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

[Chaosmancer]

and to add insult to injury

“Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate. "The thing is, the scores are not the full story," Crawford said. "We also look at what are people saying in the written feedback and what they are saying in online discussion forums. And while people were often excited by a number of these experiments, there was also a lot of concern about what would this do to the existing game."“

Dungeons & Dragons' Designer Explains How Playtests Have Moved From Experimental to Focused

Dungeons & Dragons was fully prepared to adopt any of the “experimental” changes seen in early One D&D playtests, had they received high enough feedback from players. At Gen Con, ComicBook.com had the chance to speak with Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons, in a...

comicbook.com

So even 70% does not get us there. I hate this playtest. What is even the point. They set it up to fail, and fail it did.

This absolutely is a minority sabotaging the majority.

"Curse them for listening to what people are saying about their voting to provide clarity, the exact thing I said they never do because the confusion I imagine in the playtest survey is my entire point. "

 

[Charlaquin]

No survey ever gave D&D players a chance to vote on whether they like VSM spell component or not.

I wonder if 70% actually approve of it?

I wonder what else is in 2014 core that players actually dont like.

I don’t remember if there was a survey question about it or not, but a lot of feedback was certainly given about it, both in the surveys and on the forums, which WotC staff definitely read and sometimes responded to directly at the time. My recollection is that VSM as we currently have it was a compromise between folks who didn’t want spell components at all and folks who wanted specific material components for every spell that were always consumed in the casting. The ability for an arcane focus to replace the need for material components unless a gold cost is listed was a further compromise, allowing material components to be listed for folks who wanted them for flavor, while allowing folks who never wanted to have to worry about them to just use an arcane focus and forget about it.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t remember if there was a survey question about it or not, but a lot of feedback was certainly given about it, both in the surveys and on the forums, which WotC staff definitely read and sometimes responded to directly at the time. My recollection is that VSM as we currently have it was a compromise between folks who didn’t want spell components at all and folks who wanted specific material components for every spell that were always consumed in the casting. The ability for an arcane focus to replace the need for material components unless a gold cost is listed was a further compromise, allowing material components to be listed for folks who wanted them for flavor, while allowing folks who never wanted to have to worry about them to just use an arcane focus and forget about it.

I don't doubt that it may have been a compromise, but they forgot to rope in the folks who feel like those VSM components provided an important limitation that drew a line between what martials and caster/gish builds could do when they crafted that compromise.

 

[mamba]

But I did not vote to throw it out.

yes you did, the rating attached to your answer results in that, not in a revision

Throwing it out was the result of the accumulated votes of tens of thousands of people.

You did not do it alone, but your vote also was in favor of throwing it out again, even if you were not

You keep trying to draw a straight line from "you chose this option" to "this is the result" but that line does not exist.

no I am not, it is very obviously a line that does not exist.

How could they possibly be unaware of this flaw in the survey style they have been using for a decade, but you, just now, in these results, figured it out?

how can they possibly still use it if they are aware?

Why would they use a flawed system for over a decade? How did you, as a layperson, uncover these flaws that the people they paid to do this work professionally, whose entire jobs and careers rely on making good surveys that get good data, did not notice or care about for this long?

I am just that good

On a more serious note, I would like an actual explanation for why it is not broken, not just blind faith in their abilities

Now, here's the trick. Can you PROVE that even the majority of the TEN OF THOUSANDS of people have different understanding of the survey answers than WOTC?

it doesn’t take a majority to lead to wrong results

Can you even state, definitively and with evidence, what WoTC considers these answers to mean? Not what you assume they think, but actual evidence of their opinions?

can you prove that they accurately understand them? I’d say I gave good reasons for why there is a disconnect, to the point that you voted wrong given what you wanted to happen.

All you might have been able to show, to date, is that it is reasonable to assume that some people might have misunderstood. Perhaps even the same number of people who voted multiple times? Are you aware that surveyors often take into account variance like this and likely the survey was designed with this in mind?

if they considered this, they would be better off with different options instead of trying to correct for avoidable mistakes

 

[mamba]

Really? Does it really show that?

Because this is the EXACT SAME survey method used in 2017 for the UA. And 2018. And 2019. And 2020. 2021. At the start of the One DnD initiative this was the survey system used.

so the exact same system that lead to subclasses rated in the 20s, despite the goal to get everything over 70?

Saying ‘we have always done it this way’ is not a good reason to keep doing it…

 

[tetrasodium]

Please just talk about the argument and not me.


I didn't mention the size of that group either?


I didn't mention DMs?


What does any of that have to do with the topic we were discussing, which was your argument that WOTC should discount what you called the "munchkin brigade" because you don't like their perspective?

All customers are customers. The people you're discounting are in fact customers of the game. They can also be DMs or players. While they do ask if you DM and I think they give some focus to DMs, that doesn't mean "the munchkin brigade" should be discounted because you don't like them. They are no more or less valid than any other player. If you think DMs in general should get more say, OK but that still has zero to do with singling out a specific group of players and discounting their voice.

Yes you did & you don't even see it, that's part of the problem 5e encourages by dismissing GM needs.

Spoiler: right here

"the munchkin brigade" have a view that is as valid as yours.

So which is it? Are the views of the segment who want MOAR power & vote against anything that curbs it for any reason no matter the reason for dialing it back* whom wotc doesn't show indications of trying to correct for just "as valid" or are they so much more valid that primary GM's can't even make a comparison in return? If the views of primary GM's are so beneath concern that they aren't even justified in being discussed when they compare & contrast themselves unless first waiting for you bring up primary GM's so they can talk about their consideration within the constraints of the testing is it still a matter of being "as valid"?

* Like the earlier mentioned segment who is happy with anything wotc puts out and corrects for

 

[mamba]

"Curse them for listening to what people are saying about their voting to provide clarity, the exact thing I said they never do because the confusion I imagine in the playtest survey is my entire point. "

yeah, not what this means… you cannot connect forum posts to a specific survey

 

[MichaelSomething]

WOTC needs a sociologist on their team badly.

 

[Remathilis]

The playtest is not a democracy. We are just testing, commenting and advising, WotC is still firmly in charge of the game design. If a majority of players are excited about a feature, but a small minority of players identify a problem with it, and WotC agrees with that assessment, then they are correct to cut it.

I've been arguing that a lot of the backtracking to "2014, with minor tweaks" was done due to a newfound desire for backwards compatibility and NOT based on player feedback, good or ill.

 

[Pedantic]

I've been arguing that a lot of the backtracking to "2014, with minor tweaks" was done due to a newfound desire for backwards compatibility and NOT based on player feedback, good or ill.

Isn't the one a subset of the other? Take standardizing subclass levels. WotC set a goal of backwards compatibility, feedback was clear that specific change would render it incompatible in the minds of enough of the player base and it was thus removed.

I don't personally much care for what WotC is doing, but I don't think they're being surprising or especially inconsistent.