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.

One D&D Playtest

One D&D Playtest Materials Get the One D&D playtest content, try it out in your game, and then provide feedback! Check back regularly for new conte...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Hussar]

Aaand you're ignoring everything else I wrote.

Plus, the spell doesn't say that they give totally accurate, intelligent, useful descriptions.

"Hey plant, did anything come near you last night?"

"Yes! 1 moving thing!"

"What sort of moving thing?"

"Moving thing that didn't eat me."

"How big was it?"

"Big!"

(plant is a dandelion)

Ahh, the good old "The DM is a dick" response to anything revolving around DM adjudication. We need a spell less ranger to protect us from DM's now? How is that going to work? Any DM who is going to interpret Speak with Plants the way you are detailing here is going to be just as much of a jerk DM regardless of the mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

The poster I'm responding to regards the subsystems within spells as subsystems - they said as much, so it's a subsystem.

To be honest, in all the responses, I've kinda lost track of the conversation @Ruin Explorer. And I don't mean that as a shot or any sort of dig. I've very honestly gotten turned around. Could you do me a favor and bullet point the issue again?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest, in all the responses, I've kinda lost track of the conversation @Ruin Explorer. And I don't mean that as a shot or any sort of dig. I've very honestly gotten turned around. Could you do me a favor and bullet point the issue again?

I'm referring to post #912.

 

[Hussar]

Level Up does literally all these things. It is possible, if you put in some effort to make the game that way.

But, again, that's not really the point that's being made. Level Up simply replicates spells, calls them "not spells" and now we have a "spell less ranger". Sure, it makes them different, for a given value of different I suppose, but, it's rather pointless.

Then again, I always underestimate the power of presentation when people look at this stuff. I look at the "knacks" and see spells. Sure, they aren't slotted and what not, but, they're just spells. No different than an Elemental Monk. Yup, he's casting spells with Ki, but, the point is, he's still casting spells. They work like spells, they are written exactly like spells and are limited in exactly the same way (limited use/day, very specific parameters (why, for example, can I Animal Friend Knack a 1/8 CR beast, but not a 1/4? What's the in-game justification there?) and function pretty much exactly the same as spells.

But, they're not spells.

Look, it's simple. 5e has decided that most "powers" (whatever you want to call them - in game stuff that you can do that is limited by the mechanics) are spells. So, now, when you have a class that does something, everyone uses the same format. Players don't have to relearn the wheel every time they play a different class.

For one, I'm VERY happy that they are standardizing this. I don't get to play very often and I really struggle with remembering how to do spells for different classes. How many spells do I have prepped, do I prep spells, what spells can I prep, what spells do I know - that's different depending on what class you play. Sometimes I get two new known spells/day... sometimes not.

Bugger that. Just have every class work the same and I'm much happier.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, @Ruin Explorer for me, this is post 912. I'm really more confused than before.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure "half" isn't a bit of an exaggeration. Most of the spells aren't like that. Although, I will agree that there are just too damn many spells. It's one area I would rather see a HUGE paring down. Go back to Expert D&D where you had about 8 spells per level. Done. Not going to happen, but, one can dream.

It's really actually quite annoying that the caster turns often take twice as long as anyone else's, not because they're so much more difficult to run or anything, but, because so many times, the player drops a new spell, and often aren't 100% up on the rules, or, my personal favorite, "I cast ((Insert Spell Name)" Okay, sure. What does that do? "It does this and this and this" Uhh, ok. Do you have that keyed in as a macro or do you have the spell handy to show me? "Oh, no, it's in this book... oh, you don't have that book... well, that's how it works..."

DM bangs head on desk repeatedly

Look, if you're a caster, and you've just got that brand new polymorph spell, or animate objects, or whatever, take the thirty seconds to prep it to use at the table BEFORE you use it at the table.... Pretty Please.

 

[Faolyn]

Ahh, the good old "The DM is a dick" response to anything revolving around DM adjudication. We need a spell less ranger to protect us from DM's now? How is that going to work? Any DM who is going to interpret Speak with Plants the way you are detailing here is going to be just as much of a jerk DM regardless of the mechanics.

And you're still ignoring everything else I wrote.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I do wish you didn't have to guess who has you on their ignore list.

I wish the ignore feature used had an algorithm to figure out what kind of people you ignored, and then replaced their content with AI generated nonsense that those people might have written.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I never said I preferred that system

I never said you did. I said that your wording indicates a mindset that certain types of games are “actually well designed” and others are lazy or just shallow popularity-seeking with no concern for quality.

It also seems to suggest a preference for more complex systems that handle aspects of play with more specificity than 5e does, but hey, it doesn’t really matter.

 

[grimslade]

I wish the ignore feature used had an algorithm to figure out what kind of people you ignored, and then replaced their content with AI generated nonsense that those people might have written.

A Pie filter? Another blog uses a pie filter turning filtered people's posts into long love letters to pie.

 

[Eric V]

I never said you did. I said that your wording indicates a mindset that certain types of games are “actually well designed” and others are lazy or just shallow popularity-seeking with no concern for quality.

It also seems to suggest a preference for more complex systems that handle aspects of play with more specificity than 5e does, but hey, it doesn’t really matter.

You're trying to read into things again, and (I'm sorry, but) failing. Again.

I mentioned it only because it does a non-magical Ranger well. I am not trying to bring up anything else.

But since you insist on (now, constantly) mis-reading me...please stop responding to me. I will do the same for you.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually, no. My apologies, I misguided you by saying it was an UA, but it wasn't.
It was an article on the official D&D site, aimed to DMs, to help them create home-brew class variants. It pre-dates the UA series. The spell-less ranger was the example they provided as a class variant. It gave up spells, and in exchange received the battlemaster's combat superiority dice and the ability to craft healing poultices and natural antivenom. Afaik, they never made a survey about it.

Edit: It can't be found on the official site anymore, but I managed to find a copy. It's a 2015 article by
Rodney Thompson.

I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There seems to be an awful lot of miscommunication going on here. Let's all take a breath and see if we can try to understand each other. Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks.

 

[Olrox17]

I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?

It worked for that one player who picked ranger in one of my games. He liked superiority dice, and he liked the non-magical healing poultices he could craft.
If WotC offered a ranger variant like that, I think people might be satisfied. A problem with the current Ranger is that some of its class features just assume spellcasting is available.

 

[MarkB]

Umm, @Ruin Explorer for me, this is post 912. I'm really more confused than before.

A side effect of people having people on Ignore is that it changes the numbering within the thread due to missing posts.

 

[Cadence]

Miss-post!

 

[Cadence]

Miss-post!

 

[Cadence]

But, again, that's not really the point that's being made. Level Up simply replicates spells, calls them "not spells" and now we have a "spell less ranger". Sure, it makes them different, for a given value of different I suppose, but, it's rather pointless.

Then again, I always underestimate the power of presentation when people look at this stuff. I look at the "knacks" and see spells. Sure, they aren't slotted and what not, but, they're just spells. No different than an Elemental Monk. Yup, he's casting spells with Ki, but, the point is, he's still casting spells. They work like spells, they are written exactly like spells and are limited in exactly the same way (limited use/day, very specific parameters (why, for example, can I Animal Friend Knack a 1/8 CR beast, but not a 1/4? What's the in-game justification there?) and function pretty much exactly the same as spells.

But, they're not spells.

Look, it's simple. 5e has decided that most "powers" (whatever you want to call them - in game stuff that you can do that is limited by the mechanics) are spells. So, now, when you have a class that does something, everyone uses the same format. Players don't have to relearn the wheel every time they play a different class.

For one, I'm VERY happy that they are standardizing this. I don't get to play very often and I really struggle with remembering how to do spells for different classes. How many spells do I have prepped, do I prep spells, what spells can I prep, what spells do I know - that's different depending on what class you play. Sometimes I get two new known spells/day... sometimes not.

Bugger that. Just have every class work the same and I'm much happier.

It feels like names have a lot of power to some/many people when discussing psionics too. Whereas some/many others find it much ado about nothing.

Does calling them knacks, prayers, spells, whatnots depending on class, but having them all work the same as spells, work for you just as well mechanically and for ease of play?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

That’s the thing that is most missing here in general. People gleefully jump on the slightest mistake or ambiguity and assume the least generous interpretation, or extend an opposing argument to the most ridiculous extreme.

The forums would be a nicer place if every post that began with “So you are saying that…” were instantly deleted. (Even though I’m sure that I, in the heat of the moment, have used those exact words.)

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd like to see, but know I won't see WotC deal with this monster they created head on and make it clear that not every discrete ability a character has is magic or a spell and they will not be entertaining or encouraging that sort of thing anymore. Swinging a sword? Ability. Spending HD? Ability. Shooting a bunch of arrows? Ability. Moving? Ability. IT's all abilities and then we add keywords to say what those things actually function as.

 

[MNblockhead]

So are we just spouting game design for discussion's sake?

Yes. Though "discussion" is a charitable word choice given how these threads generally degenerate.