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

[Yaarel]

I mean, WotC did propose that, and it got shot down in UA.

To switch to a standardized subclass design space has many benefits, no loss, and negligible disruption.

Sometimes the fan base needs to get used to an idea.

Earlier, surveyees were uncertain how much change the 2024 edition would entail, and were panicking with emergency breaks.

Scheduling the subclass levels is a smart move, for reasons similar to scheduling feats, and I suspect the fan base is ready for it.

 

[Parmandur]

To switch to a standardized subclass design space has many benefits, no loss, and negligible disruption.

Sometimes the fan base needs to get used to an idea.

Earlier, surveyees were uncertain how much change the 2024 edition would entail, and were panicking with emergency breaks.

Scheduling the subclass levels is a smart move, for reasons similar to scheduling feats, and I suspect the fan base is ready for it.

I mean,

To switch to a standardized subclass design space has many benefits, no loss, and negligible disruption.

Sometimes the fan base needs to get used to an idea.

Earlier, surveyees were uncertain how much change the 2024 edition would entail, and were panicking with emergency breaks.

Scheduling the subclass levels is a smart move, for reasons similar to scheduling feats, and I suspect the fan base is ready for it.

I mean, I think it would work find and has some advantages...but the actual playtest of hundreds of thousands of players wasn't open to it: I doubt they will have changed by now. Maybe in 2034.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean, I think it would work find and has some advantages...but the actual playtest of hundreds of thousands of players wasn't open to it: I doubt they will have changed by now. Maybe in 2034.

Do you remember exactly how the survey for subclass levels was worded? And what percentage the response had for that wording?

One of the criticisms from this thread is: the playtests sometimes presented a good idea in a problematic way. Then the survey for it had no way for responders to both like the idea and also seek improvement of its presentation.

 

[Greg K]

no loss

I might agree if classes received their subclass at first level.

 

[tetrasodium]

Do you remember exactly how the survey for subclass levels was worded? And what percentage the response had for that wording?

One of the criticisms from this thread is: the playtests sometimes presented a good idea in a problematic way. Then the survey for it had no way for responders to both like the idea and also seek improvement of its presentation.

I think you could be talking about a few different things but.... It never got polled. I remember not even realizing that they standardized subclass feature levels across the bas classes until Crawford noted that they were going to moving away from that because it didn't inspire joy or something.

Again it it appeared to be entirely the result of backwards compatibility outrage from folks who never went through an edition change and were treating it like binary compatibility

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Again it it appeared to be entirely the result of backwards compatibility outrage from folks who never went through an edition change and were treating it like binary compatibility

My opinion on the "backwards compatibility" is it was to drag users from 5e to 5.5 far more than it was to cater to new users afraid of an edition change.

It is like they were trying to guarantee a certain level of sales to keep management and investors happy rather than putting the work in to make a great product.

I do feel user surveys are a poor way to judge what most customers actually want changed in D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

I might agree if classes received their subclass at first level.

Certain subclass concepts assume having exhibit the subclass while young. I am satisfied how it is possible to use the background feat to represent this precociousness when necessary. For example, some High Elves grew up in a culture that trained them since children, to fight with magic spells, sword and bow. So the Fighter Eldritch Knight that represents this concept should have access to spells by level 1. Potentially there can be background feat, such as a fighting style with a spell, that suggests this Elf Eldritch Knight upbringing. Similarly, a Sorcerer who happens to know who the patron is, such as a pact that runs thru family, would also choose a background feat to suggest the patron.

A way to look at it is, the character selects the subclass specialization during the "level zero" background, because of a personal talent or affinity. Afterward the level 1 features are a more rounded education in the basics.

The early start often isnt necessary for a subclass concept, but sometimes it matters. When it does, the background feat can step in to help actualize the concept mechanically.

 

[tetrasodium]

My opinion on the "backwards compatibility" is it was to drag users from 5e to 5.5 far more than it was to cater to new users afraid of an edition change.

It is like they were trying to guarantee a certain level of sales to keep management and investors happy rather than putting the work in to make a great product.

I do feel user surveys are a poor way to judge what most customers actually want changed in D&D.

Could be true, but it was never polled & the complaints posted took the form of what I described

 

[James Gasik]

The more I deal with 5e, the less I like subclasses. Once upon a time you could just start play as an Assassin, or a Samurai, or a Berserker. Either through a separate 1-20 class or a Kit a 1st level character could take. Oh man, to be a Swashbuckler, I have to go to Rogue school for 2 levels, gaining the same abilities as the Assassin and the Arcane Trickster or a Mastermind?

Some subclasses radically alter the way you play a class, and others...don't really feel like you get much. You lose so much because WotC is terrified to make new character classes? It's especially bad when, at the levels most people end up playing at, you might only get those 3rd level abilities.

I mean, ok, fine, you could make the argument it's hard to balance new classes. But if balance between classes was important to most people, we'd still be playing 4e. And there's enough complaints about the way the game is balanced already for me to say, eff it, let's see Ninja and Cavaliers and Psionicists and Gladiators again!

Give people a reason to switch to your new books, WotC! So far? I'm not seeing much that you couldn't have shoved into errata or a "Somebody's Guide to Some New Stuff".

 

[Yaarel]

I think you could be talking about a few different things but.... It never got polled. I remember not even realizing that they standardized subclass feature levels across the bas classes until Crawford noted that they were going to moving away from that because it didn't inspire joy or something.

That is my memory too.

Looking back at the 2023 UA Playtest 6 that describes the future Bard class, it is "missing" the subclass level 10. I dont think the UAs ever offered a playtest for subclass standardization − at least not explicitly for the Bard class which needs it.