D&D (2024) 2024 PHB Feats and Misc discussion

[CleverNickName]

I mean, with the previews playtest packets coming out monthly and surveys following two weeks after, I think it’s abundantly clear that this is the case. But, I also think they have an idea what changes are most likely to be controversial, and are prepared to walk them back if the responses to them are too negative. Like, you can see in the video how much they hedge the critical hit changes and emphasize “this is JUST AN EXPERIMENT!” Because they know it’s not likely to go over well. But they’re putting it out there anyway, maybe partly as “censor bait,” and because hey, maybe folks won’t mind as much as they expect.

Yeah, that's true. My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's much easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.

They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting. Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld. But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there. But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in Xanathar's II or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, that's true. My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's much easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.

They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting. Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld. But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there. But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in Xanathar's II or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.

I don't doubt that the playtest is ALSO designed to generate hype and get people talking, but they have definitely made changes before based on UA feedback (not always for the better, mind). I think it is likely that if the "new" Dragonborn gets negative feedback, they can easily cut-and-paste the Fizban's one into the new PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.

Come to Level Up! We have a place for you.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, that's true. My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's much easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.

They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting. Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld. But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there. But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in Xanathar's II or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.

I think they have fully mapped out the maximum extent of changes they are comfortable with, and any direction will be walking back to the 2014 norm on a given point. I don't think the books are substantially done yet since D&D books have a 13 month development cycle, and these are 2 years (as much as 2.25 years) away from publication. As such, I think they have their ideas mapped out and are trying tinsel how far out they can go. I doubt they will introduce any further changes based on feedback.

They've always used Unearthed Arcana as a veto primarily. That's why we didn't get two new Classes (Mystic and Artificer) and a mass combat system in Xanathar's...even though they were largely finished and ready to go!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The other thing to keep in mind when it comes to UA, is that what WE see is often not the latest version of the rules that they're playing with. They could ALREADY have fixed a bunch of problems that we have with some element we're seeing, and all our feedback will do is show them that we agree.

I'm honestly not sure why they threw this Dragonborn in there, for example. I'm pretty sure that Fizban's is the one they plan to use going forward. This seems like an "older" draft. Might just be there to see if we're paying attention.

 

[Parmandur]

The other thing to keep in mind when it comes to UA, is that what WE see is often not the latest version of the rules that they're playing with. They could ALREADY have fixed a bunch of problems that we have with some element we're seeing, and all our feedback will do is show them that we agree.

I'm honestly not sure why they threw this Dragonborn in there, for example. I'm pretty sure that Fizban's is the one they plan to use going forward. This seems like an "older" draft. Might just be there to see if we're paying attention.

Well, it's an improvement on the 2014 iteration, and they might want to leave the Fizban's treatments as viable alternatives moving forwards.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nah, they'll just work extra-hard to convince us that we don't actually hate it. I wouldn't be surprised if 6E isn't already 90% written (or more). 2024 is only 16 months away, after all, and it takes time to put a book together. They don't have time to completely rewrite it, and scrapping it isn't really an option either...so...

While January 2024 may be that close, a mid-summer release is a lot more likely, giving us roughly two years to publication (and thus at least a full year, probably a bit more, until final printing versions are laid down.) They conducted the original playtest from early 2012 to late 2013, which changed several times before it went to print. Even with my major criticisms of how D&D Next was handled, I wouldn't say major changes were impossible then, and I don't think they're any more impossible now. It seems to me likely that a strong enough negative response would convince them to change, especially if it comes early, like this one can.

But I do grant that there is likely to be resistance to changing things unless the response IS very negative. So I plan to respond to that survey myself and I hope all dragonborn fans do so and let Wizards know that we don't want to go back to the crappy PHB version now that we've seen actually good options.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

even the 1st level feat have the "always take" and dump tier category:

Everyone will consider Alert, Tough and Lucky, maybe Magic initiate. Possibly Healer
Rest will be ignored as usual.

Skilled should be 4 skills or 2 skills and +1 ASI,
Crafter, musician, Savage attacker are joke feats.

Tavern brawler has d4 damage and reroll of 1's. Just make it d6 and stop complicating things.

I agree with Savage Attacker, but I'd not be so quick to assume all tables will have this same view. There are multiple players at our table who would LOVE to take Crafter and my wife and I both looked at Musician and said we can't wait to take this for a number of characters. The game isn't all about combat my dude.

Regarding the new rules for crits, I don't think that they can really be evaluated without reading the new classes. For example, maybe rogues compensate the nerf in some other way, but without looking at the playtest rogue, it's hard to form an opinion.

I suspect the ability to crit on sneak attack dice will be the replacement class feature for the Assassin Rogue subclass classic's current Assassinate ability. It would be on theme and fitting. And frankly, having played multiple paladins and having had multiple in my games, I for one am glad they are getting rid of smite crit fishing.

 

[Horwath]

I agree with Savage Attacker, but I'd not be so quick to assume all tables will have this same view. There are multiple players at our table who would LOVE to take Crafter and my wife and I both looked at Musician and said we can't wait to take this for a number of characters. The game isn't all about combat my dude.

I know it is not only combat, but maybe combat and non-combat feats should be at separate counter?

My current sorcerer has Telekinetic feat, for which I say that it is best designed feat of 5E, but for combat I would be far better if I took Shadow/fey touched instead.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.

Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.

Sentinel or Resilient? You needed to have taken Tough.

That would also make synergies between feats like Polearm Master and Sentinel come online way later in the game. That is one way they could do it anyway, I would prefer they simply buffed the more lackluster 1st level feats.