D&D (2024) UA Ranger (Playtest 6)

[Minigiant]

Circling back, a spell or two or three from outside the primary spell list doesn't do what you claim as well as lists of spells acquired earlier on other classes.

My point from the start is that WOTC is experimenting with other classes and increasing their power, range, and lore.

But for the Ranger, they are trying to more or less reprint the Tasha's Ranger because it was popular but forgets that the Tasha's Ranger is a patch based on the 2014 class.

IE they are willing to create 5 new spells for 3 classes but are jamming HM into everything ranger and forcing buffed version of new spells to force an unnatural new flavor and lore.

 

[Ashrym]

My point from the start is that WOTC is experimenting with other classes and increasing their power, range, and lore.

But for the Ranger, they are trying to more or less reprint the Tasha's Ranger because it was popular but forgets that the Tasha's Ranger is a patch based on the 2014 class.

IE they are willing to create 5 new spells for 3 classes but are jamming HM into everything ranger and forcing buffed version of new spells to force an unnatural new flavor and lore.

I think they were creating those new spells to differentiate classes better after using shared spell lists instead of class spell lists. I really liked the flavor of the wizard spells added but have concerns it's going to be open to abuse. That's a tangent, however.

Bards have improvements to bardic inspiration dice and I like those better than the 1st attempt or the current 5e version. The class is actually weaker in UA6 because song of rest is gone, jack of all trades only applies to skill proficiencies the bard doesn't have, and the spell versatility for the first 9 levels has changed away from the class list. Bards were a poor example to compare because magical secrets is fun and cool, but it really is over-rated on the power side of things.

Look at the rogue. Those are some nice changes. The ranger just seems like they are trying to respond to conflicting feedback.

 

[Minigiant]

I think they were creating those new spells to differentiate classes better after using shared spell lists instead of class spell lists. I really liked the flavor of the wizard spells added but have concerns it's going to be open to abuse. That's a tangent, however.

Bards have improvements to bardic inspiration dice and I like those better than the 1st attempt or the current 5e version. The class is actually weaker in UA6 because song of rest is gone, jack of all trades only applies to skill proficiencies the bard doesn't have, and the spell versatility for the first 9 levels has changed away from the class list. Bards were a poor example to compare because magical secrets is fun and cool, but it really is over-rated on the power side of things.

My problem was always with flavor.
I was willing to overlook bad flavor on a weak class with added power.

The ranger added spells and spell changed, to me, feels like added a weak flavor, removing old flavor, and giving not enough power for me to ignore it.

Look at the rogue. Those are some nice changes. The ranger just seems like they are trying to respond to conflicting feedback.

The ranger and monk feel like they are trying to fix weak classes by altering old stuff instead of changing the classes core skeleton due to a promise of backward compatibility.

If they are willing to change warlocks from Pact Magic to Half Slot Casters, they should be willing to make big changes in ranger and monk as well .

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The ranger and monk feel like they are trying to fix weak classes by altering old stuff instead of changing the classes core skeleton due to a promise of backward compatibility.

They were willing to have less backwards compatibility. People were outraged. Now they paddled back.

That was the greater fanbase's decision.

WotC never intended to slay the golden goose. They tried to estimate how much change will be ok. Seemed that people don't want that much change.

I must say, I would have been ok with what was presented in the playtests before. The new UA however shows a good way of keeping backwards compatibility and improving stuff (with the exception of the monk).

 

[Minigiant]

They were willing to have less backwards compatibility. People were outraged. Now they paddled back.

That was the greater fanbase's decision.

WotC never intended to slay the golden goose. They tried to estimate how much change will be ok. Seemed that people don't want that much change.

I must say, I would have been ok with what was presented in the playtests before. The new UA however shows a good way of keeping backwards compatibility and improving stuff (with the exception of the monk).

Eh...
They did big change with the warlock. I think with classes like ranger, monk, warlock, or sorcerer...maintaining backwards compatibility will just lower satisfaction ratings.

As a person who works in an essential infrastructure industry, there are some problems you just can't patch and have many people ok with the result.

It feels more that WOTC doesn't have the time to test multiple ideas with a deadline of next year. So there is no time to fix what was fundamentally messed up if the first attempt is panned.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Eh...
They did big change with the warlock. I think with classes like ranger, monk, warlock, or sorcerer...maintaining backwards compatibility will just lower satisfaction ratings.

As a person who works in an essential infrastructure industry, there are some problems you just can't patch and have many people ok with the result.

It feels more that WOTC doesn't have the time to test multiple ideas with a deadline of next year. So there is no time to fix what was fundamentally messed up if the first attempt is panned.

I would not call D&D essential infrastructure. And I don't see things as problamatic as you do.

Nothing that can't be fixed with some number and some quality of life changes.

Edit: and the warlock will be rejected. I am totally sure. I'd bet that they also backpaddle.

 

[Minigiant]

I would not call D&D essential infrastructure. And I don't see things as problamatic as you do.

Nothing that can't be fixed with some number and some quality of life changes.

Edit: and the warlock will be rejected. I am totally sure. I'd bet that they also backpaddle.

I think the complaints the community have about the Monk, Ranger, and Warlock are simple number or sentence changes

Those three class were designed around one or two specific styles of play and lack the ability to adjust to different tables.

They are not like Sorcerer and Druid who are just off on a number or need a reshuffle and new feature.

Ranger is a Exploration and Combat class which was weak a both except if you played a certain way. They patched it with overturned subclasses and overturned subclass features. However there is no way to go back to the 2014 model as it was made on false assumptions. There is no way to predict what % of a table is combat and what % is exploration and the levels of MMI the DM employs.

Focusing too hard on Combat made it too much of a combat beast and exploration wimp in the Expert playtest. My guess in UAPHB6, reverting back to 2014 combat levels is also too weak.

The community wants the class material they bought pre2024 to be playable in the 2024 version of the ranger, monk, and warlock AND they want the classes to be designed better. This is doable.

I believe the "The community doesn't want changes" belief is a myth. I think the "The community wants there old books to work with the new books" is the truth.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm starting to think that they should just roll the Hunter subclass features into the base class (similar to how some people want the Battle Master to be incorporated into the base Fighter class).

They were in the D&D Next playtest. Those abilities were supposed to be 5e’s version of favored enemy - bonuses that were useful against any enemy, but more useful against a broad category of enemies. Pelor knows why they shunted those abilities into a subclass in the PHB, but now we seem to be stuck with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

The problem is most of the magic arrow spells stink but 2 are still being forced upon every version of the class over more iconic spells..


And?

Does that mean that everything over level 9 should be allowed to be unbalanced?


Hell, if "You can prepare any Arcane, Divine, or Primal spell" is allowed is allowed in a revision, giving a bard "1/day prepare any spell 5th or lower you didn't prepare" is too.

Didn’t the Wizard literally have that spell in the last UA?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah I think my default preference for rangers would be martial abilities for damage and spells for utility, enhancement, summoning Beasts, on environmental control.

A spell that conjures arrows has always felt weird. I'd prefer it if it was refluffed as a martial ability using existing arrows personally.

I think they worry that people will reject the idea of a whole volley with a single action without magic, especially if it doesn’t consume a prohibitive amount of ammo.