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!

 

[Gadget]

Back to the Ranger; I think part of the problem is that the archetype of the beast master subclass has never been that strong in the D&D Ranger class. Sure they had the ability as a minor part of the class before, but the crux of the Ranger debate in the past has been spell/magic heavy vs. a more mundane hunter/tracker. Trying to come up with more concepts might might conflict with the shamanistic/totem warrior Barbarian.

I think the designers were struggling to invent/include sub-class archetypes for all the two sub class classes. While the Barbarian and its subclasses seem to work out okay, I sometimes wonder it would not have been better as a Fighter sub class; and while I'm sure we can come up with more ideas for barbarian subclasses, are they really that iconic beyond the 'Hulk smash' variant? The Sorcerer suffers from the opposite plight: it seems they left many possible archetypes on the table and chose only two fairly narrow ones. Yet I feel the class suffers by being hemmed in, both conceptually and mechanically, by the improved flexibility of the new pseudo-Vancian Wizard Specialist, the Warlock, and the new magic heavy Bard.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's an idea for artificers. Build them as full casters, but they don't get spell slots. Instead, they craft consumable spell-items. Each such item lasts for 24 hours or until used. Because they have to prepare the items in advance, they are more limited then other casters (they have true Vancian casting instead of the more flexible quasi-Vancian), but this is balanced by the fact that spell-items can be given to other people to use.

Of course, this would require a carefully curated spell list. The artificer would get few if any concentration spells, for example.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

This is due to the "rulings over rules" aspect of 5th edition. The description is too short for a bonded being. Same with a chain familiar.

So the DM has to rule on all the holes. Rangers and warlocks are the most DM dependent classes in 5th edition. They are also the most variable classes as well.

 

[Dausuul]

This is due to the "rulings over rules" aspect of 5th edition. The description is too short for a bonded being. Same with a chain familiar.

So the DM has to rule on all the holes. Rangers and warlocks are the most DM dependent classes in 5th edition. They are also the most variable classes as well.

There are lots of spells that summon pets, and explicitly grant those pets the ability to follow long-term commands. It doesn't take a lot of space.

 

[steeldragons]

Is, perhaps, the Artificer best served as a Sorcerer subclass? Add in a light armor prof. (they can take feats for more) or simple weapons.

We have the half-breed sorcerer, the infused with chaos magic sorcerer...the "imbuing innate magic into items instead of themselves" sorcerer?

"Spellcasting" is simply flavored as infusions instead...which could easily be done from a Bard perspective as well. No one is picking Bard in a vacuum. If you want to be an artificer, and that's where the subclass is, you know that. Reflavor your spellcasting, inspiration and "Song of Rest" as coming form infusions instead of words/music...or, ya know, you hum or whistle a repetitive [somewhat otherworldly] ditty while you're working on your potions/items.

My issue there, for sorcerer or bard, becomes fluff and the spellcasting abilitiy. I think everyone will agree that an artificer is about Intelligence. And, it seems to me, once you are saying "Spellcasting ability is X" you are defining what class they need to be in...and Charisma, just doesn't work...for me. You're not "artificing up" some magic with your personality.

 

[Minigiant]

There are lots of spells that summon pets, and explicitly grant those pets the ability to follow long-term commands. It doesn't take a lot of space.

Indeed. This is an error. More info and explanations were warrant and didnt have to be long.d.

But to be fair spell pets and subclass pets are very different. However it should have been there.

 

[vongarr]

I would argue that the Artificer, if not a separate class, belongs as a sub class of the rogue.

The Artificer brings a blue collar mentality to magic. He doesn't cast a spell. Instead, he inscribes a spell, and this inscription is not permanent. Being able to magic missile or fire ball, sans a magical device, is well outside the scope of what an Artificer did originally. It is more than a matter of flavor. A traditional spell caster in 5th, provided they have access to the spell, can cast that particular spell so long as they have slots. An Artficer can never cast a spell -- he can only approximate the effects of a spell through an item. In end results, it may not be all that different. But in terms of how we get to that end result, it is very different. If we are saying an Artificer sketching an infusion is the same as a wizard waggling his fingers, then we are not terribly far away from saying that melf's acid arrow and an arrow coated in acid are the same thing.

Artificers are rogues who work with magic. They are blue collar, street level practitioners. They are not wizards who work with magic items, or bards who infuse instead of inspire.

 

[MoonSong]

I would argue that the Artificer, if not a separate class, belongs as a sub class of the rogue.

The Artificer brings a blue collar mentality to magic. He doesn't cast a spell. Instead, he inscribes a spell, and this inscription is not permanent. Being able to magic missile or fire ball, sans a magical device, is well outside the scope of what an Artificer did originally. It is more than a matter of flavor. A traditional spell caster in 5th, provided they have access to the spell, can cast that particular spell so long as they have slots. An Artficer can never cast a spell -- he can only approximate the effects of a spell through an item. In end results, it may not be all that different. But in terms of how we get to that end result, it is very different. If we are saying an Artificer sketching an infusion is the same as a wizard waggling his fingers, then we are not terribly far away from saying that melf's acid arrow and an arrow coated in acid are the same thing.

Artificers are rogues who work with magic. They are blue collar, street level practitioners. They are not wizards who work with magic items, or bards who infuse instead of inspire.

I was thinking of it too. The only problems I can think of are sneak attack, the delay in artificing and that 1/3rd of a spellcaster might not be enough to cover all of the ground needed for an artificer.

 

[Mistwell]

I think the easiest patch for the Ranger Beastmaster is simply to add a Pet Revive cantrip, castable as a bonus action.

 

[Dausuul]

I would argue that the Artificer, if not a separate class, belongs as a sub class of the rogue.

So, they are stealthy, agile, skilled at ambushes and flank attacks, masters of evasion and deceit? I'm not an Eberron fan, but I didn't have the impression any of that described artificers.

The Artificer brings a blue collar mentality to magic. He doesn't cast a spell. Instead, he inscribes a spell, and this inscription is not permanent. Being able to magic missile or fire ball, sans a magical device, is well outside the scope of what an Artificer did originally. It is more than a matter of flavor. A traditional spell caster in 5th, provided they have access to the spell, can cast that particular spell so long as they have slots. An Artficer can never cast a spell -- he can only approximate the effects of a spell through an item. In end results, it may not be all that different. But in terms of how we get to that end result, it is very different. If we are saying an Artificer sketching an infusion is the same as a wizard waggling his fingers, then we are not terribly far away from saying that melf's acid arrow and an arrow coated in acid are the same thing.

You've made a case for artificers not being wizards. Why does that make them rogues?