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.

 

[darjr]

Yeah. Both reasons are valid for why they are doing it. Either way, though, it's too early to think that the language being used is going to be the same or even resemble what will be used when 5.5 is released.

True, but I think it shows that the intent is for the same kind of use with the final revision.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

On what basis for you have anynsuspicion this is not meant for final text in the PHB...? Per WotC own FAQ, their goal is to keep all 5E Supplements viable with OneD&D, and after 2 packets we see that both Races and Subclasses remain perfectly usable by design.

It wouldn’t even make any sense to say to test the class with old subclasses unless that was intended to work. It’s just suspicion for the sake of suspicion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, but I think it shows that the intent is for the same kind of use with the final revision.

In fact all the available evidence suggests that older subclasses will play naturally with new base classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The animal companion is less generally desired than the magic, apparently. But magic is core to the Rangers identity.

There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D. Also inductive reasoning of that kind easily turns into circular reasoning, which is particularly dodgy imo.

 

[TwoSix]

There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D.

Is there any compelling evidence to support ANY one particular interpretation of the Ranger? I mean, tradition carries some weight, I guess, but I don't think it's particularly determinative.

Honestly, you could sell me on a noncaster, half-caster, full-caster, even pact-caster version of Ranger, as long as its overall feature set is compelling.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is there any compelling evidence to support ANY one particular interpretation of the Ranger? I mean, tradition carries some weight, I guess, but I don't think it's particularly determinative.

Honestly, you could sell me on a noncaster, half-caster, full-caster, even pact-caster version of Ranger, as long as its overall feature set is compelling.

I mostly agree.

As said much, much earlier the main thing is WotC need to "pick a lane" on the Ranger, and they've resolutely refused to do so. Absolutely refused. They just come up with all sorts of conflicting and unconvincing visions of the Ranger.

It's like, if you want the pop-culture and fantasy literature Ranger, you want someone who by default doesn't have magic (but there could absolutely be subclasses that did), and whose main deal is they're a competent, sneaky warrior, who knows absolutely everything about nature, and is totally in tune with their environment, and maybe with animals too.

If you want the videogame take on the Ranger, well, it's basically Beastmaster taken 2 THA MAX, with PETS PETS PETS, animal summons, magic but only relating to the summons and the like, and so on.

If you want the old-skool D&D version of the Ranger, you want something a lot like the pop-culture/fantasy lit Ranger, but who maybe always eventually (at a fairly high level) gets some access to magic.

If you want this strange basically multiclass Druid/Fighter but with skills take that 5E is doing, that can work, but change the lore so it matches with what's described, rather than being a huge mismatch. And ditch the existing subclasses that don't match this vibe. Like, keep Fey Wanderer, it's a good match, as is the one with the bees, but ditch stuff like Hunter, Beastmaster and so on, which are a totally terrible match for this guy (as well-illustrated by the bizarre and weakly-drawn Hunter subclass we have here).

Pick one. Stick with it. Right now WotC are just making a weird mess that is absolutely falling between two chairs. And this isn't new to 5E. 3.XE's vision of Ranger was messy as hell (though they at least got that animal companions were popular, something they don't really get in 5E despite their own polling showing it). 4E just presented starkly conflicting visions of the Ranger, none of them convincing or engaging. 5E has this mess, and 1D&D is making an even bigger mess than 5E (and really doubling down on replacing abilities with spells, something they've done the opposite with in virtually every other class in 5E and 1D&D).

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I know I'm into Ranger just for the pet!

Even if for the longest time a single conjure spell was better than it...

and it feels weird to watch the class get patched one feature at a time...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mostly agree.

As said much, much earlier the main thing is WotC need to "pick a lane" on the Ranger, and they've resolutely refused to do so. Absolutely refused. They just come up with all sorts of conflicting and unconvincing visions of the Ranger.

It's like, if you want the pop-culture and fantasy literature Ranger, you want someone who by default doesn't have magic (but there could absolutely be subclasses that did), and whose main deal is they're a competent, sneaky warrior, who knows absolutely everything about nature, and is totally in tune with their environment, and maybe with animals too.

If you want the videogame take on the Ranger, well, it's basically Beastmaster taken 2 THA MAX, with PETS PETS PETS, animal summons, magic but only relating to the summons and the like, and so on.

If you want the old-skool D&D version of the Ranger, you want something a lot like the pop-culture/fantasy lit Ranger, but who maybe always eventually (at a fairly high level) gets some access to magic.

If you want this strange basically multiclass Druid/Fighter but with skills take that 5E is doing, that can work, but change the lore so it matches with what's described, rather than being a huge mismatch. And ditch the existing subclasses that don't match this vibe. Like, keep Fey Wanderer, it's a good match, as is the one with the bees, but ditch stuff like Hunter, Beastmaster and so on, which are a totally terrible match for this guy (as well-illustrated by the bizarre and weakly-drawn Hunter subclass we have here).

Pick one. Stick with it. Right now WotC are just making a weird mess that is absolutely falling between two chairs. And this isn't new to 5E. 3.XE's vision of Ranger was messy as hell (though they at least got that animal companions were popular, something they don't really get in 5E despite their own polling showing it). 4E just presented starkly conflicting visions of the Ranger, none of them convincing or engaging. 5E has this mess, and 1D&D is making an even bigger mess than 5E (and really doubling down on replacing abilities with spells, something they've done the opposite with in virtually every other class in 5E and 1D&D).

I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.

It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.

 

[darjr]

I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.

It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.

Every time?! Not for this person.

I dint really have a stake in either camp. I think a magic using ranger is fine, and I would be happy with a non magic using one.

But I had to share this meme from someone that seems excited about it. Mainly because it’s attached with Aragorn.
View attachment 262666

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters,

That is kind of what I want but

some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class),

I have no issue with this but

some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.

I have absolutely no interest in this but would not complain as long as I would get something else.

It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.

While I have no interest in psionics (it is just another magic system to me) I did follow those UA threads here and my impression was that there was a lot less acceptance of "the thing I do not like".

To be completely honest I would not have an issue of a magic less ranger (although I do not see the point, it is just a fighter with more skills) if it had a nice exploration pillar to show off its toys in. I just do not see it happening because a spellless base class is going to mess up the spell progression for multiclassing.