D&D (2024) Upcoming One D&D: Unearthed Arcana 'Expert' Classes (Bard, Ranger, Rogue)

WotC has posted a video describing the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest document which will feature three of the core character classes, each with a single subclass.

This document is the second in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the

2014 Player's Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!

Inside you'll find the following content:

Expert Classes. Three Classes appear in this document, each one a member of the Expert Group: the Bard, the Ranger, and the Rogue. Each Class appears with one Subclass. More Subclasses will appear in Unearthed Arcana in the months ahead.

Feats. Feats follow the Class descriptions, particularly feats available to the classes in this document.

Spell Lists. Three Spell lists-the Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists-are featured here. The Ranger uses the Primal list, and the Bard potentially uses all three, thanks to the Magical Secrets feature.

Rules Glossary. In this document, any term in the body text that is underlined appears in a glossary at the end. The glossary defines game terms that have been clarified or redefined for this playtest or that don't appear in the 2014 Player's Handbook.

 

[Charlaquin]

Alternatively, Bards could be turned into Half-Casters similar to Artificers (getting spellcasting at level 1, cantrips, non-spell magical features similar to Warlock Invocations).

I would be delighted. Maybe make them round-up half casters like Artificers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.

Have they ever asked what stat generation method people usually use in one of their polls?

 

[Parmandur]

They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!! My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many. 1% is 500k. So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.

I thinknthey must have recorded this about the tike they decided to extend the survey period.

 

[Parmandur]

BM ranger ain’t going anywhere, but it’ll likely be reworked to make its level 1 abilities more broadly useful while staying distinct from the Tasha’s replacements.

Sort of depends on what they do with Ranger here: I'm sure theybwill cover the idea of "I have an animal buddy," but the form may be different.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The tiny percentage of people who are responding to the survey compared to the entire D&D playerbase is probably exactly the same as the tiny percentage of people who complain about D&D having all these issues and how this and that are broken and why this rule is bad etc. etc. And that's why they're responding to the surveys in the first place.

The larger percentage of players just play the game without ever worrying about it-- both what was already done and what is going to be done in the future. If none of this stuff matters to you... then responding to surveys trying to get things changed a certain way doesn't really matter either.

 

[Charlaquin]

Priest probably have "Channeling" as their one thing in common, so that makes it Cleric, Paladin and Druid, Cleric's and Paladin's Channel is Channel Divinity, Druid's Channel is Wildshape.

Or Wildshape is an option they can use with their Channel ability. Perhaps “channel
Nature.” I would actually love that.

 

[Parmandur]

Hrmmm, so 12 classes with 4 subs each (probably - at least that's my guess.) I wonder if artificer will be added as a subclass to a bunch of other classes so it can be added to the PHB without adding more than the base 12 classes. 3 subs/class seems pretty standard, so adding one more sub - Battlesmith gets added to fighter, for example.

Just a thought.

No, Crawford made it clear that Artificer would be a full Expert Class...but not in the PHB.

I think there will still be an imbalance of Subclass representation, but probably at least 3 each.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Calling it now:

Warrior: Fighter Barbarian Monk.

They'll all get maneuvers like BM/ ToB. Barbs will have tanky/ hit stuff hard manouvers. Monks will have speed/ mobility and fancy stuff. Fighters will have a bit of both.

(please let this be true, and give these guys ToB stuff)

Mage: Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer

Arcane spells. Sorcs and Locks will have Metamagic and Invocations respectively. Wizards...? School specialists perhaps.

Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin

Channel divinity (and Divine Spells).

Expert: Rogue, Bard, Ranger

Expertise, with a smattering of spells, or maneuvers from the Warrior, Priest and Mage classes.

(Please make casting optional on the Ranger)

Most of that is quite similar to how Level Up organizes the classes.

 

[Art Waring]

The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.

Ironically, I was talking about class roles a few weeks back as a way to describe how a class functions, like tanks, strikers, support, and such (but not putting classes into categories, that's different), and was told that the concept was kind of outdated, only to see that they are basically returning to this design philosophy.

That philosophy being that each class has a role to play in creating a "balanced party."

 

[darjr]

Even so, it would be nice and easy for them to acknowledge they read them. No more difficult than crowing about 40,000 participants.

They have. Over and over again, from during the next playtest, to right after in an extensive presentation, to even later podcasts and video interviews.