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

[mamba]

I'd say you stick with what all 5 kids like. 3 kids didn't like a particular thing, and 2 kids didn't like another particular thing but they all like whats normally for lunch. You wouldn't have to make them skip lunch at that point.

no one said they liked the lunch in the first place... see the 25% ratings published things get

 

[Yaarel]

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

I feel it is a mistake to expect niche products in the core rule books.

The 5e designers are striving for popularity. Their methodology transparently abandons anything with less than 70% approval. The opposite of niche.

This is the democratic process. Sometimes I am thrilled (and relieved) when the majority happens to support certain things that I care about. Sometimes I am disappointed, but I still respect the majority. The game needs to be as fun as possible for the greatest number of gamers possible, so deferring to the majority is ethically legitimate − and good business.

At the same time, what is actually happening, the majority is forming a systemic framework. Within this framework, there is much room to include minority interests. Independent publishers, including DMsGuild, can create niche products that are compatible within the 5e framework. The indies deserve more attention, and serve a valuable function.

 

[mamba]

I feel it is a mistake to expect niche products in the core rule books.

not sure what makes you think I am doing that

The 5e designers are striving for popularity.

yes

Their methodology transparently abandons anything with less than 70% approval. The opposite of niche.

their methodology is faulty, that is my only point here.

If I agreed with them identifying this, I would have no issues

 

[Yaarel]

I assure you as a Wizard fan I definitely do not want other classes to suck. That's frankly an absurd statement, and you have zero support for it.

I understood @Henadic Theologian to mean defacto rather than dejury. I doubt HT literally meant Wizard fans were aggressively sabotaging other classes. More like, D&D players generally were responding out of habit to the manner to which they have become accustomed which includes privileging the Wizard class spell list.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

it would, if I believed that what they are measuring is absolute satisfaction rates. I believe they are measuring preferences however, ie 60% like the proposal better

As far as I remember the surveys have all asked about my absolute satisfaction about a feature, never if I like A better than B. So WotC has no way of measuring preferences like that in this playtest.

 

[Yaarel]

not sure what makes you think I am doing that

If what you care about is in the minority of gamers, then to expect it in the core rules is a mistake.

That said, any notable minority desires can appear as rules variants in the 2024 DMs Guide. So there is a place within core for significant minority opinions.

their methodology is faulty, that is my only point here.

Elaborate why the playtest methodology is "faulty". As far as I can tell, it seems useful.

 

[tetrasodium]

I understood @Henadic Theologian to mean defacto rather than dejury. I doubt HT literally meant Wizard fans were aggressively sabotaging other classes. More like, D&D players generally were responding out of habit to the manner to which they have become accustomed which includes privileging the Wizard class spell list.

It doesn't need to be active sabotage to have an impact. We have a really good confirmed example for it with wizard. In the most recentpacket5 survey crunch breakdown video crawford mentions how the unified spell lists are out because that ate too much into the core of the wizard's identity of having the biggest spell list. Responders don't even need to look at it from a "my guy's a wizard so..." PoV to feel justified in subtracting points from their assessment of classes like sorcerer & bard because giving them so much of the wizard's spell list and ritual casting and all this other stuff.... That doesn't mean that the design is bad or even disliked, just that the design does not exist in isolation like it might in a single player game. Should that sorcerer/bard be thrown out simply because people like me had concerns about it stepping on another class's toes?

 

[mamba]

As far as I remember the surveys have all asked about my absolute satisfaction about a feature, never if I like A better than B. So WotC has no way of measuring preferences like that in this playtest.

I agree that that is what they are asking for. I very much disagree that this is what they are getting.

I also disagree that a 70% across everything were a threshold if they did, it should be variable then, esp. since they clearly have stuff rated in the 20s

That is part of what I think is not working

 

[Yaarel]

I think you guys have changed my mind. Templates and unique abilities don't need to be in a book at all, because either one can be added on the fly, as-needed.

To borrow an example from my home game: If I need a troll that fights with a ship anchor and chain, and uses it like a giant grappling hook to snare/capsize the escaping lifeboats of sinking ships, I don't need full stats for a "Harbor Troll" from a book. I don't need to create and apply a "Harbor Monster" template, either. I can just make something up in the moment and run with it.

I guess I'd put this under the "Rulings, not Rules" umbrella. A sidebar in the Monster Manual about how the DM might customize/create a creature, along with an example or three, would be far more useful than a new book or game mechanic.

Actually, I would like examples like this − wielding one character to hit an other character, fighting with an anchor to snare a ship − and so on in the 2024 DMs Guide, to spark ideas of making a combat encounter surprising and fun.

 

[Pedantic]

Wizard using all three, VSM? Maybe, but the reliance on a Material component often contradicts the feel of being innately magical. Maybe the Wizard can choose which method of spellcasting they want? Add a Psionic component that emphasizes a mental requirement, and I am all in. Maybe choose any two out of the four: VSMP? So Harry Potter concepts use Verbal and Wand, ritual concepts use Somatic and Material, innate concepts use Psionic and Verbal.

Wizards thematically aren't innately magical, that's Sorcerer territory. The whole conceit of their semi hermetic magic is that holding the right thoughts in your head while positioning your hands just so, saying the right words and having the correct symbolic object on hand (the universe likes bad puns apparently) causes a thing to happen. Knowing how to do all those things is apparently difficult and largely secret and they've figured it out.

VSM components were made for them, and everyone else bandwagoned on after.