Second 5th Edition Survey! Plus Results of the First Survey: The Ranger Gets Some Attention!

A new survey is up on the official D&D website. It looks like its covering the classes not in the last survey and the recent Eberron material. WotC also reports on what was learned from the last survey. "For our second survey, we’re focused on the final six classes in the game and the Eberron material that we rolled out in last month’s Unearthed Arcana. If you haven’t looked at that article and want to provide feedback, read it over and come back to the survey later. Even if you don’t have a chance to use the Eberron material in your game, your reactions to it are helpful. You can also skip over the Eberron questions if you don’t want to give feedback on that material."

Here's the overall feedback from the first survey:

"So, what did we learn from our last survey? Let’s take a look at some trends:

To start with, there are a lot of you. We had more people respond to this survey than any of our playtest surveys. A lot of people are into D&D these days!

There are a lot of new players and DMs out there. Welcome to D&D!

You are playing the game in droves. Only about 10 percent of you have read the books without yet playing.

Your campaigns are just getting started. Most of you are playing at 6th level and below.

You love the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and we’re overjoyed to be able to write that. The overall assessment was incredibly positive, surpassing our results from the playtest by a significant margin."
​

The ranger, in particular, is getting some focus:

"To start with, a majority of players and Dungeon Masters are happy with the ranger overall. The game as a whole is grading well, so we don’t want to make a huge, sudden change to that class. But taking a deeper dive into the ranger, we can see that favored enemy and the beast master archetype received the lowest ratings. Our next step is to take a closer look at why that is.

We’ll start with an internal assessment mixed with feedback from our closed circle of testers. From there, we’ll work up some options and present them to you, most likely in the Unearthed Arcana column. That process allows us to determine if the track we’re on answers your concerns with the class.

The critical step is making sure that any changes we make genuinely improve the class. Remember, plenty of people are happy with the ranger, so any changes need to cover a number of options:

People who like the ranger as it is can simply keep playing their current characters.

People who don’t like the ranger should feel as though the new options allow them to play the ranger they want to create.

The new options are exactly that—new choices for ranger players to select from, as opposed to a rewrite of the Player’s Handbook.

DMs should always feel that they can take or leave the new options, just like any other material in the game beyond the Basic Rules."
​

Hop on over here to take the new survey!

 

[steeldragons]

That last concept seems bigger than Eberron's techno-tinker, but still, "part of a team" and "I like robots" don't seem like much of a distinction...

Agreed.

The thing here, [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], is...I'm reminded of that Star Trek quote, "Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should."

I suppose we have 3e to "thank" for showing that pretty much any/every concept any/everyone can some up with can be turned into/"deserves" a class, no matter how minor/meaningless the distinction. And, as we all know, that way lies bloated madness.

CAN the artificer (or a "Pet Class", as another discussion here is pursuing) be a stand alone class with various minor tweaks to flavor and ability making its own subclasses? Sure.

Should it be? ...Looking at it through my understanding and interpretation of the [apparent] 5e design space, the answer there is "No."

You have the "chassis" of flavor and ability already in the Wizard [and I'll add that I am perfectly happy with seeing the artificer presented this way]. The artificer doesn't do anything that is foreign to/outside that "class umbrella." Craft items, essentially. Learn and apply formulae (artificer's are not "innate magic producers/creators", are they?) that produce reliable magic effects. That's the wizard shtick. A separate class all its own is...again, taken in/through the 5e design lens, is redundant and/or unnecessary.

But, ya know, hey. We have 8 schools of wizardry. I'm sure if one put their mind to it, you could tweak 4 or 5 types of [still wizard subclass] artificers, if that's what you like/want in your game. But the game really only needs to give us the one "typical/archetypal Eberron artificer." Individual tables can play with/make up the rest as suits tastes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the more classes the better. If we really were going for a game with only basic classes and then sub classes we could do it with 4 basic classes:

Weapon user
Magic User
Skill User

then you multi or subclass to fit...

but I know we don't need a pet class, and I doubt we do artificer... although I do think that we need some adjustment to the artificer sub class at the very least...

 

[steeldragons]

Truthfully, re: Artificer as Bard, how "clunky" is the story, really? The "College of Artifice". More of a merchandising/vocational guild, than "college", really. But the premise is the same. Practically a "sub-school/division" of the College of Lore. The artificers go to these vocational centers to learn their secret/guarded/unique lore & craft and then wander/explore the adventuring world in pursuit of [among any number of other reasons] expanding their knowledge, understanding and power of that lore & craft.

As a Bard subclass, I think it fits quite well. Plus granting folks the added armor and weapon stuff without having to rewrite/add in things to the wizard [that it really shouldn't have], the access to tools and skills is easy enough to do (if, say, you feel Thieves' Tools are essential to the artificer archetype).

I keep forgetting about this. But it really does sound like the best fit for Artificer users/fans. If it's not a Wizard subclass, it should be a Bard one.

I will continue to believe that, as a setting-specific class and the actual abilities of the archetype, it really should not be/does not warrant its own class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Truthfully, re: Artificer as Bard, how "clunky" is the story, really? The "College of Artifice". More of a merchandising/vocational guild, than "college", really. But the premise is the same. Practically a "sub-school/division" of the College of Lore. The artificers go to these vocational centers to learn their secret/guarded/unique lore & craft and then wander/explore the adventuring world in pursuit of [among any number of other reasons] expanding their knowledge, understanding and power of that lore & craft.

As a Bard subclass, I think it fits quite well. Plus granting folks the added armor and weapon stuff without having to rewrite/add in things to the wizard [that it really shouldn't have], the access to tools and skills is easy enough to do (if, say, you feel Thieves' Tools are essential to the artificer archetype).

I keep forgetting about this. But it really does sound like the best fit for Artificer users/fans. If it's not a Wizard subclass, it should be a Bard one.

I will continue to believe that, as a setting-specific class and the actual abilities of the archetype, it really should not be/does not warrant its own class.

the problem is you start at level 1 with a bunch of musical stuff that no one that ever played an artificer considered... then you get your college at level 3 and?!?!?!? do you change from singing spells to infusions?

Bard comes with ALOT of baggage.

the more you say the more I think Artificer may need it's own full class...

 

[Moorcrys]

That said, perhaps we look at this from a different angle: maybe artificers are a subclass of a general "Magewright" class. Artificers, alchemists, golem-makers, gnomish tinkers, dwarven armigers, elven arrow-fletchers...perhaps rather than a wizard subclass, we say that that "makes magic stuff" is as distinct from "learns magic in tomes" as "learns magic from a patron" is! I don't know that it is, but I think it'd be interesting to design that class and find out what that might look like.

That... is a cool idea. I'd love to see something like that!

Now get writing. ;-)

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's also worth noting that the distinction between "I cast a spell from a wand once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell by waggling my fingers around once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction. And "always-on" magical effects that aren't activated X/day times futz with 5e's Concentration-slot mechanic in unfriendly ways. Spellcasting mechanics have largely already solved these problems - "artificers don't cast spells, they use items that cast spells" might be a flavor distinction without any real mechanical oomph.

 

[Rune]

"artificers don't cast spells, they use items that cast spells" might be a flavor distinction without any real mechanical oomph.

This actually illustrates where the artificer-as-wizard-subclass suffers from the same conceptual problem as the artificer-as-bard-subclass does; because the choice is not made at level 1, the Wizard (artificer) does start out as an actual spellcaster, just as the Bard (artificer) starts out as a performer.

 

[Remathilis]

It's also worth noting that the distinction between "I cast a spell from a wand once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell by waggling my fingers around once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction. And "always-on" magical effects that aren't activated X/day times futz with 5e's Concentration-slot mechanic in unfriendly ways. Spellcasting mechanics have largely already solved these problems - "artificers don't cast spells, they use items that cast spells" might be a flavor distinction without any real mechanical oomph.

If your arguing that Artificers are just another breed of spellcaster, I agree.

If your arguing that Artificers are just another breed of wizard, we have an issue with this logic.

"I cast a spell taught to me by my dark patron once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell learned by studying in a dusty tome once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.
"I cast a spell given to me from my God once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell imbued by the power of nature once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.
"I cast a spell by singing snippets of the words of creation once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell by channeling the power of the dragon blood in my veins once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.

Therefore, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Druid, Warlock and Sorcerer should all be subclasses of the "Magic-User" class since these are all flavor distinctions without any mechanical oomph.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"I cast a spell taught to me by my dark patron once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell learned by studying in a dusty tome once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.
"I cast a spell given to me from my God once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell imbued by the power of nature once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.
"I cast a spell by singing snippets of the words of creation once per day that buffs my allies" and "I cast a spell by channeling the power of the dragon blood in my veins once per day and that spell buffs my allies" is nearly a non-distinction.

Therefore, Wizard, Cleric, Bard, Druid, Warlock and Sorcerer should all be subclasses of the "Magic-User" class since these are all flavor distinctions without any mechanical oomph.

I think that's a strawman. No one is arguing that these should all be the same class. Rather, the arugment is that the statement "the artificer is not a spellcaster" in the ECS is a flavorful distinction without much of a mechanical difference.

 

[Dausuul]

QFT.

The entirety of the "problem" with the Beastmaster seems to be people up in arms that you "lose" your action to direct the animal to attack instead. You're not "losing" anything. You are using your action to do something else. That one round you can't do something else. Ergo, it is said, two-weapon fighting is "ruined" because [for that one round] you can't make your second attack. No. Your beast companion that you chose to have will instead be taking a multiattack. How dare they not let me do both!

Can't speak for anyone else, but my problem is the companion's total dependence on the ranger to direct its actions every instant. What if the ranger gets knocked unconscious? What if she's not physically there? What does the companion do then, just sit there whining while the monsters beat it to death? It can't even Dash without being told, so its chances of escape are nil.

Every other pet in the game has the ability to follow a general command without having to have it renewed every round. A necromancer's shambling zombie slave has more initiative than a ranger's animal companion. It's silly.

Now, I recognize there are balance concerns here. It's not hard to fix them, though--just take away Extra Attack from the beastmaster. Boom, done. The balance issues are resolved (at least from level 5 onward) and the companion can act like a real companion instead of a drooling sock puppet.