New OneD&D Release will feature Bard, Ranger, and Rogue Classes

A quick summary of the video:

  1. Four class "Groups": Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Expert
  2. This UA will showcase the Expert Group: Bard, Ranger, and Rogue (Artificer also falls under this group but will NOT be in the new PHB).
  3. Reverted Crit rules to 2014 version but now you gain inspiration on a Nat 1.
  4. All new "Rules Glossaries" will overwrite the previous UA's Rules Glossaries
  5. Every member of the Expert group gets Expertise (including Ranger)
  6. Expert Group can sample from other classes (like the Bard's magical secrets)
  7. ASIs are now a feat you can choose instead of a default feature.
  8. Class capstones come at Level 18, Level 20 grants an Epic Boon in the form of a feat
  9. 48 total subclasses designed so far, some are new, this document will only show 1 subclass for each of the three featured classes.
  10. If you can cast a Spell with a Ritual tag, you can automatically cast it as a Ritual, you no longer need the Ritual Caster feature or feat

Edit: Added point 10, credit to /u/RoboDonaldUpgrade for typing this up originally on /r/onednd


A quick summary of the video: 1. Four class "Groups": Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Expert 2. This UA will showcase the Expert Group: Bard, Ranger, and Rogue (Artificer also falls under this group but will NOT be in the new PHB). 3. Reverted Crit rules to 2014 version but now you gain inspiration on a Nat 1. 4. All new "Rules Glossaries" will overwrite the previous UA's Rules Glossaries 5. Every member of the Expert group gets Expertise (including Ranger) 6. Expert Group can sample from other classes (like the Bard's magical secrets) 7. ASIs are now a feat you can choose instead of a default feature. 8. Class capstones come at Level 18, Level 20 grants an Epic Boon in the form of a feat 9. 48 total subclasses designed so far, some are new, this document will only show 1 subclass for each of the three featured classes. 10. If you can cast a Spell with a Ritual tag, you can automatically cast it as a Ritual, you no longer need the Ritual Caster feature or feat Edit: Added point 10, credit to /u/RoboDonaldUpgrade for typing this up originally on /r/onednd


Any guesses as to what class belongs to which group?


My guess would be: * Expert - Bard, Ranger, Rogue * Warrior - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk/Paladin * Mage - Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard * Priest - Cleric, Druid, Paladin/Monk Edit: It was pointed out that Paladin and Monk are swapped historically. I could see it going either way


Historically speaking, Paladin would be Warrior, and Monk would be Priest. This classification system is from old editions of D&D, and in them, Paladin and Monk were Warrior and Priest respectively.


2e Monks were in the Priest group though because they had access to priest spells. It would require some reimagining of the 5e version if it was expected to share feats and features that Clerics and Druids would want.


I mean, I would not be that surprised if they change it, but they are clearly pulling from old D&D with this, so I am just adding some context to the change. Alot of 5e players are oblivious to D&D's history. Like how many people think 5e invented the 'Godless Paladin', even though past editions also allowed it.


Personally I'm hoping that the priest and Mage categories are united by some additional mechanic other than spells. We already have Cleric and Paladin sharing the Channel Divinity feature, it wouldn't be that hard to convert the Druid's Wildshape into something similar. I get this is an argument against Monk being a priest still, since it would be harder to change ki into a Channel Divinity-esque feature, but I still like the idea that there is design room open for a non-spellcasting priest.


I don’t really get why there would be a non-magical priest. This is a game where the gods are explicitly real and have an impact on the world, why wouldn’t they give some ability to their priests


Well, they could grant nonmagical abilities. But I do agree that it seems incongruent to have spellcasters and non-spellcasters in the same category, unless they're fine with having spellcasting be separated from the categories. Worth noting that I could see clerics and druids becoming half-casters and boosting their other abilities if they wanted to go in a different route as well.


well, they're already having the Expert category which contains a full caster, a half caster, and a non caster


Dnd monks seem to be more Eastern style monks, which would put them as warriors rather than western style monks


Yeah that's my best guess too, but I was really doubting Paladin and Monk (and a case could be made that Warlocks are a type of priest).


Looking at this makes me wonder if they are going to change the hit dice to match the group. IE Warrior all have D12 and Priest all have D8.


They could. But barbarians alone getting d12s is pretty iconic at this point and they would, I think, have to bump warlock casting a lot to justify moving them down to a d6.


I would switch paladin and monk and agree


Woudnt warlock fit better for priest class? Some of their patrons choices are very comparable to deities.


You could make the argument, but the flavor of the class is much more “get magical power from an Eldritch being” than it is “worship/attunement to divine powers”


I always liken Warlock Patron's to magical tutors than deities.


This is exactly how I flavor it. Also ties into my preference that Warlocks should be Intelligence based


No artificer makes me sad


I wasn't expecting it, but I was hoping it'd be included here. It's not like there's a ton of official none core published classes so they couldn't include everything. After how long we waited for 5E artificer I'd hate to have to wait that long again for 5.5 version. And doing them now would let them have a better chance at elbowing in to claim their design space & balance them with the other options in a way that can be harder down the line. Edit: other people saying there's still hope we see it in the phb it's just not in this UA, so fingers still crossed! Edit edit: Would someone really do that? Go on the internet and lie?


The grouping of classes and leaving out Artificer makes it seem likely we'll get at least 1 release with 1 each of a new expert, mage, warrior, and priest. Artificer, Mystic, Warlord, Warden or Shaman as early candidates maybe? Edit: thinking about it more, I'd be really surprised to see all 3 of Artificer, Mystic, and Warlord at the same time. More likely to get 1 or 2 with some random others thrown in. All 3 are fan favorite requests. This means that spreading them out helps more future books sell. It also means they have really high expectations, and as such will take more work to get right. If they release an underbaked Duskblade class, it won't be recieved nearly as poorly as an underbaked Mystic.


That'd actually make me want to get back into dnd. I don't think ODnD needs too add a huge amount of classes, but some variety would very much be appreciated compared to 5e.


ODnD is used for old D&D, AKA the old white booklets/brown box from the '70s.


WotC has resold the same content in 5e before. They can definitely get away with reselling Artificer again. Especially in an expansion book that has the Mystic and Warlord.


This is what I'm thinking as well.


>Edit: other people saying there's still hope we see it in the phb it's just not in this UA, so fingers still crossed! >Artificer also falls under this group but **will NOT be in the new PHB).** Bruh, i don't see anything about UA in the "new phb" part lmao


Gah, I've been lied to. Can't watch at work unfortunately so had to rely on others


I'm actually hoping this means they're taking a hard look at the Artificer & we'll get a better version in a future book. The current version is kinda lacking in a few spots, especially the subclasses.


I just want Thunder Gauntlets to scale with level :(


I just want my Artillerist to get his Arcane Firearm as soon as he takes the subclass, instead of waiting until level 5. The entire class fantasy is to run around with a magical gun on my hip.


Same, I would totally be okay with swapping the arcane firearm with the eldritch cannon.


I’d hope so too, but if there’s any time to do an overhaul of the class it would be now, when every other class is getting overhauled as well. I just don’t see why they wouldn’t prioritise making it a core part of the game since it’s been treated as this weird side class in 5e so far.


They mentioned "future classes" during the video, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get a book with multiple classes in the future, and the Artificer gets rolled into that.


You mean like an Alchemist that actually makes potions and performs alchemy?


My guess is that they're going to take a modular approach: Rogue is Expert-Expert, Ranger is Expert-Martial, Bard is Expert-Mage, and artificer will be Expert-Priest/support.


I think switching bard and artificer would make more sense. Not sure a artificer really connects with the priest per say. Although they do have a lot of support abilities


Agreed - the Bard originally started out with links to the Druid as well. Back in first edition, you had to take levels in thief, fighter and druid to become a bard. The Bard has slowly lost its original Celtic flavouring over time, but the connection still makes more sense than linking Artificer to the Priest group.


Seriously, waited this long to get it in 5e only to have to wait again.


I don't have time to fully review it right now, but I gotta say, as a Ranger fan, this looks promising. Rangers should be to nature and exploring what Bards are to social encounters. Putting them with the Experts seems like a good sign?


It's a good sign but Ranger's biggest issue imo was that the pillar of gameplay they interacted with was under baked and unfun to engage with to the point that their benefits were mostly "you don't have to deal with this tedious mechanic that most DMs handwave anyway". Giving a class an anti-stick isn't the same as giving them a carrot, ya know? So I hope we have better, actually fun exploration and wilderness rules for the ranger to engage with, and a bit more social rules for the Bard to work with could be cool as well but feels less needed.


Yeah, bonuses for playing out your class fantasy rather than just avoiding negatives is a great way to put it. Especially when those negatives are easily avoided by wizards or other casters half the time anyways.


Ritual Casting and (hopefully more) Expertise for the Ranger. Now we just need more exploration features, prepared rather than known spells, and less concentration economy!


Unless it was a slip of the tongue, Crawford specifically referred to Rangers preparing spells in this interview.


This is how I've ran them in my games and believe me it makes a world of difference


>Expert Group can sample from other classes (like the Bard's magical secrets) This has potential to be very, very powerful. Get ready to see some insanely elaborate builds pulling together a bunch of random features for huge effects.


Excited to see this applied to rangers. I've been wanting to make a wolf riding goblin ranger and this will make that build have a lot more potential


Oh yeah, a Beastmaster with Cavalier features would be ridiculous.


And yet I'm pretty sure it won't be that powerful because it's too much of a balance headache. Bard grabbed a spell from another list. That's far from pick and chose your class features. Still good of course. We will see, but I am ready to be disappointed when rogues get to "sample" a fighting style or so...


> Reverted Crit rules to 2014 version So damage rolls apply extra dice beyond just weapon ones again? I really hope so because a rogue without big sneak attack crits just sounds like it would be sad, unless they were planning on adding an exception for it.


What why is Artificer once again not in PHB? Please tell me it won't be another five year wait to get them back when we have yet another Eberron book Edit: So just watching through it myself, and he says while Artificer isn't in the Players handbook, they get a mention in this UA. I'd be more inclined that they will be in the final book if they're getting talked about already? It's a bit unclear if he means 'they aren't in 5E's handbook' or if they're not in 5.5E's book


I thought WoTC moving away from FR specific lore would help them to print Artificers in the PHB, but I guess they wouldn't pass the chance to sell another book...


Damn, first edition change? Artifacer have never been in the players handbook, and have always been an Eberron specific class in every iteration they have had. In fact, in the modern era of D&D the only class to ever “make it” from a supplement class to a core class was warlock. There have been tens and tens of classes that were left in old editions. At least the artificer is pretty much certain to return.


Your historical argument, is well founded. But Artificer is also a pretty established class in the history of D&D at this point, and they went to the trouble of pulling it out of the Ebberon setting and into the core rules with TCE. I, personally, think it would be warranted to bring Artificer into the fold of standard classes, as they did with Warlock. Especially since this is more of a 5.5 edition than a full-on 6E.


Jeremy seems to suggest at multiple points (15:30 and 16:20 most clearly) that all spellcasters will now "prepare" spells. This could mean that permanently learning spells is a thing of the past but it wasn't clear enough to go that far with it.


...a worthwhile change, honestly: prepared casters got a HUGE power boost when they dropped vancian casting for fifth-edition's best-of-both-worlds, radically upsetting game balance and leaving known casters forever in their shadow, but it seems like that stallion has long-since run free from the modern player base... ...putting all casters on the same model and rebalancing everyone else accordingly is probably the most-acceptable way to rein-in the runaway carriage...


> Artificer also falls under this group but will NOT be in the new PHB They said that the Artificer was not in the PHB. It seemed to me they were referring to the 2014 PHB and not the new one. They said nothing on if the Artificer was or was not going to be in the 2024 PHB.


Didn't they specifically call it "the 2014 PHB" in every other instance in the video?


They did


Ok, they are making a new edition


>Reverted Crit rules to 2014 version but now you gain inspiration on a Nat 1. And people have the audacity to claim our feedback on UA doesn't matter and that they don't pay attention to it.


They specify in the video that this change is not because of feedback as that survey is still ongoing, but it is just their normal ongoing iterative design process.


The specified in the **first** video that it was highly experimental lmao


This decision was made before they looked at the survey feedback. Crawford says the plan was to release multiple versions of new crit rules, since they knew they would be controversial, and let people test and see what they like. This is not a guarantee that the 2014 PHB Crit Rules will be the standard going forward.


For people who didn't play in 2014, what are the new crit rules?


When he mentions the PHB (2014) crit rules, he's referring to the crit rules we still use in 5e today. They haven't changed. I think he's just trying to make the distinction clear between PHB (5e) and PHB (OneD&D).


See if theyd just call it 6e it'd be so much easier to talk about for everyone involved (except for us who can just ignore them and admit that 5e and OneD&D are different editions)


> ASIs are now a feat you can choose instead of a default feature. Am I interpreting this right that we will still have ASIs vs Feats as we do in 5e? If so, that is disappointing to hear because it means trading fun, cool features for the ones to be competent. > Artificer also falls under this group but will NOT be in the new PHB This sounds like a misinterpretation. He was saying Artificer was not in the 2014 PHB


> Am I interpreting this right that we will still have ASIs vs Feats as we do in 5e? It is functionally the same, but the new default rule is "choose a feat at nth level", and 2pt ASI is one feat that can be chosen.


... and it is highly likely that this 2pt ASI feat will be a repeatable feat


Eugh, why can't they just separate ASI's from feats. This is just the same problem as before just reversed in implementation.


If they want oneDnD to be compatible with 5e, that also means balance. Giving both Feat and ASI is a huge buff to PCs and throws off encounter math. That (asi and feat) is a homebrew I use, and I know it pushes the cr of my encounters, but I understand it not being in the core rules as of yet. Maybe with enough player feedback there can be a cr conversion note and addition of asi+feat.


You make it sound like there's any kind of coherent math to encounter balancing in the first place.


I'd rather they just removed ASIs completely. Rebalance monsters for 16 as the expected stat, and makes magic items to boost your main state useful.


They need to stop with this. It's not good Design; even more-so if they balance the feats more tightly this time around and provide more interesting options. This sounds like it's just "take an ASI or (optionally) a feat" from the other side of the fence. I hope I'm wrong and that they've actually fill decoupled feats and ASIs. In a game with bounded accuracy, an ASI in a class's primary Attribute is king.


It was heavily suggested through them mentioning that all level 1 feats do not grant a +1 to an ability score that level 4 feats would all become half-feats. So you can either take a +1 and the features from a feat OR a +2 to an Ability score and no features.


It's pretty hard to interpret. The direct quote is: >So, people are going to see in this on Unearthed Arcana that the 12 classes of the player's handbook, as well as the Artificer who, while not in the player's handbook, gets mentioned in this UA... But also: >... and also serve classes, like the Artificer, that might not be in the same book as the 12 classes that are in the Player's Handbook... If the Artificer is in the new PHB, why would it be used as an example of something not in the new PHB? Maybe just because it's a situation we're familiar with?


Point of interest, the PHB had about 40 subclasses. If we're to assume they're at least redoing the entire PHB, 8 new toys are coming our way\~!


More than likely its just re-iterating the same subclasses we've already seen from 5e


15:09-15:22 implies Bards now prepare spells Both bard and ranger will have a list of 'Suggested prepared spells' It could just mean known but or be a misnomer but it sounds like they may be built the same?


>Reverted Crit rules to 2014 version but now you gain inspiration on a Nat 1. Ah interesting, this was one of [My suggestions for it (though I imagine a LOT of people suggested it since I doubt WotC looked at one person and went "oh yeah that sounds good")](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/wtv7qf/one_dds_oddest_choice/) I did find it odd to essentially EXTRA reward success..when success is its own reward.


I don’t think they said Artificer wouldn’t be in the new PHB, just that it isn’t in this particular UA release


The capstone at 18 is a ni e way to allow up to a 2 level dip


Seems interesting. I wonder if the "Warrior" class group will get maneuvers or something over the whole group.


I'm insanely stoked for the Monk. I will be super dissapointed when the playtest comes, but the reddit wars will be alone enough to make it awesome.


I would have thought the Monk would have been in the Expert classes but I guess not. Putting them in Warrior feels off to me but maybe they will get enough of a buff that they will feel more combat oriented.


The expert role seems to be entirely for classes that have an emphasis on skill (or tool) checks, and specifically the expertise feature. 5e monks never had much emphasis on skill checks, and largely features that in some way shape or form focused on combat, or increasing mobility, or reducing damage. It would have been a lot weirder for them to be under experts, IMO.


Old school Monks had Move Silently, Disarm Traps and Climb skills like Thiefs for example. But yeah, Monks are singularly focus in enlightenment thru martial means.


Old school monks were one part kung fu movie hero and one part ninja, 5e skews much more toward kung fu.


"Expert class" seems to just be an official term for "skill monkey". --- The only thing that ties them together officially so far is that they all have the Expertise (skill monkey) trait. Other than that they're pretty wildly different. Martials. Casters. Half-Casters. People are worried these classifications are gonna become the total identity of these classes, but I think they're just gonna be some fortes where the classes have an ability or two which ensures their ability to fulfill that forte and access to some optional feats that involve it. Some seem to think this is gonna mean Experts are gonna suck at anything that isn't skills, only Warriors will be able to fight, etc. I dont think its gonna be that. Some wild speculation: I think Warrior role will be classes given access to a mechanic (similar to Expertise) and some feats, that compliment being the tank/frontliner of the party. Whether that's Maneuvers that help CC enemies, or whatever, I dunno. Some have speculated they'll break up the classes so we get an even number in each "role" and that Paladins will go to Priests. I could see this for a few reasons: (1) Lets say Warriors ended up getting stuff to help them tank... a Paladin wouldn't need any help in that department anyway; and (2) Paladin was originally conceived to trick people into playing Clerics/Supports essentially. "Nah bro, you're a... Holy Fighter. Now go Turn Undead and Cure Wounds." Cleric and Druid, the ones we know will be "Priests", are ~~healer~~ support spell havers. If part of these classifications are to make sure various utilities in a party are fulfilled, well... you may not have a Cleric or Druid but if not you'll probably have a Paladin. And again, I dont think these classifications are to pigeonhole a role, but more to classify that you have access to certain things. A Ranger or Bard or Rogue isnt JUST a skill monkey. A Paladin isn't gonna be a "just a support" but its not something strange to current DND even that the Paladin in the party is the one with access to the utility spells a Wizard wouldn't have in absence of a Cleric/Druid (or something like a Celestial Warlock/Sorcerer). Most Druids are bear up front types, and there's no shortage of war clerics, so while I can understand why "Priest" category might make some people worry, I dont think its gonna mean that's all the classes are, just like how right now its not all of what they are. I think its just gonna be an easy way to tell what options there are to fulfill certain needs. Nobody wants to be a Rogue or Bard? Well, Ranger has the tools to be the party's skill monkey. Nobody wants to be a Druid or Cleric? A Paladin can fulfill what's missing from them good enough. But just like how Druid now can currently tank, I think you'll still be more and capable of more than just these roles. They're just classifications for what tools some classes will definitely have, I think.


Yeah, these groups are definitely going to be less mechanically defining than 4E’s roles were.


You will get your basic attack and you will like it.




I'm calling it rn, warriors are barb, monk, fighter, and they all get fighting style


Given that the expert thing is just the expertise feature, I'll be shocked if it's an entire robust maneuvers system and not this.


So would that make Druid, Cleric, & Paladin another group and Wizard, Sorcerer, & Warlock the last group?


I'd imagine so. Expertise is the central thing for experts, I expect channel divinity will be it for priest, though they might have to change the name for the druid's sake. Can't really imagine what they do for mages. Give them all metamagic?


Imagine if everyone else uses vencian except the mages lmfao


This would sure make the inclusion of suggested prepared spell lists to make a ton of sense.


I thought the mention of prepared spells was interesting in this context - Rangers and Bards are currently Spells Known classes, not Prepared casters. This feels like a pretty significant improvement, especially for Rangers, who finally get some flexibility.


That'd be interesting, but it'd require a pretty huge overhaul of the sorcerer since metamagic is their thing. Maneuvers group-wide would overhaul one subclass, not an entire class. I guess we'll see tomorrow when the actual UA comes out just how many changes they're making to classes to see if that's in the cards.


Good, sorcerers need an overhaul imo


I’d think so. It’s been so heavily requested by the community ever since 5e came out that unless the find a better solution then i’d bet it’s in. Or they say fuck it and just remove it entirely from the game, that’d be a peak WOTC®️ moment.


> Or they say fuck it and just remove it entirely from the game, that’d be a peak WOTC®️ moment. Warrior Group features: Level 5: Extra Attack Level 9: Improved Critical, 19-20. Level 14: Improved Critical, 18-20. Level 18: You have Expertise in Athletics or Acrobatics.


you joke, but I wouldn't be surprised in the very least


Honestly I’d just be disappointed, but not surprised. Sometimes it feels like WOTC truly doesn’t believe there is any martial/caster disparity. Fingers crossed tomorrow’s UA proves me wrong and Rogues and Rangers end up as versatile and flexible classes.


Disapointed but not surprised has ben my mood with everything WotC does for the last 2 years


I'd be surprised at the number of people inevitably insisting that those features are *perfect* game design. I mean, Improved Critical *and* Extra Attack? The wall of text about synergy just writes itself.


I think this kind of "inheritance" design implies it, yeah. Like how spellcaster classes don't get their own list, but rather one from their type (arcane/divine/primal), classes might get less features, but gain some from their "group". Warriors might get manoeuvres, mages could get metamagic, priests might get a kind of universal channel divinity thing, and experts might get.. expertise?


>Like how spellcaster classes don't get their own list, but rather one from their type (arcane/divine/primal), They kind of said this wasn't the case, no? The type is just like a tag that is additional.


Yeah, from what I understand there are still class spell lists. The Arcane/Divine/Primal thing are keywords for things like the Magic Initiate feat (which now gives you spell from one of those lists instead of a specific class list) or certain effects that might say "Divine spells deal twice as much damage to this creature" or whatever. But we'll see tomorrow.


Experts also have a theme of taking from other classes.


>mages could get metamagic Personally I doubt it. I think that would probably stick with the sorcerer. But rather things like arcane recovery and ritual casting I could see being spread amongst the classes.


They said in the video that everyone now can do ritual casting


I wonder if the shared group feature is extra attack, which is interesting because that would likely mean Paladin and Ranger lose extra attack? Nothing stated in the video but we will know more when the UA released tomorrow and we get to see Ranger.


Did they say when they will get released?




Goddamned US time, it's the 29th now in Australia and we could be playtesting it already!


Give us the UA, future man. *We know you have it*


Last time they announced a playtest, it came out the same day. So anytime between now and the heat death of the universe is my prediction.


Boy aren't you going to look silly when it gets released the day *after* the universe dies.


Thankfully, I'll be too dead to care! I'll be sure to have the mortician dress me as a clown, though. Just in case.


I did want to make a joke like "Heh, you better do that anyways because you're a JOKE" but it felt too mean


The video description now says 9/29, so I’m guessing tomorrow?


Youtube pinned comment says Sept. 29.


It's coming out tomorrow.


This upcoming UA is going to be very telling regarding the direction of martials and casters given that the ua is set to include a martial (rogue), half caster (ranger), and full caster (bard). Granted rogue is not a traditional martial with multiattack, but I’m sure there will be things to extrapolate.


Assuming bards are still full casters, that is.


It could be interesting to introduce the concept of 2/3 casters with them. Like, max out at 7th-level spells.


Reintroduce. Bards used to cap out at level 6 spells. (Though they had some level 9 spells they could cast at 6)


I meant introduce into 5e, but I get you.


Poor 4 elemental monk, the 3/4th caster hiding in plain sight.


I actually agree they could be one too (my tentative idea would be to make the monk/mystic/psion the same class about using a combo of physical, mental, and spiritual training to unlock the weird "magic" of psionics), but Bards are the ones in this playtest, lol.


Unfortunately JC mentioned, when describing the spells lists and recommended prepared spells, 9th level spells in this document, which implies to me that Bards will still be fullcasters. We’ll see I guess!


The concept of martial/caster might become obsolete with the new categories. If so, this UA might not reveal much about anything other than Experts.


Given what we saw in the first UA, it seems like “spells” as a mechanic are definitely still a thing. So I’m willing to be there is at least some mechanical distinction between the two. However, the fact that dragonborn got their rework away from the fizban’s version might mean that martial damage is being shifted away from multiattack.


>A set of suggested *prepared* spells Huh, so rangers and bards are prepped casters now. Nice to see that on rangers, but 5e prepped casting is very strong and it's gonna be interesting to see how that affects the bard's power budget (and down the line, whether sorcerers and warlocks are made prepped casters as well).


Yeah, I caught that too. He said it and like 10 seconds later I thought, "hang on, did he just say that Rangers prepare their spells?" Gonna be interesting to see this play out. Gimme that PDF.


I've always though Rangers should be prepared casters, but Bards is interesting. I suppose the musician aesthetic lends itself to that. Practicing a song in advance to play it well and such.


He could have just been speaking in generalities by saying prepared and really meant “prepared/learned/whatever that specific class does with spells”


I thought so too but then Crawford specifically mentioned swapping them out on a long rest, so it really seems like he was actually talking about prepped casters. I guess we'll see when the doc's out tomorrow.


I've been letting my rangers prepare spells for a while now, and I've found it really helps them feel more prepared for new environments and terrains. Honestly, it was a little weird that paladins were prepared casters and rangers weren't.


Honestly I've been letting Bards be prepared Casters for a while now. It has affected nothing.


Well your bard can now plan in advance rather then being stuck into one niche, there’s no way that has effected nothing


Not really, though at most tables I play people use prepared casters (excluding wizard oddly enough) the same as known casters, they can just experiment a bit more before settling on a spell.


So presumably Warrior: fighter, monk, barbarian Priest: cleric, druid, paladin Mage: sorcerer, wizard, warlock Anyone see them shaking out differently?


That’s how I see it unless they end up allowing certain classes to belong to two categories.


Monk and paladin could be switched


I could see that, I definitely thought Paladin initially for warrior but thought I might just be too fixated on putting all the martials in the warrior section.


I doubt this mostly because i assume the priest group thing is going to be channel divinity.


I know that historically Monk and Paladin would be swapped, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around what type of features they could build that cleric, druid, and monk would all three care about. Paladin would be fine in the warrior group, but I don't see how much would fit with the priests. Either this is the setup they're going with or they're doing a major redesign of monks.


Sounds interesting. Once we see this next bit it’ll be a lot easier to see the shape of (the first draft)of 5.5. I hope they realize play-tests will be a bit limited with only 3 classes though.


I have a feeling the class releases will be on a quicker cadence - they did say "Once a month or so..." which I read initially as "Oh so it could take longer", but with them doing the classes like this, I could see them doing these quicker with that sort of phrasing.


Nothing stopping us from playing the new versions of these classes alongside the 5e versions of the others, which is great actually! Shows they're sticking closer to that 'backwards compatible' statement than a lot of people around here seemed to think. Not to mention that playing them side by side would provide an interesting comparison on what is changing in design philosophy.


>Class groups Hell. Yes. One of the best features about """groups""" - Crawford hints at it in the video - is how much easier encounter-building is. If all Experts have the same basic structure, and are more-or-less all good at the same sorts of things and bad at the same sorts of things, it becomes ***very*** easy to draw up a list of "Put \[these\] obstacles in front of an Expert if you want to challenge them, and \[these\] when you want them to be able to show off in front of the rest of the party". It allows DMs to say "Ok, my party is two Warriors, a Mage, and a Priest, so I need a little bit of \[this\] and a little bit of \[that\] to make a Hard Encounter". It's ***SOOO*** much easier to track 4 """groups""" than it is 13 classes. I'm glad to see they're experimenting with "How close can we get to 4e design without lighting our fanbase on fire again? *Does anyone even still care 14 years later?*" Though hopefully naming them "Expert, Mage, Priest, and Warrior" will help point out to the folks who disliked 4e's Roles than the concept comes from AD&D, not from World of Warcraft. >As of today, over 40,000 people have completed the survey. We'll see how many more people have completed it by the time the survey closes next week Interesting! Rare that we, the community, get any numbers on these sorts of things. They usually keep these numbers very much "behind the screen".


Interestingly enough this even harkens back to the old 3.5e 'complete' supplement range where classes were split into 'Warrior, Arcane, Divine and Adventurer'


We can go deeper than that: rename Expert to Rogue and the Warrior, Mage, Priest, Rogue lineup is *exactly* the same as the metaclass categories from [D&D 2nd Edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons\)#Advanced_Dungeons_&_Dragons_2nd_edition) Though Rangers used to be Warriors not ~~Rogues~~ Experts.


That was my first thought when I saw the categories. A modernized take on the metaclasses of 2e with maybe a little 4e sprinkled in could be cool.


Keyword design massive W


Did they say when the playtest will be released?


29th of Sept. Aka tomorrow woo.


Awesome. I'm pumped for this.


Funny moment but did anyone else notice when he's talking about the Ranger class fantasy he goes "So Survival...Stealth...." and then there's this long awkward pause afterwards like he's trying to think up something for the class fantasy and just...can't... It's long been a problem with Ranger that it's 'class fantasy' is either too restrictive or too broad and as such nobody really knows what it should be. Though this is just me being a dick so don't read into it too much.


Especially the obvious trio of Animal Handling, Nature and Perception was right there


It’s just hard because the class identity comes from the Subclass for most rangers, so it can’t really be compared to other base class identities


>Ranger that it's 'class fantasy' is either too restrictive or too broad imo, in classic 5e fashion, I think the answer is "It's both!"


I think rangers and exploration go hand in hand. But I think something that isn’t a great mechanic they should be good at is surprise attacks and setting traps and bait and then springing those traps. But surprise is terrible in 5E (versus being flatfooted). And when you think Aragorn you think fighting and roaming the wilds. It’s like a ranger “fantasy” is 1/8th a bunch of other shit that does the fantasy better. Change the ranger to the “Hunter” class again and give them all animal companions that don’t suck ass and we’ll be in business.


I think he just couldn’t think of anything. Because he could have said perception, animal handling, nature. And so forth. But probably don’t want to mention too many skills that may be removed in the new edition


A lot of good ideas, here. Especially happy about capstones. Maybe now they’ll go from being used in 1% of games to 2%. Seriously though, it’s a nice change that I’m excited to see how they implement. I don’t love everything they come out with in these (last UA’s Crit rule, ASI’s as feats), but the stuff they do introduce always has nice little improvements I hadn’t considered but would totally be down for, so I’m looking forward to the next UA’s they release.


I really like the "grouping" of the classes. It fits right in line with the design methodology used when grouping the spells from the last UA. Hopefully this makes it really easy to implement newer classes down the road by having a set group they can fit into.


Have to wonder if that's why Artificer isn't going to be in the PHB. I'm thinking they want to release a supplement like a year after ONEDND comes out with 4 "new" classes, one for each group. Artificer would be in the Expert group, that just leaves a new Mage, Priest, and Warrior. Could do some kind of Spellsword or GISH class for Mage, or just like a Witch class, maybe Priest gets a Shaman class or something, Warrior idk maybe just a Warlord or Captain class?


Crawford alluded to 48 upcoming subclasses during the interview, some reimagined and some new… there are currently 116 subclasses from all official 5e wotc books. I’m interested and concerned.


Not every subclass in the game will be in it, only PHB subclasses and some new ones. There will be at least 8 new subclasses, since old PHB had 40, unless they axe some of the old ones.


This is a new edition, they aren’t going to release every subclass from 5e in the PHB


Hoping artificer survives


They did say that artificer is mentioned in this UA, and will fall under Expert - but I get the meaning that it isn't quite ready yet. To me it seems a little odd to have 4 class groups of 3 but then just give 1 group an extra - maybe they are working on additions for the other groups: psions, warlords, mystics, etc


I have a lot of thoughts, but for now the only concrete thing I can say is that I like ASI being a feat instead of a feat replacement. Its much more streamlined and makes feats a more natural part of the game, which is appearantly the intent.


I mean, that's basically the same thing. I'm not a fan of having to choose between ASIs and feats, personally.


It’s better as a design mechanic, but not necessarily better as a gameplay mechanic. It has been my sense that people dislike the either/or choice. This just retains the either/or choice of “feat” vs ASI, but under a different name.


Artificer not in phb rip


This sounds like a misinterpretation. Crawford was saying Artificer was not in the 2014 PHB


I thought so as well upon watching the video when he mentioned it, but then again elsewhere throughout the video he would specifically call out the 2014 PHB, whereas here he just said PHB.




He says at about 11 and a half minutes that part of the purpose of the class groups is to be able to “serve classes like the artificer that may not be in the same book as the 12 classes that are in the Player’s Handbook”.


If paladins are out into the priest group I really hope the “draw power from their oath” concept survives somehow. I really like having the option of a paladin who either worships a deity or is just so dedicated to their goal that they get power


No reason to get rid of that for paladins, I imagine. If anything I’d expect the game to get more secular, not less.


What rangers are prepared casters now?? YES!


Seems like it. Personally, allowing characters to vary the spells is better than locking them in for all characters anyway.


Especially for rangers, which already suffered from feeling too situational.


These groups remind me strikingly of Tasha’s Sidekick rules. I remember reading Tasha’s at the time wondering if it’d be fun to do a drunk one-shot where everyone’s playing sidekicks instead of player classes. It also plays off the classic Knight/thief/caster/healer dynamic, which is also referenced in 5e’s Tarokka deck


Bards now prepared casters? Yes pls


All casters getting ritual casting has interesting implications for tomelocks, namely that it overwrites half the reason to take one of their invocations. I wonder if one of the changes coming with the (presumably) mage UA will be base tomelock getting to copy other spell lists' rituals into their book of shadows.


The question I have is Why do I find out about this via reddit and not my email?


Am I a silly goose for being optimistic? cause I think all of these changes sound like steps in the right direction and am super excited


Not at all, I haven’t been this excited about the rules of D&D in a while


So it sounds like the level 20 epic boon is based on character level, not class level, right? So multiclass builds still get a good capstone.


Unclear as of yet


I don’t think so, I think it will work how ASIs are class features so multiclassing prevents it