Sword Coast Legends Survey; Plus Ranger Feedback Results!

Interesting stuff on the ranger.

But a whole survey on Sword Coast Legends. Hm. I don't even know what it is, really. And said as much when I answered.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It's survey results time again! WotC has just posted the results of last month's survey about the September Unearthed Arcana ranger class (which you can find here). The short version is that the ranger variation with less magic and no full-time animal companion was poorly received, while dual-wielding rangers and archery rangers were more popular. They will be following this up by making a ranger version focussed on the animal companion. Additionally, there's a brand new survey - all about Sword Coast Legends. The survey asks which aspects of the game are your favourite (area, class, etc.) and what you would like to see added. It also asks about the characters from the game, and which you would like to see escape the confines of the video game and find their way into other media.
[h=4]Original Post[/h]
WotC has posted a survey about Sword Coast legends at http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/november-2015-survey.

Also, Ranger results:

Ranger Survey Results
In our last survey, we asked a number of questions about the ranger class overall and an example of a new ranger class built from scratch, featuring levels one through five. The class was an attempt to get to the root of the dissatisfaction we’ve seen with the ranger, and determine what changes (if any) we should make to the class in the future.

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.

For the next step, we’ll take a pass on designing a ranger that focuses more heavily on the animal companion and makes it a default part of the class. That approach allows much more of the ranger’s core “power budget” to go toward the companion. You can think of that budget as the total effectiveness the class brings to bear, spread out across its class features. The initial 5e design pushed the animal companion into the ranger archetype choice, requiring it to sit atop all of the core class features. By folding that choice into the core class, we have a lot more power to play with.

 

[darjr]

Took the survey, but bleh, more effort wasted on this game. I would have thought they'd do a survey on SCAG instead.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And now we can queue up all the people opposed to the idea of both default animal companion and default spellcasting. Because obviously there are a bunch of each (and probably many who oppose both together.)

The question really becomes though... whether a complete "reworking" actually matters, or is everyone really just better served by doing what the DMG recommends by doing power-swaps of class features? So rather than actually try and create a "new" Ranger class, just go ahead and produce a document of official "Rangers" built from the existing classes/backgrounds, swapping features in and out to produce the various types of Rangers people want.

We already got a potential "Spell-less Ranger" created using the Ranger class and swapping in Battlemaster maneuvers. Maybe we're better served by really playtesting that and making that option more "official"? Or perhaps creating a Paladin of the Ancients build that either swaps in the Ranger spell list, or perhaps swaps in the Beastmaster animal companion to create a heavily-armored "Ranger" option for those people who think that's what a Ranger actually is meant to be? Or build a Fighter Battlemaster that swaps in ranger abilities like Primeval Awareness et al. for some of the fighter abilities that a "Ranger" wouldn't necessarily have, in order to get a more warrior-esque non-magical "Ranger"?

Too many people refuse to accept this jury-rigging approach to class and character building as "real". A "Warlord" built up from the bones of the fighter, rogue and valor bard, isn't a "real" Warlord. Maybe it's time for WotC to create a fully-playtested book of "classes" (either new or alternatives to existing ones) that are deemed "Official"? For both Adventurer's League, and for home use? Maybe then we'd finally see an end to these odd requests for all of these older classes to be redone for 5E? Your desired "4E-style Warden" or "2E-style Jester" class could finally be official without needing to create piles upon piles of new mechanics to make them.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I hope animal companion as a core feature never happens. Even WoW finally understood that forcing people to have a companion in order to play the nature warrior archetype is a bad thing, WotC can do better than that. Talking about making it core so it can be more powerful almost makes me think that they believe the current version is good enough.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think the Ranger needs to get more of its features from its subclasses than other classes do.



The base class has all the wilderness survival stuff and little else. One subclass gets druid spells, one gets fighter maneuvers, and one gets a powerful animal companion.

 

[jimmifett]

I rather like the current UA Ranger, was looking forward to seeing more of that version

 

[Valador]

I'll just be glad when WotC starts talking about ANYTHING OTHER than Rangers... Seriously, the horse has been beaten so badly it's dust...

 

[Osgood]

The question is, when will we see an updated version of the Ranger? It's been what, five months since the first 5 levels of the Mystic class was released, but they haven't revisited it yet. Maybe the Ranger is higher priority, but I wouldn't expect to see another pass any time soon.

A survey on SCL seems like an odd topic for the survey, which has focused on the tabletop side until now.

 

[mellored]

I hope animal companion as a core feature never happens. Even WoW finally understood that forcing people to have a companion in order to play the nature warrior archetype is a bad thing, WotC can do better than that. Talking about making it core so it can be more powerful almost makes me think that they believe the current version is good enough.

I disagree.

In WoW the ranger is the only way to play a bow class. But in 5e, you can make a bow class from fighter or rogue (possibly both). WoW fighter and rogue are melee only. Bows are not something special to rangers.

Wilderness survival is also available to any class. Still not special.

The class needs something else that makes them stand out. And pets are a good way to do that.
(TWF is available to plenty as well).


That said, it would be nice to also have a scout subclass for the rogue.