Theoretically the 27th; these things drop on Tuesdays when they're ready, for whichever reason, and the survey says it's open until the 26th now. But they set us up and meme'd us that way once before, so who knows if they're even going to keep doing 1DD after the tsunami of grognard vomit they had to wade through after the Origins playtest.
I'm assuming it'll drop later today or maybe next week. Though they did say they were shooting to release one per month, so I could see them releasing it before the end of the week (if not today) rather than waiting for next Tuesday.
I would hope for a week advance notice to drum up hype and allow for the info to spread to a wider audience.
Also a lot of things can happen to shift timelines in game design so often they are very fluid.
Some of the ideas in the PT doc were changes to the base game and may require changes to classes if they decided to not do the changes in PT doc 1 then they may have to do significant changes to PT doc 2.
I have also seen issues with a rule at the beginning being so tightly wound into the game and it is not an issue until a rule at the end and the game does not work well without either rule or both rules are critically important to the game core idea but the do not work together at all because of the number range they are using.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
A lot of wild assumptions based on nothing, don't you think? You've gone out of your way to chastise people for suggesting that class-specific spell lists were going away as "baseless fearmongering," so maybe we should all show similar restraint with our prognostications.
IMHO, hype either good or bad can be problematic in internet polls/questionnaire's...but at the same time if you look at the PF II playtest quite a few people had problems with the rules and when it was ignored and published they stopped buying the game and or as much of the game to adapt to other systems.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
A lot of wild assumptions based on nothing, don't you think? You've gone out of your way to chastise people for suggesting that class-specific spell lists were going away as "baseless fearmongering," so maybe we should all show similar restraint with our prognostications.
Well I don't know for sure if they got loaded with negative comments, but they might have. But I myself had zero issues with what was there
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
A lot of wild assumptions based on nothing, don't you think? You've gone out of your way to chastise people for suggesting that class-specific spell lists were going away as "baseless fearmongering," so maybe we should all show similar restraint with our prognostications.
I mean, it is baseless fearmongering. No one has indicated that class-specific spell lists are going anywhere. The new "universal" spell lists are just catch-all umbrella features like the term "D20 tests." It cuts down on word count, saves print space, and streamlines a lot of stuff without fundamentally changing how anything works.
For the record, I pretty much think that changing class spell lists into power source lists is what's exactly what they're saying in the origin rules - if you wanted to cut down on word usage for a single feat, all you had to do was say, "pick any spell list from any class." Far less words. If you wanted it for feats only, the character origins UA wouldn't say "classes use these spell lists." Traditionally, how do classes use spell lists? By picking spells from them. Pathfinder 2 did Divine, Primal, Occult and Arcane spell lists to great success, and taking/adapting successful things from rivals is good practice. This also helps cut down on the class biases so often displayed in products.
Its not baseless. There's some extrapolation involved and a good chance of being mistaken, but its definitely a logical thing.
I mean, why shouldn't they test out how people react to power source lists instead of class lists? Its a playtest for goodness sake.
Both the document and the Crawford interview say future UAs will show how classes interact with those spell lists, and Crawford says they'll all do so differently. Bards and Wizards aren't just going to both have the same list now. It's been made pretty clear that whether the nomenclature around class-specific spell lists continues to exist or not, classes will have their own unique collections of spells.
And for the record, the UA does not say "classes use these spell lists." Under each spell list's definition in the Rules Glossary, it says "[x] and [y] classes harness this magic," for example, under Primal Spells, it says "Druids and Rangers harness this magic." It does not say "Both Druids and Rangers have access to and utilize every spell on this list." Finicky as it can be, 5e rules language is very specific. These lists are not "replacing" anything. That's wildly unbalanced, bad for the game, and defeats WotC's stated goals of backwards-compatibility.
It's fearmongering, plain and simple. It's only got a basis if you read the document cursorily without any understanding of how rules language works. Skimming the UA or watching a YouTube video or reading Reddit comments on it may give you the idea it's not baseless, but a careful read makes it clear that it is.
[...] defeats WotC's stated goals of backwards-compatibility. [...]
I think the whole backward compatibility is more targeted at adventures and not so much class options. + you might be able to play a 5e wizard together with a 5.5/6e wizard under the same rules engine in the same adventures.
I haven't followed everything and have some strong feelings/problems with some directions the new edition is going. But I haven't noticed any real outcry, just civil discussions and people pointing out what they like and what not. granted some misunderstandings and such happen but where was the "surge of terrible reactions" ? labeling valid complaints, which Wizard asked for and for which the whole playtest is even meant, as "terrible reactions, managing to sour Wizards on the entire project" and bad-mouthing the player base. seems more hurtful than anything else.
then again, I might have missed some really bad comments (like I don't frequent Twitter) but still, that's hardly the Player Base.
And look at the UA again. Under Spell Lists section near the end. Direct Quote: "In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we'll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list." Emphasis mine. The bolded part very clearly say that classes use the lists. There is no argument possible to the contrary. I also put "might" in italics, because it indicates that everything after that word is only a possibility, not guaranteed. So... yeah. "Classes use these lists" is definitely in the pdf. That's a pretty strong basis.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
A lot of wild assumptions based on nothing, don't you think? You've gone out of your way to chastise people for suggesting that class-specific spell lists were going away as "baseless fearmongering," so maybe we should all show similar restraint with our prognostications.
Yes, the word "clearly" doing A LOT of heavy lifting there. LOL! Especially since less than a day later we ARE getting a new playtest document. So clearly Wizards is not soured on the entire project.
Do we have any idea when the next set of playtest-ready rules will be coming out? Do we know what they'll cover?
Do we think WOTC will provide any insights into the results of the survey, or basically we'll find out when the new rules are published in 2024?
I do not know but I think that it is supposed to be class based. But again I do not know.
Theoretically the 27th; these things drop on Tuesdays when they're ready, for whichever reason, and the survey says it's open until the 26th now. But they set us up and meme'd us that way once before, so who knows if they're even going to keep doing 1DD after the tsunami of grognard vomit they had to wade through after the Origins playtest.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm assuming it'll drop later today or maybe next week. Though they did say they were shooting to release one per month, so I could see them releasing it before the end of the week (if not today) rather than waiting for next Tuesday.
I would hope for a week advance notice to drum up hype and allow for the info to spread to a wider audience.
Also a lot of things can happen to shift timelines in game design so often they are very fluid.
Some of the ideas in the PT doc were changes to the base game and may require changes to classes if they decided to not do the changes in PT doc 1 then they may have to do significant changes to PT doc 2.
I have also seen issues with a rule at the beginning being so tightly wound into the game and it is not an issue until a rule at the end and the game does not work well without either rule or both rules are critically important to the game core idea but the do not work together at all because of the number range they are using.
Well clearly it's not happening today, so blegh. Clearly the surge of terrible reactions managed to sour Wizards on the entire project. Good job, D&D Playerbase.
Please do not contact or message me.
A lot of wild assumptions based on nothing, don't you think? You've gone out of your way to chastise people for suggesting that class-specific spell lists were going away as "baseless fearmongering," so maybe we should all show similar restraint with our prognostications.
IMHO, hype either good or bad can be problematic in internet polls/questionnaire's...but at the same time if you look at the PF II playtest quite a few people had problems with the rules and when it was ignored and published they stopped buying the game and or as much of the game to adapt to other systems.
I think it's just as likely that the volume of survey responses (positive or negative) necessitated them pushing it back a week to process.
I hope that also and this is another area in game design, discussing and analyzing your feedback and making small changes to wholesale changes.
Well I don't know for sure if they got loaded with negative comments, but they might have. But I myself had zero issues with what was there
I mean, it is baseless fearmongering. No one has indicated that class-specific spell lists are going anywhere. The new "universal" spell lists are just catch-all umbrella features like the term "D20 tests." It cuts down on word count, saves print space, and streamlines a lot of stuff without fundamentally changing how anything works.
For the record, I pretty much think that changing class spell lists into power source lists is what's exactly what they're saying in the origin rules - if you wanted to cut down on word usage for a single feat, all you had to do was say, "pick any spell list from any class." Far less words. If you wanted it for feats only, the character origins UA wouldn't say "classes use these spell lists." Traditionally, how do classes use spell lists? By picking spells from them. Pathfinder 2 did Divine, Primal, Occult and Arcane spell lists to great success, and taking/adapting successful things from rivals is good practice. This also helps cut down on the class biases so often displayed in products.
Its not baseless. There's some extrapolation involved and a good chance of being mistaken, but its definitely a logical thing.
I mean, why shouldn't they test out how people react to power source lists instead of class lists? Its a playtest for goodness sake.
Both the document and the Crawford interview say future UAs will show how classes interact with those spell lists, and Crawford says they'll all do so differently. Bards and Wizards aren't just going to both have the same list now. It's been made pretty clear that whether the nomenclature around class-specific spell lists continues to exist or not, classes will have their own unique collections of spells.
And for the record, the UA does not say "classes use these spell lists." Under each spell list's definition in the Rules Glossary, it says "[x] and [y] classes harness this magic," for example, under Primal Spells, it says "Druids and Rangers harness this magic." It does not say "Both Druids and Rangers have access to and utilize every spell on this list." Finicky as it can be, 5e rules language is very specific. These lists are not "replacing" anything. That's wildly unbalanced, bad for the game, and defeats WotC's stated goals of backwards-compatibility.
It's fearmongering, plain and simple. It's only got a basis if you read the document cursorily without any understanding of how rules language works. Skimming the UA or watching a YouTube video or reading Reddit comments on it may give you the idea it's not baseless, but a careful read makes it clear that it is.
I think the whole backward compatibility is more targeted at adventures and not so much class options.
+ you might be able to play a 5e wizard together with a 5.5/6e wizard under the same rules engine in the same adventures.
I haven't followed everything and have some strong feelings/problems with some directions the new edition is going.
But I haven't noticed any real outcry, just civil discussions and people pointing out what they like and what not.
granted some misunderstandings and such happen but where was the "surge of terrible reactions" ?
labeling valid complaints, which Wizard asked for and for which the whole playtest is even meant, as "terrible reactions, managing to sour Wizards on the entire project" and bad-mouthing the player base. seems more hurtful than anything else.
then again, I might have missed some really bad comments (like I don't frequent Twitter) but still, that's hardly the Player Base.
There is a video about the new doc on Expert Classes on YouTube, but I don't see the document available yet. https://youtu.be/l44mmYu2pqM
And look at the UA again. Under Spell Lists section near the end. Direct Quote: "In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we'll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list." Emphasis mine. The bolded part very clearly say that classes use the lists. There is no argument possible to the contrary. I also put "might" in italics, because it indicates that everything after that word is only a possibility, not guaranteed. So... yeah. "Classes use these lists" is definitely in the pdf. That's a pretty strong basis.
Now, time to go see new video!!!!
Yes, the word "clearly" doing A LOT of heavy lifting there. LOL! Especially since less than a day later we ARE getting a new playtest document. So clearly Wizards is not soured on the entire project.
An opinion is still an opinion, regardless of the certainty with which is it presented :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"