Ranger playtest discussion

[Gammadoodler]

One thing that's become very obvious over watching decades of game design is that the most "streamlined" or "elegant" way to do things is absolutely no a 1:1 match with the best way to do things in the longer term, or even the smart thing for a particular edition. I've see so much "streamlined" design streamline itself right into a wall lol.

Sure. I've already expressed my reservations on the results of their efforts. But to their credit, this version does file down a lot of the rough edges on the class. They just also filed down a number of the parts of the class that made it interesting.

I might have been more ok with it if this had been the original 5e version of the ranger rather than the 3rd.

 

[Gammadoodler]

50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. I've already expressed my reservations on the results of their efforts. But to their credit, this version does file down a lot of the rough edges on the class. They just also filed down a number of the parts of the class that made it interesting.

I might have been more ok with it if this had been the original 5e version of the ranger rather than the 3rd.

A round die can only roll one number, and even the DM isn't likely to fall for that one too often.

 

[Bill Zebub]

50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.

50 bucks the UA of the Wizard increases versatility in order to please their* Russian mistresses.

(Does that mean if the Wizard gets increased versatility, I'm correct about the Russian mistresses?)

*The antecedent of 'their' is 'WotC devs', not Wizards.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

50 bucks the UA of the Wizard increases versatility in order to please their* Russian mistresses.

(Does that mean if the Wizard gets increased versatility, I'm correct about the Russian mistresses?)

*The antecedent of 'their' is 'WotC devs', not Wizards.

I wonder... could the wizard get access to all spells on the arcane list instead of a spell book... or like warlock tome pact could the spellbook hold NON arcane spells.

 

[Mephista]

I don't think Putin cares enough about D&D to have the devs seduced. You never know, but...

 

[Horwath]

50 bucks the UA of the monk will be buffed to the gills to avoid criticism of it.

HD d10 or d12 even.

light armor proficiency;
For AC pick two of STR, DEX, WIS or armor bonus

+1 skill proficiency

martial arts die progress from d4->d10 to d6->d12

all weapons are monk weapons.

regain one Ki point when you crit with attack or get critted.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I wonder... could the wizard get access to all spells on the arcane list instead of a spell book... or like warlock tome pact could the spellbook hold NON arcane spells.

That's my take:

• Access to all arcane spells, plus
• Tomes/Staves/Wands/Orbs are a spellcasting focus (maybe with a small bonus ala 4e), plus
• Access to most spells from a given school, no matter the spell list (so now Divination specialist can cast...Divination!), plus
• Lose access to a single school in exchange of a buffed up spell DC on the chosen school, plus
• Can add their Int mod to prepared spells if they have the Ritual tag, plus
• Can add their Int mod to their Insight, Deception, Medicine checks

I thin that would be a less bland spellcaster without stepping too much on the toes of other casters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

• Tomes/Staves/Wands/Orbs are a spellcasting focus (maybe with a small bonus ala 4e)

the orb giving disadvantage prof times per day and the wand giving dex mod to hit prof times per day and the staff adding wis to AC prof times per day would make me jump up and down for joy

 

[Mephista]

the orb giving disadvantage prof times per day and the wand giving dex mod to hit prof times per day and the staff adding wis to AC prof times per day would make me jump up and down for joy

Hot take. I feel that the only really successful wizard subclass after the 8 schools in the PHB have been the Bladesinger and Scribe. Blade and book using specialist.

Wizard should make subclasses based on tool use. Staff and orb and wand, oh my

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hot take. I feel that the only really successful wizard subclass after the 8 schools in the PHB have been the Bladesinger and Scribe. Blade and book using specialist.

Wizard should make subclasses based on tool use. Staff and orb and wand, oh my

I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.

Because so many people complain that with a long rest the Wizard can reconfigure himself to be any specialist. School restrictions would/could dampen that.

Not saying that’s what I want; just giving a reason why.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I am sure there is a legacy "need" to make the specialists something, but I can't really imagine why we really need them.

At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.

2: Pick a school: 50% less time/cash to copy spells AND craft scrolls or magic items replicating spells from that schools.
Pick to spells from your school for each level, they are always prepared and dont count against your max prepared spells.

6: +1 Spell DC/ Spell attack with your chosen school's spells. +1 again at lvl 14. Your allies have advantage on saves against your spells from your school.

10: Advantage on saves & skill checks against your school. Resistance to the damage dealt by spells of your school.

14: Concentration on spells from you school cant be broken. When you cast a spell from your school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 3rd level.

 

[Neonchameleon]

At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.

Eww... Yes, that list of gains is incredibly boring. But e.g. the Evoker's ability to protect people, the Diviner's dice manipulation, and the Illusionist's ability to manipulate illusions and to make their illusions real aren't.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Eww... Yes, that list of gains is incredibly boring. But e.g. the Evoker's ability to protect people, the Diviner's dice manipulation, and the Illusionist's ability to manipulate illusions and to make their illusions real aren't.

Agreed, much like the Champion for Wizards, but they require 8 archetypes for minimal gains. Maybe if their features were like the sub-choices of the Hunter or Totemist? But the page count would be a little much for a single subclass.

 

[Bill Zebub]

At least they could have been made as a single subclass called Specialist or whatevs; the features those subclasses gains are so minor that just having generic boost to spells of particular schools would be probably as desirable.

2: Pick a school: 50% less time/cash to copy spells AND craft scrolls or magic items replicating spells from that schools.
Pick to spells from your school for each level, they are always prepared and dont count against your max prepared spells.

6: +1 Spell DC/ Spell attack with your chosen school's spells. +1 again at lvl 14. Your allies have advantage on saves against your spells from your school.

10: Advantage on saves & skill checks against your school. Resistance to the damage dealt by spells of your school.

14: Concentration on spells from you school cant be broken. When you cast a spell from your school of 2nd level or higher using a spell slot, you regain one expended spell slot. The slot you regain must be of a level lower than the spell you cast and can't be higher than 3rd level.

I proposed something similar: your chosen school(s) works normally, but you have penalties in other schools. At higher levels you can add new schools or improve one of your existing schools.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Agreed, much like the Champion for Wizards, but they require 8 archetypes for minimal gains. Maybe if their features were like the sub-choices of the Hunter or Totemist? But the page count would be a little much for a single subclass.

I think that my issue with the schools is that they should be evocative - but historical versions have been boring. And some (not all but some) of the 5e schools were clearly slapped together. I mean I think the game would be actively slightly improved if they dropped the Transmuter from the game.

As it is I'd cut about half the school specialisms from the PHB

• Necromancy is built round a single spell. Any such one trick ponies should be donated to the more focused and less flexible Sorcerers.
• Enchanters are in a similar position; they are weird when the bard exists.
• Transmuters could be done well but weren't

 

[gorice]

The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The thing that made the spell schools interesting in AD&D was that you had to make hard choices about which schools you wanted to take and leave. I don't think that really matches the current WotC ethos of giving spellcasters options on top of options.

Agree. While I’m not in the camp that has an inferiority complex about my martials, Wizards in particular feel bland to me. Like the time I thought I would make the world’s greatest smoothie by putting every kind of fruit in it, and it ended up tasting like nothing at all. And it was brown.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

And it was brown

Wizard: the brown smoothie class.