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!

 

[CapnZapp]

I also wrote about issues I've encountered with the cornerstone feature of the path of the berserker barbarian and how it costs exhaustion levels, a condition that seems to be about as easy to remove as petrification in 5e.

I'm surprised anyone bothers with the berserker.

Getting damage resistance (HALF DAMAGE) is so overwhelmingly good, it's like the berserker wasn't even there.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just like there was a generalist wizard in every other edition and in the playtest as well. Just because there are no negatives doesn't mean I want to be known as Conjurer or an Evoker. I just want to be a wizard. I think they could have metamagics like the Sorcerer gets and maybe an extra feat but are not good at any particular school. Or I would be happy with an extra spell slot for each spell level.

You could always choose one of the weak-sauce schools and call yourself a generalist.

 

[CapnZapp]

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!

Or you can't cast a spell. Or you can't whatever else that would mean your Ranger PC is getting extra attack actions, every round, which obviously would put the class' balance askew from almost every other class.

But still, the Beastmaster is "wrong" because it isn't giving people what they want...which is ultimately, if not solely, "powergamey enough" options...like their <insert video game/edition X/game system Y/whatever "proof"/justification they choose to use> "gives" them...so obviously 5e has "taken [something] away from" them.

It's just so much nonsense.

The real kicker to all of this is that neither dual-wielding nor beast companions have any required place in the ranger archetype, but thanks to the Clueless Cult of Drizz'tdom and fostered/reinforced by various media, at this point in the game's history, a ranger without them (at least as options) simply isn't a "real" ranger/is "wrong."

What is nonsense is how you deny other people their feelings.

The problem with the beastmaster isn't that you "lose" an action. It is that the whole basis for playing a Beastmaster, having a beast that does stuff, costs you your own actions. That's no fun.

Losing some game element called "an action" would be alright. Just as long as it didn't mean choosing between having your beast do nothing and do nothing yourself. It just gives off a boardgamey reek.

Quit babbling falsehoods like people want powergamey stuff.

They just want fun stuff. And the beastmaster just isn't fun.

You get a more immersive experience with bought animals or summoned critters, so something is seriously and utterly borked about the beastmaster.

 

[steeldragons]

You have, no doubt, noticed that the you or your animal "do nothing" until 5th level...when you get Extra Attack...then you can do both no problem. But it seems to many, including yourself, that's not ok or "fun" enough?

EDIT to add: And the Beast Companion isn't even coming into the picture until 3rd! You have all of 3rd and 4th level to "suffer" until you and your beast can both act. Also, telling it where to go doesn't require an action at all. So, for 2 levels, you can tell it where to go without taking anything "away" from you. But it can't attack "for" you without you taking a round to tell it to. After that, you have a second "Attack action" which you can use to direct your beast. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying it is how I would necessarily have designed it. But for the 2 quickie/minor levels [according to how they designed the game to be played] this matters, it seems to have garnered a HUGE amount of [to my view unnecessary] complaint. And those complaints, are fairly consistent. If what you're worried about, and define unilaterally, is "fun" more power to ya.

 

[CapnZapp]

I heard about a similar problem in FPS development, actually. Player's complained that the silencer made the weapons too weak, when in fact it barely changed the damage. So the devs switched out the "pew pew" sound the silencer made with a popping sound and the complaints stopped. I think that is what we are looking at here.

I can assure you people's complaints about the Beastmaster won't stop just because they rearrange the words describing it.

The people that feel the Beastmaster is fine can keep it.

The rest of us want a beast that
1) acts like any other character (PC or NPC) given its limitations on Intelligence, etc
Any solution that restricts animal companions in boardgamey ways, and/or restricts animal companions MORE than any other individual entity on the battlefield is an automatic FAIL.
2) can be brought along on adventures without adding a weak link to the chain. This specifically means it needs to survive your average combat on its own, including splash damage for when NPC spellcasters start bombarding heroes.
It does not mean it should be able to win combats by its own. It does not mean it should be exempt from a real death risk in harder combats.
But any solution where the ranger needs to resurrect or replace his beloved pet more than he needs to resurrect or replace his friends and allies is an automatic FAIL.

Anything else is on the table, pretty much.

Take away the spells - fine. Give us worse armor or weapons - not exactly fine, but I understand. In fact, why don't you strip down the Beastmaster to the level of a naked commoner.

Then you add a fully featured animal companion.

And THEN, you start adding back ranger features until things are balanced. THAT is how you create a Beastmaster. By making you Beastmaster first, everything else second.

 

[CapnZapp]

You have, no doubt, noticed that the you or your animal "do nothing" until 5th level...when you get Extra Attack...then you can do both no problem. But it seems to many, including yourself, that's not ok or "fun" enough?

At least for that particular bit (if taken in isolation), a rewrite of presentation could do wonders.

Remove the Beastmaster's extra attack at level five, and let your pet act freely and naturally, and things start to feel much less artificial.

 

[Moorcrys]

I'm surprised anyone bothers with the berserker.

Getting damage resistance (HALF DAMAGE) is so overwhelmingly good, it's like the berserker wasn't even there.

Yeah, that's an amazing ability.

However, the berserker idea is pretty evocative and folks gravitate towards it and that extra attack with your screaming, greatsword or great axe wielding half-orc, dwarf, or whatever, is also a bunch of fun. Some people would rather swing away than know they're not going to get hit as hard - statistical breakdown be damned. Maybe there's a life cleric in the party. :-D

 

[steeldragons]

You know...there is also the, granted fairly liberal, reading of the Beastmaster that states you have to use your action to direct the beast...and then could just leave it.

That is, for one round, you [ranger] don't attack, but direct your beast to Attack. Done.

Until you want it to move elsewhere, Dash, Disengage, Dodge or Help...the beast is "in Attack mode" [for lack of a better term]. When what you want the creature to do changes, then you need to use your action to change what the beast is doing...but until that time, the beast's rounds are "Attack" on your initiative.

Not a strict reading of the rule...but if you squint a little and tilt your head just so...it's plausible.

Also, to be fair, in a previous post I indicated that all (or most) beast companions could...and it seems that was an error.

In a way, some do: big cats get to "Pounce" and on a failed save, knock prone and get to add their bite to their claw attacks. Mastiffs have a chance to knock prone. Wolves & Hyenas have "Pack Tactics" so they have advantage, basically, all of the time presuming that the ranger or one of their allies is going to be close enough to trigger it most of the time. That's a fairly huge [unfortunate pun ahead] advantage, but not multiple attacks. Raptors, of course, have only their talon attack.

So, I think for the "Why can't I have a Bear" complaint, may very be because bears do get Multiattack. As for why you can't have a horse/pony...that I don't really get...other than for flavor reasons they wanted the paladins to be the "riding around on loyal steeds" guys and not the rangers.

 

[Minigiant]

This is essentially the issue.

Take away the spells and the bonus attack, then what is left of the base ranger. Personally, the Hunter aspects could have been core ranger with spells, beast mastery, and more martial aspects as the subclasses. But even then I dont see enough PC resources for the beast companion people wanted.

Same with the chain warlock. No pet demon.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Any solution that restricts animal companions in boardgamey ways...
<snip>
This specifically means it needs to survive your average combat on its own, including splash damage for when NPC spellcasters start bombarding heroes... But any solution where the ranger needs to resurrect or replace his beloved pet more than he needs to resurrect or replace his friends and allies is an automatic FAIL.

Minor quibble: The latter point seems just as "boardgamey" as what your first point criticizes. It is arguably "boardgamey" if a ranger brings a pet to a firefight and the pet miraculously survives a fight that normal animals of its type would not. What fiction supports that? If you consider it plausible that a ranger and pet can engage in combat in a way that feels organic and not boardgamey, then it can also be plausible that a ranger's pet will die horribly in a firefight like most natural animals taken into monstrous battle out of their league. Presents a bit of a dilemma. I'm not sure that anything short of a plate-armoured magically-enhanced heroic bear will make death-defiance not "boardgamey".