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

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right.

And WotC rules say that the ranger's abilities...

...need V,S,M components.
...can be dispelled.
...can be counter-spelled.
...are subject to anti-magic zones, issues with The Weave (is that still a thing in FR?), etc.
...legendary resistance (haven't gone through all the spells, may not be thing)
...are part of other casters' spell lists.

Fair amount of rules interfering in the envisioning. YMMV.

Uh, sure. Maybe when I say "magical" you are thinking "default spellcasting mechanics"?

I don't want Rangers (or Fighters) to use default spellcasting mechanics. But I don't care whether or not their abilities are called 'magical', or describe effects that might be assumed to be magical.

 

[Eric V]

Uh, sure. Maybe when I say "magical" you are thinking "default spellcasting mechanics"?

I don't want Rangers (or Fighters) to use default spellcasting mechanics. But I don't care whether or not their abilities are called 'magical', or describe effects that might be assumed to be magical.

Isn't default spellcasting mechanics what is being offered in the packet? Totally willing to admit I missed it if it wasn't.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Isn't default spellcasting mechanics what is being offered in the packet? Totally willing to admit I missed it if it wasn't.

Yes, it is. But I think you read something into my post (the one started this) that wasn't there. I was observing that a lot of people seem to really care whether something is defined as (or looks like) magic. I didn't say anything about spellcasting and the ranger specifically. But that has been a hot topic, so I can understand why you assumed that.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm not as invested as some of you in RANGER.....but I do think the current versions don't match up well with lore (but then, neither do Bards and many Clerics).

I hope they offer something along the lines of what most of you seem to want, as right now? I don't think they are close to Aragorn.

I'd like more "not spells, but powers/magic/knacks" in the game. The ranger can sense things others can't. Why? Who knows, really. The ranger can concentrate on one creature at their enemy. That allows more damage. How? Who knows? But, IMO, it does NOT need to be a spell (and shouldn't be one).

 

[Remathilis]

No-one is saying stuff needs to be "mundane". I mean, leaping 30' and chopping off a dude's head is most certainly not "mundane", but it doesn't need to be "magic" let alone "a spell".

We can have stuff that is, I believe the term was "extraordinary" without it being "spell-like" or "a spell" or even indeed "magic".

Ki isn't magic even though it is clearly supernatural/extraordinary. I mean, a Monk in 1E didn't have their abilities stop working in an anti-magic zone, did they?

I think we get hung up on what terms like magical or mundane mean. this is my view.

Mundane means things people can do in the real world. Magical is anything that can't. Extraordinary is the upper limit of mundane. Supernatural is a synonym for magical (as far as D&D is concerned). Spellcasting is magic, but so is ki and psionics. A rogue or a battlemaster (under the current rules) can do things that are extraordinary. A monk borders between extraordinary and magical. A barbarian's rage is likewise on the border. Batman is extraordinary, Superman is "magical".

I have no problem with a class having extraordinary abilities that border on magic. I have no problem with classes like the ranger using magic in mundane ways. I have a problem when magical abilities are touted as extraordinary mundane abilities as a way of avoiding limitations on spellcasting. Charles Atlas is extraordinarily strong, but he's not Superman strong. If he wants to be Superman strong, he needs some access to magic. Doesn't need to be spells, but it still needs to be magical to explain why it can't be done.

I got no problems with martial characters doing cool things as long as we're honest and calling those reality-breaking abilities "magic". And while I would love every class to be like the warlock or monk and have their own unique magic system, WotC is doubling down on spells as the go-to way of doing supernatural or magical abilities.

 

[gorice]

The big problem though is that there's been no particular pressure from either players or pop culture for Ranger to move this way. Pop culture has essentially two strands of Ranger - the Aragorn/Katniss-type (the reluctant super-skilled hero from the woods) and the Beastmaster type - and that's videogame beastmaster type, not the movie btw. This character is less survival/woodsy-oriented, often, but definitely has at least one serious large dangerous animal friend and likely multiple and can do magic to do with those animals (or of an animal theme) too.

This is Princess Mononoke erasure. Now, there's a ranger concept I could get behind. The pet is supernatural, the ranger is just a stone cold killer.

 

[Minigiant]

Both of them are extremely distant from the originating concepts (Hammer Horror Van Helsing and Aragorn). The difference is that Cleric has been at a more-or-less consistent distance since OD&D, whereas Ranger was rather closer until 5E pushed it quite far away and then 1D&D even further. It's like yeah, Cleric has always 1.25 miles from Hammer Horror Van Helsing, but Ranger started like 0.25 miles from Aragorn, and at this point, they're 1.1 miles from him.

I'd argue that the 5e ranger is close to Aragorn. The issue is Aragorn is high level and a special character. So leveling him down doesn't meet expectations within his world. However ironically Aragorn specialness matches to the normality of D&D setting like FR, GH, and DL.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd argue that the 5e ranger is close to Aragorn.

How exactly would you argue that? On the face of it, I cannot see how that would possibly argued rationally and with examples. Do you mean assert without evidence, rather than argue?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is Princess Mononoke erasure. Now, there's a ranger concept I could get behind. The pet is supernatural, the ranger is just a stone cold killer.

I mean, fair. I think Monoke has massive crossover with the videogame beastmaster-style ranger though. A lot of anime Ranger-ish types do. She's a bit more of a grounded take on the same concept.

 

[Bill Zebub]

(but then, neither do Bards and many Clerics).

Honestly I’d love to give the bard the same treatment I’d give the Ranger: custom magical effects, not standard spellcasting from a list.