I'm very satisfied with the direction they are going.
I am too, though keep in mind this thread was originally made back when we thought the "experimental phase" of the playtest was over and nobody thought we'd get anything like the monk buffs or Brutal Strike. So I can understand the negative sentiment further up.
Also I've often got the sense that a lot of the people active in the UA section are the ones who want massive changes, which can skew the volume and direction of discussion a bit.
Also I've often got the sense that a lot of the people active in the UA section are the ones who want massive changes, which can skew the volume and direction of discussion a bit.
I think the introduction of the “Next Evolution” set the wrong expectations of big changes or a new edition. People expected 6E or even 5.5E but it wasn’t until (from what I remember) a few UA’s that they came out and said this wasn’t a new edition just a revision of the current (and forever) edition.
That said, I am fairly happy with what 1DD is doing, but I was one of those who initially thought there could be big changes on the way (especially for the Monk). And from those initial expectations to now there is a little bit of a letdown. And how the surveys went. Like Druid WS templates. I really liked the idea but they were poorly implemented. I put dissatisfied. But should I have said satisfied to see if they would have done another iteration?
Like Druid WS templates. I really liked the idea but they were poorly implemented. I put dissatisfied. But should I have said satisfied to see if they would have done another iteration?
At this point I think they'll give WS templates another try in a Tasha style optional supplement, once people have gotten a chance to play with statblock wildshape and realize it's still bad for the game. They've fixed the most important parts though from a DM standpoint - limited shapes known and PHB only.
Like Druid WS templates. I really liked the idea but they were poorly implemented. I put dissatisfied. But should I have said satisfied to see if they would have done another iteration?
At this point I think they'll give WS templates another try in a Tasha style optional supplement, once people have gotten a chance to play with statblock wildshape and realize it's still bad for the game. They've fixed the most important parts though from a DM standpoint - limited shapes known and PHB only.
I hope that is true. But I’m not holding my breath. I would prefer they fixed templates, which didn’t seem insurmountable (they didn’t have to include every single feature low CR beasts had). And I don’t think players will realize how it is bad for the game. They hadn’t so far or we would have had another UA iteration. But the limit to PHB shapes is helpful. Although they did say you can go to the MM with DM permission.
There was already a limit on WS options in the PHB of "beasts you've seen before", which XGtE expanded on a bit. I rather doubt the bit about "beasts from the PHB" is going to markedly change the perceived pool. Now, the fact that you have to pick a set number of blocks to have "prepared" at a time is going to do a lot more to get people to have their info ready at hand and avoid people stopping to leaf through their options mid-game. And, frankly, they can add templates for people who want the training wheels, but I seriously doubt you're ever going to sell the majority of players on the idea.
I hope that is true. But I’m not holding my breath. I would prefer they fixed templates, which didn’t seem insurmountable (they didn’t have to include every single feature low CR beasts had). And I don’t think players will realize how it is bad for the game. They hadn’t so far or we would have had another UA iteration. But the limit to PHB shapes is helpful. Although they did say you can go to the MM with DM permission.
You could always go to the MM (or anywhere else) with DM permission. But now the default expectation is PHB-only, so DMs who want to stick with that smaller list have covering fire from the design team, which is a key part of their job.
As for the playerbase coming around on templates, they did for Beastmaster Ranger, so I'm optimistic; give it time. The PHB doesn't have to be feature-perfect. The subclass balance in the new book looks to be way, way better than it was in 2014, so I can forgive Moon Druid being a miss.
I did submit the "CR 1 creatures as templates" idea in my most recent survey.
Beastmaster is a whole different matter; that was an entire subclass worth of clunky execution on the pet concept that heavily impacted action economy and from the roleplay perspective didn't offer enough protection for the pet if you wanted to make it personally significant to the character. Granted, the later point was salvageable if the DM remembered that Death Saves can be applied to any creature, but honestly in terms of combat/action economy all it really needed to be fixed was to move making an attack to bonus actions. If you compare the Drake Companion template from Fizban's to a CR 1/4 creature like Axe Beak, Panther, or Wolf, they're fairly close once you add the PB mod to AC, attack, and damage. Maybe use the same HP calculation as DW as well, but from the look of things the numbers were never the issue, just the action economy.
For Wildshape, as was repeatedly brought up during debates over it, the big appeal for most players comes from being able to choose from the various animal abilities, and they simply cannot compress that into three templates. I won't object to them adding the option for people who are put off by leafing through all the beast blocks, but it's really kinda rude to keep talking like people who favor blocks are fools who need to be taught better.
Beastmaster is a whole different matter; that was an entire subclass worth of clunky execution on the pet concept that heavily impacted action economy and from the roleplay perspective didn't offer enough protection for the pet if you wanted to make it personally significant to the character. Granted, the later point was salvageable if the DM remembered that Death Saves can be applied to any creature, but honestly in terms of combat/action economy all it really needed to be fixed was to move making an attack to bonus actions. If you compare the Drake Companion template from Fizban's to a CR 1/4 creature like Axe Beak, Panther, or Wolf, they're fairly close once you add the PB mod to AC, attack, and damage. Maybe use the same HP calculation as DW as well, but from the look of things the numbers were never the issue, just the action economy.
For Wildshape, as was repeatedly brought up during debates over it, the big appeal for most players comes from being able to choose from the various animal abilities, and they simply cannot compress that into three templates. I won't object to them adding the option for people who are put off by leafing through all the beast blocks, but it's really kinda rude to keep talking like people who favor blocks are fools who need to be taught better.
When taking into account “beasts you’ve seen before” and “a limited number of beasts stat blocks you can prepare” they are already compressing those choices. If you could choose a few traits with some additional options that you can choose at higher levels (like gaining more prepared forms) I don’t see too big a difference. Would need a little work, and you probably wouldn’t satisfy everyone (just like they might not satisfy everyone with the PHB choices available)
But I don’t think they will attempt templates again unless there is still dissatisfaction or low numbers of Druid players. Then maybe in a supplement as PsyrenXY suggested.
There's a difference between compressing the immediately available options from a wide array into a handful (aka- all the preparation casters) to literally saying "these three options are all you get, period". And the picking and choosing traits part doesn't work on the core theme level, as Druids are supposed to turn into natural creatures, not chimeric amalgams of traits. No, it's not written in the stars that all Druids everywhere in creation must be limited like that, but it's been a cornerstone of the class in D&D from the outset, like Bards and music.
There's a difference between compressing the immediately available options from a wide array into a handful (aka- all the preparation casters) to literally saying "these three options are all you get, period". And the picking and choosing traits part doesn't work on the core theme level, as Druids are supposed to turn into natural creatures, not chimeric amalgams of traits. No, it's not written in the stars that all Druids everywhere in creation must be limited like that, but it's been a cornerstone of the class in D&D from the outset, like Bards and music.
The bolded would be the hardest part to manage. I don’t think you would have to limit it to three templates either so having a few extra could help with your concerns. Just a brief look at the stat blocks in the 2014 PHB I saw probably less than 10-12 traits to use. Grapple traits would be covered under unarmed strikes. The templates already had keen senses and darkvision. Things like charge, spider climb, etc could be handled
UA8 lets you know 2+half your Druid level of forms. So starting with three and going up from there.
UA4 had one template to start with. why not 3 versions of Animal of the Land to minimize the amalgamation of traits? I guess it would take up more space in the book.But could categorize blocks of traits to an appropriate form.
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.
Yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old School original D&D/AD&D veteran.Started playing (@1977-78) before the original bound volumes or modules. Player/DM in the process of redeveloping my world atlas from memories. Avid Fantasy/Sci-fi fan. among those who used the original AD&D rules to re-enact The Hobbit (and yes most of the dwarves still died).
Star Wars fan with an old fan-fic blog for those interested: Tales from Soma III
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.
Yes.
I mean, they're working on a fairly hard deadline here. They tried an ambitious overhaul in the first few UA's and hit a lot of sour notes with the community. You can Monday morning quarterback those specific choices all you want, but the simple fact is that their initial big changes tested poorly with the community, and as time went on they had less and less space to experiment with new concepts as opposed to tweak the existing ones. Plus this ultimately was always going to be an update, not a new edition.
The problem with the playtests is that they are taking a tabletop RPG that achieved massive success because of its ease of accessibility to the average person and revising it based primarily on power-gamers who want there to be Wrong Choices to make for your character that makes them inferior to anyone picking the Right Choices.
Numerous terrible features have been approved solely because they're unbalanced in overpowered ways. Numerous reasonable adjustments were met with frothing rage because they countered "optimal" strategies. New and existing features have been ignored for many classes because those features aren't purely about damage numbers.
They're taking a game that succeeded based on mass appeal and are attempting to cater to the lowest denominator with their playtests. Which is cool for anyone who wants to play an anime protagonist who is simultaneously better at offense and defense than everyone else, but not so for the person who expects their Shadow Monk to be able to do more than one single trick.
I don't think that I could agree with this any less. I think they are cleaning up some messy rules, and making it so that certain feats are no longer viewed as required. Some long suffering classes have been altered in meaningful ways to address long held short comings. I don't see powergamers at work here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Making changes based on survey results and social media has been a terrible idea since the beginning.
Having an initial survey would've been fine, simply to get some data. But they should have gone the route that MCDM is with their WIP TTRPG; focused groups of actual playtesters who WOTC KNOWSis actually playing using the proposed rules - plus ensuring people with proven game design experience are part of the revision process.
Making changes based on survey results and social media has been a terrible idea since the beginning.
Having an initial survey would've been fine, simply to get some data. But they should have gone the route that MCDM is with their WIP TTRPG; focused groups of actual playtesters who WOTC KNOWSis actually playing using the proposed rules - plus ensuring people with proven game design experience are part of the revision process.
One of the survey questions is whether or not you have playtested the stuff you are responding to. It isn't hard to imagine that those who click yes are given more weight than those who don't.
But no testing system is perfect - we've already seen in previous editions where high level play got zero testing, and each group is going to have different dynamics among them, which is why you want a wider variety of responses.
I haven't had time to do any playtesting since 2nd edition d20 Conan myself. But getting my name in the book was pretty cool, as well as seeing a couple of changes I suggested going through - although I am sure I wasn't the only one who suggested them.
I think a lot of this information and ideas will be more relevant when they are ready for a 6e. I think that when 6e does come it will reflect a lot more of the early playtest stuff that was "reverted".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Making changes based on survey results and social media has been a terrible idea since the beginning.
Having an initial survey would've been fine, simply to get some data. But they should have gone the route that MCDM is with their WIP TTRPG; focused groups of actual playtesters who WOTC KNOWSis actually playing using the proposed rules - plus ensuring people with proven game design experience are part of the revision process.
Why do you assume they haven't done that? The stuff they put out to public playtest was generally pretty cooked already. It definitely had the feel to me of "this is the stuff we developed internally, now let's see what the player base thinks of it".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am too, though keep in mind this thread was originally made back when we thought the "experimental phase" of the playtest was over and nobody thought we'd get anything like the monk buffs or Brutal Strike. So I can understand the negative sentiment further up.
Also I've often got the sense that a lot of the people active in the UA section are the ones who want massive changes, which can skew the volume and direction of discussion a bit.
The moment I saw Spiritual Weapon gain concentration was the moment I felt like one dnd was going to fail.
I think the introduction of the “Next Evolution” set the wrong expectations of big changes or a new edition. People expected 6E or even 5.5E but it wasn’t until (from what I remember) a few UA’s that they came out and said this wasn’t a new edition just a revision of the current (and forever) edition.
That said, I am fairly happy with what 1DD is doing, but I was one of those who initially thought there could be big changes on the way (especially for the Monk). And from those initial expectations to now there is a little bit of a letdown. And how the surveys went. Like Druid WS templates. I really liked the idea but they were poorly implemented. I put dissatisfied. But should I have said satisfied to see if they would have done another iteration?
At this point I think they'll give WS templates another try in a Tasha style optional supplement, once people have gotten a chance to play with statblock wildshape and realize it's still bad for the game. They've fixed the most important parts though from a DM standpoint - limited shapes known and PHB only.
I hope that is true. But I’m not holding my breath. I would prefer they fixed templates, which didn’t seem insurmountable (they didn’t have to include every single feature low CR beasts had). And I don’t think players will realize how it is bad for the game. They hadn’t so far or we would have had another UA iteration. But the limit to PHB shapes is helpful. Although they did say you can go to the MM with DM permission.
There was already a limit on WS options in the PHB of "beasts you've seen before", which XGtE expanded on a bit. I rather doubt the bit about "beasts from the PHB" is going to markedly change the perceived pool. Now, the fact that you have to pick a set number of blocks to have "prepared" at a time is going to do a lot more to get people to have their info ready at hand and avoid people stopping to leaf through their options mid-game. And, frankly, they can add templates for people who want the training wheels, but I seriously doubt you're ever going to sell the majority of players on the idea.
You could always go to the MM (or anywhere else) with DM permission. But now the default expectation is PHB-only, so DMs who want to stick with that smaller list have covering fire from the design team, which is a key part of their job.
As for the playerbase coming around on templates, they did for Beastmaster Ranger, so I'm optimistic; give it time. The PHB doesn't have to be feature-perfect. The subclass balance in the new book looks to be way, way better than it was in 2014, so I can forgive Moon Druid being a miss.
I did submit the "CR 1 creatures as templates" idea in my most recent survey.
Beastmaster is a whole different matter; that was an entire subclass worth of clunky execution on the pet concept that heavily impacted action economy and from the roleplay perspective didn't offer enough protection for the pet if you wanted to make it personally significant to the character. Granted, the later point was salvageable if the DM remembered that Death Saves can be applied to any creature, but honestly in terms of combat/action economy all it really needed to be fixed was to move making an attack to bonus actions. If you compare the Drake Companion template from Fizban's to a CR 1/4 creature like Axe Beak, Panther, or Wolf, they're fairly close once you add the PB mod to AC, attack, and damage. Maybe use the same HP calculation as DW as well, but from the look of things the numbers were never the issue, just the action economy.
For Wildshape, as was repeatedly brought up during debates over it, the big appeal for most players comes from being able to choose from the various animal abilities, and they simply cannot compress that into three templates. I won't object to them adding the option for people who are put off by leafing through all the beast blocks, but it's really kinda rude to keep talking like people who favor blocks are fools who need to be taught better.
When taking into account “beasts you’ve seen before” and “a limited number of beasts stat blocks you can prepare” they are already compressing those choices. If you could choose a few traits with some additional options that you can choose at higher levels (like gaining more prepared forms) I don’t see too big a difference. Would need a little work, and you probably wouldn’t satisfy everyone (just like they might not satisfy everyone with the PHB choices available)
But I don’t think they will attempt templates again unless there is still dissatisfaction or low numbers of Druid players. Then maybe in a supplement as PsyrenXY suggested.
There's a difference between compressing the immediately available options from a wide array into a handful (aka- all the preparation casters) to literally saying "these three options are all you get, period". And the picking and choosing traits part doesn't work on the core theme level, as Druids are supposed to turn into natural creatures, not chimeric amalgams of traits. No, it's not written in the stars that all Druids everywhere in creation must be limited like that, but it's been a cornerstone of the class in D&D from the outset, like Bards and music.
The bolded would be the hardest part to manage. I don’t think you would have to limit it to three templates either so having a few extra could help with your concerns. Just a brief look at the stat blocks in the 2014 PHB I saw probably less than 10-12 traits to use. Grapple traits would be covered under unarmed strikes. The templates already had keen senses and darkvision. Things like charge, spider climb, etc could be handled
UA8 lets you know 2+half your Druid level of forms. So starting with three and going up from there.
UA4 had one template to start with. why not 3 versions of Animal of the Land to minimize the amalgamation of traits? I guess it would take up more space in the book.But could categorize blocks of traits to an appropriate form.
Yes.
Old School original D&D/AD&D veteran.Started playing (@1977-78) before the original bound volumes or modules. Player/DM in the process of redeveloping my world atlas from memories. Avid Fantasy/Sci-fi fan. among those who used the original AD&D rules to re-enact The Hobbit (and yes most of the dwarves still died).
Star Wars fan with an old fan-fic blog for those interested: Tales from Soma III
I mean, they're working on a fairly hard deadline here. They tried an ambitious overhaul in the first few UA's and hit a lot of sour notes with the community. You can Monday morning quarterback those specific choices all you want, but the simple fact is that their initial big changes tested poorly with the community, and as time went on they had less and less space to experiment with new concepts as opposed to tweak the existing ones. Plus this ultimately was always going to be an update, not a new edition.
I don't think that I could agree with this any less. I think they are cleaning up some messy rules, and making it so that certain feats are no longer viewed as required. Some long suffering classes have been altered in meaningful ways to address long held short comings. I don't see powergamers at work here.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Making changes based on survey results and social media has been a terrible idea since the beginning.
Having an initial survey would've been fine, simply to get some data. But they should have gone the route that MCDM is with their WIP TTRPG; focused groups of actual playtesters who WOTC KNOWS is actually playing using the proposed rules - plus ensuring people with proven game design experience are part of the revision process.
One of the survey questions is whether or not you have playtested the stuff you are responding to. It isn't hard to imagine that those who click yes are given more weight than those who don't.
But no testing system is perfect - we've already seen in previous editions where high level play got zero testing, and each group is going to have different dynamics among them, which is why you want a wider variety of responses.
I haven't had time to do any playtesting since 2nd edition d20 Conan myself. But getting my name in the book was pretty cool, as well as seeing a couple of changes I suggested going through - although I am sure I wasn't the only one who suggested them.
I think a lot of this information and ideas will be more relevant when they are ready for a 6e. I think that when 6e does come it will reflect a lot more of the early playtest stuff that was "reverted".
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Who knows, by the time true 6e rolls around the Ardling may have been released with enough fanfare / acclaim to warrant a spot in core.
Why do you assume they haven't done that? The stuff they put out to public playtest was generally pretty cooked already. It definitely had the feel to me of "this is the stuff we developed internally, now let's see what the player base thinks of it".