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

[mamba]

Well, that also assumes that they have no knowledge of how popular what they have now is - if they know it has, say, 75% approval, then it reduces to the prior case.

it would, if I believed that what they are measuring is absolute satisfaction rates. I believe they are measuring preferences however, ie 60% like the proposal better

It is a little weird to say, "A minority killed it" instead of "A majority chose the other one."

see above, otherwise I would agree with your phrasing

 

[mamba]

While this is partially true, it does not mean that only 40% liked the old version.

It could mean that 80% liked the old version and only 60% liked the new version.

pretty much the same reply I just gave. I believe they are measuring what version the majority likes better, not some absolute value.

Also, given that we had subclasses that scored in the 20s, I would not count on this having scored >70 either, after all it was meant to prevent this from happening at all. 20s basically means your process completely failed…

 

[Chaosmancer]

well, they got kicked, so you won’t get a reply…

The way I understand it is that if 60% fails, then 40% killed it. 40% is a minority.

Your understanding is flawed. You are literally advocating for a 51% is good enough model. Because anything OTHER than that is a minority killing the thing. But, that isn't how these things work. If you have a class of 10 kids and you say you need 8 kids to agree on their reward lunch, you don't berate the four kids who disagree as holding a tyranny of the minority.

WoTC set the standard. 70% have to like it. If only 60% like it, that isn't 40% killing the project, that is not meeting WoTC's standard. You don't blame the voters who say no for not liking the thing, when the entire point of the vote is "do enough people like it"

 

[mamba]

Your understanding is flawed. You are literally advocating for a 51% is good enough model. Because anything OTHER than that is a minority killing the thing.

you could also say the thing that is even less preferred is staying in the game despite being less popular

But, that isn't how these things work. If you have a class of 10 kids and you say you need 8 kids to agree on their reward lunch, you don't berate the four kids who disagree as holding a tyranny of the minority.

If I have 5 kids wanting one thing, 3 wanting something else and two wanting something different yet again, do they all not get lunch? Or do I have to search for other options... throwing things out is not searching for better options

WoTC set the standard. 70% have to like it. If only 60% like it, that isn't 40% killing the project, that is not meeting WoTC's standard. You don't blame the voters who say no for not liking the thing, when the entire point of the vote is "do enough people like it"

I am blaming WotC, they created an idiotic process. What gives you the impression that I am blaming the voters?

 

[Umbran]

it would, if I believed that what they are measuring is absolute satisfaction rates. I believe they are measuring preferences however, ie 60% like the proposal better


see above, otherwise I would agree with your phrasing

"A majority chose the other one" holds whether it is some sort of absolute satisfaction rates or liking a proposal.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm generally happy with how the playtest is shaping up but I honestly would like to see short rests gone.

Id rather see long rests gone − at least gone for spellcasting.

If all spellcasters refresh spell slots per short rest, the game balances better between casters and noncasters.

Also, to refresh per short rest feels better narratively, conveying that spellcasting is exhausting. If per long rest, the refresh is a somewhat weird vestige of vancian preparation.

 

[MockingBird]

If I have 5 kids wanting one thing, 3 wanting something else and two wanting something different yet again, do they all not get lunch? Or do I have to search for other options... throwing things out is not searching for better options

I'd say you stick with what all 5 kids like. 3 kids didn't like a particular thing, and 2 kids didn't like another particular thing but they all like whats normally for lunch. You wouldn't have to make them skip lunch at that point.

 

[MockingBird]

Id rather see long rests gone − at least gone for spellcasting.

If all spellcasters refresh spell slots per short rest, the game balances better between casters and noncasters.

Also, to refresh per short rest feels better narratively, conveying that spellcasting is exhausting. If per long rest, the refresh is a somewhat weird vestige of vancian preparation.

See I'm at the exact opposite end of the spectrum here. You have an interesting take that I haven't fully thought over.

 

[Yaarel]

The biggest issue is the components. VSM casting as it stands should be a line under the Wizard's spellcasting feature, Bard spells should require instruments, Ranger spells should never require verbal components and so on. Reusing the specific technique descriptions is fine.

Something like that.

All Bards should cast via Verbal voice. But some classes use Somatic dance or Material instrument instead.

I can see Ranger only using Material components, like herbal balms and snake venom, the magical properties inherent in nature.

Wizard using all three, VSM? Maybe, but the reliance on a Material component often contradicts the feel of being innately magical. Maybe the Wizard can choose which method of spellcasting they want? Add a Psionic component that emphasizes a mental requirement, and I am all in. Maybe choose any two out of the four: VSMP? So Harry Potter concepts use Verbal and Wand, ritual concepts use Somatic and Material, innate concepts use Psionic and Verbal.

In any case, the VSM needs to disappear from the spell description. Various classes already have their own methods that ignores VSM descriptions. The costly components serve no consistent gaming purpose. Spell focuses like wand or holy symbol make the Material description moot anyway.

 

[mamba]

"A majority chose the other one" holds whether it is some sort of absolute satisfaction rates or liking a proposal.

not when something is liked better by 60% of people and thrown out because of that being less than 70%