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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The truth is, I actually don't care at all, except that I find it a shame that the biggest brand for fantasy RPGing can't make room for a reasonably popular concept from other media. That's all.

This directly contradicts the idea that their primary goal that overrides other goals is just popularity.

Seems they care about a bit more than just chasing popularity. Otherwise, they’d be trying to figure out how to do both.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

However WOTC's goal is popularity via simplicity. So there aren't subsystems for Nature, Survival, Medicine, Althetics, or Performance checks.

There aren’t subsystems for those because the goal with them is best served without subsystems. Not just simplicity, though that is a very worthy goal, but also improvisational freedom.

I do wish they’d give a little more text describing and giving examples, but I certainly don’t want to see 5e become 3.5 or 4e with their hyper specific crunch for each skill.

 

[Eric V]

This directly contradicts the idea that their primary goal that overrides other goals is just popularity.

Seems they care about a bit more than just chasing popularity. Otherwise, they’d be trying to figure out how to do both.

Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.

But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally.

It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.

 

[Olrox17]

But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally.

It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.

How do you know that? In my personal anecdotal experience DMing 5e, the one player that picked Ranger asked me to switch over to the spell-less Ranger variant (the one with combat superiority dice that got published on an UA or something) at about level 3.

 

[Eric V]

But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally.

It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.

Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion.

Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange? Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels. If that's the case, fine...you do you. But do let me know, so that I can just disengage. Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The truth is, I actually don't care at all, except that I find it a shame that the biggest brand for fantasy RPGing can't make room for a reasonably popular concept from other media. That's all.

I don't disagree with you here, but I think the issue is more complex than WotC being unwilling to do it.

5e (and most RPGs) just don't have robust wilderness exploration/travel rules (and honestly I don't see how they could and keep to the spirit of the game) but let's say those are created, and exploration becomes roughly equivalent to combat as an interesting, varied subsystem, and the Ranger has awesome abilities that make those more fun without trivializing them.

The problem is you can't just let the Ranger play in this new playground: every class has to have meaningful ways to participate. It's one thing to say that some players make a couple of Survival or Persuasion rolls while other players watch, but it's another thing to design a whole, engaging subsystem and only let some players contribute meaningfully.

And you also can't let magic trivialize this subsystem. I know a lot of people feel that casters are vastly superior to martials in combat, but it's not like the martials just stand there and watch while the casters dispense with the bad guys. (And if that's happening the encounters were already trivial.)

So now you're not just designing a new subsystem, but re-designing...or at least augmenting..all the classes to give them ways to engage with it.

I just don't see it happening.

Want to play the popular archetype of the natural explorer? Take Survival, use a bow, describe your character as wearing a green cloak.

The Ranger has got to be something more/different.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange? Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels. If that's the case, fine...you do you. But do let me know, so that I can just disengage. Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.

If you're arguing with the person I think you're arguing with (the magic of 'ignore'), my advice is to disengage.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How do you know that? In my personal anecdotal experience DMing 5e, the one player that picked Ranger asked me to switch over to the spell-less Ranger variant (the one with combat superiority dice that got published on an UA or something) at about level 3.

And that UA failed.

Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion.

Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange? Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels. If that's the case, fine...you do you. But do let me know, so that I can just disengage. Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.

Keep your courtesy trolling. You speak dismissively and insultingly about things people like and the people who make them, and get offended when I call a claim you make absurd?

No. If this is how you do, do it with someone else.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't disagree with you here, but I think the issue is more complex than WotC being unwilling to do it.

5e (and most RPGs) just don't have robust wilderness exploration/travel rules (and honestly I don't see how they could and keep to the spirit of the game) but let's say those are created, and exploration becomes roughly equivalent to combat as an interesting, varied subsystem, and the Ranger has awesome abilities that make those more fun without trivializing them.

The problem is you can't just let the Ranger play in this new playground: every class has to have meaningful ways to participate. It's one thing to say that some players make a couple of Survival or Persuasion rolls while other players watch, but it's another thing to design a whole, engaging subsystem and only let some players contribute meaningfully.

And you also can't let magic trivialize this subsystem. I know a lot of people feel that casters are vastly superior to martials in combat, but it's not like the martials just stand there and watch while the casters dispense with the bad guys. (And if that's happening the encounters were already trivial.)

So now you're not just designing a new subsystem, but re-designing...or at least augmenting..all the classes to give them ways to engage with it.

I just don't see it happening.

Want to play the popular archetype of the natural explorer? Take Survival, use a bow, describe your character as wearing a green cloak.

The Ranger has got to be something more/different.

It is the "Decker" problem in a different form.

I still think that Wizard should have another go at skill challenges.