Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 7295534" data-attributes="member: 18646">Don't have a transcript. Basic summary of points:-- Having an entirely new version of the ranger causes confusion. This has led to the move toward swapping out features.-- They might try this feature swap for other classes as well (I think the elementalist monk was mentioned)-- The thing most people are unhappy with is the beastmaster. This led to a discussion of 'only fixing what's actually broken'. (which made me wonder if they were considering backing off changes to the Hunter, but he did not say one way or another)-- Plenty of people are actually happy with the ranger as is, which is why they are being cautious with making changes and avoiding any that will invalidate the original ranger.-- The audience of people who are very familiar with UA's and are unhappy with the ranger are only one portion of their audience, not the entirety of it.  In other words, they don't get the same feedback from other quarters, and they take all the feedback into account when they make decisions. (So our messageboard community may not always reflect the bulk of their data for example)-- They know people want things to move faster but they feel that their very deliberative process is critical for avoiding making mistakes. He mentions that there is a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes in terms of going through data, crunching data, trying out internal tests that never make it to UA, etc. It's a more involved process than folks might realize.And that's the stuff I remember that centered around the ranger discussion. It's actually an interesting listen. Before going on to the ranger, he talks about the overall playtest process, how they decide what's going into the books etc. He mentions for example that the Stone Sorcerer was very popular but hints-- without quite saying it-- that they probably have another place for it. He mentions that none of the new wizard subclasses tested well until the war mage. Anyway, I could go on. But I have to get back to work!AD</blockquote>

Verification