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

[MoonSong]

So what you're saying is that you as a player can pick the theme at first level by picking themed spells while not having it actually mechanically kick in until third. In other words there's nothing of value that's lost by shunting it back to third - while it no longer overloads newbies so much.

What goes at first level? The class. Your first spells. If you're telling me there's nothing to distinguish a sorcerer with Grease and Thunderwave from one with Sleep and Shield I'm simply going to laugh.

Without that choice of theme at first level there are many spells that become unavailable, for example, healing and party buffing spells for divine soul. And my question is, without that theme at first level, what is there to distinguish a sorcerer from another spellcaster? wizards start with their spellbook, warlocks with their special casting mechanic, sorcerers start with nothing, because the theme was what distinguished sorcerers, without the theme the only distinctive feature they get is the lack of a distinctive feature. And the proposed blasting spell in the last packet isn't distinctive at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Without that choice of theme at first level there are many spells that become unavailable, for example, healing and party buffing spells for divine soul.

And yet, as we've been through, healing is accessible at first level.

And my question is, without that theme at first level, what is there to distinguish a sorcerer from another spellcaster?

As of the current playtest packet? Sorcerous bolt and Chaos Burst. I hope this will be improved. But it exists. If designing the sorcerer myself from I'd start with the Font of Magic and the Empowered Spell metamagic for everyone at first level, then give two free metamagic choices at second level.

 

[mamba]

their special casting mechanic, sorcerers start with nothing, because the theme was what distinguished sorcerers

they still have a patron, they just are somewhat unclear about the finer details of said entity

 

[Vaalingrade]

We're just not supposed to use levels 1 and 2 anymore. They're the training levels.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah yes, I forgot. Assuming the competence of a family-owned business from a Fortune 500 company that runs multiple of the most successful brands on the planet (little things, like Transformers, My Little Pony, GI Joe, Power Rangers, Dungeons and Dragons) is just blind faith in super geniuses!

New Coke
Twitter(current)
Toys R Us and the collectible figures with a sack of cash and meth.
cough the WotC OGL blunder cough I mean, that one is even the company we're discussing.
Blockbuster and its refusal to change

Fortune 500 companies are not immune to blunder or automatically great at everything they try, like polling.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why indeed, there are plenty examples that prove the assumption that big companies (or all departments within one) are always run well wrong.

I rather use the specific than the generic, and here the specific is how the survey is conducted. The one person out of 10 is just icing on that cake.

I never claimed that that big companies are ALWAYS run well... but if they aren't USUALLY run well, then how do they become big, successful companies?

And, while you want to claim that the specific is how the survey was conducted... you actually haven't demonstrated that this survey style is bad. This is a survey style used nearly universally, so how can you claim that the data is not being received properly? It is a tried and true method of polling. It is nearly identical to just rating things from 1 to 4, and that isn't something that is considered bad survey practice, in general.

Since you have spent zero effort to understand the survey approach, and implicitly trust WotC, I am not surprised that you see no problem with it. Maybe look into that over your desperate attempts to point out that somehow WotC is infallible because they make more money than a mom-and-pop store.

I have told you repeatedly that you will have to show me wrong on that, yet all you do is talk about how great WotC presumably is, with nothing to back that up either. All just unsubstantiated claims. This does not cut it, I dismissed it the last few times and I will keep on doing so.

You make assumptions constantly. Just because I'm not willing to call WoTC incompetent without evidence, you want to say I think they are infallible. Just because I don't see enough evidence to assume the survey is flawed, you assume I have spent zero effort attempting to understand how it functions.

Stop making assumptions.

That does not at all address why there are two thresholds. What is the 70% threshold for, what is the 80% threshold for?

I grant you the 80% one means the thing is good enough to not require further improvement, so what is the 70% one for?

Well, if you grant that 80% is "good enough to not REQUIRE further improvement" then logically 70% would be "good enough to keep as is, but can be tweaked" wouldn't it? I mean, JC did lay out exactly what each category meant early on, so I'm not sure why you are acting like this needs to be divined.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This isn't about a single person. There are more examples than that in this thread alone. People casting "disapprove" votes didn't know that those votes would be counted as votes against further iteration. And there's no logical reason they should have known, because the language of the survey gave no indication that this would be the case.

"Do you approve of X, as presented in this playtest packet?" and "Would you like to see a revised version of X?" are intrinsically different questions. The idea that simple numerical cutoff values allow WotC to reliably infer preferences about one from questions about the other is wildly implausible. Whereas a misuse of polling data arising from some form of error or miscommunication within a large and complicated institution would be about as surprising as water being wet.

Demonstrating some of those examples might be helpful, but, logically, people DID know that if something scored less than 50% then it wouldn't get iterated on more. Because WoTC told us that directly.

Does voting "disapprove" mean something will get less than 50%? We don't know that. You can make assumptions, you can guess, you can try and divine the tea leaves, but until you have WoTCs internal data, you don't know that. Maybe those things hit less than 50% because many people voted "Greatly Disapprove" and WANTED it killed. Templates for Wildshape was like that. I wanted it iterated on, but many people despised it. I can't prove that they didn't simply outnumber me.

You are trying to connect singular votes to the final result, but that simply doesn't work. Some people voted Greatly Disapprove and ranted in their comments about how terrible the Cleric Divine Order was... and it went through and was iterated on. Some people voted Greatly Disapprove on Weapon Mastery's, and we know those are guaranteed to make it into the 2024 PHB. You can't draw these lines the way you want to to "prove" the survey isn't working.

And, finally, you are assuming that WoTC was asking "Would you like to see a revised version of X?" AND that people were answering expecting "Would you like to see a revised version of X?" to be the question. Which are also two different things, and not necessarily true. I certainly approached each question from the viewpoint of "what do I think of this being in the final book" which is a 3rd very different question

 

[Chaosmancer]

New Coke

Barq's, Dasani, Minute Maid, Ayataki, Powerade, Smartwater, Gold Peak

Twitter(current)

Elon Musk is actively distracted by the staff at Tesla, to avoid him making decisions. That isn't a company, that is a person.

Toys R Us and the collectible figures with a sack of cash and meth.

Sorry, not familiar. Toys R Us failed for many reasons, including not innovating like its competitors and the rise of technological distractions. I'm not sure what collectibles which are still sold to this day by many people (FunkoPops?) have to do with anything

cough the WotC OGL blunder cough I mean, that one is even the company we're discussing.

Which was an obvious blunder with evidence. There were dozens of videos, articles, legal experts, it was a whole thing. And, again, I've never claimed perfection, just competence. No one is perfect. But a single person misunderstanding a survey, backed by people inherently unhappy with the survey results, does not a failed survey make.

Blockbuster and its refusal to change

Interestingly, also driven by a single CEO. So, which WoTC or Hasbro CEO is actively pushing this survey in the face of sector-wide competition? Where is Netflix and other streaming services in this model?

Fortune 500 companies are not immune to blunder or automatically great at everything they try, like polling.

I never claimed they were immune to mistakes. I said they were generally competent at what they do. Again, if a company does nothing but pratfall constantly at every aspect of being a company.... how did they become a leader in their industry? If Blockbuster ALWAYS made the worst decisions and ALWAYS failed and ALWAYS had terrible ideas and ALWAYS was run by clueless idiots.... how did it redefine home entertainment in the first place?

There is a middle ground between perfect and without fault, and never succeeding at anything.

 

[mamba]

And, while you want to claim that the specific is how the survey was conducted... you actually haven't demonstrated that this survey style is bad.

I have shown that

This is a survey style used nearly universally, so how can you claim that the data is not being received properly?

show me who else uses it this way. The style is not entirely useless, it is how WotC uses it that is flawed

You make assumptions constantly. Just because I'm not willing to call WoTC incompetent without evidence, you want to say I think they are infallible.

well, you are essentially calling them infallible. No matter what is being said your reply is ‘if this were an issue, they would know it and would have addressed it already, so the playtest being as it is is proof that it is working’

Just because I don't see enough evidence to assume the survey is flawed, you assume I have spent zero effort attempting to understand how it functions.

that is not why I am saying this

Well, if you grant that 80% is "good enough to not REQUIRE further improvement" then logically 70% would be "good enough to keep as is, but can be tweaked" wouldn't it?

no, if 80% is the threshold for ‘does not require improvement’ then it logically follows that 70% requires improvement if it is to be kept, and so would 60%, 50%, and so forth… so why is there a 70% threshold, and not just 80%

JC did lay out exactly what each category meant early on

then this should not be hard

 

[Maxperson]

Barq's, Dasani, Minute Maid, Ayataki, Powerade, Smartwater, Gold Peak

Okay?

Elon Musk is actively distracted by the staff at Tesla, to avoid him making decisions. That isn't a company, that is a person.

Wait! You think companies make the decisions without people being involved?!

Sorry, not familiar. Toys R Us failed for many reasons, including not innovating like its competitors and the rise of technological distractions. I'm not sure what collectibles which are still sold to this day by many people (FunkoPops?) have to do with anything

You really don't need to be familiar with anything more than I typed in my post. They made a kids toy with bags of cash and fake meth for God's sake! Talk about a blunder.

Which was an obvious blunder with evidence. There were dozens of videos, articles, legal experts, it was a whole thing. And, again, I've never claimed perfection, just competence. No one is perfect. But a single person misunderstanding a survey, backed by people inherently unhappy with the survey results, does not a failed survey make.

The methodology is flawed as we've pointed out time and time again...........................for years.

I never claimed they were immune to mistakes. I said they were generally competent at what they do. Again, if a company does nothing but pratfall constantly at every aspect of being a company.... how did they become a leader in their industry? If Blockbuster ALWAYS made the worst decisions and ALWAYS failed and ALWAYS had terrible ideas and ALWAYS was run by clueless idiots.... how did it redefine home entertainment in the first place?

Right place, right time. They got in early.

There is a middle ground between perfect and without fault, and never succeeding at anything.

There is also a Strawman there. We aren't saying the company can't succeed at anything. We're pointing out the flawed methodology in polling and strange interpretations of that flawed methodology.