Revised Ranger update

[Mistwell]

Hey, remember when they promised 5e would be modular enough to play any past edition?

No, I do not. Link? I remember talk of harkening back to the styles of prior editions, but I remember nothing about being modular enough to play any past edition. I'd like to see what you're referring to.

For example, this is a very early Q&A with Mike Mearls about modularity in 5e for people who like 4e fighters:

Q: Are you actually going to include modules for 4E fans who want flexible, intelligent, veteran fighters?

A [Mike Mearls]: [For] Fighters – We have a maneuver system in design that we’re playtesting here in the office. In my Monday game, Chris Perkins’ fighter could choose between an inaccurate but high damage attack, a defensive attack that force an enemy to pay attention to him, and a second defensive option that boosted his AC. That’s just the surface of what we have going on in there. I’d also like to extend the maneuver idea to other areas of the game – social maneuvers, rogue tricks, things like that. Our goal is to make a wide variety of characters possible, rather than stick each class into a limited box. Just as we’re moving roles out of class, we’re also moving complexity limits out of class as much as we can. Encounter Powers – We’re looking at a mechanic that draws on the idea of pushing yourself beyond your limits between rests, basically a stamina-based mechanic. This is precisely the kind of more complex option that we place in the game for players who want to take on that sort of approach.

As you can see from that example, he is not saying or implying 5e would be "modular enough to play 4e" for example. He's saying there is modularity in place to play a 4e-like game in some respects. That was always the approach them mentioned. I am not aware of any implication you could actually play a prior edition using 5e rules.

 

[Yunru]

There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.

 

[Mistwell]

There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.

Yes that's correct, but the modular rules were never (as far as I am aware) mentioned as being, "you can play another edition using this editions rules". It was always, "we have this module which is similar to X edition" like "we have this battlemaster fighter module which makes a fighter that is similar to a 4e fighter" and "we have this champion fighter module which makes a fighter that is similar to a 2e fighter".

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am curious why you think it's haughty?

I can't speak for [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION] , but for me there were a few lines in his tweet that jumped out to me.

"There is one ranger: the one in the Player's Handbook"

"Frankly, the revised ranger helped feed an internet-fueled view of the class... I wasn't sorry to end it."

Both of those... the tone I picture them said in is almost derogatory. And, while I missed whatever it was he said in 2017 about never doing an alternative class, as someone posted earlier in this thread, two years ago near the end of 2016 (09/12/2016) they were saying very different things about the state of the Ranger.

Just in the first paragraph of that PDF we have "the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin" quoted as the reason for the revisions.

And they talk about doing research and finding the class lacking back then, it's abilities rated as some of the worst in the game and people generally being unhappy with it.

And you know... that is weird to me. I get that player dynamics change, especially over two years, but to go from one of the weakest and least satisfying classes to being "not even in the bottom third" with no revision to the rules or class. That is weird. And, it isn't like people hadn't had time to really appreciate the class, the game was two years old at that point.

I don't think a player base shift caused this change. To me, it seems to be that the biggest change between 2016 and 2018 is the release of Xanathar's in 2017, with better made subclasses for the Ranger. Which, makes Crawford's comment that "there is one ranger" and that it is in the PHB hilarious, because the PHB Ranger might not be why people are suddenly happy, that'd be the Xanathar Ranger's, and they don't excuse the Beastmaster still being what it has always been. Dissatisfying.

And, I think as someone who really got excited by the Revised Ranger, and who is keeping those rules alive at his own table, Crawford talking about "ending it" like he has banned it from all tables, kind of upsets me. All of those homebrew and UA rangers are still out there being used, so maybe we don't need an officially printed solution, but that doesn't mean that WoTC actually got it right with the PHB Ranger.

 

[Parmandur]

I can't speak for [MENTION=42040]Retreater[/MENTION] , but for me there were a few lines in his tweet that jumped out to me.

"There is one ranger: the one in the Player's Handbook"

"Frankly, the revised ranger helped feed an internet-fueled view of the class... I wasn't sorry to end it."

Both of those... the tone I picture them said in is almost derogatory. And, while I missed whatever it was he said in 2017 about never doing an alternative class, as someone posted earlier in this thread, two years ago near the end of 2016 (09/12/2016) they were saying very different things about the state of the Ranger.

Just in the first paragraph of that PDF we have "the class’s high levels of player dissatisfaction and its ranking as D&D’s weakest class by a significant margin" quoted as the reason for the revisions.

And they talk about doing research and finding the class lacking back then, it's abilities rated as some of the worst in the game and people generally being unhappy with it.

And you know... that is weird to me. I get that player dynamics change, especially over two years, but to go from one of the weakest and least satisfying classes to being "not even in the bottom third" with no revision to the rules or class. That is weird. And, it isn't like people hadn't had time to really appreciate the class, the game was two years old at that point.

I don't think a player base shift caused this change. To me, it seems to be that the biggest change between 2016 and 2018 is the release of Xanathar's in 2017, with better made subclasses for the Ranger. Which, makes Crawford's comment that "there is one ranger" and that it is in the PHB hilarious, because the PHB Ranger might not be why people are suddenly happy, that'd be the Xanathar Ranger's, and they don't excuse the Beastmaster still being what it has always been. Dissatisfying.

And, I think as someone who really got excited by the Revised Ranger, and who is keeping those rules alive at his own table, Crawford talking about "ending it" like he has banned it from all tables, kind of upsets me. All of those homebrew and UA rangers are still out there being used, so maybe we don't need an officially printed solution, but that doesn't mean that WoTC actually got it right with the PHB Ranger.

To be fair, the play base shift in that same period was somewhere in the millions. That is no small change.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd also argue that a bunch of people on the internet saying that WotC got the PHB ranger wrong doesn't mean WotC actually did.

 

[SkidAce]

Anecdotally I know, but at least three new players over the last two years have basically said "Why does my ranger lose attacks by fighting with his beast partner?"

It seemed like they all felt* the beast was a creature (they understood NPC) of its own.





*they don't hang out on forums, this was an emergent gut feeling from them.

 

[Jester David]

There where only vague mentions (of which my google fu is lacking), but I remember it being talked about the core systems being built so that modular rules could just be added on.

Not really.
Early on the designers talked about how you could hack the game to make it feel like older editions, but compatibility was never on the table. That a 4e fan couple play at the same table as a 3e fan and a 1e fan.
But people read the comment and misinterpreted it as being actually compatible with past editions, which doesn’t seem remotely possible...

 

[Retreater]

I can only speak to my experience, but the local meta is that the PHB ranger isn't good and most players in my community prefer the UA ranger.
I think to dismiss the preferences of many players shows a lack of engagement with the player base, especially when the game is designed to be modular enough to support a variety of builds. His terse reply to end discussion and to shoot down an obviously popular choice (even if their D&D Beyond data or whatever doesn't necessarily support it) comes across as the same type of hubris that alienated many players during the 4e launch.
I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.

 

[abirdcall]

I think to dismiss the preferences of many players shows a lack of engagement with the player base

Who is the player base?

I think 5e's success is getting to their heads.

Think about that one. Maybe you aren't the player base anymore.