I'm not sure if i'm the only one, but seeing how much the content creators show and tell about 5.24, but us not being able to actually have the books for ourselves for another month is slowly becoming a real drag.
Great that content creators can push out a new video each day. But i don't have the rules for myself to see and use. It is all such a big tease. And it will go on for another month?
This is just torture at this point. I would have preferred if the content creators would not have gotten the books that early. Sure one or two weeks early or so, fine. but not far over a month!
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
We've rarely had public play tests for the dmg or mm. This type of doomposting is silly.
We've rarely had public play tests for the dmg or mm. This type of doomposting is silly.
Where in my post was I prophesizing doom? 🤨
Why is it silly to worry about the balance of monsters given the mess they made with CR in 2014? Why is it silly to consider that the monster stat block could be improved by public comment? Why is it silly to think that rules for traps, magic items, exploration encounters, etc. could benefit from public playtesting?
Also yes, we've rarely had such playtests. Doesn't mean they should be rare.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
isn't Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse basically the MM playtest?
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
Sure, absolutely. But I'd find it hard to believe that playtesting would make it substantially worse. The real question to ask is whether the playtesting pre-2014 improved the ultimate product. We can't say for sure, but the 2014 5e has been the most popular edition by a mile.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
isn't Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse basically the MM playtest?
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
What do you mean that it doesn't find traps?
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.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
isn't Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse basically the MM playtest?
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
What do you mean that it doesn't find traps?
I believe it's referring to this verbiage at the end:
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
It's a huge risk. The DMG not so much, the DMG is always just filled with mostly nonsense you don't need and a bunch of optional rules that weren't tested and that is what I would expect from this DMG as well and it won't matter at all. The monster manual however will make or break this game. If they do a good job with the monster design and ensure that combat encounters are fun, the game will do really well I think. If we get another flat and uninspired monster manual and combat is as boring as it is in the current edition, I don't think this version of D&D is going to survive very well against the sea of alternative D&D's coming out this year. We might end up with another 4e situation where the game just lands flat and they are going to have to re-invent the wheel again.
"the DMG is always just filled with mostly nonsense you don't need"
Wow, the level of how much I disagree with this literally made me gasp out loud. 90% of the table issues people post about would have been solved had they read the DMG.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
isn't Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse basically the MM playtest?
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
What do you mean that it doesn't find traps?
I believe it's referring to this verbiage at the end:
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
Correct. The better name for the spell would have been detect traps or sense traps and even that’s a stretch.
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
It's a huge risk. The DMG not so much, the DMG is always just filled with mostly nonsense you don't need and a bunch of optional rules that weren't tested and that is what I would expect from this DMG as well and it won't matter at all. The monster manual however will make or break this game. If they do a good job with the monster design and ensure that combat encounters are fun, the game will do really well I think. If we get another flat and uninspired monster manual and combat is as boring as it is in the current edition, I don't think this version of D&D is going to survive very well against the sea of alternative D&D's coming out this year. We might end up with another 4e situation where the game just lands flat and they are going to have to re-invent the wheel again.
Agreed, we will not know how the new core books are going to work until all 3 of them are out in the wild, the new PHB is likely to cause more issues than it solves for most tables until the rest of the trilogy is in hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm just not watching content until I can read it for myself. I was glad for the timing of the Olympics, and it cured a lot of my Video watching habits. After that was over, I figured I would create a new character in Baldur's Gate 3 and I think I'll be just fine till the book releases! What a great year to be alive!
I don’t know why they would release playtests for the DMG or MM.
I don’t think Chris Perkins is terribly interested in hearing how John and Jane internet think you should build a world or run a table. He knows how, and has consulted with many other skilled and experienced DMs for other ideas and input.
And as far as the MM, what feedback would people give? During the PHB (and bastion) playtest, they were looking to find out if people thought their ideas would be fun to play. They weren’t looking for white room dpr calculations from the cheap seats. They weren’t asking if we thought a subclass was “balanced” they wanted to know if it was fun to play. That doesn’t apply to the MM. Only 1 person at the table will “play” the things in the MM, and even then, for only 3-5 rounds. Hearing what players (who will never actually run the monsters) think will be just a lot of noise.
As for the OP’s comments about the wait, I feel your pain; I want it in hand right now. But I’ve developed patience over the years. Just don’t think about it and stop watching the videos. A few weeks will go by quicker than you think.
I don’t know why they would release playtests for the DMG or MM.
For the same reasons they would do it for the PHB: it lets you evaluate how people like the rule, and more eyes can result in glitches being found. For example, "do the encounter building rules work?".
I don’t know why they would release playtests for the DMG or MM.
For the same reasons they would do it for the PHB: it lets you evaluate how people like the rule, and more eyes can result in glitches being found.
Neither of those books have "rules." The rules that matter are in the PHB. The DMG may have some optional rules (or probably will, anyway), but most people don't even realize the options exist. Maybe that will change this time around. But in general, the DMG, from what they've said in videos snippets here and there, seems to focus more on world building, running a campaign, and running a table. These are not places where there are glitches to catch. There may be differences of opinion, but that's not the same thing.
The MM has monster stat blocks. Very few of us out here have anything reasonable to say about creature design. (Again, they aren't looking for our dpr calculations and then saying this ogre variant should actually be a CR 5, not a CR4 based on their own personal math.) In neither the DMG or the MM would it be up to the playtesters to find glitches.
Folks who think they found mistakes in the PHB playtests that caused WotC to go a different direction don't understand what an A/B test is. We weren't proofreading their design choices. They didn't want to know if we'd phrase something differently, or if we could find a loophole. They just wanted to know if 70 percent of us liked an option or not. These are not standards that apply to DM advice or monster design.
Neither of those books have "rules." The rules that matter are in the PHB.
The DMG absolutely has rules. Looking at the current DMG, large parts of chapters 3, 5, 8, and 9 are rules. Most of them aren't particular pain points (a large focus of D&D 2024 is fixing pain points), so not that high a priority other than making sure people understand what they say, but the obvious priorities to fix (and thus to playtest) are encounter building and monster design/customization (which could be moved to the MM).
We've rarely had public play tests for the dmg or mm. This type of doomposting is silly.
Where in my post was I prophesizing doom? 🤨
Why is it silly to worry about the balance of monsters given the mess they made with CR in 2014? Why is it silly to consider that the monster stat block could be improved by public comment? Why is it silly to think that rules for traps, magic items, exploration encounters, etc. could benefit from public playtesting?
Also yes, we've rarely had such playtests. Doesn't mean they should be rare.
Sure, I'd love more playtests. Totally agree. That said, it's hard to really playtest monster details. Player details/class details is easy because both players and DMs can speak to it. Getting feedback on monsters is hard because ideally you don't want players knowing what the monster stats are. It's also hard to balance monsters on feedback because every table is different and at best 1/3rd of the D&D community doesn't choose monsters, and the value is probably less. A table with a heavy bend on martials might deal with lower level monsters with breath weapons very poorly versus a table that blends casters and martials who tend to spread out. The perception could be that it's strong to one table and weak to another, but that isn't the intent of CR.
I'd also vehemently disagree with CR being a mess in 2014. It's a recommendation based on parties who are the "average" and that's where the issue creeps up in an argument. "Oh my party absolutely wiped the floor with strahd, but we were swimming in rare/very rare items" - Well, no duh, because the encounter wasn't balanced around that. Is that a monster issue or a table issue, because to me that's a table issue and by extension a DM issue. "My table wiped the floor with the 50 goblins because we used spike growth and ran them through a cheese grater, goblins weak af" - No, that was just smart battlefield tactics and your DM roleplaying goblins are being somewhat mindless. "Well, X D&D Youtuber hates CR" - Yep, and they are the 1% of the D&D audience. They aren't anything representative of your average table.
I'm not sure if i'm the only one, but seeing how much the content creators show and tell about 5.24, but us not being able to actually have the books for ourselves for another month is slowly becoming a real drag.
Great that content creators can push out a new video each day. But i don't have the rules for myself to see and use. It is all such a big tease. And it will go on for another month?
This is just torture at this point. I would have preferred if the content creators would not have gotten the books that early. Sure one or two weeks early or so, fine. but not far over a month!
You know, it's funny that I feel basically the opposite. We're so saturated with information about the PHB that one could piece together the whole thing just by watching youtube videos. What's bothering me is that they've only got a few months left before the DMG and MM are released, but we've had almost no news about them. We've had zero public playtest material for the MM, and just one experimental segment of the DMG. Of course, it's far too late to push out UA articles for them now. That's a big risk, in my book.
We've rarely had public play tests for the dmg or mm. This type of doomposting is silly.
Where in my post was I prophesizing doom? 🤨
Why is it silly to worry about the balance of monsters given the mess they made with CR in 2014? Why is it silly to consider that the monster stat block could be improved by public comment? Why is it silly to think that rules for traps, magic items, exploration encounters, etc. could benefit from public playtesting?
Also yes, we've rarely had such playtests. Doesn't mean they should be rare.
isn't Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse basically the MM playtest?
Edit: also, we had playtest and survey feedback on the 2014 PHB and yet the Find Traps spell still finds no traps! Playtesting doesn't ensure low risk or better product.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Folks... I'm not trying to start an argument here.
It's possible, but weren't MMM monsters still balanced around players operating under the 2014 rules?
Sure, absolutely. But I'd find it hard to believe that playtesting would make it substantially worse. The real question to ask is whether the playtesting pre-2014 improved the ultimate product. We can't say for sure, but the 2014 5e has been the most popular edition by a mile.
What do you mean that it doesn't find traps?
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.
I believe it's referring to this verbiage at the end:
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
It's a huge risk. The DMG not so much, the DMG is always just filled with mostly nonsense you don't need and a bunch of optional rules that weren't tested and that is what I would expect from this DMG as well and it won't matter at all. The monster manual however will make or break this game. If they do a good job with the monster design and ensure that combat encounters are fun, the game will do really well I think. If we get another flat and uninspired monster manual and combat is as boring as it is in the current edition, I don't think this version of D&D is going to survive very well against the sea of alternative D&D's coming out this year. We might end up with another 4e situation where the game just lands flat and they are going to have to re-invent the wheel again.
"the DMG is always just filled with mostly nonsense you don't need"
Wow, the level of how much I disagree with this literally made me gasp out loud. 90% of the table issues people post about would have been solved had they read the DMG.
Correct. The better name for the spell would have been detect traps or sense traps and even that’s a stretch.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Agreed, we will not know how the new core books are going to work until all 3 of them are out in the wild, the new PHB is likely to cause more issues than it solves for most tables until the rest of the trilogy is in hand.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm just not watching content until I can read it for myself. I was glad for the timing of the Olympics, and it cured a lot of my Video watching habits. After that was over, I figured I would create a new character in Baldur's Gate 3 and I think I'll be just fine till the book releases! What a great year to be alive!
I don’t know why they would release playtests for the DMG or MM.
I don’t think Chris Perkins is terribly interested in hearing how John and Jane internet think you should build a world or run a table. He knows how, and has consulted with many other skilled and experienced DMs for other ideas and input.
And as far as the MM, what feedback would people give? During the PHB (and bastion) playtest, they were looking to find out if people thought their ideas would be fun to play. They weren’t looking for white room dpr calculations from the cheap seats. They weren’t asking if we thought a subclass was “balanced” they wanted to know if it was fun to play. That doesn’t apply to the MM. Only 1 person at the table will “play” the things in the MM, and even then, for only 3-5 rounds. Hearing what players (who will never actually run the monsters) think will be just a lot of noise.
As for the OP’s comments about the wait, I feel your pain; I want it in hand right now. But I’ve developed patience over the years. Just don’t think about it and stop watching the videos. A few weeks will go by quicker than you think.
For the same reasons they would do it for the PHB: it lets you evaluate how people like the rule, and more eyes can result in glitches being found. For example, "do the encounter building rules work?".
Neither of those books have "rules." The rules that matter are in the PHB. The DMG may have some optional rules (or probably will, anyway), but most people don't even realize the options exist. Maybe that will change this time around. But in general, the DMG, from what they've said in videos snippets here and there, seems to focus more on world building, running a campaign, and running a table. These are not places where there are glitches to catch. There may be differences of opinion, but that's not the same thing.
The MM has monster stat blocks. Very few of us out here have anything reasonable to say about creature design. (Again, they aren't looking for our dpr calculations and then saying this ogre variant should actually be a CR 5, not a CR4 based on their own personal math.) In neither the DMG or the MM would it be up to the playtesters to find glitches.
Folks who think they found mistakes in the PHB playtests that caused WotC to go a different direction don't understand what an A/B test is. We weren't proofreading their design choices. They didn't want to know if we'd phrase something differently, or if we could find a loophole. They just wanted to know if 70 percent of us liked an option or not. These are not standards that apply to DM advice or monster design.
The DMG absolutely has rules. Looking at the current DMG, large parts of chapters 3, 5, 8, and 9 are rules. Most of them aren't particular pain points (a large focus of D&D 2024 is fixing pain points), so not that high a priority other than making sure people understand what they say, but the obvious priorities to fix (and thus to playtest) are encounter building and monster design/customization (which could be moved to the MM).
Sure, I'd love more playtests. Totally agree. That said, it's hard to really playtest monster details. Player details/class details is easy because both players and DMs can speak to it. Getting feedback on monsters is hard because ideally you don't want players knowing what the monster stats are. It's also hard to balance monsters on feedback because every table is different and at best 1/3rd of the D&D community doesn't choose monsters, and the value is probably less. A table with a heavy bend on martials might deal with lower level monsters with breath weapons very poorly versus a table that blends casters and martials who tend to spread out. The perception could be that it's strong to one table and weak to another, but that isn't the intent of CR.
I'd also vehemently disagree with CR being a mess in 2014. It's a recommendation based on parties who are the "average" and that's where the issue creeps up in an argument. "Oh my party absolutely wiped the floor with strahd, but we were swimming in rare/very rare items" - Well, no duh, because the encounter wasn't balanced around that. Is that a monster issue or a table issue, because to me that's a table issue and by extension a DM issue. "My table wiped the floor with the 50 goblins because we used spike growth and ran them through a cheese grater, goblins weak af" - No, that was just smart battlefield tactics and your DM roleplaying goblins are being somewhat mindless. "Well, X D&D Youtuber hates CR" - Yep, and they are the 1% of the D&D audience. They aren't anything representative of your average table.