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

[Vaalingrade]

The playtest is not a democracy. We are just testing, commenting and advising, WotC is still firmly in charge of the game design. If a majority of players are excited about a feature, but a small minority of players identify a problem with it, and WotC agrees with that assessment, then they are correct to cut it.

'Correct' and 'within their rights' is not the same thing.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

'Correct' and 'within their rights' is not the same thing.

But in this case it's both.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But in this case it's both.

It the 'problem' is 'it makes us sad because the Wizard isn't special anymore', then no.

 

[mamba]

But in this case it's both.

actually it is still wrong, as no problem was identified, some just did not like the change.

Cannot really argue that it is not in WotC’s right, but it still invalidates the playtest. This is how you get things with <50% approval despite the playtest

Well, at least it settles the argument about ‘your preference just did not get enough votes’, it did, it just was discarded by WotC regardless… I gave WotC too much credit, the playtest is even more broken than I thought

 

[Pauln6]

But people do. For example, Treantmonk went through a number of features he was "dissatisfied" with because he felt the changes didn't go far enough. For example, he was dissatisfied with Warrior of the Hands Open Hand Technique not because he doesn't feel Monks shouldn't be doing those kinds of things, but because he feels it shouldn't cost a discipline point and require a saving throw to do what weapon mastery is essentially doing for free. But his "dissatisfied" vote gets lumped in with people who hate monks, feel open hand technique is OP, etc etc. In the end, everybody who did not line up behind it ended up in the same pool regardless of why they were dissatisfied and all that does is give WotC plausible deniability to do nothing since "well, we tried something and it failed".

This is basically how Brexit happened.

 

[Yaarel]

and to add insult to injury

“Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate. "The thing is, the scores are not the full story," Crawford said. "We also look at what are people saying in the written feedback and what they are saying in online discussion forums. And while people were often excited by a number of these experiments, there was also a lot of concern about what would this do to the existing game."“

Dungeons & Dragons' Designer Explains How Playtests Have Moved From Experimental to Focused

Dungeons & Dragons was fully prepared to adopt any of the “experimental” changes seen in early One D&D playtests, had they received high enough feedback from players. At Gen Con, ComicBook.com had the chance to speak with Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons, in a...

comicbook.com

So even 70% does not get us there. I hate this playtest. What is even the point. They set it up to fail, and fail it did.

This absolutely is a minority sabotaging the majority.

I agree with your concern, that a minority might even prevent 70% majority from moving the D&D game forward.

At the same time, if I remember correctly, I didnt interpret the statement about "a lot of concern" to mean it might prevent a 70% approval from making it into 2024.

I understood it mean, the feedback about the concerns would be taken into account with regard to how to implement the 70% approval.

For example, if 80% love a new feature, but 5% voice a "concern" that this feature is mechanically/mathematically unbalanced, the designers might tweak the feature make it mechanically balance.

There can be other kinds of concerns as well that are less mathematical.

The contexts and specifics get taken into account when formulating the 2024 designs.

In any case, the 70% approval still proves decisive and determines which features end up in 2024.

 

[mamba]

At the same time, if I remember correctly, I didnt interpret the statement about "a lot of concern" to mean it might prevent a 70% approval from making it into 2024.

I understood it mean, the feedback about the concerns would be taken into account with regard to how to implement the 70% approval.

so let’s take an example, let’s say 72% like the template wildshape. How is not having templates but going back to animals taking the 28% concern into consideration rather than throwing the 72% under the bus?

There might be cases where you can accommodate both, but there are cases where you cannot, like the templates, or unified subclass progression

 

[Vael]

This is basically how Brexit happened.

Notably, that was a 52% leave vs 48% stay.

There is wisdom in saying we're only making a change if an overwhelming majority favor it, ie. 70%.

 

[Yaarel]

so let’s take an example, let’s say 72% like the template wildshape. How is not having templates but going back to animals taking the 28% concern into consideration rather than throwing the 72% under the bus?

There might be cases where you can accommodate both, but there are cases where you cannot, like the templates, or unified subclass progression

In your hypothetical scenario, where 72% like Wildshape using a template (rather than an Monster Manual entry), I agree it would be unwise to "throw the 72% under the bus".

In such a scenario, it seems wiser to implement the template, especially in a way that can address some of the minority concerns, and possibly needing a future playtest iteration to see if the revision does better among the minority to increase the approval to over 72%.


In general. The 70% threshold for publication seems reasonable to me. But this threshold requires the surveys themselves to be detailed enough to tease out what people like and dislike, exactly.

Also, with the majority in mind, probably any approval rating that 50% or higher deserves future development to see if an iteration can achieve the 70% threshold.

 

[Yaarel]

No survey ever gave D&D players a chance to vote on whether they like VSM spell component or not.

I wonder if 70% actually approve of it?

I wonder what else is in 2014 core that players actually dont like.