D&D 5E Class power and Subclass design space: a discussion

[Olrox17]

Sometimes I wonder want playtest feedback they got.
However the playtest ranger was too subclass focused as well.

I still weep for what happened to the playtest fighter. We went from combat superiority dice being available to all fighters, recharging every TURN, to the mechanic being relegated to a single, lone subclass, on a sad short rest recharge.
Such a brilliant mechanic, wasted like that, in favor of boring MOAR ATTACKS.

 

[Undrave]

It is more complicated, yeah, but the potential design space is so juicy and alluring! Not just for the druid, either. I would be very intrigued to see half-caster sorcerer subclasses that really dig deep into their ancestry, instead of just going pew pew with the same 5 optimal spells everyone always uses.

It's weird how people who get magic at bird decide to just be caster and there's no decent sorcerous gish baked into the class itself. A natural born Swordmage for exemple would be a cool concept.

As for the Druid, maybe if Wild Shape consumed Spell Slot it wouldn't feel so core?

I'd like to see a Druid subclass that is incentivized to use Wildshape IN COMBAT (and not in a way that isn't Wildshape like the Wildfire druid was) in a way that's different from the Moon Druid.

There aren't any that I know of. If Class Variants ever see the light of day (and given the overwhelmingly good response that UA got, they probably will), those might be the way to do it. Class variants linked to subclass choice, basically.
Personally, I think we might need a 5.5 (or a new AD&D, if you prefer), to really pursue this kind of design choice in a satisfying manner. Assuming WotC agrees with the basic premise, ofc.

I hope the Variants make it... and that we see more.

 

[NotAYakk]

I still weep for what happened to the playtest fighter. We went from combat superiority dice being available to all fighters, recharging every TURN, to the mechanic being relegated to a single, lone subclass, on a sad short rest recharge.
Such a brilliant mechanic, wasted like that, in favor of boring MOAR ATTACKS.

So, a "class feature variant" patch.

Battle Master
Combat Dominance (Alternative class feature)
At Fighter level 11, a Battlemaster Fighter may choose to take Combat Dominance instead of Extra Attack. You regain a combat superiority die at the start of your turn, and at level 17 you regain 2. At level 20, you gain your 3rd extra attack, instead of at level 11.

I don't know if this would be crazy strong or weak. But is would sure be fun.

You could even bring it down to level 5.

 

[Undrave]

Unfortunately Guardian of Nature, the 4th level spell, covers the whole Warden transformation thing, so we're unlikely to see it even as a Ranger deal I think. It's a goddamn terrible spell because it's both Concentration (whilst being designed to be sustained in front-line melee), and has a crummy 1 minute duration, given the benefits and that it's 4th level. If it was not concentration, and had say a 1 hour duration, we might be talking, but it's like, the benefits look cool until you start looking at non-concentration Druid spells of lower levels and the fact that you can combine them with vastly more powerful concentration spells - also lower level - I mean, Guardian of Nature or Conjure Animals, what's going to do more damage and crowd control and have more utility? It ain't Guardian of Nature.

I'm sure the contrarian nature of RPGers will force someone to defend it - but that's a bad spell, and a bad way to block Wardens from existing ever again.

We could have a Ranger archetype that burns Spell Slot for Warden forms. That could be interesting. Guardian of Nature would be great without Constitution... maybe a Warden Ranger class feature that ignores Concentration check on it

I agree that they kind of look like they were designed by someone who didn't love the class, but I'd say the same of Clerics and Sorcerers, and Clerics are absolutely fine, balance-wise.

As someone who loved the 4e Cleric, I think the 5e Cleric is BOOOOOOOring, balanced or not. It's just too... selfish.

Or even going Warlock-style.

You get your Where/What they hunt subclasses, and your Conclave.

I could even imagine a Ranger with Pact Magic (short rest spellcasting), but that would probably go too far.

Heck, imagine "Invocations" replaced with "Hunts". Each hunt is a terrain or a creature type, and offers knowledge of that terrain/creature plus generic benefits.

I LOVE the Warlock's frame and really wish they had done more with it.

I still weep for what happened to the playtest fighter. We went from combat superiority dice being available to all fighters, recharging every TURN, to the mechanic being relegated to a single, lone subclass, on a sad short rest recharge.
Such a brilliant mechanic, wasted like that, in favor of boring MOAR ATTACKS.

Don't forget "BuT yOu gET mOrE feAtS!" because that's what the 3.x Fighter was, a pile of feats and attacks and that's all it should EVER be otherwise it's MAGIC! I'm still convinced some feats were Fighter class features they moved into the Feat section. Many feats feel like 'Advanced Fighting Style' that you should get later on, like Polarm Mastery.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

So, a "class feature variant" patch.

Battle Master
Combat Dominance (Alternative class feature)
At Fighter level 11, a Battlemaster Fighter may choose to take Combat Dominance instead of Extra Attack. You regain a combat superiority die at the start of your turn, and at level 17 you regain 2. At level 20, you gain your 3rd extra attack, instead of at level 11.

I don't know if this would be crazy strong or weak. But is would sure be fun.

You could even bring it down to level 5.

That looks good. Modifying extra attacks for the fighter is also my go-to when I want to try my hand at a variant, more warlord-y fighter.

 

[NotAYakk]

Pact Ranger (Alternative Class Feature)
Replaces Spellcasting.
Starting at level 1, you can cast Hunter's Mark without expending a spell slot a number of times per day equal to your wisdom bonus (min 1). At level 2, you have 1 spell slot that refreshes on a short rest, increasing to 2 at level 3. Your spell slots are 1st level, and increase to 2nd at level 5, 3rd at level 9, 4th at level 13 and 5th at level 17. Your spells known remain unchanged. You can cast any spell you know a as a ritual.

Prey (Alternative Class Feature)
Replaces Favored Enemy. At level 1 you select a kind of Prey (same list as favored enemies), and another at 6 and 14. You learn 1 language that the Prey speaks, have advantage on ability checks about them or opposed by them, and from your studies of fighting them learn new combat techniques.

Aberrations: After you take Psychic damage you gain temporary HP equal to the damage you take. If you have temporary HP at the start of your turn, you can sacrifice them, then the first weapon attack that you hit with on your turn deals that amount of extra psychic damage.

Beasts: When you score a critical hit, all hostile creatures who can feel, see or hear the blow must make a wisdom save using your spellcasting DC. On a failure, they become Frightened until the end of your next turn.

Celestials: Once per turn when you damage a creature under your Hunter's Mark, you may choose to make your damage necrotic. If you do, you gain temporary HP equal to the damage you have done, and the creature you damage cannot regain HP until the end of your next turn.

Constructs: Your weapon attacks deal double damage against objects and structures, and you ignore resistance and immunity to piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage.

Dragons: You gain the Colossus Slayer feature

Elementals: You can cast Absorb Elements at-will without expending a spell slot.

Fey: When you damage a creature that creature cannot change form, teleport, or leave this plane of existence until the end of your next turn.

Fiends: When your attack roll hits a creature under your hunter's mark or you pass a saving throw imposed by a creature under your hunter's mark, you may choose to subtract 1d10 from the roll; this can cause you to fail. Once you have done so, you may add 1d10 to an attack roll, ability check or saving throw once before you complete a long rest.

Giants: You gain the Giant Killer feature.

Monstrosities: You may attempt to mount a creature larger than you without their consent. Move into their space and make a strength(athletics) or a dexterity(acrobatics) opposed by their strength(athletics) or a dexterity(acrobatics) check (you both get to choose). On a failure, you fall prone instead of entering their space. While mounted on them, you move with them, and have advantage on attacks against them. They can attempt to dislodge you as an action, causing you to repeat the opposed check with the same consequences.

Oozes: You cannot be grappled or restrained and are resistant to acid damage.

Plants: You gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed, and have advantage when attacking a creature lower than you.

Undead: Your weapon attacks deal an extra 1 point of radiant damage.

Humanoids: You pick 2 kinds of humanoids to gain the above benefits against. In addition, you gain the Horde Breaker feature.

Terrain Expert (Alternative Class Feature)
Replaces Natural Explorer. You select a form of terrain you are an expert in: Arctic, Coast, Desert, Forest, Grassland, Mountain, Swamp, or The Underdark. You have advantage on Wisdom and Intelligence checks about your form of terrain, and allies within 20' of you ignore difficult terrain in that area. In addition, regardless of what terrain you are in, you gain an additional benefit:

Arctic: You are resistant to cold damage and gain proficiency in constitution saving throws.

Coast: You gain a swim speed equal to your walking speed, can hold your breath twice as long, and if forced to move or become prone you may expend your reaction and not move or become prone.

Desert: You are resistant to fire damage and gain proficiency on wisdom saving throws.

Forest: You can hide as a bonus action. Attacking while hidden does not reveal your location, but does require a new Dexterity(Stealth) check at disadvantage.

Grassland: Your movement speed increases by 10'. If you move at least 20' on a turn, your next attack that turn has advantage.

Swamp: You are immune to Poison damage, and have advantage on saving throws against being Poisoned or against Disease.

The Underdark: You gain blindsight 10', and creatures cannot use darkvision to see you in darkness.

At level 6 and 10 you pick another Terrain.

 

[Minigiant]

Prey (Alternative Class Feature)
Replaces Favored Enemy. At level 1 you select a kind of Prey (same list as favored enemies), and another at 6 and 14. You learn 1 language that the Prey speaks, have advantage on ability checks about them or opposed by them, and from your studies of fighting them learn new combat techniques.

Aberrations: After you take Psychic damage you gain temporary HP equal to the damage you take. If you have temporary HP at the start of your turn, you can sacrifice them, then the first weapon attack that you hit with on your turn deals that amount of extra psychic damage.

Beasts: When you score a critical hit, all hostile creatures who can feel, see or hear the blow must make a wisdom save using your spellcasting DC. On a failure, they become Frightened until the end of your next turn.

Celestials: Once per turn when you damage a creature under your Hunter's Mark, you may choose to make your damage necrotic. If you do, you gain temporary HP equal to the damage you have done, and the creature you damage cannot regain HP until the end of your next turn.

Constructs: Your weapon attacks deal double damage against objects and structures, and you ignore resistance and immunity to piercing, slashing and bludgeoning damage.

Dragons: You gain the Colossus Slayer feature

Elementals: You can cast Absorb Elements at-will without expending a spell slot.

Fey: When you damage a creature that creature cannot change form, teleport, or leave this plane of existence until the end of your next turn.

Fiends: When your attack roll hits a creature under your hunter's mark or you pass a saving throw imposed by a creature under your hunter's mark, you may choose to subtract 1d10 from the roll; this can cause you to fail. Once you have done so, you may add 1d10 to an attack roll, ability check or saving throw once before you complete a long rest.

Giants: You gain the Giant Killer feature.

Monstrosities: You may attempt to mount a creature larger than you without their consent. Move into their space and make a strength(athletics) or a dexterity(acrobatics) opposed by their strength(athletics) or a dexterity(acrobatics) check (you both get to choose). On a failure, you fall prone instead of entering their space. While mounted on them, you move with them, and have advantage on attacks against them. They can attempt to dislodge you as an action, causing you to repeat the opposed check with the same consequences.

Oozes: You cannot be grappled or restrained and are resistant to acid damage.

Plants: You gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed, and have advantage when attacking a creature lower than you.

Undead: Your weapon attacks deal an extra 1 point of radiant damage.

Humanoids: You pick 2 kinds of humanoids to gain the above benefits against. In addition, you gain the Horde Breaker feature.

Something like that would be cool.

Though some of your options are a bit too situational. I'd go for just Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer, Horde Breaker with maybe an anti-mage option, a cantrip, and some spells x/long rest.

A warlock styl ranger works well for the idea ofaranger who picked up magic tricks for random magical beings they met.

Instead of a pact with an arch fey, you made a pact with a dryad, a fey knight, 2 genies, 3 druids, a succubus, and a silver dragon.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The CFV added back the 3E damage to FE. The CFV replaced FE with HM X/day. That's literally more damage.

Mentioning one ability twice doesn't make it two abilities, mate.

As I correctly said, literally one ability in the CFV increases damage. All the rest, the vast majority of CFV Ranger abilities, increase utility, mobility, or survivability. You said:

I'm saying that the solution is not to replace all the flavorful but niche noncombat abilities with MOAR DAMaGE! like the Revised and CFV rangers did

That is just completely false. You said "all the flavour but niche noncombat abilities". CFV replaced ONE (1) noncombat ability with "MOAR DAMAGE". One. That's not the same as "all" mate. It's not even close.

I'd argue that the dislike is because of how FE and FT were written.

It would have been fine if Favored Enemy and/or Natural Explorer had a combat application. The Ranger is a warrior class after all and D&D is heavily combat focused in standard play. My disagreement is both sacrificing noncombat for combat and shunting combat into subclass.

If you took Favored Enemy Giant, you should get Colossus Slayer. If you choose Favored Terrain Desert, you should get +1 AC in light armor.

I don't agree. People coming to Rangers from outside decades of D&D, want someone who tracks, is an archer, maybe has an animal companion (not always), is expert at survival, and so on. What they don't want is someone who is only good at one terrain, and seems to be dedicated to murdering (in a potentially creepy way) a specific set of sentient beings.

That's not part of the same package. That's part of a different package.

FE was in the Ranger for 3 out of 4 editions prior to 5th edition. The designers could have attempted to make them more attrracting to an incoming audience. I could and did create a whole list of cool features linked to each enemy and terrain type to make them interesting. Almost every complaint I've seen or heard about FE and FT was not about their inclusion but how they were implemented.

Uh-huh, and in all previous editions Bard as was a half-caster or thereabouts, Paladins couldn't smite and had to be LG in 3 out of 4, and so on. Things change. Even things that have been long-established. Things that always been a bad idea, and FT/FE is exactly that kind of bad idea. It's perfect subclass material.

The reason you haven't heard complaints about their inclusion is two-fold. First off, if you're posting on most D&D sites, you're talking to a bunch of grogs like us, and most grogs are rules-conservative, and prefer to retain things rather than change things. Second off, most people who don't like it don't even consider "could it be replaced with a different ability" because they're newer to the game. Over the years, in my experience, I'd say easily 20-30% of new players to D&D have wanted to play a Ranger as their first character, based on the concept (obviously this is anecdotal and YMMV etc.), particularly players who are not "typical" D&D player (i.e. white, male, kinda nerdy is "typical"), but also some "typical" ones. Loads of people love the idea of being sort of survival-capable, good-at-archery, quasi-Robin Hood figure, and if there's an animal companion in it, a bunch of people love that (this is partly why "Anything that can have a familiar" is in the next 30%). That's a LOT of players, in my experience. But when they see stuff like favoured enemy and favoured terrain (but particularly favoured enemies) I've seen the expressions of distaste on their faces. A lot of people don't want to be dedicated to murdering a specific group of creatures. It just doesn't fit the baseline. It finds inside the greater archetype, for sure, it definitely should be a Ranger subclass, but it shouldn't be the baseline. Even people not put off by it, dislike it because they're committing to focusing on certain creature types, even though they have little/no idea if they'll actually feature in the campaign (in like 90% of cases). It's the same with terrain - with the vast majority of campaigns, you have to pick a terrain, without having any idea if it'll actually be relevant.

And you can say "Well, it doesn't matter, I'm proposing they get a mechanical benefit that will be perennially useful". Logically, that's true. But this isn't entirely logical. They'll be looking on their character sheet, and seeing their foe-specific and terrain specific bonuses outside of combat, and seeing how they aren't getting much use, and they'll be disappointed.

So this should be an OPTION for people who WANT to engage with those shenanigans. Just like with Paladins, you don't have to be an LG Devotion Paladin as the only kind of Paladin anymore.

If FE Goblins gave you Horde Breaker, advantage to track goblins, and Goblin language, I think fewer people would have complained. There was and still a ton of deign and balance space in the Ranger left empty. It's not like the crowded druid. A designer passionate about rangers could have filled the holes.

Fewer? I can't argue with that. Obviously being less bad means less complaints. But it's still tying Ranger to this very specific "I love to kill [insert monster] whilst I am in [insert terrain]" deal which should be a subclass thing, not a base class thing.

Also, in 2E and 3E, you could get rid of FE and FT via other mechanical options, like PrCs or Kits, and as noted in 4E, I don't think it was even a thing (if it was, it was in one of the Ranger classes, but not all). This is very relevant to this thread, because it's about design space. 5E has not had the design-space to get rid of anything that's in the base class until the CFV stuff. Arguably, as it's a UA (albeit a very popular one), it still doesn't. The only design space for replacing features has been in subclasses - hence those features should have been in subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

Mentioning one ability twice doesn't make it two abilities, mate.

As I correctly said, literally one ability in the CFV increases damage. All the rest, the vast majority of CFV Ranger abilities, increase utility, mobility, or survivability. You said:

The first one was a typo. It's the revised ranger that added damage.

I don't agree. People coming to Rangers from outside decades of D&D, want someone who tracks, is an archer, maybe has an animal companion (not always), is expert at survival, and so on. What they don't want is someone who is only good at one terrain, and seems to be dedicated to murdering (in a potentially creepy way) a specific set of sentient beings.

That's not part of the same package. That's part of a different package.

They should be outlander fighters then. D&D Ranger have been something more than just archers in a green hood and a pet canid, raptor, or feline.
5th edition finally let people who wanted to just pick fighter in order to be master archer who can track.

Those who wanted to master hunting a foe and ranging an area would play ranger.That's how Rangers worked for 0e to 3e. Plently of rangersin literature and other media have favored enemies and preferred terrain.

The only ones who can rightly complain are those coming from 4e as the 4e ranger is a 5e fighter.

Uh-huh, and in all previous editions Bard as was a half-caster or thereabouts, Paladins couldn't smite and had to be LG in 3 out of 4, and so on. Things change. Even things that have been long-established. Things that always been a bad idea, and FT/FE is exactly that kind of bad idea. It's perfect subclass material.

The reason you haven't heard complaints about their inclusion is two-fold. First off, if you're posting on most D&D sites, you're talking to a bunch of grogs like us, and most grogs are rules-conservative, and prefer to retain things rather than change things. Second off, most people who don't like it don't even consider "could it be replaced with a different ability" because they're newer to the game. Over the years, in my experience, I'd say easily 20-30% of new players to D&D have wanted to play a Ranger as their first character, based on the concept (obviously this is anecdotal and YMMV etc.), particularly players who are not "typical" D&D player (i.e. white, male, kinda nerdy is "typical"), but also some "typical" ones. Loads of people love the idea of being sort of survival-capable, good-at-archery, quasi-Robin Hood figure, and if there's an animal companion in it, a bunch of people love that (this is partly why "Anything that can have a familiar" is in the next 30%). That's a LOT of players, in my experience. But when they see stuff like favoured enemy and favoured terrain (but particularly favoured enemies) I've seen the expressions of distaste on their faces. A lot of people don't want to be dedicated to murdering a specific group of creatures. It just doesn't fit the baseline. It finds inside the greater archetype, for sure, it definitely should be a Ranger subclass, but it shouldn't be the baseline. Even people not put off by it, dislike it because they're committing to focusing on certain creature types, even though they have little/no idea if they'll actually feature in the campaign (in like 90% of cases). It's the same with terrain - with the vast majority of campaigns, you have to pick a terrain, without having any idea if it'll actually be relevant.

And you can say "Well, it doesn't matter, I'm proposing they get a mechanical benefit that will be perennially useful". Logically, that's true. But this isn't entirely logical. They'll be looking on their character sheet, and seeing their foe-specific and terrain specific bonuses outside of combat, and seeing how they aren't getting much use, and they'll be disappointed.

So this should be an OPTION for people who WANT to engage with those shenanigans. Just like with Paladins, you don't have to be an LG Devotion Paladin as the only kind of Paladin anymore.

I have a Saturday game of all D&D newcomers and none of them showed disgust in the idea of favored enemies or terrain. They all understood that a wilderness ranger might have special knowledge of certain terrains and enemies.

You're right though. I haven't hear many complaints for removal of FE or FT.

Most of the articles, videos, forum posts, blogposts, and comments on FE and FT are about implementation. Rarelydo I see calls for removal. Almost every 5th edition homebrew I find has Favored Enemies and Natural Explorer/Favored Terrains. Some people boost them in power. Some people addcombat featres to it. Some people expand its flexibility. Some people even move it to a subclass but then give it to every traditional ranger subclass.

The common complaints are on implementation not inclusion. The only reason why WOTC didn't fix FE or FT in the CFV is because the goal was not to invalidate what was written the PHB.

I get your other point. Most of these people are hardcore fans. But here's my point. "What do newcomers know?" If they want to be an archer with Survival, then and play an outlander or folk hero fighter. You want a spllbook,you play a wizard or tomelock, nor a bard or sorcerer.

But making FE/FT an option was never gonna be an official thing with 5e being a nostalgia edition. That's false hope. Theranger needed a call back.

Fewer? I can't argue with that. Obviously being less bad means less complaints. But it's still tying Ranger to this very specific "I love to kill [insert monster] whilst I am in [insert terrain]" deal which should be a subclass thing, not a base class thing.

Also, in 2E and 3E, you could get rid of FE and FT via other mechanical options, like PrCs or Kits, and as noted in 4E, I don't think it was even a thing (if it was, it was in one of the Ranger classes, but not all). This is very relevant to this thread, because it's about design space. 5E has not had the design-space to get rid of anything that's in the base class until the CFV stuff. Arguably, as it's a UA (albeit a very popular one), it still doesn't. The only design space for replacing features has been in subclasses - hence those features should have been in subclasses.

Oh there is tons of design space in the ranger.

The Ranger is the only class with out a combat class feature at level 1 in D&D 5th edition.

There is design space. That's the whole problem with Ranger. The core class is all niche ribbon abilities except Fighting Style, Spellcasting and Extra Attack. Too much of it is in the subclass already.

Thereis no suprise that this discussion is on Ranger and Druid. The Druid doesn't have enough design space for all it's iconic aspects. The Ranger's design space was underused and underutilized.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But here's my point. "What do newcomers know?" If they want to be an archer with Survival, then and play an outlander or folk hero fighter. You want a spllbook,you play a wizard or tomelock, nor a bard or sorcerer.

That's not a useful suggestion, because the same players don't want to play a Fighter. Fighters are really clearly described, and very specific, and there is no "Ranger" Fighter in the subclasses. They want to be good at archery and stealth, they're not interested in clanking around in plate, they want to be good at survival (not merely "proficient"), and they often want an animal companion, and may like the idea of nature magic too, when they find out about it.

New players should not be forced into using a class in a way that makes it basically another class, nor engaging in other metagame-y shenanigans. That's exactly and precisely the opposite of what you want new players to be dealing with. For a highly experienced player, it's much less of an issue. You can suggest that, or funky multiclass combinations to achieve things or the like. But my long experience in D&D is that new players love the idea of a Ranger, but are weirded out by the specifics, or just don't like the specifics (oddly the magic is rarely an issue - I think people tend to see it as a bonus).

Thus the design of the Ranger, on a basic level, should to my mind reflect that. You didn't really address the consistent "but will we fight any of those" or "will we actually be in that terrain much" issues, either. Which I've seen come up over and over again.

And with the CFV, FE/FT become optional, so I think claiming that was a "false hope" isn't really reasonable. My point is that in 6E or whatever the Ranger should have FE/FT as alternatives or subclass abilities not the default.