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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe they need to build a rogue variant Scout for people who want to play the sneaky survivalist ambusher type which is more how I see the class,

The Scout was a cool class from later 3.5, a deadly wilderness-rogue-like skirmisher, no magic or animal friends (it was also briefly an E-Class locked into TWFing and Primal magic, but it sounds like the Ranger's going to have that covered). A 5e version, whether a Rogue or Ranger sub-class or full class or sub-class of some other extremely-hypothetical new martial class would be nice.

 

[Corpsetaker]

A 55-62% rating on a game (or anything) isn't a game being trashed or failing, it is very much what they call "mixed reviews", pretty much equally good and equally bad. Which is the same place the game is at on Steam, last I looked a week ago.

Of course, the publisher would like that score to be much higher. And savvy gamers would more likely make a purchase if that score were much higher. But 55% is hardly "this game sucks" and more, "some like it, some really don't".

I'm sorry but in the harsh world of video games that score means essentially a failure. Almost every review gave it a bad rating and that is not something you want. If people see those scores they will mostly likely move on to something else.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The problem overall is not the ranger but people too worried about damage output compared to other classes. The problem was solved long ago by giving the animal companion it's own actions.

I would say most people out there couldn't care less if the ranger did a little more damage than the other classes. People in this edition choose concept over damage output.

 

[Minigiant]

Everyone is getting real snarky with "ranger fans are basic" and "they just want drizzt" when really, all I want is this.

As for the people who say that anyone can do nature stuff, that is BS, because as soon as they put X into a Ranger class feature it is, by implication, no longer a legitimate use of a Wisdom check. Rangers and Barbarians both have access to some cool survival stuff that I like that I can't get with a fighter.

There's a difference between normal wilderness survival skills and fantastic wilderness survival skill.

It's okay for everyone to have access to normal wilderness survival. Higher level wilderness survival is okay for all.

But the ranger's thing is fantastic wilderness survival. The believable done with perfect accuracy, extreme speeds, or at high quantity. And the nearly unbelievable.

The issue is the ranger only wets his feet in fantastic wilderness survival and combat. The full dive isn't done. And thus many never see it as the focus and see it as flavor.

 

[pukunui]

Second... and third? What are these ranger versions? I only remember the core book, the spell-less hack, and then the UA with the summoned beastlies... where are the rest of them?

They're talking about the rangers from AD&D 2e and D&D 3e. According to their survey results, those versions of the ranger class rated well in the survey, so they need to figure out what it was about those editions' rangers that made them good.

 

[AverageCitizen]

There's a difference between normal wilderness survival skills and fantastic wilderness survival skill.

It's okay for everyone to have access to normal wilderness survival. Higher level wilderness survival is okay for all.

But the ranger's thing is fantastic wilderness survival. The believable done with perfect accuracy, extreme speeds, or at high quantity. And the nearly unbelievable.

The issue is the ranger only wets his feet in fantastic wilderness survival and combat. The full dive isn't done. And thus many never see it as the focus and see it as flavor.

I meant I want the thing the guy I quoted suggested.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Too bad, they don´t just focus on the current ranger and make it a little better and coherent?

 

[Quickleaf]

A 55-62% rating on a game (or anything) isn't a game being trashed or failing, it is very much what they call "mixed reviews", pretty much equally good and equally bad. Which is the same place the game is at on Steam, last I looked a week ago.

Of course, the publisher would like that score to be much higher. And savvy gamers would more likely make a purchase if that score were much higher. But 55% is hardly "this game sucks" and more, "some like it, some really don't".

Well, Metacritic assembles ratings from critics, not from users. And you make it sound like the major video game critic sites like IGN, Destructoid, Angry Joe Show, GameSpot, PC Gamer, and so forth had widely divergent ratings which, when averaged on Metacritic, give a result of 62%.

But if you actually go thru those critic sites you'll see they all give mediocre ratings to SCL.

IGN 5.5 (Mediocre)

Destructoid 6

GameSpot 6 (Fair)

PC Gamer 55

These are not wildly mixed reviews of the game, like you seem to think. They are a consistent voice saying the same thing: SCL is a mediocre game.

Now, there is more variation among user reviews, so you get more user reviews with extreme ratings, but even taking into account that swing, the user reviews come in lower than the critic reviews!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

One of the concerns I have is that if rangers become the "pet class" than any character who should have a powerful pet is going to somehow be shoehorned into being a ranger.

Maybe I want a warlock who gets more powerful fiendish allies, or a fighter who attracts loyal fellow-fighters, or a druid who runs with a pack of wolves or a rogue who gets lackey or two or....

It's also weird because rangers did NOT have a strong animal companion component in either 2e or 3e. In 2e, it was "animal empathy" - making pals with random assorted beasts you meet in your travels and not getting murdered by them. In 3e, it was a distinctly bad animal companion, who was not up to being your combat buddy even a little. The only ranger that had a strong beast component was the 4e beastmaster.

I....don't know how they got the idea that a beast companion is particularly important to the 2e/3e ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

I meant I want the thing the guy I quoted suggested.

It's a good idea. However that method can develop as a collection of barely related subclasses. Then what's the difference between a fighter with maneuvers and a nonmagical ranger with maneuvers?

---

But the part everyone forgets is Power. Each class needs Power. It doesn't have to be combat power like fighters. It can be interaction power like bards, magic ppwer of wizards and sorcerers, healing power of clerics, or roguish power like... rogues.

Whatever the ranger's focus is decided to be, has to be both powerful and relevant.

That's why I don't get the beast love. Ranger beasts sucked at anything not utility or mount related in all editions except 4e. And in 4e, you had to make the ranger suck for the beast to not.