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

 

[Hussar]

But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.

I think this really, really nails it on the head. This conversation about rangers reminds me so much of the psionic conversations. It follows pretty much the same lines.

There are a group of gamers that are really passionate about psionics and nothing less than a complete psionic subsystem separate from the magic system will do. Then you have a larger group that probably doesn't really have any strong opinion in either direction. Then you have someone like me who isn't all that enthusiastic about psionics in the first place and is really against the idea of adding an entire subsystem like 2e or 3e psionics just so that one player can play a psionicist.

Complexity increases exponentially. Every subsystem needs to work with every other subsystem and the more subsystems you add, the more complex the game gets. And, it often falls to the DM to police these sorts of things since I cannot possibly be the only DM out there who has players who are ... not particularly thorough in their understanding of the rules that apply to their character.

Which just adds to the workload of the DM.

D&DOne has the stated goal of streamlining and making things easier to run. They've been pretty clear about that. They are going to make the game easier to use at the table at the expense of complexity. We see this in the monster stat blocks and in how the classes are now shaping up. Which means that any calls to increase complexity are just not going to get any real traction. People don't want a more complicated game. Running D&D is hard enough as it is. Adding in a subsystem for rangers, which may or may not come up in your next campaign, or even the one after that, but will come up two or three years after the release of D&DOne - meaning that the DM now has to go back and relearn that stuff just so Dave can play that ranger.

From a strictly practical standpoint, you cannot really have separate subsystems for half the classes while the other half the classes use the standard systems. Not when you have so many classes. It makes running the game so much more difficult - you run one campaign where everyone is a standard system - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric and then the next campaign you have ranger, monk, psionicist, artificer and the poor DM's brains leak out their ears.

 

[Faolyn]

It's that way because again a noticeable percentaage ofthe community wont allow it otherwise.

Look at the DMGr ules for tracking. If the quarry walks on bare floor without actual an obvious trail, tracking is impossible. Meaning you need actual magic to break the rules to continue. 3e made a killng creating spells to break the limits of mundane rules.

Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is hardly impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a pass without trace or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."

Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. Guidance, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get locate creature until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a lot earlier as well). And heck, they don't get faerie fire, see invisibility, or mind spike at all, and those spells actually help you find people!

 

[Remathilis]

I think this really, really nails it on the head. This conversation about rangers reminds me so much of the psionic conversations. It follows pretty much the same lines.

There are a group of gamers that are really passionate about psionics and nothing less than a complete psionic subsystem separate from the magic system will do. Then you have a larger group that probably doesn't really have any strong opinion in either direction. Then you have someone like me who isn't all that enthusiastic about psionics in the first place and is really against the idea of adding an entire subsystem like 2e or 3e psionics just so that one player can play a psionicist.

Complexity increases exponentially. Every subsystem needs to work with every other subsystem and the more subsystems you add, the more complex the game gets. And, it often falls to the DM to police these sorts of things since I cannot possibly be the only DM out there who has players who are ... not particularly thorough in their understanding of the rules that apply to their character.

Which just adds to the workload of the DM.

D&DOne has the stated goal of streamlining and making things easier to run. They've been pretty clear about that. They are going to make the game easier to use at the table at the expense of complexity. We see this in the monster stat blocks and in how the classes are now shaping up. Which means that any calls to increase complexity are just not going to get any real traction. People don't want a more complicated game. Running D&D is hard enough as it is. Adding in a subsystem for rangers, which may or may not come up in your next campaign, or even the one after that, but will come up two or three years after the release of D&DOne - meaning that the DM now has to go back and relearn that stuff just so Dave can play that ranger.

From a strictly practical standpoint, you cannot really have separate subsystems for half the classes while the other half the classes use the standard systems. Not when you have so many classes. It makes running the game so much more difficult - you run one campaign where everyone is a standard system - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric and then the next campaign you have ranger, monk, psionicist, artificer and the poor DM's brains leak out their ears.

Agreed. Although a part of me still wants a psionicist class. They can be a spell point sorcerer for all I care...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really? What would its identity be without it?

And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually good at it?

It would be a lot better, but it seems WotC is continuing on a path toward what @Bill Zebub described.

 

[Hussar]

Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is hardly impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a pass without trace or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."

Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. Guidance, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get locate creature until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a lot earlier as well). And heck, they don't get faerie fire, see invisibility, or mind spike at all, and those spells actually help you find people!

That's some serious goalpost shifting there.

Locate Animal is a 2nd level spell. Speak with Animals. Speak with Plants - both very useful for tracking enemies. Summon Fey or Conjure Animals, both fantastic for tracking - at least in the short term. 8 wolves is a pretty good way of tracking something. Never minding Animal Friendship. Saying that there is only one spell - locate creature is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is hardly impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a pass without trace or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."

Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. Guidance, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get locate creature until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a lot earlier as well). And heck, they don't get faerie fire, see invisibility, or mind spike at all, and those spells actually help you find people!

No. The ruleson pages 244has if thereis notrail to follow, the DM can rule tracking is impossible. Which at that point lik@Hussar says, you might be forced to cast Speak with Animals or Speak with Plants to ask for leads or cast Summon Fey or Conjure Animals to hunt by scent or heat or vibration.

Older editions straight up had spells that gave rangers scent or made tracks magically appear or let them reroll before the trail goes cold.

 

[gorice]

I think the 'depth versus complexity' argument only goes so far. One of the common complaints about combat in 5e is that it's a bit of a chore, but doesn't quite have enough tactical complexity to make it worth the effort.

I think you could shave off a fair bit of the complexity of spells and spell-like powers by doing stuff like standardising when/how saving throws work (and making all spells attacks while you're at it), codifying common effects, etc. But then you're back at the 'no-one will accept a repeat of 4e' problem.

 

[Eric V]

I think the position of wanting the ranger to have spells without calling them spells (with all that entails) is simply a position born of compromise.
I'm fairly sure all in favor of the non-spellcasting ranger would love if the ranger was given actually unique features and powers that significantly differ from what current 5e spells can do. That is, however, a big thing to ask to the WotC devs.

It seems so. It really shouldn't be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that. Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).

It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward. It's the simplest, easiest solution, requiring no extra work. I can see how some people might refer to that as "lazy design" I suppose, and I'd have no counterargument except to say they aren't trying to make a well-designed game, they're trying to make an ever-more popular game, and that's the only goal that matters.

 

[Hussar]

It seems so. It really shouldn't be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that. Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).

It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward. It's the simplest, easiest solution, requiring no extra work. I can see how some people might refer to that as "lazy design" I suppose, and I'd have no counterargument except to say they aren't trying to make a well-designed game, they're trying to make an ever-more popular game, and that's the only goal that matters.

I'd say that's a bit harsh. I'd say they are trying to simplify the game so that running the game is easier than before. Something like Pathfinder 2 is not an easy game to run. Imagine handing Pathfinder2 to a 14 year old with no gaming experience and telling them to run a game. It's a daunting task.

5e though, you hand them the beginner box and then move on to the hardcovers and there aren't all these new subsystems to learn when you make the transition. Running a beginner box game isn't terribly different than running the full game, just with more stuff.

 

[Eric V]

I'd say that's a bit harsh. I'd say they are trying to simplify the game so that running the game is easier than before. Something like Pathfinder 2 is not an easy game to run. Imagine handing Pathfinder2 to a 14 year old with no gaming experience and telling them to run a game. It's a daunting task.

5e though, you hand them the beginner box and then move on to the hardcovers and there aren't all these new subsystems to learn when you make the transition. Running a beginner box game isn't terribly different than running the full game, just with more stuff.

I dunno...I think making a popular game is goals 1-5. Part of that may mean simplifying (remains to be seen if making everything spells does this, but it really might). Not trying to be harsh, btw; just thinking about the other thread about how 5e is akin to the Cheesecake Factory and it's obvious that popularity is the goal, not game design for another kind of experience (or interesting design for its own sake).

Just as an aside, PF2E Beginner Box is a great product, btw...any 14 year old looking to get introduced through it should have no problem.