D&D (2024) UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior

[Yaarel]

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.

Spoiler: Earlier text

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.

 

[Leatherhead]

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]

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.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Yes, the names are confirmed. Jeremy Crawford mentioned "Experts, Warriors, Priests, and Mages" in the video.

 

[Minigiant]

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]

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

 

[Krachek]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Blue Orange]

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.