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

[Mirrorrorrim]

All they need to do is limit it to once per round. There's zero need for it to be a spell.

If it uses spell slots to power, it should be a spell. Simple.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Component: V

Still an entire subsystem.

Oh, those OTHER smites? Those are spells.

And I've advocated, I think in this thread, for "those other smites" to stop being spells and instead work like the rogue's new Cunning Strike or whatever it is called.

I actually didn't care that it homogenized anything (that was done when they opted for one proficiency bonus to rule them all). What I cared about was classes getting them timely. Bards get three total (3, 6, and 14) meaning they have very little room to make their subclass impactful. Monks don't get their last ability until 17th level, paladins get theirs at 20, sorcerers get at 1st, 6th, 14 and 18! Rogues don't get their second until 9th!

I have no problem with the final subclass ability coming at epic tier (quite the reverse, in fact; I think that every subclass should have a basically broken epic capstone). Neither do I have a problem with the idea of dropping the rogue second subclass ability in level or tweaking the bard to get a fourth subclass ability.

It's the enforced homogeneity that I dislike. Mostly because different subclasses are structured differently. The only spaces in the full caster lineup for subclasses after 3 are 6, 10, 14, and 18-20 because they should never have a subclass level at the same level they get a new spell level beyond 3rd; that's already the strongest class feature in the game - and an ASI plus a new spell is already powerful enough. By contrast if you are going to make a paragon tier fighter have an extra ASI as a class feature (and feat changes make that a much better decision in One D&D than base 5e although fighters need something more at 12) then the 4-6-8 pattern for ASIs is better for the class than moving that extra ASI, and there's a huge power budget at level 7 for fun things in the subclass to match the 4th level spells boost.

I therefore like 3-6-10 for most full casters as a subclass pattern and 3-7-10 for fighters (third attack being huge so level 11 is right out). And for monks getting a huge subclass spike at level 11 rather than a smaller one at 10 is good. Similar patterns are good but are very much secondary to making the individual classes shine.

Our problem children here are, of course, the rogue and bard. There's no real excuse for the second rogue subclass at level 9.

But the bard simply has too many good abilities in the base class for more than a ribbon subclass ability at the end of Paragon; levels 7, 9, 11, and 13 are extra spell levels (so not there), levels 8 and 12 are ASIs (so no, especially not at 8 where they get an extra top level spell. And finally L10 is Magical Secrets - and there would be a deserved riot if that got dropped or kicked back to 14, while it's way too powerful for a non-ribbon subclass ability unless you make the magical secrets the subclass ability. This is the problem with full caster bards - they just try to do too much to pack in everything you might want. Do you want to be the one to tell the bard players they are losing Magical Secrets?

 

[Mistwell]

First of all I would change the entire approach of testing…. pretty much everything they do. Have a full set of rules, iterate, have a less insane polling approach.

Second, double the time, I assume the 50th anniversary did not exactly sneak up on you

And if they still didn't get 70% on the thing you wanted, you'd want them to test some more is my guess.

 

[mamba]

And if they still didn't get 70% on the thing you wanted, you'd want them to test some more is my guess.

no, if I had confidence in the testing approach, I'd accept it. As it stands it looks more like a cointoss than proper polling to me. I can distinguish between the two, thank you very much.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And turning it into a spell forces numerous systems onto the ability - things like material components.

Fundamentally the question here is "Simpler for who?" And you can argue that if you have five years experience of D&D 5e and have already internalised the spell system then spell smites are simpler. But for a random newbie having Divine Smite right there in its own paragraph, not having to deal with systems such as components and spell lists makes it fundamentally simpler. And core class features being simpler for newbies is absolutely a good thing.

Um.... Paladins use Holy Symbols. Meaning they can paint a symbol on their shield, or briefly touch an amulet like clerics do. There is no need for any special components here that aren't accounted for in 99% of other paladin spell casting.

Like... were players so dumbfounded by "have a holy symbol" that they couldn't cast bless in combat and were only capable of divine smiting?

 

[Chaosmancer]

welcome to the club, I guess by playtest 9 they will finally have gotten everyone there

I've been in the "furious at Wizards for only buffing wizards" club for a while.

 

[Mistwell]

no, if I had confidence in the testing approach, I'd accept it. As it stands it looks more like a cointoss than proper polling to me. I can distinguish between the two, thank you very much.

Confidence in the testing approach appears to be "things I believe to be true about the game and fan preference if it turns out to be true in the results?"

Their methodology is both proven in the field and the most extensive in the field, in both depth and time. We're not the only playtests, just the public one. You don't have to have absolute faith, but looking to justify "it's a bad method" only when it coincidentally doesn't match up with your preferences is not a persuasive argument against it.

And yes, that's what you're coming across as with comments like, " I liked it best before they listened to anyone" and "‘having too many cooks spoils the dish’, never felt this more true" and "the longer this playtest goes, the less interested in it I am."

All those comments appear to be saying, "I am really irritated with the democratic method they're using because people are disagreeing with my preferences. They should just make radical changes I like and not keep asking people who risk saying they don't like what I liked."

 

[Shardstone]

Confidence in the testing approach appears to be "things I believe to be true about the game and fan preference if it turns out to be true in the results?"

Their methodology is both proven in the field and the most extensive in the field, in both depth and time. We're not the only playtests, just the public one. You don't have to have absolute faith, but looking to justify "it's a bad method" only when it coincidentally doesn't match up with your preferences is not a persuasive argument against it.

And yes, that's what you're coming across as with comments like, " I liked it best before they listened to anyone" and "‘having too many cooks spoils the dish’, never felt this more true" and "the longer this playtest goes, the less interested in it I am."

All those comments appear to be saying, "I am really irritated with the democratic method they're using because people are disagreeing with my preferences. They should just make radical changes I like and not keep asking people who risk saying they don't like what I liked."

Sorry, this is just not what's happening.

70% wizard satisfaction, but spell lists reverted back partially to give wizards back the biggest spell list.

Several features get 60%, but Crawford says no more time to do itterative drafts, so now it's first draft or roll back to 2014.

We're arguing 10-20% differences here, sometimes the majority opinion being discounted because it is not the supermajority.

This is not a strong methodology for playtesting a game's evolution.

 

[Shardstone]

Never forget how, in playtest video 5, they said they knew the new warlock would be unpopular but they were committed to iterating on the design. Then now it's JK, rolling it all back!

Crawford's word means wormfood at this point, and the entirety of 1D&D and 5E's future is a joke in terms of design. At least Bigby's has some cool giant ideas.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, this is just not what's happening.

70% wizard satisfaction, but spell lists reverted back partially to give wizards back the biggest spell list.

Several features get 60%, but Crawford says no more time to do itterative drafts, so now it's first draft or roll back to 2014.

We're arguing 10-20% differences here, sometimes the majority opinion being discounted because it is not the supermajority.

This is not a strong methodology for playtesting a game's evolution.

10-20% difference is a HUGE difference in a survey sampling this large. You're talking about like a 4,000 to 8,000 person swing there I think.