Thank you very much for the information and the link, but by chance... Is there a video or similar in which they comment on the results of said surveys? (Particularly the one about spells.)
EDIT:
PS: If there is a video I would be very grateful for a summary of it since otherwise it will be difficult for me to understand everything since I am not very skilled with English.
Thank you very much for the information and the link, but by chance... Is there a video or similar in which they comment on the results of said surveys? (Particularly the one about spells.)
EDIT:
PS: If there is a video I would be very grateful for a summary of it since otherwise it will be difficult for me to understand everything since I am not very skilled with English.
Unfortunately, no - they didn't start actually talking abut any of their survey results until after the OneD&D "Expert Classes" UA2 was published. We would occasionally get some information from the designers scattered into other videos, for example Crawford would say something like "Ranger scored the lowest of all base classes in the Player's Handbook" and "The Four Elements Monk was the worst-reviewed subclass in the PHB with only 11% satisfaction" but nothing comprehensive.
Aside from those discrete comments, the only insight we really have into the PHB survey results were the things they tried, such as changing the Conjure spells to not summon a bunch of statblocks anymore, or when they changed Paladin Smite and Monk Stunning Strike to only be once per round they would explain the "nova effect" that those abilities would have. That feedback came from the PHB survey, and their own direct observations during sanctioned play sessions.
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.
I get that they are a business and have a deadline where they really want to make a revised 5th edition with OneDND released 10 years after the release of the previous official edition, because we're humans and we like patterns. But I would really rather that they make a good product - and if that means more public testing and feedback, and pushing back the release date I would prefer that over a product that isn't up to their audience's expectations.
I'm not saying WotC is incompetent in making a good and satisfactory D&D product, but I would prefer if they err on the side of caution. Especially as it sounds like they want this product to last longer than previous editions or be their final edition with revisions possible down the line. And the way Magic the Gathering has been handled the last 5 years or so, I am not filled with utter confidence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They surveyed every class, subclass and feat too. I believe these surveys went out in late 2021.
If you're curious about what those surveys looked like, some Youtubers such as Treantmonk recorded themselves filling them out back in the day.
Wow, that is NOT what I pictured in my head re: how Treantmonk actually looks.
Thank you very much for the information and the link, but by chance... Is there a video or similar in which they comment on the results of said surveys? (Particularly the one about spells.)
EDIT:
PS: If there is a video I would be very grateful for a summary of it since otherwise it will be difficult for me to understand everything since I am not very skilled with English.
Unfortunately, no - they didn't start actually talking abut any of their survey results until after the OneD&D "Expert Classes" UA2 was published. We would occasionally get some information from the designers scattered into other videos, for example Crawford would say something like "Ranger scored the lowest of all base classes in the Player's Handbook" and "The Four Elements Monk was the worst-reviewed subclass in the PHB with only 11% satisfaction" but nothing comprehensive.
Aside from those discrete comments, the only insight we really have into the PHB survey results were the things they tried, such as changing the Conjure spells to not summon a bunch of statblocks anymore, or when they changed Paladin Smite and Monk Stunning Strike to only be once per round they would explain the "nova effect" that those abilities would have. That feedback came from the PHB survey, and their own direct observations during sanctioned play sessions.
I get that they are a business and have a deadline where they really want to make a revised 5th edition with OneDND released 10 years after the release of the previous official edition, because we're humans and we like patterns. But I would really rather that they make a good product - and if that means more public testing and feedback, and pushing back the release date I would prefer that over a product that isn't up to their audience's expectations.
I'm not saying WotC is incompetent in making a good and satisfactory D&D product, but I would prefer if they err on the side of caution. Especially as it sounds like they want this product to last longer than previous editions or be their final edition with revisions possible down the line. And the way Magic the Gathering has been handled the last 5 years or so, I am not filled with utter confidence.