D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[Mistwell]

frequently there was no follow-up, it just got dropped without anyone knowing this beforehand, even though that is relevant information for the vote

No class has been just dropped. For example, they tested Druids with wildshape as templates, and dropped the template for real animals. I guarantee they're receiving higher approval on the actual animals version. That's how all of these things have gone - it's not done in isolation, a new version is tested against a different new version and the one with the higher approval is the one that goes forward. You've been arguing for a less democratic process where the lower percentage approval versions should go forward because you personally preferred them.

 

[Mistwell]

That doesnt change anything in my post. Idgaf if 10 to 20 represents 4000 or 400000, its still either not a majority or just barely one. Stop pretending like the supermajority of opinions decided on rollbacks.

It's not a "decision on rollbacks" and that's the nonsense I am pushing back on. It's two different choices, not a vote on just one. Version A gets 60%, and Version B gets 80%, and you're claiming a minority killed version A when that's not at all what happened. An overwhelming majority liked Version B, including the people who liked Version A, and that is better than going with the smaller number on A. You're trying to pretend you just take the difference between the number who liked Version B and subtract the number who liked Version A and that's total nonsense. Those people ALSO liked version B, obviously, or it couldn't get 80%.

 

[Shardstone]

An objectively better methodology would be:

1. Releasing all 3 classes in a class group at once.
2. Releasing a playtest scenario designed for both 2014 and 2024.
3. Detailed questions asking specifically about new ideas, and aspects of new ideas.
4. Keep working on anything getting 50% of satisfaction or higher instead of rolling back.
5. Not saving the biggest projects, like Monk, for last.
6. Purposefully written in the UA articles how these mechanics might evolve in the future of the game instead of making nebulous promises.
7. Not told people to use current subclasses with new class designs because we didn't have time or smth to edit them over.
8. Released full survey results each time since transparency is what they champion, instead of half-assing it and hiding numbers.

I filled out surveys. I never got to give an opinion on shared spell lists or subclass progression. It was on spellcasting and on the rogue's level 10 feature. I honestly feel like the survey was released gimped because they wanted to manipulate data to do nothing. I don't think this is true, I think they just made really bad surveys, but it's so bad it feels malicious

 

[Remathilis]

Not really. As you note exceptions about and as I noted, keeping smite an exception is about as complex as tracking 1+1 and 1+2. It's not anywhere near complex enough to need to make the change based on complexity.

There's no good reason to make the change and make base paladin smite vulnerable to counterspell.

WotC's design paradigm appears to be a Bakers Dozen: several things that use the same mechanism and ONE version that doesn't.

All the smite effects in the game are spells EXCEPT the base default one.
All the effects* that involve stat blocks use a template EXCEPT for druid wild shape.
All the casters in the game use tiered spell slots EXCEPT for the warlock.

I think it's fair and reasonable to assume people would like more consistency across design rather than "usually x, but occasionally y."

* all pets, summons and familiars since Xanathar have used unique stat-blocks rather than shopping for CR appropriate monsters in the MM. That was evident up to the test UA where Find Familiar and Warlock familiar were stat blocks. Of course, Gods know what the feedback on that is and we may find ourselves shopping out of the MM again for summoning and familiars...

 

[Shardstone]

It's not a "decision on rollbacks" and that's the nonsense I am pushing back on. It's two different choices, not a vote on just one. Version A gets 60%, and Version B gets 80%, and you're claiming a minority killed version A when that's not at all what happened. An overwhelming majority liked Version B, including the people who liked Version A, and that is better than going with the smaller number on A. You're trying to pretend you just take the difference between the number who liked Version B and subtract the number who liked Version A and that's total nonsense. Those people ALSO liked version B, obviously, or it couldn't get 80%.

60% vs 80% means a minority literally killed it.

Furthermore, Version B is a final draft vs Version A which is a first draft. At best, a third draft. You go through MANY drafts in game designing, which I know, given I've been doing design and consultation work now for years.

If 60% likes Version A, that means it has promise to get more people interested than Version B. Furthermore, you have to break down WHY people like Version B more than Version A, because the number alone isn't good enough to make a decision off of.

Please, Mist, stop defending this clearly trash methodology. Wizards played it safe, like they always do. Yeah, that's smart for a corporation, but that's not why me and others are upset. We didn't want safe, we wanted an EVOLUTION, a progression of the idea that is D&D. This is technically that, but it's so small so as to leave me and many others satisfied. That's ok. You don't need to tell us our feelings are wrong, because it isn't about you. It is ok for people to be upset with the narrow vision of the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

We can find post after post after post of people who are happy wildshape templates are gone, and ones who are sad they are gone. How many of those people would switch sides if they gave us a different set of wildshape templates? We have no idea. Maybe templates would have gone through then, sure. But then what? All the people who STILL didn't like templates and who now saw them being incorporated would say the process was flawed-- because they didn't get what they want.

And what about if WotC HAD given us a much more in-depth wildshape template system-- and it STILL came up that less than 70% of the players liked or tolerated it? What then? Was the survey flawed EVEN THEN? Would WotC have to then produce another full and complete 1-20 level wildshape template system for us to "test" so that they could finally get an "accurate" reading of what people REALLY felt?

Well guess what... even if they iterated on the design that third time, those that didn't get their way would still claim the system was messed up and the process was flawed.

WotC can't win with any of you people. So they don't try to win... they let all of us battle it out amongst ourselves. And if it turns out 25,000 other people just don't like that thing you do-- in whatever form or format it was presented to us-- that's just too bad for you. And you can complain about that... but those complaints aren't going to change anything.

Selective quoting is a thing, selective reading is not reasonable either. I mentioned that there were people who felt the other way and there is no reason to bring them up for discussion because they too were blind and in the dark about what wotc was trying to test and needed to rely on guesses.

it's impossible to even guess how many or what fraction of participants may have voted differently had they been better informed. What is possible to know with certainty is that excluding wotc folks and those with direct private knowledge from them (ie players at their private games, staff armed with water cooler/break room revelations)100% of participants were blind and in the dark about what they were voting for or against.

 

[mamba]

No class has been just dropped. For example, they tested Druids with wildshape as templates, and dropped the template for real animals. I guarantee they're receiving higher approval on the actual animals version.

I did not talk about classes being dropped, I talked about things they proposed in the playtest. Of course they do not throw out classes altogether…

I have not seen any results for the current test with animals. I do not even care whether they perform better than pretty awful templates. The point was that they should have iterated on templates, and if that does not get you over the finish line, try animals instead. Heck, try both at the same time for different subclasses, or call them Druid 1 vs Druid 2. I would expect the testers to not get confused by that.

The worst thing you can do is to just drop it, and to do so without anyone filling out the survey knowing that this will be the consequence of a low score (I am talking >40% or so here, not >20).

How many people voted a 3 because they liked templates but thought these ones needed work? We will never know, but none of them will be happy with them being thrown out instead. If they had known this would be the result, chances are they would have voted 4 instead, to see an iteration, just like they expected they would get.

We do not really know what we are voting for (as in what happens because of the result) and WotC does not really know how to interpret our votes accurately. That is a great combination…

 

[Umbran]

I have no way of knowing your honesty or lack thereof.

Ive lost so much respect for you.

Mod Note:
Both of you are making this personal.
Both of you are done in this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC's design paradigm appears to be a Bakers Dozen: several things that use the same mechanism and ONE version that doesn't.

All the smite effects in the game are spells EXCEPT the base default one.
All the effects* that involve stat blocks use a template EXCEPT for druid wild shape.
All the casters in the game use tiered spell slots EXCEPT for the warlock.

I think it's fair and reasonable to assume people would like more consistency across design rather than "usually x, but occasionally y."

* all pets, summons and familiars since Xanathar have used unique stat-blocks rather than shopping for CR appropriate monsters in the MM. That was evident up to the test UA where Find Familiar and Warlock familiar were stat blocks. Of course, Gods know what the feedback on that is and we may find ourselves shopping out of the MM again for summoning and familiars...

D&D has been an exception based game from the start and that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game. While you say that it's fair and reasonable to assume that people want more consistency, it's also fair and reasonable to assume that people don't want the game to become more cookie cutter. We see outcry from people every time they make a move like this to make the game more cookie cutter.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D has been an exception based game from the start and that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game. While you say that it's fair and reasonable to assume that people want more consistency, it's also fair and reasonable to assume that people don't want the game to become more cookie cutter. We see outcry from people every time they make a move like this to make the game more cookie cutter.

The problem is that it makes design logic "lol idk". It's why the monster math is so different from the MM and the DMG guidelines, or why there are clearly best in slot spells. I don't want a perfectly balanced system like 4e, but I want all the damn smite abilities to work the same.