mildly surprised material components stuck around.
• I'm also mildly surprised they didn't simplify the way they explained difficult terrain.
• Disappointed at the Exhaustion nerf, but shouldn't be surprised. I do like it being a condition, though.
• I don't like having to go to the glossary to understand what expertise is.
• Getting Inspiration on a 1 bugs me less than getting it on a 20, for sure. I'm also pleased to see it clearly indicated as a reward for staying in character, again.
• Providing Influence guidelines here is good, but it feels more complicated than it needs to be.
• The change to shortswords seems very random.
• Interesting they made Study an action. Guess it was too ad-hoc before?