Sword Coast Legends Survey; Plus Ranger Feedback Results!

Interesting stuff on the ranger.

But a whole survey on Sword Coast Legends. Hm. I don't even know what it is, really. And said as much when I answered.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yawn. Still has stupid fighting styles.

 

[Jester David]

Took the survey, but bleh, more effort wasted on this game. I would have thought they'd do a survey on SCAG instead.

Agreed. It's odd to focus a survey on what people want next from a game no one plays. Especially asking for favourites when they should be able to pull that information from the actual game.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

It might not have been a bad idea to add ranger-like subclasses for rogue, fighter, barbarian and druid to the one we already sort of have for paladin. Rangers have traditionally been a warrior class, but D&D5 seems to add a touch of spellcasting to martial subclasses and a touch of combat to spellcasting subclasses, so it makes sense to see "rangers" that run the gamut from warriors with a touch of magic to wild mystics who can fight a bit.

I also don't think there was anything in particular that made ranger.2 and ranger.3 especially good. It's all about Drizzt, for better or worse. AD&D1 came out tool long before Drizzt, and D&D4 was very much its own thing. A "good" ranger class or subclass is one that doesn't feel gimped compared to other warrior classes, is at home in the wild, and can scratch that Drizzt itch, for those who caught what Drizzt's got.

A ranger must:

* Be comfortable in the wild, and be able to help a party survive the wild.
* Be competitive in combat.

By tradition, a ranger might:

* Be good at ranged combat.
* Excel at fighting with 2 weapons. (This got folded into the ranger class due to Drizzt, even though this technique seems to have been a local thing. Also, oddly enough, Drizzt could not have trained as a ranger, since his mentors lacked the alignment that was then required. But nevermind.)
* Have an animal companion. High level rangers got this in AD&D1, pre-Drizzt.
* Cast spells. AD&D1 rangers eventually could do this, to a very limited extent.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Pets are available to anyone with the cash to buy a Mastiff. They are not special.

Forget the mastiff, buy an elephant. Or better yet, buy both. Then laugh at the ranger who wasted a subclass for less effect than you got off of a standardized equipment list.

I like the 5e Ranger, both thematically (the best at this in any edition IMO) and in-vivo play. It is the absolute best class in the Exploration pillar of the game, and a well thought out ranger will absolutely crush it in exploration-heavy campaigns like OotA. That being said, it is a bit lacking in the combat department, although with a little optimization it can be brought up to snuff. I liked the latest UA subclass (Deep Stalker); it emphasizes the ambush aspect of the ranger, giving up a bit of DPR for a bit more Alpha striking capability (although, TBH, I am a bit biased towards since it favors the way I like to play), and the bonus spells known mitigate a major problem in that area.
Other fixes I would make would be:
- Make Hunter's Mark a Class Ability, and add extra damage if the target is a favored enemy.
- Detach Primeval Awareness from spellcasting, making it function more like the Paladin's Divine Sense.
- Fix the pet issue with a spell a-la Find Familiar/Steed. Make it a ritual for Rangers without needing to have the feat, and subsequent uses of the spell could be used to raise the pet when killed. A subclass or spells could be used to buff it.
- Like another poster said above, more flavorful/thematic spells that play to the Ranger's strengths.
- Somehow fix the level 20 capstone... it's not a bad ability, but not capstone worthy, either mechanically or thematically.

This is probably the best way I've ever heard of making an altered take on the current ranger. I really like it.

I still think that the main problem with the Beast Master Ranger is people's expectations of the class, not the class itself. Her companion is meant to add utility, not combat ability. Used as a scout/drone the companion is a powerful tool, especially in the exploration pillar of the game where it can help to both prevent and set up ambushes. Mixed with the right selection of spells that utility can be even further grown.

And what can you get out of it that you can't get out of just buying or befriending an animal, that is actually worth an entire subclass devoted to it, given the fact that it will just stand around in combat while the guy who bought the elephant and mastiff is riding around on an independently acting rampaging combat elephant while he reigns arrows down upon his foes?

Oh, and by the way--you can just buy your own elephant and mastiff too. So now you get to add a panther that stands around like a drone. I wouldn't even spend a feat on that, much less a subclass.

EDIT: That came out snarkier than intended. I was just attempting to illustrate a point with a tad bit of humor, not be insulting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a good idea. However that method can develop as a collection of barely related subclasses. Then what's the difference between a fighter with maneuvers and a nonmagical ranger with maneuvers?

What's the difference between a Sorcerer with spells and a Wizard with the exact same spells? Seriously, though, it'd be more like the difference between a cleric & druid. Both cast spells, but some of 'em are different spells and they have different features, as well. The few maneuvers currently in the game couldn't be used to much differentiate two sub-classes let alone two full classes, of course.

 

[Minigiant]

What's the difference between a Sorcerer with spells and a Wizard with the exact same spells? Seriously, though, it'd be more like the difference between a cleric & druid. Both cast spells, but some of 'em are different spells and they have different features, as well.

Wizards haves spell books and ritual caster. Sorcerer has sorcery points and metamagic.

The issue is of stripping out the beast, magic, and combat features of the ranger out and putting only 1 back in at full strength. Well once, you strip all that stuff out the ranger, th here is nothing left to make it deferent that a fighter. It's a battle master with favored enemy.

 

[MerricB]

Agreed. It's odd to focus a survey on what people want next from a game no one plays.

If they'd done a survey on SCAG, it would have been entirely too soon. Unlike a computer game, new RPG options typically require more than a week or two to actually use in play.

Doing a survey on SCL, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate. It's a game many had high hopes for, and many have been disappointed by. Getting feedback from a different section of the game population than those over on the SCL boards, especially now people have had a chance to play it, helps inform any decision as to whether to scrap it, continue as-is, or perform an overhaul - to whatever extent is feasible.

Your description of it as a game "no-one" plays is wrong. It is being played. (Often not for very long). Getting feedback on what isn't liked and what is liked is tremendously important for future CRPGs that Wizards may help develop. And surveys often tell a different tale than the echo-chamber of community forums.

 

[Jester David]

If they'd done a survey on SCAG, it would have been entirely too soon. Unlike a computer game, new RPG options typically require more than a week or two to actually use in play.

Doing a survey on SCL, on the other hand, is entirely appropriate. It's a game many had high hopes for, and many have been disappointed by. Getting feedback from a different section of the game population than those over on the SCL boards, especially now people have had a chance to play it, helps inform any decision as to whether to scrap it, continue as-is, or perform an overhaul - to whatever extent is feasible.

Your description of it as a game "no-one" plays is wrong. It is being played. (Often not for very long). Getting feedback on what isn't liked and what is liked is tremendously important for future CRPGs that Wizards may help develop. And surveys often tell a different tale than the echo-chamber of community forums.

The SCL survey doesn't really question what people like and don't like.
The game isn't really selling new copies. And of the 50k people who own the game, only half have played in the past two weeks and that number is dropping:
https://steamdb.info/app/325600/graphs/

 

[Mephista]

One of the concerns I have is that if rangers become the "pet class" than any character who should have a powerful pet is going to somehow be shoehorned into being a ranger.

Maybe I want a warlock who gets more powerful fiendish allies, or a fighter who attracts loyal fellow-fighters, or a druid who runs with a pack of wolves or a rogue who gets lackey or two or....

Warlocks kinda suck at the fiendish allies bit - they get only the top Conjure Fey and Elemental summons, plus the top undead spell, and Chain pact is kinda weak overall. Frankly, the warlock Blade and Chain pacts need as much revision as the Ranger does, but that doesn't change that they already exist. However... druids can run with packs of wolves - they get Conjure Beasts fairly early on, which is perfect for that. And there's rules for hiring people already for your Rogue and Fighter. So, no matter what we do with the Ranger, the others are already covered.

 

[Cyvris]

The only ranger that had a strong beast component was the 4e beastmaster.

And that was considered one of the single worst builds in all of 4e.


Call me crazy, but I like Rangers as a bit more "Nature Paladin". D&D has never really had a natural warrior class (outside of the Warden) that isn't overly reliant on shapeshifting. I'd love to see Rangers get broken apart by subclass, one being a sort of weapon master/survivalist, another heavily pet focused, and the third a "primal" gish sort of set up, though it would be nice if it didn't have to dual-wield to be an effective melee combatant.