Mike Mearls Discusses Possible Alternate Class Features for the Ranger on Happy Fun Hour 11/20

[Asgorath]

Hopefully the feedback made Crawford reconsider his words when he tweeted that a few phantoms were complaining about the ranger.


We are not a phantom (defined - Phantom is person/thing with an illusory status. Or something without material substance.)



WoTC are in complete denial. I wish they would just do a complete overhaul. Many liked the features of the recent UA Ranger, though spaced out better.
I would prefer minor benefits for Natural Explorer that would be useful in all terrains. In one talk Mearls mentions that the specifics of Natural Explorer with added benefits would be better as a conclave then as part of the core class, then he reverses course. I’m getting more frustrating over time as no resolution is in sight and they can’t acknowledge a mistake. We are human who inherently make mistakes.

I always thought people were reading too much into Jeremy Crawford's recent tweets on the Revised Ranger, my reading of it was that the last survey was done a long time ago and they wanted to gauge the current level of satisfaction (or otherwise) before spending more time trying to fix the Ranger. After all, while most of us on these forums are unhappy with it, if we're the only ones and are a vanishingly small percentage of the overall player base, then WOTC probably has better things to spend their development time on. The player base has changed and grown (massively) in the last few years, and thus I always thought it was reasonable that they do another poll and see what people think. As it turns out, yes, the vast majority of players are still unhappy with the core features of the Ranger, even though the XGtE subclasses are pretty good (and even the Hunter is still pretty good).

If the end result is that they've confirmed people are still unhappy with the core Ranger features, then rather than tossing it out like the Revised Ranger did, they're working on features you can swap in so they can not break the PHB Ranger while still addressing the concerns and I think that's a good thing (probably as good as it's going to get). As Mike said on his stream, there are plenty of people who are playing PHB Rangers who are very happy with their characters, and don't want to have to change anything.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I always thought people were reading too much into Jeremy Crawford's recent tweets on the Revised Ranger, my reading of it was that the last survey was done a long time ago and they wanted to gauge the current level of satisfaction (or otherwise) before spending more time trying to fix the Ranger.

He made the point of considering alternative versions. But then to follow that up with calling those who want change phantoms was uncalled for. For a person and a organization who preach acceptance and understanding to use a term to imply those people are illusions are hurtful. It is very hard to explain, but there are people who suffer from self worth and to hear or read negative comments that are directed at you because you share those same views not only is hurtful but also makes you feel betrayed. Well, that is the way I took it.

 

[Asgorath]

He made the point of considering alternative versions. But then to follow that up with calling those who want change phantoms was uncalled for. For a person and a organization who preach acceptance and understanding to use a term to imply those people are illusions are hurtful. It is very hard to explain, but there are people who suffer from self worth and to hear or read negative comments that are directed at you because you share those same views not only is hurtful but also makes you feel betrayed. Well, that is the way I took it.

I don't think that was the intent of the tweet at all.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1023354199646527488

Alternate features for multiple classes are still a possibility, but we want to do more research before we invest time in them. We don’t want our design to chase phantoms but real desires held by a large number of players.

He is not calling people phantoms or illusions. He is saying that he wants to focus on "real desires held by a large number of players", not phantoms, which I read as outdated data from an old survey (i.e. a figment of the imagination, to use a dictionary definition of phantom). The old desire is the phantom, not the people.

People were unhappy with the Ranger in 2015. The player base has grown massively since then, and he's simply saying that he wants to make sure they are fixing the right problem and spending their development resources wisely. Per my previous post, if there are 100 people on these forums who aren't happy with the Ranger but literally every other player in the world is perfectly happy with it, then it absolutely does not make sense for them to spend time fixing it.

 

[Jester David]

Hopefully the feedback made Crawford reconsider his words when he tweeted that a few phantoms were complaining about the ranger.

We are not a phantom (defined - Phantom is person/thing with an illusory status. Or something without material substance.)

WoTC are in complete denial. I wish they would just do a complete overhaul. Many liked the features of the recent UA Ranger, though spaced out better.
I would prefer minor benefits for Natural Explorer that would be useful in all terrains. In one talk Mearls mentions that the specifics of Natural Explorer with added benefits would be better as a conclave then as part of the core class, then he reverses course. I’m getting more frustrating over time as no resolution is in sight and they can’t acknowledge a mistake. We are human who inherently make mistakes.

Here's the problem: the ranger isn't the least played class. There are 3-4 classes that are played less than the ranger. So while a lot of people complain about the ranger online, many people are quite happy with the design, enough to actually play the class.
So are people really unhappy, or is it a vocal online minority? Are ranger players unhappy or just non-ranger fans? Are people unhappy with the 5e execution, or is it D&D ranger-isms like spells holding it back? Is it the entire class, or just the beast master?
Hence "chasing phantoms". Because the reality of the problem, and thus its solution, are unknown and ephemeral.

A complete overhaul would just cause problems. Disagreements between players and the DM over whether it was allowed or not. People showing up and having to rebuild their character between games. People losing a favoured ability. Players getting confused over what their abilities do. People's Player's Handbook being redundant or feeling outdated.
Plus the precedent that it sets, and the new pressure to "fix" other problems in the game.

It's not that they don't want to admit the ranger is unpopular or that they messed up. It's that they don't want to make things worse in repeated attempts to fix things.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I didn't watch one with the Fighter subclass they took the ideas for Tome of Battle type exploits, but I'm guessing they might have based those exploits off of spell slots the Eldritch Knight got. So if the Ranger would use exploits based on the math of spell slots, it might mean they get more.

 

[CapnZapp]

Call me when this reaches the printed page of an official accessory.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Finally, a real attempt to make a ranger without spells.

While I don't understand the desire for this, I'm glad that people might get it as an option. I know I was really disappointed at how long I had to wait for a magical ranger in 4e.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I wish they would stop trying to cram the beastmaster into the Ranger class and just put it where it belongs, in the Barbarian class.

 

[Li Shenron]

I won't comment much on the mechanics of these alternate class features because they are still WIP.

But I am definitely on board with the whole idea of alternate class features (for all classes). It's a fantastic idea because:

- they introduce more freedom and flexibility in character design without necessarily adding whole new subclasses (which need their own strong enough identities, and more design work than just a single alternate feature)

- they do not invalidate existing characters, make PHBs obsolete or cause a split in the gaming community like a class revision or version 2.0 would do

- they can help people fix their pet peeve about a class, such as those who always wanted a spell-less Ranger, without affecting everyone else who was fine with it

However, IMHO the WotC designers should really try as much as possible to identify the SMALLEST number of frequent complaint for each class, and then distribute their alternate class features design effort on all classes, so that the general feeling will be to give everyone 1-2 variants, instead of making it feel like there is one or two "wrong" classes in the game.

Starting with an alternate feature to replace the Ranger's spellcasting might be the hardest, but at least it's going to cater to many people, so IMO it's a brave choice. And I must say that I really like the sample "exploits" presented here, because they don't look like copycats of Fighter's Maneuvers, in fact they look more like abilities coming from a Ranger's experience in rough situations, rather than techniques learned by practicing. This is really good, because it helps differentiate and strengthen the identity of the two classes, Fighter = professionally trained at combat techniques VS Ranger = driven by first-person life experience.

My dissatisfaction stems from the fact that my Ranger can declare a Favored Enemy and a Favored Terrain, but doesn't seem to be noticeably better at fighting those enemies or evading the difficulties of that terrain than any other fellow.

There is always someone dissatisfied by "favoured-based" abilities. If you make them better, you have to make them narrower to avoid them being too good, and then people starts whining "but my DM is not throwing enough undead at me".

The 5e designers did a great job when they decided to actually dilute the concept of "favored" and turned it into the Hunter abilities such as Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker. If they made a (small) mistake, is that they still put the "favored" label on other stuff which is minor, almost ribbon abilities, and so people are still looking at Favored Enemy instead of looking at the Hunter subclass as the one which is specialized against specific types of enemies.

(snip)

I agree on everything, except perhaps that I am not even convinced that the Ranger is among the 4-5 least played classes. I don't remember the statistics, but it could be more popular than that. The truth is that the class has a very cool identity and is powerful already. Most whining is on the action economy of the Beastmaster's companion, which a lot of people would like to be broken because their true desire is to play one-character-and-a-half rather than one.

 

[Jester David]

But I am definitely on board with the whole idea of alternate class features (for all classes). It's a fantastic idea because:

- they introduce more freedom and flexibility in character design without necessarily adding whole new subclasses (which need their own strong enough identities, and more design work than just a single alternate feature)

- they do not invalidate existing characters, make PHBs obsolete or cause a split in the gaming community like a class revision or version 2.0 would do

- they can help people fix their pet peeve about a class, such as those who always wanted a spell-less Ranger, without affecting everyone else who was fine with it

I think you could do some. I wouldn't mind a fighter with Weapon Specialization. But when you get into mandating "all" then it gets funky, because you might not have as strong of a design for others, and are adding the class features largely to meet some arbitrary goal. That's how you end up with terrible design: worrying less about picking the best options and more about hitting all the check boxes.

This gets tricky for a lot of classes, as many don't have many class features that aren't iconic and this shouldn't be swapped out. You shouldn't get rid of Sneak Attack from the rogue or Rage from the barbarian, but getting rid of a level 7 or 9 power feels less interesting and "alternate".

It would have to be done carefully, as it can easily lead to power creep. When you start being able to swap out class features, mixing-and-matching within a class, it becomes easier to pick the best options all the time and end up with an outright better class.

I agree on everything, except perhaps that I am not even convinced that the Ranger is among the 4-5 least played classes. I don't remember the statistics, but it could be more popular than that. The truth is that the class has a very cool identity and is powerful already. Most whining is on the action economy of the Beastmaster's companion, which a lot of people would like to be broken because their true desire is to play one-character-and-a-half rather than one.

Crawford tweeted that the class wasn’t in the bottom third. With twelve classes, that’d be four other classes.
Even if you read it as how much it is liked rather than how much it is played, it still means there are four other classes people outright like less.
Hard to be sure, though.