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.

 

[Blue]

People get hung up on the name, while background + class can provide nature characters

I hope animal companion as a core feature never happens. Even WoW finally understood that forcing people to have a companion in order to play the nature warrior archetype is a bad thing, WotC can do better than that. Talking about making it core so it can be more powerful almost makes me think that they believe the current version is good enough.

But in 5e you can be the "nature warrior archetype" by taking a nature based background and a martial class.

"Ranger" as a class has no in-game meaning. It's a framework of powers and advancement. We already can model a no-animal-companion, no-spell "nature warrior archetype".

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That's like saying that we don't need a ranger with a pet focus because we already have options for a pet ranger. These don't fill the same mechanical niche.

 

[JohnLynch]

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.

You might like a subclass in an upcoming EN5ider article I wrote. It's not a Ranger subclass but does take a lot of inspiration from the Warden's ability to be a weapon warrior that assumes certain aspects (particularly the daily powers that allowed them to assume a "form" of certain parts of the environment). Unfortunately I don't know at this stage when it's going to be published though. Although I'm sure it will be mentioned here when it is

 

[BoldItalic]

What if Sword Coast Legends had Rangers?

I still wouldn't buy it.

Oh, apparently it does.

*shrug*

 

[Evenglare]

My 2 cents about rangers. For those naysayers about the fighter can do this or anyone can buy a pet etc etc. you are missing the whole freaking point about classes. Yes, someone could buy a pet but they shouldn't be as good as the ranger. A fighter and wield a bow? So what? The ranger should be able to wield a bow better than anyone. Other people can do wilderness survial? That's great, but the ranger should shine at these aspects. It's like saying anyone can wield a sword so sword wielding fighters are completely and utterly pointless and should be removed from the game. I can't actually believe I need to explain that most people can do anything but a class should have a focus on some aspect and generally do it better or at least more unique than everyone else.

 

[Li Shenron]

That was discussed during the playtest as a general solution to companions and action economy. But 5E does not appear to be in a place where they want to add more complexity.

The best solution would be to just have the animal companion be an NPC run by the DM, but with a 'favourite' PC that can give it commands. No added complexity to the rules, can be dropped into any game any time without changes.

I like the idea of Rangers using the creatures of the wild as allies, but I'd prefer to see a more Pokemon style approach that allows players to temporarily call forth from a variety of creatures based on the type of assistance the party requires and the current environment.

That's not having an animal companion, it's summoning creatures. And it could be as simple as adding just one new spell to the Ranger's list.

It's understandable that WotC is tempted to complicate everything, it's just human way to feel busy and create yourself more work to do But it doesn't have to be so difficult:

- want a permanent companion that can fight on its own -> friendly animal NPC
- want a pokemon-type short-term companion from a list -> add a summon spell to Ranger's list

No new rules needed!

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know about you guys but the rangers was always clear to me.

The ranger jumps out of the bushes of the shadow he was hiding in and carves some poor sap up with a longsword, axe, bow or spear. Depending on the edition, he or she might entangle the foe first, buff themselves up with longstrider or cat's grace, or go full aggro since they have cure light wounds.

Ever since 1st edition, rangers were the guys who didn't get surpised and ambushed the heck out of the enemy then shoved a blade or arrow into it's back.


DM: You see a hobgoblin. He..
Me: I jump out the bushes I was hiding in.
DM: Why are you always jumping out of the brushes or shadow or out of a tree or a shadow of a bush or tree.
Me: Because I'm a ranger.
DM: Why not be a rogue/thief?
Me: Because I don't plan on fleeing like a wuss if the hobgoblin doesn't die in one hit or if I miss. *rolls initiative* 19. Am I first?

 

[Li Shenron]

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

I wish this was true, but I have the opposite feeling!

To me they seem to be preparing the grounds for a complete 5.5 revision, so that we all once again have to buy the books to keep up with AL and so on. There is always going to be a 'least favourite class', now it's the Ranger, tomorrow is the Sorcerer, then who knows... once they have re-done 3-4 of them significantly, they'll sprinkle minor changes everywhere to justify a half-edition, boosting everyone a little bit to encourage players to switch over.

 

[Li Shenron]

They're talking about the rangers from AD&D 2e and D&D 3e. According to their survey results, those versions of the ranger class rated well in the survey, so they need to figure out what it was about those editions' rangers that made them good.

They should also take into account that those might have been the two most played editions.

It's very likely that more people played 2e or 3e rather than older editions (and maybe some older editions didn't even have Rangers?), and we know that part of the 3e fanbase skipped 4e.

 

[Mephista]

That's like saying that we don't need a ranger with a pet focus because we already have options for a pet ranger. These don't fill the same mechanical niche.

Not even close to what I'm saying.

It's very likely that more people played 2e or 3e rather than older editions (and maybe some older editions didn't even have Rangers?), and we know that part of the 3e fanbase skipped 4e.

Of course, its not like people just haven't played any number of other games that have Rangers where pets are a significant feature of the class, especially any number of video games. Or that the idea of the Ranger has evolved over time so that its grown beyond the paladin-like Strider.