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="Jester David" data-source="post: 7485856" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Well, which three classes do you think would be played less than the ranger? </p><p>I guarantee your answer will be different than other people's. Mine will be different from yours that will be different from the OPs that will be different from Morrus'. </p><p>Heck, even if you polled everyone on this board you might not get an entirely representative answer. </p><p></p><p>Is there a mechanical fix for the ranger? </p><p>Yes. That was never in doubt.</p><p>But no game is perfect. Every game has problems. The barbarian can't fight with two weapons. Saving throws break down at high levels. The monk's Way of Four Elements has resource management issues. The -5/+10 feats are too powerful. The champion and battlemaster are devoid of flavour. Wild Magic is very dependant on DM fiat.</p><p>If you start fixing <em>a</em> problem with the game you risk going down the slippery slope of fixing the other issues. You set the precedent that you will revise the game and there's more pressure to implement additional fixes for other pet peeves and proud nails. </p><p></p><p>Plus… is it an effective use of WotC's time to fix a single subclass? </p><p>Why not just make <em>more</em> subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options. </p><p></p><p>And outright new options don't risk causing confusion. </p><p>Here's the thing, no matter how much they advertise the new class, not everyone will hear. So you will have people showing up at games and being told they're using the wrong ranger. DMs not allowing the new ranger as it's not in the PHB, and causing tension with the players. Players being pressured to upgrade at AL.</p><p>It just causes needless confusion for very little gain. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is probably the point. The ranger maybe need a small tweak to its first level powers to make it more attractive, and a tweak to the beast master. But they've instead rewritten the entire class twice. </p><p>And both times people still weren't entirely happy. I doubt there's a version of the ranger that will entirely satisfy everyone...</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's pretty clearly meant to be a combat heavy option, given the 7th and 11th features are focused on attacking. It's just a combat option that <em>also</em> has a LOT of utility uses and has a lot of flexibility that improves that. </p><p></p><p>Most of the issues I see people complaint about with the beasts is their survivability and not their utility. The point of having an animal companion is having an animal run around and help you, akin to the hunter in Warcraft. It's the pet class.</p><p>Crazy magical abilities aren't necessarily part of that trope, and forcing every beast master to be a "warg" and magical doesn't support that character concept. Magical stuff like that are located in spells, like <em>beast sense</em>. (Which the ranger gets.) You opt into utility via spells.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah… but your anecdotal evidence is just not supported. Because people ARE playing the ranger. If no one was playing the ranger than might be true, as the class being underpowered would actually be an issue. But since people do seem to happily be playing the class then it's apparently not a dealbreaker. </p><p>Maybe more people would play the class. But maybe not. It's fixing a theoretical issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, but it's still nothing compared to Reddit and Twitter and the Facebook groups. </p><p>Forums are the social media of the previous generation. Newer and younger players engage in the internet in other ways. </p><p>Looking at the D&D audience through the lense of forums is like looking at it through Usenet posts.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest. </p><p>That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more.</p><p></p><p>Try hitting <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/</a> and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/</a> or the D&D Facebook group for a while. Spend some time there rather than the forums. See what people are talking about on the #dnd hastag.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough. It bothers me that a lot of the really obvious subclasses haven't been updated. Like the blighter druid and a bard focused on music.</p><p>But everyone has pet peeves regarding the game and thinks that WotC should do something different. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Audiences change, especially depending on how they're introduced to the game. </p><p></p><p>The audience that started with D&D was introduced through the lense of wargaming. And the ones introduced via the novels and campaign settings in the late '80s and '90s saw the game entirely differently. And now we have streaming as a surprisingly large source of new players, and those games focus much more heavily on the storytelling and narrative side of the game</p><p>Unless you honestly think people's campaigns now are similar to how people played back in the '80s….</p><p></p><p>Heck, you can hear con organizer and former AL bigwig Paige Leiteman discuss the changing audiences here:</p><p><a href="http://slyflourish.com/streaming_changes_op_paige_leightman.html" target="_blank">http://slyflourish.com/streaming_changes_op_paige_leightman.html</a></p><p>With this tweet being telling:</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/PaigeLeitman/status/1032270919115235328" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/PaigeLeitman/status/1032270919115235328</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) Have you introduced 10,000 people to D&D? Because that'd be a representative sampling of the audience.</p><p></p><p>2) Don't you think, that as you're introducing them to the game, YOU might be influencing their tastes and how they approach the game? </p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not that you might not care about the story. That's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). It's that you might rank story lower than mechanics. </p><p>When you ranking the importance of elements of a campaign (narrative, character acts, mechanics, combat, and the like), you might place some aspects higher than someone who was introduced to the game in a different way. How much value you place on those elements and the percentage of a game you want to be taken up by those elements. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Regardless, at the end of the day… if people REALLY think the beast master is broken… they can just house rule it for their tables. Use one of the dozen on the DMsGuild or the UA one. Take what they want from the options given.</p><p>There are options out there. WotC doesn't need to do anything more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7485856, member: 37579"] Well, which three classes do you think would be played less than the ranger? I guarantee your answer will be different than other people's. Mine will be different from yours that will be different from the OPs that will be different from Morrus'. Heck, even if you polled everyone on this board you might not get an entirely representative answer. Is there a mechanical fix for the ranger? Yes. That was never in doubt. But no game is perfect. Every game has problems. The barbarian can't fight with two weapons. Saving throws break down at high levels. The monk's Way of Four Elements has resource management issues. The -5/+10 feats are too powerful. The champion and battlemaster are devoid of flavour. Wild Magic is very dependant on DM fiat. If you start fixing [i]a[/i] problem with the game you risk going down the slippery slope of fixing the other issues. You set the precedent that you will revise the game and there's more pressure to implement additional fixes for other pet peeves and proud nails. Plus… is it an effective use of WotC's time to fix a single subclass? Why not just make [i]more[/i] subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options. And outright new options don't risk causing confusion. Here's the thing, no matter how much they advertise the new class, not everyone will hear. So you will have people showing up at games and being told they're using the wrong ranger. DMs not allowing the new ranger as it's not in the PHB, and causing tension with the players. Players being pressured to upgrade at AL. It just causes needless confusion for very little gain. Which is probably the point. The ranger maybe need a small tweak to its first level powers to make it more attractive, and a tweak to the beast master. But they've instead rewritten the entire class twice. And both times people still weren't entirely happy. I doubt there's a version of the ranger that will entirely satisfy everyone... It's pretty clearly meant to be a combat heavy option, given the 7th and 11th features are focused on attacking. It's just a combat option that [i]also[/i] has a LOT of utility uses and has a lot of flexibility that improves that. Most of the issues I see people complaint about with the beasts is their survivability and not their utility. The point of having an animal companion is having an animal run around and help you, akin to the hunter in Warcraft. It's the pet class. Crazy magical abilities aren't necessarily part of that trope, and forcing every beast master to be a "warg" and magical doesn't support that character concept. Magical stuff like that are located in spells, like [i]beast sense[/i]. (Which the ranger gets.) You opt into utility via spells. Yeah… but your anecdotal evidence is just not supported. Because people ARE playing the ranger. If no one was playing the ranger than might be true, as the class being underpowered would actually be an issue. But since people do seem to happily be playing the class then it's apparently not a dealbreaker. Maybe more people would play the class. But maybe not. It's fixing a theoretical issue. Yeah, but it's still nothing compared to Reddit and Twitter and the Facebook groups. Forums are the social media of the previous generation. Newer and younger players engage in the internet in other ways. Looking at the D&D audience through the lense of forums is like looking at it through Usenet posts. You can't look at a single audience and then believe that's representative. Focusing only on forums is focusing on one particularly loud vocal minority. Which is a bad idea. You can't get decent feedback just from the people complaining the loudest. That's why WotC has the surveys and hires marketing companies. And looks at play data from partners like D&D Beyond, while also engaging with the fans on Twitter, Facebook, conventions, and more. Try hitting [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/[/url] and [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/[/url] or the D&D Facebook group for a while. Spend some time there rather than the forums. See what people are talking about on the #dnd hastag. Fair enough. It bothers me that a lot of the really obvious subclasses haven't been updated. Like the blighter druid and a bard focused on music. But everyone has pet peeves regarding the game and thinks that WotC should do something different. Audiences change, especially depending on how they're introduced to the game. The audience that started with D&D was introduced through the lense of wargaming. And the ones introduced via the novels and campaign settings in the late '80s and '90s saw the game entirely differently. And now we have streaming as a surprisingly large source of new players, and those games focus much more heavily on the storytelling and narrative side of the game Unless you honestly think people's campaigns now are similar to how people played back in the '80s…. Heck, you can hear con organizer and former AL bigwig Paige Leiteman discuss the changing audiences here: [url]http://slyflourish.com/streaming_changes_op_paige_leightman.html[/url] With this tweet being telling: [url]https://twitter.com/PaigeLeitman/status/1032270919115235328[/url] 1) Have you introduced 10,000 people to D&D? Because that'd be a representative sampling of the audience. 2) Don't you think, that as you're introducing them to the game, YOU might be influencing their tastes and how they approach the game? It's not that you might not care about the story. That's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). It's that you might rank story lower than mechanics. When you ranking the importance of elements of a campaign (narrative, character acts, mechanics, combat, and the like), you might place some aspects higher than someone who was introduced to the game in a different way. How much value you place on those elements and the percentage of a game you want to be taken up by those elements. Regardless, at the end of the day… if people REALLY think the beast master is broken… they can just house rule it for their tables. Use one of the dozen on the DMsGuild or the UA one. Take what they want from the options given. There are options out there. WotC doesn't need to do anything more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
Top