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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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).

Sure, but I’ve seen no evidence that suggests they aren’t going to square that before playtest’s end.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game.

No, it’s both mechanics and lore.

However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".

They’re Rangers in the same sense as the Dunadain, Old West rangers, and yeah sure witchers and Dragon Age grey wardens, in a world where the wilds are very supernatural and there is a whole kind of magic about it.

That is just as much “justification” for having magic as any other Spellcasting class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

Okay, what about "Summoner" or "Pet Master"? Because that's what they are. They summon monsters to fight for them. "Pokemon Trainer" is the main pop culture version of this.

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.

I like how the Rogue subclasses work. They're internally consistent and logical different types of "jobs" a rogue could use their skillset for. Thievery, Assassinations, Detectives, Swashbuckling Sailors/Pirates, Magical Thieves/Tricksters, and Scouts.

Sure it does. Types of rangers.

That is so extremely vague that it could mean absolutely anything. "A hunter that plays a flute" could be a "type of ranger". That doesn't mean that it would warrant a subclass or that the subclass system should be based on different types of musical instruments.

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.

You think the cleric is terrible? What in the world?

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.

But they're consistent. Redemption, Revenge, Protecting the Weak, Serving the Crown, Protecting the Wilds, and "Might Makes Right" are all sensible oaths that a knight could make. Sure, the subclasses could be expanded mechanically and the lore could be added upon, but the subclasses are internally consistent and help you understand why the different subclasses exist.

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.

Yeah, and the Wizard subclasses that break the pattern are my least favorite ones. At least basing them off of magic schools (and hybrid/variant types of casting) makes sense. Order of the Scribes doesn't. Bladesinging barely justifies itself.

It’s not a problem, it’s a strength.

Maybe not to you. But it is to anyone that wants to homebrew new Ranger subclasses and doesn't have a clue what a subclass of Ranger is even meant/able to be. Could there be a Dragonslayer subclass? Or is that too small of a niche and have too much overlap with Favored Enemy? Could there be a Shadowfell Ranger? Or does the Shadowfell not count as "nature" while the Feywild does? Or is the Gloomstalker the Shadowfell and Underdark Ranger?

The subclasses and what they do are poorly defined. There isn't a cohesive theme/identity between them. That makes it harder for the game-designers, homebrewers, and world-designers that want to introduce different factions based on the subclasses of different classes (which is easy for Druids, Paladins, and Rogues, but harder for Rangers because there's nothing connecting them besides "Ranger").

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That is just as much “justification” for having magic as any other Spellcasting class.

In 5e, different spellcasters have lore justifications for having magic. Clerics get it from worship, Druids have a magical bond with the spirits/gods of nature, Bards tap into the "Words of Creation", Paladins make a magical promise, Warlocks make a bargain with an eldritch entity, Sorcerers are Mutants, and Wizards study magic until they tap into the Weave.

Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids". That's easily the weakest justification for magical powers in 5e. And don't get me wrong, I like Rangers being Half-Casters. I just think that the lore could be a bit better thought out and that this could be used to make a cohesive theme amongst the different subclasses. Like I said in an earlier post, they could have a mystical bond with a nature spirit that would make them the "Pet Class", where every subclass gets a different kind of monster companion (from beasts to dragons to elementals to fey). Or they could have got magical powers from killing so many magical creatures that it somehow gave them magic, which could make it so all of the subclasses has the features of different monsters and benefits for fighting against them. Or they could have a symbiotic relationship with incorporeal nature spirits tied to different locations/biomes, giving them supernatural abilities based on their subclass (extra movement speeds, supernatural senses, boosts in certain terrains, damage resistances/immunities, etc).

Rangers don't have a good justification for their magic and don't have a cohesive theme between their subclasses. They have a mechanical niche, but not a thematic one. And subclasses thrive on theme.

 

[Minigiant]

In 5e, different spellcasters have lore justifications for having magic. Clerics get it from worship, Druids have a magical bond with the spirits/gods of nature, Bards tap into the "Words of Creation", Paladins make a magical promise, Warlocks make a bargain with an eldritch entity, Sorcerers are Mutants, and Wizards study magic until they tap into the Weave.

Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids". That's easily the weakest justification for magical powers in 5e. And don't get me wrong, I like Rangers being Half-Casters. I just think that the lore could be a bit better thought out and that this could be used to make a cohesive theme amongst the different subclasses. Like I said in an earlier post, they could have a mystical bond with a nature spirit that would make them the "Pet Class", where every subclass gets a different kind of monster companion (from beasts to dragons to elementals to fey). Or they could have got magical powers from killing so many magical creatures that it somehow gave them magic, which could make it so all of the subclasses has the features of different monsters and benefits for fighting against them. Or they could have a symbiotic relationship with incorporeal nature spirits tied to different locations/biomes, giving them supernatural abilities based on their subclass (extra movement speeds, supernatural senses, boosts in certain terrains, damage resistances/immunities, etc).

Rangers don't have a good justification for their magic and don't have a cohesive theme between their subclasses. They have a mechanical niche, but not a thematic one. And subclasses thrive on theme.

Ranger needs to slay dragon.
Ranger wants fire resistence to help slay dragon.
Ranger either has a wizard, druid, or fey girlfriend teach them endure/absorb elements.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ranger needs to slay dragon.
Ranger wants fire resistence to help slay dragon.
Ranger either has a wizard, druid, or fey girlfriend teach them endure/absorb elements.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

 

[Minigiant]

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

That's the lore of how ranger's traditionally got magic.

The ranger learned spells from druids and wizards to use divination, track the untrackable, boost defenses, and increase damage.,

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's the lore of how ranger's traditionally got magic.

The ranger learned spells from druids and wizards to use divination, track the untrackable, boost defenses, and increase damage.,

That's not official in 5e.

 

[JEB]

That's not official in 5e.

If it's been official in any edition, I'm not aware of it... source, @Minigiant?

 

[Minigiant]

That's not official in 5e.

Yup, they don't get wizard spell anymore. They only learn from druids now.