D&D (2024) When are we getting the second playtest document?

[Parmandur]

With at least a dozen UAs coming out, I’m thinking we may not get all the classes at once, but maybe a couple per doc, with subclasses. And some may not be included because they will have small to no changes.

It’s possible they may add a few new subclasses, or make some of those from existing supplements part of the core PHB.

It’s also possible they add an entire new class to the PHB, like the Artificer. Again, depending on the extent of new material that could be it’s own UA.

I think it's entirely possible that all further playtest documents may be Classes, frankly.

 

[Parmandur]

Given that they intend to go through all three core books, I am thinking classes will be one UA while Subclasses will be a later one.

They don't necessarily intend to test all the core books. I doubt any Monsters will be put in UA, since none ever have. Classes may be all that they intend to put through the UA process.

 

[JEB]

I doubt any Monsters will be put in UA, since none ever have.

It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.

Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.

 

[Jahydin]

I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.

Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.

Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I read somewhere that they were looking for our feedback on Layouts at some point (next is likely class-based). If we only do one class at a time for here on out, we won't get to anything else. So let's hope that we see more than one class. It will be telling either way.

 

[MockingBird]

I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.

Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.

Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.

If WotC is really intending the new changes to be backwards compatible then we technically have most of the rules in current 5e. I get what you mean though and it would be nice to see the whole picture of what they are wanting to do. It is annoying getting pieces of the changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.

Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.

Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.

Yeah, doing it this way seems more like a marketing gimmick, since you can't see rules interactions.

 

[Parmandur]

It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.

Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.

I think Monsters of the Multiverse is just a fait accompli, yeah, along with all of the other new Monster design which has been consistent the past two years. No real need to test it. I think that when Crawford said this first playtest was the big rules one...he meant it. And future packets will be about standard UA options for the core, to male sure they pass the public smell test.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.

Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.

Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.

We've already had the ruleset for 8 years, thisnis just about new options on that chasis.

If WotC is really intending the new changes to be backwards compatible then we technically have most of the rules in current 5e. I get what you mean though and it would be nice to see the whole picture of what they are wanting to do. It is annoying getting pieces of the changes.

We are getting the pieces that they want tonsee reactions to, the overall picture is...5E, with new optional pieces.

Yeah, doing it this way seems more like a marketing gimmick, since you can't see rules interactions.

Rules interactions aren't looked at in UA, never have been. These tests are about gauging public reception to an idea on a shallow level. Rules interactions get tested later.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.

Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.

I don’t think they really asked for much feedback on monsters back during the Next playtest either. There were some polls about iconic monsters’ lore and visual designs. And I think I remember one about monster stat block layout. But I don’t think the actual monster stats themselves were ever polled, and when people would ask about that, they would say they’d work that out later and they were more concerned with getting the core mechanics and PC options feeling right first.