D&D 5E 6 months without a UA

[Marandahir]

The Elemental Evil guide was not playtested, and SCAG had several elements that were not playtested in advance, as did Wildemount. And it could be that the limited tests for MotM provided enough data to make the case for it. Also, MOTM might itself be the test, to see how it is received as a variant, before the reiterate core rules changes based on feedback.

Elemental Evil and SCAG are both books that WotC has sort-of admitted as mistakes to license out to Green Ronin, built on the idea that they were so busy with 5e rollout (to the point that they delayed the DMG) that they needed more hands on deck. Elemental Evil Player Companion was SUPPOSED to be a hardcover book originally, with the idea of a player book and an adventure module for each AL Season, but there wasn't enough good of substance there, and WotC cancelled the hardcover and turned it into a free to download (and cheap to POD) pdf instead. And after SCAG, they dropped the Green Ronin deal altogether.

And then, notably, while the lineages and spells of Elemental Evil got picked up later on, very few elements from SCAG have been rescued from the scrap pile: Bladesinger took years to be rescued and it was overhauled for Tasha's. Sun Soul, Swashbuckler, Mastermind, and Storm Sorcery made it into Xanathar's, and Duergar and Deep Gnomes have appeared here and there, but Path of the Battlerager, Oath of the Crown, Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight, Way of the Long Death, Ghostwise Halfling, Half-elf variants, and Tiefling variants have all been abandoned. Worse off is The Undying Patron for Warlocks: it's been REPLACED in terms of narrative function by The Undead Patron in Van Richten's Guide. They never would have created two such similarly conceptual Otherworldly Patrons for Warlocks if they didn't intend to leave the (admittedly underwhelming) Undying Patron in the dust.

 

[JEB]

The Elemental Evil guide was not playtested, and SCAG had several elements that were not playtested in advance, as did Wildemount.

Building on @Marandahir's comments: Elemental Evil, SCAG, Acquisitions Inc, and Wildemount were all produced in conjunction with third parties. (Respectively: Sasquatch Game Studio, Green Ronin, Penny Arcade, and Critical Role.) So they fall under the "special situations" caveat.

However, I will note that Volo's Guide to Monsters was entirely first-party, and also wasn't publicly playtested. So they didn't start off continuing the D&D Next pattern, that's true.

Xanathar's, however, was publicly playtested, and that trend continued (to varying degrees) through Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, Ravnica, Eberron, Tasha's, Theros, Van Richten's, and Fizban's. New rules from Saltmarsh, the Essentials Kit, and Witchlight were also publicly playtested.

Public playtesting of player options, and other significant rules additions, has been the stance for most of 5E's lifespan since Volo's. Until MOTM.

Also, MOTM might itself be the test, to see how it is received as a variant, before the reiterate core rules changes based on feedback.

Maybe. Though their promotional videos etc. didn't present any of the MOTM material as a variant, but rather the new way of things. I think it's more likely MOTM is a statement of design intent rather than a paid playtest.

That said, I suppose we could see things take a different path if they get very strong pushback on MOTM. (After all, we did get alignment back after its removal, so anything's possible.)

EDIT: Also, releasing books as paid playtests, rather than relying on UA and public playtests, would still be a significant shift from most of 5E's lifespan.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, my point was that they have shifted and been flexible in their approach: it hasn't all been the same way throughout.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

That's probably it. They have a design spec for this and are working on it. I wonder if that means that mechanically they have a vision and are going ahead with it and don't want to deviate. If so, it highlights a real conundrum -- changing course mid-stream is dangerous for any project, yet at the same time if there's that much lead time (2024!), then the people whom you are hoping to please might actually change what they hope to see.

Every quarter is like a year, so much can change when it comes to who makes up the market and what they want, so 2024 may as well be 8-12 years away.

From that perspective it doesn't sound like a good idea to have super definite ideas about and be planning for something "8 years" away, essentially.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

D&D: 'One WotC Digital Feature A Year' Starting In 2023

Wizards of the Coast quarterly earnings call revealed big plans for the future of D&D video games starting in 2023. Earlier this week WotC made waves as the first billion-dollar tabletop publisher. But in the Quarterly Earnings Call, incoming CEO of Hasbro and former WotC President Chris Cocks...

www.belloflostsouls.net

My suspects are now WotC want to focus on the digital market, the videogames, and if someone will be launched in 2023 then the official annoucements will be comingsoon.

But Spelljammer+Planescape (maybe a fusion of both?) the next titles will not add a lot of "crunch" (players' options). Some module/adventure and a sourcebook about lore/background/"fluff". WotC has to have noticed the UA was practically teasers of the future sourcebooks focused into "crunch".

Any idea? A new book about a mash-up version of Hyrule (Legend of Zelda) adapted into D&D. Here the market goal wouldn't be the D&D players really but the Nintendo fandom. Or maybe a new setting based in some Capcom franchise.

 

[Marandahir]

Building on @Marandahir's comments: Elemental Evil, SCAG, Acquisitions Inc, and Wildemount were all produced in conjunction with third parties. (Respectively: Sasquatch Game Studio, Green Ronin, Penny Arcade, and Critical Role.) So they fall under the "special situations" caveat.

However, I will note that Volo's Guide to Monsters was entirely first-party, and also wasn't publicly playtested. So they didn't start off continuing the D&D Next pattern, that's true.

Xanathar's, however, was publicly playtested, and that trend continued (to varying degrees) through Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, Ravnica, Eberron, Tasha's, Theros, Van Richten's, and Fizban's. New rules from Saltmarsh, the Essentials Kit, and Witchlight were also publicly playtested.

Public playtesting of player options, and other significant rules additions, has been the stance for most of 5E's lifespan since Volo's. Until MOTM.


Maybe. Though their promotional videos etc. didn't present any of the MOTM material as a variant, but rather the new way of things. I think it's more likely MOTM is a statement of design intent rather than a paid playtest.

That said, I suppose we could see things take a different path if they get very strong pushback on MOTM. (After all, we did get alignment back after its removal, so anything's possible.)

EDIT: Also, releasing books as paid playtests, rather than relying on UA and public playtests, would still be a significant shift from most of 5E's lifespan.

Yeah sorry, I conflated Sasquatch Game Studio and Green Ronin in my above post; my bad and apologies to everyone involved!

Regarding Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse, several lineage options were, in fact, playtested:

1. Fairy
2. Harengon
3. Hobgoblin
4. Kobold

From there, we can assume that positive responses to Hobgoblin may have informed their decisions re: Goblin and Bugbear, as well as likely re: Changeling (another lineage in folklore that is considered a faerie being but hadn't previously been classified as Fey or of Fey Ancestry in 5e).

 

[Undrave]

and SCAG had several elements that were not playtested in advance

and it shows

 

[JEB]

From there, we can assume that positive responses to Hobgoblin may have informed their decisions re: Goblin and Bugbear, as well as likely re: Changeling (another lineage in folklore that is considered a faerie being but hadn't previously been classified as Fey or of Fey Ancestry in 5e).

Possible, but an interesting choice, considering the bugbear was more significantly overhauled in terms of mechanics than the goblin or hobgoblin (with that new squeezing-into-small-spaces ability).

 

[Marandahir]

Possible, but an interesting choice, considering the bugbear was more significantly overhauled in terms of mechanics than the goblin or hobgoblin (with that new squeezing-into-small-spaces ability).

It's usually not about the specific mechanics with lineage playtests in UA, and more about "is this flavour on target?"

They have internal playtesters to let them know if the mechanics are working right. What they needed to gleam from the larger community is if people were on-board with Goblinoids becoming fey. The answer seemed to be an emphatic yes.

 

[vecna00]

I had assumed we would get a new UA back in January, as we had the last 2 years. It wasn't mandatory that they do so, just the assumption that I had.

My guess is that we'll get the adventure in September as usual, and the first classic setting being either October or November. If that first one is indeed Spelljammer (still a chance it won't be, albeit a small one), then it may very well not have any new subclasses. It doesn't necessarily need them, but would be nice. If there will be something, we should see it by June or July.

If we're still getting the second classic setting this year, that'll be November or December. We should be seeing any UA for that any day now if they have something to test.

I believe that they'll continue doing UA's for new races and subclasses, but they won't do any for changes unless those changes are significant overhauls.