"This was for the character background UA (the first one) not the Expert classes. They only briefly touched on a few things as related to the 2nd UA due to object interaction or other glossary changes or other questions out there."
Thanks to ThriKeenWarroir for pointing this out. The rest is deleted. I still think the "Mother May I" and "things that may slow the game down" comments are going to be trouble in the future. We will see when the reaping begins through all the classes.
It appears to me they were deliberately vague on breaking down the Expert Classes ratings themselves. I hope they release a more detailed video or document with items like:
What was the percentage for eliminating the current version of UMD for the Thief Subclass?
What was the percentage for the elimination of the Use an Object?
Can you give us the statistical breakdown on each question?
Were there questions where Wizards does not care what the percentage is, and what are they?
There will be other such questions for other classes and subclasses but in my opinion if the UA stands as it is now, they can save ink and space and eliminate the entire Rogue class since no one would choose one over a Ranger as the UA stands now.
The only possible exception would be an Assassin which could be tucked up under Fighter.
I have serious reservations on 6th Edition now with the "Mother May I" and "things that may slow the game down" comments.
Dumbing the game down to the lowest base has killed more games than any other thing out there and I now see that coming from this interview.
This was for the character background UA (the first one) not the Expert classes. They only briefly touched on a few things as related to the 2nd UA due to object interaction or other glossary changes or other questions out there.
Even without Agonizing Blast it’s still the best combat cantrip in the game. Force damage alone puts it above even fire bolt, and the versatility and consistency from having multiple attacks with it blows any other cantrip away. Agonizing Blast and the other Invocations take the best combat cantrip out there and make it ridonculous.
To be fair, cantrips in general are kinda cruddy. A longbow blows every other cantrip away too. If you want to have a class that's mostly about cantrips, you need something on the scale of eldritch blast with agonizing blast.
That’s true, which is why I personally tend to choose combat cantrips for their riders, not their damage. I’ll generally choose stuff like ray of frost or chill touch over fire bolt.
I have serious reservations on 6th Edition now with the "Mother May I" and "things that may slow the game down" comments.
Dumbing the game down to the lowest base has killed more games than any other thing out there and I now see that coming from this interview.
I don't see dumbing the game down in either of those things. Rather, it seemed to be about getting rid of unclear mechanics. Thief cunning action is a perfect example: there's an incredibly large number of things that might be [Tooltip Not Found], or might instead be an improvised action or an action covered in some other part of the rules. Adjudicating answers in play is time consuming for the DM, and the power of the class feature is extremely dependent on what answers the DM gives.
Dumbing the game down to the lowest base has killed more games than any other thing out there and I now see that coming from this interview.
What games are you referring to here?
Because this version of D&D is the simplest it's ever been. It's also the most popular it's ever been. That doesn't mean that making it simpler is what made it popular, but it certainly means that making it simpler didn't kill it.
Because this version of D&D is the simplest it's ever been.
It's not simpler than Basic. As RPGs go it's pretty intermediate complexity. I wouldn't say it's completely clear why it's gained in popularity, but I doubt reducing barriers to entry hurt.
"This was for the character background UA (the first one) not the Expert classes. They only briefly touched on a few things as related to the 2nd UA due to object interaction or other glossary changes or other questions out there."
Thanks to ThriKeenWarroir for pointing this out. The rest is deleted. I still think the "Mother May I" and "things that may slow the game down" comments are going to be trouble in the future. We will see when the reaping begins through all the classes.
Honestly, I thought they were good. In the end, DMs still have 1000% latitude in allowing what they want but having hardcoded rulings on things is never a bad thing.
On the video? Thought it was solid. Sucks for this website that the only time now we hear about stuff is when videos like this drop now, specifically since Dragon+ was discontinued.
Also, it almost sounds that outside of the 1st level feat as part of your background, feats may still be optional. Or at least the feats beyond the ASI feat (raise an ability score by 2 or two ability scores by 1) may be optional-from the beginning of the video
And the Dragonborn get a new ability at level 5 which we should find out about today when the next UA drops.
They're still tinkering with everything. I wouldn't cut anything in stone period until we get a DMG/PHB in 2024.
As of right now, in playtest you get a feat every current ASI level and that can be used as conventional feat or the ASI feat but that could change in the next playtest document like you said. Considering where they went though with every feat being a half asi plus benefits? I think this is the new way.
With Cleric out, I wonder if this is the kind of thing warlock (and other full caster classes?) will have in place of Eldritch Blast:
Divine Spark. As a Magic Action, you point your Holy Symbol at another creature you can see within 30 feet of yourself and focus divine energy at them. Roll a number of d8s equal to your Proficiency Bonus and add the rolls together. You either restore Hit Points to the creature equal to that total or force the creature to make a Constitution Saving Throw. On a failed save, the creature takes Radiant Damage equal to the total, and on a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage (rounded down)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They're still tinkering with everything. I wouldn't cut anything in stone period until we get a DMG/PHB in 2024.
As of right now, in playtest you get a feat every current ASI level and that can be used as conventional feat or the ASI feat but that could change in the next playtest document like you said. Considering where they went though with every feat being a half asi plus benefits? I think this is the new way.
I get what you're saying. It just seemed odd, if this was the path going forward, that JC would say something along the lines if you don't want to mess with feats down the road, but they wanted to give you a taste at 1st level. If Feats are a done deal, why say anything about interacting with feats at later levels.
But you are correct, it is playtest and anything and everything can change.
I am hoping they do something like this. I have reskinned Eldritch Blast in my campaigns to do the damage type most favorable to your patron, as a way of giving it more zest and meaning. Spamming blasts of force damage has become such a bland component to the game, but from a mechanical perspective, its hard not to abuse as a player. Fingers crossed that they tinker with it and make it better.
It's be a real seesaw for me on these new playtest rules. Some of the spell variations I like, such as Reaction for Guidance, for example. I also like the breakdown of Primal, Arcane, and Divine power. But other things have been downright egregious - like players being the only characters able to score a crit (absolutely laughable rule).
Found the Cleric revamp to be interesting though. Curious about what others thought.
I am hoping they do something like this. I have reskinned Eldritch Blast in my campaigns to do the damage type most favorable to your patron, as a way of giving it more zest and meaning. Spamming blasts of force damage has become such a bland component to the game, but from a mechanical perspective, its hard not to abuse as a player. Fingers crossed that they tinker with it and make it better.
It's be a real seesaw for me on these new playtest rules. Some of the spell variations I like, such as Reaction for Guidance, for example. I also like the breakdown of Primal, Arcane, and Divine power. But other things have been downright egregious - like players being the only characters able to score a crit (absolutely laughable rule).
Found the Cleric revamp to be interesting though. Curious about what others thought.
I like the basis of that idea with EB but the issue I could see is that damage types aren't made equal, and by forcing the Eldritch Blast to do a specific damage type related to your Patron can severely cripple the cantrip depending on its type. Fire for example being one of the most commonly resisted and immune damage types, whereas Force is immune by Helmed Horrors and almost nothing else so is at least useful 99% percent of the time.
In my games I usually give an optional damage type they can change it to per casting depending on their Patron, so they can have the flavor without the cantrip being rendered less effective more often
Dumbing the game down to the lowest base has killed more games than any other thing out there and I now see that coming from this interview.
What games are you referring to here?
Because this version of D&D is the simplest it's ever been. It's also the most popular it's ever been. That doesn't mean that making it simpler is what made it popular, but it certainly means that making it simpler didn't kill it.
Some of the changes are not making the game more straightforward or simple. If you know your players, then rules like item manipulation in cunning hands are not a problem.
I've been gaming for around 45 years and have seen gamers, designers, and organized play leaders go through many editions of rules. Most of the time, they focus on a few things vocal opponents complain about. In One D&D an excellent example is attempting to control the use of Guidance. When someone complained to me that it made DM harder, I replied, "do you expect players to continue to use it? Then build your adventure to take this into account."
I have watched designers "nerf" rules, ignore rules that actually broke the system, and added new complications or game-breaking rules. I have seen entire organized playgroups, like adventurer's league, crumble when they went in to "control what was broken," usually because it was not broken.
The designers are doing a great job of engaging the community and listening to the feedback, something which does not always happen. I have done enough playtests where the feedback was ignored because a designer's pet rule had to be in the next edition, and I have seen GMs and players ignore those rules when the next edition came out.
But when it comes down to it, when I sit down to plan out a campaign, I am going to pick and choose the rules that fit the campaign world. During our session zero, I will talk with the players about the rules and see if they have particular rule variations they like. That has always been the most remarkable thing about D&D; you could quickly adapt the rules to the game you were playing.
For me, One D&D is a sandbox that might provide valuable tools for my next campaign, not rules carved into stone.
40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
But doesn't this assume the sample being chosen by random, which the voluntary survey is far from?
40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
But doesn't this assume the sample being chosen by random, which the voluntary survey is far from?
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes. So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC. As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community.
While that is correct, there is no practical or feasible way around this (not considering opening it up to 6% instead of 4% as a meaningful answer). The alternative is to ignore the community altogether. I'm not altogether convinced that this would be a bad move, though. Listening to the results of the surveys, I was very concerned. I'm not a 1D&D hater and I like a lot of what they're doing, but that everything got quite positive results (even the worst was "patch it up a bit and it'll be great!") deeply concerns me. Not all of it was great and will make the game worse. I'm not doomsaying just because they experimenting with it in a Playtest...but that people were generally positive the entirety of it worries me that people are going "Wow! Look! New! Shiny! Must be awesome!"
This is the same concern I had with Spelljammer, except now they're actively encouraging the Devs to incorporate bad ideas into the game, rather than giving permission. This isn't a case of "Linklite thinks this aspect is bad, and if everyone disagrees with him, they're all wrong", but really, there was nothing in the playtests that came back as "Yeah, no. Don't include this"? I'm worried that rather than really assessing ideas using their own expertise and experience to assess what makes for a good game, they're just going to toss it out for the crowds to judge, and run with the uncritical approval. Gamers are notoriously poor judges of what makes for a good game. They have really cool ideas, but it takes much more than that to create a good game, and often that means ignoring cool ideas and having uncool ones.
As for the video and discussions themselves, clearly, there is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of "making things easier for the DM". 48 Sub-Classes is not easier & more customization rules does not make the game easier. Given that they are altering every class & race, their staunch insistence on compatibility is questionable... what does it mean, that we get 48 new sub-classes but all the old sub-classes are also still valid? How many does that make? You can make a complex game simpler by having clear and well-structured rules, but clarity comes with word count (see PF2 if you don't believe that) and this does not make the game simpler, it just makes a complex game more clear.. less rules, less options.. that is simpler.
The only solution is to wipe the slate clean, get rid of 5e and have no stated compatibility. I'd be opposed to that. Still, old subclasses aren't really compatible with new classes and vice versa. Having 48 subclasses for 1D&D classes is still much simpler than the well-over-100 that we have now. If in 2024 I run a game for beginners and want to keep things simple, the obvious move would be "1D&D options only".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"This was for the character background UA (the first one) not the Expert classes. They only briefly touched on a few things as related to the 2nd UA due to object interaction or other glossary changes or other questions out there."
Thanks to ThriKeenWarroir for pointing this out. The rest is deleted. I still think the "Mother May I" and "things that may slow the game down" comments are going to be trouble in the future. We will see when the reaping begins through all the classes.
This was for the character background UA (the first one) not the Expert classes. They only briefly touched on a few things as related to the 2nd UA due to object interaction or other glossary changes or other questions out there.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That’s true, which is why I personally tend to choose combat cantrips for their riders, not their damage. I’ll generally choose stuff like ray of frost or chill touch over fire bolt.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
AGGHHH You could be right...
I don't see dumbing the game down in either of those things. Rather, it seemed to be about getting rid of unclear mechanics. Thief cunning action is a perfect example: there's an incredibly large number of things that might be [Tooltip Not Found], or might instead be an improvised action or an action covered in some other part of the rules. Adjudicating answers in play is time consuming for the DM, and the power of the class feature is extremely dependent on what answers the DM gives.
What games are you referring to here?
Because this version of D&D is the simplest it's ever been. It's also the most popular it's ever been. That doesn't mean that making it simpler is what made it popular, but it certainly means that making it simpler didn't kill it.
It's not simpler than Basic. As RPGs go it's pretty intermediate complexity. I wouldn't say it's completely clear why it's gained in popularity, but I doubt reducing barriers to entry hurt.
Honestly, I thought they were good. In the end, DMs still have 1000% latitude in allowing what they want but having hardcoded rulings on things is never a bad thing.
On the video? Thought it was solid. Sucks for this website that the only time now we hear about stuff is when videos like this drop now, specifically since Dragon+ was discontinued.
Also, it almost sounds that outside of the 1st level feat as part of your background, feats may still be optional. Or at least the feats beyond the ASI feat (raise an ability score by 2 or two ability scores by 1) may be optional-from the beginning of the video
And the Dragonborn get a new ability at level 5 which we should find out about today when the next UA drops.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
They're still tinkering with everything. I wouldn't cut anything in stone period until we get a DMG/PHB in 2024.
As of right now, in playtest you get a feat every current ASI level and that can be used as conventional feat or the ASI feat but that could change in the next playtest document like you said. Considering where they went though with every feat being a half asi plus benefits? I think this is the new way.
With Cleric out, I wonder if this is the kind of thing warlock (and other full caster classes?) will have in place of Eldritch Blast:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I get what you're saying. It just seemed odd, if this was the path going forward, that JC would say something along the lines if you don't want to mess with feats down the road, but they wanted to give you a taste at 1st level. If Feats are a done deal, why say anything about interacting with feats at later levels.
But you are correct, it is playtest and anything and everything can change.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I am hoping they do something like this. I have reskinned Eldritch Blast in my campaigns to do the damage type most favorable to your patron, as a way of giving it more zest and meaning. Spamming blasts of force damage has become such a bland component to the game, but from a mechanical perspective, its hard not to abuse as a player. Fingers crossed that they tinker with it and make it better.
It's be a real seesaw for me on these new playtest rules. Some of the spell variations I like, such as Reaction for Guidance, for example. I also like the breakdown of Primal, Arcane, and Divine power. But other things have been downright egregious - like players being the only characters able to score a crit (absolutely laughable rule).
Found the Cleric revamp to be interesting though. Curious about what others thought.
"Shenanigans" that include taking Magic Initiate? Or 1-2 levels multiclass into Warlock?
#OpenDnD
I like the basis of that idea with EB but the issue I could see is that damage types aren't made equal, and by forcing the Eldritch Blast to do a specific damage type related to your Patron can severely cripple the cantrip depending on its type. Fire for example being one of the most commonly resisted and immune damage types, whereas Force is immune by Helmed Horrors and almost nothing else so is at least useful 99% percent of the time.
In my games I usually give an optional damage type they can change it to per casting depending on their Patron, so they can have the flavor without the cantrip being rendered less effective more often
#OpenDnD
Some of the changes are not making the game more straightforward or simple. If you know your players, then rules like item manipulation in cunning hands are not a problem.
I've been gaming for around 45 years and have seen gamers, designers, and organized play leaders go through many editions of rules. Most of the time, they focus on a few things vocal opponents complain about. In One D&D an excellent example is attempting to control the use of Guidance. When someone complained to me that it made DM harder, I replied, "do you expect players to continue to use it? Then build your adventure to take this into account."
I have watched designers "nerf" rules, ignore rules that actually broke the system, and added new complications or game-breaking rules. I have seen entire organized playgroups, like adventurer's league, crumble when they went in to "control what was broken," usually because it was not broken.
The designers are doing a great job of engaging the community and listening to the feedback, something which does not always happen. I have done enough playtests where the feedback was ignored because a designer's pet rule had to be in the next edition, and I have seen GMs and players ignore those rules when the next edition came out.
But when it comes down to it, when I sit down to plan out a campaign, I am going to pick and choose the rules that fit the campaign world. During our session zero, I will talk with the players about the rules and see if they have particular rule variations they like. That has always been the most remarkable thing about D&D; you could quickly adapt the rules to the game you were playing.
For me, One D&D is a sandbox that might provide valuable tools for my next campaign, not rules carved into stone.
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
But doesn't this assume the sample being chosen by random, which the voluntary survey is far from?
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes.
So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC.
As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
While that is correct, there is no practical or feasible way around this (not considering opening it up to 6% instead of 4% as a meaningful answer). The alternative is to ignore the community altogether. I'm not altogether convinced that this would be a bad move, though. Listening to the results of the surveys, I was very concerned. I'm not a 1D&D hater and I like a lot of what they're doing, but that everything got quite positive results (even the worst was "patch it up a bit and it'll be great!") deeply concerns me. Not all of it was great and will make the game worse. I'm not doomsaying just because they experimenting with it in a Playtest...but that people were generally positive the entirety of it worries me that people are going "Wow! Look! New! Shiny! Must be awesome!"
This is the same concern I had with Spelljammer, except now they're actively encouraging the Devs to incorporate bad ideas into the game, rather than giving permission. This isn't a case of "Linklite thinks this aspect is bad, and if everyone disagrees with him, they're all wrong", but really, there was nothing in the playtests that came back as "Yeah, no. Don't include this"? I'm worried that rather than really assessing ideas using their own expertise and experience to assess what makes for a good game, they're just going to toss it out for the crowds to judge, and run with the uncritical approval. Gamers are notoriously poor judges of what makes for a good game. They have really cool ideas, but it takes much more than that to create a good game, and often that means ignoring cool ideas and having uncool ones.
The only solution is to wipe the slate clean, get rid of 5e and have no stated compatibility. I'd be opposed to that. Still, old subclasses aren't really compatible with new classes and vice versa. Having 48 subclasses for 1D&D classes is still much simpler than the well-over-100 that we have now. If in 2024 I run a game for beginners and want to keep things simple, the obvious move would be "1D&D options only".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.