Sword Coast Legends Survey; Plus Ranger Feedback Results!

Interesting stuff on the ranger.

But a whole survey on Sword Coast Legends. Hm. I don't even know what it is, really. And said as much when I answered.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Off topic: Did I missed the UA prestige class survey?

My feeling is that entire article was simply a bone to the people who wanted a bit of guidance in converting prestige classes from 3E and presenting the concept. We may never hear about prestige classes again or see them in a printed product. Other than a few corner cases, I think they plan to model most prestige classes mechanically through subclasses and possibly through factions and fluff for the role playing aspects.

I would be generally OK with that because I don't really think that Prestige Classes fit particularly well with 5e save for maybe at the very high end... a 5 level epic prestige class from levels 16 through 20 that basically replaces high end features or a ten level paragon to epic prestige class from levels 11 through 20 that does something similar. I am still not sure that they are actually necessary and you could probably conjure replacement class features or gated level/class feats that do something similar.

 

[jsaving]

The special thing for rangers could be casting (like the fighter subclass that grants limited wizard spells), or it could be traps/terrain (like several MMOs), or it could be a temporary companion (like Drizzt's panther), or it could be a 3e-style permanent companion. I could see any of those potentially making sense if designed properly. But I don't understand why it would make sense that a paladin who happens to be devoted to nature needs to be a separate core class called "ranger." The same would apply to a fighter who happens to dual-wield or shoot bows -- does that really merit being a class of its own? Being "sneaky" doesn't work as a niche either, because you can already make a fighter/rogue that would fill much of the space 5e has at times envisioned for the ranger.

I think they were right to say spells and the companion are historically what has made the ranger fundamentally different from other classes. I would have preferred the next iteration of the ranger focus on traps/spells rather than the companion, but it's good to see they are at least trying to digest user feedback and improve the product accordingly.

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly a little surprised by Ranger results. Considering how many people were up in arms about "rangers need a better schtick than TWF or bows", you'd think the stuff they posted last month would be of interest. Apparently people prefer the cliche'd tropes.

Never doubt the volume of a small but vocal minority.

 

[Li Shenron]

For the next step, we’ll take a pass on designing a ranger that focuses more heavily on the animal companion and makes it a default part of the class. That approach allows much more of the ranger’s core “power budget” to go toward the companion. You can think of that budget as the total effectiveness the class brings to bear, spread out across its class features. The initial 5e design pushed the animal companion into the ranger archetype choice, requiring it to sit atop all of the core class features. By folding that choice into the core class, we have a lot more power to play with.

Beware that this means you'll get your powerful pet, but at the cost of less personal power.

There is no way out... Ranger re-design will never end.

Until when they will finally figure out that the only 'pet' that works, is a friendly NPC that doesn't count against a PC's 'power budget'.

 

[Dire Bare]

What they need is core generic rules for animal companions and then give the Ranger class powers that buff those basic abilities.

This.

I would love to see companion rules for all classes, with specific classes building on top of those with archetypes or feats. The Ranger could take the "animal companion" feat, the wizard the "Familiar" feat, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

How many dang times must Minigiant say this...

JUST GIVE RANGERS BETTER FLAVORFUL SPELLS!!!!

Why the heck can't rangers conjure poison, buff animals, and summon traps?

 

[TwoSix]

Until when they will finally figure out that the only 'pet' that works, is a friendly NPC that doesn't count against a PC's 'power budget'.

Animal Class incoming.

 

[Mercule]

Wow. That's... disappointing.

If I could pick one "feature" to remove from consideration for Ranger, it'd be pets. Okay, it'd actually be marrying them to TWF, but 5E handled that perfectly.

I'm really starting to wonder what the heck is going on at WotC -- or the folks answering these surveys. Every time, it seems like the response to the survey is "Let's make the game less interesting to Mercule."

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree.

In WoW the ranger is the only way to play a bow class. But in 5e, you can make a bow class from fighter or rogue (possibly both). WoW fighter and rogue are melee only. Bows are not something special to rangers.

Wilderness survival is also available to any class. Still not special.

The class needs something else that makes them stand out. And pets are a good way to do that.
(TWF is available to plenty as well).


That said, it would be nice to also have a scout subclass for the rogue.

The next expansion, Legions, is splittin up the Hunter specializations. They won't all be archers who have a pet take damage for them. One is a petless archer, one is a pet focused archer, and the last is a melee trapper with a pet.

Since WOW boils down to a cool down and procs game, making melee hunters use pets was necessary.

D&D is not so limited.

 

[mellored]

Wow. That's... disappointing.

If I could pick one "feature" to remove from consideration for Ranger, it'd be pets.

Then what distinguishing feature would a ranger have?

Because it's not wilderness survival, it's not bows, it's not TWF....