D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Maxperson]

And I did not say he is wrong in general...
It is just, that looking at the bigger picture, and using less optimized builds, the difference is not that big.

Paladin nova was something where monks had problems to compete with, especially when starved for short rests.
Advantage with GWM was not too hard to achieve for optimizers. Just look at this forum.
I agree that for non optimized white room analysis, the new GWM is better on average.
But both changes reduce the big damage spikes from lets say: avenging paladin (who has an easy way to get advantage) which made monks feel very useless compared to.

I think one of the things overlooked by the paladin v. monk comparison going on here is the adventuring day. There are 6-8 encounters in an adventuring day and if combats average around 4 rounds(I've seen 3-5 being normal), then you're looing at 24-32 rounds of combat an adventuring day.

That 9th level paladin and his dozen smites is going to have 12-24 rounds of combat where he simply doesn't have a smite to give. If he uses them up early, that's several combats where he doesn't smite at all. Meanwhile the monk with a couple short rests can flurry every single round of every fight. He does less damage, but is the slow and stead turtle(less per round over more rounds), rather than the speedy rabbit(a lot of damage in a few rounds). Further, since the paladin is doing much more in a single punch, he's much more likely to simply waste his smite doing 28 damage to something with 9 hit points left, so his fewer smites could be wasted despite being used to deal damage.

That's not to say that I don't think that the monk needs more help to bring it up to par, but just that I don't think it's quite as far behind as some of the other folks here.

 

[Remathilis]

The playtest says:



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

I'm still highly skeptical of this when it comes to individual rules elements. For the Core Rules, I believe this the case (so stuff like the slowed condition is gone) but I still think it doesn't necessarily apply to things like the barkskin and guidance rewrites, the feats from the Expert packet or any of the Origins packet species.

 

[Maxperson]

That's my prediction.

That aged well!

 

[tetrasodium]

I think one of the things overlooked by the paladin v. monk comparison going on here is the adventuring day. There are 6-8 encounters in an adventuring day and if combats average around 4 rounds(I've seen 3-5 being normal), then you're looing at 24-32 rounds of combat an adventuring day.

That 9th level paladin and his dozen smites is going to have 12-24 rounds of combat where he simply doesn't have a smite to give. If he uses them up early, that's several combats where he doesn't smite at all. Meanwhile the monk with a couple short rests can flurry every single round of every fight. He does less damage, but is the slow and stead turtle(less per round over more rounds), rather than the speedy rabbit(a lot of damage in a few rounds). Further, since the paladin is doing much more in a single punch, he's much more likely to simply waste his smite doing 28 damage to something with 9 hit points left, so his fewer smites could be wasted despite being used to deal damage.

That's not to say that I don't think that the monk needs more help to bring it up to par, but just that I don't think it's quite as far behind as some of the other folks here.

Also don't forget stunning strike between those flurries.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

It's been a pretty split of late. Neither the Runecarver Wizard nor Primeval Druid made it, nor did the Glitching or Scion of the Elemental Planes feats. The only ones where every option made it through from UA to final book were the Spelljammer races and the Dragonlance options.

 

[Parmandur]

It's been a pretty split of late. Neither the Runecarver Wizard nor Primeval Druid made it, nor did the Glitching or Scion of the Elemental Planes feats. The only ones where every option made it through from UA to final book were the Spelljammer races and the Dragonlance options.

That's been the case throughout the history if UA: That's why there was only one Wizard Aubclass in Xanathar's, as well as no mass combat rules or the Mystoc and Artificer as new Classes.

 

[Remathilis]

That's been the case throughout the history if UA: That's why there was only one Wizard Aubclass in Xanathar's, as well as no mass combat rules or the Mystoc and Artificer as new Classes.

Correct, my point was to call out it didn't just magically change from "nothing passes muster" to "everything passes muster" recently, the last few UA's prior to One D&D were decisively mixed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Your personal incredulity is not enough evidence to overturn the lead designer's repeated statements to the contrary. The timelines may have been condensed, but overtime, pre-planned blocks, and compression of normal patterns due to having a personal relationship with a printer can all lead to data being much quicker to turn over into print than you may expect.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

If you cannot determine anything about your choices consequences before making it, it is not a meaningful choice. By your logic, rolling a 2 on a d6 is a meaningful choice, because it became apparent after you took the action.

I have experienced this FAR too many times, and discussed this with FAR too many people. You are thinking of meaningful CONSEQUENCES or meaningful RESULTS, not a meaningful CHOICE.

Take an example of driving. I can choose route 1 or route 2 to make it to work. This choice is rather meaningless, both routes get me there in the same amount of time, and simply take different streets. Just because I get carjacked and shot by a maniac on Thursday because I chose route 2 doesn't suddenly make the decision I made that day any different than the decisions I made Monday or Tuesday. They were all meaningless, because I lacked information that changed that.

 

[Maxperson]

If you cannot determine anything about your choices consequences before making it, it is not a meaningful choice. By your logic, rolling a 2 on a d6 is a meaningful choice, because it became apparent after you took the action.

No. By my logic buying a lottery ticket can be a meaningful choice if it turns out that you've won a million dollars and that random chance just changed your life in a VERY MEANINGFUL way. No choice to buy the lotter ticket = no meaningful change in life. The choice had meaning, even if the buyer didn't know it at the time.

I have experienced this FAR too many times, and discussed this with FAR too many people. You are thinking of meaningful CONSEQUENCES or meaningful RESULTS, not a meaningful CHOICE.

Meaningful consequences = meaningful choice, because those particular consequences couldn't have happened without that choice. The consequences didn't happen in isolation.