Revised Ranger update

[CapnZapp]

But people read the comment and misinterpreted it as being actually compatible with past editions, which doesn’t seem remotely possible...

Don't do that strawman. Nobody expects two editions to be "actually compatible", since as you imply, that would mean they're really only one edition.

Leaving d20 modules (and frankly, 5E modules too) with "worthless" gold, is, on the other hand, breaking the level of compatability that is reasonable to expect.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Unlike Mistwell I see a real clear possibility they're just saying the PHB Ranger is popular to get the fans off their backs - they've decided they don't want to risk doing anything at this point.

 

[CapnZapp]

The ever-present powerful "pet" play style is unsuited to D&D as far as incorporating it into a reasonably balanced action economy under the umbrella of one character. It is a popular trope, but the end result was not going to satisfy a lot of people unless it essentially functions as a secondary PC (i.e. can hold its own in combat) . They'd have been better off presenting that type of Beastmaster as a variant instead of a piece of the core class.

I don't think anyone's contesting that.

What we're discussing is WotC's decision to do nothing at all with the Beastmaster.

And justifying that by reversing their earlier stance on the subclass.

And completely dismissing anyone who waited for the update, including the pat on the head "the secret is you're all wrong".

And the preposterous and aggravating line of reasoning that some posters somehow pervert into something good...:

"no new rules fixes are needed since sales are strong anyway, so we've decided we no longer need our original customer base".

 

[CapnZapp]

Crawford didn't say they would not address the known issues with beastmaster rangers. He said he won't be offering an alternative version of the class. Not the same thing. And as many people in this thread have mentioned, just a few things like new fighting style and some new spells can go a huge way to fixing it, without the need for an alternative anything.

Why do you gloss over the most irritating thing he said, the bit about the secret?

 

[Sadras]

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.

Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the naysayers - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.

 

[Sadras]

Unlike Mistwell I see a real clear possibility they're just saying the PHB Ranger is popular to get the fans off their backs - they've decided they don't want to risk doing anything at this point.

Out of curiosity, what is the risk that you foresee?

 

[cbwjm]

Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the naysayers - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.

Not that it ever would because this is the internet and everyone thinks their opinion matters, but if it shut up the people who just seem to hate on the developers then the world would be a better place. So many people don't really offer up much in the way of constructive criticism. They just want to shout out that others are wrong and that what they believe is right.

 

[Sadras]

Not that it ever would because this is the internet and everyone thinks their opinion matters, but if it shut up the people who just seem to hate on the developers then the world would be a better place. So many people don't really offer up much in the way of constructive criticism. They just want to shout out that others are wrong and that what they believe is right.

LOL. And I thought politics weren't allowed on this forum.

 

[ad_hoc]

Although factually correct, my issue with statements like these is that they reduce the voices on the internet to inconsequential. One can use that for every issue one raises with the game to just shutdown the naysayers - whether it be every other week for some or once in a while for others, like those who didn't like the amendment/clarification to the Shield Master feat.

It shuts down the argument that the people on the internet represent the majority. That's all.

WotC are saying that the majority like the original Ranger. People here are arguing that they don't because people on forums complain about it.

If people want to come to a forum to talk about an aspect of a game they don't like that's cool. Maybe it is just to vent, maybe to see if others see it that way, or to brainstorm solutions, all sorts of reasons to come talk about something.

But if the subject of the discussion is that WotC isn't listening to a majority of the players then pointing out that people on forums represent a very tiny amount of the player population is valid.

If most people like a subclass and that subclass doesn't disrupt the game then it is a success. There are a ton of classes and subclasses to choose from. It is expected to dislike some of them.

 

[Yunru]

The fact that he mentions about it just being a loud online voice is factually incongruous with their own statement in the UA, as others have pointed out.
I guess Jeremy's taking inspiration from Trump now?