D&D 5E Could the Revised/Variant Ranger be released by the end of the year?

MechaTarrasque · Dec 6, 2017

If you mean by January 1, 2018, that would be a big (but nice) surprise.

I think they are trying to reengineer the UA stuff back into the PHB ranger: maybe something like a Man and Beast fighting style or just create stat blocks for Ranger's Companion Wolf, etc. that are just better than the regular entries in the MM.

While I liked the rangers in XGtE, I was really surprised that dragon breath didn't get added to the ranger (and warlock) spell list, as it would have added some offda to the pets.

Sacrosanct · Dec 6, 2017

CapnZapp said:
Now the real issue. Why are everybody excusing how long this is taking?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I'm guessing they have their regular scheduled stuff they are all working on, and the ranger is just an added extra task because of the initial feedback, and therefore isn't the top priority. And because of that feedback, they are wanting to make sure they get it right this time.

This past weekend I created a thread about what being a game designer is actually like here. I suggest you read it before automatically always going into "attack the designers and anyone who defends them" mode.

lkj · Dec 6, 2017

I'll admit that I've had my hopes up that the next version of the revised ranger (or its swap out features) would show up in the November or December UA. So maybe next week. But I don't have my hopes super high. Some of the comments from Crawford make me think that they might be considering testing such 'swap outs' for other classes as well. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a UA with a bunch of such options to test, not just the ranger. Which might slow things down.

And that's fine with me really. The ranger is serviceable as is. Maybe because none of my players are running beastmasters or have a desire to. I mean, don't get me wrong, I want it improved. It was the one class-- not just for the Beastmaster-- that we found a little wanting. But it's not a wreck.

AD

lkj · Dec 6, 2017

In case folks are interested, Crawford talks about the revised ranger at length here:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/204870167?collection=l6ug0qGAzhRJVg

Starting about minute 37.

AD

CapnZapp · Dec 7, 2017

lkj said:
In case folks are interested, Crawford talks about the revised ranger at length here:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/204870167?collection=l6ug0qGAzhRJVg

Starting about minute 37.

AD

Do you have a transcript?

Or could you summarize?

Thanks,

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Eric V · Dec 7, 2017

Hrm. I hope it's not too much changed; the only beastmaster I'd run is the revised one that's been released. Been playing one for a few sessions now, and while I thought I'd miss the Extra Attack feature, I don't at all. I really like the class.

lkj · Dec 7, 2017

CapnZapp said:
Do you have a transcript?

Or could you summarize?

Thanks,

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Don't have a transcript. Basic summary of points:

-- Having an entirely new version of the ranger causes confusion. This has led to the move toward swapping out features.
-- They might try this feature swap for other classes as well (I think the elementalist monk was mentioned)
-- The thing most people are unhappy with is the beastmaster. This led to a discussion of 'only fixing what's actually broken'. (which made me wonder if they were considering backing off changes to the Hunter, but he did not say one way or another)
-- Plenty of people are actually happy with the ranger as is, which is why they are being cautious with making changes and avoiding any that will invalidate the original ranger.
-- The audience of people who are very familiar with UA's and are unhappy with the ranger are only one portion of their audience, not the entirety of it. In other words, they don't get the same feedback from other quarters, and they take all the feedback into account when they make decisions. (So our messageboard community may not always reflect the bulk of their data for example)
-- They know people want things to move faster but they feel that their very deliberative process is critical for avoiding making mistakes. He mentions that there is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in terms of going through data, crunching data, trying out internal tests that never make it to UA, etc. It's a more involved process than folks might realize.

And that's the stuff I remember that centered around the ranger discussion. It's actually an interesting listen. Before going on to the ranger, he talks about the overall playtest process, how they decide what's going into the books etc. He mentions for example that the Stone Sorcerer was very popular but hints-- without quite saying it-- that they probably have another place for it. He mentions that none of the new wizard subclasses tested well until the war mage.

Anyway, I could go on. But I have to get back to work!

AD

Parmandur · Dec 8, 2017

lkj said:
Don't have a transcript. Basic summary of points:

-- Having an entirely new version of the ranger causes confusion. This has led to the move toward swapping out features.
-- They might try this feature swap for other classes as well (I think the elementalist monk was mentioned)
-- The thing most people are unhappy with is the beastmaster. This led to a discussion of 'only fixing what's actually broken'. (which made me wonder if they were considering backing off changes to the Hunter, but he did not say one way or another)
-- Plenty of people are actually happy with the ranger as is, which is why they are being cautious with making changes and avoiding any that will invalidate the original ranger.
-- The audience of people who are very familiar with UA's and are unhappy with the ranger are only one portion of their audience, not the entirety of it. In other words, they don't get the same feedback from other quarters, and they take all the feedback into account when they make decisions. (So our messageboard community may not always reflect the bulk of their data for example)
-- They know people want things to move faster but they feel that their very deliberative process is critical for avoiding making mistakes. He mentions that there is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in terms of going through data, crunching data, trying out internal tests that never make it to UA, etc. It's a more involved process than folks might realize.

And that's the stuff I remember that centered around the ranger discussion. It's actually an interesting listen. Before going on to the ranger, he talks about the overall playtest process, how they decide what's going into the books etc. He mentions for example that the Stone Sorcerer was very popular but hints-- without quite saying it-- that they probably have another place for it. He mentions that none of the new wizard subclasses tested well until the war mage.

Anyway, I could go on. But I have to get back to work!

AD

Mearls stated on Twitter recently that they are tinkering with Genie themed Sorcerers for the Elemental subclasses.

MechaTarrasque · Dec 8, 2017

Parmandur said:
Mearls stated on Twitter recently that they are tinkering with Genie themed Sorcerers for the Elemental subclasses.

Since the fathomer in PotA had eldritch blast (makes me think that was an elemental-patroned warlock) and the princess in ToA was explicitly an elemental-patroned warlock, I am surprised they haven't made one for PC's yet.

Azzy · Dec 8, 2017

Parmandur said:
Mearls stated on Twitter recently that they are tinkering with Genie themed Sorcerers for the Elemental subclasses.

Neat, but I would like it if they'd just revisit the Sha'ir as a subclass.

D&D 5E Could the Revised/Variant Ranger be released by the end of the year?

MechaTarrasque

Hero

Sacrosanct

Legend

lkj

Hero

lkj

Hero

CapnZapp

Legend

Eric V

Hero

lkj

Hero

Parmandur

Book-Friend

MechaTarrasque

Hero

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Similar Threads