D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

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.
To be fair, it might just do nothing at all. If a bunch of people like what he liked and said something, his silence would have no effect.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yes. If something doesn't receive at least 70% approval they will keep iterating until they find something that does. That is their playtest process. They have been doing it that way for over a decade, and it seem to work really well for them. It was the playtest process they used when first creating 5e, and 5e is by far the most popular version of D&D ever. If the process works why change it to focus on the complaints of a minority?
Nah. They ditched the 70% years ago. For a dozen or more UAs everything or almost everything they showed made it into books coming out soon. There's no way that 1) all of those things hit 70%, and 2) did so in time to make it into some of those books.
 

Right, but you are getting the argument backwards, and then ignoring the problem with "meaningful choices"

Here, let me give you a very meaningful choice, right now.

Door #1 or Door #2?

Take all the time you need to consider all the advantages and disadvantages of your choice. Oh... you can't. You actually cannot make a meaningful choice in this scenario, because you lack information. It is a blind guess. If I told you door #1 had a lifetime supply of sustainably sourced fish, and Door #2 had a land permit that gives you ownership of 600 Acres in Montana... then you could make a meaningful decision. You can weigh those things, consider them.
The meaning of a choice often becomes apparent some time AFTER the choice was made. It doesn't have to be present at the time of choosing. It's incorrect for people to assume that the players have to know the meaning of their choice before choosing in order for it to be meaningful. That's just a preference.

You can in fact make a meaningful choice in that scenario. You just won't know what it is when you make that choice.
 

For the rules glossary, 100%. I’m just not sure about species and feats, since they haven’t even spoken on them much since testing them.
The playtest says:

We invite you to try out this material in play. When you do so, you’re welcome to combine this article with the other articles in this series, starting with “Character Origins.”

If you do combine this article with any previous one, use only the rules glossary found here. In this Unearthed Arcana series, the rules glossary of each article supersedes the glossary of any previous article.

So, I believe if something hasn't changed it still stands unless otherwise noted.
 



Nah. They ditched the 70% years ago. For a dozen or more UAs everything or almost everything they showed made it into books coming out soon. There's no way that 1) all of those things hit 70%, and 2) did so in time to make it into some of those books.
They didn't ditch it, they still routinely mention it, and the stuff in those UAs crossed that threshold.
 

They didn't ditch it, they still routinely mention it, and the stuff in those UAs crossed that threshold.
Color me extremely skeptical. For years a ton of stuff didn't make it and suddenly almost everything for several years did, and in time to make it into books coming out very shortly after the UA.
 


Remove ads

Top