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

[Quickleaf]

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.

I know. I know you've been dog-piled, Hussar. Trust me, it's happened to me in other forums (Reddit, Discord), and I continue to be mystified by that pushback. Keep fighting the good fight.

Edit: It's early too, who knows, plenty of time for me to get dog-piled yet.

 

[Mistwell]

Goodberries healing should only be applicable once per day. This does not directly deal with the food issue, but indirectly it would help. Far fewer Characters would have or prepare Goodberry as a spell if you reduced the 10 healing effect it delivers. And I would be completely fine with those who take it to feed people. Yes, it reduces the hunter/gatherer aspect of exploration if you have a Druid along. And it should - that's well in the area of specialization for the druid theme.

 

[Quickleaf]

Goodberries healing should only be applicable once per day. This does not directly deal with the food issue, but indirectly it would help. Far fewer Characters would have or prepare Goodberry as a spell if you reduced the 10 healing effect it delivers. And I would be completely fine with those who take it to feed people. Yes, it reduces the hunter/gatherer aspect of exploration if you have a Druid along. And it should - that's well in the area of specialization for the druid theme.

Yeah, the GM has lots of options here to make travel meaningful!

Like killing the Druid first.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

Heh!, no arguments from me but this is partly a problem as old as the game. Matt Colville has a video where he talks about how once upon a time D&D exploration was a survival horror logistics game where meticulous tracking of inventory was essential. from the beginning there were players not interested in that game and all those spells and magic items that negate inventory management or survival challenges date from that time period and DMs willing to indulge those players or not interested in an inventory led survival themselves.

It is my belief that the majority do not track inventory in detail but that any attempt to remove it would cause the internet to explode.
I am also concerned that there would not be a concensus as to any given replacement. It would be psionics all over again with different approached having their partizans that would not accept the other approach and the whole effort would stall out due to not making the 70% cut.
It might be best to leave this to third parties and see if any particular approach becomes popular.

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.

Agreed but this will, I think, always a problem as to great extent D&D is a prisoner of its past.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

You've gotten dogpiled on for saying that the existing 2014 Exploration rules (and the whole pillar, really) are half-baked at best? I'm surprised. I would have thought that it was self-evident. Not that something being obviously true and correct ever stops people from jumping on a good dogpile...

 

[Quickleaf]

Heh!, no arguments from me but this is partly a problem as old as the game. Matt Colville has a video where he talks about how once upon a time D&D exploration was a survival horror logistics game where meticulous tracking of inventory was essential. from the beginning there were players not interested in that game and all those spells and magic items that negate inventory management or survival challenges date from that time period and DMs willing to indulge those players or not interested in an inventory led survival themselves.

It is my belief that the majority do not track inventory in detail but that any attempt to remove it would cause the internet to explode.
I am also concerned that there would not be a concensus as to any given replacement. It would be psionics all over again with different approached having their partizans that would not accept the other approach and the whole effort would stall out due to not making the 70% cut.
It might be best to leave this to third parties and see if any particular approach becomes popular.

Agreed but this will, I think, always a problem as to great extent D&D is a prisoner of its past.

Right, it's about learning from the past and applying those lessons to the game's core principles adapted for modern audiences.

My answer to Yaarel earlier is one example of an approach that could meet the narrative interests of modern audiences (at least that seems to be the commonly accepted wisdom) & fulfill the hunger for making exploration fun (without cleaving to the old logistics way).

It's one of the reasons I appreciated them (WotC) releasing the Bastion system UA playtest, because it was a big design move that filled a need & opened up a new way to play that folks immersed in the 5e-osphere might not have encountered before, but wanted to experience.

 

[CommodoreKong]

It's around the 10:00 mark


"We are also doing tons of internal playtesting on the revised monsters.... along with the new encounter building approach.... You and I have chatted in previous videos that we might send out that new encounter building in an Unearthed Arcana... Right now we are focused on playtesting that internally instead..."

"What we have discovered is that just us iterating on it over and over and over again is bearing amazing fruit. What I can report is that what people are going to see in the revised DMG is a much streamlined encounter building system.... where you are able to figure out your budget for monsters.... and you spend that budget...the end...it's going to be that simple of a process. I'm looking forward to us sharing that with people later this year."

Basically, there's no plan that he's sharing to playtest monsters/encounter building externally. Maybe they'll do it, maybe they won't. Sounds a little like it won't be public until the DMG, but that's trying to read tea leaves. Up till now, though, yes it has been exclusively internal. That's the important bit - what's happening functionally.

The issue there is...

(a) With all the heavy design work done for the classes... it was being done in absence of external feedback on the other half of the game – the monsters/challenges/GM-facing stuff that the classes are built against. That's a huge problem, in my eyes.

(b) Secondarily, the context of this issue is that they (WotC) have a history of botching monsters/encounter building - so it's an area that needs attention, and many many D&D fans know it needs attention. We have Mike Shea, Teos Abadia, Shawn Merwin, Mike Mearls – all commenting about these issues, and publishing resources to address them.

I remember noticing this in the very first playtest. WotC proposed a rule change where monsters couldn't crit yet didn't go into any detail on how they would change monster design if they made that change. Like would the monsters be designed to be more deadly so being able to crit would be devastating for players? If so could we get some example stat blocks to compare to monsters that currently exists?

Who knows. I doubt anyone at Wizards knew either and they were just throwing ideas at the wall to see what stuck.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, the GM has lots of options here to make travel meaningful!

Like killing the Druid first.

I've had lots of issues to deal with during hiking travel. Food was never one. You bring food along anyway. It takes up space and weight but it's not even the primary thing taking up space and weight. I just don't see food as the key issue to travel.

Does goodberry even deliver water to your body?

 

[Quickleaf]

I've had lots of issues to deal with during hiking travel. Food was never one. You bring food along anyway. It takes up space and weight but it's not even the primary thing taking up space and weight. I just don't see food as the key issue to travel.

Does goodberry even deliver water to your body?

Sure, it's not the key issue to travel. Absolutely agree. But it is two issues in one that constrain the game. Again, it sounds like you are OK with those constraints, so take this with a grain of salt (and maybe a goodberry).

1 - For a group that does want to deal with inventory management and travel logistics, and enjoys the emergent gameplay that can arise from that, they either are SOL if a character takes Goodberry, or the GM has to ban Goodberry... well, and also the Outlander background... and maybe move Create Water to a higher level... and consider replacing/redesigning the ranger's Natural Explorer... and probably changing or banning Tiny Hut...etc etc. Well, or switching to an OSR system of course.

2 - Goodberry obviates a part of the game that druid & ranger types want to shine in. That's part of the power fantasy of those classes. It suffers similarly as the ranger's Natural Explorer, though not quite as bad since it's at least a spell you actively cast and can involve roleplaying dolling out the Goodberries. Would a fighter enjoy "Ok, you swing at the ogre and kill it. You won the combat?" Unless they're a high level fighter, probably not - the GM just robbed them of their spotlight. My opinion is that things that completely cut out elements of exploration similarly neuter the fun of druid & ranger players.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's absolutely mind boggling to me. Please, someone help me understand?

It is their job to design the game, not ours. Listening too much to advice from die hard fans does not make the game better.