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.

 

[Clint_L]

I like the template version of wild shape quite a bit, but replacing "any beast you have seen" with a select list would work for me as well.

Potentially problematic depending on setting, though.

 

[Nadan]

I still don't get why plenty of people got hyper focus on magic-less ranger and get mad/disappointment that WotC keep them as it.

My logic is that generally, nature got plenty of magic, and will provide druid primal magic. Why a guy that trying to "get along" in nature will choose mundane ways instead learning some druid's teaching and utilise some nature spell to help them dealing with problems?

From the survival of the fittest point of view, shouldn't ranger using everything nature can provide to help them get job done?

 

[Minigiant]

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

That was the point.

You could easily knock a 5e mouse druid out of WS. So Tiny Form 5e was fine.

But Oe Tiny forms can tank random BS.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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’m confused as to how getting a climb and swim speed is more of a “boring passive” than automatic success on most exploration tasks when in the right terrain.

I’m all for giving each terrain a different benefit, but the execution in the ranger is terrible.

 

[Emberashh]

I still don't get why plenty of people got hyper focus on magic-less ranger and get mad/disappointment that WotC keep them as it.

My logic is that generally, nature got plenty of magic, and will provide druid primal magic. Why a guy that trying to "get along" in nature will choose mundane ways instead learning some druid's teaching and utilise some nature spell to help them dealing with problems?

Because most of us who feel that way consider Strider and Faramir to be the models for what a Ranger should be, and they weren't Gandalf.

And be prepared if you want to go down that road, because I can literally throw down an essay proving that Aragorn is only possibly magical as a result of his background and early-life exploits, and not because of anything to do with his occupation as a Ranger.

 

[Emberashh]

I’m confused as to how getting a climb and swim speed is more of a “boring passive” than automatic success on most exploration tasks when in the right terrain.

They aren't automatic successes.

And Tasha passives are boring because theres no fiction being supported or enhanced through them that lends any credibility to the Ranger as a distinct class.

The Terrain system was poorly executed, but as noted, the concept was sound.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I really hope the ranged divine smite makes it through (maybe with lower damage). Divine warrior firing holy arrows is a common trope, but 5e struggles to let you actually play as one.

Alternatively, make a celestial themed ranger subclass.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They aren't automatic successes.

The first two bullet points are literally automatic success. The rest are no more active than the Tasha’s features or the playtest features.

The Terrain system was poorly executed, but as noted, the concept was sound.

It’s unpopular enough that it’s going away. Oh well. It isn’t necessary, and thematically it’s fine but not definitive.

 

[James Gasik]

The Ranger gets their magic not because of anything Aragorn does in the Lord of the Rings, but simply for a desire to make them another "Fighter+" analogous to the Paladin. While the 1e Ranger is an odd hodge podge of abilities, this design intent becomes more clear in 2e, where Paladins get some spells Clerics use, and Rangers get some spells Druids use. Neither case was super fantastic, but it was retained as a legacy trait in 3e so people wouldn't get up in arms about Rangers not being the same class.

By the end of 3.x, Rangers had a lot of very cool spells unique to their list allowing them to do a wide variety of rangerish things, as well as make up for weak points in the class, like improving their combat abilities (the spell that lets you shoot an arrow at every enemy in range was a personal favorite).

Because this is generally how WotC likes to fix problems; just throw more spells at it, lol.

The 4e Ranger does almost nothing magical, save for a few Primal abilities. However, surprise, surprise, there were people who (outside of just generally not liking 4e) pointed to the Ranger no longer being magic as a point of contention.

Thus we got 5e, which rolled back many design decisions to previous eras, where again, we have magical Rangers because some people were very vocal about not liking 4e Rangers, and apparently wanted previous Rangers back.

But it turns out that opinions about what Rangers are, and what abilities they should have are sharply divided by the community (they are one of the most complained about classes, after all), and WotC hasn't figured out how to "thread the needle" (using Crawford's words) without making two separate Ranger classes. Some people see their "Primal Paladin" status as too ingrained to the Ranger to accept a spellcasting subclass, and every time WotC has presented a "no spells" option for the Ranger or Paladin, the result has always been worse, so I doubt a "no-magic" Subclass would be any good.

 

[Emberashh]

The first two bullet points are literally automatic success.

No, they aren't.

The rest are no more active than the Tasha’s features or the playtest features.

Didn't say they were.

It’s unpopular enough that it’s going away. Oh well. It isn’t necessary, and thematically it’s fine but not definitive.

Its unpopular because they butchered an entire pillar of play and refused to support it. Its a waste of one of the few good ideas they've had.