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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7486286" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>My thoughts flow better responding to you out of order, I don’t know why. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree, everyone will give different answers. </p><p></p><p>So how is “There are classes that aren’t liked as well as the ranger is liked” a good rebuttal to the call to fix the ranger? If everyone has their favorites and least favorites and representative answers require massive amounts of polling to even get close… then why do you insist that those rankings should matter to us? If my opinion doesn’t matter unless it matches some massive, impossible to know super opinion… then your opinion doesn’t matter either. Plus, you admitted there is a mechanical fix, it isn’t even a question for you that that is possible, so this is just a smokescreen to hide behind “popularity”.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow, is that your final answer?</p><p></p><p>We have bridges that are crumbling in America, but we shouldn’t fix those because then people might expect us to fix the sewage system that is far out of date, and then the power lines that are inefficient and where will it end?</p><p></p><p>This is literally the worst call to inaction I have ever heard. Don’t fix anything because you might be expected to fix more. In the effort of staying civil I’m going to stop putting my thoughts down on how I am reacting to that, but let us just say, I disagree that that is a good reason to not fix something. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) Yes, they can. It may not be the absolute most efficient combat choice for them, but they can absolutely dual-wield and they can absolutely fight with sword and board. There is nothing stopping them and legitimate bonuses to doing so. Whether or not they are the most absolutely optimal solution is something else entirely. </p><p></p><p>2) Fair enough, I’ve run into some wonkiness with saves at high levels. Not sure if there are good solutions to it though. It is just a result of not everyone’s saves improving at higher levels or improving at the same rate as enemy attacks get stronger. </p><p></p><p>3) Very true, and they also deserve a fix. However, I’ve never been terribly interested in devising that fix, and I haven’t given it much thought. Also, it doesn’t seem to be a problem that has caught a large following, making it harder to have discussions about. </p><p></p><p>4) Potentially, I’ve personally never had a problem with them, and I’ve seen far more people miss due to the decrease in accuracy than encounters broken do to the increased damage output. Also, easy enough to ban since all feats are optional anyways, so you could just say all feats except this select number are allowed, or alter them in ways that fit your campaign. </p><p></p><p>5) Beyond easy enough to fix in my mind, if it is even a problem for you. I find flavor comes best in an intersection of class, subclass, race and background. Fighter’s give me plenty of flavor and Battlemasters come chock full of flavorful things, like that tool proficiency, that gives me plenty to latch onto and make my own. If a player came to me saying they liked the Champion but found the flavor lacking, we’d talk about what kind of story they were looking for and how to get there with the Champion. But, it has never come up, so I’ve never had to discuss with them. Usually, the people who choose Champion like the flavor they already found. </p><p></p><p>6) Agreed, and it is an annoyingly bad problem. I think sorcerers need a complete rework as well, despite how often I get shouted down on that particular issue. However, this is a thread about the Ranger, so I won’t go into my calls for a Revised Sorcerer here and save that for when another thread about fixing the sorcerer comes up on the docket. </p><p></p><p>So, I agree, no game is perfect. Some of these need mechanical fixes, some just need a little more effort on the DM’s part, and some aren’t even issues for some of us. </p><p></p><p>Doesn’t mean that those things which are issues shouldn’t be addressed, or that we should dismiss calls to fix something just because other things are broken too. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So if a car company released a car that performed poorly in wintery conditions, they shouldn’t look into solutions for that car design, they should just keep making more different car designs? </p><p></p><p>Again, I don’t understand this desire to do nothing. Sure, maybe if this was a discussion about the difference between the Champion, Battlemaster, and Samurai where all of them could be seen as a similar style of play, but Beastmaster’s are supposed to be the epitome of the pet class and other than the Chainlock, they are the only subclass focused around permanent pets. You can’t release a new subclass that focuses on this style of play for the Ranger without in actuality just rewriting the Beastmaster to make it better. Sure, call it “the Spirit Shaman” but we’d all know what it is. </p><p></p><p>And I’m not sure what kind of tension you think there is going to be. Just last night I was doing character creation for a new group, and someone wanted to go College of Swords. I told them to hold up a minute, because I thought I remember one of the old UA’s being a much better fit. Turns out I was wrong, but there was no tension or anger about it. They were grateful to make sure they had the best possible version of what they wanted to do. </p><p></p><p>And we already have players who want to use the Revised Ranger and being told that it isn’t in the PHB (and no not even considered UA) and so they can’t use it. Boat sailed on that point, so not doing anything isn’t going to prevent it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, so why are you so derisive of people complaining because “They only care about Combat power” it is meant to be a combat ability, and it underperforms?</p><p></p><p>You can’t say “people are fine with it because they don’t care about combat and prefer the utility options” then turn around and defend its poor utility compared to other options with “well, it is meant to be a combat option.”</p><p></p><p>Yes, beast survivability is a big issue, so is the absolutely bonkers action economy set up we currently have and how it can actually encourage people to not use the beast as a combat option. If it is a bad combat option and a bad utility option then it is a bad option pretty much in totality. And, if it was a single ability we might end up okay with that, it is an entire subclass that falls behind. That is pretty egregious. </p><p></p><p>And you agree it is egregious, you said you agree there are mechanical fixes to this problem. You just don’t want to bother because we might end up fixing other things that are underperforming once we are done. Oh the humanity of reaching for something better.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7486286, member: 6801228"] My thoughts flow better responding to you out of order, I don’t know why. I agree, everyone will give different answers. So how is “There are classes that aren’t liked as well as the ranger is liked” a good rebuttal to the call to fix the ranger? If everyone has their favorites and least favorites and representative answers require massive amounts of polling to even get close… then why do you insist that those rankings should matter to us? If my opinion doesn’t matter unless it matches some massive, impossible to know super opinion… then your opinion doesn’t matter either. Plus, you admitted there is a mechanical fix, it isn’t even a question for you that that is possible, so this is just a smokescreen to hide behind “popularity”. Wow, is that your final answer? We have bridges that are crumbling in America, but we shouldn’t fix those because then people might expect us to fix the sewage system that is far out of date, and then the power lines that are inefficient and where will it end? This is literally the worst call to inaction I have ever heard. Don’t fix anything because you might be expected to fix more. In the effort of staying civil I’m going to stop putting my thoughts down on how I am reacting to that, but let us just say, I disagree that that is a good reason to not fix something. 1) Yes, they can. It may not be the absolute most efficient combat choice for them, but they can absolutely dual-wield and they can absolutely fight with sword and board. There is nothing stopping them and legitimate bonuses to doing so. Whether or not they are the most absolutely optimal solution is something else entirely. 2) Fair enough, I’ve run into some wonkiness with saves at high levels. Not sure if there are good solutions to it though. It is just a result of not everyone’s saves improving at higher levels or improving at the same rate as enemy attacks get stronger. 3) Very true, and they also deserve a fix. However, I’ve never been terribly interested in devising that fix, and I haven’t given it much thought. Also, it doesn’t seem to be a problem that has caught a large following, making it harder to have discussions about. 4) Potentially, I’ve personally never had a problem with them, and I’ve seen far more people miss due to the decrease in accuracy than encounters broken do to the increased damage output. Also, easy enough to ban since all feats are optional anyways, so you could just say all feats except this select number are allowed, or alter them in ways that fit your campaign. 5) Beyond easy enough to fix in my mind, if it is even a problem for you. I find flavor comes best in an intersection of class, subclass, race and background. Fighter’s give me plenty of flavor and Battlemasters come chock full of flavorful things, like that tool proficiency, that gives me plenty to latch onto and make my own. If a player came to me saying they liked the Champion but found the flavor lacking, we’d talk about what kind of story they were looking for and how to get there with the Champion. But, it has never come up, so I’ve never had to discuss with them. Usually, the people who choose Champion like the flavor they already found. 6) Agreed, and it is an annoyingly bad problem. I think sorcerers need a complete rework as well, despite how often I get shouted down on that particular issue. However, this is a thread about the Ranger, so I won’t go into my calls for a Revised Sorcerer here and save that for when another thread about fixing the sorcerer comes up on the docket. So, I agree, no game is perfect. Some of these need mechanical fixes, some just need a little more effort on the DM’s part, and some aren’t even issues for some of us. Doesn’t mean that those things which are issues shouldn’t be addressed, or that we should dismiss calls to fix something just because other things are broken too. So if a car company released a car that performed poorly in wintery conditions, they shouldn’t look into solutions for that car design, they should just keep making more different car designs? Again, I don’t understand this desire to do nothing. Sure, maybe if this was a discussion about the difference between the Champion, Battlemaster, and Samurai where all of them could be seen as a similar style of play, but Beastmaster’s are supposed to be the epitome of the pet class and other than the Chainlock, they are the only subclass focused around permanent pets. You can’t release a new subclass that focuses on this style of play for the Ranger without in actuality just rewriting the Beastmaster to make it better. Sure, call it “the Spirit Shaman” but we’d all know what it is. And I’m not sure what kind of tension you think there is going to be. Just last night I was doing character creation for a new group, and someone wanted to go College of Swords. I told them to hold up a minute, because I thought I remember one of the old UA’s being a much better fit. Turns out I was wrong, but there was no tension or anger about it. They were grateful to make sure they had the best possible version of what they wanted to do. And we already have players who want to use the Revised Ranger and being told that it isn’t in the PHB (and no not even considered UA) and so they can’t use it. Boat sailed on that point, so not doing anything isn’t going to prevent it. Okay, so why are you so derisive of people complaining because “They only care about Combat power” it is meant to be a combat ability, and it underperforms? You can’t say “people are fine with it because they don’t care about combat and prefer the utility options” then turn around and defend its poor utility compared to other options with “well, it is meant to be a combat option.” Yes, beast survivability is a big issue, so is the absolutely bonkers action economy set up we currently have and how it can actually encourage people to not use the beast as a combat option. If it is a bad combat option and a bad utility option then it is a bad option pretty much in totality. And, if it was a single ability we might end up okay with that, it is an entire subclass that falls behind. That is pretty egregious. And you agree it is egregious, you said you agree there are mechanical fixes to this problem. You just don’t want to bother because we might end up fixing other things that are underperforming once we are done. Oh the humanity of reaching for something better. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
Top