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.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Rituals were entirely separate from spells and other powers ("spells" were the specific name for arcane powers, just like martial powers were "exploits" and divine powers were "prayers").

Most of the powers that were part of a class were attacks. You had some powers labeled "Utility powers", but for the most part those were still combat-oriented, just not direct attacks (e.g. an AC bonus, hp healing/short-term condition relief, movement).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

WHERE'S THE BEAR!!!

I mean, by the logic they expressed there, the animal companion should be be part of the base class, not an "optional extra", if it's really "what the people want" that matters.

My contention is WotC values "WotC's own confused ideas" over "What the people want", which often is fine, but is not working for them with Ranger.

 

[Staffan]

If you want something more abstract then there is a very binary pass/fail ability check system.
I would like something where they party could acquire resources before journeying that could be spent to succeed in overcoming travel issues with the ranger mitigating those costs. Something along the lines of time, supply, fatigue and hit dice vs obstacles.

That reminds me of a Twitter thread by Rob Donoghue (of Evil Hat fame). I can't find it right now, but he postulates that one of the reasons D&D works well despite all its wonkiness is that combat, while it can feel like high-stakes, is really a large number of low-stakes rolls and that this reduces the system's seeming randomness. He also went on to say that the places where D&D feels less successful are ones that, well, don't do that and instead resolve something with a single roll: save-or-suck abilities and skill checks. This in turn leads to abilities that are supposed to demonstrate being good at mundane stuff usually taking the form of auto-win, because relying on a single roll of a d20 sucks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.

I say that all the time. And I also use the variant versions of the skills frequently, too (Constitution-based Athletics for long-distance swimming/running/flying, Intelligence-based Sleight of Hand for tying knots, Dexterity-based Performance for juggling, Strength-based Intimidation for strong characters).

 

[Aldarc]

I do not like the way Level Up does it. It is overly crunchy. I like the Journey system, but it is too Middle earth focused. I have been thinking of modifying it to my taste, but I will see that Cubicle 7 do in their new kick starter first.

Probably a reskinned Middle Earth system that tries to beat Fria Ligan's upcoming updated 5e Adventures in Middle Earth to the punch.

 

[dave2008]

Rituals were entirely separate from spells and other powers ("spells" were the specific name for arcane powers, just like martial powers were "exploits" and divine powers were "prayers").

Most of the powers that were part of a class were attacks. You had some powers labeled "Utility powers", but for the most part those were still combat-oriented, just not direct attacks (e.g. an AC bonus, hp healing/short-term condition relief, movement).

Thank you for the reply, but all I asked about were the rituals. We played 4e for about 6 years before switching to 5e. We just had martial heavy characters (as we always do) and I don't think anyone every took the ritual caster feat. I personally don't remember anyone ever using a ritual so I couldn't remember how they worked. The rest of it (powers, AEDU, etc.) I am very familiar with.

 

[dave2008]

I don’t see it. Just looks like a Battlemaster with the vague suggestion that maybe it could have some non-combat maneuvers.

Well I'm not designing a class, just proposing a framework. You need to use your imagination to fill in the gaps. I guess I see a lot of potential.

Strider Features

• 3rd level: gain 3 Knacks. Each knack allows you to do something expected of a ranger.
• 3rd level: unique "ranger" feature
• 7th Level: learn an additional knack
• 7th level: additional unique "ranger" feature
• 10th level: learn an additional knack
• 10th level: Improved "survivalist superiority" or possibly a unique "ranger" feature
• 15th level: learn an additional knack
• 15th level: additional unique "ranger" feature
• 18th level: Improved "survivalist superiority" or possibly a unique "ranger" feature

That is potentially 11 opportunities to provide ranger abilities. I may not know how to design those abilities, but it sure seems like a lot of design space to develop a ranger IMO. Now, pair that with a 1D&D ranger style background, the right fighting style, and some ranger-style feats and things get quite interesting IMO.

Then, if you wanted to break the mold a bit more, you could perhaps replace core fighter features with subclass ones. So perhaps action surge (at 2nd or 17th) or extra attacks (at 11th or 20th) are replaced with ranger features.

Now, if all those ranger options are not enough, what are you looking for? I realize I have not given specifics, but if you tell me what you are looking for perhaps we can build up this subclass into something interesting?

 

[MNblockhead]

Compatibility-wise there's likely to be power creep, indeed it's certain, but the main thing is adventures will still work. People talk a lot about compatibility, but I've been around for an awful lot of edition changes across an awful lot of RPGs, now, and there's one thing that really makes people care, and that's adventures. For whatever psychological reasons, people just don't get that upset about splatbooks and sourcebooks being invalidated, even entire classes and races, or rather the number of people who do is proportionally tiny.

But adventures? If you invalidate them, that's when people riot. That's one of the big issues 4E faced - you basically couldn't convert anything, you just had to re-write it. 3E had the same issue, but honestly the market was sick enough with AD&D that it wasn't a huge problem. I feel like a lot of it is, people buy adventures intending to run them "one day", and as long as that "one day" remains in the future and possible, they're happy (even if that day is "next Tuesday" or "the fifth of never"). But when an edition change shuts that down...

All 1D&D really needs is to make it so fundamentally, 5E Strahd or whatever still works okay with 1D&D characters/monsters. Which I don't doubt they can manage.

I expect that's true. Well...at least it is true for me. First few years in my enthusiasm for getting back into TTRPGs with 5e I bought a LOT of setting and adventure material. Both WotC and third-party. Given the 8 hours or so a month that I can run games. I still enjoy 5e and their would be no reason for me start with an incompatible edition. So far I have been pretty happy with what I've seen in the UAs. But if the rules as released would make it difficult to run my existing adventure material, I would pass on them and continue to play 2014 5e with some bit and bobs from third parties.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Given we know "Expert" and "Warrior" are groups, I suspect the remainder will be "Priests" (Cleric, Druid, Monk) and "Mages" (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.)

Will be interesting to see how the group feat thing works.

 

[TwoSix]

Given we know "Expert" and "Warrior" are groups, I suspect the remainder will be "Priests" (Cleric, Druid, Monk) and "Mages" (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.)

Will be interesting to see how the group feat thing works.

Priests are Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. It states it in the document.