OneDnD UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The playtests organize the classes into four "groups":
expert, mage, priest, warrior.

These groups resemble the 2e groups:
rogue, wizard, priest, warrior.

Even so, the UA groups behave like 4e roles, in the sense of a wellrounded party will have at least one class from each group. Exactly what each group brings to the party remains unclear, and is unlikely to be the 4e roles. For example, the UA warrior group will probably combine the 4e defender and striker roles, and perhaps have aspects of leader and controller roles as well. The UA expert group will all have the Expertise mechanic to improve skill proficiency. Presumably there is more to the expert group as well. At least some feats will have a group as a prerequisite. So, these feats will also reflect the mechanics and narratives that typify the classes in the expert group.

The plan so far is, the 2024 Players Handbook will have twelve classes and forty-eight subclasses. Possibly, there will three classes per group in this Players Handbook. The expert group will include the following classes: Bard, Ranger, Rogue. The Artificer will also be an expert class but it will not be in the Players Handbook.

Judging by what we know from the UA announcement, and comparing to the 2e groups. Interestingly, instead of a "2e warrior", the Ranger will be 2024 "expert".

[Edit]: Now that the UA is out, here are the groups.

1664472562267-png.262614



The 2024 Players Handbook groups will probably look like the following:

Expert (2e Rogue): Rogue, Bard, Ranger
Mage (2e Wizard): Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock (?)
Priest (2e Priest): Cleric, Druid (?), Monk (?)
Warrior (2e Warrior): Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin (?)

The Ranger as an expert is a surprise, a pleasant one. Where the question marks are may also be surprises. Some forumers suggest swapping the Paladin and Monk. But who knows? Perhaps the Druid is a mage and the Warlock is a priest? We will see.

Regarding base classes, the expert group currently includes: non-caster, part-caster, full-caster. This probably wont parallel the other groups, but it suggests a group doesnt especially relate to spellcasting in itself.

In addition to the Artificer, any hypothetical classes such as Warlord, Psion, and Swordmage would add to the list of classes beyond the Players Handbook, and each correlate with one of the four groups.

Mention your hopes and fears about these four groups.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
I could see the case for Warlock fitting into the priest group. Mostly to differentiate them from Sorcerers, who are otherwise uncomfortably close to each other in terms of theming. On the other hand, I kind of want to see some grid filling, putting a full caster, half caster, and a "martial" into each group.

Monk could be a warrior, maybe. IF they decide the change it up significantly to better fit the role.
 

Baumi

Adventurer
Are the Names confirmed yet? I know that Expert and Warrior was mentioned, but I don't remember the other ones. And I would rather see Arcane and Divine than Mage and Priest, which sounds too specific to me.

Sadly the Video confirmed that the Artificier is not in the new Player Handbook, but at least he is more integrated now.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Experts: Bard*&, Ranger**, Rogue^&, (Artificer&^)
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter^, Monk
Mages: Sorcerer%, Wizard, Warlock
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin**


*Will count as Mage as well
**Will count as Warrior as well
&Will have subclasses that counts as Warrior
^Will have subclasses that count as Mage
%Will have subclasses that count as Priest
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I could see the case for Warlock fitting into the priest group. Mostly to differentiate them from Sorcerers, who are otherwise uncomfortably close to each other in terms of theming. On the other hand, I kind of want to see some grid filling, putting a full caster, half caster, and a "martial" into each group.

Monk could be a warrior, maybe. IF they decide the change it up significantly to better fit the role.
I strongly agree o. Warlock, it very much does not belong I. The caster group. I could see it going in priest or warrior depending on how they structure the groups & the warlock class. As a gm it's very frustrating seeing warlock claim so much of the wizard & sorcerer themes & fluff on top of their own while doing the same thing with the spells
 

Experts: Bard*&, Ranger**, Rogue^&, (Artificer&^)
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter^, Monk
Mages: Sorcerer%, Wizard, Warlock
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin**


*Will count as Mage as well
**Will count as Warrior as well
&Will have subclasses that counts as Warrior
^Will have subclasses that count as Mage
%Will have subclasses that count as Priest
That is more realistic, and if we add multi classing we will have more than half the party that will qualify in two or more groups! So the concept of niche for each character will collapse easily.
The concept is nice, but it will become a loose and minor tool really fast.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
That is more realistic, and if we add multi classing we will have more than half the party that will qualify in two or more groups! So the concept of niche for each character will collapse easily.
The concept is nice, but it will become a loose and minor tool really fast.

They were mentioned as being used for feat prerequisites. I wouldn't be surprised if they are used to minimize the front loaded slingshot power jumps that comes with multiclassing similar to the already present proficiency differences for starting with a class & multiclassing into it but for abilities rather than just skills. It would render that gating almost pointless if you had classes where each level counted as a generic level in two groups.

Crawford covered the classes pulling from different pools though. In on my phone so can't give specific quote but... The thing he said was something along the lines of how the bard and ranger each pull their own unique blend of bits from the warrior mage and priest groups.

Thankfully I don't think we are going to see a continuation of 5e's "I'm a full caster too so should be treated with the same lore perks as a wizard with things that involve esoteric arcane stuff and be allowed to shed that to be treated like a bsrd/ranger when we come across esoteric bsrd/ranger stuff or things that would be downsides to wizards". Instead you might see "well as a 2/3 mage progression and a level ten bard does my mage 3 help me with this?" .Ranger would be the same but I'm guessing priest given they are historically divine casters. I could see certain archetype that lean deeper into casting bumping that to 2/3 with occasional plus one jumps or maybe even 1/2 progression.

Anything much more than 2/3 however should be a mage or priest pool class with a fraction of warrior or expert stuff. Niche archetypes that lean more into caster can pull specific bits at specific levels like 3.x bonus feats but there is no reason to give too much access to the pool on a generic level. Doing otherwise would result in the same "nobody can really have nice things because everyone eose has good enough of that area too & there is no room for the nice things to have opportunity costs" problems that ultimately plague so much of 5e
 

Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
This is my prediction as to how they will be assigned:

Experts: Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Mages: Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin

I suspect the Artificer will be an Expert, and I can also see a 4th class in the other three groups: Warlord in Warriors, Psion in Mages, and Shaman in Priests.
 

Four class groups eh? If that's the direction we're going in, I'd expect the following:

To allow for more differentiation across existing weapon types, modifiers for each type of weapon against each type of armor will be calculated.

To deal with excess HP problems, level caps on damage for spells will be removed. Also, overgods' HP will be capped at 400 and existing creatures' HP revised downward to match.

To limit multiclassing exploits, characters taking a new class will be required to forfeit all class abilities associated with existing classes until those have been surpassed by the new class. As an optional rule, bards will be required to obtain levels in fighter and thief first to reflect their martial and roguish abilities. This will also cut down on players attempting to sing at the game table.

In response to complaints about death saves making the game too easy, characters will be 'unconscious' at 0 HP, 'dying' at -1 to -9 HP, and 'dead' at -10 HP.

To maintain parity among classes, to-hit bonuses will be calculated through a class- and level-dependent formula abbreviated as Targeting Helpers Averaged Compensation 0, with the 0 serving as a mnemonic baseline against which all classes are measured.
 


I'm guessing all the Priests will have Channel Divinity. I don't really see the Warlock fitting into that, so I think the Priests will be Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. They will probably rework Channel Divinity to be useable proficiency bonus times per long rest (Paladin might be half proficiency bonus times per long rest). Then Wild Shape (and everything that uses Wild Shape) will be changed to be a Channel Divinity option for Druids.

Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Based on those groups, what I see happening is:

Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc. Less damage dealing
Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage. Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
The term "priest" is problematic, because it ethnocentrically specifies theism in the context of a temple or church. For example, there is a reason why the sages of Jewish "rabbi" and Muslim "imam" avoid term priest. Likewise a nontheistic animistic "shaman" avoids the term priest, as does a Buddhist "monk".

A more multicultural term is "clergy", which is any official religious function, including priest, teacher, psychic, sibling/monk/nun, and so on.
 

They need a word that isn't 'cleric'. It's not clear paladins are clergy, which are formal leaders within established religions. A paladin could easily be following a solitary path of dedication, and a druid could be protecting the forest all by themselves. Of course, 'priest' is even more specific.

'Monks' really ought to be 'martial artists', though--it's an old reference to Shaolin monks from the 1970s that really doesn't apply to most monastic groups (which are much closer to clerics in D&D terms).
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
This sounds familiar. It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.

EDIT: Found it. Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
 

squibbles

Adventurer
[...] Mention your hopes and fears about these four groups. [...]
Will do!

Hope: That when they say warriors are "masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds", they mean it and intend to have that be a thing that distinguishes those classes as opposed to "these are classes without expertise or spellcasting". ESPECIALLY so for monks.

Fear: That these are ad hoc groups rather than coherent categories--that, for example, paladins, rangers, and fighters will have far more in common mechanically and in-setting than, say, paladins and druids, such that anytime there is a cool magic item or feat for 'warrior classes' there will be a little disclaimer that says rangers and paladins can use it too. And, inversely, that there won't be many cool magic items or feats for 'priest classes' because, thematically, druids don't have much in common with clerics and paladins.

I'm guessing all the Priests will have Channel Divinity. I don't really see the Warlock fitting into that, so I think the Priests will be Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. They will probably rework Channel Divinity to be useable proficiency bonus times per long rest (Paladin might be half proficiency bonus times per long rest). Then Wild Shape (and everything that uses Wild Shape) will be changed to be a Channel Divinity option for Druids.

Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.
Based on those groups, what I see happening is:

Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc. Less damage dealing
Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage. Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.
While you guys' predictions make sense (and I would likely enjoy such changes) I am quite skeptical that WotC would make this degree of changes in the new rules (even though it's not a lot). Judging by what we've seen, the classes in the expert group don't differ a lot from their current iterations--features have been moved around, modified, and rationalized, but not many features have been added that are new or conceptually different. The ranger for example, had already gotten expertise via the Tasha's revisions, though it went by a different name.

I suspect paladins, for example, will be very nearly the same as they are currently; just as fighty as fighters, but with some features renamed, moved around, or made to be more similar to other features (i.e. proficiency times per day, once on your turn only, etc.).

I look forward to being proved wrong!
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
This sounds familiar. It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.

EDIT: Found it. Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
This isn't exactly the same. The classes within the different class groups have some pretty major differences: hit die, different spell progression (for the classes that get spells), and most class features being different just to name a few.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top