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

[Asgorath]

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.

D&D Beyond has talked about classes and class/race combos in their &Beyond development update videos, the last one that I saw was a few months ago and showed Wood Elf Rangers as the second highest combo behind Human Fighter. They claim to look at things like adjusting hit points and other stuff to determine that the character has actually been played rather than just created as an experiment, but I've always been dubious about that (I've gone many sessions without losing hit points on my Ranger for example, though I do cast spells and click off my spell slots). I'll see if I can track this down again.

Edit: Well that was easier than I thought: https://youtu.be/cak3ojSuJaM?t=733

Ranger is 7th out of 12 overall.

 

[Jester David]

D&D Beyond has talked about classes and class/race combos in their &Beyond development update videos, the last one that I saw was a few months ago and showed Wood Elf Rangers as the second highest combo behind Human Fighter. They claim to look at things like adjusting hit points and other stuff to determine that the character has actually been played rather than just created as an experiment, but I've always been dubious about that (I've gone many sessions without losing hit points on my Ranger for example, though I do cast spells and click off my spell slots). I'll see if I can track this down again.

Edit: Well that was easier than I thought: https://youtu.be/cak3ojSuJaM?t=733

Ranger is 7th out of 12 overall.

Right. Looking at that, you might wonder if they need to "buff" the druid and bard to make them more attractive, as those are half as popular as the fighter.


Okay, as far as "actually being played" it's probably not just hit points, but stuff like a character being gradually levelled over time; if a character is just insta-levelled to 6th or 7th level and then never adjusted it might have been a test, but when they start at 5 and then to go 6 in a month and 7 in two weeks they're likely seeing play. Or being open for an extended period (2-4 hours) where their resources are checked and unchecked, and they use the rests.

 

[Asgorath]

Right. Looking at that, you might wonder if they need to "buff" the druid and bard to make them more attractive, as those are half as popular as the fighter.


Okay, as far as "actually being played" it's probably not just hit points, but stuff like a character being gradually levelled over time; if a character is just insta-levelled to 6th or 7th level and then never adjusted it might have been a test, but when they start at 5 and then to go 6 in a month and 7 in two weeks they're likely seeing play. Or being open for an extended period (2-4 hours) where their resources are checked and unchecked, and they use the rests.

Mike did talk about the Monk from a mechanics/combat perspective, he said they weren't satisfied with the damage output and might look at tweaking it. He also talked about the Sorcerer and how many people felt like the Sorcerer didn't have enough spells, and a simple +2 spells at first level would likely solve the problem.

I think the major difference between the Ranger and those other classes is that people are generally pretty happy with the state of all of them, even if they aren't as popular. I've played a Paladin, and had other people playing Sorcerer/Bard/Druid in my games. I don't think there was ever a time where anyone felt like their class was just weak or missing something, like you might feel after picking your terrain and enemy at first level as a Ranger and you end up never using either feature. Mike described it as being a shell of a class at that point, and I'd agree with him.

Bards are often described as the most powerful casting class in the game, and I don't think anyone is suggesting Paladins need a buff. Druids also seem pretty strong, I've only experienced the Circle of the Moon but that does feel strong (power spikes at various levels and the best capstone in the game). I can't explain why they are the bottom four classes, but only the Druid is lagging behind by a significant amount. I think it's pretty reasonable that many of the classes are in the 7-8% range, with Fighters and Rogues being the outliers at the higher end.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm sure less people play Monks (and probably Bards and Sorcerers) for example, and that Rangers are only played more because of how iconic they are. But when it comes to what I see as more powerful, I see the Monk as being better. Sure there's confusion over how martial arts, weapons and unarmed combat works and the Path of the Elements might be seen as weak as the Beastmaster. But I still feel the combination of abilities from the Monk can add up to be a more effective package than the Ranger.

Exploits in some form are something I feel should have been around since the beginning of the edition, but I know it likely got de-prioritized out of 5e and then sort of distilled down to the Battlemaster Manuevers, because of the association such abilities had with 4e, and perhaps the issue of making combat actions seem more free-form once exploits/maneuvers start to define such actions. I feel 4e's problems with such things were that every class had to get their own list of unique powers, and there was often minutiae of powers that many classes got like: power x does 2[w] damage and trips and is an encounter ability, power y does 3[w] damage and trips and is a daily ability.

I still like Rangers getting spells though, and it seemed like they were trying to make an effort of "you do physically impossible tricks with arrows" into spells. If they want to resurrect the really odd Seeker class concept, they could probably make it into a more magically orientated Ranger subclass, or the alternative of a bow using Druid subclass.

As for the alternative feature proposed, I feel that the Favoured Terrain options that offer resistance to damage types seem a little too appealing in some cases. I certainly feel that picking Coastal/Sea as a terrain might be useful, but only in some campaigns.

As for the idea of boosting an Animal Companion with spell slots, it's appealing for the Shaper Psion with ideas of giving their psychic manifestation of nightmares grabby tentacles when they spend a 4th level spell slot, but might be less so with the Ranger. I feel they're just going to be for things like boosts to damage, hp, speed and attack bonus, but nothing like elemental damage or incorporeal form unless it's a special subclass.

 

[Jester David]

Mike did talk about the Monk from a mechanics/combat perspective, he said they weren't satisfied with the damage output and might look at tweaking it. He also talked about the Sorcerer and how many people felt like the Sorcerer didn't have enough spells, and a simple +2 spells at first level would likely solve the problem.

I think the monk complaints were mostly about perception rather than in practice.
People remember the spikes in damage. Which Mr. Mearls talks about. You remember the spikes and alpha strikes. So while the monk holds their own, they do so with consistent even damage. While the rogue does so with memorable critical sneak attacks.

Monks actually do pretty decent damage. At first level they can do 1d4+3 twice a round, for 8 damage on a good round, which is better than a fighter with a longsword (7 damagae) and close to a great weapon fighter's 2d6+3 (10 damage on average). And once they get ki and can add another couple attacks, they can double that. Which is generally even with Action Surge, if not usable more often.
Plus, since they're using multiple small attacks, when you include accuracy their average damage is higher, as they have more chances to hit and not miss.
And their damage dice goes up pretty quickly. I had a 9th level Way of Shadow in a mini campaign, and she could tear through enemies. At five 1d6+5 attacks, she could potentially do more damage than a rogue at that level, who might be doing 6d6+5. (Heck, even without flurrying, the monk's average damage is comparable to the rogue with sneak attack.)

Bards are often described as the most powerful casting class in the game, and I don't think anyone is suggesting Paladins need a buff. Druids also seem pretty strong, I've only experienced the Circle of the Moon but that does feel strong (power spikes at various levels and the best capstone in the game). I can't explain why they are the bottom four classes, but only the Druid is lagging behind by a significant amount. I think it's pretty reasonable that many of the classes are in the 7-8% range, with Fighters and Rogues being the outliers at the higher end.

Emphasis added.
It's actually pretty simple why are they the least popular classes: most players build their characters based on story and the character they want to play and not what is mechanically the strongest.
Paladins and bards have funky flavour (as does the monk) and the bard especially seems somewhat comedic. And the druid's role as the guardians of nature isn't always as appealing to players. Especially as they have a lot of aspects to manage, requiring knowledge of spells and animal for wild shapes. They've never been exceptionally popular.

 

[Parmandur]

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

Mearls stated that he forsees this as being put out for free via DMsGuild and Beyond, not in a book.

 

[Parmandur]

Mearls went over the recent results, and how the Ranger is the only Class of the 12 that wasn't a coin toss in the head-to-head (quick, Druid or Sorcerer? Warlock or Paladin?). Every other Class was pretty even, about fifty-fifty for which people might choose. The Ranger pretty consistently lost, he said.

But he also emphasized that their design has to take into account that still many, many people are happily playing Rangers, even Beastmasters.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Monks actually do pretty decent damage. At first level they can do 1d4+3 twice a round, for 8 damage on a good round, which is better than a fighter with a longsword (7 damagae) and close to a great weapon fighter's 2d6+3 (10 damage on average). And once they get ki and can add another couple attacks, they can double that. Which is generally even with Action Surge, if not usable more often.

That's just using unarmed strikes, a monk with a spear or quarterstaff in 2 hands at 1st level would be doing even more damage. I think in this circumstance they should be compared against a 2-weapon fighter with a rapier and shortsword which does slightly more damage at 1st level. But I can see from his discussion about the Monk, that maybe the Monk could get something else other than what is effectively the two-weapon fighting style.

But beyond damage output, I think it's very appealing catching arrows, bolts or even bullets (depending on the campaign) and throwing them back at opponents.

Emphasis added.
It's actually pretty simple why are they the least popular classes: most players build their characters based on story and the character they want to play and not what is mechanically the strongest.
Paladins and bards have funky flavour (as does the monk) and the bard especially seems somewhat comedic. And the druid's role as the guardians of nature isn't always as appealing to players. Especially as they have a lot of aspects to manage, requiring knowledge of spells and animal for wild shapes. They've never been exceptionally popular.

I know that Bards have never been taken seriously across any edition, but they've always been one of my favourite classes. Even if the Bard is being role-played in a comedic role, which is quite common in my experience, it can still be a very effective character across many situations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mike did talk about the Monk from a mechanics/combat perspective, he said they weren't satisfied with the damage output and might look at tweaking it. He also talked about the Sorcerer and how many people felt like the Sorcerer didn't have enough spells, and a simple +2 spells at first level would likely solve the problem.

I think the major difference between the Ranger and those other classes is that people are generally pretty happy with the state of all of them, even if they aren't as popular. I've played a Paladin, and had other people playing Sorcerer/Bard/Druid in my games. I don't think there was ever a time where anyone felt like their class was just weak or missing something, like you might feel after picking your terrain and enemy at first level as a Ranger and you end up never using either feature. Mike described it as being a shell of a class at that point, and I'd agree with him.

Bards are often described as the most powerful casting class in the game, and I don't think anyone is suggesting Paladins need a buff. Druids also seem pretty strong, I've only experienced the Circle of the Moon but that does feel strong (power spikes at various levels and the best capstone in the game). I can't explain why they are the bottom four classes, but only the Druid is lagging behind by a significant amount. I think it's pretty reasonable that many of the classes are in the 7-8% range, with Fighters and Rogues being the outliers at the higher end.

Are you suggesting that people’s class preferences aren’t primarily driven by character optimization!?

Lol yeah, seriously, though, people play ranger be they love rangers, not because they’re happy with the specific mechanics involved. Surveys are the only way to sort out why a class is more played.

 

[Asgorath]

It's actually pretty simple why are they the least popular classes: most players build their characters based on story and the character they want to play and not what is mechanically the strongest.
Paladins and bards have funky flavour (as does the monk) and the bard especially seems somewhat comedic. And the druid's role as the guardians of nature isn't always as appealing to players. Especially as they have a lot of aspects to manage, requiring knowledge of spells and animal for wild shapes. They've never been exceptionally popular.

And I think it's worth keeping in mind that 3 of the bottom 4 are barely behind 4 through 8, and so overall the spread looks pretty reasonable. The Wizard (4th) is at 8.3%, and the Paladin (9th) is at 7.47%. That's really not a huge difference. The outliers really are just the Fighter, Rogue and Druid, though I think the D&D Beyond folks said they saw a big jump in Warlocks after XGtE and/or Critical Role season 2.

In any case, after listening to Mike talk about all of this, I'm cautiously optimistic about the approach they are taking. Aside from anything else, I'm happy to see that they are taking action based on the latest survey results.