D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[Chaltab]

Ok, and how does it make the game better?

I mean better is subjective, but I think it's neat. Because the capstones are a type of feature instead of a singular unique feature, they can add additional ones and give each class more options.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

What's good it do to change subclass levels?

Moving them up to level 3 was to nerf multiclassing, but why change it any further?

If the progressions were standardized you could actually do those cross-class subclasses that they attempted in the Strixhaven UA.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Part of the reason I feel they didn't spark joy is because they came out of nowhere and with little to support them. It was as if WotC didn't want to give these ideas a full chance and jumped at the chance to can them. But even then, class groups is just one of several things that got rolled back in the name of backwards compatibility.

Coming out of nowhere doesn't really mean anything. After all... Weapon Mastery and Cunning Strike both "came out of nowhere" and were accepted by the gaming populace. So it's not like some new system WotC offered up in the playtests were automatically going to be stomped out by the playerbase.

Instead... more often than not it was merely changed items that got rejected by the playerbase. Things that weren't new, but rather merely things we already had that they were just getting moved around (by categories or whatever.) And that's where a large swathe of the playerbase asked "What's the point?" I mean what was the point of grouping Classes together? What purpose did it serve that was substantially better than what we already had (for example)? To which the answer was "There really wasn't any." There was nothing substantially gained in creating Class groups or Spellcasting Power Sources to warrant going through all the effort of doing it in most player's eyes. So WotC ultimately didn't. And the fact that WotC could then make the case that it might have been (or was) connected to people's beliefs or perceptions of backwards compatibility made it easier to explain and/or justify why they have been rejected.

I mean, I hate to break it to a lot of you, but sorry folks... a lot of stuff that appeared in the playtests that you liked... the rest of us felt just wasn't very good or was pretty much pointless. And we told WotC that. I know you wanted more stuff changed, but the rest of us basically said that change merely change's sake was a waste of all of our time. And WotC heard that and listened.

 

[Parmandur]

Coming out of nowhere doesn't really mean anything. After all... Weapon Mastery and Cunning Strike both "came out of nowhere" and were accepted by the gaming populace. So it's not like some new system WotC offered up in the playtests were automatically going to be stomped out by the playerbase.

Instead... more often than not it was merely changed items that got rejected by the playerbase. Things that weren't new, but rather merely things we already had that they were just getting moved around (by categories or whatever.) And that's where a large swathe of the playerbase asked "What's the point?" I mean what was the point of grouping Classes together? What purpose did it serve that was substantially better than what we already had (for example)? To which the answer was "There really wasn't any." There was nothing substantially gained in creating Class groups or Spellcasting Power Sources to warrant going through all the effort of doing it in most player's eyes. So WotC ultimately didn't. And the fact that WotC could then make the case that it might have been (or was) connected to people's beliefs or perceptions of backwards compatibility made it easier to explain and/or justify why they have been rejected.

I mean, I hate to break it to a lot of you, but sorry folks... a lot of stuff that appeared in the playtests that you liked... the rest of us felt just wasn't very good or was pretty much pointless. And we told WotC that. I know you wanted more stuff changed, but the rest of us basically said that change merely change's sake was a waste of all of our time. And WotC heard that and listened.

I think this is right...even though I liked the Class Groups and standardized progression and think it could have offered a lot to the game, I believe this is an accurate read if the situation.

And further, that the conservative approach to development ultimately led to a product well aimed at the needs of the hobby at large.

 

[mellored]

For example, many concepts apply to more than one class.

Like Inspiring Leader, or Defensive Duelist.

The Ranger might have been a "wilderness subclass" that either Fighter or Druid or even Thief (Scout) could take.

Magic initiative (druid), fey touched.

Feats could design for specific subclass levels, to augment a class or subclass.

Feats already augment classes
Are at standard levels.
And can be taken by anyone.


I'm not saying standard subclass wouldn't work, but what does it add to make it worth changing?

And if you are going to change it, why not go further and make all subclasses feat chains?
Also get rid of ability scores/modifier (use one or the other), and make attacks a single roll instead of 2 separate rolls.

 

[Shardstone]

Coming out of nowhere doesn't really mean anything. After all... Weapon Mastery and Cunning Strike both "came out of nowhere" and were accepted by the gaming populace. So it's not like some new system WotC offered up in the playtests were automatically going to be stomped out by the playerbase.

Instead... more often than not it was merely changed items that got rejected by the playerbase. Things that weren't new, but rather merely things we already had that they were just getting moved around (by categories or whatever.) And that's where a large swathe of the playerbase asked "What's the point?" I mean what was the point of grouping Classes together? What purpose did it serve that was substantially better than what we already had (for example)? To which the answer was "There really wasn't any." There was nothing substantially gained in creating Class groups or Spellcasting Power Sources to warrant going through all the effort of doing it in most player's eyes. So WotC ultimately didn't. And the fact that WotC could then make the case that it might have been (or was) connected to people's beliefs or perceptions of backwards compatibility made it easier to explain and/or justify why they have been rejected.

I mean, I hate to break it to a lot of you, but sorry folks... a lot of stuff that appeared in the playtests that you liked... the rest of us felt just wasn't very good or was pretty much pointless. And we told WotC that. I know you wanted more stuff changed, but the rest of us basically said that change merely change's sake was a waste of all of our time. And WotC heard that and listened.

This IMO is less a failure of the rules and their potential to benefit and improve the game and more a failure of WotC adequately explaining their vision and ideas and how they foresaw things growing from there.

 

[mellored]

If the progressions were standardized you could actually do those cross-class subclasses that they attempted in the Strixhaven UA.

Or just do it as feats

Mage of Quandrix. Background feat
Quandrix Spells. At the end of a Long Rest, chose one of the following spells, you can cast it once without spending a spell slot.
(Spells)

Functions of Probably. Prerequisite Mage of Quandrix
When a creature within 30' rolls d20 Test you can roll a d4 and add or subtract it from the results. You can do this a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and regain uses after a Long Rest.

...
Etc...

 

[Yaarel]

Like Inspiring Leader, or Defensive Duelist.

Magic initiative (druid), fey touched.

Feats already augment classes
Are at standard levels.
And can be taken by anyone.


I'm not saying standard subclass wouldn't work, but what does it add to make it worth changing?

And if you are going to change it, why not go further and make all subclasses feat chains?
Also get rid of ability scores/modifier (use one or the other), and make attacks a single roll instead of 2 separate rolls.

Feats should be nice, not required.

Something feels more like a subclass, when it is an augmentation that requires several levels to accomplish, or is specific to a certain class or subclass. There should have been a standard subclass design space.

 

[mellored]

Feats should be nice, not required.

So why are Subclasses required?

Something feels more like a subclass, when it is an augmentation that requires several levels to accomplish, or is specific to a certain class or subclass. There should have been a standard subclass design space.

Feat chains take several levels to accomplish
Are at standard levels.
And are available to every class.

Can't say I see what difference it makes what you call them.

 

[Yaarel]

So why are Subclasses required?

Subclasses are a significant design space that all classes have.

Every 2024 class offers four subclasses, to emphasize the versatility of this choice.

It helps the game to standardize this impactful design space. It helps content creators offer more interesting and more efficient options.

Feat chains take several levels to accomplish
Are at standard levels.
And are available to every class.

If I recall correctly, "feat chains" dont exist in 5e. For good reason. Again, "feats should be nice, not required."