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

[mamba]

If anything, I would wager that viewpoint is underrepresented on boards like this.

I think it is generally overrepresented, there are constantly new players coming in who could not care less, in 2 years compatibility will not mean much

 

[Umbran]

I think it is generally overrepresented, there are constantly new players coming in who could not care less, in 2 years compatibility will not mean much

In a couple of years, nobody playing the game at that time will care much.

But who is playing (and how many are playing) in two years may be rather strongly dependent on who continues playing through this transition period.

 

[mamba]

In a couple of years, nobody playing the game at that time will care much.

But who is playing (and how many are playing) in two years may be rather strongly dependent on who continues playing through this transition period.

I doubt it. I am not saying make a 6e that is as different as 4e was, I am saying they could have made a few more changes to the classes / subclasses that require a bit more adjustment for existing subclasses to work with them.

Well, they did what they did, too late to change direction now

 

[Remathilis]

It always was silly, and as with a great many things, WotC blindly chasing arbitrary percentages in badly-constructed surveys is not nearly the effective design principle people think it is.

It's a catch 22. If WotC didn't playtest changes, people would riot how the community has no say. When they do playtest, people complained about the community has too much sway. I'm still salty about how much the community rejected template wild shape and embraced nonsensical pact magic, but I'm not surprised considering how little really got changed in the update. I'm just proud WotC stuck to its guns on fixing twinned spell and paladin smite.

 

[mamba]

It's a catch 22. If WotC didn't playtest changes, people would riot how the community has no say. When they do playtest, people complained about the community has too much sway.

the problem is more that the surveys do not produce very meaningful results for WotC to go by. If I give it a mediocre rating because I like the direction but think the implementation needs work and WotC does instead throw it out because it got a mediocre rating, then I did not get my message across accurately.

The polls help WotC to avoid total duds, I don’t think they help with improving the game itself.

 

[Horwath]

I'm just proud WotC stuck to its guns on fixing twinned spell and paladin smite.

twin spell was the only thing that sorcerer could have said, In this thing, I'm better than a wizard. so new twin spell is fail IMHO.


paladin smite was over correction.

smite was never the problem.

the fighter2/Gloomstalker3/Assassin3/paladin2, +10 levels of your choice to get extra attack and more spell slots was the problem.

all the smite needed is: ONCE on YOUR turn you can use smite. That is it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Backwards compatibility was always about marketing, about presenting 5.5 as the "same game" as 5e.

So the survey responses never mattered for this issue either way, as it was one of the core requirements for One D&D before the project even started.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a catch 22. If WotC didn't playtest changes, people would riot how the community has no say. When they do playtest, people complained about the community has too much sway. I'm still salty about how much the community rejected template wild shape and embraced nonsensical pact magic, but I'm not surprised considering how little really got changed in the update. I'm just proud WotC stuck to its guns on fixing twinned spell and paladin smite.

Which is funny. Because from my perspective, "fixing" Smite by making it a spell was just another example of their stupid choice to spell-ify as many class features as they can get away with, and Warlocks having their unique approach to magic is one of the only actually interesting design elements of the entire system, making the half-assed "solution" to the problem not a good thing, but better than stripping the class of half or more of its identity. Pact Magic isn't nonsensical, it just suffers because the game's intent and its incentives point in opposite directions, and the designers stubbornly refuse to reconsider some of the stupider choices they made early on which cause this perverse incentive problem.

E.g. I don't mind short rests being longer than they were in 4e, but for God's sake a whole bloody hour is too damn long. I don't mind magic being potent, but it's so stupidly potent that not taking a long rest every single time you get the chance is practically suicide. (Assuming, of course, that you have at least one full caster in the party...which you basically always should in order to have decent healing without needing to chug potions.) Making HP and damage be the sole support structure for effectively all advancement turned combats into dull slogs against mountains of HP. 1st level is caught between trying to serve newbies who need a gentle introduction and OSR fans who want a brutal one, and ends up actually serving neither in any particular capacity. Etc. None of these were even remotely changed with 5.5e.

 

[Yaarel]

@mellored, @Corinnguard

Regarding feat chains, I prefer to avoid them. On the other hand, a sequence of class-like feats that are gated by specific levels would be fine. Then one can ignore an unwanted feat, taking something else instead, and wait until higher levels to get the class-like feat that one wants.

Thus there can be a sequence, but there is no "chain" of one feat forcing an other feat as prerequisite.


The levels of a class actually are more like a "chain", because a feature at a higher level is often an upgrade of a feature at a lower level. The feature is too powerful for a single level, but as an accumulation of several levels worth feats it stays balanced. This is especially so for caster class levels, where casting a lower level spell is powerful, but doing it twice or thrice, plus spells at even higher slots would be too much for single level.

Therefore, "feats should be nice, not required" remains true. But a class level whose class feature is about the same amount of design space as a feat, represents a "chained" commitment to a series feats for the entire career of the character. One can multiclass, but then one is starting over at the low-level feats of a class.


A subclass is a significant design space. In 5e so far, it functions as an auxiliary class, mainly for the purpose of specializing. But it too is a "feat chain" commitment like a class is. But this design space, when standardizing can be used for many different kinds of commitments. One might use it for subclassing in a way that doesnt lose levels in the primary class. One might use it for "prestige class" concepts, that only require four or more levels to express the concept, and be a concept that many classes can benefit from. Also, it should be possible to "multi-subclass", switching back and forth between more than one subclass as one advances up the levels.

The subclass is already an extremely important design space. Yet it only opens up its creative utility when its levels standardize across the classes.

 

[mellored]

twin spell was the only thing that sorcerer could have said, In this thing, I'm better than a wizard. so new twin spell is fail IMHO.

Dunno.
Having advantage and being able to reroll Chromatic Orb has, at least at low levels, let the sorcerer easily out damage the wizard.

paladin smite was over correction.

smite was never the problem.

the fighter2/Gloomstalker3/Assassin3/paladin2, +10 levels of your choice to get extra attack and more spell slots was the problem.

all the smite needed is: ONCE on YOUR turn you can use smite. That is it.

Disagree. Paladin is still probably the strongest class.

Putting smite, divine favor, and lay on hands as both bonus actions seems appropriate IMO. Helps keep paladins using shields, instead of always taking polearm master.

Though really, I'd rather remove smite from paladins all together, and give it to rangers. Make one more defensive and one more offensive.

Because from my perspective, "fixing" Smite by making it a spell was just another example of their stupid choice to spell-ify as many class features as they can get away with,

I think was simply to simplify.
Spells use spell slots.


Plus all the other smites where spells alread. The ones everyone forgot exsisted.
Only the base divine smite got nerfed to be in line with the rest.