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

[Mistwell]

Yes you did & you don't even see it, that's part of the problem 5e encourages by dismissing GM needs.
So which is it? Are the views of the segment who want MOAR power & vote against anything that curbs it for any reason no matter the reason for dialing it back* whom wotc doesn't show indications of trying to correct for just "as valid"

They are just as valid as any other customer. And no, I did not mention DMs. And there was no sneaky "I didn't see it" I literally didn't mention DMs. Saying their views is as valid as "you" is not saying their view is anything relative to "All primary DMs." But it is another instance where you're making this a personal discussion, in a weird an strangely egotistical way. In fact it's so weird that you would read the word "You" as "All DMs in the world" that I am starting to wonder if this conversation can be productive.

Also why do you keep using the term GM when for D&D that's not the term?

or are they so much more valid that primary GM's can't even make a comparison in return? If the views of primary GM's are so beneath concern that they aren't even justified in being discussed when they compare & contrast themselves unless first waiting for you bring up primary GM's so they can talk about their consideration within the constraints of the testing is it still a matter of being "as valid"?

* Like the earlier mentioned segment who is happy with anything wotc puts out and corrects for

Yes, the munchkins are as valid as any other consumer of D&D books, including primary DMs. You think you're making a persuasive point when you're not. It's like you keep repeating "Vanilla is better than Chocolate and everyone agrees!" as if that's some objective statement when it's not. WOTC should not discount any of their consumers, unless those consumers literally don't care about what they put out.

 

[Mistwell]

I've been arguing that a lot of the backtracking to "2014, with minor tweaks" was done due to a newfound desire for backwards compatibility and NOT based on player feedback, good or ill.

And yet they are telling us how things ranked, and the things that don't rank well are the ones they're backtracking to 2014.

 

[Kobold Stew]

And yet they are telling us how things ranked, and the things that don't rank well are the ones they're backtracking to 2014.

To be fair, their transparency on this particular point is quite recent, and it is possible that some of those on this board would not have been so hostile to the Wild Shape templates had they known the result.

 

[Maxperson]

And a wildly popular youtuber might have campaigned by sharing his thoughts and shaped the narrative enough to effect the vote.

Yes, things COULD have happened. That does not mean the survey is flawed from its design. It just means, that nothing is actually perfect and immune to any and all inaccuracy.

If you can't tell how what people mean when they vote, it's flawed by design.

Really? Does it really show that?

Because this is the EXACT SAME survey method used in 2017 for the UA. And 2018. And 2019. And 2020. 2021. At the start of the One DnD initiative this was the survey system used. And, during NONE of it, did this question come up. In fact, this discussion isn't some seismic tremor rocking the underlying strata of the community... it is Mamba declaring that the survey is flawed and people responding to them.

If their survey method has been fundamentally broken for nearly a decade, why did no one notice before Mamba started this discussion this week? Was Mamba in a ten year coma and the only one insightful enough to possibly see this error?

Their survey methods being shoddy/flawed has been brought up for years. And yes, this discussion has very clearly shown that WotC is unable to tell what someone means by somewhat approve. Most would think that it means that you like it as is. You'd have us believe that you don't like it as is, but want it to be changed. It can't mean both with only a single descriptor like "somewhat approve."

Approval of any sort will put it into the bucket that adds up to 80% approval, and that's NOT where someone who doesn't like it and as is and wants it changed wants to be. WotC should view somewhat disapprove as needs a different iteration, because it's not complete disapproval.

Anyone who wants something to be changes should never vote approval of any sort.

 

[Maxperson]

I've been arguing that a lot of the backtracking to "2014, with minor tweaks" was done due to a newfound desire for backwards compatibility and NOT based on player feedback, good or ill.

Yep. I said that earlier today.

 

[Mistwell]

To be fair, their transparency on this particular point is quite recent, and it is possible that some of those on this board would not have been so hostile to the Wild Shape templates had they known the result.

There remains a pretty big verisimilitude camp that genuinely wants wild shape tied to the actual beasts. I don't think the results were obscured by some sort of "bad template" issue, I think people didn't like templates. And I say that as someone who did like templates. This isn't even the first run at that concept - which was rejected last time too.

 

[mamba]

There remains a pretty big verisimilitude camp that genuinely wants wild shape tied to the actual beasts. I don't think the results were obscured by some sort of "bad template" issue, I think people didn't like templates.

I think you are wrong. In a discussion of 10 people, we already found one that voted wrong based on their preference, and that happens to be the only one who said how they voted

 

[Remathilis]

And yet they are telling us how things ranked, and the things that don't rank well are the ones they're backtracking to 2014.

They are SOMETIMES telling us how things are ranked, when the numbers support their design goals. Sometimes they say "this scored an 80%" or "this was a 74%" and sometimes they give us a far more nebulous "we found that players didn't like..." Or "people were telling us that..." And those sentences have been the kind that are used to explain things like reverting subclass progression, epic boons, or spell lists. Percentages are given when they want to show a change is supported or getting another pass, but when something fails we never know by how much.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you are wrong. In a discussion of 10 people, we already found one that voted wrong based on their preference, and that happens to be the only one who said how they voted

LOL nobody "voted wrong." You're spinning things to try and fit your preferences since Crawford said he reads comments. And a poll of 10 people, where only one said how they voted, is not meaningful of anything.

 

[mamba]

LOL nobody "voted wrong." You're spinning things to try and fit your preferences since Crawford said he reads comments. And a poll of 10 people, where only one said how they voted, is not meaningful of anything.

they wanted one thing and voted in a way that WotC interprets differently from that. That is what I meant by voting wrong, you failed to communicate your intent to WotC under the parameters established by WotC

It is not representative, agreed, but it shows that there is a disconnect . Also, it could be more than just one out of 10, they were the only one actually saying what they wanted and how they voted.

If you want to go on pretending that things are just fine, there should not have been any issue in a sample size of 10