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

 

[Haplo781]

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.

The exploration pillar hasn't really been relevant since 2e ended.

 

[darjr]

My son wasn’t alone. The beast master Ranger of 4e turned off a lot of people.

 

[Haplo781]

My son wasn’t alone. The beast master Ranger of 4e turned off a lot of people.

Again, it's s a problem with the feature, not the class.

 

[darjr]

Again, it's s a problem with the feature, not the class.

The other options looked like pure combat to him. And that made the beast master even worse in their shadow.

You say well designed? Maybe for a very narrow niche.

But like someone else said, it’s kinda the whole issue of the Ranger in D&D.

I just find it odd that it was held up as the example that 5e is supposed to have failed to achieve.

 

[Minigiant]

The exploration pillar hasn't really been relevant since 2e ended.

That's why the "More Damage" half of the community loves the Playtest Ranger and the "More Exploration" half of the community hates the it.

 

[Haplo781]

The other options looked like pure combat to him. And that made the beast master even worse in their shadow.

You say well designed? Maybe for a very narrow niche of what D&D was like for him and us.

But like someone else said, it’s kinda the whole issue of the Ranger in D&D.

I just find it odd that it was held up as the example that 5e is supposed to have failed to achieve.

4e classes are literally a bucket of combat options.

So are 5e classes, but the game lies to you about it.

 

[Haplo781]

That's why the "More Damage" half of the community loves the Playtest Ranger and the "More Exploration" half of the community hates the it.

I mean if you want more exploration you're playing the wrong game.

 

[darjr]

4e classes are literally a bucket of combat options.

So are 5e classes, but the game lies to you about it.

Are you saying 4e was a combat only game? Skill challenges anyone? Utility powers? 5e does a fair bit better job outside of combat, imho.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I will profess a little ignorance: my experience with 4e began at PHB 1 and ended shortly after PHB 2, with a cursory look at the Essentials line when it came out years later. I recall Martial Power giving fighters back some dual wield options (and it was vastly inferior to rangers) and if the rogue ever got shortbow powers, it was long after my frustrations with my namesake wood elf rogue being forced to use a crossbow had put me on the path towards Pathfinder. I do distinctly recall voicing my frustrations on this board and being told to "refuff the ranger as a rogue" those many long years ago.

I think it is fair to say that the "niche protection" that 4e tried to enforce in 2008 was gone by the time Essentials was out which is ironically when fighters got their bows back and rangers got their "magic" back.

 

[Haplo781]

Are you saying 4e was a combat only game? Skill challenges anyone? Utility powers? 5e does a fair bit better job outside of combat, imho.

I'm saying that combat, as in every edition, got the lion's share of the rules, and everything else was handled, as in every other edition, via RP and some underbaked subsystems.

Skill challenges were about the best it ever got (and 5e threw them out the window because 4e bad).