D&D 5E [+]What Characters Are You Excited to Build?

[TheSword]

I’m looking forward to recreating a Witcher with Ranger and the magic initiate feats. Bladeward is very interesting in the playtest.

 

[Rocker26a]

Yeah I mean I like the later level ones, because Hide In Plain Sight is garbage, but like why not just describe the effect? I get it, it’s simpler to have spells, but the Ranger shouldn’t need a spell to read the land or the behavior of an animal.

My thing with (the various iterations of) Nature's Veil is, it's objectively better than Hide in Plain Sight, but it's still a can of worms unto itself. Invisibility without actually hiding is often like that. Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight is the same way.
And also, this is even more of a me thing, but... I'm less keen on out-and-out Invisibility for Ranger? I like the Batman thing for them. Where they're that good at playing against a creatures' senses that they may as well be invisible, but there's nothing directly magical or supernatural about it.

Yeah for sure. Being able to get more out BI is great.
I sometimes feel like the one good part of the 3.5 bard gets thrown out with a lackluster class that requires multiple splats and decent system mastery to get up to the level of a fairly effective wizard.

But Inspire XYZ were excellent. Why not let the bard have effects that require some kind of recitation, are used as a bonus action, and everyone that can hear the bard can be affected for an amount of time depending on the “song”, like combat stuff is mostly 1 minute, travel stuff might be 24 hours, and anything in between depending on the effect? If we must limit it beyond that give it an “up to Y” limit of targets.

See when I was first getting into D&D, that's what I thought Song of Rest would be like, and it would just be one amongst a host of abilities you could choose from. As is, it almost seems like the last vestigial remnant of that sort of idea.

I do think that the most recent UA Natural Explorer is fine, and gives the Ranger back some tie to nature, which it obviously needs to have.

Y'mean from the Revised Ranger? That was the last UA to actually use that feature, right? I do like the Revised Ranger Natural Explorer! I like that it provides more direct combat buffs that you can reasonably spin as being within the Ranger's wheelhouse.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Whereas I am in exactly the opposite boat.

If they're things you are specifically meant to be using, as part of basic play, they should be class features and not spells. Frankly, the Ranger shouldn't be a spellcaster at all, but that's an entirely separate can of tatzelwurms.

Turning every class feature under the sun into spells is genuinely one of the worst things 5.0 did, and I'm very glad to see them backing off of that policy, rather than the idiotic attempt in one of the playtest documents to go even further (making WARLOCK PACTS into spells, for God's sake!!)

I mean I disagree with this, though, even though I agree that a lot of stuff was made spells that shouldn’t be.

Like don’t make gnomes talking to critters a spell, that’s needlessly limited and doesn’t fit the fantasy of it being natural.

But like, it’s not some objective truth that spells are a bad vehicle for class features. The warlock pacts as spells worked fine. It wasn’t needed, but it wasn’t remotely problematic. You make a pact and you get to summon a thing. That being a spell is…fine.

I do actually agree with this point in general, just the Conjure Barrage + Volley thing is a bad example where I hate it. Even if Conjure Barrage + Volley weren't spells and just things Rangers could do, I'd still be annoyed. I dislike Rangers being pushed into being exclusively bow and arrow guys. If you don't use a bow and arrow, you have no class features at those levels. (They already changed it so whatever but you get what I'm saying hopefully)

Sure you would. Both spells work fine for an otherwise melee ranger.

But yeah, agree in general. See; my thing with Primal Awareness. It's lame to have to cast spells to interact with nature as a Ranger, I reckon. Even if you get them for free, even if it's a free daily cast.

I’m on the fence with this. There is ranger stuff that shouldn’t be spells, but giving them commune with nature for free makes sense. It would be silly to replicate its effects just for the purpose of not technically having a spell there.

In cases where the actual thing happening in the game world is going to be the same, just use the spell.

That a few people can’t see a spell on a class feature and not invision thier character suddenly being a wizard, “because spell”, no matter how differently from proper Spellcasting it is, just isn’t a thing they need to worry about IMO.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Oops! misread the questions - I'm not really paying attention to any rules that may or may not get published (and even when they do may or may not get used in games I actually play) but I do have a few concepts from the current rules I'm excited about.

I have a genie warlock / beast barbarian I'm getting hyped over - backstory is a shifter (weretiger) who's a little more innfluenced than most (beast barb), but is also a slave to a dao. She's not happy about the slave thing but also wants the dao's magic to help with the other issue - there's a lot of control vs power issues going on.

It works better in my dm's game with generous bonus feats.

On the back burner I'd also love to play an armored artificer, (specifically a gnome who wears medium-sized armomr as a mini-mecha, if thats not too far out for the setting) and I have a few more weird multiclass shenanigans I might want to try in the right campaign.

 

[Rocker26a]

Sure you would. Both spells work fine for an otherwise melee ranger.

You get what I mean. It's not hard to imagine a Ranger that just does not fit the flavour of that sort of effect. Or on the more extreme level, simply does not use or even carry a ranged option despite it being a good idea, nevermind using a spell that specifically requires one. Hell we're not extremely far off from Minsc there. And if you genuinely never intend to use it, but you're forced to take it to progress in your class, then you got nothing that level!

I’m on the fence with this. There is ranger stuff that shouldn’t be spells, but giving them commune with nature for free makes sense. It would be silly to replicate its effects just for the purpose of not technically having a spell there.

In cases where the actual thing happening in the game world is going to be the same, just use the spell.

I think part of the problem is that we're just in too deep, and things that shouldn't be spells are, and there's no real mechanism for undoing that. What do you do when Hunter's Mark is effectively crowned Ranger's signature class feature, but Hunter's Mark is still duty bound to continue existing? Outside of "jump ship, kick off the next edition and fix it in that", since they've ruled out abandoning 5E and are seeking to fold One D&D back into it.

That a few people can’t see a spell on a class feature and not invision thier character suddenly being a wizard, “because spell”, no matter how differently from proper Spellcasting it is, just isn’t a thing they need to worry about IMO.

I think there are more tolerable instances than others. The spell in question is a big factor for me personally. I could deal with Hunter's Mark being a rendered a class feature because you can spin it however you want, give it whatever flavour suits. It could be different per character even. Whereas something like the Conjure (ranged attack) spells, they're more particular and will just be a non-starter for some (me).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean I disagree with this, though, even though I agree that a lot of stuff was made spells that shouldn’t be.

Like don’t make gnomes talking to critters a spell, that’s needlessly limited and doesn’t fit the fantasy of it being natural.

But like, it’s not some objective truth that spells are a bad vehicle for class features. The warlock pacts as spells worked fine. It wasn’t needed, but it wasn’t remotely problematic. You make a pact and you get to summon a thing. That being a spell is…fine.

Your book of shadows being a spell? Your hexblade stuff being a spell? Meaning these things can (somehow) be counterspelled?

Nah. Hard, hard pass. If something is meant to be a core part of how you DO your class's shtick, it should be a class feature.

Sure you would. Both spells work fine for an otherwise melee ranger.

The point was not "you can't use them as a melee ranger." The point was "if you're a melee ranger, you get features which are pretty much pointless for you, since you aren't doing anything to be good at that form of combat." Which I think is a perfectly fine stance to take.

I’m on the fence with this. There is ranger stuff that shouldn’t be spells, but giving them commune with nature for free makes sense. It would be silly to replicate its effects just for the purpose of not technically having a spell there.

In cases where the actual thing happening in the game world is going to be the same, just use the spell.

That a few people can’t see a spell on a class feature and not invision thier character suddenly being a wizard, “because spell”, no matter how differently from proper Spellcasting it is, just isn’t a thing they need to worry about IMO.

Except that it is "proper Spellcasting," by definition. It's literally you, casting a spell, with all of the rules and trappings that contains. You also can't do anything with it that isn't part of that spell. E.g. if you want to "commune with nature" in order to ask the natural spirits of the land what has disturbed them and how it can be healed (something I would very much expect a Ranger to want to do), you're SOL. None of the things on the list do that.

 

[Rocker26a]

The point was not "you can't use them as a melee ranger." The point was "if you're a melee ranger, you get features which are pretty much pointless for you, since you aren't doing anything to be good at that form of combat." Which I think is a perfectly fine stance to take.

That's what I was trying to say but couldn't quite put it concisely. So, thanks!

Your book of shadows being a spell? Your hexblade stuff being a spell? Meaning these things can (somehow) be counterspelled?

Nah. Hard, hard pass. If something is meant to be a core part of how you DO your class's shtick, it should be a class feature.

Except that it is "proper Spellcasting," by definition. It's literally you, casting a spell, with all of the rules and trappings that contains. You also can't do anything with it that isn't part of that spell. E.g. if you want to "commune with nature" in order to ask the natural spirits of the land what has disturbed them and how it can be healed (something I would very much expect a Ranger to want to do), you're SOL. None of the things on the list do that.

Y'know I didn't even properly consider that. Yeah it is also theoretically lame to have to abide by the mechanical restrictions of spellcasting just to perform your class abilities. And also leave yourself vulnerable to those relevant counters/nullifiers. Especially when it's not universal, like a Paladin would never have to worry about Smiting something while within a Silence bubble or a Beholder's Anti-Magic Gaze.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You get what I mean. It's not hard to imagine a Ranger that just does not fit the flavour of that sort of effect. Or on the more extreme level, simply does not use or even carry a ranged option despite it being a good idea, nevermind using a spell that specifically requires one.

Do you really think the game needs to accommodate people that have thier character refuse to use a ranged weapon?

I just hard disagree. I’d rather see the Ranger get melee and ranged oriented features, and would consider the melee ones something to fall back on if playing an archer.

Hell we're not extremely far off from Minsc there. And if you genuinely never intend to use it, but you're forced to take it to progress in your class, then you got nothing that level!

This is a general mindset level difference, so we might as well leave it at what we have said.

I think part of the problem is that we're just in too deep, and things that shouldn't be spells are, and there's no real mechanism for undoing that. What do you do when Hunter's Mark is effectively crowned Ranger's signature class feature, but Hunter's Mark is still duty bound to continue existing? Outside of "jump ship, kick off the next edition and fix it in that", since they've ruled out abandoning 5E and are seeking to fold One D&D back into it.

Well, the HM spell doesn’t have to exist or do what it currently does, but regardless, why shouldn’t the Ranger have the effects of hunters mark on a creature x/day free with the ability to burn thier main limited resource to use the feature again if needed?

There are things that would go too far, but it’s not like they tried to make Sneak Attack a spell. They floated the notion of Spellcasting classes having more of thier class be expressed via spells.

I think there are more tolerable instances than others. The spell in question is a big factor for me personally. I could deal with Hunter's Mark being a rendered a class feature because you can spin it however you want, give it whatever flavour suits. It could be different per character even.

Agreed

Whereas something like the Conjure (ranged attack) spells, they're more particular and will just be a non-starter for some (me).

I genuinely don’t understand why CB would have been an issue for you. It wasn’t enough feature to hold up a level, but other than that, it’s another tool.

Your book of shadows being a spell? Your hexblade stuff being a spell? Meaning these things can (somehow) be counterspelled?

Your summoning of them is a spell. They are not a spell.

Nah. Hard, hard pass. If something is meant to be a core part of how you DO your class's shtick, it should be a class feature.

Eh, I disagree.

The point was not "you can't use them as a melee ranger." The point was "if you're a melee ranger, you get features which are pretty much pointless for you, since you aren't doing anything to be good at that form of combat." Which I think is a perfectly fine stance to take.

Getting features that fill a gap in your arsenal is a good thing.

Except that it is "proper Spellcasting," by definition.

I don’t share this hangup. It is what you describe it as, just like artificers are generally understood to be activating and using their artifices when they “cast a spell”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My thing with (the various iterations of) Nature's Veil is, it's objectively better than Hide in Plain Sight, but it's still a can of worms unto itself. Invisibility without actually hiding is often like that. Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight is the same way.
And also, this is even more of a me thing, but... I'm less keen on out-and-out Invisibility for Ranger? I like the Batman thing for them. Where they're that good at playing against a creatures' senses that they may as well be invisible, but there's nothing directly magical or supernatural about it.

Sure, I get that. I have a rogue that is like that. People are convinced his stealth is supernatural but it’s literally just how good he is at it.
But I think 5e just isn’t that game that models in-between stuff like an ability that is similar to a spell but isn’t magical very well. Could be I’m wrong of course.

See when I was first getting into D&D, that's what I thought Song of Rest would be like, and it would just be one amongst a host of abilities you could choose from. As is, it almost seems like the last vestigial remnant of that sort of idea.

It should have been, for sure.

I’d settle for song spells that are only on the bard list, since the balance and such for spells is well understood and it wouldn’t really change the effects, but I’d rather have the Bard get something like the weird half-casting of the much maligned warlock UA, complete with replacing magical secrets with that version of mystic arcanum, maybe even on a short rest recharge. Just more limited Spellcasting to make room for actual Bard class features.

Y'mean from the Revised Ranger? That was the last UA to actually use that feature, right? I do like the Revised Ranger Natural Explorer! I like that it provides more direct combat buffs that you can reasonably spin as being within the Ranger's wheelhouse.

While the revised Ranger is great and I wish they’d have used some of it again in this playtest, I’m referring to UA6, they just call it Deft Explorer for whatever reason.

 

[Rocker26a]

Do you really think the game needs to accommodate people that have thier character refuse to use a ranged weapon?

I just hard disagree. I’d rather see the Ranger get melee and ranged oriented features, and would consider the melee ones something to fall back on if playing an archer.

I think the game is better when it accommodates choices like that rather than forcing anything! A choice isn't always necessary, but in that instance, one would've helped (it still would've been a lame feature but not as bad)! It's like with Hunter Ranger, the game doesn't force you to take Volley if it doesn't suit your character, it lets you take Whirlwind attack instead! (should you get access to both so they're both tools in your arsenal? Possibly. But even still.)

Getting features that fill a gap in your arsenal is a good thing.

Not if it's a gap you don't care about, or it's a lame way of doing it like giving you a spell you never use forever!

I genuinely don’t understand why CB would have been an issue for you. It wasn’t enough feature to hold up a level, but other than that, it’s another tool.

I will try and explain my reasoning beyond what I've already mentioned;
At the baseline, they're just not spells that interest me. Never cast them, probably never will, probably never would even if I was forced into having them. And I actively play Ranger, it's like my favourite class despite it having no fully good version.
Beyond that, even if they were the most amazing spells ever, the flavour doesn't fit how I conceptualize Ranger's magic capabilities. Duplicating a bunch of arrows (or other stuff) mid-air? That actually does seem like more of a Wizard thing in my head. Not a part of my personal fantasy of Ranger. And there's no fluid way to spin it or reflavour it, it's just a thing that happens. Rope Trick is another example of a spell that just doesn't work for Rangers in my mind, but the effect is actually interesting there. Before I committed to my own homebrew, that was something I had to swap out from Gloomstalker's Conclave spells.

Well, the HM spell doesn’t have to exist or do what it currently does, but regardless, why shouldn’t the Ranger have the effects of hunters mark on a creature x/day free with the ability to burn thier main limited resource to use the feature again if needed?

There are things that would go too far, but it’s not like they tried to make Sneak Attack a spell. They floated the notion of Spellcasting classes having more of thier class be expressed via spells.

I think working from a pre-existing spell can become a millstone around the neck design wise. Ranger's main ability has been an interesting ongoing case of this. I don't like that the Hunter's Mark spell is concentration and single target for a pittance of damage, but if those aspects were removed/limited for the base spell, what does a Ranger get as their class feature? Free uses? Fine I guess, but just not as good as it could be I reckon.
It also informs the design philosophy when you try and move beyond just granting the spell. Tasha's Favoured Foe was the most divergent we've seen in a while, but it still held over spell concentration and single target application.