D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Bill Zebub]

One doesn't exclude the other.

After the mystic, ranger, and monk, WOTC went through hell in subsystem design.

Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges.

It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.

So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.

My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".

In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.

The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.

The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.

Since hex is gone as a spell, it only makes sense to remove hunter's mark as a spell.

As much as I think conjure volley (buffed to sensible and 3rd level standard) is a good feature (including downcasting), I think hunter's mark should be ranger exclusive.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Since hex is gone as a spell, it only makes sense to remove hunter's mark as a spell.

As much as I think conjure volley (buffed to sensible and 3rd level standard) is a good feature (including downcasting), I think hunter's mark should be ranger exclusive.

Maybe I'm misreading something.. it looks, to me, like Hex is on the Arcane spell list?

That said, I'd be fine with Hunter's Mark as a ranger exclusive spell (and even more fine with it being a class ability instead of a spell).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe I'm misreading something.. it looks, to me, like Hex is on the Arcane spell list?

That said, I'd be fine with Hunter's Mark as a ranger exclusive spell (and even more fine with it being a class ability instead of a spell).

You are correct.
I think I mixed it up with eldritch blast...

 

[Pedantic]

The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.

The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.

I'm coming around to this as a sensible solution as well. There's not really a huge problem with giving rangers silent/still spell outright, or replacing them with extra material components you must either scavenge from a natural environment or spend X time after a long rest piecing together.

Honestly, if each spellcasting class had a brief description of how V/S components manifested for their spellcasting that would already do some work. Even more so if that has some mechanical impact that varied across different casting traditions.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I agree. So the question is, why didn't they do that? Loads of other Martials and even loads of Ranger subclasses have abilities to do a small amount of extra damage like that without it being a spell. If anything, it's the norm.

So why did they make Rangers have to spam a weird concentration-free, always-known (but not always active!) version of a spell? It doesn't fit the theme. It's not tradition. It's just weird.

My feeling is it's essentially "trolling" from WotC to see how people react. If there's no pushback they're likely to keep going with this sort of "let's make non-magical stuff into spells".

I suspect it is just something that has become a thing onto itself. When they started work on 5e, they could have made hunter's mark and hail of thorns and conjure volley and zephyr strike into individual class features or invocations-with-another-name or in some cases just bonuses (like expertise or most fighting styles). They didn't and made them into spells. Now they are in a position where they can keep adding qualifiers to the spells, or they could go back and reinvent the wheel. Given how much they seem not to want to rock the boat (so much as polish the oar handles and trim a few heavy bits high up on the water line), I don't think they really want to risk a complete rebuild.

It's kind of like Sneak Attack -- when they were making 3e and all the classes were (in theory) supposed to be balanced at a given level instead of the thief being weak but levelling quicker, it made as much sense as anything else to take the cool-but-rarely-used backstab and turn it into something you tried to do as much as possible. But there were all sorts of consequences (rogues focusing on getting as many attacks per turn as possible and running from undead and constructs) and it might have made sense to ditch it for something else, but by then it was a thing onto itself and instead the design goal for the next version was to make a better version of Sneak Attack. Same with Rangers and spells in general (their spells could have become non-spells the instant AD&D got a skill system), and these 5e-specific 'spells for no particular reason' today.

The more I think about it, the more I think that 50% of the problems people have with a spellcasting Ranger could be solved if they just put in a ribbon explaining how Ranger spellcasting is different and making it more in line with both people's mental image and the lore.

I think if that had happened earlier, it might have worked. Say in an oD&D expansion or AD&D there had been an aside next to rangers or clerics saying 'these abilities are presented as spells to standardize structure and minimize rules conflicts. Many of them can be reinvisioned as acts of extraordinary skill or capability. If you and your group do not like the concept of a godly-infused priest being the primary healer type in your campaign, they can instead be highly trained medics and the spells as a limited resource as a limited amount of chances to defeat death before their skills are spent [weeble wobble, hand-wavium on the rest of the cleric spells, I guess undead have bad memories of doctors]' I think people would be okay with it and the game would have progressed with a level of spell/non-spell transparency. At this point? I don't know. They tried to do that with spells and psionics in early 3e (and spells and bo9S maneuvers in late 3e) and it was a bridge too far for some (unclear if that was many or a vocal minority).

The other 50% could be solved by taking out the weird damage-dealing spells like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Volley and just making them Ranger features, like they really should be in the first place. This will also make it easier for the features to not just suck horribly like Conjure Volley since they don't have to balance half-caster spells with full casters.

Ranger features or ranger-only spells (for this purpose, I don't think the difference is large). The decision to have universal spells and inter-class sharing is a huge part of all this. If a ranger is okay casting it at L9, the cleric or wizard has to at L5 (unless it's on an unshared list, and then what even is the point of bards and all these feats to borrow from each other?). Even beyond that, you have to balance between someone who is giving up a single mace swing/cantrip to cast the spell compared to the person giving up a multiple-attack attack action (perhaps boosted by feats which sit idle whenever you don't attack). It's a non-trivial lift, so I'm not surprised it doesn't always work, but I am still a little intrigued that that's what they went with for the edition

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In OneD&D? I assume it's design inertia/economy(depending on your perspective). As easy as it would be to make Hunter's Mark a standalone class feature, it's even easier not to.

The spell already exists and is on the list for a few classes/subclasses (even if Hex is a near 1 for 1 substitute). Taking away a single characteristic and providing bonus usage/functionality to the ranger for that spell is a really streamlined way to affect the ranger without making waves elsewhere.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges.

It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.

Honestly, from some of the thing's they've said, and the way Crawford particularly has reacted to some criticism (and I'm not talking loony stuff), I'm not seeing the design team as particularly emotionally hardy. I don't think they're scared little deers, but I do think that it's not unreasonable to think there might be some things they're afraid to address.

 

[Minigiant]

Either that or they love game design and their jobs and had a blast trying to solve the challenges.

It seems to me you assume they are far more emotionally fragile than is necessarily the case.

I'm not saying they are fragile. I'm saying they had horrible experinces attempting to design some aspects of D&D and they like most non-masochists will avoid dwelling in those areas as long as they can.

The 5e mystic/psionics situation was a disaster. The ranger redesign was a complete mess. And they straight up avoided other classes.

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