D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Tales and Chronicles]

• 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

Indeed. And what's worse is that there clearly modern archetypes to take inspiration from in different medias. I mean, Diablo had bad-ass necromancers for like 25 years, transmuters being able to shape mater into cool items (the real artificers, IMHO) or golems have been a thing since BG, or enchanter/illusionist/Mesmer/Cypher from Guild War or Pillars being the real masters of mind magic without the ''need'' of a psionic class arent all that new either.

 

[Yaarel]

• Enchanters are in a similar position; they are weird when the bard exists.

You just convinced me. The Wizard should lose access to the Enchantment school. In 1e, the Wizard was the everything magic class. But in 5e, we have other kinds of mages. The 5e Wizard needs more focus.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

You just convinced me. The Wizard should lose access to the Enchantment school. In 1e, the Wizard was the everything magic class. But in 5e, we have other kinds of mages. The 5e Wizard needs more focus.

Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.

All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.

 

[Yaarel]

Give them ''magic as science'' with the magic of matter (Conjuration, Evocation, Transmutation) and leave the more ''spiritual magic'' to clerics, ''words of magic'' ''magic of emotions'' to bards.

All in all, I'd say that the Artificer is such a weak class that it could be use as the basic for Wizard with fullcasting. Enchanting items with power, flash of genius etc fit well with the bookish class that is the Wizard.

In an other thread, I tweak the school lists. So "Evocation" includes all elemental spells, and Transmutation is only primal spells, comprising Animal, Plant, and Healing spells. Conjuration is various applications of force and magical energy.

In this context, the Wizard is: Conjuration, Evocation, and Illusion.



I feel the Cleric and Warlock are a better go-to for Necromancy (including Undead, Fiend, and Aberration).

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

I'd be for this just to see how WoTC tries to balance the schools.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd be for this just to see how WoTC tries to balance the schools.

Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what? Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Although it would be good to try, it’s not necessary to succeed. If, say, divination is so weak that few people choose it, and even then only at a higher level, so what? Plus it means that other classes with access to divination will get more out of it.

Sure I wouldn't need perfection. It's just currently a waaay bigger job than it looks like they'd have the appetite for, based on the kinds of changes they're looking at so far.

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't all legged creatures have weak ankles?
Do two tieflings (or stirges, or purple worms) really count as a "horde"? (And is "more than one opponent" really a favored enemy or more of a tactical situation?)
Don't nearly all of them bleed?

Again, I'm not taking issue with the mechanics themselves, just with the assertion that the concept is fine but WotC implemented in badly. I think the concept is an awkward fit for the needs of an RPG.

I'd rather just see the best-designed mechanics possible, without constraining them by trying to fit them to the label of "favored enemy".

EDIT: Also, I have no need to "win" this point and persuade others. Just stating how I feel about it as I contemplate what I think a Ranger should be. Not that I have any hope/expectation WotC will agree with me.

I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies. The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I know this was a few pages back, but I believe the idea is supposed to be that the ranger is adaptable enough to apply the techniques they honed in fighting their favored enemy to novel situations. So, with hoardbreaker for example, it’s not that their favored enemy is “any two creatures standing next to each other,” it’s that through fighting a favored enemy that usually fights in large groups (let’s say it’s kobolds, for example), they got really good at fighting enemies that stand in close formation, which turns out to be useful not just against kobolds, but against any two creatures standing next to each other. The colossus slayer’s favored enemy may have been giants, but in their experience fighting giants, they learned to more effectively harry already wounded enemies.

Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it. I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade.

But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.

Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways. For example...

The Banisher’s favored enemy may have been demons, but it turns out that the techniques used for sending demons back to the abyss are also useful in sending all sorts of other extraplanar creatures back to their home planes. Etc.

I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing? "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."

Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means its practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate). But when it does get used it will feel awesome.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, yeah, I get the idea behind it. I've just always...or, at least, in most cases...found the link between the naming and the actual mechanics to be so tenuous that I wonder why its worth trying to keep up the facade.

But maybe I'm being overly picky/critical.

Well, because we want the flavor of the ranger, and we also want its class features to be good, and not to be DM/campaign dependent.

Maybe what would work is to make these features more flavorful/specific, but less generally useful, and then buff the class in other, more reliable ways. For example...
I like the flavor of this, but how about making it actually about banishing? "When you make a weapon attack against a creature that is not on its home plane and score a critical hit, until your next turn that creature suffers disadvantage on saving throws against magic that would return it to its plane."

Super, super, flavorful (in my opinion) but will only rarely actually come into play, which means it’s practically a ribbon (and the class can have other features to compensate). But when it does get used it will feel awesome.

I like that it’s actually about banishing, but I hate that it’s so weak, and that it’s reliant on magic. Why would we want one of the ranger’s few unique defining features to just be a ribbon? What else would you give them to make them actually capable? More spells? No, thanks.