Parmandur
Book-Friend
It certainly seems strange to say we will never see something they are actively testing and talking about.
I doubt there will be a PF 3E, but that's neither here nor there.
D&D 5E Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018
It certainly seems strange to say we will never see something they are actively testing and talking about.
I doubt there will be a PF 3E, but that's neither here nor there.
Well, he pretty much has explicitly stated he's working on alternate class features that he wants to release in some official fashion (though the venue is up in the air). Might be a year but probably not 5. And it might be that playtesting and development will mean the final version looks nothing like his first pass at it (which this is). It also might be they decide after further testing to abandon the whole idea of alternate class features entirely.
But he is working on something with potential for release. It's not just a thought experiment.
AD
Edit to add: The Order Domain Cleric came out of Happy Fun Hour and was published in the Ravnica, just as a case in point
Last edited:
PrimevalSeeker
Explorer
IMO, it seems that in trying not to change the PHB ranger he is introducing features that are awkward to implement. The way the existing subclasses interact with the pact-like options is not elegant.
The hunter eye and new natural explorer are straight up better than the existing versions and some of the features of the former overlap with those of the gloom stalker and monster slayer.
Regarding the beastmaster, I wonder if it would be too broken if the beast attacked once for 1d8 damage if the ranger commanded it using a bonus action (at later levels it could cost no action). Action economy wise the beast could act after or before the ranger. How would this be more powerful than the HW.
If I had to chose between "pacts", I would rather spellcasting was baseline and the choice was between martial and pet.
The hunter eye and new natural explorer are straight up better than the existing versions and some of the features of the former overlap with those of the gloom stalker and monster slayer.
Regarding the beastmaster, I wonder if it would be too broken if the beast attacked once for 1d8 damage if the ranger commanded it using a bonus action (at later levels it could cost no action). Action economy wise the beast could act after or before the ranger. How would this be more powerful than the HW.
If I had to chose between "pacts", I would rather spellcasting was baseline and the choice was between martial and pet.
The point was that we can't take the show as gospel. I'm sure many of Mearl's ideas never make it through playtesting (which is good, that's how game design works). So its reasonable to assume that just because he is trying it out, doesn't mean it will make it to print.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Sure, if it doesn't end up being worth the time.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
If a player picks a subclass for a concept, and also gives up spellcasting (arguably the most significant feature in the core class) to improve that concept, they should be very, very good at that concept. If a BM ranger drops spells for a better beast, it should be better than an NPC companion.
I also like this idea, if it didn't come with the separate and terrible idea of not doing literally anything to help the BM that chooses to keep spellcasting.
They are better, and my fellow DM in my group has pretty much decided that he is just fine with simply adding them to the existing features, rather than replacing them. For my wife's BM ranger, we're either going to keep using the revised ranger, or do the above and then replace the PHB lvl 3 writeup for the beast with the one from the Revise Ranger.
The thing is, the beast is rarely better at doing damage in a single attack than the ranger is, and usually is pretty close to that 1d8, or lower. The Hunter can choose a feature that does 1d8 once per turn to any creature not at full HP. Every time the hunter can hit the target, that is gonna happen, if it has taken even 1hp of damage. No extra action cost required.
The BM is going to require spending a bonus action, to get the same damage, with a feature that can die from an average damage fireball, and has less of an easy time hitting targets reliably than the ranger (thus, the damage is applied less often)? WHy?
The physical existence of the pet on the battlefield is not that valuable!
Just let it have a turn!
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Lets be honest here:
The current One-handed martial weapon list isn't balanced to begin with. 1/4th of them are just 1d8 damage with no ability (and probably in need of some kind of balance pass themselves). Longswords and Rapiers blow out the rest of the competition by virtue of being useful and having a plethora of magic variants, along with the dubious honor of being a "freebie" weapon proficiency for various classes and races that wouldn't otherwise have martial weapons. And logically, that situation should be the reverse, if every elf and the person trying to pick their pocket can learn how to use a sword, why are they better than the weapons that are more exclusive?
And also, who is going to be regularly throwing their primary melee weapon? If we are realistically speculating what is going to happen from giving the Trident a d8, here it is: Some (but nowhere near all) martial characters are going to start carrying around a bundle of tridents instead of a bundle of javelins for when they are forced into ranged combat. Swords are still in no danger of being obsoleted or unpopular, and you might actually see some characters who have fun trying to mimic Aquaman when his new movie comes out next year instead of looking at the weapon list and being totally disappointed.
Baumi
Adventurer
But if you are not concerned about balance, the why do you want to change the Trident?
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
I am concerned with balance, that's why I'm not worried about balancing against something that is as obviously imbalanced as the rest of the martial one-handed list.
epithet
Explorer
Fine, but boring. Seems like it would be more entertaining to do 2d4 piercing, versatile (2d6) to make it unique.
Similar Threads
