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

[TheCosmicKid]

Of course, the ninja in the 3e PHB is a little harder to find...

Wizard. The wizard could do anything, so a fortiori it could do ninja stuff.

 

[Gnarl45]

Yes they did, based on how you defined major design choices. As far as I recall (and I read, watched, and scoured pretty much everything from the design team during the playtest), they never said that they didn't have that sort of thing already figured out. They weren't coming to the fans saying, "Hey guys! Let's make a never version of D&D! Suggestions?" They had a vision, and they asked for a lot of ongoing feedback to make sure they hit it.

I'm not bitter about it . I had a great time talking to the other D&D fans in the forums even though it didn't matter much.

I can see why you might have gotten that impression. From what I remember being told, I'm pretty sure that Trevor at least scanned the forums and reported what he felt was significant to the rest of the team. So Mike was not oblivious to the content of the online discussions.

My bad. If they only scanned the forums, it kind of explains why they were so far off the mark with the tactical and hit point modules.

While I am by no means a legal expert, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, despite the WotC forums probably saying in the user agreement that they could use anything we posted there, they were reluctant to directly use any specifically detailed system presented to them for fear of some sort of lawsuit getting possibly cooked up. It is entirely possible that posting a specific system is a guarantee it wouldn't get used. For that reason I intentionally never gave highly specific details for new systems in my feedback (and I feel a lot of it was taken into account).

A lot of those ideas were painfully bad and difficult to decipher so I understand why they wouldn't want to read them . On top of that, they had to fish for them in an ocean of edition warring threads.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I also think that fighters were done a disservice and I need not go into more discussions of issues abounding like "I attack"....repeat and DM may I that have been done to death. .

You're right, because those arguments all come down to "Just because you don't have a specifically designed power doesn't mean you're prohibited from doing things other than "I attack" during combat, right?", and that's not even mentioning that in 5e there is a fighter that has many defined combat options available to them. Seems to me you were given the fighter they promised, but it wasn't exactly what you wanted so you are acting like they didn't even bother. See my earlier comment above about people ignoring their preferred edition elements. If your perception of the 5e fighter is what you're saying here, I'm afraid that's on you and not the game.

I'll also note that the survey that just came out, fighters were the top favored class. So they must have done something right there, despite all the naysayers who say the fighter had all the good stuff removed because the 5e team catered to the grognards....

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're right, because those arguments all come down to "Just because you don't have a specifically designed power doesn't mean you're prohibited from doing things other than "I attack" during combat, right?"

Likewise, just because you have a nice selection of defined abilities doesn't mean you can't do other things, either. Such selections are a plus, in that they add versatility to the class and a sense of player agency (or player entitlement, depending on how you look at it). In games, like D&D, traditionally, where some classes have a large such selection and others have relatively few, the gap can contribute to imbalance, depending upon the other details of the system - and, in the case of 5e, more importantly, depending on how good the DM is at adjudicating both push-button & improvised actions.

and that's not even mentioning that in 5e there is a fighter that has many defined combat options available to them.

There is a sub-class with such options, under 20 of 'em, all of which are 3rd-level-PC-appropriate, and only 6 of which can be learned over 20 levels. Compared to the 100+ defined options, with the more powerful ones unlocking at higher level, and prep from the whole list, or known spells of a dozen or two or more, that not 'many defined option.' Even compared to the 3.0 fighter's Bonus Feats (11 over 20 levels from a list of over 30), or 4e PH1-only fighter maneuvers (15 over 20 levels, from a list of 60+), the BM's maneuver choices could be disappointing.

Of course, the option-heavy classes are there, with much more options and flexibility, as are even simpler options like the Champion. The idea is for player to gravitate to the classes that match the depth/agency/'entitlement'/resources/'complexity'/whatever they want, not to fixate on classes meant for players with radically different taste. (The downside of that idea is that it does pigeon hole players into certain concepts based on their taste in mechanics. But that dovetails with the further upside of evoking the classic game.)

Seems to me you were given the fighter they promised

I don't think it was ever specifically promised. Play a character like one from a given previous edition, perhaps, but not exactly a 3e or 4e fighter. The fighter strongly evokes 2e, for instance, while Warlock is arguably as much like it's 4e as it's 3e incarnation, &c.

I'll also note that the survey that just came out, fighters were the top favored class. So they must have done something right there,

Always has been, it represents the most familiar/common heroic archetype. The Fighter was the most popular class in 3.x, when it was Tier 5, for instance, and, conversely, the most popular class in 4e, when it was neatly balanced, and regarded as arguably the best defender.

despite all the naysayers who say the fighter had all the good stuff removed because the 5e team catered to the grognards....

I think it's unquestionable that the 5e fighters /best/ stuff - it's devastating multi-attack DPR - is because they wanted it to speak to long-time and returning players with AD&D experience ('grognards,' sure). I just wish they'd included the classic Fighter's solid high-level saves, as well. (Well, not just that, but as far as the fighter, itself goes.)

 

[Azzy]

As a person whose favorite edition of D&D right up to the point that 5th edition was on my table was the one that got cancelled a few years before TSR closed up shop, I can't help but feel like the term "Grognard" should refer to a group of people that also includes myself - but then I get disappointed by that theoretical inclusion because fighters are, and have always been, tied (with wizard/magic-user, but never mind that) as my favorite class, and I think damage on a miss is just fine whether that "miss" is an attack roll that "missed" or an attack that is described as having "missed" because the HP total after the damage roll was subtracted didn't hit the threshold at which weapon to body contact is appropriate narration.

As a veteran of 1e AD&D, and someone that passed by 4e, I was (vocally) on board with DoaM and was rather annoyed it didn't make the cut.

...and I did share my opinion on the matter as often as I saw the subject come up, but I couldn't keep up with the flood of posts (that mostly seemed to be from just one guy) shouting down the idea and making it seem too controversial to dare include in the game.

Yup, one guy with several sock puppet accounts that were easy to see for what they were.

 

[Eubani]

You're right, because those arguments all come down to "Just because you don't have a specifically designed power doesn't mean you're prohibited from doing things other than "I attack" during combat, right?", and that's not even mentioning that in 5e there is a fighter that has many defined combat options available to them. Seems to me you were given the fighter they promised, but it wasn't exactly what you wanted so you are acting like they didn't even bother. See my earlier comment above about people ignoring their preferred edition elements. If your perception of the 5e fighter is what you're saying here, I'm afraid that's on you and not the game.

I'll also note that the survey that just came out, fighters were the top favored class. So they must have done something right there, despite all the naysayers who say the fighter had all the good stuff removed because the 5e team catered to the grognards....

I dont seem to remenmber mentioning defined powers thats your words in my mouth. Status affects is one area. Spell are allowed whatever they wish but can a good bludgeoning cause dizziness or temp stun, or can a good sword slice cause a bleeding wound nope 1d8+x damage and move along. Next why is it the fighter that must be the simple class why not a blaster mage that does so many damage the end. Why must the fighters "advanced" choice share the same chasis as the simple? Why couldnt we have a simple fighter class with its own subclasses and an advanced fighter class with its own set? Lets also ignore precedence of past fighter treatment as well while we are at it. You hold the Battlemaster up as an answer but I promise you that we will not see many if any manouvers created whilst we will drown in new spells over time, on top of that after your initial choices the later picks are the ones you didnt really want....the best of whats left. Where as level defined abilities (such as spells) you get access to more powerful or improved ones as you go along. In all aspect even when they have given fighters abilities they are are half hearted in delivery and design. You may be happy with what is on offer but this does not mean that others have to be or that we cannot wish for better design. Please also note I made sure to note that it was my opinion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I dont seem to remenmber mentioning defined powers thats your words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I said those arguments usually go that route.

Status affects is one area. Spell are allowed whatever they wish but can a good bludgeoning cause dizziness or temp stun, or can a good sword slice cause a bleeding wound nope 1d8+x damage and move along. Next why is it the fighter that must be the simple class why not a blaster mage that does so many damage the end. Why must the fighters "advanced" choice share the same chasis as the simple? Why couldnt we have a simple fighter class with its own subclasses and an advanced fighter class with its own set? Lets also ignore precedence of past fighter treatment as well while we are at it. You hold the Battlemaster up as an answer but I promise you that we will not see many if any manouvers created whilst we will drown in new spells over time, on top of that after your initial choices the later picks are the ones you didnt really want....the best of whats left.

There are already a ton of new maneuvers. Have you not checked out the DMs Guild? I suggest you do. But to answer your question, the reason why we have more spells than maneuvers is because spells cover reality bending situations in every case. Therefore, rules are needed. Mundane combat doesn't need all of those because we have real life correlations to pull from and general mechanics work fine. Do not confuse your want with peoples' needs.

Where as level defined abilities (such as spells) you get access to more powerful or improved ones as you go along. In all aspect even when they have given fighters abilities they are are half hearted in delivery and design. You may be happy with what is on offer but this does not mean that others have to be or that we cannot wish for better design. Please also note I made sure to note that it was my opinion.

That's all well and good, but when you make comments like "..removal of DOAM was caused by the casting of the Grognard appeasement ritual. One of the main effects of said ritual is to remove nice things from fighters.", don't be surprised when people call you out on it as being completely untrue and nothing but passive aggressive sniping at other gamers who play a different way than you do.

And again, same with Tony's answer above, just because there aren't as many maneuvers for your personal taste in the game, doesn't mean they did not put them there. Goes back to my statement about ignoring elements of your favorite edition to act like they forsook you or something. That's simply not true at all. By your logic, I could easily say, "Too bad they put bad stuff in the game like non magical healing, at wills, and mundane powers in the game just to appease the 4ater crowd." I'm hoping you can see where hyperbole like that wouldn't be very productive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are already a ton of new maneuvers.

There have been a few sub-classes that use CS dice in UA, in a few more-specific ways than maneuvers (that aren't actually maneuvers that might expand the BM's repetoir). And, the BM-style maneuvers are a very limited design space, anyway, since they have to squeeze in the limited wiggle-room left by the fighter's heavy focus on multi-attacking DPR. There's really not a lot more to be done with the fighter, especially given the way it's been approached in SCAG & UA.

Have you not checked out the DMs Guild? I suggest you do.

I'd suggest otherwise. It might be worth a peek, but it's essentially an on-line slush pile. As a player, don't bother sifting through it to find something you might like, since the chances you can find a DM who found/liked the same thing is pretty slight. As a DM, though, it could be a handy resource. Thus "DM's Guild," no doubt.

But to answer your question, the reason why we have more spells than maneuvers is because spells cover reality bending situations in every case. Therefore, rules are needed. Mundane combat doesn't need all of those because we have real life correlations to pull from and general mechanics work fine.

Meh. Real life is full of things your average D&D-playing nerd has no experience of. Combat to the death with medieval weapons (or any weapons, or no weapons) being only one of them. As far as second-hand experience via genre tropes, sure, but we have that for magic, as well.

Magic has more push-button/'broken'/detailed/whatever sub-systems because: tradition. It's not required. There are plenty of games, including one edition of D&D, that didn't give non-caster short shrift. It all depends on the tone the game goes for. A game like Ars Magicka is tilted way over in favor of casters, with non-casters ('Grogs') explicitly relegated to second-class-PC (if they're PCs at all) status, while, conversely, a game like Iron Heroes had only 1 caster class, and it wasn't even necessarily an option, and, other games strike more of a balance Hero System's 'powers' could be used with equal facility to build magical, non-magical, technological, mutant abilities and anything else you could think of.

"..removal of DOAM was caused by the casting of the Grognard appeasement ritual. One of the main effects of said ritual is to remove nice things from fighters.", don't be surprised when people call you out on it as being completely untrue and nothing but passive aggressive sniping at other gamers who play a different way than you do.

Didn't seem /that/ passive. And, all the negativity towards DoaM was very much "sniping at other gamers who play differently."

And again, same with Tony's answer above, just because there aren't as many maneuvers for your personal taste in the game, doesn't mean they did not put them there.

To be clear, the BM isn't anything like a 'complex fighter' or warlord, it's still deadly dull and simplistic by the standards of fans who want more depth in their PC options. It's just that there's /plenty/ of such complexity everywhere else. You just have to be a little flexible about what kind of concept you play.

I'm hoping you can see where hyperbole like that wouldn't be very productive.

Hyperbole is rarely productive. Sometimes it makes a point. Sometimes it's just funny. "Grognard appeasement ritual" was kinda funny, and it did make a point, not about either side of the DoaM furor, or about WotC's decision on that topic, but about the long-standing bi-polar issue D&D and it's community have had with the fighter ('most popular class,' yet 'can't have nice things').

 

[Zardnaar]

There have been a few sub-classes that use CS dice in UA, in a few more-specific ways than maneuvers (that aren't actually maneuvers that might expand the BM's repetoir). And, the BM-style maneuvers are a very limited design space, anyway, since they have to squeeze in the limited wiggle-room left by the fighter's heavy focus on multi-attacking DPR. There's really not a lot more to be done with the fighter, especially given the way it's been approached in SCAG & UA.

I'd suggest otherwise. It might be worth a peek, but it's essentially an on-line slush pile. As a player, don't bother sifting through it to find something you might like, since the chances you can find a DM who found/liked the same thing is pretty slight. As a DM, though, it could be a handy resource. Thus "DM's Guild," no doubt.

Meh. Real life is full of things your average D&D-playing nerd has no experience of. Combat to the death with medieval weapons (or any weapons, or no weapons) being only one of them. As far as second-hand experience via genre tropes, sure, but we have that for magic, as well.

Magic has more push-button/'broken'/detailed/whatever sub-systems because: tradition. It's not required. There are plenty of games, including one edition of D&D, that didn't give non-caster short shrift. It all depends on the tone the game goes for. A game like Ars Magicka is tilted way over in favor of casters, with non-casters ('Grogs') explicitly relegated to second-class-PC (if they're PCs at all) status, while, conversely, a game like Iron Heroes had only 1 caster class, and it wasn't even necessarily an option, and, other games strike more of a balance Hero System's 'powers' could be used with equal facility to build magical, non-magical, technological, mutant abilities and anything else you could think of.

Didn't seem /that/ passive. And, all the negativity towards DoaM was very much "sniping at other gamers who play differently."

To be clear, the BM isn't anything like a 'complex fighter' or warlord, it's still deadly dull and simplistic by the standards of fans who want more depth in their PC options. It's just that there's /plenty/ of such complexity everywhere else. You just have to be a little flexible about what kind of concept you play.

Hyperbole is rarely productive. Sometimes it makes a point. Sometimes it's just funny. "Grognard appeasement ritual" was kinda funny, and it did make a point, not about either side of the DoaM furor, or about WotC's decision on that topic, but about the long-standing bi-polar issue D&D and it's community have had with the fighter ('most popular class,' yet 'can't have nice things').

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

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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

"Was" matters how WRT discussing 5e?

Regardless, it is no longer the case.

Heck, its not even top three anymore.