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.

 

[Queer Venger]

Proves that the 'anecdotal' experience is not valid of what fans want.

 

[discosoc]

Just let the ranger command his pet to attack as a bonus action, and most of this would be a non-issue.

 

[Minigiant]

"The key aspect of the ranger is it's role as a survivalist. In D&D, this applies to self sufficiency, ambushing (making and avoiding them), natural lore, and tracking. The ranger is originally trained to work alone or with other rangers. Whether as a border guard, a paid escort, a hermetic wanderer, or a military scout, the ranger's goal is to go out in the wilderness and not die out there.

In an adventuring party, the ranger add its survival specialty to the group. As the group levels, the high magic and fantastic nature of D&D can block the niche of the ranger. Therefore the ranger must grow with the growing power, either with spells or class features which disable or circumvent the limitation of the mundane world. The untraceable can be followed. The invisible can be spotted. The perilous can be survived.

The ranger's relationship with nature is important. Whether they love or hate the wilderness, every ranger respects its power. This is why many rangers form bonds with some of it to survive the rest of it. Some rangers get animal companions. Others make connections with local fey and spirits. And some learn from the druids, tribes, and beasts native to the area. All to get an edge on the living through the dangerous of being in the wild disconnected from the civilized world.

Being on the edge of civilization watching the wilderness act around them has other benefits. Rangers often learn the traits and habits of the beings around them. A ranger will be able to track their favored enemy better and know more about them. Rangers will knew their language, know what scares them, what angers them, their smells, their tactics, and all their mannerisms. This knowledge makes them the things of their favored enemy's nightmare: a hard to kill warrior who knows all about them and which escape is not an option. Some rangers even apply this knowledge to combat. Others can use this skill for conversation, detecting itchy ears or a lying elf or the anger in a giant's eye. But it all goes back to survival. The best way to survive an enemy's tactics is to know them."

My rambly comment.

To me, the ranger should be the class that if only the DM, the ranger player, and any other player show up the DM could send them out on to adventure with no issue and little work. The ranger's got healing, stealth, control, tanking, and damage. The ranger is the survivalist. A ranger can handle his share of the XP budget.


I think the ranger was harmed by it only having 2 subclasses and too few spells. 2 more subclasses, a few more spells, and a UA nonspell variant is all it needs.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Proves that the 'anecdotal' experience is not valid of what fans want.

that should be engraved on every page of enworld...

 

[Mistwell]

Nobody is asking for bloat, nor does bloat equal a bit more than we are getting now.

Also, if they come out with something you don't like then don't buy it.

Should I not be able to have milk just because you don't?

"...a consensus that most players are happy with our current pace of "slow but steady."..."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"...a consensus that most players are happy with our current pace of "slow but steady."..."

I do wonder if that is spin... but there is no way to know and lets be honest down that path lies madness...

 

[Minigiant]

Given how diverse peoples' opinions on what makes a good ranger, I have come to the conclusion that the ranger needs to be a build-your-own class. Take the ranger and strip it down to virtually nothing. Favoured enemy, natural explorer, fighting style, extra attack, possibly another couple features. For everything else, EVERYTHING else, give them a mechanic similar to the warlock's invocations.

Every two levels, gain a new ability from the list of "Survival Techniques" or something similar. Hunter archetype abilites would be there. Spellcasting progression would be there over a few steps. An animal companion could be attained and improved through it. Features from the spell-less ranger (poultice, resistance to poisons, adv on saves vs poisons) could be bought over a few levels. Specific benefits that require a specific favoured enemy, as suggested upthread, would be here too. Each 'path' (spellcasting, animal companion, Hunter features) would require five purchases, giving the ranger the opportunity to fill two full ability trees or dip into several at the cost of capstone features.

The biggest problem with this system is that it allows those so inclined to build a rather powerful 'optimal' ranger. The benefit is that everyone can build what THEY want from a ranger rather than being stuck with what the designers hope they would like.

I think this is the best way. But it would take more playtesting than any sane team would do.
And that's the issue.

Balancing the "hunter", "beast master", magic ranger, and the "spirit stuff" feature would be a ton of work. Spells trumps half of the things in D&D if you don't make the mundane and non-spell magic very powerful. That's why the "ranger with no spells" is so bad. It's just a worse fighter in a green cape.

And the more important the "pick and choose" part of the ranger is, the worse the problem is.

For all the options of invocations, it's just ~25% of the power of the 5th edition warlock. The power comes from pact magic and their great cantrip.
Same thing for Bards. Their power is their spells not their inspiration.


And that essentially is the problem. The core of the ranger must be most of the class' strength. The optional part will need to be understated.

So only the parts ALL rangers get, will be strong.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I'm very comfortable with the current pace of releases. So yeah, we exist, but we're not that vocal.

 

[Umbral Sage]

I would like the ranger to be more fleshed out, have more options and feel a bit more complete. what i wrote:

The ranger core class (sans subclass) could focus on combat (ex. fighting style, extra attack, multi-attack), spellcasting (spells that aid in exploration and some like entangle, fog cloud, spike growth and wind wall that are about control/tactics) and exploration, this includes both survival and scouting (natural explorer, land's stride and vanish).

The ranger core class should be able to stand on its own in all the above aspects, while subclasses make the class more focused. Subclasses could improve on one aspect of the core class. For example, the hunter subclass could improve on the (physical) combat of the ranger, the seeker could add offensive spellcasting power and enhance combat through (primal) magic, the stalker could make a sneaky ranger with some minor sneak attack progression, the warden ranger could make a more tanky/support ranger with auras and buffs, and the beastmaster could be about an animal/spirit companion.

It would be better if the animal companion was a choice within the ranger class (through a subclass) and not in the core.

Spellcasting should be an important aspect to the ranger class similar to the paladin else the ranger feels like a fighter with a nature background. The subclasses could improve upon the spell list by providing bonus spells, for example for the hunter spells that improve combat against certain enemies, the seeker could gain offensive druid spells or spells like fire arrow and lightning arrow, the sneaky ranger spells like invisibility and blur, the warden spells like aura of vitality and magic circle and finally the beastmaster could gain spells like beast bond and conjure woodland beings.

Mechanics like Hunter's Mark, Seeker’s Eye, Stalker’s Fangs and the old favored enemy are not very interesting and feel like a penalty, due to the limited duration, the limited targets or the fact they need concentration.

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.

The subclasses could gain features that aid in other aspects of the ranger aside from combat and spellcasting, they could give exploration features within the subclass theme, as an example the beastmaster could gain some bonus when using the animal/spirit companion to scout while the seeker could use magical means to do it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I still don't get the ranger hate. The ranger in my group is awesome.

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