To take an example of favored foe.. They release a hugely popular UA featuring the ability to replace a ranger ability that can sometimes be really awkward to use in campaigns. People react positively so they decide to work towards a published version... However when the feature is actually published, none of what spawned the positive reception of the feature in the first place is present.. Meaning that they may aswell not have asked for the opnion of the player base in the first place, since they completely removed what it was people liked aoout it.
If I were WotC, I would not be too concerned about the early complainers who complain more about the nerf from their beloved OP feature than about the actual feature in play from the majority of the players. I did not see the UA, and I think it's a good evolution from the standard ranger, in particular because it removes something that had been plaguing the class since the (despised for its rules, but revered for its settings) 2nd edition, namely the dependence on specific foes/environment.
I think the company can be, like I am, slightly cynical about people who think they are expert designers and marketers, and who like to believe that they are always more clever than the successful people who have made that their job...
I'd personally be perfectly fine with them not making UA at all, and keeping everything in internal testing. However, when you as a company release test versions of features with the expressed goal of gauging how people react to them and see what their playerbase likes... I would expect them to actually make an effect to understand where that reaction is coming from.
The main bit people liked about the UA favored foe was that it was a feature which didn't compete with the ranger's otherwise concentration heavy suite of abilties... It wasn't necessarily about the raw power level, but rather it'd be a feature which could continue to be used throughout your experience as a ranger. The published version completely takes that away, leaving us with what resembles a poor man's hunter's mark which probably won't see use beyond the first few levels.
Had they replaced the UA version with something weaker, but which could still be used to synergize with the rest of your ranger loadout, the reception would probably have been way better.
You are right, they probably know what they are doing.. However as successful as 5e is, it also does suffer from some issues with some classes being unpopular, often due to their class features simply not being very appealing.
I am not assuming they did not make an effort. I am saying that they either did not make an effort, or that they made an effort and failed... Seeing how the feature misses the boat on what made the feature popular in the first place. Again.. they're perfectly free not to care about consumer opinion, but then I simply wouldnt ask for it in the first place.
I think you and I come from fundamentally different points of view when it comes to "Power gamers" and I think that colors the way we talk about these things.. So maybe that kind of conversation won't lead anywere constructive.
I expect most people playing the game won't bother to give feedback at all to be honest.
While a lot of Option Class Features are rather dull and underwhelming (swap cantrips, fighting style, and other options when you gain ASI), I think they lay a pretty important foundation mechanically to allow players to further customize their characters as they level up, and swapping out options allows them to better adjust to a campaign. In my opinion, I think Wizards got the best OCF since they can swap out a cantrip every time they do a long rest, which is pretty bonkers when compared to everyone else's OCF that deals with swapping options.
Since I have already seen the subclasses in UA, seeing the official version does not feel as exciting, but I think they are still neat.
For magic items, since I like to make wizard characters a lot, the most exciting thing for me are all the different types of wizard spellbooks.
As a DM, I think my favorite portion of the book is the sidekick section, and I really like the idea of letting new and/or temporary players play sidekicks to give them a taste of D&D. With how simple sidekicks are, it feels like you can invite literally anyone into the middle of your D&D campaign, let them use the Warrior Sidekick, and they would still have a blast with your regular players. And with how flexible sidekicks are, you can literally take any monster and turn them into a sidekick. RAW, you can only choose a monster with half CR or less, but you can easily wave that restriction away as a DM and let your players experience playing as a dragon, vampire, or whatever monster within reason.
To be fair.. I think every edition has had classes which were unpopular and generally not played because of that. (Looking at you AD&D Illusionists!)
Funnily, the Illusionsit was very popular in my circle. It was also a template for all of the other Specialist Wizards.
I agree that it birthed the 2nd edition specialist wizards..
I just never knew anyone to run one till then myself. I had a gnome NPC Illusionist in my home campaign from ‘78 to ‘86.. but in all that time he was the only one that ever showed up at our table, It always seemed like a fun class.. Just no one seemed to want to play one when they could always be basic Magic Users.
To be fair.. I think every edition has had classes which were unpopular and generally not played because of that. (Looking at you AD&D Illusionists!)
Funnily, the Illusionsit was very popular in my circle. It was also a template for all of the other Specialist Wizards.
I agree that it birthed the 2nd edition specialist wizards..
I just never knew anyone to run one till then myself. I had a gnome NPC Illusionist in my home campaign from ‘78 to ‘86.. but in all that time he was the only one that ever showed up at our table, It always seemed like a fun class.. Just no one seemed to want to play one when they could always be basic Magic Users.
I was the only player who preferred the basic Mage over a specialist. They wanted the boosts, I wanted the versatility.
I don't recall us playing illusionists much, but I do recall the "shared wisdom" at the table was that high level illusionists were powerful AF. Never saw one be powerful in person though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The question was is it worth the $30, the answer is no since the content was and for the most part still is free. Free public playtest of print material is in effect a pandora's box. Trying push it back behind a paywall is going to create backlash.
I won't simp for WotC on this, the content is mostly reprinted from stuff I already own or freely available for download. The handful of changes to subclasses are almost entirely nerfs, and why would I pay to nerf myself or my players? Almost nothing in UA is actually OP unless the DM is lazy and certainly nothing that made it into this book.
That is like saying a cake shop should not let customers try samples, that the shop is being greedy for charging cakes that they once offered for free, and that the customer can always go to Costco or another cake shop that offers samples to get a free lunch. I do not think offering samples is a Pandora's Box, and I think the backlash for sampling is highly unjustified. I do not think that attitude of entitlement should be acceptable or normalized.
I don't recall us playing illusionists much, but I do recall the "shared wisdom" at the table was that high level illusionists were powerful AF. Never saw one be powerful in person though.
All of the specialists got powerful AF at higher levels. Most people never saw them though because most PCs died by 3rd, and Wizards more than that.
The question was is it worth the $30, the answer is no since the content was and for the most part still is free. Free public playtest of print material is in effect a pandora's box. Trying push it back behind a paywall is going to create backlash.
I won't simp for WotC on this, the content is mostly reprinted from stuff I already own or freely available for download. The handful of changes to subclasses are almost entirely nerfs, and why would I pay to nerf myself or my players? Almost nothing in UA is actually OP unless the DM is lazy and certainly nothing that made it into this book.
That is like saying a cake shop should not let customers try samples, that the shop is being greedy for charging cakes that they once offered for free, and that the customer can always go to Costco or another cake shop that offers samples to get a free lunch. I do not think offering samples is a Pandora's Box, and I think the backlash for sampling is highly unjustified. I do not think that attitude of entitlement should be acceptable or normalized.
Indeed... I must admit that I was sort of left with an empty feeling when looking at the subclasses because few of them felt new... But that is entirely my fault for taking part in test material in the first place...
You can't both get the exciting feeling of new subclass concepts when the UA is published and when the official version comes out.. it's one or the other.
I don't recall us playing illusionists much, but I do recall the "shared wisdom" at the table was that high level illusionists were powerful AF. Never saw one be powerful in person though.
I always thought it a bit funny that one of the highest levels spells an Illusionist could get was 1st level Magic User spells. But at the time, 4 extra spell "slots" was a huge boon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The question was is it worth the $30, the answer is no since the content was and for the most part still is free. Free public playtest of print material is in effect a pandora's box. Trying push it back behind a paywall is going to create backlash.
I won't simp for WotC on this, the content is mostly reprinted from stuff I already own or freely available for download. The handful of changes to subclasses are almost entirely nerfs, and why would I pay to nerf myself or my players? Almost nothing in UA is actually OP unless the DM is lazy and certainly nothing that made it into this book.
That is like saying a cake shop should not let customers try samples, that the shop is being greedy for charging cakes that they once offered for free, and that the customer can always go to Costco or another cake shop that offers samples to get a free lunch. I do not think offering samples is a Pandora's Box, and I think the backlash for sampling is highly unjustified. I do not think that attitude of entitlement should be acceptable or normalized.
Indeed... I must admit that I was sort of left with an empty feeling when looking at the subclasses because few of them felt new... But that is entirely my fault for taking part in test material in the first place...
You can't both get the exciting feeling of new subclass concepts when the UA is published and when the official version comes out.. it's one or the other.
I thought I was going to be more excited for the subclasses too since they did pique my interest when they released them for UA, but after I started reading it, I got a little bored since it was already stuff I have seen, so I mostly just skimmed that section. I think they are still neat though. If I did not read the UA, I think I would definitely be a lot more excited. Artificer Armorer for example just screams Iron Man to me, and I find that pretty awesome when I first read it.
I had the most enjoyment going through the magic items and sidekicks. Most of the magic items were new, and I really liked the ideas they presented about how to use sidekicks.
I really like the magic tattoos myself... They are essencially just magic items but the feel like they become part of your character which I really appreciate... Sadly my DM is kinda stingy when it comes to magic items :P So I doubt I'll ever see any of the cool new items anytime soon. I'm a lvl 8 wizard and the only magic item I have is a ring that allows me to talk to animals and cast fear with a terrible dc... Also never found a spell scroll xD.. Oh and we're super poor.. It's harsh living man.
You are right, they probably know what they are doing.. However as successful as 5e is, it also does suffer from some issues with some classes being unpopular, often due to their class features simply not being very appealing.
I am not assuming they did not make an effort. I am saying that they either did not make an effort, or that they made an effort and failed... Seeing how the feature misses the boat on what made the feature popular in the first place. Again.. they're perfectly free not to care about consumer opinion, but then I simply wouldnt ask for it in the first place.
I think you and I come from fundamentally different points of view when it comes to "Power gamers" and I think that colors the way we talk about these things.. So maybe that kind of conversation won't lead anywere constructive.
I expect most people playing the game won't bother to give feedback at all to be honest.
Where are you getting your data about consumer opinion, exactly? About what features are popular?
They have people who's job it is to study the thousands (maybe tens of thousands or more) of responses to UA content through the surveys they release after the content is made available. It seems like you are taking the voices of a relative handful of people from message boards (or maybe even just your own personal opinion of what you liked) and taking that as representative of the entire player base. It is not. A fraction of players even know boards like this exist, and an even smaller fraction post on them.
The simple fact that they have sold, and continue to sell lots and lots of books seems proof that they are giving most people what they want.
I really like the magic tattoos myself... They are essencially just magic items but the feel like they become part of your character which I really appreciate... Sadly my DM is kinda stingy when it comes to magic items :P So I doubt I'll ever see any of the cool new items anytime soon. I'm a lvl 8 wizard and the only magic item I have is a ring that allows me to talk to animals and cast fear with a terrible dc... Also never found a spell scroll xD.. Oh and we're super poor.. It's harsh living man.
You are right, they probably know what they are doing.. However as successful as 5e is, it also does suffer from some issues with some classes being unpopular, often due to their class features simply not being very appealing.
I am not assuming they did not make an effort. I am saying that they either did not make an effort, or that they made an effort and failed... Seeing how the feature misses the boat on what made the feature popular in the first place. Again.. they're perfectly free not to care about consumer opinion, but then I simply wouldnt ask for it in the first place.
I think you and I come from fundamentally different points of view when it comes to "Power gamers" and I think that colors the way we talk about these things.. So maybe that kind of conversation won't lead anywere constructive.
I expect most people playing the game won't bother to give feedback at all to be honest.
Where are you getting your data about consumer opinion, exactly? About what features are popular?
They have people who's job it is to study the thousands (maybe tens of thousands or more) of responses to UA content through the surveys they release after the content is made available. It seems like you are taking the voices of a relative handful of people from message boards (or maybe even just your own personal opinion of what you liked) and taking that as representative of the entire player base. It is not. A fraction of players even know boards like this exist, and an even smaller fraction post on them.
The simple fact that they have sold, and continue to sell lots and lots of books seems proof that they are giving most people what they want.
I'm not sure if you're asking with regards to the unpopularity of the ranger in general or the favored foe feature in particular. As for data, all the information I can go off of is the opinions I come across on different forums/podcasts/youtube channels.
For the ranger I'd say it's fairly evident that the class is not well liked, I think WoTC has aknowledged this by trying to make the revised ranger work, and then later adding this class variant features aswell as this overhaul to the beastmaster (which seemed to be one of the least liked sublcasses i the game untill now)
For the favored foe feature. I would think that the group of people bothering with discussing 5e online probably has a fair bit of overlap with the people bothering to take a UA survery, wouldn't you agree? So unless you have a good reason to think that the general feeling around this particular feature being expressed on the internet is considerably different than the majority taking the surveys, I don't see why you would take that position.
Their ability to make a fundamentally easily understandable and enjoyable version of DnD does not make them infallible. Nor does it mean that criticism against how they chose to balance individual features is not valid. Unless you are of the opinion that WoTC have yet to mess up with regards to certain features or subclasses, I don't know why you would think that couldn't be the case here.
I really like the magic tattoos myself... They are essencially just magic items but the feel like they become part of your character which I really appreciate... Sadly my DM is kinda stingy when it comes to magic items :P So I doubt I'll ever see any of the cool new items anytime soon. I'm a lvl 8 wizard and the only magic item I have is a ring that allows me to talk to animals and cast fear with a terrible dc... Also never found a spell scroll xD.. Oh and we're super poor.. It's harsh living man.
Sounds like your DM just doesn't like you lol
haha well, I doubt it's anything personal, the entire group is in a similar position. I think we may be spending too much time talking to people rather than looting dungeons... My biggest concern is that I won't ever be able to afford the materials required for the secret chest spell.. I don't find it very powerful but I just really like the idea of it.
I think Favored Foe was a direct response to UA criticism, they just "fixed" the issue in a way that causes more criticism. People didn't like that you got a concentration-free HM and they probably didn't like Rangers getting so many free spells in the first place (as you can see Primal Awareness got slashed pretty hard too).
Still I think the negative reaction to FF is overblown and I think it will die down a bit when people have played with it a while. It seems like no one acknowledges the extra bonus action it frees up, which can be significant for Rangers. I think it can be a great option for a type of Ranger but maybe isn't ideal for all Ranger builds. It's not what I would have done (I'd at least let you move it to a new target when yours dies like HM), but it doesn't put me off the whole class like the previous options did.
I too have seen immediate usefulness as a DM, as a player though I might suggest waiting for some of the features to be fully implemented unless you are aiming to play one of the new things added in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd personally be perfectly fine with them not making UA at all, and keeping everything in internal testing. However, when you as a company release test versions of features with the expressed goal of gauging how people react to them and see what their playerbase likes... I would expect them to actually make an effect to understand where that reaction is coming from.
The main bit people liked about the UA favored foe was that it was a feature which didn't compete with the ranger's otherwise concentration heavy suite of abilties... It wasn't necessarily about the raw power level, but rather it'd be a feature which could continue to be used throughout your experience as a ranger.
The published version completely takes that away, leaving us with what resembles a poor man's hunter's mark which probably won't see use beyond the first few levels.
Had they replaced the UA version with something weaker, but which could still be used to synergize with the rest of your ranger loadout, the reception would probably have been way better.
You are right, they probably know what they are doing.. However as successful as 5e is, it also does suffer from some issues with some classes being unpopular, often due to their class features simply not being very appealing.
I am not assuming they did not make an effort. I am saying that they either did not make an effort, or that they made an effort and failed... Seeing how the feature misses the boat on what made the feature popular in the first place. Again.. they're perfectly free not to care about consumer opinion, but then I simply wouldnt ask for it in the first place.
I think you and I come from fundamentally different points of view when it comes to "Power gamers" and I think that colors the way we talk about these things.. So maybe that kind of conversation won't lead anywere constructive.
I expect most people playing the game won't bother to give feedback at all to be honest.
To be fair.. I think every edition has had classes which were unpopular and generally not played because of that. (Looking at you AD&D Illusionists!)
Funnily, the Illusionsit was very popular in my circle. It was also a template for all of the other Specialist Wizards.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think it is worth it.
While a lot of Option Class Features are rather dull and underwhelming (swap cantrips, fighting style, and other options when you gain ASI), I think they lay a pretty important foundation mechanically to allow players to further customize their characters as they level up, and swapping out options allows them to better adjust to a campaign. In my opinion, I think Wizards got the best OCF since they can swap out a cantrip every time they do a long rest, which is pretty bonkers when compared to everyone else's OCF that deals with swapping options.
Since I have already seen the subclasses in UA, seeing the official version does not feel as exciting, but I think they are still neat.
For magic items, since I like to make wizard characters a lot, the most exciting thing for me are all the different types of wizard spellbooks.
As a DM, I think my favorite portion of the book is the sidekick section, and I really like the idea of letting new and/or temporary players play sidekicks to give them a taste of D&D. With how simple sidekicks are, it feels like you can invite literally anyone into the middle of your D&D campaign, let them use the Warrior Sidekick, and they would still have a blast with your regular players. And with how flexible sidekicks are, you can literally take any monster and turn them into a sidekick. RAW, you can only choose a monster with half CR or less, but you can easily wave that restriction away as a DM and let your players experience playing as a dragon, vampire, or whatever monster within reason.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I agree that it birthed the 2nd edition specialist wizards..
I just never knew anyone to run one till then myself. I had a gnome NPC Illusionist in my home campaign from ‘78 to ‘86.. but in all that time he was the only one that ever showed up at our table, It always seemed like a fun class.. Just no one seemed to want to play one when they could always be basic Magic Users.
I was the only player who preferred the basic Mage over a specialist. They wanted the boosts, I wanted the versatility.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't recall us playing illusionists much, but I do recall the "shared wisdom" at the table was that high level illusionists were powerful AF. Never saw one be powerful in person though.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That is like saying a cake shop should not let customers try samples, that the shop is being greedy for charging cakes that they once offered for free, and that the customer can always go to Costco or another cake shop that offers samples to get a free lunch. I do not think offering samples is a Pandora's Box, and I think the backlash for sampling is highly unjustified. I do not think that attitude of entitlement should be acceptable or normalized.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
All of the specialists got powerful AF at higher levels. Most people never saw them though because most PCs died by 3rd, and Wizards more than that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Indeed... I must admit that I was sort of left with an empty feeling when looking at the subclasses because few of them felt new... But that is entirely my fault for taking part in test material in the first place...
You can't both get the exciting feeling of new subclass concepts when the UA is published and when the official version comes out.. it's one or the other.
I always thought it a bit funny that one of the highest levels spells an Illusionist could get was 1st level Magic User spells. But at the time, 4 extra spell "slots" was a huge boon.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I thought I was going to be more excited for the subclasses too since they did pique my interest when they released them for UA, but after I started reading it, I got a little bored since it was already stuff I have seen, so I mostly just skimmed that section. I think they are still neat though. If I did not read the UA, I think I would definitely be a lot more excited. Artificer Armorer for example just screams Iron Man to me, and I find that pretty awesome when I first read it.
I had the most enjoyment going through the magic items and sidekicks. Most of the magic items were new, and I really liked the ideas they presented about how to use sidekicks.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I really like the magic tattoos myself... They are essencially just magic items but the feel like they become part of your character which I really appreciate... Sadly my DM is kinda stingy when it comes to magic items :P So I doubt I'll ever see any of the cool new items anytime soon. I'm a lvl 8 wizard and the only magic item I have is a ring that allows me to talk to animals and cast fear with a terrible dc... Also never found a spell scroll xD.. Oh and we're super poor.. It's harsh living man.
Where are you getting your data about consumer opinion, exactly? About what features are popular?
They have people who's job it is to study the thousands (maybe tens of thousands or more) of responses to UA content through the surveys they release after the content is made available. It seems like you are taking the voices of a relative handful of people from message boards (or maybe even just your own personal opinion of what you liked) and taking that as representative of the entire player base. It is not. A fraction of players even know boards like this exist, and an even smaller fraction post on them.
The simple fact that they have sold, and continue to sell lots and lots of books seems proof that they are giving most people what they want.
Sounds like your DM just doesn't like you lol
I'm not sure if you're asking with regards to the unpopularity of the ranger in general or the favored foe feature in particular. As for data, all the information I can go off of is the opinions I come across on different forums/podcasts/youtube channels.
For the ranger I'd say it's fairly evident that the class is not well liked, I think WoTC has aknowledged this by trying to make the revised ranger work, and then later adding this class variant features aswell as this overhaul to the beastmaster (which seemed to be one of the least liked sublcasses i the game untill now)
For the favored foe feature. I would think that the group of people bothering with discussing 5e online probably has a fair bit of overlap with the people bothering to take a UA survery, wouldn't you agree? So unless you have a good reason to think that the general feeling around this particular feature being expressed on the internet is considerably different than the majority taking the surveys, I don't see why you would take that position.
Their ability to make a fundamentally easily understandable and enjoyable version of DnD does not make them infallible. Nor does it mean that criticism against how they chose to balance individual features is not valid. Unless you are of the opinion that WoTC have yet to mess up with regards to certain features or subclasses, I don't know why you would think that couldn't be the case here.
haha well, I doubt it's anything personal, the entire group is in a similar position. I think we may be spending too much time talking to people rather than looting dungeons... My biggest concern is that I won't ever be able to afford the materials required for the secret chest spell.. I don't find it very powerful but I just really like the idea of it.
I think Favored Foe was a direct response to UA criticism, they just "fixed" the issue in a way that causes more criticism. People didn't like that you got a concentration-free HM and they probably didn't like Rangers getting so many free spells in the first place (as you can see Primal Awareness got slashed pretty hard too).
Still I think the negative reaction to FF is overblown and I think it will die down a bit when people have played with it a while. It seems like no one acknowledges the extra bonus action it frees up, which can be significant for Rangers. I think it can be a great option for a type of Ranger but maybe isn't ideal for all Ranger builds. It's not what I would have done (I'd at least let you move it to a new target when yours dies like HM), but it doesn't put me off the whole class like the previous options did.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I too have seen immediate usefulness as a DM, as a player though I might suggest waiting for some of the features to be fully implemented unless you are aiming to play one of the new things added in.