Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8787788" data-attributes="member: 7023887">Yes, exactly! People know when they dislike a movie/how a class is designed, but largely don't have the experience to actually fix it or fully explain how they think they could improve it. The class has options for having pets. The fact that those mechanics are poorly designed doesn't mean that it isn't an important part of the class. WotC knew that people wanted Rangers to have pets. They just did a bad job at representing that mechanically. How do you know that? Give evidence. &quot;Rangers have bad options for pets&quot; isn't evidence of that. WotC misinterpreted what people wanted for the Ranger's pet options. That doesn't support your view of &quot;WotC are bad at following their survey results&quot;. How do you know that? They are the ones with the survey results. If we had them, then we'd know what people want. But we don't. Neither you nor I know what the player base considers a &quot;sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play&quot;. As far as we know, WotC implemented the feedback from the recent Class Surveys into this OneD&amp;D playtest version of the class and is what they interpret to be the &quot;sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play&quot;. We don't know what players want the Ranger to be. We don't know what the survey results are. We don't know if the majority of people that responded to the Class Survey said that they were &quot;strongly satisfied&quot; or &quot;strongly dissatisfied&quot; with the Spellcasting feature in the Ranger class. If anyone knows what the majority of players want the ranger to be, it's Wizards of the Coast. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else in the community. What we know is:A) The community considers the Ranger Class fundamentally flawed in its design (more than the other classes, all of which are flawed to a lesser degree) and that it has been since the 2014 Player's Handbook. This is proven through the multiple tested revisions to the class throughout the past 8 years in 5e and the substantial changes to the class in the OneD&amp;D Playtest. B) Wizards of the Coast has tested out a non-spellcasting variant of the Ranger and multiple variants that have spellcasting. The Ranger has maintained its half-casting nature, expanded to give them prepared spells and cantrips.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8787788, member: 7023887"] Yes, exactly! People know when they dislike a movie/how a class is designed, but largely don't have the experience to actually fix it or fully explain how they think they could improve it. The class has options for having pets. The fact that those mechanics are poorly designed doesn't mean that it isn't an important part of the class. WotC knew that people wanted Rangers to have pets. They just did a bad job at representing that mechanically. How do you know that? Give evidence. "Rangers have bad options for pets" isn't evidence of that. WotC misinterpreted what people wanted for the Ranger's pet options. That doesn't support your view of "WotC are bad at following their survey results". [B]How do you know that?[/B] They are the ones with the survey results. If we had them, then we'd know what people want. But we don't. Neither you nor I know what the player base considers a "sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play". As far as we know, WotC implemented the feedback from the recent Class Surveys into this OneD&D playtest version of the class and is what they interpret to be the "sexy-as-hell Ranger class that people want to play". We don't know what players want the Ranger to be. We don't know what the survey results are. We don't know if the majority of people that responded to the Class Survey said that they were "strongly satisfied" or "strongly dissatisfied" with the Spellcasting feature in the Ranger class. If anyone knows what the majority of players want the ranger to be, it's Wizards of the Coast. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else in the community. What we know is: A) The community considers the Ranger Class fundamentally flawed in its design (more than the other classes, all of which are flawed to a lesser degree) and that it has been since the 2014 Player's Handbook. This is proven through the multiple tested revisions to the class throughout the past 8 years in 5e and the substantial changes to the class in the OneD&D Playtest. B) Wizards of the Coast has tested out a non-spellcasting variant of the Ranger and multiple variants that have spellcasting. The Ranger has maintained its half-casting nature, expanded to give them prepared spells and cantrips. [/QUOTE]

Verification