Second 5th Edition Survey! Plus Results of the First Survey: The Ranger Gets Some Attention!

A new survey is up on the official D&D website. It looks like its covering the classes not in the last survey and the recent Eberron material. WotC also reports on what was learned from the last survey. "For our second survey, we’re focused on the final six classes in the game and the Eberron material that we rolled out in last month’s Unearthed Arcana. If you haven’t looked at that article and want to provide feedback, read it over and come back to the survey later. Even if you don’t have a chance to use the Eberron material in your game, your reactions to it are helpful. You can also skip over the Eberron questions if you don’t want to give feedback on that material."

Here's the overall feedback from the first survey:

"So, what did we learn from our last survey? Let’s take a look at some trends:

To start with, there are a lot of you. We had more people respond to this survey than any of our playtest surveys. A lot of people are into D&D these days!

There are a lot of new players and DMs out there. Welcome to D&D!

You are playing the game in droves. Only about 10 percent of you have read the books without yet playing.

Your campaigns are just getting started. Most of you are playing at 6th level and below.

You love the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and we’re overjoyed to be able to write that. The overall assessment was incredibly positive, surpassing our results from the playtest by a significant margin."
​

The ranger, in particular, is getting some focus:

"To start with, a majority of players and Dungeon Masters are happy with the ranger overall. The game as a whole is grading well, so we don’t want to make a huge, sudden change to that class. But taking a deeper dive into the ranger, we can see that favored enemy and the beast master archetype received the lowest ratings. Our next step is to take a closer look at why that is.

We’ll start with an internal assessment mixed with feedback from our closed circle of testers. From there, we’ll work up some options and present them to you, most likely in the Unearthed Arcana column. That process allows us to determine if the track we’re on answers your concerns with the class.

The critical step is making sure that any changes we make genuinely improve the class. Remember, plenty of people are happy with the ranger, so any changes need to cover a number of options:

People who like the ranger as it is can simply keep playing their current characters.

People who don’t like the ranger should feel as though the new options allow them to play the ranger they want to create.

The new options are exactly that—new choices for ranger players to select from, as opposed to a rewrite of the Player’s Handbook.

DMs should always feel that they can take or leave the new options, just like any other material in the game beyond the Basic Rules."
​

Hop on over here to take the new survey!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

wasn't there something being thrown around where nobody got a pet default, then an optional mod where everyone does... that way you balance by DM fait

 

[AverageCitizen]

I think they are trying new concepts as subclasses first and then as unique classes if that doesn't work. Notice how the "Swordmage" concept ended up a fighter subclass and "Avenger" got folded into Paladin. I don't mind those two, but I am glad sorcerer and warlock got their own class, and I am right with you on the Artificer. It either needs to be a stand-alone class or some other treatment they haven't tried yet.

 

[dd.stevenson]

One, The pet class gets to boost their pet. The pet-master's dog is stronger than a fighter's dog.
Two, the pet class ALWAYS gets the pet.

That's been wotc's approach, yeah. I haven't been impressed. The "you always get a pet" feature feels REALLY bad when it's rendered moot by the the DM allowing pets to others, and the pet boosts exaggerate the need to weaken the character compared to the base class, which also feels bad.

Part of me wishes that WotC would just commit to a gameplay assumption--sure, anyone can tame beasts and here are the rules; or no, you can't tame beasts unless you have the class ability--and then redesign the beastmaster from there.

 

[Li Shenron]

It does, but its not much you also couldn't get by buying some wardogs or a familiar, neither of which craps away your subclass features. But some people are too busy shouting down any critiques and analysis as the realms of only munchkin powergamers to discuss that.

At least you have a much wider selection compared to what you can just buy. In normal circumstances I can expect dogs and horses to be on sales and that's it, but then if you have a high fantasy settings where any kind of fancy creature is commonly trained and sold then it's moot.

It's not written in the rules, but as far as familiars/cohorts/companions go, I always guarantee perfect loyalty to the PC, unlike hirelings/mercenaries/trained animals. That's what you get for the price of having to "spend" a class feature, which is more valuable than money. Since this is not explicit within the rules, I get that a lot of DMs just treat the two categories equally, and that's where people start complaining that there is too little value in companions when "I could just buy one".

 

[CapnZapp]

Minor quibble: The latter point seems just as "boardgamey" as what your first point criticizes. It is arguably "boardgamey" if a ranger brings a pet to a firefight and the pet miraculously survives a fight that normal animals of its type would not. What fiction supports that? If you consider it plausible that a ranger and pet can engage in combat in a way that feels organic and not boardgamey, then it can also be plausible that a ranger's pet will die horribly in a firefight like most natural animals taken into monstrous battle out of their league. Presents a bit of a dilemma. I'm not sure that anything short of a plate-armoured magically-enhanced heroic bear will make death-defiance not "boardgamey".

Yeah it's a minor quibble since you're making up this problem all by yourself.

Or course the pet should be able to die horribly. Just like the ranger himself, or his other friends.

Only the pet shouldn't die significantly more often (or more horribly than the other members of the party. Otherwise you HAVE added a weak link, and that's no fun.

(Then there's weak and there's weak. A Con 8 Wizard is weak. If the ranger chooses a pet with scouting abilities, it's okay it is weaker. But the rules need to allow a ranger the choice for something sturdy enough that its presence isn't going to be a problem. Lots of players just want a battle buddy and I'll be damned if I'll accept the apologists trying to tell me that isn't okay)

As soon as the other party members start secretly wishing the Ranger didn't bring along his fragile friend on adventures, it's an automatic FAIL.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's been wotc's approach, yeah. I haven't been impressed. The "you always get a pet" feature feels REALLY bad when it's rendered moot by the the DM allowing pets to others, and the pet boosts exaggerate the need to weaken the character compared to the base class, which also feels bad.

Personally I think it's DM's problem, and I am kind of happy that the game actually doesn't suit that well when the DM allows such thing, since I loath pet-heavy games.

That is, the game doesn't certainly break apart if you do... the Ranger's companion is already boosted compared to normal animals, and if the DM thinks it's not enough for his Pokemon-like setting, then it's up to him to houserule the Ranger's companion and boost it even more.

I just don't think it's a good idea to build a class feature around the fact that some DMs want a game where everybody has essentially the same feature (and even in that case, the Ranger might get TWO pets, always one more than the others). And no matter how many DMs, because pets highly complicate and slow the game down, which is something that 5e was specifically designed to avoid by default. So even if the majority of DMs want a game like that (which they don't), for me it's good that the game still isn't built around the assumption of everyone getting a pet. Once again notice that the game doesn't prevent you to allow that, it's just that it's not assuming it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Don't use beastmaster. If you are alright with an animal companion that is another character, just let your ranger, or WHOEVER, have an animal as a follower. Pg. 93 DMG. DONE.

If you truly believe this is a good solution, what does that say about your view of the Beastmaster? By all accounts you must feel it is terrible. All it gives you is something you don't hesitate giving to EVERYBODY.

Point is: this isn't about solving issues at my table, this is specifically a thread about the official rules, and WotC asking for feedback. Flippantly telling me I can solve it myself does nothing to improve what's in the PHB.

 

[CapnZapp]

The big, recurring problem with pet classes is that pets can be (and traditionally are) bestowed by DM fiat/houserules/general skill proficiencies. Pets are, in effect, a form of table-dependent loot. So any pet class ability has to answer two questions: What advantage does a pet class have in a game where every player has access to a pet? and How does the pet class cope in games where nobody has access to a pet?

It is evidently quite difficult to write an exciting pet class that answers both these questions satisfactorily--at least, I'm not aware of anyone who's done a great job of it yet.

I would think the answer is obvious:

Add a side bar to the ranger page asking precisely those two questions, then answer them.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would almost build a pet class that essentially counts as two characters, the pet growing with the character, and all encounters built as if the party had that extra player. Some wouldn't like that one person gets to be two characters, but then again the pet doesn't do much role playing and decision making or much more than help in combat, and it helps the entire party, right?

Am I off base in that respect? I've been in parties where a player controlled another PC so that we could have a cleric, for instance. Robot heals.

It would certainly be a strange class in comparison to the others in terms of, well, everything.

It wouldn't be more controversial than how Drow and Wild Mages have explicit rules text to include them only with express DM approval.

In other words, if a satisfactory pet class cannot be built without it hogging more than an equal share of the spotlight (DM attention, character power, and so on) then so be it.

Build it, include it, but add text to the effect it can't be used without express DM permission.

I'd much rather have that (yes, including the occasional weak-willed DM browbeaten into allowing it) than the current train wreck of a solution.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is, the game doesn't certainly break apart if you do... the Ranger's companion is already boosted compared to normal animals, and if the DM thinks it's not enough for his Pokemon-like setting, then it's up to him to houserule the Ranger's companion and boost it even more.

Calling you out on calling other people's opinions as "Pokemon-like".

Happily enough WotC ignored you completely and instead asked for the feedback that means now we're getting an official solution