As someone who plays in real-life and online settings, and who has been looking over the OneD&D playtests and reactions to it, I'm beginning to think there's a stark difference between average, more casual player and more "hardcore" if you will players - the sort who frequent D&D-focused communities, discuss things like optimal builds and damage-per-round, and the like. A lot of features the later crowd adores in OneD&D have gotten much more mixed reactions among the people I play with in real life and in Discord servers than sites like D&D Reddits or forums would suggest.
For instance, Weapon Mastery was rated highly enough that the mechanic went entirely unchanged through the playtests, but a lot of folks I play with and have spoken with, including some who have playtested the UAs, feel like the mechanic is much too spammy and unbalanced. Brutal Strikes on the Barbarian got positive reception from the surveys, but Barbarian players I know think it feels generic and loses the flavor of the Barbarian's Brutal Criticals. I've spoken to Monk players who've said that the loss of multiple Stunning Strikes per turn and various subclass features make them entirely uninterested in playing the OneD&D Monk, despite the hype forums and subreddits have for the changes.
The irony is that neither group seems sold on OneD&D, with differing complaints on either side. I can't help but to think that a lot of design choices have been made to try to placate that "hardcore" crowd, but that side of the community expects the game to be far more radically changed to suit their views. As a result, that part of the playerbase ends up seeing OneD&D as not good enough and more casual players feel like many of the changes and new features are uninteresting or lack flavor.
A lot can change between the playtests and the final product, but do other folks feel this is a concern? That OneD&D may turn off a large part of its more casual playerbase in trying to placate the "hardcore" crowd, perhaps fruitlessly?
I guess I come under the "hardcore" label (though maybe enthusiast is better?) and I'm definitely concerned about how they're using the survey feedback; I'm someone who likes the idea of weapon mastery but not the execution (didn't enjoy it while playtesting for a bunch of reasons), I'm generally positive about the UA8 Monk overall, but there's work that needs to be done contrary to the 90% satisfaction score they've claimed from the survey.
A big part of my concern is that I don't think the surveys are structured well at all; "satisfaction" can mean different things to different people, but they seem to be boiling it down to "lots of 'satisfied' responses = job done" and being very vague about what the remaining process looks like, so we don't really know what their intentions are. The survey really needs to be asking which classes/features require improvement, with the options representing different amounts of improvement needed, but they haven't yet given us an opportunity to provide feedback on the surveys themselves.
I'm just very worried that they're taking away the wrong conclusions from people being "satisfied" by any amount about the overall improvement to the Monk, and that they'll ignore the actual detail about what still needs to be improved. For example, I think overall it's a much better foundation, but I still wanted something else to do alongside Stunning Strike, especially now if Barbarians and Rogues are getting tactical options with no action economy costs. Part of this is the issue that it's still unclear what WotC see as Monk's niche – I've always wanted to play a Monk as a mixture of skirmisher and control/party support, but Stunning Strike was a boring way to do the latter, and now its been nerfed it's less good at it and still doesn't really have a replacement (the DPS compensation for failure is nice but misses the point).
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.
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
I felt that it was more a sensing session than anything else. They rarely did any rework of ideas. It was approve or die, with the exception being a 2014 starting point that was already in a very bad place. the druid templates you mentioned are a fine example. It's like they saw the feedback and said "ok, bad idea" rather than "OK, maybe poor implementation". We were never really asked our opinion on the new concepts. And when the implementation as presented was crap, they'd just scrap the idea entirely because they never asked if the idea itself was bad.
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.
UA and Surveys comprised significant A/B testing of ideas to extract feedback. Some ideas push boundaries on purpose to get a reaction. Testing a very bad idea is often necessary to obtain sufficient data to detect those boundaries.
Which they did not do. They tested some ideas that were good ideas, but poorly implemented and then scrapped them because they got poor feedback. There were never any questions asking about the concept of the idea, which could have said "this is a great idea, but the implementation is unwelcome". They just scrapped ideas and rolled back to 2014 in most cases that feedback was favorable. At the end you have to rate something higher than it should have been, just so it wouldn't be scrapped.
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.
This isn’t new. In 2000, some people hung on every update/leak Eric Noah posted about 3e. Some people didn’t care. Some variation on it happens every time there’s an edition change or major update. Some people will stick with the earlier version, some will switch, and new players will just pick up the 2024 rules without knowing it’s an update. Eventually most people move to the new version — with the possible exception of 4e.
But that’s just most people. Lots and lots of folks are out there still playing 1e. It hasn’t really stopped the D&D train that some people de-board when a new rule set launches. I don’t know why this time will be different. This time we may hear about it more, I suppose because of the nature of the internet and social media. But the hobby will be just fine.
As someone who plays in real-life and online settings, and who has been looking over the OneD&D playtests and reactions to it, I'm beginning to think there's a stark difference between average, more casual player and more "hardcore" if you will players - the sort who frequent D&D-focused communities, discuss things like optimal builds and damage-per-round, and the like. A lot of features the later crowd adores in OneD&D have gotten much more mixed reactions among the people I play with in real life and in Discord servers than sites like D&D Reddits or forums would suggest.
For instance, Weapon Mastery was rated highly enough that the mechanic went entirely unchanged through the playtests, but a lot of folks I play with and have spoken with, including some who have playtested the UAs, feel like the mechanic is much too spammy and unbalanced. Brutal Strikes on the Barbarian got positive reception from the surveys, but Barbarian players I know think it feels generic and loses the flavor of the Barbarian's Brutal Criticals. I've spoken to Monk players who've said that the loss of multiple Stunning Strikes per turn and various subclass features make them entirely uninterested in playing the OneD&D Monk, despite the hype forums and subreddits have for the changes.
The irony is that neither group seems sold on OneD&D, with differing complaints on either side. I can't help but to think that a lot of design choices have been made to try to placate that "hardcore" crowd, but that side of the community expects the game to be far more radically changed to suit their views. As a result, that part of the playerbase ends up seeing OneD&D as not good enough and more casual players feel like many of the changes and new features are uninteresting or lack flavor.
A lot can change between the playtests and the final product, but do other folks feel this is a concern? That OneD&D may turn off a large part of its more casual playerbase in trying to placate the "hardcore" crowd, perhaps fruitlessly?
they didn't really do things based on this community, they took massive surveys, and adapted as they see fit. I run dpr and other analysis so I can understand how the game actually runs, and how things may pan out past a few playtests. However, the decisions they have made mostly don't cater to me, or most people I have read in their responses.
These ideas were created by designers, the designers chose what feedback to seek, and how they would respond, generally giving players only the choice of 1 to 2 iterations, or the 2014. No change is going to be universally loved by all players, and even those who like changes may have preferred it done differently.
But that doesnt matter to a regular Joe, all that will matter is are they having fun, and is as fun or more fun than before. For my playtests, and the people I playtested with, it was similar, probably slightly better for martials. I don't think many super casuals are going to be consciously effected by these changes(subconsciously yes, but it'll take years to get that feedback). I think the semi casuals will notice the differences, and depending on how adverse to change they are in general will react accordingly.
Other than weapon mastery and monk, these are fairly tame changes. Mostly you get more options, which those who don't want more will mostly ignore. The ones who run or play a lot will probably have the big opinions.
Bottom line is from my playtests, I wouldn't run/play 2014 5e after running 2024, not saying its perfect, or as I would design it, but what they ve presented is a bit cleaner, generally better. Its basically a slight upgrade, which is likely their goal.
I think the only people who will strongly prefer the old version are those who really dislike changes in general, and those people would always be hard to get on board.
they didn't really do things based on this community, they took massive surveys, and adapted as they see fit.
Sure, but who took the surveys? I play with two groups of 6 people that have been playing weekly or biweekly for 2 years, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person at those tables that filled out the UA surveys. It's the perpetually online people who spend way too much time thinking about what is really a silly game we play as a hobby, that are answering the surveys. Not the busy people who can barely find 3 hours / week to meet up with friends to play at fighting dragons.
Treantmonk has ~80k subscribers which is probably more than the total number of people who filled in the surveys. DnD Shorts has 420K subscribers, Nerd Immersion has 100K. The surveys are probably barely capturing the views of the D&D digital community, and aren't even close to the 12 million people who use DnDBeyond.
they didn't really do things based on this community, they took massive surveys, and adapted as they see fit.
Sure, but who took the surveys? I play with two groups of 6 people that have been playing weekly or biweekly for 2 years, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person at those tables that filled out the UA surveys. It's the perpetually online people who spend way too much time thinking about what is really a silly game we play as a hobby, that are answering the surveys. Not the busy people who can barely find 3 hours / week to meet up with friends to play at fighting dragons.
Treantmonk has ~80k subscribers which is probably more than the total number of people who filled in the surveys. DnD Shorts has 420K subscribers, Nerd Immersion has 100K. The surveys are probably barely capturing the views of the D&D digital community, and aren't even close to the 12 million people who use DnDBeyond.
doesnt really matter, all surveys are just a slice. They know their surveys represent a number of interested participants who like taking surveys, and thats why they basically did very broad room testing surveying, and took or left the results based a lot on their own design goals.
There's probably not a ton of difference at the end of the day, between the people they tested and the ones that didnt participate, not when they were looking for numbers like 70-80% satisfaction, even if the numbers are skewed, they probably aren't that skewed. And the stuff that tested poorly or well, are generally pretty obvious in big strokes, which was primarily what they asked for. (not fine details or numbers, or how one prefers it to be done)
This was basically just a rough smell test for various ideas, and I don't think anything that tested poorly was great, and anything that tested super well was horrible. And I don't think at the end of the day they did anything they didnt already think might be on the table. Even certain things that tested well they got rid of if they didnt like it, and things that tested poorly that they really want to do, they said they will do anyway.
People are overestimating their small communities role in the survey, and the survey's role in actual design decisions. This is wotc's vision, not the true will of people, which is fine, thats how most things are created.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the 12 million or so users here also a huge data set in and of themselves? They don't need to ask surveys when they can see how many people are playing what classes and races, selecting which fears or spells, right?
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the 12 million or so users here also a huge data set in and of themselves? They don't need to ask surveys when they can see how many people are playing what classes and races, selecting which fears or spells, right?
Yup, and if I was on the design team (which I'm not) I would use that first and foremost, as it would be much more representative than any survey. Any spell taken by >95% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be either nerfed or made into a class feature, and any spell taken by <5% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be boosted or removed.
Likewise it should be pretty easy to see which classes players MC out of at specific levels to identify where the disappointing class features are that need boosting.
I think the only people who will strongly prefer the old version are those who really dislike changes in general, and those people would always be hard to get on board.
As a critic of 2024, I agree with this. The new version isn't much different from the 2014 version some things look better some things look worse IMO. But overall, I haven't seen enough changes that I like to spend $100 rebuying books I already own.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the 12 million or so users here also a huge data set in and of themselves? They don't need to ask surveys when they can see how many people are playing what classes and races, selecting which fears or spells, right?
Yup, and if I was on the design team (which I'm not) I would use that first and foremost, as it would be much more representative than any survey. Any spell taken by >95% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be either nerfed or made into a class feature, and any spell taken by <5% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be boosted or removed.
Likewise it should be pretty easy to see which classes players MC out of at specific levels to identify where the disappointing class features are that need boosting.
I maybe wouldn't just go by static characters, but if they have any kind of site usage metrics they ought to be able to identify "active" characters (user accesses them periodically) to gather a more useful sample of characters that are maybe actually being played.
Because if they just go by data for all characters, I literally have nearly 200 characters from various builds and experiments I've made, characters I've built for NPCs I want to feature in a campaign etc. etc., which absolutely are not representative of of the 4-5 characters I've actively played in the past two years. 😂
It's also important to go by some kind of measure of "active" as there will be some things that are over-represented on D&D Beyond simply because they're in the basic rules (i.e- free to access) so anyone trying the platform or building for fun etc. will be using those compared to groups that are actively playing. They also theoretically have some interesting data either available (or could be tracked) from what features and spells are actually cast/rolled from the character sheet; doesn't cover everything (since some things aren't implemented with rollables etc.) but if you've got a campaign with several players rolling in it, then it could be a good source for spells cast, what resources are being consumed (and how quickly), how many rests and of what type etc.
So yeah, it's very much a resource they should be using, as filtered properly it gives all the same data that you could get from a survey, minus having to ask (and only getting the responses from those willing to fill it out, which may not be representative of the whole fandom). Plus DDB should be a good sample of people who aren't quite as enthusiast, since it should appeal to anyone that wants a tool that makes it easier to build and manage their character.
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.
dnd beyond data has its limitations as well,but one big one is it provides no feedback at all on your ideas for changing things.
IE, I can have some data on 2014 classes, but I have no feedback on weapon mastery, a monk with a unlinked BA, what jump rules are, how I should reword movement etc.
basically these are different usecases for feedback, Dnd beyond, as it currently stands does very little for testing changes. Its guaranteed they used it(somewhat) to analyze 2014 classes, as they have mentioned it in Various design discussions
then there's a huge factor of how useful or biased your conclusions will be has a lot to do with the data scientist you have parsing the data.
Lastly, feedback is just a factor in game design, its generally not the guiding Principle. Mostly people want to see how people respond to the things they made, (and maybe make new things based on somewhat on what they observe)not neccarilly i want to make the thing people statistically respond to.
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
What a horrible dm tbh. There are story and flavor reasons to multiclass, like a bard/cleric who follows oghma, or an ascendent dragon monk/war cleric who follows Bahamut. Or a glory Paladin/valor bard who wants to be a glorious hero who sings their own legends and writes poems about their epic feats
And no furry races? Like, you mean races like Tabaxi or Dragonborn? Idk about you all but I don’t want to play a copy of Tolkien. If your dm only wants basic humans elves halflings and dwarves, there is a lotr ttrpg.
Judging the way someone else enjoys playing is not productive. There’s no correct way to have fun.
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
What a horrible dm tbh. There are story and flavor reasons to multiclass, like a bard/cleric who follows oghma, or an ascendent dragon monk/war cleric who follows Bahamut. Or a glory Paladin/valor bard who wants to be a glorious hero who sings their own legends and writes poems about their epic feats
And no furry races? Like, you mean races like Tabaxi or Dragonborn? Idk about you all but I don’t want to play a copy of Tolkien. If your dm only wants basic humans elves halflings and dwarves, there is a lotr ttrpg.
Judging the way someone else enjoys playing is not productive. There’s no correct way to have fun.
If everyone agrees then that’s fine. But I have a feeling at least one player wishes they could have been allowed to play a dragonborn or Tabaxi
Wow, your psychic powers are really impressive. You're able to get feelings about things that you truly have no way, nor business, of knowing!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
OP, there are two kinds of hardcore players. You only listed one type, that being powergamers who build craft and focus on op builds
the other type are people who are hardcore into narrative, improv, and roleplaying. I fall into this other type. let’s call these players narrativists
narrativists also have issues with one dnd
The most common complaints among us narrativists is:
Oh, please, don't act like these are the complaints of some kind of community or something. These are all completely yours, and when you've been all-too-vocal about them, everybodyhas disagreed. I suppose that's just the power gamer cabal trying to suppress you, huh?
- clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks having their subclasses moved to level 3 ruins class flavor and story. How is a character supposed to be divinely blessed but can’t even cast divinely themed spells, not even cantrips like thaumaturgy or sacred flame? How is a cleric of a trickster god supposed to do trickster things without domains spells like charm person or disguise self?
Feel free to start at third level. First level is for people who might not even know that they're divinely blessed yet.
- the removal of backgrounds, background features and background items. Things like prayer wheels or having retainers who shine your armor and pour your wine may not seem important to someone focused on combat and build crafting, but they are VERY important to people who love Roleplay and story
Retainers are lame and always have been. Most other background features are pointless, one is just 4 whole people. It's ridiculous.
Prayer wheels are trinkets that you can just have. Such things truly do not need to be codified. You might as well argue that you can't have a hat because it doesn't say common clothes include a hat. It's a hat, you can just friggin have it.
- removal of Roleplay centric class features in favor of combat features, instead of being improved upon. I’m talking things like enthralling performance going away. I loved glamour bard for that feature. I could charm an audience into saying nice things about me! But that’s no longer possible. The only way I could replicate that is using up a lot of spell slots… and that’s only till later in higher levels rather then level 3. And it would feel very wasteful.
This is an incredibly restrictive view of the changes that have been made. As has been pointed out in the past (to a convenient lack of response), Fighters and Barbarians, who previously had no out-of-combat features, now have out-of-combat features. Not half bad ones, either.
- bastion system being flavor fully and narratively restricting. I can’t play as an ascendent dragon monk who tends to a sanctuary of Bahamut, I can’t play as a zealot barbarian tending to a sanctuary dedicated to Athena, and I can’t play as a war cleric with a war room. One dnd made it to where only clerics, Druids, paladins and rangers are allowed to be religious, made it to where only fighters/rangers/barbarians/paladins can have training rooms or war rooms, etc etc.
One D&D did not make it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers could be religious. One D&D made it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and those who took Magic Initiate for Cleric or Druid could cast spells because of their religions. Which is, in fact, how it's always been.
a lot of people hate the changes so much that they are ignoring the playtest cause they’ve already decided they aren’t going to use the 2024 rules
That's a ridiculous way to respond to a playtest. "I don't like the things that I see in the playtest, so I'm definitely not going to put in my vote to help make sure that the things I don't like don't end up in the finished product." I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a playtest. The entire point is that if you see something you don't like, you should say you don't like it.
I think a major problem with this one dnd playtest is your changing things people love rather then making something new. And this is especially problematic when it’s an “update” to 5e rather than a new edition. So there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hurt feelings.
God, how very dare they change things! In an update, no less!
examples of this include the upcoming vecna adventure having a “pre order bonus”, with that bonus being a one shot adventure. Does WoTC not realize we can just take the premise of that one shot… and make our own one shot? It isn’t a video game, WoTC can’t send pinkertons after us to gatekeep our imaginations. I’ll just take the premise of a murder mystery in Neverwinter involving vecna’s cult and make my own story from there as GM.
Well, by that logic, the entire concept of selling adventures is idiotic. Which it clearly isn't, on account of all the adventures that are sold.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
What a horrible dm tbh. There are story and flavor reasons to multiclass, like a bard/cleric who follows oghma, or an ascendent dragon monk/war cleric who follows Bahamut. Or a glory Paladin/valor bard who wants to be a glorious hero who sings their own legends and writes poems about their epic feats
And no furry races? Like, you mean races like Tabaxi or Dragonborn? Idk about you all but I don’t want to play a copy of Tolkien. If your dm only wants basic humans elves halflings and dwarves, there is a lotr ttrpg.
He’s quite a good DM as a matter of fact. And it’s his prerogative to allow or not allow optional rules (which multiclassing is). I started playing in the early-mid 80’s. He started playing in the late 70’s so I’m fine with his race restrictions.
At one point I had over 60 characters in the DDB builder (I like making characters and why I had about 40+ characters I played to various levels in Skyrim) and other than a Hobgoblin Drunken Master Monk/Hunter Ranger MC (that sounded like Bobcat Goldthwait) I don’t think there was any non-PHB races among them. I’m not opposed to the other races, it’s just not what fulfills any fantasy I want to play.
Just because it’s not to your tastes doesn’t make it bad.
Edit: And there are absolutely RP or narrative reasons to MC. But it’s also true that MC can be used just for power gaming/Optimizing use (see Treantmonks latest Video on MC to do over 300 damage in a nova round with a Wizard 17/Fighter 2/Warlock 1 and Magic Missile) which is why my DM doesn’t like MCing.
I absolutely want to play a copy of Tolkien. I used to say no non-PHB races but as the PHB gets more and more stuff I don't like I'd be more and more tempted to just limit people to the big five: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes. Let's not pretend that everyone out there's looking to unleash their inner fursona. In fact, I'd likely decline joining a game that has too much of that. No D&D is better than bad D&D, and games filled with things that I find distasteful are more likely going to turn into bad D&D than ones that are run by a DM who's tastes are more aligned with mine.
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 help gaurantee things that make sense for your character, especially for purposes of things like AL. It means that my acolyte can get things like food and lodging at temples instead of GM forcing me to roll persuasion… as a character who isn’t proficient… in order to persuade people who are my Allies and who follow the same god that I follow
feylost guarantees my character can have things like an animal tail, something that some would argue has mechanical effects, and also means fey might visit my character in their sleep. More importantly, fey are going to be more friendly to my character cause they’re a feylost.
Or what about haunted one? That background lets my character be partially possessed by a fiend or spirit, or always be followed by a spirit.
No, no they don't. See this is the fundamental problem with all of your arguments. In 5e, RP and narrative are designed to be free flowing and improvisational built on the rapport between players and DM, built on the same basic social contract of all other social interactions. Rule 1 of D&D is that the DM is the arbiter of the game, the creator of the world, and the brains of the NPCs and can ignore the mechanics and rules whenever they like. The players absolutely do not get to dictate how the NPCs react or behave regardless of what their background features say, or what class they choose. Mechanics never dictate narrative because the DM is the creator of the narrative and they can change the rules however they like to make that narrative happen. You can choose Haunted One as a background all you want but the DM can simply say "No, there isn't any spirit following you. No you can't be possessed by a fiend or spirit." and likewise if you choose any other background but write in your backstory that you are followed by a spirit, the DM can equally simply say "Yes, of course you can be followed by a spirit and occasionally possessed by it." Likewise a Faceless One might remove their mask and the NPCs might not react at all because the DM decided they don't recognize them or don't care about their past, an another character with a different background might wear a mask all the time b/c they did something heinous as one part of their backstory. It's why the background features were so often ignored or forgotten about because they are just obvious things a character with that type of backstory would be able to do.
See you've got the whole interaction backwards and hostile. A player doesn't go up to the DM with a book in their hand saying "Rule 29018, on page 356 says that my character can build a temple so give my character a temple NOW!" that is a totally hostile thing to do, and will quickly get you kicked out of that game. The way the interaction should work is a player goes up to the DM and ask "Hey, my character would really like to build a temple, is there someway that could be incorporated into the story?"
If all you care about is narrative than the Bastion Rules are useless to you, because those are just a set of mechanics, there isn't even descriptions of most of them beyond a name for the room. A meditation chamber could be a holy sanctuary dedicated to a god, so could a training room, or a guild, or a library.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As someone who plays in real-life and online settings, and who has been looking over the OneD&D playtests and reactions to it, I'm beginning to think there's a stark difference between average, more casual player and more "hardcore" if you will players - the sort who frequent D&D-focused communities, discuss things like optimal builds and damage-per-round, and the like. A lot of features the later crowd adores in OneD&D have gotten much more mixed reactions among the people I play with in real life and in Discord servers than sites like D&D Reddits or forums would suggest.
For instance, Weapon Mastery was rated highly enough that the mechanic went entirely unchanged through the playtests, but a lot of folks I play with and have spoken with, including some who have playtested the UAs, feel like the mechanic is much too spammy and unbalanced. Brutal Strikes on the Barbarian got positive reception from the surveys, but Barbarian players I know think it feels generic and loses the flavor of the Barbarian's Brutal Criticals. I've spoken to Monk players who've said that the loss of multiple Stunning Strikes per turn and various subclass features make them entirely uninterested in playing the OneD&D Monk, despite the hype forums and subreddits have for the changes.
The irony is that neither group seems sold on OneD&D, with differing complaints on either side. I can't help but to think that a lot of design choices have been made to try to placate that "hardcore" crowd, but that side of the community expects the game to be far more radically changed to suit their views. As a result, that part of the playerbase ends up seeing OneD&D as not good enough and more casual players feel like many of the changes and new features are uninteresting or lack flavor.
A lot can change between the playtests and the final product, but do other folks feel this is a concern? That OneD&D may turn off a large part of its more casual playerbase in trying to placate the "hardcore" crowd, perhaps fruitlessly?
I guess I come under the "hardcore" label (though maybe enthusiast is better?) and I'm definitely concerned about how they're using the survey feedback; I'm someone who likes the idea of weapon mastery but not the execution (didn't enjoy it while playtesting for a bunch of reasons), I'm generally positive about the UA8 Monk overall, but there's work that needs to be done contrary to the 90% satisfaction score they've claimed from the survey.
A big part of my concern is that I don't think the surveys are structured well at all; "satisfaction" can mean different things to different people, but they seem to be boiling it down to "lots of 'satisfied' responses = job done" and being very vague about what the remaining process looks like, so we don't really know what their intentions are. The survey really needs to be asking which classes/features require improvement, with the options representing different amounts of improvement needed, but they haven't yet given us an opportunity to provide feedback on the surveys themselves.
I'm just very worried that they're taking away the wrong conclusions from people being "satisfied" by any amount about the overall improvement to the Monk, and that they'll ignore the actual detail about what still needs to be improved. For example, I think overall it's a much better foundation, but I still wanted something else to do alongside Stunning Strike, especially now if Barbarians and Rogues are getting tactical options with no action economy costs. Part of this is the issue that it's still unclear what WotC see as Monk's niche – I've always wanted to play a Monk as a mixture of skirmisher and control/party support, but Stunning Strike was a boring way to do the latter, and now its been nerfed it's less good at it and still doesn't really have a replacement (the DPS compensation for failure is nice but misses the point).
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.
I also wouldn’t consider myself “hardcore” but more an “enthusiast” as I am active on these forums but only play 1-2 times a month in one group. And my DM doesn’t allow multiclassing as they consider it as players wanting to “win” D&D. I disagree but he’s the DM so that’s how we play. Also doesn’t allow furry/winged races.
I do think there is a difference between players who are active on forums and other D&D boards that are either “hardcore” or “casual/regular” players, and will have very different opinions to those who are not active outside actual gameplay.
And I agree with Haravikk on not being satisfied with how the surveys were handled. For example, I liked the Druid templates but put dissatisfied because they were junk as is. But the idea was good and just needed some work, which they didn’t do due to responses.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I felt that it was more a sensing session than anything else. They rarely did any rework of ideas. It was approve or die, with the exception being a 2014 starting point that was already in a very bad place. the druid templates you mentioned are a fine example. It's like they saw the feedback and said "ok, bad idea" rather than "OK, maybe poor implementation". We were never really asked our opinion on the new concepts. And when the implementation as presented was crap, they'd just scrap the idea entirely because they never asked if the idea itself was bad.
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
UA and Surveys comprised significant A/B testing of ideas to extract feedback. Some ideas push boundaries on purpose to get a reaction. Testing a very bad idea is often necessary to obtain sufficient data to detect those boundaries.
Which they did not do. They tested some ideas that were good ideas, but poorly implemented and then scrapped them because they got poor feedback. There were never any questions asking about the concept of the idea, which could have said "this is a great idea, but the implementation is unwelcome". They just scrapped ideas and rolled back to 2014 in most cases that feedback was favorable. At the end you have to rate something higher than it should have been, just so it wouldn't be scrapped.
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
This isn’t new. In 2000, some people hung on every update/leak Eric Noah posted about 3e. Some people didn’t care.
Some variation on it happens every time there’s an edition change or major update. Some people will stick with the earlier version, some will switch, and new players will just pick up the 2024 rules without knowing it’s an update.
Eventually most people move to the new version — with the possible exception of 4e.
But that’s just most people. Lots and lots of folks are out there still playing 1e. It hasn’t really stopped the D&D train that some people de-board when a new rule set launches. I don’t know why this time will be different. This time we may hear about it more, I suppose because of the nature of the internet and social media. But the hobby will be just fine.
they didn't really do things based on this community, they took massive surveys, and adapted as they see fit. I run dpr and other analysis so I can understand how the game actually runs, and how things may pan out past a few playtests. However, the decisions they have made mostly don't cater to me, or most people I have read in their responses.
These ideas were created by designers, the designers chose what feedback to seek, and how they would respond, generally giving players only the choice of 1 to 2 iterations, or the 2014. No change is going to be universally loved by all players, and even those who like changes may have preferred it done differently.
But that doesnt matter to a regular Joe, all that will matter is are they having fun, and is as fun or more fun than before. For my playtests, and the people I playtested with, it was similar, probably slightly better for martials. I don't think many super casuals are going to be consciously effected by these changes(subconsciously yes, but it'll take years to get that feedback). I think the semi casuals will notice the differences, and depending on how adverse to change they are in general will react accordingly.
Other than weapon mastery and monk, these are fairly tame changes. Mostly you get more options, which those who don't want more will mostly ignore. The ones who run or play a lot will probably have the big opinions.
Bottom line is from my playtests, I wouldn't run/play 2014 5e after running 2024, not saying its perfect, or as I would design it, but what they ve presented is a bit cleaner, generally better. Its basically a slight upgrade, which is likely their goal.
I think the only people who will strongly prefer the old version are those who really dislike changes in general, and those people would always be hard to get on board.
Sure, but who took the surveys? I play with two groups of 6 people that have been playing weekly or biweekly for 2 years, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person at those tables that filled out the UA surveys. It's the perpetually online people who spend way too much time thinking about what is really a silly game we play as a hobby, that are answering the surveys. Not the busy people who can barely find 3 hours / week to meet up with friends to play at fighting dragons.
Treantmonk has ~80k subscribers which is probably more than the total number of people who filled in the surveys. DnD Shorts has 420K subscribers, Nerd Immersion has 100K. The surveys are probably barely capturing the views of the D&D digital community, and aren't even close to the 12 million people who use DnDBeyond.
doesnt really matter, all surveys are just a slice. They know their surveys represent a number of interested participants who like taking surveys, and thats why they basically did very broad room testing surveying, and took or left the results based a lot on their own design goals.
There's probably not a ton of difference at the end of the day, between the people they tested and the ones that didnt participate, not when they were looking for numbers like 70-80% satisfaction, even if the numbers are skewed, they probably aren't that skewed. And the stuff that tested poorly or well, are generally pretty obvious in big strokes, which was primarily what they asked for. (not fine details or numbers, or how one prefers it to be done)
This was basically just a rough smell test for various ideas, and I don't think anything that tested poorly was great, and anything that tested super well was horrible. And I don't think at the end of the day they did anything they didnt already think might be on the table. Even certain things that tested well they got rid of if they didnt like it, and things that tested poorly that they really want to do, they said they will do anyway.
People are overestimating their small communities role in the survey, and the survey's role in actual design decisions. This is wotc's vision, not the true will of people, which is fine, thats how most things are created.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the 12 million or so users here also a huge data set in and of themselves? They don't need to ask surveys when they can see how many people are playing what classes and races, selecting which fears or spells, right?
Yup, and if I was on the design team (which I'm not) I would use that first and foremost, as it would be much more representative than any survey. Any spell taken by >95% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be either nerfed or made into a class feature, and any spell taken by <5% of the characters that have it on their spell list should be boosted or removed.
Likewise it should be pretty easy to see which classes players MC out of at specific levels to identify where the disappointing class features are that need boosting.
As a critic of 2024, I agree with this. The new version isn't much different from the 2014 version some things look better some things look worse IMO. But overall, I haven't seen enough changes that I like to spend $100 rebuying books I already own.
I maybe wouldn't just go by static characters, but if they have any kind of site usage metrics they ought to be able to identify "active" characters (user accesses them periodically) to gather a more useful sample of characters that are maybe actually being played.
Because if they just go by data for all characters, I literally have nearly 200 characters from various builds and experiments I've made, characters I've built for NPCs I want to feature in a campaign etc. etc., which absolutely are not representative of of the 4-5 characters I've actively played in the past two years. 😂
It's also important to go by some kind of measure of "active" as there will be some things that are over-represented on D&D Beyond simply because they're in the basic rules (i.e- free to access) so anyone trying the platform or building for fun etc. will be using those compared to groups that are actively playing. They also theoretically have some interesting data either available (or could be tracked) from what features and spells are actually cast/rolled from the character sheet; doesn't cover everything (since some things aren't implemented with rollables etc.) but if you've got a campaign with several players rolling in it, then it could be a good source for spells cast, what resources are being consumed (and how quickly), how many rests and of what type etc.
So yeah, it's very much a resource they should be using, as filtered properly it gives all the same data that you could get from a survey, minus having to ask (and only getting the responses from those willing to fill it out, which may not be representative of the whole fandom). Plus DDB should be a good sample of people who aren't quite as enthusiast, since it should appeal to anyone that wants a tool that makes it easier to build and manage their character.
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.
dnd beyond data has its limitations as well,but one big one is it provides no feedback at all on your ideas for changing things.
IE, I can have some data on 2014 classes, but I have no feedback on weapon mastery, a monk with a unlinked BA, what jump rules are, how I should reword movement etc.
basically these are different usecases for feedback, Dnd beyond, as it currently stands does very little for testing changes. Its guaranteed they used it(somewhat) to analyze 2014 classes, as they have mentioned it in Various design discussions
then there's a huge factor of how useful or biased your conclusions will be has a lot to do with the data scientist you have parsing the data.
Lastly, feedback is just a factor in game design, its generally not the guiding Principle. Mostly people want to see how people respond to the things they made, (and maybe make new things based on somewhat on what they observe)not neccarilly i want to make the thing people statistically respond to.
Judging the way someone else enjoys playing is not productive. There’s no correct way to have fun.
Wow, your psychic powers are really impressive. You're able to get feelings about things that you truly have no way, nor business, of knowing!
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Oh, please, don't act like these are the complaints of some kind of community or something. These are all completely yours, and when you've been all-too-vocal about them, everybody has disagreed. I suppose that's just the power gamer cabal trying to suppress you, huh?
Feel free to start at third level. First level is for people who might not even know that they're divinely blessed yet.
Retainers are lame and always have been. Most other background features are pointless, one is just 4 whole people. It's ridiculous.
Prayer wheels are trinkets that you can just have. Such things truly do not need to be codified. You might as well argue that you can't have a hat because it doesn't say common clothes include a hat. It's a hat, you can just friggin have it.
This is an incredibly restrictive view of the changes that have been made. As has been pointed out in the past (to a convenient lack of response), Fighters and Barbarians, who previously had no out-of-combat features, now have out-of-combat features. Not half bad ones, either.
One D&D did not make it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers could be religious. One D&D made it so that only Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and those who took Magic Initiate for Cleric or Druid could cast spells because of their religions. Which is, in fact, how it's always been.
That's a ridiculous way to respond to a playtest. "I don't like the things that I see in the playtest, so I'm definitely not going to put in my vote to help make sure that the things I don't like don't end up in the finished product." I think you completely misunderstand the concept of a playtest. The entire point is that if you see something you don't like, you should say you don't like it.
God, how very dare they change things! In an update, no less!
Well, by that logic, the entire concept of selling adventures is idiotic. Which it clearly isn't, on account of all the adventures that are sold.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
He’s quite a good DM as a matter of fact. And it’s his prerogative to allow or not allow optional rules (which multiclassing is). I started playing in the early-mid 80’s. He started playing in the late 70’s so I’m fine with his race restrictions.
At one point I had over 60 characters in the DDB builder (I like making characters and why I had about 40+ characters I played to various levels in Skyrim) and other than a Hobgoblin Drunken Master Monk/Hunter Ranger MC (that sounded like Bobcat Goldthwait) I don’t think there was any non-PHB races among them. I’m not opposed to the other races, it’s just not what fulfills any fantasy I want to play.
Just because it’s not to your tastes doesn’t make it bad.
Edit: And there are absolutely RP or narrative reasons to MC. But it’s also true that MC can be used just for power gaming/Optimizing use (see Treantmonks latest Video on MC to do over 300 damage in a nova round with a Wizard 17/Fighter 2/Warlock 1 and Magic Missile) which is why my DM doesn’t like MCing.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I absolutely want to play a copy of Tolkien. I used to say no non-PHB races but as the PHB gets more and more stuff I don't like I'd be more and more tempted to just limit people to the big five: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes. Let's not pretend that everyone out there's looking to unleash their inner fursona. In fact, I'd likely decline joining a game that has too much of that. No D&D is better than bad D&D, and games filled with things that I find distasteful are more likely going to turn into bad D&D than ones that are run by a DM who's tastes are more aligned with mine.
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
No, no they don't. See this is the fundamental problem with all of your arguments. In 5e, RP and narrative are designed to be free flowing and improvisational built on the rapport between players and DM, built on the same basic social contract of all other social interactions. Rule 1 of D&D is that the DM is the arbiter of the game, the creator of the world, and the brains of the NPCs and can ignore the mechanics and rules whenever they like. The players absolutely do not get to dictate how the NPCs react or behave regardless of what their background features say, or what class they choose. Mechanics never dictate narrative because the DM is the creator of the narrative and they can change the rules however they like to make that narrative happen. You can choose Haunted One as a background all you want but the DM can simply say "No, there isn't any spirit following you. No you can't be possessed by a fiend or spirit." and likewise if you choose any other background but write in your backstory that you are followed by a spirit, the DM can equally simply say "Yes, of course you can be followed by a spirit and occasionally possessed by it." Likewise a Faceless One might remove their mask and the NPCs might not react at all because the DM decided they don't recognize them or don't care about their past, an another character with a different background might wear a mask all the time b/c they did something heinous as one part of their backstory. It's why the background features were so often ignored or forgotten about because they are just obvious things a character with that type of backstory would be able to do.
See you've got the whole interaction backwards and hostile. A player doesn't go up to the DM with a book in their hand saying "Rule 29018, on page 356 says that my character can build a temple so give my character a temple NOW!" that is a totally hostile thing to do, and will quickly get you kicked out of that game. The way the interaction should work is a player goes up to the DM and ask "Hey, my character would really like to build a temple, is there someway that could be incorporated into the story?"
If all you care about is narrative than the Bastion Rules are useless to you, because those are just a set of mechanics, there isn't even descriptions of most of them beyond a name for the room. A meditation chamber could be a holy sanctuary dedicated to a god, so could a training room, or a guild, or a library.