As it is currently January 23 and no playtest 9 has been released, I fear they are done with playtesting. If a playtest showed up this week, it would have to be available for minimum 3 weeks, then the survey would have to be open for a couple weeks, then a couple weeks would be needed to sift through the opinions, and a couple weeks to write up the rules changes. That would be around the end of March. Then the files have to be sent to the printer with enough time to produce sufficient copies and distribute them.
That may be barely enough time to review some spells and feats.
As it is currently January 23 and no playtest 9 has been released, I fear they are done with playtesting. If a playtest showed up this week, it would have to be available for minimum 3 weeks, then the survey would have to be open for a couple weeks, then a couple weeks would be needed to sift through the opinions, and a couple weeks to write up the rules changes. That would be around the end of March. Then the files have to be sent to the printer with enough time to produce sufficient copies and distribute them.
That may be barely enough time to review some spells and feats.
I thought it was Thursdays they released things. And besides they can have off weeks. Maybe they are done but I suspect they will still have play tests but for monsters, spells, items.
I thought it was Thursdays they released things. And besides they can have off weeks. Maybe they are done but I suspect they will still have play tests but for monsters, spells, items.
They are probably done with PHB but DMG definitely needs another pass, Bastions for instance feel... not good, like either an afterthought or jus a chore.
I'm desperately hoping for a section on hexcrawl type exploration focused adventures, maybe a pipe dream but hope dies last as they say.
He said that they're currently internally testing the Dungeonmaster's Guide and Monster Manual, so there's no immediate plan for a playtest of these. They're both big, complex books so if there is a playtest I'd expect it to be a limited mixture of stuff they want to get some feedback on.
It's a bit disappointing though, as I'd hoped for another playtest to focus on spells, as the few spells we've got have been hard to test alongside 5e spells that still need improving. Made it really hard to give feedback on balance and usability, e.g- the updated power word kill does decent damage as its fallback, but probably still isn't strong enough to ever actually take it if the other 9th-level spells remain unchanged.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
He said that they're currently internally testing the Dungeonmaster's Guide and Monster Manual, so there's no immediate plan for a playtest of these. They're both big, complex books so if there is a playtest I'd expect it to be a limited mixture of stuff they want to get some feedback on.
It's a bit disappointing though, as I'd hoped for another playtest to focus on spells, as the few spells we've got have been hard to test alongside 5e spells that still need improving. Made it really hard to give feedback on balance and usability, e.g- the updated power word kill does decent damage as its fallback, but probably still isn't strong enough to ever actually take it if the other 9th-level spells remain unchanged.
A spells playtest would be a nightmare considering how many people would complain if they tried to nerf the more overpowered spells in the game
He said that they're currently internally testing the Dungeonmaster's Guide and Monster Manual, so there's no immediate plan for a playtest of these. They're both big, complex books so if there is a playtest I'd expect it to be a limited mixture of stuff they want to get some feedback on.
It's a bit disappointing though, as I'd hoped for another playtest to focus on spells, as the few spells we've got have been hard to test alongside 5e spells that still need improving. Made it really hard to give feedback on balance and usability, e.g- the updated power word kill does decent damage as its fallback, but probably still isn't strong enough to ever actually take it if the other 9th-level spells remain unchanged.
A spells playtest would be a nightmare considering how many people would complain if they tried to nerf the more overpowered spells in the game
I saw a video from treantmonk and he said the same thing. I hadn't thought about it, but he was right. Players don't like being nerfed, and some of those spells need a kick straight in the jimmy.
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.
A spells playtest would be a nightmare considering how many people would complain if they tried to nerf the more overpowered spells in the game
That's just another reason why you need the playtest though; to see what kinds of changes people will react badly to. For example, people may or may not respond violently to the damage of meteor swarm being toned down (as it's currently far, far stronger than any other damaging 9th-level spell, so even toned down it'll still be powerful). But the same people may not react as strongly to true polymorph being more limited, or wish being able to do less instantaneously etc., as we've seen similar things happen with other spells (like the Conjure X spells) which apparently have had high satisfaction ratings. Plus there are plenty of spells that can be made stronger instead in cases where the "overpowered" spell is actually at about the right balance for that level and it's everything else that is too weak.
There are also plenty of spells that just clearly need fairly minor tweaks, like heat metal when used against armour (since you can't easily remove armour, the spell is effectively a zero save damage spell with unlimited range and automatic rider once activated). At the very least it should probably save for half damage alongside its rider, like any other damage spell. Sure some people will be unhappy to have that tweaked, but if they can't give a good reason why then who cares?
If there's a risk that any kind of rebalancing is going to have significant numbers of people frothing at the mouths in incoherent rage then that's also useful information, because it means they can put their focus on bringing everything else up to the same level, i.e- instead of nerfing the OP, buff everything else.
But the way things are now we have no idea what they're thinking with regards to balancing the game, and that makes me wary about the final product; their goal after all should be to try to encourage people to upgrade to the latest and greatest edition, but if a load of the existing players don't know what to make of it then they're not going to be pre-ordering anything, they'll be waiting for reviews instead, if they buy into the new edition at all.
While UA isn't strictly an advertising tool, it does generate a certain amount of hype, especially if it seems like they're heading in the right direction. However as playtest material it's been really difficult to evaluate as taking things in isolation or only with previous bits and pieces of UA to look back at, has made it hard to say how well balanced anything is. This has been a particular problem with spells as I said, because we're trying to evaluate spells without knowing anything about what's happening to other spells of the same level, so the changes could be weak or overpowered and we just don't know.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
regarding playtesting spells, I def think they should, because based on what I ve seen, they have never not needed some feedback on their UA materials in this year of testing.
That said, I'm not sure they are planning that many more big changes to spells, and I think they just don't have time, their playtest process is very slow. They also recently lost staff. Making the book itself takes time.
They definitely should NOT give us a playtest for spells. The changes that need to be made are going to get utterly slaughtered in feedback, but the changes SHOULD be made for the benefit of the game. While I generally am in agreement for players providing feedback, they are not the most useful source of ideas on tuning down bits of overpowered kit.
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.
They definitely should NOT give us a playtest for spells. The changes that need to be made are going to get utterly slaughtered in feedback, but the changes SHOULD be made for the benefit of the game. While I generally am in agreement for players providing feedback, they are not the most useful source of ideas on tuning down bits of overpowered kit.
I could see select spells being playtested like they have already. The conjure spells were problematic in some cases and the playtest garnered likes and dislikes on these forums but the survey they did well. Not sure of the numbers per spells but overall did well.
Aid, Barkskin, and others have had a playtest and I don’t recall if they ever said how well those did, but we will see what happens when published.
They already had the 2014 PHB survey a few years ago so I’m sure they have some idea from that and their own experience on what needs adjusting so playtest or not I’m sure there will be changes some will like and others hate.
Yeah, I don't want UA for "fixed" spells. WOTC should have more than enough formal and informal feedback from the last ten years to know a lot of spells need revised (clearer) language as well as fixing in terms of being over/underpowered.
Yeah, I don't want UA for "fixed" spells. WOTC should have more than enough formal and informal feedback from the last ten years to know a lot of spells need revised (clearer) language as well as fixing in terms of being over/underpowered.
The problem is, just because they know something needs fixing, doesn't mean they'll do a good job of fixing it – see the first UA versions of Druid, Monk and Warlock. That's why we need the playtests to make sure they're on course.
Playtest feedback doesn't dictate what they must do; they have always been free to disregard it entirely, or to go off in another direction. If feedback is dominated by people throwing their toys out of the pram at nerfs, WotC is entirely free to just ignore them and focus on the useful feedback they get, because why people are happy or unhappy with a change matters just as much as them being happy or unhappy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Ideally, what they'd do is solicit feedback at the start: let people provide frustrations with the spells as they're currently written, and then go to work. And instead of getting tens of thousands of opinions into the process, use paid, dedicated playtesters to help fix them.
Yeah, I don't want UA for "fixed" spells. WOTC should have more than enough formal and informal feedback from the last ten years to know a lot of spells need revised (clearer) language as well as fixing in terms of being over/underpowered.
The problem is, just because they know something needs fixing, doesn't mean they'll do a good job of fixing it – see the first UA versions of Druid, Monk and Warlock. That's why we need the playtests to make sure they're on course.
Playtest feedback doesn't dictate what they must do; they have always been free to disregard it entirely, or to go off in another direction. If feedback is dominated by people throwing their toys out of the pram at nerfs, WotC is entirely free to just ignore them and focus on the useful feedback they get, because why people are happy or unhappy with a change matters just as much as them being happy or unhappy.
We have to remember that the first version of the warlock and druid was them experimenting and, while it needed refinement, they were functional directions. The fact that people didn't like that direction led to the refinement of the current version that we saw. We have to remember a lot of the early UA's were them throwing ideas at the wall to see what would stick not refined ideas, while we will see refined ideas in the final product.
Ideally, what they'd do is solicit feedback at the start: let people provide frustrations with the spells as they're currently written, and then go to work. And instead of getting tens of thousands of opinions into the process, use paid, dedicated playtesters to help fix them.
They did do that, they had a huge survey rating all the spell prior to any of the UAs.
Yeah, I don't want UA for "fixed" spells. WOTC should have more than enough formal and informal feedback from the last ten years to know a lot of spells need revised (clearer) language as well as fixing in terms of being over/underpowered.
The problem is, just because they know something needs fixing, doesn't mean they'll do a good job of fixing it – see the first UA versions of Druid, Monk and Warlock. That's why we need the playtests to make sure they're on course.
Playtest feedback doesn't dictate what they must do; they have always been free to disregard it entirely, or to go off in another direction. If feedback is dominated by people throwing their toys out of the pram at nerfs, WotC is entirely free to just ignore them and focus on the useful feedback they get, because why people are happy or unhappy with a change matters just as much as them being happy or unhappy.
We have to remember that the first version of the warlock and druid was them experimenting and, while it needed refinement, they were functional directions. The fact that people didn't like that direction led to the refinement of the current version that we saw. We have to remember a lot of the early UA's were them throwing ideas at the wall to see what would stick not refined ideas, while we will see refined ideas in the final product.
refined ideas don't mean they are better. The reason they throw stuff out early is because refining something in the wrong direction is a waste of time. Also, designers have blindspots,
But the reality is they probably don't have time for public testing, its a like a 3+ month process. They got to prepare the version to test, release it wait a month, then read it for a month.
then adapt it. its Feb, they don't have four months to spare, if its going out this year.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As it is currently January 23 and no playtest 9 has been released, I fear they are done with playtesting. If a playtest showed up this week, it would have to be available for minimum 3 weeks, then the survey would have to be open for a couple weeks, then a couple weeks would be needed to sift through the opinions, and a couple weeks to write up the rules changes. That would be around the end of March. Then the files have to be sent to the printer with enough time to produce sufficient copies and distribute them.
That may be barely enough time to review some spells and feats.
Yes, the playtest 9, only some spells.
I thought it was Thursdays they released things. And besides they can have off weeks. Maybe they are done but I suspect they will still have play tests but for monsters, spells, items.
They are probably done with PHB but DMG definitely needs another pass, Bastions for instance feel... not good, like either an afterthought or jus a chore.
I'm desperately hoping for a section on hexcrawl type exploration focused adventures, maybe a pipe dream but hope dies last as they say.
Looks like the PT8 feedback video confirmed it: There won’t be any further PHB Play Test documents for OneD&D.
(but that doesn’t rule out DMG play test documents or MM documents … or even the material they said was put off past the PHB, like the Artificer)
I doubt there will be a Playtest 9. I think they have what they need to make the new core revisions.
They've just posted a video about the survey results for playtest 8 – Crawford makes it clear that was the last playtest for the new Player's Handbook.
He said that they're currently internally testing the Dungeonmaster's Guide and Monster Manual, so there's no immediate plan for a playtest of these. They're both big, complex books so if there is a playtest I'd expect it to be a limited mixture of stuff they want to get some feedback on.
It's a bit disappointing though, as I'd hoped for another playtest to focus on spells, as the few spells we've got have been hard to test alongside 5e spells that still need improving. Made it really hard to give feedback on balance and usability, e.g- the updated power word kill does decent damage as its fallback, but probably still isn't strong enough to ever actually take it if the other 9th-level spells remain unchanged.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A spells playtest would be a nightmare considering how many people would complain if they tried to nerf the more overpowered spells in the game
I saw a video from treantmonk and he said the same thing. I hadn't thought about it, but he was right. Players don't like being nerfed, and some of those spells need a kick straight in the jimmy.
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
That's just another reason why you need the playtest though; to see what kinds of changes people will react badly to. For example, people may or may not respond violently to the damage of meteor swarm being toned down (as it's currently far, far stronger than any other damaging 9th-level spell, so even toned down it'll still be powerful). But the same people may not react as strongly to true polymorph being more limited, or wish being able to do less instantaneously etc., as we've seen similar things happen with other spells (like the Conjure X spells) which apparently have had high satisfaction ratings. Plus there are plenty of spells that can be made stronger instead in cases where the "overpowered" spell is actually at about the right balance for that level and it's everything else that is too weak.
There are also plenty of spells that just clearly need fairly minor tweaks, like heat metal when used against armour (since you can't easily remove armour, the spell is effectively a zero save damage spell with unlimited range and automatic rider once activated). At the very least it should probably save for half damage alongside its rider, like any other damage spell. Sure some people will be unhappy to have that tweaked, but if they can't give a good reason why then who cares?
If there's a risk that any kind of rebalancing is going to have significant numbers of people frothing at the mouths in incoherent rage then that's also useful information, because it means they can put their focus on bringing everything else up to the same level, i.e- instead of nerfing the OP, buff everything else.
But the way things are now we have no idea what they're thinking with regards to balancing the game, and that makes me wary about the final product; their goal after all should be to try to encourage people to upgrade to the latest and greatest edition, but if a load of the existing players don't know what to make of it then they're not going to be pre-ordering anything, they'll be waiting for reviews instead, if they buy into the new edition at all.
While UA isn't strictly an advertising tool, it does generate a certain amount of hype, especially if it seems like they're heading in the right direction. However as playtest material it's been really difficult to evaluate as taking things in isolation or only with previous bits and pieces of UA to look back at, has made it hard to say how well balanced anything is. This has been a particular problem with spells as I said, because we're trying to evaluate spells without knowing anything about what's happening to other spells of the same level, so the changes could be weak or overpowered and we just don't know.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
regarding playtesting spells, I def think they should, because based on what I ve seen, they have never not needed some feedback on their UA materials in this year of testing.
That said, I'm not sure they are planning that many more big changes to spells, and I think they just don't have time, their playtest process is very slow. They also recently lost staff. Making the book itself takes time.
They definitely should NOT give us a playtest for spells. The changes that need to be made are going to get utterly slaughtered in feedback, but the changes SHOULD be made for the benefit of the game. While I generally am in agreement for players providing feedback, they are not the most useful source of ideas on tuning down bits of overpowered kit.
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
I could see select spells being playtested like they have already. The conjure spells were problematic in some cases and the playtest garnered likes and dislikes on these forums but the survey they did well. Not sure of the numbers per spells but overall did well.
Aid, Barkskin, and others have had a playtest and I don’t recall if they ever said how well those did, but we will see what happens when published.
They already had the 2014 PHB survey a few years ago so I’m sure they have some idea from that and their own experience on what needs adjusting so playtest or not I’m sure there will be changes some will like and others hate.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yeah, I don't want UA for "fixed" spells. WOTC should have more than enough formal and informal feedback from the last ten years to know a lot of spells need revised (clearer) language as well as fixing in terms of being over/underpowered.
The problem is, just because they know something needs fixing, doesn't mean they'll do a good job of fixing it – see the first UA versions of Druid, Monk and Warlock. That's why we need the playtests to make sure they're on course.
Playtest feedback doesn't dictate what they must do; they have always been free to disregard it entirely, or to go off in another direction. If feedback is dominated by people throwing their toys out of the pram at nerfs, WotC is entirely free to just ignore them and focus on the useful feedback they get, because why people are happy or unhappy with a change matters just as much as them being happy or unhappy.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Ideally, what they'd do is solicit feedback at the start: let people provide frustrations with the spells as they're currently written, and then go to work. And instead of getting tens of thousands of opinions into the process, use paid, dedicated playtesters to help fix them.
We have to remember that the first version of the warlock and druid was them experimenting and, while it needed refinement, they were functional directions. The fact that people didn't like that direction led to the refinement of the current version that we saw. We have to remember a lot of the early UA's were them throwing ideas at the wall to see what would stick not refined ideas, while we will see refined ideas in the final product.
They did do that, they had a huge survey rating all the spell prior to any of the UAs.
Oh! Well, don't I look like the moron.
Hopefully, the next PHB will have fixed a lot of the known spell bugs.
refined ideas don't mean they are better. The reason they throw stuff out early is because refining something in the wrong direction is a waste of time. Also, designers have blindspots,
But the reality is they probably don't have time for public testing, its a like a 3+ month process. They got to prepare the version to test, release it wait a month, then read it for a month.
then adapt it. its Feb, they don't have four months to spare, if its going out this year.