Revised Ranger update

[Mistwell]

*cough*

Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.

That's a bear of a cough you have there. Fur real.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, that’s when you have to differentiate between a wild animal and a character’s pet (read monster vs PC asset); the two won’t follow the same rules. This would not be the first and only asymmetrical element of 5e actually.

«but that’s completely meta, why would a beast play differently once it has a PC master !?! » you would say. You’d be right, it is very metagame-y, but no less than the present Animal Companion rules to be honest.

I’m not trying to backtrack what WotC has published; all I’m saying is that if this had been the rule from the beginning, then the PHB beastmaster would appear like an improvement on the base rule. That’s the only point I’m trying to convey.

And it is a fair point, I just see it as the ship having already sailed. When I first read your comment I thought you were talking about adding it back in as a new rule, which I think we agree wouldn't go over well.
[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I'm going to respond to things out of order.

First, this assumes you can “fix” the bottom classes mechanically. It’s likely the story and flavour of the classes be as much issue, if not more of an issue.

Also, what’s the advantage of encouraging people to play the bottom most played classes? All that does is shuffle those classes up and other classes down. There are now new least played classes.
There’s no such thing as perfect balance. D&D doesn’t need to be like an MMO that is continually shifting and being tweaked.

Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ?

Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower.

So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics.

Also… if the problem is the beast master, why remake the entire ranger? Why not just play any of the other subclasses? There’s no talk of remaking the sorcerer just because the wild magic bloodline is unpopular.

Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked.

Having seen familiars in combat… they don’t fare well. One hit and gone, followed by expensively replacement.

And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option.

So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option.

Also, if someone at my game table derided another player for their choice of class, the balance of classes would be the least pressing issue.

I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude.

But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment.

I doubt a forum based on a comic making jokes related to a fifteen-year-old Edition is the best place to find out what the typical 5e player wants.

They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld.

But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e.

It’s not people’s opinions that have changed. It’s the ratio of that audience.

And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore.

And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories.

I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around.

And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out?

New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.

I would play a bear. just saying. lol

 

[Yunru]

But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.

 

[BookBarbarian]

But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.

Yep, If your cool sending an animal companion to its death, an allied animal works even better than a Beastmaster companion.

 

[Yunru]

To emphasis, I just checked with the DMG. 20 hit points is the upper bound of a CR 2 monster's average damage per round.
Must be fun for the guy who choose a Panther as their animal companion:
"I send my animal companion to attack the Giant Boar while I engage at range."
"You and your companion damage the Giant Boar, it looks quite wounded. It retreats a bit, before charging at your Panther, goring it. Your Panther takes [rolls 4d6 + 3] 21 damage, and dies."

And that was the first encounter of the day.
You effectively have no subclass now, and have to hope that there's another Panther nearby.
And that was against a single CR 2 opponent... while at level 5.

 

[Jester David]

Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ?

Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower.

So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics.

Well, which three classes do you think would be played less than the ranger?
I guarantee your answer will be different than other people's. Mine will be different from yours that will be different from the OPs that will be different from Morrus'.
Heck, even if you polled everyone on this board you might not get an entirely representative answer.

Is there a mechanical fix for the ranger?
Yes. That was never in doubt.
But no game is perfect. Every game has problems. The barbarian can't fight with two weapons. Saving throws break down at high levels. The monk's Way of Four Elements has resource management issues. The -5/+10 feats are too powerful. The champion and battlemaster are devoid of flavour. Wild Magic is very dependant on DM fiat.
If you start fixing a problem with the game you risk going down the slippery slope of fixing the other issues. You set the precedent that you will revise the game and there's more pressure to implement additional fixes for other pet peeves and proud nails.

Plus… is it an effective use of WotC's time to fix a single subclass?
Why not just make more subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options.

And outright new options don't risk causing confusion.
Here's the thing, no matter how much they advertise the new class, not everyone will hear. So you will have people showing up at games and being told they're using the wrong ranger. DMs not allowing the new ranger as it's not in the PHB, and causing tension with the players. Players being pressured to upgrade at AL.
It just causes needless confusion for very little gain.

Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked.

Which is probably the point. The ranger maybe need a small tweak to its first level powers to make it more attractive, and a tweak to the beast master. But they've instead rewritten the entire class twice.
And both times people still weren't entirely happy. I doubt there's a version of the ranger that will entirely satisfy everyone...

And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option.

So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option.

It's pretty clearly meant to be a combat heavy option, given the 7th and 11th features are focused on attacking. It's just a combat option that also has a LOT of utility uses and has a lot of flexibility that improves that.

Most of the issues I see people complaint about with the beasts is their survivability and not their utility. The point of having an animal companion is having an animal run around and help you, akin to the hunter in Warcraft. It's the pet class.
Crazy magical abilities aren't necessarily part of that trope, and forcing every beast master to be a "warg" and magical doesn't support that character concept. Magical stuff like that are located in spells, like beast sense. (Which the ranger gets.) You opt into utility via spells.

I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude.

But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment.

Yeah… but your anecdotal evidence is just not supported. Because people ARE playing the ranger. If no one was playing the ranger than might be true, as the class being underpowered would actually be an issue. But since people do seem to happily be playing the class then it's apparently not a dealbreaker.
Maybe more people would play the class. But maybe not. It's fixing a theoretical issue.

They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld.

Yeah, but it's still nothing compared to Reddit and Twitter and the Facebook groups.
Forums are the social media of the previous generation. Newer and younger players engage in the internet in other ways.
Looking at the D&D audience through the lense of forums is like looking at it through Usenet posts.

But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e.

You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest.
That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more.

Try hitting https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/ or the D&D Facebook group for a while. Spend some time there rather than the forums. See what people are talking about on the #dnd hastag.

And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore.

Fair enough. It bothers me that a lot of the really obvious subclasses haven't been updated. Like the blighter druid and a bard focused on music.
But everyone has pet peeves regarding the game and thinks that WotC should do something different.

And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories.

New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here.

Audiences change, especially depending on how they're introduced to the game.

The audience that started with D&D was introduced through the lense of wargaming. And the ones introduced via the novels and campaign settings in the late '80s and '90s saw the game entirely differently. And now we have streaming as a surprisingly large source of new players, and those games focus much more heavily on the storytelling and narrative side of the game
Unless you honestly think people's campaigns now are similar to how people played back in the '80s….

Heck, you can hear con organizer and former AL bigwig Paige Leiteman discuss the changing audiences here:
http://slyflourish.com/streaming_changes_op_paige_leightman.html
With this tweet being telling:
https://twitter.com/PaigeLeitman/status/1032270919115235328

I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around.

1) Have you introduced 10,000 people to D&D? Because that'd be a representative sampling of the audience.

2) Don't you think, that as you're introducing them to the game, YOU might be influencing their tastes and how they approach the game?

And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out?

It's not that you might not care about the story. That's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). It's that you might rank story lower than mechanics.
When you ranking the importance of elements of a campaign (narrative, character acts, mechanics, combat, and the like), you might place some aspects higher than someone who was introduced to the game in a different way. How much value you place on those elements and the percentage of a game you want to be taken up by those elements.


Regardless, at the end of the day… if people REALLY think the beast master is broken… they can just house rule it for their tables. Use one of the dozen on the DMsGuild or the UA one. Take what they want from the options given.
There are options out there. WotC doesn't need to do anything more.

 

[Yunru]

I get the feeling Jester may produce Hollywood movies. As the Nostalgia Critic often puts it "Well the chart says..."

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I would play a bear. just saying. lol

I know, right? A couple sessions ago I had the players play as elephants as part of one PC's dream quest. The response was, "Can we play elephants all the time?"

 

[abirdcall]

You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest.
That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more.

In case people are wondering this is the same forum that has 10 threads on 'how to abuse Ceremony' and the 2 biggest threads right now are about whether or not D&D is a roleplaying game and developing house rules for making women have lower stats.

Certainly not a group that is representative of the D&D player base.