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: 7486920" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>No it’s not.</p><p>Slightly underpowered maybe. But “incredibly poor” is pure hyperbole. </p><p></p><p>The beast master is so-so, but the ranger itself is fine. Especially for its first dozen levels (aka 90% of the levels that will actually see play). The hunter ranger is far from the weakest character option and can out-damage a fighter at many levels. (To say nothing of the <em>Guide to Everything</em> options.)</p><p>Okay, the ranger relies a little too much on spells. And a few of its mechanics aren’t great. It’s first level features are lame. But it’s far from the unplayable mess it’s often presented as online. It’s not going to drag down the party, it will deal decent damage, and it still shines during exploration. </p><p>Really, most optimizer’s class tier rankings put the ranger quite high. Above the berserker barbarian, elemental and shadow monk, and warlock. </p><p></p><p>Also… </p><p>I can name a half dozen things in the game that “weak” compared to simmilar options. I can also name a half-dozen overpowered options. </p><p>Should they fix them all? </p><p>And if not, why give the ranger special treatment? Why is it more of an issue?</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don’t think we need a repeat of 4th Edition (and late 3e) where each book has a dozen pages or errata and updates and the physical books become increasingly useless. I don’t want to have to stick loose leaf pages in my PHB to “patch” problems with the game, or have to wonder what version of the rules a DM is using.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>:/</p><p>Why on EARTH would they say “because the internet said so”?!? That’s not a thing anyone has said ever in the history of humanity.</p><p>Of <em>course</em> they’re going to say “Because or these reasons”... and then recite a list of problems they read off the internet.</p><p></p><p>Okay, so let’s just proceed assuming the ranger IS unequivocally weak. So what? There’s always going to be a weakest option. If they revise and fix the ranger, then another class will become the weakest. </p><p>Will we need to fix the next weakest option after? </p><p></p><p>The catch is even if the ranger is weak compared to other classes of the same type, in most homegames you don’t have a ranger and a paladin and a fighter and a barbarian all at the same table at the same time. So you don’t notice the difference at play. </p><p>And even then, the variable of dice can have more of an impact. In play the weakest character has less to do with class and more to do with whose dice are hot.</p><p></p><p>Also… if the ranger was empirically weak and everyone knows it… why are so many people playing them? Why do so very, very many people happily play a class that is apparently obviously inferior? </p><p>Because. It. Doesn’t. Matter.</p><p></p><p>Here’s the thing… despite being ridiculously weak compared to the wizard, cleric, and druid, people STILL played fighters in 3e. The fighter was always one of the most popular classes. And the variance in power level between a mid level wizard and a fighter in 3e/Pathfinder was ridiculously larger than the difference between the ranger and other classes in 5e. The disparity is well within the margin of error. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That’s nice. </p><p>How many people? Again, was it 1,000? Because otherwise the sample size is too small to remotely be relevant.</p><p></p><p>You also have a obvious sampling bias. First, you’re innately going to remember threads and posts that match your opinions and skim over the ones that don’t. Second, the people who don’t find their character weak and don't switch aren’t going to post. </p><p></p><p>It’s like going to a tech forum and looking for comments on an iPhone. Most of the posts that’s going to be people having trouble, as the people who are happily going about their buisness don’t visit, let alone write a thread about how their phone didn’t freeze and become a brick. </p><p></p><p></p><p>How else do you get the class out to people?</p><p></p><p>The vast majority of players don’t visit the forums or the website or follow the designers on Twitter. Jeremy Crawford only has 46,000 followers. That’s only 0.3% of the D&D audience.</p><p>They could put out a revision of the class, and most players would not see it. </p><p></p><p>So what good is a fix that most people don’t know of?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I didn’t say that it was perfect or that it couldn't be better. Just that it was fine. </p><p></p><p>Also, there are variant bards, fighters, and paladins out there too. Should we redo those classes as well? A lot of people seem unhappy with the sorcerer and warlock. </p><p></p><p> </p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</p><p>Where did they say that?</p><p></p><p>Actually LOOK at the tweet. What did Crawford *actually* say:</p><p>they’re not releasing an alternative ranger</p><p>The PHB ranger is the only official ranger</p><p>The ranger isn’t in among the least played classes</p><p>The Internet’s view of the ranger doesn’t match that of most players.</p><p></p><p>What point isn’t true? </p><p>If you have a problem with the ranger, he’s not telling you that you’re wrong. He’s saying your view and experience was just do not match that of most players. </p><p>Big deal. I’m also totally a minority among players. Heck, I’d argue most of us at ENWorld are.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s not that what you believe is a lie, it’s that not everyone has the same belief.</p><p>If someone tells me that vanilla isn’t the best iced cream flavour I don’t say they’re calling me a liar and saying that I’m wrong.</p><p></p><p>Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept?</p><p></p><p>As for a fourth pass, they did two in Unearthed Arcana, and one in the PHB. Three rangers. In addition to any released during the playtests.</p><p>Why would the next be perfect?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7486920, member: 37579"] No it’s not. Slightly underpowered maybe. But “incredibly poor” is pure hyperbole. The beast master is so-so, but the ranger itself is fine. Especially for its first dozen levels (aka 90% of the levels that will actually see play). The hunter ranger is far from the weakest character option and can out-damage a fighter at many levels. (To say nothing of the [i]Guide to Everything[/i] options.) Okay, the ranger relies a little too much on spells. And a few of its mechanics aren’t great. It’s first level features are lame. But it’s far from the unplayable mess it’s often presented as online. It’s not going to drag down the party, it will deal decent damage, and it still shines during exploration. Really, most optimizer’s class tier rankings put the ranger quite high. Above the berserker barbarian, elemental and shadow monk, and warlock. Also… I can name a half dozen things in the game that “weak” compared to simmilar options. I can also name a half-dozen overpowered options. Should they fix them all? And if not, why give the ranger special treatment? Why is it more of an issue? Personally, I don’t think we need a repeat of 4th Edition (and late 3e) where each book has a dozen pages or errata and updates and the physical books become increasingly useless. I don’t want to have to stick loose leaf pages in my PHB to “patch” problems with the game, or have to wonder what version of the rules a DM is using. :/ Why on EARTH would they say “because the internet said so”?!? That’s not a thing anyone has said ever in the history of humanity. Of [i]course[/i] they’re going to say “Because or these reasons”... and then recite a list of problems they read off the internet. Okay, so let’s just proceed assuming the ranger IS unequivocally weak. So what? There’s always going to be a weakest option. If they revise and fix the ranger, then another class will become the weakest. Will we need to fix the next weakest option after? The catch is even if the ranger is weak compared to other classes of the same type, in most homegames you don’t have a ranger and a paladin and a fighter and a barbarian all at the same table at the same time. So you don’t notice the difference at play. And even then, the variable of dice can have more of an impact. In play the weakest character has less to do with class and more to do with whose dice are hot. Also… if the ranger was empirically weak and everyone knows it… why are so many people playing them? Why do so very, very many people happily play a class that is apparently obviously inferior? Because. It. Doesn’t. Matter. Here’s the thing… despite being ridiculously weak compared to the wizard, cleric, and druid, people STILL played fighters in 3e. The fighter was always one of the most popular classes. And the variance in power level between a mid level wizard and a fighter in 3e/Pathfinder was ridiculously larger than the difference between the ranger and other classes in 5e. The disparity is well within the margin of error. That’s nice. How many people? Again, was it 1,000? Because otherwise the sample size is too small to remotely be relevant. You also have a obvious sampling bias. First, you’re innately going to remember threads and posts that match your opinions and skim over the ones that don’t. Second, the people who don’t find their character weak and don't switch aren’t going to post. It’s like going to a tech forum and looking for comments on an iPhone. Most of the posts that’s going to be people having trouble, as the people who are happily going about their buisness don’t visit, let alone write a thread about how their phone didn’t freeze and become a brick. How else do you get the class out to people? The vast majority of players don’t visit the forums or the website or follow the designers on Twitter. Jeremy Crawford only has 46,000 followers. That’s only 0.3% of the D&D audience. They could put out a revision of the class, and most players would not see it. So what good is a fix that most people don’t know of? I didn’t say that it was perfect or that it couldn't be better. Just that it was fine. Also, there are variant bards, fighters, and paladins out there too. Should we redo those classes as well? A lot of people seem unhappy with the sorcerer and warlock. :):):):):):):):). Where did they say that? Actually LOOK at the tweet. What did Crawford *actually* say: they’re not releasing an alternative ranger The PHB ranger is the only official ranger The ranger isn’t in among the least played classes The Internet’s view of the ranger doesn’t match that of most players. What point isn’t true? If you have a problem with the ranger, he’s not telling you that you’re wrong. He’s saying your view and experience was just do not match that of most players. Big deal. I’m also totally a minority among players. Heck, I’d argue most of us at ENWorld are. It’s not that what you believe is a lie, it’s that not everyone has the same belief. If someone tells me that vanilla isn’t the best iced cream flavour I don’t say they’re calling me a liar and saying that I’m wrong. Also, what evidence would you really accept? Is there *anything* Crawford could show you to back up his statement that you would accept? As for a fourth pass, they did two in Unearthed Arcana, and one in the PHB. Three rangers. In addition to any released during the playtests. Why would the next be perfect? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
Top