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]

So you're saying that you'll implement this here, but not when a Ranger ribbon explicitly calls out this possibility to everyone?

Well, can’t you see the difference of a party building their characters to optimize and effect versus a charcter class receiveing it for free at a low level?

 

[Minigiant]

Call me a weirdo, but I would create a core ranger that had no spells and move the spells to one or more subclasses. Iconic abilities would be made class abilities, rather than spells.

Do the same thing with paladins.

And for druids, make the templated wildshape the core version of the class and make the Circle of the Moon the subclass that goes digging through the Monster Manual.

The problem comes that everyone can't agree on what nonmagical features the ranger or paladin (or bard).

WOTC has tried nonmagical rangers. Fans hated it
But without a core potioncraft, tracking, beastaming, campmaking, etc feature that EVERY TABLE must use, you end up just recreating spells as "not spells" with daily spell-like limits.

 

[Emberashh]

Well, can’t you see the difference of a party building their characters to optimize and effect versus a charcter class receiveing it for free at a low level?

Which doesn't really address the issue that you're still just arbitrarily skipping mechanics in either case, whilst using the explicit balancing language of the latter to make the former work mechanically.

You're not being very consistent.

 

[Shiroiken]

But Oe Tiny forms can tank random BS.

Tiny creatures can't tank anything other than small or tiny creatures. If you're two sizes larger, you can just walk through another creature's space, so you might be able to fight well, but you're not blocking anything.

As noted above, that was the problem. Given the other changes, the new rules would create an absurd use case where you basically have the rabbit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. They didn't want that. But I agree that they need to just add a change that makes the tiny form less robust and makes it a scouting option (thereby allowing it at a low level). And it sounds like that's what they'll probably do, based on the video (unless they go back to a curated MM list, in which case the problem goes away-- as Crawford noted)

Though, honestly, I would have enjoyed the murder bunny for at least a few sessions.

AD

IMO they should create specific stat blocks, one of which is the Tiny scout. It doesn't have any attack form, so the idea of the killer bunny doesn't necessarily happen (maybe Moon druid). I'd have a Tiny Scout, Small Dex/Stealth Skirmisher, Medium Str Striker, then at level 5 a Large Str Tank. Swimers and Fliers would have separate types too, also based on purpose, but don't know how I'd do those based on existing creatures.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The problem comes that everyone can't agree on what nonmagical features the ranger or paladin (or bard).

I also don't think design by crowdsourcing is the right way to do things. Feedback? Yes. Playtesting? Yes.

Core design? No.

At best, we get flavorless oatmeal.

WOTC has tried nonmagical rangers. Fans hated it

Like I said, stick them in one or more subclasses, opening the door to different styles of spellcasting, maybe different spell lists, etc.

It would not be difficult to give fans of spellcasting rangers (and paladins) exactly what they like right now, while also giving the people who like rangers without magic an option that they currently don't have.

But without a core potioncraft, tracking, beastaming, campmaking, etc feature that EVERY TABLE must use, you end up just recreating spells as "not spells" with daily spell-like limits.

I think a lot of that can just go under the Survival skill, honestly.

But unless WotC puts something like AiME's Journeys system (now available in its own book from Cubicle 7) into either the PHB or DMG, I am not convinced that the company really wants to support that ranger playstyle in general, whether those abilities are spells or not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, they aren't.

If you can’t be lost, you automatically succeed on any checks to not get lost. It is exactly an auto-success feature.

Didn't say they were.

Complaining about new features being boring and passive implies by necessity that what they replace is not boring and passive.

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

No, it’s unpopular because it either makes the ranger “just win” in a whole pillar or gives the ranger literally nothing, and the player isn’t the one deciding which is the case in a given session.

Expertise all the time on a skill, climb and swim speed, etc, is just better.

It would have been even better if they’d designed natural explorer to have some minor “when in your favored terrain” buffs and also a significant buff that impacts general exploration play (defining exploration as all non-combat physical challenges), but the Tasha’s features are an improvement, especially the higher level features.

 

[Bolares]

Which doesn't really address the issue that you're still just arbitrarily skipping mechanics in either case, whilst using the explicit balancing language of the latter to make the former work mechanically.

You're not being very consistent.

I don’t know if I’m not being clear but I never said you can’t skip mechanics from any purpose. You are moving the goal posts. My problem with the ranger design is that it deals in absolutes, it takes one of the supoosed three pillars of the game and makes one of the main narrative tropes of it (getting lost) impossible to happen with little to no cost. Does that mean a party can’t ever work towards never getting lost? No. If that is your goal, and you work for it, I as a DM believe you should be able to achieve it. But getting it before a fighter even gets extra attacks, in what you yourself called a ribbon ability, is just bad design in my opinion, and a lot of people agree with me.

If even then you can’t understand and respect my point of view, even if you disagree with me, it’s best that we stop interacting in this topoc, because we aren’t gerting anywhere.

 

[Emberashh]

It is exactly an auto-success feature.

You still need to be navigating, otherwise you aren't going anywhere. And if you're handwaving exploration, then there is no auto-success because there is nothing.

Complaining about new features being boring and passive implies by necessity that what they replace is not boring and passive.

That is a pretty funny freudian? slip. Yes, a set of passives can be quite boring compared to another set of passives, and I aluded to what the issue is in speaking of how I don't see the Tasha passives supporting the fiction of a Ranger in any meaningful way.

 

[Emberashh]

I don’t know if I’m not being clear but I never said you can’t skip mechanics from any purpose.

I know. I said you shouldn't be skipping mechanics.

You are moving the goal posts.

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps the Druid would just transform into the Primal Beasts. Then add Primal Beasts to the PHB. The primal beats could be the forms and double as Beastmaster Ranger and Primeavel Druid companions.

• Primal Ape
  • Climb Speed
  • Has Hands
• Primal Bat
  • Fly Speed
  • Blindsight
    • Echolocation
  • Tiny Size
• Primal Bear
  • Climb Speed
  • Swim Speed
• Primal Hound
  • Keen Sense
  • Pack Tactics
• Primal Raptor
  • Fly Speed
  • Flyby
• Primal Panther
  • Climb Speed
  • Pounce
• Primal Serpent
  • Climb Speed
  • Poisonous Venomous Attack
• Primal Steed
  • Fast Movement
• Primal Vermin
  • Tiny Size