MockingBird
Hero
Same, it's super close to how I set it up for my daughter playing a druid, so it will be one less thing to change up.Nah, I'm giving it good marks, it gets the job done.
Same, it's super close to how I set it up for my daughter playing a druid, so it will be one less thing to change up.Nah, I'm giving it good marks, it gets the job done.
I am done with the playtest, won’t rate anything, but I will write in some comments.How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.
Don’t forget that the public playtest is not the only playtesting they are doing.Sure, I am neither complaining about them going with what the majority wants, nor with them creating a new PHB. I just think they gave up on their ideas awfully fast and should have given them a tweak before throwing them in the thrash for not being 'delightful' - or alternatively have done a better job the first time around, when they knew there would be no second time.
I am certain they could have e.g. done a much better job with wildshape templates, I saw some better ideas here within a day of the UA release. Would that have been enough? No idea, but the shoddy attempt they released virtually ensured they would get voted down.
Haven't decided yet, because I do have mixed opinions. I think templates would be better, but as I said, this is a more useable and table friendly implementation of the 2014 Druid. And I really like a lot of the other changes they've made to the Druid.How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.
If template wildshape had 70% approval, and MM-scraping wildshape has 65% approval, maybe they'll consider another pass at something new.
That just makes it harder to predict what we ultimately end up withDon’t forget that the public playtest is not the only playtesting they are doing.
Exactly.That just makes it harder to predict what we ultimately end up with
All that says is that maybe they do not always go with whatever gets the 70% seal of approval and instead change it somewhat differently or not at all, I don't think that means they ever go against the vote though and change it to something that did not get enough support.
Given what playtest 6 looks like, I'd say they decided against most of the interesting changes, whether from feedback or internal testing.
But thatevery UA in the past decade: online discourse gives basically zero predictive value of what WotC proceeds with.It's like Schrodinger's UA
I've always wondered about the statistical analysis of their surveys. The sample is a self-selected population of engaged gamers; how do they draw conclusions applicable to the wider public?They actually do get help through Hasbro from professional statisticians for designing these. As long as both samples are large enough, it's not like they need everyone to answer every survey.
I guess so. A lot of recent UAs were mostly just balance tweaking or testing vs spaghetti tossing. The last one I saw that was a retreat from a bold idea was the Strixhaven subclasses. So in that regard, the difference between a Spelljammer race and it's UA version feels more predictable than looking at the Mages in packet 5 and assuming what they will look like next.But thatevery UA in the past decade: online discourse gives basically zero predictive value of what WotC proceeds with.
They tested 4 Subclasses in 2022 for 2023 books, and at least 2 were rejected (Rune Wizard and Dino Druid). Jury is still out on the Fate Cleric. And that's fairly typical for UA. Species options have a better track record of passing thst Class stuff, but they are way, way more simple to design and sell people on.I guess so. A lot of recent UAs were mostly just balance tweaking or testing vs spaghetti tossing. The last one I saw that was a retreat from a bold idea was the Strixhaven subclasses. So in that regard, the difference between a Spelljammer race and it's UA version feels more predictable than looking at the Mages in packet 5 and assuming what they will look like next.