cbwjm
Seb-wejem
They didn't. I think Crawford mentioned something like wanting to do a new survey first instead of chasing phantoms and some overly sensitive people thought that was some kind of insult directed at them.
Mike Mearls Discusses Possible Alternate Class Features for the Ranger on Happy Fun Hour 11/20
"Frankly the revised ranger helped feed an internet-fueled view of the class that doesn't align with the majority of players. I wasn't sorry to end it." Jeremy Crawford, Lead Designer, in a Tweet responding to players who want an official variant of the ranger.
I read that as insulting and dismissive. Granted I wrongly attributed the stance as Mearls', but I think Wizards has got some Ivory Tower game design ideas for a system that isn't really that good, especially in the case of the ranger.
I pretty much use the Revised Ranger. But I make a couple changes.
2nd level Rangers get Hunter's Mark as a class ability (Vengeance Paladin lose Hunter's Mark as a spell. Because screw them, it is a Ranger ability.
)
Rangers get bonus spells, like the Paladin.
Beastmaster:
You gain archetype spells at the ranger levels listed.
Level Spells
3rd Speak with Animals
5th Beast Sense
9th Conjure Animals
13th Dominate Beast
17th Greater Restoration
Hunter:
You gain archetype spells at the ranger levels listed.
Level Spells
3rd Longstrider
5th Pass without Trace
9th Wind Wall
13th Locate Creature
17th Swift Quiver
2nd level Rangers get Hunter's Mark as a class ability (Vengeance Paladin lose Hunter's Mark as a spell. Because screw them, it is a Ranger ability.
)Rangers get bonus spells, like the Paladin.
Beastmaster:
You gain archetype spells at the ranger levels listed.
Level Spells
3rd Speak with Animals
5th Beast Sense
9th Conjure Animals
13th Dominate Beast
17th Greater Restoration
Hunter:
You gain archetype spells at the ranger levels listed.
Level Spells
3rd Longstrider
5th Pass without Trace
9th Wind Wall
13th Locate Creature
17th Swift Quiver
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
He was refering to the idea that trying to fix the ranger without feedback, without even knowing whether there is still the same disatisfaction, would be “chasing phantoms”. He isn’t referring to anyone as a phantom. He isn’t dismissing or insulting anyone.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Oh, that old chestnut. I agree with Crawford, people on forums like these all too often tend to look for the mechanically best option and if an option is even slightly lower in damage then it is a poor choice or a "trap". Not putting too much weight on internet forum posters or redditors was probably a good idea. Better to have a survey which incorporates the responses of a much wider audience.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
The current team has literally the least "Ivory Tower" approach of any D&D design team: particularly in this case, they are cautious and consult the community repeatedly about any developments.
I feel like there are many surveys that pretend to engage the community, but nothing being done with them. There's little in the way of official crunch content that can be added to the supposedly modular design of 5e. Instead, we get rehashed old adventures while the designers rest on their laurels.
I remember the promise of 5e at launch that claimed it was going to be a system to support all editions of play. Aside from some (lackluster) rules options in the DMG, we haven't gotten a good tactical rules expansion to support 3.x or 4e playstyles. It's as if everything has moved to support the Critical Role, streaming, story driven style of game. (For me, I prefer getting my stories from novels, TV, and film, and leaving the games for gameplay. And besides, there are other games that I feel do a better job of storytelling than D&D.)
Parmandur
Book-Friend
So, you mean they have put resources where they found people wanted them, rather than enforcing a particular playstyle from above, and this is somehow simeltaneously not listening to the feedback that they get...?
I guess if I'm a member of the minority opinion, then going with the will of the most players and forging ahead in a direction I don't like is the way to go. However, in my purely anecdotal experience with the variety of groups I've DMed for, every single one of them would like more tactical and combat options, better codified rules in and out of combat. It comes up every session in the three different 5e games I run.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Critical Role draws viewers in the millions. My anecdata are contrary to yours, but neither is data. Which WotC has, and seems to be acting upon.
In the live streaming world, 5E seems to be something of the hard, tactical option in the field already.
