# One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live



## darjr

A whole playlist of videos.


----------



## CleverNickName

I'm a little sad that they didn't include Monk in the list of "Expert" classes.  I've always considered them to be a skill-monkey-meets-Fighter class...at least as much as the Ranger is, anyway.  Ah well.  Minor gripe.

Woah.  They included a LOT of feats in this one.  But does _every _feat need to have an ASI attached to it now?  I guess so.  I don't want to believe the rumors about "power creep" but...well there's this, and there's Heroic Inspiration (that rewards you for failure).  It's all little stuff, sure.  Probably nothing to worry about at the moment, but little stuff tends to add up over time.

I like the changes to the Exhausted condition...much more streamlined, and probably the opposite of power-creep.

Same for "Interrupting the Rest," which states that if your Long Rest is interrupted by combat, the rest confers no benefit and must be restarted.  This makes random encounters _so much more dangerous _and I love it.  "Why yes, players, you can certainly spend the night in the Haunted Forest of Spiders and Nightmares, that sounds perfectly fine!  What could possibly go wrong?"

I also like the Study action...it's expensive (it costs your whole action) but I like the way it's structured...and I especially like how it specifically puts "traps and gadgetry" under Investigation, hopefully ending the "why can't I use Perception for everything" argument at my table.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Having read those Ranger features, it's good to know WoTC still hates them.


----------



## darjr

Who wants to try it? Via discord and owlbear.


----------



## Cadence

Waiting for the Sage Advice confirmation that "see invisible" effects not only fail to remove the disadvantage/advantage on attack rolls, but also fail to remove the advantage on initiative...   :-/


----------



## darjr

New video dropped too


----------



## Bill Zebub

CleverNickName said:


> Woah.  They included a LOT of feats in this one.
> 
> Does _every _feat need to have an ASI attached to it now?  I guess so.  I don't want to believe the rumors about "power creep" but...well there's this, and there's Heroic Inspiration (that rewards you for failure).  It's all little stuff, sure.  Probably nothing to worry about.




It may be a bit of power creep for those who normally choose flavor (underpowered feats) over optimization (ASIs or a few OP feats), but if the result is that more people take feats instead of +2 ASI, that’s a good outcome.


----------



## Weiley31

I honestly like that Improved Cutting Words.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Favored Enemy is now just that Hunters Mark is always prepared. Kind of bland, but at least it’s actually useful. Should probably come with one free casting, too.


----------



## Bill Zebub

And another house rule gets (sorta) codified: Thief can use Dex for jumping.


----------



## billd91

From a usability perspective, I like that they're incorporating the multiclassing implications in each class's description.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Interesting backslide on spellcasting prep


----------



## darjr

WarDriveWorley said:


> Interesting backslide on spellcasting prep



Can you elaborate?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

WarDriveWorley said:


> Interesting backslide on spellcasting prep



It's not quite a backslide. It's a side-slide. Bards can prep anything on the list. That's a huge upgrade from having a fixed list. They now operate like Clerics/Druids but with an Arcane list.

A backslide would be going back to learning spells.


----------



## TwoSix

1)  Not a fan of every spellcaster becoming prepared (or so it seems right now).  Would rather go the other way, and have every class be spells known.  More specificity over more versatility.

2)  Hunter Ranger being able to "downcast" is a novel mechanism that I like.  I can see a lot of homebrewers putting this to good use.

The video preview yesterday made me think they might be changing more stuff than this, this is still an overall pretty conservative set of changes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

So BIG nerf to Rogues which seem to be hitting an awful lot of Martials (it also hits Hunter, but matters far less there):

You have to "Take the Attack Action" to get the Sneak Attack bonus. That means that you can't, for example, get SA on a Reaction or Bonus Attack-based attack (unless they've also changed those).

That's absolutely a kick in the nuts for Rogues. Drastically decreasing their damage potential and increasing the number of rounds where they'll just fail to land SA. Not sure why WotC felt it was necessary, especially as it is MORE complicated than before, and runs counter to the general trend of simplification.

Subtle Strikes and Elusive are pretty good but very high level.

Also gonna be some Spider-Man stuff going down given both Rangers and Thief Rogues and anyone who takes Athlete will have a full-on Climb Speed equal to their speed!


----------



## Composer99

Is it just me, or is the wording of the Dual Wielding feature in the Crossbow Expert feat really weird? Probably something that will get cleaned up down the road, I expect?


----------



## Weiley31

Also, finding it interesting that Monk is part of the _Warrior_ grouping. I mean, it seems a bit obvious it was gonna be slotted in there as it's not a spellcaster, NOR did it really get any skills or what not to make it an expert. So, I wonder how that's gonna turn out.

Also: Barkskin isn't quite useless/confusing now.
Interesting how the Ranger is classified as part of the _Expert_ category.


----------



## TwoSix

Oh, I just caught this...they normalized subclass progression!  Every class shown gets subclass features at 3, 6, 10, and 14.  That's a big deal!


----------



## Weiley31

Also, judging by how this packet is laid out, we're getting each of the classes in sets of three.
_But goodness, wonder if we'll get ALL the subclasses so far._


----------



## billd91

Interesting that they've clarified Search vs Study.


----------



## TwoSix

They kept ASI as +2 or +1/+1...too bad, I was hoping they would restrict it to +1/+1.  I'd rather get away from the "Pump to 20 or get a good feat" conundrum.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ruin Explorer said:


> So BIG nerf to Rogues which seem to be hitting an awful lot of Martials (it also hits Hunter, but matters far less there):
> 
> You have to "Take the Attack Action" to get the Sneak Attack bonus. That means that you can't, for example, get SA on a Reaction or Bonus Attack-based attack (unless they've also changed those).
> 
> That's absolutely a kick in the nuts for Rogues. Drastically decreasing their damage potential and increasing the number of rounds where they'll just fail to land SA. Not sure why WotC felt it was necessary, especially as it is MORE complicated than before, and runs counter to the general trend of simplification.




If you reduce the exploiation possibilities, you can buff the ability properly.

If the full potential of the rogue is gated behind readying an action to attack as a reaction, something is very wrong.

Also, rogues were buffed a bit: they ca now dual wield freely, as can rangers.

Dual wield does not cost you your bonus action.


----------



## TravDoc42

I see the mention of new and revised monsters in future playtests, and I am intrigued! I wonder how that will work?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

TwoSix said:


> They kept ASI as +2 or +1/+1...too bad, I was hoping they would restrict it to +1/+1.  I'd rather get away from the "Pump to 20 or get a good feat" conundrum.



I think, actually +2/+1 would be in line compared to the other feats.


----------



## Composer99

TwoSix said:


> They kept ASI as +2 or +1/+1...too bad, I was hoping they would restrict it to +1/+1.  I'd rather get away from the "Pump to 20 or get a good feat" conundrum.



Well, it does look as if all the other standard feats - excluding epic boons and fighting styles so far - are turning into half-feats. I expect that will slow things a bit.


----------



## Weiley31

UngeheuerLich said:


> Dual wield does not cost you your bonus action.


----------



## TwoSix

Yea, they really fixed Dual-Wielding.  It's now entirely based on the Light weapon property, no longer takes a bonus action, and increasing the functionality of dual-wielding is now based on granting non-Light weapons the Light property.  Very clever.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Weiley31 said:


>



Yes, it is under "light" in the glossary.
You can also use dual wielding with crossbows (if you have a way to automatically load them).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Weiley31 said:


> Also, judging by how this packet is laid out, we're getting each of the classes in sets of three.
> _But goodness, wonder if we'll get ALL the subclasses so far._




Which hints that the new edition uses planescape as standard setting!


----------



## delericho

CleverNickName said:


> Same for "Interrupting the Rest," which states that if your Long Rest is interrupted by combat, the rest confers no benefit and must be restarted.  This makes random encounters _so much more dangerous _and I love it.  "Why yes, players, you can certainly spend the night in the Haunted Forest of Spiders and Nightmares, that sounds perfectly fine!  What could possibly go wrong?"



That's one of those rules that _sounds_ like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.


----------



## Kinematics

Bill Zebub said:


> Favored Enemy is now just that Hunters Mark is always prepared. Kind of bland, but at least it’s actually useful. Should probably come with one free casting, too.



It also removes the concentration requirement, which is nice.


Ruin Explorer said:


> You have to "Take the Attack Action" to get the Sneak Attack bonus. That means that you can't, for example, get SA on a Reaction or Bonus Attack-based attack (unless they've also changed those).



It's not clear that the bonus action attack is excluded. It's "when you take the Attack Action" you get the Sneak Attack effect if you hit with an attack roll. To use the offhand weapon, you have to take the Attack Action, and gain an additional attack that uses up your bonus action. That seems like it would still work with the Sneak Attack rule. 

You mainly just lose being able to use it as part of a reaction — either an opportunity attack, or something like the Battlemaster's Commander's Strike.

Edit:


UngeheuerLich said:


> Dual wield does not cost you your bonus action.



Kinda moots my above point. There is no bonus action to be considered for the offhand attack.


----------



## TwoSix

They nerfed GWM and SS.  The mad lads did it.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Zubatcarteira said:


> Having read those Ranger features, it's good to know WoTC still hates them.



I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.


----------



## Sacrosanct

delericho said:


> That's one of those rules that _sounds_ like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.



I've never actually seen this in play.  If the environment doesn't allow for a long rest (encounters, whatever), it isn't matter of PCs hunkering down--they don't have the ability to do that.  So there's no need for a DM to relent.  It's usually the players that decide resting isn't an option there and need to move on.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Hunter Ranger's lv10 feature is just 'you can cast this completely normal spell one time'. Just to show how much WotC cares about Ranger.

They nerfed Thief's Fast Hands. Of course they would, when the whole reason to pick that subclass was for bonus action item use.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.



So what's the solution?  "This class sucks" isn't exactly good feedback.  Genuine question.


----------



## Composer99

There's a Magic Action that stands in for the 2014 Cast a Spell action; it also accounts for using an action to activate a magic item. I'm inclined to say this should also stand in for the action you can take as part of the effect of certain spells - e.g. _call lightning_.


----------



## darjr

A whole playlist of videos!


----------



## TwoSix

Several spells have switched spell schools; most notably, all the cure spells are now Abjuration.


----------



## Weiley31

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes, it is under "light" in the glossary.
> You can also use dual wielding with crossbows (if you have a way to automatically load them).



And I just rechecked the _Dual Wielding_ Feat and it's been buffed/made better in that update ALSO applied to Weapons that are non-light now as the feat makes them _count_ as Light Weapons. Awesome!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ah Crossbow Expert finally no longer great for casters. Good.

Oooh Durable doesn't suck.

LOL sad obsession with drawing and stowing weapons from WotC continues, despite the fact that maybe 5% of D&D groups enforce that even partially.

Epic Boon of Luck shows WotC still too dim too understand why they made their Bard changes. Jesus wept guys, don't eliminate the nonsense of "before you know if you succeed or fail" then just reanimate it as a Feat. Absolute idiocy.

Grappler is okay I guess - at least it's not a disaster zone.

Mounted Combatant now follows RSPCA/ASPCA guidelines and lets YOU take a hit for the mount (this is basically reversing a 3E/PF situation), and generally seem like a pretty great Feat if you can fit a horse into the dungeon (perma-advantage against medium and small creatures).

Ritual Caster seems dumb and like they were flailing around. Just delete it guys, or make it actually not suck like 4E.

Sentinel - Does this no longer require a Reaction or is that implied by Opportunity Attack. Hmmm. Big if intentional.

Shield Bash - No bonus action cost but still going defiantly with the Sage Advice approach.

Speedster - For god's sake rename this Feat.


----------



## TwoSix

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Hunter Ranger's lv10 feature is just 'you can cast this completely normal spell one time'. Just to show how much WotC cares about Ranger.
> 
> They nerfed Thief's Fast Hands. Of course they would, when the whole reason to pick that subclass was for bonus action item use.



The Hunter Ranger 10 feature is actually really interesting.  Being able to "downcast" a spell is an entirely novel mechanic.


----------



## TwoSix

Weiley31 said:


> And I just rechecked the _Dual Wielding_ Feat and it's been buffed/made better in that update ALSO applied to Weapons that are non-light now as the feat makes them _count_ as Light Weapons. Awesome!



To be clear, only one of the weapons can be non-Light.  So you can do Longsword/Shortsword but not 2 Longswords.


----------



## TwoSix

Composer99 said:


> There's a Magic Action that stands in for the 2014 Cast a Spell action; it also accounts for using an action to activate a magic item. I'm inclined to say this should also stand in for the action you can take as part of the effect of certain spells - e.g. _call lightning_.



Yea, we haven't seen spells yet, but I bet a lot of them are going to be changed to "As a Magic Action, you can...."


----------



## Ruin Explorer

UngeheuerLich said:


> If the full potential of the rogue is gated behind readying an action to attack as a reaction, something is very wrong.



LOL wth? That's a weird thing to make up.

I'm talking about the fact that they got SA on OAs and so on.

Also they didn't buff Rogues significantly, certainly not at lower levels (unlike Bards). So you can't use the "they can buff it!" argument until they do. At least the Light thing means the nerf is a lot smaller than it initially seemed, dual-wielding to ensure a hit lands still makes sense.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Wow they finally quantized social checks. A great leap forwards for Bardkind, though it still has hilarious disclaimers on Hostile.


----------



## Weiley31

TwoSix said:


> To be clear, only one of the weapons can be non-Light.  So you can do Longsword/Shortsword but not 2 Longswords.



That can be easily ignored/house ruled!


----------



## delericho

Sacrosanct said:


> I've never actually seen this in play.



You're lucky; I have.


----------



## Weiley31

UngeheuerLich said:


> Also, rogues were buffed a bit: they ca now dual wield freely, as can rangers.



WITH or WITHOUT the Dual Wield feat? I know with the Dual Wield feat this can be possible, but I'm trying to find where it says that outside of Light and the feat.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Oooh a rules perversity! You can go further in a round where you jump a 15' gap than one where you jump a 3' gap, because gaps less than 5' count as Difficult terrain, but no penalties are assessed for jumping big distances. Learn2makerules WotC. Come on.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Half casters with cantrips! Yeah
No BA cost for dual wielding! Yeah
Barkskin does something! Yeah
Influence/Magic/Search/Study as an Action in the PHB....kinda yeah?
Ligthly armored grants both light/medium armor and shield! Yeah

Nice job, like most of it.


----------



## billd91

delericho said:


> That's one of those rules that _sounds_ like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.



For some of us, getting that long rest in a difficult environment is *part of* the game.


----------



## Bill Zebub

TwoSix said:


> They kept ASI as +2 or +1/+1...too bad, I was hoping they would restrict it to +1/+1.  I'd rather get away from the "Pump to 20 or get a good feat" conundrum.



I always leaned toward “pump to 20” but with the rewritten feats (+1 and non-useless goodies) I will definitely take that route.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Weiley31 said:


> WITH or WITHOUT the Dual Wield feat? I know with the Dual Wield feat this can be possible, but I'm trying to find where it says that outside of Light and the feat.



If two Light weapons you get the extra attack, otherwise you don't, unless you have the Feat.


billd91 said:


> For some of us, getting that long rest in a difficult environment is *part of* the game.



That in no way invalidates his point, just to be clear. If anything it slightly reinforces it.


----------



## Sacrosanct

delericho said:


> You're lucky; I have.



I'm having a hard time understanding how.  I'm not calling you a liar or anything lol, but if the environment enables PCs to hunker down to avoid being interrupted for an hour, then it's long rest.  If it doesn't, that's not in the PC's control, so how could they hunker down more?  For example, if what's preventing a long rest is frequent interruptions by monsters, what could the PCs do that they wouldn't normally do that would keep that from happening?  Are you talking about just arguing with the DM until they give in?


----------



## WarDriveWorley

darjr said:


> Can you elaborate?



I call it a backslide because they're going back to the paradigm of prepping spells based on spell slots as opposed to having a set amount of spells known or a formula for prepping (casting mod + level) like current prepped spellcasters get.  

That said while it is a backslide it's not a downgrade. Like @Ruin Explorer states it's much better for the Bard since they can change their spells each long rest and aren't limited to a "spells known" limit especially since they are keeping the ability to cast any spells prepped with an appropriate spell level as opposed to having to assign them to a specific slot. 

So partial backslide that ends up being better due to other language.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Long Rest got BUFFED?! WotC come on.


----------



## Weiley31

Zubatcarteira said:


> Having read those Ranger features, it's good to know WoTC still hates them.






ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.



They should just Rez the UA Revised Ranger and just get it over already.


----------



## TwoSix

They nerfed exhaustion.  Now it's just a -1 to all rolls (and -1 to spell save DC) for every level of exhaustion, and you don't die until Exhaustion 10.  That means exhaustion is actually usable now.


----------



## Burnside

*Bards:*

Using Bardic Inspiration is now a thing you do as a Reaction to somebody failing a D20 Test, as opposed to giving it as a Bonus action and hoping it's useful in the next ten minutes. This is a big upgrade, and I approve.
You can also expend Bardic Inspiration as a Reaction to HEAL people after they take damage. This might be OP tbh.

On the other hand, you have far fewer uses of Bardic Inspiration. It's now Proficiency Bonus times per Long Rest. That does balance it.

You don't get the Font of Inspiration ability until 7th level (used to be 5th). That's the ability that lets you recover Bardic Inspiration on a Short Rest instead of a Long one.

Bard spell list is considerably curtailed. They can only use Arcane magic, and only from the Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, or Transmutation schools. 

However, they can now change up their prepared spells on a Long Rest from the entire Bard spell list, a la Clerics, Druids, Artificers, and Paladins.

So at Level 2 Bards get a thing called "Songs of Restoration". This adds a suite of 5 bonus spells to spells known (one at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th levels). These include healing word, lesser restoration, and mass healing word.

Lore Bard is mostly unchanged but one HUGE change is that Additional Magic Secrets at 6th level is gone, replaced by Cunning Inspiration, which basically makes all your Bardic Inspiration dice roll with advantage. That is a way worse ability than Additional Magical Secrets.

Of note: cantrips (sometimes referred to a 0-level spells in this doc) can be switched out on Long Rests just like levelled spells.

Jumping down to the spell lists. One thing that immediately jumps out at me is that the Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade cantrips don't seem to exist.

Hex is accessible to Bards.

They also pick up a several good spells they didn't have before by virtue of having access to the Transmutation school, including Fly and Haste.

They lose Dimension Door though.

All in all I think this is a solid Bard. Power-wise it has some plusses and minuses over the current Bard. I don't think the Bard NEEDS this overhaul, but neither do I think it's a war crime. I do think the Lore Bard losing Magical Secrets is likely to cause some gnashing of teeth in the community, as that is a much beloved ability for them.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: Guidance is a Reaction now in this. So, it's pretty much Silvery Barbish.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL wth? That's a weird thing to make up.
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that they got SA on OAs and so on.




My favorite version of that was combined with Mage Slayer. But since that is also  nerfed in this packet….


----------



## Sacrosanct

TwoSix said:


> They nerfed exhaustion.  Now it's just a -1 to all rolls (and -1 to spell save DC) for every level of exhaustion, and you don't die until Exhaustion 10.  That means exhaustion is actually usable now.



That's disappointing, actually.  Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important.  Now it's not really a big deal at all.


----------



## Mind of tempest

I question why they seem to be nerfing rogue do they just want to go back to being a caster or suck time or have they done the math wrong?


----------



## rooneg

I get that everyone likes to beat on the Ranger, but I actually like this version quite a bit. The thing with Hunter's Mark is pretty clearly what they wanted to do with Tasha's version, the extra flexibility in spellcasting is a big deal (and I don't even like casting Rangers, but I have to admit it's a power boost), and Expertise is totally on brand for them. Everything here seems like a fine set of improvements over the PHB and Tasha's versions for me.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oooh a rules perversity! You can go further in a round where you jump a 15' gap than one where you jump a 3' gap, because gaps less than 5' count as Difficult terrain, but no penalties are assessed for jumping big distances. Learn2makerules WotC. Come on.



Yea, but you can't make a 15' jump without spending an action, by my reading of it.  So it's really equivalent more to Dash.  And I don't think Jump+Move makes you go farther than Dash+Move.

The "don't worry about making Jumps for anything less than 5'" is a pretty nice feature.  I tended to count minor obstacles like tables or fences as difficult terrain away, but nice to see it official.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Omg, Charger is actually alright for a melee pick and Grappler is actually good for a grappler!

Mage Slayer is somehow worse, for such a specialized feat...


----------



## ScuroNotte

Sacrosanct said:


> So what's the solution?  "This class sucks" isn't exactly good feedback.  Genuine question.



It doesn't seem that WoTC doesn't read the previous critiques when they presented alternatives to the ranger class. For example, Tireless is not for me but it is not a standalone feature. And they made the Hunter subclass much weaker than the PHB version.  The Hunter class just needed bonus spells and another 3rd level feature. And the Rogue, which was already a strong class, they offer Subtle Strikes which is an overpowered Aim feature with no restrictions. I can offer many alternatives and some alternatives I have read on reddit are more rewarding than this class. The two tables I play on only use homebrew Rangers.


----------



## TwoSix

Sacrosanct said:


> That's disappointing, actually.  Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important.  Now it's not really a big deal at all.



Well, let's see how they cost in the exploration pillar (assuming they have procedures for the exploration pillar).  If things regularly cause 2-3 levels of exhaustion, it gets painful pretty quick.

I'm assuming they lightened the cost so they can use exhaustion as a currency for non-magical abilities.


----------



## Weiley31

Also: Rangers get Cantrips? Nice!


----------



## Burnside

*RANGER:*

All rangers now have cantrips

Expertise in 2 skills at level 1

Concentration-free Hunter's Mark as a bonus spell at level 1

They draw from the Primal spell list, except that they don't get spells from the Evocation school.

This gives them a much bigger spell list.

They also now have prepared spells they can switch out on a Long Rest a la Clerics, Druids, Paladins, etc. They should always have had this.

Fighting Style at level 2.

They have some pretty craptacular higher level abilities

We're given the Hunter subclass. It's...kinda worse than the PHB Hunter subclass?

I predict people will be unhappy with this ranger. It does "fix" some of the nebulous abilities of the 2014 PHB ranger, but not in particularly exciting ways. I don't think "more magic" is actually what people want from the ranger. I could be wrong.


----------



## Bill Zebub

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Omg, Charger is actually alright for a melee pick and Grappler is actually good for a grappler!




Agreed!


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Mage Slayer is somehow worse, for such a specialized feat...




Well, except for the ASI


----------



## Ruin Explorer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Mage Slayer is somehow worse, for such a specialized feat.



Yeah I was impressed that they managed to make that significantly worse. That must have taken some serious effort.


----------



## delericho

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding how.  I'm not calling you a liar or anything lol, but if the environment enables PCs to hunker down to avoid being interrupted for an hour, then it's long rest.  If it doesn't, that's not in the PC's control, so how could they hunker down more?  For example, if what's preventing a long rest is frequent interruptions by monsters, what could the PCs do that they wouldn't normally do that would keep that from happening?



As I said, it was an increasingly elaborate set of precautions - barriers, and watches, and... I don't recall it all.



Sacrosanct said:


> Are you talking about just arguing with the DM until they give in?



Essentially, that's what it amounted to - they made it clear that they _weren't_ going to proceed until they'd completed the rest, so that was that.


----------



## Kinematics

I like the change to the Durable feat. Instead of a guaranteed minimum on hit die rolls, you can use a hit die to recover HP as a bonus action. Also, advantage on death saves.

Polearm Master changed the weapon requirements. The weapon must now have both the Heavy and Reach traits, rather than be part of an enumerated list. No more weird confusion over spears and quarterstaff+shield combos.

Sentinel was rewritten with a bit of streamlining. Same overall effect, but less clunky wording.

No bonus damage from Sharpshooter.  Great Weapon Master was also nerfed in damage. Makes them more reasonable options.

Shield Master no longer uses a bonus action to knock an enemy prone, so the entire argument around it is eliminated.

The increased range from Spell Sniper makes more sense now. The spell has to have a minimum range of 10' (so no Booming Blade shenanigans), and it just adds 60' instead of doubling it.


Overall, the rewritten feats seem to be nice improvements.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Weiley31 said:


> They should just Rez the UA Revised Ranger and just get it over already.



They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford


----------



## Sacrosanct

delericho said:


> Essentially, that's what it amounted to - they made it clear that they _weren't_ going to proceed until they'd completed the rest, so that was that.



That's a player issue, not a game design issue.  And something a DM shouldn't have to give up on.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford



Can you not make unfounded personal attacks on people please?  Do you know him?  Have you talked with him at length?


----------



## CleverNickName

UngeheuerLich said:


> If the full potential of the rogue is gated behind readying an action to attack as a reaction, something is very wrong.



I would argue that "do the most damage in combat" isn't the same thing as "full potential."  My games are only about 25-30% combat.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL sad obsession with drawing and stowing weapons from WotC continues, despite the fact that maybe 5% of D&D groups enforce that even partially.



I agree. No one enforces that restriction (in addition to donning the shield). And it's a waste of a bullet to include into the feat


----------



## Burnside

ROGUE:

You no longer get Sneak Attacks on a reaction/op attack (why?)

Evasion moves from 7th level to 9th level. Yikes.

Other than that, the base class is almost unchanged

The Subclass offered is the Thief

Second Story Work is mercifully and finally clarified as "you have a Climb Speed equal to your Speed" (which is how I have house-ruled it for years) and you can use Dex to Jump instead of Strength, making this ability actually good.

Supreme Sneak is at 6th level instead of 9th (good)

Use Magical Device is at 10th level instead of 13th (good)

Thief's Reflexes is at 14th level instead of 17th. Good, I think. This is an incredibly strong ability that basically never sees play because it came at 17th level. At 14th level, it still won't see much play, but at least a bit more. For those who don't know, this ability gives you two turns in the first round of any combat - one at your initiative, and the second at your initiative minus 10.

This version is just a straight-up upgrade for the Thief subclass in every way, but it was definitely warranted as the Thief was pretty bad in comparison to most Rogue subclasses.


----------



## Weiley31

I find it interesting that in the Rogue's _Weapon Proficiencies, * they make sure to let it be known that although they get *Martial Weapon_ there, said Martial Weapons _have to be Finesse._

Hmmm, that's interesting. If they _DO_ end up making new classes aside from the main PHB+Artificer for OneD&D, the idea of certain classes being able to use a weapon based on the Property it has could be a novel avenue to change up the direction. This UA even mentions something about "New Weapon Options for classes."


----------



## ScuroNotte

Sacrosanct said:


> Can you not make unfounded personal attacks on people please?  Do you know him?  Have you talked with him at length?



A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Burnside said:


> This version is just a straight-up upgrade for the Thief subclass in every way, but it was definitely warranted as the Thief was pretty bad in comparison to most Rogue subclasses.



It lost its defining feature, being able to use items as a bonus action...


----------



## Weiley31

ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford



Well good thing I use it at my table then.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.



LOL.  So you didn't get an answer that you wanted so you took it as a personal attack and made up things about him?  OK.  Either way, when you folks wonder why designers don't participate in forums, this is why.


----------



## gorice

delericho said:


> That's one of those rules that _sounds_ like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.



They way I would look at this is: if the players are determined not to proceed, I think the DM needs to respect that. One way of respecting that is by making their actions have consequences. If they really are camping in the Forest of Death, they've decided they want to fight everything it can throw at them. So, throw it. If they win, they get what they want. If they lose, they suffer consequences.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I was impressed that they managed to make that significantly worse. That must have taken some serious effort.



Yea, but the changes kinda make sense, right?  With the monster changes, it was pretty rare to get the reaction attack outside of some humanoid enemies.  And it is a half-feat now, so some power-down was probably necessary.  They kept the concentration break ability, and 1/day auto-success on a mental save isn't bad at all for warrior types.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Weiley31 said:


> Well good thing I use it at my table then.



You can use what you like. Most important is to play what you and those at the table find enjoyable. It just would be nice, in our opinion, to have a ranger that is not looked at as an unwanted child.


----------



## Sacrosanct

A 10th level hunter ranger can cast conjure barrage 9 times per long rest.  Sure many of those are less than 3d8, but the AoE is still the same, and that's the important bit, I think.


----------



## Composer99

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow they finally quantized social checks. A great leap forwards for Bardkind, though it still has hilarious disclaimers on Hostile.



It looks like they have, in essence, ported the DMG rules for social interaction into the PHB, at least for the purpose of this UA.

Kind of has an old-school vibe to it, insofar as it is akin to having the rules needed to play the game as such in the player-facing book.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Weiley31 said:


> Also: Guidance is a Reaction now in this. So, it's pretty much Silvery Barbish.




My god, they actually fixed Guidance. Once per long rest per target.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Sacrosanct said:


> LOL.  So you didn't get an answer that you wanted so you took it as a personal attack and made up things about him?  OK.  Either way, when you folks wonder why designers don't participate in forums, this is why.



When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.


----------



## Weiley31

Burnside said:


> So at Level 2 Bards get a thing called "Songs of Restoration". This adds a suite of 5 bonus spells to spells known (one at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th levels). These include healing word, lesser restoration, and mass healing word.



So, the Bard's version of the *Warlock's _Patron Spells, Paladin's Oath Spells, and Cleric's Domain Spells._


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> A 10th level hunter ranger can cast conjure barrage 9 times per long rest.  Sure many of those are less than 3d8, but the AoE is still the same, and that's the important bit, I think.



The AoE size is what makes the spell, but I don't really see how often a Ranger needs to kill an army of hundreds of 1HD mooks...


----------



## gorice

*re: The Bard*

It looks much the same as before, which is to say, I hate it. A jack of all trades who also has expertise, buffs their allies, and can cast any 9th level spell? Aside from the complete lack of spotlight balance, there's no coherent character concept here.

Also, it seems like WotC is really doubling down on having a bunch of fiddly little widgets to track. Spell slots, uses per day equal to proficiency, bleh. I hate it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but the changes kinda make sense, right?  With the monster changes, it was pretty rare to get the reaction attack outside of some humanoid enemies.  And it is a half-feat now, so some power-down was probably necessary.  They kept the concentration break ability, and 1/day auto-success on a mental save isn't bad at all for warrior types.



Kinda, sure but it's like, why not keep the Reaction attack if they're really that rare? The unstated reason seems to be that they're trying to move Bonus Actions and Reactions away from being used for Attacks, though it's extremely inconsistent (see PAM and War Caster).


ScuroNotte said:


> You can use what you like. Most important is to play what you and those at the table find enjoyable. It just would be nice, in our opinion, to have a ranger that is not looked at as an unwanted child.



Yeah the fact that they managed to, yet again, for what, the fourth time (3E, 3.5E, 5E, 1D&D) make Ranger a kind of mediocre and confused-ass class which few people are likely to want to play mechanically, despite the extremely strong and enduringly popular pop-culture archetype is kind of a sad achievement. They just really need to find a way to make the "magic" elements optional, I think.


Composer99 said:


> It looks like they have, in essence, ported the DMG rules for social interaction into the PHB, at least for the purpose of this UA.
> 
> Kind of has an old-school vibe to it, insofar as it is akin to having the rules needed to play the game as such in the player-facing book.



Yes they're similar if somewhat simplified. The issue being of course those rules/numbers were, in my experience (and podcasts/actual plays support this) very rarely used by DMs. One DM I know I am confident has no idea those rules exist.

By putting them in front of the players, they ensure DMs will have to know, and at least use them as a starting point.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.



Well, we don't know what his actual response was.  But someone saying a complaint you're voicing (we don't even know your specific complaint) is one they haven't seen is not a personal attack.  And for you to go around saying he has a big ego based on that is unwarranted.  It's slander.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> The AoE size is what makes the spell, but I don't really see how often a Ranger needs to kill an army of hundreds of 1HD mooks...



It's not just about killing mooks.  Many times being able to do an AoE is great.  Especially against concentration using casters...

Also, I think probably the biggest buff to rangers here is the ability to use cantrips.  That's going to be huge, I suspect, since cantrips scale.


----------



## gorice

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah the fact that they managed to, yet again, for what, the fourth time (3E, 3.5E, 5E, 1D&D) make Ranger a kind of mediocre and confused-ass class which few people are likely to want to play is kind of a sad achievement.



I see this as further support for my view that it should just be a fighter sublcass. There isn't enough meat on those bones.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not just about killing mooks.  Many times being able to do an AoE is great.  Especially against concentration using casters...



Yes, but I'd rather do noticeable damage in a smaller AoE, than tiny, piddly damage to an altogether too large an area to be meaningful in normal play.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Weiley31 said:


> Also, judging by how this packet is laid out, we're getting each of the classes in sets of three.
> _But goodness, wonder if we'll get ALL the subclasses so far._



They mentioned in the first video that they want to playtest 48 subclasses, 4 for each class


----------



## Remathilis

gorice said:


> I see this as further support for my view that it should just be a fighter sublcass. There isn't enough meat on those bones.



In 2036 when D&D Perfected (6e) comes out, maybe they will just smash the three classes in each group into one Superclass (Expert, Priest, Mage, Warrior) then maybe you'll get your wish.

I like the new ranger, fwiw.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

New rules for building a stronghold are coming. Surprised I’m the first to mention it. 

I strongly dislike many of the rewritten feats. 
Mage Slayer, for instance. Ditch the damn ASI and give back the reaction attack. 
Protection Figt Style is terrible. Why make the weakest fighting style _worse!?_
Heavily Armored and Lightly Armored are still garbage, and should still be folded into a real feat. 
Skulker is pure change for its own sake. Wtf is blindsight doing here? Seriously? Not having everything be a damn keyword, just writing things out, is part of what works for 5e. 

The Ranger looks good. I’m not sure what people are complaining about. 

Moving Evasion back to level 9 sucks for the rogue, as does losing reaction SA damage. They seem to want to reduce reaction attacks generally, which I frankly hate. 
Did they kill Mobile for this garbage Speedster!? Stop making things worse!
They nerfed Spell Sniper!? Really!?

The glossary is mostly fine, other than long rests restoring all spent hit dice.


----------



## Parmandur

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> They mentioned in the first video that they want to playtest 48 subclasses, 4 for each class



4 on average, Crawford didn't say each would have only 4 or a full 4.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Blindsight now automatically reveals Hidden creatures... huh.


----------



## Micah Sweet

CleverNickName said:


> I'm a little sad that they didn't include Monk in the list of "Expert" classes.  I've always considered them to be a skill-monkey-meets-Fighter class...at least as much as the Ranger is, anyway.  Ah well.  Minor gripe.
> 
> Woah.  They included a LOT of feats in this one.  But does _every _feat need to have an ASI attached to it now?  I guess so.  I don't want to believe the rumors about "power creep" but...well there's this, and there's Heroic Inspiration (that rewards you for failure).  It's all little stuff, sure.  Probably nothing to worry about at the moment, but little stuff tends to add up over time.
> 
> I like the changes to the Exhausted condition...much more streamlined, and probably the opposite of power-creep.
> 
> Same for "Interrupting the Rest," which states that if your Long Rest is interrupted by combat, the rest confers no benefit and must be restarted.  This makes random encounters _so much more dangerous _and I love it.  "Why yes, players, you can certainly spend the night in the Haunted Forest of Spiders and Nightmares, that sounds perfectly fine!  What could possibly go wrong?"
> 
> I also like the Study action...it's expensive (it costs your whole action) but I like the way it's structured...and I especially like how it specifically puts "traps and gadgetry" under Investigation, hopefully ending the "why can't I use Perception for everything" argument at my table.



Considering how many people seemed to hate Exhaustion because it "hurt their character's chance of success too much", I would say the new version is essentially a form of power creep.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> They mentioned in the first video that they want to playtest 48 subclasses, 4 for each class



The amount of symmetry and move to normalizing design patterns and using tags even if it significantly changes the mechanic as opposed to just describing an effect, worries me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL sad obsession with drawing and stowing weapons from WotC continues, despite the fact that maybe 5% of D&D groups enforce that even partially.




It is made easier in the glossary. Read to the end..


----------



## ScuroNotte

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, we don't know what his actual response was.  But someone saying a complaint you're voicing (we don't even know your specific complaint) is one they haven't seen is not a personal attack.  And for you to go around saying he has a big ego based on that is unwarranted.  It's slander.



[URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
[/URL]
@JeremyECrawford

Replying to 
@XXXXXXXX
Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.


7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone


----------



## CleverNickName

Micah Sweet said:


> Considering how many people seemed to hate Exhaustion because it "hurt their character's chance of success too much", I would say the new version is essentially a form of power creep.



Yeah, I can see that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

gorice said:


> I see this as further support for my view that it should just be a fighter sublcass. There isn't enough meat on those bones.



It’s got more “meat” than half the other classes, so…. 

And the idea that this version is bad and no one will want to play it is silly IMO.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

gorice said:


> I see this as further support for my view that it should just be a fighter sublcass. There isn't enough meat on those bones.



Absolutely not. If anything Fighter should be a Ranger subclass.

Ranger is a tremendously popular pop-culture archetype will well-defined features, none of which are spellcasting or really any kind of magic except perhaps that relating to animals.

It's more popular, I'd argue, right now, than trad warrior archetypes. Or at least comparable.



UngeheuerLich said:


> It is made easier in tge glossary. Read to the end..



EDIT - This was responding to UngeheuerLich - What are you talking about? I can find no reference to drawing/stowing in the glossary. I have read to the end. I just double-checked. Did you misquote?

LOL Ung put me on ignore because he realized he was wrong I guess.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

CleverNickName said:


> I would argue that "do the most damage in combat" isn't the same thing as "full potential."  My games are only about 25-30% combat.



Sorry. That was meant just within that context.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone



This again? Really? 

Nothing in that statement is remotely problematic.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ScuroNotte said:


> When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.



Absolutely. Fortunately that didn’t happen.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford



Unlike all the pundits who believe without a shadow of doubt that they could do a better job. No ego there. No sir. Not a bit.


----------



## fuindordm

There are some creative class abilities in this packet (Rover! Elusive!) that are very welcome.

But why oh why do they keep forcing mundane class abilities into the spellcasting framework? This just makes it harder to develop classes for low-magic settings or classes with unique mechanics that have an impact on how they feel during play.

For example, it would be so easy to say something like "If you are able to study an opponent for 1 round before engaging in combat, you gain the benefit of the _Hunter's Mark_ spell against that opponent. You do not need to maintain concentration. You can use this ability prof bonus times per day." 

I'm also slightly disappointed that they seem to be bending over backwards to make sure that abilities are as "easy" to use as possible. Bardic inspiration is a reaction now. But it felt interesting and appropriate when the bard could take a bonus action to give a physical die to another player--like they are actually taking the time to give a pep talk, a short song, or a witty remark instead of just shouting "Duck!" "Heal!" "Get 'em!" during combat all the time.


----------



## Parmandur

ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone



He wasn't saying individual people are phantoms, but someone having a problem might be a phantom in terms of the general user base experience.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not just about killing mooks.  Many times being able to do an AoE is great.  Especially against concentration using casters...
> 
> Also, I think probably the biggest buff to rangers here is the ability to use cantrips.  That's going to be huge, I suspect, since cantrips scale.




I would like a rewording of extra attack though. Cantrip + extra attack should be standard.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> They nerfed exhaustion.  Now it's just a -1 to all rolls (and -1 to spell save DC) for every level of exhaustion, and you don't die until Exhaustion 10.  That means exhaustion is actually usable now.



It also means it means very little in practice, so why bother?  Level Up's Fatigue and Strife do it better.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not just about killing mooks.  Many times being able to do an AoE is great.  Especially against concentration using casters...
> 
> Also, I think probably the biggest buff to rangers here is the ability to use cantrips.  That's going to be huge, I suspect, since cantrips scale.



Yeah I don’t like losing the choices of the hunter, especially if they aren’t using those features at all, but it’s not a bad subclass. 

Cantrips are good, as is preparing spells, rituals, and no concentration hunters mark.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone



So just to level set here, you are aware the term "chasing phantoms" (usually heard as chasing ghosts) is an idiom. He's not calling those that are complaining non-existent or as a literal phantom.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> It also means it means very little in practice, so why bother?  Level Up's Fatigue and Strife do it better.



Good for level up?


----------



## CleverNickName

fuindordm said:


> But why oh why do they keep forcing mundane class abilities into the spellcasting framework? This just makes it harder to develop classes for low-magic settings or classes with unique mechanics that have an impact on how they feel during play.



I understand what they're _trying _to do.  There are a lot of folks who want a "druid spellsword" in 5th Edition, and most of them turn to the Ranger to fill that niche.  It wouldn't be my first choice (I'd just let the Eldritch Knight use the druid spell list and skill proficiencies, or I'd play an Oath of Ancients paladin) but I can see why people automatically think "Ranger."


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> He wasn't saying individual people are phantoms, but someone having a problem might be a phantom in terms of the general user base experience.



Not even that, the problem itself is a phantom if only a tiny percentage of the player base experiences it. There is no sense in which the person is a phantom. Phantom literally does not refer to people in the statement quoted, it refers to the mechanical problems in question. 

It absolutely makes sense to gather more info and move cautiously to ensure that you don’t waste dev time hunting down “issues” that only 5 people out of millions experience or see as issues.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Fatigue/Exhaustion was always meaningless, because the first level was such a strong effect, that nothing besides Berserker ever ended up using the mechanic. Making it less punishing and _not require a separate table look-up _should make it possible for it to come up more.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Can we drop the Crawford minutia? This is a mostly positive packet, let's take joy in that.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The Exhaustion table for me became fine by just rearranging the order of the penalties.

The new rules for it seem okay, but I dunno if I'd stop using my rearranged table over these new rules should they get implemented.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

gorice said:


> *re: The Bard*
> 
> It looks much the same as before, which is to say, I hate it. A jack of all trades who also has expertise, buffs their allies, and can cast any 9th level spell? Aside from the complete lack of spotlight balance, there's no coherent character concept here.
> 
> Also, it seems like WotC is really doubling down on having a bunch of fiddly little widgets to track. Spell slots, uses per day equal to proficiency, bleh. I hate it.




Seems as if they indeed don't change too much. In the case of the bard, I am rather positive, although bardic inspiration is rarer at lower levels in general.


----------



## Micah Sweet

fuindordm said:


> There are some creative class abilities in this packet (Rover! Elusive!) that are very welcome.
> 
> But why oh why do they keep forcing mundane class abilities into the spellcasting framework? This just makes it harder to develop classes for low-magic settings or classes with unique mechanics that have an impact on how they feel during play.
> 
> For example, it would be so easy to say something like "If you are able to study an opponent for 1 round before engaging in combat, you gain the benefit of the _Hunter's Mark_ spell against that opponent. You do not need to maintain concentration. You can use this ability prof bonus times per day."
> 
> I'm also slightly disappointed that they seem to be bending over backwards to make sure that abilities are as "easy" to use as possible. Bardic inspiration is a reaction now. But it felt interesting and appropriate when the bard could take a bonus action to give a physical die to another player--like they are actually taking the time to give a pep talk, a short song, or a witty remark instead of just shouting "Duck!" "Heal!" "Get 'em!" during combat all the time.



I think its pretty clear that WotC has no vested interest in making it easier for DMs to design their own rules.  Use their rules as you see fit, sure, but use _ their_ rules.  These folks have books to sell.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Can we drop the Crawford minutia? This is a mostly positive packet, let's take joy in that.



Yeah I’d say the classes are 60% positive and the feats are 40% positive. Glossary is 80% tho, if not more. 

I’d rather play a 2014 Rogue, especially Thief, but I’d rather play a ODND UA Ranger. Bard I’m nearly even on.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The thing I like the best from the packet is that it seems like the variant rule of "alternative ability scores" for skill checks is now going to be the main rule.  So no longer are proficiencies tied to ability score, they can be used whenever they apply.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand why they changed the Hunter. It was pretty good (on a pretty bad class, though). Now they have that weird Conjure Barrage features that's kinda bad for melee rangers, no?

I'd also like if they gave some not-overtly smite spells for the (downcastable) for the melee rangers, as an option,


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone



I'm not going to beat you up on this because several others have already pointed the flaw out in this.  I just wanted to say I hope you understand that before going around personally attacking designers, that you step back and understand that maybe you've misinterpreted something, and it's better to avoid insulting people in general.


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Fatigue/Exhaustion was always meaningless, because the first level was such a strong effect, that nothing besides Berserker ever ended up using the mechanic. Making it less punishing and _not require a separate table look-up _should make it possible for it to come up more.



I'm not following this.  Exhaustion isn't something that is only a choice berserkers make.  It's an effect that could come up during the exploration pillar of the game fairly often if the PCs don't make preparations or run into scenarios where every PC, regardless of class, needs to decide to push on and get exhaustion, or hold back and risk the mission.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not following this.  Exhaustion isn't something that is only a choice berserkers make.  It's an effect that could come up during the exploration pillar of the game fairly often if the PCs don't make preparations or run into scenarios where every PC, regardless of class, needs to decide to push on and get exhaustion, or hold back and risk the mission.



Go have a look at the exploration rules. Our DnD people can go for days without food, water or sleep with ease. And we have multiple easy spells (or even Outlander as a free background) that just... remove any need to interact with even those rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford



At least they have access to market research and put out a game with millions of players.
I can say: at my tables we had quite a few rangers and all players were rather happy. In the beginning our ranger wanted cantrips and prepared spells so switched to druid. He would be pleased now.
I am happy since tasha, but I like the new version generally better.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ScuroNotte said:


> It doesn't seem that WoTC doesn't read the previous critiques when they presented alternatives to the ranger class.




Or maybe they did but they have access to a lot more information than you do.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. No one enforces that restriction (in addition to donning the shield). And it's a waste of a bullet to include into the feat



We do.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Fatigue/Exhaustion was always meaningless, because the first level was such a strong effect, that nothing besides Berserker ever ended up using the mechanic. Making it less punishing and _not require a separate table look-up _should make it possible for it to come up more.



Exhaustion was a big part of environmental/exploration mechanics. PC falls into frigid water? Exhaustion. PCs don't eat or drink enough? Exhaustion. Your table may not use these often, but they're still there and used. I know my players are always wary of exhaustion.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Parmandur said:


> He wasn't saying individual people are phantoms, but someone having a problem might be a phantom in terms of the general user base experience.



He was calling people who questioned were phantoms.  By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must be cautious about how they word it. The state of the person you are responding to


----------



## CleverNickName

WarDriveWorley said:


> Exhaustion was a big part of environmental/exploration mechanics. PC falls into frigid water? Exhaustion. PCs don't eat or drink enough? Exhaustion. Your table may not use these often, but they're still there and used. I know my players are always wary of exhaustion.



I've also used it for smoke inhalation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure I understand why they changed the Hunter. It was pretty good (on a pretty bad class, though). Now they have that weird Conjure Barrage features that's kinda bad for melee rangers, no?
> 
> I'd also like if they gave some not-overtly smite spells for the (downcastable) for the melee rangers, as an option,




The old feature was very bad too. There were so few cases where whirlwind actually was a choice, as it replaced all your attacks. So it worked terribly with extra attack and off hand attacks and even one of the hunter's own level 3 features. 
A melee ranger can easily throw a dagger and conjure the cone. 
The spell however is bad. It should generally be buffed to 4d8 at least.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Oh. I just realized that Rogues no longer can sneak attack with a blade cantrip. Our first sample of a non-caster class, and they only got nerfs.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Go have a look at the exploration rules. Our DnD people can go for days without food, water or sleep with ease. And we have multiple easy spells (or even Outlander as a free background) that just... remove any need to interact with even those rules.



This is not true.  They can go 3 days + con modifier without food, but need water every day.  Traveling more than 8 hours a day also incorporates exhaustion, as does most diseases the PCs may be exposed to.


----------



## TwoSix

WarDriveWorley said:


> Exhaustion was a big part of environmental/exploration mechanics. PC falls into frigid water? Exhaustion. PCs don't eat or drink enough? Exhaustion. Your table may not use these often, but they're still there and used. I know my players are always wary of exhaustion.



And fortunately, all these uses are still there, as far as we know.  Exhaustion is simply more granular now.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Bill Zebub said:


> Or maybe they did but they have access to a lot more information than you do.



They do have access to more information. But when I see and read many alternative versions posted, it does show there are those who believe a revision is desired.


----------



## Bill Zebub

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Blindsight now automatically reveals Hidden creatures... huh.



I’ve always played that it does anyway, so glad it’s codified.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Bill Zebub said:


> We do.



I should have said there are GMs who do not enforce, not all.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

TwoSix said:


> And fortunately, all these uses are still there, as far as we know.  Exhaustion is simply more granular now.



oh no doubt they're still there, they just feel less impactful. That said it could be cause I'm just reading it on paper and not using it at the table so my thoughts could change. That said I did like the non-d20 effects exhaustion cold have such as reduced speed and reduced hit points that helped convey a weakened state.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

WarDriveWorley said:


> Exhaustion was a big part of environmental/exploration mechanics. PC falls into frigid water? Exhaustion. PCs don't eat or drink enough? Exhaustion. Your table may not use these often, but they're still there and used. I know my players are always wary of exhaustion.



I use that, and BOY have my players hated it. I wonder if the new one will sting as much.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but you can't make a 15' jump without spending an action, by my reading of it.  So it's really equivalent more to Dash.  And I don't think Jump+Move makes you go farther than Dash+Move.
> 
> The "don't worry about making Jumps for anything less than 5'" is a pretty nice feature.  I tended to count minor obstacles like tables or fences as difficult terrain away, but nice to see it official.



LOL you're right and Jump is kind of hilariously brutal now. It is not only an Action (which seems messed up), but you have to make a DC 10 check, and if you fail, you only jump 5', which means a lot of potential for people to plunge to their deaths that was not previously present! Especially as 1 is always a fail now (unless that changed again).


----------



## darjr

Bill Zebub said:


> We do.



So do I. In fact I can’t think of a table I’ve seen recently that doesn’t.


----------



## CleverNickName

GMforPowergamers said:


> I use that, and BOY have my players hated it. I wonder if the new one will sting as much.



It might sting even more, I think.  Having to deal with a cascading -X penalty to all ability checks, attack rolls, and save throws, sounds pretty intense.  And now it can take more than a week to fully recover from exhaustion.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

GMforPowergamers said:


> I use that, and BOY have my players hated it. I wonder if the new one will sting as much.



My current game almost had a TPK when the party tried to ford a mountain river and didn't have enough resources to build a large enough raft for everyone to ride out of the water. A couple of failed saves created issues where some characters couldn't hold on and the remaining characters had to figure out a way to save them without succumbing to the cold as well. It was a great encounter that they still talk about.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL you're right and Jump is kind of hilariously brutal now. It is not only an Action (which seems messed up), but you have to make a DC 10 check, and if you fail, you only jump 5', which means a lot of potential for people to plunge to their deaths that was not previously present! Especially as 1 is always a fail now (unless that changed again).



the 1 fail 20 auto pass is not in this one... but really 1s are goin to fail a 10 99% of the time


----------



## Ruin Explorer

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Oh. I just realized that Rogues no longer can sneak attack with a blade cantrip. Our first sample of a non-caster class, and they only got nerfs.



Watch as Wizards get buffed. I guarantee it. They'll use the spell preparation changes as an excuse to do it.


darjr said:


> So do I. In fact I can’t think of a table I’ve seen recently that doesn’t.



I play with four different groups and have never seen it enforced consistently. Critical Role don't enforce it consistently. Nor does any other podcast or stream I can think of.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ScuroNotte said:


> They do have access to more information. But when I see and read many alternative versions posted, it does show there are those who believe a revision is desired.



Sure. Lots of people ask for lots of different things. The fact that they can only please some of them doesn’t mean they are ignoring the rest.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Invisible is still messed up, because even if you can see them, they _still_ get advantage on attacks vs you and you have disadv on attacking them.


----------



## Sacrosanct

WarDriveWorley said:


> My current game almost had a TPK when the party tried to ford a mountain river and didn't have enough resources to build a large enough raft for everyone to ride out of the water. A couple of failed saves created issues where some characters couldn't hold on and the remaining characters had to figure out a way to save them without succumbing to the cold as well. It was a great encounter that they still talk about.



Yep.  If the exploration pillar is to be important, then you have to have rules that help support why it's important. Otherwise you end up with a game where you just go from one encounter to the next ala arena style play, just ignoring or skipping the other pillars.


----------



## darjr

ScuroNotte said:


> He was calling people who questioned were phantoms.  By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must be cautious about how they word it. The state of the person you are responding to



No he wasn’t. I think you’ve misread what he typed.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Of course players hate exhaustion.  What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL you're right and Jump is kind of hilariously brutal now. It is not only an Action (which seems messed up), but you have to make a DC 10 check, and if you fail, you only jump 5', which means a lot of potential for people to plunge to their deaths that was not previously present! Especially as 1 is always a fail now (unless that changed again).



omg I missed it was an ACTION


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Sacrosanct said:


> Yep.  If the exploration pillar is to be important, then you have to have rules that help support why it's important. Otherwise you end up with a game where you just go from one encounter to the next ala arena style play, just ignoring or skipping the other pillars.



exactly. I know some tables hand wave exploration, but honestly some of my best gaming memories are exploration challenges/encounters


----------



## darjr

Sacrosanct said:


> Yep.  If the exploration pillar is to be important, then you have to have rules that help support why it's important. Otherwise you end up with a game where you just go from one encounter to the next ala arena style play, just ignoring or skipping the other pillars.



Yea, the old exhaustion rules can mess up a party, even a high level party I f the whole party keeps getting exhaustion.


----------



## Bill Zebub

darjr said:


> So do I. In fact I can’t think of a table I’ve seen recently that doesn’t.



I ran into it last session; I was faced with either dropping my bow (in a swamp) to draw two short swords, or holding onto the bow and only drawing one. I went with B.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ruin Explorer said:


> Watch as Wizards get buffed. I guarantee it. They'll use the spell preparation changes as an excuse to do it.



becuse THAT is what we need better castes...


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Ruin Explorer said:


> Watch as Wizards get buffed. I guarantee it. They'll use the spell preparation changes as an excuse to do it.



Or only getting 4 subclasses this time around, like everyone else. They need something to make up for that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

ScuroNotte said:


> A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.




No, it was not his answer. I found it. He did not call you phantom people.

He called the act of trying to please everyone and especially redesigning things, most people are content with "chasing phantoms".
Which is a generally good idea. Chances you annoy more people than you please if you go after each thing a random person does not like are big.
He even said, he wanted to do research to make sure more than a single person has issues. This is actually taking your concern seriously.

My prime example is always this:

4e was on a good way. Then the paladin was playtested on a con. A famous scene that found its way into the echo chamber that is the internet was the paladin using divine challenge and run away to grant disadvantage forever.
That sorted for a lot of noise and the designers added really annoying and complicated conditions so that such behavior is impossible. Resulting in a confusingly annoying ability.
In a very late update, the conditions were removed for the better.
So before liste ing to the loudest voices, they are very well advised doing research first to not chase phantoms (i. e. rules that work ok, but are willfully exploited by 1 out of 1000 people, usually in bad faith).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course players hate exhaustion.  What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?



I mean they hate it ore then damage, more then other conditions...


----------



## ScuroNotte

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure. Lots of people ask for lots of different things. The fact that they can only please some of them doesn’t mean they are ignoring the rest.



Yes, I agree. But there are better ways of conveying that information


----------



## ScuroNotte

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, it was not his answer. I found it. He did not call you phantom people.
> 
> He called the act of trying to please everyone and especially redesigning things, most people are content with "chasing phantoms".
> Which is a generally good idea. Chances you annoy more people than you please if you go after each thing a random person does not like are big.
> He even said, he wanted to do research to make sure more than a single person has issues. This is actually taking your concern seriously.
> 
> My prime example is always this:
> 
> 4e was on a good way. Then the paladin was playtested on a con. A famous scene that found its way into the echo chamber that is the internet was the paladin using divine challenge and run away to grant disadvantage forever.
> That sorted for a lot of noise and the designers added really annoying and complicated conditions so that such behavior is impossible. Resulting in a confusingly annoying ability.
> In a very late update, the conditions were removed for the better.
> So before liste ing to the loudest voices, they are very well advised doing research first to not chase phantoms (i. e. rules that work ok, but are willfully exploited by 1 out of 1000 people, usually in bad faith).



That is not how I interpreted his comment.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Or only getting 4 subclasses this time around, like everyone else. They need something to make up for that.




I hope wizards have to chose 1 school at level 1 to specialize and need to chose two schools to ban.


----------



## CleverNickName

Ruin Explorer said:


> Watch as Wizards get buffed. I guarantee it. They'll use the spell preparation changes as an excuse to do it.




It's a popular topic in Internet discussion forums, but I never really believed that wizards were overpowered compared to other classes.  It looks like Wizards of the Coast didn't either.

The wizards I've played were a bit...lackluster?  The Necromancer was pretty dull, but the Diviner was a lot of fun.  I really enjoyed the Abjurer also, but I had to MC with Fighter to keep up with the paladin, cleric, and rogue in the group.  I think the wizard class could benefit from some buffs, personally.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

ScuroNotte said:


> That is not how I interpreted his comment.




Yes. This is why I helped you with the interpretation that is not putting wrong words into his mouth.


----------



## Parmandur

ScuroNotte said:


> He was calling people who questioned were phantoms.  By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must be cautious about how they word it. The state of the person you are responding to



It's stating that just because 30 out of a million people have a problem doesn't mean they should act quickly to solve thar problem and break the Class foe 900,000 other people. The people aren't phantoms, and what he said was that they needed research to suss the real problema from the phantom problems.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ScuroNotte said:


> That is not how I interpreted his comment.



Obviously.  The point I'm trying to make isn't that you interpreted it one way and everyone else is saying it's a different way.  My point is that if there's a decent chance you misinterpreted what he said, then it might be a good idea to not go around saying he has a big ego.  Because it's not a good look for you, and that behavior is why we don't see more designers engaged in forums.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course players hate exhaustion.  What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?



If it was something that PCs inflicted on enemies some of the time, attitudes to it would change drastically. Add a few PC-friendly rules for doing so and suddenly it'll become both liked and feared, rather than just seeming like a bit of a chore.


CleverNickName said:


> It's a popular topic in Internet discussion forums, but I never really believed that wizards were overpowered compared to other classes. It looks like Wizards of the Coast didn't either.
> 
> The wizards I've played were a bit...lackluster? The Necromancer was pretty dull, but the Diviner was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed the Abjurer also, but I had to MC with Fighter to keep up with the paladin, cleric, and rogue in the group. I think the wizard class could benefit from some buffs, personally.



LOL my friend, WotC didn't believe Wizards were OP in 3rd edition when LFQW was in full force. So their judgement is proven bad.

In 5E, where the issue is less pronounced, I don't expect them to get it. Right now Wizards are fairly balanced in combat, but OP compared to non-full-casters in the exploration/social pillars (often by negating/sidestepping issues entirely), especially at higher levels.

All the changes we've seen here look overall to continue that.

They're full casters with access to an incredible spell list, and some of the subclasses are extremely strong. MC'ing with Fighter is not letting you "keep up", it's a great way to ensure you permanently lag behind and never see the true power of a full caster. So with no insult intended, the fact that you did that suggest you don't understand the issue on a fairly basic level.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> I hope wizards have to chose 1 school at level 1 to specialize and need to chose two schools to ban.



love this


----------



## Willie the Duck

Sacrosanct said:


> That's disappointing, actually.  Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important.  Now it's not really a big deal at all.



I think that's the reason. So many people found the even one or two levels of exhaustion so debilitating* that they effectively retreated until restored once they hit that (making the rest of the scale superfluous). It's the situation of a damage-scale to dangerous with which to engage. Symabaroum and Wraith: the Oblivion have the same issue: permanent corruption was so onerous that players don't go near the point where they risk gaining any (making most of the scale leading up to it wasted).
*In exploration/survival situations, even one level got you disadvantage on all the skills you would use to explore/survive, making people highly resistant to pressing on.


Composer99 said:


> It looks like they have, in essence, ported the DMG rules for social interaction into the PHB, at least for the purpose of this UA.
> 
> Kind of has an old-school vibe to it, insofar as it is akin to having the rules needed to play the game as such in the player-facing book.



Hmm. My recollection is that that was kinda all over the map. Looking at 1E and BX, in BX most of the resolution information is in the Player section, but 1E puts most of the rules of play in the DMG.


ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone






ScuroNotte said:


> He was calling people who questioned were phantoms.  By stating that if "someone has a problem might be a phantom in terms of general use," are you stating that if a person goes against what is considered the norm is nonexistent (phantom)? There are many ways to get a point across but one must be cautious about how they word it. The state of the person you are responding to



He said that '[they] don't want their design to chase phantoms.' Unless you think the game design chases individual people, your interpretation of his comments literally do not make sense. The second half of the sentence clarifies what phantoms are in contrast to ('real desires held by a large number of players.'). He seems to be, in effect, saying 'we're looking into the possibility of alternate classes, but we are still in process of making sure that it would address the desires held by a significant number of people'), which is a perfectly reasonable position to have. The way he said it is a little tin-eared and clumsy, but it is unsurprising both that a gamer might be a little socially inadept or that someone shooting out a quick tweet on Twitter might accidentally step on toes (seems to be the reigning stereotypes of each thing).

More broadly, none of that has anything to do with whether the creators have big egos or not.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone



Yep, didn’t call you a phantom.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Unless they specify that mages can't cast in armor, getting medium and shields for one feat will be great for Sorcerers and Wizards, no need to be multiclassing or going specific races.


----------



## Willie the Duck

Ruin Explorer said:


> If it was something that PCs inflicted on enemies some of the time, attitudes to it would change drastically. Add a few PC-friendly rules for doing so and suddenly it'll become both liked and feared, rather than just seeming like a bit of a chore.
> 
> LOL my friend, WotC didn't believe Wizards were OP in 3rd edition when LFQW was in full force. So their judgement is proven bad.
> 
> In 5E, where the issue is less pronounced, I don't expect them to get it. Right now Wizards are fairly balanced in combat, but OP compared to non-full-casters in the exploration/social pillars (often by negating/sidestepping issues entirely), especially at higher levels.
> 
> All the changes we've seen here look overall to continue that.
> 
> They're full casters with access to an incredible spell list, and some of the subclasses are extremely strong. MC'ing with Fighter is not letting you "keep up", it's a great way to ensure you permanently lag behind and never see the true power of a full caster. So with no insult intended, the fact that you did that suggest you don't understand the issue on a fairly basic level.



I can't access the material until the end of the day. Do we get the spells themselves? Most of the worst issues with Wizards are specific spells, and then the spells/long rest issue that all spellcasters have compared to classes with more always-on abilities. It's possible that wizards will get a stealth fix addressed in the spell descriptions and rest rules, and stronger 'if you find you don't get X encounters per day, try ______' advice.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Willie the Duck said:


> I think that's the reason. So many people found the even one or two levels of exhaustion so debilitating* that they effectively retreated until restored once they hit that (making the rest of the scale superfluous). It's the situation of a damage-scale to dangerous with which to engage. Symabaroum and Wraith: the Oblivion have the same issue: permanent corruption was so onerous that players don't go near the point where they risk gaining any (making most of the scale leading up to it wasted).
> *In exploration/survival situations, even one level got you disadvantage on all the skills you would use to explore/survive, making people highly resistant to pressing on.
> 
> Hmm. My recollection is that that was kinda all over the map. Looking at 1E and BX, in BX most of the resolution information is in the Player section, but 1E puts most of the rules of play in the DMG.
> 
> 
> 
> He said that '[they] don't want their design to chase phantoms.' Unless you think the game design chases individual people, your interpretation of his comments literally do not make sense. The second half of the sentence clarifies what phantoms are in contrast to ('real desires held by a large number of players.'). He seems to be, in effect, saying 'we're looking into the possibility of alternate classes, but we are still in process of making sure that it would address the desires held by a significant number of people'), which is a perfectly reasonable position to have. The way he said it is a little tin-eared and clumsy, but it is unsurprising both that a gamer might be a little socially inadept or that someone shooting out a quick tweet on Twitter might accidentally step on toes (seems to be the reigning stereotypes of each thing).
> 
> More broadly, none of that has anything to do with whether the creators have big egos or not.




Now, if he had written ‘trolls’ instead of ‘phantoms’….


----------



## gorice

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely not. If anything Fighter should be a Ranger subclass.
> 
> Ranger is a tremendously popular pop-culture archetype will well-defined features, none of which are spellcasting or really any kind of magic except perhaps that relating to animals.
> 
> It's more popular, I'd argue, right now, than trad warrior archetypes. Or at least comparable.



Full disclosure: I also think the paladin should be a fighter subclass, and the bard a rogue subclass.

I think the more interesting issue is: what is this archetype actually about, and how should that translate into the game? WotC doesn't seem to know.



fuindordm said:


> I'm also slightly disappointed that they seem to be bending over backwards to make sure that abilities are as "easy" to use as possible. Bardic inspiration is a reaction now. But it felt interesting and appropriate when the bard could take a bonus action to give a physical die to another player--like they are actually taking the time to give a pep talk, a short song, or a witty remark instead of just shouting "Duck!" "Heal!" "Get 'em!" during combat all the time.



New houserule: bard players need to compose a couple of lines of apposite verse (they can choose the metre) every time they use bardic inspiration.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course players hate exhaustion.  What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?



I like exhaustion! But I also like wilderness adventures, and my characters getting hurt.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

ScuroNotte said:


> That is not how I interpreted his comment.



Exactly! What people are telling you is that you interpreted the comment incorrectly and are explaining what the comment actually meant.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

gorice said:


> I think the more interesting issue is: what is this archetype actually about, and how should that translate into the game? WotC doesn't seem to know.



Katniss Everdeen.

Done.

If you can't make Katniss Everdeen and similar characters into a playable class you have totally failed as a game designer, frankly. It's not hard. They're like, half-way there. (If you're going to argue Aragorn, there's not a huge difference between him and Katniss, even in terms of personality and story arc, surprisingly, it's just she's a purer example of the archetype.)

The issue is simply that for whatever godforsaken reason, WotC think Rangers have to have magic. I have no idea what that reason is, but it means the entire class gets bent around being a half-caster, which doesn't fit with the pop-culture archetypes of Rangers.


Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Exactly! What people are telling you is that you interpreted the comment incorrectly and are explaining what the comment actually meant.



But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.


----------



## gorice

*re: Ranger*

Expertise! They way it should always have been. OTOH, I second the complaints about everything else being a spell now. It's so lazy and unimaginative, and doesn't match the fantasy at all. That said, I think some kind of 'mark' ability would be OK.


----------



## bert1001 fka bert1000

UngeheuerLich said:


> I hope wizards have to chose 1 school at level 1 to specialize and need to chose two schools to ban.




This is good in theory but the schools are not so tight in "effect".   Better in 5e but in 3e you eventually basically had some variant version of a spells effects in many schools.    No, you can't dimension door in Necromancy but you can "shadow walk", etc.     Conjuration had a bunch of direct damage spells instead of just summons, walls, etc.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Willie the Duck said:


> I can't access the material until the end of the day. Do we get the spells themselves? Most of the worst issues with Wizards are specific spells, and then the spells/long rest issue that all spellcasters have compared to classes with more always-on abilities. It's possible that wizards will get a stealth fix addressed in the spell descriptions and rest rules, and stronger 'if you find you don't get X encounters per day, try ______' advice.



The only spells we get shown are Barkskin and Guidance, both of which get changed - Barkskin becomes regenerating THP, Guidance is 1 per person per Long Rest (good changes imo).

We get the spell LIST, but they imply it's incomplete.


----------



## rooneg

Ruin Explorer said:


> The issue is simply that for whatever godforsaken reason, WotC think Rangers have to have magic. I have no idea what that reason is, but it means the entire class gets bent around being a half-caster, which doesn't fit with the pop-culture archetypes of Rangers.



The absolutely hilarious part of all of this is that WotC's own Most Important Iconic Ranger has never had this sort of spellcasting.


----------



## CleverNickName

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL my friend, WotC didn't believe Wizards were OP in 3rd edition when LFQW was in full force. So their judgement is proven bad.



Eh, if you say so.  My 3.X wizards didn't feel overpowered either, so I guess I continue to agree with WotC?



Ruin Explorer said:


> Right now Wizards are fairly balanced in combat, but OP compared to non-full-casters in the exploration/social pillars (often by negating/sidestepping issues entirely), especially at higher levels.



Eh, if you say so.  I've not noticed this, but I haven't played _every _wizard.



Ruin Explorer said:


> MC'ing with Fighter is not letting you "keep up", it's a great way to ensure you permanently lag behind and never see the true power of a full caster. So with no insult intended, the fact that you did that suggest you don't understand the issue on a fairly basic level.



Eh, if you say so.  My experience differed greatly from what you describe.  So with no insult intended, I don't think this is as big of an "issue" as the Internet wants it to be.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

bert1001 fka bert1000 said:


> This is good in theory but the schools are not so tight in "effect".   Better in 5e but in 3e you eventually basically had some variant version of a spells effects in many schools.    No, you can't dimension door in Necromancy but you can "shadow walk", etc.     Conjuration had a bunch of direct damage spells instead of just summons, walls, etc.




Went all the way back to 2e. You could chose magic-user or specialist. Without specialization your spell slots were very heavily constraint.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

rooneg said:


> The absolutely hilarious part of all of this is that WotC's own Most Important Iconic Ranger has never had this sort of spellcasting.



Right?!

I was trying to think, has Drizzt EVER used Ranger spellcasting, and whilst I daresay, given he's been 39 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) different books, I daresay in some he did, it's certainly not a core component of the character. Having "only" read maybe 9 or 10 Drizzt books I can't think of a single example of him casting a spell, so it if happened, it was not memorable or dramatic in those.

Similarly, Rangers in podcasts and the like very rarely seem to cast spells, and when they do, they often have them reskinned as abilities.

So yeah, that they keep pushing half-caster has how Ranger works seems really wack in 2022. Even 4E was messed up in this way, I note. 4E fixed most conceptual problems with most classes, but nope, not Ranger. Ranger got a whole bunch of weird-ass magic. There may have been a version that didn't, I forget, but the main one sure did.


----------



## Undrave

TwoSix said:


> Several spells have switched spell schools; most notably, all the cure spells are now Abjuration.



Spell Schools are nonsense and I'm tired of pretending like they're not. 


Sacrosanct said:


> That's disappointing, actually.  Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important.  Now it's not really a big deal at all.



Exhaustion was WAY too punishing to be useable. The added granularity Is actually a boon, it means you get to use it more often and actually see players likely to push on with just a level or two of exhaustion, with more breathing room as their Proficiency improve. And you can now have exploration obstacle on a dial! Maybe even traps that deal Exhaustion in place of easy to replace HP.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Ranger with a spell list means they have dozens of different nature-based abilities and features to choose from and use to be whatever type of ranger they wanted.  Rangers without it would get like only 6 different features at various levels across the entire 20-level span.

Personally, I'd much rather have more options available to me than less, even if I had to get that "Ew! Magic!" stench on my PC.  (And just in case you didn't get it... that "Ew! Magic!" was sarcasm.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CleverNickName said:


> I don't think this is as big of an "issue" as the Internet wants it to be.



It absolutely is, when you're saying "LFQW isn't an issue", all you're really saying is "I don't understand or accept balance issues!" I mean dunno what to say beyond that.

It's fine not to be interested in balance issues, but trying to play them down and imply others are making them up is crummy. Especially when you're doing it about LFQW, which is the equivalent of standing outside a burning house and telling people it's fine, it's just a bit warm lol.


----------



## rooneg

Ruin Explorer said:


> I was trying to think, has Drizzt EVER used Ranger spellcasting, and whilst I daresay, given he's been 39 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) different books, I daresay in some he did, it's certainly not a core component of the character. Having "only" read maybe 9 or 10 Drizzt books I can't think of a single example of him casting a spell, so it if happened, it was not memorable or dramatic in those.



Literally read them all, or near enough. I'm pretty darn sure he never does any sort of spellcasting that can't be explained by Drow magic abilities (i.e. Darkness, Faerie Fire, Levitate, etc).


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Ruin Explorer said:


> But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.



It's objectively a failure to understand what the idiom 'chasing phantoms' means. Crawford is saying that a request from one person is not necessarily a request by the masses. I guess you're right in the sense that it could be dismissive to call someone's request a phantom.


----------



## darjr

I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.


----------



## delericho

Sacrosanct said:


> That's a player issue, not a game design issue.



True, but rules can either help or hinder. This "interrupted rests grant no benefit" feels like it's intended to help, but my experience is the opposite.

IMO, it's much better (and certainly simpler) if the DM simply rules that "you can't take a short/long rest in this region", and ideally contrives a way to tell the players exactly that (that should, of course, be used very sparingly). Even better would be to attach significant negative consequences (each long rest reduces the available XP or treasure, or whatever), but that is obviously harder to pull off.

(The idea being to create a choice for players - we can rest and get X, or we can push on and get Y, where both X and Y are desirable.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ranger with a spell list means they have dozens of different nature-based abilities and features to choose from and use to be whatever type of ranger they wanted.  Rangers without it would get like only 6 different features at various levels across the entire 20-level span.
> 
> Personally, I'd much rather have more options available to me than less, even if I had to get that "Ew! Magic!" stench on my PC.  (And just in case you didn't get it... that "Ew! Magic!" was sarcasm.)



This is completely illogical.

No-one is suggesting taking magic away and replacing it with nothing, which your "six different features" comment implies.

We're suggesting removing magic and replacing it with a variety of different abilities, maybe chosen like a Warlock does, on top of the other existing abilities (well, the non-magical ones).

Quality > Quantity, I say. You're valuing the pure quantity of spells they can access, which turns them into a two-bit Druid, essentially. It's not right the way to do it.


darjr said:


> Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.



It's a really dumb way to do it because it's deeply antithetical to the pop-culture archetype it draws from (i.e. the Katniss - Aragorn - Drizzt spectrum).

Just like making Turn Undead into a spell would be. It isn't a spell for a reason.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of course players hate exhaustion.  What would be the point of having it in the game if it was something they liked?



Preaching to the choir here, but then I'm a known PC hater (even when I'm a player).  It does seem, however, that as a general rule if players hate something, irregardless of any other factors, if gets weakened or removed.


----------



## darjr

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> It's objectively a failure to understand what the idiom 'chasing phantoms' means. Crawford is saying that a request from one person is not necessarily a request by the masses. I guess you're right in the sense that it could be dismissive to call someone's request a phantom.



Scour note was specifically upset to be called a phantom. Which is the strangest least charitable way to read that comment I could think of. At this point I’m beginning to think it’s willfull vs ignorance


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

darjr said:


> Scour note was specifically upset to be called a phantom. Which is the strangest least charitable way to read that comment I could think of. At this point I’m beginning to think it’s willfull vs ignorance



And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.


----------



## rooneg

darjr said:


> I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.



In practice, yes, it can play that way, but there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled"), and that's a problem for some of us. In practice, I don't really like the feel of a caster ranger, so in the past I've run Fighters with a dip into Rogue to simulate the magic-free version I'd prefer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.



Wow. Talk about hyperbole. Maybe chill out a bit dude? You and @darjr are now DOING exactly what you're complaining about - willfully exaggerating/misinterpreting. At best that's extreme hypocrisy.

You literally don't get to call something slander when the person you're accusing of it shows the actual Tweet and wording.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.



Although to be fair, to label someone's request a phantom is not a strong move by Crawford either. Not something to unduly get upset over though frankly.


----------



## darjr

ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.






ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford






ScuroNotte said:


> A couple years ago I emailed him about the question on the Ranger and his general response was along the line of "phantom" people complaining about the ranger class. Phantom implying nonexistent and I take that as a personal attack.






ScuroNotte said:


> When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.






ScuroNotte said:


> [URL='https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford']Jeremy Crawford
> [/URL]
> @JeremyECrawford
> 
> Replying to
> @XXXXXXXX
> Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.
> 
> 
> 7:47 PM · Jul 28, 2018·Twitter for iPhone


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> And to take that bizarre misinterpretation and use it to fuel spreading slander about Crawford... not cool.



I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

I'm so excited about the new exhaustion rules. They seem a lot more realistic, and the risk vs reward of staying up researching/training/crafting/copying spells etc. actually seems worth it now. Before it went from 0 to 100 too fast, but now it's a gradual debuff that affects all aspects of your character instead of one at a time. I'm looking forward to playtesting that rule, as someone who likes roleplaying workaholic characters that like to spend sleepless nights


----------



## CleverNickName

Ruin Explorer said:


> It absolutely is, when you're saying "LFQW isn't an issue", all you're really saying is "I don't understand or accept balance issues!" I mean dunno what to say beyond that.
> 
> It's fine not to be interested in balance issues, but trying to play them down and imply others are making them up is crummy. Especially when you're doing it about LFQW, which is the equivalent of standing outside a burning house and telling people it's fine, it's just a bit warm lol.



Whatever you say, Ruin.  I understand this is (and has been) an issue for some people, but I've never seen the issue.  And the thing is, I really like the wizard and I play them frequently, so it's really not a lack of interest on my part.  

Not sure what else I can say about it, except that I'm looking forward to seeing what WotC writes for them in a future UA.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

rooneg said:


> there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled")



And it can lead to conflicts where a GM doesn't feel comfortable with you getting a levelled spell's effect with a skill check, if you actually try to set up a snare with Survival... let alone one with a higher DC (your Survival check) to be noticed.


----------



## darjr

Ruin Explorer said:


> Wow. Talk about hyperbole. Maybe chill out a bit dude? You and @darjr are now DOING exactly what you're complaining about - willfully exaggerating/misinterpreting. At best that's extreme hypocrisy.
> 
> You literally don't get to call something slander when the person you're accusing of it shows the actual Tweet and wording.



No I dint think so. I didn’t use slander and after one clear explanation after another ScurroNotte holds to his interpretation.


----------



## Rabulias

Burnside said:


> Jumping down to the spell lists. One thing that immediately jumps out at me is that the Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade cantrips don't seem to exist.



The blade cantrips are not likely to show up in the _Player's Handbook, _so they won't be covered in the D&D One playtest is my guess.


TwoSix said:


> And fortunately, all these uses are still there, as far as we know.  Exhaustion is simply more granular now.



And it gives added flexibility in that some more powerful effects and abilities could inflict or remove multiple levels of exhaustion at once.


ScuroNotte said:


> That is not how I interpreted his comment.



Don't take this the wrong way, but I am guessing that English is not your first language? If that is so, be aware that idioms sometimes have difficulty jumping between languages.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

GMforPowergamers said:


> I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander



Complaining about a response is not slander for sure! This sure is though:


ScuroNotte said:


> They don't want to as it will confirm they got the entire class wrong. They have a huge ego, especially Crawford


----------



## darjr

rooneg said:


> In practice, yes, it can play that way, but there are mechanical and world building implications to making these things magic (i.e. "that snare you're setting can be dispelled"), and that's a problem for some of us. In practice, I don't really like the feel of a caster ranger, so in the past I've run Fighters with a dip into Rogue to simulate the magic-free version I'd prefer.



OK, I get that. 

I don’t have that specific concern but I have had similar issues with dissociation in mechanics before.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

GMforPowergamers said:


> I (mostly) like crawford but I can't imagine complaining about what someone actually said on social media as slander



Yes it's ludicrous. It's like my brother's five-year-old punching me in the butt (which he will do lol) and me saying it's "attempted murder" (or better yet, actual murder!).


Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> This sure is though:



No, it isn't. Slander has a legal definition and a high bar (especially in the US). The idea that accusing someone of having a "huge ego" is slander (especially in the US) even in a colloquial sense is ludicrous hyperbole that you should be ashamed of, frankly. See my example above.

It's particularly hypocritical for you to do this in this context, too.

And to be clear, across hundreds of Tweets and interviews and so on, I would say yes, actually Jeremy Crawford does appear to possess a pretty sizeable ego. The idea that he's humble is certainly NOT well-supported by his Tweets.

That's not the same as saying he's spiteful or mean - I see none of that, which you often see with big egos - but smug? Sometimes superior or condescending? Unnecessarily dismissive? Sure. Particularly the latter. He's got a lot of form of being dismissive about stuff he later has to backpedal on.


darjr said:


> I didn’t use slander and after one clear explanation after another ScurroNotte holds to his interpretation.



You seem to be under the rather grotesque misapprehension that because you explain your opinion to someone, they must agree with it. Even your buddy Ulorian admitted the phantoms comment was a bit ill-made.


----------



## Remathilis

I think the conversation on Crawford has reached its point. Best we focus on what is being suggested as a fix rather than discarded ideas and email replies.


----------



## darjr

Ruin Explorer said:


> You seem to be under the rather grotesque misapprehension that because you explain your opinion to someone, they must agree with it. Even your buddy Ulorian admitted the phantoms comment was a bit ill-made.



Yuck.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Remathilis said:


> I think the conversation on Crawford has reached its point. Best we focus on what is being suggested as a fix rather than discarded ideas and email replies.



No no, people are clearly having fun thread-crapping, let's see where it carries.


----------



## ScuroNotte

Rabulias said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but I am guessing that English is not your first language? If that is so, be aware that idioms sometimes have difficulty jumping between languages.



It was not the first language I was taught. However, not having the poster respond and clarify the intent while allowing the recipient to interpret the comment as something else is wrong. It gives credence to the recipient's interpretation.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I like the new ranger, it seems good .


----------



## MonsterEnvy

This stuff is probably good to remember.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

MonsterEnvy said:


> This stuff is probably good to remember.




I somehow missed that home base bullet point. Interested in what they came up with


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Oh yeah, 'new weapons options for certain classes'! I hope it's not like weapon specialization..


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

MonsterEnvy said:


> I like the new ranger, it seems good .



Anything is an improvement on the PHB, but... I preferred Tasha's Favored Foe, because its uses scaled with your level without spending your slots. The new Hunter's Mark feature is one free casting, then it's back to being the best way to use your lv1 slots (especially with free attack from TWF without spending bonus action now), no fun spells allowed.


----------



## Undrave

Weiley31 said:


> I find it interesting that in the Rogue's _Weapon Proficiencies, * they make sure to let it be known that although they get *Martial Weapon_ there, said Martial Weapons _have to be Finesse._
> 
> Hmmm, that's interesting. If they _DO_ end up making new classes aside from the main PHB+Artificer for OneD&D, the idea of certain classes being able to use a weapon based on the Property it has could be a novel avenue to change up the direction. This UA even mentions something about "New Weapon Options for classes."



Can we get a bludgeoning weapon with the finesse property then? How about a nice sap or blackjack for that 'thug' rogue style? 


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> My god, they actually fixed Guidance. Once per long rest per target.



I feel once per short rest would have been fine.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

So thought about the new spellcasting for the bard and how it could affect the sorcerer and wizard. 

The new bard can effectively prepare spells from the "bard list" (Arcane spells from appropriate schools plus magical secrets spells) and doesn't have a spells known list. Effectively the Bard's list is their spells known list. 

It's not a stretch to think they'll do the same for the Sorcerer, although they could be more restrictive with Sorcerers. 

Assuming (yes I know what they say about assuming) that they do this with the Sorcerer that removes one of the major divides between the wizard/sorcerer classes. 

I would also assume that if they do this then they should (SHOULD in caps) use class abilities to differentiate between the two, but who knows. Maybe I'm grasping at straws here


----------



## Willie the Duck

Ruin Explorer said:


> But those people aren't right either. The comment is ambiguous and it appears to be intended to be dismissive and perhaps slightly demeaning to the questioner. So you can't say "I'm right and you're a dummy!" like you seem to be trying to say. You can merely say "I don't read it that way". It's not a comprehension error on @ScuroNotte's part. It's simply a disagreement about the meaning of what was a rather airy and ambiguous comment.



Unless we accept that Crawford thinks that the games' design can chase people, ScuroNotte's interpretation (that individuals are being called phantoms) requires an actual subject-verb-direct object mismatch.  It is possible that Crawford was being mean spirited, and/or implying that SN's complaints weren't a majority opinion, but their specific complaint is genuinely not supported by the evidence provided.

This has definitely become a tempest in a teapot. I agree, it is not slander, but SN didn't support their position on Crawford calling them a phantom, or more importantly the initial suggestion that Crawford has a large ego. He may, but we simply don't have anything that shows it.  



darjr said:


> I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.



Everything that is iconic for a ranger could be represented by a not-spell. Heck, half of the ranger spells (hunter's mark, conjure volley, entangling strike, pass without trace) readily could be represented as non-magical (if occasionally extraordinary) abilities. 5e has doubled down on the ongoing D&D-ism of making things (especially most mechanical widgets that don't have a specific failure-chance like a skill) into spells. I think it would be possible to pull them all out into a warlock's invocation-like selection of abilities. It is a question as to whether that's what gamers in general really want (and I won't pretend to have a bead on that). It also would mean that the new spell-less ranger would not have a few not-particularly-rangerish spells like cure wounds, lessor restoration, dispel, etc. that I think people tend to still like rangers being able to do as the backup healer and such.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Right?!
> 
> I was trying to think, has Drizzt EVER used Ranger spellcasting, and whilst I daresay, given he's been 39 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) different books, I daresay in some he did, it's certainly not a core component of the character. Having "only" read maybe 9 or 10 Drizzt books I can't think of a single example of him casting a spell, so it if happened, it was not memorable or dramatic in those.
> 
> Similarly, Rangers in podcasts and the like very rarely seem to cast spells, and when they do, they often have them reskinned as abilities.
> 
> So yeah, that they keep pushing half-caster has how Ranger works seems really wack in 2022. Even 4E was messed up in this way, I note. 4E fixed most conceptual problems with most classes, but nope, not Ranger. Ranger got a whole bunch of weird-ass magic. There may have been a version that didn't, I forget, but the main one sure did.



If only there was a version of ranger in some awesome 3pp of 5e that didn't require magic at all...


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Now, if it's just one big, same pool of Primal spells, do Druids get access to previously Ranger-only spells? Only Druids get them earlier, like lv9 Swift Quiver?

It's like making a spell out of what could've been a class feature causes weirdness...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> This stuff is probably good to remember.



new weapon options is intresting... I REALLY want that home base thing now, and the revised monsters and encounters


----------



## MonsterEnvy

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Anything is an improvement on the PHB, but... I preferred Tasha's Favored Foe, because its uses scaled with your level without spending your slots. The new Hunter's Mark feature is one free casting, then it's back to being the best way to use your lv1 slots (especially with free attack from TWF without spending bonus action now), no fun spells allowed.



Hunters Mark can be shifted to new targets only one casting of it per fight is needed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Willie the Duck said:


> It is a question as to whether that's what gamers in general really want (and I won't pretend to have a bead on that). It also would mean that the new spell-less ranger would not have a few not-particularly-rangerish spells like cure wounds, lessor restoration, dispel, etc. that I think people tend to still like rangers being able to do as the backup healer and such.



There's no reason a non-caster Ranger couldn't provide some healing, Aragon/Katniss-style (they both heal people). Healing doesn't need to be finger-waggling and invocations to the gods. Just have them able to apply out-of-combat healing via herbs/salves etc.

So that's a non-issue.

If you want to be a Druid, play a Druid. Or multiclass with Druid. Right now there's no real way to be spell-less Katniss-type in D&D. The closest you can get is multiclassing Rogue and Fighter, which produces a mechanically disappointing and rather flavourless result.

I strongly suspect that when this goes to actual playtest, and in the months from now, a lot of people will have negative feedback about Rangers basically being quasi-Druids. We'll see though.



Willie the Duck said:


> 5e has doubled down on the ongoing D&D-ism of making things (especially most mechanical widgets that don't have a specific failure-chance like a skill) into spells.



Sorry to be a pedant but that's not a D&D-ism, it's a 5E-ism.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

MonsterEnvy said:


> Hunters Mark can be shifted to new targets only one casting of it per fight is needed.



Yes, duration of 1 hour, but usually people have more than that one fight. I guess it really encourages Rangers to keep things moving once in a dungeon, at least.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no reason a non-caster Ranger couldn't provide some healing, Aragon/Katniss-style (they both heal people). Healing doesn't need to be finger-waggling and invocations to the gods. Just have them able to apply out-of-combat healing via herbs/salves etc.



Agreed. Give them something that allows healing as an ability. They can flavor it however they like, but it doesn't have to be magic.


----------



## Sir Brennen

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Yes, duration of 1 hour, but usually people have more than that one fight. I guess it really encourages Rangers to keep things moving once in a dungeon, at least.



I’m at work and can’t check the UA out yet, but does HM have a cast at higher levels effect? Longer duration maybe?


----------



## Weiley31

Since Rangers get expertise, for Survival and Stealth should they choose, does that mean Wizards will get something for Arcane? Or will the Ranger(now), Bard, and Rogue still beat them out on that field?


----------



## Rabulias

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no reason a non-caster Ranger couldn't provide some healing, Aragon/Katniss-style (they both heal people). Healing doesn't need to be finger-waggling and invocations to the gods. Just have them able to apply out-of-combat healing via herbs/salves etc.



Since AD&D days, I have thought Ranger spells could be interpreted as an approximation of some natural ability. Instead of creating a new system for these things, they (the designers) used the already existing spell framework to 1) limit uses so as to not be overpowered, 2) utilize existing rules mechanics, and 3) balance these abilities against existing abilities in the game.

I mean, does it really matter if the Ranger casts _cure wounds _twice a day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time, or uses a healing poultice twice per day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time? Flavor as you wish.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Sir Brennen said:


> I’m at work and can’t check the UA out yet, but does HM have a cast at higher levels effect? Longer duration maybe?



They don't actually have the spell spelled out in the UA.


----------



## Weiley31

Short Swords are simple weapons now.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

So Barkskin is basically the same as heroism is now. I wonder if either will change on finalization.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Weiley31 said:


> Short Swords are simple weapons now.



I mean, in some parts of history it was basically used as a pocket knife. So, yeah?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Weiley31 said:


> Since Rangers get expertise, for Survival and Stealth should they choose, does that mean Wizards will get something for Arcane? Or will the Ranger(now), Bard, and Rogue still beat them out on that field?



I don't think they'll give it to Wizards as a class feature; it would break their class group philosophy.  They can take a feat that would give it to them at 1st level though as part of their background.


----------



## CleverNickName

Weiley31 said:


> Short Swords are simple weapons now.



I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Rabulias said:


> Since AD&D days, I have thought Ranger spells could be interpreted as an approximation of some natural ability. Instead of creating a new system for these things, they (the designers) used the already existing spell framework to 1) limit uses so as to not be overpowered, 2) utilize existing rules mechanics, and 3) balance these abilities against existing abilities in the game.
> 
> I mean, does it really matter if the Ranger casts _cure wounds _twice a day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time, or uses a healing poultice twice per day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time? Flavor as you wish.



Again, clearly whether or not an effect is considered magical (especially if it's a spell) DOES matter to a significant number of people here.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think they'll give it to Wizards as a class feature; it would break their class group philosophy.  They can take a feat that would give it to them at 1st level though as part of their background.



I hope not


----------



## Wardook

WarDriveWorley said:


> They don't actually have the spell spelled out in the UA.



It's an increase in duration in the 2014 book. If it stays the same there is no increase in damage as you level, so kind of worthless class feature after low levels. In combat at least. I interpret "always prepared" as prepared at first level and one cast per long rest, so in my opinion savored Enemy till needs a bit of work.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Rabulias said:


> I mean, does it really matter if the Ranger casts _cure wounds _twice a day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time, or uses a healing poultice twice per day for 1d8+wisdom mod each time? Flavor as you wish.



Yes, absolutely it does matter, and _the fact_ that it matters is shown by stuff like the fact that the Fighter has Second Wind, not "Healing Word 1/short rest" or the like.

We could absolutely go through D&D and represent all sorts of stuff with spells, but it's not the right way to do it.


----------



## Burnside

(The classic archetypical ranger is not Drizzt. It's Aragorn.)


----------



## Weiley31

WarDriveWorley said:


> So Barkskin is basically the same as heroism is now. I wonder if either will change on finalization.



Better than what it was originally.


----------



## cbwjm

TwoSix said:


> Oh, I just caught this...they normalized subclass progression!  Every class shown gets subclass features at 3, 6, 10, and 14.  That's a big deal!



I saw this and thought it was a good change, still wish they came online at level 1 though.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Burnside said:


> (The classic archetypical ranger is not Drizzt. It's Aragorn.)



Not in D&D.


----------



## CleverNickName

Burnside said:


> (The classic archetypical ranger is not Drizzt. It's Aragorn.)



I thought it was Legolas.


----------



## Weiley31

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



So that way if you want your character to use a Sword since that's the most "iconic" fantasy type weapon in regard to tropes. But if your Gandalf or what not, ya can't cuz you don't have Martial Weapons training.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



A finesse weapon which does 1d6 damage for everyone.


Weiley31 said:


> So that way if you want your character to use a Sword since that's the most "iconic" fantasy type weapon in regard to tropes.



Yeah this too for sure. This way they can give people Simple Weapons and still have them have a sword. It's not totally unreasonable, either, especially if we regard a short sword as a primarily stabbing weapon. I bet it's easier to teach a gladius than it is half the other Simple weapons. It definitely is easier to teach a gladius than, say, a quarterstaff.


----------



## Dire Bare

ScuroNotte said:


> It was not the first language I was taught. However, not having the poster respond and clarify the intent while allowing the recipient to interpret the comment as something else is wrong. It gives credence to the recipient's interpretation.



No, no it doesn't. It just means he didn't respond to you directly, that's all.


----------



## Weiley31

Ruin Explorer said:


> A finesse weapon which does 1d6 damage for everyone.
> 
> Yeah this too for sure. This way they can give people Simple Weapons and still have them have a sword. It's not totally unreasonable, either, especially if we regard a short sword as a primarily stabbing weapon. I bet it's easier to teach a gladius than it is half the other Simple weapons. It definitely is easier to teach a gladius than, say, a quarterstaff.



Plus, now you can go "full Gandalf" two weapon fighting style with the Staff/Sword now.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Weiley31 said:


> Better than what it was originally.



oh I agree. I'm already going to update it for my regular game. just curious on how it'll ripple out


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Burnside said:


> (The classic archetypical ranger is not Drizzt. It's Aragorn.)



At this point in history, and considering the average D&D player is in their mid-late 20s, the actual "archetypical ranger" to most D&D players is probably Katniss Everdeen (please feel old with me and remember The Hunger Games movie came out in 2012!). To be fair Katniss and Aragorn share an awful lot of parallels.

But D&D's own one is Drizzt.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Weiley31 said:


> Plus, now you can go "full Gandalf" two weapon fighting style with the Staff/Sword now.



Crossing the streams here but: "A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one".


----------



## Sir Brennen

Wardook said:


> […] so in my opinion *savored* Enemy till needs a bit of work.



Mmm. Tasty enemies.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. No one enforces that restriction (in addition to donning the shield). And it's a waste of a bullet to include into the feat




Haven't read the whole thead yet, but has anyone mentioned that it's dealt with under the Attack Action?

ATTACK    [ACTION] When you take the Attack Action, you can make one attack with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
EQUIPPING WEAPONS_ *You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action.*_


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FitzTheRuke said:


> Haven't read the whole thead yet, but has anyone mentioned that it's dealt with under the Attack Action?
> 
> ATTACK    [ACTION] When you take the Attack Action, you can make one attack with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
> EQUIPPING WEAPONS_ *You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action.*_



Interesting, I'd missed that but that's even more reason not to keep track of this stuff.


----------



## darjr

FitzTheRuke said:


> Haven't read the whole thead yet, but has anyone mentioned that it's dealt with under the Attack Action?
> 
> ATTACK    [ACTION] When you take the Attack Action, you can make one attack with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
> EQUIPPING WEAPONS_ *You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action.*_



So you can't ignore it, while ignoring it?


----------



## Wardook

Sir Brennen said:


> Mmm. Tasty enemies.



My savored enemy is a large meat lovers pizza, much better than play test version of Favored Enemy.


----------



## Haplo781

1DD: renames armor proficiency to armor training so people don't get confused over the lack of proficiency bonus doing anything with it

Also 1DD: Bardic Inspiration and Heroic Inspiration are completely different mechanics


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> 1DD: renames armor proficiency to armor training so people don't get confused over the lack of proficiency bonus doing anything with it
> 
> Also 1DD: Bardic Inspiration and Heroic Inspiration are completely different mechanics



back a few years ago I was teaching a group of 8th graders... and two of them asked why they don't add prof to AC if they are in armor they are prof in.


----------



## Weiley31

GMforPowergamers said:


> back a few years ago I was teaching a group of 8th graders... and two of them asked why they don't add prof to AC if they are in armor they are prof in.



I know the original UA Warforged USED to do this with their "Armor" since such a thing was a bit of a special circumstance with them.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



Some feats have 'proficiency with a martial weapon' as a prerequisite. So simple shortswords locks Bards out of those feats, but still gives them a sword...?


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> I think there is a bit of a disconnect. Spell for ranger I think is just a mechanical way to give Rangers abilities. Kinda like they thought of making the Clerics turn undead a spell.



Exactly. The problem is it's still incredibly lazy design and some players don't want a spellcasting ranger. That _the_ iconic D&D ranger Drizzt doesn't ever cast spells outside his drow heritage shows this for the lazy design it is. They can't be arsed to properly design features so they make them spells and now feats.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. The problem is it's still incredibly lazy design and some players don't want a spellcasting ranger. That _the_ iconic D&D ranger Drizzt doesn't ever cast spells outside his drow heritage shows this for the lazy design it is. They can't be arsed to properly design features so they make them spells and now feats.



We do a lot of reflavoring (going so far as to have hexblades be fighters and bards be warlords). Sometimes we say "artificers aren't spell casters, they are tinkerers and everything is something you make"

but we shouldn't HAVE to reflavor so much of the game to make it work.


----------



## Burnside

Micah Sweet said:


> Not in D&D.




If we're talking about "why can the ranger do magic", it's because Aragorn does magic. 

If we're talking about "why does the ranger class exist in D&D" it's because Aragorn.

If we're talking about "which rangers would most of today's D&D players recognize", it's Aragorn, then Katniss Everdeen, then Drizz't, in that order.


----------



## darjr

I doubt they’ll change the ranger away from spells as much as some of y’all want, but if enough folks let them know they meant lean away from it more.


----------



## Haplo781

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. The problem is it's still incredibly lazy design and some players don't want a spellcasting ranger. That _the_ iconic D&D ranger Drizzt doesn't ever cast spells outside his drow heritage shows this for the lazy design it is. They can't be arsed to properly design features so they make them spells and now feats.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

rooneg said:


> The absolutely hilarious part of all of this is that WotC's own Most Important Iconic Ranger has never had this sort of spellcasting.




 This techniquely not true, Drizzt cast a Ranger once because RA Salvotore got tired of folks bugging him about it. So techniquely Drizzt can cast ranger spells, he just doesn't bother most of the time.


----------



## darjr

Burnside said:


> If we're talking about "why can the ranger do magic", it's because Aragorn does magic.
> 
> If we're talking about "why does the ranger class exist in D&D" it's because Aragorn.
> 
> If we're talking about "which rangers would most of today's D&D players recognize", it's Aragorn, then Katniss Everdeen, then Drizz't, in that order.



Aragorn and Katniss by a far margin.


----------



## gorice

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. The problem is it's still incredibly lazy design and some players don't want a spellcasting ranger. That _the_ iconic D&D ranger Drizzt doesn't ever cast spells outside his drow heritage shows this for the lazy design it is. They can't be arsed to properly design features so they make them spells and now feats.



My suspicion is it's not actually incompetence, so much as fear of change, lest it trigger a backlash. We've already seen a lot of gnashing of teeth about these two playtests (especially the fart in a teacup that was the critical hit drama). If they actually did remove spellcasting from rangers, I'm sure at least someone would come out of the woodwork to declare the class ruined.

This is kind of 5e (and now 'One D&D' or whatever) in a nutshell. They can't change things without _changing things_, and they really, really don't want to do that.


----------



## gorice

Also, you know, all these arguments about who the true archetype of the ranger is only reinforce my position that there isn't one! 

Maybe it's just an empty signifier.


----------



## rooneg

Henadic Theologian said:


> This techniquely not true, Drizzt cast a Ranger once because RA Salvotore got tired of folks bugging him about it. So techniquely Drizzt can cast ranger spells, he just doesn't bother most of the time.



Just out of curiosity where did this actually happen? I've read a whole heck of a lot of those books, and I can't remember a single case.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Ruin Explorer said:


> Right?!
> 
> I was trying to think, has Drizzt EVER used Ranger spellcasting, and whilst I daresay, given he's been 39 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) different books, I daresay in some he did, it's certainly not a core component of the character. Having "only" read maybe 9 or 10 Drizzt books I can't think of a single example of him casting a spell, so it if happened, it was not memorable or dramatic in those.
> 
> Similarly, Rangers in podcasts and the like very rarely seem to cast spells, and when they do, they often have them reskinned as abilities.
> 
> So yeah, that they keep pushing half-caster has how Ranger works seems really wack in 2022. Even 4E was messed up in this way, I note. 4E fixed most conceptual problems with most classes, but nope, not Ranger. Ranger got a whole bunch of weird-ass magic. There may have been a version that didn't, I forget, but the main one sure did.




 Drizzt has cast a Ranger spell exactly once.

 They tried making a more Drizzt/Aragon style Ranger in 4e and even before 4e ended they had to go back to magic Rangers. 

 Honestly to do a Spellless Ranger just multiclass a Rogue & Fighter with a focus on Nature skills and take Observant feat.


----------



## overgeeked

gorice said:


> My suspicion is it's not actually incompetence, so much as fear of change, lest it trigger a backlash.



Not incompetence, laziness.


gorice said:


> We've already seen a lot of gnashing of teeth about these two playtests (especially the fart in a teacup that was the critical hit drama). If they actually did remove spellcasting from rangers, I'm sure at least someone would come out of the woodwork to declare the class ruined.



Hence comments about chasing phantoms. Where the most customers are is where WotC will follow. If lots of people want a spell-less ranger, WotC will make it happen.


gorice said:


> This is kind of 5e (and now 'One D&D' or whatever) in a nutshell. They can't change things without _changing things_, and *they really, really don't want to do that*.



The fact that they're risking splitting the fanbase when 5E is at an historic high water mark suggests otherwise. Almost literally the opposite, in fact. They really, really want to change things, but they fear splitting the fanbase, so they're being as open about the upcoming changes as possible. They want player satisfaction to be as high as possible with whatever changes they make. If they didn't want to change things they wouldn't, instead they'd simply rest on their laurels.


----------



## Xethreau

Aragorn, as the king, had Lay on Hands. Anybody wanna explain that?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

rooneg said:


> Just out of curiosity where did this actually happen? I've read a whole heck of a lot of those books, and I can't remember a single case.




  Honestly I don't remember which book it was.


----------



## darjr

Xethreau said:


> Aragorn, as the king, had Lay on Hands. Anybody wanna explain that?



Multiclassed to  Paladin. In a campaign I ran it was a requirement for kings in a part of the setting.


----------



## overgeeked

I get the feeling that there are going to be a lot of little things that slip through and no one pays attention to until the 2024 books are in print and suddenly a lot of people are going to be surprised by these changes.

#

One of the stand outs for me is how tragically terrible some of the "epic boons" are. At 20th level...after a month or two or serious adventuring...you gain an epic boon. On that list you can pick Unfettered, which lets you disengage as a bonus action that also ends grappled and restrained...or you can pick Recovery, which lets you spend a bonus action to regain 1/2 of your max hit points once per long rest...oh and means you only fail death saves on a natural 1. Yeah...those are perfectly balanced.


----------



## estar

overgeeked said:


> Exactly. The problem is it's still incredibly lazy design and some players don't want a spellcasting ranger. That _the_ iconic D&D ranger Drizzt doesn't ever cast spells outside his drow heritage shows this for the lazy design it is. They can't be arsed to properly design features so they make them spells and now feats.



While Drizzt may be the ironic D&D Ranger, the problem is that the class has been and continues to be designed with Aragorn of the Dunedain as the iconic Ranger. The whole reason the class got spells back in its first appearance in the Strategic Review was to mimic Aragorn's abilities in Lord of the Rings. It literally a class caught between two iconic interpretations each with its own fans and history.


----------



## Haplo781

overgeeked said:


> I get the feeling that there are going to be a lot of little things that slip through and no one pays attention to until the 2024 books are in print and suddenly a lot of people are going to be surprised by these changes.
> 
> #
> 
> One of the stand outs for me is how tragically terrible some of the "epic boons" are. At 20th level...after a month or two or serious adventuring...you gain an epic boon. On that list you can pick Unfettered, which lets you disengage as a bonus action that also ends grappled and restrained...or you can pick Recovery, which lets you spend a bonus action to regain 1/2 of your max hit points once per long rest...oh and means you only fail death saves on a natural 1. Yeah...those are perfectly balanced.



Also the EBs don't increase your ability scores. Most likely because the ones you care about are at 20+ by now, but given it's your literal capstone it wouldn't break anything to give a +2 to a max of 30.

Unfettered could make you immune to slowed or something, maybe advantage on saves to end immobilized, paralyzed, or restrained.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I hate to bring it up, but Aragorn never shouted magic words and then danced around for a magical bum-wiggle dance, he just made a poultice or some plant stuff like that.

Also AD&D Rangers had access to Magic-User spells?


----------



## estar

gorice said:


> Also, you know, all these arguments about who the true archetype of the ranger is only reinforce my position that there isn't one!
> 
> Maybe it's just an empty signifier.



I suggest reading the Strategic Review article where the Ranger was introduced. It is not mysterious.


----------



## estar

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I hate to bring it up, but Aragorn never shouted magic words and then danced around for a magical bum-wiggle dance, he just made a poultice or some plant stuff like that.



The author did what he could with the OD&D tools he had.


----------



## Bill Zebub

CleverNickName said:


> I thought it was Legolas.



Which version?  Book/WotC or Movie/@Garthanos?


----------



## darjr

There is also the Ranger as a D&D trope all on its own like the first TSR published version of it and forwards. People playing it regardless of Aragorn etc and expecting a “D&D Ranger”.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Micah Sweet said:


> Considering how many people seemed to hate Exhaustion because it "hurt their character's chance of success too much", I would say the new version is essentially a form of power creep.



How? You only ever use one version or the other of the rule. It is the same for everyone in the group. This is a very bizarre way of defining power creep IMO.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

So much for folks' contention that WotC isn't listening to feedback or that 1D&D is already set in stone, given how many things in this test are already different than the last one. (The video does a good job of laying out all the things they're experimenting with in this UA.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Weiley31 said:


> Plus, now you can go "full Gandalf" two weapon fighting style with the Staff/Sword now.



In all seriousness, I would love to see a reason for wizards to carry staves. Non-magical ones, that is.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Has anyone made the comment that the video specifically points out that this playtest is not the result from any feedback from the survey. They haven’t even looked at the survey results yet. Or at least at the time of this playtest document.


----------



## Quickleaf

darjr said:


> Who wants to try it? Via discord and owlbear.



I'm in! You have my keyboard.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I love this Ranger and I think the folks hoping for a Spell free Ranger are not going to be in luck. 4e tried spell less rangers, 5e tried it in a UA, its a very loud, but also small minority that want Spell less Rangers. Don't get me wrong, as an alternate feature I'm fine with it, I just don't believe it has the general support of the public.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

darjr said:


> Aragorn and Katniss by a far margin.




 Katniss is a glorified Rogue with a focus on nature skills, Aragon a fighter. They have little to nothing to do with D&D Rangers since 3rd edition when most of the class identities began to solidify for D&D.


----------



## Hurin88

gorice said:


> This is kind of 5e (and now 'One D&D' or whatever) in a nutshell. They can't change things without _changing things_, and they really, really don't want to do that.




This is what I'm coming to realize. It isn't a new edition despite the new name; Wizards seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. And they are deathly afraid of making any substantive changes lest they kill the golden goose.

Just my 2 cents of course.


----------



## darjr

Henadic Theologian said:


> Katniss is a glorified Rogue with a focus on nature skills, Aragon a fighter. They have little to nothing to do with D&D Rangers since 3rd edition when most of the class identities began to solidify for D&D.



I think they are a fair better fit to an actual D&D Ranger than Drizzt.


----------



## Aldarc

I came away from reading this playtest document with a lot of mixed feelings. Overall, the mechanical changes are positive. But at the same time, it feels like there is an unneeded level of overcomplication and word bloat.

Suggested spells and skills, for example, increase the word count, page space, and feel like it overcrowds a lot of class layout. It's almost senseless repetition to list the three suggested skills and then list them again as part of the class skill list.  


> Skills: Athletics, Stealth, Survival (or choose three from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival)



Why not highlight the suggested skills or put them in a sample starting build? 

Likewise, a number of feats have about 1-4 abilities that they grant the PC. And with the idea of level prerequisites for feats, class types (e.g., expert, priest, etc.), the game feels like it's adding a lot of extra complication. I suppose my own desire would have been for something that simplified, streamlined, and clarified a lot of the game. While some things are simplifying, it also feels like it's drifting in an opposite direction from many of the "easy to learn" aspects that many have lauded about 5e.

To be "that guy" once again, I walked away from reading this playtest document with the sentiment that I can't see how anyone can credibly say that learning another non-5e RPG is that difficult or time consuming, especially if they find it acceptable to learn all these rules and accompanying changes for One D&D. It's a head-scratcher.

This feels like a drift to a rules heavier system, and it's at a time when my tastes are drifting in the opposite direction, though not full rules light.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's particularly hypocritical for you to do this in this context, too.




*Mod Note:*
And, you ruin your chance of being considered thoughtful by taking the personal jab.

Much like the post that started this, honestly - it was also founded in taking a personal shot at someone who isn't even here to defend themselves, against a thing they haven't even done yet!

See a theme?

Stop using the UAs as excuses to insult people, folks.


----------



## darjr

Aldarc said:


> I came away from reading this playtest document with a lot of mixed feelings. Overall, the mechanical changes are positive. But at the same time, it feels like there is an unneeded level of overcomplication and word bloat.
> 
> Suggested spells and skills, for example, increase the word count, page space, and feel like it overcrowds a lot of class layout. Likewise, a number of feats have about 1-4 abilities that they grant the PC. And with the idea of level prerequisites for feats, class types (e.g., expert, priest, etc.), the game feels like it's adding a lot of extra complication. I suppose my own desire would have been for something that simplified, streamlined, and clarified a lot of the game. While some things are simplifying, it also feels like it's drifting in an opposite direction from many of the "easy to learn" aspects that many have lauded about 5e.
> 
> To be "that guy" once again, I walked away from reading this playtest document with the sentiment that I can't see how anyone can credibly say that learning another non-5e RPG is that difficult or time consuming, especially if they find it acceptable to learn all these rules and accompanying changes for One D&D. It's a head-scratcher.
> 
> This feels like a drift to a rules heavier system, and it's at a time when my tastes are drifting in the opposite direction, though not full rules light.



I like how you put this.

I’d say that it isn’t so much other games are too complicated, it’s that some folks don’t want to invest the time and effort again.

I hope that the end trajectory is to simply these rules.


----------



## estar

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Also AD&D Rangers had access to Magic-User spells?



It came from how the OD&D Ranger was setup. And understand that you need to look at the OD&D spell list for Clerics and Magic Users. They were far more low key than subsequent editions. And several of them would replicate some of the abilities Aragon had. Like being able to cast a 1st level Cure Light Wounds spells. Or on the MU side we are talking Detect Magic, Read Magic, Protection from Evil and so on. 
Of course with the supplements and AD&D's expanded it going to look weird but a lot of D&D history over the various editions is about evolution not revolution.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Aldarc said:


> This feels like a drift to a rules heavier system



5e was always medium crunch. The new things are still very much medium crunch. The game has always been this muddled mess.


----------



## darjr

Thinking on it though, the players now vs then, a non magic Ranger might see better acceptance.

Then being at the next playtest and all of D&D before this stage in 5e.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I think they should trade Freedom of Movement for Raise Dead for Songs of Rest. I'm fine with most of the changes.


 It does have some interesting implications. So far we haven't seen any Priest feats, so I'm curious about that.


 I think Divine Soul will likely be part of the 48 because it's more popular then one or both of the PHB subclasses, it fills a useful role, and it's one of the most effected Sorcerer subclasses by the spell list changes (will it get access to the who divine Spell list and Arcane Spell list? Will it count as a Priest? Thematically it should).


 I noticed thanks to feats that Pact Magic is still a thing.


 I like Epic Feats, it's clearly intended to make level 20+ easier.


 Ritual caster sucks, it's kind of pointless if any source of a spell knowledge allows you to cast the spell as a ritual. There are needs to be more ritual spells,like Magnificent Mansion should go back to being a ritual like it was in the D&D next playtest.


 I will also notice that the change to spell lists and class groups and the standardization of subclasses levels seems hint heavily that it's to make making new classes easier and more compatible with the 5.5e content and other feature content. Like you don't have to keep updating a class because new spells automatically get added to it's list and some with feats and so on. That they did this really shows they have plans for more classes.


----------



## Minigiant

darjr said:


> Aragorn and Katniss by a far margin.



I'd argue Aragorn then Rexxar, and Sylvanas then Katniss  then Drizzt.


The video game ranger shoots exploding and lighting arrows to slay monsters. Trick arrows and elemental swords are iconic to nonD&D rangers of the 90s and 00s.


----------



## ehren37

Ruin Explorer said:


> TThe closest you can get is multiclassing Rogue and Fighter, which produces a mechanically disappointing and rather flavourless result.



I'm not seeing anything that Katniss does to make her not a fighter or rogue or couldn't be done with those classes, outside of class based mechanics for inspiring a revolution (which ranger also wouldn't have). She sneaks around and shoots people with a bow. She knows natural hazards and lays some traps, which is using the survival skill or tool proficiencies. She applies healing poultices with the Medicine skill or Herbalism kit tool proficiency. Yeah, she doesn't use magic. She's from a world where it doesn't exist. 

I don't think that's enough to base a class and 4 subclasses on when rogue and fighter already exist. Now, if you want to argue those classes don't get enough cool stuff and meaningful choices, I would definitely agree. And sadly the rogue appears weaker than the one already out now (though Ranger and Bard also appear worse to me), so I'm not holding out any hope that the fighter won't be more of the same garbage.


----------



## ehren37

Weiley31 said:


> Since Rangers get expertise, for Survival and Stealth should they choose, does that mean Wizards will get something for Arcane? Or will the Ranger(now), Bard, and Rogue still beat them out on that field?



Sure, Wizards can actually cast spells. That's their special thing for Arcana. 

In the unlikely event that a Rogue decides to have an 18 Intelligence and takes Arcana as one of their two Expertise skills, I'm sure the wizard can cry themself to sleep each night on top of their vast amount of spells they get to repick each day to fit the situation, while the rogue's abilities are locked in stone.


----------



## Charlaquin

Wow. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this packet. A lot of things I love and a lot of things I hate.


----------



## ehren37

Disappointing that Expertise is still just a bland numbers boost rather than actually letting you do anything cool and unique with a skill application.  That might actually give some martial/caster parity. Of course, that would require them spending more than 10 seconds on the skill system.


----------



## gorice

estar said:


> I suggest reading the Strategic Review article where the Ranger was introduced. It is not mysterious.



I understand where the class came from. But, I think there's a long distance between there and where it is now.



darjr said:


> There is also the Ranger as a D&D trope all on its own like the first TSR published version of it and forwards. People playing it regardless of Aragorn etc and expecting a “D&D Ranger”.



This right here. The ranger is a hollow copy of a copy, and people project all kinds of different fantasies onto it.



Aldarc said:


> I came away from reading this playtest document with a lot of mixed feelings. Overall, the mechanical changes are positive. But at the same time, it feels like there is an unneeded level of overcomplication and word bloat.
> 
> Suggested spells and skills, for example, increase the word count, page space, and feel like it overcrowds a lot of class layout. Likewise, a number of feats have about 1-4 abilities that they grant the PC. And with the idea of level prerequisites for feats, class types (e.g., expert, priest, etc.), the game feels like it's adding a lot of extra complication. I suppose my own desire would have been for something that simplified, streamlined, and clarified a lot of the game. While some things are simplifying, it also feels like it's drifting in an opposite direction from many of the "easy to learn" aspects that many have lauded about 5e.
> 
> To be "that guy" once again, I walked away from reading this playtest document with the sentiment that I can't see how anyone can credibly say that learning another non-5e RPG is that difficult or time consuming, especially if they find it acceptable to learn all these rules and accompanying changes for One D&D. It's a head-scratcher.
> 
> This feels like a drift to a rules heavier system, and it's at a time when my tastes are drifting in the opposite direction, though not full rules light.



Something odd about 5e is that it seemed relatively light when I started playing it, and every successive year, it seems more bloated and finicky. I don't think it's only changing tastes (I still like a bit of crunch), I think it's that the system is superficially simple, but the years have really shown how creaky it is. It also seems (based on personal experience) like the play culture has drifted toward a more literal-minded, rules-driven kind of play than was originally envisioned, which only exacerbates things.


----------



## CleverNickName

ehren37 said:


> Disappointing that Expertise is still just a bland numbers boost rather than actually letting you do anything cool and unique with a skill application.  That might actually give some martial/caster parity.



I agree, but I'm not sure what else they could do.  What did you have in mind?


----------



## DeviousQuail

From reading the Light [Weapon Property] and Equipping Weapons under the Attack [Action] section it looks like the Quick Draw bullet for the Dual Wielder feat does very little. It lets you draw or stow two weapons when you could normally only draw one. But with the new equipping rules you can equip or stow a weapon before or after any attack made with the Attack Action. The Light weapon property says

"When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage."

Nothing in there says you need to already have a different Light weapon in your other hand to make use of this extra attack. So you could take an Attack action, draw a weapon with the Light property, attack with it, tell the DM your going to make an extra attack, draw another Light weapon in your off hand, and attack with it. Unless I missed something it seems like anyone can draw two weapons in a round as long as they are both Light.

I guess you could still find a use for Quick Draw if you switch between weapons, items, and foci regularly. But that seems like something separate from what dual wielding should be about, which is using two weapons simultaneously in combat. I mostly welcome the changes to two-weapon fighting in the packet but this feat seems pretty bad. Upping one weapon from a d4 or d6 to a d8 and a second feature that doesn't do much isn't worth passing on other feats.


----------



## Weiley31

You know, crazy thought, I wonder how all these changes are gonna screw with 3PP and their current usage of the "current" 5E rules and paradigms.


----------



## DEFCON 1

gorice said:


> It also seems (based on personal experience) like the play culture has drifted toward a more literal-minded, rules-driven kind of play than was originally envisioned, which only exacerbates things.



Heh, you're wrong, LOL, it hasn't _drifted_ that way... it has ALWAYS had those players from the get-go... _despite_ WotC continually banging the gong the entire time about "Rulings, Not Rules" and for people to just change stuff they didn't like.  For whatever reason... some people just can't stand not playing this game Rules As Written... as though that's somehow a _purer_ game or something.  And they _hate_ that WotC just won't adjust the rules to the way THEY want them to be so that they can play RAW _and_ have the rules play exactly the way they want them to go.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

DeviousQuail said:


> I mostly welcome the changes to two-weapon fighting in the packet but this feat seems pretty bad.



Dual-Wielder looks utterly terrible, yeah. It lost the +1 AC in the transition, while feats like War Caster just got the +1 stat smacked on top of it.

Dual throwing axes need this feat to draw both of them..? So a niche fighting style has a feat tax.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Weiley31 said:


> You know, crazy thought, I wonder how all these changes are gonna screw with 3PP and their current usage of the "current" 5E rules and paradigms.



People actually use 3PP?  I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.


----------



## Mistwell

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL sad obsession with drawing and stowing weapons from WotC continues, despite the fact that maybe 5% of D&D groups enforce that even partially.



In the five different groups I've played with, all of them enforced the rule. I think your assumptions are false based on my experience, and you think mine are false based on yours, so I am guessing this is something WOTC knows better than either of us.


----------



## darjr

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh, you're wrong, LOL, it hasn't _drifted_ that way... it has ALWAYS had those players from the get-go... _despite_ WotC continually banging the gong the entire time about "Rulings, Not Rules" and for people to just change stuff they didn't like.  For whatever reason... some people just can't stand not playing this game Rules As Written... as though that's somehow a _purer_ game or something.  And they _hate_ that WotC just won't adjust the rules to the way THEY want them to be so that they can play RAW _and_ have the rules play exactly the way they want them to go.



Not just rules as written, but needing things more spelled out in more fine detail. Hadozee glide for instance, initially the problem is solved by natural language, imho, gliding isn’t falling. However many couldn’t except that, enough so WotC felt they needed to change it, and I think it’s less elegant for it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ehren37 said:


> Disappointing that Expertise is still just a bland numbers boost rather than actually letting you do anything cool and unique with a skill application.  That might actually give some martial/caster parity. Of course, that would require them spending more than 10 seconds on the skill system.



Yeah exactly what I was trying to say in reaction to the video.


----------



## Charlaquin

DeviousQuail said:


> From reading the Light [Weapon Property] and Equipping Weapons under the Attack [Action] section it looks like the Quick Draw bullet for the Dual Wielder feat does very little. It lets you draw or stow two weapons when you could normally only draw one. But with the new equipping rules you can equip or stow a weapon before or after any attack made with the Attack Action. The Light weapon property says
> 
> "When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage."
> 
> Nothing in there says you need to already have a different Light weapon in your other hand to make use of this extra attack. So you could take an Attack action, draw a weapon with the Light property, attack with it, tell the DM your going to make an extra attack, draw another Light weapon in your off hand, and attack with it. Unless I missed something it seems like anyone can draw two weapons in a round as long as they are both Light.



By my reading, the extra attack is being made with the Light weapon property, not the Attack action, and therefore does not allow you to draw a weapon before or after making it.


----------



## CleverNickName

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh, you're wrong, LOL, it hasn't _drifted_ that way... it has ALWAYS had those players from the get-go... _despite_ WotC continually banging the gong the entire time about "Rulings, Not Rules" and for people to just change stuff they didn't like.  For whatever reason... some people just can't stand not playing this game Rules As Written... as though that's somehow a _purer_ game or something.  And they _hate_ that WotC just won't adjust the rules to the way THEY want them to be so that they can play RAW _and_ have the rules play exactly the way they want them to go.



There's a level of validation that comes with it, maybe?  Like, seeing one of your own houserules make it into the published book of rules would make you feel like you were right all along, and that everyone else was wrong?  It's the only reason I can come up with, anyway.   (Nevermind that the first rule in the DMG is "you can make your own rules," folks always forget/ignore that.)


----------



## Charlaquin

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Dual throwing axes need this feat to draw both of them..? So a niche fighting style has a feat tax.



They do in the 2014 rules too…


----------



## Sacrosanct

Weiley31 said:


> You know, crazy thought, I wonder how all these changes are gonna screw with 3PP and their current usage of the "current" 5E rules and paradigms.



Well, I'm dealing with this now.  As I'm sure other 3PP publishers are doing.  Evaluating the changes and trying our best to predict what the result will be, all while trying to adhere to the OGL and/or SRD.  That's the big kicker right there.  If it's not part of the SRD, we can't use it.  So if WoTC wanted to, they could limit things kinda like they did when 4e came out.  I've seen scuttlebutt going around about how they will use a 5.5 SRD only for use on DM's Guild.  I'll guess we'll wait and see.

The only real positive is that they say 5.5 will be backwards compatible, so we can still create stuff using the existing 5e srd.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Mistwell said:


> In the five different groups I've played with, all of them enforced the rule. I think your assumptions are false based on my experience, and you think mine are false based on yours, so I am guessing this is something WOTC knows better than either of us.




It's a lot more comforting to believe, "WotC ignores the fan base" rather than "my preferences aren't in the majority."


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Charlaquin said:


> By my reading, the extra attack is being made with the Light weapon property, not the Attack action, and therefore does not allow you to draw a weapon before or after making it.



If you use your one item interaction to draw your off-hand weapon, then draw your main weapon with your Attack action for free, it might work out?


----------



## CleverNickName

Bill Zebub said:


> It's a lot more comforting to believe, "WotC ignores the fan base" rather than "my preferences aren't in the majority."



I mean, you're not wrong.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Dual-Wielder looks utterly terrible, yeah. It lost the +1 AC in the transition, while feats like War Caster just got the +1 stat smacked on top of it.
> 
> Dual throwing axes need this feat to draw both of them..? So a niche fighting style has a feat tax.



Anything you like, or did you just join the same day the first playtest was released (cooincidence??) to complain about how awful everything is?


----------



## Charlaquin

Inspiration on natural 1 instead of natural 20 is really bad for halflings.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Inspiration on natural 1 instead of nature 20 is really bad for halflings.




Not if they get the Inspiration _and_ the re-roll.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> Not if they get the Inspiration _and_ the re-roll.



Do they?


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Hurin88 said:


> This is what I'm coming to realize. It isn't a new edition despite the new name; Wizards seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. And they are deathly afraid of making any substantive changes lest they kill the golden goose.
> 
> Just my 2 cents of course.



Well, they have specifically said it is NOT a new edition so it shouldn’t be a surprise


----------



## DeviousQuail

Charlaquin said:


> By my reading, the extra attack is being made with the Light weapon property, not the Attack action, and therefore does not allow you to draw a weapon before or after making it.



"When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action."

It seems like both attacks fall under the same Attack Action from that line.


----------



## OakenHart

Love the proposed Exhaustion changes.  It's simple and you won't need to reference some table somewhere, and it's gradual enough in the penalties that you might actually see real use at the game table.

I'm not sure I'm sold on Bardic Inspiration now needing to be given in reaction rather than handed out for the target player to decide, but I seem to be in the minority on that opinion at least from other online spaces I've been looking at.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Do they?




Dunno.  They're still testing, right?


----------



## overgeeked

Henadic Theologian said:


> Ritual caster sucks, it's kind of pointless if any source of a spell knowledge allows you to cast the spell as a ritual. There are needs to be more ritual spells,like Magnificent Mansion should go back to being a ritual like it was in the D&D next playtest.



It's quite potent now. You gain two 1st-level ritual spells from any list, they're always prepared, you can cast them with any slots you have, and once per day you can cast one ritual spell you have prepped (not just the two from this feat) at the regular casting time. That's kinda nuts.


----------



## Bill Zebub

OakenHart said:


> Love the proposed Exhaustion changes.  It's simple and you won't need to reference some table somewhere, and it's gradual enough in the penalties that you might actually see real use at the game table.




Overall I like the Exhaustion changes, but I wonder if the Zerker is also going to change.  I've never minded that penalty, because when I play a zerker I almost always save Frenzy for the climactic boss fight.  On the few occasions where I've felt it was needed earlier...or mis-judged last fight of the day...the disadvantage on ability checks was manageable.  And I never once used it 3 times in one day.

So now I'm not sure which I would rather (not) have: disadvantage on ability checks, or -1 to everything.  On the other hand, -2 to everything is probably better than disadvantage on ability checks AND attack rolls.  So maybe I'd push my luck even more.

But we'll have to see the new zerker.  Maybe there will be an escalating save (sort of like Relentless Endurance).


----------



## Charlaquin

DeviousQuail said:


> "When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action."
> 
> It seems like both attacks fall under the same Attack Action from that line.



Oh, good call.


----------



## Stalker0

Charlaquin said:


> Do they?



The rule says that the nat 1 must "stand", aka must be used as the result. So no I don't think it would work with any reroll where you started with a 1.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> Anything you like, or did you just join the same day the first playtest was released (cooincidence??) to complain about how awful everything is?



Oh I'm sorry mr gatekeeper sir, should I spend half the thread arguing about Crawford instead of discussing the playtest package?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, good call.




That change is huge for rogues.  It means you have two chances to get Sneak Attack and still use Cunning Action.

Combined with the new Subtle Strikes ability, melee rogues are making a comeback!  That's my "Wish #2" for 5.5.


----------



## overgeeked

DEFCON 1 said:


> People actually use 3PP?  I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.



I avoid 3PP stuff like the plague. I don't assume it's unbalanced and untested crap. Rather, if I'm going to use unofficial content, I want it to be _my_ unbalanced and untested crap rather than someone else's.


----------



## OakenHart

Bill Zebub said:


> Overall I like the Exhaustion changes, but I wonder if the Zerker is also going to change.  I've never minded that penalty, because when I play a zerker I almost always save Frenzy for the climactic boss fight.  On the few occasions where I've felt it was needed earlier...or mis-judged last fight of the day...the disadvantage on ability checks was manageable.  And I never once used it 3 times in one day.
> 
> So now I'm not sure which I would rather (not) have: disadvantage on ability checks, or -1 to everything.  On the other hand, -2 to everything is probably better than disadvantage on ability checks AND attack rolls.  So maybe I'd push my luck even more.
> 
> But we'll have to see the new zerker.  Maybe there will be an escalating save (sort of like Relentless Endurance).




I wouldn't be surprised if the redesigned Berserker had something similar to what the 1D&D ranger has, where they can recover an exhaustion level on short rests, but we'll have to wait and see, yeah.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> That change is huge for rogues.  It means you have two chances to get Sneak Attack and still use Cunning Action.
> 
> Combined with the new Subtle Strikes ability, melee rogues are making a comeback!  That's my "Wish #2" for 5.5.



And steady aim didn’t come back in this packet, so yeah, melee is very much the stronger option for rogues here. Although, note that the new Light property doesn’t specify that it has to be a melee attack, so dual hand crossbows will be a viable option from 1st level, with Crossbow Expert adding Dex mod damage on the second attack.

Of course, changes to weapon proficiencies mean rogues aren’t proficient with hand crossbows from 1st…


----------



## OakenHart

overgeeked said:


> I avoid 3PP stuff like the plague. I don't assume it's unbalanced and untested crap. Rather, if I'm going to use unofficial content, I want it to be _my_ unbalanced and untested crap rather than someone else's.



Just going to throw out that the LevelUp monster book is actually incredibly good, and worth looking into.  Generally if there's an official 5e version and a LevelUp version of a monster, I use the LevelUp version.


----------



## overgeeked

UA Character Origins. "[Halfling] Luck. When you roll a 1 on the d20 of a d20 Test, you can reroll the die, and you must use the new roll."

UA Expert Classes. "Whenever a player character rolls a 1 for a d20 Test, that character gains Heroic Inspiration."

Nothing there about the natural 1 needing to "stand" or be used for the result.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> And steady aim didn’t come back in this packet, so yeah, melee is very much the stronger option for rogues here. Although, note that the new Light property doesn’t specify that it has to be a melee attack, so dual hand crossbows will be a viable option from 1st level, with Crossbow Expert adding Dex mod damage on the second attack.
> 
> Of course, changes to weapon proficiencies mean rogues aren’t proficient with hand crossbows from 1st…



i missed that... I just add it to cunning action in my head but you are right????


----------



## Micah Sweet

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> How? You only ever use one version or the other of the rule. It is the same for everyone in the group. This is a very bizarre way of defining power creep IMO.



It's power creep because all PCs suffer less, which is another way of saying empowered.  Power creep has nothing to do with power relative to other PCs, necessarily.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

overgeeked said:


> Nothing there about the natural 1 needing to "stand" or be used for the result.



GAINING HEROIC INSPIRATION
A player character gains Heroic Inspiration if the 
character rolls a 1 for a d20 Test. That 1 must be 
on the d20 used for the test’s total, not on a d20 
that was rerolled or discarded. This Heroic 
Inspiration represents a character’s resolve to 
do better after fumbling an attempt


----------



## Micah Sweet

Henadic Theologian said:


> Katniss is a glorified Rogue with a focus on nature skills, Aragon a fighter. They have little to nothing to do with D&D Rangers since 3rd edition when most of the class identities began to solidify for D&D.



Class identities solidified long before 3e.


----------



## overgeeked

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> GAINING HEROIC INSPIRATION
> A player character gains Heroic Inspiration if the
> character rolls a 1 for a d20 Test. That 1 must be
> on the d20 used for the test’s total, not on a d20
> that was rerolled or discarded. This Heroic
> Inspiration represents a character’s resolve to
> do better after fumbling an attempt



That's what I get for not looking in that section.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Oh I'm sorry mr gatekeeper sir, should I spend half the thread arguing about Crawford instead of discussing the playtest package?



That's not what gatekeeping means.  I'm simply asking you if there's anything you like, because I noticed you joined the same day the first packet came out, and all you're doing is bemoaning about how awful it is, and voicing your personal malice towards Jeremy.


----------



## DeviousQuail

Charlaquin said:


> And steady aim didn’t come back in this packet, so yeah, melee is very much the stronger option for rogues here. Although, note that the new Light property doesn’t specify that it has to be a melee attack, so dual hand crossbows will be a viable option from 1st level, with Crossbow Expert adding Dex mod damage on the second attack.
> 
> Of course, changes to weapon proficiencies mean rogues aren’t proficient with hand crossbows from 1st…



You're totally right, melee rogues for the win. 

I didn't really mind how two-weapon fighting worked in 5e. I just thought making the off hand attack as part of the attack action should have been part of the Dual Wielder feat or two weapon fighting style. That way anyone could dual wield but those with training could do it better.


----------



## Umbran

Bill Zebub said:


> Or maybe they did but they have access to a lot more information than you do.




Or maybe they did, but this is a _playtest_ and so they are testing some things out.


----------



## Charlaquin

overgeeked said:


> UA Character Origins. "[Halfling] Luck. When you roll a 1 on the d20 of a d20 Test, you can reroll the die, and you must use the new roll."
> 
> UA Expert Classes. "Whenever a player character rolls a 1 for a d20 Test, that character gains Heroic Inspiration."



But read the next sentence. “That 1 must be on the d20 used for the test’s total, not on a d20 that was rerolled or discarded.”


----------



## overgeeked

OakenHart said:


> Just going to throw out that the LevelUp monster book is actually incredibly good, and worth looking into. Generally if there's an official 5e version and a LevelUp version of a monster, I use the LevelUp version.



I'm not knocking 3PP stuff. I'd just rather not use it. Especially with monsters. The Blog of Holding did a great breakdown of the monster math in 5E, which, if I'm not mistaken, is what several of the 3PP use as the basis for their monsters...LevelUp included. He's since posted a breakdown of the monster math in Monsters of the Multiverse. Also, the second I saw the encounter design rules for the D&D Doctor Who game I switched to that and haven't looked back so I don't need bespoke monster stat blocks anymore. I just need the description and the lore. I have about 40 years of D&D and D&D-adjacent material to draw from for inspiration along with the length and breadth of fiction, myth, legend, and my own imagination.


----------



## Umbran

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Oh I'm sorry mr gatekeeper sir, should I spend half the thread arguing about Crawford instead of discussing the playtest package?




*Mod Note:*

This is only one example, but I'll use it.

*Folks, using the playtest drops as an opportunity to be nasty to each other is not acceptable.  People who cannot keep the discussion respectful are apt to find themselves booted from the thread, likely without warning.*


----------



## Wardook

So Rangers get the same number of spell slots as spell prepared? That keeps it simple. Taking a guess that Wizards will get more spells prepared than spell slots giving them greater flexibility. Guess they will get more slots than Rangers.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> That's not what gatekeeping means.



Just casually trying to silence someone based on their join date. I see, I see, nudge nudge wink wink



Sacrosanct said:


> voicing your personal malice towards Jeremy.



Ah, _my_ personal malice. And on first name basis with _Jeremy_, are we?


----------



## overgeeked

Wardook said:


> So Rangers get the same number of spell slots as spell prepared? That keeps it simple. Taking a guess that Wizards will get more spells prepared than spell slots giving them greater flexibility. Guess they will get more slots than Rangers.



They might just be simplifying spells prepared all around. Much easier to have prepped spells equal spell slots. But that would cut down on the wizard's versatility a bit. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Mercador

_look at the article_
Oh, that one will have some good comments for sure
_look at the comments count_
Oh wow.


----------



## Umbran

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Just casually trying to silence someone based on their join date. I see, I see, nudge nudge wink wink
> 
> 
> Ah, _my_ personal malice. And on first name basis with _Jeremy_, are we?




*Mod Note:*
There is still an off chance that you did not see my warning above.

Please read the warning above, and change your approach to discussion going forwards.


----------



## overgeeked

Two-Weapon Fighting / Light Weapons. I'm surprised they don't just give advantage on attacks and be done with it. So much simpler than a "bonus attack" that's not a "bonus action" etc.


----------



## Wardook

overgeeked said:


> They might just be simplifying spells prepared all around. Much easier to have prepped spells equal spell slots. But that would cut down on the wizard's versatility a bit. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.



You could be correct but using two terms for the same thing is kind of confusing. It does make it more backwards compatible 2014 book however.


----------



## overgeeked

Wardook said:


> You could be correct but using two terms for the same thing is kind of confusing. It does make it more backwards compatible 2014 book however.



Uhm...it's not using two terms for the same thing. The number of prepared spells matches the number of spell slots you can cast in a day, but they don't mean the same thing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Wardook said:


> So Rangers get the same number of spell slots as spell prepared? That keeps it simple. Taking a guess that Wizards will get more spells prepared than spell slots giving them greater flexibility. Guess they will get more slots than Rangers.



I think they'll have a different or boosted mechanism re: spell preparation. My expectation is something like they have memorization equal to slots AND they can cast any spell from their spellbook so long as it's present, maybe PB/long rest times (or even just all the time at some kind of minor cost).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

darjr said:


> Thinking on it though, the players now vs then, a non magic Ranger might see better acceptance.
> 
> Then being at the next playtest and all of D&D before this stage in 5e.




I honestly think (in particular with them grouped together as "experts") that they should take a page from the Rogue's Arcane Trickster - make the core Ranger spell-less, and make a solid Subclass that uses Primal Magic.


----------



## Haplo781

Wardook said:


> So Rangers get the same number of spell slots as spell prepared? That keeps it simple. Taking a guess that Wizards will get more spells prepared than spell slots giving them greater flexibility. Guess they will get more slots than Rangers.



According to the Next playtest, players don't like having too many choices to make in combat. I can see the Wizard's versatility coming from having the biggest spell list (the entire Arcane list).


----------



## darjr

Haplo781 said:


> According to the Next playtest, players don't like having too many choices to make in combat. I can see the Wizard's versatility coming from having the biggest spell list (the entire Arcane list).



It would be interesting if the wizard was the non-vancian caster of the bunch.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> I honestly think (in particular with them grouped together as "experts") that they should take a page from the Rogue's Arcane Trickster - make the core Ranger spell-less, and make a solid Subclass that uses Primal Magic.



That has long been my opinion.


----------



## Wardook

overgeeked said:


> Uhm...it's not using two terms for the same thing. The number of prepared spells matches the number of spell slots you can cast in a day, but they don't mean the same thing.



I misspoke, two different words and meanings to represent the same thing in game terms. So why not use one term? This is why I theorized that that could change in a future class that we have yet to see or to be  backwards compatible? Maybe I am just reading too much into this, lol.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I honestly think (in particular with them grouped together as "experts") that they should take a page from the Rogue's Arcane Trickster - make the core Ranger spell-less, and make a solid Subclass that uses Primal Magic.



I really think they either need to do this or split the ranger into two classes - one that’s a caster and one that isn’t. There’s just no way a single class is going to satisfy what everyone wants from the ranger, especially when the casting and non-casting camps are so thoroughly entrenched.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> I really think they either need to do this or split the ranger into two classes - one that’s a caster and one that isn’t. There’s just no way a single class is going to satisfy what everyone wants from the ranger, especially when the casting and non-casting camps are so thoroughly entrenched.



The non-casting camp should win, IMNSHO. You can always add spells through subclass(es) or multiclassing, but you can’t take it away.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think they'll have a different or boosted mechanism re: spell preparation. My expectation is something like they have memorization equal to slots AND they can cast any spell from their spellbook so long as it's present, maybe PB/long rest times (or even just all the time at some kind of minor cost).



Well, so far it’s seeming like the new norm is prepare spells from the appropriate list equal to spell slots, and also get some number of spells that are always prepared. Seems like the obvious thing to do with wizards is have their spellbook be those always prepared spells.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> The non-casting camp should win, IMNSHO. You can always add spells through subclass(es) or multiclassing, but you can’t take it away.



I mean, I obviously agree, being a part of that camp myself. However, WotC seems to be pushing for _more_ casting for rangers, not less. Here’s hoping enough of us give consistent enough feedback about this to convince them that a non-casting option is worth including.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

ehren37 said:


> I'm not seeing anything that Katniss does to make her not a fighter or rogue or couldn't be done with those classes, outside of class based mechanics for inspiring a revolution (which ranger also wouldn't have). She sneaks around and shoots people with a bow. She knows natural hazards and lays some traps, which is using the survival skill or tool proficiencies. She applies healing poultices with the Medicine skill or Herbalism kit tool proficiency. Yeah, she doesn't use magic. She's from a world where it doesn't exist.
> 
> I don't think that's enough to base a class and 4 subclasses on when rogue and fighter already exist. Now, if you want to argue those classes don't get enough cool stuff and meaningful choices, I would definitely agree. And sadly the rogue appears weaker than the one already out now (though Ranger and Bard also appear worse to me), so I'm not holding out any hope that the fighter won't be more of the same garbage.



By this logic, Rangers should never have existed in the first place, because they're based on Aragorn, who does even less "Ranger stuff" than Katniss (quite a lot less), and also doesn't do magic.

You seem to be using an entirely circular definition of a Ranger, which is that, they have magic, and in order to be a Ranger, they have to have magic, otherwise they're just a Fighter.

It's completely and profoundly missing the point of classes. Classes exist to embody fantasies. WotC have said this on multiple occasions, note. They do understand that, at least conceptually. The fantasy of being "A Katniss type" or "An Aragorn type" is not handled at all by a Rogue, and not handled well by a Fighter.

Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if  you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting.

If we're at the point where we're denying people who obviously fit the pop-culture archetype of a Ranger are Rangers, just because they don't have magic, we can see there's a problem.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> I really think they either need to do this or split the ranger into two classes - one that’s a caster and one that isn’t. There’s just no way a single class is going to satisfy what everyone wants from the ranger, especially when the casting and non-casting camps are so thoroughly entrenched.


----------



## Digdude@1970

Unpopular opinion, since rangers are now outdoors spell casters, maybe let only them cast spells like LTH.


----------



## overgeeked

Wardook said:


> I misspoke, two different words and meanings to represent the same thing in game terms. So why not use one term? This is why I theorized that that could change in a future class that we have yet to see or to be  backwards compatible? Maybe I am just reading too much into this, lol.



The only overlap is the number. They're distinct terms with distinct meanings.


----------



## Wardook

Bill Zebub said:


> The non-casting camp should win, IMNSHO. You can always add spells through subclass(es) or multiclassing, but you can’t take it away.



Or you could just be a Rogue with a background that gives you survival. You now have a "Ranger" without spell casting.


----------



## Dr. Bull

TwoSix said:


> Oh, I just caught this...they normalized subclass progression!  Every class shown gets subclass features at 3, 6, 10, and 14.  That's a big deal!



Good catch!  I always wondered why subclasses progressed at different levels...


----------



## overgeeked

Wardook said:


> Or you could just be a Rogue with a background that gives you survival. You now have a "Ranger" without spell casting.



That's exactly what the scout subclass for rogue does.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

If WotC _had _to make a non-magical Ranger, there's a better than slim chance that they would just remove the spell access from the current Ranger and call it a day. I think the only way to have any kind of a playable Ranger is the sort we currently have.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> There is also the Ranger as a D&D trope all on its own like the first TSR published version of it and forwards. People playing it regardless of Aragorn etc and expecting a “D&D Ranger”.



My long experience is that Ranger is a popular class in D&D.

But the main people it's popular with are people new to D&D.

Not veterans. What you're describing only applies to veterans. People who already have their expectations precisely calibrated to D&D's peculiarities. 

So what I've seen repeatedly is people read the Ranger description, which barely mentions magic (seriously, check it out), or have a Ranger described, and what they think is "I can be Katniss" or if they're older "I can be Aragorn!" (who is literally called a Ranger!), and the main thing they think they're getting is a "nature expert", who is at least pretty good with a bow.

And what I then have seen is that people who do keep playing, don't usually play Rangers much, because for it's just a disappointing class that isn't actually that good at "nature stuff" (a Druid or even a Wizard often wildly outperforms it in "nature stuff"), and when veterans do play Rangers, it's often exploit some peculiar mechanic, and often a multiclass thing rather than a single class.

It's not like Cleric, where Cleric has become its own whole thing.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Wardook said:


> Or you could just be a Rogue with a background that gives you survival. You now have a "Ranger" without spell casting.




What about my pet?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> That's exactly what the scout subclass for rogue does.



The big problem with Scout is that Rogue is completely the wrong chassis for the archetypical Ranger, who isn't some sort of backstabber/sneak attacker, and is the sort of person who is putting arrows downrange extremely rapidly. If there was a Fighter that ditched armour, got expertise, got nature-related abilities, and so on, that'd be a lot better. But that'd be what the Ranger is, except they gave it a ton of magic instead of actual abilities. It's even lost a bunch of abilities.


----------



## ehren37

CleverNickName said:


> I agree, but I'm not sure what else they could do.  What did you have in mind?



I'm a fan of Pathfinder 2's 4 tiers of proficiency: Trained, Expert, Master and Legendary. Moving from an action to a bonus action, crafting temp potions, poisons, advanced traps, as part of your daily prep. Lifting/throwing/jumping above human limits. Lots of the mini abilities that feats give should be included in advanced skill training. At expert level, intimidate might cause enemies to flee or at legendary they can die of fright. Master stealth could get the shadowdancers old "hide in plain sight" where they can hide while being observed or teleport through shadows at legendary.

This is off the cuff, but I think it should let you DO something cool rather than just have a slightly bigger number. If D&D adopted the degrees of success for skills (ie, a crit is 10 over DC) then bigger numbers might be intriguing, but with its (IMO outdated) binary pass/fail... meh.


----------



## ehren37

Bill Zebub said:


> The non-casting camp should win, IMNSHO. You can always add spells through subclass(es) or multiclassing, but you can’t take it away.



What about the "that's just a rogue in a green cloak" camp?


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> I really think they either need to do this or split the ranger into two classes - one that’s a caster and one that isn’t. There’s just no way a single class is going to satisfy what everyone wants from the ranger, especially when the casting and non-casting camps are so thoroughly entrenched.



So maybe like a Martial Ranger and a Primal Seeker?


----------



## darjr

Ruin Explorer said:


> My long experience is that Ranger is a popular class in D&D.
> 
> But the main people it's popular with are people new to D&D.
> 
> Not veterans. What you're describing only applies to veterans. People who already have their expectations precisely calibrated to D&D's peculiarities.
> 
> So what I've seen repeatedly is people read the Ranger description, which barely mentions magic (seriously, check it out), or have a Ranger described, and what they think is "I can be Katniss" or if they're older "I can be Aragorn!" (who is literally called a Ranger!), and the main thing they think they're getting is a "nature expert", who is at least pretty good with a bow.
> 
> And what I then have seen is that people who do keep playing, don't usually play Rangers much, because for it's just a disappointing class that isn't actually that good at "nature stuff" (a Druid or even a Wizard often wildly outperforms it in "nature stuff"), and when veterans do play Rangers, it's often exploit some peculiar mechanic, and often a multiclass thing rather than a single class.
> 
> It's not like Cleric, where Cleric has become its own whole thing.



I just ran a tier 3 game this weekend. A player there ran a Ranger. Very much disliked Drizzt. Loved his Ranger. He's been playing since the 80's.

I know a few more veterans playing the D&D Ranger.

I'll grant you one of them want's a spell less ranger. A couple of the others may too, I'm not sure.

I also run a lot of "new people" tables, to D&D and too 5e and too RPGS. Many of them have gone on to keep playing and I run into them occasionally. A lot of folks new since 5e, a lot. I don't recall any of them complaining about a Ranger bait and switch.


----------



## Bill Zebub

ehren37 said:


> What about the "that's just a rogue in a green cloak" camp?



They should be publicly ridiculed until they quit RPGs in shame and spend the rest of their lives playing Hello Kitty: Island Adventure.


----------



## Wardook

Bill Zebub said:


> What about my pet?



You can have one of my cats, really I am trying to get rid of those dudes. You could call him Guenhwyvar.

More seriously, there are no pet classes in the play test yet, who knows how that will pan out? It would it appear that it will be pretty easy to swap subclasses between classes.

I played a pet Ranger in a 5e game for awhile. I found it very dissatisfying. My wife's druid was much better with a pet.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> The non-casting camp should win, IMNSHO. You can always add spells through subclass(es) or multiclassing, but you can’t take it away.



But the non-casting ranger tends to be describes 75% of time a "Fighter in a Green cloak who can Hunter's Mark." or a "Rogue in a Green Cloak who can Hunter's Mark."


----------



## CleverNickName

At my table?  Whenever my players read the words "Ranger with an Animal Companion" they assume it means "ranger gets two more attacks per round, woot" and then they get really disappointed when they read the rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> But the non-casting ranger tends to be describes 75% of time a "Fighter in a Green cloak who can Hunter's Mark." or a "Rogue in a Green Cloak who can Hunter's Mark."




By whom?


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> People actually use 3PP?  I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.



I really, REALLY wish fewer people thought that way.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

darjr said:


> I just ran a tier 3 game this weekend. A player there ran a Ranger. Very much disliked Drizzt. Loved his Ranger. He's been playing since the 80's.
> 
> I know a few more veterans playing the D&D Ranger.
> 
> I'll grant you one of them want's a spell less ranger. A couple of the others may too, I'm not sure.
> 
> I also run a lot of "new people" tables, to D&D and too 5e and too RPGS. Many of them have gone on to keep playing and I run into them occasionally. A lot of folks new since 5e, a lot. I don't recall any of them complaining about a Ranger bait and switch.



I mean, with respect, this doesn't seem to be particularly disagreeing with my position! 

Re: new players, have you ever heard a new player complain significantly about a class? My experience is genuinely new players are typically so excited and new that they don't actually complain about anything much. The player most likely to complain a bunch is the guy who has played a fair bit before and has very particular expectations, but isn't old and wise enough to be a true veteran.

But it's easy to see what elements of classes and game systems are vexing and confusing new players. Magic with Rangers with one of them. I've seen new players start kind of "tuning out" when they're forced to deal with the "magic" bit of Rangers in every edition except 4E, where just no-one would play them. It's particularly bad because they get this non-magical class, then a couple of levels later they start having to deal with magic, and most of them didn't want that. But D&D has no really good alternative class. Fighter is so truly awful at anything but combat that it doesn't work. Rogue is a backstabber, even Scout, which isn't what they're looking for. Barbarian would honestly be closer but their abilities are all opposed to DEX and ranged stuff.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Ruin Explorer said:


> My long experience is that Ranger is a popular class in D&D.
> 
> But the main people it's popular with are people new to D&D.
> 
> Not veterans. What you're describing only applies to veterans. People who already have their expectations precisely calibrated to D&D's peculiarities.
> 
> So what I've seen repeatedly is people read the Ranger description, which barely mentions magic (seriously, check it out), or have a Ranger described, and what they think is "I can be Katniss" or if they're older "I can be Aragorn!" (who is literally called a Ranger!), and the main thing they think they're getting is a "nature expert", who is at least pretty good with a bow.
> 
> And what I then have seen is that people who do keep playing, don't usually play Rangers much, because for it's just a disappointing class that isn't actually that good at "nature stuff" (a Druid or even a Wizard often wildly outperforms it in "nature stuff"), and when veterans do play Rangers, it's often exploit some peculiar mechanic, and often a multiclass thing rather than a single class.
> 
> It's not like Cleric, where Cleric has become its own whole thing.



As a veteran player with other vet players in my group can confirm this applies to us. The current ranger just doesn't feel the same, which is a shame. It used to be one of my favorite classes.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> By whom?



By most people who describe non-magical rangers and design non-magical ranger class variants.

I have read a lot of nonmagical ranger homebrews. Many of them are combat quizinart with Stealth bonuses who can heal 1d8 HP twice a day or something. Because MMO, RTS, and ARPG rangers are raw DPS/pullers.


----------



## Bill Zebub

What if at level 1 you choose between half-casting and a pet? Or spellcasting and…something else cool?


----------



## jasper

Micah Sweet said:


> Considering how many people seemed to hate Exhaustion because it "hurt their character's chance of success too much", I would say the new version is essentially a form of power creep.



My evil DM heart beats hard for the new exhaustion. But needs to have only 6 levels instead of ten.


----------



## jasper

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



I think weapons will be reshuffled. I hope the categories will be simple, martial, and exotic. With the range weapons folded into those three. Exotic should be firearms, and any specific campaign weapon like the kenders hookak.


----------



## CleverNickName

jasper said:


> I think weapons will be reshuffled. I hope the categories will be simple, martial, and exotic. With the range weapons folded into those three. Exotic should be firearms, and any specific campaign weapon like the kenders hookak.



You're probably right.  In my opinion Firearms should either be "simple" weapons or their own category, but that's splitting hairs.


----------



## darjr

Never mind


----------



## cbwjm

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah I don’t like losing the choices of the hunter, especially if they aren’t using those features at all, but it’s not a bad subclass.
> 
> Cantrips are good, as is preparing spells, rituals, and no concentration hunters mark.



I'll likely be homebrewing the hunter choices back in, I preferred some of the other options over colossus slayer for some of my rangers.


----------



## Yaarel

"
*JUMP [ACTION]*
With the Jump Action, you attempt to leap more
than 5 feet (a jump of 5 feet or less is treated as
Difficult Terrain). When you take this Action,
your Speed must be greater than 0, and you must
make a DC 10 *Strength Check (**Acrobatics or*
*Athletics)*. If you don’t Move at least 10 feet
immediately before this Action, you have
Disadvantage on the check.
On a failed check, you leap 5 feet horizontally
or vertically.
On a successful check, the check’s total
determines the distance in feet that you can clear
horizontally, or half that total if you’re jumping
vertically (round down). This jump doesn’t
expend your movement, but the distance you
clear can’t exceed your Speed.

"

Please, please, please.

Merge *Acrobatics* and *Athletics* into a single "mobility" skill called *Athletics*.

Climbing includes balancing. Jumping includes falling.

Athletics can sometimes apply to a Strength check and sometimes a Dexterity check − but it is the same skill.

(The abilities themselves are problematic. The Athletics skill is a single skill.)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> That has long been my opinion.



That is, in fact, what Level Up did.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I could see Acrobatics existing as its own thing if WotC at least gave it some fall damage reduction properties...


----------



## Sacrosanct

I fixed it for them.  Cuz I'm a helper...


----------



## Ath-kethin

Bill Zebub said:


> What if at level 1 you choose between half-casting and a pet? Or spellcasting and…something else cool?



Chaosium/Nocturnal Press has a book in which the ranger loses the Spellcasting trait and gets proficiency in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom saving throws, a second extra attack at 11th level, and Expertise at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th level.

This is the Ranger I've used in my games for years and it's been pretty popular as an option.


----------



## Haplo781

Sacrosanct said:


> I fixed it for them.  Cuz I'm a helper...
> 
> View attachment 262665



Now do swordmage and shaman


----------



## occam

overgeeked said:


> That's exactly what the scout subclass for rogue does.



Except that the scout knows Thieves' Cant for some reason, and is skilled with thieves' tools (not a ton of locks to pick out in the wilds!), and doesn't know how to use a longbow. The smaller hit die isn't great, either.

I was really hoping that 1D&D was going to relegate Thieves' Cant and thieves' tools proficiency to backgrounds, but so far that isn't the case. As it is, the rogue is a poor choice on which to base a martial wilderness warrior; there's just too much residue of the guild thief in the base chassis.


----------



## Marc Radle

darjr said:


> No he wasn’t. I think you’ve misread what he typed.



Oh, he absolutely misunderstood the statement.


----------



## darjr

I dint really have a stake in either camp. I think a magic using ranger is fine, and I would be happy with a non magic using one.

But I had to share this meme from someone that seems excited about it. Mainly because it’s attached with Aragorn.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Bill Zebub said:


> In all seriousness, I would love to see a reason for wizards to carry staves. Non-magical ones, that is.



It's unfortunate that no one seems to use staves as foci.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I'm happy with the magical ranger, as long as it can do its thing, whatever its thing is.

I also think it would be best to get the magicalness from your subclass, so you could cover the non-magical Rangers as well.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's unfortunate that no one seems to use staves as foci.



Wis rangers do! They really don't want to set the stick down and lose Shillelagh. Or not use a shield. Or have to pick up War Caster.


----------



## Anarchclown

Wardook said:


> Or you could just be a Rogue with a background that gives you survival. You now have a "Ranger" without spell casting.




And without the ability to use long bows. Great idea.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's unfortunate that no one seems to use staves as foci.



I will admit that 4e's arcane implement stuff was pretty cool.


----------



## Marc Radle

Micah Sweet said:


> I really, REALLY wish fewer people thought that way.



A great many people use 3PP material, I can assure you …


----------



## Rabulias

Minigiant said:


> I'd argue Aragorn then Rexxar, and Sylvanas then Katniss  then Drizzt.


----------



## TwoSix

DEFCON 1 said:


> People actually use 3PP?  I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.



In all seriousness, not using 3PP or homebrewing yourself is tragically neglectful of one of 5e's greatest strength; its ease in being modified.


----------



## Minigiant

Rabulias said:


> View attachment 262667



The D&D cartoon is so obscure now Hank is *well* behind Geralt, Jon Snow, Kiba, Shino, Aquaman, Dar, Goblin Slayer, Kraven the Hunter, and maybe MCU Black Panther


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Ah yes, that iconic name, Hank...


----------



## ehren37

Ruin Explorer said:


> By this logic, Rangers should never have existed in the first place, because they're based on Aragorn, who does even less "Ranger stuff" than Katniss (quite a lot less), and also doesn't do magic.



I mean, I won't disagree. It's goofy to try and make a *specific* guy with a bloodline legacy into a class. I'm surprised the 1E ranger didnt an ability to make ghost kill an army. Wizards don't have "be friends with giant eagles" just because Gandalf did it.  But the D&D ranger, as it stands, is a survivalist who combines martial ability, skill and magic to be able to operate in hostile territory. THAT is at least something to hang a hat on. Trying to split the hairs of why Katniss isnt a rogue just seems looking for any reason to not call her a rogue and arguing backwards.


Ruin Explorer said:


> You seem to be using an entirely circular definition of a Ranger, which is that, they have magic, and in order to be a Ranger, they have to have magic, otherwise they're just a Fighter.
> 
> It's completely and profoundly missing the point of classes. Classes exist to embody fantasies. WotC have said this on multiple occasions, note. They do understand that, at least conceptually. The fantasy of being "A Katniss type" or "An Aragorn type" is not handled at all by a Rogue, and not handled well by a Fighter.



Like what does Katniss do that can't be done by a rogue? All she is is an archer with nature expertise and a craft traps feature!


Ruin Explorer said:


> Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if  you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting.
> 
> If we're at the point where we're denying people who obviously fit the pop-culture archetype of a Ranger are Rangers, just because they don't have magic, we can see there's a problem.



You've described a rogue with some decent rules for crafting traps. She doesn't go for a straight up fight so completely does deal sneak attacks. Rogue doesnt mean Thief. She uses traps (bolstered by dealing sneak attack damage) and snipes with a bow. Rogue seems perfect even without a Scout subclass.  If I showed up to a game as a Rogue with expertise in survival and stealth, and training in nature/herbalism kit, I'd be pretty ticked if I couldn't emulate every single thing she does (at least in the movies, never read the books). Requiring a class feature to make a deadfall, recognize and take advantage of super wasps, or lead someone into bad terrain is just taking away those options from other characters who have the skill. Expending writeups on skill usage to be equal to page count on spells would be much better than trying to have "The Katniss" class do all the heavy lifting (and walling off those abilities in the process).

She is, also very importantly, not in a magical fantasy world! So of course she doesn't use magic because that's not an option. For that matter, should bards not cast spells or magical abilities because I want to play Ruby Rhodd?


----------



## ehren37

Yaarel said:


> "
> *JUMP [ACTION]*
> With the Jump Action, you attempt to leap more
> than 5 feet (a jump of 5 feet or less is treated as
> Difficult Terrain). When you take this Action,
> your Speed must be greater than 0, and you must
> make a DC 10 *Strength Check (**Acrobatics or*
> *Athletics)*. If you don’t Move at least 10 feet
> immediately before this Action, you have
> Disadvantage on the check.
> On a failed check, you leap 5 feet horizontally
> or vertically.
> On a successful check, the check’s total
> determines the distance in feet that you can clear
> horizontally, or half that total if you’re jumping
> vertically (round down). This jump doesn’t
> expend your movement, but the distance you
> clear can’t exceed your Speed.
> 
> "
> 
> Please, please, please.
> 
> Merge *Acrobatics* and *Athletics* into a single "mobility" skill called *Athletics*.
> 
> Climbing includes balancing. Jumping includes falling.
> 
> Athletics can sometimes apply to a Strength check and sometimes a Dexterity check − but it is the same skill.
> 
> (The abilities themselves are problematic. The Athletics skill is a single skill.)



Yes please. It's baffling that climbing and jumping aren't associated with acrobatics. They may as well split stealth back up into move silently and hide in shadows.


----------



## ehren37

Ath-kethin said:


> Chaosium/Nocturnal Press has a book in which the ranger loses the Spellcasting trait and gets proficiency in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom saving throws, a second extra attack at 11th level, and Expertise at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th level.
> 
> This is the Ranger I've used in my games for years and it's been pretty popular as an option.



I bet it's popular. It's way better than the fighter. Ya'll do know Dex based fighters are a thing, right?


----------



## ehren37

occam said:


> Except that the scout knows Thieves' Cant for some reason, and is skilled with thieves' tools (not a ton of locks to pick out in the wilds!), and doesn't know how to use a longbow. The smaller hit die isn't great, either.
> 
> I was really hoping that 1D&D was going to relegate Thieves' Cant and thieves' tools proficiency to backgrounds, but so far that isn't the case. As it is, the rogue is a poor choice on which to base a martial wilderness warrior; there's just too much residue of the guild thief in the base chassis.



And my cleric knows spells they'll never cast. Most classes know weapons they'll never use. Allowing people to sub tool/languages should be the default, same as those granted from ancestry. 

I do find it ridiculous that Thieves' Cant is still a thing.


----------



## ehren37

Anarchclown said:


> And without the ability to use long bows. Great idea.



Does Katniss even use a longbow? It seems to be a hunting bow.


----------



## Ath-kethin

ehren37 said:


> I bet it's popular. It's way better than the fighter. Ya'll do know Dex based fighters are a thing, right?



Isn't the point of literally every class that isn't the fighter to be better than the fighter? That's not a very high bar.


----------



## Gammadoodler

I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine. Would be nice to see a little less magic and a little more crafting (or any crafting really) in service of that goal. 

Like, can we get mundane poison or trap making built into a class somewhere?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gammadoodler said:


> I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine.




Huh. Interesting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Gammadoodler said:


> I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine.



I never looked at it that way but yeah they are WAY more witcher then any ranger I can think of (including Drizt)


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Micah Sweet said:


> Class identities solidified long before 3e.




 For core classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, but not classes like Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc..., I mean Sorcerer & Warlock weren't even classes before 3e.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Interesting that folks are focused on the Ranger, which other folks are largely happy with with some concerns over the Hunter while issueing concerns over the Bard, like it loses a bunch spells and other host of issues.

 I think the few nerfs Rogues get will be reversed, Bard's will get a huge redo and the only major Ranger change might be to Hunter.

 I didn't even notice Bard's are restricted from Abjuration, Evocation, Conjuration and Necromancy.


----------



## cbwjm

I'm thinking spell schools are going to be less distinctive with these changes (though, to be fair, they have always been changeable through editions), some spells are having their schools changed specifically so that the bard and ranger can still use them with their school restrictions.


----------



## Haplo781

Henadic Theologian said:


> For core classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, but not classes like Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc..., I mean Sorcerer & Warlock weren't even classes before 3e.



Warlock was a 3.5 splatbook class. And across 3 editions, it's hard 3 completely different mechanical identities.

Bard was the AD&D equivalent of a prestige class, requiring levels in fighter, thief, and druid, plus a minimum score in all 6 abilities. Then it became a base class while still being a blend of fighter, thief, and druid. Then it was an arcane half-caster with limited healing and an OP buffing feature. Then an arcane buffer/debuffer with a bunch of forced movement. Then a full casting skill monkey with limited buffing (and possibly debuffing depending on subclass.)


----------



## cbwjm

I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works. While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence. 

Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

DEFCON 1 said:


> People actually use 3PP?  I figured the way people tend to talk around here, 3PP are all completely unbalanced and untested crap that they don't have time to sift through, and instead just wait for WotC to eventually create the rules they want to use.



It turns out that there are people on the internet who say silly stuff.


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> I never looked at it that way but yeah they are WAY more witcher then any ranger I can think of (including Drizt)



That's because Witchers ARE rangers.


----------



## overgeeked

cbwjm said:


> I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works. While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence.
> 
> Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.



They will definitely get an exception.


----------



## Haplo781

cbwjm said:


> I'm also not sure that splitting the classes up into the different groups really works.



It's like 4e roles but less useful!




cbwjm said:


> While I'm sure the paladin will have an inbuilt exception regarding fighting styles (though honestly, I think they should get rid of that prerequisite anyway), it also impacts the paladin with regard to epic boons. Being part of the priest group means they miss put on certain epic boons that would make sense for them, such as the epic boons of combat prowess or irresistible offence.
> 
> Of course, we don't have the players content for the priest group so they may have another exception for them, though that would make me feel like the group prerequisites are a waste of time. The more I think of this as I write, the more I think I might ignore the different groups with regard to feats.



I mean, do paladins _really_ need to be better?


----------



## JEB

Assorted thoughts:

The 2E parallels continue to stack up, with the consolidation of classes into three familiar categories (and one new one).
Strange that Mages are known for one category of spells, and Priests for two. Why not just consolidate Divine and Primal together? They do both share a lore origin as extraplanar power, now.
New weapon options, interesting. But will they be feats, like fighting styles have become? There's precedent from 5E, after all.
The home base rules could be cool, something that would have been very handy for our 5E campaign in 2014.
We very much needed better encounter-building rules. Hope the third time's the charm.
We are getting a chance to playtest, and provide feedback, for monsters. Good.
Multiclassing remains, and also remains optional.
I do like defaults being provided at every choice point, but they do also make for clutter while reading. Maybe consolidate them into a bigger "quick build" sidebar? That'd also make it easier for players to reference, I think.
Now that I'm seeing it in class writeups, the term "d20 Test" bugs me for some reason. Simply "Test" would be more appealing (especially since game terms are now underlined).
So will 3-6-10-14 be the standard subclass slots for all classes, or only for expert classes? This is a potentially important question, because clerics and fighters have five subclass slots at the moment. Four slots becoming standard means either their subclasses lose a feature, or they're doubling up on one slot.
A related question - the bard only had three subclass slots before, but now they have four. If you use a legacy subclass, do they just have a dead level at the level 14 slot?
Fighting styles are now feats... but remain exclusive to warrior classes... yet rangers (experts) get them anyway? Curiously, some feats are specifically Expert or Warrior accessible, so they could have given the same prereq for the fighting styles, if they wanted to keep them out of Priest and Mage hands.
Were there a lot of complaints that Sneak Attack was too good? I'm not clear on why it's being nerfed.
Also disappointed to see Use Magical Device still a Thief feature, but I seem to be in the minority there.
While I'm not sold on feats as a 1st-level thing, having some feats like Actor and Observant being 4th-level feels odd.
I'm mildly surprised material components stuck around.
I'm also mildly surprised they didn't simplify the way they explained difficult terrain.
Disappointed at the Exhaustion nerf, but shouldn't be surprised. I do like it being a condition, though.
I don't like having to go to the glossary to understand what expertise is.
Getting Inspiration on a 1 bugs me less than getting it on a 20, for sure. I'm also pleased to see it clearly indicated as a reward for staying in character, again.
Providing Influence guidelines here is good, but it feels more complicated than it needs to be.
The change to shortswords seems very random.
Interesting they made Study an action. Guess it was too ad-hoc before?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I could see Acrobatics existing as its own thing if WotC at least gave it some fall damage reduction properties...



Fall damage/trajectory control and ignoring difficult terrain, yeah. 


cbwjm said:


> I'll likely be homebrewing the hunter choices back in, I preferred some of the other options over colossus slayer for some of my rangers.



Absolutely. If they folded the options into the base class as a secondary part of favored enemy (maybe at level 6 or 7), is also be fine with that.


----------



## Dr. Bull

Personally, I am very excited about this whole process.  

As one of the many people who disliked 4e, I was very glad that WOTC initiated a play-test for 5e.  In my opinion, 5e is far-and-away the best version of D&D.  A lot of that is due to the feedback that we provided.

I just hope they bring back Halflings who have large, hairy feet!  The current (5e) artistic interpretation of Halflings is mildly disturbing to my delicate sensibilities...


----------



## DeviousQuail

Dr. Bull said:


> Personally, I am very excited about this whole process.
> 
> As one of the many people who disliked 4e, I was very glad that WOTC initiated a play-test for 5e.  In my opinion, 5e is far-and-away the best version of D&D.  A lot of that is due to the feedback that we provided.
> 
> I just hope they bring back Halflings who have large, hairy feet!  The current (5e) artistic interpretation of Halflings is mildly disturbing to my delicate sensibilities...



I'm looking forward to the jokes between 5e and 1D&D rules.



Spoiler: A Silly Conversation



5e Ranger: _Looks to be a 10ft leap over the chasm and 10 more feat to the bugbear. No problem with a running start. I'll attack him and then you finish him off my roguish friend._

1D&D Rogue: _Okay but how are you going to attack him? You have to jump first._

5e Ranger:_ Yeah. I'll jump and then attack him. _

1D&D Rogue:_ But you can't do that. You have to use your action to jump. You won't have an action left to attack with._

5e Ranger:_ Those mushrooms you ate must have rattled your brain. Just follow me. _<draws two longswords>

1D&D Rogue: _Well now you're just cheating. You can't wield two weapons at the same time that don't have the Light weapon property._

5e Ranger: _I have a very mediocre feat that says otherwise. Oh look, the Bard is here._

1D&D Bard: _Sorry for the delay lads. Took a couple points of exhaustion from some dodgy mushrooms._

1D&D Rogue: _Happens to the best of us._

5e Ranger: <looks on in horror> _How are you being so casual about this, Bard!? We need to retreat and get you rest immediately._


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Gammadoodler said:


> I think Rangers as WoTC-branded Witchers work just fine. Would be nice to see a little less magic and a little more crafting (or any crafting really) in service of that goal.
> 
> Like, can we get mundane poison or trap making built into a class somewhere?



Probably not, since wotc seems to view nature in D&D worlds as inherently magical. Not consistently, but enough so that alchemy and the good poisons and using herbs to heal people all eventually turns into magic. 

In that context, it makes sense that the ranger is magical. 

But I would love to replace favored enemy with bane poisons that do things like making a critter have to concentrate in order to stay aloft in flight and take damage when it moves more Than half speed, or lose regeneration.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Henadic Theologian said:


> Interesting that folks are focused on the Ranger, which other folks are largely happy with with some concerns over the Hunter while issueing concerns over the Bard, like it loses a bunch spells and other host of issues.
> 
> I think the few nerfs Rogues get will be reversed, Bard's will get a huge redo and the only major Ranger change might be to Hunter.
> 
> I didn't even notice Bard's are restricted from Abjuration, Evocation, Conjuration and Necromancy.



I hate the current spell list dynamic a little more the more I think about it. 

Why can’t Rangers cast evocations? What whack nonsense is this? WTF Bards can’t cast 1/3 of the damn schools!? Hahahahahhahaha no. Garbage. 


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> I'm happy with the magical ranger, as long as it can do its thing, whatever its thing is.
> 
> I also think it would be best to get the magicalness from your subclass, so you could cover the non-magical Rangers as well.



If they change how much magic can come in a subclass, maybe, but even then a subclass that grants magic always focuses almost entirely on that magic. 1/3 casters are 90% just Spellcasting. They’d have to make ranger subclasses take up much more of the class’ power budget. 

The only way I could see it working is to give the ranger base class a resource that magical subclasses can use for Spellcasting, but other subclasses use for non-magical things. 




ehren37 said:


> But the D&D ranger, as it stands, is a survivalist who combines martial ability, skill and magic to be able to operate in hostile territory.



I think the Ranger is just…a ranger in a world full of dangerous magic. Also “hostile terrain” isn’t, to me, super important to the concept. They’re just as likely to protect a place like Lothlorien from hostile things from outside, in very much not hostile terrain.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Henadic Theologian said:


> For core classes wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, but not classes like Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc..., I mean Sorcerer & Warlock weren't even classes before 3e.




I strongly object to "bard". They got their identity in 2e and in 3e they were only a shadow of themselves.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> If they change how much magic can come in a subclass, maybe, but even then a subclass that grants magic always focuses almost entirely on that magic. 1/3 casters are 90% just Spellcasting. They’d have to make ranger subclasses take up much more of the class’ power budget.
> 
> The only way I could see it working is to give the ranger base class a resource that magical subclasses can use for Spellcasting, but other subclasses use for non-magical things.



That's the biggest issue.

The "magic optional" route doesn't work unless WOTC designs a core ranger class features.They tried that in 2014. Everyone hated 2014 Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, HIPS etc.

The "magic optional" ranger would need a new resource tap into for magical or nonmagical features. However they tried that with the monk and the sorcerer and failed hard.

There's no way to go the "magic optional" route without either making subcasses 90% of the ranger, designing a major subsystem just for the ranger, or making the core of the ranger "A fighter with 2-4 Expertise".


----------



## UngeheuerLich

doctorbadwolf said:


> I hate the current spell list dynamic a little more the more I think about it.
> 
> Why can’t Rangers cast evocations? What whack nonsense is this? WTF Bards can’t cast 1/3 of the damn schools!? Hahahahahhahaha no. Garbage.




Actually a good solution.

The bard gets a good selection of spells. They lose out on thunderwave, which is a bit sad, but overall they got an upgrade.

I miss the few druid spells fairy fire and speak with animals. But if you really want, you can get at least one of them through a feat.


----------



## Gammadoodler

doctorbadwolf said:


> Probably not, since wotc seems to view nature in D&D worlds as inherently magical. Not consistently, but enough so that alchemy and the good poisons and using herbs to heal people all eventually turns into magic.
> 
> In that context, it makes sense that the ranger is magical.
> 
> But I would love to replace favored enemy with bane poisons that do things like making a critter have to concentrate in order to stay aloft in flight and take damage when it moves more Than half speed, or lose regeneration.



Yeah, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. If your schtick is hunting and killing monsters, maybe include some methods to accomplish that goal, beyond "well..generic spellcasting ought to cover it"

The absence of player facing abilities to set and trigger traps is one more curious omission, since using traps in the wilderness has been a real thing for a very long time, and traps in d&d are quite common.


----------



## i_dont_meta

Ruin Explorer said:


> So BIG nerf to Rogues which seem to be hitting an awful lot of Martials (it also hits Hunter, but matters far less there):
> 
> You have to "Take the Attack Action" to get the Sneak Attack bonus. That means that you can't, for example, get SA on a Reaction or Bonus Attack-based attack (unless they've also changed those).
> 
> That's absolutely a kick in the nuts for Rogues. Drastically decreasing their damage potential and increasing the number of rounds where they'll just fail to land SA. Not sure why WotC felt it was necessary, especially as it is MORE complicated than before, and runs counter to the general trend of simplification.
> 
> Subtle Strikes and Elusive are pretty good but very high level.
> 
> Also gonna be some Spider-Man stuff going down given both Rangers and Thief Rogues and anyone who takes Athlete will have a full-on Climb Speed equal to their speed!



Yep, but now you can't split your movement types up. So great, you climbed up the wall, but unless you also Dash, you're stuck there. Still situationally useful, but it seems like a nice compromise. And as for SA, not having to use your BA to dual wield hopefully mitigates the lack use as a Reaction.


----------



## i_dont_meta

Ruin Explorer said:


> Oooh a rules perversity! You can go further in a round where you jump a 15' gap than one where you jump a 3' gap, because gaps less than 5' count as Difficult terrain, but no penalties are assessed for jumping big distances. Learn2makerules WotC. Come on.



Pump your brakes there, scooter. White room assumptions don't break anything. Next time there's a job opening at Wizards, I'd love to see your resumè.


----------



## cbwjm

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why can’t Rangers cast evocations? What whack nonsense is this? WTF Bards can’t cast 1/3 of the damn schools!? Hahahahahhahaha no. Garbage



On the plus side, heal spells became abjurations so rangers can cast them, and spells like thunderwave became transmutation so bards can cast them. Great times!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

cbwjm said:


> On the plus side, heal spells became abjurations so rangers can cast them, and spells like thunderwave became transmutation so bards can cast them. Great times!




Burning hands used to be transmutation in 2e. Flame arrow was conjuration back then.

I hated it, when 3e put all damage spells in evocation.


----------



## Bolongo

I see the basic structural problem remains: lots of empty levels and no-choice levels.
Whew, no risk I'll be tempted back to 5e, then.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

darjr said:


> Who wants to try it? Via discord and owlbear.



I would be interested


----------



## Stalker0

Ruin Explorer said:


> Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if  you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting.



Katniss is a fighter with the outlander background, takes survival as one of her fighter skills, has the archery fighting style, and focuses on Dex as primary with wisdom secondary. And done.... Katniss is not some skill goddess, you just need a couple of proficiencies and your ready to go.


----------



## Stalker0

Minigiant said:


> The D&D cartoon is so obscure now Hank is *well* behind Geralt, Jon Snow...



Just noting that Jon Snow is a fighter full stop. He's not a ranger, not even close. Jon has little ranger training, he's not a particularly good tracker or forager. He's a noble raised soldier.


----------



## Minigiant

Stalker0 said:


> Just noting that Jon Snow is a fighter full stop. He's not a ranger, not even close. Jon has little ranger training, he's not a particularly good tracker or forager. He's a noble raised soldier.




Depends Jon Snow has a beast companion and can sorta kinda talk to him so that's Speak with Animals.He is also a untrained warg so he technically has Beast Bond as well.

He's basically like Aragorn and has "nobleblood powers" that in D&D is spells.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Stalker0 said:


> Katniss is a fighter with the outlander background, takes survival as one of her fighter skills, has the archery fighting style, and focuses on Dex as primary with wisdom secondary. And done.... Katniss is not some skill goddess, you just need a couple of proficiencies and your ready to go.



Yeah yeah yeah. By this logic all characters in everything are just "Fighters with some skills", including Gandalf. It's an absolutely ridiculous approach that totally fails to understand the fantasy involved.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bolongo said:


> I see the basic structural problem remains: lots of empty levels and no-choice levels.
> Whew, no risk I'll be tempted back to 5e, then.




Every level is a choice level -> multiclass. 

I have not experienced a single empty level in 10 years... some were a bit underwhelming but not empty. 

So better for you if you have already made up your mind after 2 UA packages...
and at this point I guess it is not their goal to bring back players, but focus on keeping their audience and make the game even more accessible. 

They once tried to gain back lost customers with a small edition shift (4e essentials) and only made me happy but otherwise did not gain pathfinder players back an lost their core 4e players, as most of them actually liked the game as it was.

I think what we see in the packet (although it need a bit of refinement) is exactly this. Rules consolidation. Class consolidation. With a bit better wordings also much better accessability.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Stalker0 said:


> Just noting that Jon Snow is a fighter full stop. He's not a ranger, not even close. Jon has little ranger training, he's not a particularly good tracker or forager. He's a noble raised soldier.




Hmmh. Probably a multiclass ranger that did not chose survival as his expertise skill. I mean he started out as fighter and probably multiclassed a bit later.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

The Ranger genuinely needed a rework (and I think at the very least a level 1 Ranger no longer feels remotely like a poor man's level 1 Fighter), and there are a few other changes I think actually addressed problems or seem to serve some sort of discernible purpose (I'm not sure I like the new two weapon fighting, but it's attacking a needlessly complex system so I'm glad to see them working on it). But to me mostly this seems like a lot of change for change's sake. 

That doesn't make the changes terrible per se (although I think spells prepared being tied to spell level, and making memorized casters prepared, spellcasters are genuinely terrible changes). But my overall impression is that this all seems pretty aimless and pointless. If this is all OneD&D is going to be, than it really is nothing but a refresh to force me to buy new core books.

If they seemed to be going through everything with a few clear (preferably stated) goals in mind, whether they were simplification, or addressing common complaints, or even something I have no interest in like fixing the CR system I would have a lot more respect for the process even if I didn't like or agree with all the changes. But at this point I think goal one for the bulk of changes (if not for the most important ones) is to change things just enough that you can't use your old 5e PHB in a 5.5e game.


----------



## Thommy H-H

All characters in fiction are actually NPCs and have statblocks like monsters that don't have to follow the rules for PCs. Aragorn has the Ranger tag, Gandalf has the Wizard tag (but in Middle-earth this is also a race tag and his creature type is Celestial). Thank you for coming to my TED talk.


----------



## cbwjm

UngeheuerLich said:


> Burning hands used to be transmutation in 2e. Flame arrow was conjuration back then.
> 
> I hated it, when 3e put all damage spells in evocation.



Which I feel is fair enough, however in current edition, it seems spells are changing schools just because otherwise a class that you'd otherwise think should be able to access them can't because of the restrictions they've put on the class in regard to spell schools.


----------



## Bolongo

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



Cuz anyone can chop with a Seax or a Messer.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

ScuroNotte said:


> I agree. I don't know how it's possible, but they made the class less desirable. They need to hire an outside consultant/developer since they cannot get it right.



. . . They buffed the class a ton. This version of the class is objectively more powerful than the 2014 PHB version. The new version gets Cantrips and 1st level spells, get to change all of their spells on a long rest (except Hunter's Mark, which is automatically prepared), concentration-less Hunter's Mark, and 2 Expertise at level 1. The 2014 Rangers didn't get spells until level 2 (and never got cantrips), only got to change a single spell when they leveled up, and got two very campaign-dependent abilities that required you to talk with the DM in order to get the most out of your abilities (which just lets you ignore most parts of the Exploration Pillar). 

And that's just level 1. The newer rangers are just objectively better in how usable their features are and in pure numbers. How in the world did they become "less desirable" to you?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

TwoSix said:


> In all seriousness, not using 3PP or homebrewing yourself is tragically neglectful of one of 5e's greatest strength; its ease in being modified.



I've seen people joke that 5e is the Skyrim of TTRPGs, in that people change it so much that it becomes practically a different game.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I've made my peace with spellcasting rangers some time ago. I think they would benefit from a feature similar to the Artificer's spellcasting-with-tools feature. 

Huntsman's Mysticism:
You must cast you spell using either a component pouch, a herbalist kit or hunter's tools. At the end of a long rest in the wilderness, you can make a DC 10 (or higher if the DM declares the terrain as barren) Wisdom or Intelligence (Survival) test. On a successful test, you can ignore the material components of your spells as long as they are not consumed until the end of your next long rest.


----------



## Islayre d'Argolh

Micah Sweet said:


> If only there was a version of ranger in some awesome 3pp of 5e that didn't require magic at all...



Yeah... Something like the Scout archetype for the Rogue in Xanatar's...
Or a Dex/Bow Fighter with the Outlander Bakground and Expertise in Survival (Prodigy/Skill Expert)...


----------



## Sir Brennen

cbwjm said:


> On the plus side, heal spells became abjurations so rangers can cast them, and spells like thunderwave _power chord_ became transmutation so bards can cast them. Great times!



FTFY


----------



## Gammadoodler

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I've made my peace with spellcasting rangers some time ago. I think they would benefit from a feature similar to the Artificer's spellcasting-with-tools feature.
> 
> Huntsman's Mysticism:
> You must cast you spell using either a component pouch, a herbalist kit or hunter's tools. At the end of a long rest in the wilderness, you can make a DC 10 (or higher if the DM declares the terrain as barren) Wisdom or Intelligence (Survival) test. On a successful test, you can ignore the material components of your spells as long as they are not consumed until the end of your next long rest.



On the one hand, I like this. On the other, I think it leapfrogs a step.

It'd be nice if there were a few interesting, mechanically potent and adeventure-relevant uses for such tools that don't use spellcasting first. Uses that might reflect how an expert in such tool use would deploy them without a requirement to directly manipulate the pervasive magical essence of all things.

Hunters Mark is sort of an example of this. It's a spell that makes you better able to see or hunt a creature and applies a non-specific damage rider to your attacks on that creature. Why does this need to be a spell? Why does reality need to be warped in order for a ranger to focus on a target? 

I don't mind the idea of adding magic on top of that. It just feels like we're skipping the foundational stuff so we can make up some magical stuff.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Benjamin Olson said:


> The Ranger genuinely needed a rework (and I think at the very least a level 1 Ranger no longer feels remotely like a poor man's level 1 Fighter), and there are a few other changes I think actually addressed problems or seem to serve some sort of discernible purpose (I'm not sure I like the new two weapon fighting, but it's attacking a needlessly complex system so I'm glad to see them working on it). But to me mostly this seems like a lot of change for change's sake.
> 
> That doesn't make the changes terrible per se (although I think spells prepared being tied to spell level, and making memorized casters prepared, spellcasters are genuinely terrible changes). But my overall impression is that this all seems pretty aimless and pointless. If this is all OneD&D is going to be, than it really is nothing but a refresh to force me to buy new core books.
> 
> If they seemed to be going through everything with a few clear (preferably stated) goals in mind, whether they were simplification, or addressing common complaints, or even something I have no interest in like fixing the CR system I would have a lot more respect for the process even if I didn't like or agree with all the changes. But at this point I think goal one for the bulk of changes (if not for the most important ones) is to change things just enough that you can't use your old 5e PHB in a 5.5e game.



That is _ exactly_ what they want.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> . . . They buffed the class a ton. This version of the class is objectively more powerful than the 2014 PHB version. The new version gets Cantrips and 1st level spells, get to change all of their spells on a long rest (except Hunter's Mark, which is automatically prepared), concentration-less Hunter's Mark, and 2 Expertise at level 1. The 2014 Rangers didn't get spells until level 2 (and never got cantrips), only got to change a single spell when they leveled up, and got two very campaign-dependent abilities that required you to talk with the DM in order to get the most out of your abilities (which just lets you ignore most parts of the Exploration Pillar).
> 
> And that's just level 1. The newer rangers are just objectively better in how usable their features are and in pure numbers. How in the world did they become "less desirable" to you?



Because they don't feel like a Ranger.  They don't fit the archetype in pop culture of what a Ranger is.


----------



## Grantypants

There's an error in the ranger's sample spells. They're supposed to get two first-level spells and two cantrips at level 1, _plus_ Hunter's Mark, which doesn't count against the number of spells you can prepare. But the sample has four spells _including _Hunter's Mark, so there should be another first-level spell in there.


----------



## DarkCrisis

Micah Sweet said:


> Because they don't feel like a Ranger.  They don't fit the archetype in pop culture of what a Ranger is.



Pretty sure WoTC stopped caring about that awhile ago.  Like Paladins can even be godless!


----------



## gorice

DarkCrisis said:


> Pretty sure WoTC stopped caring about that awhile ago.  Like Paladins can even be godless!



Don't remind me!


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

DarkCrisis said:


> Pretty sure WoTC stopped caring about that awhile ago.  Like Paladins can even be godless!



They always were, they just didn’t admit it


----------



## DarkCrisis

gorice said:


> Don't remind me!



Really you can’t do Low Fantasy anymore in D&D.    Every class has some kind of magical effect or at least near supernatural.

That 5th Ed version of Lord of the Rings coming down the pike looks really good. Especially if you want something a tad less Warcraft.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

JEB said:


> Interesting they made Study an action. Guess it was too ad-hoc before?



I think the designers, as individuals, just really like keywords and tags and other jargon with mechanical significance, and the only thing that made 5e start out with “natural language” was backlash against the very structured and precise 4e.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> Because they don't feel like a Ranger.  They don't fit the archetype in pop culture of what a Ranger is.



The problem with Ranger is trope creep.  Any character with some fighty skills that has a little extra "something", and that isn't an obvious sword&board fighter or knight type gets lumped into ranger.

Ranger can't be a tough mountain man, a wilderness guide, a sharpshooter, a beast wrangler, and a woodland mystic all at the same time.  It can't simultaneously be used for Legolas, and Jon Snow, and Katniss Everdeen, and Geralt, and Sylvanus, and Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.  Even with subclasses, it's covering too much ground.

It needs to pick a lane and stay there.


----------



## OB1

The lane that the Ranger is in is a warrior in a wilderness filled with both mundane and magical creatures, blending martial power with the magic of nature to ensure their own and others survival.  The PHB lays out exactly what the Ranger is in D&D.  The 2014 version handled the description fine, the new version does it better.



> Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.
> 
> Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

OB1 said:


> The lane that the Ranger is in is a warrior in a wilderness filled with both mundane and magical creatures, blending martial power with the magic of nature to ensure their own and others survival.  The PHB lays out exactly what the Ranger is in D&D.  The 2014 version handled the description fine, the new version does it better.



Thank you. So many want the ranger (Or other classes) to fit a very specific character archetype when the class is its own thing. 

Ranger isn't magic-less and isn't meant to be magic-less. If people want a magic-less ranger they can flavor it that way, the way a lot of people already do for Artificer. I know I probably will, I have both character ideas for a magic-less ranger, and ranger as is.


----------



## billd91

Xethreau said:


> Aragorn, as the king, had Lay on Hands. Anybody wanna explain that?



There are at least 3 different interpretations. 1) he laid on hands based on medieval ideas that true kings had divine right, 2) that was him casting a healing spell, 3) it was him using a healing skill. Considering that translating literature that wasn't intended to follow a game mechanic into game mechanics is at least party an issue of making artistic choices, any of those interpretations is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Maxperson

delericho said:


> That's one of those rules that _sounds_ like a good idea, but in practice is just a pain. If the characters are taking a Long Rest, it's probably because they feel they need a LR, either because they're low on spells or hit points. Ruling that an interrupted LR has no benefit will just lead to them hunkering down, using more and more elaborate efforts to protect themselves, until such time as the DM relents and lets them finish the LR, and only then will they actually get on with the game.



I don't agree.  If the DM hits them often, then yes. If it's just once in a while, it adds danger to resting while not turning into an arms race equivalent.


----------



## Bill Zebub

billd91 said:


> There are at least 3 different interpretations. 1) he laid on hands based on medieval ideas that true kings had divine right, 2) that was him casting a healing spell, 3) it was him using a healing skill. Considering that translating literature that wasn't intended to follow a game mechanic into game mechanics is at least party an issue of making artistic choices, any of those interpretations is perfectly reasonable.




Fourth interpretation: Tolkien was hazy on his knowledge of D&D rules. 

Oh, wait, I meant NOT EVERY STORY MAPS TO D&D.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> Several spells have switched spell schools; most notably, all the cure spells are now Abjuration.



I still want them to be necromancy where they belong.  Well, at least I can make that change for my game.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TwoSix said:


> The problem with Ranger is trope creep.  Any character with some fighty skills that has a little extra "something", and that isn't an obvious sword&board fighter or knight type gets lumped into ranger.
> 
> Ranger can't be a tough mountain man, a wilderness guide, a sharpshooter, a beast wrangler, and a woodland mystic all at the same time.  It can't simultaneously be used for Legolas, and Jon Snow, and Katniss Everdeen, and Geralt, and Sylvanus, and Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.  Even with subclasses, it's covering too much ground.
> 
> It needs to pick a lane and stay there.



This is what subclasses are for. Each subclass can be a different lane.

And agreed that Jon Snow isn't a ranger. But the rest of the people you've listed? The alternative in almost all cases is fighter. And frankly if you think that _ ranger_ is overloaded throwing them into the same class as e.g. Brienne of Tarth and Jamie Lannister only makes the problem you outline far far worse.


----------



## Maxperson

Sacrosanct said:


> That's disappointing, actually.  Exhaustion was an excellent mechanic that supported the exploration pillar and made it important.  Now it's not really a big deal at all.



I agree and won't be using this change if it happens.


----------



## Maxperson

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> They mentioned in the first video that they want to playtest 48 subclasses, 4 for each class



If they want to test 48 subclasses, all the classes, and everything else they mentioned AND correct errors and things people don't like, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases considerably.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Neonchameleon said:


> This is what subclasses are for. Each subclass can be a different lane.
> 
> And agreed that Jon Snow isn't a ranger. But the rest of the people you've listed? The alternative in almost all cases is fighter. And frankly if you think that _ ranger_ is overloaded throwing them into the same class as e.g. Brienne of Tarth and Jamie Lannister only makes the problem you outline far far worse.



Insofar as there are lanes, to me, it's something along the lines of...

A fighter uses perfection of technique to achieve combat goals.

A rogue uses awareness of their surroundings to achieve combat goals

A ranger uses knowledge about their enemies to achieve combat goals.

That said, I don't really mind a bit of fuzz around the edges.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would like a rewording of extra attack though. Cantrip + extra attack should be standard.



I like it as a special ability of subclasses like bladesinger.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

gorice said:


> Don't remind me!




 Which I hate







Maxperson said:


> If they want to test 48 subclasses, all the classes, and everything else they mentioned AND correct errors and things people don't like, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases considerably.




 Agreed although I think we could get the survey results for the first packet soon and an updated version of the origins packet this month in edition to the next class group.


----------



## TwoSix

Neonchameleon said:


> This is what subclasses are for. Each subclass can be a different lane.
> 
> And agreed that Jon Snow isn't a ranger. But the rest of the people you've listed? The alternative in almost all cases is fighter. And frankly if you think that _ ranger_ is overloaded throwing them into the same class as e.g. Brienne of Tarth and Jamie Lannister only makes the problem you outline far far worse.



Legolas is a fighter.  He has some nature-y stuff on account of being an elf in a world where "elf" does a ton of work.  

Same thing for Katniss Everdeen.  She's a bow user who's good in the woods.  She has high Dex, and stealth and survival proficiencies.  But she doesn't do anything mystical, so she isn't a ranger.

4e, sure, they'd be rangers, because rangers were explicitly martials who focused on ranged attacks.  But in 5e, _if we take the definition that WotC has given us_, rangers are inherently mystical.  A character who's good in the woods by reason of skill and training alone is not a ranger.  

The ranger class, in-game, isn't satisfying anyone because it's stretched too far, and thus it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavor in.  That means the tropes presented in the class have to be strengthened, both by having a stronger set of class exemplars AND by excluding the border cases from the class definition.  No STRangers, no non-magical snare makers, no "just a stealthy archer".  

And yes, "fighter" is also far too broadly defined.  Way too far, like it could be split into 3-4 classes with subclasses no problem.   We need better defined classes with tight mechanical niches and obvious tropes, not even more loosely defined classes with no coherence.


----------



## Olrox17

TwoSix said:


> 4e, sure, they'd be rangers, because rangers were explicitly martials who focused on ranged attacks.  But in 5e, _if we take the definition that WotC has given us_, rangers are inherently mystical.  A character who's good in the woods by reason of skill and training alone is not a ranger.



A correction: 4e rangers could focus on ranged attacks, but many of their build were melee, and the melee ranger sported the best damage output in the game out of all PC options.
Also, late in 4e they got some mystical power options, but yes, 95% of what they had available was purely martial.


----------



## Maxperson

CleverNickName said:


> It might sting even more, I think.  Having to deal with a cascading -X penalty to all ability checks, attack rolls, and save throws, sounds pretty intense.  And now it can take more than a week to fully recover from exhaustion.



I don't think it will sting more.  Not unless exhaustion becomes more frequent and with more levels at once.  

With 3 levels of the new exhaustion, you  have -3 to attacks rolls, skill checks and saves.  With 3 levels of the old exhaustion, you had disadvantage on skill checks, attacks and saves(-5 equivalent) AND you moved at half speed.


----------



## TwoSix

Olrox17 said:


> A correction: 4e rangers could focus on ranged attacks, but many of their build were melee, and the melee ranger sported the best damage output in the game out of all PC options.
> Also, late in 4e they got some mystical power options, but yes, 95% of what they had available was purely martial.



Fair, but their melee martial prowess was primarily predicated on Twin Slash, and 5e rangers are still good at dual-wielding.

But yes, I did overstate by saying they were primarily focused on ranged.  They were much more oriented towards ranged than a 4e fighter was, but were absolutely still excellent in melee.


----------



## Maxperson

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> omg I missed it was an ACTION



That's okay.  It's also a mini haste ability.  At 20th level, a strength 20 fighter with a 30 foot move and expertise in athletics(gained through a feat or something) could move 10 feet, jump 30(max jump distance) feet with a roll of 13 or higher, then finish his 20 feet of movement for a total of 60 feet, before he dashes.  Even if he rolls a 10, he still goes a total of 87 feet.  I can totally see fighters running across an open field hopping their way to the enemy.


----------



## Olrox17

TwoSix said:


> Fair, but their melee martial prowess was primarily predicated on Twin Slash, and 5e rangers are still good at dual-wielding.
> 
> But yes, I did overstate by saying they were primarily focused on ranged.  They were much more oriented towards ranged than a 4e fighter was, but were absolutely still excellent in melee.



Yes, we could say the 4e rangers were glass cannons of sort (mediocre hp, mediocre defenses, few, if any, defensive utility powers), and that being made of glass is more relevant for a melee character. The 4e melee ranger was high risk, high reward.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Maxperson said:


> That's okay.  It's also a mini haste ability.  At 20th level...




You would hope people would be doing something ridiculous at 20th level.

A regular lv0 Str10 commoner can jump 10 feet vertically. But only sometimes! Half the time he jumps _only_ 5 feet straight up.

Roof repair certainly got a lot easier with this edition. Everyone's been culturing their chi for that proper wuxia float.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

With the new exhaustion rules, I feel some are going to come up with a house rule that dropping to 0 HP and then recovering from that, gives you 1 level of exhaustion.

Also for Rangers I still want a Urban Ranger subclass called the Vigilante, think of someone like Batman, but as a Ranger.


----------



## Neonchameleon

TwoSix said:


> Legolas is a fighter.  He has some nature-y stuff on account of being an elf in a world where "elf" does a ton of work.
> 
> Same thing for Katniss Everdeen.  She's a bow user who's good in the woods.  She has high Dex, and stealth and survival proficiencies.  But she doesn't do anything mystical, so she isn't a ranger.
> 
> 4e, sure, they'd be rangers, because rangers were explicitly martials who focused on ranged attacks.  But in 5e, _if we take the definition that WotC has given us_, rangers are inherently mystical.  A character who's good in the woods by reason of skill and training alone is not a ranger.



And this is the problem. The definition that WotC has given us is messed up. In 1e and 2e rangers didn't get any spells before 8th level. In 3.0 and 3.5 Katniss (who is not known for insight)  would have no spells before sixth level and wouldn't reach the heady heights of two spells a day until tenth level. Given the nature of many ranger spells and that she wasn't that high level this wouldn't break Katniss as a character at all.

So in 1e Katniss works as a ranger. In 2e Katniss works as a ranger. In 3.0 ... we don't talk about the 3.0 Ranger. In 3.5 Katniss works as a ranger. And in 4e Katniss works as a ranger.

I agree that Katniss does not work as a 5e ranger. And neither does Aragorn. And neither does Drizzt. This is because WotC broke the archetype. The 5e ranger is therefore not fit for purpose.

And if the 5e ranger is not fit for purpose now is the time to fix it.


TwoSix said:


> The ranger class, in-game, isn't satisfying anyone because it's stretched too far, and thus it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavor in.



This is because WotC decided to flush the characteristics of a ranger down the toilet and give us a hedge mage using the name ranger. If the class doesn't cover Aragorn and Drizzt it is because the class is doing it wrong.

And no the issue isn't "it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavour in". It's that the ranger absolutely reeks of the flavour of "spellcaster" and that basic odour drowns out everything else. Before 5e there was just a splash of spellcaster in the ranger - but the One D&D smells more of spellcaster than the 2e and 3.5 bards did. They literally drowned the class in sauce - but a sauce that's shared with over half of all other classes.

A lack of flavour isn't the problem. An overwhelming amount of the wrong flavour is.

(For that matter the only reason the paladin didn't also get drowned in eau de caster is that it's rare that a paladin uses their first or second level slots to cast spells when low level divine smites are so good)


----------



## Maxperson

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You would hope people would be doing something ridiculous at 20th level.



Even at first level you will go a minimum of 5 extra feet with a failed check and 10 to 25(assuming 16 str and proficiency) extra feet with a DC 10.  So that 1st level fighter dashing will go 65-85 feet with his 30 move.


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> A regular lv0 Str10 commoner can jump 10 feet vertically. But only sometimes! Half the time he jumps _only_ 5 feet straight up.



Not so.  the str 10 commoner can still roll a natural 20 and the check total is how far you jump, so the commoner is moving 10 feet, possibly jumping 20 feet, landing and moving 20 feet more, and then dashing for 30.  A non-proficient strength 10 commoner with a 30 move can go 80 feet with these rules.


----------



## DeviousQuail

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You would hope people would be doing something ridiculous at 20th level.
> 
> A regular lv0 Str10 commoner can jump 10 feet vertically. But only sometimes! Half the time he jumps _only_ 5 feet straight up.
> 
> Roof repair certainly got a lot easier with this edition. Everyone's been culturing their chi for that proper wuxia float.






Spoiler: High Jump Rules



*High Jump*. When you make a High Jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing High Jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of Movement. In some circumstances, your GM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.

You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1½ times your height.



A 6ft tall character with a strength score of 8 doing a standing high jump gets ((3 - 1)/2) + (6 * 1.5) = touching the rim of a basketball hoop. According to D&D I must have a strength score of around 6. That's a blow to my ego.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is the problem. The definition that WotC has given us is messed up. In 1e and 2e rangers didn't get any spells before 8th level. In 3.0 and 3.5 Katniss (who is not known for insight)  would have no spells before sixth level and wouldn't reach the heady heights of two spells a day until tenth level. Given the nature of many ranger spells and that she wasn't that high level this wouldn't break Katniss as a character at all.
> 
> So in 1e Katniss works as a ranger. In 2e Katniss works as a ranger. In 3.0 ... we don't talk about the 3.0 Ranger. In 3.5 Katniss works as a ranger. And in 4e Katniss works as a ranger.
> 
> I agree that Katniss does not work as a 5e ranger. And neither does Aragorn. And neither does Drizzt. This is because WotC broke the archetype. The 5e ranger is therefore not fit for purpose.
> 
> And if the 5e ranger is not fit for purpose now is the time to fix it.
> 
> This is because WotC decided to flush the characteristics of a ranger down the toilet and give us a hedge mage using the name ranger. If the class doesn't cover Aragorn and Drizzt it is because the class is doing it wrong.
> 
> And no the issue isn't "it becomes too hard to pack a lot of flavour in". It's that the ranger absolutely reeks of the flavour of "spellcaster" and that basic odour drowns out everything else. Before 5e there was just a splash of spellcaster in the ranger - but the One D&D smells more of spellcaster than the 2e and 3.5 bards did. They literally drowned the class in sauce - but a sauce that's shared with over half of all other classes.
> 
> A lack of flavour isn't the problem. An overwhelming amount of the wrong flavour is.
> 
> (For that matter the only reason the paladin didn't also get drowned in eau de caster is that it's rare that a paladin uses their first or second level slots to cast spells when low level divine smites are so good)



You know, if they change the way smites work (which is entirely possible, as many think they are too good), you could easily end up with the same thematic issue with paladin that we currently have with ranger.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And that's just level 1. The newer rangers are just objectively better in how usable their features are and in pure numbers. How in the world did they become "less desirable" to you?



Because they stripped out all the flavor to power it up.

They should have Fixed the 2014 ranger features and spells instead of just converting it all to Hunters Mark, Barkskin 2.0, and Invisibility.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> Even at first level you will go a minimum of 5 extra feet with a failed check and 10 to 25(assuming 16 str and proficiency) extra feet with a DC 10.  So that 1st level fighter dashing will go 65-85 feet with his 30 move.
> 
> Not so.  the str 10 commoner can still roll a natural 20 and the check total is how far you jump, so the commoner is moving 10 feet, possibly jumping 20 feet, landing and moving 20 feet more, and then dashing for 30.  A non-proficient strength 10 commoner with a 30 move can go 80 feet with these rules.



I'm unclear how the commoner is getting two actions.  Jump is an action, and so is Dash.  Even with a nat 20 check, the commoner moves 10', takes their Jump action to move 20' more in the air, and then moves the final 20' of their movement rate.  They don't have another action available to Dash.


----------



## gorice

Kobold Avenger said:


> With the new exhaustion rules, I feel some are going to come up with a house rule that dropping to 0 HP and then recovering from that, gives you 1 level of exhaustion.



Funnily enough, I'd already though about giving it a try. The exhaustion rules are a clear winner out of this UA, for me at least.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, if they change the way smites work (which is entirely possible, as many think they are too good), you could easily end up with the same thematic issue with paladin that we currently have with ranger.



I know. On the other hand it shows us a way out of the thematic mess that's the current ranger without too much in the way of overhauls. You need some sort of useful spell sink and Hunter's Mark is too efficient.

Of course by making the Ranger a "Spells prepared" class WotC means that rangers are going to spend far _more_ time fiddling with their spells, making the whole situation worse.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> I'm unclear how the commoner is getting two actions.  Jump is an action, and so is Dash.  Even with a nat 20 check, the commoner moves 10', takes their Jump action to move 20' more in the air, and then moves the final 20' of their movement rate.  They don't have another action available to Dash.



Ahh. Forgot dash was an action.  The commoner can move 30 and jump 20.  Okay.  That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.  The fighter can move 30 and jump 30.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> I'm unclear how the commoner is getting two actions.  Jump is an action, and so is Dash.  Even with a nat 20 check, the commoner moves 10', takes their Jump action to move 20' more in the air, and then moves the final 20' of their movement rate.  They don't have another action available to Dash.



I think people are forgeting they made jump cost your action


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think people are forgeting they made jump cost your action



They should add it to Cunning Action


----------



## OB1

gorice said:


> Funnily enough, I'd already though about giving it a try. The exhaustion rules are a clear winner out of this UA, for me at least.



Same here, I'm thinking of trying all of the following with the new rules

Drop to 0 HP - 1 Level of Exhaustion
Fail a death saving throw - 2 Levels of Exhaustion
Critically Hit - 1 Level of Exhaustion (instead of double damage dice)
Gain Advantage on a d20 Test - 1 Level of Exhaustion (applied after the check)


----------



## Minigiant

Olrox17 said:


> A correction: 4e rangers could focus on ranged attacks, but many of their build were melee, and the melee ranger sported the best damage output in the game out of all PC options.
> Also, late in 4e they got some mystical power options, but yes, 95% of what they had available was purely martial.



You miss the most important part.

The 4e ranger wasn't that especially great at wilderness exploration. It didn't have rituals and other classes has higher Wisdom or Dexterity. The 4e ranger is a fighter in 5e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> They should add it to Cunning Action



yes they should... I'm adding that to my notes for the feedback


----------



## Maxperson

CleverNickName said:


> I saw that...still scratching my head over it.  What do you think the reason was for this change?



To let classes like the bard who don't have any martial weapons have a sword.


----------



## Olrox17

Minigiant said:


> You miss the most important part.
> 
> The 4e ranger wasn't that especially great at wilderness exploration. It didn't have rituals and other classes has higher Wisdom or Dexterity. The 4e ranger is a fighter in 5e.



Well, not really. The 4e ranger starts with 5 trained skills, compared to the 3 skills the fighter gets. Its skill list is also noticeably larger. Also, 4e archer rangers are Dex/Wis, which is pretty much a perfect scout. The melee ranger is either Str/Wis or Str/Dex, indeed worse than the ranged one at scouting duties, but still serviceable.


----------



## DeviousQuail

OB1 said:


> Same here, I'm thinking of trying all of the following with the new rules
> 
> Drop to 0 HP - 1 Level of Exhaustion
> Fail a death saving throw - 2 Levels of Exhaustion
> Critically Hit - 1 Level of Exhaustion (instead of double damage dice)
> Gain Advantage on a d20 Test - 1 Level of Exhaustion (applied after the check)



I like it except for the Critically Hit one. That seems extra brutal for melee folks who already take more attacks from enemies than their ranged companions.


----------



## Minigiant

Olrox17 said:


> Well, not really. The 4e ranger starts with 5 trained skills, compared to the 3 skills the fighter gets. Its skill list is also noticeably larger. Also, 4e archer rangers are Dex/Wis, which is pretty much a perfect scout. The melee ranger is either Str/Wis or Str/Dex, indeed worse than the ranged one at scouting duties, but still serviceable.



The 4e ranger can't heal nor talk to animals and a cleric or druid had better Wis skill checks.


----------



## Maxperson

Xethreau said:


> Aragorn, as the king, had Lay on Hands. Anybody wanna explain that?



And telepathy. And maybe one or two other things.

As for the explanation, he had both elven and maia(angel) blood running through his veins.  His abilities were due to his Dunedain/Numenorean heritage, not his profession.


----------



## Maxperson

Henadic Theologian said:


> Katniss is a glorified Rogue with a focus on nature skills, Aragon a fighter. They have little to nothing to do with D&D Rangers since 3rd edition when most of the class identities began to solidify for D&D.



Katniss also had magic(tech) to help her out.


----------



## Faolyn

DEFCON 1 said:


> Ranger with a spell list means they have dozens of different nature-based abilities and features to choose from and use to be whatever type of ranger they wanted.  Rangers without it would get like only 6 different features at various levels across the entire 20-level span.
> 
> Personally, I'd much rather have more options available to me than less, even if I had to get that "Ew! Magic!" stench on my PC.  (And just in case you didn't get it... that "Ew! Magic!" was sarcasm.)



Have you seen the Level Up ranger? No magic (except for a third-caster archetype) and chock fulla abilities.


----------



## OB1

DeviousQuail said:


> I like it except for the Critically Hit one. That seems extra brutal for melee folks who already take more attacks from enemies than their ranged companions.



Good point.  Maybe instead it's

Negate a Critical Hit against yourself - 1 Level of Exhaustion

Depending on the enemy and your current HP, could be a good choice to make.


----------



## Olrox17

Minigiant said:


> The 4e ranger can't heal nor talk to animals and a cleric or druid had better Wis skill checks.



Your definition of who's good at wilderness exploration is very...specific? Again, 4e rangers get 5 skills, with Nature, Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, Perception, Heal and Stealth among them.

For comparison, the cleric gets 4 skills, 1 of which is locked to religion, and they only get access to Heal, of the skills I listed above. The druid is better, getting automatic Nature training, and 3 other skills, with Perception, Heal and Athletics available as options. So what? Why wouldn't the druid be good at wilderness exploration?

About wisdom, the difference between an archer ranger and a cleric is probably going to be one point of modifier, two at most, and the ranger will have far better stealth. Yeah I'll take the ranger any day.

Maybe you're judging the 4e ranger simply for the lack of ritual casting? Ritual casting can be easily acquired with a feat...and feats are a dime a dozen in 4e. It's not even needed, you generally only need one ritualist in each party, but if you really want ritual casting, it's cheap as hell.

In short: we played 4e A LOT back in the day, and had plenty of rangers PC in the role of wilderness scouts for the party. They were highly effective.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Faolyn said:


> Have you seen the Level Up ranger? No magic (except for a third-caster archetype) and chock fulla abilities.



No I haven't, and it's Level Up... a game specifically written to be an "Advanced" 5E.  If WotC wanted to make their own game more complicated or have more systems in place they could, but they choose not to.  So if using the singular spell system means we get more stuff as it's the easiest way to make sure the default game is understood by the most players... then I'm fine with it.

Plus, the whole "there's too much magic" complaint is overrated.


----------



## DeviousQuail

OB1 said:


> Good point.  Maybe instead it's
> 
> Negate a Critical Hit against yourself - 1 Level of Exhaustion
> 
> Depending on the enemy and your current HP, could be a good choice to make.



I like that. I hope you get a chance to try them soon.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> You miss the most important part.
> 
> The 4e ranger wasn't that especially great at wilderness exploration. It didn't have rituals and other classes has higher Wisdom or Dexterity. The 4e ranger is a fighter in 5e.



They had a bunch of cool utility powers that could be used for exploration. The problem, of course, was that these powers were competing for the same slots as utility powers that _helped you in combat_.


----------



## Hatmatter

ScuroNotte said:


> When someone refers to you as a phantom, wouldn't you get upset? It has nothing to do with not agreeing. Many people disagree, but to be dismissive of a person is another thing.



So you responded with an _ad hominem_ attack about him? First, he bothered to respond. Second, if you did not like his (presumably emailed and therefore person-to-person) response, why translate it into an attack against him as a person in a public forum and, thereby, derail the ongoing discussion about _ideas?_


----------



## Minigiant

Olrox17 said:


> Your definition of who's good at wilderness exploration is very...specific? Again, 4e rangers get 5 skills, with Nature, Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, Perception, Heal and Stealth among them.
> 
> For comparison, the cleric gets 4 skills, 1 of which is locked to religion, and they only get access to Heal, of the skills I listed above. The druid is better, getting automatic Nature training, and 3 other skills, with Perception, Heal and Athletics available as options. So what? Why wouldn't the druid be good at wilderness exploration?
> 
> About wisdom, the difference between an archer ranger and a cleric is probably going to be one point of modifier, two at most, and the ranger will have far better stealth. Yeah I'll take the ranger any day.
> 
> Maybe you're judging the 4e ranger simply for the lack of ritual casting? Ritual casting can be easily acquired with a feat...and feats are a dime a dozen in 4e. It's not even needed, you generally only need one ritualist in each party, but if you really want ritual casting, it's cheap as hell.
> 
> In short: we played 4e A LOT back in the day, and had plenty of rangers PC in the role of wilderness scouts for the party. They were highly effective.




The point is that the 4e ranger wasn't automatically the best at it and that is the point of the class. The druid, cleric, shaman beat it at wisdom checks and only the archer competed in Stealth. And it didn't get rituals.

A similar problem happens in 5e as the druid was a better ranger than the ranger due to full casting and Wild shape. 

Making the ranger potentially share spells fully with druid exasperates the issue more. Especially since WOTC refuses to give ranger exclusive spells.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Have you seen the Level Up ranger? No magic (except for a third-caster archetype) and chock fulla abilities.



The work apparently doesn't count unless WotC does it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Plus, the whole "there's too much magic" complaint is overrated.



Meaning you don't agree with it?


----------



## Olrox17

Minigiant said:


> The point is that the 4e ranger wasn't automatically the best at it and that is the point of the class. The druid, cleric, shaman beat it at wisdom checks and only the archer competed in Stealth. And it didn't get rituals.
> 
> A similar problem happens in 5e as the druid was a better ranger than the ranger due to full casting and Wild shape.
> 
> Making the ranger potentially share spells fully with druid exasperates the issue more. Especially since WOTC refuses to give ranger exclusive spells.



Ah, I see what your issue is then. You wanted the 4e ranger to be automatically the best class at wilderness scouting, when it was merely one of the best, alongside a few others (no, not the cleric, that's an exaggeration). 

Yes, 4e didn't do a lot of niche protection like that. If you want another example of that, the classic rogue role of sneaking and disarming traps can be accomplished by many other dex based classes with little effort, and rogues also don't get rituals. Does that make the 4e rogue a bad burglar? No, of course not.
Want another example? The wizard is the classic fantasy ritualist, but guess what? Everyone else is just one feat away from also becoming a ritualist, and 4e characters get 18 feats at max level, 19 if human.

In conclusion, I believe you have a problem with a fundamental design decision of 4e, rather than the ranger class in particular.


----------



## Minigiant

Micah Sweet said:


> The work apparently doesn't count unless WotC does it.



As good as the level up ranger is, it has one major flaw.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> The work apparently doesn't count unless WotC does it.



Well, to be fair, it _would _be kinda hard to import the LU ranger into o5e without also bringing all of the martial maneuvers as well. So of course the proper response is to simply convert your o5e ranger to LU!


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> Meaning you don't agree with it?



Meaning that I don't consider it to be nearly the same big deal as some people here on EN World do.

Mainly because I don't see any issues with having multiples of the same class in the same party. So if anyone really needed to avoid "magic" at all cost... you could just play barbarians, fighters, rogues, monks, and paladins that turn all spells into smites.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Because they don't feel like a Ranger.  They don't fit the archetype in pop culture of what a Ranger is.



The nonmagical Ranger archetype has a faulty design, too. Gathering food, tracking enemies, befriending animals, scouting, and all of the other "nonmagical Ranger-y things" are just skills. Nature, Survival, Stealth, Perception, and Animal Handling. The "pop culture Rangers" (Katniss, Drizzt, Aragorn, etc) are just Fighters or Scout Rogues that are good at those skills. It's not a big enough archetype for a full class with how 5e is designed.

Let's not forget, the Paladin class was based off of the Knights of the Round Table, Charlemagne's Knights, and the Knights Templar. None of which had magical auras, disease-curing hands, or magical smites. Barbarians are based off of Nordic Berserkers, but they don't have to eat hallucinogenic mushrooms/get super drunk in order to enter their Rage (and let's not forget that Conan the Barbarian is apparently a Fighter/Rogue, too).


Minigiant said:


> Because they stripped out all the flavor to power it up.
> 
> They should have Fixed the 2014 ranger features and spells instead of just converting it all to Hunters Mark, Barkskin 2.0, and Invisibility.



They tried to fix the 2014 Ranger features multiple times. It didn't work. So now they're transitioning more towards having Rangers be primal spellcasters to give them a bigger mechanical/thematic niche.


----------



## Faolyn

DEFCON 1 said:


> Meaning that I don't consider it to be nearly the same big deal as some people here on EN World do.
> 
> Mainly because I don't see any issues with having multiples of the same class in the same party. So if anyone really needed to avoid "magic" at all cost... you could just play barbarians, fighters, rogues, monks, and paladins that turn all spells into smites.



For me at least, the problem isn't in having multiples of the same party. The problem is that having magic can sometimes feel _too _fantastic unless the DM also does the worldbuilding necessary to support the magic. And also low-magic worlds are grittier without having to make them dark or mess around with long rests.


----------



## Weiley31

Ruin Explorer said:


> The big problem with Scout is that Rogue is completely the wrong chassis for the archetypical Ranger, who isn't some sort of backstabber/sneak attacker, and is the sort of person who is putting arrows downrange extremely rapidly. If there was a Fighter that ditched armour, got expertise, got nature-related abilities, and so on, that'd be a lot better. But that'd be what the Ranger is, except they gave it a ton of magic instead of actual abilities. It's even lost a bunch of abilities.







__





						Fighter: Scout - DND 5th Edition
					






					dnd5e.wikidot.com
				



_I know it's not exactly what ya mean, but apparently the "non spell ranger" is kinda covered by the Rogue: Scout and the Fighter: Scout._


----------



## Weiley31

Bill Zebub said:


> What about my pet?






Wardook said:


> You can have one of my cats, really I am trying to get rid of those dudes. You could call him Guenhwyvar.
> 
> More seriously, there are no pet classes in the play test yet, who knows how that will pan out? It would it appear that it will be pretty easy to swap subclasses between classes.
> 
> I played a pet Ranger in a 5e game for awhile. I found it very dissatisfying. My wife's druid was much better with a pet.



Honestly, unless OneD&D _MANAGES_ to make a Pet Class worth using, I just jack the Revised Ranger's Animal Companion Option for any "animal companion/minions" for classes. (So, Companion's Bond for scaling/skills).

That method serves the need somewhat. (I can only offer solutions, not answers so YMMV with the suggestion in regard to the subject matter.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Weiley31 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fighter: Scout - DND 5th Edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnd5e.wikidot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I know it's not exactly what ya mean, but apparently the "non spell ranger" is kinda covered by the Rogue: Scout and the Fighter: Scout._



What are you even linking there? Not only is that link unsigned and insecure, that's not official 5E content.


----------



## Weiley31

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Hunter's Mark the _same_ exact method they had in the Variant Options UA that was eventually changed for Tasha's?


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Scout Fighter is from Unearthed Arcana, rather old one from 2016.


----------



## Weiley31

Ruin Explorer said:


> What are you even linking there? Not only is that link unsigned and insecure, that's not official 5E content.







__





						Loading…
					





					media.wizards.com
				




_Much better or is that an issue too Maggie Smith?_


----------



## Weiley31

Zubatcarteira said:


> Scout Fighter is from Unearthed Arcana, rather old one from 2016.



Somebody gets it!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Weiley31 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loading…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> media.wizards.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Much better or is that an issue too Maggie Smith?_



I mean, it's an abandoned/rejected UA from 7 years ago lol.

By that logic, we don't don't need a Psionicist, because we can just go download the Mystic UA lol.


----------



## Weiley31

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, it's an abandoned/rejected UA lol.
> 
> By that logic, we don't don't need a Psionicist, because we can just go download the Mystic UA lol.



I don't offer answers, but solutions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Weiley31 said:


> I don't offer answers, but solutions.



I get where you're coming from, but it's not a real solution. It's a weird half-arsed thing that was rejected for a reason. It's interesting to remember that they tried it though.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

For those skill proficiencies and expertises to really matter, they'll need a good skill system, with examples of what you can do with a check that could actually make a Ranger stand out with their nature and survival skills. As it is in 5e, it's too DM dependant, and most effects that just work are spells, so you end up needing magic to even make a snare.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Zubatcarteira said:


> For those skill proficiencies and expertises to really matter, they'll need a good skill system, with examples of what you can do with a check that could actually make a Ranger stand out with their nature and survival skills. As it is in 5e, it's too DM dependant, and most effects that just work are spells, so you end up needing magic to even make a snare.



And they have been expanding what you can do with uncommonly used skills in the playtest. Just look at the added Study and Influence Actions and changes to the Search Action. I wouldn't be surprised if the Skill system in 5e gets more changes/additions later in the playtest.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Zubatcarteira said:


> For those skill proficiencies and expertises to really matter, they'll need a good skill system, with examples of what you can do with a check that could actually make a Ranger stand out with their nature and survival skills. As it is in 5e, it's too DM dependant, and most effects that just work are spells, so you end up needing magic to even make a snare.



At the base Skill Checks in general are two swingy. It is not a big deal in a dungeon with pick locks and disarm traps as that is part of the general resource attrition of that environment. Similarly with hiding and sneaking about but in social and exploration where the habit has been one bite at the cherry and failure is a big deal it is very unsatisfactory. Or at least once you move away from hex crawl style play. 
If you have multiple encounters in a journey with opportunities to evade than a failure or two is not a big deal and that is fine where exploration is the point of play. 
However, many tables that is not the point of play, they have a plot/investigation or whatever to follow and the journey is more of an obstacle to be overcome then the current system has issues. 
Expertise is going to help, as it is making the challenge more reliable, both in the overcoming of it and in the framing of by the DM. The problem now is that there are a lot of embedded "I win" buttons already in the game. 
Some of the spells in the game like locate creature/object should be made useful or got rid of. If you are within 1,000 feet of something you can probably see it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And they have been expanding what you can do with uncommonly used skills in the playtest. Just look at the added Study and Influence Actions and changes to the Search Action. I wouldn't be surprised if the Skill system in 5e gets more changes/additions later in the playtest.



i am actually hopeful but it will also need actual advice in the DMG and support by examples in adventure writing and I am not too hopeful about the latter.


----------



## Grantypants

Wait a minute.
HEROIC INSPIRATION
When you have Heroic Inspiration (also called  Inspiration), you can expend it to give Yourself  Advantage on a d20 Test. You decide to do so immediately *after *rolling the d20.
Am I misreading this, or is this saying that you declare you're using inspiration after you roll? So it's effectively a reroll?


----------



## Fifth Element

overgeeked said:


> Not incompetence, laziness.



If the designers were posters here, this would be considered a personal attack. Would be nice to have these discussions without leveling accusations of moral failing because a designer designed a rule you don't like.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Grantypants said:


> Wait a minute.
> HEROIC INSPIRATION
> When you have Heroic Inspiration (also called  Inspiration), you can expend it to give Yourself  Advantage on a d20 Test. You decide to do so immediately *after *rolling the d20.
> Am I misreading this, or is this saying that you declare you're using inspiration after you roll? So it's effectively a reroll?



That is more or less the way I read it also. With the caveat that if you made the D20 test with advantage you would get no benefit as advantage does not stack.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And they have been expanding what you can do with uncommonly used skills in the playtest. Just look at the added Study and Influence Actions and changes to the Search Action. I wouldn't be surprised if the Skill system in 5e gets more changes/additions later in the playtest.



Honestly the biggest "easy upgrade" they could give 5E going to 1D&D would be to keep the numbers but change how the skill system works so that there are more granular results, and more potential for riffing on results that isn't pure DM fiat. It needs to be simple and obvious, and PF2E has already got a good way to do it with "succeed by more than 10" and "fail by more than 10", so honestly I'd suggest just stealing that and damn the torpedoes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And they have been expanding what you can do with uncommonly used skills in the playtest. Just look at the added Study and Influence Actions and changes to the Search Action. I wouldn't be surprised if the Skill system in 5e gets more changes/additions later in the playtest.



Does that actually expand skill use, or just codify it?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Fifth Element said:


> If the designers were posters here, this would be considered a personal attack. Would be nice to have these discussions without leveling accusations of moral failing because a designer designed a rule you don't like.



Laziness isn't a moral failing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly the biggest "easy upgrade" they could give 5E going to 1D&D would be to keep the numbers but change how the skill system works so that there are more granular results, and more potential for riffing on results that isn't pure DM fiat. It needs to be simple and obvious, and PF2E has already got a good way to do it with "succeed by more than 10" and "fail by more than 10", so honestly I'd suggest just stealing that and damn the torpedoes.



I'm already using a system like that in my mostly Level Up-based homebrew


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Does that actually expand skill use, or just codify it?



I think both. They codify what certain skills can do and what actions you can use to do those things (Influence, Study, Search). In my experience, Players don't use skills if they don't know what they can do (Nature vs Survival, Investigation vs Perception, Athletics vs Acrobatics, Animal Handling, etc). I think that codifying what skills can do will expand skill use.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Does that actually expand skill use, or just codify it?



The actions largely codify it - except when combined with feats like Keen Mind that make them explicitly bonus actions.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Laziness isn't a moral failing.



It is often used as a pejorative.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> It is often used as a pejorative.



A pejorative isn't necessarily a moral failing either.  It just means, "thought of negatively".  Are all negative things immoral?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Grantypants said:


> Wait a minute.
> HEROIC INSPIRATION
> When you have Heroic Inspiration (also called  Inspiration), you can expend it to give Yourself  Advantage on a d20 Test. You decide to do so immediately *after *rolling the d20.
> Am I misreading this, or is this saying that you declare you're using inspiration after you roll? So it's effectively a reroll?



This is how it is worded BUT the problem is that the "immediately after" timing is a very tricky/annoying timing, because it's essentially a second or two. So I think the whole thing is badly-worded. It doesn't match with the general 1D&D approach in this playtest which is to eliminate weird timings like that. But it's the right direction.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> A pejorative isn't necessarily a moral failing either.  It just means, "thought of negatively".  Are all negative things immoral?



I didn’t say it was.


----------



## Rabulias

DEFCON 1 said:


> No I haven't, and it's Level Up... a game specifically written to be an "Advanced" 5E.  If WotC wanted to make their own game more complicated or have more systems in place they could, but they choose not to.



Note that "advanced" in Level Up is not always more complex; sometimes it's just... a different take on 5e. IMO, some of Level Up's changes are more streamlined, some more detailed/crunchy, and some are about the same level of complexity as core 5e.


----------



## darjr

I wonder if guidance is a way to eat up reactions, at least in part?


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> If they want to test 48 subclasses, all the classes, and everything else they mentioned AND correct errors and things people don't like, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases considerably.



Well, it would seem that we're likely to see the three other Class Groups in the coming months, which would take us through the end of the year with 12 core Subclasses leaving 36 to test in the following 9 months or so alongside the rest ofntheir roadmap. And that's before the ~6 months of flex time Crawford foresaw. Seems doable if they do big batches of Subclasses by Group after nailing down the Core Class.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They tried to fix the 2014 Ranger features multiple times. It didn't work. So now they're transitioning more towards having Rangers be primal spellcasters to give them a bigger mechanical/thematic niche



I fixed the 2014 Ranger features back in 2012. 

WOTC being unable to design Favored Enemy doesn't mean *No one* can design it well.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> I fixed the 2014 Ranger features back in 2012.



Can you time travel?


Minigiant said:


> WOTC being unable to design Favored Enemy doesn't mean *No one* can design it well.



Or: newer players don't want the ranger's main traits to be nonmagical, so WotC has changed the class design to reflect that.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Can you time travel?



I designed a flavorful and balanced version of Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain before 5e was announced back on the old WOTC forums then refined it when DND Next was announced when the community was clamouring for "+2 damage vs dragons again". The idea was massively popular on the forums and I heavily suspect the 5e copied it to create most of the 2014 Hunter subclass.

Ranger having bonus damage to injured foes, bonus attacks vs hordes, bonus damage to all large creatures, bonus damage to all humanoids, bonus speed, swim speed, climb speed, resist charm, resist fear, resist elements, anti magic tactics, antiwarriot tactics, anti sneak tactics, defense vs groups defense vs solos. Etc etc.

Thought of all that back when 4e was buzzing.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Or: newer players don't want the ranger's main traits to be nonmagical, so WotC has changed the class design to reflect that



Many do. Many don't. 

The issue is WOTC has tunnel vision on the class design at times.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> Many do. Many don't.
> 
> The issue is WOTC has tunnel vision on the class design at times



I'm pretty sure WotC has data on this. They did that big Class survey this year, remember? Where they asked everyone to review all of the features that the PHB classes got. And also asked how old the people who took the survey were and what edition was their first. 

I think that they're changing the ranger class based on that feedback. We're the ones with "tunnel vision". WotC are the ones sitting on a hill with data about all of us.


----------



## Haplo781

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm pretty sure WotC has data on this. They did that big Class survey this year, remember? Where they asked everyone to review all of the features that the PHB classes got. And also asked how old the people who took the survey were and what edition was their first.
> 
> I think that they're changing the ranger class based on that feedback. We're the ones with "tunnel vision". WotC are the ones sitting on a hill with data about all of us.



The problem, as always, is that they're trying to be all things to all people instead of picking a lane.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm pretty sure WotC has data on this. They did that big Class survey this year, remember? Where they asked everyone to review all of the features that the PHB classes got. And also asked how old the people who took the survey were and what edition was their first.
> 
> I think that they're changing the ranger class based on that feedback. We're the ones with "tunnel vision". WotC are the ones sitting on a hill with data about all of us.



They made a survey and the data that helped them design the 2014 ranger. They version most fans hate. Same with the monk, sorcerer, etc.

Remember 5e was built on a playtest.

The issue is WOTC doesn't know how to read their data obviously.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> They made a survey and the data that helped them design the 2014 ranger. They version most fans hate. Same with the monk, sorcerer, etc.
> 
> Remember 5e was built on a playtest.
> 
> The issue is WOTC doesn't know how to read their data obviously.



No, the problem is that they're trying to please everyone.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> The problem, as always, is that they're trying to be all things to all people instead of picking a lane.



That's not the problem. They are hard committed to a lane, put blindfolds on, and stepped on the gas.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> No, the problem is that they're trying to please everyone.



Incorrect.

It's actually the opposite. They are trying to make the least offensive version and telling DMs and 3PP to please everyone.

If they were trying to please everyone Rangers would have more exclusive spells AND be able to do scaling feats of nature with high rolls of Animal Handling, Nature, and Survival.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> They made a survey and the data that helped them design the 2014 ranger. They version most fans hate. Same with the monk, sorcerer, etc.



You're joking, right? The reason why people regularly mocked the 2014 Ranger wasn't because of spellcasting. It was because of how terrible and situational most of their non-spell features were. 

Also, do you have a source saying that "most fans hate" the 5e ranger? Because, from my experience and data I've seen, it's plenty popular. It just had major design flaws with Favored Foe/Natural Explorer that people wanted WotC to fix. 


Minigiant said:


> Remember 5e was built on a playtest.



And this UA is the result of what is basically 8 years of playtesting.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You're joking, right? The reason why people regularly mocked the 2014 Ranger wasn't because of spellcasting. It was because of how terrible and situational most of their non-spell features were.



That's my point.

WOTC did a survey and playtest, collected thousands of responses, analyzed the data, *and still published the 2014 Ranger.*



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Also, do you have a source saying that "most fans hate" the 5e ranger? Because, from my experience and data I've seen, it's plenty popular. It just had major design flaws with Favored Foe/Natural Explorer that people wanted WotC to fix.



The fact that WOTC tried to fix it three times and the playtest ranger has the most changes.

People like the concept of the Ranger. They hate the WOTC 5E version of it.


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You're joking, right? The reason why people regularly mocked the 2014 Ranger wasn't because of spellcasting. It was because of how terrible and situational most of their non-spell features were.
> 
> Also, do you have a source saying that "most fans hate" the 5e ranger? Because, from my experience and data I've seen, it's plenty popular. It just had major design flaws with Favored Foe/Natural Explorer that people wanted WotC to fix.
> 
> And this UA is the result of what is basically 8 years of playtesting.



Yeah, it was never a hated Class, but the least-beloved. Very different problem, for sure.


----------



## Remathilis

Olrox17 said:


> A correction: 4e rangers could focus on ranged attacks, but many of their build were melee, and the melee ranger sported the best damage output in the game out of all PC options.
> Also, late in 4e they got some mystical power options, but yes, 95% of what they had available was purely martial.



The reason why 4e martial rangers worked is because THEY TOOK ARCHERY AND DUAL WIELDING AWAY FROM ROGUES AND FIGHTERS! 

4e made sure powers worked with only certain types of weapons, and the rogue only worked with crossbows and finesse blades, while fighters were sword and board and great weapons (they added a dual wield option for fighters later, iirc). Rangers powers only ever worked correctly with a bow or paired weapons, though later they got magical and pet options.

Now, if we wanted to bring the 4e martial ranger back, we'd have to limit the fighter and rogue's fighting styles and carve out the twf/archer niche for rangers. This could be done by both giving classes incentive to stay in their appropriate fighting style (such as sneak attack only working with finesse weapons and crossbows) and limiting options (only rangers get dual wield and archery fighting styles). But I suspect that would not be very popular.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> That's my point.
> 
> WOTC did a survey and playtest, collected thousands of responses, analyzed the data, *and still published the 2014 Ranger.*



And that was nearly a decade ago. The demographics of players has changed dramatically since then. Things have shifted since then. 

What is your argument here? That WotC incompetently designed one class, so they're incapable of competently designing it now? 


Minigiant said:


> The fact that WOTC tried to fix it three times and the playtest ranger has the most changes.
> 
> People like the concept of the Ranger. They hate the WOTC 5E version of it.



Again, give evidence. All that proves is that the 5e ranger is flawed and WotC recognizes that fact. Not that people don't want it to have spells.


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And that was nearly a decade ago. The demographics of players has changed dramatically since then. Things have shifted since then.
> 
> What is your argument here? That WotC incompetently designed one class, so they're incapable of competently designing it now?
> 
> Again, give evidence. All that proves is that the 5e ranger is flawed and WotC recognizes that fact. Not that people don't want it to have spells.



In fact, testing a Ranger without Spells was one of the very first UA, and ot was a stinky bomb. And I doubt an audience who has played the 5E Ranger for 10 years is primed to lose Ranger Spells.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And that was nearly a decade ago. The demographics of players has changed dramatically since then. Things have shifted since then.



They tried to fix it back then to back then and they tried to fix it now too.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> What is your argument here? That WotC incompetently designed one class, so they're incapable of competently designing it now?



My point is that they don't know how to use surveys for anything intricate and the designers don't leave their bias at the door.



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Again, give evidence.



The Ranger class has the most UA
The Ranger class has the most drastic changes in TCOE via alternate class features.
The Ranger is the most altered class in this Playtest



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> All that proves is that the 5e ranger is flawed and WotC recognizes that fact. Not that people don't want it to have spells.



I never said people don't want it to have spells.

My opinion is the ranger needs more spells and more exclusive spells.

Because the nonmagical ranger will never work on mass appeal. The community wont let it have the features it needs and WOTC doesn't want to write wilderness exploration pillar mechanics.


----------



## darjr

Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.


----------



## Umbran

overgeeked said:


> Not incompetence, laziness.




*Mod Note:*
And just calling people who you have never met "lazy" is... the critique that results from lots of industrious work and in-depth analysis on your part?

Time to stop insulting people if you want to continue in the discussion.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Remathilis said:


> The reason why 4e martial rangers worked is because THEY TOOK ARCHERY AND DUAL WIELDING AWAY FROM ROGUES AND FIGHTERS!
> 
> 4e made sure powers worked with only certain types of weapons, and the rogue only worked with crossbows and finesse blades, while fighters were sword and board and great weapons (they added a dual wield option for fighters later, iirc).



I can't remember when they gave shortbows back to the rogue - but I think it was pretty early on. 4e rogues could be archers (I've played a few) and this didn't miraculously break the ranger. And this is little different to the rogue in _5e_ where Sneak Attack says that "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." (I think the only non-light blade finesse weapon in 5e is the whip). And then there were other builds for rogues that could use saps and maces.

And yes they did add dual weapons to the fighter less than six months in, complete with abilities that synergised with it. 4e fighters were mostly exclusive melee (and good at it). But the niche protection you are talking about wasn't really a thing.


Remathilis said:


> Rangers powers only ever worked correctly with a bow or paired weapons, though later they got magical and pet options.



Not so. That's just how it was at launch. I remember some two handed options as well.


Remathilis said:


> Now, if we wanted to bring the 4e martial ranger back, we'd have to limit the fighter and rogue's fighting styles and carve out the twf/archer niche for rangers.



No you wouldn't. You yourself mentioned that fighters moved into the TWF niche - as for that matter did barbarians. Meanwhile Rogues were allowed bows. As were Seekers, as for that matter were clerics though I never saw a Cleric of Sehanine in play. And there was even one fighter subclass (the Slayer) that could use bows.

None of this in any way stopped the Ranger. Because actual care was put into making the ranger good at what they did - and setting the benchmark using them.


Remathilis said:


> This could be done by both giving classes incentive to stay in their appropriate fighting style (such as sneak attack only working with finesse weapons and crossbows)



In other words pretty close to the way 5e does it by having sneak attack working only with finesse or ranged weapons and the rogue not having longbow proficiency so needing to invest resources to use something bigger than a shortbow.


Remathilis said:


> and limiting options (only rangers get dual wield and archery fighting styles). But I suspect that would not be very popular.



Except that as 4e proved that was not needed. It was just something done at launch either because the two weapon fighter wasn't ready or they couldn't fit it in the PHB (or both). But a lot more care was taken in 4e making the ranger's TWF (a) good and (b) distinct from the fighter's which was again distinct from the barbarian's than 5e seems to want to take.


----------



## Haplo781

darjr said:


> Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.



His mistake was playing a beast ranger instead of a TWF ranger or archer ranger.

The class was well designed. That particular option was hot garbage.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Remathilis said:


> The reason why 4e martial rangers worked is because THEY TOOK ARCHERY AND DUAL WIELDING AWAY FROM ROGUES AND FIGHTERS!
> 
> 4e made sure powers worked with only certain types of weapons, and the rogue only worked with crossbows and finesse blades, while fighters were sword and board and great weapons (they added a dual wield option for fighters later, iirc). Rangers powers only ever worked correctly with a bow or paired weapons, though later they got magical and pet options.
> 
> Now, if we wanted to bring the 4e martial ranger back, we'd have to limit the fighter and rogue's fighting styles and carve out the twf/archer niche for rangers. This could be done by both giving classes incentive to stay in their appropriate fighting style (such as sneak attack only working with finesse weapons and crossbows) and limiting options (only rangers get dual wield and archery fighting styles). But I suspect that would not be very popular.



I would have zero problem with making rangers the best archers. I hate that rogues work better as archers than stabbers, and I see no reason to enable Dex fighters as a viable thing.


----------



## Eric V

darjr said:


> Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.



Yeah, it was really good.  Too bad your son didn't play it for more than a single round.


----------



## Minigiant

darjr said:


> Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.



The 4e ranger was very good at combat.
The 4e ranger was meh a wilderness exploration.

That's the whole encapsulation of the issue.

If you need that guy over there dead dead, the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger would be great at it.
If you need someone to lead and protect the party with stuck in a fiendish forest fire or a frost giant's summoned blizzard or a royal fey's glade, the the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger can't do much.


----------



## Neonchameleon

darjr said:


> Wait? The 4e Ranger was good? Uh my son played a 4e Ranger for one round and never again. In fact the whole beast companion thing with 4e Rangers sent him down the road of nope on 4e.



The 4e _ranger_ was good and a very effective blender. 

The 4e _beastmaster_ subclass ... wasn't quite as bad as the 5e PHB beastmaster because it didn't turn your game into an escort mission. But it was right down there among the worst subclasses of the edition. And taking it generally meant you weren't actually taking the ranger's good abilities.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> The 4e ranger was very good at combat.
> The 4e ranger was meh a wilderness exploration.
> 
> That's the whole encapsulation of the issue.
> 
> If you need that guy over there dead dead, the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger would be great at it.
> If you need someone to lead and protect the party with stuck in a fiendish forest fire or a frost giant's summoned blizzard or a royal fey's glade, the the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger can't do much.



The exploration pillar hasn't really been relevant since 2e ended.


----------



## darjr

My son wasn’t alone. The beast master Ranger of 4e turned off a lot of people.


----------



## Haplo781

darjr said:


> My son wasn’t alone. The beast master Ranger of 4e turned off a lot of people.



Again, it's s a problem with the feature, not the class.


----------



## darjr

Haplo781 said:


> Again, it's s a problem with the feature, not the class.




The other options looked like pure combat to him. And that made the beast master even worse in their shadow.

You say well designed? Maybe for a very narrow niche.

But like someone else said, it’s kinda the whole issue of the Ranger in D&D.

I just find it odd that it was held up as the example that 5e is supposed to have failed to achieve.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> The exploration pillar hasn't really been relevant since 2e ended.



That's why the "More Damage" half of the community loves the Playtest Ranger and the "More Exploration" half of the community hates the it.


----------



## Haplo781

darjr said:


> The other options looked like pure combat to him. And that made the beast master even worse in their shadow.
> 
> You say well designed? Maybe for a very narrow niche of what D&D was like for him and us.
> 
> But like someone else said, it’s kinda the whole issue of the Ranger in D&D.
> 
> I just find it odd that it was held up as the example that 5e is supposed to have failed to achieve.



4e classes are literally a bucket of combat options.

So are 5e classes, but the game lies to you about it.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> That's why the "More Damage" half of the community loves the Playtest Ranger and the "More Exploration" half of the community hates the it.



I mean if you want more exploration you're _playing the wrong game_.


----------



## darjr

Haplo781 said:


> 4e classes are literally a bucket of combat options.
> 
> So are 5e classes, but the game lies to you about it.



Are you saying 4e was a combat only game? Skill challenges anyone? Utility powers? 5e does a fair bit better job outside of combat, imho.


----------



## Remathilis

Neonchameleon said:


> I can't remember when they gave shortbows back to the rogue - but I think it was pretty early on. 4e rogues could be archers (I've played a few) and this didn't miraculously break the ranger. And this is little different to the rogue in _5e_ where Sneak Attack says that "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." (I think the only non-light blade finesse weapon in 5e is the whip). And then there were other builds for rogues that could use saps and maces.
> 
> And yes they did add dual weapons to the fighter less than six months in, complete with abilities that synergised with it. 4e fighters were mostly exclusive melee (and good at it). But the niche protection you are talking about wasn't really a thing.
> 
> Not so. That's just how it was at launch. I remember some two handed options as well.
> 
> No you wouldn't. You yourself mentioned that fighters moved into the TWF niche - as for that matter did barbarians. Meanwhile Rogues were allowed bows. As were Seekers, as for that matter were clerics though I never saw a Cleric of Sehanine in play. And there was even one fighter subclass (the Slayer) that could use bows.
> 
> None of this in any way stopped the Ranger. Because actual care was put into making the ranger good at what they did - and setting the benchmark using them.
> 
> In other words pretty close to the way 5e does it by having sneak attack working only with finesse or ranged weapons and the rogue not having longbow proficiency so needing to invest resources to use something bigger than a shortbow.
> 
> Except that as 4e proved that was not needed. It was just something done at launch either because the two weapon fighter wasn't ready or they couldn't fit it in the PHB (or both). But a lot more care was taken in 4e making the ranger's TWF (a) good and (b) distinct from the fighter's which was again distinct from the barbarian's than 5e seems to want to take.



I will profess a little ignorance: my experience with 4e began at PHB 1 and ended shortly after PHB 2, with a cursory look at the Essentials line when it came out years later. I recall Martial Power giving fighters back some dual wield options (and it was vastly inferior to rangers) and if the rogue ever got shortbow powers, it was long after my frustrations with my namesake wood elf rogue being forced to use a crossbow had put me on the path towards Pathfinder. I do distinctly recall voicing my frustrations on this board and being told to "refuff the ranger as a rogue" those many long years ago. 

I think it is fair to say that the "niche protection" that 4e tried to enforce in 2008 was gone by the time Essentials was out which is ironically when fighters got their bows back and rangers got their "magic" back.


----------



## Haplo781

darjr said:


> Are you saying 4e was a combat only game? Skill challenges anyone? Utility powers? 5e does a fair bit better job outside of combat, imho.



I'm saying that combat, as in every edition, got the lion's share of the rules, and everything else was handled, as in every other edition, via RP and some underbaked subsystems.

Skill challenges were about the best it ever got (and 5e threw them out the window because 4e bad).


----------



## darjr

Haplo781 said:


> I'm saying that combat, as in every edition, got the lion's share of the rules, and everything else was handled, as in every other edition, via RP and some underbaked subsystems.
> 
> Skill challenges were about the best it ever got (and 5e threw them out the window because 4e bad).



Skill challenges were so bad they had to fix them several times and still never got them working. Organized play stopped using them, the one play format they would have been great for. The non combat stuff in 4e was bad. 

But I’ve derailed this enough.


----------



## Haplo781

darjr said:


> Skill challenges were so bad they had to fix them several times and still never got them working. Organized play stopped using them, the one play format they would have been great for. The non combat stuff in 4e was bad.
> 
> But I’ve derailed this enough.



Mmm, nope.


----------



## Eric V

darjr said:


> Skill challenges were so bad they had to fix them several times and still never got them working. Organized play stopped using them, the one play format they would have been great for. *The non combat stuff in 4e was bad.*
> 
> But I’ve derailed this enough.



No, it wasn't.

DMG2 had awesome advice for skill challenges, better than anything we've gotten for 5e, sadly.


----------



## darjr

Haplo781 said:


> Mmm, nope.






Eric V said:


> No, it wasn't.
> 
> DMG2 had awesome advice for skill challenges, better than anything we've gotten for 5e, sadly.



OK, I’ll bite. But then I’m really done. This time I really really mean it.

DMG2? That was, what, the 3rd or 4th revision of them?

As released they were too difficult, then, too easy, then revamped again and yet again for DMG2.

Why would a core pillar of the game need such advise in DMG2? Of all things.

And finally they never fixed the “we are in skill challenge mode” clunkyness, imho.  And I think I was far from alone.






						What was wrong with skill challenges
					

I played 4e very briefly, but I remember my group really got into the skill challenges part, even if the rest of the game didn't really engage us.  I have read on here a few times that the skill challenges system was broken somehow, but it has been so long I barely remember how they even worked...




					forum.rpg.net


----------



## darjr

So how many folks know about the Down Level casting introduced in this playtest?









						Down Leveling spells, from the Expert Classes playtest.
					

From the playtest.  I haven’t seen this discussed much. Has anyone tried this in play yet? I wonder if this would mean spells level ranges might get rearranged.  Was anyone doing this as a house rule?  edit to add a link to the point in the video where they say it's something they are...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> You say well designed? Maybe for a very narrow niche.



That's a microcosm of the issues at that time: well designed, but aimed at a narrow niche.


----------



## Vincent55

I hardly ever took the ability increases, as I thought the feats were a better option, I also favoured only one class and never liked multiclassing as it tended to cause you to not be able to gain many of the top abilities in a class. Being old school from 1st on, the ability increase just felt like too much gain with ease, no working for it. And in the old days, the only way to increase abilities was with a wish or tombs of gainful exercise and such. Some of the changes are as if they are returning some of the old options from earlier editions, like criticals only doubling the weapon damage dice. The free attack with an off-hand with a light weapon, while seems right, but only I would think with training.


----------



## darjr

Vincent55 said:


> I hardly ever took the ability increases, as I thought the feats were a better option, I also favoured only one class and never liked multiclassing as it tended to cause you to not be able to gain many of the top abilities in a class. Being old school from 1st on, the ability increase just felt like too much gain with ease, no working for it. And in the old days, the only way to increase abilities was with a wish or tombs of gainful exercise and such. Some of the changes are as if they are returning some of the old options from earlier editions, like criticals only doubling the weapon damage dice. The free attack with an off-hand with a light weapon, while seems right, but only I would think with training.



Interesting. Makes me wonder…. Huh?


----------



## Vincent55

The issue I have is that the game started like chess and is moving more to checkers, streamlining and making the game less complex to appeal to a greater mass of people well you get what you give. Mind you you just have to look around at other systems which are very simple to play, and the more complex ones and most do not play both. 

I have run many games in my time starting in the late 80's with the 2nd edition and have tried every version of D&D since, have to say the 4th was the worse as it was like an MMO in RPG form, but despite that, it had some good parts. I really think they could use more skills and combining them was a mistake, and shifted or lost much of the exploring and creativeness of the game. It has since become a game on autopilot in many ways, with the short rest and people being able to recover hit points many times during the day without a skill check or magical healing. Tieing the medicine skill to recover works a bit, but should be limited to once per combat, and can only be recovered after not during combat. I would let someone use it to stabilise during combat but that's it, eliminating a short rest from the system i feel would fix this as well and give things that were dependent upon these uses per day like back in older versions. I think they are going to do this for some creatures to help the "new" DMs better deal with the abilities of the creature. 

Personally, this never affected me as a dm as i always utilised the environment and all the creature's abilities and tactics in my games, part of being a DM is being creative and knowing your materials. But like I said much of the oversimplifying of the game brings with it those who can't do this or think on their feet and problems solve. In the last few games, I have run I have seen this on more than one occasion the player just stands there confused and unable to do anything but swing his sword and attack. Now not all have been like this only a few in each group had an issue but in doing so cause a few others to suffer due to their inability to think and do something else. 

What i plan to do is never buy another version of D&D ever again as the 5th was my last time, and from here on I will take what rules I see i like from this new one to fix the Frankenstein version I have cobbled together to make it better. So good luck wizards and as i see it people will become tired of the constant flip flop and the gutting of the rules that at some point the game will become unrecognizable. Anyway, that's my take but who really knows what the future may hold we might very well end up with the final last edition of this game ever, yeah and i will win the lotto, lol.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

DarkCrisis said:


> Really you can’t do Low Fantasy anymore in D&D.    Every class has some kind of magical effect or at least near supernatural.
> 
> That 5th Ed version of Lord of the Rings coming down the pike looks really good. Especially if you want something a tad less Warcraft.



We play low magic in 5e, does that count? Not sure what you mean by low fantasy.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Maxperson said:


> If they want to test 48 subclasses, all the classes, and everything else they mentioned AND correct errors and things people don't like, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases considerably.



Agreed, but I do seem to continue forgetting that D&D '24 is still probably more 18 months away.


----------



## Parmandur

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Agreed, but I do seem to continue forgetting that D&D '24 is still probably more 18 months away.



It could be upwards of 24 months away, based on when in the year prior Editions published.

Given the roadmap in the latest packet and the time frame suggested by Crawford when the whole thing began (a year to a year and a half from the Presents announcement), they certainly seem to have enough time based on prior UA release cadences.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Faolyn said:


> For me at least, the problem isn't in having multiples of the same party. The problem is that having magic can sometimes feel _too _fantastic unless the DM also does the worldbuilding necessary to support the magic. And also low-magic worlds are grittier without having to make them dark or mess around with long rests.



Then that's a DM issue, not a game design one.

If you're stuck playing a game with a lot of magic or it being "less gritty" because that's what the DM wants to run or what the other players want to play... it isn't on WotC to change all their rules so as to make it harder for that DM and players to do so.  You might just have to make some hard choices yourself about the games and tables you are choosing to sit at.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Then that's a DM issue, not a game design one.
> 
> If you're stuck playing a game with a lot of magic or it being "less gritty" because that's what the DM wants to run or what the other players want to play... it isn't on WotC to change all their rules so as to make it harder for that DM and players to do so.  You might just have to make some hard choices yourself about the games and tables you are choosing to sit at.



The default game has "a lot of magic".  Not playing with a lot of magic is an active change.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> The default game has "a lot of magic".  Not playing with a lot of magic is an active change.



And if the DM and table want to play with less magic... it's perfectly easy to just select those options in the game that use less magic.

But here's I think the real issue-- the people who say they want "less magic" in their D&D are probably playing at tables where the others in the group really don't give a rat's ass.  So while that one person wishes for a "more gritty, less magical" game... their fellow players take Wizards, Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, and the subclasses of Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians that use magic, and the DM just throws out NPCs and monsters that use magic cause they just don't have a problem with it.

But that's not WotC's problem to fix.  That's the table coming to a consensus on the game they want to play.

If (generic) you can't get a game together that is actually "more gritty" and uses "less magic"... either because you personally do not wish to put in the time and effort to cherry pick the rules in the game to use to accomplish that, or because none of the other players at the table want to go along with it... that's (generic) your issue, and not an issue WotC needs to design their rules around.

Especially if they've determined that the "low-magic" contingent is an exceedingly small number of the D&D playerbase.


----------



## Maxperson

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Agreed, but I do seem to continue forgetting that D&D '24 is still probably more 18 months away.



Yep, but they're going to need around half a year of that to finalize the order of things in the books, correct spelling and grammatical errors, send the final layout to the printers, get the run printed and then get it to stores.


----------



## darjr

If the PHB keeps selling like it is now they have a lot of room yet. Enough time to really experiment if they want.


----------



## Minigiant

darjr said:


> If the PHB keeps selling like it is now they have a lot of room yet. Enough time to really experiment if they want.



Well the last time they stopped the playtest ~6-8 months before release and a bunch of stuff didn't get properly playtest out of house.


----------



## Faolyn

DEFCON 1 said:


> Then that's a DM issue, not a game design one.
> 
> If you're stuck playing a game with a lot of magic or it being "less gritty" because that's what the DM wants to run or what the other players want to play... it isn't on WotC to change all their rules so as to make it harder for that DM and players to do so.  You might just have to make some hard choices yourself about the games and tables you are choosing to sit at.



It kind of is a game design issue. As @Micah Sweet says, the game assumes a lot of magic--a large number of races have built-in magic, there are far more magical classes than nonmagical, and even nonmagical classes have lots of magical options. And that's without magic items.

As a side note, you mention monks... but monks are inherently magical--_ki_--and the vast majority of monk archetypes are overtly magical. And a large number of barbarian, fighter, and even rogue archetypes are magical as well. There are really only three barbarian archetypes (out of 8), five nonmagical fighter archetypes (out of 10), and six rogue archetypes (out of 9) that are truly nonmagical

Which isn't _bad_, just not to the tastes of a lot of people. (And is another good reason to plug Level Up, since it has _seven _nonmagical classes and most of those archetypes aren't magical, either.)


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Yep, but they're going to need around half a year of that to finalize the order of things in the books, correct spelling and grammatical errors, send the final layout to the printers, get the run printed and then get it to stores.



Sure, which is why they expect the pkaytest to run up to 18 months from the start thisnpast August, but that includes a half year of flex time: their base roadmap isnto get everything outlined in Packet 2 out within the year.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Faolyn said:


> It kind of is a game design issue. As @Micah Sweet says, the game assumes a lot of magic--a large number of races have built-in magic, there are far more magical classes than nonmagical, and even nonmagical classes have lots of magical options. And that's without magic items.
> 
> As a side note, you mention monks... but monks are inherently magical--_ki_--and the vast majority of monk archetypes are overtly magical. And a large number of barbarian, fighter, and even rogue archetypes are magical as well. There are really only three barbarian archetypes (out of 8), five nonmagical fighter archetypes (out of 10), and six rogue archetypes (out of 9) that are truly nonmagical
> 
> Which isn't _bad_, just not to the tastes of a lot of people. (And is another good reason to plug Level Up, since it has _seven _nonmagical classes and most of those archetypes aren't magical, either.)



I've got no issue with Level Up... I think it's great that another option is out there for people who have a need to play 5E differently.  But I also don't believe WotC needs to go out of their way to change _their_ game beyond their design choices to try and placate those people who want to play 5E differently.  There are so many ways a DM can put together a non-magical 5E game right now... both by using the WotC rules themselves, and also with all the different 3rd party stuff you can find on DMs Guild and hell... even here on EN World in just the message board itself... if they just do some work to make the game their own.

We hear complaint after complaint after complaint that D&D doesn't have a Warlord class.  Well, I kid you not... there have probably been over a DOZEN different Warlords made just here on EN World alone.  Full Warlord classes by various posters.  Done so many times that we've had completely separate Warlord subforums made here just to house them all.  Any number of those designs of which could be plopped down into someone's "non-magic" game right now if they only bothered to look.

But they don't look.  They don't find all the work that others have already done for them, at least one of which would probably give them exactly what they wanted.  Or if they DO look, and DO find these options... they don't want to bother putting in the time to either do their own pass to see if its balanced (if that matters to them), or at the very least try it out in their game one time to see how it plays (and then edit it later as need be.)  Nope!  They'd rather just get bent all out of shape that WotC isn't doing it for them.

It's not that hard as far as I'm concerned... if you want to run a game that is "low-magic", you can do that right now.  If you want to run a game in Dark Sun, you can do that right now.  If you want a Psion class in your game, you can have that right now.  If you want a Warlord class in your game, you can have that right now.  If you want orcs in your world to be unrepentantly evil, you can have that right now.  All that stuff is possible and you can have the game the way to want it if you just put in the work yourself, rather than waiting for WotC to write it up for you and print it in one of their books instead.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> I've got no issue with Level Up... I think it's great that another option is out there for people who have a need to play 5E differently.  But I also don't believe WotC needs to go out of their way to change _their_ game beyond their design choices to try and placate those people who want to play 5E differently.  There are so many ways a DM can put together a non-magical 5E game right now... both by using the WotC rules themselves, and also with all the different 3rd party stuff you can find on DMs Guild and hell... even here on EN World in just the message board itself... if they just do some work to make the game their own.
> 
> We hear complaint after complaint after complaint that D&D doesn't have a Warlord class.  Well, I kid you not... there have probably been over a DOZEN different Warlords made just here on EN World alone.  Full Warlord classes by various posters.  Done so many times that we've had completely separate Warlord subforums made here just to house them all.  Any number of those designs of which could be plopped down into someone's "non-magic" game right now if they only bothered to look.
> 
> But they don't look.  They don't find all the work that others have already done for them, at least one of which would probably give them exactly what they wanted.  Or if they DO look, and DO find these options... they don't want to bother putting in the time to either do their own pass to see if its balanced (if that matters to them), or at the very least try it out in their game one time to see how it plays (and then edit it later as need be.)  Nope!  They'd rather just get bent all out of shape that WotC isn't doing it for them.
> 
> It's not that hard as far as I'm concerned... if you want to run a game that is "low-magic", you can do that right now.  If you want to run a game in Dark Sun, you can do that right now.  If you want a Psion class in your game, you can have that right now.  If you want a Warlord class in your game, you can have that right now.  If you want orcs in your world to be unrepentantly evil, you can have that right now.  All that stuff is possible and you can have the game the way to want it if you just put in the work yourself, rather than waiting for WotC to write it up for you and print it in one of their books instead.



As you say, it's so little work in most cases.  Just look around.

I keep pushing Level Up because there clearly are a good number of people here who don't like WotC's design philosophy, and I believe that Level Up is a great base for your homebrew because it addresses so many issues people have, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Sure, which is why they expect the pkaytest to run up to 18 months from the start thisnpast August, but that includes a half year of flex time: their base roadmap isnto get everything outlined in Packet 2 out within the year.



The anniversary is January 2024.  That timeline doesn't release 5.5 in time for the anniversary.  It would put it out in August(or later) in 2024, which is more than half a year late.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> The anniversary is January 2024.  That timeline doesn't release 5.5 in time for the anniversary.  It would put it out in August(or later) in 2024, which is more than half a year late.



Who ever said they were aiming for the anniversary to the month...? In fact, we know explicitly that they aren't, because Crawford openly said in the first playtest video that he expects the UA to run to maybe February or March of 2024. 5e was a 40th Anniversary Edition, and the rules were released in the second half of 2014.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Who ever said they were aiming for the anniversary to the month...? In fact, we know explicitly that they aren't, because Crawford openly said in the first playtest video that he expects the UA to run to maybe February or March of 2024. 5e was a 40th Anniversary Edition, and the rules were released in the second half of 2014.



Okay. So a year and a half to put out all of the huge amount of stuff that they just announced, playtest it, get feedback, correct and re-release it, play test it, get feedback, and if 5e was any indication, test it again, is still not enough time at their current rate of packet releases.  

It took them 1 month and 10 days to get us the second packet.  At that rate they will get get 13 or so packets done.

That leads me right back to my post a few pages ago. The only way within the time frame given that they can get this done right is if they release packets much more frequently.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> As you say, it's so little work in most cases.  Just look around.
> 
> I keep pushing Level Up because there clearly are a good number of people here who don't like WotC's design philosophy, and I believe that Level Up is a great base for your homebrew because it addresses so many issues people have, IMO.



I keep seeing people over on r/dndnext or r/onednd talking about things they'd like to see and at _least _60% of them are things that Level Up has done.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Okay. So a year and a half to put out all of the huge amount of stuff that they just announced, playtest it, get feedback, correct and re-release it, play test it, get feedback, and if 5e was any indication, test it again, is still not enough time at their current rate of packet releases.
> 
> It took them 1 month and 10 days to get us the second packet.  At that rate they will get get 13 or so packets done.
> 
> That leads me right back to my post a few pages ago. The only way within the time frame given that they can get this done right is if they release packets much more frequently.



They might not need 13, but that sounds about right. Consider what their roqdmap consists of:


Revised versions of every Class from the 2014 PHB [which should take up 3 more packets, through to the end of 2022]
36 additional Subclasses [probably another 4 UA, later]
New and revised Spells [probably spread across the Priest and Mage Class drops]
New and revised Feats [which Crawford outright says in the videos from this week will be spread across the Class Group UA]
New weapon options for certain Classes [which Crawford seems to hint is the bread and butter of the Warrior Group in one of the videos]
New Home Base system for PCs [probably worth a full packet]
Encounter building rules [definitely a distinct packet]
New and revised Monsters [probably in the same packet as the new encounter building rules]

So, I'd guess the plan before any revisits is for about 9 more UA packets to cover what they've committed to, bringing them to aboutba year after the start. Then, they can make any revisions suggested by testing for another round, and prepare the final book way before the Holidays in 2024.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> I like it as a special ability of subclasses like bladesinger.



I agree. I’d go a step past that even, and say it should remain unique. Let the EK cast a cantrip as a BA when they use the attack action, or something, or just give them magical “weapon attacks” that aren’t even spells, just an attack they can make any time they’d normally make a weapon attack.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Which isn't _bad_, just not to the tastes of a lot of people. (And is another good reason to plug Level Up, since it has _seven _nonmagical classes and most of those archetypes aren't magical, either.)



The issue with Level Up is it uses special rules to allow so many nonmagical PCs that the common fantasy table wont support.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> You miss the most important part.
> 
> The 4e ranger wasn't that especially great at wilderness exploration. It didn't have rituals and other classes has higher Wisdom or Dexterity. The 4e ranger is a fighter in 5e.



The biggest disappointment of 4e, for me, was the ranger. Until Essentials, at which point I finally made what felt like an actual ranger.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> The issue with Level Up is it usesspecial rules to allow so many nonmagical PCs that the common fantasy table wont support.



This is absolute nonsense.

You keep asserting "most people won't allow that!!!!!!" but it's just not true and it's never been true. Even stuff like Pathfinder 1E/2E shows it's not true.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> New weapon options for certain Classes [which Crawford seems to hint is the bread and butter of the Warrior Group in one of the videos]



Yeah I am intrigued as to what this will actually mean. Weapon-based special attacks/abilities? We saw 5E kind of approach that with some of the Feats in Tasha's.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah I am intrigued as to what this will actually mean. Weapon-based special attacks/abilities? We saw 5E kind of approach that with some of the Feats in Tasha's.



I think we saw a bit of a preview with the Ranger and the two weapon fighting stuff in this packet: Feats that change the actual properties on a weapon when a particular character uses them. I think we might see some wild stuff from the Warriors with that sort of technique.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> The issue with Level Up is it usesspecial rules to allow so many nonmagical PCs that the common fantasy table wont support.



I really don't get that. I think a lot of people will appreciate more nonmagical options.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Everything I've seen from Level Up says that it adds fiddliness in exchange for archetypes - but for all it goes in what I think is a direction that is the opposite to the one I want adding nonmagical choices is a huge positive.


----------



## Faolyn

Neonchameleon said:


> Everything I've seen from Level Up says that it adds fiddliness in exchange for archetypes - but for all it goes in what I think is a direction that is the opposite to the one I want adding nonmagical choices is a huge positive.



I'm not sure what you mean here with fiddliness in exchange for archetypes. There are archetypes in LU--lots of them, in fact, considering the 3pp stuff. There are _also _choices in the base class.


----------



## MarkB

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, if they change the way smites work (which is entirely possible, as many think they are too good), you could easily end up with the same thematic issue with paladin that we currently have with ranger.



Honestly, I've never really seen the paladin as having any particularly thematic identity outside of D&D in the first place. I can think of a couple of ranger-types from popular fantasy, but no particular reference comes to mind for the paladin. Even, say, Arthurian knights feel more like straight-up fighters.


----------



## Hussar

Minigiant said:


> Well the last time they stopped the playtest ~6-8 months before release and a bunch of stuff didn't get properly playtest out of house.



But, this time around, most of the rules have been play tested for the past several years.  None of the proposed changes are massive.  They're tweaks.  It's not like they're completely rewriting classes from the ground up, the way they did from 4e to 5e, while at the same time largely ejecting 4e's framework for how classes are built, rewriting every single monster, plus rewriting most of the flavor for every single monster in the game.

I'm thinking that this time around is a bit less... frenetic.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> They might not need 13, but that sounds about right. Consider what their roqdmap consists of:
> 
> 
> Revised versions of every Class from the 2014 PHB [which should take up 3 more packets, through to the end of 2022]
> 36 additional Subclasses [probably another 4 UA, later]
> New and revised Spells [probably spread across the Priest and Mage Class drops]
> New and revised Feats [which Crawford outright says in the videos from this week will be spread across the Class Group UA]
> New weapon options for certain Classes [which Crawford seems to hint is the bread and butter of the Warrior Group in one of the videos]
> New Home Base system for PCs [probably worth a full packet]
> Encounter building rules [definitely a distinct packet]
> New and revised Monsters [probably in the same packet as the new encounter building rules]
> 
> So, I'd guess the plan before any revisits is for about 9 more UA packets to cover what they've committed to, bringing them to aboutba year after the start. Then, they can make any revisions suggested by testing for another round, and prepare the final book way before the Holidays in 2024.



That 13 takes them to the deadline without any revisiting, though.  If they want to revisit, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> I agree. I’d go a step past that even, and say it should remain unique. Let the EK cast a cantrip as a BA when they use the attack action, or something, or just give them magical “weapon attacks” that aren’t even spells, just an attack they can make any time they’d normally make a weapon attack.



I can see arguments for both unique to a subclass and for limited numbers of subclasses.  I'd be fine with either.  I just don't want it to be a general thing.


----------



## MarkB

So, one thing I noticed:

EPIC BOON OF LUCK 20th-Level Feat Prerequisite: Expert Group Repeatable: No​Immediately after you roll a d20 for a d20 Test, you can roll a d10 and add the number rolled to the test. Once you use this benefit, you can’t use it again* until you roll Initiative* or finish a Short Rest or a Long Rest.​​No comment on the feat itself, but the bolded part is something I haven't seen before in 5e nomenclature, and is a more elegant way to implement per-encounter features than I've previously seen in the official rules. I hope it'll see some use outside of the Epic Boons.


----------



## cbwjm

Some things I quite like in this UA, I like that rangers (and presumably paladin and any future halfcasters) get spellcasting at 1st level, including cantrips.

Hunters mark is now an always prepared spell as part of Favoured enemy, I think this is good for a lot of players, for me I hardly used it since I tended to pick up other flavourful spells on the ranger list, so it's good that they given it for free.

I quite like the bards songs of restoration, though perhaps not just because it's a way to get healing spells. I'd want this feature to be changeable and a result of training from specific bard colleges. The flame dances might have a few fire spells instead of healing. Probably won't be able to alter it in dndbeyond when this is all released, but that might just mean that I move away from dndbeyond as a tool to create PCs and just use it more for referencing/DM tools.

I like how they are using the three different spell lists, but I don't like how they are limiting schools within those lists. I understand why they might want to in order to force a theme, but I'm likely to allow spellcasters open access to the entire spell list. This will mean that the bard's magical secret will essentially be granting them access to primal and divine spell lists.

I'm not so sure I like the new way of preparing spells, but if it gets rolled out to everyone, then the wizard is going to need a lot of changes. I'm not going to have the wizard needing to find all their spells if everyone is able to adjust their spells each day. Will have to wait for the Mage UA though to decide on any potential changes (they might have some cool stuff coming).


----------



## MarkB

cbwjm said:


> I'm not so sure I like the new way of preparing spells, but if it gets rolled out to everyone, then the wizard is going to need a lot of changes. I'm not going to have the wizard needing to find all their spells if everyone is able to adjust their spells each day. Will have to wait for the Mage UA though to decide on any potential changes (they might have some cool stuff coming).



It will be interesting to see whether this is the end of the wizard spellbook.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That 13 takes them to the deadline without any revisiting, though.  If they want to revisit, they will need to pick up the pace of UA releases.



No, I just laid out how they can easily get in everything they have suggested they will be doing by about August or September next year, which gives them months and months to revisit. Recall that no D&D Core book has released prior to June in the entire WotC era, with a spread of June to October for the Core three. They have left plenty of time for their tests of the new options.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

MarkB said:


> *until you roll Initiative* or finish a Short Rest or a Long Rest.
> ​No comment on the feat itself, but the bolded part is something I haven't seen before in 5e nomenclature, and is a more elegant way to implement per-encounter features than I've previously seen in the official rules.



It's been used in some other things before (but the only one I remember right away is the Gnome Fade Away racial feat in Xanathar). Scary, scary encounter powers, inching their way in.


----------



## Haplo781

MarkB said:


> Honestly, I've never really seen the paladin as having any particularly thematic identity outside of D&D in the first place. I can think of a couple of ranger-types from popular fantasy, but no particular reference comes to mind for the paladin. Even, say, Arthurian knights feel more like straight-up fighters.



Galahad possessed the strength of 10 men because of his virtue.


MarkB said:


> So, one thing I noticed:
> 
> EPIC BOON OF LUCK 20th-Level Feat Prerequisite: Expert Group Repeatable: No​Immediately after you roll a d20 for a d20 Test, you can roll a d10 and add the number rolled to the test. Once you use this benefit, you can’t use it again* until you roll Initiative* or finish a Short Rest or a Long Rest.​​No comment on the feat itself, but the bolded part is something I haven't seen before in 5e nomenclature, and is a more elegant way to implement per-encounter features than I've previously seen in the official rules. I hope it'll see some use outside of the Epic Boons.



When you roll initiative, regain all your superiority dice...


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> No, I just laid out how they can easily get in everything they have suggested they will be doing by about August or September next year, which gives them months and months to revisit. Recall that no D&D Core book has released prior to June in the entire WotC era, with a spread of June to October for the Core three. They have left plenty of time for their tests of the new options.



What you laid out was 13 packets with no repeats.  Without repeats the playtest fails to give revised anything in time.


----------



## cbwjm

MarkB said:


> It will be interesting to see whether this is the end of the wizard spellbook.



It could be, I sort of hope not but I feel like it is going to have to change. Maybe it will become something that allows them to gather rituals from everywhere, or perhaps it will become an implement in some fashion.


----------



## Haplo781

cbwjm said:


> It could be, I sort of hope not but I feel like it is going to have to change. Maybe it will become something that allows them to gather rituals from everywhere, or perhaps it will become an implement in some fashion.



"You can ritually cast any arcane spell with the ritual tag without having it prepared."


----------



## cbwjm

Haplo781 said:


> "You can ritually cast any arcane spell with the ritual tag without having it prepared."



Yeah, I think that needs to be expanded with these changes.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> I really don't get that. I think a lot of people will appreciate more nonmagical options.






Ruin Explorer said:


> This is absolute nonsense.
> 
> You keep asserting "most people won't allow that!!!!!!" but it's just not true and it's never been true. Even stuff like Pathfinder 1E/2E shows it's not true.




 Are most DMs going to let a ranger 

heal
remove toxins
remove curses
speak with animals
speak with plants
entangle foes with vines 
instantly train a beast
instantly befriend a beast
jump 60 feet
gain darkvision
breath water
shoot exploding arrows
charge their sword with fire
charge their arrow with lightning
meld with stone
meld with trees
scry
defeat scrying
without magic in a way that is still revelant in a adventure?


----------



## Haplo781

cbwjm said:


> Yeah, I think that needs to be expanded with these changes.



Maybe Arcane Recovery allows you to swap out one prepared spell.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> What you laid out was 13 packets with no repeats.  Without repeats the playtest fails to give revised anything in time.



I laid out 9 packets, which take us to when WotC optimistic timeline calls for (which does suggest that 11 or so packets is their initial gameplan), and leaves ample time for Crawford's less optimistic 6 additional months of repeat testing before they begin finalizing publication, which will probably be somewhere in June-October of 2024 (the range in which 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and 5E dropped in the yearly schedule).


----------



## CM

Thief's Fast Hands lets them Search as a bonus action... but trapfinding is a Study action and not a Search action...  

Also Fast Hands says that disabling traps and picking locks is a *Dex (Sleight of Hand)* check that is also made with thieves' tools. The tool proficiency glossary entry states _"If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check."_

So a thief proficient in both thieves' tools and sleight of hand gets to add their proficiency bonus twice to lockpicking and trap disarming, evidently.


----------



## DeviousQuail

CM said:


> Thief's Fast Hands lets them Search as a bonus action... but trapfinding is a Study action and not a Search action...
> 
> Also Fast Hands says that disabling traps and picking locks is a *Dex (Sleight of Hand)* check that is also made with thieves' tools. The tool proficiency glossary entry states _"If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check."_
> 
> So a thief proficient in both thieves' tools and sleight of hand gets to add their proficiency bonus twice to lockpicking and trap disarming, evidently.



I don't see where you get prof bonus twice. Wouldn't it just be attribute + prof bonus + d20 with advantage?


----------



## Parmandur

Parmandur said:


> I laid out 9 packets, which take us to when WotC optimistic timeline calls for (which does suggest that 11 or so packets is their initial gameplan), and leaves ample time for Crawford's less optimistic 6 additional months of repeat testing before they begin finalizing publication, which will probably be somewhere in June-October of 2024 (the range in which 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and 5E dropped in the yearly schedule).



@Maxperson  to lay it out more clearly, in no particular order:

1. Warrior Group Packet, with more Feats, maybe Spells
2. Priest Group Packet, with more Feats and Spells
3. Mage Group packet, with more Feats and Spells

That probably gets us through to the end of 2022

4. The stronghold/home-based Packet, maybe with more Feats and/or Spells
5. Encounter math and Monsters

6. Revisit of the Expert Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
7. Revisit of the Warrior Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
8. Revisit of the Priest Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
9. Revisit of the Mage Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round

So that brings us to about August or September next year having covered everything theybhabe committed to, with nearly a whole year before the final publication. And Crawford foresaw followups taking through to February or March before testing is finalized, which leaves ample time for getting to the printer.


----------



## Haplo781

CM said:


> Thief's Fast Hands lets them Search as a bonus action... but trapfinding is a Study action and not a Search action...
> 
> Also Fast Hands says that disabling traps and picking locks is a *Dex (Sleight of Hand)* check that is also made with thieves' tools. The tool proficiency glossary entry states _"If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check."_
> 
> So a thief proficient in both thieves' tools and sleight of hand gets to add their proficiency bonus twice to lockpicking and trap disarming, evidently.



Adding your proficiency bonus is binary; you either do or you don't. If you have Expertise, you double it.

You never add your proficiency bonus twice to the same roll.


----------



## CM

DeviousQuail said:


> I don't see where you get prof bonus twice. Wouldn't it just be attribute + prof bonus + d20 with advantage?





Haplo781 said:


> Adding your proficiency bonus is binary; you either do or you don't. If you have Expertise, you double it.
> 
> You never add your proficiency bonus twice to the same roll.



It was a brain fart. I meant to say that you have advantage on the roll if trained in both sleight of hand and thieves' tools, not double proficiency.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> Are most DMs going to let a ranger
> 
> heal
> remove toxins
> remove curses
> speak with animals
> speak with plants
> entangle foes with vines
> instantly train a beast
> instantly befriend a beast
> jump 60 feet
> gain darkvision
> breath water
> shoot exploding arrows
> charge their sword with fire
> charge their arrow with lightning
> meld with stone
> meld with trees
> scry
> defeat scrying
> without magic in a way that is still revelant in a adventure?




My two cents: I’ve been arguing for a Ranger without standard spellcasting, but that doesn’t (for me) necessarily mean non-magical. 

The model is like to see would be structured like Warlock invocations, where you pick from a list (your list makes a good start) to build the Ranger you want. Like the  Warlock, some could be straight up spells and some could be non-spell magical powers.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I laid out 9 packets,



Sorry, I thought you were saying that the 36 subclasses would be 4 UAs, which would make sense and was where I got 13 from.  I really doubt they will be a single UA.  That's far too many subclasses to playtest in a few weeks time.


Parmandur said:


> which take us to when WotC optimistic timeline calls for (which does suggest that 11 or so packets is their initial gameplan), and leaves ample time for Crawford's less optimistic 6 additional months of repeat testing before they begin finalizing publication, which will probably be somewhere in June-October of 2024 (the range in which 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and 5E dropped in the yearly schedule).



There isn't going to be 6 months of repeat testing.  Not unless they speed up the release rate of the UAs.  13 packets(which is far more likely than 9) is going to take you to the February 2024 deadline.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> @Maxperson  to lay it out more clearly, in no particular order:
> 
> 1. Warrior Group Packet, with more Feats, maybe Spells
> 2. Priest Group Packet, with more Feats and Spells
> 3. Mage Group packet, with more Feats and Spells
> 
> That probably gets us through to the end of 2022



It took them almost 6 weeks to get us the second packet.  3 more by the end of 2022 just isn't going to happen at that rate of release.  If the rate remains consistent, we will see the warrior group packet right around November 1st.  Which again brings me back to "they have to speed up the release rate if they want to get this done." 

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on this.  I just said that they would have to step up the release rate and you are basically arguing that they have time, and then giving me a greatly increased release rate to prove it. 


Parmandur said:


> 4. The stronghold/home-based Packet, maybe with more Feats and/or Spells
> 5. Encounter math and Monsters
> 
> 6. Revisit of the Expert Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
> 7. Revisit of the Warrior Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
> 8. Revisit of the Priest Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
> 9. Revisit of the Mage Group, with all Subclasses and any revisions based on the first round
> 
> So that brings us to about August or September next year having covered everything theybhabe committed to, with nearly a whole year before the final publication. And Crawford foresaw followups taking through to February or March before testing is finalized, which leaves ample time for getting to the printer.



They are testing a lot more than that as the glossary and all the changes going on there show.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Sorry, I thought you were saying that the 36 subclasses would be 4 UAs, which would make sense and was where I got 13 from.  I really doubt they will be a single UA.  That's far too many subclasses to playtest in a few weeks time.
> 
> There isn't going to be 6 months of repeat testing.  Not unless they speed up the release rate of the UAs.  13 packets(which is far more likely than 9) is going to take you to the February 2024 deadline.



I reckon that the Subclasses will be in 4 UAs, or 4/9 of thoae remaining, one per group, when they revisit the Groups after this first round of tests. At about one a month, give or take, that gets us to Summer 2023, which h gives a lot of time of anything comes up or needs further recisiting


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> It took them almost 6 weeks to get us the second packet. 3 more by the end of 2022 just isn't going to happen at that rate of release. If the rate remains consistent, we will see the warrior group packet right around November 1st. Which again brings me back to "they have to speed up the release rate if they want to get this done."
> 
> I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on this. I just said that they would have to step up the release rate and you are basically arguing that they have time, and then giving me a greatly increased release rate to prove it.



I'm sorry if this is coming across as "arguing," I'm more refining my own take on what's going on based on the evidence at hand, juat shooting the breeze. We'll see how it hashes out in time.

You are right that they will have to increase the rate of drops, but it didn't take them six weeks to be ready, they delayed the second drop to extend the vital first survey, based on what they said in the video interviews these were good to go after  just a month. And they said the cadence will be about once a month for a year, which gives plenty of room for what they've said they are testing.


Maxperson said:


> They are testing a lot more than that as the glossary and all the changes going on there show.



Not really, they laid out what they plan to test pretty exactly: the game mostly isn't changing, frankly, so putting in potential refinements in the Glossary will go on throughout the testing phase here fairly easily. That won't add to the number of UA.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I'm sorry if this is coming across as "arguing," I'm more refining my own take on what's going on based on the evidence at hand, juat shooting the breeze. We'll see how it hashes out in time.



Yeah. It came across as disagreeing with me, so I was confused 


Parmandur said:


> You are right that they will have to increase the rate of drops, but it didn't take them six weeks to be ready, they delayed the second drop to extend the vital first survey, based on what they said in the video interviews these were good to go after  just a month. And they said the cadence will be about once a month for a year, which gives plenty of room for what they've said they are testing.



Even at 1 per month, that's a packet around November 1st and another around December 1st.  Three of the four groups by the end of the year, not all four.


Parmandur said:


> Not really, they laid out what they plan to test pretty exactly: the game mostly isn't changing, frankly, so putting in potential refinements in the Glossary will go on throughout the testing phase here fairly easily. That won't add to the number of UA.



The big issue I have with that, is that how I view any given class or subclass is going to be heavily influenced by the glossary changes. A subclass I think is weak and should be changed might be a lot better given a new glossary with new ways to view their abilities.  It would suck if I gave a glowing review only to have it change 4 packets later when the glossary changes or a review that I hate a subclass that 4 packets later is suddenly really fun and good.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Haplo781 said:


> Galahad possessed the strength of 10 men because of his virtue.



Where was this?  I recently read Mallory and Geoffrey of Monmouth and don’t recall that. Was it in some later telling?  Those stories are hard to reconcile because they kept changing.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Even at 1 per month, that's a packet around November 1st and another around December 1st. Three of the four groups by the end of the year, not all four.



One in October, one in November, one in December seems probable, then one in January, February, March, April, May, June, July, and August would seem to allow them to fit in everything that they have laid out for their testing plan...which fits their stated planned schedule, too. One per Calendar Month, not necessarily one ever 6 weeks, is what I reckon theybare aiming for. So far, we've seen one in August and one in September, and one a month is what they said they arenaimijg for. 


Maxperson said:


> The big issue I have with that, is that how I view any given class or subclass is going to be heavily influenced by the glossary changes. A subclass I think is weak and should be changed might be a lot better given a new glossary with new ways to view their abilities. It would suck if I gave a glowing review only to have it change 4 packets later when the glossary changes or a review that I hate a subclass that 4 packets later is suddenly really fun and good.



Don't worry about balance considerations, WotC isn't uaingUA for that. Consider how the concept works for you, in theory and in practice if possible. The balance is what WotC will do after UA surveys.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> One in October, one in November, one in December seems probable, then one in January, February, March, April, May, June, July, and August would seem to allow them to fit in everything that they have laid out for their testing plan...which fits their stated planned schedule, too. One per Calendar Month, not necessarily one ever 6 weeks, is what I reckon theybare aiming for. So far, we've seen one in August and one in September, and one a month is what they said they arenaimijg for.



The one in "September" was the one for October. It was released 1 day before the end of the month. 


Parmandur said:


> The balance is what WotC will do after UA surveys.



Which doesn't really make any sense.  I can't accurately tell them if I like or don't like something if they are just going to change it after I tell them.  Once they adjust for balance, I may not like it anymore, or I may like something that I didn't like during the UA.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> The one in "September" was the one for October. It was released 1 day before the end of the month.



But it was ready to go in Mid-September, based on what Crawford said in the video series accompanying the drop: they recorded those before they decided to extend the survey period, and they were talking like the drop came about two weeks before it did. I expect another in October, one in Nocembwr, and one in December are likely.


Maxperson said:


> Which doesn't really make any sense. I can't accurately tell them if I like or don't like something if they are just going to change it after I tell them. Once they adjust for balance, I may not like it anymore, or I may like something that I didn't like during the UA.



That's how UA has operated for the past 8 years: UA is for getting impressions from a wide array of users on an early draft, adjusting based on input before they do balance work on further drafts in their private playtest network. These are gut checks, to see if people like the direction.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> But it was ready to go in Mid-September, based on what Crawford said in the video series accompanying the drop: they recorded those before they decided to extend the survey period, and they were talking like the drop came about two weeks before it did. I expect another in October, one in Nocembwr, and one in December are likely.



That still leaves the last one to go until mid january, and we can't be sure that they will all be ready and evenly spaced.


Parmandur said:


> That's how UA has operated for the past 8 years: UA is for getting impressions from a wide array of users on an early draft, adjusting based on input before they do balance work on further drafts in their private playtest network. These are gut checks, to see if people like the direction.



The last 8 years aren't really relevant, as they were not really playtests.  They were a popularity measure for most of that time.  Get enough votes and it makes the cut.  The rest of the time it was just so we can preview what is being released in books.  They didn't change much or anything before releasing what they showed us.

To find the last relevant playtest we have to go back to the 5e playtesting, and that was much different.


----------



## darjr

Maxperson said:


> That still leaves the last one to go until mid january, and we can't be sure that they will all be ready and evenly spaced.
> 
> The last 8 years aren't really relevant, as they were not really playtests.  They were a popularity measure for most of that time.  Get enough votes and it makes the cut.  The rest of the time it was just so we can preview what is being released in books.  They didn't change much or anything before releasing what they showed us.
> 
> To find the last relevant playtest we have to go back to the 5e playtesting, and that was much different.



No, I can tell you that they were playtests. And also tests of what was popular. I mean that's part of it, why wouldn't it be?

Also if you listen to the Ranger video I think they said it's been in the works for a while now. I think pieces have shown up in other UAs (I'll have to listen again to confirm that last sentence).

The Next playtests, assuming that's what you mean, were for a whole new game. 

These are much closer to UA in kind in that they are only testing new parts of an existing game.


----------



## Xohar17

Burnside said:


> ROGUE:
> 
> You no longer get Sneak Attacks on a reaction/op attack (why?)
> 
> Evasion moves from 7th level to 9th level. Yikes.
> 
> Other than that, the base class is almost unchanged
> 
> The Subclass offered is the Thief
> 
> Second Story Work is mercifully and finally clarified as "you have a Climb Speed equal to your Speed" (which is how I have house-ruled it for years) and you can use Dex to Jump instead of Strength, making this ability actually good.
> 
> Supreme Sneak is at 6th level instead of 9th (good)
> 
> Use Magical Device is at 10th level instead of 13th (good)
> 
> Thief's Reflexes is at 14th level instead of 17th. Good, I think. This is an incredibly strong ability that basically never sees play because it came at 17th level. At 14th level, it still won't see much play, but at least a bit more. For those who don't know, this ability gives you two turns in the first round of any combat - one at your initiative, and the second at your initiative minus 10.
> 
> This version is just a straight-up upgrade for the Thief subclass in every way, but it was definitely warranted as the Thief was pretty bad in comparison to most Rogue subclasses.



It is not an upgrade, now you cant use your bonus action to use items, which was in my experience the biggest reason to choose this subclass.


----------



## Xohar17

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Can we drop the Crawford minutia? This is a mostly positive packet, let's take joy in that.



I think mostly positive is a reach...


----------



## Xohar17

Zubatcarteira said:


> Unless they specify that mages can't cast in armor, getting medium and shields for one feat will be great for Sorcerers and Wizards, no need to be multiclassing or going specific races.



And seeing as it a level one feat, you can take it as a dwarf to emulate the dwarf with armor proficiency thing in base 5e.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That still leaves the last one to go until mid january, and we can't be sure that they will all be ready and evenly spaced.
> 
> The last 8 years aren't really relevant, as they were not really playtests.  They were a popularity measure for most of that time.  Get enough votes and it makes the cut.  The rest of the time it was just so we can preview what is being released in books.  They didn't change much or anything before releasing what they showed us.
> 
> To find the last relevant playtest we have to go back to the 5e playtesting, and that was much different.



On the contrary, the last 8 years are extremely relevant:all of those UA were the same sort of plsytest as this batch, as Crawford is at pains in the original kickoff video that the public UA are not for balance purposes. That's stoll the realm of their private playtests.

These tests are the same sort of thumbs up or thumbs down feeling tests, that's what theybare looking for by explicit statement.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That still leaves the last one to go until mid january, and we can't be sure that they will all be ready and evenly spaced.



Just to add, I don't expect the packets to be evenly spaced: that's part of why I think thst we are likely to see all 4 Class groups, and attendant Feats and Spells, laid out by the Holidays.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Just to add, I don't expect the packets to be evenly spaced: that's part of why I think thst we are likely to see all 4 Class groups, and attendant Feats and Spells, laid out by the Holidays.



Yeah, I'm not sure why this one was late, but I think it's pretty clear that it was. Does that mean that they will continue to be late? Maybe. Or maybe they'll be early (or on time). I think we can't expect the next one before Oct 20th, but it could be here then. Probably two weeks later, though. Who knows? 

Still, there should be time to get to everything AND revisit old ones, just maybe not in separate UAs. They can throw revisits in throughout. I mean, before this packet there was a lot of speculation that we'd only get one class per packet from here on out. This packet was a heck of a lot more than that.

I mean, that's another possibility too - maybe they will be larger and less frequent than they originally intended. I wonder if this one was late because they decided to make it bigger than they originally intended.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure why this one was late, but I think it's pretty clear that it was. Does that mean that they will continue to be late? Maybe. Or maybe they'll be early (or on time). I think we can't expect the next one before Oct 20th, but it could be here then. Probably two weeks later, though. Who knows?
> 
> Still, there should be time to get to everything AND revisit old ones, just maybe not in separate UAs. They can throw revisits in throughout. I mean, before this packet there was a lot of speculation that we'd only get one class per packet from here on out. This packet was a heck of a lot more than that.
> 
> I mean, that's another possibility too - maybe they will be larger and less frequent than they originally intended. I wonder if this one was late because they decided to make it bigger than they originally intended.



In the video series with this second packet, Crawford speaks as though this packet was to drop the day the Survey was originally scheduled to end: I thinkntheybdelayed it to allow more time for responses, but who knows? I do expect some irregular timing over the next year or year and a half as they sort through stuff. Crawford did promise a video laying out the results of the first survey, that should price interesting.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> In the video series with this second packet, Crawford speaks as though this packet was to drop the day the Survey was originally scheduled to end: I thinkntheybdelayed it to allow more time for responses, but who knows? I do expect some irregular timing over the next year or year and a half as they sort through stuff. Crawford did promise a video laying out the results of the first survey, that should price interesting.



Crawford spoke of it as if it should have dropped when the survey ended... but that was also the _second_ time the survey was supposed to end. They probably meant originally to drop it when the survey ended the first time, but then they extended the survey.

And it was still late after that.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Crawford spoke of it as if it should have dropped when the survey ended... but that was also the _second_ time the survey was supposed to end. They probably meant originally to drop it when the survey ended the first time, but then they extended the survey.
> 
> And it was still late after that.



Based on what they were saying, I thinknthey recorded that before the extension occurred at all.


----------



## cbwjm

One other thing I like about this playtest, is that now I can run a dual wielding barbarian and not have to wait until round 2 to actually dual wield. I often ran into the bonus action issue for things which I felt should work in the fiction but didn't in the mechanics.


----------



## Juomari Veren

My biggest gripe with what they got for us this time is that while I don't mind the move to prepared casters preparing as many spells as they have slots per level, it's not very clear just by reading it and the fact that a prepared caster can cast any spell they've prepared using an appropriately-levelled slot is completely glossed over. I feel like that should be explicit in and of itself, and not the kind of thing buried say, seven to eight chapters later (Wouldn't that be funny if they did that? Haha...). 

Bard looks good; It's kind of sad to see Font of Inspiration move so far down the table but it's not like Bards are underperforming in terms of their ability to inspire people so I don't mind at all. Something I do kind of raise an eyebrow at about them though is the Songs of Restoration; I don't mind the extra spells, and I don't mind having a character that auto-prepares healing spells like that, even if it encourages people to be a healer when they don't necessarily have to be, but...I feel like there's a better route of implementation. For example, why not let them spend Bardic Inspiration dice out of their pool to cast one of those spells (at a cost of 1 die per spell levle) like how they now allow it to heal individuals on its own? Then it's still available on a case-by-case basis, and after level 7 they can have any of those spells ready in an hour's time and use it often enough for the whole party (unless you're rocking that 16-person configuration; Apologies). I don't mind the nerf to Magical Secrets (if you can call it that, really, since they still get a ton of spells by 20th level as-is), and I much prefer Improved Cutting Words to the extra pair of spells you used to get.

Ranger doesn't rub me the wrong way as badly as it has for some people apparently but the things that irk me about it are pretty out the gate. I feel like if anybody's getting Expertise at 1st level, it really should just be the Rogue, especially since Rangers got a bit of a buff to spellcasting thanks to sharing the same list as Druids and getting cantrip access. I would much rather see their Expertise turn on at 2nd level just to give Rogues some more leverage. Does Hunter's Mark really need to be a spell at this point? I don't think anybody is going to complain if they just got rid of it and made everything it did a mundane feature exclusive to Rangers. I wish the die scaled a little better than...twice ever...or maybe they could let you add more dice at higher levels (even if it's just like, two instead of one). I like Roving, I like Tireless (though maybe it should give more than 1d8 hit points, since they also nerfed Inspiring Leader with this packet), Nature's Veil should probably be looked at because it sounds cool but it's a bit of a silly use of spell slots, I do miss Natural Explorer (regular OR revised) and Primeval Awareness, and maybe Feral Senses could do something more or different than blindsight, but blindsight ain't bad...The Hunter is alright, too. I think maybe Hunter's Lore could at least let the Ranger's weapon attacks ignore resistances against their target, since resisting weapon damage is so common later on, but I like the variety it offers. The only other thing it could improve is maybe instead of conjure barrage they give you an option for melee damage dealing specifically; I know Barrage is technically usable in melee since it's a cone but I think people would appreciate having the option of a close or long range spell that they can use in different ways.

I'm beside myself with the rogue. I like the Thief they present here more than the original by a long shot, but the Rogue itself feels like, in spite of the fact that it didn't really change, it changed just enough to make me uneasy. But it's not offensive, and Rogues are still Rogues as I know them give or take, so maybe it's a desire to see more done with rogues overall.

My miscellaneous notes:

R.I.P. Inspiring Leader 
Study Action: Yes! 
Influence Action: No!
Heroic Inspiration: Whatever!
Love love love that Guidance is not ad nauseam. I hate having to babysit people adding a d4 to their rolls (might also be because my table on Tuesdays uses Proficiency dice so it's...a lot to deal with).
I like the new Exhaustion much better. Only way to improve it is maybe it wouldn't be so bad to take off 5 feet of movement speed for every level, I did like the fact that after a certain point creatures couldn't really move.
Simple Shortswords? I could cry, I'm so happy.
Slowed still seems like a mondo debilitating condition. I don't mind its existence but I think maybe overall conditions need to be regulated to one big drawback that better stack with each other instead of all giving one or two of the same sets of drawbacks like disadvantage.
Still not fond of how combat breaks up a long rest; I think a 10 minute window of strenuous activity is a good middle ground between 1 or more hours of not sitting still and getting into a single fight. It's dumb that ambushing my players pushes the clock back that far but 59 minutes of walking with a stopwatch or hourglass measuring the passage of time doesn't.
The spelling out of Hiding and the DCs of finding creatures soothes my soul.
I don't understand how the new Barkskin is supposed to be useful if it's an hour-long concentration spell. I like the temp HP more than the AC adjustment I guess, but both would end if you took enough hits. Maybe a short duration with no concentration is necessary for any effect like that (I mean; I think so, but I hope others would come to agree with me).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> The 4e ranger was very good at combat.
> The 4e ranger was meh a wilderness exploration.
> 
> That's the whole encapsulation of the issue.
> 
> If you need that guy over there dead dead, the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger would be great at it.
> If you need someone to lead and protect the party with stuck in a fiendish forest fire or a frost giant's summoned blizzard or a royal fey's glade, the the 4e ranger and the OD&D playtest ranger can't do much.




And the original 2014 ranger can't do either if the choice they made at level 1 was the wrong one...

The 1D&D one at least has expertise in survival... all the time...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Xohar17 said:


> And seeing as it a level one feat, you can take it as a dwarf to emulate the dwarf with armor proficiency thing in base 5e.



I think they stealth nerfed it. I am very sure that it had +1 str or dex as the UA came first out. But it makes sense of course.
And I really like it, because now you can be a soldier and actually have training in something combat related.
I hope, everyone is trained in simple weapons now.


----------



## MarkB

Juomari Veren said:


> Love love love that Guidance is not ad nauseam. I hate having to babysit people adding a d4 to their rolls (might also be because my table on Tuesdays uses Proficiency dice so it's...a lot to deal with).



I love that they made it only something to use on a failed roll, that alone will cut down on the spamming enormously (especially since, with only 1d4, you know it's not worth using if the player rolled a 2), but I feel like they may have over-corrected with the once-per-day-per-target part, since it's hard to track across a whole group and will lead to "Did I already use it on you today?" discussions that will bog down the game.

Plus, it makes it a really weak cantrip. When you're selecting a spell that's going to have no limits on how often you can cast it, are you really going to go for the one that, realistically, you'll only be able to use 3-4 times a day in an average-size group?


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> And the original 2014 ranger can't do either if the choice they made at level 1 was the wrong one...
> 
> The 1D&D one at least has expertise in survival... all the time...



The 2014 ranger gets Spells at level 2.
That's the whole point. Ranger's exploration abilities are all spells because D&D lacks exploration pillar mechanics.

What does  a +4 in Survival do again? There are no rules for Survival except the optional Tracking rules in the DMG.

Expertise in Survival is nice but core doesn't do anything because *there are almost no rules for Survival Checks* and its use is fully based on DM fiat. DM Fiat in a community that allows spells to bypass tracking and foraging but won't let you talk to a bird or call a wolf without magic.

_What's the Survival DC to tree stride?_


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> The 2014 ranger gets Spells at level 2.
> That's the whole point. Ranger's exploration abilities are all spells because D&D lacks exploration pillar mechanics.




I think you did not get my point.
I answered to your assessment that the 4e and the OD&D ranger has nothing to help in 2 specific challenges.

I just pointed out that 2014 ranger is not good either. Except when you chose the right enemies and terrain... and even then, the abilities were lackluster.

So you could have saved the rest of your post as it is not exactly telling news...


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think you did not get my point.
> I answered to your assessment that the 4e and the OD&D ranger has nothing to help in 2 specific challenges.
> 
> I just pointed out that 2014 ranger is not good either. Except when you chose the right enemies and terrain... and even then, the abilities were lackluster.
> 
> So you could have saved the rest of your post as it is not exactly telling news...



I explained how the 5e ranger help in those challenges: magic.

WOTC's "Everything is a Spell"ism means everything requires magic to be solved except combat, stealth, lockpicking, trapdisarming, and theft.

So we need up with a Jackie Chan Adventures world when tons of fighting but "Magic must defeat Magic"


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> I explained how the 5e ranger help in those challenges: magic.
> 
> WOTC's "Everything is a Spell"ism means everything requires magic to be solved except combat, stealth, lockpicking, trapdisarming, and theft.
> 
> So we need up with a Jackie Chan Adventures world when tons of fighting but "Magic must defeat Magic"




So what is the differemce between OD&D ranger and 2014 ranger then. Why did you left the 2014 ranger out?

Maybe I read too much into your statement and I am sorry if I did.


----------



## Minigiant

UngeheuerLich said:


> So what is the differemce between OD&D ranger and 2014 ranger then. Why did you left the 2014 ranger out?
> 
> Maybe I read too much into your statement and I am sorry if I did.



My point was that a coastal dragon hunter ranger displayed this by preparing *absorb elements* and _water breathing_ 1st, Colossu Slayer and Steel Will 2nd, and with Favored Enemy and Tavored Terrain 3rd.

The 2014 ranger had all that.
The Oct OD&D ranger only has the first and "more damage"
The 4e ranger had none of it and "even more damage"


----------



## Garthanos

Haplo781 said:


> Galahad possessed the strength of 10 men because of his virtue.



That was Lancelot too I think (in some presentations had Galahad as childhood name). Also Gawaines increased based on the amount of sunlight... and was 12x at noon and Lancelot still beat him then. Lancelot  though had other things going on like perhaps some throwback to  the myth of Balder and living things (or just once living) like thorns would not hurt him, he could also reach into a burning caldron not suffering harm. And sometimes something about being strengthened to not lose as long as he was fighting for a good reason (if he was just fighting for exercise or for his pride or something then no special dispensation)



Haplo781 said:


> When you roll initiative, regain all your superiority dice...



blink blink... 


Faolyn said:


> As a side note, you mention monks... but monks are inherently magical--_ki_--and the vast majority of monk archetypes are overtly magical.



yeh sounds like orientalism to me... note how ki merges seamlessly with exertions into level up... that is badass.


----------



## Garthanos

Minigiant said:


> The 2014 ranger gets Spells at level 2.
> That's the whole point. Ranger's exploration abilities are all spells because D&D lacks exploration pillar mechanics.
> 
> What does  a +4 in Survival do again? There are no rules for Survival except the optional Tracking rules in the DMG.
> 
> Expertise in Survival is nice but core doesn't do anything because *there are almost no rules for Survival Checks* and its use is fully based on DM fiat. DM Fiat in a community that allows spells to bypass tracking and foraging but won't let you talk to a bird or call a wolf without magic.
> 
> _What's the Survival DC to tree stride?_



Is that is an issue specifically with survival or more general?


----------



## Wardook

CM said:


> Thief's Fast Hands lets them Search as a bonus action... but trapfinding is a Study action and not a Search action...
> 
> Also Fast Hands says that disabling traps and picking locks is a *Dex (Sleight of Hand)* check that is also made with thieves' tools. The tool proficiency glossary entry states _"If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same Ability Check."_
> 
> So a thief proficient in both thieves' tools and sleight of hand gets to add their proficiency bonus twice to lockpicking and trap disarming, evidently.



I noticed that also, but decided that Study is used to study a trap, not find/notice it.


----------



## Minigiant

Garthanos said:


> Is that is an issue specifically with survival or more general?



It's a general issue. Only Stealth, Thieves Tools, and Perception have actually rules.


----------



## Anarchclown

Xohar17 said:


> It is not an upgrade, now you cant use your bonus action to use items, which was in my experience the biggest reason to choose this subclass.



Also. You can't use Sleight of Hands for whatever you want. My players would unbuckle peoples belts to make them drop their pants/gear/whatever, pull their hats/helmets in front of their eyes, draw one of their weapons and throw it away etc. I realize this might come off as me being nice in my interpretation of the rules, but I figure anything that a stage magician can do in real life or a swashbuckler in fiction can do is a sleight of hand check. That is for some unfathomable reason now hardcoded into not being allowed.

Not to mention how much they nerfed the final ability. An extra turn on the first round of every combat is just incredibly much better than an extra bonus hide, disengage or dash action 2-6 times per day.


----------



## darjr

Minigiant said:


> Well the last time they stopped the playtest ~6-8 months before release and a bunch of stuff didn't get properly playtest out of house.



They've said as much too. That they think there was stuff they should have tested publicly but ran out of time.

They've also recognized that may happen to some extent again.

I hope that they have time to test as much as possible.


----------



## Weiley31

I like how Dash is in this. Like I feel like instead of saying "doubles your speed", it pretty much allows you to have another move action. Which does the same thing, technically, but is a much clearer method of doing/explaining that.
I do like how you can choose the Movement Speeds that you possess. So,  Aarakorca can either walk or fly. And if said Aarakorca takes the Dash Action, they can move 30 feet (a running start) and then for the bonus move action (Dash), they pretty much "Leap into the air" and start flying through the air, wings flapping.


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> I love that they made it only something to use on a failed roll, that alone will cut down on the spamming enormously (especially since, with only 1d4, you know it's not worth using if the player rolled a 2), but I feel like they may have over-corrected with the once-per-day-per-target part, since it's hard to track across a whole group and will lead to "Did I already use it on you today?" discussions that will bog down the game.



One of the first things I did in my game was tell the players that cantrips were unlimited, because they weren't being used 24/7 and if they wanted to do things like spam that 4 times a minute(one per PC), they would eventually run themselves out of power.  The game didn't intend for cantrips to be spammed that often.


MarkB said:


> Plus, it makes it a really weak cantrip. When you're selecting a spell that's going to have no limits on how often you can cast it, are you really going to go for the one that, realistically, you'll only be able to use 3-4 times a day in an average-size group?



Yes, absolutely.  It turns failed rolls into successful ones and it's not uncommon for the failed roll to have serious or even critical impact on the game.  It may be used infrequently, but it's still extremely valuable.


----------



## MarkB

Maxperson said:


> Yes, absolutely.  It turns failed rolls into successful ones and it's not uncommon for the failed roll to have serious or even critical impact on the game.  It may be used infrequently, but it's still extremely valuable.



It turns _very marginally failed rolls_ into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so the number of times it's even going to be a close enough fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal, and even on those occasions you still stand a strong chance of not rolling high enough - either because you rolled poorly on the d4, or because the DC wasn't within that margin in the first place. And succeed or fail, once you've given that character the d4, they're locked out for the rest of the day.


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> It turns _very marginally failed rolls_ into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so the number of times it's even going to be a close enough fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal, and even on those occasions you still stand a strong chance of not rolling high enough - either because you rolled poorly on the d4, or because the DC wasn't within that margin in the first place. And succeed or fail, once you've given that character the d4, they're locked out for the rest of the day.



I forgot about the once per day aspect.  That does make it much weaker.


----------



## Xamnam

darjr said:


> They've said as much too. That they think there was stuff they should have tested publicly but ran out of time.
> 
> They've also recognized that may happen to some extent again.
> 
> I hope that they have time to test as much as possible.



Maybe this is me being optimistic, but I recall in one of the videos they talked about the planned release schedule, and while I don't think they committed to it in definite language, my takeaway was that they were open to extending the playtesting window if they felt it necessary based on the feedback.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

MarkB said:


> It turns _very marginally failed rolls_ into successful ones very occasionally.



Sounds like about the right ballpark for a cantrip, doesn't it?


----------



## Bill Zebub

MarkB said:


> It turns _very marginally failed rolls_ into successful ones very occasionally. 1d4 is an average of +2.5 to a check, so *the number of times it's even going to be a close enough* fail to be worth the extra d4 is going to be minimal,




1 in 8, I believe.  Well, 1 in 5 that it’s close enough to try, but 1 in 8 that it also succeeds.

(Very low DCs mess up the numbers a little bit, but I think it’s negligible.)


----------



## MarkB

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Sounds like about the right ballpark for a cantrip, doesn't it?



No, not really. It sounds like something that's not worth taking at all.


----------



## Garthanos

Juomari Veren said:


> My biggest gripe with what they got for us this time is that while I don't mind the move to prepared casters preparing as many spells as they have slots per level, it's not very clear just by reading it and the fact that a prepared caster can cast any spell they've prepared using an appropriately-levelled slot is completely glossed over. I feel like that should be explicit in and of itself, and not the kind of thing buried say, seven to eight chapters later (Wouldn't that be funny if they did that? Haha...).
> 
> Bard looks good; It's kind of sad to see Font of Inspiration move so far down the table but it's not like Bards are underperforming in terms of their ability to inspire people so I don't mind at all. Something I do kind of raise an eyebrow at about them though is the Songs of Restoration; I don't mind the extra spells, and I don't mind having a character that auto-prepares healing spells like that, even if it encourages people to be a healer when they don't necessarily have to be, but...I feel like there's a better route of implementation. For example, why not let them spend Bardic Inspiration dice out of their pool to cast one of those spells (at a cost of 1 die per spell levle) like how they now allow it to heal individuals on its own? Then it's still available on a case-by-case basis, and after level 7 they can have any of those spells ready in an hour's time and use it often enough for the whole party (unless you're rocking that 16-person configuration; Apologies). I don't mind the nerf to Magical Secrets (if you can call it that, really, since they still get a ton of spells by 20th level as-is), and I much prefer Improved Cutting Words to the extra pair of spells you used to get.
> 
> Ranger doesn't rub me the wrong way as badly as it has for some people apparently but the things that irk me about it are pretty out the gate. I feel like if anybody's getting Expertise at 1st level, it really should just be the Rogue, especially since Rangers got a bit of a buff to spellcasting thanks to sharing the same list as Druids and getting cantrip access. I would much rather see their Expertise turn on at 2nd level just to give Rogues some more leverage. Does Hunter's Mark really need to be a spell at this point? I don't think anybody is going to complain if they just got rid of it and made everything it did a mundane feature exclusive to Rangers. I wish the die scaled a little better than...twice ever...or maybe they could let you add more dice at higher levels (even if it's just like, two instead of one). I like Roving, I like Tireless (though maybe it should give more than 1d8 hit points, since they also nerfed Inspiring Leader with this packet), Nature's Veil should probably be looked at because it sounds cool but it's a bit of a silly use of spell slots, I do miss Natural Explorer (regular OR revised) and Primeval Awareness, and maybe Feral Senses could do something more or different than blindsight, but blindsight ain't bad...The Hunter is alright, too. I think maybe Hunter's Lore could at least let the Ranger's weapon attacks ignore resistances against their target, since resisting weapon damage is so common later on, but I like the variety it offers. The only other thing it could improve is maybe instead of conjure barrage they give you an option for melee damage dealing specifically; I know Barrage is technically usable in melee since it's a cone but I think people would appreciate having the option of a close or long range spell that they can use in different ways.
> 
> I'm beside myself with the rogue. I like the Thief they present here more than the original by a long shot, but the Rogue itself feels like, in spite of the fact that it didn't really change, it changed just enough to make me uneasy. But it's not offensive, and Rogues are still Rogues as I know them give or take, so maybe it's a desire to see more done with rogues overall.
> 
> My miscellaneous notes:
> 
> R.I.P. Inspiring Leader



So warlord concept will be less supported


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> Are most DMs going to let a ranger
> 
> heal
> remove toxins
> remove curses
> speak with animals
> speak with plants
> entangle foes with vines
> instantly train a beast
> instantly befriend a beast
> jump 60 feet
> gain darkvision
> breath water
> shoot exploding arrows
> charge their sword with fire
> charge their arrow with lightning
> meld with stone
> meld with trees
> scry
> defeat scrying
> without magic in a way that is still revelant in a adventure?



Do most rangers need to remove curses, meld with stone or trees, turn their weapon into an energy weapon, or scry or defeat scrying in order to be a ranger?


Healing and removing toxins: herb lore (Medicine, Herbalism Kit; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that do just that). 
Speaking with, befriending, and training animals: understanding animals (Animal Handling; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that allow for this quickly, although not instantly).
Speaking with plants: reading the signs of distress in plants, understanding what caused damage to plants (Herbalism Kit, Nature).
Entangling foes with vines: building traps (Survival)
Breathing water: breathing through reeds, breath holding and training (Survival)
Charging weapons with energy: using natural or semi-magical reagents (weird plants and fungi or bits from animals and monsters) that react when used on weapons and produce different damaging effects).

I'm not saying that magical rangers are objectively bad, and I know that lots of people like them. But, well, they're not _really _needed to fill the "wilderness warrior" niche. Level Up has a nonmagical ranger with one third-caster archetype.


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> Do most rangers need to remove curses, meld with stone or trees, turn their weapon into an energy weapon, or scry or defeat scrying in order to be a ranger?
> 
> 
> Healing and removing toxins: herb lore (Medicine, Herbalism Kit; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that do just that).
> Speaking with, befriending, and training animals: understanding animals (Animal Handling; LU has ranger-specific exploration knacks that allow for this quickly, although not instantly).
> Speaking with plants: reading the signs of distress in plants, understanding what caused damage to plants (Herbalism Kit, Nature).
> Entangling foes with vines: building traps (Survival)
> Breathing water: breathing through reeds, breath holding and training (Survival)
> Charging weapons with energy: using natural or semi-magical reagents (weird plants and fungi or bits from animals and monsters) that react when used on weapons and produce different damaging effects).
> 
> I'm not saying that magical rangers are objectively bad, and I know that lots of people like them. But, well, they're not _really _needed to fill the "wilderness warrior" niche. Level Up has a nonmagical ranger with one third-caster archetype.




So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.


----------



## darjr

Remathilis said:


> So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.



Option 6 sounds like a poisoners kit.

Also two weapon fighting and Robin Hood level of archery from somewhere.

Not kidding. This is an interesting endeavor.


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.



Sure, just like everyone with Religion is a cleric and everyone with Perform is a bard.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> So any character with Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling is a ranger. Toss Stealth and Herbalism kit into the mix and you've covered everything a nonmagical ranger can do.



No, but rangers should have more access to them, get different uses out of them, and probably get bonuses to them--and the D&DOne playtest seems to give them expertise.


----------



## Remathilis

Haplo781 said:


> Sure, just like everyone with Religion is a cleric and everyone with Perform is a bard.



Except the character class versions... Have magic! 

But that does help prove my point: any character can be proficient in performance and be an entertainer, but what makes a Bard head and shoulders above them is magic. Same with a priest and a Cleric, a woodsman and a Ranger. 

Excellent example. Well done.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> Except the character class versions... Have magic!
> 
> But that does help prove my point: any character can be proficient in performance and be an entertainer, but what makes a Bard head and shoulders above them is magic. Same with a priest and a Cleric, a woodsman and a Ranger.
> 
> Excellent example. Well done.



So a bard with the Religion skill is also a cleric?


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> So a bard with the Religion skill is also a cleric?



A Bard with religion could be a priest, but they are not a Cleric.


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> Except the character class versions... Have magic!
> 
> But that does help prove my point: any character can be proficient in performance and be an entertainer, but what makes a Bard head and shoulders above them is magic. Same with a priest and a Cleric, a woodsman and a Ranger.
> 
> Excellent example. Well done.



And I suppose everyone with Sleight of Hand is a rogue too?


----------



## Haplo781

Remathilis said:


> A Bard with religion could be a priest, but they are not a Cleric.



Hmmm. Sounds like magic is not, in fact, the defining factor.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> A Bard with religion could be a priest, but they are not a Cleric.



So another character with Nature, Animal Handling, and Survival could be a woodlander, but not a Ranger.


----------



## cbwjm

Faolyn said:


> So another character with Nature, Animal Handling, and Survival could be a woodlander, but not a Ranger.



Just gonna jump in with my own 2 cents. Someone with those skills might be a ranger, but not the ranger class. By that I mean they could belong to an organisation called the King's Rangers which might have people from multiple classes who call themselves rangers (in the fiction) without having the mechanics of the ranger.


----------



## Parmandur

Faolyn said:


> So another character with Nature, Animal Handling, and Survival could be a woodlander, but not a Ranger.



Not without magic, no.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Do most rangers need to remove curses, meld with stone or trees, turn their weapon into an energy weapon, or scry or defeat scrying in order to be a ranger?



A D&D one yes.

What if you run into stuff in the wild that give curses like werewolves and mumies?
How do you track a teleporting flying evil mage?



Faolyn said:


> I'm not saying that magical rangers are objectively bad, and I know that lots of people like them. But, well, they're not _really _needed to fill the "wilderness warrior" niche. Level Up has a nonmagical ranger with one third-caster archetype.




Hot Take: The Level up ranger is a poor ranger for D&D. IT ony works because the Level up team included optional exploration rules in the adventure guide.

Without those rules, the level up ranger starts failing at rangery stuff after level 10.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> A D&D one yes.
> 
> What if you run into stuff in the wild that give curses like werewolves and mumies?
> How do you track a teleporting flying evil mage?



You get druids to help.

Or, you make bane items. The old 2e Van Richten's Guides always had weaknesses like that for all sorts of monsters, not just lycanthropes and wolfsbane. Then you can make weapons out of the substance, or coat them with the stuff, or make wards out of them. 

Then the ranger becomes someone who has to think and plan around their monster, not just someone who can cast a spell and be done. Your ranger wants to hunt a mummy, then they have to know what mummies in general are weak against and if this particular mummy has any other weaknesses. I'd find that more interesting than just casting a spell that, quite likely, several other classes can also cast (there are _very few _ranger-only spells). I'm pretty sure that bane items could be very easily be made official.



Minigiant said:


> Hot Take: The Level up ranger is a poor ranger for D&D. IT ony works because the Level up team included optional exploration rules in the adventure guide.
> 
> Without those rules, the level up ranger starts failing at rangery stuff after level 10.



Sure, I'll accept that. But that just means that D&D needs better exploration rules.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Faolyn said:


> Sure, I'll accept that. But that just means that D&D needs better exploration rules.



Say it again brother, and in the survey.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Faolyn said:


> Then the ranger becomes someone who has to think and plan around their monster, not just someone who can cast a spell and be done.




This is exactly what I’m mulling/sketching.


----------



## SkidAce

Faolyn said:


> Then the ranger becomes someone who has to think and plan around their monster, not just someone who can cast a spell and be done. Your ranger wants to hunt a mummy, then they have to know what mummies in general are weak against and if this particular mummy has any other weaknesses.



I get your intenet, but isn't this part what anyone hunting a mummy would theoretically do?


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> A D&D one yes.
> 
> What if you run into stuff in the wild that give curses like werewolves and mumies?



You make a potion out of wolfsbane and the fur of the werewolf that bit you. Or you boil a piece of the mummy's bandages with some grave dirt and fungus.


----------



## Hussar

Haplo781 said:


> You make a potion out of wolfsbane and the fur of the werewolf that bit you. Or you boil a piece of the mummy's bandages with some grave dirt and fungus.



While the werewolf is eating your kidney?

See, the problem is, we're running into the issues between story and game.  Sure, "be prepared" is a really cool idea.  But, it doesn't work most of the time in D&D because in D&D it's very, very rare that the players know exactly what they are going to face at any given time.  

Sure, werewolf hunting is a cool adventure.  But, can you put a werewolf on a random encounter table?  As a DM, can I only use certain creatures if I hand a note to the ranger player first telling what creatures they are going to meet in the next adventure so they can be prepared?

Of course not.  So, either the ranger is walking around with this massive collection of crap that he never uses, or we give the ranger spells and then it's done as needed.  Because that's the choice here.  

Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take?  How many can I carry?  How long do they stay "fresh"?  Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.

Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger.  I really, really do.  I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells.  But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way.  Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.

People really need to let go of this idea that spells=wizard.  Spells are just a game mechanical way to handle this sort of stuff in a streamlined, simple way.


----------



## Haplo781

Hussar said:


> While the werewolf is eating your kidney?




Of course not. You kill it first.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hussar said:


> While the werewolf is eating your kidney?
> 
> See, the problem is, we're running into the issues between story and game.  Sure, "be prepared" is a really cool idea.  But, it doesn't work most of the time in D&D because in D&D it's very, very rare that the players know exactly what they are going to face at any given time.
> 
> Sure, werewolf hunting is a cool adventure.  But, can you put a werewolf on a random encounter table?  As a DM, can I only use certain creatures if I hand a note to the ranger player first telling what creatures they are going to meet in the next adventure so they can be prepared?
> 
> Of course not.  So, either the ranger is walking around with this massive collection of crap that he never uses, or we give the ranger spells and then it's done as needed.  Because that's the choice here.
> 
> Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
> Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take?  How many can I carry?  How long do they stay "fresh"?  Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
> Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.
> 
> Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger.  I really, really do.  I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells.  But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way.  Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.
> 
> People really need to let go of this idea that spells=wizard.  Spells are just a game mechanical way to handle this sort of stuff in a streamlined, simple way.




And while we are at it, we need a cantrip that lets you summon a 10’ long beam of energy that you can use to probe for pits, trigger traps, and vault over obstacles. 

Preparation is for grognards.


----------



## SkidAce

Bill Zebub said:


> Preparation is for grognards.



I agree!


----------



## MarkB

Bill Zebub said:


> And while we are at it, we need a cantrip that lets you summon a 10’ long beam of energy that you can use to probe for pits, trigger traps, and vault over obstacles.



So, _mage hand, mage hand_ and _guidance_ on your Jump check?


----------



## Bill Zebub

MarkB said:


> So, _mage hand, mage hand_ and _guidance_ on your Jump check?



I’ll just keep a multiclass cleric/wizard in my bag of holding.


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> So another character with Nature, Animal Handling, and Survival could be a woodlander, but not a Ranger.



Correct. A ranger has magic.


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
> Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take? How many can I carry? How long do they stay "fresh"? Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
> Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.
> 
> Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger. I really, really do. I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells. But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way. Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.




This is the artificer/alchemist problem: if you can make a non-spell version of something that is spell-like, what stops you from making dozens of them? During Pathfinder, a player argued that he should be able to make a dozen bombs ahead of time and give some to everyone in his party so they could all toss them at once in the same round. The reason why you can't is obviously that alchemist bombs are sneak attack dice mixed with a spell-like effect designed to look like a bomb. Any logic applied to why they can't use three days worth of bombs in one round is metagaming nonsense. A non-magical bomb should act like a grenade in the real world: you should be able to mass produce them and give them to another person to use. But you can't, because "magic" (or alchemy or something). 

So to when comes it to the ranger. A ranger is a master herbalist that can use herbs to heal? So should any druid, witch, or other learned botanist. To say a ranger (and only a ranger) can coax specific medicinal qualities out of a plant is the alchemist's bomb all over again: a magical effect that only works for one class and we've shot past "nonmagical ranger" and ended up in "magical, but use a different spell system". 

Personally though, I reached the opinion that if you can refluff an artificer building a gizmo that creates a magical effect, you can refluff Cure Wounds as imbuing kingsfoil with healing essence or a ritual casting of Alarm as infusing your campsite preparations with the power of the Earth. But it's still magic.


----------



## Wardook

Tolkien is rather low magic:





__





						Fria Ligan | Store
					






					freeleaguepublishing.com
				




Also has excellent exploration rules.

If you preferred Cubile 7's exploration rules:





__





						Loading…
					





					kck.st
				




The point being that other companies have done this well already. Wizards doesn't need to do it. They will stick to their silo and rake in the bucks. Always fun to debate the rules however.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> While the werewolf is eating your kidney?
> 
> See, the problem is, we're running into the issues between story and game.  Sure, "be prepared" is a really cool idea.  But, it doesn't work most of the time in D&D because in D&D it's very, very rare that the players know exactly what they are going to face at any given time.
> 
> Sure, werewolf hunting is a cool adventure.  But, can you put a werewolf on a random encounter table?  As a DM, can I only use certain creatures if I hand a note to the ranger player first telling what creatures they are going to meet in the next adventure so they can be prepared?
> 
> Of course not.  So, either the ranger is walking around with this massive collection of crap that he never uses, or we give the ranger spells and then it's done as needed.  Because that's the choice here.
> 
> Create vine traps that can be portable, and placeable in an instant or give the ranger an Entangle spell.
> Create various anti-monster concoctions (how long does this take?  How many can I carry?  How long do they stay "fresh"?  Endless inventory tracking) or we give the ranger a handful of spells to deal with monsters as they come up.
> Create various tools (reeds for water breathing (are there applicable reeds nearby and how do we handle needing to swim deeper?), and other odds and sods, again requiring endless inventory tracking, or give the ranger exploration spells.
> 
> Look, I get the want for a spell less ranger.  I really, really do.  I'm solidly in the camp wishing that D&D would be a lot less reliant on spells.  But, I also realize that in a game as broad as D&D, you can't really do it any other way.  Sure, you could give the ranger "knacks" which are just spells by another name, or give them some sort of "MacGyver" option where they can just "make" whatever tool they need as needed, but, again, that's just spells by another name.
> 
> People really need to let go of this idea that spells=wizard.  Spells are just a game mechanical way to handle this sort of stuff in a streamlined, simple way.



They're not spells if they're not magic, aren't cast like spells, and not affected by things that affect spells.

Even if the functional effect is the same.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> And while we are at it, we need a cantrip that lets you summon a 10’ long beam of energy that you can use to probe for pits, trigger traps, and vault over obstacles.
> 
> Preparation is for grognards.



I can't tell if you're joking.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Wardook said:


> Tolkien is rather low magic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fria Ligan | Store
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freeleaguepublishing.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also has excellent exploration rules.
> 
> If you preferred Cubile 7's exploration rules:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loading…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kck.st
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point being that other companies have done this well already. Wizards doesn't need to do it. They will stick to their silo and rake in the bucks. Always fun to debate the rules however.



True.  Several companies have made these ideas sing in 5e.  Yet people seem to keep insisting that WotC do it for some reason, even when it's clear they have no intention to do so.


----------



## Faolyn

SkidAce said:


> I get your intenet, but isn't this part what anyone hunting a mummy would theoretically do?



Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.



Remathilis said:


> Correct. A ranger has magic.



Except they don't _need _to have magic. What they _need _to have is abilities that other classes don't have.


----------



## SkidAce

Faolyn said:


> Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.



Anecdotally, that has not been my experience.

But I agree that it likely varies from place to place and group to group.


----------



## cbwjm

Faolyn said:


> Do they? Because a lot of people don't think to look for weakness unless they have an ability on their sheets that explicitly allows for it.



I think a lot of people at least ask "What do I know about mummies?" Whether they have a specific ability or not. It's then up to the DM to decide what information to give out and what information might require a skill check.


----------



## Remathilis

Faolyn said:


> Except they don't _need _to have magic. What they _need _to have is abilities that other classes don't have.




You can say the same for bards. And druids. And paladins. And warlocks. And sorcerers. And artificers. Etc. How many different "magic" systems do we need? 

I've yet to hear anything that a ranger does that: a) can't be replicated by a fighter or rogue with the right options, and/,or b) isn't basically spellcasting by another name.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> They're not spells if they're not magic, aren't cast like spells, and not affected by things that affect spells.
> 
> Even if the functional effect is the same.




So it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck but it’s okay so long as we don’t call it a duck?


----------



## Hussar

Haplo781 said:


> Of course not. You kill it first.




How? You didn’t prepare your ranger stuff beforehand so now you are just a less effective fighter. 

That’s the trade off. Either you give the ranger spel…. Oh sorry….. abilities that can be used a limited number of times per day that have fantastical effects OR you hand the ranger a list of things they’re going to encounter so they can prepare.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Except they don't _need _to have magic. What they _need _to have is abilities that other classes don't have.




They need to have magic in D&D. 90% of the enemies are magic.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> So it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck but it’s okay so long as we don’t call it a duck?



And are not affected by things that affect ducks (an anti-duck field, for example), and aren't generated the same way ducks are, yes.

Perhaps they don't use duck slots.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> How? You didn’t prepare your ranger stuff beforehand so now you are just a less effective fighter.
> 
> That’s the trade off. Either you give the ranger spel…. Oh sorry….. abilities that can be used a limited number of times per day that have fantastical effects OR you hand the ranger a list of things they’re going to encounter so they can prepare.



Do I have to play the Level Up card again?  Not spells.  Still feels like a ranger.


----------



## Minigiant

Haplo781 said:


> You make a potion out of wolfsbane and the fur of the werewolf that bit you. Or you boil a piece of the mummy's bandages with some grave dirt and fungus.



Where in any D&D book are these items and the rules to craft them that rangers have?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Remathilis said:


> or b) isn't basically spellcasting by another name.




I think one of the sources of disagreement is that people mean so many different things by "non-magical".  Some people mean only "realistic" things, others mean only things described as non-magical even if the effects are totally unrealistic, and others are fine with overtly magical powers as long as it's not spell slots and spell lists.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hussar said:


> That’s the trade off. Either you give the ranger spel…. Oh sorry….. abilities that can be used a limited number of times per day that have fantastical effects OR you hand the ranger a list of things they’re going to encounter so they can prepare.




Those are not the only two choices.


----------



## Minigiant

Micah Sweet said:


> Do I have to play the Level Up card again? Not spells. Still feels like a ranger.



The Level Up ranger copies low levl ranger spells and doesn'tget high level ranger spells unless it goes into spellcasting.

Things it copies

Alarm
Speak with Animals
Cure Wounds
Animal Messenger
Animal Friendship
See invisible
Things it doesn't copy
Absorb element,s beast bond, ensnaring strike, fog cloud, jump, longstrider, water walk,water breathing, aid,beast sense, lesser resotration, silence, conjure animals, locate creature, locate object. nondetection,...

And frankly the 5e ranger is missing some spells.

It comes down to "do you want some woodcraft tricks" or "do you want abilities to help you hunt D&D monsters"?


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> You can say the same for bards. And druids. And paladins. And warlocks. And sorcerers. And artificers. Etc. How many different "magic" systems do we need?
> 
> I've yet to hear anything that a ranger does that: a) can't be replicated by a fighter or rogue with the right options, and/,or b) isn't basically spellcasting by another name.



But the way the ranger is now, just about everything it can do can be replicated by a druid/fighter or druid/rogue. So why not give it abilities that are _different _and _new_?


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> How? You didn’t prepare your ranger stuff beforehand so now you are just a less effective fighter.
> 
> That’s the trade off. Either you give the ranger spel…. Oh sorry….. abilities that can be used a limited number of times per day that have fantastical effects OR you hand the ranger a list of things they’re going to encounter so they can prepare.



Or you give rangers new, nonmagical abilities that allow it to be able a handle whatever they come across. Like some of have said, look at the LU ranger.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Do I have to play the Level Up card again? Not spells. Still feels like a ranger.




Yes. They are spells. They look like spells, work like spell and are spells in all the ways that actually matter. 

Other than presentation of cours, which we all know is the most important metric of all.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> Or you give rangers new, nonmagical abilities that allow it to be able a handle whatever they come across. Like some of have said, look at the LU ranger.




Which basically just replicates spells.

What is the difference between beast friend knack and animal friendship?  If it’s not a spell how come I can only have one animal friend at a time?


----------



## Minigiant

Hussar said:


> Which basically just replicates spells.



And not all spells. Just the level 1 spells.

Because once you get to level 2 magic, it becomes slim picking of what spells can become replicated with 25 of the communities head exploding.

And if you look at the nonfull casterclass features in 5e., it's clear WOTC doesn't have anyone high on the design team that gets high level martials or is brave enough to confront the community on the premise.

They think 1d10Hunters mark (Ranger) and 2 bonus actions (Rogue) is high level.

I serious want to see how they play internally. Because either they use a buch of houserule or they runwith a light touch.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hussar said:


> Which basically just replicates spells.




That's meaningless.  You could argue that melee weapon attacks just replicate touch cantrips.

The questions should be, what _about_ spells does it replicate, and which aspects are you trying to avoid?

For me, in the Ranger class, what I _most_ want to avoid is the full spellcasting system (spell selection and slots).  There are already lots (and lots) of classes that do that.  If I want to play that way, I can choose one of those classes.

After that, I would _prefer_ to avoid abilities with X uses/rest, but I could probably be ok with some of those, if they are structured like Warlock invocations, and ideally if they describe brand new things, not just "You can cast _entangle_ once per short rest."   Although even that would be better than choosing entangle as a normal spell caster.

But what I would _most_ like are abilities that are at will (if situational) regardless of whether or not they feel magical.  

In other words, it's not the magic I want to avoid in the Ranger class (and other classes), it's the caster mechanics.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> Which basically just replicates spells.
> 
> What is the difference between beast friend knack and animal friendship?  If it’s not a spell how come I can only have one animal friend at a time?



Hmm, well, beast friend knack isn't magic and requires some roleplaying on the part of the ranger. And the reason is game balance. You might as well ask why D&D bows have a much shorter range than real-life bows, or why fighters suddenly get a second attack at 5th level, no matter how fast or strong they are. Or why an arcane focus can only count as a component for spells that require 9 silver and 99 copper or less, but once it rounds up to 1 gold, it's suddenly not usable.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> Then the ranger becomes someone who has to think and plan around their monster, not just someone who can cast a spell and be done. Your ranger wants to hunt a mummy, then they have to know what mummies in general are weak against and if this particular mummy has any other weaknesses. I'd find that more interesting than just casting a spell that, quite likely, several other classes can also cast (there are _very few _ranger-only spells). I'm pretty sure that bane items could be very easily be made official.



Anyone can learn to make poisons, or study the weaknesses of monsters, too. 

The idea of the ranger in D&D not having magic is absurd. It’d be like saying they should’t use bows. 

Magic is a tool set. Why would rangers ignore the toolset of magic when the wilds are full of magical dangers?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Do I have to play the Level Up card again?  Not spells.  Still feels like a ranger.



No, they really don’t. They feel like a Scout fighter or something.


----------



## darjr

Huh? I do think it’s a good argument that the Ranger features being spells available to other classes can water down the Ranger as a silo. Interesting.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, they really don’t. They feel like a Scout fighter or something.



That is an arguable point.  Clearly we feel differently.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> Hmm, well, beast friend knack isn't magic and requires some roleplaying on the part of the ranger..




No more than animal friendship does. Good grief it’s practically word for word copy pasted from the spell right down to the bit about food.


----------



## darjr

Hussar said:


> No more than animal friendship does. Good grief it’s practically word for word copy pasted from the spell right down to the bit about food.



I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.

It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.

I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.


----------



## Hussar

darjr said:


> I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.
> 
> It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.
> 
> I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.



But this argument got lost a long time ago.  D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is.  The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point.  I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play.  And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.

Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it.  If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time.  Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system.  Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow.  Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.

And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers.  Full stop.  That's just how it will be.  5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop.  Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities.  So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.


----------



## Minigiant

Hussar said:


> Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it. If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time



That fight was lost.
People should have spoke up in the 5e playtest if they wanted healing potions, animal languages, fantasy botany zoology, and geology, and nonspell teleports.

*Fill out your surveys.*​


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> And are not affected by things that affect ducks (an anti-duck field, for example), and aren't generated the same way ducks are, yes.
> 
> Perhaps they don't use duck slots.



Yes, the "I call this duck a goose so that I get all the duck advantages with none of the drawbacks" 

I'll concede the point when I start seeing anti-martial fields and a spell that negates battlemaster maneuvers.


----------



## Remathilis

darjr said:


> I think the emphasis is that it’s not a spell.
> 
> It can’t be counter spelled for instance or fail in an anti magic field.
> 
> I’m not arguing for or against though, just noting what I think the central point of it is.



Yup. 

DM: the goblin horde has a shaman and casts silence over the entire area! 
Wizard: oh no! My spells are useless!
Cleric: oh no! My prayers is useless!
Fighter: I guess it's my time to shine! I use my Flaming Volley ability where I light a bunch of arrows and shoot them into the area. Everyone takes 8d6 damage, Dex save half. 
Wizard...
Cleric...
DM....
Fighter problem...?


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I see no problem there.


----------



## Delazar

Hussar said:


> But this argument got lost a long time ago.  D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is.  The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point.  I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play.  And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.
> 
> Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it.  If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time.  Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system.  Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow.  Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.
> 
> And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers.  Full stop.  That's just how it will be.  5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop.  Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities.  So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.



I don't like it, but I actually 100% agree with this. Still, I learned to live with it, and if I want my ranger to be "non-magical" I'll fluff my spells as mundane abilities, and only pick those spells that I can somehow explain in that way. Some DMs allow it, some don't, I just have to live with it.

As a DM, I ofc allow it all the time.


----------



## gorice

doctorbadwolf said:


> Anyone can learn to make poisons, or study the weaknesses of monsters, too.
> 
> The idea of the ranger in D&D not having magic is absurd. It’d be like saying they should’t use bows.
> 
> Magic is a tool set. Why would rangers ignore the toolset of magic when the wilds are full of magical dangers?



My brother in Christ, this is a world in which there are eldritch abominations beyond human ken_ living in people's basements_. Going by your logic, fighters and rogues should also be wizards. _Commoners_ should be wizards. Either magic is something special that only some people can do, or it's something everyone and everything has, in which case it's not magic.



Remathilis said:


> Yes, the "I call this duck a goose so that I get all the duck advantages with none of the drawbacks"
> 
> I'll concede the point when I start seeing anti-martial fields and a spell that negates battlemaster maneuvers.



_In the fiction of the game_, what does a battlemaster do when they attack someone with a sword? Is it perhaps different from muttering an incantation and calling on an unearthly power? An anti-martial field already exists, it's called 'armour'.


----------



## darjr

It’s still magic in Eberron. And armor isn’t anti-martial, many martials wear it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

gorice said:


> My brother in Christ, this is a world in which there are eldritch abominations beyond human ken_ living in people's basements_. Going by your logic, fighters and rogues should also be wizards.



Fighters and rogues aren’t trained extensively to live and work in the wilds in order to protect people from supernatural dangers. 


gorice said:


> _Commoners_ should be wizards. Either magic is something special that only some people can do, or it's something everyone and everything has, in which case it's not magic.



“Everyone can do it” doesn’t follow from anything I said. 


gorice said:


> _In the fiction of the game_, what does a battlemaster do when they attack someone with a sword? Is it perhaps different from muttering an incantation and calling on an unearthly power? An anti-martial field already exists, it's called 'armour'.



None of this makes sense or relates in any way to anything I said.


----------



## Olrox17

gorice said:


> My brother in Christ, this is a world in which there are eldritch abominations beyond human ken_ living in people's basements_. Going by your logic, fighters and rogues should also be wizards. _Commoners_ should be wizards. Either magic is something special that only some people can do, or it's something everyone and everything has, in which case it's not magic.



And let's not forget barbarians!


gorice said:


> _In the fiction of the game_, what does a battlemaster do when they attack someone with a sword? Is it perhaps different from muttering an incantation and calling on an unearthly power? An anti-martial field already exists, it's called 'armour'.



Resistance (and immunity) to non-magical weapons is also very common on monsters, even low level ones. And flying enemies, mocking the poor melee warriors. I'd say that are at least as many monster abilities screwing martials, as there are anti-spellcasting ones.


----------



## gorice

This is probably pointless, but: how often did Van Helsing cast magic?


----------



## Bill Zebub

I keep thinking about the line from the Hobbit, about (I paraphrase) how Hobbits don’t have magic, except the ordinary everyday sort that allows them to hide when stupid big people come blundering along. 

Why is it so freaking important whether or not something is magical? I don’t really believe it’s about how to adjudicate anti-magic fields; there seems to be some kind of emotional investment in this issue.


----------



## Eric V

So, if a person wanted to play a highly skilled outdoorsman who could accomplish things like calming the wild horse down, minor healing, befriending a wolf, knowing weaknesses of creatures, and other rangery-stuff...the answer has to be spells.  D&D spells, mind you, with their VSM components and shared spell lists. There's no room to play the skilled archetype from imagination and many pieces of media?

That seems unnecessarily limiting, especially since the spell-using ranger could be part of a subclass.


----------



## Eric V

Bill Zebub said:


> I keep thinking about the line from the Hobbit, about (I paraphrase) how Hobbits don’t have magic, except the ordinary everyday sort that allows them to hide when stupid big people come blundering along.
> 
> Why is it so freaking important whether or not something is magical? I don’t really believe it’s about how to adjudicate anti-magic fields; there seems to be some kind of emotional investment in this issue.



It doesn't matter how you envision your character when you sit down to play?

I mean, there are technical issues to be sure (if you don't have the material components, etc.) but primarily it's about how the character plays from one's imagination...which is why we play RPGs, right?

If we were talking about a board game, I'd agree with what you wrote 100%.


----------



## Remathilis

gorice said:


> This is probably pointless, but: how often did Van Helsing cast magic?



I get the origin of the cleric is a player wanting to play a vampire hunter, but they are an Old Testament prophet wearing the armor of a Knight Crusader with Van Helsing's cross stapled on. Aragon is closer to the 5e Ranger than Van Helsing is to the Cleric.


----------



## gorice

Bill Zebub said:


> I keep thinking about the line from the Hobbit, about (I paraphrase) how Hobbits don’t have magic, except the ordinary everyday sort that allows them to hide when stupid big people come blundering along.
> 
> Why is it so freaking important whether or not something is magical? I don’t really believe it’s about how to adjudicate anti-magic fields; there seems to be some kind of emotional investment in this issue.



I don't think its about game mechanics at all, or at least, not principally. Whether or not a class like a ranger uses magic is massively important from a purely aesthetic perspective, and has big worldbuilding implications. If you don't want to play a magical character, or run a ludicrously high-magic campaign, D&D has increasingly little to offer.


----------



## Olrox17

Bill Zebub said:


> I keep thinking about the line from the Hobbit, about (I paraphrase) how Hobbits don’t have magic, except the ordinary everyday sort that allows them to hide when stupid big people come blundering along.
> 
> Why is it so freaking important whether or not something is magical? I don’t really believe it’s about how to adjudicate anti-magic fields; there seems to be some kind of emotional investment in this issue.



The more this discussion goes on, the more it looks like the main issue is VSM components. I get it, nobody wants their Aragorn-like character to go abracadabra while they do weird gestures and toss bat crap everywhere.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> But this argument got lost a long time ago.  D&D has never bothered worrying too much about corner cases - by D&D I mean 5e that is.  The anti-magic field is such a white room theory crafting point that it's pretty much just a cliche by this point.  I'm more than willing to bet my lunch money that only a very, very tiny minority of gamers has ever seen one in play.  And, let's be honest, no one has ever seen an Animal Friendship spell counter-spelled.
> 
> Thus, D&D has decided that if something is 90% duck, we'll just call it a duck and be done with it.  If two things are functionally the same, in 5e they use the same system most of the time.  Thus, cantrips use the straight up combat system most of the time, with a few using the saving throw system.  Functionally, there is no difference between a Firebolt and someone with a crossbow.  Dice might be different, but, the mechanics are identical.
> 
> And since D&D1 is aiming for streamlining and simplifying, we're going to get caster rangers.  Full stop.  That's just how it will be.  5e was based on the idea that anything that is even remotely "spell like" is just a spell, full stop.  Thus rangers and paladins become half casters instead of having a list of bespoke abilities.  So, we can have two rangers that are actually quite different, simply by choosing different spells.



Oh, if you're talking about how things are actually going to be (WotC being WotC), rather than how some of us think they should be, then I have to agree.  I don't like magic "rangers", but that's what 6e is going to have.  There are IMO better ways (much better ways) to make a knowledgeable survivalist wilderness defender, but WotC is determined to take the easy way out.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Eric V said:


> So, if a person wanted to play a highly skilled outdoorsman who could accomplish things like calming the wild horse down, minor healing, befriending a wolf, knowing weaknesses of creatures, and other rangery-stuff...the answer has to be spells.  D&D spells, mind you, with their VSM components and shared spell lists. There's no room to play the skilled archetype from imagination and many pieces of media?
> 
> That seems unnecessarily limiting, especially since the spell-using ranger could be part of a subclass.



Apparently its brutally unfair to the poor spellcasters otherwise.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Eric V said:


> It doesn't matter how you envision your character when you sit down to play?




Huh?  Of course it does.  And I get to envision it however I want, magical or non-magical.  I don't feel bound by WotC's description, only their rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Apparently its brutally unfair to the poor spellcasters otherwise.




It's hard to take posts seriously when they drip with sarcasm and hyperbole.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Olrox17 said:


> The more this discussion goes on, the more it looks like the main issue is VSM components. I get it, nobody wants their Aragorn-like character to go abracadabra while they do weird gestures and toss bat crap everywhere.




I think that's _one_ aspect.  Certainly if you want to imagine your ability as non-magical, a requirement for VSM makes that harder to support.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> Aragon is closer to the 5e Ranger than Van Helsing is to the Cleric.



I can see the "technically correct, the best kind of correct" angle here, but it's a _very small margin_ at this point even for "technically correct".

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.

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.

And Ranger lore in D&D 5E/1D&D basically says they're Aragorn/Katniss-types with a truly brief mention of magic, not the sort of person who casts a spell on their main target virtually every round as a core component of their way of fighting, nor does it imply their woodsy ways are basically reliant on spellcasting.

So again we're back to "pick a lane" or "false advertising". D&D's Ranger is not what a lot of people expect, and further, the lore/advertising misleads people about what it is and what it does. If they want to go forwards with the absolutely magic-reliant Ranger we have in 1D&D, they need to edit the lore to reflect that. This isn't a character who is primarily a woodsman with a touch of magic - this is a character who is ineffective in combat without magic and not great outside it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I would have thought the Ranger as "monster hunter who makes the rest of the party more effective without casting spells" would have been a popular idea within the Warlord fan club.


----------



## Remathilis

Olrox17 said:


> The more this discussion goes on, the more it looks like the main issue is VSM components. I get it, nobody wants their Aragorn-like character to go abracadabra while they do weird gestures and toss bat crap everywhere.



To be fair, the notion of such things are pretty archaic to magic as well. Plenty of spellcasters in fiction do not rely on overt verbal or physical displays of casting, and material components are rare outside of wands, staves and plot mcguffins. If we're aiming for parallelity, I'd be perfectly fine with removing VSM (except for costly material components) as limiting factors. 

Alternatively, I'd be fine with warriors assuming specific katas and yelling specific battle cries (hiiiii-yaaa!) before doing special "supernatural" effects that can be countered with effects like silence. Then warriors can do their fireball-strikes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bill Zebub said:


> Warlord fan club



I mean that's like two people at this point.

Even I let my membership lapse some years ago. Still keep sending me newsletters though.


Remathilis said:


> Alternatively, I'd be fine with warriors assuming specific katas and yelling specific battle cries (hiiiii-yaaa!) before doing special "supernatural" effects that can be countered with effects like silence. Then warriors can do their fireball-strikes.



Welcome back to the Book of 9 Swords! Aka proto-4E.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(In a more serious "How to make that work" sense it seems like for "supernatural" martial effects the main counter would be movement-preventers and slowers, rather than silence and concentration breaks - like, you can't cast a spell whilst Silenced, but you can't do a flying leap-chop whilst Slowed or Restrained or the like (whereas you could Misty Step). Those sort of effects are a bit more common than Silence of course, but you can balance around that.)


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean that's like two people at this point.
> 
> Even I let my membership lapse some years ago. Still keep sending me newsletters though.
> 
> Welcome back to the Book of 9 Swords! Aka proto-4E.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.



I mean, I liked Bo9S, but I also accepted it as "fitan magic" that taps into "magic" the same way ki, psionics, incarnum, and spellcasting did. Absolutely nothing mundane about it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> I mean, I liked Bo9S, but I also accepted it as "fitan magic" that taps into "magic" the same way ki, psionics, incarnum, and spellcasting did. Absolutely nothing mundane about it.



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?


----------



## Eric V

Bill Zebub said:


> Huh?  Of course it does.  And I get to envision it however I want, magical or non-magical.  I don't feel bound by WotC's description, only their rules.



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.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Eric V said:


> 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

Bill Zebub said:


> 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

Eric V said:


> 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

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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

Minigiant said:


> 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

gorice said:


> 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

Zaukrie said:


> (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.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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?




I mean Aragorn is a high level ranger and the high level 5e ranger has the attributes associated with Aragorn as the spell list and class features were tailor more to him without additional elements not associated to him like animal companions.


----------



## Remathilis

Bill Zebub said:


> 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.



I'm sure the 1,000 page PHB with a unique magic system for all classes will be awesome. But if you can't get WotC to create 10 different magic systems, spell slots is fine.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> No more than animal friendship does. Good grief it’s practically word for word copy pasted from the spell right down to the bit about food.



As @darjr pput it, it's not a spell. It doesn't matter if it's a copypaste. What matters is that the ranger can do, by dint of nonmagical knowledge and ability, what everyone else requires magic to do.

It's like the difference between someone who can carve a statue and someone who downloads the stl files someone else made and 3d prints the same statue.


----------



## Olrox17

Remathilis said:


> I'm sure the 1,000 page PHB with a unique magic system for all classes will be awesome. But if you can't get WotC to create 10 different magic systems, spell slots is fine.



Yeah, a PHB with a dozen pages for each individual class, just to give each of them their own list of abilities? Never seen that before 

(Tried to attach the cover image of a 4e PHB here, but the Enworld forum decided to not do that and ruined my joke.)


----------



## Remathilis

Olrox17 said:


> Yeah, a PHB with a dozen pages for each individual class, just to give each of them their own list of abilities? Never seen that before
> 
> (Tried to attach the cover image of a 4e PHB here, but the Enworld forum decided to not do that and ruined my joke.)



I mean, if they had stapled PHB 1, 2 and 3 together as one book, I could see it. But Pelor save me from waiting three years to play my monk PC again...


----------



## Olrox17

Remathilis said:


> I mean, if they had stapled PHB 1, 2 and 3 together as one book, I could see it. But Pelor save me from waiting three years to play my monk PC again...



Warlock and Warlord on PHB1, with no Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer and Monk. That was quite ballsy on WotC's part, back then.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Remathilis said:


> I'm sure the 1,000 page PHB with a unique magic system for all classes will be awesome. But if you can't get WotC to create 10 different magic systems, spell slots is fine.




Oh, was that sarcasm/hyperbole?

It wouldn't have to be an entirely different magic system with its own spell descriptions.  It could be a couple pages of flavorful, bard-specific special abilities.  Seems to work for Barbarian, Monk, etc.


----------



## Olrox17

Bill Zebub said:


> Oh, was that sarcasm/hyperbole?
> 
> It wouldn't have to be an entirely different magic system with its own spell descriptions.  It could be a couple pages of flavorful, bard-specific special abilities.  Seems to work for Barbarian, Monk, etc.



The Warlock with its various invocations is a good example IMO.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Olrox17 said:


> The Warlock with its various invocations is a good example IMO.



Yeah that’s one thing I’m imagining. I would love to see Bard, Ranger, and maybe even Paladin look more like Warlock invocations, with Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard using full spellcasting.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah that’s one thing I’m imagining. I would love to see Bard, Ranger, and maybe even Paladin look more like Warlock invocations, with Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard using full spellcasting.



If I were designing OneD&D, every class would be designed more like the Warlock class. Every class would get a "Pact Boon" (Fighting Style for Martial Characters, Channel Divinity for Priests, etc) and "Eldritch Invocations" (Battlemaster Maneuvers for Martial Characters, Metamagic for Mages, Infusions for Artificers, etc).


----------



## Hussar

gorice said:


> I don't think its about game mechanics at all, or at least, not principally. Whether or not a class like a ranger uses magic is massively important from a purely aesthetic perspective, and has big worldbuilding implications. If you don't want to play a magical character, or run a ludicrously high-magic campaign, D&D has increasingly little to offer.



No, it really doesn't have ANY world building implications.  Since the effects of what the ranger can do are identical to spells, then, from a world building perspective, it makes no difference.  It doesn't matter if your animal friend comes from a "Knack" or an "Animal Friendship" spell when both are functionally identical.



Bill Zebub said:


> I think that's _one_ aspect.  Certainly if you want to imagine your ability as non-magical, a requirement for VSM makes that harder to support.




But we STILL have a VSM component.  That Knack from Level Up absolutely requres verbal, somatic and material components.  The description of the Knack 100% details exactly what all three are.  Now, since something like Hunter's Mark is verbal only, and, in fact, if you go through the spell list of rangers, most of the spell effects and components are mostly mundane and would be exactly the same if they were detailed as a "Knack" rather than a spell, then there is no actual difference.  



Eric V said:


> 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.



Knacks/maneuvers need VSM components in Level Up and no one seems to complain.  In 40 years of gaming I've yet to ever see an "anti magic zone" and since you don't even know if the Weave is still a thing, then obviously it's not impacting yoru games.  And, again, having an Animal Friendship Knack that works identically to a Druid casting Animal Friendship is being heralded as the peak of non-magical abilities seems a bit strange.   Paladins in 5e can have Hunter's Mark.  Does that mean that rangers lose something?  I've never once seen a single complaint about the fact that spells cross between classes as a reason for not having spells with a class.



Faolyn said:


> As @darjr pput it, it's not a spell. It doesn't matter if it's a copypaste. What matters is that the ranger can do, by dint of nonmagical knowledge and ability, what everyone else requires magic to do.
> 
> It's like the difference between someone who can carve a statue and someone who downloads the stl files someone else made and 3d prints the same statue.



It's a duck.  Stop pretending that it's not a duck.  It doesn't matter.  The only thing that actually matters is the effect - how you achieve that effect never matters.  No one actually cares.  

This is just the 4e edition warring argument all over again.  OH we can't have AEDU structure because it makes everyone a caster and makes all the classes the same!  Which was 100% never true.  A paladin most certainly did not play the same as a fighter or a wizard, despite using the same AEDU structure and anyone who played 4e for more than 15 minutes can attest to the same.  Well, in 5e, we've made every class part of the caster rules.  For years now, there have only been three subclasses in the PHB that didn't have spells.  

You want a non-caster ranger, that has the exact same effects as a caster ranger, but, for some bizarre reason, needs to call it something else.  It's difference for the sake of being different.  It's meaningless.  Instead of Hunter's Mark, you get Hunter's Target - exactly, word for word the same effect, same limitations, copy pasted from the spell effect, but, hey, it's not a spell.    For some reason I can forage for poisons exactly ONCE between long rests and make 3 doses of poison, but, I absolutely may not do it twice between long rests?  And this isn't a spell?  Works like a spell, has the same limitations as a spell and functions exactly like a spell... .but it isn't a spell.  Or, I can see invisible for an hour, once, and only once per long rest, but, again, it's not a spell... despite being functioning EXACTLY the same as See Invisibility.  

There's no point to any of this.  The only difference between the OneE ranger and the Level Up ranger is the language used to describe it.  It's exactly the same as the old 4e criticisms which ignored the fact that so much of 4e came forward into 5e, but, just with a different coat of paint.


----------



## Haplo781

Minigiant said:


> Where in any D&D book are these items and the rules to craft them that rangers have?



Same page as the rules for crafting spell components.


----------



## darjr

@Hussar but it’s not a duck. A duck can be dispelled and doesn’t work in an anti magic field and a duck suffers from being in fasres. 

As an example, some monsters have features that were formerly spells, and now that they are not spells, even if they are essentially identical except for that, are no longer subject to dispel, or counter spell, or anti magic, or magic resistance (maybe?). They are no longer ducks.

I remind folks I’m not invested in any of these sides, I like the Ranger in the test. It’s just that this difference seems sound to me, enough to point it out.

I mean the “stat blocks” can be identical except for that word spell, but that keyword spell auto includes a bunch of spell baggage that the non-spells no longer have. I sympathize without agreeing that it is a problem, not for me anyway.


----------



## Hussar

Shrug. How often as a dm have you ever counter spelled a ranger’s spells? How often has anyone actually used an anti magic zone? 

How many of 5e’s modules from WotC featured anti magic zones? 

It’s all white room theory crafting. It never actually happens in play so who cares?

Anyone? Seriously. Has anyone reading this ever seen a ranger’s spell be counter spelled? And since very few ranger spells have saving throws, it’s not like legendary resistance matters. Heck, conjure barrage, to pick an example, wouldn’t be affected by either anti magic or legendary resistance unless the ranger tried to cast it from inside the zone. Otherwise it works as normal. 

We do not need fifteen different unique systems when one system will cover 99% of situations just fine.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> It's a duck.  Stop pretending that it's not a duck.  It doesn't matter.  The only thing that actually matters is the effect - how you achieve that effect never matters.  No one actually cares.



Except for all of us who _do _care, because it takes away from our immersion. It's why a lot of people grumble about the artificer not feeling really artificer-y enough, because you're just supposed to pretend that you're using an item when really, you're casting a spell.



Hussar said:


> This is just the 4e edition warring argument all over again.  OH we can't have AEDU structure because it makes everyone a caster and makes all the classes the same!  Which was 100% never true.  A paladin most certainly did not play the same as a fighter or a wizard, despite using the same AEDU structure and anyone who played 4e for more than 15 minutes can attest to the same.  Well, in 5e, we've made every class part of the caster rules.  For years now, there have only been three subclasses in the PHB that didn't have spells.



Right, and that's really sucked if you wanted to run a low-magic game.



Hussar said:


> You want a non-caster ranger, that has the exact same effects as a caster ranger,



Well, then it wouldn't be magical. Which is entirely the point.

And it's not for the sake of "being different." It's for the sake of allowing mundane characters to shine. For allowing low-magic settings. To prevent _everything _from being magical, which is an annoying trend that D&D has always had, because it's easier to say "you can cast _spell_" than it is to say "you can perform the following action" and then spend a paragraph describing the action. To allow characters to actually roleplay what they're doing rather than just handwave it as casting a spell. And to keep rangers from being the same as everyone else, because almost every single ranger spell is also on someone else's spell list. Magically speaking, rangers get something like 6 or 7 unique spells. Everything else is shared, and mostly with druids. Why not just play a druid with a bow?



Hussar said:


> but, for some bizarre reason, needs to call it something else.  It's difference for the sake of being different.  It's meaningless.  Instead of Hunter's Mark, you get Hunter's Target - exactly, word for word the same effect, same limitations, copy pasted from the spell effect, but, hey, it's not a spell.    For some reason I can forage for poisons exactly ONCE between long rests and make 3 doses of poison, but, I absolutely may not do it twice between long rests?  And this isn't a spell?  Works like a spell, has the same limitations as a spell and functions exactly like a spell... .but it isn't a spell.  Or, I can see invisible for an hour, once, and only once per long rest, but, again, it's not a spell... despite being functioning EXACTLY the same as See Invisibility.



That's right. It's not a spell. Just like a fighter can only take an extra attack or regain hit points once between rests--but it's not a spell. Or a rogue can only get extra damage in fairly specific circumstances.



Hussar said:


> There's no point to any of this.  The only difference between the OneE ranger and the Level Up ranger is the language used to describe it.  It's exactly the same as the old 4e criticisms which ignored the fact that so much of 4e came forward into 5e, but, just with a different coat of paint.



No, the difference is the lack of magic. A Level Up ranger will function in a antimagic zone... and wouldn't you know it? The latest Level Up book (pdf dropped today) includes _antimagic zone_, the spell.


----------



## gorice

How does one conjure a barrage without either magic or a company of archers?


----------



## darjr

I use counter spell if I got it in a monster stat block. Just did a few days ago. Wanna make a wizard really hate an NPC? Counter spell is great for that.

Also I just ran a tier 3 game with an anti magic zone. The Ranger of the party on a flying carpet all but crashed hard trying to avoid it.

So, yea, I do.


----------



## Bill Zebub

gorice said:


> How does one conjure a barrage without either magic or a company of archers?




Yeah I hate that ability.

I'll agree with @Hussar about at least one thing: I think this stuff about dispelling and counterspelling and anti-magic zones is a red herring.  I don't think the issue is actually about that for very many people; it just gets invoked as a supposedly objective rationale, and a practical litmus test, for what is really an emotional/aesthetic preference.  Sure, it exists, and requires a ruling when something "isn't magic" or "isn't a spell".  But I can't believe the reason anybody really wants non-magical abilities is so they can't be counterspelled.  (I could be wrong.)

The problem is, it's about different things for different people, and it's hard (uninteresting) to keep track of who exactly is saying what, so it's easy to mash all the arguments together into an incoherent, contradictory mess.


----------



## Azzy

Olrox17 said:


> The more this discussion goes on, the more it looks like the main issue is VSM components. I get it, nobody wants their Aragorn-like character to go abracadabra while they do weird gestures and toss bat crap everywhere.



Well, VSM components don't need to exist—BCMI (and, I believe, BX) didn't have them.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Right, and that's really sucked if you wanted to run a low-magic game.



Sorry, D&D hasn't been low magic in decades.
If you mant to play low magic youhave to cut 75% of the monsters,races, and classes.
Default D&D is one the higher side of magic. Only MMOs, MOBAs, CCGs, and wizard worlds have higher magic.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> And it's not for the sake of "being different." It's for the sake of allowing mundane characters to shine. For allowing low-magic settings. To prevent _everything _from being magical, which is an annoying trend that D&D has always had, because it's easier to say "you can cast _spell_" than it is to say "you can perform the following action" and then spend a paragraph describing the action. To allow characters to actually roleplay what they're doing rather than just handwave it as casting a spell. And to keep rangers from being the same as everyone else, because almost every single ranger spell is also on someone else's spell list. Magically speaking, rangers get something like 6 or 7 unique spells. Everything else is shared, and mostly with druids. Why not just play a druid with a bow?



But this has always been true.  Rangers have never had ANY unique spells or mechanics.  Like, in the entire history of the game.  They had spells drawn from other classes.  Rangers could track.  That's about the only unique mechanics rangers have ever had.  And, I'm sorry, but, there's no difference between, "I cast Animal Friendship by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger (or whatever the animal is) and making friendly noises" and "I use my Animal Knack by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger and making friendly noises.".  It's identical.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> That's right. It's not a spell. Just like a fighter can only take an extra attack or regain hit points once between rests--but it's not a spell. Or a rogue can only get extra damage in fairly specific circumstances.



But extra attack and sneak attack aren't identical to spells.  That's the point.  These "non-spell" abilities that you want to add to the ranger to make a ranger special are word for word identical to SPELLS.  There's no spell, that I can think of off hand, that lets me deal extra damage if I have an ally adjacent.  If you want non-magical ranger to be different, then make the abilities different from spells.  Don't just give them spells, then a gloss of paint and then claim that it's a "non-magic" ranger when the ranger is word for word identical to the spell casting ranger.


----------



## Hussar

darjr said:


> I use counter spell if I got it in a monster stat block. Just did a few days ago. Wanna make a wizard really hate an NPC? Counter spell is great for that.
> 
> Also I just ran a tier 3 game with an anti magic zone. The Ranger of the party on a flying carpet all but crashed hard trying to avoid it.
> 
> So, yea, I do.



You actually used counter spell on a RANGER?  Seriously?


----------



## Hussar

gorice said:


> How does one conjure a barrage without either magic or a company of archers?



And yet, funnily enough, rangers have had this as an ability since the first day of 5e.  Could do it all day long.  No limitations whatsoever.  And no one seemed to mind.  My ranger, without magic, could drop sixteen (actually seventeen) potential attacks any time he wanted.  

But, since we're dropping that ability (at least in the document they do) so, now it becomes a spell.  Because, well, why have a non-magical version of a spell?  It's a case of simplifying the system.  Instead of doubling up on every single spell and turning them into "knacks" or "maneuvers" or whatever other sub-system we want to call them, we're just calling them all "spells".


----------



## SakanaSensei

Hussar said:


> You actually used counter spell on a RANGER?  Seriously?



I agree with you in this, but I did get my Web counterspelled once when I was playing in CoS. Definitely kinda sucked.


----------



## darjr

Hussar said:


> You actually used counter spell on a RANGER?  Seriously?



I wouldn’t be surprised if I had at some point. I’ll grant you I dint remember an instance.

But in the case above it was an anti magic field.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> But extra attack and sneak attack aren't identical to spells.  That's the point.  These "non-spell" abilities that you want to add to the ranger to make a ranger special are word for word identical to SPELLS.  There's no spell, that I can think of off hand, that lets me deal extra damage if I have an ally adjacent.  If you want non-magical ranger to be different, then make the abilities different from spells.  Don't just give them spells, then a gloss of paint and then claim that it's a "non-magic" ranger when the ranger is word for word identical to the spell casting ranger.



It seems like what you're saying is that it doesn't matter to you, so you don't see how it can matter to anyone.  Several people have told you it matters to them.  What do you think we're doing?


----------



## darjr

Look. If the PCs stumble upon a bunch of Red Wizards and the ranger starts casting a spell, well that’s a proud nail and the Thayans have bags of hammers, the ranger is going to get one.

They dint know he’s a “Ranger”.


----------



## darjr

I will say I think the ship has sailed in the non magic Ranger. Regardless.

Who knows maybe if enough people mention it in the survey they’ll add one or provide a way, but I doubt it at this point.

If they do anything it’ll likely be along the lines of the Scout. I’m guessing.


----------



## Olrox17

Azzy said:


> Well, VSM components don't need to exist—BCMI (and, I believe, BX) didn't have them.



Tbh, I think they are appropriate for some characters - I appreciate that my wizards must use Dr Strange-like gestures and stuff.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> It seems like what you're saying is that it doesn't matter to you, so you don't see how it can matter to anyone. Several people have told you it matters to them. What do you think we're doing?




Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing. 

Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong. 

I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells. 

It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway. 

Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?

Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage. 

So not worth a new system.


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.
> 
> Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong.
> 
> I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells.
> 
> It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway.
> 
> Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?
> 
> Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage.
> 
> So not worth a new system.



I think the position of wanting the ranger to have spells without calling them spells (with all that entails) is simply a position born of compromise.
I'm fairly sure all in favor of the non-spellcasting ranger would love if the ranger was given actually unique features and powers that significantly differ from what current 5e spells can do. That is, however, a big thing to ask to the WotC devs.


----------



## Minigiant

Hussar said:


> And yet, funnily enough, rangers have had this as an ability since the first day of 5e.  Could do it all day long.  No limitations whatsoever.  And no one seemed to mind.  My ranger, without magic, could drop sixteen (actually seventeen) potential attacks any time he wanted.
> 
> But, since we're dropping that ability (at least in the document they do) so, now it becomes a spell.  Because, well, why have a non-magical version of a spell?  It's a case of simplifying the system.  Instead of doubling up on every single spell and turning them into "knacks" or "maneuvers" or whatever other sub-system we want to call them, we're just calling them all "spells".




Yeah, the only real problem is a half caster's slot progression is too slow for a daily damage spell attack. If conjure barrage was free as a1st or 2nd level spell or use and different resource then it would be better.


Hussar said:


> Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.
> 
> Doesn’t matter to you that the non magical parts are identical to the magic parts. It’s a spell so it’s wrong.
> 
> I’d be sympathetic if the non magical ranger was actually doing something besides spells without being spells but you don’t want that. You want the ranger to have spells but don’t call them spells.
> 
> It’s difference without meaning. You friend an animal and it functions identically to the animal friendship spell except it can’t be dispelled. Which, frankly, will likely never happen anyway.
> 
> Why does the ranger get a free spell effect that is more powerful than what the caster gets? After all, the Druid’s animal friendship can be dispelled and all that. But ranger effects are just better? Why?
> 
> Like I said, if your ranger was doing things that weren’t cut and paste from spell descriptions then I’d buy what you’re saying. But it’s not. It’s literally exactly the same effects, just with a bit of different verbiage.
> 
> So not worth a new system.




Exactly.

I can think of dozens of ranger appropriate action of that are not spells in5e. I can think of older edition spells that aren't in 5e that cold be converted into not spells.

But that's not what 99% of "nonmagical ranger" fans wants. They want 5 1st level spells: Animals Friendship, Cure Wounds, Goodberry, Hunter's Mark,  Speak with Animals.

WOTC is not going to create a whole class that is a fighter with 5 copies of nonmagical versions of 5 primal spells..Especially not in 5e/5.5e, the "Ask your DM to do it" edition.


----------



## Hussar

I mean this is the issue with the warlord really. Most of what a warlord did- action granting - isn’t part of the spell system. There’s no spell that causes my allies to take an off initiative charge and make a single attack that knocks enemies prone. So a magical warlord can’t actually do what a warlord did. 

But a spell casting ranger is mostly exactly the same as a ranger has been for a very long time.


----------



## Bill Zebub

darjr said:


> Look. If the PCs stumble upon a bunch of Red Wizards and the ranger stars casting a spell, well that’s a proud nail and the Thayans have bags of hammers, the ranger is going to get one.
> 
> They dint know he’s a “Ranger”.




“Oh, really, he was?  I thought he was just a Fighter/Druid.  My bad.”


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> But that's not what 99% of "nonmagical ranger" fans wants. They want 5 1st level spells: Animals Friendship, Cure Wounds, Goodberry, Hunter's Mark,  Speak with Animals.




Have a citation for that data? It’s very specific.


----------



## darjr

Bill Zebub said:


> “Oh, really, he was?  I thought he was just a Fighter/Druid.  My bad.”



He was in disguise!


----------



## Bill Zebub

darjr said:


> He was in disguise!



“But he didn’t have a pet! How was I supposed to know?”


----------



## Remathilis

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were designing OneD&D, every class would be designed more like the Warlock class. Every class would get a "Pact Boon" (Fighting Style for Martial Characters, Channel Divinity for Priests, etc) and "Eldritch Invocations" (Battlemaster Maneuvers for Martial Characters, Metamagic for Mages, Infusions for Artificers, etc).



But how much repetition are you willing to suffer for this?

Warlock invocations are a mix of class features, ribbons and access to spells (sometimes free to cast, sometimes using a spell slot). Even with all that, most of the warlock abilities are tied firmly to the spell section. It might be flavorful to give warlocks Eldritch Sight, bards Song of Revealing Dweomers, clerics Prayer of Arcane Insight and rangers Sense Unnatural Auras, but how many different ways do you need to detect magic? Are they each going to repeat the rules or (like the warlock does now) just refer back to the wizard spell anyway? 

I'm just saying that multiple systems with different names and units adds complexity, and rules bloat for the benefit of extra immersion. Is that worth the trade?


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> Have a citation for that data? It’s very specific.



It's the only spells 90% of nonmagical ranger variants copy.

Hell when I say "what about scrying, transmutations, and teleports" they said why does that need to be included?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> It's the only spells* 90%* of nonmagical ranger variants copy.
> 
> Hell when I say "what about scrying, transmutations, and teleports" *they said* why does that need to be included?




That's a pretty impressive extrapolation/generalization.


----------



## Minigiant

Bill Zebub said:


> That's a pretty impressive extrapolation/generalization.



I've read a LOT of nonmagical ranger variants.

90% is lowballing. Few nonmagical rangers homebrew that are published on forums and sites mimic spell higher than 2nd except Lesser Restoration.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> But extra attack and sneak attack aren't identical to spells.



_Haste, _various _smites, _and well, any damaging spell cast from hiding... they all have the exact same function as extra attacks and sneak attacks. 



Hussar said:


> That's the point.  These "non-spell" abilities that you want to add to the ranger to make a ranger special are word for word identical to SPELLS.



You do realize that Level Up was supposed to be backwards compatible, right? And thus the phrasing was "identical" to mollify people who expected spells. 



Hussar said:


> But this has always been true. Rangers have never had ANY unique spells or mechanics. Like, in the entire history of the game. They had spells drawn from other classes. Rangers could track.



And that's a point of favor for spells? Why not just get rid of rangers and tell people to play fighter/druids instead?



Hussar said:


> That's about the only unique mechanics rangers have ever had. And, I'm sorry, but, there's no difference between, "I cast Animal Friendship by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger (or whatever the animal is) and making friendly noises" and "I use my Animal Knack by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger and making friendly noises.". It's identical.



There is literally _every single difference _in the world.

Casting _animal friendship _on a tiger is something that two non-ranger classes, one archetype, and two races can do. Managing to befriend a tiger simply by understanding animals is something that only rangers can do. 

If every class can cast spells, then magic _itself _becomes boring and non-special. I don't know about you, but I want magic to feel_ magical_, not mundane.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> I've read a LOT of nonmagical ranger variants.
> 
> 90% is lowballing. Few nonmagical rangers homebrew that are published on forums and sites mimic spell higher than 2nd except Lesser Restoration.



Oh, you are talking about the tiny subset of people who want a non-magical Ranger who also write a home brew class. Or, the subset of those who publish it. Or, the subset of those that you read.

What are we talking, 10?  20?

Ummm.  Yeah.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> Sorry, D&D hasn't been low magic in decades.
> If you mant to play low magic youhave to cut 75% of the monsters,races, and classes.
> Default D&D is one the higher side of magic. Only MMOs, MOBAs, CCGs, and wizard worlds have higher magic.



It depends on how you define low magic.

No magic at all? It would probably be better to play a different game.

But a game with very few _spellcasters?_ Say, wizards and priests only, or maybe only those who've made deals with beings strange and foul (warlocks, perhaps even paladins depending on your point of view) can cast, or one where the only magic comes from the warring factions of civilized Gods and wild Nature, or even one with no _spells _but magic items scavenged from the ruins of a bygone age... those are all possible in D&D and are made easier by having more nonmagical classes.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Minigiant said:


> I've read a LOT of nonmagical ranger variants.
> 
> 90% is lowballing. Few nonmagical rangers homebrew that are published on forums and sites mimic spell higher than 2nd except Lesser Restoration.




I think that just goes to show how much WotC wants us to bypass the Exploration Pillar. When everything that circumvents it can be found as first level spells...


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think that just goes to show how much WotC wants us to bypass the Exploration Pillar. When everything that circumvents it can be found as first level spells...



Personally I think the exploration pillar needs to be abandoned as a core Ranger concept, except maybe a couple of ribbons.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> Honestly? I think you’re building mountains out of molehills. Ok. It matters to you. Why should I care to be honest. You’ve made it abundantly clear that there can be no compromise here. It’s 100% non magical ranger or nothing.



_Or _it could be like I first mentioned for Level Up--a nonmagical ranger with third-caster archetype(s).

Or it could be like at least one other person mentioned--a nonmagical ranger with a warlock-like chassis which includes both magical and nonmagical "invocations."



Hussar said:


> So not worth a new system.



How would it be a new system? The description of a third caster's spellcasting takes up a few paragraphs and the quarter page needed for the spell table (and theoretically, you could have a _single _full caster spell table, a single half-caster spell table, and a single third-caster spell table, and then refer to what table is needed in each class. After all, 1D&D has already narrowed down the spell lists so each class doesn't get their own list, so why not do the same thing for the actual tables.

Plus, the _instructions _for how to use a battlemaster's maneuvers and a warlock's invocations take up very little room, with the maneuvers and invocations taking up not much more. Why would a ranger's abilities be any more difficult?


----------



## Zubatcarteira

I think instead of extra attack Rangers should get the Eldritch Blast cantrip with a bow and arrows as a material component, would make things simpler.


----------



## TwoSix

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If I were designing OneD&D, every class would be designed more like the Warlock class. Every class would get a "Pact Boon" (Fighting Style for Martial Characters, Channel Divinity for Priests, etc) and "Eldritch Invocations" (Battlemaster Maneuvers for Martial Characters, Metamagic for Mages, Infusions for Artificers, etc).



I love the idea of warlocking up 5e.  Patron becomes a conglomeration of Heroic Origin and Power Source. 
 Eldritch Blast becomes the ability to make one die+modifier damage + rider effect attack per tier, varying by Origin.  (Martials do weapon attacks, casters do cantrips.)  Put the real variance in the "Invocations", casters might get stronger long rest "spell" invocations, martials get more at-will/short rest/recharge on initiative "maneuvers" or "stances".

Casters get the ability to use the SR recharge "Pact Magic" slots on known spells, martials use the slots for abilities like Action Surge, Rage, or other offensive or defensive martial benefits tied to class.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Bill Zebub said:


> Personally I think the exploration pillar needs to be abandoned as a core Ranger concept, except maybe a couple of ribbons.



Really? What would its identity be without it?

And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually _good_ at it?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Have not read all the posts - but with regards to the spell-less Ranger and desire for low-level magic campaign -  what I would do is down-grade all the appropriate spells to rituals, with the limiting factors being

time (rituals will take time 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour...etc)
components being costly or rare (may cost HD too)
training or downtime required to learn more
And the rituals if you want to make it harder may require ability checks (i.e. DC 10 + level of the mimicked spell), so there is a chance of failure.

I'm not confident WotC would provide a parallel system (spell-less ranger) with the PHB.


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> Really? What would its identity be without it?




That’s the million dollar question, right? Best idea I’ve heard is monster hunter/Witcher. 



FitzTheRuke said:


> And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually _good_ at it?




Better?  Maybe. Not simpler. I’ve yet to see any ideas that both fit D&D 5e and would work well.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> I mean Aragorn is a high level ranger and the high level 5e ranger has the attributes associated with Aragorn as the spell list and class features were tailor more to him without additional elements not associated to him like animal companions.



I mean, absolutely not?

Have you read LotR? Because it seems like from this you definitely have no. Aragorn, at most, does some non-magical stuff that perhaps equivalent to some level 1 or 2 spells or cantrips. The idea that a class that is casting spells literally most combats, and repeatedly casting this "kill specific target" spell (Hunter's Mark) is "like Aragorn" is extremely odd.

It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Bill Zebub said:


> That’s the million dollar question, right? Best idea I’ve heard is monster hunter/Witcher. Better?  Maybe. Not simpler. I’ve yet to see any ideas that both fit D&D 5e and would work well.




Well, chances are we'll get a hybrid of the two - a bit monster hunter a bit exploration expert, that fits neither archetype to anyone's satisfaction. Or perhaps I'm just feeling jaded ATM.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.



Oh no @Ruin Explorer!!! What have you done?
I now have an inkling to create a NPC and have him introduced as _Bard. James the Bard_.

My players will so hate me


----------



## grimslade

The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.


----------



## Arilyn

grimslade said:


> The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.



This is exactly what I was thinking earlier.  It makes spells feel more and more mundane, to the point that having classes do things without the aid of spells feel exceptional. I don't like seeing class features and racial abilities just give you access to a spell. A little of this is fine, but it is becoming more common. One D&D is not going to be hugely different from 5e, but it's adding to the trend.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, absolutely not?
> 
> Have you read LotR? Because it seems like from this you definitely have no. Aragorn, at most, does some non-magical stuff that perhaps equivalent to some level 1 or 2 spells or cantrips. The idea that a class that is casting spells literally most combats, and repeatedly casting this "kill specific target" spell (Hunter's Mark) is "like Aragorn" is extremely odd.
> 
> It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.



Because the way to do the thing Aragorn does in D&D is spells. Even in the martial heavy 4e, many of the iconic Rangery things are magic.


grimslade said:


> The problem with 5E is that the baseline is magic. Animal Friendship is the default for resolving befriending animals instead of an Animal Handling skill check. Mundane mimics the magical instead of spells supplanting skills. It is fundamental to 5E. Changing that paradigm is beyond the scope of an iterative change like One D&D.



In the Past, WOTC would attempt to create other subsystems to sell to fulls of different styles to closer match what they want. Those subsystems we're always magical (invocations, infusions, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, totems, infusions,) but you had options.

That's *GONE* in 5e and OneDnD.

It's spells and things that refer to spells


----------



## Zaukrie

Minigiant said:


> Because the way to do the thing Aragorn does in D&D is spells. Even in the martial heavy 4e, many of the iconic Rangery things are magic.
> 
> In the Past, WOTC would attempt to create other subsystems to sell to fulls of different styles to closer match what they want. Those subsystems we're always magical (invocations, infusions, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, totems, infusions,) but you had options.
> 
> That's *GONE* in 5e and OneDnD.
> 
> It's spells and things that refer to spells



That last part? Great point, and I hate it. But it's not changing any time soon....


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> _Haste, _various _smites, _and well, any damaging spell cast from hiding... they all have the exact same function as extra attacks and sneak attacks.
> 
> 
> You do realize that Level Up was supposed to be backwards compatible, right? And thus the phrasing was "identical" to mollify people who expected spells.
> 
> 
> And that's a point of favor for spells? Why not just get rid of rangers and tell people to play fighter/druids instead?
> 
> 
> There is literally _every single difference _in the world.
> 
> Casting _animal friendship _on a tiger is something that two non-ranger classes, one archetype, and two races can do. Managing to befriend a tiger simply by understanding animals is something that only rangers can do.
> 
> If every class can cast spells, then magic _itself _becomes boring and non-special. I don't know about you, but I want magic to feel_ magical_, not mundane.




Sorry. We lost that argument when they buried 4e. Having a suite of class unique powers which meant that not only every class but every character was distinct got taken out behind the barn. 

Now powers=spells.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

gorice said:


> This is probably pointless, but: how often did Van Helsing cast magic?



Roughly the same as any of the fictional inspirations for the Paladin.


Eric V said:


> So, if a person wanted to play a highly skilled outdoorsman who could accomplish things like calming the wild horse down, minor healing, befriending a wolf, knowing weaknesses of creatures, and other rangery-stuff...the answer has to be spells.  D&D spells, mind you, with their VSM components and shared spell lists. There's no room to play the skilled archetype from imagination and many pieces of media?



Using magic is, thematically, a skill. Not in terms of what things are called in dnd mechanics, sure, but using magic is a thing that you train, practice, and get better at.


Eric V said:


> hat seems unnecessarily limiting, especially since the spell-using ranger could be part of a subclass.



No, it really couldn't be. Spell casting subclasses are not the same sort of thing at all. The Ranger's spellcraft is already too constricted and anemic in the 2014 version. 

The point of the Ranger's toolkit is to cover nearly any situation they're likely to encounter. In the world of dnd, it's nonsensical to imagine that any of them would just...turn away such a valuable tool.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> Now powers=spells.



Which is both boring and makes magic mundane.


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> The point of the Ranger's toolkit is to cover nearly any situation they're likely to encounter. In the world of dnd, it's nonsensical to imagine that any of them would just...turn away such a valuable tool.



In _that _case, they shouldn't be limited to nature/hunting-type magic. They should have access to _any _sort of magic, whatever helps them be crazy-prepared.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> In _that _case, they shouldn't be limited to nature/hunting-type magic. They should have access to _any _sort of magic, whatever helps them be crazy-prepared.



They used too.

0e and 1e rangers had both Divine and Arcane magic.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Which is both boring and makes magic mundane.





Arilyn said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking earlier.  It makes spells feel more and more mundane, to the point that having classes do things without the aid of spells feel exceptional. I don't like seeing class features and racial abilities just give you access to a spell. A little of this is fine, but it is becoming more common. One D&D is not going to be hugely different from 5e, but it's adding to the trend.



It's that way because again a noticeable percentaage ofthe community wont allow it otherwise.

Look at the DMGr ules for tracking. If the quarry walks on bare floor without actual an obvious trail, tracking is *impossible*. Meaning you need actual magic to break the rules to continue. 3e made a killng creating spells to break the limits of mundane rules. 

And since D&D is flooded with magical rulebreakers starting at level 5, you end up in either a magical arms race or blatantly supernatural PCs.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> But how much repetition are you willing to suffer for this?
> 
> Warlock invocations are a mix of class features, ribbons and access to spells (sometimes free to cast, sometimes using a spell slot). Even with all that, most of the warlock abilities are tied firmly to the spell section. It might be flavorful to give warlocks Eldritch Sight, bards Song of Revealing Dweomers, clerics Prayer of Arcane Insight and rangers Sense Unnatural Auras, but how many different ways do you need to detect magic? Are they each going to repeat the rules or (like the warlock does now) just refer back to the wizard spell anyway?
> 
> I'm just saying that multiple systems with different names and units adds complexity, and rules bloat for the benefit of extra immersion. Is that worth the trade?



I would make them more or less specific to each individual class and have ties between class groups. For example with Martials, Fighters would get battlefield control maneuvers (tripping attack, pushing attack, disarming strike), monks would get debilitating maneuvers (like grappling strike, slowing strike, eventually stunning strike), barbarians would get melee AoE maneuvers (slashing whirlwind, earthtremor, charging attack, etc). 

The classes' different "Invocations" would be specific to them. Artificers have a feature similar to Invocations (Infusions), and none of them replicate spells. Every class would have a unique style of Invocation-like features.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Minigiant said:


> Look at the DMGr ules for tracking. If the quarry walks on bare floor without actual an obvious trail, tracking is *impossible*. Meaning you need actual magic to break the rules to continue. 3e made a killng creating spells to break the limits of mundane rules.




Which, to me, is an argument for preternatural* senses. Wolverine was a Ranger.

*Do you like how I avoided the words magical, superhuman, and supernatural?


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> Because the way to do the thing Aragorn does in D&D is spells. Even in the martial heavy 4e, many of the iconic Rangery things are magic.
> 
> In the Past, WOTC would attempt to create other subsystems to sell to fulls of different styles to closer match what they want. Those subsystems we're always magical (invocations, infusions, truenaming, pact magic, shadow magic, totems, infusions,) but you had options.
> 
> That's *GONE* in 5e and OneDnD.
> 
> It's spells and things that refer to spells



But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.


----------



## Cadence

Minigiant said:


> They used too.
> 
> 0e and 1e rangers had both Divine and Arcane magic.



While they had variety, it doesn't feel like they would be considered "1/2 casters".   They had a grand total of 1 spell at 8th level, and  grew to 10 spells (4 1st, 4 2nd, 2 3rd at) at 17th level.  And they had to learn the MU spells the hard way, and couldn't read scrolls to do it. 



Minigiant said:


> It's that way because again a noticeable percentaage ofthe community wont allow it otherwise.
> 
> Look at the DMGr ules for tracking. If the quarry walks on bare floor without actual an obvious trail, tracking is *impossible*. Meaning you need actual magic to break the rules to continue. 3e made a killng creating spells to break the limits of mundane rules.




In 1e to track underground they "must have observed the creature to be tracked within 3 turns (30 minutes) of the commencement of tracking and the ranger must being tracking at a place where the creature was observed."   So being hard to track is a recent thing.

The 5e quote about tracking is balanced earlier in the paragraph by "No roll is necessary in situations where the tracking is obvious."   How are they supposed to be tracked on bare stone when they don't leave a trail? In any case, Bare stone has a base DC of 20.  And then it feels odd that leaving a trail of blood only changes it by 5.  Bleh!


----------



## Hussar

Remathilis said:


> But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.



I think this really, really nails it on the head.  This conversation about rangers reminds me so much of the psionic conversations.  It follows pretty much the same lines.

There are a group of gamers that are really passionate about psionics and nothing less than a complete psionic subsystem separate from the magic system will do.  Then you have a larger group that probably doesn't really have any strong opinion in either direction.  Then you have someone like me who isn't all that enthusiastic about psionics in the first place and is really against the idea of adding an entire subsystem like 2e or 3e psionics just so that one player can play a psionicist.  

Complexity increases exponentially.  Every subsystem needs to work with every other subsystem and the more subsystems you add, the more complex the game gets.  And, it often falls to the DM to police these sorts of things since I cannot possibly be the only DM out there who has players who are ... not particularly thorough in their understanding of the rules that apply to their character.   

Which just adds to the workload of the DM.

D&DOne has the stated goal of streamlining and making things easier to run.  They've been pretty clear about that.  They are going to make the game easier to use at the table at the expense of complexity.  We see this in the monster stat blocks and in how the classes are now shaping up.  Which means that any calls to increase complexity are just not going to get any real traction.  People don't want a _more_ complicated game.  Running D&D is hard enough as it is.  Adding in a subsystem for rangers, which may or may not come up in your next campaign, or even the one after that, but will come up two or three years after the release of D&DOne - meaning that the DM now has to go back and relearn that stuff just so Dave can play that ranger. 

From a strictly practical standpoint, you cannot really have separate subsystems for half the classes while the other half the classes use the standard systems.  Not when you have so many classes.  It makes running the game so much more difficult - you run one campaign where everyone is a standard system - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric and then the next campaign you have ranger, monk, psionicist, artificer and the poor DM's brains leak out their ears.


----------



## Faolyn

Minigiant said:


> It's that way because again a noticeable percentaage ofthe community wont allow it otherwise.
> 
> Look at the DMGr ules for tracking. If the quarry walks on bare floor without actual an obvious trail, tracking is *impossible*. Meaning you need actual magic to break the rules to continue. 3e made a killng creating spells to break the limits of mundane rules.



Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is _hardly _impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a _pass without trace _or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."

Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. _Guidance_, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get _locate creature _until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a _lot _earlier as well). And heck, they don't get _faerie fire, see invisibility, _or _mind spike _at all, and those spells actually help you find people!


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> I think this really, really nails it on the head. This conversation about rangers reminds me so much of the psionic conversations. It follows pretty much the same lines.
> 
> There are a group of gamers that are really passionate about psionics and nothing less than a complete psionic subsystem separate from the magic system will do. Then you have a larger group that probably doesn't really have any strong opinion in either direction. Then you have someone like me who isn't all that enthusiastic about psionics in the first place and is really against the idea of adding an entire subsystem like 2e or 3e psionics just so that one player can play a psionicist.
> 
> Complexity increases exponentially. Every subsystem needs to work with every other subsystem and the more subsystems you add, the more complex the game gets. And, it often falls to the DM to police these sorts of things since I cannot possibly be the only DM out there who has players who are ... not particularly thorough in their understanding of the rules that apply to their character.
> 
> Which just adds to the workload of the DM.
> 
> D&DOne has the stated goal of streamlining and making things easier to run. They've been pretty clear about that. They are going to make the game easier to use at the table at the expense of complexity. We see this in the monster stat blocks and in how the classes are now shaping up. Which means that any calls to increase complexity are just not going to get any real traction. People don't want a _more_ complicated game. Running D&D is hard enough as it is. Adding in a subsystem for rangers, which may or may not come up in your next campaign, or even the one after that, but will come up two or three years after the release of D&DOne - meaning that the DM now has to go back and relearn that stuff just so Dave can play that ranger.
> 
> From a strictly practical standpoint, you cannot really have separate subsystems for half the classes while the other half the classes use the standard systems. Not when you have so many classes. It makes running the game so much more difficult - you run one campaign where everyone is a standard system - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric and then the next campaign you have ranger, monk, psionicist, artificer and the poor DM's brains leak out their ears.



Agreed. Although a part of me still wants a psionicist class. They can be a spell point sorcerer for all I care...


----------



## Micah Sweet

FitzTheRuke said:


> Really? What would its identity be without it?
> 
> And I'd imagine a LOT of gnashing teeth. Wouldn't it be better to codify a simple system and then make rangers actually _good_ at it?



It would be a lot better, but it seems WotC is continuing on a path toward what @Bill Zebub  described.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is _hardly _impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a _pass without trace _or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."
> 
> Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. _Guidance_, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get _locate creature _until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a _lot _earlier as well). And heck, they don't get _faerie fire, see invisibility, _or _mind spike _at all, and those spells actually help you find people!



That's some serious goalpost shifting there.

Locate Animal is a 2nd level spell.  Speak with Animals.  Speak with Plants - both very useful for tracking enemies.  Summon Fey or Conjure Animals, both fantastic for tracking - at least in the short term.  8 wolves is a pretty good way of tracking something.  Never minding Animal Friendship.  Saying that there is only one spell - locate creature is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> Well, the DMG says it's DC 20, which is _hardly _impossible. And an obvious trail only subtracts 5 from the DC, which means that a non-obvious trail is still only DC 20. A 1D&D ranger could get expertise in Survival at 1st level, meaning even just starting out, that ranger could get a +6 or +7 to their Survival roll, which means that--well, someone who's better at the math than I am can tell you exact percentages, but I'd say that a 1st level o5e ranger would succeed on a Survival roll for tracking the majority of time (and would also learn more information through tracking than a non-ranger would). And that's without any sort of magical aid--or without any special ranger abilities to make it easier, which could be added without making a sub-system. "X times per day, the ranger can get advantage on Survival checks made to track" or "X times per day, rangers can track creatures that fly or are protected by a _pass without trace _or similar magic without having any penalties to their Survival check."
> 
> Also, I have no idea what sort of spells you're expecting a ranger would use to help them track. _Guidance_, maybe, but that's been nerfed to 1/rest/target in 1D&D, and that's only going to average a +2 to that roll anyway. They don't even get _locate creature _until 14th level (and bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and wizards get it too--and except for the paladin, they all get it a _lot _earlier as well). And heck, they don't get _faerie fire, see invisibility, _or _mind spike _at all, and those spells actually help you find people!



No. The ruleson pages 244has if thereis notrail to follow, the DM can rule tracking is impossible. Which at  that point lik@Hussar says, you might be forced to cast Speak with Animals or Speak with Plants to ask for leads or cast Summon Fey or Conjure Animals to hunt by scent or heat or vibration.

Older editions straight up had spells that gave rangers scent or made tracks magically appear or let them reroll before the trail goes cold.


----------



## gorice

I think the 'depth versus complexity' argument only goes so far. One of the common complaints about combat in 5e is that it's a bit of a chore, but doesn't quite have enough tactical complexity to make it worth the effort.

I think you could shave off a fair bit of the complexity of spells and spell-like powers by doing stuff like standardising when/how saving throws work (and making all spells attacks while you're at it), codifying common effects, etc. But then you're back at the 'no-one will accept a repeat of 4e' problem.


----------



## Eric V

Olrox17 said:


> I think the position of wanting the ranger to have spells without calling them spells (with all that entails) is simply a position born of compromise.
> I'm fairly sure all in favor of the non-spellcasting ranger would love if the ranger was given actually unique features and powers that significantly differ from what current 5e spells can do. *That is, however, a big thing to ask to the WotC devs*.



It seems so.  It really _shouldn't_ be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that.  Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).

It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward.  It's the simplest, easiest solution, requiring no extra work. I can see how some people might refer to that as "lazy design" I suppose, and I'd have no counterargument except to say they aren't _trying _to make a well-designed game, they're trying to make an ever-more popular game, and that's the only goal that matters.


----------



## Hussar

Eric V said:


> It seems so.  It really _shouldn't_ be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that.  Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).
> 
> It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward.  It's the simplest, easiest solution, requiring no extra work. I can see how some people might refer to that as "lazy design" I suppose, and I'd have no counterargument except to say they aren't _trying _to make a well-designed game, they're trying to make an ever-more popular game, and that's the only goal that matters.



I'd say that's a bit harsh.  I'd say they are trying to simplify the game so that running the game is easier than before.  Something like Pathfinder 2 is not an easy game to run.  Imagine handing Pathfinder2 to a 14 year old with no gaming experience and telling them to run a game.  It's a daunting task.

5e though, you hand them the beginner box and then move on to the hardcovers and there aren't all these new subsystems to learn when you make the transition.  Running a beginner box game isn't terribly different than running the full game, just with more stuff.


----------



## Eric V

Hussar said:


> I'd say that's a bit harsh.  I'd say they are trying to simplify the game so that running the game is easier than before.  Something like Pathfinder 2 is not an easy game to run.  Imagine handing Pathfinder2 to a 14 year old with no gaming experience and telling them to run a game.  It's a daunting task.
> 
> 5e though, you hand them the beginner box and then move on to the hardcovers and there aren't all these new subsystems to learn when you make the transition.  Running a beginner box game isn't terribly different than running the full game, just with more stuff.



I dunno...I think making a popular game is goals 1-5.  Part of that may mean simplifying (remains to be seen if making everything spells does this, but it really might).  Not trying to be harsh, btw; just thinking about the other thread about how 5e is akin to the Cheesecake Factory and it's obvious that popularity is the goal, not game design for another kind of experience (or interesting design for its own sake).

Just as an aside, PF2E Beginner Box is a _great _product, btw...any 14 year old looking to get introduced through it should have no problem.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> That's some serious goalpost shifting there.



Not at all. The goalpost is "the spells are necessary." I showed that they really weren't.



Hussar said:


> Locate Animal is a 2nd level spell.



Which they get at 5th level (and bards and druids get it at 3rd). And that's a spell slot wasted to track an _animal _instead on something more useful. Maybe if the party is starving and the ranger _needs _to hunt or they'll all die. Or if they need to find a very specific herb to make the cure for a strange disease. But outside of _very _niche quests, how often is tracking an animal or plant _that _important?



Hussar said:


> Speak with Animals.  Speak with Plants - both very useful for tracking enemies.



If a mindless plant can give useful information, of course. 



Hussar said:


> Summon Fey or Conjure Animals, both fantastic for tracking -



They get both of those spells at 9th level (available to druids, warlocks, and wizards at 5th). Also, _summon fey _costs 300 gp to cast (_summon beasts _cost 200). Now, you could mean _conjure fey_, which is free, but I have a feeling that the pricey _summon _spells are going to replace those for 1D&D. But anyway, you'd have rangers be absolutely mundane trackers for eight levels rather than let them have nonmagical means of doing these things--things that _actual, real-life _people can do without magic?



Hussar said:


> at least in the short term.  8 wolves is a pretty good way of tracking something.  Never minding Animal Friendship.  Saying that there is only one spell - locate creature is a bit of a stretch.



And these spells last an hour. Better hope you can track your quarry in that time, otherwise you'll be spending your very few spell slots on tracking instead of in combat, where they'll be useful.

I'd also like to point out that most fey that are summonable at this level don't have really amazing tracking skills. Actually, I just checked. There are almost _no _beasts _or _fey of CR 6 or lower that have the Survival skill (and at least one of the fey is actually incredibly evil), and most of them that have Perception have it at _lower _than what you can expect a PC ranger to have: the average animal has Wisdom in the 10-13, and a very few fey have Wisdom of 14-16, will have a +2 or +3 PB. Whereas your 9th-level ranger probably has Wisdom 16 and a +4 PB (and as I mentioned, in 1D&D, might have expertise in Survival, giving them a +11 to their roll). Literally the only logical reason to summon a fey to track for you is to send them in one direction while you go in another. You don't even need them to give you the Help action if you have another person in your party who can help you out. _And _you better hope you have a DM who doesn't like playing fey as tricksy tricksters.

Best you can hope for with magic is to get _enhance ability _cast on you, but again, you can't do that until you're 5th level (and you can't have that _and _a conjure/summon spell going at the same time thanks to concentration). Your 1D&D druid pal can cast that on you at 3rd level, though, as can your 5e bards, clerics, and sorcerers.

Due to third-caster spell progression, rangers are always going to be too little, too late when it comes to magic.

Plus, if you use a spell for something that is perfectly achievable through mundane means... well, that just continues to make magic boring and ordinary, not the amazing wonder it _should _be. Personally, if there's going to be magic in my game, I want it to be _magical._


----------



## SkidAce

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's like saying that Bards are the perfect James Bond or something.



Hmmm, both:

Mainline charisma, seduce things, lots of bluff, and deception...

I am beginning to see a parallel here...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> In _that _case, they shouldn't be limited to nature/hunting-type magic. They should have access to _any _sort of magic, whatever helps them be crazy-prepared.



They don’t need fireball, and playing rhetorical gotcha games doesn’t actually lead to satisfying answers. 

The Ranger’s _job_, their place in the world, makes it sensible that they would learn the magic most useful in the wilds and on the road. 

I’d happily add some utility magic from other spheres to the ranger. Their current spell list does a great job as it is, however, once they’re allowed to prepare their toolkit and access thier full list rather than the terrible anemic breadth of spells in the 2014 writeup.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> If a mindless plant can give useful information, of course



Might want to reread speak with plants. 

It isn’t a mindless plant, while under the spells effects.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> Due to third-caster spell progression



You mean half-caster.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> No. The ruleson pages 244has if thereis notrail to follow, the DM can rule tracking is impossible. Which at  that point lik@Hussar says, you might be forced to cast Speak with Animals or Speak with Plants to ask for leads or cast Summon Fey or Conjure Animals to hunt by scent or heat or vibration.
> 
> Older editions straight up had spells that gave rangers scent or made tracks magically appear or let them reroll before the trail goes cold.



They should add heightened smell and hearing to alter self. 

I do get the desire for more mechanical representation of tracking skill than the ability to gain expertise in survival, though. The utility spells could use a fresh coat of paint, as it were. 


Eric V said:


> Not trying to be harsh, btw; just thinking about the other thread about how 5e is akin to the Cheesecake Factory and it's obvious that popularity is the goal, not game design for another kind of experience (or interesting design for its own sake).



Thank the gods for that.

I’m glad people have fun designing stuff for the sake of experimenting with what games can do. I enjoy game design, too.

But when playing D&D, I want to just sit down at the table and play, including with my friends who _don’t care how big the designer’s brain is_, they just want a simple and satisfying play experience where most of what they do doesn’t require referencing the rule book.

This idea that the designers don’t care about making a well designed game is born more from your biases and preferences than from anything outside yourself.


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> You mean half-caster.



Yeah, sorry. Wrong name, right casting levels, though.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Might want to reread speak with plants.
> 
> It isn’t a mindless plant, while under the spells effects.



Sure. But how much does it actually know? It's a _plant._


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, sorry. Wrong name, right casting levels, though.
> 
> 
> Sure. But how much does it actually know? It's a _plant._





			
				Speak with Plants said:
			
		

> You can question Plants about events in the spell's area within the past day, gaining information about Creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances.




Apparently quite a lot actually.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> Yeah, sorry. Wrong name, right casting levels, though.



Hardly. The difference between the two is massive. 
Now, I’ll grant that the spell progression of half casters is not great, but frankly that’s only an argument for more spell exclusivity, not for ditching Spellcasting. 


Faolyn said:


> Sure. But how much does it actually know? It's a _plant._



You’re reaching, here, I think. The intent of the spell is very plainly that you can find out what’s gone on in the area, but not fine details of complex stuff like social interactions.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> This idea that the designers don’t care about making a well designed game is born more from your biases and preferences than from anything outside yourself.



Ummm...no.

In the other thread, Umbran points out that one needs to discuss design goals when evaluating if the design is well-done or not.

The goal for 5e, clearly, is to be popular.  As a result, design is simple, as you point out.  This means, for example, removing nuance from the game and just defaulting to "spells" for anything pcs do that is even slightly above ordinary.  

With popularity and simplicity as design goals, it is well-designed.


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.



The 3e subsystems were good. They were just hampered by the mess that was the 3e base rules.

5es core rules are good as they are built to be expanded on.

However WOTC's goal is popularity via simplicity. So there aren't subsystems for Nature, Survival, Medicine, Althetics, or Performance checks.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

SkidAce said:


> Hmmm, both:
> 
> Mainline charisma, seduce things, lots of bluff, and deception...
> 
> I am beginning to see a parallel here...



On a slightly more serious note, this was kind of my point, there's like this amusing superficial similarity, but the idea that a dude who inspires people and whose main deal is casting spells is "like James Bond" is pretty wack.

Bond's actual main deal I note is luck - it's literally expressed in the first film, I forget the exact line, but it's alluded to almost immediately that he's very lucky. And then throughout pretty much all the pre-Craig films we see that over and over, Bond often just blunders his way into things, rarely does any actual spycraft, gets into these incredibly dangerous situations and again often gets out of them by luck rather than judgement or skill, and constantly bumps into women who find him attractive and are willing to do unreasonable things to help him, or to delay killing him (even though, very often, objectively, he's not that hot). It's also why most of the casino games he prefers are games of chance, not skill (pre-Craig, again).

I dunno if he even has a high CHA when it comes down to it - he's rarely able to convince anyone of anything outside of romance, doesn't seem like a natural leader, and so on (I mean, I'd definitely say it's above-average though).

He's kind of one of those characters that actually only works properly in an RPG where the PCs have some narrative control, because of the luck factor often involving third parties appearing conveniently. Sorry been listening to a podcast about Bond recently, so had a lot of thoughts!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.



I feel like the issue with Psionics is an artificial one.

3E drastically changing the basic approach to Psionics was _not_ something it _had_ to do. It wasn't "Oh 2E failed so we must do this...", it was just the designers deciding that they knew better, and going for a weirdly X-Men-themed Psionics system that was a terrible match for Psionics-style magic in fantasy literature (which there is an absolute ton of note, albeit it's basically never called psionics, it just works like it). They could easily have stuck pretty close to the 2E approach.

4E did Psionics the same way it did everything else, essentially, so that was unarguably successful unless you objected to the fundamental 4E AEDU setup. You can't really count that because it's not a "different take" in a meaningful sense.

5E's Mystic approach was also fine. Literally all it needed was balance tweaks. But the ludicrous 70% threshold nailed it, a threshold which would also have deleted Bard or Wizard or Warlock if they'd been proposed as new classes, I note. Honestly I doubt "full-caster Bard" has 70% approval from the same people who voted on the Mystic (which was back before 5E got the massive population boost). Hell I'm not even sure the existence of the Warlock class does.

So Psionics has really only been done seriously as it's own system twice - 2E and 3E. And it worked fine both times. Or at least as well as Vancian casting - if you think that's fine, this was certainly fine.

The whole idea of "caught on" and "attempts" here is deeply misleading. That's simply not how it works. Especially as a lot of classes have seen drastic changes over the years, and no-one is critiquing them for similar reasons.

Re: Psioncist as a spell-point caster, whilst I think it's a pretty sad approach, I'd certainly prefer it to the idiotic approach 5E has had so far, where they just half-heartedly try something and then immediately give up, or try and jam it into other classes as a subclass. If Psionicists had their own spell list, didn't use V or M components, and had some modified spells/cantrips, I think it could be viable. Better to have weak representation than just skipping it apart from subclasses as 5E did.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Minigiant said:


> However WOTC's goal is popularity via simplicity. So there aren't subsystems for Nature, Survival, Medicine, Althetics, or Performance checks.



There probably should be, though, and I'd surprised if they didn't expand on those a bit just like they expanded on social stuff in this playtest (which was technically just making something player-facing and more straightforward but still).

Also there absolutely are subsystems for Athletics checks, not sure what you're talking about there.


----------



## Minigiant

Ruin Explorer said:


> There probably should be, though, and I'd surprised if they didn't expand on those a bit just like they expanded on social stuff in this playtest (which was technically just making something player-facing and more straightforward but still).
> 
> Also there absolutely are subsystems for Athletics checks, not sure what you're talking about there.



Athletics lose Grappling so it's just Jumping and ignoring difficult terrain when moving, swimming, or flying.

The rules for movement are even more wonky now and it kept needs a system for combinations of running, jumping, climbing and swimming.

Plus a Athletics grappling subsystem for wrestling would be cool. However that will never happen in base rules. Through it would finally display the rules for tightening your belt of giants strength and suplexing a dragon.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Minigiant said:


> However WOTC's goal is popularity via simplicity. So there aren't subsystems for Nature, Survival, Medicine, Althetics, or Performance checks.



_looks at hundreds of pages of spells_

Yeah, it's not simplicity they're going for. Selectively supporting certain archetypes, sure. That is by design.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ruin Explorer said:


> On a slightly more serious note, this was kind of my point, there's like this amusing superficial similarity, but the idea that a dude who inspires people and whose main deal is casting spells is "like James Bond" is pretty wack.
> 
> Bond's actual main deal I note is luck - it's literally expressed in the first film, I forget the exact line, but it's alluded to almost immediately that he's very lucky. And then throughout pretty much all the pre-Craig films we see that over and over, Bond often just blunders his way into things, rarely does any actual spycraft, gets into these incredibly dangerous situations and again often gets out of them by luck rather than judgement or skill, and constantly bumps into women who find him attractive and are willing to do unreasonable things to help him, or to delay killing him (even though, very often, objectively, he's not that hot). It's also why most of the casino games he prefers are games of chance, not skill (pre-Craig, again).
> 
> I dunno if he even has a high CHA when it comes down to it - he's rarely able to convince anyone of anything outside of romance, doesn't seem like a natural leader, and so on (I mean, I'd definitely say it's above-average though).
> 
> He's kind of one of those characters that actually only works properly in an RPG where the PCs have some narrative control, because of the luck factor often involving third parties appearing conveniently. Sorry been listening to a podcast about Bond recently, so had a lot of thoughts!



I have always thought of James Bond as the "Shake the tree" move. I imagine the discussion in M's office something like "What is this bloke's deal, seems fishy" "Dunno! Why don't we send in Bond and see who shoots at him"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

UngainlyTitan said:


> I have always thought of James Bond as the "Shake the tree" move. I imagine the discussion in M's office something like "What is this bloke's deal, seems fishy" "Dunno! Why don't we send in Bond and see who shoots at him"



Pretty much, yeah. And his luck means he constantly stumbles (and it really is stumbling a lot of the time, no real intentionality) across stuff, and his smarm and disruptiveness means bad guys get irrationally fixated on him (maybe that is high CHA, just of a perverse kind lol?) which causes them to make unnecessary moves/mistakes. Literally like 30-50% of the pre-Craig movies, if the main bad guy had just ignored Bond, let Bond do whatever, they'd have succeeded at their plot.


----------



## Hussar

Ruin Explorer said:


> There probably should be, though, and I'd surprised if they didn't expand on those a bit just like they expanded on social stuff in this playtest (which was technically just making something player-facing and more straightforward but still).
> 
> Also there absolutely are subsystems for Athletics checks, not sure what you're talking about there.



What subsystem is there for Athletics checks?  You roll a d20, add athletics, succeed or fail.  Full stop.  That's the full scope of the Athletics skill, exactly the same as any other skill.


----------



## Hussar

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> _looks at hundreds of pages of spells_
> 
> Yeah, it's not simplicity they're going for. Selectively supporting certain archetypes, sure. That is by design.




But, again, you don’t really have a bunch of subsystems. Most spells are mechanically identical. Roll a save and deal x or y. Or roll an attack and deal x. Doesn’t matter what class casts it, most of the spells are pretty much the same thing. 

Heck I would t mind if they rolled attack cantrips together and made them all one.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Hussar said:


> But, again, you don’t really have a bunch of subsystems.



Half the spells are their own subsystem. Just go have a look at Polymorph or Teleport - you are not extrapolating those from Ray of Frost.


----------



## Hussar

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Half the spells are their own subsystem. Just go have a look at Polymorph or Teleport - you are not extrapolating those from Ray of Frost.



Fair enough, although I'm not sure "half" isn't a bit of an exaggeration.  Most of the spells aren't like that.  Although, I will agree that there are just too damn many spells.  It's one area I would rather see a HUGE paring down.  Go back to Expert D&D where you had about 8 spells per level.  Done.  Not going to happen, but, one can dream.

It's really actually quite annoying that the caster turns often take twice as long as anyone else's, not because they're so much more difficult to run or anything, but, because so many times, the player drops a new spell, and often aren't 100% up on the rules, or, my personal favorite, "I cast ((Insert Spell Name)"  Okay, sure.  What does that do?  "It does this and this and this"  Uhh, ok.  Do you have that keyed in as a macro or do you have the spell handy to show me?  "Oh, no, it's in this book... oh, you don't have that book... well, that's how it works..."

_DM bangs head on desk repeatedly_

Look, if you're a caster, and you've just got that brand new polymorph spell, or animate objects, or whatever, take the thirty seconds to prep it to use at the table BEFORE you use it at the table.... Pretty Please.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> On a slightly more serious note, this was kind of my point, there's like this amusing superficial similarity, but the idea that a dude who inspires people and whose main deal is casting spells is "like James Bond" is pretty wack.
> 
> Bond's actual main deal I note is luck - it's literally expressed in the first film, I forget the exact line, but it's alluded to almost immediately that he's very lucky. And then throughout pretty much all the pre-Craig films we see that over and over, Bond often just blunders his way into things, rarely does any actual spycraft, gets into these incredibly dangerous situations and again often gets out of them by luck rather than judgement or skill, and constantly bumps into women who find him attractive and are willing to do unreasonable things to help him, or to delay killing him (even though, very often, objectively, he's not that hot). It's also why most of the casino games he prefers are games of chance, not skill (pre-Craig, again).
> 
> I dunno if he even has a high CHA when it comes down to it - he's rarely able to convince anyone of anything outside of romance, doesn't seem like a natural leader, and so on (I mean, I'd definitely say it's above-average though).
> 
> He's kind of one of those characters that actually only works properly in an RPG where the PCs have some narrative control, because of the luck factor often involving third parties appearing conveniently. Sorry been listening to a podcast about Bond recently, so had a lot of thoughts!




Coincidentally, in the simplified class structure I’m designing for kids, the main theme of my Minstrel class is…luck.


----------



## Njall

Hussar said:


> But, again, you don’t really have a bunch of subsystems. Most spells are mechanically identical. Roll a save and deal x or y. Or roll an attack and deal x. Doesn’t matter what class casts it, most of the spells are pretty much the same thing.




Which, if anything, proves his point.
For example, WoTC, contrary to what most "modern" games do, doesn't even bother with any sort of active defense system for martials, using instead HP and AC as a broad measure of the character's defensive capabilities.

Which is ok when you want to keep things simple.

But, as soon as casters enter the equation, they take the time to make sure that they have every possible different color or combination thereof your wizard might want to smite stuff with covered.

There's this bizzarre disconnect in D&D, where combat and most skills are mostly abstracted and kept simple, until magic's involved.
Then, the system suddenly becomes super detailed, 'cause can't have a warrior actually parrying a blow (aside from... well whatever battlemasters get, which sure as hell ain't useful past the first 3/4 levels), or deciding whether he wants to conserve HP rather than go all-out on damage, or even managing more than one reaction per round... that'd slow things down, but a wizard that prefers to zap something with a blue ray rather than a yellow one? That sure needs to be addressed with a paragraph or two [/sarcasm].


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> What subsystem is there for Athletics checks?  You roll a d20, add athletics, succeed or fail.  Full stop.  That's the full scope of the Athletics skill, exactly the same as any other skill.



???? Right in the playtest is a whole subsystem involving Jumping... just as there is in the main rules...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Fair enough, although I'm not sure "half" isn't a bit of an exaggeration.  Most of the spells aren't like that.  Although, I will agree that there are just too damn many spells.  It's one area I would rather see a HUGE paring down.  Go back to Expert D&D where you had about 8 spells per level.  Done.  Not going to happen, but, one can dream.
> 
> It's really actually quite annoying that the caster turns often take twice as long as anyone else's, not because they're so much more difficult to run or anything, but, because so many times, the player drops a new spell, and often aren't 100% up on the rules, or, my personal favorite, "I cast ((Insert Spell Name)"  Okay, sure.  What does that do?  "It does this and this and this"  Uhh, ok.  Do you have that keyed in as a macro or do you have the spell handy to show me?  "Oh, no, it's in this book... oh, you don't have that book... well, that's how it works..."
> 
> _DM bangs head on desk repeatedly_
> 
> Look, if you're a caster, and you've just got that brand new polymorph spell, or animate objects, or whatever, take the thirty seconds to prep it to use at the table BEFORE you use it at the table.... Pretty Please.



Sounds like more of a player problem than a system problem.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> ???? Right in the playtest is a whole subsystem involving Jumping... just as there is in the main rules...




Not sure I count brief rules for specific situations as “a whole subsystem”.   I mean, I guess you could; I’m not going to argue there’s a threshold of column inches required. But then let’s get rid of the word “rule” and call everything a subsystem.


----------



## MarkB

UngainlyTitan said:


> I have always thought of James Bond as the "Shake the tree" move. I imagine the discussion in M's office something like "What is this bloke's deal, seems fishy" "Dunno! Why don't we send in Bond and see who shoots at him"



So, basically he's an adventurer.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> Ummm...no.
> 
> In the other thread, Umbran points out that one needs to discuss design goals when evaluating if the design is well-done or not.
> 
> The goal for 5e, clearly, is to be popular.  As a result, design is simple, as you point out.  This means, for example, removing nuance from the game and just defaulting to "spells" for anything pcs do that is even slightly above ordinary.
> 
> With popularity and simplicity as design goals, it is well-designed.



It is well designed as a _fun game_. Fun being the primary purpose of games…that makes it a well designed game. 

“Popular” is just “enjoyable and satisfying for a large percentage of people”. 

“Removing all nuance from the game” is nonsense. Spells are used to represent magic. The monk doesn’t cast spells in order to jump 60 feet or run twice as fast as normal people at high level, but if the ranger is supposed to commune with nature to gain information, and there are already spells that literally do that, and the ranger is already conceptually magical (which they’ve been for at least 20 years, arguably since the beginning), just using those existing spells to model that isn’t a lack of nuance or lazy as you danced around calling the designers upthread, it’s just not to your preference. That’s it.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> It is well designed as a _fun game_. Fun being the primary purpose of games…that makes it a well designed game.
> 
> *“Popular” is just “enjoyable and satisfying for a large percentage of people”.*
> 
> “Removing all nuance from the game” is nonsense. Spells are used to represent magic. The monk doesn’t cast spells in order to jump 60 feet or run twice as fast as normal people at high level, but if the ranger is supposed to commune with nature to gain information, and there are already spells that literally do that, and the ranger is already conceptually magical (which they’ve been for at least 20 years, arguably since the beginning), just using those existing spells to model that isn’t a lack of nuance or lazy as you danced around calling the designers upthread, it’s just not to your preference. That’s it.



Yeah, we're not disagreeing on the definition of popular.  I don't think we're disagreeing on popularity being the goal of the design, either.  If some aspect of the game was fun but not necessarily popular, it would not make it into the game.

The D&D ranger has been conceptually magical for many years, true, but there are people coming into the game without that baggage; they have other pop culture ideas about the ranger (as @Ruin Explorer has pointed out) that apparently are not welcome in a game that substitutes magic spells for things that the pop culture examples do without magic.

You are also quite wrong about it "just not being to my preference."  Which...of course you are; you don't know me, right?  The truth is, I actually don't care at all, except that I find it a shame that the biggest brand for fantasy RPGing can't make room for a reasonably popular concept from other media.  That's all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> The truth is, I actually don't care at all, except that I find it a shame that the biggest brand for fantasy RPGing can't make room for a reasonably popular concept from other media. That's all.



This directly contradicts the idea that their primary goal that overrides other goals is just popularity. 

Seems they care about a bit more than just chasing popularity. Otherwise, they’d be trying to figure out how to do both.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> However WOTC's goal is popularity via simplicity. So there aren't subsystems for Nature, Survival, Medicine, Althetics, or Performance checks.



There aren’t subsystems for those because the goal with them is best served without subsystems. Not just simplicity, though that is a very worthy goal, but also improvisational freedom. 

I do wish they’d give a little more text describing and giving examples, but I certainly don’t want to see 5e become 3.5 or 4e with their hyper specific crunch for each skill.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> *This directly contradicts the idea that their primary goal that overrides other goals is just popularity.*
> 
> Seems they care about a bit more than just chasing popularity. Otherwise, they’d be trying to figure out how to do both.



Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.



But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally. 

It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.


----------



## Olrox17

doctorbadwolf said:


> But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally.
> 
> It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.



How do you know that? In my personal anecdotal experience DMing 5e, the one player that picked Ranger asked me to switch over to the spell-less Ranger variant (the one with combat superiority dice that got published on an UA or something) at about level 3.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> But that’s an absurd notion. The people who want a magical ranger outnumber other takes, but most wouldn’t care if Spellcasting could be swapped with some other benefit optionally.
> 
> It would be simpler and smoother design to just give alternate things you can spend spell slots on, but few people would object to an optional spell-less replacement mechanic. It just wouldn’t see much use, and past attempts have been met with a lot of “meh”.



Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion.

Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange?  Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels.  If that's the case, fine...you do you.  But do let me know, so that I can just disengage.  Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Eric V said:


> The truth is, I actually don't care at all, except that I find it a shame that the biggest brand for fantasy RPGing can't make room for a reasonably popular concept from other media.  That's all.




I don't disagree with you here, but I think the issue is more complex than WotC being unwilling to do it.

5e (and most RPGs) just don't have robust wilderness exploration/travel rules (and honestly I don't see how they could and keep to the spirit of the game) but let's say those are created, and exploration becomes roughly equivalent to combat as an interesting, varied subsystem, and the Ranger has awesome abilities that make those more fun without trivializing them.  

The problem is you can't _just_ let the Ranger play in this new playground: _every_ class has to have meaningful ways to participate.  It's one thing to say that some players make a couple of Survival or Persuasion rolls while other players watch, but it's another thing to design a whole, engaging subsystem and only let some players contribute meaningfully. 

And you also can't let magic trivialize this subsystem.  I know a lot of people feel that casters are vastly superior to martials in combat, but it's not like the martials just stand there and watch while the casters dispense with the bad guys.  (And if that's happening the encounters were already trivial.)

So now you're not just designing a new subsystem, but re-designing...or at least augmenting..all the classes to give them ways to engage with it.

I just don't see it happening.

Want to play the popular archetype of the natural explorer?  Take Survival, use a bow, describe your character as wearing a green cloak.

The Ranger has got to be something more/different.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Eric V said:


> Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange?  Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels.  If that's the case, fine...you do you.  But do let me know, so that I can just disengage.  Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.




If you're arguing with the person I think you're arguing with (the magic of 'ignore'), my advice is to disengage.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Olrox17 said:


> How do you know that? In my personal anecdotal experience DMing 5e, the one player that picked Ranger asked me to switch over to the spell-less Ranger variant (the one with combat superiority dice that got published on an UA or something) at about level 3.



And that UA failed. 


Eric V said:


> Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion.
> 
> Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange?  Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my preferences and now the use of "absurdity" it seems like you are trying to raise hostility levels.  If that's the case, fine...you do you.  But do let me know, so that I can just disengage.  Because I haven't made any assumptions about you.



Keep your courtesy trolling. You speak dismissively and insultingly about things people like and the people who make them, and get offended when I call a claim you make absurd?

No. If this is how you do, do it with someone else.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't disagree with you here, but I think the issue is more complex than WotC being unwilling to do it.
> 
> 5e (and most RPGs) just don't have robust wilderness exploration/travel rules (and honestly I don't see how they could and keep to the spirit of the game) but let's say those are created, and exploration becomes roughly equivalent to combat as an interesting, varied subsystem, and the Ranger has awesome abilities that make those more fun without trivializing them.
> 
> The problem is you can't _just_ let the Ranger play in this new playground: _every_ class has to have meaningful ways to participate.  It's one thing to say that some players make a couple of Survival or Persuasion rolls while other players watch, but it's another thing to design a whole, engaging subsystem and only let some players contribute meaningfully.
> 
> And you also can't let magic trivialize this subsystem.  I know a lot of people feel that casters are vastly superior to martials in combat, but it's not like the martials just stand there and watch while the casters dispense with the bad guys.  (And if that's happening the encounters were already trivial.)
> 
> So now you're not just designing a new subsystem, but re-designing...or at least augmenting..all the classes to give them ways to engage with it.
> 
> I just don't see it happening.
> 
> Want to play the popular archetype of the natural explorer?  Take Survival, use a bow, describe your character as wearing a green cloak.
> 
> The Ranger has got to be something more/different.



It is the "Decker" problem in a different form. 

I still think that Wizard should have another go at skill challenges.


----------



## Olrox17

doctorbadwolf said:


> And that UA failed.



Actually, no. My apologies, I misguided you by saying it was an UA, but it wasn't.
It was an article on the official D&D site, aimed to DMs, to help them create home-brew class variants. It pre-dates the UA series. The spell-less ranger was the example they provided as a class variant. It gave up spells, and in exchange received the battlemaster's combat superiority dice and the ability to craft healing poultices and natural antivenom. Afaik, they never made a survey about it.

Edit: It can't be found on the official site anymore, but I managed to find a copy. It's a 2015 article by 
Rodney Thompson.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> Apparently quite a lot actually.



Aaand you're ignoring everything else I wrote. 

Plus, the spell doesn't say that they give totally accurate, intelligent, _useful_ descriptions. 

"Hey plant, did anything come near you last night?" 

"Yes! 1 moving thing!" 

"What sort of moving thing?" 

"Moving thing that didn't eat me." 

"How big was it?"

"Big!"

(plant is a dandelion)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Olrox17 said:


> Actually, no. My apologies, I misguided you by saying it was an UA, but it wasn't.
> It was an article on the official D&D site, aimed to DMs, to help them create home-brew class variants. It pre-dates the UA series. The spell-less ranger was the example they provided as a class variant. It gave up spells, and in exchange received the battlemaster's combat superiority dice and the ability to craft healing poultices and natural antivenom. Afaik, they never made a survey about it.
> 
> Edit: It can't be found on the official site anymore, but I managed to find a copy. It's a 2015 article by
> Rodney Thompson.



Regardless, it never turned into anything meaningful. 

There has never been enough demand to justify doing anything more serious with it.


----------



## Olrox17

doctorbadwolf said:


> Regardless, it never turned into anything meaningful.



Correct. It was probably never meant to, considering that the article merely presented it as good example on how to do a home-brew.


doctorbadwolf said:


> There has never been enough demand to justify doing anything more serious with it.



That, I don't know. I would like to know your sources, if you do.

Edit: I think doctorbadwolf just put me on ignore? I can no longer see their posts, not even the quotes I put in mine. If that is the case, I'm surprised. I think we were having an extremely normal conversation.


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> Hardly. The difference between the two is massive.
> Now, I’ll grant that the spell progression of half casters is not great, but frankly that’s only an argument for more spell exclusivity, not for ditching Spellcasting.



Except that I referenced the half-caster spell progression--since I looked at the ranger's spell list at the time--and used the wrong name for it.

"More spell exclusivity" isn't helpful when you can't actually get the spells you apparently _need_ to have in order to be a ranger until much higher level, but at the same time, have no non-magical abilities to make up for that lack.

Aaaand ignored. Oh well.


----------



## Faolyn

Ruin Explorer said:


> Pretty much, yeah. And his luck means he constantly stumbles (and it really is stumbling a lot of the time, no real intentionality) across stuff, and his smarm and disruptiveness means bad guys get irrationally fixated on him (maybe that is high CHA, just of a perverse kind lol?)



In the Discworld novels, the idea of negative charisma is brought up. It's called charisn'tma.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> And that UA failed.
> 
> Keep your courtesy trolling. You speak dismissively and insultingly about things people like and the people who make them, and get offended when I call a claim you make absurd?
> 
> No. If this is how you do, do it with someone else.



Insultingly?  Where?  Where are we actually disagreeing?


----------



## Eric V

Olrox17 said:


> Correct. It was probably never meant to, considering that the article merely presented it as good example on how to do a home-brew.
> 
> That, I don't know. I would like to know your sources, if you do.
> 
> Edit: I think doctorbadwolf just put me on ignore? I can no longer see their posts, not even the quotes I put in mine. If that is the case, I'm surprised. I think we were having an extremely normal conversation.



Experiencing the same, though I am not ignored yet.  I genuinely don't understand what's happening.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Sounds like more of a player problem than a system problem.



This. Another player at my table and I both produce grimoires of our spells--we have a list of every single spell we can cast and what it can do. We don't even make them fancy. They're just lists. It's not that hard to do and in this day and age, can easily be made by copypasting from a digital source. 

_*Fireball* 3rd lvl evo, 1 action, range 150', VSM, Dur Instant: 20' radius sphere, spreads around corners, ignites flammable objects that aren't worn/carried, 8d6 fire Dex save half, +1d6/slot level.
*Major Image *3rd level ill, 1 action, range 120', VSM, Dur Con 10 min; non-harmful, insubstantial visual+auditory+olfactory illusion that fits in 20' cube; can use action to alter illusion; Int (Investigation) vs. my spell save DC to reveal it's fake; if cast with 6th lvl slots, lasts until dispelled._


----------



## Faolyn

Olrox17 said:


> Correct. It was probably never meant to, considering that the article merely presented it as good example on how to do a home-brew.
> 
> That, I don't know. I would like to know your sources, if you do.
> 
> Edit: I think doctorbadwolf just put me on ignore? I can no longer see their posts, not even the quotes I put in mine. If that is the case, I'm surprised. I think we were having an extremely normal conversation.



I think it just might be their way of stepping away from a conversation that was upsetting them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't disagree with you here, but I think the issue is more complex than WotC being unwilling to do it.
> 
> 5e (and most RPGs) just don't have robust wilderness exploration/travel rules (and honestly I don't see how they could and keep to the spirit of the game) but let's say those are created, and exploration becomes roughly equivalent to combat as an interesting, varied subsystem, and the Ranger has awesome abilities that make those more fun without trivializing them.
> 
> The problem is you can't _just_ let the Ranger play in this new playground: _every_ class has to have meaningful ways to participate.  It's one thing to say that some players make a couple of Survival or Persuasion rolls while other players watch, but it's another thing to design a whole, engaging subsystem and only let some players contribute meaningfully.
> 
> And you also can't let magic trivialize this subsystem.  I know a lot of people feel that casters are vastly superior to martials in combat, but it's not like the martials just stand there and watch while the casters dispense with the bad guys.  (And if that's happening the encounters were already trivial.)
> 
> So now you're not just designing a new subsystem, but re-designing...or at least augmenting..all the classes to give them ways to engage with it.
> 
> I just don't see it happening.
> 
> Want to play the popular archetype of the natural explorer?  Take Survival, use a bow, describe your character as wearing a green cloak.
> 
> The Ranger has got to be something more/different.



Level Up does literally all these things.  It is possible, if you put in some effort to make the game that way.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> And that UA failed.
> 
> Keep your courtesy trolling. You speak dismissively and insultingly about things people like and the people who make them, and get offended when I call a claim you make absurd?
> 
> No. If this is how you do, do it with someone else.



What's courtesy trolling?


----------



## Olrox17

Faolyn said:


> I think it just might be their way of stepping away from a conversation that was upsetting them.



Jeez, kind of an overreaction, considering how civil the conversation has been so far.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Olrox17 said:


> Jeez, kind of an overreaction, considering how civil the conversation has been so far.



I do wish you didn't have to guess who has you on their ignore list.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I humbly request that the idea of 'preparing' spells be tied to the wizard only.

And then maybe we not have the wizard.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> I do wish you didn't have to guess who has you on their ignore list.



It’s kinda the point of it though. If some folks knew they’d target them.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Remathilis said:


> But how many of those systems were good? Psionics took how many tries to do across 2e, 3e, and 4e? Incarnum wasn't well received. Neither was Tome of Magic. Neither TSR nor WotC ever managed to make a non-spell magic system that ever caught on. I guess WotC just feels spells are a better received version of 4e powers and treat them as such.



I thought the Psionics for 3.5e was pretty good, but I'm willing to admit I may be an outlier as I didn't have much exposure other than playing a few high levels (8th-13th). The class (psion) and race (elan) I played allowed me to be incredibly versatile, at least it felt like that. It may have been OP, I cannot be sure due to my limited experience.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> There aren’t subsystems for those because the goal with them is best served without subsystems. Not just simplicity, though that is a very worthy goal, but also improvisational freedom.
> 
> I do wish they’d give a little more text describing and giving examples, but I certainly don’t want to see 5e become 3.5 or 4e with their hyper specific crunch for each skill.



Indeed 5ES goal is to be overall simple and mostly freeform with spells being pinpoint counters to reality.

However lack of examples seriously hurts their expand of Expertise.


----------



## darjr

I do wish that there were slightly different rules for spells for different types of casters. I mean there already are, wizards vs sorcerers for instance, why not extend that to rangers? Say they don’t need some or many of the components and/or they are not arcane and can’t be dispelled or counter spelled.

But then what happens with multi class characters?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> It seems s*o.  It really shouldn't be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that. * Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).
> 
> It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward.  *It's the simplest, easiest solution, requiring no extra work. I can see how some people might refer to that as "lazy design" I suppose, and I'd have no counterargument except to say they aren't trying to make a well-designed game*, they're trying to make an ever-more popular game, and that's the only goal that matters.






Eric V said:


> Insultingly?  Where?  Where are we actually disagreeing?



See the bolded, above. 


Micah Sweet said:


> What's courtesy trolling?



Staying strictly within the rules while being just disrespectful enough to goad the other person into being discourteous.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example).



This is the part that most strongly indicates bias and preference, btw. 

PF2E managed to make a particular type of game. Far from a better one, though. They didn’t manage to do something 5e has failed to do, they just made a different kind of game. That’s it.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> See the bolded, above.
> 
> Staying strictly within the rules while being just disrespectful enough to goad the other person into being discourteous.



!!!

The bolded part is me saying professional game designers CAN design things a certain way (it shouldn't be be beyond them to be able to do that), so that if they don't, it's because they're CHOOSING to not do so (because of the design goal of popularity).

How is this insulting or even controversial?

As for me mentioning PF2E...you're still wrong in your assumptions about me. Again. I never said I preferred that system; I brought it up to show that making a non-spell ranger that is efficient is possible.


----------



## Faolyn

darjr said:


> I do wish that there were slightly different rules for spells for different types of casters. I mean there already are, wizards vs sorcerers for instance, why not extend that to rangers? Say they don’t need some or many of the components and/or they are not arcane and can’t be dispelled or counter spelled.
> 
> But then what happens with multi class characters?



I suppose if you went with spells-as-powers, then there wouldn't be a big issue there. A ranger/wizard would have wizard spells and ranger magical powers. Ditto if you built most or all classes using a warlock-esque chassis or picking and choosing "invocations." 

Heck, go back to Ye Olden Days where the only spellcasters were clerics and wizards, and maybe druids. Everyone else gets magical powers.


----------



## darjr

Faolyn said:


> I suppose if you went with spells-as-powers, then there wouldn't be a big issue there. A ranger/wizard would have wizard spells and ranger magical powers. Ditto if you built most or all classes using a warlock-esque chassis or picking and choosing "invocations."
> 
> Heck, go back to Ye Olden Days where the only spellcasters were clerics and wizards, and maybe druids. Everyone else gets magical powers.



Well I was more leaning toward less homogeneous rules per class.


----------



## grimslade

First off:_ Baggins, James Baggins_. James Bond is a halfling with the Lucky feat is hilarious.
Second, what are we discussing anymore? The sacred cows are all enshrined now. There will be no holy bbq in the One D&D playtest. Spells are the default resolution mechanic for anything beyond a simple d20 roll. As one of the proponents of psionics as a new subsystem, I have come to accept this slowly. So are we just spouting game design for discussion's sake?


----------



## Vaalingrade

It's plenty clear nothings' really off the table by now, so I wouldn't put away the grill and humorous apron just yet. Hopefully.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> Keep your courtesy trolling.




*Mod Note:*
Do you get he irony here?  

If someone suggests that maybe you're not being all that nice to folks, being a jerk to them in response doesn't exactly prove them wrong.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Faolyn said:


> Except that I referenced the half-caster spell progression--since I looked at the ranger's spell list at the time--and used the wrong name for it.
> 
> "More spell exclusivity" isn't helpful when you can't actually get the spells you apparently _need_ to have in order to be a ranger until much higher level, but at the same time, have no non-magical abilities to make up for that lack.
> 
> Aaaand ignored. Oh well.



Same. Pretty weird. Oh well is really the only reaction. Some other poster, I forget who, swears blind they don't have me on ignore, and I definitely don't have them on ignore, because I can see their posts, but they can't see mine! So maybe something wacky is up.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Vaalingrade said:


> I humbly request that the idea of 'preparing' spells be tied to the wizard only.
> 
> And then maybe we not have the wizard.



You have my axe!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bill Zebub said:


> Not sure I count brief rules for specific situations as “a whole subsystem”.   I mean, I guess you could; I’m not going to argue there’s a threshold of column inches required. But then let’s get rid of the word “rule” and call everything a subsystem.



The poster I'm responding to regards the subsystems within spells as subsystems - they said as much, so it's a subsystem.


----------



## Hussar

Faolyn said:


> Aaand you're ignoring everything else I wrote.
> 
> Plus, the spell doesn't say that they give totally accurate, intelligent, _useful_ descriptions.
> 
> "Hey plant, did anything come near you last night?"
> 
> "Yes! 1 moving thing!"
> 
> "What sort of moving thing?"
> 
> "Moving thing that didn't eat me."
> 
> "How big was it?"
> 
> "Big!"
> 
> (plant is a dandelion)



Ahh, the good old "The DM is a dick" response to anything revolving around DM adjudication.  We need a spell less ranger to protect us from DM's now?  How is that going to work?  Any DM who is going to interpret Speak with Plants the way you are detailing here is going to be just as much of a jerk DM regardless of the mechanics.


----------



## Hussar

Ruin Explorer said:


> The poster I'm responding to regards the subsystems within spells as subsystems - they said as much, so it's a subsystem.



To be honest, in all the responses, I've kinda lost track of the conversation @Ruin Explorer.  And I don't mean that as a shot or any sort of dig.  I've very honestly gotten turned around.  Could you do me a favor and bullet point the issue again?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Hussar said:


> To be honest, in all the responses, I've kinda lost track of the conversation @Ruin Explorer.  And I don't mean that as a shot or any sort of dig.  I've very honestly gotten turned around.  Could you do me a favor and bullet point the issue again?



I'm referring to post #912.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up does literally all these things.  It is possible, if you put in some effort to make the game that way.



But, again, that's not really the point that's being made.  Level Up simply replicates spells, calls them "not spells" and now we have a "spell less ranger".  Sure, it makes them different, for a given value of different I suppose, but, it's rather pointless.  

Then again, I always underestimate the power of presentation when people look at this stuff.  I look at the "knacks" and see spells.  Sure, they aren't slotted and what not, but, they're just spells.  No different than an Elemental Monk.  Yup, he's casting spells with Ki, but, the point is, he's still casting spells.   They work like spells, they are written exactly like spells and are limited in exactly the same way (limited use/day, very specific parameters (why, for example, can I Animal Friend Knack a 1/8 CR beast, but not a 1/4?  What's the in-game justification there?) and function pretty much exactly the same as spells.

But, they're not spells.   

Look, it's simple.  5e has decided that most "powers" (whatever you want to call them - in game stuff that you can do that is limited by the mechanics) are spells.  So, now, when you have a class that does something, everyone uses the same format.  Players don't have to relearn the wheel every time they play a different class.  

For one, I'm VERY happy that they are standardizing this.  I don't get to play very often and I really struggle with remembering how to do spells for different classes.  How many spells do I have prepped, do I prep spells, what spells can I prep, what spells do I know - that's different depending on what class you play.  Sometimes I get two new known spells/day... sometimes not.  

Bugger that.  Just have every class work the same and I'm much happier.


----------



## Hussar

Umm, @Ruin Explorer for me, this is post 912.  I'm really more confused than before.



Hussar said:


> Fair enough, although I'm not sure "half" isn't a bit of an exaggeration.  Most of the spells aren't like that.  Although, I will agree that there are just too damn many spells.  It's one area I would rather see a HUGE paring down.  Go back to Expert D&D where you had about 8 spells per level.  Done.  Not going to happen, but, one can dream.
> 
> It's really actually quite annoying that the caster turns often take twice as long as anyone else's, not because they're so much more difficult to run or anything, but, because so many times, the player drops a new spell, and often aren't 100% up on the rules, or, my personal favorite, "I cast ((Insert Spell Name)"  Okay, sure.  What does that do?  "It does this and this and this"  Uhh, ok.  Do you have that keyed in as a macro or do you have the spell handy to show me?  "Oh, no, it's in this book... oh, you don't have that book... well, that's how it works..."
> 
> _DM bangs head on desk repeatedly_
> 
> Look, if you're a caster, and you've just got that brand new polymorph spell, or animate objects, or whatever, take the thirty seconds to prep it to use at the table BEFORE you use it at the table.... Pretty Please.


----------



## Faolyn

Hussar said:


> Ahh, the good old "The DM is a dick" response to anything revolving around DM adjudication.  We need a spell less ranger to protect us from DM's now?  How is that going to work?  Any DM who is going to interpret Speak with Plants the way you are detailing here is going to be just as much of a jerk DM regardless of the mechanics.



And you're still ignoring everything else I wrote.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I do wish you didn't have to guess who has you on their ignore list.




I wish the ignore feature used had an algorithm to figure out what kind of people you ignored, and then replaced their content with AI generated nonsense that those people might have written.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> I never said I preferred that system



I never said you did. I said that your wording indicates a mindset that certain types of games are “actually well designed” and others are lazy or just shallow popularity-seeking with no concern for quality. 

It also seems to suggest a preference for more complex systems that handle aspects of play with more specificity than 5e does, but hey, it doesn’t really matter.


----------



## grimslade

Bill Zebub said:


> I wish the ignore feature used had an algorithm to figure out what kind of people you ignored, and then replaced their content with AI generated nonsense that those people might have written.



A Pie filter? Another blog uses a pie filter turning filtered people's posts into long love letters to pie.


----------



## Eric V

doctorbadwolf said:


> I never said you did. *I said that your wording indicates a mindset that certain types of games are “actually well designed” *and others are lazy or just shallow popularity-seeking with no concern for quality.
> 
> It also seems to suggest a preference for more complex systems that handle aspects of play with more specificity than 5e does, but hey, it doesn’t really matter.



You're trying to read into things again, and (I'm sorry, but) failing.  _Again_.

I mentioned it only because it does a non-magical Ranger well.  I am not trying to bring up anything else.

But since you insist on (now, constantly) mis-reading me...please stop responding to me.  I will do the same for you.


----------



## Remathilis

Olrox17 said:


> Actually, no. My apologies, I misguided you by saying it was an UA, but it wasn't.
> It was an article on the official D&D site, aimed to DMs, to help them create home-brew class variants. It pre-dates the UA series. The spell-less ranger was the example they provided as a class variant. It gave up spells, and in exchange received the battlemaster's combat superiority dice and the ability to craft healing poultices and natural antivenom. Afaik, they never made a survey about it.
> 
> Edit: It can't be found on the official site anymore, but I managed to find a copy. It's a 2015 article by
> Rodney Thompson.



I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

There seems to be an awful lot of miscommunication going on here. Let's all take a breath and see if we can try to understand each other. Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks.


----------



## Olrox17

Remathilis said:


> I wonder if taking the current ranger, swapping in some of the Tasha's variants and using battlemaster maneuvers and dice would satisfy the urge for a nonmagical ranger?



It worked for that one player who picked ranger in one of my games. He liked superiority dice, and he liked the non-magical healing poultices he could craft.
If WotC offered a ranger variant like that, I think people might be satisfied. A problem with the current Ranger is that some of its class features just assume spellcasting is available.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> Umm, @Ruin Explorer for me, this is post 912.  I'm really more confused than before.



A side effect of people having people on Ignore is that it changes the numbering within the thread due to missing posts.


----------



## Cadence

Miss-post!


----------



## Cadence

Miss-post!


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> But, again, that's not really the point that's being made.  Level Up simply replicates spells, calls them "not spells" and now we have a "spell less ranger".  Sure, it makes them different, for a given value of different I suppose, but, it's rather pointless.
> 
> Then again, I always underestimate the power of presentation when people look at this stuff.  I look at the "knacks" and see spells.  Sure, they aren't slotted and what not, but, they're just spells.  No different than an Elemental Monk.  Yup, he's casting spells with Ki, but, the point is, he's still casting spells.   They work like spells, they are written exactly like spells and are limited in exactly the same way (limited use/day, very specific parameters (why, for example, can I Animal Friend Knack a 1/8 CR beast, but not a 1/4?  What's the in-game justification there?) and function pretty much exactly the same as spells.
> 
> But, they're not spells.
> 
> Look, it's simple.  5e has decided that most "powers" (whatever you want to call them - in game stuff that you can do that is limited by the mechanics) are spells.  So, now, when you have a class that does something, everyone uses the same format.  Players don't have to relearn the wheel every time they play a different class.
> 
> For one, I'm VERY happy that they are standardizing this.  I don't get to play very often and I really struggle with remembering how to do spells for different classes.  How many spells do I have prepped, do I prep spells, what spells can I prep, what spells do I know - that's different depending on what class you play.  Sometimes I get two new known spells/day... sometimes not.
> 
> Bugger that.  Just have every class work the same and I'm much happier.




It feels like names have a lot of power to some/many people when discussing psionics too. Whereas  some/many others find it much ado about nothing.

Does calling them knacks, prayers, spells, whatnots depending on class, but having them all work the same as spells, work for you just as well mechanically and for ease of play?


----------



## Bill Zebub

FitzTheRuke said:


> Maybe start by granting a little charity to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt.



That’s the thing that is most missing here in general. People gleefully jump on the slightest mistake or ambiguity and assume the least generous interpretation, or extend an opposing argument to the most ridiculous extreme. 

The forums would be a nicer place if every post that began with “So you are saying that…” were instantly deleted. (Even though I’m sure that I, in the heat of the moment, have used those exact words.)


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'd like to see, but know I won't see WotC deal with this monster they created head on and make it clear that not every discrete ability a character has is magic or a spell and they will not be entertaining or encouraging that sort of thing anymore. Swinging a sword? Ability. Spending HD? Ability. Shooting a bunch of arrows? Ability. Moving? Ability. IT's all abilities and then we add keywords to say what those things actually function as.


----------



## MNblockhead

grimslade said:


> So are we just spouting game design for discussion's sake?



Yes.  Though "discussion" is a charitable word choice given how these threads generally degenerate.


----------



## Bill Zebub

grimslade said:


> So are we just spouting game design for discussion's sake?




Yes.

Although sometimes it seems like people believe that bludgeoning the opposition into submission will sway WotC.

“So have we decided what to do about _guidance_?”
“Nope. Still waiting for things to play out on Enworld.”


----------



## MNblockhead

Just change the spell list to "powers".  A wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer can cast any powers on their powers list with spell slots. A ranger / fighter get some of the powers as an at-will or x per short/long rest. Monks use ki points. Certain monsters (and perhaps certain future class options) can cast them psionically, etc.

For certain classes the power wouldn't be treated as magic. Wizards continue to benefit from being able to draw on a wide variety of supernatural powers by weaving magic with spells. Others achieve certain powers through force of will or because they are supernaturally gifted.

I like how in Flee! Mortals (by MCCM) they distinguish psionic vs magic power and use "supernatural" to apply to both. Psionic powers are not affected by dispel magic, counterspell, anti-magic fields, etc.  Similarly, in my ideal system, a power used by fighter, monk, or ranger would be similarly unaffected by anti-magic. Only if a power specifically states immunity or the ability to counter psionics, or any supernatural power, will it affect non-spell powers.

I would go one further. I would like more granularity in anti-magic. I would like to see some anti-magic only affect arcane magic and not divine magic. You need clerics to counter clerics as a battle of faith. Wizards are better and countering wizards, because they know each other's tricks.  I don't know how well that would go over with the wider gaming community but I'm thinking of making some homerules for this.  It really wouldn't make the rule much more complex in terms of being able to remember them but it would add to complexity in terms of strategizing and tactics, which would make combat and certain challenges more interesting in my opinion.


----------



## Zaukrie

MNblockhead said:


> Just change the spell list to "powers".  A wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer can cast any powers on their powers list with spell slots. A ranger / fighter get some of the powers as an at-will or x per short/long rest. Monks use ki points. Certain monsters (and perhaps certain future class options) can cast them psionically, etc.
> 
> For certain classes the power wouldn't be treated as magic. Wizards continue to benefit from being able to draw on a wide variety of supernatural powers by weaving magic with spells. Others achieve certain powers through force of will or because they are supernaturally gifted.
> 
> I like how in Flee! Mortals (by MCCM) they distinguish psionic vs magic power and use "supernatural" to apply to both. Psionic powers are not affected by dispel magic, counterspell, anti-magic fields, etc.  Similarly, in my ideal system, a power used by fighter, monk, or ranger would be similarly unaffected by anti-magic. Only if a power specifically states immunity or the ability to counter psionics, or any supernatural power, will it affect non-spell powers.
> 
> I would go one further. I would like more granularity in anti-magic. I would like to see some anti-magic only affect arcane magic and not divine magic. You need clerics to counter clerics as a battle of faith. Wizards are better and countering wizards, because they know each other's tricks.  I don't know how well that would go over with the wider gaming community but I'm thinking of making some homerules for this.  It really wouldn't make the rule much more complex in terms of being able to remember them but it would add to complexity in terms of strategizing and tactics, which would make combat and certain challenges more interesting in my opinion.



Overall, imo, the game needs more restrictions like this. But I get that's not the direction.....


----------



## Vaalingrade

MNblockhead said:


> Just change the spell list to "powers".



Tried that. People just said 'everyone is casters' for ten years straight.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

MNblockhead said:


> Just change the spell list to "powers".  A wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer can cast any powers on their powers list with spell slots. A ranger / fighter get some of the powers as an at-will or x per short/long rest. Monks use ki points. Certain monsters (and perhaps certain future class options) can cast them psionically, etc.
> 
> For certain classes the power wouldn't be treated as magic. Wizards continue to benefit from being able to draw on a wide variety of supernatural powers by weaving magic with spells. Others achieve certain powers through force of will or because they are supernaturally gifted.
> 
> I like how in Flee! Mortals (by MCCM) they distinguish psionic vs magic power and use "supernatural" to apply to both. Psionic powers are not affected by dispel magic, counterspell, anti-magic fields, etc.  Similarly, in my ideal system, a power used by fighter, monk, or ranger would be similarly unaffected by anti-magic. Only if a power specifically states immunity or the ability to counter psionics, or any supernatural power, will it affect non-spell powers.



I'm very against Psionics not being dispellable by dispel magic or invalid against magic resistance. Even if more core classes in the PHB use it because that's the sort of thing that gets Psionics banned from tables. Even if it's the most balanced system ever, it will lead to a widespread ban against Psionics because "it's overpowered".


----------



## pantsorama

darjr said:


> Who wants to try it? Via discord and owlbear.



I'm in.  PM me!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm very against Psionics not being dispellable by dispel magic or invalid against magic resistance. Even if more core classes in the PHB use it because that's the sort of thing that gets Psionics banned from tables. Even if it's the most balanced system ever, it will lead to a widespread ban against Psionics because "it's overpowered".



Not if psionics is treated equally (or replaces) magic.  The problem is that it's always treated as an add-on.


----------



## Remathilis

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm very against Psionics not being dispellable by dispel magic or invalid against magic resistance. Even if more core classes in the PHB use it because that's the sort of thing that gets Psionics banned from tables. Even if it's the most balanced system ever, it will lead to a widespread ban against Psionics because "it's overpowered".



Exactly.

If anyone wants to test this: house rule that the sorcerer (usually considered the weakest full caster) no longer has to worry about their magic being counted, dispelled, subject to VSM components, or antimagic, and isn't even affected by magic resistance. See how long it takes for them to break the game.


----------



## MNblockhead

Remathilis said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If anyone wants to test this: house rule that the sorcerer (usually considered the weakest full caster) no longer has to worry about their magic being counted, dispelled, subject to VSM components, or antimagic, and isn't even affected by magic resistance. See how long it takes for them to break the game.



Yeah, I can see that.  Unless you are creating a heavily home-brewed world with sufficient NPCs and monsters with psionics, I could definitely see the issue.  In my current campaign, only certain monsters have psionic abilities and I've ruled that these are not magic and are not affected by anti-magic abilities and spells. It just mixes things up a bit. 

I've given some thought to divine vs arcane magic. I would like them to feel different. I would like the clerics and arcane casters to feel more different than just having access to different spells.  At the same time I don't want to make things overly complex. I've been toying with the idea of counter spell only working against arcane casted spells and giving clerics & druids something similar that counters divine spells cast by followers of another faith/god.  I also have toyed with ranger "spells" not being treated as "spells".  I think this would work well without breaking the game, but in the divine vs arcane example, it does involve basically tweaking the rules/wording of individual spells. I would rather have an elegant rule that covers this. 

I am fairly certain that One D&D would not go done this route for the base rules, but it would be nice if they would come up with some more creative and interesting variant rules for the new DMG to give different flavors to magic in different campaigns.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> It feels like names have a lot of power to some/many people when discussing psionics too. Whereas as some/many others find it much ado about nothing.
> 
> Does calling them knacks, prayers, spells, whatnots depending on class but having them all work the same as spells work for you just as well for you mechanically and for ease of play?



I get it. I mean, that's what D&D has generally done in the past.  And, it does work.  

But, it's making needless distinctions for the sake of trying to make things different.  As was mentioned, if we call everything "powers", then people lose their poop and that doesn't work.

Apparently though, if we call everything "spells" it's more acceptable - 10 (ish) years of 5e has proven that.  To the point where even non-casters like barbarians and elemental monks get abilities (speak with animals for example) which just reference the actual spell.  So, if we're going to give them spells anyway, why not just give them a casting ability, and let the player choose what "abilities" they can do?

IOW, why piddle about with Elemental Monks having a unique casting system that doesn't really work (apparently since everyone bitches about the Elemental Monk) when you can just make them half casters like rangers or paladins, grant them a selection of spells and poof, end of problem.  I mean, the Way of the Four Elements Monk is literally (as per the text in the PHB) casting spells.  Flat out dropping spells up to and including using the rules for spellcasting.  But, instead of just making me a half caster and giving me a selection of spells and let me build my own elemental monk, I have to use this wonky ki system casting that doesn't really work. 

There are very, very good reasons for standardizing things.  When things are standardized, they work a lot better.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Hussar said:


> IOW, why piddle about with Elemental Monks having a unique casting system that doesn't really work (apparently since everyone bitches about the Elemental Monk) when you can just make them half casters like rangers or paladins, grant them a selection of spells and poof, end of problem.  I mean, the Way of the Four Elements Monk is literally (as per the text in the PHB) casting spells.  Flat out dropping spells up to and including using the rules for spellcasting.  But, instead of just making me a half caster and giving me a selection of spells and let me build my own elemental monk, I have to use this wonky ki system casting that doesn't really work.




I was under the impression that what people don’t like about casting with Ki is not that “it doesn’t work” but just that it poaches the base class resource.

What else about it doesn’t work? I haven’t played one but was in a campaign with one and it seemed to be fine.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> I get it. I mean, that's what D&D has generally done in the past.  And, it does work.
> 
> But, it's making needless distinctions for the sake of trying to make things different.  As was mentioned, if we call everything "powers", then people lose their poop and that doesn't work.
> 
> Apparently though, if we call everything "spells" it's more acceptable - 10 (ish) years of 5e has proven that.  To the point where even non-casters like barbarians and elemental monks get abilities (speak with animals for example) which just reference the actual spell.  So, if we're going to give them spells anyway, why not just give them a casting ability, and let the player choose what "abilities" they can do?
> 
> IOW, why piddle about with Elemental Monks having a unique casting system that doesn't really work (apparently since everyone bitches about the Elemental Monk) when you can just make them half casters like rangers or paladins, grant them a selection of spells and poof, end of problem.  I mean, the Way of the Four Elements Monk is literally (as per the text in the PHB) casting spells.  Flat out dropping spells up to and including using the rules for spellcasting.  But, instead of just making me a half caster and giving me a selection of spells and let me build my own elemental monk, I have to use this wonky ki system casting that doesn't really work.
> 
> There are very, very good reasons for standardizing things.  When things are standardized, they work a lot better.



The distinctions are needless _to you_.  Standardization is always better _to you_.  You are not the official representative of the D&D fandom, here to tell us how wrong we all are for wanting something different than what we're getting.

it seems pretty clear that people want different things.  By definition, that must mean that standardizing everything isn't objectively the best way to go, just the way _you prefer_.

Your opinion on this issue is just your opinion, just like everyone else's.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> The distinctions are needless _to you_.  Standardization is always better _to you_.  You are not the official representative of the D&D fandom, here to tell us how wrong we all are for wanting something different than what we're getting.
> 
> it seems pretty clear that people want different things.  By definition, that must mean that standardizing everything isn't objectively the best way to go, just the way _you prefer_.
> 
> Your opinion on this issue is just your opinion, just like everyone else's.



So?  I'm not supposed to have an opinion or voice it?

At least I can definitively support my opinion with things like facts.  The game has consistently become simpler over the years with bunches of little subsystems being molded together to form more unified, easier to run mechanics that we see today.

Where's your evidence that adding complexity makes for a better game experience?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Hussar said:


> Apparently though, if we call everything "spells" it's more acceptable - 10 (ish) years of 5e has proven that.  To the point where even non-casters like barbarians and elemental monks get abilities (speak with animals for example) which just reference the actual spell.



I'd have said it was less acceptable. Most people are more than willing to accept the Psi Warrior, the Echo Knight, the Soulknife, the Phantom, the Storm Barbarian, and a whole lot of other people who can go above and beyond and just _are_. The Tasha's Ranger is accepted as a ranger in a way that when you're used to a car that doesn't work having one that gets you from A to B however ugly it looks is an improvement.


Hussar said:


> IOW, why piddle about with Elemental Monks having a unique casting system that doesn't really work (apparently since everyone bitches about the Elemental Monk)



People don't bitch about the Elemental Monk's casting system; the Shadow Monk uses almost the same casting system and as far as I can tell no one bitches about that. People bitch about the Elemental Monk being terrible because it's menchanically bad and gets across itself with the spells costing far too much.

Good fluff and mechanics > Bland but functional > Fluffy with barely functional mechanics.

The Tasha's Ranger is in the bland but functional category for rangers. The PHB ranger was in the fluffy category.


Hussar said:


> There are very, very good reasons for standardizing things.  When things are standardized, they work a lot better.



_All else being equal_ standardization improves things - but it pushes things towards bland but functional from either side.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> So?  I'm not supposed to have an opinion or voice it?
> 
> At least I can definitively support my opinion with things like facts.  The game has consistently become simpler over the years with bunches of little subsystems being molded together to form more unified, easier to run mechanics that we see today.
> 
> Where's your evidence that adding complexity makes for a better game experience?



Do you have evidence that simplicity makes for a superior game experience, other than that the most popular RPG is designed that way?  There are plenty of more complex TTRPGs.  Are they are objectively worse than 5e?

Have and voice whatever opinion you want.  What I object is your insistence that your way is objectively superior to any other way.

The following is my opinion:

Having things be different mechanically helps to make them feel different in play, which helps with immersion.  It can also help with verisimilitude, which _some people care about_.


----------



## Hussar

Neonchameleon said:


> I'd have said it was less acceptable. Most people are more than willing to accept the Psi Warrior, the Echo Knight, the Soulknife, the Phantom, the Storm Barbarian, and a whole lot of other people who can go above and beyond and just _are_. The Tasha's Ranger is accepted as a ranger in a way that when you're used to a car that doesn't work having one that gets you from A to B however ugly it looks is an improvement.
> 
> People don't bitch about the Elemental Monk's casting system; the Shadow Monk uses almost the same casting system and as far as I can tell no one bitches about that. People bitch about the Elemental Monk being terrible because it's menchanically bad and gets across itself with the spells costing far too much.



Potato potahto.  It's mechanically bad right?  Spells cost too much right?  All this would be solved if it slotted into the standard half caster progression.  



Neonchameleon said:


> Good fluff and mechanics > Bland but functional > Fluffy with barely functional mechanics.
> 
> The Tasha's Ranger is in the bland but functional category for rangers. The PHB ranger was in the fluffy category.
> 
> _All else being equal_ standardization improves things - but it pushes things towards bland but functional from either side.



Functional is 100% the reason we have rules.  There's no point in having rules that aren't functional.  That's why we aren't using rules from OD&D or 1e or 2e or even 3e anymore.  Many of those rules were less functional than what we have now.  Again, why should mechanics be anything other than functional?  Flavor and whatnot is what we have players for.  I don't need five different ma... oh, sorry, powe.... oh, wait, can't call them that.... errr... let's just go with  systems to make the game "interesting" when those five different systems conflict with each other and result in classes that people spend the next ten years bitching about.

Having a bunch of different systems that all do functionally the same thing is the reason that these classes have problems.  Having a single system that covers all the classes means that most of the problems that people have with these classes go away.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you have evidence that simplicity makes for a superior game experience, other than that the most popular RPG is designed that way?  There are plenty of more complex TTRPGs.  Are they are objectively worse than 5e?
> 
> Have and voice whatever opinion you want.  What I object is your insistence that your way is objectively superior to any other way.
> 
> The following is my opinion:
> 
> Having things be different mechanically helps to make them feel different in play, which helps with immersion.  It can also help with verisimilitude, which _some people care about_.



I'm glad you asked.  Look at the iterations of nearly every RPG that has multiple editions.  What do you see nearly every single time?  Increased simplicity.  Increased clarity.  Less subsystems.  Unifying mechanics.  Yes, there are exceptions, but, in nearly every single case, RPG's go from baroque, overly complex design to unified, simpler mechanics over time.

So, yes, I do have considerable evidence that simplicity makes for a superior game experience.  It is extremely rare for an RPG to become more complex over time.

See, that's what I mean by things like facts and evidence.  You are making claims for other people without any actual evidence.  YOU like mechanical difference, fair enough.  But, other than a handful of people you've talked to, that's about the sum total of your evidence that increased complexity increases verisimiltude, which _YOU _care about.  The difference is, I'm not couching my argument in an appeal to "some people".  I'm actually directly pointing to the games that are out there that we can all look at.  You're trying to argue that just because you like something, therefore many other people must like it and thus your opinion should carry any weight.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Potato potahto.  It's mechanically bad right?  Spells cost too much right?  All this would be solved if it slotted into the standard half caster progression.
> 
> 
> Functional is 100% the reason we have rules.  There's no point in having rules that aren't functional.  That's why we aren't using rules from OD&D or 1e or 2e or even 3e anymore.  Many of those rules were less functional than what we have now.  Again, why should mechanics be anything other than functional?  Flavor and whatnot is what we have players for.  I don't need five different ma... oh, sorry, powe.... oh, wait, can't call them that.... errr... let's just go with  systems to make the game "interesting" when those five different systems conflict with each other and result in classes that people spend the next ten years bitching about.
> 
> Having a bunch of different systems that all do functionally the same thing is the reason that these classes have problems.  Having a single system that covers all the classes means that most of the problems that people have with these classes go away.



I have to ask what the next step is.  Why have different classes at all?  Can't we just pick from a spell list, with suggested load-outs?  Hyperbole I know, but that's where this design paradigm goes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> I'm glad you asked.  Look at the iterations of nearly every RPG that has multiple editions.  What do you see nearly every single time?  Increased simplicity.  Increased clarity.  Less subsystems.  Unifying mechanics.  Yes, there are exceptions, but, in nearly every single case, RPG's go from baroque, overly complex design to unified, simpler mechanics over time.
> 
> So, yes, I do have considerable evidence that simplicity makes for a superior game experience.  It is extremely rare for an RPG to become more complex over time.



But there are many fantasy RPGs, derived from one version of D&D or another, that are currently more complex than 5e.  Are they objectively worse or aren't they?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Hussar said:


> Potato potahto.  It's mechanically bad right?  Spells cost too much right?  All this would be solved if it slotted into the standard half caster progression.



Yes it would. You'd then have an incredibly mechanically bland subclass that no one would bother to fix because it would inspire no one. Meanwhile the Four Elements Monk tries to use the actual monk mechanic rather than just being a bland bolt-on.


Hussar said:


> Functional is 100% the reason we have rules. There's no point in having rules that aren't functional.



No it's not. If functional were 100% the reason we had rules everyone would be playing Fudge or Unisystem; the rules to both are perfectly simple - but they really aren't terribly inspiring or evocative. (And yes I mean Fudge not Fate). People no more want rules that are just perfectly functional than they do to just eat plain white rice.

The reason we have rules is to evoke and to share our vision. And every successful ruleset has started out by inspiring people even if they were barely functional. Meanwhile the rules that start with functionality, the Fudges, the Unisystems, the GURPs of this world have not got very far. Rifts from memory comfortably outsold GURPS and I'd hardly call Rifts functional. But it was inspiring. 


Hussar said:


> I'm glad you asked.  Look at the iterations of nearly every RPG that has multiple editions.  What do you see nearly every single time?  Increased simplicity.



Nope. That has been the tendency in recent years. But especially doesn't seem to be the case in D&D. And we start with the inspiration and then polish the rules, removing the parts that get in the way, rather than starting with dry bland rules  in almost all cases.


Hussar said:


> Increased clarity.  Less subsystems.  Unifying mechanics.  Yes, there are exceptions, but, in nearly every single case, RPG's go from baroque, overly complex design to unified, simpler mechanics over time.







What you aren't asking is why, if the trend is so heavily the way you say, all the early editions of successful RPGs were so complex that they could be simplified in the first place and the systems that started by prizing simplicity didn't make it that far.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I have to ask what the next step is.  Why have different classes at all?  Can't we just pick from a spell list, with suggested load-outs?  Hyperbole I know, but that's where this design paradigm goes.



Isn't this what we already have?  What differentiates one full caster from another?  About the only thing that distinguishes a Land Druid from a Wizard is the spell list.



Micah Sweet said:


> But there are many fantasy RPGs, derived from one version of D&D or another, that are currently more complex than 5e.  Are they objectively worse or aren't they?



Hang on, that's not what I said.  I said that when you look at the iterations of a game from one edition to the next, they always (or nearly always) reduce complexity.

So, Pathfinder is quite a lot more complex than 3e D&D.  Fair enough.  But, Pathfinder 2 massively reduces that complexity.

IOW, any game might start out as very complex, but, as soon as that game goes through a revision and a new edition, the trend is nearly universal that it becomes less complex.


----------



## Hussar

Neonchameleon said:


> What you aren't asking is why, if the trend is so heavily the way you say, all the early editions of successful RPGs were so complex that they could be simplified in the first place and the systems that started by prizing simplicity didn't make it that far.



They couldn't be simplified in the first place because people had to go through that step of increased complexity.  You see it over and over and over again.  The game is first released, then it gets played in the wild, then a new edition of the game is released which is simpler than the edition before it.  We see this time and time again.

You're comparing games to different games and saying, well, this simple game is less successful than that more complicated game, therefore people like complexity.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that every single time a game goes through a revision, it becomes simpler and more streamlined than the version before it.  Of course it does.  That's the point of a revision - to make the game work better.

That doesn't mean that simplest is best.  Of course not.  It means though that games will always evolve through iterations to become simpler than the game was before.  This is the history of nearly every single RPG in existence.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I've been thinking about the level 1 +2/+1 ASIs. They've moved from Race to floating to Background... I wonder if it wouldn't be best to just take all the "Level 1" Feats and make them equivalent to the Level 4 Feats, with a +1 ASI involved, and get _that_ +1 as part of your background (tied to your feat choice). Then the _other_ +2 (or +1/+1) can move over to class. Just give the class the +2 to its prime ability. (OR +1/+1 in the cases of classes that have two equal prime abilities, OR put "you gain +2 to Strength or Dexterity or +1 to each of them")


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> But there are many fantasy RPGs, derived from one version of D&D or another, that are currently more complex than 5e. Are they objectively worse or aren't they?



If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Remathilis said:


> If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.



Except those were terrible. So no. I don't think so.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.



I loved 2nd ed!  There were some great ideas in Player's Options.  Constantly simplifying things removes options in favor of bland, predictable outcomes.


----------



## Hussar

Note, I'm not saying complexity is bad.  Look, I ADORE wargames.  I spent way, way too many hours playing things like Star Fleet Battles, so, I'm absolutely no stranger to complexity.

And, obviously, something like 5e D&D is a LOT more complex than some one page RPG.  Which does not make 5e a better game at all.

The point I'm trying to make is that within a given game, so, only looking at that specific game, each iteration of that RPG will be simpler and more streamlined than what came before.  I'm really struggling to think of an RPG that increased in complexity over time.  Although, I suppose you could argue that within the lifespan of a given iteration of a game, complexity does increase as new sub books and rules are added.  So, sure, you start with basic 3.5 E, which has a complexity of X.  Then you add a bunch of splat books and supplements, and that complexity goes up (sometimes by a LOT).  

But, once a new edition rolls around, the baseline of complexity trends downwards each time.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> I loved 2nd ed! There were some great ideas in Player's Options. Constantly simplifying things removes options in favor of bland, predictable outcomes.



But complicating them only rewards those who have the time and dedication to achieve system mastery.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> But complicating them only rewards those who have the time and dedication to achieve system mastery.



It also provides options to choose from, and can help with immersion and verisimilitude. Those are my priorities.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> It also provides options to choose from, and can help with immersion and verisimilitude. Those are my priorities.



Of course, there is a sweet spot between simplicity and choice (and that spot will differ from person to person) but I think a simple base with the option to layer complexity may work better. Where 5e dropped the ball was adding more complicated options later. They never really came up with those rules modules that expanded the game in new ways. Cie la vie.

That said, I will take a simpler game that is playable over a complex one every time. I loved Pathfinder when it came out, but three years into it I found the options were overwhelming. Most of my players had dozens of fiddily micro bonuses that would be forgotten, monsters and NPCs were a slog to design and play, and finding the official DC for every possible option was a massive headache (well, the rope is 2" thick, but it's raining and dark out, so that's DC 15 +2 +4, but you have cunning balance so that's a +1 to all balance checks...) 

Personally, 5e hits that spot for me: crunchier than your typical ORS retroclone, easier than 3.x based d20 games. Not perfect, but fine. I've not looked into level-up (is there a free sample somewhere?) But to me, it sounds a lot like adding the fiddily Pathfinder stuff back into 5e. If you like it, follow your bliss. But i think 5e is more or less about where I want things and 1D seems to be fixings the issues without adding a bunch of new gears to get stuck.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Of course, there is a sweet spot between simplicity and choice (and that spot will differ from person to person) but I think a simple base with the option to layer complexity may work better. Where 5e dropped the ball was adding more complicated options later. They never really came up with those rules modules that expanded the game in new ways. Cie la vie.
> 
> That said, I will take a simpler game that is playable over a complex one every time. I loved Pathfinder when it came out, but three years into it I found the options were overwhelming. Most of my players had dozens of fiddily micro bonuses that would be forgotten, monsters and NPCs were a slog to design and play, and finding the official DC for every possible option was a massive headache (well, the rope is 2" thick, but it's raining and dark out, so that's DC 15 +2 +4, but you have cunning balance so that's a +1 to all balance checks...)
> 
> Personally, 5e hits that spot for me: crunchier than your typical ORS retroclone, easier than 3.x based d20 games. Not perfect, but fine. I've not looked into level-up (is there a free sample somewhere?) But to me, it sounds a lot like adding the fiddily Pathfinder stuff back into 5e. If you like it, follow your bliss. But i think 5e is more or less about where I want things and 1D seems to be fixings the issues without adding a bunch of new gears to get stuck.



I'm glad you're happy.  Vanilla 5e was never going to be enough for me, and 6e is worse.  Level Up is much, much closer to what I want.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> It also provides options to choose from, and can help with immersion and verisimilitude. Those are my priorities.




And can also hurt immersion and verisimilitude.  It's different for everybody.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> And can also hurt immersion and verisimilitude.  It's different for everybody.



Sure, but that's not an argument for more simplicity. You can always not use rules you don't need.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but that's not an argument for more simplicity. You can always not use rules you don't need.




???

Not "always".  It depends on which rules you mean and how they fit into the game.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> And can also hurt immersion and verisimilitude.



You already made me love it. No need to pour more sugar on it.


----------



## darjr

Bill Zebub said:


> ???
> 
> Not "always".  It depends on which rules you mean and how they fit into the game.



And the more there are the more likely it’ll be difficult.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> ???
> 
> Not "always".  It depends on which rules you mean and how they fit into the game.



Still better than having to make up your own rules for stuff you want because the new version of the book took them out.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Still better than having to make up your own rules for stuff you want because the new version of the book took them out.




From your point of view I can see how that would feel true.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> From your point of view I can see how that would feel true.



A little patronizing, but thanks anyway.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up is much, much closer to what I want.




Do you like Level Up? I'm not sure I've heard that before.

(J/K and only meaning to nudge you in the ribs and wink about it.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> A little patronizing, but thanks anyway.



Sorry that wasn’t meant that way. What I meant was that it’s not an objective truth, but a valid subjective one.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but that's not an argument for more simplicity. You can always not use rules you don't need.



Except for every time you have a mechanic that references it.

Let's say I don't like short rests. I don't want to use them in my next campaign. Except I break every rule that references short rests like the classes that recharge on short rest like fighters and warlocks. 8 could change some of them to prof per long rest, but how do you fix song of rest or pact magic? What about hit dice? Just making one small change impacts dozens of other things.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Except for every time you have a mechanic that references it.
> 
> Let's say I don't like short rests. I don't want to use them in my next campaign. Except I break every rule that references short rests like the classes that recharge on short rest like fighters and warlocks. 8 could change some of them to prof per long rest, but how do you fix song of rest or pact magic? What about hit dice? Just making one small change impacts dozens of other things.



What would you do instead of short rests?  How would you recharge abilities?  These are important questions, and I can't answer you without them.  Implementation matters.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> What would you do instead of short rests?  How would you recharge abilities?  These are important questions, and I can't answer you without them.  Implementation matters.



You're missing the point.

The point is, you claimed that removing rules is easier than adding.  @Remathilis is giving an example of removing a rule and you're demonstrating the point by asking a shopping list of questions that need to be asked just to remove one rule.   So, no, it is not easier to remove rules.  Particularly in a ruleset like 5e where you have a very tight system with most rules being interconnected.  Complexity always increases exponentially, so, any change will also ripple though exponentially.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> The point is, you claimed that removing rules is easier than adding.  @Remathilis is giving an example of removing a rule and you're demonstrating the point by asking a shopping list of questions that need to be asked just to remove one rule.   So, no, it is not easier to remove rules.  Particularly in a ruleset like 5e where you have a very tight system with most rules being interconnected.  Complexity always increases exponentially, so, any change will also ripple though exponentially.



Ok.  I'd rather remove something I don't want than add something I do.  It might not be easier, but it is my preference.


----------



## JEB

If you think rebalancing a game after removing rules is hard, try inventing new additional rules from scratch. I'd say they're both pretty challenging if you care about balance, and only not challenging when you don't.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> If you think rebalancing a game after removing rules is hard, try inventing new additional rules from scratch. I'd say they're both pretty challenging if you care about balance, and only not challenging when you don't.



True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything.   So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship.  Just as an example.  Additionally, since you are adding rules to existing rules, you can usually look at similar rules to get a pretty decent ballpark for balance.  Might not be exact, but, it's not too far off either.

For example, if you were to build a psionic system onto D&D, you could certainly look at the existing spell system and extrapolate what effects should come into the game at what level from there.  Again, not perfect, but, certainly doable.

And, I'd say a lot easier than trying to remove stuff once it's in there.


----------



## MarkB

Hussar said:


> True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything.   So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship.



Right up until your players try to apply those rules when having their ship attack anything that isn't a ship. Rules systems can't stand completely discrete from each other because the world they're portraying is interconnected.


----------



## Eric V

Hussar said:


> True, but, when adding new rules, you can go the lazy route and simply not connect the new mechanics to anything.   So, your ship to ship combat rules aren't really tied to any existing rules, but, live off to the side and only apply when one ship attacks another ship.  Just as an example.  Additionally, since you are adding rules to existing rules, you can usually look at similar rules to get a pretty decent ballpark for balance.  Might not be exact, but, it's not too far off either.
> 
> For example, if you were to build a psionic system onto D&D, you could certainly look at the existing spell system and extrapolate what effects should come into the game at what level from there.  Again, not perfect, but, certainly doable.
> 
> And, I'd say a lot easier than trying to remove stuff once it's in there.



Really?  Easier than just saying "no psionics?"

Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok.  I'd rather remove something I don't want than add something I do.  It might not be easier, but it is my preference.



I would also rather remove something I don’t want than add something you do.


----------



## Remathilis

Eric V said:


> Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?"
> 
> Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.



I think it's important to distinguish between systems and elements of a game. It's easy to remove elements like races, classes, feats or spells, they are distinct nuggets that can be swapped around. If sorcerer is banned, I pick wizard. Systems though touch the larger game and affect it in multiple ways. If I remove short rests or armor class, I'm going to be rewriting a lot of the games rules.

The best way to do things is a simple system with lots of elements in it. Elements can be added or removed to taste as long as the main system is there.


----------



## OB1

Been noodling on the new inspiration rules for a while.  My group rejected out of hand getting inspiration on a Nat1 (they didn't like the idea of being rewarded for failure), but it made me think of an alternate rule that combines the first playtest and the 2nd.

Inspiration
Nat20 - When you roll a Nat20 on any d20 Test, you can give inspiration to another party member who doesn't already have it, as they are inspired by your great success

Nat1 - When you roll a Nat1 on any d20 Test, you gain inspiration if you don't currently have it, as you resolve to do better.  However, if you do currently have inspiration, you lose that inspiration on a Nat1, as you realize your failure could have been avoided had you dug into your resolve.

This puts pressure on PCs to spend inspiration when they have it (or risk losing it on a Nat1) and also, I think, subtly discourages PCs looking to 'inspiration fish'.

Going to see what my group thinks, then submit in the survey after playtesting.


----------



## darjr

I find the less rules a game has the easier it is to home brew and add on the fly. No worries if you’re stomping on some obscure feat or corner case or accidentally nerfing or buffing up some other rule.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Fighters and rogues aren’t trained extensively to live and work in the wilds in order to protect people from supernatural dangers.
> 
> “Everyone can do it” doesn’t follow from anything I said.
> 
> None of this makes sense or relates in any way to anything I said.



To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard.  A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something.  A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> To me the difference is same as the difference between an Acolyte and a Cleric or Sage and a Wizard.  A non-magical person trained in tracking, hunting, survival, etc. is a hunter or something.  A Ranger is someone who has transcended that and gone nature to the point of gaining magical powers.



I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers. 

For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it. 

DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells. 

I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.


----------



## Wyckedemus

I like D&D having D&D tropes. I like that the baseline conceit for all D&D worlds is that magic is prevalent, and many classes interact with the magical world in some way. The spell system is a solid toolbox for all D&D classes to be able to reference an non-comprehensive suite of powers within the universe, even if they access those magical powers in different ways outside of traditional spellcasting progression. I like the spellcasting D&D ranger, as it is very D&D to me. I want a spellcasting magical ranger who can alternate between their bow and two short swords who can also have a drake or other beast companion and whose spellcasting lets me keep those companions hearty and alive (and revived) instead of becoming griffon food in every other encounter. Siloing spells and beast companions into different subclasses prevents me from being able to create what I see as a quintessential D&D ranger.

If I had my druthers, I'd let the D&D Ranger be the D&D Ranger, and let 3rd party sources be the authors of "non-spellcasting" rangers if their versions better fit those 3rd party campaign conceits. And when it comes to Adventurer's League, all those campaigns take place in D&D-magic worlds, not low-magic settings, so the argument for low-magic Rangers in supported AL play is less convincing. 

As a specific example and opinion, D&D doesn't need to copy Level Up's ranger. The LU ranger is already a perfectly fine non-spellcasting ranger that is completely compatible with D&D. Why are people asking that D&D copy it? I doubt that the 2024 PHB ranger could ever come close to making both spell-ranger fans and LU ranger fans happy. And why would we want it to in the first place? Just play the LU Ranger instead. It's designed to be able to be played alongside the D&D ranger.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> I agree. Scouts are also cool. They just aren't Rangers.
> 
> For instance, in the books, Legolas and even Gimli are competent woodsmen, trackers, etc. Legolas has elfin perceptions. But it's Aragorn who plants his face on the ground to hear where the orcs are who took the Hobbits, who knows the healing herb that will help Frodo survive long enough to reach Rivendell, and who spends his days in the wilds ranging over the land to protect the people who live in and near it.
> 
> DnD is much more flashy magical than lotr, and doing mystical stuff is handled via spells, so, Rangers have spells.
> 
> I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells, like IIRC they could calm beasts without casting a spell in 3.5? But those things would be extras, in addition to the spellcasting.



Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells.  I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason.  The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them.  When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry.  He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek.  Let us continue looking."   How cool would something like that be?


----------



## Minigiant

Maxperson said:


> Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells.  I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason.  The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them.  When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry.  He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek.  Let us continue looking."   How cool would something like that be?



Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.


You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.


----------



## darjr

I’d sure like to know why WotC went this way. Have they explicitly stated?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Minigiant said:


> Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.
> 
> 
> You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.



That particular ability I would settle for it being a spell. If locate creature worked like that it would be cool rather than the anaemic husk the spell is now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Reading this again, I'd really rather prefer that ranger get cool magical abilities that aren't spells.  I mean, imagine a ranger who is tracking some barbarians from the mountains that have kidnapped a townsperson for some reason.  The ranger finds some tracks and leans down to touch them.  When he does he closes his eyes and gets a vision of the quarry.  He sees them heading for the mountains and gets a glimpse of the nearby landmarks, then he says, "I have seen those that we seek. They are at the base of the mountains near Deadman's Gorge, no more than 8 hours ahead of us." or if they turned towards the lake, "These tracks belong to a group of hunters headed for the lake. These are not those we seek.  Let us continue looking."   How cool would something like that be?



sounds like a spell. also not mutually exclusive with spellcasting even if you do represent it as a non-spell class feature.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> sounds like a spell. also not mutually exclusive with spellcasting even if you do represent it as a non-spell class feature.



You said, "I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells."  What I provided was a magical ability that isn't a spell.  Pretty much all magic abilities can also be spells, because they are magical effects, just like spells.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> You said, "I'd be fine with magical abilities that aren't spells."  What I provided was a magical ability that isn't a spell.  Pretty much all magic abilities can also be spells, because they are magical effects, just like spells.



What on earth are you even trying to argue about?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Minigiant said:


> Cool but WOTC or any major D&D clone writing company would never write out a class feature like that with enough detail, length, usefulness and clarity that doesn't crowded out other possible features from existing.
> 
> 
> You're only getting that in a spell. Not even a feat.



Not 5e, but that gives me an idea...

*Master Tracker [Rogue*]*
_Your tracking skill borders on the preternatural, allowing you to anticipate movement as well as follow it._

*Prerequisite:* Trained in Survival, Skill Focus: Survival**

*Benefit:* Whenever you make a Survival check, if you beat the DC to track a target by 10 or more, you can anticipate the indented destination of the target as well as vocations of any intelligent members of the group.

*In my system the rogue ate the ranger and took its stuff

** Yeah, it's back, because skills deserve better than bounded accuracy.


----------



## Maxperson

@Parmandur the survey for packet #2 is starting on October 20th, 3 weeks after the packet came out.  If we get the next packet just one week later, it will be one month.  3 more packets before the end of the year is looking less and less likely.  2 more packets this year if they get us the next one a week after the survey and keep the same pace as the last two packets.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> @Parmandur the survey for packet #2 is starting on October 20th, 3 weeks after the packet came out.  If we get the next packet just one week later, it will be one month.  3 more packets before the end of the year is looking less and less likely.  2 more packets this year if they get us the next one a week after the survey and keep the same pace as the last two packets.



One in October, one in November, and one in December still seems likely. We'll see.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> One in October, one in November, and one in December still seems likely. We'll see.



IF they release 1 week after the survey, we will see it on 10-27.  At that rate it will be 11-27 and then 12-27.  12-27 while technically in December really isn't for this year.  Between the holidays and the fact that 3.5 of the 4 weeks will be in 2023, it's a 2023 release.  I doubt they will release right in-between Christmas and New Years.  It's probably going to hit in January, and that's if they can hold to the one every 4 week release rate.


----------



## darjr

I'd rather they adjust as needed over trying to stay on a schedule that might hurt the effort. As impatient as i'd be over it.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> I'd rather they adjust as needed over trying to stay on a schedule that might hurt the effort. As impatient as i'd be over it.



Same.  I just think they've bitten off more than they can chew with their time frame and apparent degree of changes. It would be nice if they would recognize that and announce it for Christmas 2024 or some time around then.  That way they wouldn't need to rush things.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Same.  I just think they've bitten off more than they can chew with their time frame and apparent degree of changes. It would be nice if they would recognize that and announce it for Christmas 2024 or some time around then.  That way they wouldn't need to rush things.



I mean, even if it slips a month or two, the time frame seems fine. October-December 2024 is the likely time frame, based on prior WotC Edition releases.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> I mean, even if it slips a month or two, the time frame seems fine. October-December 2024 is the likely time frame, based on prior WotC Edition releases.



I thought their goal was summer(July-August) 2024.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I thought their goal was summer(July-August) 2024.



They have only said "2024," and specified nothing further. I wouldn't be surprised if the exact date is a bit fluid still, since we're talking about two years into the future and they have the live playtest: but Q4 seems most likely at any rate.

Their goal is to finish the playtest in late Summer 2023, with the possibility of going as late as end of next year.


----------



## darjr

They survey is now live!









						One D&D Playtest Expert Classes survey is up!
					

Open until Nov 10th. The Expert Classes playtest survey is live.   https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one-dnd?utm_campaign=DND---Unearthed-Arcana&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_content=7933782562




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> One in October, one in November, and one in December still seems likely. We'll see.



Well, they've missed October and November is halfway done without seeing another packet.  No way they're getting through even 2 more packets by the end of the year, let alone 3.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

You see, every time they sit down to write the Warrior packet, they just end up making a new page of wizard spells instead.


----------



## SakanaSensei

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You see, every time they sit down to write the Warrior packet, they just end up making a new page of wizard spells instead.



Too believable.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You see, every time they sit down to write the Warrior packet, they just end up making a new page of wizard spells instead.



That's why the new Origins packet was written by the cafeteria lady: she was the only one in the building able to avoid making every race a new elf variation!


----------



## Maxperson

Tales and Chronicles said:


> That's why the new Origins packet was written by the cafeteria lady: she was the only one in the building able to avoid making every race a new elf variation!



I wondered why all of my PCs started with a small carton of milk!


----------



## darjr

Yea, regardless of the reasons it is taking longer than expected, I think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

it may be a good sign...

if the feed back is REALLY giving them pause and making them adjust that could take more time


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> it may be a good sign...
> 
> if the feed back is REALLY giving them pause and making them adjust that could take more time



Yeah, but on the flip side................tis the season for vacational delays.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> Yeah, but on the flip side................tis the season for vacational delays.



I was trying to be optimistic


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Maxperson said:


> I wondered why all of my PCs started with a small carton of milk!



As his last call as big boss of D&D, Ray Winniger made a last ditch effort to finally remove the oatmeal-raisin elves and the soaked spaghetti elves she inserted at the demand of Crawford!


----------



## Maxperson

Tales and Chronicles said:


> As his last call as big boss of D&D, Ray Winniger made a last ditch effort to finally remove the oatmeal-raisin elves and the soaked spaghetti elves she inserted at the demand of Crawford!



I heard that.  I also heard that despite Ray Winniger's attempts, Crawford left in the pizza bagel halfling subrace, because something had to be done to make halflings better.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> I heard that.  I also heard that despite Ray Winniger's attempts, Crawford left in the pizza bagel halfling subrace, because something had to be done to make halflings better.



If this is a joke I don't get it.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> If this is a joke I don't get it.



You never had the pizza bagels did you?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> You never had the pizza bagels did you?



Still don't get it.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> Still don't get it.



Those things were the best thing to eat in school.  And halflings eat things.


----------



## Gorck

Tales and Chronicles said:


> As his last call as big boss of D&D, Ray Winniger made a last ditch effort to finally remove the oatmeal-raisin elves and the soaked spaghetti elves she inserted at the demand of Crawford!



I can't believe you missed the obvious Pumpkin Spice Elves!

Or maybe Keebler Elves


----------



## Marandahir

Just a reminder that the survey closes tonight. 

You've got just a few hours left to enter your response! It took me about 40 mins to give my thoughts (mostly negative about Bard, mostly positive about everything else - save Hunter and the Arcane Spell list).


----------



## Marandahir

FYI, the survey has extended through today. >_<'

Seems like they really want to get in every last survey response before Thanksgiving.

Though I also wouldn't be surprised if it closes at some point today and they release the next playtest UA at the same moment. I doubt they're going to be working at all tomorrow, so this is probably just the last hurrah before the holiday.


----------

