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

 

[Hussar]

It seems like what you're saying is that it doesn't matter to you, so you don't see how it can matter to anyone. Several people have told you it matters to them. What do you think we're doing?

Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.

Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong.

I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells.

It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway.

Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?

Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage.

So not worth a new system.

 

[Olrox17]

Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.

Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong.

I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells.

It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway.

Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?

Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage.

So not worth a new system.

I think the position of wanting the ranger to have spells without calling them spells (with all that entails) is simply a position born of compromise.
I'm fairly sure all in favor of the non-spellcasting ranger would love if the ranger was given actually unique features and powers that significantly differ from what current 5e spells can do. That is, however, a big thing to ask to the WotC devs.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet, funnily enough, rangers have had this as an ability since the first day of 5e. Could do it all day long. No limitations whatsoever. And no one seemed to mind. My ranger, without magic, could drop sixteen (actually seventeen) potential attacks any time he wanted.

But, since we're dropping that ability (at least in the document they do) so, now it becomes a spell. Because, well, why have a non-magical version of a spell? It's a case of simplifying the system. Instead of doubling up on every single spell and turning them into "knacks" or "maneuvers" or whatever other sub-system we want to call them, we're just calling them all "spells".

Yeah, the only real problem is a half caster's slot progression is too slow for a daily damage spell attack. If conjure barrage was free as a1st or 2nd level spell or use and different resource then it would be better.

Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.

Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong.

I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells.

It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway.

Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?

Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage.

So not worth a new system.

Exactly.

I can think of dozens of ranger appropriate action of that are not spells in5e. I can think of older edition spells that aren't in 5e that cold be converted into not spells.

But that's not what 99% of "nonmagical ranger" fans wants. They want 5 1st level spells: Animals Friendship, Cure Wounds, Goodberry, Hunter's Mark, Speak with Animals.

WOTC is not going to create a whole class that is a fighter with 5 copies of nonmagical versions of 5 primal spells..Especially not in 5e/5.5e, the "Ask your DM to do it" edition.

 

[Hussar]

I mean this is the issue with the warlord really. Most of what a warlord did- action granting - isn’t part of the spell system. There’s no spell that causes my allies to take an off initiative charge and make a single attack that knocks enemies prone. So a magical warlord can’t actually do what a warlord did.

But a spell casting ranger is mostly exactly the same as a ranger has been for a very long time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Look. If the PCs stumble upon a bunch of Red Wizards and the ranger stars casting a spell, well that’s a proud nail and the Thayans have bags of hammers, the ranger is going to get one.

They dint know he’s a “Ranger”.

“Oh, really, he was? I thought he was just a Fighter/Druid. My bad.”

 

[Bill Zebub]

But that's not what 99% of "nonmagical ranger" fans wants. They want 5 1st level spells: Animals Friendship, Cure Wounds, Goodberry, Hunter's Mark, Speak with Animals.

Have a citation for that data? It’s very specific.

 

[darjr]

“Oh, really, he was? I thought he was just a Fighter/Druid. My bad.”

He was in disguise!

 

[Bill Zebub]

He was in disguise!

“But he didn’t have a pet! How was I supposed to know?”

 

[Remathilis]

If I were designing OneD&D, every class would be designed more like the Warlock class. Every class would get a "Pact Boon" (Fighting Style for Martial Characters, Channel Divinity for Priests, etc) and "Eldritch Invocations" (Battlemaster Maneuvers for Martial Characters, Metamagic for Mages, Infusions for Artificers, etc).

But how much repetition are you willing to suffer for this?

Warlock invocations are a mix of class features, ribbons and access to spells (sometimes free to cast, sometimes using a spell slot). Even with all that, most of the warlock abilities are tied firmly to the spell section. It might be flavorful to give warlocks Eldritch Sight, bards Song of Revealing Dweomers, clerics Prayer of Arcane Insight and rangers Sense Unnatural Auras, but how many different ways do you need to detect magic? Are they each going to repeat the rules or (like the warlock does now) just refer back to the wizard spell anyway?

I'm just saying that multiple systems with different names and units adds complexity, and rules bloat for the benefit of extra immersion. Is that worth the trade?

 

[Minigiant]

Have a citation for that data? It’s very specific.

It's the only spells 90% of nonmagical ranger variants copy.

Hell when I say "what about scrying, transmutations, and teleports" they said why does that need to be included?