D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[niklinna]

As I said in a post some pages back... if a table is so cutthroat in combat that playing a Beastmaster Ranger or a 4 Elements Monk makes you suck so bad that your character's very survival is unlikely... then you are just S.O.O.L. with this game. Because WotC is NEVER going to get so granular and nitpicky in their math and balancing to make sure every single class and subclass and variant is so completely balanced to one another that every combination is exactly the same in terms of power. And if you hang around the game and keep waiting / hoping / expecting it to happen... you are going to make yourself miserable.

Which is fine. Be miserable if you would like. But if someone then comes on the boards here complaining about it repeatedly... I'm going to chime and state quite clearly that their misery is their own fault. And if they don't want to be miserable... THEY need to change, and not WotC. Cause WotC is beholden to hundreds of thousands of people, whereas that person is only beholden to themself.

(Or of course, the person could also do a quite sensible thing like re-balance their Beastmaster Ranger or 4 Elements Monk themself if it matters that much to them. They know better than WotC what need to happen for those to be balanced with all the other stuff at their table after all.)

(Or play a different game! The heresy!)

 

[R_J_K75]

This is harder than I expected.

Yes it is. Its almost impossible not to create the cliché bard. I cant get the image of a bard riding a unicycle with a bass drum, hi-hat cymbal strapped to their back and playing a french horn out of my head. Ive only created a handful of PCs to play but every time I do it always seems so difficult to create one that plays off class and realize the idea I have for the character.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I said in a post some pages back... if a table is so cutthroat in combat that playing a Beastmaster Ranger or a 4 Elements Monk makes you suck so bad that your character's very survival is unlikely... then you are just S.O.O.L. with this game. Because WotC is NEVER going to get so granular and nitpicky in their math and balancing to make sure every single class and subclass and variant is so completely balanced to one another that every combination is exactly the same in terms of power. And if you hang around the game and keep waiting / hoping / expecting it to happen... you are going to make yourself miserable.

And as I said the main effect of the Beastmaster is, in practice, to put you on a permanent escort mission. The problem isn't that you won't survive. It's that your animal companion does almost nothing productive, instead simply taking up resources. You know that you are making things worse for everyone.

Asking for complete balance is neither more nor less than a strawman - and that's not how the classic tier list works. What you need is two things:

1. For there to be something you are genuinely good at, giving you a time to shine reasonably frequently
2. For you to not be a liability to the rest of the party.

This is not a particularly high bar. Of the pre-Essentials 4e classes every single one of the classes passes this bar. Of the 5e classes only two classes fail to meet point 1 - and even then two out of three monk subclasses succeed via the subclass. Only one single subclass is bad enough

Which is fine. Be miserable if you would like. But if someone then comes on the boards here complaining about it repeatedly... I'm going to chime and state quite clearly that their misery is their own fault. And if they don't want to be miserable... THEY need to change, and not WotC. Cause WotC is beholden to hundreds of thousands of people, whereas that person is only beholden to themself.

WotC is beholden to hundreds of thousands of people and there is a reason why Tasha's Cauldron of Everything reworked both the Ranger and the Beastmaster subclass of the Ranger. WotC know they screwed up and the mistake with the ranger is on them and they made an attempt to fix it. And given that they have made such a clear and obvious attempt to fix things the idea that WotC didn't make a mistake is ridiculous.

(Or of course, the person could also do a quite sensible thing like re-balance their Beastmaster Ranger or 4 Elements Monk themself if it matters that much to them. They know better than WotC what need to happen for those to be balanced with all the other stuff at their table after all.)

Alternatively they could do two things:

1. Realise that certain elements actually suck and not play them
2. Warn other people that they suck so they don't run into this trap.

You, however, seem to be saying that we shouldn't warn anyone of negative play experiences, and that it is peoples' own fault when they have a bad experience even with a class that Wizards has tacitly admitted they screwed up.

You, however, seem to equate warning other people about bad experiences and why they are bad so people can see the problem with "being miserable". Your approach of trying to make it the fault of people warning others about bad experiences or trying to understand why they are bad to prevent it happening in the game is what will actually lead to more people tripping over the same rake than if we put warning signs out. Why do you want more and more people to trip over and have problems because they weren't warned about them?

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's a famous one.
The second picture shows the correct reaction to bards, by the way.

Got one for Kenders?

 

[niklinna]

WotC is beholden to hundreds of thousands of people and there is a reason why Tasha's Cauldron of Everything reworked both the Ranger and the Beastmaster subclass of the Ranger. WotC know they screwed up and the mistake with the ranger is on them and they made an attempt to fix it. And given that they have made such a clear and obvious attempt to fix things the idea that WotC didn't make a mistake is ridiculous.

Emphasis on "attempt". Given that Favored Foe competes for concentration with so many ranger spells, and the beast uses the ranger's wisdom-based spellcasting modifier for attacks, it remains a subclass I can't imagine playing. (I have from the beginning of 5E found the concentration mechanic completely and utterly irritating in its seemingly arbitrary application and flat lack of scaling.)

At least the ranger and their beast can mix and match actions on a single turn, that's a nice ranger exclusive. But then the new summon spells don't even require a bonus action to command the summoned creatures. Pets in general are just an inconsistent mess all around.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes it is. Its almost impossible not to create the cliché bard. I cant get the image of a bard riding a unicycle with a bass drum, hi-hat cymbal strapped to their back and playing a french horn out of my head. Ive only created a handful of PCs to play but every time I do it always seems so difficult to create one that plays off class and realize the idea I have for the character.

The musical instrument is itself most of the problem with the Bard. Get rid of the instrument and the diversity of the class opens up. The instrument itself should be nice, not required.

The Bard need only a Verbal or Somatic component to manifest the intention of the magic.

The Bard is essentially a psionic concept, the mind of a shaman, or visionary, or artist, finding expression.

 

[R_J_K75]

The musical instrument is itself most of the problem with the Bard. Get rid of the instrument and the diversity of the class opens up. The instrument itself should be nice, not necessary.

The Bard need only a Verbal or Somatic component to manifest the intention of the magic.

Yep. I agree, I can see one musical instrument but 3-4 is a little much. I was actually considering an alternative but couldnt think of one at least not yet.

 

[Yaarel]

Yep. I agree, I can see one musical instrument but 3-4 is a little much. I was actually considering an alternative but couldnt think of one at least not yet.

Reallife examples include meditative chanting, commands, poetry of praise and satire, storytelling, coaching, and so on, are all Verbal only.

Really, the Bard class only needs one subclass archetype to focus on a musical instrument.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Got one for Kenders?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Emphasis on "attempt". Given that Favored Foe competes for concentration with so many ranger spells, and the beast uses the ranger's wisdom-based spellcasting modifier for attacks, it remains a subclass I can't imagine playing. (I have from the beginning of 5E found the concentration mechanic completely and utterly irritating in its seemingly arbitrary application and flat lack of scaling.)

That's more about you than the class tho. I've got a ranger player in my group who preferred favoured enemy to favoured foe (it's the terrain and especially primeval awareness that should be substituted) and Tasha's also gave access to druid cantrips like shilealeagh and magic stone if you want to go all in on Wis. There's a difference between a class that isn't viable and a class I don't want to play.