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

 

[Parmandur]

And that was nearly a decade ago. The demographics of players has changed dramatically since then. Things have shifted since then.

What is your argument here? That WotC incompetently designed one class, so they're incapable of competently designing it now?

Again, give evidence. All that proves is that the 5e ranger is flawed and WotC recognizes that fact. Not that people don't want it to have spells.

In fact, testing a Ranger without Spells was one of the very first UA, and ot was a stinky bomb. And I doubt an audience who has played the 5E Ranger for 10 years is primed to lose Ranger Spells.

 

[Minigiant]

And that was nearly a decade ago. The demographics of players has changed dramatically since then. Things have shifted since then.

They tried to fix it back then to back then and they tried to fix it now too.

What is your argument here? That WotC incompetently designed one class, so they're incapable of competently designing it now?

My point is that they don't know how to use surveys for anything intricate and the designers don't leave their bias at the door.

Again, give evidence.

The Ranger class has the most UA
The Ranger class has the most drastic changes in TCOE via alternate class features.
The Ranger is the most altered class in this Playtest

All that proves is that the 5e ranger is flawed and WotC recognizes that fact. Not that people don't want it to have spells.

I never said people don't want it to have spells.

My opinion is the ranger needs more spells and more exclusive spells.

Because the nonmagical ranger will never work on mass appeal. The community wont let it have the features it needs and WOTC doesn't want to write wilderness exploration pillar mechanics.

 

[darjr]

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.

 

[Umbran]

Not incompetence, laziness.

Mod Note:
And just calling people who you have never met "lazy" is... the critique that results from lots of industrious work and in-depth analysis on your part?

Time to stop insulting people if you want to continue in the discussion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The reason why 4e martial rangers worked is because THEY TOOK ARCHERY AND DUAL WIELDING AWAY FROM ROGUES AND FIGHTERS!

4e made sure powers worked with only certain types of weapons, and the rogue only worked with crossbows and finesse blades, while fighters were sword and board and great weapons (they added a dual wield option for fighters later, iirc).

I can't remember when they gave shortbows back to the rogue - but I think it was pretty early on. 4e rogues could be archers (I've played a few) and this didn't miraculously break the ranger. And this is little different to the rogue in 5e where Sneak Attack says that "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." (I think the only non-light blade finesse weapon in 5e is the whip). And then there were other builds for rogues that could use saps and maces.

And yes they did add dual weapons to the fighter less than six months in, complete with abilities that synergised with it. 4e fighters were mostly exclusive melee (and good at it). But the niche protection you are talking about wasn't really a thing.

Rangers powers only ever worked correctly with a bow or paired weapons, though later they got magical and pet options.

Not so. That's just how it was at launch. I remember some two handed options as well.

Now, if we wanted to bring the 4e martial ranger back, we'd have to limit the fighter and rogue's fighting styles and carve out the twf/archer niche for rangers.

No you wouldn't. You yourself mentioned that fighters moved into the TWF niche - as for that matter did barbarians. Meanwhile Rogues were allowed bows. As were Seekers, as for that matter were clerics though I never saw a Cleric of Sehanine in play. And there was even one fighter subclass (the Slayer) that could use bows.

None of this in any way stopped the Ranger. Because actual care was put into making the ranger good at what they did - and setting the benchmark using them.

This could be done by both giving classes incentive to stay in their appropriate fighting style (such as sneak attack only working with finesse weapons and crossbows)

In other words pretty close to the way 5e does it by having sneak attack working only with finesse or ranged weapons and the rogue not having longbow proficiency so needing to invest resources to use something bigger than a shortbow.

and limiting options (only rangers get dual wield and archery fighting styles). But I suspect that would not be very popular.

Except that as 4e proved that was not needed. It was just something done at launch either because the two weapon fighter wasn't ready or they couldn't fit it in the PHB (or both). But a lot more care was taken in 4e making the ranger's TWF (a) good and (b) distinct from the fighter's which was again distinct from the barbarian's than 5e seems to want to take.

 

[Haplo781]

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.

His mistake was playing a beast ranger instead of a TWF ranger or archer ranger.

The class was well designed. That particular option was hot garbage.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The reason why 4e martial rangers worked is because THEY TOOK ARCHERY AND DUAL WIELDING AWAY FROM ROGUES AND FIGHTERS!

4e made sure powers worked with only certain types of weapons, and the rogue only worked with crossbows and finesse blades, while fighters were sword and board and great weapons (they added a dual wield option for fighters later, iirc). Rangers powers only ever worked correctly with a bow or paired weapons, though later they got magical and pet options.

Now, if we wanted to bring the 4e martial ranger back, we'd have to limit the fighter and rogue's fighting styles and carve out the twf/archer niche for rangers. This could be done by both giving classes incentive to stay in their appropriate fighting style (such as sneak attack only working with finesse weapons and crossbows) and limiting options (only rangers get dual wield and archery fighting styles). But I suspect that would not be very popular.

I would have zero problem with making rangers the best archers. I hate that rogues work better as archers than stabbers, and I see no reason to enable Dex fighters as a viable thing.

 

[Eric V]

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.

Yeah, it was really good. Too bad your son didn't play it for more than a single round.

 

[Minigiant]

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.

The 4e ranger was very good at combat.
The 4e ranger was meh a wilderness exploration.

That's the whole encapsulation of the issue.

If you need that guy over there dead dead, the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger would be great at it.
If you need someone to lead and protect the party with stuck in a fiendish forest fire or a frost giant's summoned blizzard or a royal fey's glade, the the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger can't do much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.

The 4e ranger was good and a very effective blender.

The 4e beastmaster subclass ... wasn't quite as bad as the 5e PHB beastmaster because it didn't turn your game into an escort mission. But it was right down there among the worst subclasses of the edition. And taking it generally meant you weren't actually taking the ranger's good abilities.