Last D&D Survey Results In! Plus What's Up With The Ranger?

As you may know, WotC has a monthly survey/feedback system going. I report on it each month. Last month's survey was about product expectations Gen Con, and the results report was much shorter than usual - just a couple of sentences. "In terms of product, setting books and monster books proved the most popular. We were also happy to see that many of you had played in our published campaign worlds or wanted to try them out. We also saw plenty of support for new character options, with a consensus that most players are happy with our current pace of "slow but steady." I personally feel that my - anecdotal - experience with the online community says the opposite about the current pace, but a survey's a survey!

There's a new survey up, covering the recent Ranger playtest. As WotC mentions, the Ranger is the least popular class, and they intend to approach the class in a number of different ways over the coming year. The Ranger is interesting, because it attracts a lot of snotty comments (not as many as the very concept of a Warlord, but that's another thing).

Click here to take the Ranger survey.

 

[Zardnaar]

THe other problem with the CB was the PHB1 classes just got more stuff than later classes so I would expect them to be more popular because of that. Its like the favorite setting polls where Eberron, FR, and Darksun will win all the time because the others have been out of print for decades in some cases.

 

[BozzNugg]

I would kind of prefer if Ranger and Barbarian were just rolled into one and renamed or something. I feel like between the two of them they cover enough ground but delineate enough flavour to make a true class. Basically like the primal counterpart to the Paladin. Currently I feel like the Barbarian is limited in it's range and the Ranger seems a little too broad so I think each could help the other. It also gives a nice kind of parity to the Cleric/Paladin to have Druid/Rangarian. Primary class abilities would include: HP comparable to paladin, ability to choose weapon style, favoured terrains that accrue throughout campaign, some kind of bushcraft/lore mechanic which might include tracking, and maybe some kind of multi-purpose movement/hide mechanic.

Subclasses could include:
Berserk: Str/Con (melee/rage/no magic)
Totemist/Warden: Con/Wis (tanky/half-caster/burns spells = totem-rage/summon totems/partial druid)
Hunter: Dex/Con (Tracker/Favoured Enemy/Melee & Ranged-based/no-magic)
Scout: Dex/Wis (Ambush/Shoot&Go/Trap Maneuvers/Sniping/Ranged-based/no-magic)
Seeker: Dex/Wis (controllery/half-caster/sniper/partial druid).

True animal companions I think should just be covered in a separate splat/module that runs the gamut from hirelings/henchmen/minions/familiars/animal companions/companion characters/followers/bound creatures/mounts/etc. It should also include some character options that allow all the classes to take full advantage of the new options. I think it is easy enough to change the CR of encounters to compensate for essentially having another character around. I could also see there being a work around for animal companions as artifacts or intelligent items, with some kind of concordance system based around handle animal, though I find this less desirable. I think the alternative would be to have somekind of leadership mechanic for all or most of these,. As a rule, I think a good goal to aim for in relative power level for animal companions would be something like 1/2 a PC, while Familiars would be closer to a 1/3 or 1/4 of a PC, this way, even if everyone in a party has one, it's only effectively adding 1-2 PC's to the party in terms of power.

Finally, I think the Shaman, with the spirit companion, a la 4e, as a subclass, would be better suited to the Druid, who might use them as kind of a buffing familiar/spell conduit.

 

[froth]

I am fine with the rate of releases. I was very negative about the UA ranger, and the idea of major rewrites of the ranger in general. I was most negative about the whole shaman spirit companion thing.

 

[GobiWon]

deleted by user

 

[GobiWon]

It seems strange to me that most people said they were happy with the slow release schedule. Wouldn't more products being produced by WotC be considered a win-win for everyone? More products would allow all of us the opportunity to pick what we want to buy from a larger variety of supplements. Wouldn't that make everyone happier?

The larger the rule set, the more moving parts the game has. That is when things get broken. I'd rather WotC take their time and not create broken or overpowered options that leave the core game feeling underpowered and unplayable. In 3.5 if you weren't optimizing your character, you were left in the dust. You couldn't be just a fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue or you'd be the least powerful player in your party. In the end D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game and the four base archtypes are an important part of what the game is. You don't have the same game if you have an entire party of pixie vampire psions.

 

[GobiWon]

I believe I said everything I wanted to say about the ranger previously, but I have something to say about the release schedule. WotC is having more of my money with the current release schedule than they ever had, and increasing their rate of release can actually reduce the amount of money they'll be getting from me.

It happens that I don't need a lot besides the three core books to run my games, but the slow rate of release is making me want to collect them, something that I never felt about previous editions. As long as they keep their current rate of new books, I don't expect my collector impulse to slow down, but going back to a faster rate of new books will probably make me feel like collecting them is too much money and too much stuff that I don't know when I'm going to use.

It's an anecdote, obviously, but I have at least two friends who described the same feeling and (like me) have bought everything WotC released for 5E. They (once again, like me) would have purchased less if the rate of new releases was faster. If our situation mirrors a more general approach to purchasing habits, then I understand why they've opted for their slower release schedule, and I wouldn't expect it to change.

I agree. I would like to see more fluff. I am leery of crunch. It tends to break the system after awhile. I personally like the Forgotten Realms, but Perkins statement that they don't want to produce a book that sells less than 100,000 copies doesn't bode well for those who want to see Greyhawk, Darksun, Ravenloft, and Planescape. Perhaps they will license a third-party to take a crack at these iconic settings. Eberron is the only other setting that we are likely to see from WotC.

 

[graves3141]

The larger the rule set, the more moving parts the game has. That is when things get broken. I'd rather WotC take their time and not create broken or overpowered options that leave the core game feeling underpowered and unplayable. In 3.5 if you weren't optimizing your character, you were left in the dust. You couldn't be just a fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue or you'd be the least powerful player in your party. In the end D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game and the four base archtypes are an important part of what the game is. You don't have the same game if you have an entire party of pixie vampire psions.

I'm not advocating for overpowered options or even more classes or races. More products could simply mean more adventures of various sizes, campaign setting books and other books with fluff and flavor that could be about iconic D&D monsters or something else along those lines.

But even if WotC did publish some books with more classes, that doesn't mean you have to buy them or allow those options at your table. DMs can easily just say that their game will consist of only what is in the core books. I did it myself for a long time when running 2E (although, I did have two other classes that I allowed as well that I mashed together myself). The point is that you can run whatever kind of game you want no matter what supplements come out. It's crazy to think you have to include things in your game that you don't want to have in there. I personally don't care much for Dragonborn and if I was running a game today, I would not allow that race. If a player whined about it, too bad, they can pick something else.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree. I would like to see more fluff. I am leery of crunch. It tends to break the system after awhile. I personally like the Forgotten Realms, but Perkins statement that they don't want to produce a book that sells less than 100,000 copies doesn't bode well for those who want to see Greyhawk, Darksun, Ravenloft, and Planescape. Perhaps they will license a third-party to take a crack at these iconic settings. Eberron is the only other setting that we are likely to see from WotC.

They've been pretty bullish about their other settings: if they make all of their player option books as setting books, I think we will see all of the first (FR, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Planescape), and even second tier (Dragonlance, Greyhawk and Spelljammer). Doubt we will see the other settings...

 

[aramis erak]

I'm very comfortable with the current pace of releases. So yeah, we exist, but we're not that vocal.

I'm good with it, too. But I'm one of the vocal minority.

 

[GobiWon]

I'm not advocating for overpowered options or even more classes or races. More products could simply mean more adventures of various sizes, campaign setting books and other books with fluff and flavor that could be about iconic D&D monsters or something else along those lines.

But even if WotC did publish some books with more classes, that doesn't mean you have to buy them or allow those options at your table. DMs can easily just say that their game will consist of only what is in the core books. I did it myself for a long time when running 2E (although, I did have two other classes that I allowed as well that I mashed together myself). The point is that you can run whatever kind of game you want no matter what supplements come out. It's crazy to think you have to include things in your game that you don't want to have in there. I personally don't care much for Dragonborn and if I was running a game today, I would not allow that race. If a player whined about it, too bad, they can pick something else.

I'm sick of hearing people say that if you don't like something, you can simply disallow it. I'm glad you can do it, but you become a killjoy when a player comes to you and wants to play the latest and greatest new race or class or option. He's spent good money on the newest supplement and he wants to use it. He is pointing at his shiny new book and telling you that his Vampire Pixie Psion is a legitimate option. I'm advocating for limited options that are setting specific, so that it is easier for a DM to disallow. The UA minotaur is a good example. If I like it, I can allow it. If I dislike it, I can claim that the race belongs in the Dragonlance setting. I don't like the Dragonborn, but it is now cannon in Forgotten Realms. I feel that if I run a Forgotten Realms campaign, I should accommodate players who'd like to play that race.

The thing is WotC is not going to give us exactly what we want. They want a broad audience. They want to sell 100,000+ books each time. I'd like more setting specific details. I'd like one-off adventures. Some people want new options. WotC is not going to cater to us. They want us hungry. They want us all to buy the same book. They are going to give us a little of everything. Some of us will buy the current book for the new character options. Some of us will buy it for the new setting details. Some of us will buy it because it has the stat block for an iconic foe. Some will use it to run a single adventure. If they try to cater to each of our desires. They are putting forth three times the effort for 3 or 4 products that collectively sell only a few more units than one big book every 5 to 6 months. It might not be exactly what we want, but from a business view point, it makes sense.