D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[ECMO3]

Conversely? There are certain mistakes that can be made which do look like a lack of effortful pursuit of solutions. Completely 100% canning the original playtest versions of the Sorcerer and Warlock, for example, rather than giving even one single try to improve them, looks like laziness--especially when you contrast it with the, what, four or five attempts each to make both Proficiency Dice and Specialties work and stick around? If you aren't willing to give one idea even a single fix-up attempt, whereas other ideas were given effort after effort after effort while the feedback remained consistently negative, that speaks of playing favorites with design elements, of "listening" to feedback only when it supports what you already wanted to do.

I think in the case of Warlock it is because the first try was overwhelmingly negative, similar to making every mechanic a spell with Wizard. I think that is why they gave up on it. Not sure about Sorcerer.

I think the things they tried to "save" were things that were more popular .... or at least less unpopular.

I left a lot of feedback and I found they incorporated most of it, and what they didn't incorporate, they usually mitigated through a different mechanic - example: I was quite upset about Lance being made a heavy weapon because of the effect on small strength-based characters, so instead of changing the Lance to Not Heavy they changed the mechanic so small creatures could use heavy weapons.

There are things I really don't like about 2024, for example the Monk and Weapon Masteries, but I think I am in the minority of people that really don't like those things. I don't think I would say 2024 is better overall, but I do think it is generally what players said they wanted.

I will also say that among those I play with, the people that were most excited about the new edition before it was released, also seem to be those least satisfied with it. Those of us, and it is the majority, that were not looking forward to it and were worried they would "mess up a good thing" seem happier overall with 2024.

 

[Blue]

Conversely? There are certain mistakes that can be made which do look like a lack of effortful pursuit of solutions. Completely 100% canning the original playtest versions of the Sorcerer and Warlock, for example, rather than giving even one single try to improve them, looks like laziness--especially when you contrast it with the, what, four or five attempts each to make both Proficiency Dice and Specialties work and stick around? If you aren't willing to give one idea even a single fix-up attempt, whereas other ideas were given effort after effort after effort while the feedback remained consistently negative, that speaks of playing favorites with design elements, of "listening" to feedback only when it supports what you already wanted to do. I would, genuinely, consider that a form of design laziness: claiming to actually be soliciting real feedback, which you will respond to and try to address, while actually proceeding more or less how you wanted when you really like an idea, and not even bothering to respond when you weren't that committed.

I admit that the D&D Next playtests were long enough ago that I don't have a clear memory. But I wonder if they were following the same methodology they did with UAs after 5e came out, which was that there was a threshold of feedback approval needed for "let's improve this" vs. "let's replace this".

If that's the case (and as mentioned, it was so long ago that I don't know if they had that methodology in place), then not reworking the original sorcerers or warlocks could have been a fan choice about how the designers should spend their time.

 

[Charlaquin]

Point of order: the 5e warlock is incredibly similar to the D&D Next playtest warlock. They changed the name of “minor boons” to invocations and got rid of the pure-flavor drawbacks that came attached to them, they changed “lesser boons” to spell slots that work differently than everyone else’s spell slots, and they made ritual casting a feature of a specific pact boon instead of a base class mechanic. But, the basic functions of all of the features are mostly as they were in the original playtest.

 

[Arnie_Wan_Kenobi]

I used to get really stuck on names, then I started using Virtue names and transliterated Arabic words and now it is pretty easy for me to generate a name.

I do this with the culture/s that loosely inspire the character concept.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We--and I very specifically mean "I" as part of that we--certainly should give the designers more grace than we--I--do.

Conversely? There are certain mistakes that can be made which do look like a lack of effortful pursuit of solutions. Completely 100% canning the original playtest versions of the Sorcerer and Warlock, for example, rather than giving even one single try to improve them, looks like laziness--especially when you contrast it with the, what, four or five attempts each to make both Proficiency Dice and Specialties work and stick around? If you aren't willing to give one idea even a single fix-up attempt, whereas other ideas were given effort after effort after effort while the feedback remained consistently negative, that speaks of playing favorites with design elements, of "listening" to feedback only when it supports what you already wanted to do. I would, genuinely, consider that a form of design laziness: claiming to actually be soliciting real feedback, which you will respond to and try to address, while actually proceeding more or less how you wanted when you really like an idea, and not even bothering to respond when you weren't that committed.

Now, of course, I'm aware that these are issues I personally had strong feelings about, all three of them. That too probably colors my perception of the situation. But I don't see anything wrong with calling out flaws like inconsistency and playing favorites--and summing those things up as "design laziness" seems a reasonably pithy way to say it.

I agree with many things of this post. I however think that designers are allowed to have favourite things and are allowed to try and make them liked by the crowd.

At some point one needs to make decisions on what to iterate and what not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A pattern of 2?

Yes! It was, if I recall, two out of two (or perhaps three) at that point.

It doesn't matter, I don't have a horse in this race; I just saw his statement and went to check. It would be great if people could discuss without resorting to hyperbole.

Agreed. I seem to have done it myself, but "lazy" is itself hyperbole - I don't think anyone who worked on it is likely to agree that they were lazy. Time-strapped? Under staffed? That sort of thing, most probably.

As for the "lazy" discussion, @EzekielRaiden said it better than I could.

I don't really agree with him either - I mean, I think it's okay to feel like the design is lazy, which I think was what he was trying to illustrate, but to call it that is naturally incendiary, and I stand by my original statement - which wasn't to dismiss or condemn the OP, but to say that it was unfortunate that using those words would undermine his overall argument, which I believe (and said so) would otherwise have merit. (If also overly nitpicky, but I didn't have a direct problem with that).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with many things of this post. I however think that designers are allowed to have favourite things and are allowed to try and make them liked by the crowd.

At some point one needs to make decisions on what to iterate and what not.

Sure, I grant that.

That's why I drew the distinctions I drew. They clearly saw that the feedback on both Specialties and Proficiency Dice was bad. And eventually both were just dropped; the former disappeared entirely, much to the detriment of the game because they'd put all their eggs in that basket and couldn't come up with a replacement, while the latter became PB (hence why it starts at 2 instead of 1: it's an average 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, just rounded down instead of up.) The point was to call out how their preferences mattered in one case, and seemingly didn't matter in the other. That is what looks like design laziness, using the shield of "well people didn't approve of it so we got rid of it" only when it was convenient, and ignoring it pretty pointedly for extended periods when it wasn't convenient.

If they'd given even one try at making the Sorcerer work, I wouldn't call it out so. But they didn't, and that choice directly led to both of those classes being clearly underpowered compared to their peers, especially the Wizard and Druid.

Point of order: the 5e warlock is incredibly similar to the D&D Next playtest warlock. They changed the name of “minor boons” to invocations and got rid of the pure-flavor drawbacks that came attached to them, they changed “lesser boons” to spell slots that work differently than everyone else’s spell slots, and they made ritual casting a feature of a specific pact boon instead of a base class mechanic. But, the basic functions of all of the features are mostly as they were in the original playtest.

You actually had to make sacrifices for your boons previously, and the specific nature of your patron mattered for what boons you could seek. That's a significant loss IMNSHO.

Agreed. I seem to have done it myself, but "lazy" is itself hyperbole - I don't think anyone who worked on it is likely to agree that they were lazy. Time-strapped? Under staffed? That sort of thing, most probably.

They completely wasted nearly two whole years just on trying failed mechanic after failed mechanic on one class, the Fighter. If they were strapped for time and had insufficient staff, after two whole years, that begins to look like problems they knew were festering but chose not to address until it was too late. Problems that then directly hurt the expression of classes when the rubber hit the road and they could no longer dither about.

That is why I say some degree of laziness seems present here. They knew they were on a finite timetable. They knew they could not wait forever. Yet for some things they literally only tried one single time and then completely gave up for public playtest, meaning you had half-baked (sub)classes that needed fixing in 5.5e...while also having several other things they kept trying to fix despite the clear and consistent "NO" feedback, wasting precious months of public playtesting time. Simultaneously frittering away time on issue after issue that then never went anywhere in the final release, while just instantly giving up on other things and having to rush to publication because they never tested anything else.

Call it "poor time management". Call it "improper priorities". Whatever. "Design laziness" is pithy. Yes, it will always be somewhat incendiary. Sometimes words need to be forceful in order to make the point.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, I grant that.

That's why I drew the distinctions I drew. They clearly saw that the feedback on both Specialties and Proficiency Dice was bad. And eventually both were just dropped; the former disappeared entirely, much to the detriment of the game because they'd put all their eggs in that basket and couldn't come up with a replacement, while the latter became PB (hence why it starts at 2 instead of 1: it's an average 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, just rounded down instead of up.) The point was to call out how their preferences mattered in one case, and seemingly didn't matter in the other. That is what looks like design laziness, using the shield of "well people didn't approve of it so we got rid of it" only when it was convenient, and ignoring it pretty pointedly for extended periods when it wasn't convenient.

Specialities had 2 iterations. Maybe 3. And they were transformed to feats.

I am glad proficiency bonus does not start at 1. Actually I think they should have rounded up instead of down and have it start at +3 and going up to +7.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Call it "poor time management". Call it "improper priorities". Whatever. "Design laziness" is pithy. Yes, it will always be somewhat incendiary. Sometimes words need to be forceful in order to make the point.

Honestly, I agree with your last statement, regarding use of hyperbole. I personally don't think that it's wrong to overstate things for effect - I do it quite often (and often get in trouble for it, because a LOT of people don't like it, even when it is obvious what the speaker is trying to convey).

But the difference, I think, is in how directly insulting to people you're being (collective 'you') when you use something like 'lazy' to describe poor time management or poor decisions.

I read recently something where Mike Mearls admitted that he wasn't happy with the 2014 sorcerer. I don't remember the full details of what he said, but it was something along the lines of "we ran out of time [on iterating the NEXT version] so we used an updated 3.5 version of the class".

I bet there were a ton of behind-the-scenes typical BS/SNAFU reasons for why that happened, but I doubt that anyone there would agree or appreciate that the word 'lazy' had anything to do with it.

Heck, there was probably more actual malice and foolishness (or even stupidity) than there was laziness, but without knowing specific details, I don't think that it would be fair to toss those words around, either.

 

[billd91]

Agreed. I seem to have done it myself, but "lazy" is itself hyperbole - I don't think anyone who worked on it is likely to agree that they were lazy. Time-strapped? Under staffed? That sort of thing, most probably.

I think calling design "lazy" is a fairly lazy criticism. The critic is looking at something they thought needed more time and work than it got (or was able to get) and then jumping to a pejorative comment on the nature of the design - which naturally falls on the designers/developers themselves as well.
A non-pejorative way to point this out would be to say that you felt the designed needed more iterations, more work, more resources devoted to it. Calling it lazy is pretty much just being a dick.