D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[UngainlyTitan]

Right, I have no special insight.

I'm just thinking about similar UA leadtime to products that have come from WotC in the past, like the 2016 exploration UA which had a year or more leadtime prior to the November 2017 publication of XGtE. The question is about public/external playtesting. They definitely can do their own internal testing process, tighten that up, cut corners here or there to meet their deadline. External playtesting is different, and you can see that in the lead time required for past books where public UAs were released.

Basically, I'm using their own metrics from the recent past of this edition, to evaluate their timeline with the upcoming 2024 books. Obviously, there may be flaws in my assessment. For one example, maybe they've vastly improved / streamlined their external playtesting process since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.


I replied to someone else about this, but I don't think it's all or nothing – it's not about excluding or including spells, it's about how to include that legacy content without disrupting/shutting down a potential avenue for enjoying the game. The changes in the Tiny Hut spell over the editions are a perfect microcosm of the bigger issue, as I mentioned upthread.


Sure, I can dig in deeper... EDIT: Apologies for the length of my reply...

I think the UA8 Barbarian's Level 9: Brutal Strike is a fair example. On the surface, it sounds like the kind of thing a player would love, building off of Reckless Attack to give more choices! Now you can deal 1d10 more damage, or push the target 15-feet and close the gap without provoking, or you can briefly reduce their speed by 15 feet. What's not to like?

I'll go through each of these three use cases of Brutal Strike and why they would benefit from playtesting specifically against the redesigned monsters...

Brutal Strike: Damage Example
I'm going off memory that dual weapon fighting in the UA is (paraphrasing), as it's not in UA8 and I don't want to dig through to find it... "when you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can make a bonus attack with your offhand weapon as part of the Attack action"

OK, what does this look like on a dual-wielding barbarian, multiclassed into Fighter for Action Surge, under the effects of a haste spell? Well, the bonus damage from Brutal Strike in that case would be 1d10+1d10 (dual weapon attacks) + 1d10+1d10 (Extra Attack with dual weapons) +1d10 (Haste extra attack) + 1d10+1d10 (Action Surge, dual weapon attacks) + 1d10+1d10 (Action Surge, Extra Attack with dual weapons) = +9d10 damage or 49.5 additional damage.

But what does the actual damage look like, not just the additional damage compared to 2014 Barbarian? Something like this...assuming no magic items... (1d8+5+1d10) x 5 + (1d6+5+1d10) x 4 = 75 + 56 = 131

Will that potential for greater damage than the 2014 barbarian affect how monsters facing 9th+ level PCs are designed? I don't know, I haven't playtested it andI haven't seen any redesigned monsters.

I'm not cherry-picking, literally finding the first things that I see from the current Unearthed Arcana and that spring up on Kobold Fight Club when I search for a CR 9 monster... ok... Abdominable Yeti has 137 hit points. So the 2024 barbarian with a (barbarian 9/fighter 2 build) and caster support reasonable at that level could potentially kill this monster in one round with slightly above average rolls or a magic weapon... something very unlikely for a 2014 Barbarian. Is that an issue? Maybe. Maybe not. It is a difference between 2014 and 2024 though.

Brutal Strike: Push 15-feet Example
What happens when a PC can regularly push 15 feet multiple times per turn? A 30 foot net push is completely within the realm of possibility, and as you can imagine from the extreme example above, you could get a lot more than that.

We've never seen that kind of consistent really big pushing in 5e, barring some exceptional build perhaps. What does that look like in play? Are there new sorts of "counters" we need to think about with monsters intended to play as mini-bosses or have a more enduring presence in dangerous terrain? For example, in 2014 monsters we hardly see any at all that say "reduce forced movement to this monster by X", in fact no immunity or resistance covers forced movement. There's also no saving throw involved, so Legendary Resistances won't save the Death Knight from that 500-foot drop. Does this use of Brutal Strike mean the designers need to consider implementing that in some cases? I don't know, maybe.

Brutal Strike: Hamstring Blow Example
What happens when a PC can regularly reduce a monster's Speed to 0? Does that make for fun and dynamic fights? Or does it contribute to the sense of "grind" by making the fight more static / "stand there and trade blows?" Yes, that question can be answered by playtesting with 2014 monsters.

However, what if there are certain skirmisher monster that we feel shouldn't be subject to this, or should be less subject to this speed reduction? The aforementioned quickling might be an example, or maybe there are other monsters we have planned in our adventure path where this would utterly neuter the intended design of the encounter. Again we have a question of are there new sorts of "counters" we need to think about? There's no resistances/immunities to speed reduction. There's no save, so Legendary Resistances don't apply. It seems to affect fliers like dragons, so now it looks like the barbarian can knock dragons out of the sky with a thrown weapon and then utterly lock them down, and the dragon has no recourse. Is that a fun dragon fight or do we need to playtest new dragon designs with counters to effects like Hamstring Blow?

Bonus Round - does more choice in-play lead to longer player turns, and if so, should that influence how monsters are redesigned?
EDIT: This is a further downstream concern, but the trend I see in the UA class redesigns is for more choices during play... I wonder if this means greater handling time on player turns, as even just a little bit can be compounded over a session. If that's the case, does part of the monster design imperative for 2024 become designing monsters to quicken monster turns compared to handling time of 2014 monsters? That's a much more complex question, and reaches far beyond the focus of looking at Brutal Strike, but it's one that really can only be answered by playtesting.

I just wanted to comment on this. Re: exploration, I do not believe that there is a universal demand for a new exploration subsystem as much as I might like one myself. I would also see it as a optional add on. The base game can be run without it and has been for years.
I would have no issue with them putting out a UA for one asking what kind of stuff people might want such a system to offer.
My current view is that none of this was not in the 2014 PHB and likely will not be in the 2024 PHB.

As to your barbarian example and the encounter maths, this strikes me as something completely unsuitable for UA style feedback.

 

[Quickleaf]

This advice intrigues me. Can you give an example?

Example, the Goodberry spell, by providing nourishment in a wilderness, removes a hyper-focus on resource management.

When switching to a "narrative-driven approach", how does this make Exploration challenges more fun?

I normally do a narrative approach, in the sense of all player efforts first and foremost need to be plausible within the narrative scenario. If something seems obvious, the effort automatically succeeds. Rolling any dice is secondary and contingent. But what exactly are you recommending for the Exploration Pillar of the game?

Sure, happy to. I'll try to be concise as I don't want to get too off-topic. And if this is too much "noise" to the "signal" of this thread, anyone let me know and we can kick this to PMs or another thread.

Yeah, Goodberry. The 2014 version is you use a sprig of mistletoe (or a druidic focus I guess) and 1st level spell slot and "up to 10 berries appear in your hand" that last for 24 hours or until consumed. When consumed as an action, a creature regains 1 hp and gains nourishment as if they had enough food for one day.

My approach – assuming no house rules to the Goodberry spell, and assuming group is not into tracking rations – is to look for interesting complications or story beats associated with the use of Goodberry that create interesting choices. There's no hard system here, it's a more artful approach that depends on circumstances. I'll give 3 examples...

1) PCs travel through ruins haunted by malicious winged monkeys that swipe in from time to time to steal stuff or claw at their faces or spook their animals. Druid casts Goodberry, monkeys swoop in to steal some of the berries. Most haven't been eaten or squished, but the monkeys fly up into various vertical areas of the ruins, and now PCs have that 24 hour window to recover them and may need to discourage monkeys from eating or squishing them in meantime. Or they can forget about the monkeys/goodberries and go on about their quest objective....or burn another spell slot.

2) PCs exploring fey woods are warned not to eat any food offered to them by denizens of the woods, as the "faerie food" may disorient or trap them in the woods. Similarly, they're warned that hunting in these woods may attract the Wild Hunt. Each casting of Goodberry in these woods draws on wisps of faerie magic, literally pulling from the feast table of the Archfey with power in the region, so there's a saturation limit (maybe 3 berries) with incremental side effects that warp a creature making them more fey, more bonded to these woods, and harder to navigate or leave. This creates tension between relying on Goodberries (side effectS) vs. rations (resource depletion) vs. hunting (risking combat/conflict).

3) The Archdruid has been slain and a coven of hags have taken over the sacred circle of Glain Theread on the Bitter Isle. Anyone venturing to the Bitter Isle or the islets surrounding it finds regional effects of the hags' presence – for one, any spell with a mistletoe component (Pass Without Trace, Druid Grove, Goodberry, Shillelagh) now requires blood of a living sacrifice and this cannot be replaced with a druidic focus. All mistletoe trees in the region are infected with galls and their leaves curl and brown. However, if the PCs free the captured unicorn on the isle she can give PCs a lock of her mane that works around this & also empowers these four spells (e.g. a Goodberry might heal their Hit Dice worth of HP instead of 1 HP). This presents a nerf/complication (along with a moral dilemma) which can be overcome through a quest objective leading to a boost/power-up.

Edit: I'll just add that doing this in isolation - for one spell - is within reach of most GMs. However, having to track multiple spells that disrupt exploration across a party... and come up with creative interesting narratives/complications/choices around them (in a non-escalation/adversarial way)... that becomes much more taxing on the GM.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, happy to. I'll try to be concise as I don't want to get too off-topic. And if this is too much "noise" to the "signal" of this thread, anyone let me know and we can kick this to PMs or another thread.

Yeah, Goodberry. The 2014 version is you use a sprig of mistletoe (or a druidic focus I guess) and 1st level spell slot and "up to 10 berries appear in your hand" that last for 24 hours or until consumed. When consumed as an action, a creature regains 1 hp and gains nourishment as if they had enough food for one day.

My approach – assuming no house rules to the Goodberry spell, and assuming group is not into tracking rations – is to look for interesting complications or story beats associated with the use of Goodberry that create interesting choices. There's no hard system here, it's a more artful approach that depends on circumstances. I'll give 3 examples...

1) PCs travel through ruins haunted by malicious winged monkeys that swipe in from time to time to steal stuff or claw at their faces or spook their animals. Druid casts Goodberry, monkeys swoop in to steal some of the berries. Most haven't been eaten or squished, but the monkeys fly up into various vertical areas of the ruins, and now PCs have that 24 hour window to recover them and may need to discourage monkeys from eating or squishing them in meantime. Or they can forget about the monkeys/goodberries and go on about their quest objective....or burn another spell slot.

2) PCs exploring fey woods are warned not to eat any food offered to them by denizens of the woods, as the "faerie food" may disorient or trap them in the woods. Similarly, they're warned that hunting in these woods may attract the Wild Hunt. Each casting of Goodberry in these woods draws on wisps of faerie magic, literally pulling from the feast table of the Archfey with power in the region, so there's a saturation limit (maybe 3 berries) with incremental side effects that warp a creature making them more fey, more bonded to these woods, and harder to navigate or leave. This creates tension between relying on Goodberries (side effectS) vs. rations (resource depletion) vs. hunting (risking combat/conflict).

3) The Archdruid has been slain and a coven of hags have taken over the sacred circle of Glain Theread on the Bitter Isle. Anyone venturing to the Bitter Isle or the islets surrounding it finds regional effects of the hags' presence – for one, any spell with a mistletoe component (Pass Without Trace, Druid Grove, Goodberry, Shillelagh) now requires blood of a living sacrifice and this cannot be replaced with a druidic focus. All mistletoe trees in the region are infected with galls and their leaves curl and brown. However, if the PCs free the captured unicorn on the isle she can give PCs a lock of her mane that works around this & also empowers these four spells (e.g. a Goodberry might heal their Hit Dice worth of HP instead of 1 HP). This presents a nerf/complication (along with a moral dilemma) which can be overcome through a quest objective leading to a boost/power-up.

Edit: I'll just add that doing this in isolation - for one spell - is within reach of most GMs. However, having to track multiple spells that disrupt exploration across a party... and creative interesting narratives/complications/choices around them... that becomes much more taxing on the GM.

Thanks for the examples. These are great.

So the gist is, turn resource management into narrative challenges/opportunities.

Actually, this is sorta like how I handle magic items.

 

[mamba]

I think the UA8 Barbarian's Level 9: Brutal Strike is a fair example.

to me the answer is that if the Barbarian is now OP, you need to fix the Barbarian, not buff all monsters to even it out again.

That way lies madness, and no compatibility with 2014 whatsoever…

As mentioned, they are not looking for balance in the feedback, they are looking for whether we like a change or not. Balance is done internally

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@FitzTheRuke you called it: they plan to be still working on the books in May!

I feel vindicated!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am wondering about the timeline now. If the PHB is still being worked on in May, then I am not sure it can be available before September / October.

If the releases are staggered on top of that, then I don’t think they will be releasing all three core books this year (I assume PHB comes first, but even if it didn’t it would not be guaranteed)

August is possible, but September (or later) is more likely. At this point, I would bet on September (or October).

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Is the UA8 wildshape not using the PC’s HP and PB?

What else would you need for the wolf to stay usable? Spend a spell slot for scaling magical damage dice on attacks?

Rules While Transformed. While in a form, you retain your personality, memories, and ability to speak, and the following rules apply:
Game Statistics. Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the Beast, but you retain your Hit Points; Hit Dice; Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores; class features; languages; and feats. You also retain your skill and saving throw proficiencies and use your Proficiency Bonus for them, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can’t use them.

Let's say a 16th level Druid wants to willdshape into an animal that doesn't have a higher level stat block. Like a Panther. Note that it will get the following damage bonuses:
Improved Lunar Radiance: +1d10 radiant damage per strike.
Elemental Fury (Primal Strike): +2d8 elemental damage on 1 attack, 1x per round.

Panther CR 1/4
Medium Beast
Armor Class 18 (Moon Druid is 13+Wis Mod)
Hit Points: Druid HP+48 THP (Moon Druid gives THP = 3x Druid Level)
Speed: 50 ft., Climb 40 ft.
STR 14 (+2)
DEX 15 (+2)
CON 10 (+2)
INT 10 (+0) Druid's Intelligence
WIS 20 (+5) Druid's Wisdom
CHA 10 (+0) Druid's Charisma
Skills: Druid Skills plus Perception +11, Stealth +8
Proficiency Bonus: +6
Pounce. If the panther moves at least 20 feet straight toward a creature and then hits it with a claw attack on the same turn, that target must succeed on a DC 12 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. If the target is prone, the panther can make one bite attack against it as a bonus action. (Note: Where in the rules does it state that the DC increase with the PB increase?
Choose one attack per round:

• Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2) piercing or radiant damage, plus 1d10 radiant damage, +2d8 elemental damage 1x/round
• Claw. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 4 (1d4 + 2) slashing or radiant damage, , plus 1d10 radiant damage.

Even a Sabre-toothed Tiger at CR 2 skinned as a large Panther only increases the base bite damage from 1d6+2 to 1d10+5, and the base claw damage from 1d4+2 to 2d6+5. They each only get one attack per round unless the Pounce works on round 1.

Compare both to the damage to a Giant Crocodile that is CR 5:

Giant Crocodile CR 5; PB+3 base
Multiattack. The crocodile makes two attacks: one with its bite and one with its tail.

• Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 21 (3d10 + 5) piercing or radiant damage, +1d10 radiant damage, +2d8 elemental damage 1x/round, and the target is grappled (escape DC 16). Until this grapple ends, the target is restrained, and the crocodile can't bite another target. (Does the DC increase by +3 due to the +6 PB?)
• Tail. Melee Weapon Attack: +11 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target not grappled by the crocodile. Hit: 14 (2d8 + 5) bludgeoning or radiant damage, +1d10 radiant damage. If the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 16 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. (Does the DC increase by +3 due to the +6 PB?)

It's no contest.

 

[Parmandur]

Ah ok, I have no experience with Ravnica, so you may be more updated on their process than I am.

Well, lol, 2018 is a long time ago now. For Xanathar's, the last test was in June prior to release. So we could probavly something for the DMG about that laye and still see changes from input, if applicable.

 

[Quickleaf]

I just wanted to comment on this. Re: exploration, I do not believe that there is a universal demand for a new exploration subsystem as much as I might like one myself. I would also see it as a optional add on. The base game can be run without it and has been for years.
I would have no issue with them putting out a UA for one asking what kind of stuff people might want such a system to offer.
My current view is that none of this was not in the 2014 PHB and likely will not be in the 2024 PHB.

As to your barbarian example and the encounter maths, this strikes me as something completely unsuitable for UA style feedback.

Probably not, yeah. But the gist of my argument (regarding exploration) has been less about new systems, more about making their own existing exploration system actually be usable and internally consistent.

While I enjoy mentoring new GMs, I shouldn't have to say, when asked "how do I run overland travel / exploration and make it fun?", well first of all you have all these things in the spells, backgrounds, and classes working against how they say it's supposed to be run in the rules. So the first step is throwing most of that stuff out and starting from scratch.

I will keep saying it. But I shouldn't have to. The rules should work with themselves.

 

[Hussar]

Probably not, yeah. But the gist of my argument (regarding exploration) has been less about new systems, more about making their own existing exploration system actually be usable and internally consistent.

While I enjoy mentoring new GMs, I shouldn't have to say, when asked "how do I run overland travel / exploration and make it fun?", well first of all you have all these things in the spells, backgrounds, and classes working against how they say it's supposed to be run in the rules. So the first step is throwing most of that stuff out and starting from scratch.

I will keep saying it. But I shouldn't have to. The rules should work with themselves.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't be giggling when I read this. But, I've just gotten dog piled so many times for saying exactly this, watching you be able to say this without so much as a whisper of pushback really amuses me. I totally agree with your point though. The exploration rules could certainly use something.