D&D 5E So... what happened during the playtests?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

The wizard was the most popular class in the class surveys they did.

Here's the most recent:

1. Fighter
2. Cleric
3. Rogue
4. Wizard
5. Paladin

Link others if you like...

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it's important to know a little bit about the process that they go through when deciding what content they are going to include in 5e--both during the playtest and in the current UA playtests.

Fortunately, Mike Mearls has told us a little bit about the process. I'm not going to spend an hour and a half attempting to find the articles and quotes, but anyone who wants to is free to do so. Some of the most recent ones have been given to us when reporting the results of the feedback surveys since the game was released. Instead, I'll just summarize according to my memory and understanding.

When determining what to include, they look at how popular something is, but they also look at how unpopular it is. For example, in the most recent feedback Mike mentions that 70% of people wanted more feats in the game, and it also had the lowest opposition. This would be in contrast to some other things, like prestige classes (which Mike himself likes and would like to have in the games). With those, most people said the Runecaster worked fairly well, but a lot of those same people (I believe it was either 40% or 60% of all respondents to the survey) said they do not want prestige classes in the game (including the Runecaster).

More details about this process were given in the past. While I don't recall the exact numbers, it was said that if something like 5%-10% of people said that they were dissatisfied with something, they felt they needed to work on it more. They wanted to make sure to get those numbers down to a minimum before releasing it.

So if 70% of people like and want something, 2% dislike and don't want it, and 28% don't have a strong opinion, there is a good chance it will go on the list of things they are planning to get to. On the other hand, if 75% of people want something, but 15% are strongly opposed to it, with 10% lacking a strong opinion, they aren't likely to produce it in that form. Depending on how they judge it, they may just give up on the idea, or they might throw it back to the drawing board to see if they can make a less objectionable version of the concept.

I think this is pretty much exactly what they should be doing, even when it means some things I really want in the game don't happen, and some things I really wished they would have left out do happen. It's not all about me. They are making this the D&D lover's edition, not the "new and exciting innovation" edition or the "30+" edition. They want to make it accessible to as many D&D lovers as possible, which means giving us stuff everyone can enjoy. (And by the way, many of the surveys asked about preferred editions along with asking about preferences, and found that, contrary to popular conceptions, there was very little (I believe it may have actually been statistically insignificant, but don't recall) correlation between the two.)

On a side-note, when they have mentioned in passing some of the reasons for not including certain things, they have tended to accord with many of the rational and articulate arguments against including those things. So either they aren't entirely basing things off of pure numbers, or they are at least aware of what underlying reasoning those numbers represent.

Now, when there is something that a relatively small number of people want, but there is little to no opposition against, I'm not sure how they decide on it. I'd guess it would go on the "we'll get to it if we get to it" shelf, and we'll be most likely to get it if it is something that takes little effort, they have the time, and are in the mood. So I'm going to keep plugging for AD&D/Gestalt/Hybrid style multiclassing until the cows come home, but if they don't give it to us, I assume it is a well-reasoned decision. They certainly know that I want it and know my reasonable argument for its inclusion.

 

[feartheminotaur]

In my experience the 'Internet' opinion of the ranger is largely isolated to the 'Internet'*. More than half the games I've played in have had a ranger PC and for every message board complaint about the class, I've probably heard ten non-message board compliments.

* A truism you can use with anything in place of "the ranger"

 

[Ancalagon]

In my experience the 'Internet' opinion of the ranger is largely isolated to the 'Internet'*. More than half the games I've played in have had a ranger PC and for every message board complaint about the class, I've probably heard ten non-message board compliments.

* A truism you can use with anything in place of "the ranger"

Sometimes I wonder if it's because people are too combat-focused? And by this I mean combat as a sport (vs combat as war). The ranger may not be able to go toe to toe with a paladin (for example)... but she can help you set up a murderous ambush that will wipe out your foes.

 

[Kite474]

Sometimes I wonder if it's because people are too combat-focused? And by this I mean combat as a sport (vs combat as war). The ranger may not be able to go toe to toe with a paladin (for example)... but she can help you set up a murderous ambush that will wipe out your foes.

For me it always was for the fact that ranger was so highly kitted out for exploration (which at my table and a couple of others I have played tend to loathe the exploration pillar) is why it received complaints at the table. Granted we all acknowledge its not a truly bad class, it just tends to feel more pigonholed than others.

There also may be that it's style of combat (ambush + Hit and run) tend to not gell well unless the rest of the party can keep pace. and when you have a Bear Barbarian and a STR Fighter that is very seldom the case

However I'll admit this only from my experience which Ill admit may be different from everyone esels

 

[Azurewraith]

It's interesting that the Core 4 are still the Core 4.

It's surprising (to me, at least) that the Druid is the least popular given the number of shapeshifter fans that I see posting. I would have assumed it would have been Monk ... or maybe Ranger (just judging by on-line comments!).

I am somewhat surprised that the Bard didn't crack the top 6 (Paladin and Warlock were 5 & 6).

I think ranger makes it off the bottom spot as the hunter is a very valid pick. Monks survive by the cool factor of I'm going to run into this room punch 4 guys prone and then dart out while my meat head friends come finish up.I think Druid hits the bottom as its shapeshifting sucks after about level 5 and its less about mauling with with tooth and claw as just been a big sack o hit points and a 2nd class scout(familiar is arguably better in most cases). I played a moon Druid to 8 I was a bit miffed when I started spending more time casting spells.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Both the Barbarian and Ranger were in some playtest packets - the Ranger one player had in Crystal Staff seemed OK, actually, in contrast to the complaints about the final product. I have a vague memory of someone playing a Paladin, but it may well have been a Cleric tricked out to resemble one.

This is what i recall as well. I didn't exactly "play" NEXT, i only "fiddled" with it, but i remember planning to actually play a ranger after the last play test. This of course changed in the final product

 

[DEFCON 1]

So if 70% of people like and want something, 2% dislike and don't want it, and 28% don't have a strong opinion, there is a good chance it will go on the list of things they are planning to get to. On the other hand, if 75% of people want something, but 15% are strongly opposed to it, with 10% lacking a strong opinion, they aren't likely to produce it in that form..

I suspect this is exactly what came about with "Damage On A Miss". I'm not saying the above numbers are directly aligned to the opinions on DoaM... but the intent is there. There were probably enough people who really disliked it to make the designers say that despite how useful it might be as a differentiating mechanic... it wasn't so good to warrant ignoring those people's feelings.

Same thing might be with Prestige Classes as you say. At some point, if the disdain is really that strong... you're just better off going back to the drawing board to come up with something better than to continue down a path that enough people already hate.

 

[Gnarl45]

I suspect this is exactly what came about with "Damage On A Miss". I'm not saying the above numbers are directly aligned to the opinions on DoaM... but the intent is there. There were probably enough people who really disliked it to make the designers say that despite how useful it might be as a differentiating mechanic... it wasn't so good to warrant ignoring those people's feelings.

Same thing might be with Prestige Classes as you say. At some point, if the disdain is really that strong... you're just better off going back to the drawing board to come up with something better than to continue down a path that enough people already hate.

It could also explain why the warlord didn't make it either.