Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 7987513" data-attributes="member: 6803643">I'd argue that there isn't that much consensus over what an animal companion ranger ought to look like, at least within this thread, though I haven't reviewed the survey response breakdown of what WotC found players wanted out of revisions for the Ranger's animal companion.Sure, but we don't need consensus when it comes to game revision, we just need a significantly large minority of players who are frustrated with the issue. Completely hat-pulling numbers here, but let's say 70% of players think the classes are more or less equal, while 15% say that Sorcerers are significantly underpowered and 15% say that Rangers are. If that means that 30% of tables might not buy the setting with the Sorcerer and Ranger subclass options, then that's a profit margin problem issue, let alone the 20% of Warlord-or-Bust 4e players that won't play 5e if there aren't non-magical inspiring healing frontline warrior options to port their Dragonborn Warlords into the game. If it's easy enough to make the adjustments and satisfy those significant minority customer pools, it means more long-term profits for WotC, and it also means a better game for us as a whole. And as we've seen every time they print errata or updated options, if you don't like it, you don't need to play with it. You can keep on going with the game as you bought back in 2014. There might be some confusion though, when the new player joins the group rolls up their character on D&D Beyond and is using the wording of their class features per the most recent errata. That of course is a harder catch than saying that the DM must approval all options beyond the core rulebooks.Curious. You'd think that the popularity of the Thaneborn Barbarian option from 4e would mean than Charismatic Barbarians aren't such a minority.</blockquote>

Verification