OneDnD One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

55F9D570-197E-46FC-A63F-9A10796DB17D.jpeg


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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
Sure, but that's not an argument for more simplicity. You can always not use rules you don't need.
Except for every time you have a mechanic that references it.

Let's say I don't like short rests. I don't want to use them in my next campaign. Except I break every rule that references short rests like the classes that recharge on short rest like fighters and warlocks. 8 could change some of them to prof per long rest, but how do you fix song of rest or pact magic? What about hit dice? Just making one small change impacts dozens of other things.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Except for every time you have a mechanic that references it.

Let's say I don't like short rests. I don't want to use them in my next campaign. Except I break every rule that references short rests like the classes that recharge on short rest like fighters and warlocks. 8 could change some of them to prof per long rest, but how do you fix song of rest or pact magic? What about hit dice? Just making one small change impacts dozens of other things.
What would you do instead of short rests? How would you recharge abilities? These are important questions, and I can't answer you without them. Implementation matters.
 

Hussar

Legend
What would you do instead of short rests? How would you recharge abilities? These are important questions, and I can't answer you without them. Implementation matters.
You're missing the point.

The point is, you claimed that removing rules is easier than adding. @Remathilis is giving an example of removing a rule and you're demonstrating the point by asking a shopping list of questions that need to be asked just to remove one rule. So, no, it is not easier to remove rules. Particularly in a ruleset like 5e where you have a very tight system with most rules being interconnected. Complexity always increases exponentially, so, any change will also ripple though exponentially.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
You're missing the point.

The point is, you claimed that removing rules is easier than adding. @Remathilis is giving an example of removing a rule and you're demonstrating the point by asking a shopping list of questions that need to be asked just to remove one rule. So, no, it is not easier to remove rules. Particularly in a ruleset like 5e where you have a very tight system with most rules being interconnected. Complexity always increases exponentially, so, any change will also ripple though exponentially.
Ok. I'd rather remove something I don't want than add something I do. It might not be easier, but it is my preference.
 

JEB

Legend
If you think rebalancing a game after removing rules is hard, try inventing new additional rules from scratch. I'd say they're both pretty challenging if you care about balance, and only not challenging when you don't.
 

Hussar

Legend
If you think rebalancing a game after removing rules is hard, try inventing new additional rules from scratch. I'd say they're both pretty challenging if you care about balance, and only not challenging when you don't.
True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything. So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship. Just as an example. Additionally, since you are adding rules to existing rules, you can usually look at similar rules to get a pretty decent ballpark for balance. Might not be exact, but, it's not too far off either.

For example, if you were to build a psionic system onto D&D, you could certainly look at the existing spell system and extrapolate what effects should come into the game at what level from there. Again, not perfect, but, certainly doable.

And, I'd say a lot easier than trying to remove stuff once it's in there.
 

MarkB

Legend
True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything. So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship.
Right up until your players try to apply those rules when having their ship attack anything that isn't a ship. Rules systems can't stand completely discrete from each other because the world they're portraying is interconnected.
 

Eric V

Hero
True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything. So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship. Just as an example. Additionally, since you are adding rules to existing rules, you can usually look at similar rules to get a pretty decent ballpark for balance. Might not be exact, but, it's not too far off either.

For example, if you were to build a psionic system onto D&D, you could certainly look at the existing spell system and extrapolate what effects should come into the game at what level from there. Again, not perfect, but, certainly doable.

And, I'd say a lot easier than trying to remove stuff once it's in there.
Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?"

Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.
 


Remathilis

Legend
Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?"

Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.
I think it's important to distinguish between systems and elements of a game. It's easy to remove elements like races, classes, feats or spells, they are distinct nuggets that can be swapped around. If sorcerer is banned, I pick wizard. Systems though touch the larger game and affect it in multiple ways. If I remove short rests or armor class, I'm going to be rewriting a lot of the games rules.

The best way to do things is a simple system with lots of elements in it. Elements can be added or removed to taste as long as the main system is there.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
Been noodling on the new inspiration rules for a while. My group rejected out of hand getting inspiration on a Nat1 (they didn't like the idea of being rewarded for failure), but it made me think of an alternate rule that combines the first playtest and the 2nd.

Inspiration
Nat20 - When you roll a Nat20 on any d20 Test, you can give inspiration to another party member who doesn't already have it, as they are inspired by your great success

Nat1 - When you roll a Nat1 on any d20 Test, you gain inspiration if you don't currently have it, as you resolve to do better. However, if you do currently have inspiration, you lose that inspiration on a Nat1, as you realize your failure could have been avoided had you dug into your resolve.

This puts pressure on PCs to spend inspiration when they have it (or risk losing it on a Nat1) and also, I think, subtly discourages PCs looking to 'inspiration fish'.

Going to see what my group thinks, then submit in the survey after playtesting.
 

darjr

I crit!
I find the less rules a game has the easier it is to home brew and add on the fly. No worries if you’re stomping on some obscure feat or corner case or accidentally nerfing or buffing up some other rule.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Fighters and rogues aren’t trained extensively to live and work in the wilds in order to protect people from supernatural dangers.

“Everyone can do it” doesn’t follow from anything I said.

None of this makes sense or relates in any way to anything I said.
To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard. A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something. A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard. A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something. A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.
I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers.

For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it.

DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells.

I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.
 

Wyckedemus

Explorer
I like D&D having D&D tropes. I like that the baseline conceit for all D&D worlds is that magic is prevalent, and many classes interact with the magical world in some way. The spell system is a solid toolbox for all D&D classes to be able to reference an non-comprehensive suite of powers within the universe, even if they access those magical powers in different ways outside of traditional spellcasting progression. I like the spellcasting D&D ranger, as it is very D&D to me. I want a spellcasting magical ranger who can alternate between their bow and two short swords who can also have a drake or other beast companion and whose spellcasting lets me keep those companions hearty and alive (and revived) instead of becoming griffon food in every other encounter. Siloing spells and beast companions into different subclasses prevents me from being able to create what I see as a quintessential D&D ranger.

If I had my druthers, I'd let the D&D Ranger be the D&D Ranger, and let 3rd party sources be the authors of "non-spellcasting" rangers if their versions better fit those 3rd party campaign conceits. And when it comes to Adventurer's League, all those campaigns take place in D&D-magic worlds, not low-magic settings, so the argument for low-magic Rangers in supported AL play is less convincing.

As a specific example and opinion, D&D doesn't need to copy Level Up's ranger. The LU ranger is already a perfectly fine non-spellcasting ranger that is completely compatible with D&D. Why are people asking that D&D copy it? I doubt that the 2024 PHB ranger could ever come close to making both spell-ranger fans and LU ranger fans happy. And why would we want it to in the first place? Just play the LU Ranger instead. It's designed to be able to be played alongside the D&D ranger.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers.

For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it.

DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells.

I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.
Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells. I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason. The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them. When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry. He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek. Let us continue looking." How cool would something like that be?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells. I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason. The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them. When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry. He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek. Let us continue looking." How cool would something like that be?
Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.


You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.
 


UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.


You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.
That particular ability I would settle for it being a spell. If locate creature worked like that it would be cool rather than the anaemic husk the spell is now.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top