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.

 

[JohnTitusRenzi]

Some spells are useless with 0 combat value.

 

[mellored]

I voted favored enemy gives you an all the time bonus that's useful against your favored enemy.

Favored enemy undead give you deal extra radiant damage, and resistance to necrotic.
Favored enemy beast gives you immobilizing arrows and move speed. (as they are in all melee).
Favored enemy dragon gives you immunity to fear, evasion, and/ or a prone arrow (which causes them to fall).

 

[MerricB]

Some spells are useless with 0 combat value.

Some D&D games have sessions without combat, but do use spells. Because of exploration and role-playing.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd like to see them eventually just print the "many perfect sauces" option for the Ranger and nail what the "No spells" camp wants, the "Autonomous Pet" camp wants, and the "favored foe slayer" wants. And then eventually release the 'joke' Unhinged version that does it all.

Same with Psionics - a lot of people want psionics but they don't all want the same thing.

I don't think they will get a majority approval on any one option because the only thing they'll get a majority vote on is that players don't precisely want whatever the current vision is.

 

[MerricB]

I was not kind in my comments about the UA ranger. I liked them thinking outside the box, but parts of the box (broken by 2d6 HD and Ambuscade) are there for a reason.

My suggestion is that the ranger should begin as a fighter with wilderness skills, and then the paths should diverge it: spellcaster, hunter, beast master, nature paladin. Some may overlap, but they're still distinct.

I tend to start with Aragorn and the Dunedain as the archetypal rangers; I try to distinguish Aragorn's background from his ranger abilities, but I still end up with good fighting, good tracking, good wilderness, some herbalism. I don't end up with animal companions, but can see a ranger archetype that uses them.

The major suggestion I made was to not worry so much about animal companion/summoned monster balance. Having an ability that produces something that doesn't matter in combat or that uses all your actions to use just isn't fun. Yes, the ranger with companion may be better than other fighters for a while; the trick is to limit it in other ways. Perhaps an action to start it attacking (but it works independently afterwards), or it flees at half hit points, etc. But if I have an animal in combat, I want it to matter and not stop me from acting myself.

Cheers!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Some D&D games have sessions without combat, but do use spells. Because of exploration and role-playing.

The longest I have ever gone is 5 levels (I think it was 8=13 but if I;m off it was only a level one way or another) with 0 combats...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was not kind in my comments about the UA ranger. I liked them thinking outside the box, but parts of the box (broken by 2d6 HD and Ambuscade) are there for a reason.

I like 99% of what you say (not even just in this post, but in general) but I think the 2d6 is a Great test, but my advice was to scale down to d4's... 2d4 I think is a great way to do it...

 

[dd.stevenson]

The major suggestion I made was to not worry so much about animal companion/summoned monster balance. Having an ability that produces something that doesn't matter in combat or that uses all your actions to use just isn't fun. Yes, the ranger with companion may be better than other fighters for a while; the trick is to limit it in other ways. Perhaps an action to start it attacking (but it works independently afterwards), or it flees at half hit points, etc. But if I have an animal in combat, I want it to matter and not stop me from acting myself.

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I just can't imagine how "the animal's action takes your action" made it past the playtesters without this feature getting flagged.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, I did suggest 2d8 first level and 1d8 beyond that...

 

[Louis Brenton]

I honestly don't see the current 5E Ranger as that bad. We have one in our party & he does great. Doesn't seem all that out of balance. I do agree that I'd like to see the animal companion be able to do a bit more.

I'm one of the ones who is pretty comfortable with the current release schedule. I don't want a bunch of semi-useful bloat.