Overview | Unearthed Arcana: Expert Classes | One D&D
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 апр 2024
- Visit dndbeyond.link/yt_OneDnD_UAEx... and help shape the future of the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons. Playtest material coming September 29.
UNEARTHED ARCANA 2022 EXPERT CLASSES
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.
#dungeonsanddragons #dnd #onednd 
Развлечения
Playtest material coming September 29.
Hi! Soon as in later today or later this week?
When is it coming
Was about to say, it's not available to download yet
Next time, can you please upload the pdf together with the video? If anything, the pdf should come before the video, not after
Going forward, it would be HUGELY appreciated if the Playtest Material was released simultaneously with the video.
What a great team
👍
Nice
👍
Good
cool
Remember folks, this is a playtest. So if there’s a rule that you don’t care for, remember it’s not finalized. Voice your opinions, discuss your feelings, take the survey. Let’s be civil. They wants to hear from us.
And when we get the final rules, if you don't like it, change it. Or play OSR or any of the myriad possibilities we have. I recommend playing other systems even if One D&D is near perfect.
Totally. To add to that, if there's a rule you don't like....suggest a change. There's also the mentality that...you don't HAVE to use RaW. Homebrew rules exist y'all. Happy rolling!
And even if it is finalized, that as the DM, you have the power to make your own rules.
Thank you for saying it. This is all experimental for something coming in 2024. People need to remember that and enjoy their games
Jfc...
Ohhhh boyyyyyyyyyyy, can't wait to see this stuff! :D
I love their willingness to experiment with multiple versions of rules, and it really seems like they’re listening to feedback. Can’t believe they only got 40k survey responses though! Come on people! We’re doing this together!
Edit: yes 40k is a lot of responses on the playtest 1 survey, but there are like >200k views on the hour-long playtest 1 video! Hopefully the interest will continue to build
Yes! Very exciting! I hope the wait isn't too long for this UA!
those playtests look more and more helpful for weird setting like Dark Sun :)
@@AlLajeunesse Oh? Interesting idea. I would like to think they allow for all manner of flavoring.
Hyyyype 🙌🏻
This was clearly filmed some time ago. Jeremy Crawford mentions another week left in the survey.
One thing I REALLY hope they do this time over the original DnDNext playtest is that they don't exclusively just test levels 1-10 and instead we see some tier 3 and tier 4 testing.
It's coming out in batches. First playtest was literally level 0-1 stuff, and this time they are giving us up to 20th level in 3 classes, and spell lists up to 9th.
To be fair, I feel like the fact that they classified all the spells for all levels is a good start.
I hope the keep the wizard spell schools.
Regarding the Tier 3 and 4, I agree. Our last few one shots and short shots started at 10, 10, 12, and 8.
ok
48 new sub classes and 45 of them are going to be cleric domains.
Only 40 cleric domains. Need room for the 8 wizard schools.
@@ShatterAlpha Woah woah woah, every other class needs at least one subclass. That's why we should expect a mere 30 Cleric Domains.
(surprised it's skewed towards the cleric considering how much they love Wizards)
Its the same number we had before with 7 new subclasses.
Really happy to see how adaptive you are being with these rules, presenting loads of different options for us all to play around with! I'm also seeing some parallels between these "experts" and the tasha's sidekicks in terms of grouping, seems like an elegant system!
I noticed that as well. Some folks are thinking the classes will be put into four categories (Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Spellcaster) but I’m fairly certain it’ll be like the three categories in Tasha’s.
@@wmad202 That's because they're all from the same source. Older editions grouped generic classless npcs into warrior, expert, mage, and priest that gave them enough to fill that archetype without having to actually need class levels
Ello mate
@@wmad202 Jeremy did namedrop them in the video at 14:03
@@wmad202 They mentioned 4 in this video - Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Mage. I could see there being at least 1 more, considering how classes work mechanically. _(But not too many, since it was mentioned that the "ideal group" would have a classman from every group - and I don't think they expect a standard party be, like, 7 strong.)_
For example, experts get expertise. If all Warriors were to get, say, Heavy Armor proficiency, will Barbarians be Warriors as well? How about Monk?
I'm excited to find out how they all fit together.
The very first thing that crossed my mind when class groups was mentioned was the new party building. I think that’s a tremendous idea for helping people learn the archetypes and suggested playstyles of each class. Looking forward to seeing the doc tomorrow!!
I love that they're moving some of the 20th level features to 18! It means we'll get more time to play with some of the coolest features in the game. Plus, more accessible ritual casting sounds like a blast
In theory, sure! I love the idea of getting those capstones a little earlier.. but even at lvl 18 it still seems far off. In the 10 years I've been playing D&D, I've never been a part of a campaign that went higher than lvl 14. It's frustrating as hell, especially since even the premade adventures are only designed to go as high as the mid teens. 23 adventures and only "Dungeon of the Mad Mage" suggests going to lvl 20.
From what I've seen most campaigns (and most official adventures) end before level 14.
From what I know of D&D, not yet a player, it seems like they'll be front loading the classes even more which makes bore out to happen faster.
@@WolfricThorsson Capstones should be a long way off, but at least with them at 18 you may get the chance to actually USE them for more than an encounter or two before the campaign ends. I've made it to 20 once before and the achievement was undercut since the campaign ended one session later.
@@WolfricThorsson request a session zero always and request going to 20. Give the DM a pass saying you don’t care if balance is off but that you’d like to explore epic themes and storylines
Actually starts talking about the classes around 10:00
Thank you
Wait, is nobody going to mention that he called the Bard and Ranger **PREPARED** spellcasting classes???!?! In the 2014 PHB they're both spells-known casters. Changing them to prepared casters is HUGE! For the record, I'm in favor of the change, but I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet (that I've seen).
thats a great catch, will isten again, could be that all spell casters go to the same method of spell selection etc - would be interesting and simplification at the same time, will await the notes tomorrow :)
I think he meant spell choices, as he brings this up to make it easier for spells known to be less daunting in choice. So more of a “here’s the spells you might want to pick” instead of just giving a spell list and picking.
I heard that as well¡ I think he was talking about the suggested spells in general tho. I dont think it was meant to be about the ranger and bard (but Hopefully it was!)
Edit: nvm I'm dumb
Am i the only one who hates prepared spells?! Seems like it just discourages creativity... Why prepare some niche spell when that spell slot could be used for another fireball spell...
I like this change, but I hope they don't do it with Sorcerer. I love sorcerer and I realize that being spells-known is a bit limiting, but within the context of what makes sense for the sorcerer lore, it makes more sense that they just innately know something. If everyone else is prepared spells, maybe increase the sorcerer's number of spells known a little bit so they aren't outclassed.
Jeremy has the patience of a saint. It's not easy putting up with a lot of passionate nerds with wildly different ideas, but he handles it with admirable grace ❤️
I am betting there is a lot of it in the WotC offices, before it even gets to the fans!
Jeremy is a Passionate Nerd. He was like the proud father of a new born in this video
Wait till you see how the dev team is treated by him
I dunno, I get the feeling Todd and JC can't even be in the same room at the same time, but that might be the cinematography. Someone should put a bounty on the outtake reel from this, it may be a classic on par with the outtakes from Orson Welles' commercial for frozen peas.
He still needs a rules editor.
I really like the class groups. As someone playing an artificer right now, I feel like a lot of things leave them out just for simplicity. Also, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the Sidekick class for NPCs with three subclasses: Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster. And he mentioned the Expert and Warrior class groups - but also a Mage and Priest group so it could just be a coincidence but I like the idea that they were somewhat inspired by that. Also, please bring the Sidekick rules back, they're such a great addition to the game and I've never ran a campaign without them since they came out.
Edit: I haven't played any editions before 5e, so I didn't know that those older editions is probably where the group names originate from, not the Sidekick rules.
That was something in 2nd Edition AD&D. Warriors were Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Priests were Clerics and Druids. Rogues were Thieves, and Bards. Wizards were Mages, and Specialists.
The other class groups being Warrior, Mage and Priest tho so I dunno where Artificer's going to fit (unless they have some unannounced classes and a whole new group...)
The only thing you've said these group divisions are for is to put restrictions on feats, which is wrong.
@@slipshodaverage844 Druids were actually an example of Specialty Priests in 2nd Edition.
One of the Box Sets for Forgotten Realms had Specialty Priests specific to each god.
@@dinhvu2940 That's right. The "Faiths & Avatars" book is what I think you're talking about. I always loved that the front of the book has one of every gods' priest in their garments lined up.
I hope that they can make the artificer a player’s handbook class, to make things easier. That’s what I’m going to ask for in the play-test. Thank you wotc for trying new things.
I think it would be ludicrous not to include it
I wish they'd release some annual or bi-annual compendium that just includes all classes, subclasses, and feats up to that point in time. No fluff, lore, or core rules. Just all the class info in one place. Then do the same thing for Races. I just want to build my character without having to sift through 5 books. I know they don't want some huge PHB, so I'd like some collection to release every so often. That would also help people like me who have zero interest in adventures like Witchlight, but don't want to miss out on the character additions.
How does that make things easier?
Not that I'm against it; I just could see someone reading that suggestion as "don't ever add a class AFTER the PHB".
@@SHADOWSTRIKE1 thats not how they make money.
@@MegaManNetworkOfCourse what? Printing and selling new books is exactly how they make money. That guy didn't request the release be a free pdf or anything.
Please include Artificer in the phb
Please give Artificers more options to play with. Nothing from Spelljammer, wth.
No joke, those three classes are my personal favorite classes
I'm excited for the feat option, but not excited at all for the universalization of the class features. I worry this is going to echo how you've been using spells everywhere in place of abilities, which I don't care for. For me, classes needed ways to be diverse, not homogenized. Fingers crossed, but the teaser here seems to indicate more of the same. Class Groupings also don't sound particularly logical as an in-universe pre-requisite for a magic item at the moment. Looking forward to tomorrow, and the survey to follow it. Was glad to hear that the feedback will be discussed and revised packets are planned based on those. I was hoping it would go that way. It worked well for Next (here we are today), so I'm glad that will be the way forward too! Thanks for the video!
Personally I love it! From the sounds of it the core classes will still be very unique, it's just the feats that will be different, which I actually think will add to the uniqueness of classes. Atm a lot of Ranger builds aren't all that different to ranged Fighters, they both tend to take SS, XBE and EA. But if there are cool Expert feats that works well with ranged weapons then you'll end up building your Ranger very differently to your Fighter. Same with Bards in comparison to Warlocks or Sorcerers.
Class capstones dropping to 18th; 20th now gets an epic feat is cool AF
Yea, now we can try those out in all the 5e published adventures that go into Tier 4. Oh wait...
I would like to see a CON based magic user.
Like a Blood Mage, for example, maybe sacrificing some health to cast certain spells
I have always wanted to see a magic system that anyone could use, but with a price, and blood magic seems perfect for it. It's not only a material cost, but the cost of tainting yourself with something dark like that, even if it's only the perception of other people, is compelling.
In my homebrew setting, you can spend and roll Hit Dice in a bid to get (for simplicity and lack of a more flowery term) Blood Magic Points, and then you can use those points to cast spells. They are costly (even a cantrip costs one BMP), but there are rules for sacrificing BMPs to other casters, allowing for blood magic cults. There are other limitations, but that's the gist of it.
I don't expect any edition of D&D to ever contain something like that. Wizards and clerics must reign supreme for all time, so access to magic will always be class-locked, and wizards and clerics will have the best of it.
Super late reply, but Sorcerer should fulfill that roll of CON caster. Them using CHA never really made sense form a lore standpoint and it would make sense that the innately magical person would have to have a decently high CON in order to deliver the more taxing spells.
Other ability scores being important (Con and Int specifically) was such a great thing about 4th, lot of good ideas there that I'm kind of sad they moved so far away from because 3.5th edition players hated them.
My daughter took her first steps to me as I was listening to this.
I've got good feelings about the new books. 😌
So is Jeremy saying that this version of the ranger prepares spells rather than having a set of known spells? That's huge for flexibility and the use of niche spells.
Which is most of the ranger spell list
Even if the artificer is not going to appear in this playtest I would love to see it in the future in the 2024 pbh
It has been mentioned in the Arcane spell list classes in the Augest playtest material, so if it ain't in there I would be greatly confused
@@theddexaggerator7884 it technically still is available as One DnD is intended to be able to use old expansion books with it
ok
At the moment they have a symmetry; 4 class groups, 3 classes per group and 4 sub-classes per class to give the 48 sub-classes they mentioned. Due to that I don't think we will see artificer initially.
@@theddexaggerator7884 In the most recent playtest material, they have stated in the Feedback section that ahead in the One D&D Playtest there will be "Revised versions of every class from the 2014 Player's Handbook" so I'd assume Arti is going to be left out again.
excited to go over this as soon as it's available
What a great team to test and experiment and walk back stuff the community doesn’t like. Love this content. Bring on more classes👀
His Pause when he was trying to talk more about ranger skills then just stoped
Shouldn't the UA pdf and the video be uploaded at the same time??
Why would you do something from a wholistic approach instead of just rolling out half cocked ideas
They probably want people to watch the video and see their explanations of why they put in what they did before people rush to read and make up their minds about it without hearing them out first.
It's because misinformation is and assumptions are rampant when a new document is released. By making the only source of news spoken directly from the devs they are allowing the word to spread based off the dev's own words and not what's in the official document
From the brief mention it sounds like the test of the crit changes got some flame. Seemed to be the one area that a lot of people didn't like. I think they could have been clear from the start that there were 3 different versions, and just give all 3 so we can do side by side comparisons. Then at least the feedback is with the whole picture in mind. With the snapshot we get its sometimes hard to see the whole system as a connected thing, so we don't always understand how one change effects other areas.
I look forward to seeing the next Unearthed Arcana for D&D One!
I think its great that the Ranger is in the Expert group. The Ranger was a bit lackluster in 5e and needed something to strengthen its identity.
Rangers were only lackluster in the PHB in later books they got a massive boost. The gloomstalker is one of the most exceptional classes in the game. They really gave love to the ranger throughout 5e. Druidic fighting style gives access to shileliegh and expertise so you can make a wisdom based ranger allowing for not just good but insanely high perception, survival, insight.
Some of the advanced Rangers are ridiculous. Like being able to be completely invisible to creatures using darkvision to look at you and thus you almost always have advantage when you're in the dark.
Is that removing its identity, and just making it an offshoot of something else... classes that really have no strong relations to each other?
@@MrApocryphon Gloomstalker is one of the two that are only the exceptions. The rest are still lackluster.
Swarmkeeper [Tasha's] over here, your derision of 5e rangers only makes us stronger.
I feel like inspiration as a mechanic isn't really something that should be focused on by the development team it just feels somewhat unneeded as it just adds another layer of book keeping for a singular reroll.
Another rule that feels unnecessary to enforce upon future module building is the no DM crit rule. Across my grouping circles this was the one that was which rejected immediately as i feel only adventurer's league or certain rules as written groups will use.
The systems that need reworks far more are:
The CR combat and XP system
Martial vs spellcaster division of power past level 5
Mechanics for ship/airship and spelljammer combat.
Crafting tables and modifications to equipment.
To build on your last point: Bounded accuracy was a boon, but I wonder if there is a way to adjust it slightly to trade back for things like weapon threat ranges and expanded crit multipliers. Those things went a long way to differentiating weapons, and I miss them.
It also sucks not having a decent magic item price guide, which would have helped with crafting. The price ranges based on rarity are so vast and muddy that countless homebrew and 3PP documents have tried to plug the gap, and none have managed to stick quite well enough. For mundane items, this can easily be houseruled at the table, as most things a player would want to make are presented with concrete numbers, but it shouldn't have to be. This seems like laziness on WotC's part.
God I wish it was standard practice for companies with an international audience to say what time zone they mean when they give a date... because here in Australia THIS VIDEO was released on the 29th, so going off of my time zone the content should already be out.
Super awesome...stoked that you are all looking to continuously improve! Looking forward to it all!
Worth pointing out that I don't remember them saying in the video, but it is listed in the Description: "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.**" I know that some people were worried how the Spell Lists change was going to affect the Bard. Looks like not at all.
Well i mean if they slap occult in there then they will be using the same thing as pathfinder 2e.
@@lindarkknight4044 Well, 🤮 Pathfinder 🤮 is really just 3.5 and --D&D 6e-- D&D One is supposed to work for all D&D editions so it's understandable it would be --identical-- similar but legally distinct.
@@quirk8841 2e is really distinct from 3.5
It seems to me that letting the bard choose from all three spell lists just makes the bard more broken than ever. They're going to be insufferable.
So the bard gets a selection of arcane and a couple of picks from other lists. Enough to give variety but still keeps them unique from the other mage types. Feels like a good middle ground.
Looks like keywording is back! Definitely will make things less clunky when writing homebrew. Much better inter-book compatibility as well.
I love the approach you are taking with how you are releasing the play test and how you are going to use future videos to talk about what the surveys said. This is great!
I really love the way you guys have decided to approach this step up to the new version of game rules. I forgot to thank you for this opportunity in my survey, so I do so now. Thank you, and I cannot wait for more material to playtest. Keep up the good work and I wish you luck.
So the class groups should be:
Expert - Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Mage - Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock
Priest - Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Warrior - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
The Sidekicks of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the divisions: Expert, Spellcaster, Warrior. I image those are the divisions they're going to use here.
Hope that Artificer and Blood Hunter stick around
@@videonaterAD they've said the Artificer will class as an expert, but won't be appearing in the playtest directly.
As for the blood hunter, as popular as it is, it isn't actually an official class. I imagine it would class as either an expert or a warrior, but its 3rd party homebrew
@@Rougesteelproject Crawford said in the video its these four groups, just not what went into each group
what do they do mechanically speaking - supposedly?
Interesantes novedades, ¡esperamos poder probar pronto los materiales!
Van a sacar un video en español pronto?? 🙏🙏🙏
@@adrieldownie ¡Si seguro!
Adhiero
Looking forward to this one. I'll be certain to apply the rules I can during my next playtest run. It'll also be interesting to see how this can modify/influence class and subclass design moving forward.
Shout out to all the guys working on One D&D, you're doing a great job.
Thank you for providing this material and for being so receptive to community feedback.
The new stuff sounds awesome, keep it coming!
Please make the Artificer part of the Playtest and the new Player's Handbook. He gets left out so often, despite being a class with LOTS of potential. Otherwise, I like what I hear and I look forward to see the playtest tomorrow.
But either way: I hoped you wouldn't make ability score improvements and feats directly competitive with each other again, only being able to chose one or the other. It often limits the amount of feats a character will realisticly take, because +2 to your main stat is often just superior to many of the more flavourful and interesting feats.
I'm assuming your favorite class is the Artificer, eh? Okay, Art-Tiff-Ficer.. Or should I say nerd? Go tinker me a sharper axe.
@@stalebread2997 Yawn go hit some more stuff rage-boi
@@stalebread2997 hakuna yo tatas Fighter Man
I think they´re solving a lot of this issue by adding a +1 stat increase to every level 4 and up feat, which reduces the opportunity cost of taking them effectively by half....sure you need to wait for the next Feat threshold to get to the +2, but at least now you have 2 feats & a +2 increase, instead of just 2 feats. Now we only need to figure out a way to make uneven ability scores useful in some way.
Love the idea of inspiration on a nat1. Going to add that to all my games.
Hope none of your players are Halflings :p
@@MrJalasKelm seems they'd like it even more. Inspiration and rerolling a 1 seems like an even better reason to run halfling.
@@scottarmstrong8178 you reroll the Nat1, so you wouldn't get the inspiration from it, unless you roll another Nat1. Wouldn't make sense to get anything from a roll that doesn't stick.
@@MrJalasKelm Makes sense to me an is an easy fix for the only thing that folks seem to have a problem with for the rule. But you do you.
I would like to say thank you to the team over at wizards and everyone working on D&D for taking the time to listen to community feedback and putting forward the best features of the game for players. I doubt anyone mentioned will read this but if you do just know thateverything you are doing is making the game that much more enjoyable for everyone.
Looking forward to testing the new material. Keep up the great work!
I would prefer the Artificer be in the PHB, but I suspect that's not even on the table.
I look forward to seeing this UA tomorrow.
I really appreciate that you're doing iterative feedback to get the best possible version of the game. Great work!
Love the expertise update, makes sense for rangers and artificers
Love the idea of class groups! Awesome!
The spell suggestion lists are a GREAT idea! I have many (experienced) players that never gathered the courage to try and make a full spellcaster because those spell lists were too intimidating!
SO TRUE
People acting like the internet doesn't exist to do this job already. You'll be paying for pages of a book that are already on rpgbot
@@deanmccourt4800 how have these goobers not heard of a class guide
Inspiration from Nat 1’s is interesting. I was thinking of using that in one of my games but whenever people used their rage dice to overcome a problem it would add one to their personal save DC’s against my planned big bosses attacks. The more they gave into their rage the more attuned they’d be to his influence and vulnerable to his effects sort of deal.
I cannot wait to go over this material and review what it menas for the direction of the game moving forward. Strong start with that first round of rules alterations. Expecting big things from this next document.
Class groups is such an outstanding idea. Seems so simple, but makes a huge difference, especially for homebrewers like myself who may want to add new classes!
I am loving the way things are shaping up.
I'm 5 minutes into the video and WOW. One of the suggestions I gave was exactly to reward Inspiration on natural 1s.
Having experience with another system (Kids on Brooms), giving minor compensation on failures is a nice way to prevent negative spirals. Besides, anyone rolling a lot of natural 1s will be the one that benefits the most from rerolls. I will make sure to try out this feature when I am able to run another DnD session with my friends again. I really appreciate that me and the many others (I assume) that gave the suggestion for this can was already being considered!
For this UA specifically, I hope Ranger gets to lean into both the Skill Monkey and Caster parts. I heavily enjoyed Ranger's Martial capabilities already but the casting and utility have always felt lacking to me. 2014 PHB had mediocre 1st level features that are too niche (Favored Enemy) or too strong (Natural Explorer) while being extremely restrictive. TCoE fixed Ranger level1, 6, and 10 for me in terms of combat but I still felt that a single Expertise was TOO LITTLE to effectively substitute a Bard or a Rogue. Casting, on the other hand, also felt limited. Compared to the similarly nature-themed caster the Druid, Ranger lacked in Spell Options, is limited to a Spells Known mechanic, and cannot ritually cast spells. I am glad to hear that Ranger can be more of an expert now along with ritual casting being more available, but I hope the more mystical side of the class gets explored along with its expert side!
Unfortunately, I fully expect a whole bunch of people to complain that players will start fishing for 1s just like they said people would fish for 20s.
@@andrewshandle Inspiration is effectively just advantage on something though isn't it? Fishing for nat 1's sounds like a masochistic thing to do just for inspiration
@@andrewshandle Hey if a Player deliberately does that, the DM can easily punish with consequences. Hitting a rock until you get a nat 1? Oops, sword flies out of your hand (in combat) or sword shatters on such a horrible miss!
@@snazzyfeathers I agree. I also think getting an Inspiration on a 20 is no big deal either, but after the first UA came out quite a few people commented that it'd completely break the game, claiming that their players roll hundreds of times per session and would be completely swimming in Inspiration totally trivializing the game.
People will complain that this will somehow ruin the game, either because there will be too many inspirations, or something about how minimizing a 1 by giving a reward makes the game too easy,
@@jansolo4628 yes, I agree. There have always been ways to prevent players for fishing for rolls. That won't stop the people complaining that this will ruin their game. ;)
Looking forward to checking out the new stuff!
I truly do appreciate how you're providing the Legos for us and paying attention to how we use them. It's a nice, comprehensive collaboration on the creation of this new edition of D&D. Allowing the fandom to have a say without letting us run too uninhibited shows that you care, not just for the game, but for us as well.
Really liking the Ranger getting things like Expertise.
I've never really been _compelled_ to play a Ranger in 5e (in fact, I don't believe I ever have) but I think the Ranger will be my first class I try in the "next gen" edition
As someone who used to play a lot of Rangers in 3.5e/Pathfinder, I have never touched them in 5e. :( They are very sad and boring, IMO.
@@foghammer9767 then you aint playing them right mate
I still think we need small one-shots and things that are designed to be played with the new rules. How crits feels will depend on what a modern monster stat block looks like.
Still feels like there is too many unknows to really playtest proper.
Once again, I am excited and optimistic about the direction these playtests are going for 5.5e. Class groups, 18th level capstones and epic boons, suggested lists, giving the Ranger expertise, not using the new crit rules, all sounds great. I look forward to diving into the document in full tomorrow.
So far I liked every idea presented here. 😁 Can't wait for that Playtest doc to drop.
It's not released yet? I'm bamboozled?
yeah ? i can't find it.
@@Marpaws I went to the website as soon as I saw this. But I think they'll release it later today
@@wallyallen7169 yeah
I am glad you guys are doing this so openly. Its really smart and makes me feel like I'm designing the game too.
Love this process! Excited to see what come next.
Can't wait to study this in depth !
The suggested list of prepared spell is a really nice quality of life change. As someone whose been DMing for a lot of new players recently i think those lists will help out a lot.
I also see myself using them as a DM when having to improvise a high level NPC caster on the spot
It sounds like you all are very serious about listening and implementing the feedback from the community. Really happy to hear this and I am very stoked to see the next UA tomorrow! Cheers!
Great to see they seem to be listening to the feedback. I'm trying to encourage everyone to send it in - there are a lot of people I know who are bitching about this rule or that, but not filling in the feedback survey, which takes all of about ten minutes.
I can't wait to playtest the VTT, that's what I'm really excited for
Sounds amazing, can’t wait to try them out!
Now this feels like a playtest!
This is so cool, even if the rules don't suit "mainstream" play, they could be added as feats or homebrew material anyway. It's great to be able to provide feedback and impact on the game's evolution. Awesome stuff.
I'm really excited about these class groups. I'm hoping it will help close the gaps that existed between some classes in the original PHB (looking at ranger). I also hope they'll give monk subclasses a good number of these redesigns; I think they are currently most in need of that. The epic boon at 20th level has so much potential; I'm absolutely down to give every class a rebalanced 18th level feature and then let the player choose something truly awesome at level 20 as a reward for sticking with that class.
Fantastic idea for the group classification, I love the connection it gives the classes. Also pre-made spel lists are brilliant 👏
Ok, some of the things they are talking about sound very exciting. Rangers with expertise. Yes
That's been a thing since Tasha's
Ranger with expertise in survival just sounds very fitting for the class.
Yeah, they started that a little with the optional Ranger features in Tasha's. It reminds me a little of how the different colors in Magic: The Gathering work, you tend to see certain abilities almost exclusively on cards of specific colors. The way they're tagging things with things like class groups, arcane/divine/primal for spells etc. in order to make expansion easier down the line seems like a smart way to go.
Yeah in hindsight I don't understand why they didn't already have expertise.
Tasha’s really made me love the Ranger. I played one before and after but it made a big difference. I wish the beast master subclass had a creature CR scaling like the Druid but slower. The hunter subclass would be cool as just base Ranger optional picks like the deft explorer but with less options to not power creep to much.
Edit: I'm a big fan of humans getting inspiration uniquely from the other races. It's nice to give them something that makes them interesting.
Loving the ideas over all though! I honestly like the idea of Nat 1 and Nat 20 grating inspiration. Nat 1 being more of a "fail forward system" while nat 20 feels like "heroes wining"
Really seems like they are listening to us. As some of the things he initially talked about was talked about in some communities. Really brings hope for OneD&D
Can't wait to play as a ranger!🏕
I really like the classes being released in groups like this, so it allows their differences to shine.
I'm really glad to see that some degree of asymmetry will remain between the classes.
Can't wait to read this pdf. I know I had quite a few feelings on the prior one. Many good, some middling and a few that were vehemently opposed.
Bard is my favourite class. Can't wait to see what's in store.
This is so cool! I’m so thrilled the community is able to be involved in the process like this.
Yo sugested prepared spells is so damn good, I would be able to actually recomend spell casters to new players.
This is amazing!! Thanks
Loved the steady stream of UA this year. Even better now with One D&D
Will this update the Class's equiment tables too?
This One D&D thing is growing on me
Obviously it's still early, and there were some things I didn't like in the Character Origins UA. But yeah, overall I like the direction they're going, and I really like hearing Crawford talk about the design choices they're making and why, things like class groups & such.
One D&D playtest is a very exciting time to enjoy this game and community. I can't say I can comfortably playtest all this stuff that often, but just knowing that the game is changing and we're invited is a lot of fun.
Ivreally enjoy this idea of
'when we made this feature we had like 2-3 ideas so we are ganna test them sepertatly '
That's cool about rituals 👍👍
I think these bigger groups of classes is such a cool idea
I like how you work Guys... D&D will be more awesome than ever.
Love the mindset of testing out things that are weird and different! It's the right time to get a little crazy and out of the box :D
I don't mind the idea of having "class groups", but rather than the Expert Group I feel a better name for them being the Specialist.
@@josuemunoz1993 All rangers now get one expertise through Tasha's optional rules.
apart from being named after the class from Tasha's, I'm guessing it's to tie the classes to the Expertise feature. I don't expect to see it changed.
@@josuemunoz1993 unfortunately, as soon as I finished posting my comment, they mentioned it in the video. 🤣
I don't know if Specialist is any better than Expert. Bards kind of do everything, which is sort of the opposite of a specialist. These classes can be experts in multiple things, but they aren't necessarily specializing in one specific area.
pretty sure the reason they use the "Expert" terminology is because of the already existing Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster sidekicks, with Spellcaster being split to Mage and Priest. so they're just using pre-established classifications from the existing game
Thanks for preserving the game balance and combating bloat yet still allowing for creativity and the delight of leveling up and making magic magical. I have forever been trying to reproduce something similar to 4ed's Avenger class. Maybe ranger as an expert might fill that concept.
You can sort of do it with paladin of Vengance, but not really; the stats are all wrong and you're wearing armor.
paladin/rogue multiclass, dex based, although you'd need to houserule an ability to make a 2-handed weapon finesse if you want to retain the giant weapons.
@@robbunchanumbers Leaves out the amazingness that is the int/wis Avenger (which works because Int is an AC stat in 4e as you'll recall). Probably best approach with the existing system is a hexblade vengeance paladin--that way you can wear armor for AC, swing heavy weapons with CHA, and vow of emnity, hunter's mark nad misty step for the mobility and damage marking.
I always figured the core of the avenger was a striker who could find, maneuver to get to someone and then strike, perhaps a divine rogue similar to an arcane trickster but divine magic. Ranger has find and maneuver spells/ability and some striker maybe ability? Never seemed to work out. I still have yet to try out theif acolyte ( for climbing speed and religion skill and connections) with ritual magic feat for augury and divination and other cleric spells. Avenger paladin is cool but it is its own thing.
@@ReadingDave I mean. that's basically how avenging paladin can work. damage, damage, damge, mobility. so you can identify the target thar needs to die, misty step into their face, and launch an attack sequence. It' s largely messed up by 5e having a weak sauce action economy (having a spell that was teleport 30 and attack would help a lot), but the intent is clear.
Looking forward to seeing what this playtest has to offer.
I have allot of respect for wizards of the coast. Great company. Expert classes sounds amazing. This addition is interesting to me.
Really glad that we are playtesting with the better critical rules (2014 crits that is) looking forward to testing these classes.
So any class can cast spells as rituals if they can A) cast a given spell and B) the given spell has the ritual tag. Got it.
Sounds like it, so Magic Initiate just got even better. Say you wanted to play some type of archaeologist who is a rogue, get Comprehend Languages as a "ritual" from magic initiate, so it's like your character is figuring out what the language means.
I'm assuming the spell still has to be prepared/learned/whatever, not just "it's a spell my class can get". And I'm guessing the Wizard will still have the ability to cast rituals right out of their book even if they aren't prepared for the day. I'm not entirely sure I'm a fan of making ritual-casting just a universal aspect of spellcasting, but it's not gamebreaking for me either.
@@pdegan2814 I personally like it since before some classes had the same spells but couldn't ritual cast because they simply lacked a feature, this made the least sense in regards to Warlocks. Why did Warlocks, the people that sign pacts, not be THE ritual casting class? You had to specifically pick up a certain pact and invocation to do so, which ironically was a subpar choice for optimization.
I am wondering what they're changing to wizards to make up for this being kind of their thing though; being an absolute toolbox of ritual spells is one of the few reasons you'd choose wizard over say, sorcerer. If Sorcs can just ritual cast as well, why wouldn't you choose them?
@@Deiwos0 Wizards already have a wider array of spell options along with having much more spells known than the Sorcerer. Medium to High level optimizations already consider Wizard anywhere from slightly stronger to immensely more powerful than its charismatic counterparts thanks simply to the ability to select spells (and Arcane Recovery being better for spell slot recovery than Flexible Casting).
LOVE the change to the ritual casting it makes so much more sense
This definitely sounds pretty interesting. I was excited to see something about the Artificer, sad to see that doesn't look to be the case, outside of a small reference.