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

[mellored]

Then throw out a playtest document every 2 or 3 weeks.
with all the classes and spells and feats.

That doesn't give people enough time to actually play it.

Also, many changes will inform other changes.

Like how well the monk's 1 minute short rest works may inform how the warlock spells recharge.
Or how the wizard reaction to uniform spell list affects the sorcerer.
Or how mastery affects all the martial classes.
Ect...

 

[DEFCON 1]

What some people really should have done was just not look at the playtests at all and instead just flipped through the book upon its release in the summer of '24. Then they could see the complete results with fresh eyes, see everything that was fixed or changed compared to 5E14, see everything they liked previously that remained, and then made a decision whether or not it was worth it to them to pick the product up.

Instead, they picked apart every single playtest packet... spent weeks upon weeks going through the math of every single new feature and change (even thought they KNOW that WotC has not in fact done ANYTHING regarding math balance because that's not what they use us for-- they have their own internal metrics and Alpha testers for that)... worked themselves up into a frenzy over what remained or what changed... and then get all pissed off when other people in larger quantities told them through the surveys that those things they loved actually weren't any good and they didn't want the game to go in that direction.

Long story short... 'iterative design' is no place for the emotionally bound. You HAVE to be willing to "kill your darlings". If you can't do that... you probably aren't cut out for something like this. You'll only get hurt in the end.

 

[mamba]

What some people really should have done was just not look at the playtests at all and instead just flipped through the book upon its release in the summer of '24. Then they could see the complete results with fresh eyes, see everything that was fixed or changed compared to 5E14, see everything they liked previously that remained, and then made a decision whether or not it was worth it to them to pick the product up.

cannot really disagree with that, not sure that is a ringing endorsement of their test though

Instead, they picked apart every single playtest packet... spent weeks upon weeks going through the math of every single new feature and change

never did that, cannot be bothered, and WotC tells us not to pay attention to that anyway

I looked at the high level stuff, do I like wildshape templates better, do I like unified progression across subclasses better, do I like getting rid of short rests, etc.
These are all no-brainers to me, and the 5e alternative that does this, I will go with.

Not once did I look at math, doesn’t mean others did not. That might very well be why we lost some stuff, people did not like the details, voted low and WotC threw it out instead of improving it, even though they liked the idea better than what we have now. One of the flaws of the test approach

and then get all pissed off when other people in larger quantities told them through the surveys that those things they loved actually weren't any good and they didn't want the game to go in that direction

first of all, I will debate the larger quantities, and the fact that I will shows the weakness of the approach

Second, I am disappointed, esp because I do not believe the survey accurately measured what the players wanted. If I had confidence that this is indeed what the players want by a wide enough margin, I’d accept that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Second, I am disappointed, esp because do not believe the survey accurately measured what the players wanted. If I had confidence that this is indeed what won by a wide enough margin, I’d accept that.

And if they ran their playtests differently, then you might've thought they were accurate but other folks would say they weren't. So who's to say who's right?

WotC's never going to please everyone. So it doesn't matter what kind of survey they run... whichever ideas receive the most support will usually be the direction they go in, and 3 out of every 10 people will then say the survey and process was flawed because they were the 30% who didn't see the results go their way.

 

[tetrasodium]

And if they ran their playtests differently, then you might've thought they were accurate but other folks would say they weren't. So who's to say who's right?

WotC's never going to please everyone. So it doesn't matter what kind of survey they run... whichever ideas receive the most support will usually be the direction they go in, and 3 out of every 10 people will then say the survey and process was flawed because they were the 30% who didn't see the results go their way.

Using the wild shape templates referenced in the post you partially quoted as an example. Wotc did quite a bit to contribute to rejection confusion and frustrated negativity through inaction and lack of clarity. There's no question that the numbers in those templates themselves were completely unsuitable without significant changes to PC power rippling out through the other classes that we never saw. Even still though we've never really gotten clarification on what they were testing or how they planned to finesse/freeze the numbers to fit either way. Instead we had people supporting it because they were still angry about codzilla from a few editions ago and level 3-4ish bear druid performance in a 1-20 game against people not too comfortable with numbers they don't feel safe overlooking as mere work in progress stumbling.

The absence of something as simple as a quick tweet or momentary qualifying statement in one of the videos ensured that there were a large number of people in the dark with no option but to vote on a thing framed within unknowable assumptions while fighting over what assumptions should be made through the test.

 

[mamba]

And if they ran their playtests differently, then you might've thought they were accurate but other folks would say they weren't. So who's to say who's right?

right now no one gives me any reason to assume they are. I pointed out specific problems, and either people agree or the answer is ‘WotC has experts, they know what they are doing’, which is not an argument but an appeal to authority.

Once we see that other methodology, then we can discuss its merits. Until then I have nothing to go on when it comes to deciding if it is better or whether their concerns are justified.

WotC's never going to please everyone. So it doesn't matter what kind of survey they run... whichever ideas receive the most support will usually be the direction they go in

the goal of the survey approach is not to please anyone, it is to deliver accurate and meaningful results. I do not see it doing that.

If I felt that they had a viable methodology, I would not complain about their conclusions. This may be hard to believe for you, but it still is true.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Using the wild shape templates referenced in the post you partially quoted as an example. Wotc did quite a bit to contribute to rejection confusion and frustrated negativity through inaction and lack of clarity. There's no question that the numbers in those templates themselves were completely unsuitable without significant changes to PC power rippling out through the other classes that we never saw. Even still though we've never really gotten clarification on what they were testing or how they planned to finesse/freeze the numbers to fit either way. Instead we had people supporting it because they were still angry about codzilla from a few editions ago and level 3-4ish bear druid performance in a 1-20 game against people not too comfortable with numbers they don't feel safe overlooking as mere work in progress stumbling.

The absence of something as simple as a quick tweet or momentary qualifying statement in one of the videos ensured that there were a large number of people in the dark with no option but to vote on a thing framed within unknowable assumptions while fighting over what assumptions should be made through the test.

We can find post after post after post of people who are happy wildshape templates are gone, and ones who are sad they are gone. How many of those people would switch sides if they gave us a different set of wildshape templates? We have no idea. Maybe templates would have gone through then, sure. But then what? All the people who STILL didn't like templates and who now saw them being incorporated would say the process was flawed-- because they didn't get what they want.

And what about if WotC HAD given us a much more in-depth wildshape template system-- and it STILL came up that less than 70% of the players liked or tolerated it? What then? Was the survey flawed EVEN THEN? Would WotC have to then produce another full and complete 1-20 level wildshape template system for us to "test" so that they could finally get an "accurate" reading of what people REALLY felt?

Well guess what... even if they iterated on the design that third time, those that didn't get their way would still claim the system was messed up and the process was flawed.

WotC can't win with any of you people. So they don't try to win... they let all of us battle it out amongst ourselves. And if it turns out 25,000 other people just don't like that thing you do-- in whatever form or format it was presented to us-- that's just too bad for you. And you can complain about that... but those complaints aren't going to change anything.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I felt that they had a viable methodology, I would not complain about their conclusions. This may be hard to believe for you, but it still is true.

As we will never be getting whatever 'viable methodology' you would require... I have no way of knowing your honesty or lack thereof. So it doesn't matter to me either way.

You are going to be disappointed with the 5E24 books. It is what it is. If it was me, I'd cut my losses now and just stop caring about anything having to do with the playtests. But you do you.

 

[Maxperson]

Exceptions abound. For instance, if the ability does not use an action, or is designed as a bonus action to enable casting of a spell on the same turn, or requires a special class ability or subclass to use, those make less sense.

Not really. As you note exceptions about and as I noted, keeping smite an exception is about as complex as tracking 1+1 and 1+2. It's not anywhere near complex enough to need to make the change based on complexity.

There's no good reason to make the change and make base paladin smite vulnerable to counterspell.

 

[Shardstone]

10-20% difference is a HUGE difference in a survey sampling this large. You're talking about like a 4,000 to 8,000 person swing there I think.

That doesnt change anything in my post. Idgaf if 10 to 20 represents 4000 or 400000, its still either not a majority or just barely one. Stop pretending like the supermajority of opinions decided on rollbacks.