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.

 

[Haplo781]

How would it have to be setting specific? "You are the protector of both nature and civilization. You hunt down those that pervert the balance between the two, and use tamed nature spirits to do so." That's setting agnostic fluff that could easily give a unified identity between Rangers and all of the subclasses.

How would that look in, say, Spelljammer? Ravnica? Theros? Ravenloft?

It's not a one-size-fits-all.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

How would that look in, say, Spelljammer? Ravnica? Theros? Ravenloft?

It's not a one-size-fits-all.

The Horizon Walker Ranger probably.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How would that look in, say, Spelljammer?

Spelljammer is the space between every official setting. Any type of ranger can appear there. And, if you're asking about a Spelljammer-specific Ranger subclass, there could be an aberration-hunting Space Ranger that summons celestial spirits (similar to the ones that appear in the bestiary) to help them track/hunt down these aliens to reality.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)

If so that goes into the "PICK A LANE!!!" factor.

They need to decide what the 1D&D Ranger is.

All we have in this playtest packet is a goddamn mess. It's not underpowered, really, it's arguably a mechanical upgrade from the current Ranger, but it's a goddamn mess, doesn't fit existing Ranger lore, and doesn't feel at all Witcher-y either, because it has access to exactly ZERO Witcher-style spells (most of which D&D effectively has - Quen = Shield, Aard = Thunderwave, Igni = Flaming Hands - etc. - they're actually pretty good matches!), and relies instead of spamming an incredibly boring spell that slightly increases its damage on a specific target. Does it work, mechanically? Kinda? Does it make any sense or have any style or consistency at all? Absolutely not.

As for Blood Hunters, they're largely popular because they're broken OP. Not slightly OP or "as good as the most powerful normal 5E classes", straight-up broken OP. A lot of the subclasses end up having about 1.5 classes worth of power in them. Some are closer to 2. If they were not incredibly badly designed and OP I don't think anyone would be interested, as the theme-ing is pretty bad.

At this point I'd honestly prefer they leant into Witcher-style antics if they want to make Ranger this serious half-caster and make most of its stuff spells. But by building the entire class around spamming Hunter's Mark (a goddamn spell directly taken from World of Warcraft, by the way, and no it didn't exist before that, except possibly in WC3! A spell so boring WoW largely dumped it too, I note - 1D&D has it work very similarly to the original boring and passive way it worked in early-ish WoW), they've created something that has fallen between two chairs so hard it's in the ambulance on the way to have its coccyx x-ray'd.

 

[Remathilis]

Gotta admit, I’ve never been able to quite figure out what the Ranger’s niche should be, but “magical monster hunter” is the best I’ve heard.

I just would prefer it not be standard spellcasting mechanics (slots, prepared, etc.).

Maybe something more like Warlick invocations, with plenty of choices that are spells, and plenty that aren’t.

WotC doesn't seem keen on introducing a bunch of different magic mechanics anymore. It seems they are standardizing magic to basically be the same from class to class rather than further diversifying them. Add to it the abandonment of any sort of psionics system and you get the feeling WotC wants "magic" to operate using the same mechanics regardless of class. I honestly wonder if "pact magic" will survive or will it be changed to a more traditional spell slots per day system.

 

[ersatzphil]

But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.

I suspect the problem is that, at least for me, the core fantasy of the ranger could be described as “fight-y character who excels at the Exploration pillar of play”, and 5e doesn’t have much in the way of mechanics for that pillar of play.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WotC doesn't seem keen on introducing a bunch of different magic mechanics anymore. It seems they are standardizing magic to basically be the same from class to class rather than further diversifying them. Add to it the abandonment of any sort of psionics system and you get the feeling WotC wants "magic" to operate using the same mechanics regardless of class. I honestly wonder if "pact magic" will survive or will it be changed to a more traditional spell slots per day system.

I think if WotC does this, they're going to be surprised how very badly the fanbase reacts, especially the 20m+ "new with 5E" players.

So I'm skeptical that they'll actually do that.

 

[Parmandur]

I think if WotC does this, they're going to be surprised how very badly the fanbase reacts, especially the 20m+ "new with 5E" players.

So I'm skeptical that they'll actually do that.

Yeah, based on what they are laying down, I don't think they will do anything that would create such a big disjunction with 5E material, or they would have made some more wild choices with the Expert Group.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, based on what they are laying down, I don't think they will do anything that would create such a big disjunction with 5E material, or they would have made some more wild choices with the Expert Group.

I tend to agree: the changes so far are more revision than reinterpretation. But pact magic has some big design issues:

1. It's focused on short rest recharge of very limited slots, and WotC seems to be moving away from short rest recharges as a balancing system.
2. The wording is very confusing for new players, as most new players don't realize they have auto-upcast spell slots and wonder how they cast hex once they have 2nd level spells.
3. It's very wonky with multi-classing, both in terms of how it adds to other classes and how it breaks other classes resources (like smite).
4. It breaks down at higher levels, resulting in the feature Mystic Arcanum to provide high level spells to the warlock.

Now I don't think they will turn the warlock into a wizard style caster, but I do think they are going to make it resemble other casters more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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).

I gotta say, I hate the “Pokémon trainers” reduction so intensely that it’s hard to even read the rest, but I’m trying.

Anyway, I think it’s a good thing that the Ranger has archetypes like the Rogue rather than thematically minor subclasses that are all the same category of thing.

The class doesn't know what the subclasses should be.

Sure it does. Types of rangers.

Cleric Domains are based on what god/concept the clerics worship.

Kind of, but it’s thematically a small thing with little nuance (gods have multiple domains), but that’s only the tip of the “the cleric is terrible and the game would improve by its removal” iceberg.

Paladin Oaths are based on a promise/ideal they swear to keep.

And their oaths are barely subclasses. And they don’t feel like different orders most of the time, or different kinds of holy knights in any really meaningful way.

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.

And Rogue, Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers, are all “types of [class]”. Also the wizard has mostly been “how they use magic” outside of the PHB schools.

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.

It’s not a problem, it’s a strength.