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.

 

[Bolares]

I've always wondered just what it is about the Scout Rogue that just never seems to be an answer for folks who wanted "spell-less rangers"?

I'd presume that they don't see Aragorn as a rogue.

 

[Maxperson]

I've always wondered just what it is about the Scout Rogue that just never seems to be an answer for folks who wanted "spell-less rangers"? I mean they got to have more skills plus Expertise in all the outdoorsy skills that people wanted (on top of the two free expertises of Nature and Survival at level 3), they didn't have the two 1st level Ranger abilities that a lot of people hated because they just removed the possibility of failure during exploration, and they got to jump out of melee range as a Reaction, plus eventually have a higher ground speed. What were they missing from the Scout that they didn't get that they felt like they should have had to be a spell-less ranger (other than not having the class name 'Ranger' itself?)

For me they are missing Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain(but not like 5e rangers currently have).

 

[Emberashh]

If the DM is going to skip a mechanic, and there are times when it is appropriate to do so, he's going to have a reason to skip it.

And said reason can still be described as entirely arbitrary. Theres no mutual exclusion here.

Exploration? This is the single largest pillar. "We go to the bar." - exploration. "I want to see if there's a magic shop in this city." - exploration. "We need you to go to the Dungeon of Not Quite Doom." - social. "We leave to find the dungeon." - exploration. "What's behind the door?" - exploration. "I search the room." - exploration.

Exploration is more than that. A lot more.

I've always wondered just what it is about the Scout Rogue that just never seems to be an answer for folks who wanted "spell-less rangers"? I mean they got to have more skills plus Expertise in all the outdoorsy skills that people wanted (on top of the two free expertises of Nature and Survival at level 3), they didn't have the two 1st level Ranger abilities that a lot of people hated because they just removed the possibility of failure during exploration, and they got to jump out of melee range as a Reaction, plus eventually have a higher ground speed. What were they missing from the Scout that they didn't get that they felt like they should have had to be a spell-less ranger (other than not having the class name 'Ranger' itself?)

In a game where we're already pretending to be something and there is no actual barrier to what the game can support, choosing to then pretend again isn't satisfying.

In a video game like Skyrim, there are no classes and the game doesn't support it, with even mods that attempt it being very rudimentary even compared to older TES titles.

It makes sense if you want to be a "Ranger" in Skyrim that you just have to pretend, because theres just no real satisfying way around the games limitations.

In DND, those limitations don't exist. You don't have to play a Rogue Scout and pretend to be a Ranger.

You can just  be a Ranger.

After a point if Im just ignoring what the game presents to me mechanically then I may as well skip the game and write a book.

 

[niklinna]

I've always wondered just what it is about the Scout Rogue that just never seems to be an answer for folks who wanted "spell-less rangers"? I mean they got to have more skills plus Expertise in all the outdoorsy skills that people wanted (on top of the two free expertises of Nature and Survival at level 3), they didn't have the two 1st level Ranger abilities that a lot of people hated because they just removed the possibility of failure during exploration, and they got to jump out of melee range as a Reaction, plus eventually have a higher ground speed. What were they missing from the Scout that they didn't get that they felt like they should have had to be a spell-less ranger (other than not having the class name 'Ranger' itself?)

Maybe it's this

 

[Nadan]

I'd presume that they don't see Aragorn as a rogue.

If the whole point is BE Aragorn, I recommand play a fighter dip with rouge and choose outlander for background.
Edit: Because that is probably every charater are beside Valar, Maiar and half-Maiar (Lúthien ) in the middle earth.
Edit2 : And Nazgûls, they are warlock

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd presume that they don't see Aragorn as a rogue.

So it's merely the name? And Scout isn't a good enough name? Okay. Can't argue with it, as I guess everyone has their own picadillos when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[Pauln6]

If the whole point is BE Aragorn, I recommand play a fighter dip with rouge and choose outlander for background.

Aragon uses magic though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me they are missing Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain(but not like 5e rangers currently have).

So for you it's not just having a spell-less ranger... it sounds like you'd also want a more fully re-done Ranger class altogether (if you want different versions of FE and FT too). That would make sense why the Scout wouldn't do it for you.

 

[Amrûnril]

It's just kind of weird not being able to easily roll up a kind of adventurer that actually exists even today.

My father and his father basically ARE non-magical rangers. In his youth my dad would literally get dropped off in the woods alone for the weekend with the expectation he'd have a pile of meat to bring back at the end of it, used hunting dog and horse animal companions, could sew up a dog ear or his own wounds and got in ridiculous fights.

Go back a few generations and that's not even a weird lifestyle.

To me, this sounds like a list of activities that Rangers (and in some cases adventurers more generally) already have the tools to be good at.

Natural explorer lets rangers travel in favored terrain without the risk of becoming lost and with significant bonuses to foraging.
Horses of various types are listed in the PHB with capabilities and purchase prices.
Tending to wounds is one of the explanations given for short rest healing.
Getting in ridiculous fights is one of the main focal points of the game.
As for hunting larger game and using hunting dogs, these are areas where the game doesn't have focused rules, but rangers have access to all the proficiencies one would expect to be involved.

 

[Remathilis]

I'd presume that they don't see Aragorn as a rogue.

I'll remember this when I'm told "we don't need x as a class, just use y".