D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.

It's objectively a failure to understand what the idiom 'chasing phantoms' means. Crawford is saying that a request from one person is not necessarily a request by the masses. I guess you're right in the sense that it could be dismissive to call someone's request a phantom.

 

[darjr]

I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.

 

[delericho]

That's a player issue, not a game design issue.

True, but rules can either help or hinder. This "interrupted rests grant no benefit" feels like it's intended to help, but my experience is the opposite.

IMO, it's much better (and certainly simpler) if the DM simply rules that "you can't take a short/long rest in this region", and ideally contrives a way to tell the players exactly that (that should, of course, be used very sparingly). Even better would be to attach significant negative consequences (each long rest reduces the available XP or treasure, or whatever), but that is obviously harder to pull off.

(The idea being to create a choice for players - we can rest and get X, or we can push on and get Y, where both X and Y are desirable.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ranger with a spell list means they have dozens of different nature-based abilities and features to choose from and use to be whatever type of ranger they wanted. Rangers without it would get like only 6 different features at various levels across the entire 20-level span.

Personally, I'd much rather have more options available to me than less, even if I had to get that "Ew! Magic!" stench on my PC. (And just in case you didn't get it... that "Ew! Magic!" was sarcasm.)

This is completely illogical.

No-one is suggesting taking magic away and replacing it with nothing, which your "six different features" comment implies.

We're suggesting removing magic and replacing it with a variety of different abilities, maybe chosen like a Warlock does, on top of the other existing abilities (well, the non-magical ones).

Quality > Quantity, I say. You're valuing the pure quantity of spells they can access, which turns them into a two-bit Druid, essentially. It's not right the way to do it.

Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.

It's a really dumb way to do it because it's deeply antithetical to the pop-culture archetype it draws from (i.e. the Katniss - Aragorn - Drizzt spectrum).

Just like making Turn Undead into a spell would be. It isn't a spell for a reason.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course players hate exhaustion. What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?

Preaching to the choir here, but then I'm a known PC hater (even when I'm a player). It does seem, however, that as a general rule if players hate something, irregardless of any other factors, if gets weakened or removed.

 

[darjr]

It's objectively a failure to understand what the idiom 'chasing phantoms' means. Crawford is saying that a request from one person is not necessarily a request by the masses. I guess you're right in the sense that it could be dismissive to call someone's request a phantom.

Scour note was specifically upset to be called a phantom. Which is the strangest least charitable way to read that comment I could think of. At this point I’m beginning to think it’s willfull vs ignorance

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Scour note was specifically upset to be called a phantom. Which is the strangest least charitable way to read that comment I could think of. At this point I’m beginning to think it’s willfull vs ignorance

And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.

 

[rooneg]

I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.

In practice, yes, it can play that way, but there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled"), and that's a problem for some of us. In practice, I don't really like the feel of a caster ranger, so in the past I've run Fighters with a dip into Rogue to simulate the magic-free version I'd prefer.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.

Wow. Talk about hyperbole. Maybe chill out a bit dude? You and @darjr are now DOING exactly what you're complaining about - willfully exaggerating/misinterpreting. At best that's extreme hypocrisy.

You literally don't get to call something slander when the person you're accusing of it shows the actual Tweet and wording.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.

Although to be fair, to label someone's request a phantom is not a strong move by Crawford either. Not something to unduly get upset over though frankly.