Revised Ranger update

[CapnZapp]

Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential.

Yes. Essentially they're arguing there's no point to having forum discussions like this. Or to be more precise: nobody should criticize anything. (Telling everybody how great WotC is doing is fine)

I consider it a form of trolling.

 

[CapnZapp]

Out of curiosity, what is the risk that you foresee?

Publishing quality supplements carry an inherent risk.

A risk of inadvertently publishing something unbalanced, say. Or, ultimately, a jumping-the-shark moment.

Of course I don't see any actual risk in fixing the Beastmaster. But apparently WotC thinks they're too good to bother with the inconvenience of having to confess one of their subclasses isn't good enough.

They would rather declare the PHB "evergreen" and in no need of improvement...

 

[Parmandur]

Yes. Essentially they're arguing there's no point to having forum discussions like this. Or to be more precise: nobody should criticize anything. (Telling everybody how great WotC is doing is fine)

I consider it a form of trolling.

Well, there is no "point" insofar as WotC doesn't read the forums, and this discussion will have no effect on the overall game. This is all of us sharing our opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Disagreement is not trolling, but discussion. If there is a point, it is for us to look at disagreements and think through them.

There is nothing wrong with you disliking a particular direction that WotC. That doesn't make your preference an objective fact that they are fool's for acting against.

 

[Parmandur]

Publishing quality supplements carry an inherent risk.

A risk of inadvertently publishing something unbalanced, say. Or, ultimately, a jumping-the-shark moment.

Of course I don't see any actual risk in fixing the Beastmaster. But apparently WotC thinks they're too good to bother with the inconvenience of having to confess one of their subclasses isn't good enough.

They would rather declare the PHB "evergreen" and in no need of improvement...

The PHB is already evergreen, and while it could be improved IMO (remove Feats and Multiclassing in favor of some more races and subclasses or the index, for instance), they aren't going to invalidate anybody's book, or put anybody in the position of feeling that their book is outdated. They won't change it until 5E, minimum. You keeping using this phrase "good enough," but again: "enough" on what metric? If the subclass is meeting their metrics, then by definition it is "good enough."

 

[Parmandur]

Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the naysayers - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.

Yes, voices on the Internet are inconsequential, or more accurately, statiscially irrelevant. WotC stopped participation in forums around the time that they let it be known that their research demonstrated that forum received opinion was often close to the opposite of popular opinion and taste. While they will communicate on mass social media, they aren't making decisions based on those voices.

 

[Sadras]

Yes, voices on the Internet are inconsequential, or more accurately, statiscially irrelevant. WotC stopped participation in forums around the time that they let it be known that their research demonstrated that forum received opinion was often close to the opposite of popular opinion and taste. While they will communicate on mass social media, they aren't making decisions based on those voices.

And yet playtest feedback is done via the internet

 

[Parmandur]

And yet playtest feedback is done via the internet

In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.

 

[Yunru]

In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.

And yet said surveys placed the ranger as the least favourite class.

 

[Sadras]

In surveys, that they can design and analyze for useful data. Not just try and read the tealeaves of forum arguments between a couple dozen folks. It's like the difference between the national weather service and trying to predict the weather by reading the entrails of a slain goat. Both methods can get it wrong, and both can produce correct predictions. But one is a more sound basis for decision making.

I'd hazard a guess that many of the same people answering the D&D surveys are the same people on the forums - including those so-called dozen folks, so the greater playerbase has generally always been inconsequential. But yes, your point stands that the data gained through a survey is easier to analyse and quantify.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet said surveys placed the ranger as the least favourite class.

Had previously done so; per Crawford this has changed. Hence why they are not pursuing their experiments.