Also. the same comment I made in first UA. Please add a comment or sidebar on why you made the change you did and how these fits in the design direction you are taking.
The sidebar is the video they release before each UA.
Every decision that could be perceived as a balance change has had almost no additional context through their videos. It's like they're afraid to say anything negative about the 5e design. They've only really talked about what's new, and not what has been fundamentally changed or removed.
Also. the same comment I made in first UA. Please add a comment or sidebar on why you made the change you did and how these fits in the design direction you are taking.
The sidebar is the video they release before each UA.
Every decision that could be perceived as a balance change has had almost no additional context through their videos. It's like they're afraid to say anything negative about the 5e design. They've only really talked about what's new, and not what has been fundamentally changed or removed.
But why does that matter? To me, it seems like what’s important is if the end product is a fun game, not the thought process that got them there. Dumping on some 5e mechanic or another doesn’t seem very productive for them.
Plus, this is still the test phase and things are still in motion. If they say bad things about a rule, and then decide to use it, that seems like a bad idea.
Also. the same comment I made in first UA. Please add a comment or sidebar on why you made the change you did and how these fits in the design direction you are taking.
The sidebar is the video they release before each UA.
Every decision that could be perceived as a balance change has had almost no additional context through their videos. It's like they're afraid to say anything negative about the 5e design. They've only really talked about what's new, and not what has been fundamentally changed or removed.
But why does that matter? To me, it seems like what’s important is if the end product is a fun game, not the thought process that got them there. Dumping on some 5e mechanic or another doesn’t seem very productive for them.
Plus, this is still the test phase and things are still in motion. If they say bad things about a rule, and then decide to use it, that seems like a bad idea.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
In the first case, I'm way more likely to see a change as positive or satisfactory, because I would be able to see how it fits within that overall vision. But that requires us to know their vision. Or it requires the full set of rules.
But since we don't have context for these types of changes, we're firmly in the second case. Maybe once we understand more of the rules, everything will feel good and fun. But lacking that context, I'm in a weird place for giving feedback.
SO, you are OK with them removing the -5 to hit and +10 damage to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master and only allowing a rogue to sneak attack with their attack action once without letting us know why or how this furthers their plan for the OneDND.
SO, you are OK with them removing the -5 to hit and +10 damage to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master and only allowing a rogue to sneak attack with their attack action once without letting us know why or how this furthers their plan for the OneDND.
I want to know.
It is hard to say. Is the -5+10 removal a larger plan to reduce damage overall, will it be moved to a standard combat maneuver, are weapons getting changed in a fundamental way.
For sneak attack I think they could hit their same intent by going with once a round as opposed to once on their turn and that would open options up. But balance wise again who knows, we haven't see the rest and we don't know their plan.
SO, you are OK with them removing the -5 to hit and +10 damage to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master and only allowing a rogue to sneak attack with their attack action once without letting us know why or how this furthers their plan for the OneDND.
I want to know.
First, they haven't actually done that, yet. They've thrown the idea around and asked other people what they thought of it. What they actually end up doing won't be known until we have a new PHB in our hands in 2024. And if you think that something ending up in a playtest document means the decision is set in stone, I'd like to introduce you to the DNDnext (5e) playtest sorcerer from 2013.
Second, if they do say, we hated the idea of X so we're trying this new thing instead, they've now closed off an option. They can't go on record saying X is a bad idea, but then continue to use it. So, it keeps their options open.
Third, if they say what they are trying to do, it could blinders on us as testers. People will start evaluating the change in the context of what the designers say and whether or not it achieves their stated goal. But they'll ignore other pluses and minuses that maybe the developers didn't even think of. If they leave it open-ended, they can get feedback on other things they may not have considered.
Fourth, design goals change over time. Particularly after they do a round or two of testing and find that people do or don't like what they're trying out. What they are thinking now might not be the way it ends up. It probably won't be the way it ends up.
Every decision that could be perceived as a balance change has had almost no additional context through their videos. It's like they're afraid to say anything negative about the 5e design. They've only really talked about what's new, and not what has been fundamentally changed or removed.
The crit rules are changed; they talked about them in the videos. The way backgrounds works has changed. They also talked about them in the videos. You can't talk about every change in a 37 page document without having a video that takes a million years to watch.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
In the first case, I'm way more likely to see a change as positive or satisfactory, because I would be able to see how it fits within that overall vision. But that requires us to know their vision. Or it requires the full set of rules.
But since we don't have context for these types of changes, we're firmly in the second case. Maybe once we understand more of the rules, everything will feel good and fun. But lacking that context, I'm in a weird place for giving feedback.
WotC is not going to tell us "their vision" for future 1DD playtests because those playtests haven't come out yet and that's just how business works. Again, you don't need to know why a change has been made (though the why for several features has been explained in the videos) to use it. Also, many of the reasoning for much of the changes is very obvious, even if you do disagree with the changes based-off that reasoning.
SO, you are OK with them removing the -5 to hit and +10 damage to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master and only allowing a rogue to sneak attack with their attack action once without letting us know why or how this furthers their plan for the OneDND.
I want to know.
Xalthu already addressed this, but personally, I am actually fine with several of these changes. The -5 +10 was rarely used and didn't scale well at higher levels, so the reasoning for this change is clear. I think the changes to Sneak Attack are better for the overall Rogue class, and I explained my reasoning for that HERE.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
When we don't have all the rules and are playtesting with a mishmash of 1s&d and 5e rules we do need to know some of this. Like if the idea is to lower damage overall and damage from all sources is going down then changes that reduce damage make sense and we can take that into account when evaluating it. If they think damage overall is fine, and they are just reducing it in these couple problem areas the playtest answers will be different. I don't need to know why they think damage is too high, but i do need to know what the plan with reducing damage is. If they don't think its a reduction in damage but is just making things clearer, I can have yet another different answer. One answer is hey it potentially works depending on the other changes, the other answer is WTF martials are getting hammered.
So for almost all of these changes the answers currently are who knows, it may work it may not, we only have 1/20th of the parts of the game. If they said hey, the new die mechanic instead of a d20 is now a d100, but they don't tell us the new DCs or the new modifiers, I can't really tell them if it works or not. That is where we are with these changes.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
When we don't have all the rules and are playtesting with a mishmash of 1s&d and 5e rules we do need to know some of this. Like if the idea is to lower damage overall and damage from all sources is going down then changes that reduce damage make sense and we can take that into account when evaluating it. If they think damage overall is fine, and they are just reducing it in these couple problem areas the playtest answers will be different. I don't need to know why they think damage is too high, but i do need to know what the plan with reducing damage is. If they don't think its a reduction in damage but is just making things clearer, I can have yet another different answer. One answer is hey it potentially works depending on the other changes, the other answer is WTF martials are getting hammered.
So for almost all of these changes the answers currently are who knows, it may work it may not, we only have 1/20th of the parts of the game. If they said hey, the new die mechanic instead of a d20 is now a d100, but they don't tell us the new DCs or the new modifiers, I can't really tell them if it works or not. That is where we are with these changes.
They don’t care if you think damage is too high or too low. They want to know if you like playing the game with the ideas they have. They aren’t interested in amateur game designers opining on whether or not an extra 4.3 dpr is “balanced.” They want to know if it’s fun.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
When we don't have all the rules and are playtesting with a mishmash of 1s&d and 5e rules we do need to know some of this. Like if the idea is to lower damage overall and damage from all sources is going down then changes that reduce damage make sense and we can take that into account when evaluating it. If they think damage overall is fine, and they are just reducing it in these couple problem areas the playtest answers will be different. I don't need to know why they think damage is too high, but i do need to know what the plan with reducing damage is. If they don't think its a reduction in damage but is just making things clearer, I can have yet another different answer. One answer is hey it potentially works depending on the other changes, the other answer is WTF martials are getting hammered.
So for almost all of these changes the answers currently are who knows, it may work it may not, we only have 1/20th of the parts of the game. If they said hey, the new die mechanic instead of a d20 is now a d100, but they don't tell us the new DCs or the new modifiers, I can't really tell them if it works or not. That is where we are with these changes.
They don’t care if you think damage is too high or too low. They want to know if you like playing the game with the ideas they have. They aren’t interested in amateur game designers opining on whether or not an extra 4.3 dpr is “balanced.” They want to know if it’s fun.
You being condescending doesn't change that game balance effects the fun for a lot of people. If something is too good or too bad it becomes something you either always or never use. This matters. No one can rationally tell them if its fun or not without seeing more of the picture.
Told them I disliked their changes to UMD on Rogue subclass Thief. Hope they pay attention. Could care less about an additional attunement slot or keeping a charge on a 1 on a d6 if the subclass loses the ability to use any item they find. That was what allowed them to backfill other characters in the party when things got rough. Mentioned the use an object going away.
Rest was as mentioned by others on ritual books and the grappling rules
I think they dropped the ability to use other classes magic items because they started making the features of the magic items class specific. Items that tigger effects when you use sorcery points don’t help the thief. They seem to be moving in that direction in the last books.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
When we don't have all the rules and are playtesting with a mishmash of 1s&d and 5e rules we do need to know some of this. Like if the idea is to lower damage overall and damage from all sources is going down then changes that reduce damage make sense and we can take that into account when evaluating it. If they think damage overall is fine, and they are just reducing it in these couple problem areas the playtest answers will be different. I don't need to know why they think damage is too high, but i do need to know what the plan with reducing damage is. If they don't think its a reduction in damage but is just making things clearer, I can have yet another different answer. One answer is hey it potentially works depending on the other changes, the other answer is WTF martials are getting hammered.
So for almost all of these changes the answers currently are who knows, it may work it may not, we only have 1/20th of the parts of the game. If they said hey, the new die mechanic instead of a d20 is now a d100, but they don't tell us the new DCs or the new modifiers, I can't really tell them if it works or not. That is where we are with these changes.
They don’t care if you think damage is too high or too low. They want to know if you like playing the game with the ideas they have. They aren’t interested in amateur game designers opining on whether or not an extra 4.3 dpr is “balanced.” They want to know if it’s fun.
You being condescending doesn't change that game balance effects the fun for a lot of people. If something is too good or too bad it becomes something you either always or never use. This matters. No one can rationally tell them if its fun or not without seeing more of the picture.
Fun, almost by definition, isn’t rational. Either you are having fun or not. I do concede that for some people, it is fun to optimize a character to the point that they want to squeeze out every mathematical point of damage. And that’s great, they should be able to do that. But they’ll do that regardless of the rule set. Playtests are not about that. WotC wants to know if people like a thing. It’s not something that can be quantified and reproduced. Either they do or not.
To look at the problem another way, WotC hasn't made it clear if we will get an opportunity to re-evaluate things after we know more about the other changes they are making for the game.
In a vacuum, I don't like the UA bard, I don't like parts of the UA rogue, and I like most of the changes to the 4th level feats. And I submitted that in my feedback.
But as other classes and rules are revealed, maybe the changes to the bard will make sense. Will we get an opportunity to say so? Or will we just get to supply feedback for the *new* things they changed?
The specific feedback being requested in the surveys so far has been mixed, and I'm not as confident as some of you are. At least not yet.
I don't like Bards as a Prepared spellcaster, I don't like how they can only prepare spells from specific schools as opposed to having their own spell list. Bardic Inspiration has too few uses at lower levels. I don't like that Jack of all Trades comes so late in level. I don’t like that the Multiclassing rules are reprinted for every class, it’s a waste of space. I absolutely HATE the suggested prepared spells, I find it insulting.
I love the 5e Bard, it's one of my favorite classes. This 1DD Bard sucks ass. The only thing I think is good is adding in a 4th subclass feature.
College of Lore
I don't like that the Bonus Proficiencies are restricted to three specific skills. I don't like that Cutting Words can no longer be used on damage rolls. I don't like the loss of Additional Magical Secrets.
Rogue
I wish Evasion came sooner, but I understand why you moved it. I love that you have adjusted the subclass levels so Rogues get a second subclass feature earlier than 9th level.
Thief
I don’t like the Jump action so I don’t like that part of Second Story work. I don’t like losing the speed restriction on Supreme Sneak because it doesn’t feel right. I don’t like the change to Use Magic Devices, before it did away with the class restrictions against certain magic items, bring that back.
Feats
I don’t like the Jump action, so I don’t like the parts of any feat that interact with it. I don’t like that Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper ignore Half & Three Quarters Cover, I wish it ignored Half Cover and treated Three Quarters cover as only Half Cover.
Spell List
I don’t like how you are handling the spell lists and only allowing access to certain schools to certain classes.
Rules
I HATE the Jump action. I HATE Grappling as part of an Unarmed Strike. I HATE the nerf to combining special speeds. I don’t like the fixed DCs on the Influence action. I don’t like the changes to the Hide action, I preferred the opposed checks. I wish a Long Rest only restored half your HP. Just give it up with Inspiration already, nobody uses it. Get rid of Inspiration.
Guidance
Kill it. Kill it with fire. Just make it a 1st-level spell, or give it a 1 minute casting time.
Inspiration
Just get rid of Inspiration. Nobody likes it, nobody uses it. Are youse all being paid off by the Inspiration lobbyists or something?!?
But as other classes and rules are revealed, maybe the changes to the bard will make sense. Will we get an opportunity to say so? Or will we just get to supply feedback for the *new* things they changed?
Yes, you will get an opportunity to say so. You can write that on the section of the survey discussing that mechanic or in the "Final Comments" section, if there's not another section talking about that specific mechanic. And if you want to talk about how that mechanic works in relation with the other mechanics from earlier 1DD UAs, then you can also do that in those boxes.
Anyways, I don't see how adding a sidebar to discuss the thought process behind 1DD's mechanics -- the current line of discussion -- would help with this. You could read the sidebar and understand the thought process, but that won't make it any easier for you to review it; you have the survey for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
But as other classes and rules are revealed, maybe the changes to the bard will make sense. Will we get an opportunity to say so? Or will we just get to supply feedback for the *new* things they changed?
Yes, you will get an opportunity to say so. You can write that on the section of the survey discussing that mechanic or in the "Final Comments" section, if there's not another section talking about that specific mechanic. And if you want to talk about how that mechanic works in relation with the other mechanics from earlier 1DD UAs, then you can also do that in those boxes.
Anyways, I don't see how adding a sidebar to discuss the thought process behind 1DD's mechanics -- the current line of discussion -- would help with this. You could read the sidebar and understand the thought process, but that won't make it any easier for you to review it; you have the survey for that.
When the next UA and survey comes out, and I have 20 sets of radio buttons to tell WotC my satisfaction for each Paladin class feature, you think they're going to read and incorporate feedback from a text description of how this makes the bard feel?
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's absurd. And so is this insistence that we can't have more information. Or that somehow having more information will lead to worse feedback.
Unless you work there or have some insider knowledge, there's no need to get defensive on behalf of a company whose motivations are just as opaque to you as they are to me.
I agree there could be more transparency. Maybe even just a 'mission statement' with a list of things they hope to achieve like: making all of the options more viable, closing loopholes, and reducing the gap between character builds and their power. But if they tell us their thought process on every change, it can taint the feedback. If they just said 'trust us, this change to GWM will look good in a few months,' then how are we to know what feedback to give? Okay I guess I trust you? I've even seen some very visible complaints about things that are actually answered right there in the first page of the UA. People just skipped it to get to their favorite classes and feats.
Honestly I just wish they had given us 1 class for each group. Start with a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue. Give us a few feats for each one. Let us see them as a whole group. Then do another wave with one more class from each group and another selection of feats. We would have a much better idea of the direction everything else is going from that.
But it's too late now. So my best hope is that they get through these groups fast, gather our feedback, and then give us a second round to evaluate them all together. There should be enough time for it if we get a set like this each month. Maybe...
But as other classes and rules are revealed, maybe the changes to the bard will make sense. Will we get an opportunity to say so? Or will we just get to supply feedback for the *new* things they changed?
Yes, you will get an opportunity to say so. You can write that on the section of the survey discussing that mechanic or in the "Final Comments" section, if there's not another section talking about that specific mechanic. And if you want to talk about how that mechanic works in relation with the other mechanics from earlier 1DD UAs, then you can also do that in those boxes.
Anyways, I don't see how adding a sidebar to discuss the thought process behind 1DD's mechanics -- the current line of discussion -- would help with this. You could read the sidebar and understand the thought process, but that won't make it any easier for you to review it; you have the survey for that.
When the next UA and survey comes out, and I have 20 sets of radio buttons to tell WotC my satisfaction for each Paladin class feature, you think they're going to read and incorporate feedback from a text description of how this makes the bard feel?
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's absurd. And so is this insistence that we can't have more information. Or that somehow having more information will lead to worse feedback.
Unless you work there or have some insider knowledge, there's no need to get defensive on behalf of a company whose motivations are just as opaque to you as they are to me.
You are also likely to see a second pass at every class AFTER each one has gone through the first pass. So you well get to compare all the classes against one another before it is all over. We are only in the first few steps of a long trip. Take off the tin foil hat and relax. This is not the first time WotC has used public testing like this.
I don't like Bards as a Prepared spellcaster, I don't like how they can only prepare spells from specific schools as opposed to having their own spell list. Bardic Inspiration has too few uses at lower levels. I don't like that Jack of all Trades comes so late in level. I don’t like that the Multiclassing rules are reprinted for every class, it’s a waste of space. I absolutely HATE the suggested prepared spells, I find it insulting.
I love the 5e Bard, it's one of my favorite classes. This 1DD Bard sucks ass. The only thing I think is good is adding in a 4th subclass feature.
College of Lore
I don't like that the Bonus Proficiencies are restricted to three specific skills. I don't like that Cutting Words can no longer be used on damage rolls. I don't like the loss of Additional Magical Secrets.
Rogue
I wish Evasion came sooner, but I understand why you moved it. I love that you have adjusted the subclass levels so Rogues get a second subclass feature earlier than 9th level.
Thief
I don’t like the Jump action so I don’t like that part of Second Story work. I don’t like losing the speed restriction on Supreme Sneak because it doesn’t feel right. I don’t like the change to Use Magic Devices, before it did away with the class restrictions against certain magic items, bring that back.
Feats
I don’t like the Jump action, so I don’t like the parts of any feat that interact with it. I don’t like that Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper ignore Half & Three Quarters Cover, I wish it ignored Half Cover and treated Three Quarters cover as only Half Cover.
Spell List
I don’t like how you are handling the spell lists and only allowing access to certain schools to certain classes.
Rules
I HATE the Jump action. I HATE Grappling as part of an Unarmed Strike. I HATE the nerf to combining special speeds. I don’t like the fixed DCs on the Influence action. I don’t like the changes to the Hide action, I preferred the opposed checks. I wish a Long Rest only restored half your HP. Just give it up with Inspiration already, nobody uses it. Get rid of Inspiration.
Guidance
Kill it. Kill it with fire. Just make it a 1st-level spell, or give it a 1 minute casting time.
Inspiration
Just get rid of Inspiration. Nobody likes it, nobody uses it. Are youse all being paid off by the Inspiration lobbyists or something?!?
Cutting words losing the damage reduction makes sense because all bards can heal with bardic inspiration in 1dnd. The reaction heal is better than the reaction damage reduction in most cases. The best case is when a person drops to 0hp. Say someone has 5hp remaining out of 20 total and they get attacked dealing 10 damage. You could use 5e cutting words to reduce that damage, but let’s say you roll a 4. The character is still drops to 0 and is unconscious. If you instead used the new bardic inspiration reaction to heal and rolled the same 4 they would be conscious with 4hp. Now technically they would be prone and would have dropped any concentration or abilities that end when you are unconscious because they would have been drop to 0, but then immediately restored. I think this would even save people from disintegrate.
I’ve had situations where Cutting Words’ damage reduction was in he best choice. 🤷♂️ It avoided riders that depended on damage taken when the attack bonus was too high or it was a saving throw.
Every decision that could be perceived as a balance change has had almost no additional context through their videos. It's like they're afraid to say anything negative about the 5e design. They've only really talked about what's new, and not what has been fundamentally changed or removed.
But why does that matter? To me, it seems like what’s important is if the end product is a fun game, not the thought process that got them there. Dumping on some 5e mechanic or another doesn’t seem very productive for them.
Plus, this is still the test phase and things are still in motion. If they say bad things about a rule, and then decide to use it, that seems like a bad idea.
I've elaborated on this elsewhere, but basically I'm having a hard time playtesting without knowing what they're trying to accomplish. Testing 3 classes with 1 subclass each, against everything that exists in 5e seems really difficult. I don't know if the 'negative' changes (the things I don't think are fun) are part of a broader vision to rebalance of the game. Or if it's just a problem with how that particular feature was implemented.
In the first case, I'm way more likely to see a change as positive or satisfactory, because I would be able to see how it fits within that overall vision. But that requires us to know their vision. Or it requires the full set of rules.
But since we don't have context for these types of changes, we're firmly in the second case. Maybe once we understand more of the rules, everything will feel good and fun. But lacking that context, I'm in a weird place for giving feedback.
SO, you are OK with them removing the -5 to hit and +10 damage to Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master and only allowing a rogue to sneak attack with their attack action once without letting us know why or how this furthers their plan for the OneDND.
I want to know.
It is hard to say. Is the -5+10 removal a larger plan to reduce damage overall, will it be moved to a standard combat maneuver, are weapons getting changed in a fundamental way.
For sneak attack I think they could hit their same intent by going with once a round as opposed to once on their turn and that would open options up. But balance wise again who knows, we haven't see the rest and we don't know their plan.
First, they haven't actually done that, yet. They've thrown the idea around and asked other people what they thought of it. What they actually end up doing won't be known until we have a new PHB in our hands in 2024. And if you think that something ending up in a playtest document means the decision is set in stone, I'd like to introduce you to the DNDnext (5e) playtest sorcerer from 2013.
Second, if they do say, we hated the idea of X so we're trying this new thing instead, they've now closed off an option. They can't go on record saying X is a bad idea, but then continue to use it. So, it keeps their options open.
Third, if they say what they are trying to do, it could blinders on us as testers. People will start evaluating the change in the context of what the designers say and whether or not it achieves their stated goal. But they'll ignore other pluses and minuses that maybe the developers didn't even think of. If they leave it open-ended, they can get feedback on other things they may not have considered.
Fourth, design goals change over time. Particularly after they do a round or two of testing and find that people do or don't like what they're trying out. What they are thinking now might not be the way it ends up. It probably won't be the way it ends up.
The crit rules are changed; they talked about them in the videos. The way backgrounds works has changed. They also talked about them in the videos. You can't talk about every change in a 37 page document without having a video that takes a million years to watch.
You don't need to know the reasoning behind the rules to use them. I have no idea why numerous 5e mechanics are the way they are but I can still use and enjoy them.
WotC is not going to tell us "their vision" for future 1DD playtests because those playtests haven't come out yet and that's just how business works. Again, you don't need to know why a change has been made (though the why for several features has been explained in the videos) to use it. Also, many of the reasoning for much of the changes is very obvious, even if you do disagree with the changes based-off that reasoning.
Xalthu already addressed this, but personally, I am actually fine with several of these changes. The -5 +10 was rarely used and didn't scale well at higher levels, so the reasoning for this change is clear. I think the changes to Sneak Attack are better for the overall Rogue class, and I explained my reasoning for that HERE.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.When we don't have all the rules and are playtesting with a mishmash of 1s&d and 5e rules we do need to know some of this. Like if the idea is to lower damage overall and damage from all sources is going down then changes that reduce damage make sense and we can take that into account when evaluating it. If they think damage overall is fine, and they are just reducing it in these couple problem areas the playtest answers will be different. I don't need to know why they think damage is too high, but i do need to know what the plan with reducing damage is. If they don't think its a reduction in damage but is just making things clearer, I can have yet another different answer. One answer is hey it potentially works depending on the other changes, the other answer is WTF martials are getting hammered.
So for almost all of these changes the answers currently are who knows, it may work it may not, we only have 1/20th of the parts of the game. If they said hey, the new die mechanic instead of a d20 is now a d100, but they don't tell us the new DCs or the new modifiers, I can't really tell them if it works or not. That is where we are with these changes.
They don’t care if you think damage is too high or too low. They want to know if you like playing the game with the ideas they have. They aren’t interested in amateur game designers opining on whether or not an extra 4.3 dpr is “balanced.” They want to know if it’s fun.
You being condescending doesn't change that game balance effects the fun for a lot of people. If something is too good or too bad it becomes something you either always or never use. This matters. No one can rationally tell them if its fun or not without seeing more of the picture.
I think they dropped the ability to use other classes magic items because they started making the features of the magic items class specific. Items that tigger effects when you use sorcery points don’t help the thief. They seem to be moving in that direction in the last books.
Fun, almost by definition, isn’t rational. Either you are having fun or not. I do concede that for some people, it is fun to optimize a character to the point that they want to squeeze out every mathematical point of damage. And that’s great, they should be able to do that. But they’ll do that regardless of the rule set.
Playtests are not about that. WotC wants to know if people like a thing. It’s not something that can be quantified and reproduced. Either they do or not.
To look at the problem another way, WotC hasn't made it clear if we will get an opportunity to re-evaluate things after we know more about the other changes they are making for the game.
In a vacuum, I don't like the UA bard, I don't like parts of the UA rogue, and I like most of the changes to the 4th level feats. And I submitted that in my feedback.
But as other classes and rules are revealed, maybe the changes to the bard will make sense. Will we get an opportunity to say so? Or will we just get to supply feedback for the *new* things they changed?
The specific feedback being requested in the surveys so far has been mixed, and I'm not as confident as some of you are. At least not yet.
This is some of what I wrote if anyone cares.
Bard
I don't like Bards as a Prepared spellcaster, I don't like how they can only prepare spells from specific schools as opposed to having their own spell list. Bardic Inspiration has too few uses at lower levels. I don't like that Jack of all Trades comes so late in level. I don’t like that the Multiclassing rules are reprinted for every class, it’s a waste of space. I absolutely HATE the suggested prepared spells, I find it insulting.
I love the 5e Bard, it's one of my favorite classes. This 1DD Bard sucks ass. The only thing I think is good is adding in a 4th subclass feature.
College of Lore
I don't like that the Bonus Proficiencies are restricted to three specific skills. I don't like that Cutting Words can no longer be used on damage rolls. I don't like the loss of Additional Magical Secrets.
Rogue
I wish Evasion came sooner, but I understand why you moved it. I love that you have adjusted the subclass levels so Rogues get a second subclass feature earlier than 9th level.
Thief
I don’t like the Jump action so I don’t like that part of Second Story work. I don’t like losing the speed restriction on Supreme Sneak because it doesn’t feel right. I don’t like the change to Use Magic Devices, before it did away with the class restrictions against certain magic items, bring that back.
Feats
I don’t like the Jump action, so I don’t like the parts of any feat that interact with it. I don’t like that Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper ignore Half & Three Quarters Cover, I wish it ignored Half Cover and treated Three Quarters cover as only Half Cover.
Spell List
I don’t like how you are handling the spell lists and only allowing access to certain schools to certain classes.
Rules
I HATE the Jump action. I HATE Grappling as part of an Unarmed Strike. I HATE the nerf to combining special speeds. I don’t like the fixed DCs on the Influence action. I don’t like the changes to the Hide action, I preferred the opposed checks. I wish a Long Rest only restored half your HP. Just give it up with Inspiration already, nobody uses it. Get rid of Inspiration.
Guidance
Kill it. Kill it with fire. Just make it a 1st-level spell, or give it a 1 minute casting time.
Inspiration
Just get rid of Inspiration. Nobody likes it, nobody uses it. Are youse all being paid off by the Inspiration lobbyists or something?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, you will get an opportunity to say so. You can write that on the section of the survey discussing that mechanic or in the "Final Comments" section, if there's not another section talking about that specific mechanic. And if you want to talk about how that mechanic works in relation with the other mechanics from earlier 1DD UAs, then you can also do that in those boxes.
Anyways, I don't see how adding a sidebar to discuss the thought process behind 1DD's mechanics -- the current line of discussion -- would help with this. You could read the sidebar and understand the thought process, but that won't make it any easier for you to review it; you have the survey for that.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.When the next UA and survey comes out, and I have 20 sets of radio buttons to tell WotC my satisfaction for each Paladin class feature, you think they're going to read and incorporate feedback from a text description of how this makes the bard feel?
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's absurd. And so is this insistence that we can't have more information. Or that somehow having more information will lead to worse feedback.
Unless you work there or have some insider knowledge, there's no need to get defensive on behalf of a company whose motivations are just as opaque to you as they are to me.
There are pros and cons to both options.
I agree there could be more transparency. Maybe even just a 'mission statement' with a list of things they hope to achieve like: making all of the options more viable, closing loopholes, and reducing the gap between character builds and their power. But if they tell us their thought process on every change, it can taint the feedback. If they just said 'trust us, this change to GWM will look good in a few months,' then how are we to know what feedback to give? Okay I guess I trust you? I've even seen some very visible complaints about things that are actually answered right there in the first page of the UA. People just skipped it to get to their favorite classes and feats.
Honestly I just wish they had given us 1 class for each group. Start with a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue. Give us a few feats for each one. Let us see them as a whole group. Then do another wave with one more class from each group and another selection of feats. We would have a much better idea of the direction everything else is going from that.
But it's too late now. So my best hope is that they get through these groups fast, gather our feedback, and then give us a second round to evaluate them all together. There should be enough time for it if we get a set like this each month. Maybe...
You are also likely to see a second pass at every class AFTER each one has gone through the first pass. So you well get to compare all the classes against one another before it is all over. We are only in the first few steps of a long trip. Take off the tin foil hat and relax. This is not the first time WotC has used public testing like this.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Cutting words losing the damage reduction makes sense because all bards can heal with bardic inspiration in 1dnd. The reaction heal is better than the reaction damage reduction in most cases. The best case is when a person drops to 0hp. Say someone has 5hp remaining out of 20 total and they get attacked dealing 10 damage. You could use 5e cutting words to reduce that damage, but let’s say you roll a 4. The character is still drops to 0 and is unconscious. If you instead used the new bardic inspiration reaction to heal and rolled the same 4 they would be conscious with 4hp. Now technically they would be prone and would have dropped any concentration or abilities that end when you are unconscious because they would have been drop to 0, but then immediately restored. I think this would even save people from disintegrate.
I’ve had situations where Cutting Words’ damage reduction was in he best choice. 🤷♂️ It avoided riders that depended on damage taken when the attack bonus was too high or it was a saving throw.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting