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

[DEFCON 1]

When it comes to things that are and have been easily ignored and/or house-ruled... spell components, the length of a short rest... these are things I suspect WotC just doesn't feel the need to change in 5E24 just for the sake of changing it-- not when every single table could and should have been changing the rules themselves this entire time if it didn't work for them.

Yes, some of us are stuck at tables with players who refuse to do anything but play RAW, and thus we desperately want WotC to change the rules so that we can finally play how we'd prefer-- the rules we want AND play RAW. But every one of us is in a minority in terms of what that RAW is to be. So WotC isn't going to do anything that only a smaller amount of people actually want/need. Does it suck? Sure. But that's how it goes.

 

[mamba]

And how did you know the community had no appetite for the changes you prefer? Feedback. How would they know your preferred changes should you happen to be in the majority? Feedback. Withdrawing from the process becomes self-fulfilling prophecy: They aren't going to listen to you because you're not giving them anything to listen to.

sure, but they are not listening to me anyway. I do not have to stick with them or ‘upgrade’ either. My time is better spent looking for something else and my money is better spent staying with 2014. They removed almost all incentive to move to 2024, this playtest turned into one giant disappointment

 

[billd91]

sure, but they are not listening to me anyway. I do not have to stick with them or ‘upgrade’ either. My time is better spent looking for something else and my money is better spent staying with 2014. They removed almost all incentive to move to 2024, this playtest turned into one giant disappointment

Hey, you're free to not move with 2024 if that's your preference. But not listening isn't the same as not agreeing or not obeying. If you've submitted surveys as I have, I expect they've been duly tallied along with everyone else's and given the same consideration as any single one would have. You're just not in the grouping they're going with.

 

[mamba]

Hey, you're free to not move with 2024 if that's your preference. But not listening isn't the same as not agreeing or not obeying. If you've submitted surveys as I have, I expect they've been duly tallied along with everyone else's and given the same consideration as any single one would have. You're just not in the grouping they're going with.

I get that, they still are not listening to me in the end however. The playtest showed a lot of promise, but by now pretty much everything of interest has been ripped out again

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The biggest issue is the components. VSM casting as it stands should be a line under the Wizard's spellcasting feature, Bard spells should require instruments, Ranger spells should never require verbal components and so on. Reusing the specific technique descriptions is fine.

And that can live as variants in each class' Spellcasting class ability. I agree. Sorcerers should never use Material Components.

 

[Remathilis]

I get that, they still are not listening to me in the end however. The playtest showed a lot of promise, but by now pretty much everything of interest has been ripped out again

I'll be blunt. If we went from packet 1 to packet 6, I'd be excited for much of what I'd seen. But seeing the potential in packets 2-5, I'm finding the changes in 6 (and upcoming in 7) less interesting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've moved from enthusiastic to apathetic. Why bother providing feedback when neither the designers nor the community has an appetite for change. I'll pick up the book in 24 and use what I want from it, but I don't see any point in getting excited about anything prior to that.

The thing is the classes aren't where 5e's fundamental flaws are. All most of them need is some iteration and polishing. And that's what they are getting.

What needs a massive overhaul for 5e isn't on the player side of the table. It's the DM tools from monsters that are basically bloated hit point sponges that don't actually do much (and too many of the MM ones refer to spells where there is no need to) to all the "ask your DM" with little guidance for that DM to answer. Forever DMs are a worse problem in 5e than any other edition with the arguable exceptions of 3.X (where DMing the way the game wanted you was a massive amount of work but at least it gave decent guidance so was much easier to get started) for very good reason.

While I think the level of change in the PHB is appropriate I would be happy if they put the entirety of the DMG and MM into a shredder and started over.

 

[Clint_L]

The thing is the classes aren't where 5e's fundamental flaws are. All most of them need is some iteration and polishing. And that's what they are getting.

What needs a massive overhaul for 5e isn't on the player side of the table. It's the DM tools from monsters that are basically bloated hit point sponges that don't actually do much (and too many of the MM ones refer to spells where there is no need to) to all the "ask your DM" with little guidance for that DM to answer. Forever DMs are a worse problem in 5e than any other edition with the arguable exceptions of 3.X (where DMing the way the game wanted you was a massive amount of work but at least it gave decent guidance so was much easier to get started) for very good reason.

While I think the level of change in the PHB is appropriate I would be happy if they put the entirety of the DMG and MM into a shredder and started over.

Well, good news and bad news. Bad news: the MM is going to look pretty much the same, but bigger. I'm okay with this; I think the real issue isn't with the monsters, it's with the lack of guidance on running monsters, as you point out. Which brings us to the good news: the DMG is basically getting a ground-up redesign, from what we've been told. The shredding part is up to you.

EDIT: The DMG is by far the update I am most looking forward to, though with healthy caution so I don't get my hopes up too far. Here's what I want to see:

Part 1: Actual guidance on how to run a game, with plenty of examples. Particularly on how to run combat encounters so they aren't just tank'n'spank.

Part 2: Detailed guidance on how to build a game and campaign setting, again chock full of examples.

Part 3: Magic Items (should be in the PHB, but whatever).

Part 4. Traps and other complications.

Part 5: Advanced Optional Rules.

Part 6: Short adventure modules of varying difficulties and styles, so that new and old DMs can practice.

 

[mamba]

I'll be blunt. If we went from packet 1 to packet 6, I'd be excited for much of what I'd seen. But seeing the potential in packets 2-5, I'm finding the changes in 6 (and upcoming in 7) less interesting.

I liked 1 to 5, 6 was such a disappointment that I could barely stand to look at it. I lost all interest then and there, and I hate that this is the direction the other ones will clearly be heading in. The whole playtest is just such a trainwreck

If I had never seen the playtest, then maybe there could be something in 2024 to like, as it stands I can only mourn what could have been

 

[Charlaquin]

I liked 1 to 5, 6 was such a disappointment that I could barely stand to look at it. I lost all interest then a there, and I hate that this is the trajectory the other ones will clearly be heading in. The whole playtest is just such a trainwreck

On the other end of the spectrum, I was pretty unsure about the whole thing up until packet 6, which pretty much sold me, contingent on them not ruining the warlock. Which we now have confirmation about, so I’m basically sold at this point, unless they randomly make some huge blunder.