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

[mamba]

So, a few years ago I went to the polls and voted for a guy to get into a local office. What did that ultimately get me? That guy didn't win and get the position I wanted him to have, because he lost the vote. That is how "voting" works.

you are missing the point. In that case you voted for the guy, by voting ‘dissatisfied’ you voted for throwing it out when you presumably wanted a revision

But this idea that, because the thing I voted for didn't happen that means the system is broken, is fundamentally WRONG.

that never was my idea / point

I do not think WoTC was unclear about what my vote meant.

you never said what it was meant to say, so hard to say one way or the other…

This is a problem you are creating, not one that WoTC is reporting. If they didn't believe their data was clear.... why would they rely on it?

because they are unaware

They are a multi-MILLION dollar company, owned by a multi-BILLION dollar company. They can clearly afford to contract someone to make a survey.

so what, we know what the survey looks like, there is no need to speculate that they could have come up with a good one given all the money they have.

The fact that the survey is not perfectly suited to match your exact gradations of opinion is not a flaw in the survey.

The flaw from my perspective is that people filling out the survey have a different understanding of what they answered / voted for than what WotC thinks they did.

Would you agree that if this were true, it would very much be a flaw with the survey?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not deeply flawed, just insufficiently powered. Yes, spells known are not enough, but that doesn't mean the class is deeply flawed. Yes, I want them to fix that, but this is like tearing down the wall to fix the windows.

Where, as I have demonstrated "tearing down the wall" means "replacing the best parts with something almost identical and making the rest actively better".

 

[Minigiant]

Not deeply flawed, just insufficiently powered. Yes, spells known are not enough, but that doesn't mean the class is deeply flawed. Yes, I want them to fix that, but this is like tearing down the wall to fix the windows.

Not deeply flawed. Moderately flawed.

The sorcerer is going through the same process again. WOTC went slightly too far in the 2013 playtest and reverted to a 3e clone. Now the 2023 playtest one isn't perfect and they are likely reverting to the Tasha's version with generic bonus spells known.

Because the Designers are caught between 2 factions of fans and are unwilling to be heavily innovative to please both factions of sorcerer fans

 

[Maxperson]

If more people had said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the wild shape rules, it would have gotten revised.

Or else they would have been stuck with something they didn't like if they pushed it over the edge and WotC incorrectly thought it was wildly popular. We couldn't have known before final tally how popular it was in voting and couldn't take that chance.

Instead, I think many people voted "very dissatisfied" But this idea that, because the thing I voted for didn't happen that means the system is broken, is fundamentally WRONG.

It's fundamentally broken because their questions and ratings system doesn't allow them to accurately see how D&D players really feel about things. That we're(all of us in the thread) having this discussion shows that.

I do not think WoTC was unclear about what my vote meant. Or what the thousands of other votes meant. This is a problem you are creating, not one that WoTC is reporting. If they didn't believe their data was clear.... why would they rely on it? They are a multi-MILLION dollar company, owned by a multi-BILLION dollar company. They can clearly afford to contract someone to make a survey.

That you think that we to approve of something we disapprove of in order to get that thing changed when said approval could cement the thing we disapprove of as the final incarnation(hit 80% approval) shows that they are unclear about what your vote means.

 

[mamba]

That you think that we to approve of something we disapprove of in order to get that thing changed when said approval could cement the thing we disapprove of as the final incarnation(hit 80% approval) shows that they are unclear about what your vote means

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.

 

[Maxperson]

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 responded to you on this in the other thread, but I'll add this. Don't blame the minority. Nobody is making Crawford ignore 70+% thresholds because of some online complaints. That's entirely WotC's decision.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This absolutely is a minority sabotaging the majority.

The true spirit of D&D!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

 

[mamba]

I responded to you on this in the other thread, but I'll add this. Don't blame the minority. Nobody is making Crawford ignore 70+% thresholds because of some online complaints. That's entirely WotC's decision.

I am not blaming the minority, the fault solely lies with WotC. The people have every right to express their opinions.

I said the survey is broken, not the participants

 

[mamba]

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.

WotC sees no problems with it though, just pushback. From the same interview

“There was a hundred percent chance that if any of those options were enthusiastically embraced by the community, they would end up in the new version of the rules," Crawford said.”