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

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
Actually, no. My apologies, I misguided you by saying it was an UA, but it wasn't.
It was an article on the official D&D site, aimed to DMs, to help them create home-brew class variants. It pre-dates the UA series. The spell-less ranger was the example they provided as a class variant. It gave up spells, and in exchange received the battlemaster's combat superiority dice and the ability to craft healing poultices and natural antivenom. Afaik, they never made a survey about it.

Edit: It can't be found on the official site anymore, but I managed to find a copy. It's a 2015 article by
Rodney Thompson.
I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
There seems to be an awful lot of miscommunication going on here. Let's all take a breath and see if we can try to understand each other. Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks.
 

Olrox17

Hero
I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?
It worked for that one player who picked ranger in one of my games. He liked superiority dice, and he liked the non-magical healing poultices he could craft.
If WotC offered a ranger variant like that, I think people might be satisfied. A problem with the current Ranger is that some of its class features just assume spellcasting is available.
 




Cadence

Legend
Supporter
But, again, that's not really the point that's being made. Level Up simply replicates spells, calls them "not spells" and now we have a "spell less ranger". Sure, it makes them different, for a given value of different I suppose, but, it's rather pointless.

Then again, I always underestimate the power of presentation when people look at this stuff. I look at the "knacks" and see spells. Sure, they aren't slotted and what not, but, they're just spells. No different than an Elemental Monk. Yup, he's casting spells with Ki, but, the point is, he's still casting spells. They work like spells, they are written exactly like spells and are limited in exactly the same way (limited use/day, very specific parameters (why, for example, can I Animal Friend Knack a 1/8 CR beast, but not a 1/4? What's the in-game justification there?) and function pretty much exactly the same as spells.

But, they're not spells. :erm:

Look, it's simple. 5e has decided that most "powers" (whatever you want to call them - in game stuff that you can do that is limited by the mechanics) are spells. So, now, when you have a class that does something, everyone uses the same format. Players don't have to relearn the wheel every time they play a different class.

For one, I'm VERY happy that they are standardizing this. I don't get to play very often and I really struggle with remembering how to do spells for different classes. How many spells do I have prepped, do I prep spells, what spells can I prep, what spells do I know - that's different depending on what class you play. Sometimes I get two new known spells/day... sometimes not.

Bugger that. Just have every class work the same and I'm much happier.

It feels like names have a lot of power to some/many people when discussing psionics too. Whereas some/many others find it much ado about nothing.

Does calling them knacks, prayers, spells, whatnots depending on class, but having them all work the same as spells, work for you just as well mechanically and for ease of play?
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
That’s the thing that is most missing here in general. People gleefully jump on the slightest mistake or ambiguity and assume the least generous interpretation, or extend an opposing argument to the most ridiculous extreme.

The forums would be a nicer place if every post that began with “So you are saying that…” were instantly deleted. (Even though I’m sure that I, in the heat of the moment, have used those exact words.)
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I'd like to see, but know I won't see WotC deal with this monster they created head on and make it clear that not every discrete ability a character has is magic or a spell and they will not be entertaining or encouraging that sort of thing anymore. Swinging a sword? Ability. Spending HD? Ability. Shooting a bunch of arrows? Ability. Moving? Ability. IT's all abilities and then we add keywords to say what those things actually function as.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top