Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 7472199" data-attributes="member: 18646">I think, perhaps relevant to this conversation, is that it's NOT that they are already certain that everyone is satisfied with the ranger and that they shouldn't offer adjustments. Rather, I think it's these factors:1) The idea of having an alternate version of the Ranger has high potential to cause confusion among casual players, particularly if the alternative is strictly more effective. This became abundantly clear after they released that UA. (I think Crawford expresses that frustration in a tweet where he says something to the effect that he's glad to see idea of a completely alternate version of the class die.)  Therefore, before making any changes to a core class, they decided they needed to tread carefully. Do it in a way to minimize confusion. That's where the idea of alternate 'swappable' class features comes from. And once you've decided to do that for the ranger, why not consider it for other classes?2) And since we're treading carefully, is the ranger so bad off that it really needs a fix? (I mean that as a real question, not a statement that it doesn't). Despite early feedback, plenty of people are playing the ranger. So it's probably not terrible. On top of that, we have a lot of new players since we first got our feedback. Also, we released Xanathar's with additional subclasses. So, maybe some of these issues have already been addressed by Xanathar's. And maybe the player base as a whole doesn't really see the problem.So, given those things, what's the logical next step? It's to gather more ( and more up to date) data. Hence, they do a survey in the fall. They combine that with info from various other sources. Then they decide what to do. If anything.To some extent I'm speculating. But it's informed speculation, as I'm only slightly extrapolating what the designers have said already. AD</blockquote>

Verification