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]

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.

Expertise plus consistent ability allows a Rogue to excel in exploration like nobody except the Ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

Expertise plus consistent ability allows a Rogue to excel in exploration like nobody except the Ranger.

No, it lets them excel exactly like everybody else (except the ranger) more reliably.

 

[Parmandur]

No, it lets them excel exactly like everybody else (except the ranger) more reliably.

Not just a little more reliably: we're talking about turning DC 15 and 20 checks into autosuccess here, and 25 and 30 into everyday achievements.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not just a little more reliably: we're talking about turning DC 15 and 20 checks into autosuccess here, and 25 and 30 into everyday achievements.

Yes, but it’s still just the same thing anyone else can do with higher numbers. Which is fine for a rogue subclass because that’s the rogue’s shtick. It’s not a ranger though.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but it’s still just the same thing anyone else can do with higher numbers. Which is fine for a rogue subclass because that’s the rogue’s shtick. It’s not a ranger though.

But a Ranger, per WotC findings, is a spellcaster.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Well everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is. My question was about whether or not it had to be called a ranger. Whether or not the scout was a suitable replacement for you was not the point. The point is a suitable replacement, say subclass, would be acceptable if it had the things you want, correct?

PS I personally think the ranger (my idea of a ranger) should be a fighter subclass and then give it "rangery" maneuvers.

 

[Charlaquin]

But a Ranger, per WotC findings, is a spellcaster.

I was arguing why I don’t think the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger. Whether or not WotC thinks the ranger needs spellcasting is irrelevant to that argument.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

To be honest before you get a non magical ranger you need a decent exploration pillar in the first place. Get that in place, and you have a chance of a rangery ranger magical or otherwise. Then you can fight for the nonmagical ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is. My question was about whether or not it had to be called a ranger. Whether or not the scout was a suitable replacement for you was not the point. The point is a suitable replacement, say subclass, would be acceptable if it had the things you want, correct?

Correct in theory. In practice, I don’t think a subclass of any of the existing classes would capture the feel of the non-casting ranger effectively. But, no, I don’t care if it’s actually named “ranger” or not.

PS I personally think the ranger (my idea of a ranger) should be a fighter subclass and then give it "rangery" maneuvers.

Wouldn’t work for me, as it would lack unique exploration and survival features.

 

[dave2008]

I was arguing why I don’t think the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger. Whether or not WotC thinks the ranger needs spellcasting is irrelevant to that argument.

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing the the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger for you. I was asking if a subclass for a different, if suitable constructed, could replace the niche for a ranger in your mind. It appears that answer is yes.