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

 

[Remathilis]

Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take? How many can I carry? How long do they stay "fresh"? Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.

Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger. I really, really do. I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells. But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way. Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.

This is the artificer/alchemist problem: if you can make a non-spell version of something that is spell-like, what stops you from making dozens of them? During Pathfinder, a player argued that he should be able to make a dozen bombs ahead of time and give some to everyone in his party so they could all toss them at once in the same round. The reason why you can't is obviously that alchemist bombs are sneak attack dice mixed with a spell-like effect designed to look like a bomb. Any logic applied to why they can't use three days worth of bombs in one round is metagaming nonsense. A non-magical bomb should act like a grenade in the real world: you should be able to mass produce them and give them to another person to use. But you can't, because "magic" (or alchemy or something).

So to when comes it to the ranger. A ranger is a master herbalist that can use herbs to heal? So should any druid, witch, or other learned botanist. To say a ranger (and only a ranger) can coax specific medicinal qualities out of a plant is the alchemist's bomb all over again: a magical effect that only works for one class and we've shot past "nonmagical ranger" and ended up in "magical, but use a different spell system".

Personally though, I reached the opinion that if you can refluff an artificer building a gizmo that creates a magical effect, you can refluff Cure Wounds as imbuing kingsfoil with healing essence or a ritual casting of Alarm as infusing your campsite preparations with the power of the Earth. But it's still magic.

 

[TrainedMunkee]

Tolkien is rather low magic:

Fria Ligan | Store

freeleaguepublishing.com

Also has excellent exploration rules.

If you preferred Cubile 7's exploration rules:

http://kck.st/3RZUHPz

The point being that other companies have done this well already. Wizards doesn't need to do it. They will stick to their silo and rake in the bucks. Always fun to debate the rules however.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While the werewolf is eating your kidney?

See, the problem is, we're running into the issues between story and game. Sure, "be prepared" is a really cool idea. But, it doesn't work most of the time in D&D because in D&D it's very, very rare that the players know exactly what they are going to face at any given time.

Sure, werewolf hunting is a cool adventure. But, can you put a werewolf on a random encounter table? As a DM, can I only use certain creatures if I hand a note to the ranger player first telling what creatures they are going to meet in the next adventure so they can be prepared?

Of course not. So, either the ranger is walking around with this massive collection of crap that he never uses, or we give the ranger spells and then it's done as needed. Because that's the choice here.

Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take? How many can I carry? How long do they stay "fresh"? Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.

Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger. I really, really do. I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells. But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way. Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.

People really need to let go of this idea that spells=wizard. Spells are just a game mechanical way to handle this sort of stuff in a streamlined, simple way.

They're not spells if they're not magic, aren't cast like spells, and not affected by things that affect spells.

Even if the functional effect is the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And while we are at it, we need a cantrip that lets you summon a 10’ long beam of energy that you can use to probe for pits, trigger traps, and vault over obstacles.

Preparation is for grognards.

I can't tell if you're joking.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Tolkien is rather low magic:

Fria Ligan | Store

freeleaguepublishing.com

Also has excellent exploration rules.

If you preferred Cubile 7's exploration rules:

http://kck.st/3RZUHPz

The point being that other companies have done this well already. Wizards doesn't need to do it. They will stick to their silo and rake in the bucks. Always fun to debate the rules however.

True. Several companies have made these ideas sing in 5e. Yet people seem to keep insisting that WotC do it for some reason, even when it's clear they have no intention to do so.

 

[Faolyn]

I get your intenet, but isn't this part what anyone hunting a mummy would theoretically do?

Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.

Correct. A ranger has magic.

Except they don't need to have magic. What they need to have is abilities that other classes don't have.

 

[SkidAce]

Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.

Anecdotally, that has not been my experience.

But I agree that it likely varies from place to place and group to group.

 

[cbwjm]

Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.

I think a lot of people at least ask "What do I know about mummies?" Whether they have a specific ability or not. It's then up to the DM to decide what information to give out and what information might require a skill check.

 

[Remathilis]

Except they don't need to have magic. What they need to have is abilities that other classes don't have.

You can say the same for bards. And druids. And paladins. And warlocks. And sorcerers. And artificers. Etc. How many different "magic" systems do we need?

I've yet to hear anything that a ranger does that: a) can't be replicated by a fighter or rogue with the right options, and/,or b) isn't basically spellcasting by another name.

 

[Hussar]

They're not spells if they're not magic, aren't cast like spells, and not affected by things that affect spells.

Even if the functional effect is the same.

So it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck but it’s okay so long as we don’t call it a duck?