D&D (2024) Playtest 7 survey is now live.

[Mistwell]

Well, we know that the Tasha's summons are replacing the 2014 PahB ones, per Crawford. And those pased playtesting muster recently. We may see something with Shiwld...but maybe not?

Incorrect. We know the Tasha's summons will be in the 2024 book. He also said all prior spells from the PHB will be in the 2024 book. So, based on what he's said, we know they are not replacing them, just putting them in as additional spells.

Now I would be fine if they replaced them. I hope they do. But based on what he's said that is not what they're doing. That being the case, they need to fix them.

 

[Mistwell]

If they are limited on time, then we need to really focus on spell levels 1-5. 6+ just doesn't see much actual play, except for BBEG type creatures (in which case, OP spells is the name of the game!).

As much as we all know simulacrum is hokey....how many tables actually see players even get access to the spell? A very small fraction.

They can errata some of this. Like, "The following spells summon, animate, or otherwise create another creature under your control or influence. If such a creature would normally be able to cast spells or change it's shape into another creature through a polymorph or similar spell, they lose those features." That would take care of a big swath of problem spells in one sentence, including simulacrum and higher level summon spells.

 

[Mistwell]

It needs a couple of playtests, because character optimizers are pretty good at spotting issues with particular spells. To make the new versions of spells available to public scrutiny benefits the game.

There are not enough playtests left for this to be a thing. Vote accordingly, knowing if you vote something down it will simply go back to the 2014 version.

 

[Remathilis]

they might just balance in house instead of asking for feedback, presumably they do not need / want feedback on balance from the playtests anyway

I'm thinking this is what's going to happen. After seeing what the D&D community has thought about most of the class changes, I can't imagine any version of shield that is less than what it is now getting 70%. So I think they are going to make us take our medicine and balance those outliers themselves.

 

[Remathilis]

There are not enough playtests left for this to be a thing. Vote accordingly, knowing if you vote something down it will simply go back to the 2014 version.

Believe me, the only things I downvoted WERE the changes back to 2014...

 

[Parmandur]

It is easy to remove components from a spell description. The classes already describe how it casts a spell anyway. Removing them from the spell description helps clarify the situation, such as the Dance Bard casting silently and never using Verbal.

I mean, they could make the game s Classless point buy. But that won't be in the next two UA, either.

Because spells are unique and often with unintended effects, such as in certain combos, the spells especially need to be checked by as many optimizers in the public as possible.

That's not what WotC uses UA to do. It's trial balloons for conceptual shifts.

How many spells nowadays actually requires an expensive component that is consumed?

It seems to me most components are one time costs....which isn't all that integral tbh.

I mean, quite a few...?

 

[Mistwell]

\

I mean, quite a few...?

Yes, it's a pretty fair number.

 

[Yaarel]

Delete all costly gp components from spells.

A fair number of spells have a reusable costly gp focus, which thus fails as a balancing mechanism.

Even the spells that have a consumable costly gp component, generally cost a trivial amount even when at a high level when there is much wealth and nothing to spend it on, thus fails as a balancing mechanism.

Only a few spells seem as if its costly component might be meaningful, such as Resurrection, but even here the costly component fails as balancing mechanism, especially when the amount of cash available depends entirely on the setting and situation. Even these few spells balance better, and make more sense, when designed without a costly component.

Delete all costly gp components from spells.

 

[Parmandur]

Delete all costly gp components from spells.

A fair number of spells have a reusable costly gp focus, which thus fails as a balancing mechanism.

Even the spells that have a consumable costly gp component, generally cost a trivial amount even when at a high level when there is much wealth and nothing to spend it on, thus fails as a balancing mechanism.

Only a few spells seem as if its costly component might be meaningful, such as Resurrection, but even here the costly component fails as balancing mechanism, especially when the amount of cash available depends entirely on the setting and situation. Even these few spells balance better, and make more sense, when designed without a costly component.

Delete all costly gp components from spells.

They are a part of D&D. They have been including the Components in Spwlls tested thus far, they aren't going to test taking them out this go around. And next time stuff is up for grabs, priced components will have 20 years of 5E and 60 years of D&D inertia on their side. Never gonna happen.

 

[Scribe]

Delete all costly gp components from spells.

Why? If its a negligible cost, as you outline, why does it matter?