# Upcoming One D&D: Unearthed Arcana 'Expert' Classes (Bard, Ranger, Rogue)



## Parmandur

Video interview here:


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr

Ope!


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Ope!



It's inevitable with this stuff.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Just a list to keep track:

ASIs are a feat now.
Will give the Arcane/Primal/Divine list to 9th level.
Seems like they changed the nat 20/1 rules again to the old ones.
Rolling a 1 giving inspiration, I've seen a lot of people suggesting this.
40k people did the survey.
Ranger/Rogue/Bard are the Expert Classes, the others will be part of other groups.
There'll be feats and magic items that'll have class groups as requirements.
Those three classes will have expertise, it's the signature feature of Experts.
They mix stuff from the other groups as well.
Will be good to have a PC from each group in the party.
There'll be a list of suggested spells from level 1 to 20, to make it simpler for players.
Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature. 
The level 20 capstones move to level 18, and you get an epic boon at 20.


----------



## aco175

Nice to see they are trying with different options with crits and inspiration.  In this new packet they want to go back to original crits and now you gain inspiration from rolling a 1 instead of 20.


----------



## darjr

This is a longer one and there will be multiple videos.

Eventually they want to test 48+ subclasses!


----------



## Kai Lord

What is an Expert Class?  First mention I've seen of that.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Kai Lord said:


> What is an Expert Class?  First mention I've seen of that.



Seems like the classes that get the super good skill checks, their signature feature will be having Expertise.


----------



## Composer99

So, feats are core at 1st level, but kind of in between from then on. If your table wants to ignore feats after 1st level, you just rule that everyone only takes the "ASI" feat.


----------



## Kai Lord

Gotcha.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

Expert: primarily skill focused rather than magic or combat focused, traditionally. 
Bard: social
Ranger: exploration
Rogue: hybrid


----------



## aco175

They are taking the 12 classes from the PHB and grouping them into groups, which expert is one.  This allows for feats and items open to a group and not just one class.  It also lets new classes like artificer merge into play by just saying it is an expert.

Not sure on the other groups like fighting or casting- divine or arcane.  Be interesting to see where they fit the classes.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

He mentioned a Warrior group as well.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Expertise. Yay. :-/

I hope “Expert” is more than that. Expertise is about as exciting as a + weapon: useful, sure, but doesn’t really change play style or decision-making, other than giving you more confidence that RNG will come out on your side. 

To give an example of what I mean, if I’m playing a wood elf rogue (which I am, currently) Mask of the Wild is a lot more fun/interesting than expertise in Stealth.


----------



## darjr

D&D 5E - New Unearthed Arcana Incoming: Ranger, Rogue, and Bard
					

Video interview here:




					www.enworld.org


----------



## This Effin’ GM

MAGE! EXPERT! PRIEST! WARRIOR! And eventually MISC


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> This is a longer one and there will be multiple videos.
> 
> Eventually they want to test 48+ classes!



best news yet...


----------



## Hexmage-EN

darjr said:


> This is a longer one and there will be multiple videos.
> 
> Eventually they want to test 48+ classes!



Surely you mean subclasses here, right?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Zubatcarteira said:


> Just a list to keep track:
> 
> ASIs are a feat now.
> Will give the Arcane/Primal/Divine list to 9th level.
> Seems like they changed the nat 20/1 rules again to the old ones.
> Rolling a 1 giving inspiration, I've seen a lot of people suggesting this.
> 40k people did the survey.
> Ranger/Rogue/Bard are the Expert Classes, the others will be part of other groups.
> There'll be feats and magic items that'll have class groups as requirements.
> Those three classes will have expertise, it's the signature feature of Experts.
> They mix stuff from the other groups as well.
> Will be good to have a PC from each group in the party.
> There'll be a list of suggested spells from level 1 to 20, to make it simpler for players.
> Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature.
> The level 20 capstones move to level 18, and you get an epic boon at 20.



And All casters get ritual caster.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

is the document up i can't find it


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> is the document up i can't find it



Not yet.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I can't find the document


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Not yet.



thank you


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can't find the document



Not live yet.


----------



## darjr

I changed the title. When it’s out I’ll change it again, if it doesn’t get merged/promoted.


----------



## tetrasodium

it's not up here yet

Sounds like it's going to be bard ranger & rogue
edit: interesting takeaways:

The rules glossary of each supersedes the glossary of previous UAs
roll a 1 on a d20 gives inspiration
Looks like it was recorded a week or so back & posted today.  Crawford is talking about the old survey that closed the pther day closing in a week
bit of detail on the playtest spaghetti at the wall style trying different rules
artificer will be in a playtest eventually
class groups are a thing that appeared in the past back to 2e & provide a way to deliver certain classes aspects of the game as a prerequisite..  Crawford  gives many examples & details
apparently ranger gets expertise along with the other expert type classes
All three have aspects from the warrior/priest/mage groups that are unique to each class

That overview is exciting because it shows "We're not only thinking now of the classes as individuals & now as a whole family but also then these subgroups & we can leverage these groups in a variety of ways that I think are going to be really fun .. the options that we'll be able to give people.  But even when it comes to party building"
Party building. "Something we note in this current article is that when you're building a party now if you want to create sort of a classic balanced d&d party.  One way you can do that is make sure you have a member in your group from each of the class groups"
Also something that people are going to see in both the ranger & the bard in this UA is a list of suggested prepared spells
"sometimes playing a spellcaster can be a little daunting so what we've done to make it a bit easier to ease into a spellcaster that you've never played.. [it provides a set of suggested prepared spells from level 1-20]
Also expect to see it on other spellcasters as they come.  You still have the option to change them on a long rest

Ritual spellcasting.  If you can cast a spell & it has the ritual tag you can ritual cast it for spellcasters of all sorts (see new rules glossary)
capstones or equivalent moved to 18 & now at 20 epic boons come up


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Sounds solid.

I like that they are trying different things and that the sky is not falling!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined


----------



## Remathilis

The anticipation is killing me...


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> I like that they are trying different things and that the sky is not falling!



They sky is air, air is made out of matter, and gravity pulls matter down.  The sky is constantly falling!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> They sky is air, air is made out of matter, and gravity pulls matter down.  The sky is constantly falling!




Sounds fair.

Same for the moon, but luckily it is constantly missing its target...


----------



## Thaumaturge

I’m digging class groups. Between the way they’re handling feat prerequisites and spell lists, it really seems like it’ll be easier for them to add full classes in the future. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## darjr

Wizards said to check in tomorrow for the document.


----------



## Sacrosanct

I'm a fan of class groups.  When I did Chromatic Dungeons (OSR retroclone) that's how I handled them.  And with Bugbears&Borderlands (Basic 5e) I'm approaching the same way: keeping it in three core class groups: martials, skill, and magic.


----------



## darjr

Wizards said to check in tomorrow for the playtest material.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

darjr said:


> Wizards said to check in tomorrow for the playtest material.




So I can stop hitting refresh every 5 seconds... for today...


----------



## darjr

UngeheuerLich said:


> So I can stop hitting refresh every 5 seconds... for today...



Oh! So it's your fault? 

Kidding! It's the hurricane.


----------



## darjr

Note Wizards said to check in tomorrow for the document.


----------



## Undrave

Oh look, roles are back in a new form! Hopefully this means the Monk will have an actual design goal this time. 


Maxperson said:


> They sky is air, air is made out of matter, and gravity pulls matter down.  The sky is constantly falling!



Don't tell the Gauls!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

tetrasodium said:


> it's not up here yet
> 
> Sounds like it's going to be bard ranger & rogue
> edit: interesting takeaways:
> 
> The rules glossary of each supersedes the glossary of previous UAs



this is great and I am super hopeful for what it means


tetrasodium said:


> roll a 1 on a d20 gives inspiration



I like that better


tetrasodium said:


> artificer will be in a playtest eventually



hopefully in the PHB too


tetrasodium said:


> class groups are a thing that appeared in the past back to 2e & provide a way to deliver certain classes aspects of the game as a prerequisite..  Crawford  gives many examples & details
> apparently ranger gets expertise along with the other expert type classes
> All three have aspects from the warrior/priest/mage groups that are unique to each class



I wonder if the class groups are like the 4e roles with new names.


tetrasodium said:


> Also something that people are going to see in both the ranger & the bard in this UA is a list of suggested prepared spells
> "sometimes playing a spellcaster can be a little daunting so what we've done to make it a bit easier to ease into a spellcaster that you've never played.. [it provides a set of suggested prepared spells from level 1-20]
> Also expect to see it on other spellcasters as they come.  You still have the option to change them on a long rest



I like the idea of a list of 'here is a prebuilt level up ideas, but you can customize them.


tetrasodium said:


> Ritual spellcasting.  If you can cast a spell & it has the ritual tag you can ritual cast it for spellcasters of all sorts (see new rules glossary)



makes sense


tetrasodium said:


> capstones or equivalent moved to 18 & now at 20 epic boons come up



this has me overjoyed they may actually be listening to us.


----------



## rooneg

Generally positive about all the stuff they talked about. Love that they're trying various options for things from playtest to playtest, not just building directly on what they did in the first one.


----------



## Delazar

My guess on class groups:

Experts: Rogue, Bard, Ranger
Warriors: monk, fighter, barbarian
Mages: sorcerer, wizard, warlock
Priests: cleric, druid, paladin

4 subclasses each, that’s 48 as he said

And the warriors “thing” will be maneuvers, but that’s kind of a big change, so maybe their “thing” will be Extra Attacks?


----------



## OB1

So it sounds like we'll get

Expert - Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Warrior - Fighter, Barbarian, Monk (Paladin?)
Arcane - Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest (?) - Cleric, Druid, Paladin (Monk?)

Edit:  Ninjaed by @Delazar 

Also, feels kind of weird for a Druid to be considered a 'Priest'


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

darjr said:


> Ope!



What's ope?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Hearing that artificer will not be in the PHB is depressing.

For some reason WotC hates arcane half casters so we're not even getting one on release. Probs have to wait till 2030 or something for it looking at 5e.


----------



## darjr

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> What's ope?



Duplicate post. They beat me by two minutes, but probably by starting before I did, I didn't see it.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

darjr said:


> Duplicate post. They beat me by two minutes, but probably by starting before I did, I didn't see it.



I mean... what does ope mean?


----------



## Maxperson

OB1 said:


> So it sounds like we'll get
> 
> Expert - Rogue, Ranger, Bard
> Warrior - Fighter, Barbarian, Monk (Paladin?)
> Arcane - Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
> Priest (?) - Cleric, Druid, Paladin (Monk?)
> 
> Edit:  Ninjaed by @Delazar
> 
> Also, feels kind of weird for a Druid to be considered a 'Priest'



I'm pretty sure that Crawford said that the Artificer will be an expert, so that group gets one more.


----------



## darjr

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I mean... what does ope mean?



Sounds like dope used like oof except more referential


----------



## FallenRX

Undrave said:


> Oh look, roles are back in a new form! Hopefully this means the Monk will have an actual design goal this time.
> 
> Don't tell the Gauls!



The Roles have always been in the game still, they have designed 5E like this since inception they are just focusing on it now.

Warriors are Fighter-like classes focused on attacks, and health, there are Fighter, Monk, and Barbarian.

Experts are Rogue-like classes, focused on versatility and skill expertise, these are Bard, Rogue, and Ranger.

Mages are Wizard-like classes focused on Arcane magic and Utility, these are Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.

Last one is Priests, which are Cleric-like classes focused on support, and Holy magic, which are Druid, Cleric, and Paladin.

This like the Arcane, Primal, Divine, split of spell lists, have always been in the game in a soft sense, but never officially said, now they are just confirming it, but its quite clear they grouped the classes like this for a long time. Since 5E.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Ok lets pretend swordmage and warlord are added.

Are they expert, priest, mage, or warrior?


----------



## Puddles

I’m so excited for this one. Really looking forward to seeing the new ranger!


----------



## This Effin’ GM

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I mean... what does ope mean?



Midwestern US version of oops or excuse me


----------



## Amrûnril

Zubatcarteira said:


> Just a list to keep track:




Rolling a 1 giving inspiration, I've seen a lot of people suggesting this.
I definitely prefer this to the previous version. A natural 20 is enough of a reward in and of itself. I'm still not sure I buy the argument that inspiration needs to be more common, though, and if it does, accomplishing that through feats, class abilities, and so forth would be more  interesting than automatically handing it out based on die rolls. or rests


40k people did the survey.
On the one hand it's great to have this much engagement/feedback. On the other hand, I doubt the D&D team has the resources to meaningfully consider written answers for this many surveys, and in many cases, I feel like the reasoning presented there is more important than the approval ratings.


There'll be feats and magic items that'll have class groups as requirements.
I hope they don't go overboard with this. I'm sure there are some cases where it makes sense, but I like having feats function as a largely class-independent form of customization.


There'll be a list of suggested spells from level 1 to 20, to make it simpler for players.
This seems like an excellent addition. It's great to have the option of longer spell lists, but for newer players, spell choice can be a pretty overwhelming part of character creation. Feats were an optional rule for a reason, but a first level spellcaster has to make a similarly complicated choice half a dozen times.


Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature.
This makes a lot of conceptual sense, though in practice, it seems like a major buff to half-casters that could leave non-casters further behind.


----------



## OB1

Maxperson said:


> I'm pretty sure that Crawford said that the Artificer will be an expert, so that group gets one more.



Yes, but it also sounds like it won't be a part of the playtest or PHB.


----------



## schneeland

Haven't been overly enthused about OneD&D in general so far, but expert classes and class groups sound like an interesting idea. Thanks for the video summary, @tetrasodium !


----------



## Nikosandros

Is it me or have several threads been merged into one?


----------



## schneeland

Not just you. They were merged while I was typing my answer.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if the class groups are like the 4e roles with new names.




They mentioned 2e.
Back then it was warrior/rogue/magic-user/priest and those classes had their own proficiency groups. Subclasses (what today would be classes) could have access to more than one proficiency group. The bard had acces to all but the priest group, which means they just lacked the healing skill.
It also had a meaning for how much wepon and nonweapon proficiencies you started with and the rate of access (how many levels to get another proficiency).
It also determined the nonproficiency penalty for weapons and in later supplements, weapons expertise/specialization were gernerally limited to the warrior classes, with the fighter having access to higher specialization levels.
Last but not least, you could never mix 2 subclasses of the same class when dual-classing as human, and there were no multiclass combination of the same class. Except for some bard subsubclasses (from complete bard) who could mix with rogue, superseeding the general rule...

So if they go along with it, it is less 4e style leader/controller/defender/striker but rather warrior(combining striker and defender), priest (combining warrior and leader), expert (a role 4e did not assign, because roles were just for combat, and skills were a different scale), and mage (combining striker and controller).


----------



## Undrave

FallenRX said:


> The Roles have always been in the game still, they have designed 5E like this since inception they are just focusing on it now.
> 
> Warriors are Fighter-like classes focused on attacks, and health, there are Fighter, Monk, and Barbarian.
> 
> Experts are Rogue-like classes, focused on versatility and skill expertise, these are Bard, Rogue, and Ranger.
> 
> Mages are Wizard-like classes focused on Arcane magic and Utility, these are Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard.
> 
> Last one is Priests, which are Cleric-like classes focused on support, and Holy magic, which are Druid, Cleric, and Paladin.
> 
> This like the Arcane, Primal, Divine, split of spell lists, have always been in the game in a soft sense, but never officially said, now they are just confirming it, but its quite clear they grouped the classes like this for a long time. Since 5E.



Kiiinda... but the Monk always felt more defined by its legacy class features than any kinda of expected gameplay loop. They just said 'the Monk's gotta have this, this and that' and didn't really consider how they would all interplay.


----------



## OB1

Amrûnril said:


> Rolling a 1 giving inspiration, I've seen a lot of people suggesting this.
> I definitely prefer this to the previous version. A natural 20 is enough of a reward in and of itself. I'm still not sure I buy the argument that inspiration needs to be more common, though, and if it does, accomplishing that through feats, class abilities, and so forth would be more  interesting than automatically handing it out based on die rolls. or rests



I really like inspiration on Nat20, and my players have been having a blast with it in the playtest.  In my head I see it as someone does something so well or with so much flair that it gives them or their friends a lift on other things.  I think if you're going to have it on Nat 1s, make it on both Nat20s and Nat1s.  Of course, I think they took it off Nat20 on this iteration since they are putting back in the old Nat20 crit rules.

My group is also in love with the new Crit rules.  Ideally for me, I'd see those remain (perhaps tweak that monsters recharge on a crit and also get weapon damage doubled) and also have Inspiration on any Nat1 or Nat20.


----------



## Parmandur

Delazar said:


> My guess on class groups:
> 
> Experts: Rogue, Bard, Ranger
> Warriors: monk, fighter, barbarian
> Mages: sorcerer, wizard, warlock
> Priests: cleric, druid, paladin
> 
> 4 subclasses each, that’s 48 as he said
> 
> And the warriors “thing” will be maneuvers, but that’s kind of a big change, so maybe their “thing” will be Extra Attacks?



Worth noting that the 2014 PHB has 40 Subclasses, so this is enough for repeating every single one and 8 new options, though I suspect some won't be returning.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Amrûnril said:


> This makes a lot of conceptual sense, though in practice, it seems like a major buff to half-casters that could leave non-casters further behind.






I don't think non-casters are behind half casters. Rangers having access to rituals is what I wished for a long time. It was even impossoble tontake the ritual caster feat to get ranger rituals... which actually were a nice combination of spells.

Half-casters suffered from the too little too late syndrome. Often they spammed level 1 spells or used them to feed class abilities. Higher level spells were often useless when it mattered as they were usually underleveled and had a relative low DC. The artificer is an exception in this regard.

And also: we have not seen what non-casters get to compensate for the lack of spells. Good chance that they receive a significant buff.


----------



## tetrasodium

Nikosandros said:


> Is it me or have several threads been merged into one?



yep I got a message in the bell notification up there.  They were started in different forums


----------



## FallenRX

Undrave said:


> Kiiinda... but the Monk always felt more defined by its legacy class features than any kinda of expected gameplay loop. They just said 'the Monk's gotta have this, this and that' and didn't really consider how they would all interplay.



Monk is a fighter-like class by default, its just the faster, but less health variant, that focuses on Ki resources to do extra cool stuff basically, it has a pretty consistent theme on multi-attacks procing on hits effects though


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Undrave said:


> Kiiinda... but the Monk always felt more defined by its legacy class features than any kinda of expected gameplay loop. They just said 'the Monk's gotta have this, this and that' and didn't really consider how they would all interplay.




The rules update for grapple combined with tavern brawler makes them a formidable striker/controller from level 1.


----------



## Parmandur

What will be really interesting to see when get the document, is if older Subclasses will still work or be convertible. Ranger sounds like it may be getting a significant overhaul, and all Classes sound like their Levels are being scrambled a bit.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> They mentioned 2e.
> Back then it was warrior/rogue/magic-user/priest and those classes had their own proficiency groups.



back when 4e came out there was discussion of that too


----------



## Wandersails

all looks pretty exciting but so sad that no artificer in the phb, everyone please mention it in the survey so they have to add it


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

A nice consequence of the new Ritual Casting rule is that the Forest Gnome's Speak with Animals ability is effectively unlimited as long as you have 10 minutes to chit-chat. You'd only need to burn a use-per-day if you needed time sensitive information.

"I'd love hear about the new shiney you added to your nest, but we really need to know which direction that Bugbear went!"


----------



## Digdude@1970

Delazar said:


> My guess on class groups:
> 
> Experts: Rogue, Bard, Ranger
> Warriors: monk, fighter, barbarian
> Mages: sorcerer, wizard, warlock
> Priests: cleric, druid, paladin
> 
> 4 subclasses each, that’s 48 as he said
> 
> And the warriors “thing” will be maneuvers, but that’s kind of a big change, so maybe their “thing” will be Extra Attacks?



I like, but switch monk with paladin imo.


----------



## Maxperson

Amrûnril said:


> 40k people did the survey.
> On the one hand it's great to have this much engagement/feedback. On the other hand, I doubt the D&D team has the resources to meaningfully consider written answers for this many surveys, and in many cases, I feel like the reasoning presented there is more important than the approval ratings.



I'm sure considerably less than 40k people gave written answers.  I bet that a lot of people just click the options and that's it.


Amrûnril said:


> There'll be feats and magic items that'll have class groups as requirements.
> I hope they don't go overboard with this. I'm sure there are some cases where it makes sense, but I like having feats function as a largely class-independent form of customization.



I don't mind if as many as 25% of feats are group dependent.  It makes sense for the warrior group to get some sort of weapon master feat, but not any of the other groups.  If they were class dependent, I'd want a much lower percentage, since individual classes are very narrow, where the groups are very broad.


Amrûnril said:


> There'll be a list of suggested spells from level 1 to 20, to make it simpler for players.
> This seems like an excellent addition. It's great to have the option of longer spell lists, but for newer players, spell choice can be a pretty overwhelming part of character creation. Feats were an optional rule for a reason, but a first level spellcaster has to make a similarly complicated choice half a dozen times.



I'm mixed.  On the one hand it's good for the new people. On the other hand it takes up space that could be used on say the Artificer being in the PHB.


Amrûnril said:


> Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature.
> This makes a lot of conceptual sense, though in practice, it seems like a major buff to half-casters that could leave non-casters further behind.



I like this one a lot.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

aco175 said:


> Nice to see they are trying with different options with crits and inspiration.  In this new packet they want to go back to original crits and now you gain inspiration from rolling a 1 instead of 20.



While they changed stuff around here, they appearntly have not fully checked the results of the first survey yet. They want to compare results.


----------



## darjr

Huh? So if I get a spell as part of a background can I ritual cast?


----------



## bedir than

UngeheuerLich said:


> Rangers having access to rituals is what I wished for a long time. It was even impossoble tontake the ritual caster feat to get ranger rituals... which actually were a nice combination of spells.



Alarm and Snare should definitely be Ranger rituals.


----------



## Remathilis

Parmandur said:


> Worth noting that the 2014 PHB has 40 Subclasses, so this is enough for repeating every single one and 8 new options, though I suspect some won't be returning.



Most classes have 2 or 3, save wizard and cleric who have them to represent the common divine domains and the eight schools of magic. I don't know which ones you cut.


----------



## Parmandur

Remathilis said:


> Most classes have 2 or 3, save wizard and cleric who have them to represent the common divine domains and the eight schools of magic. I don't know which ones you cut.



Beastmaster Ranger and Four Elements Monk, I would wager. Or significantly, significantly redesigned.


----------



## Remathilis

Parmandur said:


> Beastmaster Ranger and Four Elements Monk, I would wager. Or significantly, significantly redesigned.



Significantly redesigned I can see, but I wager both archetypes will still be in the PHB.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Amrûnril said:


> 40k people did the survey.
> On the one hand it's great to have this much engagement/feedback. On the other hand, I doubt the D&D team has the resources to meaningfully consider written answers for this many surveys, and in many cases, I feel like the reasoning presented there is more important than the approval ratings.



They never were going to read random Internet people's game design thoughts... But marketing is happy to see how many people engaged with the survey!


----------



## FallenRX

Remathilis said:


> Significantly redesigned I can see, but I wager both archetypes will still be in the PHB.



4 Elements definitely, but honestly if they just retread Tasha's Beast Master, with most Beast Spirit options, i feel like people would be pretty happy.


----------



## darjr

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They never were going to read random Internet people's game design thoughts... But marketing is happy to see how many people engaged with the survey!



During the next playtest they read the survey comments.









						D&D 5E - D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.
					

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before. At PAX Mike and Rodney gave a post mortem about the D&D Next playtest. It's in seven parts about twenty minutes a piece. It's pretty detailed and discusses what they found and what they did based upon their interoperation of the data.  I think it's...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

UngeheuerLich said:


> And also: we have not seen what non-casters get to compensate for the lack of spells. Good chance that they receive a significant buff.



My expectations are around... an extra feat. They get an extra feat. Maybe another somewhere in the teen levels.

And then people will still go 'martials sure get a LOT of feats!' like it was the 3e Fighter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They never were going to read random Internet people's game design thoughts... But marketing is happy to see how many people engaged with the survey!




Sounds like a very pessimistic thing to think. Depressing...

Or do you have special insight?


----------



## Sacrosanct

UngeheuerLich said:


> And also: we have not seen what non-casters get to compensate for the lack of spells. Good chance that they receive a significant buff.



Armor.  And hit points.  And more effective combat.  I don't think we need a non-caster to have "powers that are just like spells but I swear we aren't calling them that" to be effective in the game.  i.e., they don't necessarily need anything _extra _to compensate for lack of spells because they've already got class features that account for that and always have.


----------



## Zaukrie

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They never were going to read random Internet people's game design thoughts... But marketing is happy to see how many people engaged with the survey!



As a former product manager, I can almost guarantee they are reading all the comments. No one cares about the scores, really.

Excited to see the next packet. I like the groups/roles/whatever they want to call it idea.


----------



## Sir Brennen

So we’re back to paladins hoarding spell slots for Critical Smites? And uber sneak attacks on a Crit? That’s… unfortunate


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Sacrosanct said:


> they don't necessarily need anything _extra _to compensate for lack of spells because they've already got class features that account for that and always have.



Everyone in the game can conduct themselves in combat, because it's a combat-centric game. That's not what martials do any better than others.

Relatedly, Bard has no business being in the Expert category. They're a full caster that does caster things, and should've never gotten Expertise to begin with. But, it's not like they could leave a possible niche for martials.


----------



## Vael

So the Bard is going to show how classes will interact with the new Primal/Arcane/Divine spell lists, which will be interesting.

Looks like the Ranger is getting a substantial rework, I think grouping them in the Expert classes will help define them a little more, this should be a good change.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Sounds like a very pessimistic thing to think. Depressing...
> 
> Or do you have special insight?



Why would they care about specific opinio s they would have to parse and analyze?  Numbers are what bring in the bucks.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Now, Rangers with spell preparation implying a better access to spells, and rituals? That's actually interesting!

As long as it's not just Snare, a skill check turned into a 'spell'.


----------



## Sacrosanct

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Everyone in the game can conduct themselves in combat, because it's a combat-centric game. That's not what martials do any better than others.



I disagree.  Most of the time this discussion comes up, the side arguing that casters are just as good if not better than martials always seem to come down to an assumption that casters have access to every spell, all of the time (while ignoring things like higher AC, hit points, and swing forever functionality of a marital), when actual game play is nothing like it.  I hope this conversation doesn't also go down that path, because I have no interest in pursuing it for the umpteenth time.


----------



## teitan

So much for compatible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

teitan said:


> So much for compatible.



I'm sure the math will hold, and that's the only thing many people who support WotC's compatibility claims care about.


----------



## bedir than

Parmandur said:


> Beastmaster Ranger



Post-Tasha's it's more than fine. They've figured out how to have useful companions.


Sir Brennen said:


> So we’re back to paladins hoarding spell slots for Critical Smites? And uber sneak attacks on a Crit? That’s… unfortunate



No. They're testing another system. That's it. 
Test A. Test B. Neither are an indication of a trend. They are both one-offs


----------



## teitan

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm sure the math will hold, and that's the only thing many people who support WotC's compatibility claims care about.



That’s not compatible. I won’t be able to play my 8th level no feat having human Paladin.


----------



## bedir than

teitan said:


> That’s not compatible. I won’t be able to play my 8th level no feat having human Paladin.



Why wouldn't you? All the rules are the same and they have suggested that the power levels will be the same. At this point the entire conversion doc can fit on a 3x5 card.


----------



## Undrave

Remathilis said:


> Most classes have 2 or 3, save wizard and cleric who have them to represent the common divine domains and the eight schools of magic. I don't know which ones you cut.



Most of the Wizard subclasses could be collapsed into a single 'School Specialist' subclass. The Diviner, Illusionist and Necromancer might have enough leg to be developped as their own subclasses if they're not just copy paste of each other, but if I were to put it down to the standard three I'd go 'School Specialist', some remake of the War Wizard with a bit more 'War' into it, and the Diviner because it has a nice support ability, but I could also see a subclass that has a pseudo-Multiclass feel to it.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I wouldn't mind the paladin being in warriors (warrior with a little divine) and making the monk being in priests (priest with a little martial), something like:

Warrior:  fighter (pure warrior), barbarian (warrior with a little primal), paladin (warrior with a little divine)
Mage:  wizard (arcane mage), sorcerer (primal mage), warlock (mage with a little martial or a little expert)
Priest:  cleric (divine priest), druid (primal priest), monk (priest with a little martial or a little expert)

Warlock subclasses could be arcane focused, primal focused, and possibly divine focused, and monks could be divine focused or primal focused (and maybe eventually psychic focused).  
At the end of the day, the paladin tends to be a bigger damage dealer than the monk, so I feel like "hits things harder" gives the warrior paladin the edge over priest paladin.


----------



## Raith5

bedir than said:


> Alarm and Snare should definitely be Ranger rituals.




A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.


----------



## bedir than

Raith5 said:


> A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.



There's no functional difference between 

After spending ten minutes you have set up the campsite in such a way that you will be warned if someone enters the area. This works as the Alarm spell.
You may cast the spell Alarm as a ritual.


----------



## Micah Sweet

bedir than said:


> There's no functional difference between
> 
> After spending ten minutes you have set up the campsite in such a way that you will be warned if someone enters the area. This works as the Alarm spell.
> You may cast the spell Alarm as a ritual.



One of them isn't magic.  That clearly matters to some people.  I'd certainly prefer option one for my ranger.


----------



## Haplo781

Delazar said:


> My guess on class groups:
> 
> Experts: Rogue, Bard, Ranger
> Warriors: monk, fighter, barbarian
> Mages: sorcerer, wizard, warlock
> Priests: cleric, druid, paladin
> 
> 4 subclasses each, that’s 48 as he said
> 
> And the warriors “thing” will be maneuvers, but that’s kind of a big change, so maybe their “thing” will be Extra Attacks?



My prediction is warriors get bonus feats, which can be used to grab maneuvers.


----------



## Parmandur

teitan said:


> That’s not compatible. I won’t be able to play my 8th level no feat having human Paladin.



Sure, you can. Just use the 2014 standard Human if you want, and choose all ASI Feats. 

I'm not sure how anything thst Crawford laid down here goes against WotC own backwards compatibility statement in the Playtest FAQ. It will be interesting to see if they make allowances for using old Sublcasses with the new main class writeups.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

I am expecting the Ranger to not suck.


----------



## Haplo781

Eyes of Nine said:


> I am expecting the Ranger to not suck.



Historically not a solid bet


----------



## Zaukrie

Lots of....

I haven't seen this yet, but it sucks, responses. 

The internet sucks.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> Why would they care about specific opinio s they would have to parse and analyze?  Numbers are what bring in the bucks.



Numbers of specific opinions that align are pretty easy to separate out and would give them good information.  Plus people give ideas and they might get a gem or two that they didn't think of that they will test later.  That's why.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Frozen_Heart said:


> Ok lets pretend swordmage and warlord are added.
> 
> Are they expert, priest, mage, or warrior?



Swordmage is Warrior or Mage, Warlord is 100% Warrior. Psionicist is probably a Mage but could be an Expert.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

teitan said:


> That’s not compatible. I won’t be able to play my 8th level no feat having human Paladin.



The only differences are the racial traits and a 1st level feat in place of background features. That's barely any change. And you could play the no-feat human Paladin in a OneD&D campaign without any problems. So, still compatible.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Zaukrie said:


> Lots of....
> 
> I haven't seen this yet, but it sucks, responses.
> 
> The internet sucks.




I translate those responses as, “The very specific thing I want, in exactly the form I want, hasn’t been announced. So this other thing sucks.”


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Relatedly, Bard has no business being in the Expert category. They're a full caster that does caster things, and should've never gotten Expertise to begin with. But, it's not like they could leave a possible niche for martials.



Alternatively, Bards could be turned into Half-Casters similar to Artificers (getting spellcasting at level 1, cantrips, non-spell magical features similar to Warlock Invocations).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

darjr said:


> Huh? So if I get a spell as part of a background can I ritual cast?




If a spell you got from a background has the ritual tag, then yes.


----------



## Zaukrie

Micah Sweet said:


> Why would they care about specific opinio s they would have to parse and analyze?  Numbers are what bring in the bucks.



Not at all true. The comments are all that really matter. As a former product manager, that's all we cared about. The numbers are almost irrelevant.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zaukrie said:


> Not at all true. The comments are all that really matter. As a former product manager, that's all we cared about. The numbers are almost irrelevant.



Then why are they touting the numbers so hard?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Micah Sweet said:


> Then why are they touting the numbers so hard?



The numbers are easy to show and take almost no time to look at. That is a feature of them, but it's also what makes them not very interesting. They will look at the numbers for sure, but there's no reason to think that they won't read the comments.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Why would they care about specific opinio s they would have to parse and analyze?  Numbers are what bring in the bucks.




Because you are interested in what your customers think. There might also be an idea in it.
You can have an AI that can sort them by keywords.
They did this during DnDnext and it did not hurt them.

Why have a comment field if you don't use it in some way. Hey, they can even get some volunteer to read them for free and give them a recollection of the general thoughts. Just for the chance to help shape the future of their hobby....


----------



## Stormonu

...48 subclasses, of which Wizard will get 40 of them.


----------



## Undrave

Raith5 said:


> A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.



Some of the ranger's spell feel like they didn't want to write complicated rules for trap making, or finding fluff for how Hunter's Mark was meant to work and just shoved them into the Spells section...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

UngainlyTitan said:


> And All casters get ritual caster.



Even better, ritual caster is just irrelevant because if you can cast a spell, and it has the ritual tag, you can cast it as a ritual. That means even if it comes from race or a feat or whatever.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Raith5 said:


> A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.



They should be able to set up a magical perimeter that alerts them silently in their mind if it’s crossed, without casting a spell?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

teitan said:


> That’s not compatible. I won’t be able to play my 8th level no feat having human Paladin.



Just…take the ASI feat.


----------



## Yaarel

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> They never were going to read random Internet people's game design thoughts... But marketing is happy to see how many people engaged with the survey!



From what I understand, they read the comments IF the ratings for a feature are low.

That said, I think it all gets read ... eventually.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Beastmaster Ranger and Four Elements Monk, I would wager. Or significantly, significantly redesigned.



BM ranger ain’t going anywhere, but it’ll likely be reworked to make its level 1 abilities more broadly useful while staying distinct from the Tasha’s replacements.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Alternatively, Bards could be turned into Half-Casters similar to Artificers (getting spellcasting at level 1, cantrips, non-spell magical features similar to Warlock Invocations).



This is what I would like for bards. They've always(at least from 1e-3e) been a semi-caster with their magic adding to their roguish abilities.


----------



## Yaarel

Sir Brennen said:


> So we’re back to paladins hoarding spell slots for Critical Smites? And uber sneak attacks on a Crit? That’s… unfortunate



But now, Paladin and Ranger can perform rituals. So they can finally access some of the interesting stuff in their spell lists.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Just…take the ASI feat.



Side Note: I wouldn't be surprised if that's a level 4 feat to avoid PCs from getting an 18/19 in their main Ability Score at level 1. So that part wouldn't work if you wanted to update a non-variant human to a OneD&D without having an extra feat (for some reason).

Actually, going by their current format of feats, this is my guess of what it will look like:

Ability Score Improvement
_4th-Level Feat_

*Prerequisite:* None
*Repeatable: *Yes

You can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> Then why are they touting the numbers so hard?



They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!!  My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many.  1% is 500k.  So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Side Note: I wouldn't be surprised if that's a level 4 feat to avoid PCs from getting an 18/19 in their main Ability Score at level 1. So that part wouldn't work if you wanted to update a non-variant human to a OneD&D without having an extra feat (for some reason).



You're probably right that it will be a level 4 feat, since that's when ASI's kick in currently.  That said, I really don't think it will be to avoid an 18 or 19 in a stat, given that rolling is a default method of stat generation so you can start with a 20.  If high stat avoidance was a goal, rolling wouldn't have been a default method for generating stats.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> You're probably right that it will be a level 4 feat, since that's when ASI's kick in currently.  That said, I really don't think it will be to avoid an 18 or 19 in a stat, given that rolling is a default method of stat generation so you can start with a 20.  If high stat avoidance was a goal, rolling wouldn't have been a default method for generating stats.



But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.


----------



## Yaarel

Zaukrie said:


> Not at all true. The comments are all that really matter. As a former product manager, that's all we cared about. The numbers are almost irrelevant.



In your experience, what exactly were you looking for when your company was attentively reading the comments?


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.



It's near to 50/50 point buy/array vs. rolling I think.  And yes, they avoided +3, but probably because it would be VERY easy to get a 20 right off the bat if you rolled and could add +3.  17s are pretty common when rolling.  Close to 1 character in 3 gets a 17.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> This is what I would like for bards. They've always(at least from 1e-3e) been a semi-caster with their magic adding to their roguish abilities.




Depending on definition, clerics also were a semicaster before 3e.
You are not wrong, but comparing editions here is difficult.

Bards in 2e were very close to a full caster until they got 3rd level spells at least. This was mainly due to a more generous xp table compared to the wizard, which was not taken into account in the 3.0 era, leading to a very underwhelming class.
To rub salt into the wound, wizards got extra spells for int, on top of the spell slots they got from the table which was exactly ported over from 2e (until level 10), while the bard had to have high charisma to even have the spells they had in 2e, because they somehow substracted 1 from each level's spell slots. So they started with 0 slots of each level. Which lead to the conclusion, that high stats everywhere was a requirement...
Also, spell slot DC was dependend on level, so gaining some spells a little earlier only partially helped. Also the spells bards got did nkt help woth defense, so they were very very mad...

Sorry got derailed...

What I wanted to say: bards in 2e were very capable casters, and they were not in 3e. I love that they were upgraded to "full caster power" in 5e. Although I'd say, only the wizard is a real full caster, as well as the land druid and the sorcerer, because they not only get the full caster spell progression, but a few spells on top and ways to make even more of their spells.

With the tasha upgrade to channel divinity, the cleric also got to "full caster +" power.

So downgrading the bard to half caster would do them a disservice, because it nerfs them below 3.x power which does them a disservice.

If you'd introduce 2/3 casters (going up to level 7) and compensate with something extra, I can live with that. But I can't let it stand that bards were always "half casters".


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> Depending on definition, clerics also were a semicaster before 3e.
> You are not wrong, but comparing editions here is difficult.
> 
> Bards in 2e were very close to a full caster until they got 3rd level spells at least. This was mainly due to a more generous xp table compared to the wizard, which was not taken into account in the 3.0 era, leading to a very underwhelming class.
> To rub salt into the wound, wizards got extra spells for int, on top of the spell slots they got from the table which was exactly ported over from 2e (until level 10), while the bard had to have high charisma to even have the spells they had in 2e, because they somehow substracted 1 from each level's spell slots. So they started with 0 slots of each level. Which lead to the conclusion, that high stats everywhere was a requirement...
> Also, spell slot DC was dependend on level, so gaining some spells a little earlier only partially helped. Also the spells bards got did nkt help woth defense, so they were very very mad...
> 
> Sorry got derailed...
> 
> What I wanted to say: bards in 2e were very capable casters, and they were not in 3e. I love that they were upgraded to "full caster power" in 5e. Although I'd say, only the wizard is a real full caster, as well as the land druid and the sorcerer, because they not only get the full caster spell progression, but a few spells on top and ways to make even more of their spells.
> 
> With the tasha upgrade to channel divinity, the cleric also got to "full caster +" power.
> 
> So downgrading the bard to half caster would do them a disservice, because it nerfs them below 3.x power which does them a disservice.
> 
> If you'd introduce 2/3 casters (going up to level 7) and compensate with something extra, I can live with that. But I can't let it stand that bards were always "half casters".



A lot of what you say is correct.  However, if you give them better "bard" skills(music, lore, charmlike abilities, etc.), that could compensate for being half casters and they wouldn't necessarily fall below 3e bards.


----------



## GreyLord

Maxperson said:


> They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!!  My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many.  1% is 500k.  So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.




That's players for the entire history of D&D though.

40K IS 1% of 4 Million.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> A lot of what you say is correct.  However, if you give them better "bard" skills(music, lore, charmlike abilities, etc.), that could compensate for being half casters and they wouldn't necessarily fall below 3e bards.




I would not like that. But I can live with that, if bard skills don't just feel like a compensation for lost spell slots...
... if it is just a compensation, so why not just give slots.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GreyLord said:


> That's players for the entire history of D&D though.
> 
> 40K IS 1% of 4 Million.



And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.

But sample size is not all that matters. 

The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Raith5 said:


> A ranger should be able to do these things without casting a spell.




They are doing a ritual. And they should be able to do both.

The fighter should be able to do it without casting any spell or the rogue.


----------



## GreyLord

UngeheuerLich said:


> And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.
> 
> But sample size is not all that matters.
> 
> The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...




The survey is ONE source of information they are gathering...I assume.

I don't know how many ACTIVE D&D players there are, so 4 million is a pretty wild guess.  It could be 5 million or 10 million (I would actually say 10 million could be on the excessively extremely high end of guesses, in relation to a PHB buying question I asked previously here, though obviously this could be a skewed sample size in relation to reality, I really need to ask how many use a PHB at the table as a follow up on that).  

BUT 40K was 1% of 4 million, so went with 4 million.

However, there are other sources of information (or I am pretty sure there are).  Some have been internal tests that have already been going on most likely.  Another source are NDA'd testers that are out there (perhaps with a fuller set of rules than what you see with UA).  Another source which may not be AS reliable, but easy to see and get commentary live are forums, reddits, facebook, instagram, and other areas of social media that fans congregate and talk about these things.  Obviously, an easy one is also to check comments and statements on D&D beyond and other places like that as well.  

In addition, it need not just be forums, sending people to the CONS and just listening there to what people are saying and talking about (could be passive, could be active) is another source.

Survey's are a major source I imagine, but the don't have to be the ONLY source of information or feedback they are gathering.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GreyLord said:


> The survey is ONE source of information they are gathering...I assume.
> 
> I don't know how many ACTIVE D&D players there are, so 4 million is a pretty wild guess.  It could be 5 million or 10 million (I would actually say 10 million could be on the excessively extremely high end of guesses, in relation to a PHB buying question I asked previously here, though obviously this could be a skewed sample size in relation to reality, I really need to ask how many use a PHB at the table as a follow up on that).
> 
> BUT 40K was 1% of 4 million, so went with 4 million.
> 
> However, there are other sources of information (or I am pretty sure there are).  Some have been internal tests that have already been going on most likely.  Another source are NDA'd testers that are out there (perhaps with a fuller set of rules than what you see with UA).  Another source which may not be AS reliable, but easy to see and get commentary live are forums, reddits, facebook, instagram, and other areas of social media that fans congregate and talk about these things.  Obviously, an easy one is also to check comments and statements on D&D beyond and other places like that as well.
> 
> In addition, it need not just be forums, sending people to the CONS and just listening there to what people are saying and talking about (could be passive, could be active) is another source.
> 
> Survey's are a major source I imagine, but the don't have to be the ONLY source of information or feedback they are gathering.




You sound as if I disagreed with your assessment. Which I do not.


----------



## Hussar

MechaTarrasque said:


> I wouldn't mind the paladin being in warriors (warrior with a little divine) and making the monk being in priests (priest with a little martial), something like:
> 
> Warrior:  fighter (pure warrior), barbarian (warrior with a little primal), paladin (warrior with a little divine)
> Mage:  wizard (arcane mage), sorcerer (primal mage), warlock (mage with a little martial or a little expert)
> Priest:  cleric (divine priest), druid (primal priest), monk (priest with a little martial or a little expert)
> 
> Warlock subclasses could be arcane focused, primal focused, and possibly divine focused, and monks could be divine focused or primal focused (and maybe eventually psychic focused).
> At the end of the day, the paladin tends to be a bigger damage dealer than the monk, so I feel like "hits things harder" gives the warrior paladin the edge over priest paladin.



To be fair, monks in 2e were a subclass of cleric, so there is a tradition there.  (Well, not really a subclass - but, kinda sorta  - they were presented as a variant priest anyway)


----------



## UngainlyTitan

GreyLord said:


> The survey is ONE source of information they are gathering...I assume.
> 
> I don't know how many ACTIVE D&D players there are, so 4 million is a pretty wild guess.  It could be 5 million or 10 million (I would actually say 10 million could be on the excessively extremely high end of guesses, in relation to a PHB buying question I asked previously here, though obviously this could be a skewed sample size in relation to reality, I really need to ask how many use a PHB at the table as a follow up on that).
> 
> BUT 40K was 1% of 4 million, so went with 4 million.
> 
> However, there are other sources of information (or I am pretty sure there are).  Some have been internal tests that have already been going on most likely.  Another source are NDA'd testers that are out there (perhaps with a fuller set of rules than what you see with UA).  Another source which may not be AS reliable, but easy to see and get commentary live are forums, reddits, facebook, instagram, and other areas of social media that fans congregate and talk about these things.  Obviously, an easy one is also to check comments and statements on D&D beyond and other places like that as well.
> 
> In addition, it need not just be forums, sending people to the CONS and just listening there to what people are saying and talking about (could be passive, could be active) is another source.
> 
> Survey's are a major source I imagine, but the don't have to be the ONLY source of information or feedback they are gathering.



Jermey Crawford said as much in the video. That they read the forums/reddits, YouTube and such but that the survey was the best way to give feedback.


----------



## Hussar

Hrmmm, so 12 classes with 4 subs each (probably - at least that's my guess.)  I wonder if artificer will be added as a subclass to a bunch of other classes so it can be added to the PHB without adding more than the base 12 classes.  3 subs/class seems pretty standard, so adding one more sub - Battlesmith gets added to fighter, for example.  

Just a thought.


----------



## Minigiant

All experts get Expertise. When I read the 2014 Ranger,I was just confused why they went *out the way* to no give Ranger Expertise in Favored Enemy.

What do other class groups get?

All warriors get a Fighting Style? Will Martial Arts and Reckless Attack become Fighting Styles?

All priests get Channel? Will Wildshape become Channel Primality: Wildshape?

All mages get Arcane Recovery?


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Priest probably have "Channeling" as their one thing in common, so that makes it Cleric, Paladin and Druid, Cleric's and Paladin's Channel is Channel Divinity, Druid's Channel is Wildshape.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Class groups are more a thematic grouping from what I see. They aren't like 4e's Video Game inspired roles of Tank (Defender), DPS (Striker), CC (Controller) and Healer (Leader).


----------



## Minigiant

Kobold Avenger said:


> Priest probably have "Channeling" as their one thing in common, so that makes it Cleric, Paladin and Druid, Cleric's and Paladin's Channel is Channel Divinity, Druid's Channel is Wildshape.



This also works with futureproofing and the new way they are doing feats.

A Feat than adds a Channel option could have the prerequisites of Level 4 and being a Priest. By having the Priest requirement, it saves trouble in terminology. You'd know all Priests have a Channel and not have to write "Cleric, Paladin, and Druid" over and over and refer to different class features.

And if WOTC or a 3PP wants to design a new priest like a Shaman, Runepriest, or Invoker, you just have to give them a Channel.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Kobold Avenger said:


> Priest probably have "Channeling" as their one thing in common, so that makes it Cleric, Paladin and Druid, Cleric's and Paladin's Channel is Channel Divinity, Druid's Channel is Wildshape.



Yeah, newer subclasses get different uses of Wildshape too (Wildfire Spirit, for example). Similar to how all of the Cleric Domains and Paladin Oaths grant at least one different option for Channel Divinity.


----------



## Flamestrike

Calling it now:

*Warrior*: Fighter Barbarian Monk. 

They'll all get maneuvers like BM/ ToB. Barbs will have tanky/ hit stuff hard manouvers. Monks will have speed/ mobility and fancy stuff. Fighters will have a bit of both.

(please let this be true, and give these guys ToB stuff)

*Mage*: Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer

Arcane spells. Sorcs and Locks will have Metamagic and Invocations respectively. Wizards...? School specialists perhaps.

*Priest*: Cleric, Druid, Paladin

Channel divinity (and Divine Spells).

*Expert*: Rogue, Bard, Ranger

Expertise, with a smattering of spells, or maneuvers from the Warrior, Priest and Mage classes.

(Please make casting optional on the Ranger)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> What do other class groups get?
> 
> All warriors get a Fighting Style? Will Martial Arts and Reckless Attack become Fighting Styles?



Hopefully, they all get Maneuvers. I seriously doubt that this is going to happen, but it would be great, IMO. 


Minigiant said:


> All priests get Channel? Will Wildshape become Channel Primality: Wildshape?



Wildshape already works really similarly to Channel Divinity. 


Minigiant said:


> All mages get Arcane Recovery?



If so, then Warlocks need to change quite a bit. They already get their spell slots back on a short rest. Maybe Metamagic? They've already leaned into making Metamagic accessible to other spellcasting classes through the Metamagic Adept feat in TCoE.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If so, then Warlocks need to change quite a bit. They already get their spell slots back on a short rest. Maybe Metamagic? They've already leaned into making Metamagic accessible to other spellcasting classes through the Metamagic Adept feat in TCoE.



If it's Arcane Recovery, Warlocks only have to change a little. Warlocks would just get one more spell slot. Sorcerers and Wizards get 1/2 their level in spells slots.

If it's Metamagic, all three mages have to change a LOT. Metamagic runs on points which only Sorcerers get.


----------



## Minigiant

Flamestrike said:


> *Warrior*: Fighter Barbarian Monk.
> 
> They'll all get maneuvers like BM/ ToB. Barbs will have tanky/ hit stuff hard manouvers. Monks will have speed/ mobility and fancy stuff. Fighters will have a bit of both.
> 
> (please let this be true, and give these guys ToB stuff)




I think it will be Fighting styles and everyone will get Superior Technique as an option to get maneuvers. Then Martial Adept feat will have the Warrior and level 4 prerequisites.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> I think it will be Fighting styles and everyone will get Superior Technique as an option to get maneuvers. Then Martial Adept feat will have the Warrior and level 4 prerequisites.



That sounds very much like something Wizards of the Coast would do. It doesn't go as far as I wish it did in this direction (I personally think that Martial Adept is pretty weak unless you're a Battlemaster), but that seems pretty likely to me. 

We'll have to wait and see how Fighting Styles work for Rangers. Hopefully they change a bit.


----------



## JEB

Suggested ASI becoming a feat on these forums a while back, once I saw the tide of where feats were going, so clearly Wizards is specifically listening to me. 
As noted, 1 = Inspiration was a popular suggestion, so hard to say if that came from paying attention to internet discussions, overwhelming survey feedback, both of the above, or an incredible coincidence.
If they flipped the crit rules back to 2014 core, that suggests any design changes they planned to monsters as far as recharge abilities weren't just about compensating for lost crits.
Capstones moving from 20 to 18 might suggest they feel pretty confident that most PCs don't get that far, and therefore most existing PCs won't have to be reworked. Also note that fighters and sorcerers also get their subclass capstones at level 18, which suggests subclass realignment may be happening.
Making epic boons core is interesting. Creates some symmetry with the level 1 feat. Also echoes 4E's epic destinies.
48 subclasses might sound like four per class, but I'm betting it'll be pretty close to the balance in the 2014 PHB.
They're keeping artificer in mind, but the above changes suggest reworking, so I bet on some kind of expansion book not long after 2024 that includes it. Could be an Eberron update, could be a Tasha's style book. (If any formerly core subclasses wind up cut, they'll surely be in the latter book.)
EDIT: If you get your class capstone at level 18, and an epic boon at level 20, what do you get at level 19?


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I wish we just folded ASI into regular feats, so you wouldn't have to pick between expected power curve and getting fun gimmicks.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

JEB said:


> EDIT: If you get your class capstone at level 18, and an epic boon at level 20, what do you get at level 19?



The warm feeling of knowing you're one of the 3 people playing at that level!


----------



## Minigiant

JEB said:


> EDIT: If you get your class capstone at level 18, and an epic boon at level 20, what do you get at level 19?



Level 19 was your last ASI/Feat level in 2014 classes.


----------



## Raith5

doctorbadwolf said:


> They should be able to set up a magical perimeter that alerts them silently in their mind if it’s crossed, without casting a spell?




No. But you can make alarms with just some string and traps with wood and rope in the real world. That sounds like a ranger thing while magical alarms and traps sound like a mage kind of thing IMO.


----------



## Michael Linke

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined



It’s roughly the same class groups from 2nd Edition.  Rogue has been renamed Expert, and Ranger has moved out of Warrior.


----------



## EthanSental

Not to get anyones hopes up and Jeremy might have said it wrong but when he mentioned expertise class, I’m pretty sure he said warden as well as I paused and backed it up to listen again and it sounds like warden to me, but he could have meant to say warrior.


----------



## dave2008

EthanSental said:


> Not to get anyones hopes up and Jeremy might have said it wrong but when he mentioned expertise class, I’m pretty sure he said warden as well as I paused and backed it up to listen again and it sounds like warden to me, but he could have meant to say warrior.



Do you have a time stamp? I just watched the video and tried to listen for warden and I didn't hear it (or see it - I was watch him speak too).  Just curious. He did specifically mention the Artificer is an Expert class, but not in this UA.


----------



## Minigiant

Michael Linke said:


> It’s roughly the same class groups from 2nd Edition.  Rogue has been renamed Expert, and Ranger has moved out of Warrior.



They said Experts will dip into other roles. So Ranger will likely be Expert/Warrior along with some of the Rogue while Bard and Artificer are Expert/Mage.


----------



## dave2008

Bill Zebub said:


> Expertise. Yay. :-/
> 
> I hope “Expert” is more than that. Expertise is about as exciting as a + weapon: useful, sure, but doesn’t really change play style or decision-making, other than giving you more confidence that RNG will come out on your side.
> 
> To give an example of what I mean, if I’m playing a wood elf rogue (which I am, currently) Mask of the Wild is a lot more fun/interesting than expertise in Stealth.



It seems the point is less about Expertise, though that is part of it, but that it is a group they can assign things too, like magic items and feats. At least that is what he specifically mentions in the video.


----------



## Marandahir

EthanSental said:


> Not to get anyones hopes up and Jeremy might have said it wrong but when he mentioned expertise class, I’m pretty sure he said warden as well as I paused and backed it up to listen again and it sounds like warden to me, but he could have meant to say warrior.



Just a thought: Barbarian needs a name change to move away from a racist past. Warden could eat the Barbarian and the martial tendencies of the Ranger to allow Ranger to slide more into an Expertise role?


----------



## Sir Brennen

bedir than said:


> No. They're testing another system. That's it.
> Test A. Test B. Neither are an indication of a trend. They are both one-offs



It sounds like they’re going back to the version we’ve already tested since 2014 though. At least per the summaries of the video. Guess we’ll find out later today


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Marandahir said:


> Just a thought: Barbarian needs a name change to move away from a racist past. Warden could eat the Barbarian and the martial tendencies of the Ranger to allow Ranger to slide more into an Expertise role?



Spot on.

Primal warrior/defender = warden
Tracking and hunting expert = ranger

The barbarian/warden just need to lean a little harden into the ''shapeshifting magical rage'' seen in the non-PHB archetypes and you are somewhat close to a 4e warden.

At worst, give the fighter a Berserker kit with a rage that gives THP, +2 damage and immunity to fear/charm for 1 minute, prof/day. And add the Reckless Attack as a fighting style.


----------



## Staffan

Zubatcarteira said:


> Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature.



Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.


----------



## Marandahir

Sir Brennen said:


> It sounds like they’re going back to the version we’ve already tested since 2014 though. At least per the summaries of the video. Guess we’ll find out later today



No, they're testing different versions. Packet B was created without influence from Packet A's responses. Packet C MIGHT compare the responses to version A and version B.


----------



## The Last Rogue

Just chiming in to say I really like the idea of grouping classes: Experts, Warriors, etc. See it in a lot in smaller D&D-inspired games...it also reminds me of the halcyon days of AD&D 2E.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

JEB said:


> If they flipped the crit rules back to 2014 core, that suggests any design changes they planned to monsters as far as recharge abilities weren't just about compensating for lost crits.




They don't flip back. They try different things. Probably starting with the most erregeneous.

Then after actually collecting the feedback (which they did not incorporate in this packet (to a big degree), because the survey was still ongoing), they will go with the rule they think can strecht the bounds most into their desired direction, and see if this is still making the internet expolde.


----------



## The Last Rogue

Staffan said:


> Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.



Agreed. This is the way.


----------



## aco175

Maxperson said:


> They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!!  My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many.  1% is 500k.  So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.






UngeheuerLich said:


> And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.
> 
> But sample size is not all that matters.
> 
> The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...



Not sure how many others are in my boat, but I did not respond since I do not have a Facebook account or use the other one Google+(?).  I did not want to sign up with DDBeyond with my email and such either, but it appears that Wizards is going to be pushing them as the go-to for everything D&D.  

The other issue may be like my gaming group where my father does not know how to turn on a computer and my son is not that familiar with the rules to make changes or likely cares enough since he has only seen 5e.  So that makes half of my group, not sure if half the players in other groups are in the same boat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Staffan said:


> Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.




Nah. Rather make all spells ritual. End of it. If you want to cast a fireball as a ritual, cast a fireball as a ritual. Won't increase the damage output during a fight, but could give enemies a target to go after, tryong to stop it.
Especially if there is a rule, that you can cast spells as rituals even if you don't actually have the slots, if you put in a few pricey material components, then a siege could be a fun scenario, because when the enemy spellcasters line up to cast their fireballs, you are now at a 10 minute timer to get out and stop them.

(Of course they have other casters who protected them against arrows and simple magic. )


----------



## Burnside

The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.

It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.

The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> Sounds fair.
> 
> Same for the moon, but luckily it is constantly missing its target...



The moon’s actually drifting away, at about the rate your fingernails grow.


----------



## OB1

So with expertise, Experts are the classes you play if you want to be the best at skills.  What if the other groups use 2x PB to also become the best in their area.

Warriors - Add 2x PB to weapon attacks.  These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at hitting things with weapons.
Mages - Add 2x PB to spell attacks.  These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at hitting things with magic.
Priests - Get 2x PB recharges of special abilities (assumes SR abilities all move to PB/Day).  These are the classes you play if you want to be the best at special abilities.  Monks, for example, would get to replenish their Ki points 4 times a day at level 2.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FitzTheRuke said:


> The numbers are easy to show and take almost no time to look at. That is a feature of them, but it's also what makes them not very interesting. They will look at the numbers for sure, but there's no reason to think that they won't read the comments.



Even so, it would be nice and easy for them to acknowledge they read them.  No more difficult than crowing about 40,000 participants.


----------



## Charlaquin

bedir than said:


> There's no functional difference between
> 
> After spending ten minutes you have set up the campsite in such a way that you will be warned if someone enters the area. This works as the Alarm spell.
> You may cast the spell Alarm as a ritual.



True, but there is a difference in feel, which is in many ways the most important thing when it comes to RPG design. That said, as a strong advocate of non-spellcasting rangers, I’m actually 100% fine with rangers casting _ritual_ spells. That feels appropriately ranger-y to me, in a way that combat casting does not.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Burnside said:


> The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.
> 
> It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.
> 
> The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.




Yeah I kind of agree with that. I could see the designers _thinking_ in terms of groupings, but I wish they wouldn’t put the label on the package.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Alternatively, Bards could be turned into Half-Casters similar to Artificers (getting spellcasting at level 1, cantrips, non-spell magical features similar to Warlock Invocations).



I would be delighted. Maybe make them round-up half casters like Artificers.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But they also purposefully have designed all of the races to avoid giving a +3 bonus to any single ability score. And quite a lot of people use Point Buy/Standard Array.



Have they ever asked what stat generation method people usually use in one of their polls?


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!!  My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many.  1% is 500k.  So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.



I thinknthey must have recorded this about the tike they decided to extend the survey period.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> BM ranger ain’t going anywhere, but it’ll likely be reworked to make its level 1 abilities more broadly useful while staying distinct from the Tasha’s replacements.



Sort of depends on what they do with Ranger here: I'm sure theybwill cover the idea of "I have an animal buddy," but the form may be different.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The tiny percentage of people who are responding to the survey compared to the entire D&D playerbase is probably exactly the same as the tiny percentage of people who complain about D&D having all these issues and how this and that are broken and why this rule is bad etc. etc.  And that's why they're responding to the surveys in the first place.  

The larger percentage of players just play the game without ever worrying about it-- both what was already done and what is going to be done in the future.  If none of this stuff matters to you... then responding to surveys trying to get things changed a certain way doesn't really matter either.


----------



## Charlaquin

Kobold Avenger said:


> Priest probably have "Channeling" as their one thing in common, so that makes it Cleric, Paladin and Druid, Cleric's and Paladin's Channel is Channel Divinity, Druid's Channel is Wildshape.



Or Wildshape is an option they can use with their Channel ability. Perhaps “channel
Nature.” I would actually love that.


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Hrmmm, so 12 classes with 4 subs each (probably - at least that's my guess.)  I wonder if artificer will be added as a subclass to a bunch of other classes so it can be added to the PHB without adding more than the base 12 classes.  3 subs/class seems pretty standard, so adding one more sub - Battlesmith gets added to fighter, for example.
> 
> Just a thought.



No, Crawford made it clear that Artificer would be a full Expert Class...but not in the PHB.

I think there will still be an imbalance of Subclass representation, but probably at least 3 each.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Flamestrike said:


> Calling it now:
> 
> *Warrior*: Fighter Barbarian Monk.
> 
> They'll all get maneuvers like BM/ ToB. Barbs will have tanky/ hit stuff hard manouvers. Monks will have speed/ mobility and fancy stuff. Fighters will have a bit of both.
> 
> (please let this be true, and give these guys ToB stuff)
> 
> *Mage*: Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer
> 
> Arcane spells. Sorcs and Locks will have Metamagic and Invocations respectively. Wizards...? School specialists perhaps.
> 
> *Priest*: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
> 
> Channel divinity (and Divine Spells).
> 
> *Expert*: Rogue, Bard, Ranger
> 
> Expertise, with a smattering of spells, or maneuvers from the Warrior, Priest and Mage classes.
> 
> (Please make casting optional on the Ranger)



Most of that is quite similar to how Level Up organizes the classes.


----------



## Art Waring

Burnside said:


> The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.



Ironically, I was talking about class roles a few weeks back as a way to describe how a class functions, like tanks, strikers, support, and such (but not putting classes into categories, that's different), and was told that the concept was kind of outdated, only to see that they are basically returning to this design philosophy.

That philosophy being that each class has a role to play in creating a "balanced party."


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Even so, it would be nice and easy for them to acknowledge they read them.  No more difficult than crowing about 40,000 participants.



They have. Over and over again, from during the next playtest, to right after in an extensive presentation, to even later podcasts and video interviews.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> If it's Arcane Recovery, Warlocks only have to change a little. Warlocks would just get one more spell slot. Sorcerers and Wizards get 1/2 their level in spells slots.
> 
> If it's Metamagic, all three mages have to change a LOT. Metamagic runs on points which only Sorcerers get.



Or, instead of warlocks recovering all their spells on a short or long rest, they recover them with Arcane Recovery (which can be done on a short rest) and they get unlimited uses of it.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> EDIT: If you get your class capstone at level 18, and an epic boon at level 20, what do you get at level 19?



A feat, just like how all 2014 classes get an ASI at 19.


----------



## Burnside

Art Waring said:


> Ironically, I was talking about class roles a few weeks back as a way to describe how a class functions, like tanks, strikers, support, and such (but not putting classes into categories, that's different), and was told that the concept was kind of outdated, only to see that they are basically returning to this design philosophy.
> 
> That philosophy being that each class has a role to play in creating a "balanced party."




But too many "unbalanced" parties is a "problem" that I would argue hasn't actually existed in the past 8+ years of 5E.


----------



## Staffan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nah. Rather make all spells ritual. End of it.



That would miss the point. 4e rituals did a few different things:

Silo away utility/long-term healing magic from combat magic.
Open up rituals to anyone regardless of class. No longer do you need a cleric to cure a disease. You might not even need a classical spellcaster – you can make a character like Elric who can deal with short-term problems with a blade and longer-term ones with magic.
Set a price tag on utility magic. Creating food might be useful if your supplies run out when you get lost, but it's a lot cheaper to buy food at the inn.
Limit magic that tries to replace skills. Sure, you might be able to open a lock with magic, but it takes 10 minutes and costs you money in components. Better to bring a locksmith if you're in a hurry.
5e rituals do pretty much none of these – a little bit of the first point, but nowhere near enough.


----------



## darjr

I think the class groupings is a design grouping that they’ve decided to make public and maybe part of the rules. Maybe to make it easier for others to design classes and sub classes and people to pick classes for play.

Also I agree they are probably considering that it’ll drive things at the table too.


----------



## Burnside

It also could have the knock-on effect of suggested that it's "bad" to play with, say, a DM and three players (because your party won't "tick all the Class Group boxes"). But some of my best 5E sessions have been DM and three players.


----------



## rooneg

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah I kind of agree with that. I could see the designers _thinking_ in terms of groupings, but I wish they wouldn’t put the label on the package.



If they don't put the label on the package they can't make other rules that care about that label. Having the groupings means you can have special feats that are only usable for that class group, for example, which is pretty useful from a design perspective.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> Sort of depends on what they do with Ranger here: I'm sure theybwill cover the idea of "I have an animal buddy," but the form may be different.



If I had a “Ring of Three Wishes For 5.5” one of them would be for the Ranger to relegate spellcasting to subclasses, but not in base class (Some spell-like abilities, e.g. Hunter’s Mark, would be fine.)


----------



## Charlaquin

DEFCON 1 said:


> The tiny percentage of people who are responding to the survey compared to the entire D&D playerbase is probably exactly the same as the tiny percentage of people who complain about D&D having all these issues and how this and that are broken and why this rule is bad etc. etc.  And that's why they're responding to the surveys in the first place.
> 
> The larger percentage of players just play the game without ever worrying about it-- both what was already done and what is going to be done in the future.  If none of this stuff matters to you... then responding to surveys trying to get things changed a certain way doesn't really matter either.



True, but the larger percentage of players who just play the game without worrying about it will probably continue to do so when the new rules out.


----------



## Burnside

rooneg said:


> If they don't put the label on the package they can't make other rules that care about that label. Having the groupings means you can have special feats that are only usable for that class group, for example, which is pretty useful from a design perspective.



 Is it, though? Gating Feats by Class Group just seems like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. The thing I like about Feats is that they can allow you to "play against type" and create some outside-the-box builds. What is the upside of limiting that?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Burnside said:


> Is it, though? Gating Feats by Class Group just seems like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. The thing I like about Feats is that they can allow you to "play against type" and create some outside-the-box builds. What is the upside of limiting that?



The most important upside to WotC: Ease of Use.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Staffan said:


> That would miss the point. 4e rituals did a few different things:
> 
> Silo away utility/long-term healing magic from combat magic.
> Open up rituals to anyone regardless of class. No longer do you need a cleric to cure a disease. You might not even need a classical spellcaster – you can make a character like Elric who can deal with short-term problems with a blade and longer-term ones with magic.
> Set a price tag on utility magic. Creating food might be useful if your supplies run out when you get lost, but it's a lot cheaper to buy food at the inn.
> Limit magic that tries to replace skills. Sure, you might be able to open a lock with magic, but it takes 10 minutes and costs you money in components. Better to bring a locksmith if you're in a hurry.
> 5e rituals do pretty much none of these – a little bit of the first point, but nowhere near enough.




Then have also some extra "ritual only" spells that do exactly that.
But I still don't see why we need to artificially divide one thing into two.

And in 5e there also is the ritual caster feat that allows you to have some cool utility magic.

I think price tags are important wven for my proposal so you could keep the abuse in check. The traditional rituals could be just way cheaper which is why they are usually used as rituals.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> The moon’s actually drifting away, at about the rate your fingernails grow.




But only because it is not falling fast enough to hit the earth.


----------



## Bill Zebub

rooneg said:


> If they don't put the label on the package they can't make other rules that care about that label. Having the groupings means you can have special feats that are only usable for that class group, for example, which is pretty useful from a design perspective.



It remains to be seen what the utility of group feats will be. If they are trying to prevent OP synergies (e.g. an Expert taking a mage feat) that suggests multiclassing will be even more stupid than it is. 

But maybe it all works. My instinct is to dislike the meta game aspect of groups, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the whole thing.


----------



## darjr

UngeheuerLich said:


> But only because it is not falling fast enough to hit the earth.



It is, it’s in orbit. It just is also falling fast enough to miss.


----------



## darjr

Burnside said:


> It also could have the knock-on effect of suggested that it's "bad" to play with, say, a DM and three players (because your party won't "tick all the Class Group boxes"). But some of my best 5E sessions have been DM and three players.



Not bad, but someone may need to work two jobs.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> The most important upside to WotC: Ease of Use.




I try not to make uninformed pronouncements about what they are thinking or what they prioritize, but “suggested spell lists” indicates that ease-of-use is at least one of their objectives, in which case making feat choice simpler would fit that goal.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nah. Rather make all spells ritual. End of it. If you want to cast a fireball as a ritual, cast a fireball as a ritual. Won't increase the damage output during a fight, but could give enemies a target to go after, tryong to stop it.
> Especially if there is a rule, that you can cast spells as rituals even if you don't actually have the slots, if you put in a few pricey material components, then a siege could be a fun scenario, because when the enemy spellcasters line up to cast their fireballs, you are now at a 10 minute timer to get out and stop them.
> 
> (Of course they have other casters who protected them against arrows and simple magic. )



I Like this idea though I would increase the ranges to make use of spell in siege warfare practical. Maybe add more casters for added range.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> But only because it is not falling fast enough to hit the earth.



Actually it’s going _too fast_ to hit Earth. If it was going _slower_ it would eventually fall into Earth, but it’s going fast enough that it will eventually escape Earth’s gravity well. What it’s doing is taking the most direct path _past_ Earth that it can in curved spacetime.


----------



## Hussar

Parmandur said:


> No, Crawford made it clear that Artificer would be a full Expert Class...but not in the PHB.
> 
> I think there will still be an imbalance of Subclass representation, but probably at least 3 each.



Thanks.  I didn't watch the video.  So, that's good to know.  



Burnside said:


> The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.
> 
> It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.
> 
> The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.



Not really.  4e didn't do that at all actually.  While they had the roles, you absolutely did not have to "tick the boxes" and they repeatedly made that point.  A group of all strikers worked just as well as a mixed group.  And, really, this division is no different than what we saw in 2e.  It's just a way to easily group different classes to make it easier for players.  You want to play a "Hitty" guy?  Ok, pick a warrior.  You want to play a "Blow stuff up guy?"  Play one of the arcane classes.  

Clarity is a good thing.  Clarity does not mean "ticking boxes".  It just means that instead of listing classes alphabetically, they list them categorically.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

darjr said:


> It is, it’s in orbit. It just is also falling fast enough to miss.




Imagine. You fall exactly at the right speed to be damned to always miss your target barely... for ever... sounds like an old greek punishment.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Burnside said:


> The group sorting strikes me as unnecessary. Like, I can see where it's kinda compulsively satisfying to a certain personality type, but my instinctive reaction is that it isn't needed and doesn't help the game.



That is not what it is for. Again explained in the video, the grouping allows using the groupings as prerequisites for feats and other boons. 


Burnside said:


> It has a whiff of trying to over-curate the table experience (and that does smack of 4E). "Make sure your party ticks these four boxes and has a Warrior, a Priest, and Expert, and a Mage!" One of the things I like about 5E is the "play what you want to play, and don't worry about your 'party role'" ethos.
> 
> The many, many subclasses offer the main classes so much versatility that they can often be built to fill different roles.



It is not about roles either but more about hybridization.


----------



## darjr

UngeheuerLich said:


> Imagine. You fall exactly at the right speed to be damned to always miss your target barely... for ever... sounds like an old greek punishment.



Well it is the moon.


----------



## Ibrandul

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> A nice consequence of the new Ritual Casting rule is that the Forest Gnome's Speak with Animals ability is effectively unlimited as long as you have 10 minutes to chit-chat. You'd only need to burn a use-per-day if you needed time sensitive information.



Assuming that the rules on rituals remain basically the same as in 5e (apart from opening them up to every caster), it’s slightly more complicated than that, because you’ll need ten minutes of ritualing _before_ the spell kicks in, and the animals you might be interested in having a conversation with (or some of them, at least) won’t be inclined to wait patiently for ten minutes while you wave your arms about and mutter nonsense before introducing yourself.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Charlaquin said:


> But it isn’t really falling towards Earth. It’s taking the most direct path _past_ earth in curved spacetime. If it was going _slower_ it would eventually fall into Earth, but it’s going fast enough that it will eventually escape Earth’s gravity well.




It is falling towards earth, but its inertia keeps it going froward at the same time.


----------



## Bill Zebub

New spell idea:

Distract Gamer
Casting Time: bonus action
Components: verbal

You make an off-the-cuff statement about any topic involving science, science fiction, medieval arms & armor, or Tolkien. All Gamers within 30’ who can hear you must succeed at a Charisma saving throw or stop whatever they are doing to argue with you. If they preface their argument with, “Actually…” the caster must also make a saving throw or suffer the effects of their own spell.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Burnside said:


> Is it, though? Gating Feats by Class Group just seems like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. The thing I like about Feats is that they can allow you to "play against type" and create some outside-the-box builds. What is the upside of limiting that?



Unexpected cheese. Grouping should make balancing those feats easier.


----------



## rooneg

Burnside said:


> Is it, though? Gating Feats by Class Group just seems like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. The thing I like about Feats is that they can allow you to "play against type" and create some outside-the-box builds. What is the upside of limiting that?



I'm withholding judgement until I see some of this stuff. There are uses for this type of restriction that aren't keeping you from playing against type, like I could envision feats that explicitly interact with elements of the class group, those wouldn't make sense for characters outside that group, so the restriction serves to keep people from wanting to use those feats when they're nonsensical. I can also envision "starter" feats that unlock access to that stuff, like say there's some Expert only feats that give you abilities that key off of the Expertise feature. I could also envision a "give me Expertise" feat that additionally says "you can take feats that are limited to the Expert group even if your class is not part of that group".


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bill Zebub said:


> New spell idea:
> 
> Distract Gamer
> Casting Time: bonus action
> Components: verbal
> 
> You make an off-the-cuff statement about any topic involving science, science fiction, medieval arms & armor, or Tolkien. All Gamers within 30’ who can hear you must succeed at a Charisma saving throw or stop whatever they are doing to argue with you. If they preface their argument with, “Actually…” the caster must also make a saving throw or suffer the effects of their own spell.




This is better for the traffic on dndbeyond if we are occupied and not hitting refresh button every 2 seconds.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is falling towards earth, but its inertia keeps it going froward at the same time.



But its trajectory doesn’t actually lead into Earth. Describing that as “falling towards Earth” is misleading. What it’s doing is passing Earth by, but the path to do so requires circling around it a bunch of times, because of the spacetime warping of Earth’s gravity. If you removed that warp and flattened spacetime out, the moon would just go in a straight line past Earth.


----------



## darjr

Bill Zebub said:


> New spell idea:
> 
> Distract Gamer
> Casting Time: bonus action
> Components: verbal
> 
> You make an off-the-cuff statement about any topic involving science, science fiction, medieval arms & armor, or Tolkien. All Gamers within 30’ who can hear you must succeed at a Charisma saving throw or stop whatever they are doing to argue with you. If they preface their argument with, “Actually…” the caster must also make a saving throw or suffer the effects of their own spell.



If casting online they save at disadvantage


----------



## UngainlyTitan

jeremypowell said:


> Assuming that the rules on rituals remain basically the same as in 5e (apart from opening them up to every caster), it’s slightly more complicated than that, because you’ll need ten minutes of ritualing _before_ the spell kicks in, and the animals you might be interested in having a conversation with (or some of them, at least) won’t be inclined to wait patiently for ten minutes while you wave your arms about and mutter nonsense before introducing yourself.



You just need a bigger bag of nuts.


----------



## darjr

Charlaquin said:


> But its trajectory doesn’t actually lead into Earth. Describing that as “falling towards Earth” is misleading. What it’s doing is passing Earth by, but the path to do so requires circling around it a bunch of times, because of the spacetime warping of Earth’s gravity. If you removed that warp and flattened spacetime out, the moon would just go in a straight line past Earth.



If you removed gravity nothing would fall.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Zubatcarteira said:


> Just a list to keep track:
> 
> ASIs are a feat now.
> Will give the Arcane/Primal/Divine list to 9th level.
> Seems like they changed the nat 20/1 rules again to the old ones.
> Rolling a 1 giving inspiration, I've seen a lot of people suggesting this.
> 40k people did the survey.
> Ranger/Rogue/Bard are the Expert Classes, the others will be part of other groups.
> There'll be feats and magic items that'll have class groups as requirements.
> Those three classes will have expertise, it's the signature feature of Experts.
> They mix stuff from the other groups as well.
> Will be good to have a PC from each group in the party.
> There'll be a list of suggested spells from level 1 to 20, to make it simpler for players.
> Every caster can use rituals, don't need the specific ritual casting feature.
> The level 20 capstones move to level 18, and you get an epic boon at 20.



Thank you so much for this, I was really hoping someone would do it so I didn't have to watch the whole thing!


Zubatcarteira said:


> He mentioned a Warrior group as well.



I mean, I said the transition was going to be like 1E to 2E but I didn't realize it would be that literal lol.


tetrasodium said:


> The rules glossary of each supersedes the glossary of previous UAs



Sticking my tongue out at the multiple people who said we wouldn't get this again and we'd get neat little playtest packets, one for each class. Hah!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> New spell idea:
> 
> Distract Gamer
> Casting Time: bonus action
> Components: verbal
> 
> You make an off-the-cuff statement about any topic involving science, science fiction, medieval arms & armor, or Tolkien. All Gamers within 30’ who can hear you must succeed at a Charisma saving throw or stop whatever they are doing to argue with you. If they preface their argument with, “Actually…” the caster must also make a saving throw or suffer the effects of their own spell.



I fail that save _all the time_.


----------



## Charlaquin

darjr said:


> If you removed gravity nothing would fall.



Yes, but some things would still bump into each other. The Moon and the Earth wouldn’t though. And they also won’t _with_ gravity. So there’s no way in which it can be said that the moon is going _towards_ Earth. It’s going away from it.


----------



## darjr

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, but some things would still bump into each other. The Moon and the Earth wouldn’t though.



If you remove gravity I’m not sure what would happen. Nothing might never touch anything ever again. Everything may fly away from each other as fast as possible.

But I do get your point.


----------



## Staffan

Burnside said:


> Is it, though? Gating Feats by Class Group just seems like restrictions for the sake of restrictions. The thing I like about Feats is that they can allow you to "play against type" and create some outside-the-box builds. What is the upside of limiting that?



Because it lets you create feats and other abilities that (a) interact with common features of the group, and (b) will automatically apply to later additions to the group.

Just off the top of my head, I could see an "show-off" feat that gives an ally inspiration when you succeed (or maybe crit) on a skill in which you have Expertise. This would naturally be restricted to Expert classes.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Then have also some extra "ritual only" spells that do exactly that.
> But I still don't see why we need to artificially divide one thing into two.



Because the two do different things, and say different things about the world.

And because there are so, SO many spells on the list that ought to be ritual-only.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> But its trajectory doesn’t actually lead into Earth. Describing that as “falling towards Earth” is misleading. What it’s doing is passing Earth by, but the path to do so requires circling around it a bunch of times, because of the spacetime warping of Earth’s gravity. If you removed that warp and flattened spacetime out, the moon would just go in a straight line past Earth.



Because _actually_ it’s trajectory would lead it farther from earth, not closer, if gravity were switched off. RIGHT?!?!??


----------



## Art Waring

Burnside said:


> But too many "unbalanced" parties is a "problem" that I would argue hasn't actually existed in the past 8+ years of 5E.



Absolutely agree, that's why i used quotations around balance


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> It remains to be seen what the utility of group feats will be. If they are trying to prevent OP synergies (e.g. an Expert taking a mage feat) that suggests multiclassing will be even more stupid than it is.
> 
> But maybe it all works. My instinct is to dislike the meta game aspect of groups, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the whole thing.



I wouldn't assume they are bringing multiclassing back, given how rare it is on Beyond and how aggressively WotC have ignored it for 8 years.


----------



## darjr

Did they state a time for the drop?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Staffan said:


> Because the two do different things, and say different things about the world.
> 
> And because there are so, SO many spells on the list that ought to be ritual-only.




I disagree, but it seems I am in the minority here. It was necessary (and cool) in 4e, but I expect 5e to do it more naturally.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Staffan said:


> Because it lets you create feats and other abilities that (a) interact with common features of the group, and (b) will automatically apply to later additions to the group.
> 
> Just off the top of my head, I could see an "show-off" feat that gives an ally inspiration when you succeed (or maybe crit) on a skill in which you have Expertise. This would naturally be restricted to Expert classes.
> 
> 
> Because the two do different things, and say different things about the world.
> 
> And because there are so, SO many spells on the list that ought to be ritual-only.



Of course, you can expect that some spells that should be rituals by virtue of what they represent still won't be.  Animate Dead comes to mind.


----------



## Burnside

darjr said:


> Did they state a time for the drop?




It's like 7am in Seattle right now, so probably not for a few hours.


----------



## Maxperson

GreyLord said:


> That's players for the entire history of D&D though.
> 
> 40K IS 1% of 4 Million.



That's what I get for not digging deeper. It's not 4 million, though.

"Wizards of the Coast claims that over 50 million people have played dungeons and dragons worldwide. *There are currently an estimated 13.7 million active tabletop D&D players worldwide.*"

Even 1 in 100 is low, but it's closer to 1 in 300.  Better than 1 in 1000, but still not great.


----------



## Staffan

darjr said:


> Well it is the moon.


----------



## Charlaquin

Burnside said:


> It's like 7am in Seattle right now, so probably not for a few hours.



Yeah, the Next packets would usually drop some time after Noon Pacific time. Usually a few hours after. So we probably have some time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Parmandur said:


> I wouldn't assume they are bringing multiclassing back, given how rare it is on Beyond and how aggressively WotC have ignored it for 8 years.




No multiclassing would be a bummer. It would actively destroy character concepts and it would need a better replacement than "here take a feat".

Multiclassing is the main way to customize characters, as it allows a choice at each and every level. It is also what makes building characters fun, because you can try out a nearly unlimited number of characters.

I also can't see why dipping a class is so looked down on. It creates exactly the archetypes you want. Fighter wizard does not need more than 2 levels of fighter for example. You can also easily create an arcane half caster by just having a balanced multiclass of fighter and wizard. And you are not a liability at any level.

Why drop such an easy and well working system? Instead add different ways to branch oit or enhance the experience.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Thank you so much for this, I was really hoping someone would do it so I didn't have to watch the whole thing!
> 
> I mean, I said the transition was going to be like 1E to 2E but I didn't realize it would be that literal lol.
> 
> Sticking my tongue out at the multiple people who said we wouldn't get this again and we'd get neat little playtest packets, one for each class. Hah!



Based on the roadmap Crawford laid out, the tests for the coming year will be mostly Class focused: covering the 12 Core Classes with one Subclass each through the end of this year, and then an additional 36 Subclasses after they nail down the Core for each.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course, you can expect that some spells that should be rituals by virtue of what they represent still won't be.  Animate Dead comes to mind.




You can even have a line: 
when cast as a ritual on a graveyard you may add components XYZ and you create 12 skeletons that rise from their grave.


----------



## rooneg

PDF dropped: Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond


----------



## Nikosandros

darjr said:


> Did they state a time for the drop?



Last time it was, IIRC, sometimes after 9 AM Pacific.


----------



## Parmandur

New video:


----------



## Nikosandros

Nikosandros said:


> Last time it was, IIRC, sometimes after 9 AM Pacific.



This must be a new record for having been proven wrong so quickly...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> Significantly redesigned I can see, but I wager both archetypes will still be in the PHB.



Yeah I'd be shocked if both didn't get redesigned and appear, as they're two of the most popular pop-culture takes on those classes, "Avatar" Monk and "animal friend" Ranger.


Parmandur said:


> Sure, you can. Just use the 2014 standard Human if you want, and choose all ASI Feats.
> 
> I'm not sure how anything thst Crawford laid down here goes against WotC own backwards compatibility statement in the Playtest FAQ. It will be interesting to see if they make allowances for using old Sublcasses with the new main class writeups.



With the level of changes they seem to be indicating even from this (like all Rangers getting Expertise because they're Experts), we're already beyond the point where old subclasses could just be used straight-up. At best we might get vague advice on how to adapt them.

Compatibility-wise there's likely to be power creep, indeed it's certain, but the main thing is adventures will still work. People talk a lot about compatibility, but I've been around for an awful lot of edition changes across an awful lot of RPGs, now, and there's one thing that really makes people care, and that's adventures. For whatever psychological reasons, people just don't get that upset about splatbooks and sourcebooks being invalidated, even entire classes and races, or rather the number of people who do is proportionally tiny.

But adventures? If you invalidate them, that's when people riot. That's one of the big issues 4E faced - you basically couldn't convert anything, you just had to re-write it. 3E had the same issue, but honestly the market was sick enough with AD&D that it wasn't a huge problem. I feel like a lot of it is, people buy adventures intending to run them "one day", and as long as that "one day" remains in the future and possible, they're happy (even if that day is "next Tuesday" or "the fifth of never"). But when an edition change shuts that down...

All 1D&D really needs is to make it so fundamentally, 5E Strahd or whatever still works okay with 1D&D characters/monsters. Which I don't doubt they can manage.


Charlaquin said:


> I would be delighted. Maybe make them round-up half casters like Artificers.



That would be a great way to ensure I _finally_ boycott D&D and refuse to buy any 1D&D products, and I know I'm not the only one who'd feel that way. You don't get to make a class a half-caster from being a full caster and tell me it's "the same class!" or "the same edition".


Micah Sweet said:


> The most important upside to WotC: Ease of Use.



Yup. A lot of people here don't get what WotC is engaged. As POCGamer said, WotC is basically attempting to "change the battlespace" (in the military sense), and this will make it so other TTRPGs just cannot compete with them, make D&D into it's own thing, which is kind of a lifestyle product that _happens_ to be an RPG, rather than primarily an RPG, and ease-of-use and accessibility are a huge part of that. As are categorizations that might not make sense in a less gamist RPG. If anything 1D&D is likely to push D&D back in a gamist direction (where 5E sort of shuffled a couple of steps towards simulationism), because that's the most accessible approach to a lot of people (narrative is still too bold) and the most marketable one.


Micah Sweet said:


> Of course, you can expect that some spells that should be rituals by virtue of what they represent still won't be.  Animate Dead comes to mind.



Agree. There will be a ton of spells that logically should be rituals (and would even benefit world-building if they were!) that won't be. 5E's use of the ritual tag has been pretty wack. It's more like a "utility" tag than really what makes sense as a ritual.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would not like that. But I can live with that, if bard skills don't just feel like a compensation for lost spell slots...
> ... if it is just a compensation, so why not just give slots.



What I would like to see in part, is Bard Songs.  A list of magical songs that bards can pick from similar to the battle master maneuver list, using inspiration dice in a similar way to superiority dice.


----------



## darjr

Unearthed Arcana Expert Classes is live
					

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one-dnd




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> With the level of changes they seem to be indicating even from this (like all Rangers getting Expertise because they're Experts), we're already beyond the point where old subclasses could just be used straight-up. At best we might get vague advice on how to adapt them.



The playtest documwnt just dropped: rules are included that allow all existing 2014 Subclasses to work with the new Classes.


----------



## Laurefindel

darjr said:


> Did they state a time for the drop?



Dammit man, you guys just argued for two pages essentially saying that the moon will _never _drop!

oh, you mean the playtest doc... nevermind

[edit] well, there it is!


----------



## Amrûnril

Staffan said:


> Because it lets you create feats and other abilities that (a) interact with common features of the group, and (b) will automatically apply to later additions to the group.
> 
> Just off the top of my head, I could see an "show-off" feat that gives an ally inspiration when you succeed (or maybe crit) on a skill in which you have Expertise. This would naturally be restricted to Expert classes.
> 
> 
> Because the two do different things, and say different things about the world.
> 
> And because there are so, SO many spells on the list that ought to be ritual-only.




In cases like that, though, you could make the feature itself the prerequisite.  To use the expertise example, if a character gains expertise through a feat, for instance, or through a future subclass in a different class group, I'd want that character to also have the option of choosing the Show Off feat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> What I would like to see in part, is Bard Songs.  A list of magical songs that bards can pick from similar to the battle master maneuver list, using inspiration dice in a similar way to superiority dice.




For me, back in 2e, the bard always was the jack of all trades, not the musician who cheered for the party.

Maybe bard was always a misnomer, but I don't really want songs to be the main focus. Maybe done right, subclasses might allow for your and my vision.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> The playtest documwnt just dropped: rules are included that allow all existing 2014 Subclasses to work with the new Classes.



LOL it's exactly what I predicted. One vague paragraph.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> And 1% is not a bad quota for market research. I'd say many companies would kill to have that much of a participation.
> 
> But sample size is not all that matters.
> 
> The question rather is: is the survey representative of the DnD community as a whole or only for us forum goers...



That's a good question.  I suspect that the majority of those numbers came from D&D Beyond and forum goers.  Does anyone know if WotC reached out to brick and mortar stores to see if the owners/managers there would mention it to their players?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Couple of quick observations.  I like several of the ranger abilities, but it seems like they did not eliminate class abilities on a short rest as speculated.  Also, the tireless feature is awfully close to how I have the endurance background in B&B


----------



## Sacrosanct

UngeheuerLich said:


> For me, back in 2e, the bard always was the jack of all trades, not the musician who cheered for the party.
> 
> Maybe bard was always a misnomer, but I don't really want songs to be the main focus. Maybe done right, subclasses might allow for your and my vision.



I don't like bards.  Except for one.  My 2e blade bard.  I really liked that one.


----------



## Laurefindel

UngeheuerLich said:


> For me, back in 2e, the bard always was the jack of all trades, not the musician who cheered for the party.
> 
> Maybe bard was always a misnomer, but I don't really want songs to be the main focus. Maybe done right, subclasses might allow for your and my vision.



Same here. 5e's bard is a nice and well-rounded full-caster class. It's just not what I expect out of the D&D bard archetype.


----------



## Maxperson

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> The warm feeling of knowing you're one of the 3 people playing at that level!



LOL There are a lot more of us than that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Raith5 said:


> No. But you can make alarms with just some string and traps with wood and rope in the real world. That sounds like a ranger thing while magical alarms and traps sound like a mage kind of thing IMO.



Sure, but they wouldn’t function like the spell, and IMO the ranger should be able to set up silent alarms that can alert only themself in total silence. Because the ranger is more than a bushcraft expert. 


Parmandur said:


> Sort of depends on what they do with Ranger here: I'm sure theybwill cover the idea of "I have an animal buddy," but the form may be different.



This will be where we really find out what they mean by compatible.

But I doubt they will replace the BM ranger subclass with a base class thing. What we might see is a base class pet option that the new BM enhances, or the ability to have a minor pet from a base class feature and a major pet via the subclass.

We shall see today!


----------



## reezel

I just think the Songs of Restoration 2nd Level ability for Bards is a thing of beauty. It gives them all those healing utility spells without messing with the fact that they use the Arcane Spell list AND makes them always available. Chef's Kiss.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> For me, back in 2e, the bard always was the jack of all trades, not the musician who cheered for the party.
> 
> Maybe bard was always a misnomer, but I don't really want songs to be the main focus. Maybe done right, subclasses might allow for your and my vision.



I personally dislike bards personally for the same reason. I view them as jack of all trades and/or loremasters, but that still doesn't scream full caster to me. I don't play them because the music is baked into the class. For better or worse, they have always been musicians.  Gygax made them with magical singing abilities and magical instruments, and that has stuck.

Given that I don't think the class will change to encompass what we want(barring a subclass), I'd like to see the changes I am proposing here.


----------



## Sacrosanct

They got rid of CHA to Inspiring leader.  I like that change.  Makes is more appealing.  But now it's only used after rest instead of every 10 minutes..


----------



## DarkCrisis

Seems healing is getting even more plentiful.  Amazing.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Sentinel no longer requires a reaction to attack a creature that attacks another creature within 5ft of you?  That has to be a mistake.

Nevermind, I forgot opportunity attacks use a reaction anyway, so it would be redundant to include it again.


----------



## Composer99

Don't like that Font of Inspiration is coming at 7th level, but I _do_ like the clause regarding how, if the final result is a 1, you don't expend that use of Bardic Inspiration.


----------



## darjr

Folks this isn’t written in stone, or at least we dint know what is or isn’t.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Interested to see what they do with Wizards and Sorcerers given that Bards are moving to a Cleric/Druid-style model.

Seems like if Wizards have to learn each spell, and Sorcerers have a fixed selection, as they used to, that'd be significantly less flexible. I guess WotC will use this as an excuse to buff Wizards lol?!


----------



## Sacrosanct

darjr said:


> Folks this isn’t written in stone, or at least we dint know what is or isn’t.



I think it also bears repeating that if you (general you) have strong feelings about something, rather than just moan/loud it here on forums, ensure you're filling out the survey as well.  Certainly, if it's truly such a horrible/wonderful change, then most gamers would also think so, and it would reflect in the survey results.  Otherwise, it's probably not a horrible/wonderful thing and just an outlier personal opinion and prepare accordingly for that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sacrosanct said:


> Armor.  And hit points.  And more effective combat.  I don't think we need a non-caster to have "powers that are just like spells but I swear we aren't calling them that" to be effective in the game.  i.e., they don't necessarily need anything _extra _to compensate for lack of spells because they've already got class features that account for that and always have.



I hope you are wrong.  I don't need every intresting set of choices to be hidden behind the 'magic' keyword,


----------



## GMforPowergamers

bedir than said:


> There's no functional difference between
> 
> After spending ten minutes you have set up the campsite in such a way that you will be warned if someone enters the area. This works as the Alarm spell.
> You may cast the spell Alarm as a ritual.



yet for some reason it HAS to be magic in this edition


----------



## Sacrosanct

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope you are wrong.  I don't need every intresting set of choices to be hidden behind the 'magic' keyword,



I'm not saying interesting = magic.  I'm saying that martials don't necessarily need a bunch of new "magical but not magical" stuff to "make up for" casters, because I don't believe there's anything that needs making up for, based on the reasons I gave earlier. I am an advocate of each class doing neat stuff, but that's a separate argument than a need to "make up for" spells casters get.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ok. Those are a lot fewer revisions that I thought. 

A few notable things:


cantrips can be prepared as any other spell.
all light weapons can be used in the off hand and twf does not require a bonus action.
all feats gove +1 to a stat.

Overall I really like the way OneDnD is shaping up.


----------



## Sacrosanct

GMforPowergamers said:


> yet for some reason it HAS to be magic in this edition



No, but in that example, it doesn't have to be a trait/power/feat either.  Anyone could take time to set up trip wires, cans, etc that would essentially replicate the alarm spell if they had the materials for it.  I.e., that's a role-playing solution that doesn't need a mechanical rule.  At least in how I've been playing the game for the past 40+ years.  YMMV of course.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> They're probably trying to show the "success" of the playtest to those who don't want changes by putting out 40k+ responses!!!!!  My first thought, though, was 40k out of 50 million really isn't that many.  1% is 500k.  So less than 1 player in a 1000 has responded to the survey.



man that is a depressing thought


----------



## Zaukrie

Yaarel said:


> In your experience, what exactly were you looking for when your company was attentively reading the comments?



We never knew what we'd get, frankly. Comments that really said something, other than "great idea". The more words, the more ideas, the better. It is the easiest way to see what people really want.

That said, we took serious outliers with a grain of salt. While the one person that gave something a 1 is an outlier, and we knew that most people disagreed, it was still important to see if their idea was similar to any of our thoughts, or was something no one though of (like something being offensive that we didn't consider).


----------



## tetrasodium

UngeheuerLich said:


> No multiclassing would be a bummer. It would actively destroy character concepts and it would need a better replacement than "here take a feat".
> 
> Multiclassing is the main way to customize characters, as it allows a choice at each and every level. It is also what makes building characters fun, because you can try out a nearly unlimited number of characters.
> 
> I also can't see why dipping a class is so looked down on. It creates exactly the archetypes you want. Fighter wizard does not need more than 2 levels of fighter for example. You can also easily create an arcane half caster by just having a balanced multiclass of fighter and wizard. And you are not a liability at any level.
> 
> Why drop such an easy and well working system? Instead add different ways to branch oit or enhance the experience.



Multiclassing with the new groups thing doesn't mean that Alice's sorcerer 5 who picks up warlock 2 is going to get all of the sane warlock abilities as Bob when he started warlock at level one. Likewise in reverse if Bob starts dipping into sorcerer at warlock 5.


----------



## Zaukrie

The College of Lore subclass abilities don't really have anything to do with lore. I feel like it should be renamed or something. Also, if bards study the words of creation, maybe they need some kind of power words or something like that. I don't feel like the class and the lore match at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Sacrosanct said:


> No, but in that example, it doesn't have to be a trait/power/feat either.  Anyone could take time to set up trip wires, cans, etc that would essentially replicate the alarm spell if they had the materials for it.  I.e., that's a role-playing solution that doesn't need a mechanical rule.  At least in how I've been playing the game for the past 40+ years.  YMMV of course.



it doesnt have to be a class feature... maybe a skill


----------



## darjr

Wow that video has 195k views


----------



## Zaukrie

Really, repeating this for every class is wasted space:

If    you’re    making    a    1st-level     character,    also    consult    the    “Starting    Equipment”     section,    and    if    you’re    using    the    multiclassing     rules,    see    the    “Multiclassing    and    the    Ranger” section.


----------



## Zaukrie

Any idea why a Ranger is an expert, and not a warrior?


----------



## Zaukrie

Also, I really hate this syntax:

Dexterity    Check     (Stealth)    

Why not just say Stealth check? I really hate this so much. So very much. It is clunky and unnecessarily complex.


----------



## Vael

Moving Bardic Inspiration to a reaction is a net good, I think. I'm currently playing a Bard and I'm only 3rd level and the number of times I've "wasted" an Inspiration giving it to a PC that never needs it is significant. Waiting until level 7 to get short rest refresh sucks, but I'll gladly take that I can better manage my useage.


----------



## Zaukrie

Funny....at least two of those feats are things I have in my Leaders and Lackeys (masters and minions) PDF I keep meaning to sell someday...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Zaukrie said:


> Any idea why a Ranger is an expert, and not a warrior?



Probably because that's where it should have always been, thematically.  Their primary purpose was the exploration pillar, with combat being second to that.  So I have no issues with making them experts if you have a rule that all experts get expertise.  I think rangers should get expertise to fit with the theme.


----------



## Zaukrie

Did I miss countercharm for the bard? If it comes back, it needs to be a reaction! It was terrible as is (has anyone ever used it?)


----------



## Nikosandros

Zaukrie said:


> Also, I really hate this syntax:
> 
> Dexterity    Check     (Stealth)
> 
> Why not just say Stealth check? I really hate this so much. So very much. It is clunky and unnecessarily complex.



Because skill checks do not exist. It's a dexterity check and, if you are proficient in stealth, you get to add your bonus.


----------



## Zaukrie

Sacrosanct said:


> Probably because that's where it should have always been, thematically.  Their primary purpose was the exploration pillar, with combat being second to that.  So I have no issues with making them experts if you have a rule that all experts get expertise.  I think rangers should get expertise to fit with the theme.



Fair, then they better take up what Level Up did and make exploration actually part of the game more. But, when I read the Ranger as is, it sure sounds like a warrior......


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I dislike that even the hunter subclass multi attack is "use a spell"


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zaukrie said:


> Any idea why a Ranger is an expert, and not a warrior?



Because they wanted to give them expertise, and they wanted to maintain them being spellcasters.  Combine that with their fighting skills, and they're an expert.


----------



## Zaukrie

Nikosandros said:


> Because skill checks do not exist. It's a dexterity check and, if you are proficient in stealth, you get to add your bonus.



It is almost like my point was that skill checks should exist.....it is clunky and complex to read as is. IMO.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zaukrie said:


> It is almost like my point was that skill checks should exist.....it is clunky and complex to read as is. IMO.



I prefer ability checks to skill checks.  Let the DM or the rules decide if the PC can apply a skill.


----------



## Vael

I didn't think they'd standardize subclass progression, I'm now eager to see the Sorcerer, Warlock and Cleric ... as they had compelling reasons to get their subclass at 1st level.


----------



## Nikosandros

Zaukrie said:


> It is almost like my point was that skill checks should exist.....it is clunky and complex to read as is. IMO



OK, but the rule has been the same since 2014. It's not like it's a novelty of the playtest. I agree that many groups in play actually use a "skill check terminology".


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL it's exactly what I predicted. One vague paragraph.



Not vague at all, very specific yet simple: all 2014 Subclasses will work with 2024 Base Classes by design. Just like the last packet made it clear all 2024 Races are compatible with 2024. That means that Xanathar's, Tasha's and every single Setting book remain completely viable.


----------



## Parmandur

@Ruin Explorer  honestly not sure what's funny about that...? This is the final major clarification in what WotC means by Backwards compatibility: everything is Backwards compatible.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Not vague at all, very specific yet sinple: all 2014 Subclasses will work with 2024 Base Classes by design.



LOL dude this is King Cnute levels of denial on your part.

They're already incompatible with what we have here. What the vague paragraph says is "Errr just follow the old subclass progression I guess". There are already features even in the three classes we have which are incompatible with older subclasses. Like you can't use a whole lot of the Colleges because Inspiration doesn't sit around anymore, it's used instantaneously.

The idea that they "work by design" is just false. They're incompatible, but that one paragraph addresses a SINGLE issue with using older subclasses, not the other issues created by design differences.

This isn't an opinion. This is a demonstrable fact.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

tetrasodium said:


> Multiclassing with the new groups thing doesn't mean that Alice's sorcerer 5 who picks up warlock 2 is going to get all of the sane warlock abilities as Bob when he started warlock at level one. Likewise in reverse if Bob starts dipping into sorcerer at warlock 5.




Never said that. Don't know how you read that into my statement.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> This is the final major clarification in what WotC means by Backwards compatibility: everything is Backwards compatible.



That's literally meaningless. You have made a statement, that in English at least, has no meaning.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL dude this is King Cnute levels of denial on your part.
> 
> They're already incompatible with what we have here. What the vague paragraph says is "Errr just follow the old subclass progression I guess". There are already features even in the three classes we have which are incompatible with older subclasses. Like you can't use a whole lot of the Colleges because Inspiration doesn't sit around anymore, it's used instantaneously.
> 
> The idea that they "work by design" is just false. They're incompatible, but that one paragraph addresses a SINGLE issue with using older subclasses, not the other issues created by design differences.
> 
> This isn't an opinion. This is a demonstrable fact.



The overall conservative nature of the design means that the new definitions should work with the older Subclasses, which are usually modifying the abilities. Sounds like a job for playtesting.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's literally meaningless. You have made a statement, that in English at least, has no meaning.



No, a tautology isn't meaningless, it's necessarily true, which just makes it a bit dull to have to state. But we have a much fuller picture now: all 5E books are still usable, from monsters to Races to Subclasses.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> The overall conservative nature of the design means that *the new definitions should work with the older Subclasses*, which are usually modifying the abilities. Sounds like a job for playtesting.



They_ factually _don't though.

As I said, just go look through the Bard uses for Inspiration. A huge number of them rely on you basically having the Inspiration sitting around, but that's no longer how Inspiration works.

In most cases you could MAKE UP some rules to make them work, but it's not flowing from the new definitions, it's making up new rules. In some cases though you can't even do that.

That's not compatibility. It just isn't. That's adaptation at best, and not every DM will do it even similarly.


Parmandur said:


> No, a tautology isn't meaningless, it's necessarily true, which just makes it a bit dull to have to state.



It's not a true tautology.

It's anti-communication.

It's using words intentionally inaccurately.

That's very bad. Backwards compatibility has a meaning. But if you use it when things demonstrably, factually, are not compatible, all you're doing is rendering your usage of that term meaningless. I could say "I'm a short guy!" and you'd be like "Well, you're 6'2" so all you're doing is confusing people and making the term "short guy" meaningless", and that's what you're saying WotC is doing here. I don't actually think WotC agree with you. I think you're taking it a lot further than they intend you to.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> LOL dude this is King Cnute levels of denial on your part.
> 
> They're already incompatible with what we have here. What the vague paragraph says is "Errr just follow the old subclass progression I guess". There are already features even in the three classes we have which are incompatible with older subclasses. Like you can't use a whole lot of the Colleges because Inspiration doesn't sit around anymore, it's used instantaneously.
> 
> The idea that they "work by design" is just false. They're incompatible, but that one paragraph addresses a SINGLE issue with using older subclasses, not the other issues created by design differences.
> 
> This isn't an opinion. This is a demonstrable fact.



Hence my assertion that _ math_ compatibility is what WotC actually meant.  Its just not a good marketing buzzword.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> They_ factually _don't though.
> 
> As I said, just go look through the Bard uses for Inspiration. A huge number of them rely on you basically having the Inspiration sitting around, but that's no longer how Inspiration works.
> 
> In most cases you could MAKE UP some rules to make them work, but it's not flowing from the new definitions, it's making up new rules. In some cases though you can't even do that.
> 
> That's not compatibility. It just isn't. That's adaptation at best, and not every DM will do it even similarly.
> 
> It's not a true tautology.
> 
> It's anti-communication.
> 
> It's using words intentionally inaccurately.
> 
> That's very bad. Backwards compatibility has a meaning. But if you use it when things demonstrably, factually, are not compatible, all you're doing is rendering your usage of that term meaningless. I could say "I'm a short guy!" and you'd be like "Well, you're 6'2" so all you're doing is confusing people and making the term "short guy" meaningless", and that's what you're saying WotC is doing here. I don't actually think WotC agree with you. I think you're taking it a lot further than they intend you to.



I'd have to take a closer look at the Bard, but having looked through the Ranger Subclasses, they all seem to work perfectly with the new Base Class, and I suspect the Rogues will, too.


----------



## Vael

Lightly Armored is now a first level feat granting proficiency with Light and Medium armors and Shields. More armored Wizards, I guess.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> Hence my assertion that _ math_ compatibility is what WotC actually meant.  Its just not a good marketing buzzword.



Indeed. And that's what matters most to adventures, which are as I've noted the biggest "pain point" for compatibility issues.


Parmandur said:


> I'd have to take a closer look at the Bard, but having looked through the Ranger Subclasses, they all seem to work perfectly with the new Base Class, and I suspect the Rogues will, too.



I could believe it with Rangers because their subclass features are very divorced from their class features, partly as them being just such a mess period. With Rogues I'd have to check. They haven't had any major features re-jig'd though, just a moderate nerf to SA, so they might work. Bards have bigger changes to features that subclasses actually interact with.

I'm not saying it's necessarily "hard" to come up with the new rules (though in a couple of cases...), but the fact is that you are making up new rules with a number of the subclasses. Other ones will have balance issues, or lore issues. Creation Bards will no longer be able to create Motes for example, because of the change, so no-one will ever see those again (they'll always be created and destroyed in the same instant), and recipients of the Motes will no longer able to use them tactically.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

the subclass all being at the same level is interesting   maybe the '1 subclass for multi classes will work


----------



## Sacrosanct

Vael said:


> Lightly Armored is now a first level feat granting proficiency with Light and Medium armors and Shields. More armored Wizards, I guess.



If they want to spend a feat, let them is my opinion.  They still have low HP, and personally I think there are better feats a wizard would choose before that.  Maybe bladesinger type, but I think it's pretty rare when a wizard chooses that feat.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Indeed. And that's what matters most to adventures, which are as I've noted the biggest "pain point" for compatibility issues.
> 
> I could believe it with Rangers because their subclass features are very divorced from their class features, partly as them being just such a mess period. With Rogues I'd have to check. They haven't had any major features re-jig'd though, just a moderate nerf to SA, so they might work. Bards have bigger changes to features that subclasses actually interact with.
> 
> I'm not saying it's necessarily "hard" to come up with the new rules (though in a couple of cases...), but the fact is that you are making up new rules with a number of the subclasses. Other ones will have balance issues, or lore issues. Creation Bards will no longer be able to create Motes for example, because of the change, so no-one will ever see those again (they'll always be created and destroyed in the same instant), and recipients of the Motes will no longer able to use them tactically.



Interesting that you mention the College of Creation, because after a quick review that is the only ability of any Bard Subclass that I can see that gets seriously altered by this, most don't even interact with Inspiration particularly. The College of Eloquence Unfailing Inspiration comes closest, but there I thinknspecific beats general. The mote is basically reduced to a rider effect when Inspiration is used, but that's not even bad as such, just different. The rest of Creation abilities seem uneffected.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Nikosandros said:


> Because skill checks do not exist. It's a dexterity check and, if you are proficient in stealth, you get to add your bonus.



Also, skills are not always associated with their default ability.


----------



## Sacrosanct

A lot of talk about feats being nerfed, but I haven't seen much commentary about how those impacted feats now grant stat bonuses.  So even though you lose the -5/+10, you can increase a stat.  Is that such a nerf, really, with all things factored in that result from the stat increase?


----------



## Vael

Sacrosanct said:


> If they want to spend a feat, let them is my opinion.  They still have low HP, and personally I think there are better feats a wizard would choose before that.  Maybe bladesinger type, but I think it's pretty rare when a wizard chooses that feat.



To be clear, I'm actually I'm in agreement. When 5e debuted, I remember a lot of hub bub over Mountain Dwarfs making the best Wizards because of their innate armor proficiency. I like the idea of the soldier background for a war wizard giving them armor proficiency.


----------



## TwoSix

Sacrosanct said:


> A lot of talk about feats being nerfed, but I haven't seen much commentary about how those impacted feats now grant stat bonuses.  So even though you lose the -5/+10, you can increase a stat.  Is that such a nerf, really, with all things factored in that result from the stat increase?



It's a nerf.  The -5/+10 mechanic was roughly equivalent to a +1 in the main stat modifier in and of itself, but it also synergized and stacked with having a 20 Dex or Str.  The loss of that mechanic lowers the ceiling of damage capability for archers and heavy weapon users, ergo, a nerf.

That doesn't mean it isn't a good change; many good changes are nerfs.  It's something to keep on an eye on when looking holistically at martial balance versus casters, that's all.


----------



## bedir than

GMforPowergamers said:


> yet for some reason it HAS to be magic in this edition



No Ranger ritual will be magic at my 2024 edition table.


----------



## Flamestrike

Minigiant said:


> I think it will be Fighting styles and everyone will get Superior Technique as an option to get maneuvers. Then Martial Adept feat will have the Warrior and level 4 prerequisites.



They've been moving to give sup dice to everyone (Krynn).

It'll be sup dice. Its a mechanic that separates the boys from the men.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Flamestrike said:


> They've been moving to give sup dice to everyone (Krynn).
> 
> It'll be sup dice. Its a mechanic that separates the boys from the men.



Could be, then the fighter will get a fair bit of work if that is the case. I look forward to it.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> It's a nerf.  The -5/+10 mechanic was roughly equivalent to a +1 in the main stat modifier in and of itself, but it also synergized and stacked with having a 20 Dex or Str.  The loss of that mechanic lowers the ceiling of damage capability for archers and heavy weapon users, ergo, a nerf.
> 
> That doesn't mean it isn't a good change; many good changes are nerfs.  It's something to keep on an eye on when looking holistically at martial balance versus casters, that's all.



It's as much a biff as a nerf, since there is no -5 to hit. Lower ceiling, higher floor, probably works out about the same in the long run.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.


----------



## Bill Zebub

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.




That could easily be in a subclass, though.  In fact, I'd LOVE to see non-magic Ranger subclasses with abilities that are roughly as powerful as spellcasting.  Imagine a pet that's equal to spells?


----------



## Aldarc

Bill Zebub said:


> That could easily be in a subclass, though.  In fact, I'd LOVE to see non-magic Ranger subclasses with abilities that are roughly as powerful as spellcasting.  Imagine a pet that's equal to spells?



Nah. Pets are spells. Your ranger bow? That's a spell too. Attacking with a sword? That's a spell. Any feature can be a spell. So to make things easier, everything will be a spell.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

Bill Zebub said:


> That could easily be in a subclass, though.  In fact, I'd LOVE to see non-magic Ranger subclasses with abilities that are roughly as powerful as spellcasting.  Imagine a pet that's equal to spells?



 Sorry, I just happen to like the half-caster Ranger, it’s always been a blast to play. And if I wanted a pet, I’d pick Beast Master or Drakewarden.


----------



## Bill Zebub

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sorry, I just happen to like the half-caster Ranger, it’s always been a blast to play. And if I wanted a pet, I’d pick Beast Master or Drakewarden.




And if there’s a half-caster subclass?

And you misunderstand me on the pet: I didn’t mean it should be in the base class, I mean that if spellcasting is a subclass feature, then other subclass features…such as pets…should be comparable.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

Bill Zebub said:


> And if there’s a half-caster subclass?
> 
> And you misunderstand me on the pet: I didn’t mean it should be in the base class, I mean that if spellcasting is a subclass feature, then other subclass features…such as pets…should be comparable.



If you mean that Ranger wouldn’t be a half-caster CLASS because all their magic is shoved into one single subclass, then no, I prefer the whole class having magic like it already has. 

And I understood what you meant by a pet as the subclass feature instead of spells, however I can have both with how the class is now so it’s a win win for me.

As I said I am probably part of the minority on this site but I’m happy with the current direction of the Ranger. Maybe add back a couple of the exploration features from past iterations but overall I like the changes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> Also, I really hate this syntax:
> 
> Dexterity    Check     (Stealth)
> 
> Why not just say Stealth check? I really hate this so much. So very much. It is clunky and unnecessarily complex.



They’ve said “Dexterity (Stealth) check” since the Next playtest, here they’re just reversing the order of “check” and the parenthetical skill. The reason they do so is because there’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e. Skills are a feature that allow you to add your proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> They’ve said “Dexterity (Stealth) check” since the Next playtest, here they’re just reversing the order of “check” and the parenthetical skill. The reason they do so is because there’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e. Skills are a feature that allow you to add your proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks.




Wait…I thought they are abilities. As in, “I’ll use Insight.”  WTF?!?!?


----------



## Charlaquin

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.



You’re definitely not the only one, it’s just that spells on rangers are very polarizing. People either love it or hate it and there’s very little middle-ground.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bill Zebub said:


> Wait…I thought they are abilities. As in, “I’ll use Insight.”  WTF?!?!?



Not at all. The standard operation in the how to play rules is that the player describes what they want to do, and the DM determines the results, calling for an ability check if the action has a meaningful chance of failure and dramatically interesting consequences. The DM or the rules of certain features can allow you to add your proficiency bonus to certain ability checks, if you have proficiency in certain skills.


----------



## Amrûnril

The parenthetical format makes sense if you want to support the possibility of nonstandard skill-ability combinations, like an Intelligence (Medicine) check for knowledge of a rare disease or a Constitution (Athletics) check for endurance running. I think this is a great mechanical option to have, though unfortunately the skill presentation on standard character sheets and on D&D Beyond steers you away from using it.


----------



## Minigiant

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.



I loves Rangers with spells.

My gripe is that WOTC keeps giving Ranger's Druid spells and doesn't make Ranger spells and this playtest Ranger is another continuation of it.


----------



## Parmandur

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.



No, you are the opoisite of alone that's the majority teport, WotC found like 6 years ago when theybdid all those tests that magic is a necessary part of the Ranger for most people. They won't ever do a spelless Ranger, that's why they made the Scout Rogue.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> You’re definitely not the only one, it’s just that spells on rangers are very polarizing. People either love it or hate it and there’s very little middle-ground.



Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> No, you are the opoisite of alone that's the majority teport, WotC found like 6 years ago when theybdid all those tests that magic is a necessary part of the Ranger for most people. They won't ever do a spelless Ranger, that's why they made the Scout Rogue.



Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.


Parmandur said:


> Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.



Still need a source lol.


----------



## dave2008

Staffan said:


> Dammit, just give me 4e-style rituals instead of this halfway thing.



I don't remember, how were rituals handled in 4e?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.
> 
> Still need a source lol.




I do believe it’s true. The majority of players are new, and people tend to like what they know. 



…





But they are still WRONG.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Source? That's a very strong claim reliant on WotC's authority so requires a source.
> 
> Still need a source lol.



Sure, no problem, it's from the results of their October 2015 survey, they don't have the results on Wizards anymore, but the moneyquote has survived out on the web:

“There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.”

"Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."









						D&D: The Ranger - Community Survey Results
					

Wizards set out to determine why was wrong with the Ranger. Here is what they found out:




					www.belloflostsouls.net
				




They've mentioned this again over the years, such as when the Scout went through testing first for Fighter and then for Rogue. Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T. That's their paradigm.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

dave2008 said:


> I don't remember, how were rituals handled in 4e?



There was a class-independent list of rituals. Any character could take the Feat to be a ritual caster (several classes got it for free). Once you had the Feat, you could learn the rituals (which I believe cost money/time to learn, if they were available). Then you could perform the rituals. Some of them were very long - many hours or even possibly days - but they let you do spell-like things.

Ironically it was a lot closer to like 85% of fantasy fiction, where that's how it tends to work with ritual magic - you don't usually have to be "special" to do it. Even the boys in Supernatural can do ritual magic for example, even Dean!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T.



Absolutely not.

You proved yourself dead wrong with your own quotes.


Parmandur said:


> "Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic *and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings*."





Parmandur said:


> “There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed* an animal companion *with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option.



They've completely ignored their own findings. Literally half of the "money quote" as you put, it is about the animal companion? Where's the animal companion?

< bangs on table >

Where's the bear? Where's the bear? < repeat ad nauseum >

Seriously you can't claim this fits when it's missing that huge thing. If it's valid to ditch the animal companion, it's valid to ditch the magic.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> You proved yourself dead wrong with your own quotes.
> 
> 
> They've completely ignored their own findings. Literally half of the "money quote" as you put, it is about the animal companion? Where's the animal companion?
> 
> < bangs on table >
> 
> Where's the bear? Where's the bear? < repeat ad nauseum >
> 
> Seriously you can't claim this fits when it's missing that huge thing. If it's valid to ditch the animal companion, it's valid to ditch the magic.



I mean, after what we saw today, a Neo-Beastmaster is in like Flynn. And this Ranger works just fine with the recent Drakewarden, for that matter.

That only reinforces the point: the D&D Rabger is a mystical and preternatural archetype.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Here's the thing though, it isn’t actually polarizing: Spells on Rangers are overwhelmingly popular.



Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is that doesn’t make it not polarizing. Polarizing means there are two extreme and opposing viewpoints on a subject and very little to no middle-ground, not necessarily that those viewpoints are equally represented.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Sure, no problem, it's from the results of their October 2015 survey, they don't have the results on Wizards anymore, but the moneyquote has survived out on the web:
> 
> “There are two, interesting elements that emerge from the survey. To start with, the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of the ranger were the most well received versions of the class. Those two versions mixed an animal companion with wilderness skills, spellcasting, and a unique fighting style focused on wielding two weapons. 3rd edition added an archery option. They seem to match closest with the ratings given to the design direction outlined in the ranger article. The concept of the wilderness champion and defender along the lines of a paladin isn’t very popular, but people do like a ranger who can survive in the wilderness through a combination of skill and magical abilities.”
> 
> "Given that background, it’s no surprise that a ranger class that de-emphasizes magic and lacks a full-time, in-the-flesh animal companion received fairly poor ratings."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D&D: The Ranger - Community Survey Results
> 
> 
> Wizards set out to determine why was wrong with the Ranger. Here is what they found out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.belloflostsouls.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've mentioned this again over the years, such as when the Scout went through testing first for Fighter and then for Rogue. Indeed, if you look at their conclusions from 2025 there...that explains what we see in this new UA to a T. That's their paradigm.



2015 was seven years ago. I think it’s entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed since then. If so, this new playtest will be a good opportunity for WotC to get data on that. I know I will be expressing my strong distaste for magic beyond a few utility spells (preferably rituals) here and there, and I hope everyone who feels as I do will do the same.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I mean, after what we saw today, a Neo-Beastmaster is in like Flynn. And this Ranger works just fine with the recent Drakewarden, for that matter.
> 
> That only reinforces the point: the D&D Rabger is a mystical and preternatural archetype.



It isn’t preternatural though, it’s outright supernatural. I’m all for preternatural abilities in rangers, but spells are not preternatural.


----------



## Staffan

dave2008 said:


> I don't remember, how were rituals handled in 4e?



Rituals are class-independent and handle almost all utility magic. So there are no cleric rituals, wizard rituals, or druid rituals, they're all just rituals (although they use four different skills: Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Heal). Performing a ritual takes 10 minutes or more, usually requires a skill check, and has a component cost in either alchemical reagents, mystic salves, rare herbs, or sanctified incense (depending on which skill it's based on). There's also residuum which can be used for any type of ritual, but the only source is disenchanting magic items. Any character can take the Ritual Caster feat, but certain classes get it for free. You record rituals in your ritual book, and learning one costs money.

So, for example, if a 5e wizard wants to cast _knock_, they just spend a 2nd level slot to cast it, and open any lock that isn't magically locked and has a pretty good chance of opening one of those as well. They do need to spend a daily resource to do it (the 2nd level slot), and there's the loud knock sound that was added in 5e that makes it less than subtle, but it's pretty much a definite solution to any locked door or chest.

In 4e instead, casting it takes 10 minutes and costs 35 gp worth of alchemical reagents, plus a healing surge (a daily resource that can otherwise heal 25% of your hp on a short rest or sometimes mid-combat – sort of like a 5e hit die, but instead of having an increasing number of fixed-potency heals you have a fixed number of increasing-potency heals). You then roll Arcana against each thing holding the target closed (so if the door has three locks, you roll three checks), with a pretty hefty bonus. If you succeed on all the checks, the thing is now unlocked.

One particularly good effect of rituals is that long-term healing/condition relief is also the domain of rituals: Cure Disease, Raise Dead, and Remove Affliction (curses, petrification, etc.). That means you don't need a dedicated healer in the party to deal with that kind of thing – a wizard with the Heal skill will do just fine, or a ritual-casting Warlord or any other class. Even without that, there are a lot more rituals in 4e than in 5e: by my count 5e has 35, and 4e has about 50 in the PHB alone, with more in supplements (the main things that are rituals in 4e that aren't in 5e are healing, travel, and exploration magic).

Also, since most rituals normally requires a skill check, they are less certain than spells. Knock, from the example above, is good at opening things, but it's not a certain thing. If you perform a Sending ritual, the range depends on your skill check (or alternately, the DC depends on the range to the target). They also always come with a monetary cost – it might be an insignificant one at higher levels, but spending 35 gp and an hour to feed a party of five with a Traveler's Feast each day adds up.

TL;DR: In 5e, rituals are a way to bypass the spell slot cost of a spell by spending time on it. In 4e, rituals were an entirely different ballgame, both more and less accessible, and definitely more exciting. Plus they removed the need for a dedicated healer class.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> 2015 was seven years ago. I think it’s entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed since then. If so, this new playtest will be a good opportunity for WotC to get data on that. I know I will be expressing my strong distaste for magic beyond a few utility spells (preferably rituals) here and there, and I hope everyone who feels as I do will do the same.



It was also the case later, when they tested and published Scout options. I doubt it has changed at all, bit their doubling down on magic a bit here is a good opportunity to test it. I'll wager one of the Subclasses they're going to end up testing will be a more magic centered option, to contrast with the martial heavy Hunter.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> It isn’t preternatural though, it’s outright supernatural. I’m all for preternatural abilities in rangers, but spells are not preternatural.



In D&D terms, supernatural, then. Magic is a core part of the Class, and that won't change.


----------



## dave2008

Staffan said:


> Rituals are class-independent and handle almost all utility magic. So there are no cleric rituals, wizard rituals, or druid rituals, they're all just rituals (although they use four different skills: Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Heal).



OK, I remember that now. Yes, I think that would be better and could easily be implemented in 5e (if a bit of work).  What I don't remember is if rituals were separate from spells. By this I mean in 4e if a spell was a ritual, was it only available as a ritual or could it be a spell power too?

Personally I like the idea of reserving some spells to be rituals only.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> 2015 was seven years ago. I think it’s entirely possible that the majority opinion has changed since then. If so, this new playtest will be a good opportunity for WotC to get data on that. I know I will be expressing my strong distaste for magic beyond a few utility spells (preferably rituals) here and there, and I hope everyone who feels as I do will do the same.



It is possible, but I fear that in the wide world (those coming to D&D in the last 8 years) the idea of a class without magic is probably less appealing than it was in 2015.  I know I feel like a fish out of water when I talk about our low magic campaign with a group made up of almost all martial characters (the rogue scout is our "ranger").


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> In D&D terms, supernatural, then. Magic is a core part of the Class, and that won't change.



I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.



Is it important that it be called a "ranger?" We found the rogue scout works well for our concept of purely marital ranger. I'm fine with the D&D ranger being magical if I have another way to make what I want in another class.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I strongly disagree that it’s a core part of the class. Whether it will change remains to be seen, but I do suspect it probably won’t.



Well, I'm not _arguing_ that it us, but that's imply what WotC found consistently over the years. It is what it is.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> Is it important that it be called a "ranger?" We found the rogue scout works well for our concept of purely marital ranger.



It’s not important to me that it be called a ranger, but the scout isn’t a suitable replacement in my opinion because it doesn’t do anything ranger-y. If a bow and expertise in Nature and Survival was all it took to be a ranger, people who say a fighter with Skill Expert already functions as a non-casting ranger. The ranger needs unique abilities that allow it to excel in an exploration context in ways other characters cannot.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not important to me that it be called a ranger, but the scout isn’t a suitable replacement in my opinion because it doesn’t do anything ranger-y. If a bow and expertise in Nature and Survival was all it took to be a ranger, people who say a fighter with Skill Expert already functions as a non-casting ranger. The ranger needs unique abilities that allow it to excel in an exploration context in ways other characters cannot.



Expertise plus consistent ability allows a Rogue to excel in exploration like nobody except the Ranger.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Expertise plus consistent ability allows a Rogue to excel in exploration like nobody except the Ranger.



No, it lets them excel exactly like everybody else (except the ranger) more reliably.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> No, it lets them excel exactly like everybody else (except the ranger) more reliably.



Not just a little more reliably: we're talking about turning DC 15 and 20 checks into autosuccess here, and 25 and 30 into everyday achievements.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Not just a little more reliably: we're talking about turning DC 15 and 20 checks into autosuccess here, and 25 and 30 into everyday achievements.



Yes, but it’s still just the same thing anyone else can do with higher numbers. Which is fine for a rogue subclass because that’s the rogue’s shtick. It’s not a ranger though.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Yes, but it’s still just the same thing anyone else can do with higher numbers. Which is fine for a rogue subclass because that’s the rogue’s shtick. It’s not a ranger though.



But a Ranger, per WotC findings, is a spellcaster.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not important to me that it be called a ranger, but the scout isn’t a suitable replacement in my opinion because it doesn’t do anything ranger-y. If a bow and expertise in Nature and Survival was all it took to be a ranger, people who say a fighter with Skill Expert already functions as a non-casting ranger. The ranger needs unique abilities that allow it to excel in an exploration context in ways other characters cannot.



Well everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is.  My question was about whether or not it had to be called a ranger. Whether or not the scout was a suitable replacement for you was not the point.  The point is a suitable replacement, say subclass, would be acceptable if it had the things you want, correct?

PS I personally think the ranger (my idea of a ranger) should be a fighter subclass and then give it "rangery" maneuvers.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> But a Ranger, per WotC findings, is a spellcaster.



I was arguing why I don’t think the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger. Whether or not WotC thinks the ranger needs spellcasting is irrelevant to that argument.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not important to me that it be called a ranger, but the scout isn’t a suitable replacement in my opinion because it doesn’t do anything ranger-y. If a bow and expertise in Nature and Survival was all it took to be a ranger, people who say a fighter with Skill Expert already functions as a non-casting ranger. The ranger needs unique abilities that allow it to excel in an exploration context in ways other characters cannot.



To be honest before you get a non magical ranger you need a decent exploration pillar in the first place. Get that in place, and you have a chance of a rangery ranger magical or otherwise. Then you can fight for the nonmagical ranger.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> Well everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is.  My question was about whether or not it had to be called a ranger. Whether or not the scout was a suitable replacement for you was not the point.  The point is a suitable replacement, say subclass, would be acceptable if it had the things you want, correct?



Correct in theory. In practice, I don’t think a subclass of any of the existing classes would capture the feel of the non-casting ranger effectively. But, no, I don’t care if it’s actually named “ranger” or not.


dave2008 said:


> PS I personally think the ranger (my idea of a ranger) should be a fighter subclass and then give it "rangery" maneuvers.



Wouldn’t work for me, as it would lack unique exploration and survival features.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> I was arguing why I don’t think the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger. Whether or not WotC thinks the ranger needs spellcasting is irrelevant to that argument.



Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing the the Scout is a suitable non-spellcasting ranger for you. I was asking if a subclass for a different, if suitable constructed, could replace the niche for a ranger in your mind.  It appears that answer is yes.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngainlyTitan said:


> To be honest before you get a non magical ranger you need a decent exploration pillar in the first place. Get that in place, and you have a chance of a rangery ranger magical or otherwise. Then you can fight for the nonmagical ranger.



I do think 5e has a perfectly cromulent exploration system. The rules for it are hidden in random places throughout the PHB and DMG, but if you complete the exploration rules scavenger hunt, there’s enough there for a pretty solid system with which ranger class features could interact.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngainlyTitan said:


> To be honest before you get a non magical ranger you need a decent exploration pillar in the first place. Get that in place, and you have a chance of a rangery ranger magical or otherwise. Then you can fight for the nonmagical ranger.



The Journey system works well and has a kick starter right now


----------



## UngainlyTitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> The Journey system works well and has a kick starter right now



I am backing it.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> Correct in theory. In practice, I don’t think a subclass of any of the existing classes would capture the feel of the non-casting ranger effectively. But, no, I don’t care if it’s actually named “ranger” or not.
> 
> Wouldn’t work for me, as it would lack unique exploration and survival features.



I think you could get those through subclass features and expanding the concept of what a "maneuver" is, but of course I don't know what you want for exploration and survival features.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Charlaquin said:


> I do think 5e has a perfectly cromulent exploration system. The rules for it are hidden in random places throughout the PHB and DMG, but if you complete the exploration rules scavenger hunt, there’s enough there for a pretty solid system with which ranger class features could interact.



I disagree, at least in part. If you want an old style hex crawl exploration game, then there are rules scattered around that can give a good go at it. At least for low levels. However, the Outlander and ranger rules trivialise foraging and that is before considering Goodberrry. 
If you want something more abstract then there is a very binary pass/fail ability check system.
I would like something where they party could acquire resources before journeying that could be spent to succeed in overcoming travel issues with the ranger mitigating those costs. Something along the lines of time, supply, fatigue and hit dice vs obstacles.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngainlyTitan said:


> I disagree, at least in part. If you want an old style hex crawl exploration game, then there are rules scattered around that can give a good go at it. At least for low levels. However, the Outlander and ranger rules trivialise foraging and that is before considering Goodberrry.
> If you want something more abstract then there is a very binary pass/fail ability check system.
> I would like something where they party could acquire resources before journeying that could be spent to succeed in overcoming travel issues with the ranger mitigating those costs. Something along the lines of time, supply, fatigue and hit dice vs obstacles.



All of that stuff is in Level Up (and in the Journey system, which LU is heavily inspired by).


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Micah Sweet said:


> All of that stuff is in Level Up (and in the Journey system, which LU is heavily inspired by).



I do not like the way Level Up does it. It is overly crunchy. I like the Journey system, but it is too Middle earth focused. I have been thinking of modifying it to my taste, but I will see that Cubicle 7 do in their new kick starter first.


----------



## dave2008

Yep, I'm not a class designer, but it seems the Fighter BM chassis could work. @Charlaquin, what about something like:

Strider​You are skilled in exploring and surviving the dangers of the wild places of the world. Fighters that embrace this archtype are at home in the wilderness and scout ahead for your companions during expeditions.
​Survivalist Superiority​When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn knacks that are fueled by special dice called superiority dice.

_*Knacks.*_ You learn three knacks of your choice, which are detailed under “Knacks" below. Many knacks enhance an attack in some way. You can use only one knack per attack. 

D_esigner's note: survivalist knacks may be less attack dependent, who knows!_
You learn two additional knacks of your choice at 7th, 10th, and 15th level. Each time you learn new knacks, you can also replace one knack you know with a different one.

_*Superiority Dice.*_ You have four superiority dice, which are d8s. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain all of your expended superiority dice when you finish a short or long rest.

You gain another superiority die at 7th level and one more at 15th level.

_*Saving Throws.*_ Some of your knacks require your target to make a saving throw to resist the knack’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:

*Knack save DC* = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice)

Student of the Wild​At 3rd level, you gain proficiency with one type of artisan’s tools of your choice.

D_esigner's note: this might be replaced with skill proficiency or a more unique feature_
Know Your Enemy​Starting at 7th level, if you spend at least 1 minute observing or interacting with another creature outside combat, you can learn certain information about its capabilities compared to your own. The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:

Strength score
Dexterity score
Constitution score
Armor Class
Current hit points
Total class levels (if any)
Fighter class levels (if any)

_Designer's note: this feels ranger-like to me, but you could revise to be a unique feature._
Improved Survivalist Superiority​At 10th level, your superiority dice turn into d10s. At 18th level, they turn into d12s.

Relentless​Starting at 15th level, when you roll initiative and have no superiority dice remaining, you regain one superiority die.

_Designer's note: this is OO but I would revise it to be a unique feature._
Knacks​The knacks are presented in alphabetical order.

_Designer's note: this is where you could really give it a unique "ranger" feel IMO. I of course have no idea what those would be!_
_*Design Analysis: This framework gives you the potential for 3-4 unique features to be make it a specialist in exploration and survival.  Then you can add a dozen or so knacks to really emphasis that niche.  It seems like a lot of design space to make a martial ranger.  Now, if you need more, maybe you can  swap out action surge or something too.*_


----------



## Haplo781

Marandahir said:


> Just a thought: Barbarian needs a name change to move away from a racist past. Warden could eat the Barbarian and the martial tendencies of the Ranger to allow Ranger to slide more into an Expertise role?



"Berserker"


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> They’ve said “Dexterity (Stealth) check” since the Next playtest, here they’re just reversing the order of “check” and the parenthetical skill. The reason they do so is because there’s no such thing as a skill check in 5e. Skills are a feature that allow you to add your proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks.



I understand that, at I said above. There should be skill checks. It's bad syntax. And there is no reason not to have skill checks.


----------



## ersatzphil

Parmandur said:


> But a Ranger, per WotC findings, is a spellcaster.



In fairness, I played a ranger for two of the three years 3rd Ed was out - which they cite along with 2nd Ed as being the most liked formulation of the class - and I was already reflavoring the spells I got as nonmagical abilities in the late 90s. To refer to someone's example upthread: I don't care if it's _mechanically_ _identical_ to a spell, I want to feel like _I'm_ good at setting alarms, not that I have a spell for that.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Haplo781 said:


> "Berserker"




Honestly, that's yet another one that should just be a subclass of Fighter.


----------



## Zaukrie

To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Zaukrie said:


> To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.



No, but they might say, "give me a Strength check".

"Can I add my Athletics?"

"Sure!"

Then they're off on another adventure!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Zaukrie said:


> To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.




When they do say “give me a stealth check” (and you're right, they do!) it's a habit learned in previous editions.  So, no, it doesn't back up your position.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> Yep, I'm not a class designer, but it seems the Fighter BM chassis could work. @Charlaquin, what about something like:
> 
> Strider​You are skilled in exploring and surviving the dangers of the wild places of the world. Fighters that embrace this archtype are at home in the wilderness and scout ahead for your companions during expeditions.
> ​Survivalist Superiority​When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn knacks that are fueled by special dice called superiority dice.
> 
> _*Knacks.*_ You learn three knacks of your choice, which are detailed under “Knacks" below. Many knacks enhance an attack in some way. You can use only one knack per attack.
> 
> D_esigner's note: survivalist knacks may be less attack dependent, who knows!_
> You learn two additional knacks of your choice at 7th, 10th, and 15th level. Each time you learn new knacks, you can also replace one knack you know with a different one.
> 
> _*Superiority Dice.*_ You have four superiority dice, which are d8s. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain all of your expended superiority dice when you finish a short or long rest.
> 
> You gain another superiority die at 7th level and one more at 15th level.
> 
> _*Saving Throws.*_ Some of your knacks require your target to make a saving throw to resist the knack’s effects. The saving throw DC is calculated as follows:
> 
> *Knack save DC* = 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice)
> 
> Student of the Wild​At 3rd level, you gain proficiency with one type of artisan’s tools of your choice.
> 
> D_esigner's note: this might be replaced with skill proficiency or a more unique feature_
> Know Your Enemy​Starting at 7th level, if you spend at least 1 minute observing or interacting with another creature outside combat, you can learn certain information about its capabilities compared to your own. The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:
> 
> Strength score
> Dexterity score
> Constitution score
> Armor Class
> Current hit points
> Total class levels (if any)
> Fighter class levels (if any)
> _Designer's note: this feels ranger-like to me, but you could revise to be a unique feature._
> Improved Survivalist Superiority​At 10th level, your superiority dice turn into d10s. At 18th level, they turn into d12s.
> 
> Relentless​Starting at 15th level, when you roll initiative and have no superiority dice remaining, you regain one superiority die.
> 
> _Designer's note: this is OO but I would revise it to be a unique feature._
> Knacks​The knacks are presented in alphabetical order.
> 
> _Designer's note: this is where you could really give it a unique "ranger" feel IMO. I of course have no idea what those would be!_
> _*Design Analysis: This framework gives you the potential for 3-4 unique features to be make it a specialist in exploration and survival.  Then you can add a dozen or so knacks to really emphasis that niche.  It seems like a lot of design space to make a martial ranger.  Now, if you need more, maybe you can  swap out action surge or something too.*_



I don’t see it. Just looks like a Battlemaster with the vague suggestion that maybe it could have some non-combat maneuvers.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> I understand that, at I said above. There should be skill checks. It's bad syntax. And there is no reason not to have skill checks.



There’s plenty of reason not to have skill checks.


----------



## ersatzphil

Zaukrie said:


> To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.



I actually do. It’s a habit I picked up watching Perkins run _Dice, Camera, Action!, _but I find it helpful for new players.


----------



## Flamestrike

RoughCoronet0 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who likes Rangers with spells. I’m actually really excited that they are getting the ability to prepare spells, gaining cantrips, and are getting a wider spell list.




Im OK with it, I'd just like an option for a Ranger without them.

And yeah, you can simply play a Scout/ Fighter and call yourself a Ranger I guess, but its not quite the same.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> @Ruin Explorer  honestly not sure what's funny about that...? This is the final major clarification in what WotC means by Backwards compatibility: everything is Backwards compatible.



There's nothing in that paragraph that means backwards compatible at all, let alone a final major clarification.  All it says is that while *playtesting*, you can go ahead and use the 2014 subclasses.  That doesn't say or imply that they are backwards compatible, or what the final disposition is going to be.


----------



## Staffan

dave2008 said:


> OK, I remember that now. Yes, I think that would be better and could easily be implemented in 5e (if a bit of work).  What I don't remember is if rituals were separate from spells. By this I mean in 4e if a spell was a ritual, was it only available as a ritual or could it be a spell power too?
> 
> Personally I like the idea of reserving some spells to be rituals only.



Rituals were entirely separate from spells and other powers ("spells" were the specific name for arcane powers, just like martial powers were "exploits" and divine powers were "prayers").

Most of the powers that were part of a class were attacks. You had some powers labeled "Utility powers", but for the most part those were still combat-oriented, just not direct attacks (e.g. an AC bonus, hp healing/short-term condition relief, movement).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> I mean, after what we saw today, a Neo-Beastmaster is in like Flynn. And this Ranger works just fine with the recent Drakewarden, for that matter.
> 
> That only reinforces the point: the D&D Rabger is a mystical and preternatural archetype.



WHERE'S THE BEAR!!! 

I mean, by the logic they expressed there, the animal companion should be be part of the base class, not an "optional extra", if it's really "what the people want" that matters.

My contention is WotC values "WotC's own confused ideas" over "What the people want", which often is fine, but is not working for them with Ranger.


----------



## Staffan

UngainlyTitan said:


> If you want something more abstract then there is a very binary pass/fail ability check system.
> I would like something where they party could acquire resources before journeying that could be spent to succeed in overcoming travel issues with the ranger mitigating those costs. Something along the lines of time, supply, fatigue and hit dice vs obstacles.



That reminds me of a Twitter thread by Rob Donoghue (of Evil Hat fame). I can't find it right now, but he postulates that one of the reasons D&D works well despite all its wonkiness is that combat, while it can *feel* like high-stakes, is really a large number of low-stakes rolls and that this reduces the system's seeming randomness. He also went on to say that the places where D&D feels less successful are ones that, well, don't do that and instead resolve something with a single roll: save-or-suck abilities and skill checks. This in turn leads to abilities that are supposed to demonstrate being good at mundane stuff usually taking the form of auto-win, because relying on a single roll of a d20 sucks.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Zaukrie said:


> To back up my position.... Does anyone say... Give me a strength athletics check? Give me a wisdom perception check? No one says that.



I say that all the time. And I also use the variant versions of the skills frequently, too (Constitution-based Athletics for long-distance swimming/running/flying, Intelligence-based Sleight of Hand for tying knots, Dexterity-based Performance for juggling, Strength-based Intimidation for strong characters).


----------



## Aldarc

UngainlyTitan said:


> I do not like the way Level Up does it. It is overly crunchy. I like the Journey system, but it is too Middle earth focused. I have been thinking of modifying it to my taste, but I will see that Cubicle 7 do in their new kick starter first.



Probably a reskinned Middle Earth system that tries to beat Fria Ligan's upcoming updated 5e Adventures in Middle Earth to the punch.


----------



## dave2008

Staffan said:


> Rituals were entirely separate from spells and other powers ("spells" were the specific name for arcane powers, just like martial powers were "exploits" and divine powers were "prayers").
> 
> Most of the powers that were part of a class were attacks. You had some powers labeled "Utility powers", but for the most part those were still combat-oriented, just not direct attacks (e.g. an AC bonus, hp healing/short-term condition relief, movement).



Thank you for the reply, but all I asked about were the rituals.  We played 4e for about 6 years before switching to 5e.  We just had martial heavy characters (as we always do) and I don't think anyone every took the ritual caster feat.  I personally don't remember anyone ever using a ritual so I couldn't remember how they worked.  The rest of it (powers, AEDU, etc.) I am very familiar with.


----------



## dave2008

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see it. Just looks like a Battlemaster with the vague suggestion that maybe it could have some non-combat maneuvers.



Well I'm not designing a class, just proposing a framework.  You need to use your imagination to fill in the gaps. I guess I see a lot of potential.

Strider Features

3rd level: gain 3 Knacks. Each knack allows you to do something expected of a ranger.
3rd level: unique "ranger" feature
7th Level: learn an additional knack
7th level: additional unique "ranger" feature
10th level: learn an additional knack
10th level: Improved "survivalist superiority" or possibly a unique "ranger" feature
15th level: learn an additional knack
15th level: additional unique "ranger" feature
18th level: Improved "survivalist superiority" or possibly a unique "ranger" feature
That is potentially 11 opportunities to provide ranger abilities.  I may not know how to design those abilities, but it sure seems like a lot of design space to develop a ranger IMO. Now, pair that with a 1D&D ranger style background, the right fighting style, and some ranger-style feats and things get quite interesting IMO.

Then, if you wanted to break the mold a bit more, you could perhaps replace core fighter features with subclass ones.  So perhaps action surge (at 2nd or 17th)  or extra attacks (at 11th or 20th) are replaced with ranger features.

Now, if all those ranger options are not enough, what are you looking for? I realize I have not given specifics, but if you tell me what you are looking for perhaps we can build up this subclass into something interesting?


----------



## MNblockhead

Ruin Explorer said:


> Compatibility-wise there's likely to be power creep, indeed it's certain, but the main thing is adventures will still work. People talk a lot about compatibility, but I've been around for an awful lot of edition changes across an awful lot of RPGs, now, and there's one thing that really makes people care, and that's adventures. For whatever psychological reasons, people just don't get that upset about splatbooks and sourcebooks being invalidated, even entire classes and races, or rather the number of people who do is proportionally tiny.
> 
> But adventures? If you invalidate them, that's when people riot. That's one of the big issues 4E faced - you basically couldn't convert anything, you just had to re-write it. 3E had the same issue, but honestly the market was sick enough with AD&D that it wasn't a huge problem. I feel like a lot of it is, people buy adventures intending to run them "one day", and as long as that "one day" remains in the future and possible, they're happy (even if that day is "next Tuesday" or "the fifth of never"). But when an edition change shuts that down...
> 
> All 1D&D really needs is to make it so fundamentally, 5E Strahd or whatever still works okay with 1D&D characters/monsters. Which I don't doubt they can manage.




I expect that's true. Well...at least it is true for me. First few years in my enthusiasm for getting back into TTRPGs with 5e I bought a LOT of setting and adventure material. Both WotC and third-party. Given the 8 hours or so a month that I can run games. I still enjoy 5e and their would be no reason for me start with an incompatible edition. So far I have been pretty happy with what I've seen in the UAs. But if the rules as released would make it difficult to run my existing adventure material, I would pass on them and continue to play 2014 5e with some bit and bobs from third parties.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Given we know "Expert" and "Warrior" are groups, I suspect the remainder will be "Priests" (Cleric, Druid, Monk) and "Mages" (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.)

Will be interesting to see how the group feat thing works.


----------



## TwoSix

EzekielRaiden said:


> Given we know "Expert" and "Warrior" are groups, I suspect the remainder will be "Priests" (Cleric, Druid, Monk) and "Mages" (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.)
> 
> Will be interesting to see how the group feat thing works.



Priests are Cleric, Druid, and Paladin.  It states it in the document.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't like bards.  Except for one.  My 2e blade bard.  I really liked that one.



That's too bad. Some of my favorite characters I've played have been bards. But then again I rarely play into the trope of the horny bard.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> There's nothing in that paragraph that means backwards compatible at all, let alone a final major clarification.  All it says is that while *playtesting*, you can go ahead and use the 2014 subclasses.  That doesn't say or imply that they are backwards compatible, or what the final disposition is going to be.



On what basis for you have anynsuspicion this is not meant for final text in the PHB...? Per WotC own FAQ, their goal is to keep all 5E Supplements viable with OneD&D, and after 2 packets we see that both Races and Subclasses remain perfectly usable by design.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> WHERE'S THE BEAR!!!
> 
> I mean, by the logic they expressed there, the animal companion should be be part of the base class, not an "optional extra", if it's really "what the people want" that matters.
> 
> My contention is WotC values "WotC's own confused ideas" over "What the people want", which often is fine, but is not working for them with Ranger.



The animal companion is less generally desired than the magic, apparently. But magic is core to the Rangers identity.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> On what basis for you have anynsuspicion this is not meant for final text in the PHB...?



On the basis that it clearly and only says playtest.  There's not one single word in there that implies that this will go past the playtest, or if it does, in the form it is currently in.


Parmandur said:


> Per WotC own FAQ, their goal is to keep all 5E Supplements viable with OneD&D, and after 2 packets we see that both Races and Subclasses remain perfectly usable by design.



That's the goal, but they said the same thing about 3e and didn't deliver.  I have my doubts and the playtest paragraph doesn't say anything about beyond the playtest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> I loves Rangers with spells.
> 
> My gripe is that WOTC keeps giving Ranger's Druid spells and doesn't make Ranger spells and this playtest Ranger is another continuation of it.



Well, now it’s more that the two share a spell list, but yeah. 

I am at work, what school is lightning arrow? 

Are there really no evocations that fit the ranger? _Really!?_ 

Overall I think that power source lists make sense, and automatic prep spell lists make sense. I’m just skeptical of the “except XYZ schools” bit.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well, now it’s more that the two share a spell list, but yeah.



Yup now 2 classes will be better rangers than rangers



doctorbadwolf said:


> what school is lightning arrow



Transmutation.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Are there really no evocations that fit the ranger? _Really!?_



Yup. No wind spells.

*It's 3e ALL over again.
Druids and Bards better rangers than rangers.*


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> On the basis that it clearly and only says playtest.  There's not one single word in there that implies that this will go past the playtest, or if it does, in the form it is currently in.
> 
> That's the goal, but they said the same thing about 3e and didn't deliver.  I have my doubts and the playtest paragraph doesn't say anything about beyond the playtest.



But they have already delivered a Race system that incorporates all 5E Races easily, and Classes that allow for all 5E Subclasses easily. If anything, I expect they may have expanded guidance on conversion in the end, since they have already delivered a working design.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> But they have already delivered a Race system that incorporates all 5E Races easily, and Classes that allow for all 5E Subclasses easily. If anything, I expect they may have expanded guidance on conversion in the end, since they have already delivered a working design.



Maybe.  It's just to early to tell what form the races, classes and any conversion/usage of 2014 subclasses will look like.  We can't go by what they are saying is playtest.  They HAVE to allow it the way they are, really.  There's too much not covered by the playtests not to.


----------



## darjr

Maxperson said:


> Maybe.  It's just to early to tell what form the races, classes and any conversion/usage of 2014 subclasses will look like.  We can't go by what they are saying is playtest.  They HAVE to allow it the way they are, really.  There's too much not covered by the playtests not to.



I think that’s on purpose. This playtest is different than nexts, not being close to complete games, because it can not be but also because they want you to test it against older 5e stuff.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> I think that’s on purpose. This playtest is different than nexts, not being close to complete games, because it can be but also because they want you to test it against older 5e stuff.



Yeah.  Both reasons are valid for why they are doing it.  Either way, though, it's too early to think that the language being used is going to be the same or even resemble what will be used when 5.5 is released.


----------



## darjr

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  Both reasons are valid for why they are doing it.  Either way, though, it's too early to think that the language being used is going to be the same or even resemble what will be used when 5.5 is released.



True, but I think it shows that the intent is for the same kind of use with the final revision.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> On what basis for you have anynsuspicion this is not meant for final text in the PHB...? Per WotC own FAQ, their goal is to keep all 5E Supplements viable with OneD&D, and after 2 packets we see that both Races and Subclasses remain perfectly usable by design.



It wouldn’t even make any sense to say to test the class with old subclasses unless that was intended to work. It’s just suspicion for the sake of suspicion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

darjr said:


> True, but I think it shows that the intent is for the same kind of use with the final revision.



In fact all the available evidence suggests that older subclasses will play naturally with new base classes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> The animal companion is less generally desired than the magic, apparently. But magic is core to the Rangers identity.



There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D. Also inductive reasoning of that kind easily turns into circular reasoning, which is particularly dodgy imo.


----------



## TwoSix

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D.



Is there any compelling evidence to support ANY one particular interpretation of the Ranger?  I mean, tradition carries some weight, I guess, but I don't think it's particularly determinative.  

Honestly, you could sell me on a noncaster, half-caster, full-caster, even pact-caster version of Ranger, as long as its overall feature set is compelling.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TwoSix said:


> Is there any compelling evidence to support ANY one particular interpretation of the Ranger? I mean, tradition carries some weight, I guess, but I don't think it's particularly determinative.
> 
> Honestly, you could sell me on a noncaster, half-caster, full-caster, even pact-caster version of Ranger, as long as its overall feature set is compelling.



I mostly agree.

As said much, much earlier the main thing is WotC need to "pick a lane" on the Ranger, and they've resolutely refused to do so. Absolutely refused. They just come up with all sorts of conflicting and unconvincing visions of the Ranger.

It's like, if you want the pop-culture and fantasy literature Ranger, you want someone who by default doesn't have magic (but there could absolutely be subclasses that did), and whose main deal is they're a competent, sneaky warrior, who knows absolutely everything about nature, and is totally in tune with their environment, and maybe with animals too.

If you want the videogame take on the Ranger, well, it's basically Beastmaster taken 2 THA MAX, with PETS PETS PETS, animal summons, magic but only relating to the summons and the like, and so on.

If you want the old-skool D&D version of the Ranger, you want something a lot like the pop-culture/fantasy lit Ranger, but who maybe always eventually (at a fairly high level) gets some access to magic.

If you want this strange basically multiclass Druid/Fighter but with skills take that 5E is doing, that can work, but change the lore so it matches with what's described, rather than being a huge mismatch. And ditch the existing subclasses that don't match this vibe. Like, keep Fey Wanderer, it's a good match, as is the one with the bees, but ditch stuff like Hunter, Beastmaster and so on, which are a totally terrible match for this guy (as well-illustrated by the bizarre and weakly-drawn Hunter subclass we have here).

Pick one. Stick with it. Right now WotC are just making a weird mess that is absolutely falling between two chairs. And this isn't new to 5E. 3.XE's vision of Ranger was messy as hell (though they at least got that animal companions were popular, something they don't really get in 5E despite their own polling showing it). 4E just presented starkly conflicting visions of the Ranger, none of them convincing or engaging. 5E has this mess, and 1D&D is making an even bigger mess than 5E (and really doubling down on replacing abilities with spells, something they've done the opposite with in virtually every other class in 5E and 1D&D).


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

I know I'm into Ranger just for the pet!

Even if for the longest time a single conjure spell was better than it...

and it feels weird to watch the class get patched one feature at a time...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mostly agree.
> 
> As said much, much earlier the main thing is WotC need to "pick a lane" on the Ranger, and they've resolutely refused to do so. Absolutely refused. They just come up with all sorts of conflicting and unconvincing visions of the Ranger.
> 
> It's like, if you want the pop-culture and fantasy literature Ranger, you want someone who by default doesn't have magic (but there could absolutely be subclasses that did), and whose main deal is they're a competent, sneaky warrior, who knows absolutely everything about nature, and is totally in tune with their environment, and maybe with animals too.
> 
> If you want the videogame take on the Ranger, well, it's basically Beastmaster taken 2 THA MAX, with PETS PETS PETS, animal summons, magic but only relating to the summons and the like, and so on.
> 
> If you want the old-skool D&D version of the Ranger, you want something a lot like the pop-culture/fantasy lit Ranger, but who maybe always eventually (at a fairly high level) gets some access to magic.
> 
> If you want this strange basically multiclass Druid/Fighter but with skills take that 5E is doing, that can work, but change the lore so it matches with what's described, rather than being a huge mismatch. And ditch the existing subclasses that don't match this vibe. Like, keep Fey Wanderer, it's a good match, as is the one with the bees, but ditch stuff like Hunter, Beastmaster and so on, which are a totally terrible match for this guy (as well-illustrated by the bizarre and weakly-drawn Hunter subclass we have here).
> 
> Pick one. Stick with it. Right now WotC are just making a weird mess that is absolutely falling between two chairs. And this isn't new to 5E. 3.XE's vision of Ranger was messy as hell (though they at least got that animal companions were popular, something they don't really get in 5E despite their own polling showing it). 4E just presented starkly conflicting visions of the Ranger, none of them convincing or engaging. 5E has this mess, and 1D&D is making an even bigger mess than 5E (and really doubling down on replacing abilities with spells, something they've done the opposite with in virtually every other class in 5E and 1D&D).



I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another. 

It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.
> 
> It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.



Every time?! Not for this person.


darjr said:


> 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.
> View attachment 262666


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters,



That is kind of what I want but


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class),



I have no issue with this but


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.



I have absolutely no interest in this but would not complain as long as I would get something else.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.



While I have no interest in psionics (it is just another magic system to me) I did follow those UA threads here and my impression was that there was a lot less acceptance of "the thing I do not like". 

To be completely honest I would not have an issue of a magic less ranger (although I do not see the point, it is just a fighter with more skills) if it had a nice exploration pillar to show off its toys in. I just do not see it happening because a spellless base class is going to mess up the spell progression for multiclassing.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> Every time?! Not for this person.



I said that they fail to please everyone. Not that there aren't people that enjoy the updates or older versions of the Ranger (in my experience, often younger/newer players).

I once had someone online try to convince me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with how the 2014 Ranger was designed and that if it was unbalanced at all, it was because it was *too good/powerful*, and that the Class Feature Variants for the Ranger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything were "contaminating" the pure awesomeness of the PHB's version of the class. And that person had that opinion because they played a PHB Ranger in a campaign where the DM told them ahead of time exactly which terrains the campaign would take place in for the entirety of the campaign and he railroaded the campaign so much that the players never got an option to go to any terrains other than the ones that the Ranger had chosen as their Favored Terrain (the DM also told them exactly what enemies they would be fighting so the player could use Favored Enemy for the majority of enemies in the campaign). 

There are devout fans of every version of the Ranger. The old version (strangely) has some, the Revised Ranger UA has some, the TCoE version has some, and I'm sure the newer version will have some. 

What WotC is failing to do "every time" is please everyone. Because people won't agree on what the Ranger is supposed to be.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I said that they fail to please everyone. Not that there aren't people that enjoy the updates or older versions of the Ranger (in my experience, often younger/newer players).
> 
> I once had someone online try to convince me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with how the 2014 Ranger was designed and that if it was unbalanced at all, it was because it was *too good/powerful*, and that the Class Feature Variants for the Ranger in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything were "contaminating" the pure awesomeness of the PHB's version of the class. And that person had that opinion because they played a PHB Ranger in a campaign where the DM told them ahead of time exactly which terrains the campaign would take place in for the entirety of the campaign and he railroaded the campaign so much that the players never got an option to go to any terrains other than the ones that the Ranger had chosen as their Favored Terrain (the DM also told them exactly what enemies they would be fighting so the player could use Favored Enemy for the majority of enemies in the campaign).
> 
> There are devout fans of every version of the Ranger. The old version (strangely) has some, the Revised Ranger UA has some, the TCoE version has some, and I'm sure the newer version will have some.
> 
> What WotC is failing to do "every time" is please everyone. Because people won't agree on what the Ranger is supposed to be.



Well I don’t disagree that there seems to be large bases of opposed ranger phenotype fans.

But no one succeeds in pleasing everyone.


----------



## darjr

And I don’t think I’m being to pendant.

They do take on the idea the 5e is kinda most people’s second favorite game.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> But no one succeeds in pleasing everyone.



Which is my point. The current Ranger debate is like the "lite" version of the Psionic debate. People don't agree on what the Ranger should be, which is why people perceive WotC's versions of the class as having an identity crisis. This isn't actually a WotC problem, it's a community problem.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Maybe.  It's just to early to tell what form the races, classes and any conversion/usage of 2014 subclasses will look like.  We can't go by what they are saying is playtest.  They HAVE to allow it the way they are, really.  There's too much not covered by the playtests not to.



Well, yeah, sure. They are also testing mixing all of the new options with 2014 stuff, since that is a stated design goal. That's not a temporary state.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  Both reasons are valid for why they are doing it.  Either way, though, it's too early to think that the language being used is going to be the same or even resemble what will be used when 5.5 is released.



Historically, UA drops have very similar verbiage to final releases, other than mechanical refinements. If anything, I expect the final product will be more conservative than anything so far.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> It wouldn’t even make any sense to say to test the class with old subclasses unless that was intended to work. It’s just suspicion for the sake of suspicion.



I was skeptical of how compatible Classes would be until this drop, bit now itnia clear that when they say backwards compatible, they mean business.

I do think the final version will have more clear guidelines (like changing when old Subclass options drop, or covering dead levels with a Feat), but that will come after nailing down the new Core options.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no evidence or real logic to support that belief. It's purely inductive reasoning on your based the behaviour of a company that hasn't been behaving rationally about the Ranger class for, well, the entire time they've owned D&D. Also inductive reasoning of that kind easily turns into circular reasoning, which is particularly dodgy imo.



The evidence of what WotC said they found when surveying based on their early post release Ranger tests, which clearly informs what they are doing to this day. I see nonserious reason to dobut this.


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if the identity crisis that the 5e Ranger has is the fault of the community disagreeing on what Rangers should be. Some people think that they should be near-Witcher Monster Hunters, some think that they should be nonmagical scouts/hunters like Katniss, Aragorn, and mountain men (which probably doesn't need to be a full class), some think that it should be the summoner/Pokemon-trainer class (with the Beastmaster and Drakewarden), and others think that it should be a magical Warden of nature that protects nature and civilization from destroying one another.
> 
> It's like the Psionics problem. People can't agree on what Psionics/Rangers should be . . . so WotC tries to please everyone and fails every time.



Actually, I think k what WotC has settled on is basically just the Witcher.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> Actually, I think k what WotC has settled on is basically just the Witcher.



That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Historically, UA drops have very similar verbiage to final releases, other than mechanical refinements. If anything, I expect the final product will be more conservative than anything so far.



Other than playtests.  The UA for future books is like that.  The 5e playtest saw wildly different results from a lot of the playtest packets when 5e was released.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Which is my point. The current Ranger debate is like the "lite" version of the Psionic debate. People don't agree on what the Ranger should be, which is why people perceive WotC's versions of the class as having an identity crisis. This isn't actually a WotC problem, it's a community problem.



Ah. I get you.

I do think they've tried to satisfy the niche but it isn't called the Ranger.

My conjecture and guesses about the unhappiness of the Ranger follows. 

Also that non-ranger class can be a little more complex to play or build and keep focus, for some. For some it seems like it's too difficult to explain to new players too, I guess. For others I think the mechanics for those non Ranger Rangers isn't enough or aren't exclusive enough or as powerful in the niche as the actual Ranger class, which can steal their schtick.

For many it seems like spells carries enough other baggage that it clashes with their idea of a Ranger, either mechanically or in flavor.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Other than playtests.  The UA for future books is like that.  The 5e playtest saw wildly different results from a lot of the playtest packets when 5e was released.



This whole process is more like the run upsto Xanathar's or Tasha's, not the Next playtest. They aren't fundamentally rewriting the game this time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.



Not really. The core class isn’t a beast master, and “forest ranger” is part of the basic concept. “The Witcher” isn’t accurate exactly because witchers don’t give a damn about the wilds except that they sometimes produce monsters. 

There’s nothing difficult to understand about the Ranger. They’re the Rangers of The North in Middle-Earth, except in a world with fireballs and color coded dragons. They’re expert trackers and hunters who range over areas of land seeking out potential threats, safeguarding places that need safeguarding, and acting as the tip of the spear against the worst of what can dwell in the wilds. 

Hell, give US Park Rangers military combat training and license to shoot poachers, mutate some wildlife and then train them to keep people safe from the mutants, and you’re most of the way there. 

Put all that in a world with D&D levels of magic, and you get…the D&D ranger.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not really. The core class isn’t a beast master, and “forest ranger” is part of the basic concept. “The Witcher” isn’t accurate exactly because witchers don’t give a damn about the wilds except that they sometimes produce monsters.



I meant that they're D&D's version of Witchers in the sense that "Magical Monster Hunters" is a core part of their identity. There's two subclasses devoted to it and Favored Enemy enforces that concept. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> There’s nothing difficult to understand about the Ranger. They’re the Rangers of The North in Middle-Earth, except in a world with fireballs and color coded dragons. They’re expert trackers and hunters who range over areas of land seeking out potential threats, safeguarding places that need safeguarding, and acting as the tip of the spear against the worst of what can dwell in the wilds.
> 
> Hell, give US Park Rangers military combat training and license to shoot poachers, mutate some wildlife and then train them to keep people safe from the mutants, and you’re most of the way there.
> 
> Put all that in a world with D&D levels of magic, and you get…the D&D ranger.



I mostly agree. I overall think 5e's version of the Ranger is better than the "nonmagical" version that a lot of people seem to want for some reason. However, I do think that the class does have a bit of an identity crisis, especially when it comes to the subclasses and what they do. Some of the subclasses are actually Favored Terrains (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker), some of them are monster hunters (Hunter, Monster Slayer), some of them are Pokemon trainers (Drakewarden, Beast Master, Swarmkeeper). 

The class doesn't know what the subclasses should be. Cleric Domains are based on what god/concept the clerics worship. Paladin Oaths are based on a promise/ideal they swear to keep. Warlock subclasses are based on the patron they've made a pact with. Sorcerous origins are based on how they got their powers. Wizard Schools are (with few exceptions) a type of magic they choose to practice above all others. Ranger Archetypes are . . . Pokemon Trainers, three different flavors of monster hunters, and expanded Favored Terrains. There's something inherently flawed with what the Ranger's subclass identities are/should be. Other classes definitely have this problem too, but Rangers have it quite noticeably.


----------



## JEB

doctorbadwolf said:


> In fact all the available evidence suggests that older subclasses will play naturally with new base classes.



For most classes, this is true, but the change in the number of subclass slots does create issues for the bard (three slots in 5E vs. four slots in 1D&D). @Parmandur has a workable solution, with the bonus feat, though it lacks subclass flavor (unless specific feats are recommended). If four subclass slots is standard for all classes in 1D&D, that also affects the cleric and fighter, which have five slots in 5E (so either their 1D&D subclasses will have fewer features than the 5E versions, or they'll get more features per slot than other classes to keep continuity with the larger number of 5E features).


----------



## JEB

Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's also a Pokemon Trainer/Drizzt Do'Urden (Drakewarden, Beastmaster). That's also a master archer (see most of their combat spells). That's also a Forest Ranger that protects the wilds from civilization and civilization from the wilds.



The Beastmaster is one archetype, and I fail to see how the rest of that contradicts the Witcher hypothesis. The Witcher is a pretty significant Fantasy archetype all by himself at this point.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

JEB said:


> Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.



Oh, Rangers have been 5e's "Witchers" (as in "Magical monster hunters") since before Blood Hunters. The Hunter subclass was in the PHB. The Monster Slayer was in XGtE.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Re: the ranger and its debatable Witcher-ness, I wonder if that may be a response by Wizards to the popularity of the Blood Hunter on D&D Beyond. Since the Blood Hunter is basically a D&D Witcher.



I mean, the Witcher as a popular figure predates the 5E take on Rangers, and the WotC survey data on Rangers predates the Blood Hunter (which was derived from a ripoff of the Witcher).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> The Beastmaster is one archetype, and I fail to see how the rest of that contradicts the Witcher hypothesis.



There are 3 "Pokemon Trainer" subclasses: Beast Master, Drakewarden, and Swarmkeeper. And there's the summoning spells that Rangers get access to. Clearly, controlling animals is a pretty big part of the 5e Ranger identity. 

And, I'm not saying that 5e Rangers don't have a lot of common elements with Witchers. I agree. I just think that 5e Rangers have a lot more than that, and a lot of them are kind of contradictory/"too much" for a single class to have in their "core identity".


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> There are 3 "Pokemon Trainer" subclasses: Beast Master, Drakewarden, and Swarmkeeper. And there's the summoning spells that Rangers get access to. Clearly, controlling animals is a pretty big part of the 5e Ranger identity.
> 
> And, I'm not saying that 5e Rangers don't have a lot of common elements with Witchers. I agree. I just think that 5e Rangers have a lot more than that, and a lot of them are kind of contradictory/"too much" for a single class to have in their "core identity".



But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Oh, Rangers have been 5e's "Witchers" (as in "Magical monster hunters") since before Blood Hunters. The Hunter subclass was in the PHB. The Monster Slayer was in XGtE.





Parmandur said:


> I mean, the Witcher as a popular figure predates the 5E take on Rangers, and the WotC survey data on Rangers predates the Blood Hunter (which was derived from a ripoff of the Witcher).



Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)



Oh, sure and the continued growing success of the Witcher 3 and the Witcher TV show.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.



IMO, yes. And, Warlocks have a more clear niche/identity than Rangers do (especially when it comes to their subclasses). Warlocks are people that made a pact with a powerful non-deity magical entity. All of their subclasses follow that identity, except the Hexblade. Ranger subclasses don't have a single unifying identity like that. They could have. Their subclass could have been their Favored Terrain. They could have gotten bonuses that would benefit them in any favored terrain (damage resistance, additional movement types, additional senses, additional spells, etc), but Favored Terrain isn't the unifying theme of the Ranger subclasses, even though there are some subclasses that have "Favored Terrain, but more!" as their identity (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker). 

They could have had Favored Enemy be their unifying subclass identity, too. They could have had Dragonslayers, Giant-Killers, Urban Bounty-Hunters, Doom-based Fiend-killers, and so on. But they didn't. There's a few subclasses kind of like that (Horizon Walker for hunting extraplanar invaders, Hunters for a generic "hunter" subclass, Monster Slayers for generic "monster slayers"). 

They also could have attached Ranger subclasses to different kinds of natural creatures that they draw on and have had all of the subclasses be "Pokemon Trainers". There could be Elemental, Fey, Awakened Beast, Plant, Dragons, swarms of insects, and Shadowfell-based Ranger subclasses. Instead, there are 3 subclasses that are kind of like this (Swarmkeeper, Beast Master, Drakewarden), but there's no justification for why some druids focus on having magical pets bound to them and the others just don't. 

"Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game. However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

JEB said:


> Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)



I don't think there is any increased "witcher-ness" in the 1D&D ranger compared to the 5e one. This was just a discussion about the Ranger's identity crisis in 5e, from my viewpoint. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## Minigiant

The ranger has a identity.

WOTC just doesn't want to design something that matches the lore they and TSR both wrote.

For example.

Hunters Mark is a thing. *Do you think anyone at WOTC pondered what Beastmaster's Mark, Dragon Slayer's Mark, or Horizon Walker's Mark is?*


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gotta admit, I’ve never been able to quite figure out what the Ranger’s niche should be, but “magical monster hunter” is the best I’ve heard. 

I just would prefer it not be standard spellcasting mechanics (slots, prepared, etc.). 

Maybe something more like Warlick invocations, with plenty of choices that are spells, and plenty that aren’t.


----------



## Haplo781

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> IMO, yes. And, Warlocks have a more clear niche/identity than Rangers do (especially when it comes to their subclasses). Warlocks are people that made a pact with a powerful non-deity magical entity. All of their subclasses follow that identity, except the Hexblade. Ranger subclasses don't have a single unifying identity like that. They could have. Their subclass could have been their Favored Terrain. They could have gotten bonuses that would benefit them in any favored terrain (damage resistance, additional movement types, additional senses, additional spells, etc), but Favored Terrain isn't the unifying theme of the Ranger subclasses, even though there are some subclasses that have "Favored Terrain, but more!" as their identity (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker).
> 
> They could have had Favored Enemy be their unifying subclass identity, too. They could have had Dragonslayers, Giant-Killers, Urban Bounty-Hunters, Doom-based Fiend-killers, and so on. But they didn't. There's a few subclasses kind of like that (Horizon Walker for hunting extraplanar invaders, Hunters for a generic "hunter" subclass, Monster Slayers for generic "monster slayers").
> 
> They also could have attached Ranger subclasses to different kinds of natural creatures that they draw on and have had all of the subclasses be "Pokemon Trainers". There could be Elemental, Fey, Awakened Beast, Plant, Dragons, swarms of insects, and Shadowfell-based Ranger subclasses. Instead, there are 3 subclasses that are kind of like this (Swarmkeeper, Beast Master, Drakewarden), but there's no justification for why some druids focus on having magical pets bound to them and the others just don't.
> 
> "Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game. However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".



Any fluff for such a class would have to be setting-specific, and WotC doesn't really do setting-specific anymore.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Haplo781 said:


> Any fluff for such a class would have to be setting-specific, and WotC doesn't really do setting-specific anymore.



How would it have to be setting specific? "You are the protector of both nature and civilization. You hunt down those that pervert the balance between the two, and use tamed nature spirits to do so." That's setting agnostic fluff that could easily give a unified identity between Rangers and all of the subclasses.


----------



## Haplo781

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> How would it have to be setting specific? "You are the protector of both nature and civilization. You hunt down those that pervert the balance between the two, and use tamed nature spirits to do so." That's setting agnostic fluff that could easily give a unified identity between Rangers and all of the subclasses.



How would that look in, say, Spelljammer? Ravnica? Theros? Ravenloft?

It's not a one-size-fits-all.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

Haplo781 said:


> How would that look in, say, Spelljammer? Ravnica? Theros? Ravenloft?
> 
> It's not a one-size-fits-all.



The Horizon Walker Ranger probably.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Haplo781 said:


> How would that look in, say, Spelljammer?



Spelljammer is the space between every official setting. Any type of ranger can appear there. And, if you're asking about a Spelljammer-specific Ranger subclass, there could be an aberration-hunting Space Ranger that summons celestial spirits (similar to the ones that appear in the bestiary) to help them track/hunt down these aliens to reality.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

JEB said:


> Sure, but I meant that the popularity of the Blood Hunter - a more Witcher-y class than the core ranger - may have led them to intensify the 1D&D ranger's fundamental Witcher-ness, specifically. (I don't really have a dog in this fight, to be clear, just throwing it out there.)



If so that goes into the "PICK A LANE!!!" factor.

They need to decide what the 1D&D Ranger is.

All we have in this playtest packet is a goddamn mess. It's not underpowered, really, it's arguably a mechanical upgrade from the current Ranger, but it's a goddamn mess, doesn't fit existing Ranger lore, and doesn't feel at all Witcher-y either, because it has access to exactly ZERO Witcher-style spells (most of which D&D effectively has - Quen = Shield, Aard = Thunderwave, Igni = Flaming Hands - etc. - they're actually pretty good matches!), and relies instead of spamming an incredibly boring spell that slightly increases its damage on a specific target. Does it work, mechanically? Kinda? Does it make any sense or have any style or consistency at all? Absolutely not.

As for Blood Hunters, they're largely popular because they're broken OP. Not slightly OP or "as good as the most powerful normal 5E classes", straight-up broken OP. A lot of the subclasses end up having about 1.5 classes worth of power in them. Some are closer to 2. If they were not incredibly badly designed and OP I don't think anyone would be interested, as the theme-ing is pretty bad.

At this point I'd honestly prefer they leant into Witcher-style antics if they want to make Ranger this serious half-caster and make most of its stuff spells. But by building the entire class around spamming Hunter's Mark (a goddamn spell directly taken from World of Warcraft, by the way, and no it didn't exist before that, except possibly in WC3! A spell so boring WoW largely dumped it too, I note - 1D&D has it work very similarly to the original boring and passive way it worked in early-ish WoW), they've created something that has fallen between two chairs so hard it's in the ambulance on the way to have its coccyx x-ray'd.


----------



## Remathilis

Bill Zebub said:


> Gotta admit, I’ve never been able to quite figure out what the Ranger’s niche should be, but “magical monster hunter” is the best I’ve heard.
> 
> I just would prefer it not be standard spellcasting mechanics (slots, prepared, etc.).
> 
> Maybe something more like Warlick invocations, with plenty of choices that are spells, and plenty that aren’t.



WotC doesn't seem keen on introducing a bunch of different magic mechanics anymore. It seems they are standardizing magic to basically be the same from class to class rather than further diversifying them. Add to it the abandonment of any sort of psionics system and you get the feeling WotC wants "magic" to operate using the same mechanics regardless of class. I honestly wonder if "pact magic" will survive or will it be changed to a more traditional spell slots per day system.


----------



## ersatzphil

Parmandur said:


> But I mean, do they? They are skilled survivalist Druidic Gishes, seems less complex in terms of idea space than Warlocks, say.



I suspect the problem is that, at least for me, the core fantasy of the ranger could be described as “fight-y character who excels at the Exploration pillar of play”, and 5e doesn’t have much in the way of mechanics for that pillar of play.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> WotC doesn't seem keen on introducing a bunch of different magic mechanics anymore. It seems they are standardizing magic to basically be the same from class to class rather than further diversifying them. Add to it the abandonment of any sort of psionics system and you get the feeling WotC wants "magic" to operate using the same mechanics regardless of class. I honestly wonder if "pact magic" will survive or will it be changed to a more traditional spell slots per day system.



I think if WotC does this, they're going to be surprised how very badly the fanbase reacts, especially the 20m+ "new with 5E" players.

So I'm skeptical that they'll actually do that.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think if WotC does this, they're going to be surprised how very badly the fanbase reacts, especially the 20m+ "new with 5E" players.
> 
> So I'm skeptical that they'll actually do that.



Yeah, based on what they are laying down, I don't think they will do anything that would create such a big disjunction with 5E material, or they would have made some more wild choices with the Expert Group.


----------



## Remathilis

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, based on what they are laying down, I don't think they will do anything that would create such a big disjunction with 5E material, or they would have made some more wild choices with the Expert Group.



I tend to agree: the changes so far are more revision than reinterpretation. But pact magic has some big design issues:

1. It's focused on short rest recharge of very limited slots, and WotC seems to be moving away from short rest recharges as a balancing system.
2. The wording is very confusing for new players, as most new players don't realize they have auto-upcast spell slots and wonder how they cast hex once they have 2nd level spells.
3. It's very wonky with multi-classing, both in terms of how it adds to other classes and how it breaks other classes resources (like smite).
4. It breaks down at higher levels, resulting in the feature Mystic Arcanum to provide high level spells to the warlock.

Now I don't think they will turn the warlock into a wizard style caster, but I do think they are going to make it resemble other casters more.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I meant that they're D&D's version of Witchers in the sense that "Magical Monster Hunters" is a core part of their identity. There's two subclasses devoted to it and Favored Enemy enforces that concept.
> 
> I mostly agree. I overall think 5e's version of the Ranger is better than the "nonmagical" version that a lot of people seem to want for some reason. However, I do think that the class does have a bit of an identity crisis, especially when it comes to the subclasses and what they do. Some of the subclasses are actually Favored Terrains (Fey Wanderer, Gloomstalker), some of them are monster hunters (Hunter, Monster Slayer), some of them are Pokemon trainers (Drakewarden, Beast Master, Swarmkeeper).



I gotta say, I hate the “Pokémon trainers” reduction so intensely that it’s hard to even read the rest, but I’m trying. 

Anyway, I think it’s a good thing that the Ranger has archetypes like the Rogue rather than thematically minor subclasses that are all the same category of thing. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The class doesn't know what the subclasses should be.



Sure it does. Types of rangers. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Cleric Domains are based on what god/concept the clerics worship.



Kind of, but it’s thematically a small thing with little nuance (gods have multiple domains), but that’s only the tip of the “the cleric is terrible and the game would improve by its removal” iceberg. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Paladin Oaths are based on a promise/ideal they swear to keep.



And their oaths are barely subclasses. And they don’t feel like different orders most of the time, or different kinds of holy knights in any really meaningful way. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Warlock subclasses are based on the patron they've made a pact with. Sorcerous origins are based on how they got their powers. Wizard Schools are (with few exceptions) a type of magic they choose to practice above all others.



And Rogue, Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers, are all “types of [class]”. Also the wizard has mostly been “how they use magic” outside of the PHB schools. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Ranger Archetypes are . . . Pokemon Trainers, three different flavors of monster hunters, and expanded Favored Terrains. There's something inherently flawed with what the Ranger's subclass identities are/should be. Other classes definitely have this problem too, but Rangers have it quite noticeably.



It’s not a problem, it’s a strength.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

JEB said:


> For most classes, this is true, but the change in the number of subclass slots does create issues for the bard (three slots in 5E vs. four slots in 1D&D). @Parmandur has a workable solution, with the bonus feat, though it lacks subclass flavor (unless specific feats are recommended). If four subclass slots is standard for all classes in 1D&D, that also affects the cleric and fighter, which have five slots in 5E (so either their 1D&D subclasses will have fewer features than the 5E versions, or they'll get more features per slot than other classes to keep continuity with the larger number of 5E features).



Sure, but I’ve seen no evidence that suggests they aren’t going to square that before playtest’s end.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Druidic Gishes" isn't a thematic identity. It's a mechanical one. It's the role they fill in the game.



No, it’s both mechanics and lore. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> However, they don't have lore-based justifications for their powers, besides "well, they live in the wilderness, so I guess they should have nature powers".



They’re Rangers in the same sense as the Dunadain, Old West rangers, and yeah sure witchers and Dragon Age grey wardens, in a world where the wilds are very supernatural and there is a whole kind of magic about it. 

That is just as much “justification” for having magic as any other Spellcasting class.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> I gotta say, I hate the “Pokémon trainers” reduction so intensely that it’s hard to even read the rest, but I’m trying.



Okay, what about "Summoner" or "Pet Master"? Because that's what they are. They summon monsters to fight for them. "Pokemon Trainer" is the main pop culture version of this. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Anyway, I think it’s a good thing that the Ranger has archetypes like the Rogue rather than thematically minor subclasses that are all the same category of thing.



I like how the Rogue subclasses work. They're internally consistent and logical different types of "jobs" a rogue could use their skillset for. Thievery, Assassinations, Detectives, Swashbuckling Sailors/Pirates, Magical Thieves/Tricksters, and Scouts. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure it does. Types of rangers.



That is so extremely vague that it could mean absolutely anything. "A hunter that plays a flute" could be a "type of ranger". That doesn't mean that it would warrant a subclass or that the subclass system should be based on different types of musical instruments. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Kind of, but it’s thematically a small thing with little nuance (gods have multiple domains), but that’s only the tip of the “the cleric is terrible and the game would improve by its removal” iceberg.



You think the cleric is terrible? What in the world? 


doctorbadwolf said:


> And their oaths are barely subclasses. And they don’t feel like different orders most of the time, or different kinds of holy knights in any really meaningful way.



But they're consistent. Redemption, Revenge, Protecting the Weak, Serving the Crown, Protecting the Wilds, and "Might Makes Right" are all sensible oaths that a knight could make. Sure, the subclasses could be expanded mechanically and the lore could be added upon, but the subclasses are internally consistent and help you understand why the different subclasses exist. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> And Rogue, Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Rangers, are all “types of [class]”. Also the wizard has mostly been “how they use magic” outside of the PHB schools.



Yeah, and the Wizard subclasses that break the pattern are my least favorite ones. At least basing them off of magic schools (and hybrid/variant types of casting) makes sense. Order of the Scribes doesn't. Bladesinging barely justifies itself.


doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s not a problem, it’s a strength.



Maybe not to you. But it is to anyone that wants to homebrew new Ranger subclasses and doesn't have a clue what a subclass of Ranger is even meant/able to be. Could there be a Dragonslayer subclass? Or is that too small of a niche and have too much overlap with Favored Enemy? Could there be a Shadowfell Ranger? Or does the Shadowfell not count as "nature" while the Feywild does? Or is the Gloomstalker the Shadowfell and Underdark Ranger? 

The subclasses and what they do are poorly defined. There isn't a cohesive theme/identity between them. That makes it harder for the game-designers, homebrewers, and world-designers that want to introduce different factions based on the subclasses of different classes (which is easy for Druids, Paladins, and Rogues, but harder for Rangers because there's nothing connecting them besides "Ranger").


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> That is just as much “justification” for having magic as any other Spellcasting class.



In 5e, different spellcasters have lore justifications for having magic. Clerics get it from worship, Druids have a magical bond with the spirits/gods of nature, Bards tap into the "Words of Creation", Paladins make a magical promise, Warlocks make a bargain with an eldritch entity, Sorcerers are Mutants, and Wizards study magic until they tap into the Weave. 

Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids". That's easily the weakest justification for magical powers in 5e. And don't get me wrong, I like Rangers being Half-Casters. I just think that the lore could be a bit better thought out and that this could be used to make a cohesive theme amongst the different subclasses. Like I said in an earlier post, they could have a mystical bond with a nature spirit that would make them the "Pet Class", where every subclass gets a different kind of monster companion (from beasts to dragons to elementals to fey). Or they could have got magical powers from killing so many magical creatures that it somehow gave them magic, which could make it so all of the subclasses has the features of different monsters and benefits for fighting against them. Or they could have a symbiotic relationship with incorporeal nature spirits tied to different locations/biomes, giving them supernatural abilities based on their subclass (extra movement speeds, supernatural senses, boosts in certain terrains, damage resistances/immunities, etc). 

Rangers don't have a good justification for their magic and don't have a cohesive theme between their subclasses. They have a mechanical niche, but not a thematic one. And subclasses thrive on theme.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In 5e, different spellcasters have lore justifications for having magic. Clerics get it from worship, Druids have a magical bond with the spirits/gods of nature, Bards tap into the "Words of Creation", Paladins make a magical promise, Warlocks make a bargain with an eldritch entity, Sorcerers are Mutants, and Wizards study magic until they tap into the Weave.
> 
> Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids". That's easily the weakest justification for magical powers in 5e. And don't get me wrong, I like Rangers being Half-Casters. I just think that the lore could be a bit better thought out and that this could be used to make a cohesive theme amongst the different subclasses. Like I said in an earlier post, they could have a mystical bond with a nature spirit that would make them the "Pet Class", where every subclass gets a different kind of monster companion (from beasts to dragons to elementals to fey). Or they could have got magical powers from killing so many magical creatures that it somehow gave them magic, which could make it so all of the subclasses has the features of different monsters and benefits for fighting against them. Or they could have a symbiotic relationship with incorporeal nature spirits tied to different locations/biomes, giving them supernatural abilities based on their subclass (extra movement speeds, supernatural senses, boosts in certain terrains, damage resistances/immunities, etc).
> 
> Rangers don't have a good justification for their magic and don't have a cohesive theme between their subclasses. They have a mechanical niche, but not a thematic one. And subclasses thrive on theme.




Ranger needs to slay dragon.
Ranger wants fire resistence to help slay dragon.
Ranger either has a wizard, druid, or fey girlfriend teach them endure/absorb elements.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> Ranger needs to slay dragon.
> Ranger wants fire resistence to help slay dragon.
> Ranger either has a wizard, druid, or fey girlfriend teach them endure/absorb elements.



I really don't know what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I really don't know what you're trying to say here.



That's the lore of how ranger's traditionally got magic.

The ranger learned spells from druids and wizards to use divination, track the untrackable, boost defenses, and increase damage.,


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> That's the lore of how ranger's traditionally got magic.
> 
> The ranger learned spells from druids and wizards to use divination, track the untrackable, boost defenses, and increase damage.,



That's not official in 5e.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's not official in 5e.



If it's been official in any edition, I'm not aware of it... source, @Minigiant?


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's not official in 5e.



Yup, they don't get wizard spell anymore. They only learn from druids now.


----------



## Minigiant

JEB said:


> If it's been official in any edition, I'm not aware of it... source, @Minigiant?



0e and AD&D 1e ranger had Druid and Magic User spells.
Changed to Priest and Wizard later.
Then just Druid.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> Yup, they don't get wizard spell anymore. They only learn from druids now.



No, the lore in 5e just says that they "learn magic in a way similar to druids" and that they might have connections to druid circles. It doesn't say why they can wear metal armor, or why they aren't just druids, or that druids "teach them spells" somehow. Rangers need an excuse for being magic that isn't tied to Druids, just like Paladins have an excuse that isn't tied to Clerics.


----------



## JEB

Minigiant said:


> 0e and AD&D 1e ranger had Druid and Magic User spells.
> Changed to Priest and Wizard later.
> Then just Druid.



So you're coming up with an original idea based on previous edition game mechanics. Fair enough! But not official lore.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, the lore in 5e just says that they "learn magic in a way similar to druids" and that they might have connections to druid circles. It doesn't say why they can wear metal armor, or why they aren't just druids, or that druids "teach them spells" somehow. Rangers need an excuse for being magic that isn't tied to Druids, just like Paladins have an excuse that isn't tied to Clerics.



That's what I said.

The original ranger learned druid and magic user spells straight up *exactly *like druids and wizards except they could wear metal.

WOTC keeps shortening the lore explanation.



JEB said:


> So you're coming up with an original idea based on previous edition game mechanics. Fair enough! But not official lore.




The original ranger learned druid and magic user spells straight up *exactly *like druids and wizards except they could wear metal and didn't get druidic.

The lore was that rangers could supernaturally track and heal. You *needed* to be a magic user to one and a divine caster to do the other in the Olden Times. No exceptions.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Okay, what about "Summoner" or "Pet Master"? Because that's what they are. They summon monsters to fight for them. "Pokemon Trainer" is the main pop culture version of this.



Most people just call it a pet class. Especially since the BM doesn’t summon their pet, they find it and train it. In the wild. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I like how the Rogue subclasses work. They're internally consistent and logical different types of "jobs" a rogue could use their skillset for. Thievery, Assassinations, Detectives, Swashbuckling Sailors/Pirates, Magical Thieves/Tricksters, and Scouts.



That’s…the same thing. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That is so extremely vague that it could mean absolutely anything. "A hunter that plays a flute" could be a "type of ranger". That doesn't mean that it would warrant a subclass or that the subclass system should be based on different types of musical instruments.



“Different types of ranger” just isn’t…vague. Idk where to even go from here, because if we can’t agree on that I doubt we will agree on any aspect of this we haven’t already covered. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You think the cleric is terrible? What in the world?



What is it? The closest it has to a meaningful identity is just a description of the paladin with the acolyte background. 

Make a priest or don’t. Great Value Van Helsing ain’t it. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But they're consistent. Redemption, Revenge, Protecting the Weak, Serving the Crown, Protecting the Wilds, and "Might Makes Right" are all sensible oaths that a knight could make. Sure, the subclasses could be expanded mechanically and the lore could be added upon, but the subclasses are internally consistent and help you understand why the different subclasses exist.



But they don’t. Different oaths don’t justify a subclass. They have tried to make them different archetypes with more recent oaths, but the subclasses just can’t actually differentiate until the second subclass feature level, at best. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Yeah, and the Wizard subclasses that break the pattern are my least favorite ones. At least basing them off of magic schools (and hybrid/variant types of casting) makes sense. Order of the Scribes doesn't. Bladesinging barely justifies itself.



Consistency isn’t some unalloyed good. The game is better for having stuff that’s “messy”. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Maybe not to you. But it is to anyone that wants to homebrew new Ranger subclasses and doesn't have a clue what a subclass of Ranger is even meant/able to be. Could there be a Dragonslayer subclass? Or is that too small of a niche and have too much overlap with Favored Enemy? Could there be a Shadowfell Ranger? Or does the Shadowfell not count as "nature" while the Feywild does? Or is the Gloomstalker the Shadowfell and Underdark Ranger?



I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone make this complaint before. I also don’t think it’s really a problem. Every ranger subclass ranges between the wilds and civilization using whatever tools they need for the job. Some are defined by how they do that, others by where, but they’re all rangers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I was skeptical of how compatible Classes would be until this drop, bit now itnia clear that when they say backwards compatible, they mean business.
> 
> I do think the final version will have more clear guidelines (like changing when old Subclass options drop, or covering dead levels with a Feat), but that will come after nailing down the new Core options.



Absolutely. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids"



I literally gave the justification in the post you’re quoting.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Most people just call it a pet class.



I've heard several people describe it as a "Pokemon Trainer" before. Especially since most of their "pet" abilities summon them out of nowhere.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Especially since the BM doesn’t summon their pet, they find it and train it. In the wild.



Not since Tasha's, they don't. They get to summon it. Like a Pokemon Trainer. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s…the same thing.



No. The Rogue has "jobs" (up until TCoE, at least). Rangers have "IDK, anything remotely nature-y and hunter-y". They don't have a uniting theme besides their mechanical niche of "primal half-caster". 


doctorbadwolf said:


> “Different types of ranger” just isn’t…vague. Idk where to even go from here, because if we can’t agree on that I doubt we will agree on any aspect of this we haven’t already covered.



"Type" is vague. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> What is it? The closest it has to a meaningful identity is just a description of the paladin with the acolyte background.
> 
> Make a priest or don’t. Great Value Van Helsing ain’t it.



I don't like that they all automatically get proficiency in armor and weapons. If I were in charge of making D&D, I would change that to make a bigger niche for paladins and to base Clerics off of real-world priests more. But everything else in the class is decent, IMO. The subclasses are mostly designed well. The fact that they get their magic from belief and worship empowers gods is good. The fact that the subclasses are so different while also sharing a core theme and underlying mechanics is good, IMO.


doctorbadwolf said:


> But they don’t. Different oaths don’t justify a subclass. They have tried to make them different archetypes with more recent oaths, but the subclasses just can’t actually differentiate until the second subclass feature level, at best.



In a game where Paladins literally get their magic from swearing an oath, then the differences between oaths that are sworn do justify the subclasses. According to the lore, Paladins get their magic because they swear an oath. Different oaths exist, so different subclasses based on those oaths exist. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Consistency isn’t some unalloyed good. The game is better for having stuff that’s “messy”.



Hah. No. I don't like games that are "messy". A game can be just as creative and well-designed as a "messy" one if it is internally consistent. And internal consistency helps with expanding on the core rules and giving a basis for worldbuilding off of the system. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone make this complaint before. I also don’t think it’s really a problem. Every ranger subclass ranges between the wilds and civilization using whatever tools they need for the job. Some are defined by how they do that, others by where, but they’re all rangers.



I'm not saying that some of the subclasses "aren't rangers". I like most of the subclasses and think that their niches should be included in the class. I just think that it's confusingly designed. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> I literally gave the justification in the post you’re quoting.



No, you didn't. I gave the justification from the PHB. The PHB says that rangers get magic "in similar ways to druids". They have the worst official justification for their magic. 

Your justification that "nature is magic, so people connected to nature are magic" is something I agree is a good starting point. I made the same suggestion in another thread. But that's not the official lore, and doesn't help designing subclasses or worldbuilding.


----------



## Parmandur

Point of order: it more like a Dragon Quest thing than a Pokémon thing, and Dragon Quest was always just a D&D ripoff anyways.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I've heard several people describe it as a "Pokemon Trainer" before. Especially since most of their "pet" abilities summon them out of nowhere.



Irrelevant. It’s needlessly reductive. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Not since Tasha's, they don't. They get to summon it. Like a Pokemon Trainer.



Yes, they do. They can, optionally, find and train a spirit instead of a mundane beast. The default is still very much not summoning. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. The Rogue has "jobs" (up until TCoE, at least). Rangers have "IDK, anything remotely nature-y and hunter-y". They don't have a uniting theme besides their mechanical niche of "primal half-caster".



Except that is completely false. Rangers range, in the context of protecting, and in relation to the wild places of the world. This is true of all rangers in 5e. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> "Type" is vague.



Good thing “type of ranger” is distinct from “type”, primarily in that it’s much more specific. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I don't like that they all automatically get proficiency in armor and weapons. If I were in charge of making D&D, I would change that to make a bigger niche for paladins and to base Clerics off of real-world priests more. But everything else in the class is decent, IMO. The subclasses are mostly designed well. The fact that they get their magic from belief and *worship empowers gods* is good.



Literally the worst lore widget in 5e. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The fact that the subclasses are so different while also sharing a core theme and underlying mechanics is good, IMO.



Symmetry is for buildings. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In a game where Paladins literally get their magic from swearing an oath, then the differences between oaths that are sworn do justify the subclasses. According to the lore, Paladins get their magic because they swear an oath. Different oaths exist, so different subclasses based on those oaths exist.



And yet, all paladins are basically the same thing. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Hah. No. I don't like games that are "messy". A game can be just as creative and well-designed as a "messy" one if it is internally consistent.



No, it cannot. Forced Symmetry, which is all the sort of consistency that demands all subclasses work the same is, is the assassin of creativity. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And internal consistency helps with expanding on the core rules and giving a basis for worldbuilding off of the system.



If kept in check and used where necessary, sure. If focused on as a design goal, it leads to terrible design like Bitopia, and all the other crap in D&D that exists because someone said, “the existence of a lawful good place implies the existence of a chaotic evil place” and no one had the good sense to laugh. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'm not saying that some of the subclasses "aren't rangers". I like most of the subclasses and think that their niches should be included in the class. I just think that it's confusingly designed.
> 
> No, you didn't. I gave the justification from the PHB. The PHB says that rangers get magic "in similar ways to druids". They have the worst official justification for their magic.
> 
> Your justification that "nature is magic, so people connected to nature are magic" is something I agree is a good starting point.



That isn’t quite what I said. Someone who ranges through the wilds to protect the wilds and people, is going to reflect the wilds through which they range, and that reflection will to varying degrees be about the terrain, what endangers that terrain, and what tools and methods the ranger needs to deal with those threats. It makes sense that some rangers focus harder than others on adapting to the darkness that many monsters use to hunt in, while a ranger that protects places tied to the Feywild would have Fey glamours and the like, and that some rangers focus harder on a given type of tool, such as tactics for fighting a broad type of monster or training a creature or spirit to help them fight and hunt. 

It makes more sense than “all subclasses are like Domains” style classes, especially in the specific case in question. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I made the same suggestion in another thread. But that's not the official lore, and doesn't help designing subclasses or worldbuilding.



They don’t need any special justification. It’s built into the whole premise of the class.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Irrelevant. It’s needlessly reductive.



Noted. Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes, they do. They can, optionally, find and train a spirit instead of a mundane beast. The default is still very much not summoning.



I can guarantee you that will change when we get to see the OneD&D Beast Master. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Except that is completely false. Rangers range, in the context of protecting, and in relation to the wild places of the world. This is true of all rangers in 5e.



How do Gloomstalkers protect the wild? Or Rangers that choose Beasts as their favored enemies? How do the rules enforce "protecting the wild"? How is the Ranger version of protecting the wild thematically different from the Paladin way (through Oath of the Ancients)?


doctorbadwolf said:


> Good thing “type of ranger” is distinct from “type”, primarily in that it’s much more specific.



You're being purposefully dense here. "Type of ranger" is no more specific than the "type" of any other class. The Wizard subclasses from the PHB are different types of wizard that focus on different spell schools. The subclasses that make a different type of oath that grants them different features. The subclasses of Rangers are just "different types of Rangers". They're different types of Rangers for any purpose. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Literally the worst lore widget in 5e.



Not a fan of Discworld, I take it. Or Theros. Or Planescape. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Symmetry is for buildings.



I didn't say "symmetry". I said "consistency". Things can be consistent without being symmetrical. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> And yet, all paladins are basically the same thing.



No, they're not. They all act very differently based on their oaths. Conquest Paladins are terrifying conquerors that subjugate the weak and often side with Devils. Ancient Paladins protect nature and use its powers to protect their allies and harm others. Redemption Paladins are pacifists that believe humanoids can be redeemed and shouldn't be killed unprovoked, but that demons and other monsters should be exterminated. Vengeance Paladins swear a sacred oath to get revenge against those that wrong them and avenge those that have been wronged. Oathbreakers have broken their oaths and made pacts with unholy monsters. 

How in the world are "all paladins basically the same thing"? 


doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it cannot. Forced Symmetry, which is all the sort of consistency that demands all subclasses work the same is, is the assassin of creativity.



By that argument, the classes shouldn't exist. If classes demand internal consistency or "forced symmetry", then they're overly restrictive, harm creativity, and should be removed from the game. By this point, I think that the game has proved that creativity can thrive under restraints. And restraints can help make creativity easier. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> If kept in check and used where necessary, sure. If focused on as a design goal, it leads to terrible design like Bitopia, and all the other crap in D&D that exists because someone said, “the existence of a lawful good place implies the existence of a chaotic evil place” and no one had the good sense to laugh.



The Great Wheel is a victim of alignment, which is a nonsensical system that should not have been mapped on an afterlife/cosmological system. Eberron has the constraint of all of its major topics (moons, planes of existence, dragonmarks, nations on Khorvaire) coming in sets of 13-1. It has restrictions on the number of planes and other major factors of the world, but doesn't suffer for it. Alignment (and the in-between alignments) are the main problems with the Great Wheel. Not "internal consistence". 


doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn’t quite what I said. Someone who ranges through the wilds to protect the wilds and people, is going to reflect the wilds through which they range, and that reflection will to varying degrees be about the terrain, what endangers that terrain, and what tools and methods the ranger needs to deal with those threats. It makes sense that some rangers focus harder than others on adapting to the darkness that many monsters use to hunt in, while a ranger that protects places tied to the Feywild would have Fey glamours and the like, and that some rangers focus harder on a given type of tool, such as tactics for fighting a broad type of monster or training a creature or spirit to help them fight and hunt.



Then the lore should have said that! If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature (Fey Forests or the Underdark, for example) and their version of magic is specific to the part of nature they protected that is how the subclass system should have worked. Change Natural Explorer to be what the subclasses are based on in that case. Have an Arctic Ranger subclass, a Desert Nomad, a Deepsea Stalker, Fey Wanderer, Underdark Explorer, and Rangers of all other types of terrain! That would have been good class design! Then, whether the Ranger has a Pet, monster-hunting specialization, or some other primal feature could have been the Ranger's version of the Warlock's Pact Boons! That is an interesting design for the Ranger class! 

But that's not what we got. We have Environment Rangers (Feywild, Underdark/Shadowfell, Planar Traveler) as some subclasses, Monster Hunters (Monster Slayer, Hunter) as other subclasses, Pet Summoners as other subclasses (Drakewarden, Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper). The subclasses don't share anything besides the Ranger class! The lore doesn't unite them and explain why the different types exist! That is a flaw in the design of the Ranger! Under this theoretical design of the Ranger, all of the different "types" you would want a Ranger to fill could still be playable. But the class would be better designed because you would have an ounce of understanding of why the different subclasses exist and what different types could exist in the future! 


doctorbadwolf said:


> It makes more sense than “all subclasses are like Domains” style classes, especially in the specific case in question.



In what world does "I get different magic based on what different god/concept I worship" make less sense than "I get any random nature-y nonsense that the designers feel like giving me because my subclasses don't make sense"? 


doctorbadwolf said:


> They don’t need any special justification. It’s built into the whole premise of the class.



The whole premise of the class poorly explains it. Mages/Spellcasters in D&D do need explanations for their magic. That was clearly an intended part of the design of 5e classes. Rangers fail at that goal because it just says "you're kind of like a druid in how you get magic". It doesn't say why they get that magic, just that they're connected to nature in some unexplained unique way compared to Druids/Nature Clerics and that they use magic to help hunt enemies. Every other class has at least a serviceable explanation. 

Warlocks explain why they have magic. Powerful demigod-like entities give it to them. Their subclasses change based on these "demigods". They get different benefits specific to the pact they make with this demigod (Pact Boons). Warlocks are one of the best-designed classes in 5e because of this. 

Rangers could be like that. They could have a good lore explanation for their magic and it could enhance their class features. It could make them more versatile and compelling characters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature



This is all I’m going to bother with. The rest is intentionally insulting drivel. 

At least read my post if you’re going to pedantically multiquote it into the most tedious possible epistolary novel. 

Rangers attain magic _in order to_ protect the wilds and civilization, especially where the two meet. Not from doing so.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Rangers attain magic _in order to_ protect the wilds and civilization, especially where the two meet. Not from doing so.



_How?_ How do they attain magic in order to protect the wilds? The other classes explain why they have magic. Rangers basically don't. 

And why _don't_ they attain magic through protecting the wilds? Wouldn't that make for more interesting story hooks? And for better class design? Nature spirits (like Chwingas! or dryads!) could grant blessings to forest rangers for doing them a service, giving them magic. That would be more interesting than "IDK, you're like a Druid.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> _How?_ How do they attain magic in order to protect the wilds? The other classes explain why they have magic. Rangers basically don't.
> 
> And why _don't_ they attain magic through protecting the wilds?



Because there isn’t any reason to change what’s there. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Wouldn't that make for more interesting story hooks? And for better class design?



No.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Nature spirits (like Chwingas! or dryads!) could grant blessings to forest rangers for doing them a service, giving them magic.



Sounds like a fun subclass for an “even more magic” subclass more strongly associated with spirits. 

Beyond that, it sounds more like the source of a boon or the like. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That would be more interesting than "IDK, you're like a Druid.



Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Because there isn’t any reason to change what’s there.



Yes, there is. Giving a reason 


doctorbadwolf said:


> No.



Can you please explain beyond a single word?


doctorbadwolf said:


> Sounds like a fun subclass for an “even more magic” subclass more strongly associated with spirits.
> 
> Beyond that, it sounds more like the source of a boon or the like.



Just a boon or a subclass? But what about all of the different types of nature spirits? There's a ton of them in D&D. There's Fey, that could be a subclass. Elementals could be another subclass. So could awakened beasts, powerful sentient plants, and even naturally occurring undead from the Shadowfell. That's way more than a single boon. Each of those concepts could easily be expanded to full subclasses. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?



I am aware and it's intentional. This is what the PHB gives as an explanation for how Rangers do magic:


> *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.
> 
> In some places, rangers gather in secretive orders or *join forces with druidic circles*.
> 
> As you create your ranger character, consider the nature of the training that gave you your particular capabilities. Did you train with a single mentor, wandering the wilds together until you mastered the ranger’s ways? Did you leave your apprenticeship, or was your mentor slain—perhaps by the same kind of monster that became your favored enemy? *Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. *You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds.



"IDK, you have magic like a druid" is an accurate summary of what WotC gives in 5e for why Rangers can cast spells. They're "familiar with the wilds, and harness nature's power like a druid, and possibly trained in mystic paths". 

That is less than any other class has for an explanation of their magic. I'm being reductive because the fluff text barely gives anything and it boils down to "you're like a druid". The other half-casters aren't like that. Paladins get magic from their oaths. They often side with Clerics, but they aren't reliant on the Cleric's way of getting magic (worshipping the divine). Artificers build contraptions and use tools and magic items to channel spells. That's different from Wizards. 

I don't know who I'm insulting by being reductive. I'm just saying that the fluff text for why Rangers get magic is weak compared to the other classes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you.



*Mod Note:*

When you start a post with something like this, it’s almost guaranteeing that whatever responses follow will be confrontational.  And that’s not conducive to constructive conversations.

Let’s dial it back a bit.  Thanks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, so do you not get how you keep coming across dismissive, reductive, and insulting, or do you not care?






Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I am aware and it's intentional.



*Mod Note:*

And here’s a great example of how not to be a good discussion participant.  You’re done in here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

doctorbadwolf said:


> The rest is intentionally insulting drivel.



*Mod Note:*

Please, don’t respond to provocative posts with anger and insults in kind.  

It just escalates things and potentially puts YOU in the crosshairs of the moderation staff.


----------



## Starfox

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined



I am worried this might be the case.


----------



## darjr

Starfox said:


> I am worried this might be the case.



Sorta, but already it’s more and less. The 4e roles were strictly about combat for instance. At least initially, weren’t they? These are not.

Grouping classes provides  a place to hang things on and a good idea regardless of edition.

I’m just fretting a bit about the growing complexity.


----------



## Starfox

FallenRX said:


> Monk is a fighter-like class by default, its just the faster, but less health variant, that focuses on Ki resources to do extra cool stuff basically, it has a pretty consistent theme on multi-attacks procing on hits effects though



My take on the monk is that it is a rogue that trades sneakattack for speed - a scout without the bite.


----------



## Aldarc

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if expert warrior arcane and divne classes is going to be the 4e roles redefined





Starfox said:


> I am worried this might be the case.



How so? 

4e roles were Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. These were mainly about in-combat roles. Similarly, 4e had Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic power sources. These were about how the classes' powers connected to the cosmos. 

What we are seeing here, IMO, is more akin to Archetype Roles, something more akin to D&D's basic four classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Aldarc said:


> How so?
> 
> 4e roles were Striker, Defender, Controller, and Leader. These were mainly about in-combat roles. Similarly, 4e had Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic power sources. These were about how the classes' powers connected to the cosmos.
> 
> What we are seeing here, IMO, is more akin to Archetype Roles, something more akin to D&D's basic four classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.



Agree with @Aldarc here the grouping hark back to OD&D, first you had the Fighting Man, Magic Man and then the Holy Man and the Clever Man, not necessarily in that order but you see what I mean.


----------



## Bill Zebub

If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.


----------



## Clint_L

Bill Zebub said:


> If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.



Why does it matter?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Clint_L said:


> Why does it matter?




Well, if in the final version it _doesn't_ matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.  

I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices.  In which case I still question its utility.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Bill Zebub said:


> If they stick with the groupings I hope they just concede that some classes belong to more than one group.



The Groupings aren't "Roles" like 4e, they aren't things like Tank / Defender, Damage Per Second(DPS) / Striker, Crowd Control(CC) / Controller or Healer / Leader.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, if in the final version it _doesn't_ matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.
> 
> I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices.  In which case I still question its utility.



May be not full classes but some sub classes should qualify as for more than one group.


----------



## Gorck

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, if in the final version it _doesn't_ matter...that is, if there's no benefit to being in one group or another...then that suggests the groupings themselves have no value.
> 
> I suppose unless its only purpose is to help beginners narrow their choices.  In which case I still question its utility.



I can already see where it would matter.  For instance, a magic item could require attunement by the “Mage group” or by the “Warrior group or a Paladin.”  I ran into that issue when I created a Homebrew Shaman: I had to put a sidebar saying that they can attune to items designed for Druids, Warlocks, or Clerics at the DM’s discretion.  If WOTC adds a new class down the line, they won’t have to go back and assign all the magic item that the new class can attune to; the class will automatically be assigned to a group and can attune to items accordingly.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Gorck said:


> I can already see where it would matter.  For instance, a magic item could require attunement by the “Mage group” or by the “Warrior group or a Paladin.”  I ran into that issue when I created a Homebrew Shaman: I had to put a sidebar saying that they can attune to items designed for Druids, Warlocks, or Clerics at the DM’s discretion.  If WOTC adds a new class down the line, they won’t have to go back and assign all the magic item that the new class can attune to; the class will automatically be assigned to a group and can attune to items accordingly.




Yeah, if they keep adding "...or a Paladin" (or whatever class is relevant) that would also work.  Might save ink (and electrons) to just make Paladins part of two groups.


----------



## Parmandur

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, if they keep adding "...or a Paladin" (or whatever class is relevant) that would also work.  Might save ink (and electrons) to just make Paladins part of two groups.



Nah, they are putting the exceptions in the Class itself, as we can see with Ranger: Rangers get to pick Fighting Style Feats, and I imagine that Paladins will, too. But there will probably be other Feats and Magic itms that Paladins and Rangers will be barred from using because they are not Warriors. But they get Priest and Expert stuff, instead.


----------



## Lojaan

I don't like priest. I suggest 'divine'.


----------



## FallenRX

Starfox said:


> My take on the monk is that it is a rogue that trades sneakattack for speed - a scout without the bite.



Thats not reality, because Monks outside of bonus action movement(which is limited by ki) get no defining key features of Rogue at all.


----------



## darjr

Just had an idea. You could have subclasses of the group. 
So a subclass could be a subclass of Expert and taken by any of the PCs who are of classes in the expert group.


----------



## Remathilis

darjr said:


> Just had an idea. You could have subclasses of the group.
> So a subclass could be a subclass of Expert and taken by any of the PCs who are of classes in the expert group.



I figured that was the purpose of standardizing the subclass feature levels.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Just had an idea. You could have subclasses of the group.
> So a subclass could be a subclass of Expert and taken by any of the PCs who are of classes in the expert group.



Yup, and it would work way better than the messy Strixhavem tests, since they all share a Subclass progression, and some shared Group features: so you could have some sort of "Factotum" skillmaster that can play with Expertise and go with either Bard, Rogue or Ranger, or maybe a weapon master for Monk, Barbarian, and Fighter.


----------

