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.

 

[Parmandur]

That's literally meaningless. You have made a statement, that in English at least, has no meaning.

No, a tautology isn't meaningless, it's necessarily true, which just makes it a bit dull to have to state. But we have a much fuller picture now: all 5E books are still usable, from monsters to Races to Subclasses.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The overall conservative nature of the design means that the new definitions should work with the older Subclasses, which are usually modifying the abilities. Sounds like a job for playtesting.

They factually don't though.

As I said, just go look through the Bard uses for Inspiration. A huge number of them rely on you basically having the Inspiration sitting around, but that's no longer how Inspiration works.

In most cases you could MAKE UP some rules to make them work, but it's not flowing from the new definitions, it's making up new rules. In some cases though you can't even do that.

That's not compatibility. It just isn't. That's adaptation at best, and not every DM will do it even similarly.

No, a tautology isn't meaningless, it's necessarily true, which just makes it a bit dull to have to state.

It's not a true tautology.

It's anti-communication.

It's using words intentionally inaccurately.

That's very bad. Backwards compatibility has a meaning. But if you use it when things demonstrably, factually, are not compatible, all you're doing is rendering your usage of that term meaningless. I could say "I'm a short guy!" and you'd be like "Well, you're 6'2" so all you're doing is confusing people and making the term "short guy" meaningless", and that's what you're saying WotC is doing here. I don't actually think WotC agree with you. I think you're taking it a lot further than they intend you to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

LOL dude this is King Cnute levels of denial on your part.

They're already incompatible with what we have here. What the vague paragraph says is "Errr just follow the old subclass progression I guess". There are already features even in the three classes we have which are incompatible with older subclasses. Like you can't use a whole lot of the Colleges because Inspiration doesn't sit around anymore, it's used instantaneously.

The idea that they "work by design" is just false. They're incompatible, but that one paragraph addresses a SINGLE issue with using older subclasses, not the other issues created by design differences.

This isn't an opinion. This is a demonstrable fact.

Hence my assertion that  math compatibility is what WotC actually meant. Its just not a good marketing buzzword.

 

[Parmandur]

They factually don't though.

As I said, just go look through the Bard uses for Inspiration. A huge number of them rely on you basically having the Inspiration sitting around, but that's no longer how Inspiration works.

In most cases you could MAKE UP some rules to make them work, but it's not flowing from the new definitions, it's making up new rules. In some cases though you can't even do that.

That's not compatibility. It just isn't. That's adaptation at best, and not every DM will do it even similarly.

It's not a true tautology.

It's anti-communication.

It's using words intentionally inaccurately.

That's very bad. Backwards compatibility has a meaning. But if you use it when things demonstrably, factually, are not compatible, all you're doing is rendering your usage of that term meaningless. I could say "I'm a short guy!" and you'd be like "Well, you're 6'2" so all you're doing is confusing people and making the term "short guy" meaningless", and that's what you're saying WotC is doing here. I don't actually think WotC agree with you. I think you're taking it a lot further than they intend you to.

I'd have to take a closer look at the Bard, but having looked through the Ranger Subclasses, they all seem to work perfectly with the new Base Class, and I suspect the Rogues will, too.

 

[Vael]

Lightly Armored is now a first level feat granting proficiency with Light and Medium armors and Shields. More armored Wizards, I guess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hence my assertion that  math compatibility is what WotC actually meant. Its just not a good marketing buzzword.

Indeed. And that's what matters most to adventures, which are as I've noted the biggest "pain point" for compatibility issues.

I'd have to take a closer look at the Bard, but having looked through the Ranger Subclasses, they all seem to work perfectly with the new Base Class, and I suspect the Rogues will, too.

I could believe it with Rangers because their subclass features are very divorced from their class features, partly as them being just such a mess period. With Rogues I'd have to check. They haven't had any major features re-jig'd though, just a moderate nerf to SA, so they might work. Bards have bigger changes to features that subclasses actually interact with.

I'm not saying it's necessarily "hard" to come up with the new rules (though in a couple of cases...), but the fact is that you are making up new rules with a number of the subclasses. Other ones will have balance issues, or lore issues. Creation Bards will no longer be able to create Motes for example, because of the change, so no-one will ever see those again (they'll always be created and destroyed in the same instant), and recipients of the Motes will no longer able to use them tactically.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

the subclass all being at the same level is interesting maybe the '1 subclass for multi classes will work

 

[Sacrosanct]

Lightly Armored is now a first level feat granting proficiency with Light and Medium armors and Shields. More armored Wizards, I guess.

If they want to spend a feat, let them is my opinion. They still have low HP, and personally I think there are better feats a wizard would choose before that. Maybe bladesinger type, but I think it's pretty rare when a wizard chooses that feat.

 

[Parmandur]

Indeed. And that's what matters most to adventures, which are as I've noted the biggest "pain point" for compatibility issues.

I could believe it with Rangers because their subclass features are very divorced from their class features, partly as them being just such a mess period. With Rogues I'd have to check. They haven't had any major features re-jig'd though, just a moderate nerf to SA, so they might work. Bards have bigger changes to features that subclasses actually interact with.

I'm not saying it's necessarily "hard" to come up with the new rules (though in a couple of cases...), but the fact is that you are making up new rules with a number of the subclasses. Other ones will have balance issues, or lore issues. Creation Bards will no longer be able to create Motes for example, because of the change, so no-one will ever see those again (they'll always be created and destroyed in the same instant), and recipients of the Motes will no longer able to use them tactically.

Interesting that you mention the College of Creation, because after a quick review that is the only ability of any Bard Subclass that I can see that gets seriously altered by this, most don't even interact with Inspiration particularly. The College of Eloquence Unfailing Inspiration comes closest, but there I thinknspecific beats general. The mote is basically reduced to a rider effect when Inspiration is used, but that's not even bad as such, just different. The rest of Creation abilities seem uneffected.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because skill checks do not exist. It's a dexterity check and, if you are proficient in stealth, you get to add your bonus.

Also, skills are not always associated with their default ability.