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

[Maxperson]

Ah, so you are now going to claim that all Big Corporations are utterly perfect and without fault? Because that statement sounds oddly like my literal exact position, and you have spent the last few days attempting to prove to me that businesses can make mistakes.

I need some of whatever it is you are taking right now, because that makes absolutely no sense as a response to me.

Why yes, you can compare apples and fish. But generally when two things have obvious differences, they don't make for good comparisons.

Wait?! You're seriously contending that unless a blunder is absolutely identical to another blunder, you can't compare blunders? Holy mackerel Batman!

Unless the contract had a termination provision, dependent on the product not doing well, implemented to prevent them from being forced to continually sell a failing product.

There was nothing saying that it was a failing product. It was pulled due to complaints and complaints generally come from a loud minority of customers.

No, you did. I asked how you thought Blockbuster became a huge household name, you said "they were in the right place at the right time". I then asked if you thought all corps existed purely because of luck, and now you are trying to prove to me that corporations require skill to run.

Er, you literally just admitted that you did.

Which answers the question, finally. No, you don't believe corporations exist solely because of luck. There are factors of skilled management involved. Otherwise, to quote you

I didn't say solely because of luck at any time. I did link an article from the Harvard Business Review saying that most corporations never become great without luck playing a significant role. Something you keep ignoring for some odd reason. I

This wouldn't make sense.

Just like the quote that caused my response there. Make a nonsensical statement, get a nonsensical answer.

 

[Chaosmancer]

relevant to the discussion about WotC. As I said, I am not interested in pursuing a discussion about Coke.

That you always jump to the wrong conclusions tells me something about your analytical abilities too…

Except I have never once said "I do not know, nor do I care" about WoTC. So my saying that about Coke doesn't say anything about WoTC. Assuming that because I don't know everything and I don't care about anything, just because I do not know or care about a specific thing is ridiculous.

that all they want to know is how much we like something is directly contradicted by them using the results to decide what to keep / improve / abandon. The very fact that we do not like it is what makes it ‘not good enough’.

What else do you think determines that (and it needs to be something else according to you…)?

I do not know how to explain this to you better. Yes, if they learn we do not like it, they are going to work to make it something we like. But that does not necessarily mean they are making the design objectively better. It doesn't even mean that they are objectively "improving" the design when they work on it. They are "improving" it in terms of making it more like something the community likes.

You are conflating concepts.

that is basically the same thing, what makes the design good is that people like it.

Do you think they would say ‘85% of people like the design, but we determined by some metric that it is not well designed, so we will change it’?

The metric that determines this is how much it is being liked.

See, your assumption is wrong. The only time they are changing things because they are "not well designed" despite community feedback is for those things which are extremely out of line. Something which is not well-designed on a small scale, but is highly popular, will not be changed.

I am not making a leap, I am drawing a logical conclusion. That you refuse to draw logical conclusions in order to not have to adjust your position is telling.

You are making a leap. You are conflating "well-designed" with "well liked" and assuming that those two things are the same or heavily related is a bad assumption.

then explain it, and do not say ‘they just wonder whether we like it’, because that is utter nonsense. They act based on how much we like it, this is not just idle curiosity.

You are basically saying ‘the questions are what they really are looking for, ignore Crawford’s ramblings, he is wrong’. You will need to reconcile the two in your explanation, not ignore one of them…

Right now I’d say you have shown me right. 1) you have not looked into this / do not understand it and 2) would agree that the questions are not good at getting the answers WotC is looking for, if it weren’t for 1).

You basically agreed with me that these questions are not suitable to get the answer to whether something should be improved or thrown out.


they are looking for that answer, the question is just not good at getting it right. That is my point.

No, they are not looking for that answer. You keep assuming they are looking for that answer, but they aren't. If you look at what they are actually doing, it is quite clear that community acceptance takes precedence

 

[Chaosmancer]

I need some of whatever it is you are taking right now, because that makes absolutely no sense as a response to me.

You said the exact thing I said, which then caused you and Mamba to constantly harrass me about how I think all companies are perfect and without error. If when I said it, that's what it meant, why doesn't it mean that when you say it?

Wait?! You're seriously contending that unless a blunder is absolutely identical to another blunder, you can't compare blunders? Holy mackerel Batman!

See, this is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. I didn't say they have to be "absolutely identical" that is a vicious strawman meant to make it easy to knock over what I said. I said they have obvious differences, and make bad comparisons. You could try and compare a train and a car, because both are land vehicles with wheels, but if you want to say that your driver's license allows you to crew a train you would be being ridiculous.

Not everything said is black and white, 100% or 0%

There was nothing saying that it was a failing product. It was pulled due to complaints and complaints generally come from a loud minority of customers.

Hmmm, interesting. Why then do you say it was a mistake if it was selling well and only a loud minority hated it?

Er, you literally just admitted that you did.

By asking a question you answered with "because Luck" I'M the one who brought luck into the discussion? Holy projection batman.

I didn't say solely because of luck at any time. I did link an article from the Harvard Business Review saying that most corporations never become great without luck playing a significant role. Something you keep ignoring for some odd reason. I

Maybe because I never claimed Luck doesn't play a role? So that information is like telling me that humans eat food. I never disagreed with it, so why would it be worth responding to.

Meanwhile, when I asked the question, your answer was SOLELY referencing luck. If I asked you "how did John Brown become such a good football player" and you said "Because he was scouted by the Rams"... well, you didn't state "the only reason is because he was scouted by the Rams"... but you certainly gave that as the only reason with nothing else being considered.

Just like the quote that caused my response there. Make a nonsensical statement, get a nonsensical answer.

FGHEWASVDBFDGNJYRHTERDSBFGNDFJRTHERSGDBFDNHTERGEASRHE

 

[mamba]

Except I have never once said "I do not know, nor do I care" about WoTC. So my saying that about Coke doesn't say anything about WoTC.

I understand that, go back and read what I wrote if you have doubts. After that you dropped three paragraphs about Coke that I did not care about and then you wondered why I did not follow up on them...

Assuming that because I don't know everything and I don't care about anything, just because I do not know or care about a specific thing is ridiculous.

It is, good thing I never did that then... Remember when I said you always draw the wrong conclusions? This is one more of those.

I said it should be your answer for WotC as well because of your replies to my questions, not because you said this about Coke.

I do not know how to explain this to you better. Yes, if they learn we do not like it, they are going to work to make it something we like. But that does not necessarily mean they are making the design objectively better. It doesn't even mean that they are objectively "improving" the design when they work on it. They are "improving" it in terms of making it more like something the community likes.

Agreed, which is what I was saying, 'good design' here equals 'a large percentage of the people answering the survey like it'

You are conflating concepts.

No, I am using the same metric to determine good design that WotC is using.

You for some reason seem to insist that there is one that no one is using but that more objectively would measure that. Even if that existed, since no one is using that, it is irrelevant to what WotC is doing and explains nothing.

See, your assumption is wrong. The only time they are changing things because they are "not well designed" despite community feedback is for those things which are extremely out of line. Something which is not well-designed on a small scale, but is highly popular, will not be changed.

So let's cut to the chase here, because you keep dancing around this. Is the survey feedback used by WotC to determine whether to keep something and include it in 2024, whether to improve it and try again, and whether to abandon the idea altogether? A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that is needed.

You are making a leap. You are conflating "well-designed" with "well liked" and assuming that those two things are the same or heavily related is a bad assumption.

No, it is a logical conclusion about how WotC determines good design. Tell me what other metric WotC uses to determine whether something is 'well designed'. Also, does the player feedback override that imaginary metric? As I said, if the survey says 85% like it and WotC's non-existent metric that you insist is real says the design is garbage, which one wins?

No, they are not looking for that answer. You keep assuming they are looking for that answer, but they aren't. If you look at what they are actually doing, it is quite clear that community acceptance takes precedence

Isn't that your answer then right here as to what the metric is that WotC uses to determine 'good design'? The metric is the percentage it got in the survey, as I insisted all along. That percentage tells WotC what to keep, what to improve and what to abandon, just like Crawford (and I) said. You are still contradicting yourself.

We can also drop the whole ‘good design’ thing, I am not sure why you bring this up in the first place.

My question simply was does WotC decide what to keep / improve / abandon based on player feedback (percentages). Good design is not really an explicit factor here, regardless of whether we agree on how WotC measures that.

I am still curious what other metric you think they are using to determine good design, but it is not relevant to the question I am asking.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not responding for Tet, but my take.

EnWorld isn't the only place where D&D changes are being discussed, and a lot of the places I saw when discussing the warlock change in particular was based on the notion that the warlock was not supposed to be a spellcaster, it was a ticking time bomb. You did EB spam for a while and then dropped your high level nukes, short rested, and did it again. If your group was good at getting short rests, you can cast your highest level spells 6 times per day and it was fruitless to cast anything but except to save your life. Spellcasting forces the opposite: a bunch of lower level magic to use more regularly at the cost of only one bomb per day (MA). So when people pulled out their white room scenarios, they argued six 5th level slots > 4/3/2 slots plus one 5th, and declared warlock nerfed and tried to get people to vote to kill spellcasting.

I mean, that is an accurate assessment…

Nevermind that short rests availability varies by group and two rests is rare in actual play.

Maybe they are at your table. They certainly aren’t at mine, or seemingly at the tables of the other folks who made this assessment.

Obviously the fact that the availability of short rests is inconsistent across tables is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to ruin the warlock for people who already love the way it works. The solution is either to make short tests easier, to make them more important to the other classes, or to give warlocks a way to refresh their spell slots without a short rest. I don’t think WotC is going to do the first for fear of breaking backwards compatibility, and while they seem to have eased up on the crusade against short rests that started with Tasha’s, I don’t think it’s enough that the second option is in the cards. I’m eager to see packet 7, but my money would be on warlocks getting some sort of Arcane Recovery type feature.

EDIT: Sorry, didn’t realize the post I responded to was 10 days old. I hate that the forum doesn’t always bring me to the most recent page when I click on a thread

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, that is an accurate assessment…

Maybe they are at your table. They certainly aren’t at mine, or seemingly at the tables of the other folks who made this assessment.

Obviously the fact that the availability of short rests is inconsistent across tables is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to ruin the warlock for people who already love the way it works. The solution is either to make short tests easier, to make them more important to the other classes, or to give warlocks a way to refresh their spell slots without a short rest. I don’t think WotC is going to do the first for fear of breaking backwards compatibility, and while they seem to have eased up on the crusade against short rests that started with Tasha’s, I don’t think it’s enough that the second option is in the cards. I’m eager to see packet 7, but my money would be on warlocks getting some sort of Arcane Recovery type feature.

EDIT: Sorry, didn’t realize the post I responded to was 10 days old. I hate that the forum doesn’t always bring me to the most recent page when I click on a thread

It's impossible for short rests to be any easier.

• No bar needs to be met to begin a long or short rest
• There is no penalty for an interrupted long or short rest
• An interrupted rest that lasted at least one hour is a successful short rest.
• There is no limit to the number of times you can attempt to be r succeed at a short rest in a 24hr period other than the fact that there are 86400 seconds in those 24hours and one hour is 60 minutes each being 60 seconds long
• No resources are consumed by a short rest
• The time needed is so low that even a doom clock doesn't really start impacting them until the doom clock becomes so strict that it quickly stops being plausible after the first couple times that style doom clock gets used.

Short rests don't become hard until the gm changes rules to correct for bad design and overcompensates or they just use fiat to shut them down. You should be clear in what you are asking to be done and the reasons why rather than calling for the impossible while pointing at some situation that is unrelated to how easy or "hard" it is to take a short rest and calling for easier rests instead of something relevant to the situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's impossible for short rests to be any easier.

• No bar needs to be met to begin a long or short rest
• There is no penalty for an interrupted long or short rest
• An interrupted rest that lasted at least one hour is a successful short rest.
• There is no limit to the number of times you can attempt to be r succeed at a short rest in a 24hr period other than the fact that there are 86400 seconds in those 24hours and one hour is 60 minutes each being 60 seconds long
• No resources are consumed by a short rest
• The time needed is so low that even a doom clock doesn't really start impacting them until the doom clock becomes so strict that it quickly stops being plausible after the first couple times that style doom clock gets used.

Short rests don't become hard until the gm changes rules to correct for bad design and overcompensates or they just use fiat to shut them down. You should be clear in what you are asking to be done and the reasons why rather than calling for the impossible while pointing at some situation that is unrelated to how easy or "hard" it is to take a short rest and calling for easier rests instead of something relevant to the situation.

Friend, I think short tests are just fine as-is, so your rant about how they couldn’t be easier is wasted on me. But, clearly there are a lot of groups out there who find them dreadfully inconvenient. Making them 10 minutes instead of an hour would have little to no impact on my own games, but would probably make them able to be taken with more frequency at tables where they seem to be such an oddity that warlock players can’t consistently get two of them in an adventuring day.

 

[tetrasodium]

Friend, I think short tests are just fine as-is, so your rant about how they couldn’t be easier is wasted on me. But, clearly there are a lot of groups out there who find them dreadfully inconvenient. Making them 10 minutes instead of an hour would have little to no impact on my own games, but would probably make them able to be taken with more frequency at tables where they seem to be such an oddity that warlock players can’t consistently get two of them in an adventuring day.

so which is it? short rests are fine as is

Spoiler: or...

I mean, that is an accurate assessment…

Maybe they are at your table. They certainly aren’t at mine, or seemingly at the tables of the other folks who made this assessment.

Obviously the fact that the availability of short rests is inconsistent across tables is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to ruin the warlock for people who already love the way it works. The solution is either to make short tests easier, to make them more important to the other classes, or to give warlocks a way to refresh their spell slots without a short rest. I don’t think WotC is going to do the first for fear of breaking backwards compatibility, and while they seem to have eased up on the crusade against short rests that started with Tasha’s, I don’t think it’s enough that the second option is in the cards. I’m eager to see packet 7, but my money would be on warlocks getting some sort of Arcane Recovery type feature.

EDIT: Sorry, didn’t realize the post I responded to was 10 days old. I hate that the forum doesn’t always bring me to the most recent page when I click on a thread

Why suggest it if they are "fine as is"?

 

[Charlaquin]

so which is it? short rests are fine as is
Why suggest it if they are "fine as is"?

It’s not complicated. They’re fine as-is for me. They could persist into the 2024 rules completely unchanged, and I would have no complaints whatsoever. However, I recognize that I am not the only person in the world who plays D&D, and a not-insignificant number of other people who play D&D do, apparently, struggle to get two long rests in an adventuring day. I suggest making short rests shorter because to me that would be a preferable way to address the issue they are having than throwing the best-designed class in the game into the garbage bin.

I also, to reiterate, don’t think WotC is going to do that. I predict that they will instead give warlocks another way to refresh their spell slots, that doesn’t require a short rest, or perhaps a way to gain the benefits of a short rest in a shorter amount of time.

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s not complicated. They’re fine as-is for me. They could persist into the 2024 rules completely unchanged, and I would have no complaints whatsoever. However, I recognize that I am not the only person in the world who plays D&D, and a not-insignificant number of other people who play D&D do, apparently, struggle to get two long rests in an adventuring day. I suggest making short rests shorter because to me that would be a preferable way to address the issue they are having than throwing the best-designed class in the game into the garbage bin.

I also, to reiterate, don’t think WotC is going to do that. I predict that they will instead give warlocks another way to refresh their spell slots, that doesn’t require a short rest, or perhaps a way to gain the benefits of a short rest in a shorter amount of time.

You are so focused on defending the rules involved with resting and recovery that you overlooked the point