D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[CleverNickName]

At my table? Whenever my players read the words "Ranger with an Animal Companion" they assume it means "ranger gets two more attacks per round, woot" and then they get really disappointed when they read the rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But the non-casting ranger tends to be describes 75% of time a "Fighter in a Green cloak who can Hunter's Mark." or a "Rogue in a Green Cloak who can Hunter's Mark."

By whom?

 

[Micah Sweet]

People actually use 3PP? I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.

I really, REALLY wish fewer people thought that way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just ran a tier 3 game this weekend. A player there ran a Ranger. Very much disliked Drizzt. Loved his Ranger. He's been playing since the 80's.

I know a few more veterans playing the D&D Ranger.

I'll grant you one of them want's a spell less ranger. A couple of the others may too, I'm not sure.

I also run a lot of "new people" tables, to D&D and too 5e and too RPGS. Many of them have gone on to keep playing and I run into them occasionally. A lot of folks new since 5e, a lot. I don't recall any of them complaining about a Ranger bait and switch.

I mean, with respect, this doesn't seem to be particularly disagreeing with my position!

Re: new players, have you ever heard a new player complain significantly about a class? My experience is genuinely new players are typically so excited and new that they don't actually complain about anything much. The player most likely to complain a bunch is the guy who has played a fair bit before and has very particular expectations, but isn't old and wise enough to be a true veteran.

But it's easy to see what elements of classes and game systems are vexing and confusing new players. Magic with Rangers with one of them. I've seen new players start kind of "tuning out" when they're forced to deal with the "magic" bit of Rangers in every edition except 4E, where just no-one would play them. It's particularly bad because they get this non-magical class, then a couple of levels later they start having to deal with magic, and most of them didn't want that. But D&D has no really good alternative class. Fighter is so truly awful at anything but combat that it doesn't work. Rogue is a backstabber, even Scout, which isn't what they're looking for. Barbarian would honestly be closer but their abilities are all opposed to DEX and ranged stuff.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

My long experience is that Ranger is a popular class in D&D.

But the main people it's popular with are people new to D&D.

Not veterans. What you're describing only applies to veterans. People who already have their expectations precisely calibrated to D&D's peculiarities.

So what I've seen repeatedly is people read the Ranger description, which barely mentions magic (seriously, check it out), or have a Ranger described, and what they think is "I can be Katniss" or if they're older "I can be Aragorn!" (who is literally called a Ranger!), and the main thing they think they're getting is a "nature expert", who is at least pretty good with a bow.

And what I then have seen is that people who do keep playing, don't usually play Rangers much, because for it's just a disappointing class that isn't actually that good at "nature stuff" (a Druid or even a Wizard often wildly outperforms it in "nature stuff"), and when veterans do play Rangers, it's often exploit some peculiar mechanic, and often a multiclass thing rather than a single class.

It's not like Cleric, where Cleric has become its own whole thing.

As a veteran player with other vet players in my group can confirm this applies to us. The current ranger just doesn't feel the same, which is a shame. It used to be one of my favorite classes.

 

[Minigiant]

By whom?

By most people who describe non-magical rangers and design non-magical ranger class variants.

I have read a lot of nonmagical ranger homebrews. Many of them are combat quizinart with Stealth bonuses who can heal 1d8 HP twice a day or something. Because MMO, RTS, and ARPG rangers are raw DPS/pullers.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What if at level 1 you choose between half-casting and a pet? Or spellcasting and…something else cool?

 

[jasper]

Considering how many people seemed to hate Exhaustion because it "hurt their character's chance of success too much", I would say the new version is essentially a form of power creep.

My evil DM heart beats hard for the new exhaustion. But needs to have only 6 levels instead of ten.

 

[jasper]

I saw that...still scratching my head over it. What do you think the reason was for this change?

I think weapons will be reshuffled. I hope the categories will be simple, martial, and exotic. With the range weapons folded into those three. Exotic should be firearms, and any specific campaign weapon like the kenders hookak.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think weapons will be reshuffled. I hope the categories will be simple, martial, and exotic. With the range weapons folded into those three. Exotic should be firearms, and any specific campaign weapon like the kenders hookak.

You're probably right. In my opinion Firearms should either be "simple" weapons or their own category, but that's splitting hairs.