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.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes it was done before. It was called the 2nd edition ranger...

And that's part of the problem with both classes. "Lightly armored, skilled survivalist wilderness man" is a compelling archetype but it lacks a mechanical focus. Fast and mobile is a feat at best. Four classes get d10 or higher HP. Thanks to the universal skill system, being focused on Wilderness skills is easy. Low armor is a function of proficiency. It's the same problem as the ranger has been facing: the 2e version doesn't have enough mechanics to be unique and what they did have could be replicated with skills and feats. So barbarians gained a thematically appropriate mechanic in rage, while the ranger has been forced to lean into spells as its mechanic. (With several attempts to make favored enemy happen).

If WotC had found a more solid mechanic to anchor the ranger too, I think it might have found a way to lower the necessity of spells as a defining trope. Both the barbarian (rage) and rogue (sneak attack) found a backbone mechanic to use to keep a class identity after skills went from class features to universal mechanic.

WotC asked people what was core to a Ranger when they did those early 5E experiments, and Spellcasting was one of the primary answers.

There will never be a spell-less Ranger, count on it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC asked people what was core to a Ranger when they did those early 5E experiments, and Spellcasting was one of the primary answers.

There will never be a spell-less Ranger, count on it.

Not by WotC, no. Plenty of other 5e games do it though, so who cares if WotC doesn't?

 

[Parmandur]

Not by WotC, no. Plenty of other 5e games do it though, so who cares if WotC doesn't?

This is a thread about D&D, not third party material. There will not be a Ranger in mainline D&D that doesn't have Spells.

 

[Remathilis]

WotC asked people what was core to a Ranger when they did those early 5E experiments, and Spellcasting was one of the primary answers.

There will never be a spell-less Ranger, count on it.

Note I didn't say spellless.per se, but both rangers and paladins (and in a different way, bards) all leaned into spellcasting harder as the editions grew and more class features were needed to round out the progression.

 

[Parmandur]

Note I didn't say spellless.per se, but both rangers and paladins (and in a different way, bards) all leaned into spellcasting harder as the editions grew and more class features were needed to round out the progression.

Fair, but that genie is out of the bottle in the modern Evergreen era.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a thread about D&D, not third party material. There will not be a Ranger in mainline D&D that doesn't have Spells.

I'm sure you're right about ranger, but "D&D" encompasses far, far more than what WotC decides to roll out. 3PP is a big part of that, and absolutely no less D&D than the vaunted market leader.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sure you're right about ranger, but "D&D" encompasses far, far more than what WotC decides to roll out. 3PP is a big part of that, and absolutely no less D&D than the vaunted market leader.

Still has nothing to do with what the designers may do in OneD&D or any future iteration of the game, which ia the topic st hand, not fantasy heartbreakers. In D&D property, Rangers are magic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Still has nothing to do with what the designers may do in OneD&D or any future iteration of the game, which ia the topic st hand, not fantasy heartbreakers. In D&D property, Rangers are magic.

So every D&D product that wasn't made by WotC is a fantasy heartbreaker? Do you have any idea how disrespectful that is, and how unjustly this raises up the company that happens to own portions of the IP? I can't believe I'm hearing this.

 

[Emberashh]

I can't believe I'm hearing this.

The Sacred Cows are not to be harmed. Especially the crummy diseased ones that the herd spends half its energy dragging around the pasture.

 

[Parmandur]

So every D&D product that wasn't made by WotC is a fantasy heartbreaker? Do you have any idea how disrespectful that is, and how unjustly this raises up the company that happens to own portions of the IP? I can't believe I'm hearing this.

I mean, basically. Not relevant to the thread speculating about OneD&D, certainly.