D&D 5E [Poll] Ranger Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

Sneaking this one on in a Sunday I have a feeling I better, because I have a feeling how this one is going to go lol.

Special Rule for this class poll
This class is a special case. We already know it's the big class most people were dissatisfied with, and the DEV team already worked to address that. So that begs the question, which version should this poll be about? The PHB version, or the UA version? I went back and forth and I think this is how we'll do this poll.

Vote on the version that is available for you to play. Not everyone has or plays with UA. Some do and since the revised ranger may address the glaring problems with the PHB ranger, this might be the most accurate way to gauge the satisfaction of the ranger currently.

Once a year or so, I think it would be interesting to get a pulse on the satisfaction of the various classes. The game's been out for a few years now, and that's plenty of time to get a good experience on how each plays out.

For the purpose of this poll, I am keeping the answers to a minimum intentionally. When you have too many options, it's harder to really evaluate the results. And for the purposes of this, a general feeling is more than adequate.

Long term goal: Have a survey of each class, then compiled results to be easily referenced for future discussions that may want said information.

Previous polls here (voting still open, so #'s may change):

Barbarian: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?571787-poll-Barbarian-Satisfaction-Survey
Bard: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572038-Poll-Bard-Satisfaction-Survey
Cleric: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572311-Poll-Cleric-Satisfaction-Survey
Druid: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572570-poll-Druid-Satisfaction-Survey
Fighter: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572847-Poll-How-Satisfied-Are-You-With-the-Fighter-Class
Monk: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573153-poll-Monk-Satisfaction-Survey
Paladin: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573453-Poll-Paladin-Satisfaction-Survey

 

[Sacrosanct]

Even with the PHB ranger, I was mostly satisfied. Just a few minor tweaks to beast master and it was it. The PHB rangers kept up with every other class, and even outshined them in certain areas (like exploration). Then again, we spend a lot of time on exploration, so my gaming table might have different experiences than a combat heavy table. I understand I'm probably in the minority there.

When UA's version came out, I was very pleased with the class revision. I have no real issues with the class in UA, and am completely satisfied with it. Since we use UA, that's how I will vote in the poll, even though the PHB ranger would be mostly satisfied.

 

[CTurbo]

I think the Ranger is a pretty strong class especially after the revision. The Hunter archetype is specifically strong. The Beastmaster is much improved, but I wish you could choose between using the Beast's Coordinated Attack OR making a second attack with your Ranger. Even the Deep Stalker seems like it would be fun to play even thought it is a little front loaded.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I'll get my opinion on the PHB Ranger out of the way: It's a dumpster fire, and I'm glad WOTC is revising it.

My vote will be for the latest UA Ranger, which is "mostly satisfied." It's headed many steps in the right direction, although it still needs some tweaks here and there before it's really ready for prime time. Though I'd certainly play the UA Ranger as is.

As for specific things the UA Ranger still needs, off the top of my head:

• Hunter and Beast Conclaves still need the bonus spells all other newer archetypes have received since.
• I'd still like the see the base class have an Expertise feature of some kind.
• Coordinated Attack needs an option to let the Ranger make a second attack instead of the beast if the situation calls for it.
• Greater Favored Enemy's advantage on saves needs to apply to your original Favored Enemy, as well.
• While the capstone has been made reasonably effective from a combat standpoint, I'd still prefer to see it re-imagined or redone altogether, as it still introduces WIS as a suddenly important combat attribute at Lv. 20 in the most awkward way.

 

[Blue]

I'm using the revised ranger, I want to see another revision. It's much better then the PHB ranger, but went too powerful in some parts and not flexible enough in others.

1. Natural Explorer first set of bullet points are overpowered, and since it's granted at 1st level are also very cherry-pickable if the multiclassing rules are used.

2. I don't think I've seen a case except CoS where Humanoids weren't the first Favored Enemy pick. It's just too useful, especially with other features.

3. Primeval Awareness' second usage is one of those divinations that break plots. "Hmm, we know the bandits have a camp somewhere in the woods. Let's just ride quickly and look for humanoids (which we picked as our favored enemies). It also means that a DM needs to know what's in an area - if you're traveling and using it. Hmm, are there any aberrations within 5 miles? Well, there's the dungeon I haven't worked out yet after foreshadowing how dangerous it is - will I have aberrations there?

It's not unworkable, but needs limits.

4. Conclave is a stupid subclass designation for perhaps the #1 loner class.

5a. Beast Conclave: stop using actual animals where you need to worry about balancing them and just have base stats per level.

5b. Actually, don't assume everyone wants the same thing, and have different options of those base stats. A flying creature, etc. Maybe some sets (like a flying mount) can't come in until later levels.

5c. Bonus points for allowing the beast conclave to have some non-combat animal companions as well, like Beast Master (the book by Andre Norton, not the movie ... though they did have the same selection of beasts: big cat, bird of prey, two weasly thieves.)

5d. Oh, and have clear information about multiclassing and the beast. You need both reasons to stay in the class as well as not invalidating the levels you took if you don't stay single-classed.

6. Hunter Conclave: Defensive Tactics: Steel Will is much weaker than the other options or what you expect for a 7th level feature.

7. Deep Stalker: I know it came out in the underdark themed UA, but I'd rather see this opened up to a bunch of silent hunter archetypes instead of a specific location for one setting. In other words, reskin to be an ambusher/waiting hunter (plus swap out darkvision).

All of this said, it's still much more playable then the PHB version and I'd let it in my game (without multiclassing).

 

[Mercule]

I've always loved the Ranger archetype, but was very dissatisfied with the 2E and 3E implementations, especially when TWF was baked in.

The PHB Ranger is a bit squishy, requiring some tweaks. The UA Ranger is pretty darn good. I'm not opposed to one more round of refinements, but I'd be OK if it appeared in XGtE as-is.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I love the ranger concept, but found the PHB version to be lacking, though not as bad as everyone seemed to think. The Revised Ranger really hits all the god points for me. Particularly the Deepstalker.

 

[Ancalagon]

The UA ranger fixes a lot of problem, but I agree with many of the comments above. Natural explorer needs to be toned down (should those bonus apply *everywhere*?!?) and perhaps stretched out over a few levels. The creature detection ability needs to be toned down a wee bit too, it should be made clear it doesn't have pin-point accuracy.

Overall, the ranger is a very *useful* class to have in a party, and I'm more than ok with it being a bit "weaker" in combat than say a fighter.

 

[Azzy]

In the campaign I DMed (which was the first game of 5e any of my group had played, though each of us started somewhere between OD&D to 2e), the player who played the (hunter) ranger loved it. I let him switch to the UA ranger when it appeared, and he loved that (though he thought some of the abilities were too good for the level they were acquired). On the whole, he really enjoyed playing a ranger a lot (understatement).

 

[Horwath]

The UA ranger fixes a lot of problem, but I agree with many of the comments above. Natural explorer needs to be toned down (should those bonus apply *everywhere*?!?) and perhaps stretched out over a few levels. The creature detection ability needs to be toned down a wee bit too, it should be made clear it doesn't have pin-point accuracy.

Overall, the ranger is a very *useful* class to have in a party, and I'm more than ok with it being a bit "weaker" in combat than say a fighter.

I agree with natural explorer. It can be dealt through skills.

1. Starting skills for ranger class. You gain proficiency in Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival(the Big 4 for being a renger). If you have any of those proficiencies from race/background you can take that number of skills from ranger class skills:
Athletics, Acrobatics, Animal handling, Medicine, Insight, Investigation,

2. Natural explorer: 1st level: gain expertise in 2 skills from Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival.
You can move normally through natural difficult terrain.

3. Natural explorer: 6th level, gain expertise in 2 skills from Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival.
You have advantage on initiative checks.

4. Elemental weapons: Instead of Primeval Senses.
When you hit with weapon attack you can spend a spell slot deal additional elemental damage. Chose damage type from the list: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, Thunder.
Damage is 1d6+1d6 per spell slot level.