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

[Horwath]

It's only "short selling" 5e if you think 4e was a bad game. Which I do not.

We're simply not going to agree on this. I look at 5e and see all the 4e mechanics buried into it. The skill system is lifted almost word for word from 4e. The class balancing was already done for 4e, and just recast in 5e. All they did was take 4e characters, take the most common powers, call them spells and poof, we have 5e. Two step recovery. Encounter vs daily powers. Simplifying effects and streamlining. They simply had to reword things, make sure that it was sufficiently obscured where things were coming from, and thus was created 5e.

I mean, seriously, most of the people who created 4e also created 5e. You really think they completely chucked everything they had developed for the previous five years or so and just went back to 3e, which none of them had had a hand in creating?

To me, 5e is very much 4e. 4e was, to me, not a "new way of playing" at all. It was very close to what I was already doing in 3e, simply codified. But, I know that this is a pointless discussion, so, I'll be bowing out now.

mostly agree.

HD healing: 4E healing surges but done worse.
Short rest: 4E encounter powers but done worse
At-will cantrips with scaling: 4E at-will powers but done better.
prof bonus: halved 4E +1/2 per level with +1/+2 or +3 starting. Done better in 5e.

shared resource pool for feats and ASI: original 5E idea. Worst idea in 5E by far.

class design, multiclassing and overall look: mostly 3.5e. Best part of the game

Feats(if not ASI): 2nd best part of the game. Missing 1st level feat, but fixed for 2024.
would be even better if removed from ASI and added more feat slots.

weapons and armor: mostly 3.5e, some 4E but somehow worse than both.

spells: few reworks but mostly 3.5e. better than 3.5 or 4E.

 

[Hussar]

mostly agree.

HD healing: 4E healing surges but done worse.
Short rest: 4E encounter powers but done worse
At-will cantrips with scaling: 4E at-will powers but done better.
prof bonus: halved 4E +1/2 per level with +1/+2 or +3 starting. Done better in 5e.

shared resource pool for feats and ASI: original 5E idea. Worst idea in 5E by far.

class design, multiclassing and overall look: mostly 3.5e. Best part of the game

Feats(if not ASI): 2nd best part of the game. Missing 1st level feat, but fixed for 2024.
would be even better if removed from ASI and added more feat slots.

weapons and armor: mostly 3.5e, some 4E but somehow worse than both.

spells: few reworks but mostly 3.5e. better than 3.5 or 4E.

I wouldn't disagree with most of this.

 

[mamba]

All those fixes that @CapnZapp points to that 5e made were generally already made in either late 3.5 or in 4e.

but they still break compatibility with 5e. Having three saves based on the higher of two attributes does, getting a second subclass does.

I would have preferred more consistent subclasses (starting at same level, ASIs at same level, etc) myself, but those were shot down in the playtest, like so many other good ideas

 

[mamba]

While players will definitely feel they are improvements - they also change the game enough to make using 2014 fiddly and wonky. WotC doesn't change all the details just to improve your game, but also to ensure that while they can claim 2024 remains compatible with 2014, it won't be so compatible that people actually stick with their old books.

which changes do you believe make it too incompatible to stick with 2014 or have classes of the two alongside each other?

Is there more than just potential power creep players do not want to miss out on?

 

[Hussar]

but they still break compatibility with 5e. Having three saves based on the higher of two attributes does, getting a second subclass does.

I would have preferred more consistent subclasses (starting at same level, ASIs at same level, etc) myself, but those were shot down in the playtest, as like so many other good ideas

Meh. Backwards compatibility is probably the least of my concerns to be honest. Why would I give the slightest fig that my ten year old PHB won't be completely compatible? I really don't understand this incessant need for the game to be identical to what came before. We saw changes in the game with Tasha's, we've seen it with Xanathar's and we'll see it again with 2024. I simply find myself not caring about the small stuff. Saving throws? Does anyone actually care about saving throws? Why?

 

[Yaarel]

Meh. Backwards compatibility is probably the least of my concerns to be honest. Why would I give the slightest fig that my ten year old PHB won't be completely compatible? I really don't understand this incessant need for the game to be identical to what came before. We saw changes in the game with Tasha's, we've seen it with Xanathar's and we'll see it again with 2024. I simply find myself not caring about the small stuff. Saving throws? Does anyone actually care about saving throws? Why?

I agree about the inherent evolution of the game, and Xanathars and Tashas are landmarks of progress.

I do care about balancing the Abilities with each other. If tweaking the saves can help make each Ability about equally appealing, that is fine with me.

 

[mamba]

Meh. Backwards compatibility is probably the least of my concerns to be honest.

I am with you on that, but that was the stated goal and WotC stuck to it, much more so than I considered necessary / expected

My point simply is that WotC already shackled themselves to the wall, it was not the playtest alone

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Treantmonk is right.

And this certainly does not apply only to spells.

If we wanted the new edition to make fundamental changes to classes and subclasses they should have done the same there. That is, not done a public playtest, and certainly not limit themselves to only changing stuff that gets a massive approval rating.

Like how wonky the six saves feel (even a level 20 character will have naughty word saves that make you feel like a level 1 character), how the unnecessary split between when subclasses start make it impossible to mix and match subclasses between classes, how high level play suffers from there only being one subclass choice and not two, and so on and so on...

By offering the playtest and binding themselves to its results, they have all but assured themselves that they can blame 5.5 not really fixing much on "that's what y'all wanted".

In the end the edition will have changed a myriad small details. This will not actually meaningfully improve the fundamentals of D&D 5. But it will certainly make it pleasingly (for WotC, that is) hard to stick with the 2014 edition.

Remember: the primary goal here wasn't to fix D&D. It was to rejuvenate sales.

That is probably a side benefit. But they seem ambitious to fix a few things.
They really did not want to kill off sales of a very good edition for some fumdamental changes less than 30% of people want.
You really asked the poster above not accusing you of lying without proof. So please give proof for your claims too.

That some player will be happy their barbarian can dish out 3 more damage, or whatever, is not evidence to the contrary.

In other words, very much like the approach taken with 3.5.

And more to the point, very unlike the approach taken in the years leading up to the 2014 release of 5E. An edition that really, truly, fundamentally improved the game of D&D.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This can be read as you short-selling 5E. I hope you didn't mean it that way - 5E was much more that just a rejiggering of what was already there.

Previously the elements didn't come together right. Wizards were quadratic in 3E while fighters were not. For example.

Call it "just rejiggering" all you want; it was with 5E they finally solved most of the fundamental issues of 3E without shucking out the bathwater (as 4E did) - 5E is generally very compatible with how 3E actually played, while 4E was an entirely new way of playing (of organizing encounters, of how adventures were supposed to string along encounters, and so on).

5E is a huge improvement over 3E. It is also significantly less fiddly than 3E. It definitely deserves being successful.

That doesn't mean it is perfect. There are lots of things that needs fixing, but WotC isn't ready to rock the boat.

No matter what WotC tells you, the 2024 edition doesn't even attempt to fix any of the fundamentals. Giving battlemasters a new maneuver here or giving wizards a new spell there... while welcome, it's still easy or superficial tweaks.

Where exactly did wotc wanted to tell us this? It was anniunced as an overhaul that is mostly compatible. Changing fundamentals is contrary to that goal.
They were actually willing to change some fundamentals. They have tested it in the first few playtests and found out that those changes were often rejected even if those would make 5e more aestheticially pleasing (unified subclass steucture). They were just not ready to throw compatibility to the wind.
So what exactly did wotc tell us?

Then there are some fundamental changes, lile the new graplle rules and look what happens here: some people claim it is a great nerf to martials. Or a change to wild shape, where some people here really have problems with...

it seems they now know the bounds to operate with. And that was the main goal of the playtest.

While players will definitely feel they are improvements - they also change the game enough to make using 2014 fiddly and wonky. WotC doesn't change all the details just to improve your game, but also to ensure that while they can claim 2024 remains compatible with 2014, it won't be so compatible that people actually stick with their old books.

If you say so.

In other words, exactly what 3.5 accomplished over 3.0: it changed all the details but fixed very little.

3 years vs 10 years. I think people are more willing to change little bits to make the game better as they have seen that the rules can last for a decade in that state.

 

[Yaarel]

If we wanted the new edition to make fundamental changes to classes and subclasses they should have ... not done a public playtest.

Any significant change needs player approval. Heh, even when the players are being ignorant and objectively wrong, it is then necessary to figure out how to appeal to them, in order to force a necessary change. So, there still needs to be an understanding of the player disapproval.

Like how wonky the six saves feel (even a level 20 character will have naughty word saves that make you feel like a level 1 character)

Saves are modular, and easy to fix if necessary. Example, the save is at least Proficiency minus 3. Thus even uninvested saves start to improve at the Master Tier (levels 9-12), and negative saves sooner.

how the unnecessary split between when subclasses start make it impossible to mix and match subclasses between classes,

Totally agree.

For a fix.

Where each level is worth about a Level 4 Feat, it is possible to design a subclass out of a set of feats. Then any class can take these "Prestige Feats", instead of a subclass, some classes all of them and other classes some of them. The defective classes might spend their feat level to complete the Prestige Feats.

how high level play suffers from there only being one subclass choice and not two, and so on and so on...

I hesitate on this one.

One of the difficulties of high tier play is too many options. Compare Superheroes. They have very versatile and effective powers, but not too many of them. The concept remains thematically focused and reasonably simple.

I feel high tier play becomes more fun, when it makes low tier features more powerful and useful. To accumulate lots of random ribbons feels less fun, especially at high tiers.

If the subclass is more customizable, such as selecting a feat instead of the subclass features, and there is more mix-and-match of subclasses, then this allows for customizability, while still maintaining thematic focus and simplicity.

By offering the playtest and binding themselves to its results, they have all but assured themselves that they can blame 5.5 not really fixing much on "that's what y'all wanted".

In the end the edition will have changed a myriad small details. This will not actually meaningfully improve the fundamentals of D&D 5. But it will certainly make it pleasingly (for WotC, that is) hard to stick with the 2014 edition.

Remember: the primary goal here wasn't to fix D&D. It was to rejuvenate sales.

That some player will be happy their barbarian can dish out 3 more damage, or whatever, is not evidence to the contrary.

In other words, very much like the approach taken with 3.5.

I feel the 3.5 comparison is less helpful for understanding 2024.

D&D 3.0 came out in 2000, and 3.5 only three years later. The situation differs today.

2014 came out ten years ago, and there have been significant developments since then: Xanathars, Tashas, Mordenkainen, and designs currently explored in the context of the 2024 playtest.

I personally am ready to have all of this in one place, in the core rules.

Even a mere consolidation is valuable enough for me to purchase the 2024 books.

But I also like the idea of making a level 1 feat, which showed up in several settings, be core.

I am ready for 2024. If they are also beefing up subpar spells, finetuning many other features, balancing classes better, and thinking more carefully about "race", all the better.