Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JEB" data-source="post: 8561587" data-attributes="member: 10148">Building on [USER=6803643]@Marandahir[/USER]'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.</blockquote>

Verification