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]

You’re definitely not the only one, it’s just that spells on rangers are very polarizing. People either love it or hate it and there’s very little middle-ground.

Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, you are the opoisite of alone that's the majority teport, WotC found like 6 years ago when theybdid all those tests that magic is a necessary part of the Ranger for most people. They won't ever do a spelless Ranger, that's why they made the Scout Rogue.

Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.

Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.

Still need a source lol.

 

[dave2008]

Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.

I don't remember, how were rituals handled in 4e?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.

Still need a source lol.

I do believe it’s true. The majority of players are new, and people tend to like what they know.



…





But they are still WRONG.

 

[Parmandur]

Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.

Still need a source lol.

Sure, no problem, it's from the results of their October 2015 survey, they don't have the results on Wizards anymore, but the moneyquote has survived out on the web:

“There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.”

"Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."

D&D: The Ranger - Community Survey Results

Wizards set out to determine why was wrong with the Ranger. Here is what they found out:

www.belloflostsouls.net

They've mentioned this again over the years, such as when the Scout went through testing first for Fighter and then for Rogue. Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T. That's their paradigm.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't remember, how were rituals handled in 4e?

There was a class-independent list of rituals. Any character could take the Feat to be a ritual caster (several classes got it for free). Once you had the Feat, you could learn the rituals (which I believe cost money/time to learn, if they were available). Then you could perform the rituals. Some of them were very long - many hours or even possibly days - but they let you do spell-like things.

Ironically it was a lot closer to like 85% of fantasy fiction, where that's how it tends to work with ritual magic - you don't usually have to be "special" to do it. Even the boys in Supernatural can do ritual magic for example, even Dean!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T.

Absolutely not.

You proved yourself dead wrong with your own quotes.

"Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."

“There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option.

They've completely ignored their own findings. Literally half of the "money quote" as you put, it is about the animal companion? Where's the animal companion?

< bangs on table >

Where's the bear? Where's the bear? < repeat ad nauseum >

Seriously you can't claim this fits when it's missing that huge thing. If it's valid to ditch the animal companion, it's valid to ditch the magic.

 

[Parmandur]

Absolutely not.

You proved yourself dead wrong with your own quotes.


They've completely ignored their own findings. Literally half of the "money quote" as you put, it is about the animal companion? Where's the animal companion?

< bangs on table >

Where's the bear? Where's the bear? < repeat ad nauseum >

Seriously you can't claim this fits when it's missing that huge thing. If it's valid to ditch the animal companion, it's valid to ditch the magic.

I mean, after what we saw today, a Neo-Beastmaster is in like Flynn. And this Ranger works just fine with the recent Drakewarden, for that matter.

That only reinforces the point: the D&D Rabger is a mystical and preternatural archetype.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.

Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is that doesn’t make it not polarizing. Polarizing means there are two extreme and opposing viewpoints on a subject and very little to no middle-ground, not necessarily that those viewpoints are equally represented.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, no problem, it's from the results of their October 2015 survey, they don't have the results on Wizards anymore, but the moneyquote has survived out on the web:

“There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.”

"Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."

D&D: The Ranger - Community Survey Results

Wizards set out to determine why was wrong with the Ranger. Here is what they found out:

www.belloflostsouls.net

They've mentioned this again over the years, such as when the Scout went through testing first for Fighter and then for Rogue. Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T. That's their paradigm.

2015 was seven years ago. I think it’s entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed since then. If so, this new playtest will be a good opportunity for WotC to get data on that. I know I will be expressing my strong distaste for magic beyond a few utility spells (preferably rituals) here and there, and I hope everyone who feels as I do will do the same.