Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7485788" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>And it is a fair point, I just see it as the ship having already sailed. When I first read your comment I thought you were talking about adding it back in as a new rule, which I think we agree wouldn't go over well. </p><p></p><p> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I'm going to respond to things out of order. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ?</p><p></p><p>Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower. </p><p></p><p>So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option. </p><p></p><p>So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude. </p><p></p><p>But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld. </p><p></p><p>But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore. </p><p></p><p>And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories. </p><p></p><p>I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around. </p><p></p><p>And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out? </p><p></p><p>New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7485788, member: 6801228"] And it is a fair point, I just see it as the ship having already sailed. When I first read your comment I thought you were talking about adding it back in as a new rule, which I think we agree wouldn't go over well. [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I'm going to respond to things out of order. Ok, so if there are no mechanical fixes for them, but there are for the Beastmaster, does it then make sense why we are focused on the beastmaster instead of whichever classes are the "lowest" ? Especially since from your reply, you have no idea what those classes are or why they may be lower. So to answer your question again about "why are we focused on this class instead of the lowest ranked ones" because this class has mechanical problems that we can fix. If other classes are lower ranked because fewer people like being buff support, or everyone still thinks they suck from previous editions, or they don't like the artwork next to the class, we can't fix that. We can fix the Beastmaster, which has measurable problems in it's mechanics. Most of the discussion has been about fixing the Beastmaster. Personally, I like some of the changes that the Revised Ranger made to the Ranger mechanics, for example, I like their Hide in Plain Sight ability far more than the PHB one, but I recognize it isn't a neccessary change, just one I liked. And they aren't supposed to be a combat option, but then again, you seem to get upset about people looking at the Ranger's Beast Companion as a combat option and not as a utility option. So, I guess you need to pick a path, are you going to defend the Beast Master's companion as a utility option over the Familiar, or are we going to look at the Beastmaster companion as needing a combat element to be a relevant sub-class feature? Because if you want to keep making comments like "players who are often more focused on the narrative and less on combat" to defend the Beastmaster, you need to be able to tell me why it is worth an entire subclass as a utiliy option. I agree, but it wasn't my table as a GM and no one seemed to get too upset that I could tell, so I didn't make it into a bigger thing by confronting the player about being rude. But, I think it does show that a lot of people see the entire ranger as being weak and not worth the time investment. They have a robust 5e discussion forum, and it is the second biggest 5e forum I know about. The biggest being Enworld. But, I guess people don't count unless they are silent faceless masses who agree with you. Sorry, that was rude, but it isn't like there are a lot of places to hear what the "typical 5e player" wants if we aren't supposed to talk about any of the large internet communities built up around 5e. And this still bothers me a lot, they were working on a fix, but then they got an influx of players and decided that the thing didn't need a fix anymore. And, frankly, I call absolute BS on this idea that we got millions of new players who are vastly unconcerned with the mechanics of the game, and all of us on these forums are power-gamers who care more about the rules than the stories. I've introduced a lot of new people to the game, and I'm more willing to believe that they came wanting a story, and when the mechanics didn't back them up they just shrugged and said "well that's the way it is" and didn't want to rock the boat. It takes a while to get comfortable enough with these games to realize that the rules are guidelines that can be changed and not something that you absolutely need to work around. And, I just can't help but wonder how this supposed divide works in your head. I got into DnD because my Dad played the video games, and then I read the novels and watched the cartoons. I love RPGs as one of the most fascinating story-telling mediums around. But somehow, because I've played for more than 5 years I don't care about the story more than the guy whose friend told him to watch this show where they use funny voices and he liked it and wanted to try it out? New players are the same, whether they joined in the 80' the 00's or 2018. And they are still people and they still fit into the same rough categories we've been using for who knows how long. There is no great renaissance of DnD thought here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
Top