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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I could see Acrobatics existing as its own thing if WotC at least gave it some fall damage reduction properties...

Fall damage/trajectory control and ignoring difficult terrain, yeah.

I'll likely be homebrewing the hunter choices back in, I preferred some of the other options over colossus slayer for some of my rangers.

Absolutely. If they folded the options into the base class as a secondary part of favored enemy (maybe at level 6 or 7), is also be fine with that.

 

[Dr. Bull]

Personally, I am very excited about this whole process.

As one of the many people who disliked 4e, I was very glad that WOTC initiated a play-test for 5e. In my opinion, 5e is far-and-away the best version of D&D. A lot of that is due to the feedback that we provided.

I just hope they bring back Halflings who have large, hairy feet! The current (5e) artistic interpretation of Halflings is mildly disturbing to my delicate sensibilities...

 

[DeviousQuail]

Personally, I am very excited about this whole process.

As one of the many people who disliked 4e, I was very glad that WOTC initiated a play-test for 5e. In my opinion, 5e is far-and-away the best version of D&D. A lot of that is due to the feedback that we provided.

I just hope they bring back Halflings who have large, hairy feet! The current (5e) artistic interpretation of Halflings is mildly disturbing to my delicate sensibilities...

I'm looking forward to the jokes between 5e and 1D&D rules.

Spoiler: A Silly Conversation

5e Ranger: Looks to be a 10ft leap over the chasm and 10 more feat to the bugbear. No problem with a running start. I'll attack him and then you finish him off my roguish friend.

1D&D Rogue: Okay but how are you going to attack him? You have to jump first.

5e Ranger: Yeah. I'll jump and then attack him.

1D&D Rogue: But you can't do that. You have to use your action to jump. You won't have an action left to attack with.

5e Ranger: Those mushrooms you ate must have rattled your brain. Just follow me. <draws two longswords>

1D&D Rogue: Well now you're just cheating. You can't wield two weapons at the same time that don't have the Light weapon property.

5e Ranger: I have a very mediocre feat that says otherwise. Oh look, the Bard is here.

1D&D Bard: Sorry for the delay lads. Took a couple points of exhaustion from some dodgy mushrooms.

1D&D Rogue: Happens to the best of us.

5e Ranger: <looks on in horror> How are you being so casual about this, Bard!? We need to retreat and get you rest immediately.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine. Would be nice to see a little less magic and a little more crafting (or any crafting really) in service of that goal.

Like, can we get mundane poison or trap making built into a class somewhere?

Probably not, since wotc seems to view nature in D&D worlds as inherently magical. Not consistently, but enough so that alchemy and the good poisons and using herbs to heal people all eventually turns into magic.

In that context, it makes sense that the ranger is magical.

But I would love to replace favored enemy with bane poisons that do things like making a critter have to concentrate in order to stay aloft in flight and take damage when it moves more Than half speed, or lose regeneration.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I hate the current spell list dynamic a little more the more I think about it.

Why can’t Rangers cast evocations? What whack nonsense is this? WTF Bards can’t cast 1/3 of the damn schools!? Hahahahahhahaha no. Garbage.

I'm happy with the magical ranger, as long as it can do its thing, whatever its thing is.

I also think it would be best to get the magicalness from your subclass, so you could cover the non-magical Rangers as well.

If they change how much magic can come in a subclass, maybe, but even then a subclass that grants magic always focuses almost entirely on that magic. 1/3 casters are 90% just Spellcasting. They’d have to make ranger subclasses take up much more of the class’ power budget.

The only way I could see it working is to give the ranger base class a resource that magical subclasses can use for Spellcasting, but other subclasses use for non-magical things.

But the D&D ranger, as it stands, is a survivalist who combines martial ability, skill and magic to be able to operate in hostile territory.

I think the Ranger is just…a ranger in a world full of dangerous magic. Also “hostile terrain” isn’t, to me, super important to the concept. They’re just as likely to protect a place like Lothlorien from hostile things from outside, in very much not hostile terrain.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I strongly object to "bard". They got their identity in 2e and in 3e they were only a shadow of themselves.

 

[Minigiant]

If they change how much magic can come in a subclass, maybe, but even then a subclass that grants magic always focuses almost entirely on that magic. 1/3 casters are 90% just Spellcasting. They’d have to make ranger subclasses take up much more of the class’ power budget.

The only way I could see it working is to give the ranger base class a resource that magical subclasses can use for Spellcasting, but other subclasses use for non-magical things.

That's the biggest issue.

The "magic optional" route doesn't work unless WOTC designs a core ranger class features.They tried that in 2014. Everyone hated 2014 Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, HIPS etc.

The "magic optional" ranger would need a new resource tap into for magical or nonmagical features. However they tried that with the monk and the sorcerer and failed hard.

There's no way to go the "magic optional" route without either making subcasses 90% of the ranger, designing a major subsystem just for the ranger, or making the core of the ranger "A fighter with 2-4 Expertise".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hate the current spell list dynamic a little more the more I think about it.

Why can’t Rangers cast evocations? What whack nonsense is this? WTF Bards can’t cast 1/3 of the damn schools!? Hahahahahhahaha no. Garbage.

Actually a good solution.

The bard gets a good selection of spells. They lose out on thunderwave, which is a bit sad, but overall they got an upgrade.

I miss the few druid spells fairy fire and speak with animals. But if you really want, you can get at least one of them through a feat.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Probably not, since wotc seems to view nature in D&D worlds as inherently magical. Not consistently, but enough so that alchemy and the good poisons and using herbs to heal people all eventually turns into magic.

In that context, it makes sense that the ranger is magical.

But I would love to replace favored enemy with bane poisons that do things like making a critter have to concentrate in order to stay aloft in flight and take damage when it moves more Than half speed, or lose regeneration.

Yeah, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. If your schtick is hunting and killing monsters, maybe include some methods to accomplish that goal, beyond "well..generic spellcasting ought to cover it"

The absence of player facing abilities to set and trigger traps is one more curious omission, since using traps in the wilderness has been a real thing for a very long time, and traps in d&d are quite common.

 

[i_dont_meta]

So BIG nerf to Rogues which seem to be hitting an awful lot of Martials (it also hits Hunter, but matters far less there):

You have to "Take the Attack Action" to get the Sneak Attack bonus. That means that you can't, for example, get SA on a Reaction or Bonus Attack-based attack (unless they've also changed those).

That's absolutely a kick in the nuts for Rogues. Drastically decreasing their damage potential and increasing the number of rounds where they'll just fail to land SA. Not sure why WotC felt it was necessary, especially as it is MORE complicated than before, and runs counter to the general trend of simplification.

Subtle Strikes and Elusive are pretty good but very high level.

Also gonna be some Spider-Man stuff going down given both Rangers and Thief Rogues and anyone who takes Athlete will have a full-on Climb Speed equal to their speed!

Yep, but now you can't split your movement types up. So great, you climbed up the wall, but unless you also Dash, you're stuck there. Still situationally useful, but it seems like a nice compromise. And as for SA, not having to use your BA to dual wield hopefully mitigates the lack use as a Reaction.