D&D (2024) D&D 5.11 - the time of big change is over

[MockingBird]

Nah, I'm giving it good marks, it gets the job done.

Same, it's super close to how I set it up for my daughter playing a druid, so it will be one less thing to change up.

 

[mamba]

How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.

I am done with the playtest, won’t rate anything, but I will write in some comments.

I fear that at the rate they are going, rating this one low gives us the 2014 version back, so I will just tell them that this is better than 2014 but worse than proper templates
I don’t trust WotC to properly understand what a rating means

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Sure, I am neither complaining about them going with what the majority wants, nor with them creating a new PHB. I just think they gave up on their ideas awfully fast and should have given them a tweak before throwing them in the thrash for not being 'delightful' - or alternatively have done a better job the first time around, when they knew there would be no second time.

I am certain they could have e.g. done a much better job with wildshape templates, I saw some better ideas here within a day of the UA release. Would that have been enough? No idea, but the shoddy attempt they released virtually ensured they would get voted down.

Don’t forget that the public playtest is not the only playtesting they are doing.

 

[Vael]

How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.

If template wildshape had 70% approval, and MM-scraping wildshape has 65% approval, maybe they'll consider another pass at something new.

Haven't decided yet, because I do have mixed opinions. I think templates would be better, but as I said, this is a more useable and table friendly implementation of the 2014 Druid. And I really like a lot of the other changes they've made to the Druid.

 

[mamba]

Don’t forget that the public playtest is not the only playtesting they are doing.

That just makes it harder to predict what we ultimately end up with

All that says is that maybe they do not always go with whatever gets the 70% seal of approval and instead change it somewhat differently or not at all, I don't think that means they ever go against the vote though and change it to something that did not get enough support.

Given what playtest 6 looks like, I'd say they decided against most of the interesting changes, whether from feedback or internal testing.

 

[Remathilis]

That just makes it harder to predict what we ultimately end up with

All that says is that maybe they do not always go with whatever gets the 70% seal of approval and instead change it somewhat differently or not at all, I don't think that means they ever go against the vote though and change it to something that did not get enough support.

Given what playtest 6 looks like, I'd say they decided against most of the interesting changes, whether from feedback or internal testing.

Exactly.

For the most part, I don't think you can assume anything from the prior playtests is going forward except the species/origin rules, feat changes, weapon mastery, and spell lists. Everything else is a crapshoot. That doesn't mean a specific change won't be in, but it tells me it is just as likely to be reverted.

It's like Schrodinger's UA.

 

[Parmandur]

It's like Schrodinger's UA

But thatevery UA in the past decade: online discourse gives basically zero predictive value of what WotC proceeds with.

 

[Nikosandros]

They actually do get help through Hasbro from professional statisticians for designing these. As long as both samples are large enough, it's not like they need everyone to answer every survey.

I've always wondered about the statistical analysis of their surveys. The sample is a self-selected population of engaged gamers; how do they draw conclusions applicable to the wider public?

I mean, at the end of the day, the whole process seems to be working well for them, given the huge continuing success of the game, but still I'm curious about the methodology.

 

[Remathilis]

But thatevery UA in the past decade: online discourse gives basically zero predictive value of what WotC proceeds with.

I guess so. A lot of recent UAs were mostly just balance tweaking or testing vs spaghetti tossing. The last one I saw that was a retreat from a bold idea was the Strixhaven subclasses. So in that regard, the difference between a Spelljammer race and it's UA version feels more predictable than looking at the Mages in packet 5 and assuming what they will look like next.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess so. A lot of recent UAs were mostly just balance tweaking or testing vs spaghetti tossing. The last one I saw that was a retreat from a bold idea was the Strixhaven subclasses. So in that regard, the difference between a Spelljammer race and it's UA version feels more predictable than looking at the Mages in packet 5 and assuming what they will look like next.

They tested 4 Subclasses in 2022 for 2023 books, and at least 2 were rejected (Rune Wizard and Dino Druid). Jury is still out on the Fate Cleric. And that's fairly typical for UA. Species options have a better track record of passing thst Class stuff, but they are way, way more simple to design and sell people on.