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.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was disappointed the survey did not allow us to say "the hunter ranger is mostly fine*, it is the beastmaster and specifically the animal companion that needs fixing".

*= though if Hunter's Mark were to become a class feature (not a spell and most importantly not a concentration spell) this would allow dual-wielders to choose the Ranger class (instead of Fighter, now the better choice).

The survey only asked us how satisfied we are with the "ranger".

That, and the playtest ranger, but since that was a complete misfire and an utter failure and completely wrong for the ranger class (but not necessarily wrong for the barbarian or shaman classes) I truly hope they don't think too much about that.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Sorry but if the current release schedule was fine by the majority then they wouldn't keep bringing it up in surveys.

There is no evidence that most gamers are happy with it. Show me some hard data and I will agree but as there is nothing I won't.

Also, someone above said it best when they mentioned that one class has to finish at the bottom, which doesn't mean the class is bad.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The favored terrain bonus, natural explorer and primeval awareness bonus (the extra radius part) should be always active and not only in the specific terrain.

That doesn't make any sense and takes away the flavour of the ability. The ranger never was meant to be the "good at everything and everywhere" class, that is the fighter. I think that is delving too much into the territory of 4th edition where it wasn't flavour that separated the classes but a specific mechanic that worked on everything. Hunter's Mark in 4th was very very boring. The ranger's schtick is being extremely familiar with specific types of creatures and land. If you want a class that is good all around then pick a BM fighter, give him the Outlander back ground, and buy a pet.

 

[Delazar]

So, previous survey showed that we want to explored DnD world, and we want new monsters and players options.

Sooo... What about a book where they write about a specific world, its monsters, and the unique class options to fut that world... You know, like a Campaign Setting book!

Duh...?

 

[Azurewraith]

Who else answered other for every question they could

MEEEEEE then i proceeded to type till my fingers were leaving blood stains

 

[Azurewraith]

I was disappointed the survey did not allow us to say "the hunter ranger is mostly fine*, it is the beastmaster and specifically the animal companion that needs fixing".

*= though if Hunter's Mark were to become a class feature (not a spell and most importantly not a concentration spell) this would allow dual-wielders to choose the Ranger class (instead of Fighter, now the better choice).

The survey only asked us how satisfied we are with the "ranger".

That, and the playtest ranger, but since that was a complete misfire and an utter failure and completely wrong for the ranger class (but not necessarily wrong for the barbarian or shaman classes) I truly hope they don't think too much about that.

This is pretty true just remove the damn spells(as core ofc) oh and they need to drop the nature paladin/guardian of nature vibe to me that is more the druids thing. IMO the wilderness to the ranger is a tool to be used if that means burning down the forest to kill a raging orc warband then so be it!

 

[Uchawi]

---

I don't like the 2d6 hit points, and I like a permanent pet and a favored enemy that can adapt for each combat. It does not mean it has to be the same for each combat so there is still some skill involved.

 

[Grimstaff]

Then I suggest you inform yourself about the experiences of others. You come across as incredibly self-absorbed.

Thanks Cap'n Judgement.

Get help soon.

 

[Grimstaff]

Sorry but if the current release schedule was fine by the majority then they wouldn't keep bringing it up in surveys.

There is no evidence that most gamers are happy with it. Show me some hard data and I will agree but as there is nothing I won't.

I don't know if there is really any hard data to show. Anecdotally, it seems like for every comment I see dissatisfied with 5E's slow pace, I see 5 comments grateful for it. But that could totally be confirmation bias lol.

This just may be one of those situations where the noise on Internet forums is completely unrepresentative of the silent majority. I see constant threads on the Paizo board expressing alarm over their increasing rules bloat, but Paizo keeps making the splat books, and I can't imagine any RPG publisher doing that if they weren't selling like hotcakes.

Ultimately, sales is the true indicator of success (from a business aspect, not necessarily an artistic one). If in 5 years or so we're still playing something that largely resembles 5e, as opposed to a 5.8e or 7e or whatever, or no "e"s at all, then we'll know. Imo.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I don't know if there is really any hard data to show. Anecdotally, it seems like for every comment I see dissatisfied with 5E's slow pace, I see 5 comments grateful for it. But that could totally be confirmation bias lol.

This just may be one of those situations where the noise on Internet forums is completely unrepresentative of the silent majority. I see constant threads on the Paizo board expressing alarm over their increasing rules bloat, but Paizo keeps making the splat books, and I can't imagine any RPG publisher doing that if they weren't selling like hotcakes.

Ultimately, sales is the true indicator of success (from a business aspect, not necessarily an artistic one). If in 5 years or so we're still playing something that largely resembles 5e, as opposed to a 5.8e or 7e or whatever, or no "e"s at all, then we'll know. Imo.

Also depends on where you look as well. I see loads of people on RPG.net who are not satisfied with the current release schedule who want more but not truck loads.