Mike Mearls Discusses Possible Alternate Class Features for the Ranger on Happy Fun Hour 11/20

[Charlaquin]

Hopefully the feedback made Crawford reconsider his words when he tweeted that a few phantoms were complaining about the ranger.


We are not a phantom (defined - Phantom is person/thing with an illusory status. Or something without material substance.)



WoTC are in complete denial. I wish they would just do a complete overhaul. Many liked the features of the recent UA Ranger, though spaced out better.
I would prefer minor benefits for Natural Explorer that would be useful in all terrains. In one talk Mearls mentions that the specifics of Natural Explorer with added benefits would be better as a conclave then as part of the core class, then he reverses course. I’m getting more frustrating over time as no resolution is in sight and they can’t acknowledge a mistake. We are human who inherently make mistakes.

To be totally honest, I suspect these comments from Jeremy to be a big part of the reason that the Ranger tested lower on satisfaction this time around.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's the problem: the ranger isn't the least played class. There are 3-4 classes that are played less than the ranger. So while a lot of people complain about the ranger online, many people are quite happy with the design, enough to actually play the class.
So are people really unhappy, or is it a vocal online minority? Are ranger players unhappy or just non-ranger fans? Are people unhappy with the 5e execution, or is it D&D ranger-isms like spells holding it back? Is it the entire class, or just the beast master?

Well, just because the ranger is played, doesn't necessarily mean the people playing it are satisfied. It could well be that lots of people play rangers simply because they find the idea of playing a ranger cool, but in actual practice find the experience dissatisfying. In fact, given that they've now revealed that the ranger is testing even lower on satisfaction than it did early in the edition, I'd say that's the most likely explanation for the data.

Granted, WotC couldn't have known one way or another until they did another actual satisfaction poll instead of just relying on data from characters created on DnDBeyond. What Jeremy tweeted wasn't wrong. Certainly, there was a possibility that the supposed dissatisfaction with the ranger was from a statistically insignificant group. But the way he said it did come off as a little condescending.

Still, the data is in now, and the "Ranger needs work" crowd have been vindicated. Now it's hopefully time for WotC to start looking into possible solutions, and I agree that just re-doing the ranger from scratch and releasing an alternate version probably isn't a good option.

 

[ad_hoc]

The inherent problem with the surveys is the selection bias. It only reaches people who are going to answer D&D surveys.

I'm sure WotC knows this and I'm sure they have demographic data on the player population of D&D.

When they're making decisions they do need to keep in mind what is good for everyone. There is a balancing act there.

I like being able to just throw the PHB at someone and say here, make a character. Even XGtE is more complexity than most people I play with want. I don't think I want someone at my table coming to the game with UA stuff. It's a whole can of worms that distracts from actually playing the game.

 

[Parmandur]

The inherent problem with the surveys is the selection bias. It only reaches people who are going to answer D&D surveys.

I'm sure WotC knows this and I'm sure they have demographic data on the player population of D&D.

When they're making decisions they do need to keep in mind what is good for everyone. There is a balancing act there.

I like being able to just throw the PHB at someone and say here, make a character. Even XGtE is more complexity than most people I play with want. I don't think I want someone at my table coming to the game with UA stuff. It's a whole can of worms that distracts from actually playing the game.

Mearls said that the sample size is huge enough that they aren't worried about the numbers being skewed one way or another.

He did say results were mostly positive for the game overall, some neutral, and very few negative, as people with negative reactions wouldn't take the survey. So selection bias something they are concious of. But that can be accounted for in survey design.

 

[ad_hoc]

Mearls said that the sample size is huge enough that they aren't worried about the numbers being skewed one way or another.

He did say results were mostly positive for the game overall, some neutral, and very few negative, as people with negative reactions wouldn't take the survey. So selection bias something they are concious of. But that can be accounted for in survey design.

That's interesting.

Would be great to know how many responses they actually get.

 

[Parmandur]

That's interesting.

Would be great to know how many responses they actually get.

Last I heard them give a number, it was six digits for any given random survey. They closed this survey very quickly, and Mearls said on Twitter that it was because they received triple their target number of responses already and needed to just crunch the data.

 

[Pauln6]

I agree that it swung too far.
But the PHB ranger needs something at first level. It has two features that require brainpower and have a choice, but are largely ribbons.


It’s less about making their damage better and making favoured enemy less, well, useless.


Beasts don’t boost damage. Their damage is largely the same as the ranger’s. It can attack or the ranger can.
It is useful for damage mitigation... for one hit. Maybe two.
While it can recover at low levels, without its own hit dice the companion is just a drain on party resources to restore its health.
At higher levels, the companion is going to be dead more often than alive, and the ranger is basically lacking the benefits of their subclass.

I'm not sure how true this is with the recent clarifications in the errata. If the beast can defend itself or its master without express instructions each round there might end up being a slight increase in damage while it is conscious.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think you could do some. I wouldn't mind a fighter with Weapon Specialization. But when you get into mandating "all" then it gets funky, because you might not have as strong of a design for others, and are adding the class features largely to meet some arbitrary goal. That's how you end up with terrible design: worrying less about picking the best options and more about hitting all the check boxes.

This gets tricky for a lot of classes, as many don't have many class features that aren't iconic and this shouldn't be swapped out. You shouldn't get rid of Sneak Attack from the rogue or Rage from the barbarian, but getting rid of a level 7 or 9 power feels less interesting and "alternate".

Yes, I agree, better not to do it at all costs on a class if there is no good idea.

I wouldn't touch iconic and unique features such as Barbarian's Rage and Rogue's Sneak Attack... even smaller stuff like Action Surge and Second Wind should not be removed, otherwise it leaves the Fighter class without its own unique and distinctive features, it would end up being an empty shell of a class.

I would in general like if they at least addressed all classes, and see if there is one non-essential or controversial feature that could have an alternate option. If they provide an alternate for Ranger spellcasting, then quite naturally something similar could be done for Paladins. I'd also consider an alterate to Druid wildshape, even tho this is very iconic, I think the Druid's spells and other nature-related abilities are enough for the class concept to stand up.

It's also true that some classes already have alternate class features, for example we have several possible Fighting Styles, Warlock's Pact Boons, or Sorcerer's Metamagic. So it'd be just as valuable to get a couple more options to choose from for each of those. Maybe even a few more Totem Warrior's animals and Four Element Monk's powers.

 

[Jester David]

I'm not sure how true this is with the recent clarifications in the errata. If the beast can defend itself or its master without express instructions each round there might end up being a slight increase in damage while it is conscious.

If enemies provoke from it. Uncertain how true that will be. Not when they can just kill it and move past.
I don't think the extra damage is comparable to the extra attack from Horde Breaker or Giant Killer. Or even the bonus d8 of Colossus Slayer.

 

[Jester David]

Well, just because the ranger is played, doesn't necessarily mean the people playing it are satisfied. It could well be that lots of people play rangers simply because they find the idea of playing a ranger cool, but in actual practice find the experience dissatisfying. In fact, given that they've now revealed that the ranger is testing even lower on satisfaction than it did early in the edition, I'd say that's the most likely explanation for the data.

Maybe.
But also given each class is only appealing to 7-8% of the audience, that means 92% of people could hate the class and it could still have a lot of fans who were very satisfied.

Which is the catch. You might be able to make the ranger more generally appealing to other players... but if you do that at the cost of people playing the existing ranger, it might not increase in actual use. It's a lateral move. Or you work to interest the fans who don't care about the ranger to begin with, and who wouldn't play the ranger anyway.
There's a lot to lose for uncertain gain. Which is very much a design phantom.

Granted, WotC couldn't have known one way or another until they did another actual satisfaction poll instead of just relying on data from characters created on DnDBeyond. What Jeremy tweeted wasn't wrong. Certainly, there was a possibility that the supposed dissatisfaction with the ranger was from a statistically insignificant group. But the way he said it did come off as a little condescending.

See above.

Still, the data is in now, and the "Ranger needs work" crowd have been vindicated. Now it's hopefully time for WotC to start looking into possible solutions, and I agree that just re-doing the ranger from scratch and releasing an alternate version probably isn't a good option.

The catch is that the majority of players never buy beyond the PHB and that only a fraction buys content from the DMsGuild. They can put it there for free and stick it in a physical book, and it probably won't affect or fix the problems at most tables.