D&D (2024) It feels so much like the D&D Next playtest did

[Parmandur]

Sure, but there is also a lot of pushback in these threads about this. Also, I have in mind things like spells not critical hitting. I suspect that many wizards and spellcaster players will pitch a fit about that regardless of whether that would make a better overall game.

Hard to say based off of our chatter here. I've seen UA totally bomb in discussions here, but them get published unchanged because WotC says the reception in surveys was overwhelmingly positive (the new Hobgoblins and Kobolds, for example), while also seeing people get excited and happy here and the survey results were bad and the option never made it to print (Strixhaven Subclasses, recently). It's not exactly a reverse correlation, but I wouldn't put much stock in what we say here. I'm just using this discussion to form my own survey response, not assuming the discourse reflects the final results.

 

[Scribe]

It seems like a pretty easy dodge as you can just point to anything changed and say that the change is good because 5e is successful. I don't think that pointing to 5e's success as a defense of every single change is necessarily a strong argument. It's basically a repackaged ad populum argument, and the reasons for why that sort of argumentation is crap has already been discussed elsewhere.

There are many many many things I dont like about 5e, so please dont misunderstand me as thinking all things 5e are good.

All I'm saying, is that 'everything good' was shouted down, I find it far more likely that there is debate about those things being good, than 'everything good' was removed due to 'grogs'.

 

[darjr]

I am excited as well. And I have advice.

If you want a chance to influence this otside the survey then playtest it and post concise bits about specific things. Play notes or livestreams are cool but just a ton of stuff to go through, but I bet they try.

Concise informed comments about specific things you found in actual live play testing are gold.

Show it to people that would have in interest in spreading the word.

Do not bombard the creators social media.

Good luck everyone!

 

[darjr]

Oh and if you can’t play a session then use the materials and post about that. Make characters. Use old and new content. Build an encounter meant for these new rules in mind. Exercise these new rules in the other ways players interact with them.

 

[darjr]

Oh and if you can contrast and compare with your prior play.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nope, but if 'everything good' was shouted down, and its already crazy successful, am I to accept that everything shouted down was actually good, or perhaps there are reasons it wasnt included?

It's probably a stretch to say "everything good" was shouted down, but there were definitely some things that would have likely been better (the sorcerer comes to mind).

You are absolutely right that often people can be victims of "be careful what you wish for".

For example, if it were entirely up to me, I'd make big sweeping changes (I'd make 6e for sure) to fix everything that I think could be better. Would it be a better game? IDK, but I am SURE that I would create the very problem I've been discussing here: I'd throw some babies out with the bathwater and create unforeseen new problems that would need to be fixed 5 years in. In other words, I'd be wrong to do so.

Tweaking a few issues that many people agree (is it most people? IDK) are not great but leaving the bulk of 5e alone seems like a smarter bet to me. And it looks like the designers have that planned.

 

[Parmandur]

It's probably a stretch to say "everything good" was shouted down, but there were definitely some things that would have likely been better (the sorcerer comes to mind).

You are absolutely right that often people can be victims of "be careful what you wish for".

For example, if it were entirely up to me, I'd make big sweeping changes (I'd make 6e for sure) to fix everything that I think could be better. Would it be a better game? IDK, but I am SURE that I would create the very problem I've been discussing here: I'd throw some babies out with the bathwater and create unforeseen new problems that would need to be fixed 5 years in. In other words, I'd be wrong to do so.

Tweaking a few issues that many people agree (is it most people? IDK) are not great but leaving the bulk of 5e alone seems like a smarter bet to me. And it looks like the designers have that planned.

However it turns out, 1D&D will at least be the most considered version of D&D so far.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All the good ideas were shouted down by grognards, who are now vastly outnumbered by new players.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that new ideas are inherently better than old ones.

 

[Haplo781]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that new ideas are inherently better than old ones.

You seem to be attacking a straw man.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, just because I'll be happy with what they did with A doesn't mean I approve B. An interesting concept however. People changing for the sake of changing it, and not due to improvement's sake. Anti-traditionists.

I think of house rules like Skyrim mods. At the end of the day, everyone wants the game tailored to their tastes. It's universally impossible for WotC to make a single edition whose vanilla rules will satisfy absolutely everyone. For example, if I was older when me and my big brother played BECMI, there's no way in hell we wouldn't houserule the save or die rolls, which old TSR books were giving out like candy.

I agree that the 5th edition seems to have helped bring back a lot of the people who were alienated by 4th (felt too video-gamey for my tastes, personally with all the monster underlings who would die with a single attack). It gave me an impression it was like playing tabletop Diablo with the intention of making everything resolve ultra-fast. Now granted, I never played a single session in that edition, but that was the vibe I got.

I think the majority of people who had a problem with 5E were people who didn't like the rules one-upping the lore. And I share a lot of their criticism with them on that one (the orc/drow debate for example but lets not open that can of worms here), but I recently tried to give WotC another shot.

The only thing that bothered me on 5E's twilight were those changes which were all about adding options, bonuses and removing penalties. I get the logic, I get why they did that, but if WotC now is following a 'more options, no restrictions' policy, what does that mean for a setting like Dark Sun on 6E/D&D One? Will they have every race of the PHB available despite some of them being supposedly extinct on Athas? Will they touch upon the gritty themes the setting used to have or will they be considered too 'risky' on 6E/One D&D? I just don't want Dark Sun to end up being 'Forgotten Realms on a very, very hot summer' if they ever decide to make the damn book ... which I feel is just a matter of time, considering we currently have FR, Ravenloft, Eberron, MtG, Spelljammer, and at the end of the year, Dragonlance.

I'm in favor of everyone just moving on to third party stuff if they decide WotC isn't for them. I did, and it's the happiest I've ever been with 5e.