The continual tease of new ideas only to just revert back to 2014 ruleset. Hunter's mark auto prepared and doesn't take up a preparation slot with no concentration. Fantastic. Now I have a reason to use Ranger spells.
But the playtest had issues. Things need retooled for balance. Did they do that. Nope. Just reverted back to 2014. Nearly every class has had this. Unique new things that where col to see but needed some balance or better wording but instead of doing the work the low roads taken. Just revert back to 2014.
Now Warlock needs help because short rest dependent features aren't what we want. We got decent ideas that needed polished but we've reverted back to 2014, with some new things. Bladelock is OP but instead of doing the work to tune it, the odds are back to the low road and just use 2014.
At this point the 2024 book will be the 2014 book with better grammatical changes ad new art.
So infuriating. Especially for the Monk that needs a lot of help and the 2014 Monk isn't good either.
There were a couple of bigger swings that are likely to stick, like Rogue Cunning Strike and Fighters getting a non-combat use for Second Wind. I'm also really happy that they're carrying modern race design into the core books.
Beyond those though, I agree with you, the playtest was a shadow of what could have been. Maybe we'll get another Tasha style book of optional features/redesigns.
There were a couple of bigger swings that are likely to stick, like Rogue Cunning Strike and Fighters getting a non-combat use for Second Wind. I'm also really happy that they're carrying modern race design into the core books.
Beyond those though, I agree with you, the playtest was a shadow of what could have been. Maybe we'll get another Tasha style book of optional features/redesigns.
Don't remind me of cunning strikes... at least ignoring them doesn't change anything.
I think one core issue in general with the premise of the playtest of a new version of D&D done by the community of an existing edition is that you are asking a community that is in consensus that the current game is awesome to change the game. I mean it's a bit like a reverse edition war. If you showed 2e players 3e before it was released, most people would have crapped all over it. The evolution took place after the fact, the game was released and many people tried it and ultimately the majority converted while a small portion of the community refused to. The ones that converted discovered a new game they liked, but I don't think they would have had that kind of clarity if 3e was proposed as a new edition with the option to say "no it's terrible" before it was released. Like I think the consensus would have been to reject it. Adoption sort of takes place when there is something new and shiny to buy and people can debate the merits based on a new published offering.
This goes into the "buy in" theory which essentially just means that if you buy something and spend money on it, you are more likely to defend it rather than admit you made a mistake in buying it.
D&D's evolution has taken place largely despite the community, not because of it. Fans of the current system are not going to want major changes to their favorite game if you ask their permission in advance, nor are you likely to ever come to anything even approaching consensus on any specific proposed change and I can kind of understand that. But release a published game that is really good, a big improvement, the majority will transition and the game will evolve with holdouts proclaiming 5e is forever the best game as have certain people with any given edition.
I think the only time the game didn't evolve this way is with 4e which kind of created a new circumstance not experienced before in which a new edition was made and a larger than normal chunk of players refused to convert. That was a new precedent and I think WotC see's that as a failure to communicate and/or perhaps to read the community's desires, but I think the real issue was that they didn't realize that so far as the D&D community was concerned Pathfinder 1e was in fact a new edition of D&D already in the works. The 1e pre-release content had already been well received and on its way to be launched as a published game by 4e's launch and it was based on a system that players already played and loved. The adoption of an upgraded version of D&D you already like is kind of an automatic thing. By the time 4e came out, most people were already quite conscious of the fact that they would have 2 versions of D&D to choose from. An upgraded version of what they were already playing, or this entirely new game that was wildly different. I think this is why the adoption of 4e was so much lower than is the case normally with new D&D editions, I don't think WotC really understood that so far as the D&D community was concerned, Pathfinder 1e was a fully accepted D&D edition. Even today when people talk about 3rd edition, they usually mean Pathfinder 1e, the final edition of that system.
So I'm really not surprised that any major departures and proposed changes are being rejected by the consensus of D&D players. I think the whole premise of beta testing an RPG is a bit flawed, at least if you are trying to do it where each new feature is polled and then rejected if the community doesn't show overwhelming approval. The result I would expect is that only minor changes will see sufficient consensus approval and major alterations to the system will be rejected.
It's worth noting too that some changes they are implementing, are actually ignoring the consensus. Changing race to species for example was not well received and they were quite obtuse about the results because they understood that this is a positive change for the game and their intention is to include it regardless of community opinion. Today, I don't think its even being debated, the community has already sort of adopted and adjusted to that change which they would have done had they played no part in the decision and it just appeared in the published version of the game. This was the case for example in PF2e, where race was changed to ancestry. I don't recall anyone even noticing the change, like, there were no debates about it, it was just like "ok, cool, whatever...".
Point is that, Wizards of the Coast should just make the game they want to make, they can have a beta test, but this "mother may I" process isn't going to result in producing a new edition of the game, it's going to result in a version 5.1 at best. Beta testing is about testing if something works, if its balanced, its not about capturing people's opinions about what the game design should be. If that's their plan for their 50th anniversary, I suppose it is as good as any, but frankly, I think 5e was a really strong effort, on the precipice of something truly great but it has some glaring flaws that really need addressing and so far at least I haven't seen the really core problems with 5e even mentioned. Right now they are just pushing various degrees of power creep on the table and if this is the process, the "mother may I" consensus, I doubt any of 5e's real issues of the game will be dealt with.
I also suspect that in some cases the results of the survey are being misinterpreted a bit. I mean, there are things that maybe are being downvoted because they are poorly designed, not because people don't want to change it. An example that comes to mind is wild shape, whose design was bad. But that does not mean that improving that design the community would not have accepted it. The strategy that the development team is following is: "if any change is voted down, it is reverted to 2014". That seems like a bad philosophy to me, since there are good ideas that are lost simply because their first implementation was poor.
I also suspect that in some cases the results of the survey are being misinterpreted a bit. I mean, there are things that maybe are being downvoted because they are poorly designed, not because people don't want to change it. An example that comes to mind is wild shape, whose design was bad. But that does not mean that improving that design the community would not have accepted it. The strategy that the development team is following is: "if any change is voted down, it is reverted to 2014". That seems like a bad philosophy to me, since there are good ideas that are lost simply because their first implementation was poor.
Agreed, the surveys are very poorly designed for refining a new version of the game, people inherently tend to reject things that are different and any UA is less well tested than the current edition so balance will be off.
I think a big part of the issue with the entire design approach here as well is that they are only looking internally for inspiration and design, which is a huge mistake. I figure they must be doing this out of vanity or ego because traditionally a good business practice when making a product is to go out into the market and see what else is going on out there that people are doing successfully, there is no logical reason not to do that. Its clear however the only experience being applied to the design is past experience with this game only, they are clearly not looking at all the good word the community has done, the 3rd party publishing stuff and other successful franchises.
In so doing, the game isn't likely to evolve or progress beyond what they can see at the tip of their noses.
Monster design, action economy, archetype structures new approaches to combat management and oh so many tactical games that have done amazing stuff. None of this external work is even being considered for 5e and its kind of sad really because 5e is already looking like a dinosaur compared to a lot of these designs and when I say these designs, they are already last-generation stuff, like there is a whole new generation of design coming now and 5e hasn't even caught up to stuff that was done better 5 years ago.
I'm sure in the end Wizards of the Coast will produce a decent game, at the end of the day, they always do, but I'll be honest that, if they were going with what's in the UA now, I don't see a point in buying new D&D books. I mean, its stuff I already have and I'm not all that impressed with what is there now, if they are just going to rehash all this stuff with new art.. I think I will save myself the 120 bucks these 3 new books are going to be going for.
I also suspect that in some cases the results of the survey are being misinterpreted a bit. I mean, there are things that maybe are being downvoted because they are poorly designed, not because people don't want to change it. An example that comes to mind is wild shape, whose design was bad. But that does not mean that improving that design the community would not have accepted it. The strategy that the development team is following is: "if any change is voted down, it is reverted to 2014". That seems like a bad philosophy to me, since there are good ideas that are lost simply because their first implementation was poor.
Agreed, the surveys are very poorly designed for refining a new version of the game, people inherently tend to reject things that are different and any UA is less well tested than the current edition so balance will be off.
There's a lot wrong. Some of it erring in the positive as well
The weapon masteries are thoroughly enjoyed so they seem to be leaning in and giving them to everyone and making even more of the available to the fighter.
Now I'm fine with our fighter getting them and being able to swap them on weapons, but rather than the "you get two a day" it's an unnecessary mechanic when you could just say "these types of weapons get these abilities now". (I mean I'm not a fan of other classes getting something that could make fighter's special to begin with, and as a DM which is always having a headache tracking everything, this just compounds the headache, but if you're keeping it....)
There's also the fact that these playtests are short on time for actual testing and most of the testing is white room theory crafting rather than actually playing the classes.
Things like the aforementioned cunning strikes are well received, but insanely situational and otherwise irrelevant in the long run, likely to be cast aside. Where cunning strikes are implemented they're a reflavor of bad class features that nobody uses because they're thong you should just get, or shouldn't have to pay for (which is a clunky mechanic).
The white room theory crafting is leading to all sorts of crap about he warlock and it's resource problems, and a lot of people are latching on to the idea of mystic arcanum recharges, which forgets that short rests are being doubled down on for all classes, and that you would go an entire 11 levels of gameplay without these recharges, probably when they matter the most.
Not to.mention theory crafting takes these characters and builds them to level 20, and most of the time players rarely get past level 10. If you multiclass, anything that requires more than 3 levels to have the skill you really want to come online starts to have a bit of a drag, though what you get for a 1-3 level dip in most cases is absurd. (A 1/9 character vs. A 4/6, your 1/9 is more likely to get some of the higher powered skills, IF progression wasn't so skewed to lower levels).
Sorry, for the tangent.
The thing is the theory crafting is not taking into consideration that there's just a bunch of stuff your NOT going to get to have because the game itself doesn't expect you to get that far, or, it's something that's about to come online just as you stop playing.
So back to the warlock - why is everyone so desperate to preserve the mystic arcanum spells (6-9) when they're never going to even get to the levels needed to use them?
Because there's a myopia about the stuff being presented to playtest. The mystic arcanum swap was in the UA, and rather than outright dismissal, saying "hey, that's all well and good, but I rarely have a character than even gets a 6th level spell...." the community goes into overdrive focusing on that ONE proposed solution and just tweak the ever-loving hell out of it.
Which leads to the other problem.
Nobody is asking the players for possible solutions or feedback as to what THEY propose or problems THEY see with the classes. (Or if they are, they're doing a crap job of it). Itay be a crap shoot, but for some of these classes, there's some interesting and innovative solutions presented, and although 90% I would assume could be tossed out, maybe there's a suggestion or two that could at least get into their own playtest to see if it's worth trying.
Finally, how much playtesting and feedback occurs throughout the edition's run? It feels lacking, or, like too much of it is in a closed door environment (which has its plusses. I agree with some gatekeeping of the playtesting and experimentation but something feels like there's too much of it or just a lack of experimentation and feedback overall).
I think a big part of the issue with the entire design approach here as well is that they are only looking internally for inspiration and design, which is a huge mistake. I figure they must be doing this out of vanity or ego because traditionally a good business practice when making a product is to go out into the market and see what else is going on out there that people are doing successfully, there is no logical reason not to do that. Its clear however the only experience being applied to the design is past experience with this game only, they are clearly not looking at all the good word the community has done, the 3rd party publishing stuff and other successful franchises.
In so doing, the game isn't likely to evolve or progress beyond what they can see at the tip of their noses.
Monster design, action economy, archetype structures new approaches to combat management and oh so many tactical games that have done amazing stuff. None of this external work is even being considered for 5e and its kind of sad really because 5e is already looking like a dinosaur compared to a lot of these designs and when I say these designs, they are already last-generation stuff, like there is a whole new generation of design coming now and 5e hasn't even caught up to stuff that was done better 5 years ago.
I'm sure in the end Wizards of the Coast will produce a decent game, at the end of the day, they always do, but I'll be honest that, if they were going with what's in the UA now, I don't see a point in buying new D&D books. I mean, its stuff I already have and I'm not all that impressed with what is there now, if they are just going to rehash all this stuff with new art.. I think I will save myself the 120 bucks these 3 new books are going to be going for.
Yes, I feel a bit the same. As the playtest stands now, I won't buy the book. Other content will be seen, but the PHB I feel like they are selling me something that I already have. Regarding looking at the design of third parties, just by taking a look at what their immediate competitor is doing, they would realize that there is a mechanic that fixes many of 5e's problems. If only they adapted the three-action system, the game would be infinitely better. I don't need mechanics to rule a castle, or build my own equipment. That content is cool, but what I really need is to have options during combat beyond hitting with my stick.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long form "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
Yes, I feel a bit the same. As the playtest stands now, I won't buy the book. Other content will be seen, but the PHB I feel like they are selling me something that I already have. Regarding looking at the design of third parties, just by taking a look at what their immediate competitor is doing, they would realize that there is a mechanic that fixes many of 5e's problems. If only they adapted the three-action system, the game would be infinitely better. I don't need mechanics to rule a castle, or build my own equipment. That content is cool, but what I really need is to have options during combat beyond hitting with my stick.
I personally would like them to be a lot more modular as well. There are many different forms and playstyles in D&D and trying to somehow make them all work from a single set of core rules could work, but you have to start on a much more basic level and build the modularity out.
Like sub-classes for example. That is a cool concept but it does not suit the playstyle of every group. Many groups want a simpler more straightforward game with classic classes where the focus isn't on character builds, leveling up and getting a bunch of powers to execute. While simultaneously for some groups that is the main thing and they want way more than what 5e offers, they want 2-3 feats per level, 100 different options for each level etc..
These things are not reconcilable in a single system where all of the mechanics are like interconnected gears, but if you built a more modular system of layers... Basic, Advanced, Expert for example and just create layers of complexity and options, you could have a variety of systems in a single core ruleset.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long form "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
I'm expecting 6e to be announced in 2025, and it being a pathfinder clone, which I will absolutely hate, and it'll be about 5-8 years after that that they'll return to another site simplified version, that, of I'm not a corpse in the ground by then, I will be interested in playing.
Yes, I feel a bit the same. As the playtest stands now, I won't buy the book. Other content will be seen, but the PHB I feel like they are selling me something that I already have. Regarding looking at the design of third parties, just by taking a look at what their immediate competitor is doing, they would realize that there is a mechanic that fixes many of 5e's problems. If only they adapted the three-action system, the game would be infinitely better. I don't need mechanics to rule a castle, or build my own equipment. That content is cool, but what I really need is to have options during combat beyond hitting with my stick.
I personally would like them to be a lot more modular as well. There are many different forms and playstyles in D&D and trying to somehow make them all work from a single set of core rules could work, but you have to start on a much more basic level and build the modularity out.
Like sub-classes for example. That is a cool concept but it does not suit the playstyle of every group. Many groups want a simpler more straightforward game with classic classes where the focus isn't on character builds, leveling up and getting a bunch of powers to execute. While simultaneously for some groups that is the main thing and they want way more than what 5e offers, they want 2-3 feats per level, 100 different options for each level etc..
These things are not reconcilable in a single system where all of the mechanics are like interconnected gears, but if you built a more modular system of layers... Basic, Advanced, Expert for example and just create layers of complexity and options, you could have a variety of systems in a single core ruleset.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long form "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
I'm expecting 6e to be announced in 2025, and it being a pathfinder clone, which I will absolutely hate, and it'll be about 5-8 years after that that they'll return to another site simplified version, that, of I'm not a corpse in the ground by then, I will be interested in playing.
Excuse me but you mean the 1st or 2nd edition? To place myself.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long fo Mrm "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
I'm expecting 6e to be announced in 2025, and it being a pathfinder clone, which I will absolutely hate, and it'll be about 5-8 years after that that they'll return to another site simplified version, that, of I'm not a corpse in the ground by then, I will be interested in playing.
Excuse me but you mean the 1st or 2nd edition? To place myself.
Maybe, though I think Wizards of the Coast is not done yet with its "shock" shenanigans. I think after everything is said and done with this whole testing period, they are going to pivot, or do something crazy. I don't know what it will be exactly, but its going to be something unexpected.
There is nothing in the history of Wizards of the Coasts that suggests that they are actually willing to listen to anyone, though they always pretend to and make a big show of it. In the end they are going to do whatever they can get away with and/or whatever they want and there is no telling what that will be, but it won't be anything that they say now. Like what they are talking about and doing right now has zero relevance on what will actually transpire with this edition.
Even the VTT, like there is no telling if this will ever see the light of day or be anything they claim it will be now.
With WotC what you can expect from them is absolutely nothing expected. Right now they are in damage control mode. They know sales have slowed and will continue to slow until something new comes out, so they will say anything to keep the restless natives quiet until they figure out how to make money on their next thing. As such when they talk now, its just appeasement, it has nothing to do with intention.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long form "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
I'm expecting 6e to be announced in 2025, and it being a pathfinder clone, which I will absolutely hate, and it'll be about 5-8 years after that that they'll return to another site simplified version, that, of I'm not a corpse in the ground by then, I will be interested in playing.
Excuse me but you mean the 1st or 2nd edition? To place myself.
Don't take it too literally.
The crunchy crowd seems to have the loudest voices. I feel like they're just going to add more and more.
The crunchy crowd seems to have the loudest voices. I feel like they're just going to add more and more.
In their defense and I say their with a grain of salt because I don't think this is a cohesive group or community, but in a word, this is one of the branches modern RPG design is going.
You really have kind of a fork in the road. Either you go the PF2e round, aka, full commitment to a mechanized architecture on which the game is based in which every conceivable action has a rule, every imaginable fantasy thing, has a class, ancestry, archetype etc.. with essentially unlimited ways things can be combined where character building is a serious business.
Or you go the old-school route.. Class, HP, AC.. some gear and go.
While I think there is a middle ground, games that fall in the middle generally do extremely poorly in the market as they are not enough for one part of the market and too much for the other.
I don't see modern D&D going the old-school route, so yeah.. it's going to be crunch city which I think is, quite ok. I mean, its a big part of the market, its very representative of modern gaming so probably that is what they are doing. They are already starting with the feat architecture, which is kind of the core of these crunch systems.
... D&D's evolution has taken place largely despite the community, not because of it. ...
I don't think a truer sentence has ever been written on any Internet website, ever. This whole process has revealed that Involving The Community at every step, trying to get Mother-May-I buy-in from a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary yaybos, and basically saying "if we print this will you promise to buy it?" before recoiling if the answer is 'no'? It's the worst thing they could've done. The worst.
The thronging Internet morasses they keep surveying are not game designers. Most of the people answering these surveys couldn't design their way out of an ankle-high stack of rotten fruit. They don't know the first damn thing about what makes a good game. The highly paid game designers who do know those things have effectively no say in the process, and it's maddening. So many awesome ideas have arisen in this playtest, and every last one of them has been thrown away because people's knees won't stop spasming and short-circuiting their brains.
If there's anything I've taken away from the whole thing, it's that people really don't like change, especially if it's change to something in the game they have personal attachments to.
There are some good things still in the new rules so far. Not everything new has been removed, but it is hard to swallow that some of their most interesting ideas were jettisoned the moment the internet mob did the only thing they can ever be trusted to do: be awful. The people who made death threats to WotC executives during the OGL thing should not be the same people making decisions on how to improve the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form| Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
The continual tease of new ideas only to just revert back to 2014 ruleset. Hunter's mark auto prepared and doesn't take up a preparation slot with no concentration. Fantastic. Now I have a reason to use Ranger spells.
But the playtest had issues. Things need retooled for balance. Did they do that. Nope. Just reverted back to 2014. Nearly every class has had this. Unique new things that where col to see but needed some balance or better wording but instead of doing the work the low roads taken. Just revert back to 2014.
Now Warlock needs help because short rest dependent features aren't what we want. We got decent ideas that needed polished but we've reverted back to 2014, with some new things. Bladelock is OP but instead of doing the work to tune it, the odds are back to the low road and just use 2014.
At this point the 2024 book will be the 2014 book with better grammatical changes ad new art.
So infuriating. Especially for the Monk that needs a lot of help and the 2014 Monk isn't good either.
There were a couple of bigger swings that are likely to stick, like Rogue Cunning Strike and Fighters getting a non-combat use for Second Wind. I'm also really happy that they're carrying modern race design into the core books.
Beyond those though, I agree with you, the playtest was a shadow of what could have been. Maybe we'll get another Tasha style book of optional features/redesigns.
Don't remind me of cunning strikes... at least ignoring them doesn't change anything.
I think one core issue in general with the premise of the playtest of a new version of D&D done by the community of an existing edition is that you are asking a community that is in consensus that the current game is awesome to change the game. I mean it's a bit like a reverse edition war. If you showed 2e players 3e before it was released, most people would have crapped all over it. The evolution took place after the fact, the game was released and many people tried it and ultimately the majority converted while a small portion of the community refused to. The ones that converted discovered a new game they liked, but I don't think they would have had that kind of clarity if 3e was proposed as a new edition with the option to say "no it's terrible" before it was released. Like I think the consensus would have been to reject it. Adoption sort of takes place when there is something new and shiny to buy and people can debate the merits based on a new published offering.
This goes into the "buy in" theory which essentially just means that if you buy something and spend money on it, you are more likely to defend it rather than admit you made a mistake in buying it.
D&D's evolution has taken place largely despite the community, not because of it. Fans of the current system are not going to want major changes to their favorite game if you ask their permission in advance, nor are you likely to ever come to anything even approaching consensus on any specific proposed change and I can kind of understand that. But release a published game that is really good, a big improvement, the majority will transition and the game will evolve with holdouts proclaiming 5e is forever the best game as have certain people with any given edition.
I think the only time the game didn't evolve this way is with 4e which kind of created a new circumstance not experienced before in which a new edition was made and a larger than normal chunk of players refused to convert. That was a new precedent and I think WotC see's that as a failure to communicate and/or perhaps to read the community's desires, but I think the real issue was that they didn't realize that so far as the D&D community was concerned Pathfinder 1e was in fact a new edition of D&D already in the works. The 1e pre-release content had already been well received and on its way to be launched as a published game by 4e's launch and it was based on a system that players already played and loved. The adoption of an upgraded version of D&D you already like is kind of an automatic thing. By the time 4e came out, most people were already quite conscious of the fact that they would have 2 versions of D&D to choose from. An upgraded version of what they were already playing, or this entirely new game that was wildly different. I think this is why the adoption of 4e was so much lower than is the case normally with new D&D editions, I don't think WotC really understood that so far as the D&D community was concerned, Pathfinder 1e was a fully accepted D&D edition. Even today when people talk about 3rd edition, they usually mean Pathfinder 1e, the final edition of that system.
So I'm really not surprised that any major departures and proposed changes are being rejected by the consensus of D&D players. I think the whole premise of beta testing an RPG is a bit flawed, at least if you are trying to do it where each new feature is polled and then rejected if the community doesn't show overwhelming approval. The result I would expect is that only minor changes will see sufficient consensus approval and major alterations to the system will be rejected.
It's worth noting too that some changes they are implementing, are actually ignoring the consensus. Changing race to species for example was not well received and they were quite obtuse about the results because they understood that this is a positive change for the game and their intention is to include it regardless of community opinion. Today, I don't think its even being debated, the community has already sort of adopted and adjusted to that change which they would have done had they played no part in the decision and it just appeared in the published version of the game. This was the case for example in PF2e, where race was changed to ancestry. I don't recall anyone even noticing the change, like, there were no debates about it, it was just like "ok, cool, whatever...".
Point is that, Wizards of the Coast should just make the game they want to make, they can have a beta test, but this "mother may I" process isn't going to result in producing a new edition of the game, it's going to result in a version 5.1 at best. Beta testing is about testing if something works, if its balanced, its not about capturing people's opinions about what the game design should be. If that's their plan for their 50th anniversary, I suppose it is as good as any, but frankly, I think 5e was a really strong effort, on the precipice of something truly great but it has some glaring flaws that really need addressing and so far at least I haven't seen the really core problems with 5e even mentioned. Right now they are just pushing various degrees of power creep on the table and if this is the process, the "mother may I" consensus, I doubt any of 5e's real issues of the game will be dealt with.
I also suspect that in some cases the results of the survey are being misinterpreted a bit. I mean, there are things that maybe are being downvoted because they are poorly designed, not because people don't want to change it.
An example that comes to mind is wild shape, whose design was bad. But that does not mean that improving that design the community would not have accepted it.
The strategy that the development team is following is: "if any change is voted down, it is reverted to 2014". That seems like a bad philosophy to me, since there are good ideas that are lost simply because their first implementation was poor.
Agreed, the surveys are very poorly designed for refining a new version of the game, people inherently tend to reject things that are different and any UA is less well tested than the current edition so balance will be off.
I think a big part of the issue with the entire design approach here as well is that they are only looking internally for inspiration and design, which is a huge mistake. I figure they must be doing this out of vanity or ego because traditionally a good business practice when making a product is to go out into the market and see what else is going on out there that people are doing successfully, there is no logical reason not to do that. Its clear however the only experience being applied to the design is past experience with this game only, they are clearly not looking at all the good word the community has done, the 3rd party publishing stuff and other successful franchises.
In so doing, the game isn't likely to evolve or progress beyond what they can see at the tip of their noses.
Monster design, action economy, archetype structures new approaches to combat management and oh so many tactical games that have done amazing stuff. None of this external work is even being considered for 5e and its kind of sad really because 5e is already looking like a dinosaur compared to a lot of these designs and when I say these designs, they are already last-generation stuff, like there is a whole new generation of design coming now and 5e hasn't even caught up to stuff that was done better 5 years ago.
I'm sure in the end Wizards of the Coast will produce a decent game, at the end of the day, they always do, but I'll be honest that, if they were going with what's in the UA now, I don't see a point in buying new D&D books. I mean, its stuff I already have and I'm not all that impressed with what is there now, if they are just going to rehash all this stuff with new art.. I think I will save myself the 120 bucks these 3 new books are going to be going for.
There's a lot wrong. Some of it erring in the positive as well
The weapon masteries are thoroughly enjoyed so they seem to be leaning in and giving them to everyone and making even more of the available to the fighter.
Now I'm fine with our fighter getting them and being able to swap them on weapons, but rather than the "you get two a day" it's an unnecessary mechanic when you could just say "these types of weapons get these abilities now". (I mean I'm not a fan of other classes getting something that could make fighter's special to begin with, and as a DM which is always having a headache tracking everything, this just compounds the headache, but if you're keeping it....)
There's also the fact that these playtests are short on time for actual testing and most of the testing is white room theory crafting rather than actually playing the classes.
Things like the aforementioned cunning strikes are well received, but insanely situational and otherwise irrelevant in the long run, likely to be cast aside. Where cunning strikes are implemented they're a reflavor of bad class features that nobody uses because they're thong you should just get, or shouldn't have to pay for (which is a clunky mechanic).
The white room theory crafting is leading to all sorts of crap about he warlock and it's resource problems, and a lot of people are latching on to the idea of mystic arcanum recharges, which forgets that short rests are being doubled down on for all classes, and that you would go an entire 11 levels of gameplay without these recharges, probably when they matter the most.
Not to.mention theory crafting takes these characters and builds them to level 20, and most of the time players rarely get past level 10. If you multiclass, anything that requires more than 3 levels to have the skill you really want to come online starts to have a bit of a drag, though what you get for a 1-3 level dip in most cases is absurd. (A 1/9 character vs. A 4/6, your 1/9 is more likely to get some of the higher powered skills, IF progression wasn't so skewed to lower levels).
Sorry, for the tangent.
The thing is the theory crafting is not taking into consideration that there's just a bunch of stuff your NOT going to get to have because the game itself doesn't expect you to get that far, or, it's something that's about to come online just as you stop playing.
So back to the warlock - why is everyone so desperate to preserve the mystic arcanum spells (6-9) when they're never going to even get to the levels needed to use them?
Because there's a myopia about the stuff being presented to playtest. The mystic arcanum swap was in the UA, and rather than outright dismissal, saying "hey, that's all well and good, but I rarely have a character than even gets a 6th level spell...." the community goes into overdrive focusing on that ONE proposed solution and just tweak the ever-loving hell out of it.
Which leads to the other problem.
Nobody is asking the players for possible solutions or feedback as to what THEY propose or problems THEY see with the classes. (Or if they are, they're doing a crap job of it). Itay be a crap shoot, but for some of these classes, there's some interesting and innovative solutions presented, and although 90% I would assume could be tossed out, maybe there's a suggestion or two that could at least get into their own playtest to see if it's worth trying.
Finally, how much playtesting and feedback occurs throughout the edition's run? It feels lacking, or, like too much of it is in a closed door environment (which has its plusses. I agree with some gatekeeping of the playtesting and experimentation but something feels like there's too much of it or just a lack of experimentation and feedback overall).
Yes, I feel a bit the same. As the playtest stands now, I won't buy the book. Other content will be seen, but the PHB I feel like they are selling me something that I already have.
Regarding looking at the design of third parties, just by taking a look at what their immediate competitor is doing, they would realize that there is a mechanic that fixes many of 5e's problems. If only they adapted the three-action system, the game would be infinitely better. I don't need mechanics to rule a castle, or build my own equipment. That content is cool, but what I really need is to have options during combat beyond hitting with my stick.
I doubt we'll get nearly as much transparency (if you'd call it that) for 6E. which is probably a good thing. certainly better than what sometimes feels like a long form "twitch plays Pokemon" process. but this isn't a new version, this is 5.001E and it isn't here to break the ice so much as skate across it a bit.
I personally would like them to be a lot more modular as well. There are many different forms and playstyles in D&D and trying to somehow make them all work from a single set of core rules could work, but you have to start on a much more basic level and build the modularity out.
Like sub-classes for example. That is a cool concept but it does not suit the playstyle of every group. Many groups want a simpler more straightforward game with classic classes where the focus isn't on character builds, leveling up and getting a bunch of powers to execute. While simultaneously for some groups that is the main thing and they want way more than what 5e offers, they want 2-3 feats per level, 100 different options for each level etc..
These things are not reconcilable in a single system where all of the mechanics are like interconnected gears, but if you built a more modular system of layers... Basic, Advanced, Expert for example and just create layers of complexity and options, you could have a variety of systems in a single core ruleset.
I'm expecting 6e to be announced in 2025, and it being a pathfinder clone, which I will absolutely hate, and it'll be about 5-8 years after that that they'll return to another site simplified version, that, of I'm not a corpse in the ground by then, I will be interested in playing.
Agreed....
Excuse me but you mean the 1st or 2nd edition? To place myself.
Maybe, though I think Wizards of the Coast is not done yet with its "shock" shenanigans. I think after everything is said and done with this whole testing period, they are going to pivot, or do something crazy. I don't know what it will be exactly, but its going to be something unexpected.
There is nothing in the history of Wizards of the Coasts that suggests that they are actually willing to listen to anyone, though they always pretend to and make a big show of it. In the end they are going to do whatever they can get away with and/or whatever they want and there is no telling what that will be, but it won't be anything that they say now. Like what they are talking about and doing right now has zero relevance on what will actually transpire with this edition.
Even the VTT, like there is no telling if this will ever see the light of day or be anything they claim it will be now.
With WotC what you can expect from them is absolutely nothing expected. Right now they are in damage control mode. They know sales have slowed and will continue to slow until something new comes out, so they will say anything to keep the restless natives quiet until they figure out how to make money on their next thing. As such when they talk now, its just appeasement, it has nothing to do with intention.
Don't take it too literally.
The crunchy crowd seems to have the loudest voices. I feel like they're just going to add more and more.
In their defense and I say their with a grain of salt because I don't think this is a cohesive group or community, but in a word, this is one of the branches modern RPG design is going.
You really have kind of a fork in the road. Either you go the PF2e round, aka, full commitment to a mechanized architecture on which the game is based in which every conceivable action has a rule, every imaginable fantasy thing, has a class, ancestry, archetype etc.. with essentially unlimited ways things can be combined where character building is a serious business.
Or you go the old-school route.. Class, HP, AC.. some gear and go.
While I think there is a middle ground, games that fall in the middle generally do extremely poorly in the market as they are not enough for one part of the market and too much for the other.
I don't see modern D&D going the old-school route, so yeah.. it's going to be crunch city which I think is, quite ok. I mean, its a big part of the market, its very representative of modern gaming so probably that is what they are doing. They are already starting with the feat architecture, which is kind of the core of these crunch systems.
I don't think a truer sentence has ever been written on any Internet website, ever. This whole process has revealed that Involving The Community at every step, trying to get Mother-May-I buy-in from a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary yaybos, and basically saying "if we print this will you promise to buy it?" before recoiling if the answer is 'no'? It's the worst thing they could've done. The worst.
The thronging Internet morasses they keep surveying are not game designers. Most of the people answering these surveys couldn't design their way out of an ankle-high stack of rotten fruit. They don't know the first damn thing about what makes a good game. The highly paid game designers who do know those things have effectively no say in the process, and it's maddening. So many awesome ideas have arisen in this playtest, and every last one of them has been thrown away because people's knees won't stop spasming and short-circuiting their brains.
Just beyond infuriating.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
If there's anything I've taken away from the whole thing, it's that people really don't like change, especially if it's change to something in the game they have personal attachments to.
There are some good things still in the new rules so far. Not everything new has been removed, but it is hard to swallow that some of their most interesting ideas were jettisoned the moment the internet mob did the only thing they can ever be trusted to do: be awful. The people who made death threats to WotC executives during the OGL thing should not be the same people making decisions on how to improve the game.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock | He/Him/They/Them
You can try DDB for free using the Basic Rules, free adventures, MCV1:SC, and homebrew. Answers about physical books, purchases, and subbing.
What is it like to be on the forums.