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.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Then what's the difference between a fighter with maneuvers and a nonmagical ranger with maneuvers?

Above-and-beyond survival abilities. Not like, tree-huggy (necessarily), but some bona-fide commando, trapper, frontiersman stuff. I'm alright with that being the distinguishing feature. To the point that if everyone could get a feat at 1, AND there was a beastmaster class, I'd be alright with it as a feat. I think it would make a good feat, actually. But the lack of feats at 1 really hampers concepts that depend on them.

But the part everyone forgets is Power. Each class needs Power. It doesn't have to be combat power like fighters. It can be interaction power like bards, magic ppwer of wizards and sorcerers, healing power of clerics, or roguish power like... rogues.

Whatever the ranger's focus is decided to be, has to be both powerful and relevant.

That's why I don't get the beast love. Ranger beasts sucked at anything not utility or mount related in all editions except 4e. And in 4e, you had to make the ranger suck for the beast to not.

Yeah, all of this is true. People love it because it is a cool concept. I've loved it ever since He-man. But really, in the good stories that people point to, the animal companion is its own character. I wish they would do some out of the box solution and treat the beast like it was a member of the party, or a partial member, and make the class playable only under the DMs discretion. Instead they treat us like we're children that will squabble over DPS at the table.

 

[Celtavian]

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 Hunter's Mark is not necessary for every ranger build. Sure it's great for a Hunter focusing on single enemy attacks, but outside of that there are far better choices to be made with the limited selection of spells and slots.

Then it fails even worse than if it were made for combat.

No extra skills. No extra skill levels. No ability to see through its senses at range. Most of its level up abilities provide combat improvements, in fact every single one of them. No extra utility abilities. You have to be in range to command it, so no using it as a drone/scout as you claim.

And the real kicker, the paladin spell call mount is easier to use in battle and is usable at longer range. And the wizard/warlock/sorcerer spell find familiar provides as much utility and much better scouting.

If they were trying to create a pet to add non-combat utility, they failed even worse.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Another concept that got rolled into the present 5e Ranger that we don't talk about much is the Arcane Archer. They took it out of the playtest and replaced it with Ranger spells that use arrows. So the Ranger isn't just carrying the weight of the survivalist, nature-paladin, and beastmaster concepts, now he's got the Arcane Archer on his back, too. It's too crowded.

 

[empireofchaos]

I like the general thrust of their conclusions drawn on the Ranger survey (NO! to the spell-less, shamanistic Ambuscadeur Ranger, yes to spells and Beasts). But, I don't think the Beast should be the core feature of the Ranger class as a whole. it would probably be better if the Ranger was built more like a Warlock, with specializations starting at 1st level, rather than 3rd. Then, you could have a souped-up BM, stealth, or skirmisher-based classes, and I wouldn't mind if one variant were spell-less.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm really starting to wonder what the heck is going on at WotC -- or the folks answering these surveys. Every time, it seems like the response to the survey is "Let's make the game less interesting to Mercule."

I feel your pain, replace ranger with sorcerer and exactly what I feel.

Too bad, they don´t just focus on the current ranger and make it a little better and coherent?

They refuse to risk invalidating anything on the phb, let alone rewriting it.

And the real kicker, the paladin spell call mount is easier to use in battle and is usable at longer range. And the wizard/warlock/sorcerer spell find familiar provides as much utility and much better scouting.

No, sorcerers have no access to find familiar, for some reason designers decided that the class with inborn magic could just get no access to them (or anything that wasn't frying stuff).

 

[ClockworkNinja]

I DM encounters- whenever I mention an animal of any sort in my games, the younger players always try to catch and train it, and are disappointed if they can't.
They don't care about previous editions or verisimilitude, they just want to play "Pokemon".

 

[Bawylie]

I DM encounters- whenever I mention an animal of any sort in my games, the younger players always try to catch and train it, and are disappointed if they can't.
They don't care about previous editions or verisimilitude, they just want to play "Pokemon".

Huh... I now want to go and play Pokemon.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The point is that if the next ranger iteration imagines that your pet is a fundamental aspect of the class's power, any character who might want a pet to be a fundamental aspect of their class's power might then be kludged into a version of the ranger. That's part of why pet mechanics should be more broadly applicable - if I want to play a bard whose loyal groupie is a fundamental aspect of their power, rather than just a hireling, I don't want to have to go through the ranger to do that just because the ranger is the one holding the rules for it. Stuffing them in a class isn't a great place to locate that character option; it's a mechanical fob, not an archetype.

As an aside, maybe the pet-having ranger can fit the warlord-commander space, too...imagine a class who (a) had a powerful NPC ally that (b) they buffed with spells or "commands" and that (c) they could heal and encourage.

 

[MoonSong]

Wasn't going to aswer, but in the end I did it. I really want a D&D videogame that is faithful to the pen and paper game, so that was basically what I said.

 

[Mephista]

The point is that if the next ranger iteration imagines that your pet is a fundamental aspect of the class's power, any character who might want a pet to be a fundamental aspect of their class's power might then be kludged into a version of the ranger.

The flaw to that argument is that we already have all those archetypes in existance. Fiendish pet warlock, while imho poorly implemented, is done through Chain Pact. Hirelings are already rules. Druids have Conjure Beast for leading a wolf pack. You can't complain that the pet-Ranger is going to negate the option for other kinds of classes when those options already exist.