D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[tetrasodium]

It would be like that if the majority of people loved to eat botulism and E.coli, and had no ill effects from it. A better example would be if you didn't like onions and your food came with onions. Just because you don't like something that lots of other people like, it doesn't make it toxic. What is toxic is calling a game and playstyle toxic, just because you don't like it.

31% against an alternative to the status quo does not a majority make

 

[codo]

31% against an alternative to the status quo does not a majority make

But if only 20% percent of people are unhappy with the original alternative, that is a majority. The designs are not looking at each element in a vacuum. They are comparing satisfaction against the previous version.

 

[tetrasodium]

But if only 20% percent of people are unhappy with the original alternative, that is a majority. The designs are not looking at each element in a vacuum. They are comparing satisfaction against the previous version.

You have things backwards. The current resting and recovery quagmire is the result of a minority of people not liking the pre4e style resting when they were voting on 4e stuff then a minority that may or may not overlap not liking 4e style ADEU resting. No group can solidly support any one necessary evil of rest so 5e tries to split the difference by kinda sorta almost but not quite supporting either because a vote against something is worth at least 2.33 votes for something

 

[codo]

You have things backwards. The current resting and recovery quagmire is the result of a minority of people not liking the pre4e style resting when they were voting on 4e stuff then a minority that may or may not overlap not liking 4e style ADEU resting. No group can solidly support any one necessary evil of rest so 5e tries to split the difference by kinda sorta almost but not quite supporting either because a vote against something is worth at least 2.33 votes for something

I am sorry, I am having a hard time parsing what you are trying to say here.

Edit: I reread your post several times now, and I see what you were trying to say now. A couple of commas would have made your post much more readable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, they are providing some bits here and there to ameliorate any issues that some tables may experience...but they aren't throwing out the system, because it works.

For some people. For others, it doesn’t get in the way but also doesn’t contribute anything. For other still it s a detriment.

Like…”it works” isn’t a useful statement. It very clearly has issues, and they are recognizing and addressing them. Your repetition of “but they aren’t completely trashing it so it works” isn’t additive. So what?

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[Parmandur]

Lots of players used and understood Thac0, but that didn't mean that system worked and should have been kept.

They didn't really change it, they just turned it upside down and made it THaAC20. 30 is the new -10.

For some people. For others, it doesn’t get in the way but also doesn’t contribute anything. For other still it s a detriment.

Like…”it works” isn’t a useful statement. It very clearly has issues, and they are recognizing and addressing them. Your repetition of “but they aren’t completely trashing it so it works” isn’t additive. So what?

The rules, as ot stand, function. In my experience, they work. That WotC is making no moves to fundamentally change them suggests that the group for whi h they work is...significant.

 

[Mistwell]

Agree, but the Monk is so bad that if it doesn't improve, it may cause me to simply keep playing 5E as it is.

OK, and I agree the Monk needs work. That doesn't people shouldn't give positive feedback on the stuff that they like. @tetrasodium suggested something bothered him so much about one or two other aspects of the playtest that he wasn't planning to let WOTC know anything he actually liked. Which can only make things worse.

 

[Remathilis]

They didn't really change it, they just turned it upside down and made it THaAC20. 30 is the new -10.

Oh c'mon! Next you be telling me they didn't get rid of Exceptional Stength because "fighters can still get a +6 to damage".

The rules, as ot stand, function. In my experience, they work. That WotC is making no moves to fundamentally change them suggests that the group for whi h they work is...significant.

It tells me they are valuing continuity with 2014 over any sort of actual improvement. They MUST know there is dissatisfaction with the ability for PCs to get short rests reliably. They alluded to it in the warlock UA video. Adding "get a free 1-minute short rest 1/day" doesn't fix those complaints, it band aids them.

Much like Druid Wild Shape, I assume the answer is going to be "We hear you, but ¯\(ツ)/¯."

 

[Parmandur]

Oh c'mon! Next you be telling me they didn't get rid of Exceptional Stength because "fighters can still get a +6 to damage".

It's rolling a d20 on the same mathematical spread.

It tells me they are valuing continuity with 2014 over any sort of actual improvement. They MUST know there is dissatisfaction with the ability for PCs to get short rests reliably. They alluded to it in the warlock UA video. Adding "get a free 1-minute short rest 1/day" doesn't fix those complaints, it band aids them.

Much like Druid Wild Shape, I assume the answer is going to be "We hear you, but ¯\(ツ)/¯."

And why does WotC value continuity...? Because the rules we have work for most people. If it ain't broke (for most users), then don't break it. If some adjustments can increase the spectrum of users who are satisfied, gravy, but servicing the users who already have what they want is of central importance.

I am sure they are aware of pain points that some people have...but they also know what percentage of folks share which pain points, and we can guess on what that shows them based on after they aren't changing.