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

[Shardstone]

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.

Ive lost so much respect for you. You are on these forums only to troll, insult, and rile people up, and I have no idea why the mods let you get away with it evey single time

 

[mamba]

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.

I find this reasoning insulting, quite frankly. I am an extremely logical person, your constant insistence that the only reason I / we do not like the methodology is because we do not like the result is insulting, esp. since I already told you that it has nothing to do with my complaints about the methodology and I frequently name them. Since I do, feel free to attack my reasoning instead.

What you are essentially saying is, what if neither side gets to 70%, then what? Then we unfortunately keep what we have, even if 40% like it and 60% prefer something else. One more thing I do not like about how this is being handled.

If it is essentially 50/50 then sure, stick to what you have, but whether that should still be true at 60/40 I am less sure of.

 

[mamba]

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.

I did not want to keep repeating myself, since I have been discussing the problems with their approach and what I consider to be a better one at length in a different thread this week.

Since you clearly do not care anyway, I will not repeat it now either.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There's a reason by Design by Committee is a bad thing and should be avoided. You can get 10 things that 7 out of 10 people like and when you shove them all together into a pile of mishmash, you end up with a total that only 30% like. Just because individual parts are good, doesn't mean that they play well together.

 

[mamba]

There's a reason by Design by Committee is a bad thing and should be avoided. You can get 10 things that 7 out of 10 people like and when you shove them all together into a pile of mishmash, you end up with a total that only 30% like. Just because individual parts are good, doesn't mean that they play well together.

that is a separate issue, that is not even why their methodology is flawed.

That is the cherry on top, but there isn’t much you can do about that if ‘designers’ are bound by a 70% threshold instead of just taking the input and running with it. I still hope WotC does the latter

 

[mellored]

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

There are reasons, as has been explained. You might not find them to be "good", but they are reasons.

And you can always homebrew divine smite to be immune to counterspell.

Paladin 2: divine smite
Your smite spells are can not be counterspelled, silenced, or otherwise disrupted.

 

[Maxperson]

that is a separate issue, that is not even why their methodology is flawed

Oh, I know that it's a different issue. But it is a flaw with their methodology. It's just a different flaw.

 

[Maxperson]

There are reasons, as has been explained. You might not find them to be "good", but they are reasons.

And you can always homebrew divine smite to be immune to counterspell.

Paladin 2: divine smite
Your smite spells are can not be counterspelled, silenced, or otherwise disrupted.

So once I homebrew it so that it cant' be countered, silence or disrupted, and requires no V, S or M, why bother having it a spell? Just because the other smites are spells? Because some people find 1+1+1 to be more complex? And yes, I agree that there are reasons they are changing it, but bad reasons are still bad.

 

[mamba]

Oh, I know that it's a different issue. But it is a flaw with their methodology. It's just a different flaw.

just didn’t want to give @DEFCON 1 the impression that this was my complaint with it

 

[Mistwell]

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

then they won't get as much actual playtesting. It takes more time than 2 weeks to deal with these docs. And despite gamers thinking they know how everything works from just reading it, actual playtesting often reveals things which were not really fully understood in how they work along with other elements of the game.