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.

 

[Maxperson]

Historically, UA drops have very similar verbiage to final releases, other than mechanical refinements. If anything, I expect the final product will be more conservative than anything so far.

Other than playtests. The UA for future books is like that. The 5e playtest saw wildly different results from a lot of the playtest packets when 5e was released.

 

[darjr]

Which is my point. The current Ranger debate is like the "lite" version of the Psionic debate. People don't agree on what the Ranger should be, which is why people perceive WotC's versions of the class as having an identity crisis. This isn't actually a WotC problem, it's a community problem.

Ah. I get you.

I do think they've tried to satisfy the niche but it isn't called the Ranger.

My conjecture and guesses about the unhappiness of the Ranger follows.

Also that non-ranger class can be a little more complex to play or build and keep focus, for some. For some it seems like it's too difficult to explain to new players too, I guess. For others I think the mechanics for those non Ranger Rangers isn't enough or aren't exclusive enough or as powerful in the niche as the actual Ranger class, which can steal their schtick.

For many it seems like spells carries enough other baggage that it clashes with their idea of a Ranger, either mechanically or in flavor.

 

[Parmandur]

Other than playtests. The UA for future books is like that. The 5e playtest saw wildly different results from a lot of the playtest packets when 5e was released.

This whole process is more like the run upsto Xanathar's or Tasha's, not the Next playtest. They aren't fundamentally rewriting the game this time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.

Not really. The core class isn’t a beast master, and “forest ranger” is part of the basic concept. “The Witcher” isn’t accurate exactly because witchers don’t give a damn about the wilds except that they sometimes produce monsters.

There’s nothing difficult to understand about the Ranger. They’re the Rangers of The North in Middle-Earth, except in a world with fireballs and color coded dragons. They’re expert trackers and hunters who range over areas of land seeking out potential threats, safeguarding places that need safeguarding, and acting as the tip of the spear against the worst of what can dwell in the wilds.

Hell, give US Park Rangers military combat training and license to shoot poachers, mutate some wildlife and then train them to keep people safe from the mutants, and you’re most of the way there.

Put all that in a world with D&D levels of magic, and you get…the D&D ranger.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not really. The core class isn’t a beast master, and “forest ranger” is part of the basic concept. “The Witcher” isn’t accurate exactly because witchers don’t give a damn about the wilds except that they sometimes produce monsters.

I meant that they're D&D's version of Witchers in the sense that "Magical Monster Hunters" is a core part of their identity. There's two subclasses devoted to it and Favored Enemy enforces that concept.

There’s nothing difficult to understand about the Ranger. They’re the Rangers of The North in Middle-Earth, except in a world with fireballs and color coded dragons. They’re expert trackers and hunters who range over areas of land seeking out potential threats, safeguarding places that need safeguarding, and acting as the tip of the spear against the worst of what can dwell in the wilds.

Hell, give US Park Rangers military combat training and license to shoot poachers, mutate some wildlife and then train them to keep people safe from the mutants, and you’re most of the way there.

Put all that in a world with D&D levels of magic, and you get…the D&D ranger.

I mostly agree. I overall think 5e's version of the Ranger is better than the "nonmagical" version that a lot of people seem to want for some reason. However, I do think that the class does have a bit of an identity crisis, especially when it comes to the subclasses and what they do. Some of the subclasses are actually Favored Terrains (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker), some of them are monster hunters (Hunter, Monster Slayer), some of them are Pokemon trainers (Drakewarden, Beast Master, Swarmkeeper).

The class doesn't know what the subclasses should be. Cleric Domains are based on what god/concept the clerics worship. Paladin Oaths are based on a promise/ideal they swear to keep. Warlock subclasses are based on the patron they've made a pact with. Sorcerous origins are based on how they got their powers. Wizard Schools are (with few exceptions) a type of magic they choose to practice above all others. Ranger Archetypes are . . . Pokemon Trainers, three different flavors of monster hunters, and expanded Favored Terrains. There's something inherently flawed with what the Ranger's subclass identities are/should be. Other classes definitely have this problem too, but Rangers have it quite noticeably.

 

[JEB]

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

For most classes, this is true, but the change in the number of subclass slots does create issues for the bard (three slots in 5E vs. four slots in 1D&D). @Parmandur has a workable solution, with the bonus feat, though it lacks subclass flavor (unless specific feats are recommended). If four subclass slots is standard for all classes in 1D&D, that also affects the cleric and fighter, which have five slots in 5E (so either their 1D&D subclasses will have fewer features than the 5E versions, or they'll get more features per slot than other classes to keep continuity with the larger number of 5E features).

 

[JEB]

Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.

 

[Parmandur]

That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.

The Beastmaster is one archetype, and I fail to see how the rest of that contradicts the Witcher hypothesis. The Witcher is a pretty significant Fantasy archetype all by himself at this point.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.

Oh, Rangers have been 5e's "Witchers" (as in "Magical monster hunters") since before Blood Hunters. The Hunter subclass was in the PHB. The Monster Slayer was in XGtE.

 

[Parmandur]

Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.

I mean, the Witcher as a popular figure predates the 5E take on Rangers, and the WotC survey data on Rangers predates the Blood Hunter (which was derived from a ripoff of the Witcher).