D&D (2024) Developer Video on Druid/Paladin/Expert Feedback

​

WotC has posted a video discussing initial feedback on the One D&D Druid/Paladin playtest, along with survey results from the Expert playtest. Some highlights for discussion:

Druid: The developers recognize that the template version of wild shape is contentious. If they retain this approach, they would plan to add flexibility to those templates. If they revert to monster stat blocks, they might allow Druids to choose a limited number of options, with a default selection provided.

Paladin: The new version of smite is still intended to work with critical hits. If ranged smite persists, its damage may be adjusted through the internal balance/playtesting process.

Ranger: The updated Ranger scored very well in the playtest. Some players did miss the choice of options in the Hunter subclass.

Bard: All of the Lore Bard's features scored welll, but the overall subclass rating was mediocre. They attribute this to the loss of Additional Magical Secrets, which many saw as the key attraction of this subclass.

Rogue: The change to limit sneak attack to the Rogue's own turn scored poorly. The developers generally like moving actions to a player's own turn to keep the game moving quickly, but in this case, the change doesn't seem to be worth the loss of tactical flexibility.

Feats: With the exception of epic boons, all the feats in the Expert packet scored well. The developers are still loking at written feedback for fine tuning.

Conspicuously not mentioned were the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, which were the focus of a lot of discussion during the Bard playtest.

 

[Bolares]

Getting Lost represents a 1d6 hour penalty before you can reattempt the navigation check. Not getting lost means you skip the time penalty, and redo the check.

If you can't get lost, and there is no negative consequence to losing the navigation check, there is no point in making a navigation check. Let's look at raw again...

"Unless they are following a path, or something like it, adventurers traveling in the wilderness run the risk of becoming lost. The party’s navigator makes a Wisdom (Survival) check when you decide it’s appropriate, against a DC determined by the prevailing terrain, as shown on the Wilderness Navigation table. If the party is moving at a slow pace, the navigator gains a +5 bonus to the check, and a fast pace imposes a -5 penalty. If the party has an accurate map of the region or can see the sun or stars, the navigator has advantage on the check.

If the Wisdom (Survival) check succeeds, the party travels in the desired direction without becoming lost. If the check fails, the party inadvertently travels in the wrong direction and becomes lost. The party’s navigator can repeat the check after the party spends 1d6 hours trying to get back on course."

The whole mechanic you are quoting depends on you becoming lost. If you can't get lost you never interact with this mechanics. There is no Wisdon (Survival) check if you can't become lost, because there is no consequence to losing that check. By raw, the ranger ability is indeed an auto-win.

 

[Bolares]

Especially when you're saying you're trying to run a hex crawl; why bother goinf through that prep if you're just going to skip it?

That's why I changed the rules of the ranger class, because by RAW, it would make me skip a huge chunk of the campaign.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

But again, if the game isn't happening at the climate/terrain you choose, or DM isn't into the whole survival thing, doesn't that mean ranger still got dead level?
Unless they just provide gerenal bonus like resistance or something .

Well if it is not the only thing at the level it is not a dead level. That aside, that is why (IMO) we need some better survival/navigation rules. So that the ranger has something to work off. They get some advantages that are always on and some that engage with the wilderness rules.

I like the current direction of ranger because if you are not really building out a wilderness exploration/survival pillar of play then the playtest ranger is good enough in a way that the 2014 ranger was not and in the kind of play that ignores the exploration/survival stuff I prefer the post Tasha ranger.
That said an exploration/survival game that still works at higher levels could be something extremely challenging to produce and is maybe something best left to a supplemental add on.

 

[Emberashh]

If you can't get lost, and there is no negative consequence to losing the navigation check, there is no point in making a navigation check. Let's look at raw again...

"Unless they are following a path, or something like it, adventurers traveling in the wilderness run the risk of becoming lost. The party’s navigator makes a Wisdom (Survival) check when you decide it’s appropriate, against a DC determined by the prevailing terrain, as shown on the Wilderness Navigation table. If the party is moving at a slow pace, the navigator gains a +5 bonus to the check, and a fast pace imposes a -5 penalty. If the party has an accurate map of the region or can see the sun or stars, the navigator has advantage on the check.

If the Wisdom (Survival) check succeeds, the party travels in the desired direction without becoming lost. If the check fails, the party inadvertently travels in the wrong direction and becomes lost. The party’s navigator can repeat the check after the party spends 1d6 hours trying to get back on course."

The whole mechanic you are quoting depends on you becoming lost. If you can't get lost you never interact with this mechanics. There is no Wisdon (Survival) check if you can't become lost, because there is no consequence to losing that check. By raw, the ranger ability is indeed an auto-win.

Ultimately, this again comes down to exploration being poorly supported, because this mechanic is not, in fact, as clear cut as you or I are assuming it to be, now that Im reading it again instead of recalling from memory.

You can argue this either way, but my interpretation makes for a more functional game than just skipping it, and especially so when you're running a Hex Crawl system where the entire point is to navigate it, and so ininterpreting this rule in such way that it breaks that system is just a self-imposed issue, and as such holding that interpretation against the system (and not the lack of clarity that resulted in unclear rules) isn't appropriate.

 

[Bolares]

Ultimately, this again comes down to exploration being poorly supported, because this mechanic is not, in fact, as clear cut as you or I are assuming it to be, now that Im reading it again instead of recalling from memory.

You can argue this either way, but my interpretation makes for a more functional game than just skipping it, and especially so when you're running a Hex Crawl system where the entire point is to navigate it, and so ininterpreting this rule in such way that it breaks that system is just a self-imposed issue, and as such holding that interpretation against the system (and not the lack of clarity that resulted in unclear rules) isn't appropriate.

We all agree the exploration is badly done in 5e. You try to fix it by changing (or interpreting more favourably) the rules of exploration, I change it by changing the Ranger. But in the end of the day, the RAW ranger and RAW exploration rules don't mesh well together. I just hope in the future you don't assume people don't know what they are talking about when responding to you.

 

[Weiley31]

Revised Ranger and Tasha Ranger updates fixed the Ranger for my tables/games. So WoTC hasn't wowed me yet with anything the new playtest ranger offered.

 

[Emberashh]

We all agree the exploration is badly done in 5e. You try to fix it by changing (or interpreting more favourably) the rules of exploration, I change it by changing the Ranger. But in the end of the day, the RAW ranger and RAW exploration rules don't mesh well together. I just hope in the future you don't assume people don't know what they are talking about when responding to you.

Well the fun part is is that hex crawls aren't actually included in the rules of exploration either, and as noted earlier Ive long since rewritten the entire class itself. (And as one might guess from 1DND Ranger being a deal breaker for me, naturally Im also very big on hex crawls)

So we're both addressing (or rather, I addressed, as I dont play 5e anymore) the issue from both ends, and the contention comes from how we approached it.

I think not addressing the Getting Lost rules is a bigger mechanical problem than what Natural Explorer does or doesn't do well, and as far as I can tell by your posts, you haven't actually addressed it yourself and are instead embracing a less functional interpretation that doesn't mesh with the Hex Crawls you're running.

Even with Natural Explorer removed, its not a good thing to leave open the potential to just skip mechanics that are core to something like a Hex Crawl. If a party tried to buff a persons Survival check to obscene levels are you also going to just throw your hands up and not use the mechanics?

Id hope not.

 

[Bolares]

Well the fun part is is that hex crawls aren't actually included in the rules of exploration either, and as noted earlier Ive long since rewritten the entire class itself. (And as one might guess from 1DND Ranger being a deal breaker for me, naturally Im also very big on hex crawls)

So we're both addressing (or rather, I addressed, as I dont play 5e anymore) the issue from both ends, and the contention comes from how we approached it.

I think not addressing the Getting Lost rules is a bigger mechanical problem than what Natural Explorer does or doesn't do well, and as far as I can tell by your posts, you haven't actually addressed it yourself and are instead embracing a less functional interpretation that doesn't mesh with the Hex Crawls you're running.

Even with Natural Explorer removed, its not a good thing to leave open the potential to just skip mechanics that are core to something like a Hex Crawl. If a party tried to buff a persons Survival check to obscene levels are you also going to just throw your hands up and not use the mechanics?

Id hope not.

If a party goes trough the hurdle of optmizing their survival checks to "obscene levels" they are telling me a message. They want to be very good at that, at an obscene level, so I'd probably reward all the work they've put on to achieve that and make as so they will almost always win at that task without much difficulty, and then, in a moment I'd want them to be challenged in that task I'd probably create some curse or magical effect that changes that.
What I don't like is a really early level of a class simply stating that you cannot get lost, that's just lazy/bad design. It trivializes a fun part of the game at no real cost to the player/party. I've run the exploration rules RAW and they functioned great, when there was no ranger in the party. So even if I agree the rules suck, by themselves they are still playable, the ranger (and the outlander background to an extend break them. So yes, I prefer to change the way a class works, rather than redesinging a whole system (even if it's a barebone one). And as I've said before, the change to the ranger was quick, easy and effective. Give the class expertise instead of saying can't or always. That way the players still feels like a badass explorer without making the game boring.

But hey, if your way works for you great, you do you!

 

[Emberashh]

in a moment I'd want them to be challenged in that task I'd probably create some curse or magical effect that changes that.

So you're saying that you'll implement this here, but not when a Ranger ribbon explicitly calls out this possibility to everyone?

What I don't like is a really early level of a class simply stating that you cannot get lost, that's just lazy/bad design.

In a gritty realistic game, Id agree. In a high fantasy game where you're meant to be heroes of the multiverse, I think treating mundane travel as an appropriate challenge is tonally dissonant, even at early levels, and especially when you have a Ranger whose entire design gives the party a leg up in funamentally more dangerous places.

Plus, again, you're still conflicting with the point of a hex crawl. Navigating is the entire point, and you want to continue doing those checks even as you pass through terrains the Ranger is specialized in, because a proper Hex Crawl shouldn't be one contiguous blob of the exact same terrain in all directions. Definitely not when you pre-key each hex, and it should be statistically impossible if you're rolling for terrain instead.

and the outlander background

Unless your Outlander has traversed every corner of the continent or read every map in existence they shouldn't be skipping a thing. And moreover, if you're not passing through a tile with an Easy Foraging DC, you don't benefit from the food.

It trivializes a fun part of the game at no real cost to the player/party.

I think what trivializes the fun is skipping mechanics just because the party is strong with them. No different than skipping Stealth just because a Druid turned into a rat.

It really begs the question of why you're setting up these scenarios to be challenges when you're just going to skip them if the players have an answer.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Call me a weirdo, but I would create a core ranger that had no spells and move the spells to one or more subclasses. Iconic abilities would be made class abilities, rather than spells.

Do the same thing with paladins.

And for druids, make the templated wildshape the core version of the class and make the Circle of the Moon the subclass that goes digging through the Monster Manual.