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!

 

[Klaus]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a unique class, but I do imagine more people might be happy with the artificer subclass if it got better armor and some skills.

Like, hypothetically, if it got medium armor proficiency, and had proficiency in "artificer's tools" (which might let you make the consumable items like potions and scrolls currently taking up class feature space) and maybe one other tool of their choice (thieves' tools, artisan's tools, herbalism kit, etc.), and maybe even got a sort of tool-based expertise feature, I think you'd get away from the "I'm basically a wizard, only now I make potions" thing that the L&L artificer currently suffers from.

I think the fighter subclasses work pretty well, IMXP.

What you'd probably want to avoid is the "a new class for everything!" syndrome that 3e and 4e were plagued with. More classes => more analysis paralysis during character creation => larger chance for there to be "too many" classes => bigger newbie hump => fewer people playing Eberron (or D&D) => no new Eberron material for 10 years => saaaaadness.

But how far would it be worth to go in altering a class before it becomes easier to just make a new one?

For instance, the Artificer would work perfectly over the Bard chassis (being, to use a 4e turn of phrase, another "arcane leader"). Bardic Inspiration is a perfect mechanic for on-the-fly infusions. But you'd have to alter some of the fluff, and replace all the "songs" with "infusions".

By making a new class, you could cover different archetypes, from the Arcane Crafter to the Homounculus Master.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Overall, a pet class that doesn't hog the spotlight with 2 characters would be very easy to make.

The thing D&D fans have to get is: It just can't be the ranger class.

The D&D ranger class is a warrior class. Adding another full powered warrior to it as a animal companion would be hard to not fall into the spotlight-hog realm. We saw this with 3.5e druids with the bear-druid and the bear companion with bear summons. This is why the 3rd and 4th edition beast companions were squishy glass cannon.

You can have a class with a strong beast or fey or demon companion. It just can't be a ranger or a warlock. It's the same reason why a eldritch knight fighter doesn't get all 9 level of spells with his 3 attacks, 2 action surges, and second wind.

 

[Li Shenron]

For instance, the Artificer would work perfectly over the Bard chassis (being, to use a 4e turn of phrase, another "arcane leader"). Bardic Inspiration is a perfect mechanic for on-the-fly infusions. But you'd have to alter some of the fluff, and replace all the "songs" with "infusions".

Interesting idea, but I suppose they prefer to make it a subclass of Wizard in order to have access to the same long list of spells.

It might also be a class of its own however. I think in general it depends on both mechanics and narrative.

For mechanics, on how much of a base class can be re-used and how much instead requires new implementation. At the moment, the artificer is mechanically defined just by few abilities that IIRC are built on spell knowledge, and therefore they fit with the size of a subclass. If there were more abilities needed to define an Artificer more completely, it might be too much to fit, and they would change it to a class of its own.

For narrative, I don't know what is the original concept of Artificer from Eberron. If it was something similar to an alchemist specialist, but alchemy was still based on spells, then it makes sense as a Wizard tradition. In other settings, alchemy/artifice might be a rival alternative, completely separated from magic (or in 4e terms, another "power source") and thus it would seem more appropriate to make it a separate class, even if mechanics aren't that different.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But how far would it be worth to go in altering a class before it becomes easier to just make a new one?

Pretty dang far, judging by the PHB! Among the things that might've been cause for new classes in 3e and 4e that are more like subclasses in 5e include..

• Different weapon, armor, or skill proficiencies (5e example: valor bard). Just because you wear different armor or use different weapons or have slightly different skill load-out from most other members of a class doesn't mean you get your own class - these can be subclass features. In 3e, having a different "silhouette" might mean you occupy a totally different class, but in 5e, classes are broader.
• Different spell list (5e examples: cleric domains, wizard spells). Just because you call up shields of defense and ability enhancements instead of balls of fire and blasts of cold doesn't mean you are a totally different class. In 4e, each class had its own unique list of powers, but in 5e, clerics can learn fireball.
• Different combat or adventuring role (5e examaple: paladins). Just because you are more of a striker than a defender or more of an explorer than a speaker doesn't mean you aren't the same class. 3e and 4e (4e at a more refined level) both had concepts of the one thing a class was supposed to do well, and characters who didn't do that one thing didn't fit in that class comfortably. In 5e, there's significantly more customization within one class.

That's not a complete list, but it's kind of a LOT in comparison to most of D&D for the last 15 years! One of the things that does fall outside of that purview: 5e is good with making new classes for story reasons. In AD&D, if magic was in your soul or you formed a pact with a demon or learned it in an academy, you'd still be a magic-user - 5e is cool with those being separate classes. 2e explicitly called out barbarians as fighters with a particular set of arms and armor, and assassins as anyone who kills for money - 5e has a higher granularity than that.

For instance, the Artificer would work perfectly over the Bard chassis (being, to use a 4e turn of phrase, another "arcane leader"). Bardic Inspiration is a perfect mechanic for on-the-fly infusions. But you'd have to alter some of the fluff, and replace all the "songs" with "infusions".

Of course, bard is a horrible fit from a story perspective. Artificers don't master the words of creation and pull magic out of beauty. They presumably learn their features as a trade, with knowledge and specialized training -- which is much closer to what the wizard does. It'd make more sense from a story perspective to just loot a few bard mechanics/spells and put 'em into the chassis of, say, the Wizard.

That said, perhaps we look at this from a different angle: maybe artificers are a subclass of a general "Magewright" class. Artificers, alchemists, golem-makers, gnomish tinkers, dwarven armigers, elven arrow-fletchers...perhaps rather than a wizard subclass, we say that that "makes magic stuff" is as distinct from "learns magic in tomes" as "learns magic from a patron" is! I don't know that it is, but I think it'd be interesting to design that class and find out what that might look like.

By making a new class, you could cover different archetypes, from the Arcane Crafter to the Homounculus Master.

These are pretty narrow archetypes with a lot of overlap and also archetypes that wizards have comfortably held in every edition up to 4e. Heck, lots of classes in 5e can already fill this role, assuming magic item crafting is turned "on" and the DM just introduces a homunculus.

 

[Klaus]

Pretty dang far, judging by the PHB! Among the things that might've been cause for new classes in 3e and 4e that are more like subclasses in 5e include..

• Different weapon, armor, or skill proficiencies (5e example: valor bard). Just because you wear different armor or use different weapons or have slightly different skill load-out from most other members of a class doesn't mean you get your own class - these can be subclass features. In 3e, having a different "silhouette" might mean you occupy a totally different class, but in 5e, classes are broader.
• Different spell list (5e examples: cleric domains, wizard spells). Just because you call up shields of defense and ability enhancements instead of balls of fire and blasts of cold doesn't mean you are a totally different class. In 4e, each class had its own unique list of powers, but in 5e, clerics can learn fireball.
• Different combat or adventuring role (5e examaple: paladins). Just because you are more of a striker than a defender or more of an explorer than a speaker doesn't mean you aren't the same class. 3e and 4e (4e at a more refined level) both had concepts of the one thing a class was supposed to do well, and characters who didn't do that one thing didn't fit in that class comfortably. In 5e, there's significantly more customization within one class.

But all of those examples are additive. You take the base class chassis and *add* different stuff (add more proficiencies, add more spells, add this power instead of that).

The Artificer never actually had a Spellbook (for instance). In fact, the very first sentence in the Infusions description in the ECS is "An artificer is not a spellcaster". And an artificer Infusion list only went as high as 6th level. This alone could make the artificer a "half-caster" (alongside Rangers and Paladins), with the rest of the Artificer's features being filled with proficiency in Thieves' Tools, Expertise, Item Creation and Homounculus creation.

As for Homounculus Master and Battlesmith being narrow: they're on par with the Hunter and Beastmaster archetypes for the ranger. One gets more combat utilities (plus Medium armor and martial weapons), the other gets a (robotic) buddy. You could even throw in the Self-forged (grafts construct parts on self), the Elemental Binder (infuses elemental powers into items) and even the Alchemist (focuses on potions and thrown concoctions).

 

[I'm A Banana]

But all of those examples are additive. You take the base class chassis and *add* different stuff (add more proficiencies, add more spells, add this power instead of that).

The Artificer never actually had a Spellbook (for instance).

Presumably they write down their artificing formulae somewhere, right?

In fact, the very first sentence in the Infusions description in the ECS is "An artificer is not a spellcaster". And an artificer Infusion list only went as high as 6th level. This alone could make the artificer a "half-caster" (alongside Rangers and Paladins), with the rest of the Artificer's features being filled with proficiency in Thieves' Tools, Expertise, Item Creation and Homounculus creation.

Yeah, not having high-level spells is pretty much not having the major class feature of high-level wizards. Though I don't know that this fits the narrative that well (what, I can't make artifacts?!), I can see it in light of Eberron's "industrial magic."

As for Homounculus Master and Battlesmith being narrow: they're on par with the Hunter and Beastmaster archetypes for the ranger. One gets more combat utilities (plus Medium armor and martial weapons), the other gets a (robotic) buddy. You could even throw in the Self-forged (grafts construct parts on self), the Elemental Binder (infuses elemental powers into items) and even the Alchemist (focuses on potions and thrown concoctions).

The beastmaster and the hunter have different narratives within the story of the ranger - the beastmaster is "one with the wild," an extension of the untamed lands. A hunter is instead the master of the wild, one who can survive in the rugged environment. "I make robots" and "I make gear" aren't very distinct from a story perspective, and, again, something a 5e character can already do.

But you can hook more story onto that. In the hypothetical "magewright" class example, "I make robots" becomes "I create life" (and features that allow you to create and work with golems and healing spells and other similar material). "I make magic gear" becomes "I've mastered the forge of Moradin himself, and weave war directly into the weapons and armor I make." In that respect, rather than treating the artificer as the parent and dividing it up, we treat the broader mythic archetype of "the master-crafter" as the parent, with the artificer representing one take on that.

...yeah, I think I'll see what that might look like today....hm...

 

[Klaus]

Presumably they write down their artificing formulae somewhere, right?

Not necessarily. And "item formulae" are already in the game in 5e, right?

Yeah, not having high-level spells is pretty much not having the major class feature of high-level wizards. Though I don't know that this fits the narrative that well (what, I can't make artifacts?!), I can see it in light of Eberron's "industrial magic."

The narrative in this case is "I don't *need* spells to make artifacts". In the 3e rules, the artificer simply ignored the required spells when crafting items. 5e doesn't have that restriction, so they're already golden for crafting items without needing the ability to cast Meteor Swarm.

The beastmaster and the hunter have different narratives within the story of the ranger - the beastmaster is "one with the wild," an extension of the untamed lands. A hunter is instead the master of the wild, one who can survive in the rugged environment. "I make robots" and "I make gear" aren't very distinct from a story perspective, and, again, something a 5e character can already do.

The battlesmith would be a "combat magician", a "magical war engineer" who uses his abilities to enhance other people's fighting prowess. He is very much a part of a team. The homounculus master, on the other hand, sees crafting constructs as a superior calling, looking at them as the epitome of magic's capability. Creating new life is supposed to be the gods' purview, but much like Prometheus, he's stealing that fire!

 

[AverageCitizen]

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.

I am being a little flip. But you didn't really read my posts, so I think it is justified. I hope they find a solution that satisfies you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not necessarily. And "item formulae" are already in the game in 5e, right?

Yeah, kinda!

The narrative in this case is "I don't *need* spells to make artifacts". In the 3e rules, the artificer simply ignored the required spells when crafting items. 5e doesn't have that restriction, so they're already golden for crafting items without needing the ability to cast Meteor Swarm.

That makes sense!

The battlesmith would be a "combat magician", a "magical war engineer" who uses his abilities to enhance other people's fighting prowess. He is very much a part of a team. The homounculus master, on the other hand, sees crafting constructs as a superior calling, looking at them as the epitome of magic's capability. Creating new life is supposed to be the gods' purview, but much like Prometheus, he's stealing that fire!

That last concept seems bigger than Eberron's techno-tinker, but still, "part of a team" and "I like robots" don't seem like much of a distinction...

 

[MoonSong]

Pretty dang far, judging by the PHB! Among the things that might've been cause for new classes in 3e and 4e that are more like subclasses in 5e include..

• Different weapon, armor, or skill proficiencies (5e example: valor bard). Just because you wear different armor or use different weapons or have slightly different skill load-out from most other members of a class doesn't mean you get your own class - these can be subclass features. In 3e, having a different "silhouette" might mean you occupy a totally different class, but in 5e, classes are broader.
• Different spell list (5e examples: cleric domains, wizard spells). Just because you call up shields of defense and ability enhancements instead of balls of fire and blasts of cold doesn't mean you are a totally different class. In 4e, each class had its own unique list of powers, but in 5e, clerics can learn fireball.
• Different combat or adventuring role (5e examaple: paladins). Just because you are more of a striker than a defender or more of an explorer than a speaker doesn't mean you aren't the same class. 3e and 4e (4e at a more refined level) both had concepts of the one thing a class was supposed to do well, and characters who didn't do that one thing didn't fit in that class comfortably. In 5e, there's significantly more customization within one class.

That's not a complete list, but it's kind of a LOT in comparison to most of D&D for the last 15 years! One of the things that does fall outside of that purview: 5e is good with making new classes for story reasons. In AD&D, if magic was in your soul or you formed a pact with a demon or learned it in an academy, you'd still be a magic-user - 5e is cool with those being separate classes. 2e explicitly called out barbarians as fighters with a particular set of arms and armor, and assassins as anyone who kills for money - 5e has a higher granularity than that.



Of course, bard is a horrible fit from a story perspective. Artificers don't master the words of creation and pull magic out of beauty. They presumably learn their features as a trade, with knowledge and specialized training -- which is much closer to what the wizard does. It'd make more sense from a story perspective to just loot a few bard mechanics/spells and put 'em into the chassis of, say, the Wizard.

That said, perhaps we look at this from a different angle: maybe artificers are a subclass of a general "Magewright" class. Artificers, alchemists, golem-makers, gnomish tinkers, dwarven armigers, elven arrow-fletchers...perhaps rather than a wizard subclass, we say that that "makes magic stuff" is as distinct from "learns magic in tomes" as "learns magic from a patron" is! I don't know that it is, but I think it'd be interesting to design that class and find out what that might look like.



These are pretty narrow archetypes with a lot of overlap and also archetypes that wizards have comfortably held in every edition up to 4e. Heck, lots of classes in 5e can already fill this role, assuming magic item crafting is turned "on" and the DM just introduces a homunculus.

Maybe from a story perspective wizard is the closest fit, but mechanically it isn't a satisfactory artificer. The subclass presented in UA doesn't feel like an artificer and I bet it barely plays like one. The bard chassis is already fairly close, and the bard isn't necessarily a "spellcaster who casts from the beauty" it is a red mage, someone who dabbles on many different things, including combat, skills and spells, somehow it feels closer to an artificer. Maybe it isn't a completely good fit for the artificer, but if it isn't, the only solution is to make the artificer its own class. (Wizard subclass = artificer in name only, bard subclass = clunky story, own class = only way to fully fit story/mechanics)