D&D (2024) D&D 5.11 - the time of big change is over

[UngeheuerLich]

they did not eliminate short rests as a skill recharge, Druid wildshape was not fixed, and while having the same subclass progression might not have been an issue (not sure), I certainly would have preferred it.

So they fixed what they could fix in a Tasha’s just as well, but not anything more fundamental than that

At some point, solidifying the additional options in a new PHB seems not too dumb. Especially new people should get a complete book.

Add better organization, and so tweaks, and I think the next 10 years have solid ground.

 

[mamba]

At some point, solidifying the additional options in a new PHB seems not too dumb. Especially new people should get a complete book.

Add better organization, and so tweaks, and I think the next 10 years have solid ground.

Sure, I am neither complaining about them going with what the majority wants, nor with them creating a new PHB. I just think they gave up on their ideas awfully fast and should have given them a tweak before throwing them in the thrash for not being 'delightful' - or alternatively have done a better job the first time around, when they knew there would be no second time.

I am certain they could have e.g. done a much better job with wildshape templates, I saw some better ideas here within a day of the UA release. Would that have been enough? No idea, but the shoddy attempt they released virtually ensured they would get voted down.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, I am neither complaining about them going with what the majority wants, nor with them creating a new PHB. I just think they gave up on their ideas awfully fast and should have given them a tweak before throwing them in the thrash for not being 'delightful'

It is worth noting that when they've tried that in the past (Mystic UA in 2017), it never worked out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, I am neither complaining about them going with what the majority wants, nor with them creating a new PHB. I just think they gave up on their ideas awfully fast and should have given them a tweak before throwing them in the thrash for not being 'delightful' - or alternatively have done a better job the first time around, when they knew there would be no second time.

I am certain they could have e.g. done a much better job with wildshape templates, I saw some better ideas here within a day of the UA release. Would that have been enough? No idea, but the shoddy attempt they released virtually ensured they would get voted down.

Makes you wonder why they bothered to design and present what they did. What benefit does it provide for WotC?

 

[mamba]

Makes you wonder why they bothered to design and present what they did. What benefit does it provide for WotC?

I have no idea, it literally makes no sense to me. Either they are this incompetent (doubtful), or they never wanted this to succeed in the first place and only 'needed' an excuse to shut down the ones asking for it (also makes no sense to me). Neither one is at all convincing to me, so I got nothing

To me it really only makes some sense if they do not care either way what the outcome is, i.e. they do not think templates are better and want to convince us, they just want to test the waters and do the least amount of 'unnecessary' work (in the sense that it could be thrown out because it was voted down) possible - but even that feels borderline incompetent to me, they should have an idea what they want and not just ask us what we like (and even then they should at least give it a decent shot, why bother otherwise)

 

[Parmandur]

To me it really only makes some sense if they do not care either way what the outcome is, i.e. they do not think templates are better and want to convince us, they just want to test the waters and do the least amount of 'unnecessary' work (in the sense that it could be thrown out because it was voted down) possible - but even that feels borderline incompetent to me, they should have an idea what they want and not just ask us what we like (and even then they should at least give it a decent shot, why bother otherwise)

I mean, that is exactly what they say they are up to. It is a fairly large design team, and the only way theybwill know how a given idea will fly is of they try it.

As an example of a change Crawford thought would cause a problem and get knocked down, but they found people actually love it: Crawford said in the Druid survey response video that they thought people would be upset that rhe Circle of Moons lost their Elemental bits, but quite the contrary, they found people were grateful o have that separated out and removed from the Moon Druid. So, that change is in this packet, too.

Their entire goal here is to gather data. Data is an invaluable asset for designing the game, and WotC has that in massive amounts. You only get data bypassing questions and getting responses, and sometimes you find surprising facts.

 

[mamba]

I mean, that is exactly what they say they are up to. It is a fairly large design team, and the only way theybwill know how a given idea will fly is of they try it.

[...]

Their entire goal here is to gather data. Data is an invaluable asset for designing the game, and WotC has that in massive amounts. You only get data bypassing questions and getting responses, and sometimes you find surprising facts.

But sometimes the question you ask affects the data you receive. If you did a better job with e.g. wildshape templates (going to stick with that, but it applies universally), more people would have liked it. Whether it would have been enough people remains to be seen, but by doing a shoddy job with something and then asking us whether we like it, the result is pretty much guaranteed.

So why even bother with these cases? Because people are maybe so upset with the current solution that even a crap attempt at templates is better and gets the 70% approval it needs? For that to work, the discontent with the current solution must be very high already...

 

[Parmandur]

But sometimes the question you ask affects the data you receive. If you did a better job with e.g. wildshape templates (going to stick with that, but it applies universally), more people would have liked it. Whether it would have been enough people remains to be seen, but by doing a shoddy job with something and then asking us whether we like it, the result is pretty much guaranteed.

So why even bother with these cases? Because people are maybe so upset with the current solution that even a crap attempt at templates is better and gets the 70% approval it needs? For that to work, the discontent with the current solution must be very high already...

So, here's the thing: I liked the last Druid, and I thought that Wildshaoe there was great. Gave it good marks and everything. And the nature of the test as set up means that it could be a small majority liked it: I certainly don't think theybdid it poorly or were trying to tank it. But if a sizeable minority hates something...well, that can create a breaking point, ao it isn't worth it. That's what apparently drove the WotC team bonkers about the Mystic when they were testing it as a new Class for Xanathar's: most people (like, over 50% but way less than 70%) liked it, and the math was worked out fine (the last Mystic, the one that's free in the DMsGuild, is ready for press, you can use it now as a balanced option just fine). But no matter how much they tweaked it, a huge number of people hated it violently. So, they dropped it.

 

[mamba]

So, here's the thing: I liked the last Druid, and I thought that Wildshaoe there was great. Gave it good marks and everything. And the nature of the test as set up means that it could be a small majority liked it: I certainly don't think theybdid it poorly or were trying to tank it. But if a sizeable minority hates something...well, that can create a breaking point, ao it isn't worth it.

I get that the majority wins (and by that I mean 70+% approval, not 51). My gripe is with only giving it one shot, and a pretty badly executed one at that, given that they already knew it was their only one.

If they give it their best shot and it still gets rejected, oh well, I can live with that. But something potentially failing because WotC did a bad job presenting it (and no one can convince me this was a good job....), that is something else.

All I am saying is that I want WotC to give it their best shot, and then let the die fall as they may, not for WotC to sabotage what I consider a superior option because they spent the bare minimum of effort on it and it then getting rejected because of the shoddy execution. Let it fail for people not liking a proposal, not for WotC butchering the proposal. Right now I feel that some cases are the latter, I would be ok if I felt all were due to the former.

 

[Parmandur]

and by that I mean 70+% approval, not 51

Yes, I bring that up because often UA that a lot ofnl people, even most like 67% or something, like isn't good enough for WotC to pursue.

If they give it their best shot and it still gets rejected, oh well, I can live with that. But something potentially failing because WotC did a bad job presenting it (and no one can convince me this was a good job....), that is something else.

All I am saying is that I want WotC to give it their best shot, and then let the die fall as they may, not for WotC to sabotage what I consider a superior option because they spent the bare minimum of effort on it and it then getting rejected because of the shoddy execution. Let it fail for people not liking a proposal, not for WotC butchering the proposal. Right now I feel that some cases are the latter, I would be ok if I felt all were due to the former.

You may not have liked it, but I did and thought it was well done. But if a huge number of write in comments to a option that has lukewarm reception is "I will never play a game with a template based Druid" (which I did see online), that's a good qualitative indicator that pushing templates will just tick off a sizeable number of people. So, not worth pursuing.