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

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Personally I think the exploration pillar needs to be abandoned as a core Ranger concept, except maybe a couple of ribbons.

Really? What would its identity be without it?

And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually good at it?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Have not read all the posts - but with regards to the spell-less Ranger and desire for low-level magic campaign - what I would do is down-grade all the appropriate spells to rituals, with the limiting factors being

• time (rituals will take time 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour...etc)
• components being costly or rare (may cost HD too)
• training or downtime required to learn more

And the rituals if you want to make it harder may require ability checks (i.e. DC 10 + level of the mimicked spell), so there is a chance of failure.

I'm not confident WotC would provide a parallel system (spell-less ranger) with the PHB.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Really? What would its identity be without it?

That’s the million dollar question, right? Best idea I’ve heard is monster hunter/Witcher.

And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually good at it?

Better? Maybe. Not simpler. I’ve yet to see any ideas that both fit D&D 5e and would work well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean Aragorn is a high level ranger and the high level 5e ranger has the attributes associated with Aragorn as the spell list and class features were tailor more to him without additional elements not associated to him like animal companions.

I mean, absolutely not?

Have you read LotR? Because it seems like from this you definitely have no. Aragorn, at most, does some non-magical stuff that perhaps equivalent to some level 1 or 2 spells or cantrips. The idea that a class that is casting spells literally most combats, and repeatedly casting this "kill specific target" spell (Hunter's Mark) is "like Aragorn" is extremely odd.

It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That’s the million dollar question, right? Best idea I’ve heard is monster hunter/Witcher. Better? Maybe. Not simpler. I’ve yet to see any ideas that both fit D&D 5e and would work well.

Well, chances are we'll get a hybrid of the two - a bit monster hunter a bit exploration expert, that fits neither archetype to anyone's satisfaction. Or perhaps I'm just feeling jaded ATM.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.

Oh no @Ruin Explorer!!! What have you done?
I now have an inkling to create a NPC and have him introduced as Bard. James the Bard.

My players will so hate me

 

[grimslade]

The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.

 

[Arilyn]

The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.

This is exactly what I was thinking earlier. It makes spells feel more and more mundane, to the point that having classes do things without the aid of spells feel exceptional. I don't like seeing class features and racial abilities just give you access to a spell. A little of this is fine, but it is becoming more common. One D&D is not going to be hugely different from 5e, but it's adding to the trend.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, absolutely not?

Have you read LotR? Because it seems like from this you definitely have no. Aragorn, at most, does some non-magical stuff that perhaps equivalent to some level 1 or 2 spells or cantrips. The idea that a class that is casting spells literally most combats, and repeatedly casting this "kill specific target" spell (Hunter's Mark) is "like Aragorn" is extremely odd.

It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.

Because the way to do the thing Aragorn does in D&D is spells. Even in the martial heavy 4e, many of the iconic Rangery things are magic.

The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.

In the Past, WOTC would attempt to create other subsystems to sell to fulls of different styles to closer match what they want. Those subsystems we're always magical (invocations, infusions, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, totems, infusions,) but you had options.

That's GONE in 5e and OneDnD.

It's spells and things that refer to spells

 

[Zaukrie]

Because the way to do the thing Aragorn does in D&D is spells. Even in the martial heavy 4e, many of the iconic Rangery things are magic.

In the Past, WOTC would attempt to create other subsystems to sell to fulls of different styles to closer match what they want. Those subsystems we're always magical (invocations, infusions, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, totems, infusions,) but you had options.

That's GONE in 5e and OneDnD.

It's spells and things that refer to spells

That last part? Great point, and I hate it. But it's not changing any time soon....