Survey was extended to the 23rd, so looks like we will have to wait a bit longer to find out what is next.
i always think of something else to add after submitting. i kinda wish they'd unlock submissions for editing if they're going to extend the period.
That would be a tremendous mess. You are supposed to answer the survey based on what came up in your games. You might test it more and change your mind about something, of course, or even try things you haven't tried before. But being able to change your opinions is a pain. Although they automate the analysis of the polls (which is what they do, that's why it's a waste of time to write design suggestions and things like that. Nobody will read it), and export statistics to have an overview of the opinion of the community, letting users edit their answers comes with a lot of headaches. The optimal thing is to test the new material, which is left for 30 days, answer the survey, and forget about it. If they allowed editing, they would have to deal with a lot of undecided people who would be editing their answers every few minutes.
For the next UA I expect a bit of reorganization on severel things.
1) First review the Fighting Style Feats: now that they are feats (even if they are lv 1) they are too low in addition to disfiguring other lv1 feats that objectively offer more, as well as being reduntant with other of lv 4 that are pratically their best version; for example Fighting Style Archery, Defense, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection and Two-Weapon Fighting are the lowest version of lv 4 feats Skulker, Shield Master, Great Weapon Master, Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder etc. pratically an unnecessary separation of feats since if the martial class concept is that he trained hard to know how to fight, then it would be logical if a Fighter he learns one of these specific feats at lv 2 despite being lv 4 while a rouge or a wizard who is more focused on another path at the beginning, narratively speaking, they could learn a fighting style (now lv 4) during the adventure (as well as being a bit silly that the first feats are limited to martial classes and the second ones have as a requirement only knowing how to use martial weapons).
Small note on the Ranger, since it's a hybrid class Fighter/Rouge/Druid, following the reasoning above it would not be better to give him the opportunity to learn a feat like Skulker already at lv 2, also beacuse Blindsight, Fog of War and Sniper (the three Skulker skills) are pratctically a must have for the ranger.
In short, we are not talking about limiting the role but about cutting unncessary separations, also because the player can always decide not to take it, it's more not less.
2) For the Ranger in general I don't understand why they put certain class feats too hight or on a subclasses, althought it is clearly for the basic Ranger.
At lv 1 it's nice the they gave Hunter's Mark uncounted from the total spells list from Favored Enemy, but at this point make it free, instead of consuming the slots write that it can be used a number of times based on the Proficiencies bonus for long rest so as to bring it closer to the magical autonomy of the Druid, even if some of the spells ramain fixed while the other I choose from the list. For example I don't why not give the ranger the cantrips called snare or beast bound for free (I can't find the actual name onlime but they are from Xanathar, practically one is a simple invisible trap and the other a telepatic bond with an animal that gains advantage for an action). Still talking abount Favored Enemy why something fundamental for the Ranger like Hunter's Lore is given at lv 6, added in a subclasses.
At lv 2 I have already expressed my doubts talking about the feats, I'm not complaing any further except saying that the Feral Senses class feat must be moved from lv 15 to 2.
At lv 7 Roving is good, but at this point also give it Nature's Veil at lv 7, always with the speech above, invisibility must not use the slots.
From lv 11 onward I don't know what what say, it's all too bland. Tireless is fine with Decrease Exhaustion but something actually valid, not necessarily taking from Fighter or the druid, like you can make him a mster of traps and tactics (weapons with flammable, poisonous and soporific mods and the ability to make simple potions) so it can both help to escape and to infiltrate everywhere, trivially if you have an advantage with the soporific arrows and knifes you don't need the spel sleep or make too many stealth roll. Maybe for Foe Slayer they could change it to "three times for long rest when you it an enemy you can change the types of damage of all your attack to anather as long you have a spell with that type of damage".
3) For the subclass Hunter I don't have much to say. it's good, apart from Hunter's Lore, but given the speech started above why not reward the player who chose the sub-class by giving not only an extra spell but also an option to customize the spell on the style so the sub-class? Also at lv 6 why not do the same as the lv 10 with hail of thorns or Ensnaring strike? If in addition to the downcast they specify that the extra spells can be cat at a higher level based on how many uses the proficiencies allows (Prof Bonus +6 Hunter's Mark lv 1 can be cast sic times, while at lv 2 only 3 times) the class would be more sustainable.
For Superior Hunter's Defense maybe add the effect also for magic damage, since it's a lv 14 feat
4) Maybe even some changes to certain spells like for hiunter's mark, even as small as giving an extra d6 for each slot used, or certain cantrip like manipulating water or earth that perhaps wound earn more if merged together considering the few cantrips that the characters hane available.
Just thinking how many use prestigitation and minor illusion as synonyms, why not combine them? the same goes for thaumaturgy and sacred flame (perhaps whit a footnote that changes the damege from radiant to necrotic if you are a follower of evil deity, like an unholy cleric)
Expert Classes - Survey Extended! Feedback survey is now open until November 23rd
You have just got to wonder why the extension? Maybe what they have seen so far is causing them to step back on something, I really do not think it would be lack of input.
Expert Classes - Survey Extended! Feedback survey is now open until November 23rd
You have just got to wonder why the extension? Maybe what they have seen so far is causing them to step back on something, I really do not think it would be lack of input.
I really do wonder. When the last UA was announced, they said these changes were planned all along. That they always intended to try different ideas for things like inspiration and critical hits. But reverting crits to 5e rules isn't really playtesting anything. So I question that part of the video a bit.
That means they might be taking feedback into consideration before each release. If something receives overwhelmingly negative feedback, they might hesitate to release another UA that mirrors the same concepts. All they would get is more negative feedback. So there might be a reason for some last minute edits. Though it sounds like too much to do in only a few weeks. Unless they had a lot of backup plans in their pockets to pull out.
Despite what people keep saying, they will definitely read at least some of our written responses. They have said they read every one in the past. But more than that, it would be a complete waste of valuable data to just throw it away. If the only thing they know is that 70% of testers hated a rule, and they don't look at why, they're just guessing on how to fix it. For no reason at all. The answers are right there in our feedback. No one would throw all that away.
Now, they might have a LOT more feedback than expected. They might not be able to read and organize all of it. And they probably won't take anyone's rewrites to the rules straight out of the feedback. If you tried to write your own version of Barkskin, it's highly unlikely they will use it. But they will definitely look at why you were dissatisfied with their version. So pointing out specifics is useful. For example "It didn't give enough HP."
Sorting through all these results will take time. But they will get a summary of our ratings immediately. They have that already, in real time, on their dashboard. They know what we liked and didn't. What they have to do now is focus on the worst reactions and categorize why we were dissatisfied.
I don't know if that will have any effect on delaying the next UA release. It depends on how they are using it. On how many different ideas they have to pull from. If their internal testing gave them 3 sets of possible variations on Warrior classes for example, they might try to pull out the one that fits our current feedback the best already, to get a head start in the right direction. But that's purely speculative.
Expectation for the Next UA: we're not gonna f@#$ing see it because Wizards keeps slipping the schedule by a billion weeks. We should be closing in on the end of the third document's testing cycle, not halfway through the second one. These delays are ridiculous and severely erode any trust I had in the promise of rapid iterative testing. We'll be outlandishly lucky if any of these documents get a second run through before Go Time, considering they have maybe a year to get it right. There is no way in any Hell anyone cares to name that Wizards is going to be allowed to miss the 50th Anniversary thing; the game WILL drop on that time period no matter what state it's in, and them missing their deadline by a GODS DAMNED MONTH EVERY MONTH isn't helping matters in the slightest.
Expectation for the Next UA: we're not gonna f@#$ing see it because Wizards keeps slipping the schedule by a billion weeks. We should be closing in on the end of the third document's testing cycle, not halfway through the second one. These delays are ridiculous and severely erode any trust I had in the promise of rapid iterative testing. We'll be outlandishly lucky if any of these documents get a second run through before Go Time, considering they have maybe a year to get it right. There is no way in any Hell anyone cares to name that Wizards is going to be allowed to miss the 50th Anniversary thing; the game WILL drop on that time period no matter what state it's in, and them missing their deadline by a GODS DAMNED MONTH EVERY MONTH isn't helping matters in the slightest.
Snap it the f@#$ up, Wizards.
It is neither a billion weeks or a month. It is just two weeks. Wipe the froth from your mouth and have a nice cup of tea. It will be ok.
Expectation for the Next UA: we're not gonna f@#$ing see it because Wizards keeps slipping the schedule by a billion weeks. We should be closing in on the end of the third document's testing cycle, not halfway through the second one. These delays are ridiculous and severely erode any trust I had in the promise of rapid iterative testing. We'll be outlandishly lucky if any of these documents get a second run through before Go Time, considering they have maybe a year to get it right. There is no way in any Hell anyone cares to name that Wizards is going to be allowed to miss the 50th Anniversary thing; the game WILL drop on that time period no matter what state it's in, and them missing their deadline by a GODS DAMNED MONTH EVERY MONTH isn't helping matters in the slightest.
Snap it the f@#$ up, Wizards.
I'm honestly happy they're taking their time. I doubt that there's a specific "50 year anniversary" release plan so far. it definitely seems like they're reviewing something. I'm gonna go theorycrafter here but maybe they're looking at how negative the expert UA feedback was. I'm guessing the next UA is gonna be the awaited Warrior UA (Maybe Mages, but I'd bet money they're doing priests last). With the community really getting angered by the martial/caster divide with the Expert UA making it worse, it makes sense that releasing a Warrior UA which doesn't satisfy the community, or a Mage UA with significant buffs to mages would be terrible for the playtest's future.
Have you ever actually played a Sorcerer? They are hands down the most nerfed spellcaster, as if WotC was scared of every single feature they came up with. If Sorcerer doesn't get a buff, then Wizards need a huge nerf, at the very least losing their Arcane Recovery feature, which steps on the toes of both Sorcerers being able to create more spell slots, and Warlocks getting short rest spell slots.
At the very least, sorcerers need all of their subclasses updated so it doesn't "feel bad" to play anything other than Aberrant mind or Clockwork Soul sorcerer.
My proposal is tiny compared to the amount of spells Wizards get!, They have 44 spells, AT THE MINIMUM, at level 20, and that's without finding any spells! Letting sorcerers know 20 spells instead of 15 shouldn't be a big deal, especially if they have to weight it against additional spells from subclasses.
You know how many spells Sorcerers learn in tier IV? 1 spell, anything else is retraining an old spell.
This is what it is currently:
Tier I (lvl 1-4): 5 new spells (2 at level 1)
Tier II (lvl 5-10): 6 new spells
Tier III (lvl 11-16): 3 new spells (every other level, so on lvl 11/13/15)
Tier IV (lvl 17-20): 1 new spell (only at lvl 17)
This is what it would be under my previous comment's suggestion, with no extra spells from subclasses due to the second clause:
Tier I (lvl 1-4): 6 new spells (2 at lvl 1, and 2 at lvl 4)
Tier II (lvl 5-10): 7 new spells (2 at lvl 8)
Tier III (lvl 11-16): 5 new spells (1 at each of the following levels:11/12/13/15/16)
Tier IV (lvl 17-20): 2 new spells (at lvl 17, and at lvl 19)
How is that change scary? it's half the spells that you would have gained from aberrant Mind or Clockwork soul (not including the extra cantrip from Aberrant mind) and my suggestion would have you have to forgo any gained spells from subclasses to use the ASI additional spells feat.
Quote from my original post below, for context:
Personally, I'd like to see the number of spells learned by Sorcerers bumped in some way at the base class... Here's what I'm thinking:
Every time a sorcerer has an Ability Score improvement (normally get 5 ASI) they also pick up a second spell at that level (From anywhere they could normally learn) If they use this feature, they forgo any other additional spell features from subclasses: What this means, is they have to choose between an extra 5 with no limits, or the Aberrant mind/Clockwork soul/lunar additional spells... I'm trying to think of a wording that keeps cleric spell list access that Divine soul sorcerer gets, since they get a single measly additional spell in the same feature that gives them said access. I love the sorcerer, but it's always felt like it was hurting for spells too much... but Lunar sorcerer's 30 total spells is too far in the opposite direction, and offloading it on the subclass only works if all the old subclasses got revisited.
Hopefully by the end of DNDOne/5.5e they revisit every subclass and rebalance it... I think I've hit on the right method/number with the 20 spells total, learn 2 at each level with an ASI.
Ideally the subclasses all get revisited and rebalances to each be equally worth it from a number of spells gain standpoint (so you're looking at other subclass feats when choosing)
Have you ever actually played a Sorcerer? They are hands down the most nerfed spellcaster, as if WotC was scared of every single feature they came up with. If Sorcerer doesn't get a buff, then Wizards need a huge nerf, at the very least losing their Arcane Recovery feature, which steps on the toes of both Sorcerers being able to create more spell slots, and Warlocks getting short rest spell slots.
At the very least, sorcerers need all of their subclasses updated so it doesn't "feel bad" to play anything other than Aberrant mind or Clockwork Soul sorcerer.
My proposal is tiny compared to the amount of spells Wizards get!, They have 44 spells, AT THE MINIMUM, at level 20, and that's without finding any spells! Letting sorcerers know 20 spells instead of 15 shouldn't be a big deal, especially if they have to weight it against additional spells from subclasses.
You know how many spells Sorcerers learn in tier IV? 1 spell, anything else is retraining an old spell.
This is what it is currently:
Tier I (lvl 1-4): 5 new spells (2 at level 1)
Tier II (lvl 5-10): 6 new spells
Tier III (lvl 11-16): 3 new spells (every other level, so on lvl 11/13/15)
Tier IV (lvl 17-20): 1 new spell (only at lvl 17)
This is what it would be under my previous comment's suggestion, with no extra spells from subclasses due to the second clause:
Tier I (lvl 1-4): 6 new spells (2 at lvl 1, and 2 at lvl 4)
Tier II (lvl 5-10): 7 new spells (2 at lvl 8)
Tier III (lvl 11-16): 5 new spells (1 at each of the following levels:11/12/13/15/16)
Tier IV (lvl 17-20): 2 new spells (at lvl 17, and at lvl 19)
How is that change scary? it's half the spells that you would have gained from aberrant Mind or Clockwork soul (not including the extra cantrip from Aberrant mind) and my suggestion would have you have to forgo any gained spells from subclasses to use the ASI additional spells feat.
Quote from my original post below, for context:
Personally, I'd like to see the number of spells learned by Sorcerers bumped in some way at the base class... Here's what I'm thinking:
Every time a sorcerer has an Ability Score improvement (normally get 5 ASI) they also pick up a second spell at that level (From anywhere they could normally learn) If they use this feature, they forgo any other additional spell features from subclasses: What this means, is they have to choose between an extra 5 with no limits, or the Aberrant mind/Clockwork soul/lunar additional spells... I'm trying to think of a wording that keeps cleric spell list access that Divine soul sorcerer gets, since they get a single measly additional spell in the same feature that gives them said access. I love the sorcerer, but it's always felt like it was hurting for spells too much... but Lunar sorcerer's 30 total spells is too far in the opposite direction, and offloading it on the subclass only works if all the old subclasses got revisited.
Hopefully by the end of DNDOne/5.5e they revisit every subclass and rebalance it... I think I've hit on the right method/number with the 20 spells total, learn 2 at each level with an ASI.
Ideally the subclasses all get revisited and rebalances to each be equally worth it from a number of spells gain standpoint (so you're looking at other subclass feats when choosing)
I'd much rather see Wizards/Clerics/Druids nerfed than sorcerers buffed. I think Sorcerer and Warlock are right where casters should be on the power scale as a whole in D&D rather than the absurd power level of Wizards/Clerics/Druids
August 18th September 18th October 18th November 18th.
We should be approaching release of the fourth document in a rapid iterative testing cycle, not lingering for an extra half a damned month on the second. This is taking way too long for "rapid iterative testing", which tells me that there's no god damned point in testing ANY of this and leaving ANY feedback because the two-month friggin' cycles means there won't be any time to iterate on the content. By the time we get the complete first run of 1DD test documents it'll already be time to print the books and there's nothing any of us could do about it.
August 18th September 18th October 18th November 18th.
We should be approaching release of the fourth document in a rapid iterative testing cycle, not lingering for an extra half a damned month on the second. This is taking way too long for "rapid iterative testing", which tells me that there's no god damned point in testing ANY of this and leaving ANY feedback because the two-month friggin' cycles means there won't be any time to iterate on the content. By the time we get the complete first run of 1DD test documents it'll already be time to print the books and there's nothing any of us could do about it.
They never announced their release schedule. Is "delaying "something by 2 weeks that bad? There's 4 documents and the whole of 2023 and a good chunk of 2024 for material to be released in playtest form. There's a lot of time for refinement, especially with classes being released every month and a half. We'll have the whole new PHB's classes in a 1st draft in 6 months since One started. That leaves a ton of time left to refine and playtest
Actually, Yurei's concerns are valid. At this rate, how many passes/iterations can we have? There is a deadline. No way in hell WotC will miss DnDs 50th anniversary. It's not unusual these days for a corporation to release a half-baked, untested, botched product because release window. That's pretty much how AAA gaming industry works right now.
It was never gonna happen in the first place. Even in that video to which Yurei is referring, Crawford immediately walked back on his “every month” statement and revised it to about one a month. I remember because it stuck out like a sore thumb as clear evidence as to how unrealistic it would be to get one out every month.
Don't forget they are saying there will be no more editions of DnD. It's just going to be One DnD. That might just be marketing babble. Or we might need to take them much more literally.
If they're going to regularly update One DnD, they don't have to ever finish playtesting.
They'll release new books for the 50th anniversary no matter what. But there no reason to think it will be the final 'edition' that lasts for 10 more years. We could be looking at a new version of the core books every year. I'm sure everyone will enjoy that thought...
Expert Classes - Survey Extended! Feedback survey is now open until November 23rd
You have just got to wonder why the extension? Maybe what they have seen so far is causing them to step back on something, I really do not think it would be lack of input.
I really do wonder. When the last UA was announced, they said these changes were planned all along. That they always intended to try different ideas for things like inspiration and critical hits. But reverting crits to 5e rules isn't really playtesting anything. So I question that part of the video a bit.
That means they might be taking feedback into consideration before each release. If something receives overwhelmingly negative feedback, they might hesitate to release another UA that mirrors the same concepts. All they would get is more negative feedback. So there might be a reason for some last minute edits. Though it sounds like too much to do in only a few weeks. Unless they had a lot of backup plans in their pockets to pull out.
Despite what people keep saying, they will definitely read at least some of our written responses. They have said they read every one in the past. But more than that, it would be a complete waste of valuable data to just throw it away. If the only thing they know is that 70% of testers hated a rule, and they don't look at why, they're just guessing on how to fix it. For no reason at all. The answers are right there in our feedback. No one would throw all that away.
Now, they might have a LOT more feedback than expected. They might not be able to read and organize all of it. And they probably won't take anyone's rewrites to the rules straight out of the feedback. If you tried to write your own version of Barkskin, it's highly unlikely they will use it. But they will definitely look at why you were dissatisfied with their version. So pointing out specifics is useful. For example "It didn't give enough HP."
Sorting through all these results will take time. But they will get a summary of our ratings immediately. They have that already, in real time, on their dashboard. They know what we liked and didn't. What they have to do now is focus on the worst reactions and categorize why we were dissatisfied.
I don't know if that will have any effect on delaying the next UA release. It depends on how they are using it. On how many different ideas they have to pull from. If their internal testing gave them 3 sets of possible variations on Warrior classes for example, they might try to pull out the one that fits our current feedback the best already, to get a head start in the right direction. But that's purely speculative.
Something to keep in mind, UA is not affected by our Survey feedback from the previous one. Each UA is stand-alone even if ppl raged over the previous one about a mechanic. They will run them all stand-alone and then do a revision. Like Wotc said they just wanna test some things out even if a previous version did not work if u don't see the same mechanic again it does not mean it's discarded, it just means they got enough feedback for now, and wanna test something else against the basic rules. That's why they say that u test each UA with the rules in that one document and the basic ones (5e).
I know that's what they said. I was just offering it as a possible explanation for the delays, however unlikely. They're probably swamped with feedback. All we can do is guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Survey was extended to the 23rd, so looks like we will have to wait a bit longer to find out what is next.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
i always think of something else to add after submitting. i kinda wish they'd unlock submissions for editing if they're going to extend the period.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Well, these will be agonizing two weeks.
That would be a tremendous mess. You are supposed to answer the survey based on what came up in your games. You might test it more and change your mind about something, of course, or even try things you haven't tried before. But being able to change your opinions is a pain. Although they automate the analysis of the polls (which is what they do, that's why it's a waste of time to write design suggestions and things like that. Nobody will read it), and export statistics to have an overview of the opinion of the community, letting users edit their answers comes with a lot of headaches. The optimal thing is to test the new material, which is left for 30 days, answer the survey, and forget about it. If they allowed editing, they would have to deal with a lot of undecided people who would be editing their answers every few minutes.
For the next UA I expect a bit of reorganization on severel things.
1) First review the Fighting Style Feats: now that they are feats (even if they are lv 1) they are too low in addition to disfiguring other lv1 feats that objectively offer more, as well as being reduntant with other of lv 4 that are pratically their best version; for example Fighting Style Archery, Defense, Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection and Two-Weapon Fighting are the lowest version of lv 4 feats Skulker, Shield Master, Great Weapon Master, Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder etc. pratically an unnecessary separation of feats since if the martial class concept is that he trained hard to know how to fight, then it would be logical if a Fighter he learns one of these specific feats at lv 2 despite being lv 4 while a rouge or a wizard who is more focused on another path at the beginning, narratively speaking, they could learn a fighting style (now lv 4) during the adventure (as well as being a bit silly that the first feats are limited to martial classes and the second ones have as a requirement only knowing how to use martial weapons).
Small note on the Ranger, since it's a hybrid class Fighter/Rouge/Druid, following the reasoning above it would not be better to give him the opportunity to learn a feat like Skulker already at lv 2, also beacuse Blindsight, Fog of War and Sniper (the three Skulker skills) are pratctically a must have for the ranger.
In short, we are not talking about limiting the role but about cutting unncessary separations, also because the player can always decide not to take it, it's more not less.
2) For the Ranger in general I don't understand why they put certain class feats too hight or on a subclasses, althought it is clearly for the basic Ranger.
At lv 1 it's nice the they gave Hunter's Mark uncounted from the total spells list from Favored Enemy, but at this point make it free, instead of consuming the slots write that it can be used a number of times based on the Proficiencies bonus for long rest so as to bring it closer to the magical autonomy of the Druid, even if some of the spells ramain fixed while the other I choose from the list. For example I don't why not give the ranger the cantrips called snare or beast bound for free (I can't find the actual name onlime but they are from Xanathar, practically one is a simple invisible trap and the other a telepatic bond with an animal that gains advantage for an action). Still talking abount Favored Enemy why something fundamental for the Ranger like Hunter's Lore is given at lv 6, added in a subclasses.
At lv 2 I have already expressed my doubts talking about the feats, I'm not complaing any further except saying that the Feral Senses class feat must be moved from lv 15 to 2.
At lv 7 Roving is good, but at this point also give it Nature's Veil at lv 7, always with the speech above, invisibility must not use the slots.
From lv 11 onward I don't know what what say, it's all too bland. Tireless is fine with Decrease Exhaustion but something actually valid, not necessarily taking from Fighter or the druid, like you can make him a mster of traps and tactics (weapons with flammable, poisonous and soporific mods and the ability to make simple potions) so it can both help to escape and to infiltrate everywhere, trivially if you have an advantage with the soporific arrows and knifes you don't need the spel sleep or make too many stealth roll. Maybe for Foe Slayer they could change it to "three times for long rest when you it an enemy you can change the types of damage of all your attack to anather as long you have a spell with that type of damage".
3) For the subclass Hunter I don't have much to say. it's good, apart from Hunter's Lore, but given the speech started above why not reward the player who chose the sub-class by giving not only an extra spell but also an option to customize the spell on the style so the sub-class? Also at lv 6 why not do the same as the lv 10 with hail of thorns or Ensnaring strike? If in addition to the downcast they specify that the extra spells can be cat at a higher level based on how many uses the proficiencies allows (Prof Bonus +6 Hunter's Mark lv 1 can be cast sic times, while at lv 2 only 3 times) the class would be more sustainable.
For Superior Hunter's Defense maybe add the effect also for magic damage, since it's a lv 14 feat
4) Maybe even some changes to certain spells like for hiunter's mark, even as small as giving an extra d6 for each slot used, or certain cantrip like manipulating water or earth that perhaps wound earn more if merged together considering the few cantrips that the characters hane available.
Just thinking how many use prestigitation and minor illusion as synonyms, why not combine them? the same goes for thaumaturgy and sacred flame (perhaps whit a footnote that changes the damege from radiant to necrotic if you are a follower of evil deity, like an unholy cleric)
Expert Classes - Survey Extended!
Feedback survey is now open until November 23rd
You have just got to wonder why the extension? Maybe what they have seen so far is causing them to step back on something, I really do not think it would be lack of input.
I really do wonder. When the last UA was announced, they said these changes were planned all along. That they always intended to try different ideas for things like inspiration and critical hits. But reverting crits to 5e rules isn't really playtesting anything. So I question that part of the video a bit.
That means they might be taking feedback into consideration before each release. If something receives overwhelmingly negative feedback, they might hesitate to release another UA that mirrors the same concepts. All they would get is more negative feedback. So there might be a reason for some last minute edits. Though it sounds like too much to do in only a few weeks. Unless they had a lot of backup plans in their pockets to pull out.
Despite what people keep saying, they will definitely read at least some of our written responses. They have said they read every one in the past. But more than that, it would be a complete waste of valuable data to just throw it away. If the only thing they know is that 70% of testers hated a rule, and they don't look at why, they're just guessing on how to fix it. For no reason at all. The answers are right there in our feedback. No one would throw all that away.
Now, they might have a LOT more feedback than expected. They might not be able to read and organize all of it. And they probably won't take anyone's rewrites to the rules straight out of the feedback. If you tried to write your own version of Barkskin, it's highly unlikely they will use it. But they will definitely look at why you were dissatisfied with their version. So pointing out specifics is useful. For example "It didn't give enough HP."
Sorting through all these results will take time. But they will get a summary of our ratings immediately. They have that already, in real time, on their dashboard. They know what we liked and didn't. What they have to do now is focus on the worst reactions and categorize why we were dissatisfied.
I don't know if that will have any effect on delaying the next UA release. It depends on how they are using it. On how many different ideas they have to pull from. If their internal testing gave them 3 sets of possible variations on Warrior classes for example, they might try to pull out the one that fits our current feedback the best already, to get a head start in the right direction. But that's purely speculative.
Expectation for the Next UA: we're not gonna f@#$ing see it because Wizards keeps slipping the schedule by a billion weeks. We should be closing in on the end of the third document's testing cycle, not halfway through the second one. These delays are ridiculous and severely erode any trust I had in the promise of rapid iterative testing. We'll be outlandishly lucky if any of these documents get a second run through before Go Time, considering they have maybe a year to get it right. There is no way in any Hell anyone cares to name that Wizards is going to be allowed to miss the 50th Anniversary thing; the game WILL drop on that time period no matter what state it's in, and them missing their deadline by a GODS DAMNED MONTH EVERY MONTH isn't helping matters in the slightest.
Snap it the f@#$ up, Wizards.
Please do not contact or message me.
It is neither a billion weeks or a month. It is just two weeks. Wipe the froth from your mouth and have a nice cup of tea. It will be ok.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm honestly happy they're taking their time. I doubt that there's a specific "50 year anniversary" release plan so far.
it definitely seems like they're reviewing something. I'm gonna go theorycrafter here but maybe they're looking at how negative the expert UA feedback was. I'm guessing the next UA is gonna be the awaited Warrior UA (Maybe Mages, but I'd bet money they're doing priests last). With the community really getting angered by the martial/caster divide with the Expert UA making it worse, it makes sense that releasing a Warrior UA which doesn't satisfy the community, or a Mage UA with significant buffs to mages would be terrible for the playtest's future.
Have you ever actually played a Sorcerer? They are hands down the most nerfed spellcaster, as if WotC was scared of every single feature they came up with. If Sorcerer doesn't get a buff, then Wizards need a huge nerf, at the very least losing their Arcane Recovery feature, which steps on the toes of both Sorcerers being able to create more spell slots, and Warlocks getting short rest spell slots.
At the very least, sorcerers need all of their subclasses updated so it doesn't "feel bad" to play anything other than Aberrant mind or Clockwork Soul sorcerer.
My proposal is tiny compared to the amount of spells Wizards get!, They have 44 spells, AT THE MINIMUM, at level 20, and that's without finding any spells! Letting sorcerers know 20 spells instead of 15 shouldn't be a big deal, especially if they have to weight it against additional spells from subclasses.
You know how many spells Sorcerers learn in tier IV? 1 spell, anything else is retraining an old spell.
This is what it is currently:
This is what it would be under my previous comment's suggestion, with no extra spells from subclasses due to the second clause:
How is that change scary? it's half the spells that you would have gained from aberrant Mind or Clockwork soul (not including the extra cantrip from Aberrant mind) and my suggestion would have you have to forgo any gained spells from subclasses to use the ASI additional spells feat.
Quote from my original post below, for context:
I'd much rather see Wizards/Clerics/Druids nerfed than sorcerers buffed. I think Sorcerer and Warlock are right where casters should be on the power scale as a whole in D&D rather than the absurd power level of Wizards/Clerics/Druids
We got the first document on August 18th.
August 18th
September 18th
October 18th
November 18th.
We should be approaching release of the fourth document in a rapid iterative testing cycle, not lingering for an extra half a damned month on the second. This is taking way too long for "rapid iterative testing", which tells me that there's no god damned point in testing ANY of this and leaving ANY feedback because the two-month friggin' cycles means there won't be any time to iterate on the content. By the time we get the complete first run of 1DD test documents it'll already be time to print the books and there's nothing any of us could do about it.
Please do not contact or message me.
They never announced their release schedule. Is "delaying "something by 2 weeks that bad?
There's 4 documents and the whole of 2023 and a good chunk of 2024 for material to be released in playtest form. There's a lot of time for refinement, especially with classes being released every month and a half. We'll have the whole new PHB's classes in a 1st draft in 6 months since One started. That leaves a ton of time left to refine and playtest
Chillax, like the man said:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Actually, Yurei's concerns are valid. At this rate, how many passes/iterations can we have? There is a deadline. No way in hell WotC will miss DnDs 50th anniversary. It's not unusual these days for a corporation to release a half-baked, untested, botched product because release window. That's pretty much how AAA gaming industry works right now.
It was never gonna happen in the first place. Even in that video to which Yurei is referring, Crawford immediately walked back on his “every month” statement and revised it to about one a month. I remember because it stuck out like a sore thumb as clear evidence as to how unrealistic it would be to get one out every month.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Don't forget they are saying there will be no more editions of DnD. It's just going to be One DnD. That might just be marketing babble. Or we might need to take them much more literally.
If they're going to regularly update One DnD, they don't have to ever finish playtesting.
They'll release new books for the 50th anniversary no matter what. But there no reason to think it will be the final 'edition' that lasts for 10 more years. We could be looking at a new version of the core books every year. I'm sure everyone will enjoy that thought...
Something to keep in mind, UA is not affected by our Survey feedback from the previous one. Each UA is stand-alone even if ppl raged over the previous one about a mechanic. They will run them all stand-alone and then do a revision. Like Wotc said they just wanna test some things out even if a previous version did not work if u don't see the same mechanic again it does not mean it's discarded, it just means they got enough feedback for now, and wanna test something else against the basic rules. That's why they say that u test each UA with the rules in that one document and the basic ones (5e).
I know that's what they said. I was just offering it as a possible explanation for the delays, however unlikely. They're probably swamped with feedback. All we can do is guess.