D&D 5E Revised Ranger Play Report... (level 3 to 4, beastmaster)

[Cyber-Dave]

I'm trying to drill down on what structure, content, or DM/player behaviors in your games makes it frustrating. Because maybe it's not the class feature that is the issue. If you don't care to examine this angle, that's okay. It's usually where I start when I have issues with something.

I've already told you what structure and content bother me: the power gives a lot of very specific information--more than a DM can necessarily keep track of during play--and has a virtually infinite list of uses. It is very easy for that combination of qualities to result in a DM accidentally being put on the spot in a way that can be frustrating/make it less fun for a DM to run the game. This is even less reasonable when combined with the fact that the power is hands down better than a very similar limited resource power that isn't given away until, at the earliest, 7th level. Rangers currently get that power at level 13. There are too many potential DM/player behaviors that could make this frustrating to list them all. Thankfully, none have arisen at our table as of yet (unless the DM is secretly already annoyed by how I am using the power, and if so, hopefully he chimes in about that in this thread). If one does, you can be certain I will post about it at that time. There is nothing more to figure out. It is the class feature that is the issue. That isn't going to be re-framed just because you happen to like the power as is! I'm sorry. This is an agree to disagree moment iserith. That is all there is to it.

 

[discosoc]

Because they're playtesting. It's easier to go overboard and make stuff too powerful then pare it back than it is to start off too underpowered and try to build up from there.

Eh, the introduction talks about this being the result of internal testing over the last year of public feedback and complaints. It's by no means a finished product, but it seems like that ability should have never made it this far in the testing...

With our course set for a revision, we’ve spent the past year experimenting and gathering feedback. We believe that if something doesn’t hit the mark the first time, we need to take our time and make sure our path to a solution is the right one. So our tinkering with the ranger led us here, to this latest update.

Our next step, which begins now, is verification. Are these fixes correct? Do they solve problems at your table? Do you, as the community of D&D players and DMs, accept them? I expect anotherrevision or two to be made to the class, but I’m confident that the scope and direction of thesechanges fit in with what the community is looking for.

Yeah, there will be more changes, but the PA ability getting this far kind of sounds like some real questionable QA going on inside the company.

 

[pukunui]

But at the point a DM is doing that, one wonders why he or she doesn't just create different challenges altogether rather than worry about a tracking challenge the ranger's class feature trivializes. Let the ranger have that moment to shine, I say. It's what they do.

As an aside, one of my beefs with the revised ranger (and to a lesser extend the old one), is that their features don't give them a chance to shine so much as just let them declare that they win the exploration pillar without really having to engage with it.

 

[iserith]

I've already told you what structure and content bother me

I was referring to the structure and content of your specific game - the one that I now see actually doesn't have a problem with this class feature.

the power gives a lot of very specific information--more than a DM can necessary keep track of during play

When something is established in play, the DM can use a pencil or pen to write it down if he or she can't remember it. I'm not seeing how this is difficult.

--and has a virtually infinite list of uses.

Same with 50' of hempen rope, but nobody's calling for that to be changed.

 

[iserith]

As an aside, one of my beefs with the revised ranger (and to a lesser extend the old one), is that their features don't give them a chance to shine so much as just let them declare that they win the exploration pillar without really having to engage with it.

The exploration pillar encompasses a huge swath of the game (see Basic Rules, page 5). At best, they win at the travel/tracking aspect of the exploration pillar and I think that's okay because it's rather the ranger's shtick, wouldn't you say?

 

[Cyber-Dave]

It sounds like you've created a solution to a problem that doesn't exist then, at least where your own table is concerned.

That is exactly what we did. I also call that good communication. A DM looks over a character, sees a power that could become problematic at his table, based on how s/he enjoys running the game, depending on the player's expectations, and informs the player of that fact. The two discuss their respective expectations and come to common set. The game then employs that common set. I would hope every table does this...

Why isn't it the DM's fault for creating that kind of challenge in the first place? Or, having done so, not feeling okay with the ranger - a character class that is good at tracking favored enemies - resolving the challenge with little to no effort?

You are missing the point. This isn't about fault. Who cares whose fault it is? It is about the fact that the more open ended a power's potential list of uses, the more specific and unavoidable a power's effects, the more it constrains a DM's toolkit and forces a DM to spend time considering how the power will affect his plans. That tends to make preparation more time consuming and tedious. There is a point at which preparation, when it becomes too time consuming and tedious, stops being fun. I find the power, in its current state, to be too weighted towards an ability which could make preparation "not fun." It's that simple. You don't agree, then you don't agree, but there is nothing to debate or question here...

 

[iserith]

That is exactly what we did. I also call that good communication. A DM looks over a character, sees a power that could become problematic at his table, based on how s/he enjoys running the game, depending on the player's expectations, and informs the player of that fact. The two discuss their respective expectations and come to common set. The game then employs that common set. I would hope every table does this...

It was how the power could become problematic that I was seeking to examine. I still haven't seen a compelling enough issue to warrant a change to the class feature as written. At least not one that isn't created by how the DM runs the game.

You are missing the point. This isn't about fault. Who cares whose fault it is?

I do. It goes back to where I choose to examine how I run my game when I have an issue with some aspect of the rules, as I mentioned upthread. "What am I doing that makes Primeval Awareness onerous?" I would hope every DM does this...

 

[pukunui]

The exploration pillar encompasses a huge swath of the game (see Basic Rules, page 5). At best, they win at the travel/tracking aspect of the exploration pillar and I think that's okay because it's rather the ranger's shtick, wouldn't you say?

I don't think they should just get to bypass that aspect of the pillar, though. As a player, it isn't really all that fun to have an "I win!" ability that just lets me ignore something without engaging with it. If instead I had advantages while interacting with those aspects of the exploration pillar, I think I'd be a lot happier.

It's almost like the devs are acknowledging that this aspect of the game is largely perceived as boring and so are providing groups with an easy means to skip over it.

I would much rather the ranger be given Expertise in Nature and Survival and/or other abilities along those lines than features that just grant an auto-win in certain situations. (And yes, I provided this feedback to WotC via the most recent survey.)

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I was referring to the structure and content of your specific game - the one that I now see actually doesn't have a problem with this class feature.

So, you were looking for a specific set or type of data because you assumed, in advance, that the problem could only be localized there? Um. Ok. That doesn't seem useful to me, but whatever. My specific game has a problem with this class feature because my DM looked at the feature and instantly started to worry about how much work it would be for him to both prepare games if I used it in certain frustrating ways and adjudicate during play if he failed to prepare for certain unexpected uses. He told me as much, as he didn't want me to get frustrated at the table, and he didn't want to get frustrated at the table either. I said no problem, I get your logic. I asked if I could still try and use it. He said sure, but it might not always give me the information I want (even if it would in the RAW) and might sometimes require a skill check to give me the information I want. I said no problem.

The only problem is that the rule forced us to have that discussion in the first place. Ideally, the RAW is easy enough to use that no such discussion ever has to take place; since reality isn't ideal, the design goal should be that no such discussion ever has to take place at the tables of any sizable portion of the fan-base. I have no idea if it does or doesn't. I don't have the data required to make that call. It, however, is starting to sound like evidence in the community has suggested that it does, which suggests that the rule should be modified, and that bothers you because you like the rule as is... is that what is happening here?

When something is established in play, the DM can use a pencil or pen to write it down if he or she can't remember it. I'm not seeing how this is difficult.

Establishing large quantities of specific data on the spot is a difficult task for most humans. Keeping track of all possible outcomes that such specific data could have is even more difficult for most humans. The likelihood of an emergent result which somebody finds to be unpleasant occurring at a game table is high. What are you not seeing?

Same with 50' of hempen rope, but nobody's calling for that to be changed.

50 feet of hempen rope doesn't generate a large quantity of specific effects as well. In fact, its a good example of what I would like Primeval Awareness to become more like--a wide variety of potential uses, but a very acute list of specific effects, as most of the effects it can potentially produce (let alone certainly produce) will require on the spot holistic adjudication on the part of the DM.

 

[iserith]

I don't think they should just get to bypass that aspect of the pillar, though. As a player, it isn't really all that fun to have an "I win!" ability that just lets me ignore something without engaging with it. If instead I had advantages while interacting with those aspects of the exploration pillar, I think I'd be a lot happier.

It's almost like the devs are acknowledging that this aspect of the game is largely perceived as boring and so are providing groups with an easy means to skip over it.

Why is the DM presenting content the players find boring and then forcing them to take a ranger to get past it? I hate to keep pointing the finger at the DM in this thread, but...

In my Delve campaign, for example, travel between the town and dungeon is an important and fun aspect of the play experience, something the party has to think about. Weather comes into play. Marching order. Exploration tasks. Resource management. Random encounters, the likelihood of which are based on time spent traveling. Having a ranger in the party always means getting to the dungeon faster and with less risk of running afoul of wandering monsters (or higher chance of getting the drop on some sweet, sweet XP), plus getting to do 5 exploration tasks instead of just 4. It doesn't mean having a ranger around means the party skips over this aspect of play.