I made this thread to compile what ideas we can infer about the design philosophy that WotC is using in this playtest experiment. For me anyways, it helps to understand the intent of a rule change to know how to judge it. They are keeping their cards somewhat close to the chest, possibly to avoid influencing the responses. But I think a little guidance would be helpful, and I can't help but think about it either way...
Hopefully we can avoid debating the merits of particular rules here, and just talk about the intent.
Things they have stated:
They saw how people are playing the game versus RAW, and want to see if people would like those concepts to be codified. Ex. - Nat1fail/Nat20success for skill rolls.
They listened to complaints about particular classes, spells, etc, and want to make them better. Ex. - Ranger and Guidance
They want to give players more options. Ex. - Backgrounds and Feats
They want more clear presentation of the rules. Ex. - having the hiding rules all in one place.
They want to build the best VTT, designed specifically for DnD, and one that they own. Ex. - uhhh... they're making a VTT
Things we might guess from the trends:
They want to remove loopholes and odd interactions. Ex. - Sentinel/Polearm Master, Sneak Attack with spells.
They want to get rid of opposed ability checks. Ex. - grappling and hiding rules
They want to make it easier for them to add new rules. Ex. - unified spell lists
They want to smooth out the damage output of different builds, and make the power level more consistent and predictable. Ex. Sneak Attack only on attacks, removing +10 damage feats.
What other examples can you think of? Do you think I've misinterpreted some of these? How do you feel about the intent of the design?
Edit: I literally just realized I could format text if I turned the phone sideways...
I made this thread to compile what ideas we can infer about the design philosophy that WotC is using in this playtest experiment. For me anyways, it helps to understand the intent of a rule change to know how to judge it. They are keeping their cards somewhat close to the chest, possibly to avoid influencing the responses. But I think a little guidance would be helpful, and I can't help but think about it either way...
Hopefully we can avoid debating the merits of particular rules here, and just talk about the intent.
Things they have stated:
They saw how people are playing the game versus RAW, and want to see if people would like those concepts to be codified. Ex. - Nat1fail/Nat20success for skill rolls.
They listened to complaints about particular classes, spells, etc, and want to make them better. Ex. - Ranger and Guidance
They want to give players more options. Ex. - Backgrounds and Feats
They want more clear presentation of the rules. Ex. - having the hiding rules all in one place.
They want to build the best VTT, designed specifically for DnD, and one that they own. Ex. - uhhh... they're making a VTT
Things we might guess from the trends:
They want to remove loopholes and odd interactions. Ex. - Sentinel/Polearm Master, Sneak Attack with spells.
They want to get rid of opposed ability checks. Ex. - grappling and hiding rules
They want to make it easier for them to add new rules. Ex. - unified spell lists
They want to smooth out the damage output of different builds, and make the power level more consistent and predictable. Ex. Sneak Attack only on attacks, removing +10 damage feats.
What other examples can you think of? Do you think I've misinterpreted some of these? How do you feel about the intent of the design?
Edit: I literally just realized I could format text if I turned the phone sideways...