Last D&D Survey Results In! Plus What's Up With The Ranger?

As you may know, WotC has a monthly survey/feedback system going. I report on it each month. Last month's survey was about product expectations Gen Con, and the results report was much shorter than usual - just a couple of sentences. "In terms of product, setting books and monster books proved the most popular. We were also happy to see that many of you had played in our published campaign worlds or wanted to try them out. We also saw plenty of support for new character options, with a consensus that most players are happy with our current pace of "slow but steady." I personally feel that my - anecdotal - experience with the online community says the opposite about the current pace, but a survey's a survey!

There's a new survey up, covering the recent Ranger playtest. As WotC mentions, the Ranger is the least popular class, and they intend to approach the class in a number of different ways over the coming year. The Ranger is interesting, because it attracts a lot of snotty comments (not as many as the very concept of a Warlord, but that's another thing).

Click here to take the Ranger survey.

 

[GobiWon]

The UA Ranger is an attempt to make a Ranger that has a unique "thing" that nobody else has (Rogue with cunning action and sneak attack, Fighter with action surge and more attacks overall). Figuring that out will be tough, and the UA Ranger's spirit companion is an attempt at that that just doesn't work for me.

I honestly don't think the PHB Ranger is bad, the Beast master just doesn't work as you'd expect. The Hunter is great and I'd like to see more subclasses for the class.

I agree. With the outlander background in fifth edition, a lot of the flavor of the class has been absorbed. Archery and dual weapon fighting are no longer his alone to excel at. Even the oath of ancients within the paladin steals part of his thunder. His current build is not bad. The beast master is weak but it is because of the action economy and the low cap. Cap the CR based on the 1/4 or lower your ranger level. Give the companion half your hit points. Limit it's intelligence to 5 or lower. Require an action to command during the first round and a bonus action to direct the companion from that point out. Make the creature flee when it hits half it's hit points. Is having a beast with half your hit points really that big of deal. A beast master should be able to have a bear. Maybe even a grizzly at higher levels. Is it really unbalanced when you look at colossus slayer and volley or whirlwind attack. They don't want to rewrite the beast master outright so they give us this weird fighter / shaman's with a poorly thought out ability called ambuscade. Give rangers the ability to expend hit dice to heal themselves immediately outside of combat without taking a short rest to reflect their hardiness. I really hate multiple hit dice per level. Lots of hit points is the realm of the barbarian not the ranger.

 

[Li Shenron]

Just choosing your post for some considerations, nothing personal...

I agree. With the outlander background in fifth edition, a lot of the flavor of the class has been absorbed.

Backgrounds are a major part of 5e. A lot of people asked for separating skills from class in the past, and that's what the current does and why so many people like backgrounds. That they take something away from the class is their intended purpose! But notice how all skill-based classes are affected, not just Rangers but also Rogues and Bards. Everyone can be an outdoor expert, a trapfinder, a performer, an athlete, a knowledge expert etc. There is no way of going back, unless you are willing to restrict the choice of backgrounds by class in your campaign.

Archery and dual weapon fighting are no longer his alone to excel at. Even the oath of ancients within the paladin steals part of his thunder. His current build is not bad.

To be honest, I always hated that Rangers had to be associated to these fighting styles at the expense of other classes and at the expense of other fighting styles. Just because two famous Rangers were dual-wielders and one was an archer doesn't mean every Ranger should. None of the other classes was ever pushed to 1-2 fighting styles only.

The beast master is weak but it is because of the action economy and the low cap.

I am not yet sure it's as weak as people think. I want to see one or two at my table before judging.

Yes, the action economy restricts the pet's effectiveness in combat. If the pet itself can only do 1 attack with its Attack action, then the Ranger+pet can together do only as many attacks as the Ranger alone when not commanding the pet, until level 10. But then at level 11 the Ranger+pet "team" does get 1 more attack than the Ranger alone IIUC (2 pet attacks + 1 Ranger attack). I don't think multiattack can be applied to get even more attacks (IIRC it's an action of its own, not an Attack action), but anyway I doubt that there is any CR1/4 animal that has multiattack...

You could also think of the pet as a 'bag of extra HP' for the Ranger, although from a roleplay POV that's probably gross

The pet's attack might be less valuable than the Ranger attack. It depends on the chosen creature, e.g. a Hawk does very little damage but a Panther will do a decent 1d6 + 2 + your Prof bonus.

So it kind of works like this:

levels 3-6: very marginal combat utility (distractions, opportunity attacks...)
levels 7-10: moderate combat utility (free Help action mostly)
levels 11+: significant combat utility (free Help + 1 more attack than normal)

The only oddity is how Help is incompatible with 2WF because they both require a bonus action.

That said, do not forget the out-of-combat usefulness of having a pet, especially if it has pretty good perception capabilities!

Cap the CR based on the 1/4 or lower your ranger level.

I certainly think that there would be nothing wrong in allowing CR to scale with Ranger level.

But notice that the pet already scales: attacks, damage, saves and AC all benefit from the Ranger's scaling Prof bonus, and its HP scale by Ranger level.

IMHO they just decided to keep it simple, because when allowing to pick higher-CR animals, then probably adding the Prof bonus would be too much, since they already have higher statistics (the HP rule may be fine). With now more 5e experience under their belt, they could publish some guidelines for higher-CR creatures to be used as Ranger's pet.

Give the companion half your hit points.

It already has something like that: min HP equal to 4 times your Ranger's level. The ranger has on average 5.5+Con HP per level, so maybe on average the pet's HP is a bit less than half your HP, but not too far away.

I really hate multiple hit dice per level. Lots of hit points is the realm of the barbarian not the ranger.

Here I cannot agree more

And just to realize how schizofrenic the community is about the Ranger, let's recall how enthusiastic it was when the 3.0 Ranger was revised by 3.5 to have less HP than before "because it's supposed to be a light fighter". So it's supposed to be both a light fighter and a heavy taker? Then just leave it to HD d10 to take both into account

 

[MindxKiller]

And just to realize how schizofrenic the community is about the Ranger, let's recall how enthusiastic it was when the 3.0 Ranger was revised by 3.5 to have less HP than before "because it's supposed to be a light fighter". So it's supposed to be both a light fighter and a heavy taker? Then just leave it to HD d10 to take both into account

I would love if the HD remained d10, I think its utterly stupid that the ranger would have better hit dice than the barbarian and the hit dice were never the 5e rangers problem in the first place. Also, something im surprised nobody has mentioned (At least nobody that I have seen, may have missed it) is that the ranger in the UA has both Dex AND Wis save proficiency, NO other class has both their saves from the big three, its always one of the big three and one of the little three. I think its pretty ridiculous and never needed to be changed, also saves weren't the problem with the 5e ranger.

 

[graves3141]

I'm sick of hearing people say that if you don't like something, you can simply disallow it. I'm glad you can do it, but you become a killjoy when a player comes to you and wants to play the latest and greatest new race or class or option. He's spent good money on the newest supplement and he wants to use it. He is pointing at his shiny new book and telling you that his Vampire Pixie Psion is a legitimate option. I'm advocating for limited options that are setting specific, so that it is easier for a DM to disallow. The UA minotaur is a good example. If I like it, I can allow it. If I dislike it, I can claim that the race belongs in the Dragonlance setting. I don't like the Dragonborn, but it is now cannon in Forgotten Realms. I feel that if I run a Forgotten Realms campaign, I should accommodate players who'd like to play that race.

Call me an entitled killjoy then. Also, don't feel like you have to allow anything you don't want in your game when you DM. If you don't like Dragonborn, then banish them from your version of the Realms. It's your world, so be the boss of it.

 

[GobiWon]

Call me an entitled killjoy then. Also, don't feel like you have to allow anything you don't want in your game when you DM. If you don't like Dragonborn, then banish them from your version of the Realms. It's your world, so be the boss of it.

You are not running the game for your personal pleasure. Like most things in life that involve more than one person there has to be compromise. As a DM, you want your players to have fun and if it was something I completely detested I would let my players know, but your game should never be completely DM centric. You should concern yourself with what your players want out of the game. Otherwise stay at home and make up stories for yourself.

 

[graves3141]

You are not running the game for your personal pleasure. Like most things in life that involve more than one person there has to be compromise. As a DM, you want your players to have fun and if it was something I completely detested I would let my players know, but your game should never be completely DM centric. You should concern yourself with what your players want out of the game. Otherwise stay at home and make up stories for yourself.

I never said anything about running a completely DM centric game. I don't like Dragonborn so I don't allow them in my games. However, I don't care for gnomes that much either, but I would still allow players to choose that race if they wanted to play one.

You say you don't have a problem with telling players about things that completely detest you? If that's the case, then I don't understand why you have a problem with WotC producing supplements that might have options that you don't want in your game. Let WotC produce more books and simply tell your players which things you will allow and which things you won't.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Who else answered other for every question they could

Me.

I suggested the make the beast companion and magic options subclasses with a third, martial subclass as well. I think if they shift more power into the subclass choice they could make a beast that is more satisfying.

So, for the magic class, I put Other: A magic sublcass, similar to a fighter/rogue.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

My personal thoughts on the Beastmaster:

I think restricted action economy for the beast companion is very reasonable. I just wish they would open up our other options, especially for those levels before Extra Attack kicks in. I think it would behoove the class to fold the 7th level "feature" into the basic portion of the Animal Companion feature/rules. Allow those bonus action help or dodge commands right out of the gate.

Then for the 7th level feature I think it's important to have an ability akin to the Moon Druid's Primal Strike - ignoring resistance to nonmagical damage. Throw in some free ritual spells that are appropriate (Beast Sense, Animal Messenger, Speak with Animals), and you have a well rounded feature that focuses on the magical/semi-magical bond that exists between you and the animal companion.

I also don't think Share Spells is nearly as potent as "Beastly Coordination", the "Spell-less Variant" version of the 15th level feature.

I'm hoping to convince a local friend/DM to run a game with these "modifications" (as well as replacing Foe Slayer with Ambuscade, and Hide in Plain Sight with Skirmisher's Stealth), and see how it goes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

You have intelligent suggestion. My two cents on the Beastmaster? Just say no.

I hate pets. Of any kind. While I make a small allowance for certain, time-limited, add-ons (NPCs, low-powered critters that help, etc.), I absolutely abhor classes that have any pet features. It doesn't matter whether the pets is a creature, or undead (pace necromancer). It just adds too much complexity without enough added fun for the table.

I can certainly understand their appeal in computer games. But I don't find the added complexity, in tabletop games, is worth the hassle. As in all things, other people can have differing, and reasonable, viewpoints.

This is a fair opinion. I heavily considered a Necromancer for awhile, but decided against it for these exact reasons. How fun is it for my companions to have to wait for me to collect corpses and rot the flesh off so I can make animated skeletons? Not very.

My hope was that Beastmaster would be a decent middle ground, by only providing that one pet, at reduced combat complexity, but still a lot of utility and mostly flavor. That's why I completely understand and accept the action restrictions. Plus, I like animals!