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]

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.

It isn’t preternatural though, it’s outright supernatural. I’m all for preternatural abilities in rangers, but spells are not preternatural.

 

[Staffan]

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

Rituals are class-independent and handle almost all utility magic. So there are no cleric rituals, wizard rituals, or druid rituals, they're all just rituals (although they use four different skills: Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Heal). Performing a ritual takes 10 minutes or more, usually requires a skill check, and has a component cost in either alchemical reagents, mystic salves, rare herbs, or sanctified incense (depending on which skill it's based on). There's also residuum which can be used for any type of ritual, but the only source is disenchanting magic items. Any character can take the Ritual Caster feat, but certain classes get it for free. You record rituals in your ritual book, and learning one costs money.

So, for example, if a 5e wizard wants to cast knock, they just spend a 2nd level slot to cast it, and open any lock that isn't magically locked and has a pretty good chance of opening one of those as well. They do need to spend a daily resource to do it (the 2nd level slot), and there's the loud knock sound that was added in 5e that makes it less than subtle, but it's pretty much a definite solution to any locked door or chest.

In 4e instead, casting it takes 10 minutes and costs 35 gp worth of alchemical reagents, plus a healing surge (a daily resource that can otherwise heal 25% of your hp on a short rest or sometimes mid-combat – sort of like a 5e hit die, but instead of having an increasing number of fixed-potency heals you have a fixed number of increasing-potency heals). You then roll Arcana against each thing holding the target closed (so if the door has three locks, you roll three checks), with a pretty hefty bonus. If you succeed on all the checks, the thing is now unlocked.

One particularly good effect of rituals is that long-term healing/condition relief is also the domain of rituals: Cure Disease, Raise Dead, and Remove Affliction (curses, petrification, etc.). That means you don't need a dedicated healer in the party to deal with that kind of thing – a wizard with the Heal skill will do just fine, or a ritual-casting Warlord or any other class. Even without that, there are a lot more rituals in 4e than in 5e: by my count 5e has 35, and 4e has about 50 in the PHB alone, with more in supplements (the main things that are rituals in 4e that aren't in 5e are healing, travel, and exploration magic).

Also, since most rituals normally requires a skill check, they are less certain than spells. Knock, from the example above, is good at opening things, but it's not a certain thing. If you perform a Sending ritual, the range depends on your skill check (or alternately, the DC depends on the range to the target). They also always come with a monetary cost – it might be an insignificant one at higher levels, but spending 35 gp and an hour to feed a party of five with a Traveler's Feast each day adds up.

TL;DR: In 5e, rituals are a way to bypass the spell slot cost of a spell by spending time on it. In 4e, rituals were an entirely different ballgame, both more and less accessible, and definitely more exciting. Plus they removed the need for a dedicated healer class.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

It was also the case later, when they tested and published Scout options. I doubt it has changed at all, bit their doubling down on magic a bit here is a good opportunity to test it. I'll wager one of the Subclasses they're going to end up testing will be a more magic centered option, to contrast with the martial heavy Hunter.

 

[Parmandur]

It isn’t preternatural though, it’s outright supernatural. I’m all for preternatural abilities in rangers, but spells are not preternatural.

In D&D terms, supernatural, then. Magic is a core part of the Class, and that won't change.

 

[dave2008]

Rituals are class-independent and handle almost all utility magic. So there are no cleric rituals, wizard rituals, or druid rituals, they're all just rituals (although they use four different skills: Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Heal).

OK, I remember that now. Yes, I think that would be better and could easily be implemented in 5e (if a bit of work). What I don't remember is if rituals were separate from spells. By this I mean in 4e if a spell was a ritual, was it only available as a ritual or could it be a spell power too?

Personally I like the idea of reserving some spells to be rituals only.

 

[dave2008]

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.

It is possible, but I fear that in the wide world (those coming to D&D in the last 8 years) the idea of a class without magic is probably less appealing than it was in 2015. I know I feel like a fish out of water when I talk about our low magic campaign with a group made up of almost all martial characters (the rogue scout is our "ranger").

 

[Charlaquin]

In D&D terms, supernatural, then. Magic is a core part of the Class, and that won't change.

I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.

 

[dave2008]

I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.

Is it important that it be called a "ranger?" We found the rogue scout works well for our concept of purely marital ranger. I'm fine with the D&D ranger being magical if I have another way to make what I want in another class.

 

[Parmandur]

I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.

Well, I'm not arguing that it us, but that's imply what WotC found consistently over the years. It is what it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is it important that it be called a "ranger?" We found the rogue scout works well for our concept of purely marital ranger.

It’s not important to me that it be called a ranger, but the scout isn’t a suitable replacement in my opinion because it doesn’t do anything ranger-y. If a bow and expertise in Nature and Survival was all it took to be a ranger, people who say a fighter with Skill Expert already functions as a non-casting ranger. The ranger needs unique abilities that allow it to excel in an exploration context in ways other characters cannot.