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.

 

[Aldarc]

I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined

I am worried this might be the case.

How so?

4e roles were Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. These were mainly about in-combat roles. Similarly, 4e had Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic power sources. These were about how the classes' powers connected to the cosmos.

What we are seeing here, IMO, is more akin to Archetype Roles, something more akin to D&D's basic four classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How so?

4e roles were Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. These were mainly about in-combat roles. Similarly, 4e had Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic power sources. These were about how the classes' powers connected to the cosmos.

What we are seeing here, IMO, is more akin to Archetype Roles, something more akin to D&D's basic four classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.

Agree with @Aldarc here the grouping hark back to OD&D, first you had the Fighting Man, Magic Man and then the Holy Man and the Clever Man, not necessarily in that order but you see what I mean.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.

 

[Clint_L]

If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.

Why does it matter?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why does it matter?

Well, if in the final version it doesn't matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.

I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices. In which case I still question its utility.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.

The Groupings aren't "Roles" like 4e, they aren't things like Tank / Defender, Damage Per Second(DPS) / Striker, Crowd Control(CC) / Controller or Healer / Leader.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, if in the final version it doesn't matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.

I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices. In which case I still question its utility.

May be not full classes but some sub classes should qualify as for more than one group.

 

[Gorck]

Well, if in the final version it doesn't matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.

I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices. In which case I still question its utility.

I can already see where it would matter. For instance, a magic item could require attunement by the “Mage group” or by the “Warrior group or a Paladin.” I ran into that issue when I created a Homebrew Shaman: I had to put a sidebar saying that they can attune to items designed for Druids, Warlocks, or Clerics at the DM’s discretion. If WOTC adds a new class down the line, they won’t have to go back and assign all the magic item that the new class can attune to; the class will automatically be assigned to a group and can attune to items accordingly.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can already see where it would matter. For instance, a magic item could require attunement by the “Mage group” or by the “Warrior group or a Paladin.” I ran into that issue when I created a Homebrew Shaman: I had to put a sidebar saying that they can attune to items designed for Druids, Warlocks, or Clerics at the DM’s discretion. If WOTC adds a new class down the line, they won’t have to go back and assign all the magic item that the new class can attune to; the class will automatically be assigned to a group and can attune to items accordingly.

Yeah, if they keep adding "...or a Paladin" (or whatever class is relevant) that would also work. Might save ink (and electrons) to just make Paladins part of two groups.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, if they keep adding "...or a Paladin" (or whatever class is relevant) that would also work. Might save ink (and electrons) to just make Paladins part of two groups.

Nah, they are putting the exceptions in the Class itself, as we can see with Ranger: Rangers get to pick Fighting Style Feats, and I imagine that Paladins will, too. But there will probably be other Feats and Magic itms that Paladins and Rangers will be barred from using because they are not Warriors. But they get Priest and Expert stuff, instead.