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

[Yaarel]

Wizards thematically aren't innately magical, that's Sorcerer territory. The whole conceit of their semi hermetic magic is that holding the right thoughts in your head while positioning your hands just so, saying the right words and having the correct symbolic object on hand (the universe likes bad puns apparently) causes a thing to happen. Knowing how to do all those things is apparently difficult and largely secret and they've figured it out.

VSM components were made for them, and everyone else bandwagoned on after.

Since the days of "Magic User", the Wizard class includes many different kinds of character concepts, including the innate spellcaster.

One of the reasons I am so fond of cantrips is, its atwill magical activity helps convey the sense of being innately magical.

I view Artificer as the concept that is explicitly artificial and non-innate.

Even the Cleric class can feel innate if deriving the spellcasting from the alignment plane directly without intermediaries. Then the class feels more like a mystic.

The Bard class feels shamanic and innate.

If the "pact" of the Warlock actually transforms the character, the spellcasting might be innate from that point on.


I would be satisfied if the Material component descriptions were deleted from the spell description, but to list them in the DMs Guide. Since each M description is about one line of text, the page space is the same, but in the DMs Guide instead of the Players Handbook.

 

[mamba]

If what you care about is in the minority of gamers, then to expect it in the core rules is a mistake.

that is just you rephrasing it. I still do not believe that

Elaborate why the playtest methodology is "faulty". As far as I can tell, it seems useful.

1) I do not think they get absolute ratings, they get preferences. People rate 'do I like templates better than animals', not 'how much do I like these templates'

2) Having something rated 1 to 5 without us knowing what will happen due to our vote and them throwing things out unannounced when the score is low. As I said, people vote 3 because they like templates but think they need to be improved, not because they want them thrown out, and they had no way of knowing that would happen. They would have voted differently if they had known. So the poll fails at its basic premise already. We cannot accurately express our intention, WotC cannot accurately interpret it and as a consequence the poll is not accurately capturing the will of the people being polled.

3) I would prefer two questions over the 1 to 5 rating to fix this, but other ideas are welcome. 1: Do you like this proposal better than the current one? 2: If you do, does it need improving?

This answers directly what WotC can only vaguely guess right now, and we do not need to wonder about the implications either. Right now the only sensible way is to vote 1 or 5, and leave a comment. That is the only way to ensure your vote accomplishes what you intended.

 

[Yaarel]

First of all I would change the entire approach of testing…. pretty much everything they do. Have a full set of rules, iterate, have a less insane polling approach.

Second, double the time, I assume the 50th anniversary did not exactly sneak up on you

5e is extremely popular, moreso than earlier editions. The designers created 5e using this same process of high approval from survey feedback.

I dont see how this process can be "insane" when it proved to be conducive to the success of 5e.

 

[mamba]

5e is extremely popular, moreso than earlier editions. The designers created 5e using this same process of high approval from survey feedback.

I dont see how this process can be "insane" when it proved to be conducive to the success of 5e.

yeah, arguing from the result to the approach is a fallacy. My amulet of preventing bear attacks is working because I have never been attacked by bears... It is successful despite the playtest approach, not because of it.

If the approach worked we would not have 2014 subclasses getting 24% or 25% approval ratings. That is exactly what it is meant to prevent after all

 

[Yaarel]

@mamba

Your earlier point, the survey questions must clearly identify the situation of: "I like this change but it needs more improvement before implementing".

I agree.

 

[Yaarel]

What on earth are you talking about? They're not saying "Go" on 31-41% they're saying "Go" on 70%+. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Every time something is rejected for not reaching that high, the follow up gets to that high or more - that's a super majority vote in favor that you're calling a minority. You keep acting like the follow-up didn't happen and get higher approval.

If everything in core requires a supermajority, that is democratic.

The frustration is, the requirement of a supermajority is inherently conservative. It is resistant to change. In a situation of 51% wanting a change, the supermajority makes it impossible.


I still feel, for "CORE" rules to require a supermajority is a good methodology.

Meanwhile, noncore options such as DMs Guide variants and setting-specific variants help meet the needs of the 51%.


I consider anything around 10% approval to be "significant". Maybe things that make it into the DMs Guide as variants were around 40% to 70% approval. But depending on practicable page space, I am ok with anything at 25% approval or even 10% making into the DMs Guide.

 

[tetrasodium]

If everything in core requires a supermajority, that is democratic.

The frustration is, the requirement of a supermajority is inherently conservative. It is resistant to change. In a situation of 51% wanting a change, the supermajority makes it impossible.


I still feel, for "CORE" rules to require a supermajority is a good methodology.

Meanwhile, noncore options such as DMs Guide variants and setting-specific variants help meet the needs of the 51%.


I consider anything around 10% approval to be "significant". Maybe things that make it into the DMs Guide as variants were around 40% to 70% approval. But depending on practicable page space, I am ok with anything at 25% approval or even 10% making into the DMs Guide.

It shouldn't even need to be (super)majority sometimes. Take something like rests. You've got 2e style of attrition plus recovery based on Number of hours rested, 3.x style (of attrition plus what were often readily available consumables to mitigate attrition & ease recovery, 4e style ADEU, and finally5e style split the baby trying a little of everything.

There are too many ways of handling recovery with massive impact rippling across almost every other element of the game to expect any sort of significant consensus on those ripples, one shouldn't be expected& it certainly shouldn't result in a jumbled piecemeal of different ripples rather than any one specific ripple like we have in 2014 & packet6

 

[Yaarel]

An objectively better methodology would be:

1. Releasing all 3 classes in a class group at once.
2. Releasing a playtest scenario designed for both 2014 and 2024.
3. Detailed questions asking specifically about new ideas, and aspects of new ideas.
4. Keep working on anything getting 50% of satisfaction or higher instead of rolling back.
5. Not saving the biggest projects, like Monk, for last.
6. Purposefully written in the UA articles how these mechanics might evolve in the future of the game instead of making nebulous promises.
7. Not told people to use current subclasses with new class designs because we didn't have time or smth to edit them over.
8. Released full survey results each time since transparency is what they champion, instead of half-assing it and hiding numbers.

I filled out surveys. I never got to give an opinion on shared spell lists or subclass progression. It was on spellcasting and on the rogue's level 10 feature. I honestly feel like the survey was released gimped because they wanted to manipulate data to do nothing. I don't think this is true, I think they just made really bad surveys, but it's so bad it feels malicious

This seems fair:

"Keep working on anything getting 50% of satisfaction or higher instead of rolling back."

Currently, the designers continue to work on something that enjoys 60% approval. They can easily make this 50%.

Even if the 50% interest never makes it into 2024 core because of being under 70%, it seems ripe for DMs Guide variants, and for future setting content from 2024 onward.

 

[mamba]

Even if the 50% interest never makes it into 2024 core because of being under 70%, it seems ripe for DMs Guide variants, and for future setting content from 2024 onward.

that works for some things, for others it won’t, like unified subclass progression. Not sure you can even turn ‘long rests only’ into a variant. So your choices for that are rather limited.

Where possible, absolutely, there just are many cases where it is not

 

[Yaarel]

that works for some things, for others it won’t, like unified subclass progression. Not sure you can even turn ‘long rests only’ into a variant. So your choices for that are rather limited.

Where possible, absolutely, there just are many cases where it is not

It is possible to make variants that work well, when plugging them in.


It is possible to make a variant for spellcasters that uses short-rests only. Such as, a spell point system that recharges per short rest, regardless of which caster classes uses it.

A variant rest schedule that I use is: all rests are short rests, except twice per level, a player can instead derive the benefit of a long rest.

The unified subclass progression can work. Approximately, the default levels for subclasses are: 3, 6, 10, 14, and 18. But the 2014 classes only have subclasses for four of these levels (but Fighter five and Cleric and Bard three). So, it is possible to create a cross-class subclass with features at three of these levels, then recommend two feats to fill in any gaps.