D&D (2024) Developer Video on Druid/Paladin/Expert Feedback

​

WotC has posted a video discussing initial feedback on the One D&D Druid/Paladin playtest, along with survey results from the Expert playtest. Some highlights for discussion:

Druid: The developers recognize that the template version of wild shape is contentious. If they retain this approach, they would plan to add flexibility to those templates. If they revert to monster stat blocks, they might allow Druids to choose a limited number of options, with a default selection provided.

Paladin: The new version of smite is still intended to work with critical hits. If ranged smite persists, its damage may be adjusted through the internal balance/playtesting process.

Ranger: The updated Ranger scored very well in the playtest. Some players did miss the choice of options in the Hunter subclass.

Bard: All of the Lore Bard's features scored welll, but the overall subclass rating was mediocre. They attribute this to the loss of Additional Magical Secrets, which many saw as the key attraction of this subclass.

Rogue: The change to limit sneak attack to the Rogue's own turn scored poorly. The developers generally like moving actions to a player's own turn to keep the game moving quickly, but in this case, the change doesn't seem to be worth the loss of tactical flexibility.

Feats: With the exception of epic boons, all the feats in the Expert packet scored well. The developers are still loking at written feedback for fine tuning.

Conspicuously not mentioned were the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, which were the focus of a lot of discussion during the Bard playtest.

 

[jerryrice4949]

As far as the Lore Bard, no duh. Kind of seems the developers are a lot out of touch. The Lore Bard is really nothing special without the additional magical secrets. I thought just about everyone knew that.

 

[jerryrice4949]

Ill respond to these posts in tandem. So Im of the opinion that the 5E Ranger as presented in 2014 was the most Rangery Ranger ever made.

No example of it prior or since compares, and what it got right has everything to do with the Terrain system that, despite its shortcomings, actually delivered an identity for the Ranger.

Now, that system of course wasn't perfect, and I can tell you that my personal rewrite of it (that I used in my 5E games and will be carrying forward into my own RPG) basically only resembles the original in name and concept. But the sheer potential of that system is what made it so appealing, and I had hoped in time that they would have expanded on it and developed it more.

But they didn't. Instead, they soft scrapped it with Tashas, giving it a rather boring set of static passives, and in OneDND, they not only stuck with that same design, but also proceeded to butcher Hunter and emphasize the Ranger even more as basically a cruddy Druid with some martial stuff.

While I'm not a fan of Rangers being spellcasters period, I could have at least lived with it if the rest of the class had improved from what we got in 2014. Not so much when all of that potential was wasted and actual abilities are getting swapped out not just for spells, but weaker spells than what they had originally. (Conjure Barrage = Trash)

And ultimately, the memes that 2014 Rangers were bad were just that. It suffered because the Exploration procedures got butchered in the transition out of Next (the games literally still designed around Exploration Turns to this day), but even the 2014 Beastmaster wasn't as bad as the memes would have you believe, and Hunter was always solid throughout 5Es existence, even as the more high powered subs came into play.

I agree with many of your points. However the 2014 Ranger was disliked by many. In many surveys it was one do the least played classes.

 

[Emberashh]

I

I agree with many of your points. However the 2014 Ranger was disliked by many. In many surveys it was one do the least played classes.

Sure, but that should have resulted in fixes and expansions, not replacements.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Sure, but that should have resulted in fixes and expansions, not replacements.

Depends on what people thought was wrong with it. The terrain related abilities were very campaign or even individual adventure specific, and might often go unused depending on the DM. I'm in favor of classes having more abilities in the player's control, or usable in a wide variety of campaign/adventures, which means replacements as we've seen in many of the ranger iterations over the years, both official and third party.

 

[cranberry]

Oh, for crying out loud..no one uses tiny wild shape forms for combat...so low HP is not an issue.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Ill respond to these posts in tandem. So Im of the opinion that the 5E Ranger as presented in 2014 was the most Rangery Ranger ever made.

No example of it prior or since compares, and what it got right has everything to do with the Terrain system that, despite its shortcomings, actually delivered an identity for the Ranger.

Now, that system of course wasn't perfect, and I can tell you that my personal rewrite of it (that I used in my 5E games and will be carrying forward into my own RPG) basically only resembles the original in name and concept. But the sheer potential of that system is what made it so appealing, and I had hoped in time that they would have expanded on it and developed it more.

But they didn't. Instead, they soft scrapped it with Tashas, giving it a rather boring set of static passives, and in OneDND, they not only stuck with that same design, but also proceeded to butcher Hunter and emphasize the Ranger even more as basically a cruddy Druid with some martial stuff.

While I'm not a fan of Rangers being spellcasters period, I could have at least lived with it if the rest of the class had improved from what we got in 2014. Not so much when all of that potential was wasted and actual abilities are getting swapped out not just for spells, but weaker spells than what they had originally. (Conjure Barrage = Trash)

And ultimately, the memes that 2014 Rangers were bad were just that. It suffered because the Exploration procedures got butchered in the transition out of Next (the games literally still designed around Exploration Turns to this day), but even the 2014 Beastmaster wasn't as bad as the memes would have you believe, and Hunter was always solid throughout 5Es existence, even as the more high powered subs came into play.

So basically you liked the 5e PHB Ranger as it was, and that's why you hate the new Ranger. You'd at least better acknowledge that you are in the very small minority on this.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Oh, for crying out loud..no one uses tiny wild shape forms for combat...so low HP is not an issue.

Yeah, that was bewildering, to say the least. People used tiny shapes for scouting, and that's it.

 

[Emberashh]

So basically you liked the 5e PHB Ranger as it was, and that's why you hate the new Ranger. You'd at least better acknowledge that you are in the very small minority on this.

Did you read the part where I stated that I rewrote the class? Or the one where I said Id rather it didn't have spellcasting at all?

 

[Nadan]

Sure, but that should have resulted in fixes and expansions, not replacements.

I think in the very fundamental form, favoured enemy and terrain will give you some benefits against that creature or fight in that terrain. But the problem is, when ranger NOT fight that type of creature or in the specific terrain, You got dead level which don't provide anything .

 

[Bolares]

Ill respond to these posts in tandem. So Im of the opinion that the 5E Ranger as presented in 2014 was the most Rangery Ranger ever made.

No example of it prior or since compares, and what it got right has everything to do with the Terrain system that, despite its shortcomings, actually delivered an identity for the Ranger.

Now, that system of course wasn't perfect, and I can tell you that my personal rewrite of it (that I used in my 5E games and will be carrying forward into my own RPG) basically only resembles the original in name and concept. But the sheer potential of that system is what made it so appealing, and I had hoped in time that they would have expanded on it and developed it more.

But they didn't. Instead, they soft scrapped it with Tashas, giving it a rather boring set of static passives, and in OneDND, they not only stuck with that same design, but also proceeded to butcher Hunter and emphasize the Ranger even more as basically a cruddy Druid with some martial stuff.

While I'm not a fan of Rangers being spellcasters period, I could have at least lived with it if the rest of the class had improved from what we got in 2014. Not so much when all of that potential was wasted and actual abilities are getting swapped out not just for spells, but weaker spells than what they had originally. (Conjure Barrage = Trash)

And ultimately, the memes that 2014 Rangers were bad were just that. It suffered because the Exploration procedures got butchered in the transition out of Next (the games literally still designed around Exploration Turns to this day), but even the 2014 Beastmaster wasn't as bad as the memes would have you believe, and Hunter was always solid throughout 5Es existence, even as the more high powered subs came into play.

Okay, I understand you now, thanks for responding. I like most os the things about the 2014 ranger, but I have a big problem with how it makes almost any non magical exploration scene trivial when the PC is on their chosen terrais. Playing ToA I had to weaken the class a lot for it to not ruin the exploration fases of the adventure.