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.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I consider those a feature. I wish there were more non-combat spells.

Ditto. I'd love more interesting combat spells too, but I'd snap up a whole book of "utility" spells if they were truly well done.

 

[ccooke]

I wrote that I'd be happy with a ranger that sacrificed spells to make a pet combat-viable. That way they can give it a resource cost and balance it, too.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I believe I said everything I wanted to say about the ranger previously, but I have something to say about the release schedule. WotC is having more of my money with the current release schedule than they ever had, and increasing their rate of release can actually reduce the amount of money they'll be getting from me.

It happens that I don't need a lot besides the three core books to run my games, but the slow rate of release is making me want to collect them, something that I never felt about previous editions. As long as they keep their current rate of new books, I don't expect my collector impulse to slow down, but going back to a faster rate of new books will probably make me feel like collecting them is too much money and too much stuff that I don't know when I'm going to use.

It's an anecdote, obviously, but I have at least two friends who described the same feeling and (like me) have bought everything WotC released for 5E. They (once again, like me) would have purchased less if the rate of new releases was faster. If our situation mirrors a more general approach to purchasing habits, then I understand why they've opted for their slower release schedule, and I wouldn't expect it to change.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I just wanted to say that I thought this was an *excellent* survey. They asked most of the right questions and provided reasonably good options for answers (though I found myself using "Other" on a couple of them). The only things they missed asking about were the HD, saves, and armor proficiencies--and those were important to get comments on.

Of course, the most important part is the comments box, and I took advantage of it also.

 

[lvl20dm]

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.

 

[Herobizkit]

Probably the wrong thread, but a couple of random ideas struck me.

How easily could a 4e Seeker be made using Eldritch Knight as a base and using the Druid spell list?

Also, Final Fantasy Tactics (PS1 - grid-style strategy game) had a class called Elementalist who got a new attack 'power' based on the terrain/where he was standing. Druids already have the model for different terrains... why not Ranger?

 

[Sezarious]

I was thinking, maybe instead of Ambuscade, either give them the ability to dodge and dash as a bonus action like the rogue, OR, whenever an enemy attacks the ranger, immediately after the first attack (whether it hits or misses), the ranger can use his reaction to disengage and move half his movement.

I also agree with ccooke, to keep the idea of using the animal companion special abilities, but to activate them just like a paladin's smite through the spending of spell slots.

Special abilities then aside, each animal could then provide a subtle indirect combat or non combat benefit:

-Bear- Can grant you advantage to your strength checks as it encompasses your body, making its energies tangible through you. At 6th level, you can send the bear spirit to an ally to grant them the effect. At 12th level you can send it to any target to impose disadvantage to their strength checks.
-Eagle- As long as it can see what you see, your spirit eagle grants you advantage on perception checks. You can also look through its eyes as a wizard can see through the eyes of their familiar. At 6th level, target ally can gain advantage on perception checks instead of you. At level 12, if you are willing, allies can see through your eyes using your eagle as long as you are on the same plane and conscious. If you are knocked unconscious and or captured, you may choose whether your eagle either follows you, or stays with or tries to find your companions.
-Dire Wolf- A pack spirit, on your turn you can command your Dire Wolf to flank and distract a target no more than one size category larger than it. Target has disadvantage on its attacks as a result. 6th level your spirit wolf can track the scent of its prey so long as it has taken the scent from either an initial encounter or an object with the prey's scent on it. The wolf can follow the scent at running speed, actually lighting up the trail of skin and hair particles in a line of "stardust".

Finally, again any direct combat, I'd limit to the special abilities you mentioned before, but activated through the sacrifice of spell slots, much like a paladin's smite. You just might want to tweak the eagle's "advantage" special ability to incorporate benefits for sacrificing higher spell slots. Advantage lasts 1 minute, 1 additional target per slot above 1st?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Doesn't matter what a handful on the Internet feel: WotC has the hard data, surveys and sales.

They keep bringing this stuff up, because they want more data points as to what to sell. No reason to doubt that the majority are satisfied.

Not only that, but to me it seems like WotC is just trying to make sure that they are getting data that is as up-to-date and accurate as they can manage.

To me it looks like they asked about release pace preference during the playtest process, and the resulting info said a slow schedule was generally preferred - but then a vocal portion of internet chatter suggested that slow was not the way to go. They asked again, giving everyone another chance to have their say, and they again found that most people responding stated a preference for a slow schedule - but then a vocal portion of internet chatter suggested that slow was not the way to go, and now we are here after what is another opportunity for every to give their vote and the data still says that a slow schedule is generally preferred. (Note: I can't remember how many times WotC has brought up release schedule pace - I just know that every time I have seen it brought up I have given my opinion, and the reported results have matched that opinion.)

I expect that they'll keep asking periodically, as that would make sense to see if at any point general opinion changes to match the vocal internet chatter, assuming that chatter doesn't eventually change to match the repeated survey results.

 

[Mercule]

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.

This is where the real trouble is, in getting the "right" ranger. The 2d6 hit dice is probably my favorite feature of the UA Ranger. I actually called it "genius" on the survey. I'll grant that I haven't seen it in play, but the concept looks fantastic.

Very near the top of my list of "what the heck is that doing on my Ranger?" is a pet. I get that you have Dar out there with his ferrets, but I've never seen that as a "normal" Ranger. It's a subclass, at best -- I'd rather see it passed to some other class. After thinking more, since my last post, I think it makes a better Barbarian subclass. Druid would be my second choice; let them choose between wild shape and pet. Regardless of where it ends up (Ranger, I'm sure, for 5E), it needs to be well implemented, though. Otherwise, it's just a ribbon masquerading as meat, which is an anchor around the neck.

Anyway, the point is that we have almost opposing goals for the Ranger, which makes me sad because neither of us is likely to get what we want.

 

[Mercule]

At it's core, though, the Ranger problem is that he's constrained on all sides. He actually has a very narrow design space. He's wedged between Fighter, Barbarian, Druid, and Rogue. You can't make the Ranger better at doing what those classes do. And if you try to expand the class in a new direction, you risk running into Paladin, Bard, Cleric, and Monk. In a very real sense, the Ranger is the new Bard. You end up with a class that fights like a Druid, casts like a Barbarian, sneaks like a Fighter, and tanks like a Rogue.

Part of my ideal solution is to ditch the Barbarian. It appeared out of nowhere in 3E and had no relationship with the 1E Barbarian that came before it. I don't really have a huge problem with the berserker or totem warrior archetypes, but I'm certainly going to side with the Ranger over the Barbarian in a turf war.

Don't like that the 2d6 encroaches on the Barbarian's toughness? Tough. The johnny-come-lately can suck it up or get lost.

Don't like that the Ranger can soak environmental effects better than the Barbarian? Again, tough. The Barbarian should have thought about that before bringing his sad, pansy butt to the party.

In short, the Barbarian can sod off and find his own schtick. The Ranger has had "tough wilderness guy" since the Barbarian was gleam in Gygax's eye.

[*]Creature Type Matters. But you can't change it once you picked it, and you won't know what to pick in most campaigns. When it works it's generally good, but it's flawed. The player has no control over how useful this ability will be. That makes feel worthless, even when it's working. This is precisely why abilities like Turn Undead got alternate uses.

Agreed. The original design was pretty much "add your level to hit and damage for anything vaguely humanoid and not too freakish that you're likely to want to kill". That was simultaneously too broad and too narrow to make a standard power. It generally worked within the assumptions of 1E (lots of orcs, etc.), but not the way the game evolved. I'd say it should be dropped from the core class. I could see a subclass that brought this back, but probably not; it's just too wonky.

[*]Terrain Type Matters. Much less useful than creature type, and feels worthless for the same reason: the player has zero control over when this ability works. It also has the problem of crossover. I mean, if you're in a mangrove forest, are you in a forest, a swamp, or a coast? Worst of all, this ability feels like it punishes you for adventuring or exploring. You're best in one or two terrains. Why wouldn't you just stick to those? It's so frustrating when the other players ask for help and you're all, "Sorry, I don't know anything about grasslands, I know forests and swamps." This is why NPC Rangers always seem great. They're always built for the environment they live in. PCs can't do that.

This can be problematic, but I think the way 5E handles it is workable. Yes, your GM can totally screw you over, but you're going to get fair mileage out of the ability in most games.

I emphatically do not want to see any sort of swappable favored enemy or terrain. That's mechanically balanced, but really tanks the flavor aspect of the character. I can't help but to picture, "I spent my youth fighting skirmishes against the desert gnolls. I learned their ways, so that I might use their own tactics against them. The wastes become as comfortable to me as my own mother's bosom. Wait... tritons are raiding the merchant ships of the fertile coast? Let me sleep on it and I'll figure it out." :/

[*]Animal Companions. Even this isn't really a Ranger schtick

Full stop.

If you must attach them to Ranger, then make them work. Make them optional, but make them work. I have no opinion on the current Beast Master build because no one in my group can figure out what pets have to do with Rangers. I actually have a player who was going to build a beast master character as a back-up -- until he realized that the power belonged to the Ranger instead of the Druid. That was the end of that.

[*]Tracking. Definitely something the Ranger always excels at... but again, it only works when the DM says it does. Does your campaign feature an encounter where you actually need to follow someone? No? Well, then this ability does nothing. 5e doesn't really seem to do much to highlight this as a Ranger-specific skill, just like traps and locks are no longer really a Rogue-specific skill.

You can do a lot more than just follow someone with tracking. A creative Ranger can ask a lot of very good questions of an area. Go watch The Princess Bride (again, presumably). Although played for laughs, Prince Humperdink does a great job at showing a Ranger's tracking. This ability is better than a lot of divination spells.

[*]Dual Weilding/Archery. Whether or not it annoys you that Rangers have been pegged as archers in spite of D&D never reinforcing that trope until 3.5e is kind of beside the point. Both these abilities are tied to the class, now, in both the game and in fiction. The real issue here isn't that the choices aren't good or don't matter. It's that the choices are common. Fighters do this just as well. Indeed, one level of Fighter is enough to do this just as well. Paladins and Barbarians get their own tricks, either with the Paladin's own styles or the Barbarian's non-style of recklessness and rage. This is a minor factor, whereas in the past the Ranger's abilities for dual-weilding and archery were simply unmatched.

Archery has been associated with the Ranger since 1E. At the very latest, the Dragon article with the Archer-Ranger class shows that. The TWF Ranger was a wart in 2E that, presumably, came from a certain drow twerp and someone not realizing that he was a dual-wielder because all drow are ambidextrous, not because he was a Ranger. I say "presumably", because there's no other explanation that makes sense. There is absolutely no relationship (pro or con) between TWF and being a wilderness defender (distinctly different from defender of the wilderness). I think that the 5E way of handling fighting styles is the best, yet. Whether it's TWF, archery, or something else, a Ranger's fighting technique should be a footnote.