D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Survey

[Maxperson]

The only explanation I can come up with (bear with me, because this is a massive stretch) is:

Acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, thunder, and I suppose radiant damage all attack the body from the outside, while necrotic and poison damage attack the body from the inside. Psychic also attacks from the inside, but it attack the mind, rather than the body.

That’s all I’ve got. Did you enjoy that nougaty stretch?

Heh. That is indeed a stretch! Where I think your stretch snaps is that all of the forces you mention are energy types, except for poison and spells don't require energy types. And even energy types that are the same don't require being in the same school. See Fireball(evocation) and Flaming Sphere(conjuration).

So even if you do say that it attacks from the inside like necrotic damage, it still can and should be evocation or conjuration.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Heh. That is indeed a stretch! Where I think your stretch snaps is that all of the forces you mention are energy types, except for poison and spells don't require energy types. And even energy types that are the same don't require being in the same school. See Fireball(evocation) and Flaming Sphere(conjuration).

So even if you do say that it attacks from the inside like necrotic damage, it still can and should be evocation or conjuration.

Poison doesn't make sense to me as evocation, because it a substance (whether liquid, gas, or solid), rather than an esoteric or elemental energy. Conjuration can be justified in any way if you say it is brought from somewhere else. I still think magically created poison is an essence that is anathema to life, just differently than necrotic. I think it fits better as necromantic, which is a larger category than necrotic energy.

I still really like the idea of redistributing magic themes (where they can make sense) to enhance and clarify each of the different schools of magic so that they each have something interesting and diverse to bring to the table. Divination and Necromancy are big ones that would benefit from this.

 

[Maxperson]

Poison doesn't make sense to me as evocation, because it a substance (whether liquid, gas, or solid), rather than an esoteric or elemental energy. Conjuration can be justified in any way if you say it is brought from somewhere else. I still think magically created poison is an essence that is anathema to life, just differently than necrotic. I think it fits better as necromantic, which is a larger category than necrotic energy.

Being burned alive, dissolved with acid or fried to a crisp by electrocution are also anathema to life. And poisons can be natural substances that just don't work well with something living, much like fire, electricity, acid, extreme cold, etc. So this argument is one that says everything that kills should be necromancy

Edit: And conjuration is also the creation of things, not just pulling them from elsewhere. Created poison is conjuration.

I still really like the idea of redistributing magic themes (where they can make sense) to enhance and clarify each of the different schools of magic so that they each have something interesting and diverse to bring to the table. Divination and Necromancy are big ones that would benefit from this.

Divination isn't gaining anything by the new True Strike that doesn't strike true. It actually loses because now it's not even really divining anything. It's just another blah form of "Let's do some damage with some energy." and call it divination because we're saying it's "insight." It makes no sense. Beef up True Strike as it was and it would be a cool divination spell.

And there are tons of new spells that they could come up with that are death themed if you want to spice up Necromancy. They don't need to add in something nonsensical to do it.

 

[James Gasik]

Maybe the reason it's Necromancy is that it's a poison that affects all creatures (at least, those actually vulnerable to poisons) equally? I know the monster rules ignore this entirely, but different creatures can have different resistances to toxins and venom. Like the honey badger.

 

[mellored]

Can we all at least agree that spell schools will never be perfect categories?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Divination isn't gaining anything by the new True Strike that doesn't strike true. It actually loses because now it's not even really divining anything. It's just another blah form of "Let's do some damage with some energy." and call it divination because we're saying it's "insight." It makes no sense. Beef up True Strike as it was and it would be a cool divination spell.

Spells names don't always literally describe the effect. The Shield spell does not function as a shield item. Friends doesn't make people your real friends. It comes with the territory of using older familiar naming conventions.

No version of True Strike ever unerringly "struck true," not even in 3E, so I'm curious how that is valid argument. The spell has always just made an attack more accurate (at varying degrees, but have been depicted differently with every incarnation). It is perfectly fine to depict it as a magically enhanced weapon strike that uses your spellcasting modifier over your weaker physical stats to portray the insightful aspect of the divination. The Radiant aspect is optional.

If the spell designs went into descriptive flavor more, rather than leave the flavor to the caster, the current True Strike might be well-described as causing your eyes and your weapon to both glow with a matching, linked, astral radiance, giving you insight into your immediate attack, with a power equaling your own personal mastery over magic (spellcasting ability). You can also choose for that astral radiance to flash and be the source of harm if you so wish.

I think it is arguable that this version of True Strike is more usable than any version that came before, because previous versions always required 2 actions to attempt, and even then, it was never truly unerringly "true."

 

[Maxperson]

Spells names don't always literally describe the effect. The Shield spell does not function as a shield item. Friends doesn't make people your real friends. It comes with the territory of using older familiar naming conventions.

I mean, those things literally mean what they are named. The shield spell shields you with force like a physical shield(which doesn't protect 100%). Friends does in fact make people your friends for the duration.

No version of True Strike ever unerringly "struck true," not even in 3E, so I'm curious how that is valid argument.

Because every incarnation except the current one helps you strike true. In 3e the +20 to hit meant you had to roll a natural 1 to miss just about anything you are aiming at unless you're a 1st level wizard aiming at an ancient red dragon, and even then you could still hit it without rolling a natural 20.

The spell has always just made an attack more accurate (at varying degrees, but have been depicted differently with every incarnation). It is perfectly fine to depict it as a magically enhanced weapon strike that uses your spellcasting modifier over your weaker physical stats to portray the insightful aspect of the divination. The Radiant aspect is optional.

Radiant blah damage has nothing at all to do with divination or striking true.

I think it is arguable that this version of True Strike is more usable than any version that came before, because previous versions always required 2 actions to attempt, and even then, it was never truly unerringly "true."

Then let's make True Strike let you fly with a speed of 1000 for 10 rounds. That would also arguably be more useful, and have as much to do with striking true as the radiant damage does.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Then let's make True Strike let you fly with a speed of 1000 for 10 rounds. That would also arguably be more useful, and have as much to do with striking true as the radiant damage does.

OK, now I know you're not discussing in good faith.

There is not one version that makes you "Strike True". They all only increase you ability to harm an opponent with an attack. That's it. Of course the current version does that. The Radiant damage is optional, not the point, and it dovetails in with other spells that increase accuracy using light (Guiding Bolt and Faerie Fire, for example).

Flying. Wow. Good day.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, now I know you're not discussing in good faith.

Did you not understand the point of that? It wasn't a serious request if you failed to get that. Perhaps try to understand what is being said(and why) before you falsely accuse people of acting in bad faith.

There is not one version that makes you "Strike True". They all only increase you ability to harm an opponent with an attack. That's it.

Through increased accuracy. Well, except for this last one that doesn't do that. All of them but this last one make you far more likely to strike true.

Of course the current version does that.

No it doesn't. There's no increased accuracy at all.

 

[Clint_L]

Kinda 5e in a nutshell, innit?

Thank you for advancing the conversation in such a useful way - never too soon to throw in a shallow cheap shot at the current edition, amirite?!

To the OP: I hadn't given much thought to the bastion system as it's not an aspect of the game that has never had much appeal for me, but thank you for posting detailed feedback that is based on an actual play test. I am interested that they liked Bastion Points as much as they did; those had seemed particularly clunky. The feedback about magic items is not surprising; that instantly seems like the most problematic aspect of the system.

I am now wondering if there are elements of bastions that I can scavenge for my campaigns.