D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

Did they really need to iterate "Rogue's cannot sneak attack outside of their turn" when they got enough explicit reactions in the comments that rogue player's didn't like that and why they didn't like it? Did they really need to tweak that rule a half dozen times to see if they could get past 70% liking it, given they have very limited time to do this in?
assuming enough rejected the idea outright, no. We did not have that however imo, it was an even split in the worst case, depending on whether you accurately identified those liking the idea but not the execution, or not - and I have my doubts they did

No one says a half dozen iterations either, there is a lot of room between 0 and 6.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




If they poll 10 units of people, and 2 units of people like X and 8 units of people don't like X, and you're one of the 2 units that liked it, it's not that they're not listening to you. It's that you're not listening to the 8 units who didn't like it.
You're going to have to forgive me my tinfoil hat moment...

7-8 out of 10 people have resisted every proposed change that wasn't strictly addictive (like adding weapon mastery or adding cunning strike) or errata (fixing berserker or beastmaster). That is an AMAZING track record. You'd have thought at least one of those larger redesigns would have been popular. But no. People preferred the old subclass progression. The old spell lists. The old wild shape. The old pact magic. The old level 20 capstone. The old bardic inspiration. The old paladin smite. Etc. Etc. That is a tremendous win ratio for the 2014 PHB.

Or maybe (adjusts hat) WotC is being selective with the results because the mandate changed from "make a new iteration of 5e" to "reprint 5e with some Errata and goodies". The design focus changed. Innovation gave way to selective editing. Remodelling the living room became rearranging the furniture and adding a new lamp.

I dunno. It just seems odd that the D&D community had no stomach for change...
 



You're going to have to forgive me my tinfoil hat moment...

7-8 out of 10 people have...
done nothing. It was a theoretical argument to demonstrate his ranting is not done in isolation, but that he might not be considering the views of others. It was not a real life statement on an actual survey result.
 

You're going to have to forgive me my tinfoil hat moment...

7-8 out of 10 people have resisted every proposed change that wasn't strictly addictive (like adding weapon mastery or adding cunning strike) or errata (fixing berserker or beastmaster). That is an AMAZING track record. You'd have thought at least one of those larger redesigns would have been popular. But no. People preferred the old subclass progression. The old spell lists. The old wild shape. The old pact magic. The old level 20 capstone. The old bardic inspiration. The old paladin smite. Etc. Etc. That is a tremendous win ratio for the 2014 PHB.
That doesn’t seem suspicious to me at all. All else being equal, people tend to favor familiar options over new ones. A change being additive like weapon mastery, or perceived as a needed fix like species ability score adjustments tip the balance in favor of that change, but other changes have to overcome that bias towards the familiar. Also, you seem to be overlooking changes that did overcome that familiarity bias, such as subclasses starting at 3rd level for all classes, all feats being “half feats”, and a bunch of spell and rules glossary changes.
Or maybe (adjusts hat) WotC is being selective with the results because the mandate changed from "make a new iteration of 5e" to "reprint 5e with some Errata and goodies". The design focus changed. Innovation gave way to selective editing. Remodelling the living room became rearranging the furniture and adding a new lamp.

I dunno. It just seems odd that the D&D community had no stomach for change...
Literally they have been saying all along that this is not a new edition, they just want to bring the existing rules up to date with more recent designs, and that they would start with the most experimental changes and weed out whatever doesn’t excite people. This is beyond tinfoil, this is straight up refusing to believe them when they explicitly told you what their goals were and what process they would use to achieve those goals, and then inventing an ulterior motive when they do exactly what they said they would do.
 

not interested in templates, but the monsters certainly can have more interesting abilities
I think you guys have changed my mind. Templates and unique abilities don't need to be in a book at all, because either one can be added on the fly, as-needed.

To borrow an example from my home game: If I need a troll that fights with a ship anchor and chain, and uses it like a giant grappling hook to snare/capsize the escaping lifeboats of sinking ships, I don't need full stats for a "Harbor Troll" from a book. I don't need to create and apply a "Harbor Monster" template, either. I can just make something up in the moment and run with it.

I guess I'd put this under the "Rulings, not Rules" umbrella. A sidebar in the Monster Manual about how the DM might customize/create a creature, along with an example or three, would be far more useful than a new book or game mechanic.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top