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.

 

[Zardnaar]

One of the players in tonight's game used the EN5sider tempest ranger and had fun with it. THe Hunter is a really good archer ranger but seems a bit weak in melee combat. The tempest ranger seems to take care of that dex based melee and he didn't suck.

 

[Zalabim]

The problem the ranger faces is that people absolutely will not accept a ranger with/without
1) Spellcasting
2) Favored Enemy
3) Animal Companion
or just about any other feature anyone names.

 

[Osgood]

Since there are so many different ideas about what a ranger should or should not be, I suggested they use subclasses to reflect different styles. One subclass gets a combat pet (maybe others get a non combat pet), one gets spells, and one can get the sprit companion (the least ranger-y to me, but it may work for others).
I also recommended all rangers should get a way to make their two weapon fighting or archery better than any other class.
I'm not sure on hit dice, I don't like them having barbarian level hp, but better/more flexible healing is nice. Maybe 2d4 is a better way to go, or 2d8 at 1st and 1d8 thereafter.

As to the release schedule, I am surprised the slow and steady is popular, if for no other reason than if a particular adventure doesn't appeal to you, you're S.O.L. for several months. Or if you don't like published adventures, it's even worse. I also wonder about who actually fills these surveys out...I've done every one, but not a single one of my players has bothered (despite bitching nonstop about one thing or another about 5e--mostly the lack of player focused releases).

 

[Li Shenron]

Since there are so many different ideas about what a ranger should or should not be, I suggested they use subclasses to reflect different styles. One subclass gets a combat pet (maybe others get a non combat pet), one gets spells, and one can get the sprit companion (the least ranger-y to me, but it may work for others).

They are already doing this!

The Hunter subclass focuses on favored enemies, and the animal companion is under the Beastmaster subclass.

Notice how similarly it works for other classes with sensitive features (e.g. Druids of the Moon subclass for those who want a combat wildshape, other Druids only get a non-combat wildshape) or with unclear/complex identity (e.g. Bards subclasses to slant more towards one side of the class).

This is a great framework, so all they need to do now, is design more subclasses! Definitely not changing the base class.

The whole system has only one flaw: that they decided to give spellcasting to all Rangers and Paladins. The majority was ok with this decision, but perhaps the minority who disagrees isn't small.

 

[Minigiant]

You know what another real issue is with the ranger is.

Few have a valid image of a high level ranger is.
What is the ranger equal to a archmage, high priest, or fighter with 3 attacks and 2 action surges?

I was confused on the lack of question on the ranger throughout the tiers. I mean, there hasn't been a high level ranger who wasn't a spell caster in an edition where class based magic wasn't nerfed or handed to everyone. The 1e and 3e rangers at high levels were primarily magic item users (crystal balls and wands respectively) who could fight. And only the 4th edition ranger's animals didn't suck after level 9 or so.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The online character builder used to be a good source of information about who was building what characters and probably more accurate then surveys.

It might just be me, but that sounds ridiculous.

If WotC looked at my usage of the online character builder to see what I liked and what I didn't they would get the wrong impression because the majority of my built characters were me just taking a look at something to see if it seemed entertaining enough to bring to the table and deciding that it didn't, or characters which seemed entertaining enough to bring to the table but after playing them I found I didn't enjoy them as much as I hoped.

But if WotC asks me what characters I like, I tell them the ones I actually liked playing.

I mean, sure, the builder can tell them how many people built X class and leveled it up to Y and picked option Z-1 more than Z-2 - but that information isn't useful if it can't differentiate between [thought experiment] and [played character], let alone between [didn't enjoy] and [definitely my favorite].

 

[graves3141]

No; like others here, I'd buy less. What they are doing now is perfect.

Why would buy less if there was more to choose from? Wouldn't you be buying the same amount but spreading the money over a wider variety of products?

 

[graves3141]

As to the release schedule, I am surprised the slow and steady is popular, if for no other reason than if a particular adventure doesn't appeal to you, you're S.O.L. for several months. Or if you don't like published adventures, it's even worse. I also wonder about who actually fills these surveys out...I've done every one, but not a single one of my players has bothered (despite bitching nonstop about one thing or another about 5e--mostly the lack of player focused releases).

It is surprising and even a little unbelievable for me personally. If a hardcover AP comes out and you don't care for it, you have to wait another six months for the possibility of having something that appeals to you. Also, if you want something besides an AP, you're also out of luck because shorter adventurers aren't being produced.

 

[Parmandur]

Why would buy less if there was more to choose from? Wouldn't you be buying the same amount but spreading the money over a wider variety of products?

Actually, no: this has been hashed on the boards before, but it zones down to analysis paralysis. Before 5E, I bought just core books, because the plethora of options ended up with me choosing to buy...nothing. Too much means I can't bring myself to try anything.

Apparently, I am far, far from alone on this, as Wizards is now building their business plan...

 

[graves3141]

Actually, no: this has been hashed on the boards before, but it zones down to analysis paralysis. Before 5E, I bought just core books, because the plethora of options ended up with me choosing to buy...nothing. Too much means I can't bring myself to try anything.

Apparently, I am far, far from alone on this, as Wizards is now building their business plan...

Well, I don't suffer from analysis paralysis or buyer anxiety or whatever you want to call it. I'm sorry that you do.