Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9096416" data-attributes="member: 6750235">I disagree.  My playstyle of warlock did not change because I rely on invocations regardless.  Those provide spell like abilities to supplement spells.  Eldritch blast does nothing more than damage without investing more invocations that I would rather use elsewhere.  I can use a spell or two every encounter an spam eldritch blast under the UA5 packet or 5e.14 so the style doesn't change much.  What changes is the access to higher level spells in the spell table and forces invocations to be spent on mystic arcanum to try to compensate.I prefer pact magic but could live with it either way, but so far as the actual style the differences seem minor to me.Yeah, I often think the wizard comments and feedback looks more like maintaining status quo than addressing actual issues.  I don't think bards have "too many" good abilities.  Expertise and magical secrets both get overrated and they are restricted in other ways (armor, weapons, spell preparation method).But I agree that magical secrets at 10th level is the equivalent of a subclass ability that's universally applied to all bard subclasses.  Expanding the bard spells into other spell lists is a form of customization for the subclass outside of that subclass itself.  IME.I don't see the need to give each class the same number of subclass abilities.I don't think you understand that term based on your comments, or some other people who use it.  I would recommend we stop using it since it's used as a political expression.That's not how appealing to authority works, and if we look at two scenarios of experts using standard methods knowing what they are doing compared to non-experts versus those experts making errors the non-experts are not then we would have to assume the experts are correct until proven otherwise.That 40% killed nothing.  The change after that survey feedback is a new iteration to test ideas. This and the many other comments you've given seem more like attempts to delegitimize any opinion that you personally disagree with because you are in that minority.  At least that's how it reads to me.Exactly.That's what comments are for.  I use them.  I use them to add comparisons from previous UA's that included classes not in that particular UA as well.  It's not the wizards' spell list.  That's an example of spells being unnecessarily gatekept due to the perception of class entitlement.  It's the arcane spell list that wizards also use under that proposed system.  The reality is the wizard is the only class that had that because bards, sorcerers, and warlocks were only capable of the spells they selected until they could level up.  The spell selection method creates a subset of arcane spells already and creating a subset of a subset by limiting the spell list and then selecting them serves no real purpose.  The limited lists would still include useful spells from the arcane list and those classes would still be limited in spells known from that list.  It's a duplication of restrictions.Wizards already access spells from the spell book instead of spells known like those classes you mentioned.  That is flavor and distinction.  Using that spell book to swap out spells gives wizards better access to that arcane list just because of rest mechanics.  Using that spell book enables wizards to access rituals better because they don't need to prep those cantrips while the other arcane casters would need to restrict their own choices further by learning spells with the ritual tag.  Memorize spell let's wizards change a single spell prepped as a ritual.  Modify spell and create spell allow replacing the spells in the spell book with better versions of the spells that are wizard only.  That includes spells that cannot have concentration broken, or cannot be counterspelled, or can be turned into rituals to further expand spells available without preparing them.In your assessment you are ignoring the fact that bardic knowledge was an iconic ability removed from bards and is now being given a form in both the cleric and wizard.  Bards need to spend expertise in several skills to match that or rely on jack-of-all-trades for a version of their own iconic ability given to other classes.  In your assessment you are ignoring the fact that bards had bard only spells that were given to wizards moving from 3.x to 5e and the few bard only spells left were given to other classes.  You're ignoring the fact that warlock spells were also given to wizards.  Warlocks giving their spells to wizards is okay but wizards giving their spells to warlocks is bad?  It doesn't make sense to complain about the spells wizards shared while ignoring the spells or abilities that have been shared back.  Wizards were distinct enough.Sort of.  You just aren't seeing how it's incorporated.  Anyone who takes the time to fill out a survey but doesn't take the time to fill out a particular section is neutral to that section.  If they weren't neutral they would take the time to fill out that section along with their other feedback.  We can omit answering a particular question that's not tagged mandatory and that would also be an example of a neutral response.Basing the math on the total number of surveys instead of the total number answered sections would include neutral players in the results that way.  I cannot say for sure how WotC is interpreting the data, but I know it's possible to include a neutral response in that way if desired.Surveys can be indexed in ways that might not work like you think it might.  For example, taking every question and subtracting the totals of very dissatisfied from very satisfied then dividing that total into the total number of surveys creates an index that has incorporated types of responses against each question to create a baseline.  That baseline can be used to determine high or low outliers and then pulling raw data on those that include comments allows for parsing commonality in those comments.  That can be based on satisfied or dissatisfied or something else in comments if they want.Trying to guess which answer will give us the outcome that we want is not likely to affect the results unless many people can be convinced to do the same and we also determine or guess what WotC is doing with each answer.  If we succeed, however, and gain a better result in our own opinions we risk a lower overall satisfaction later because we influenced the results instead of letting the opinion of the majority play out.Trying to skew the results in our own personal favor does not make sense when it won't work; or might be irrelevant because the majority already holds similar views; or there is a risk involved in succeeding.  We're better off to results do their job and give feedback on our opinions with genuine answers because that's more likely to continue the success of the game and we can change what we don't like at our own tables anyway.Just a couple thoughts on surveys.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification