Revised Ranger update

[Chaosmancer]

Their main measures have been "do people play this class?" and "do they have fun when doing so?"

If it is both popular and considered fun to play, why wouldn't they focus their energy elsewhere? If the perceived "problems" have been resolved as far as the player base is concerned, while the "solutions" were not working for the player base, why would they keep pursuing that path?

I have to wonder though, since we don't have access to their data, what exactly they measured.

No one has been complaining about the Xanathar's rangers, because for the most part they are perfectly fine. And in fact, they have additional spells known which is a big step towards helping the ranger spellcasting as compared to it's closest relative classes. A feature that the PHB rangers don't have.

Also, almost no one thinks that the Hunter is poorly balanced, and conversations about fixing the ranger have almost always included the caveat that the PHB Hunter works just fine.

In addition, we have the Revised Ranger, which many people are happy about.

And, we can't deny Multi-classing can change things even more.



So, what did WoTC learn in their surveys? If, after Xanathar's, they simply learned that a lot of people are playing Ranger's, this actually tells us nothing about whether or not the Revised Ranger was still needed. Because playing a Revised Ranger is still playing a Ranger. It tells us nothing about the state of the Beastmaster, because people playing Hunters, Gloomstalkers, and Horizon Walkers are still playing Rangers.


So if all WoTC has determined is that the ranger is fine, except for the Beastmaster, then they haven't addressed the main point of contention that has existed this entire time. And, considering nothing has changed mechanically for the Beastmaster, we are left with one of two conclusions.

Either people have always been happy with the Beastmaster (which has never seemed to be the case as far as I have ever seen or heard) or people don't mind the Beastmaster being sub-par with the other Ranger options to turn to.

That does not lead to the solution I want or need for my groups though, which is that the Beastmaster is brought up to par with the other rangers. Because, people have not had fun playing a PHB Beastmaster at my table, so it isn't where I need it to be yet.

And, personally, the class being fine despite one of it's most iconic sub-classes not meeting player perceptions and requiring jumping through hoops to work doesn't sound right to me. The Beastmaster only starts becoming mechanically "fine" at 5th level, for two full levels the player is either not attacking with their character, or not using their beast. And, many of the "best" combat options for the beast have it simply regulated to a pool of hp and an Armor Class with Dodge... which sucks to be honest, I can't imagine getting excited by the tactical possibilities of standing there and doing nothing.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe because they can do better?

Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat?

Equating "popular" with "it's all us animal companion lovers get" is probably only marketing speak, and there's little reason for you to swallow it hook line and sinker.

Maybe you don't always act as if you have the producer's best interests at heart instead of the consumer's. But you sure do now, and it is a blight on this forum.

Better by which metric? People playing the class and having fun with it, more than with most theoretically superior Classes, is already a reality. And since that is their prime goal, how can they do better? Make the Ranger the single most popular Class...?

As to what else "pet class" lovers might want, Mearls has been getting into that a bit on the Happy Fun Hour, for the Shaper Psion, and the spell-based solution he is exploring could provide an elegant solution for Druids and Rangers who want a pet just as well.

My interest, as a consumer, is to see myself and friends playing and having fun. As long as WotC keeps their eyes on that ball, and provides solid product, I am happy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Better by which metric? People playing the class and having fun with it, more than with most theoretically superior Classes, is already a reality. And since that is their prime goal, how can they do better? Make the Ranger the single most popular Class...?

As to what else "pet class" lovers might want, Mearls has been getting into that a bit on the Happy Fun Hour, for the Shaper Psion, and the spell-baaed aolitit he is exploring could provide an elegant solution for Druids and Rangers who want a pet just as well.

My interest, as a consumer, is to see myself and friends playing and having fun. As long as WotC keeps their eyes on that ball, and provides solid product, I am happy.

The metric depends I guess. In this instance, I don't think the Beastmaster works as advertised. I can still squeeze fun out of it, but the Revised Ranger shows that is could be done better and made more fun.

As for potential future fixes, giving us a different class that does pets "better" isn't going to make the PHB Beastmaster better. And, without knowing what "spell-baaed aolitit" he is working on, I can't comment on that as a potential fix.

And... Even if it could be made into a fix, I don't see how that changes anything we are saying about the Beastmaster

 

[Parmandur]

The metric depends I guess. In this instance, I don't think the Beastmaster works as advertised. I can still squeeze fun out of it, but the Revised Ranger shows that is could be done better and made more fun.

As for potential future fixes, giving us a different class that does pets "better" isn't going to make the PHB Beastmaster better. And, without knowing what "spell-baaed aolitit" he is working on, I can't comment on that as a potential fix.

And... Even if it could be made into a fix, I don't see how that changes anything we are saying about the Beastmaster

Sorry, typing on the phone with fat thumbs: "spell-based solution," I recommend watching the episode on the Shaper from a few weeks ago, he really seems to be on to a way to have pets that are balanced and don't break the action economy. If it pans out, I could see an approach as he is exploring replacing the Beastmaster.

As to the PHB Beastmaster itself, it works the way it was intended to, which doesn't match everybody's expectations. Their big find that they shard from ranger surveys was how diverse concepts of "Ranger" actually are, or more accurately, we're. They seem to be suggesting now that the "problem" has been resolved by increasing familiarity from existing players, and a lack of preconceptions from newer players.

Now, what it does seem they are interested in exploring are "alternative class features," if people want that for all classes. A more alacarte option could give them the ability to provide options for those dissatisfied, without been ng disruptive to the game. If they do that, it would be the closest to a book like the good Cap seems to want as possible.

 

[Mistwell]

Try one with two swords.


Depends on what you understand from the twitter screenshots, for me it is quite clear.
I find the melee hunter also extremely bad.


I don't need experience playing the class to see its problems.
I didn't bash anyone.

If you are "seeing" problems with the Hunter Ranger without having played it, and you see a large number of people here who have actually had experience playing it and find it to be fine, then you should probably consider playing it first before deciding it's bad. You might be wrong. It's not "extremely bad" in the opinions of many, many people who have actually played it.

 

[Mistwell]

Why are we circling back to issues already covered exhaustively?

If this is a position you ascribe to, I don't ever, EVER want to see you arguing the quantity or pace or depth or complexity of the rules crunching is lacking or needs to be altered. Because you've made that argument a good 40 times over the past several years.

If however you intend to continue to make that argument, then maybe don't judge others for circling back to issues already covered. Doctor, heal thyself.

 

[Mistwell]

Maybe because they can do better?

Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat?

Equating "popular" with "it's all us animal companion lovers get" is probably only marketing speak, and there's little reason for you to swallow it hook line and sinker.

Maybe you don't always act as if you have the producer's best interests at heart instead of the consumer's. But you sure do now, and it is a blight on this forum.

I'm so sorry we're having badwrongfun. If you find it such a blight on the forum, I am sure you can do better than this forum. After all, if your standard is "do better" for WOTC, why isn't it "do better" for yourself?

 

[Retreater]

Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.

 

[Mistwell]

Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.

I am curious why you think it's haughty?

 

[Yunru]

Disappointed in the original ranger design, the announcement, and the haughty way Crawford did it. 5e is becoming less and less my system the more I get to know it.

Hey, remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?
Remember when they promised 5e would be modular?

#UnrealisticGoals
#BrokenPromises