Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
If the surveys are not read (+)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8905753" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>For the sake of the argument as is the premise of this thread:</p><p></p><p>If all survey results are ignored... then I believe the design team would be doing everything to clean up those bits they know folks have had problems with based upon 8 years of caterwauling by players to them in tweets and emails and videos and board threads and such.</p><p></p><p>The designers are not stupid and do not have their heads in the sand. They know folks have had issues with the Great Weapon Master feat, Rangers, the idea that you might want a Cleric of War to not actually be a melee cleric, the armor and weapons tables being not greatly thought out, the Stealth rules, and any number of the myriad of problems select members of the community have had. But as was always the case... they really did not want to do in 5E what they did in 4E-- which was to create a continuously updated "Errata document" PDF that just changed rule after rule after rule for balance reasons and forced players to just print all the updates on copy paper. Because that resulted in a massive document that no one could remember all changes on unless they only used the D&D Insider Character Builder.</p><p></p><p>Which means they've been saving all of these adjustments for a project like this-- a new book that tries to fully "correct" those aspects of the game that people have been complaining about these past 8 years. I'm sure they have quite the list... and in many cases those corrections are contradictory to other requests so they have to figure out which methods work better. Without survey data to figure out the true preferences on either side of these kinds of issues... they would have to just do internal playtesting to see which rules seem to work better.</p><p></p><p>As far as adding Warlords, Psions and Swordmages to this new book... without survey data to quantify feelings, they would have no choice but to go combing through message boards such as EN World to find out how the select few who really care about them actually want to see them incorporated. And the designers would then see that in all three cases there's not a single one that has any consistent design. Every single person who posts about what they want believes these three classes should be done in completely different ways, with some things desperately important to some people, with the <em>exact opposite</em> desperately important to other people. And they will come to the same conclusion the rest of us do when we see these threads pop up... which is these people will never be happy with anything that would get designed, so it is pointless to bother. Those players' ONLY option is to make these gosh-darned classes <em>themselves</em> exactly the way they want them so that they can be possibly happy.</p><p></p><p>Other than that? There's probably a bunch of other small things that could do with a buff and a shine now that people have played with them for 8+ years that they could throw in. Not necessary to do per se, but probably just stuff the designers think might be more fun to see added or changed. And because there's no way to check for interest in them, they just make those changes unilaterally. And what ends up happening is that 99% of the playerbase won't care that a bunch of these small things were changed, and 1% will consider it the absolute deathknell of the D&D game-- shouting with displeasure at the same level of vitriol everyone's giving to the OGL fiasco. Which kind of lessens the impact of the complaints when two complete separate levels of issue result in the exact same level of anger.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8905753, member: 7006"] For the sake of the argument as is the premise of this thread: If all survey results are ignored... then I believe the design team would be doing everything to clean up those bits they know folks have had problems with based upon 8 years of caterwauling by players to them in tweets and emails and videos and board threads and such. The designers are not stupid and do not have their heads in the sand. They know folks have had issues with the Great Weapon Master feat, Rangers, the idea that you might want a Cleric of War to not actually be a melee cleric, the armor and weapons tables being not greatly thought out, the Stealth rules, and any number of the myriad of problems select members of the community have had. But as was always the case... they really did not want to do in 5E what they did in 4E-- which was to create a continuously updated "Errata document" PDF that just changed rule after rule after rule for balance reasons and forced players to just print all the updates on copy paper. Because that resulted in a massive document that no one could remember all changes on unless they only used the D&D Insider Character Builder. Which means they've been saving all of these adjustments for a project like this-- a new book that tries to fully "correct" those aspects of the game that people have been complaining about these past 8 years. I'm sure they have quite the list... and in many cases those corrections are contradictory to other requests so they have to figure out which methods work better. Without survey data to figure out the true preferences on either side of these kinds of issues... they would have to just do internal playtesting to see which rules seem to work better. As far as adding Warlords, Psions and Swordmages to this new book... without survey data to quantify feelings, they would have no choice but to go combing through message boards such as EN World to find out how the select few who really care about them actually want to see them incorporated. And the designers would then see that in all three cases there's not a single one that has any consistent design. Every single person who posts about what they want believes these three classes should be done in completely different ways, with some things desperately important to some people, with the [I]exact opposite[/I] desperately important to other people. And they will come to the same conclusion the rest of us do when we see these threads pop up... which is these people will never be happy with anything that would get designed, so it is pointless to bother. Those players' ONLY option is to make these gosh-darned classes [I]themselves[/I] exactly the way they want them so that they can be possibly happy. Other than that? There's probably a bunch of other small things that could do with a buff and a shine now that people have played with them for 8+ years that they could throw in. Not necessary to do per se, but probably just stuff the designers think might be more fun to see added or changed. And because there's no way to check for interest in them, they just make those changes unilaterally. And what ends up happening is that 99% of the playerbase won't care that a bunch of these small things were changed, and 1% will consider it the absolute deathknell of the D&D game-- shouting with displeasure at the same level of vitriol everyone's giving to the OGL fiasco. Which kind of lessens the impact of the complaints when two complete separate levels of issue result in the exact same level of anger. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
If the surveys are not read (+)
Top