D&D 5E Will the upcoming UA Ranger subclasses be for the PHB or the variant Ranger class?

[Yunru]

They are slightly different, which may have a domino effect in any UA trying to include both. For example, the extra attack in the UARR is tied to a subclass. As a result, any subclass built for the PHB ranger assumes the extra attack, while any Conclave for the UARR will not, giving them space for a different boost in damage or versatility. Any subclass for the PHB can built on the extra attack as a core point of its arch type, while the UARR cannot, leading to different directions when designing for them.

And yet, they can just give Extra Attack as the level five subclass feature and that entire paragraph suddenly matters not.

At worst you need one line, explaining how the fifth level feature replaces Extra Attack for subclasses without it.

I'm also going to quote this one again for it's sheer wrongness:

Any subclass for the PHB can built on the extra attack as a core point of its arch type, while the UARR cannot, leading to different directions when designing for them.

Except the UARR completely can. It gives Extra Attack as it's F5, done.

 

[Lanliss]

And yet, they can just give Extra Attack as the level five subclass feature and that entire paragraph suddenly matters not.

At worst you need one line, explaining how the fifth level feature replaces Extra Attack for subclasses without it.

Exactly. I didn't mean to say that it was a big deal, just that they are different enough to warrant a mention. For example, if you build a subclass for the PHB ranger, and just use all of the same abilities on the UARR, it will automatically lack the Extra attack,making it weaker. If you do the opposite, and build for UARR to port over to the PHB version, it is instead too strong, since the PHB has Extra attack, and now a bunch of other stuff that was balanced without that. Nothing too dramatic, but it is important to separate them, and note the required changes for porting a new subclass from one to the other.

 

[Yunru]

Exactly. I didn't mean to say that it was a big deal, just that they are different enough to warrant a mention. For example, if you build a subclass for the PHB ranger, and just use all of the same abilities on the UARR, it will automatically lack the Extra attack,making it weaker.

No because Extra Attack becomes the F5.

If you do the opposite, and build for UARR to port over to the PHB version, it is instead too strong, since the PHB has Extra attack, and now a bunch of other stuff that was balanced without that.

Which is why you add a note that taking the subclass removes Extra Attack.

 

[cbwjm]

PHB ranger doesn't gain a subclass ability at 5th so it's moot. The 5th level extra attack subclass feature does not affect it. You only need to add a note if you are adding something like the revised beast master which could simply be that it replaces the PHB ranger's extra attack or that they have to give up an attack to use it.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanliss]

No because Extra Attack becomes the F5.
Which is why you add a note that taking the subclass removes Extra Attack.

And what happens if someone builds, for example, a heavy caster focused UARR that has some sort of magical bonus at 5, rather than an extra attack? If you move it over, you need to either remove the Extra attack from the PHB ranger, or reduce the power of the ability. Or simply remove the ability, and leave the PHB ranger without. Any of these changes are large enough to warrant an actual mention, which is all I am saying would need to happen. If you do none of these, the PHB ranger gets two level 5 bonuses.

The only other way to handle it would be to require every single ranger conclave for the UARR to get an extra attack of some sort at level 5, no matter how little it makes sense for the given theme of that class.

EDIT: wow, I must be dead on my feet right now, I didn't read the second half of your post... apologies.

 

[GreenTengu]

It is absolutely adorable that the moderators on this site feel it is their personal purpose in life to mindlessly protect WotC from any criticism at all. Even more so than when WotC was running their own boards.

So putting what I previously stated a bit more diplomatically. Electronic game designers are willing to admit screw ups and fix them. And this is after doing considerably more playtesting than it is incredible clear that p&p games do.

But these d&d designers? It is clear they will play blind, deaf and stupid if that is what it takes to avoid admitting that they did an extremely poor job at balancing races, classes and feats. So we have to wait 10 years, a whole new edition, for any given element to be fixed.

That I find to be wholely unacceptable. Even card games, which may be a more fair comparison than video games, renew editions and fix broken cards within two years. If something central to the game sucks to the point of unusability, it will be given a better version, and if something is so strong it becomes effectively the only competitive option, it is nerfed.

The current imbalances between classes and races, while possibly not as bad as editions 1 to 3, is absolutely unacceptable as I simply refuse to believe that these are the results coming from unbiased competant humans actually trying their best to make the most enjoyable game for everyone.

The only thing more unacceptable is their unwillingness to fix the handful of busted options without reissuing a whole new phb, dmg and mm when it is really just a small number of components that need fixing.

If other game designers can admit mistakes and rectify them, the people designing this game ought to be able to get over their own egos and fix it.

And the fact that the people moderating this site are such sniveling sychophantic toadies that they feel it necessary to enshrine anyone who applies for and receives the job of tossing together rules for this game is absolutely pathetic. Have some damn self respect, why don't you? It is like Rotten Tomatoes punishing anyone who takes issue with a Michael Bay or M Night Shyamalan movie. You know, except those two men have more experience doing and training doing what they do than the people working on this game have.

And the fact that this whole thread is the result of the design team royally screwing up a class and begging for an official resolution, the fact that they are unwilling to admit to mistakes and fix them is pretty damn relevant.

*Moderator edit*

Challenging moderation in public is against the rules. Attacking the moderation team after being asked to follow the rules is completely unacceptable.

These boards are intended to be a friendly place. That's not going to change. If that's a problem for you, feel free to find another place on the internet that better suits your posting needs.

Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.

As quoted above, on these boards, it's not acceptable to engage in personal attacks, name-calling, and other such nastiness. Someone being a game designer doesn't magically make them an acceptable target. Feel free to criticize RPG books all you want, but don't attack the person who wrote them. Much like you should always attack a poster's argument, but not the poster.

When you come back, please keep the rules in mind if you want to post.

--Darkness,
EN World moderator

 

[Duan'duliir]

So putting what I previously stated a bit more diplomatically. Electronic game designers are willing to admit screw ups and fix them. And this is after doing considerably more playtesting than it is incredible clear that p&p games do.

But these d&d designers? It is clear they will play blind, deaf and stupid if that is what it takes to avoid admitting that they did an extremely poor job at balancing races, classes and feats. So we have to wait 10 years, a whole new edition, for any given element to be fixed.

That I find to be wholely unacceptable. Even card games, which may be a more fair comparison than video games, renew editions and fix broken cards within two years. If something central to the game sucks to the point of unusability, it will be given a better version, and if something is so strong it becomes effectively the only competitive option, it is nerfed.

The current imbalances between classes and races, while possibly not as bad as editions 1 to 3, is absolutely unacceptable as I simply refuse to believe that these are the results coming from unbiased competant humans actually trying their best to make the most enjoyable game for everyone.

The only thing more unacceptable is their unwillingness to fix the handful of busted options without reissuing a whole new phb, dmg and mm when it is really just a small number of components that need fixing.

If other game designers can admit mistakes and rectify them, the people designing this game ought to be able to get over their own egos and fix it.

Putting aside your onsults to the developers and mods, do you really want to buy the phb every two years? Especially if it is the same as the previous one, except for one or two mechanics being different. I certainly don't. The game functions well enough that the first print phb is still good enough to play the game with.

It is much easier to send out packets of code that changes a game, or print new cards and declare some old ones obsolete than to print a new book and convice everyone to shell out 50 dollars to get the "patched" version of the book. Like I said earlier, I've got a phb from the earliest runs, and their release of 6 errata'd runs doesn't mean I'm going to go and find a copy that has that "6th run with new errata" and buy it. I'm going to use the online errata.

- Zynx, from the EN World mobile app