D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Haplo781]

You and I clearly don't agree on what constitutes punishment, much less "big punishment". The fairly low increases in AC mean that being a point or two down in attacks isn't a huge problem.

Try playing literally any class without your starting +2 ASI and let me know how trivial the difference is.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ironically, 3.5 Warforged Warlocks were fun and popular flavor.

View attachment 261370

ROBO was an autognome - the UA version (barely changed in publication). I normally don't like using UA material in play, but it fit my concept so well and the design was so good that I went ahead (with permission of the DM, of course).

... to be honest, I wanted ROBO to be an artificer, but we already had an artificer in the party so... pew pew warlock it was! I made him fathomless, but instead of the sea it was the void of space he was adapted to.

 

[billd91]

Try playing literally any class without your starting +2 ASI and let me know how trivial the difference is.

I have literally never had a problem with it. Playing cross archetype with racial based ASIs going to something else never bothered me.
The difference is minor, and well-within tolerable levels.

 

[Ancalagon]

You and I clearly don't agree on what constitutes punishment, much less "big punishment". The fairly low increases in AC mean that being a point or two down in attacks isn't a huge problem.

It's a rough trade-off to make.

I once had a "not optimised" fighter - a rune knight that was dex build, shield and board, and with "wasted" feats like lucky or ritual caster. He had started as a psi warrior, died, "rebuild" as a rune knight but remained his "sage" outlook.

It certainly made the character more broad and more interesting, but only because we didn't have a wizard (which made the ritual casting more valuable) and, more importantly, this was a "two tanks" party so I could "afford" not to be optimized. (another factor was the strenght of the rune knight subclass).

In general, what I'm trying to say is that giving up some points on say constitution to increase something like charisma or intelligence, feels like you are losing more than you are gaining - a little bit of breath and versatility for a meaningful reduction in combat capacity.

The monk has this problem too. Because it has more "extra" abilities (speed etc), it has to be weaker in combat than the fighter - and not the fighter as its best, but the "sword and shield no feats" fighter. Once again, a more versatile and broad character, but with meaningful reduction in combat capacity.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have literally never had a problem with it. Playing cross archetype with racial based ASIs going to something else never bothered me.
The difference is minor, and well-within tolerable levels.

Tolerable levels is subjective. The point is, people want to be able to play the concepts that interest them without being at a disadvantage compared to people who played more “traditional” concepts.

 

[Ancalagon]

Tolerable levels is subjective. The point is, people want to be able to play the concepts that interest them without being at a disadvantage compared to people who played more “traditional” concepts.

it's a hard line to parse though. If character A is just as good as character B in combat but much more versatile... why play B?

but perhaps we are getting off topic

 

[Charlaquin]

it's a hard line to parse though. If character A is just as good as character B in combat but much more versatile... why play B?

but perhaps we are getting off topic

Is a charismatic fighter significantly more versatile than a strong fighter? If so, seems like a problem that could do with addressing. Perhaps strength is lacking in versatility.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But again, what I was actually talking about was the post that said "actual worthwhile surveys rather than useless push-polls." I was literally repeating their words.

I mean, you call a spade a spade.

There was literally a poll they conducted at one point during the D&D Next playtest where all of the answers were some flavor of "yes." I am not joking. The most negative you were allowed to be was something like "it's cool but not my style." You literally could not choose an option that didn't approve of the thing being discussed. Of course, because it was a poll conducted on the old Wizards website, it no longer exists now, so I cannot actually give you a link for it (I mean maybe I could but I don't feel like potentially-fruitlessly digging through the Internet Archive to find a link.)

But it definitely existed, and caused some ruffled feathers, to say the least, amongst folks who weren't happy with whatever the poll was about.

WotC, during the entire time they were doing the D&D Next playtest, conducted shoddy surveys that were very clearly biased toward the answers they expected.

 

[glass]

Why do people insist that WOTC doesn't know what they're doing?

Because we have seen the polls. More to the point, people who do that kind of survey for a living have seen the polls, and said they're naughty word.

please quote where I said incompetent or worthless?

You may not have, but I did say "worthless". I did not say "incompetent", but it was kinda implied. And I will say it explicitly now: Whoever came up with the polls during the DDN playtest was incompetent when it came to designing playtest polls.

That is not to say they did not have competencies in other areas; just that they were lacking in this particular one.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Tolerable levels is subjective. The point is, people want to be able to play the concepts that interest them without being at a disadvantage compared to people who played more “traditional” concepts.

it's a hard line to parse though. If character A is just as good as character B in combat but much more versatile... why play B?

Is a charismatic fighter significantly more versatile than a strong fighter? If so, seems like a problem that could do with addressing. Perhaps strength is lacking in versatility.

I would presume based upon the three posts you both made that Ancalagon was under the impression that in order for a person to play a fighter that "interested" them that was not at a disadvantage against a traditional fighter meant that both fighters had equal levels of standard fighter abilities (STR, DEX, CON) while the "interesting" fighter also had a high CHA (or whatever it was that made it "interesting".) And in that regard... then yes, if the "interesting" fighter was equal to a traditional fighter and got to raise a mental stat really high... then there would be no reason to play a traditional fighter.

But that's just not doable. If you take Standard or Point Buy into account when creating your PC... you can't give a fighter a high mental stat while also being equal in physical stats. You have to sacrifice at least one of the physical stats by a point or two in order to bump your mental one.

Although really... how big of a sacrifice are we talking here? If you wanted to make a charismatic fighter and even with using Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)... you put put your +1 in STR and your +2 in CHA and you can get a PC that is STR 16 / DEX 13 / CON 14 / INT 8 / WIS 10 / CHA 14. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this character. Unless of course the player is going to complain about being a point or two lower on WIS saves than they might otherwise want to be. But that's then the player putting game mechanics ahead of character concept-- wanting their cake and eating it too. But in that regard that's just too bad... there's no requirement that says every PC is to be fully up on all possible defenses against all possible attacks while also having their creative "interesting" abilities as well.

You want a charismatic fighter... you might have to be less intelligent and/or be 5 or 10% worse on WIS saves than your traditional fighter build might be. Or maybe have your WIS boosted too, but have no DEX. It's all choices. But there's no fighter out there that will be strong, charismatic, and have really good DEX / CON / WIS saves... unless the DM has PCs roll for ability scores and the player lucks out.

 

[Hussar]

LOL! And yet even despite this... there are players out there who insist that a Summoner class is a necessary addition to the game.

raises hand

Yeah, I KNOW how much of a massive pain it is, but, I really, really WANNA!

And, I think it could be done. Just stop with the masses of critters.

 

[Hussar]

You want a charismatic fighter... you might have to be less intelligent and/or be 5 or 10% worse on WIS saves than your traditional fighter build might be. Or maybe have your WIS boosted too, but have no DEX. It's all choices. But there's no fighter out there that will be strong, charismatic, and have really good DEX / CON / WIS saves... unless the DM has PCs roll for ability scores and the player lucks out.

But if I can use my Cha for attacks, just like the Artificer can, or the Hexblade, then it doesn't matter so much what my Str or Dex is.

Oh, but, right. We can only have Cha for attacks because of maaaaaagic. No matter what anyone says, or any other options put forward or any possible explanation of justification, you MUST USE Dex or Str for attacks NO MATTER WHAT*

*Unless, of course, you're a caster, in which case, use whatever stat you like best.

Why do people so vehemently oppose options that in no way force them to change the way they do things but allow other people to do things they want to do? If there's an option to allow fighters to use Cha to attack, or any other stat, and you want to play the same fighter you've always played, PLAY THAT. Why do you feel the need (and I don't mean you @Defcon1 - generic you) to patrol and control what other people do at their tables?

It's just like the floating ASI arguments. OH!!! You cannot have a floating ASi, that means that you can play a strong halfling or a weak goliath, and I must tell your table that I will never play at that you must not play that way!!!

Maybe if folks would stop trying to police how other people play the game, we'd all be a lot happier.

 

[DEFCON 1]

raises hand

Yeah, I KNOW how much of a massive pain it is, but, I really, really WANNA!

And, I think it could be done. Just stop with the masses of critters.

Heh heh... but isn't a Summoner class that doesn't use masses of critters just a Pet class? Which we already have now several times over?

And even if we wanted a usable mass of critters for a Summoner class... a large number of small critters that all can be run really quickly... isn't that just a Swarm? Which-- while yes is supposed to be hundreds of critters-- is run exactly like a single monster? Which basically turns it back into a Pet class (but whose "pet" is a Swarm)?

Seems to me that neither the twain shall meet... you can't have a Summoner that uses masses of critters that actually plays like using masses of critters... while also not turning their turn into a gigantic slog of waiting for the player to move and attack with 5+ different tokens on the battlefield.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why do people so vehemently oppose options that in no way force them to change the way they do things but allow other people to do things they want to do?

No worries... I didn't think you were referring to me personally on your post.

But to try and answer your question... seems to me that the game just wants to be simpler whenever possible. And explaining how well you use a weapon based off of your STR or your DEX is the simplest option, because the reasoning for it makes logical sense. But trying to do that explanation for all six ability scores and make them seem understandable and reasonable from a non-magical standpoint is more difficult. Not impossible of course... just more difficult.

So is it wrong that WotC chooses to go simpler in this case? To not go deep into the weeds trying to explain how/why a character's force of personality or their intellect allows them to be a really good swordfighter even if they are a weakling and clumsy oaf? Obviously it can be done... but it just needs more word-count and page space to do so. So is that explanation and allowance to certain players to be able to "play what they want" worth the complexity and loss of space? I think every designer and player will have a different opinion on the matter.

I will say though that for me personally... if we really wanted to get across the idea that someone could be a quality swordfighter even if they were "weak" and "clumsy"... I think it'd be easier to just add an "Attack" ability score to the game. One that just tells us who good of a weapon-user you are and isn't aligned to any of the other six ability scores at all. That way you don't have to bother with trying to justify any explanations for using a different ability for your attacks... you can just be a good swordfighter regardless of what your ability scores are.

That's what Mutants & Masterminds did originally I believe, and it seemed to be okay. The only major result though was that I suspect every single combat character probably maxed out their attack and defense scores because why wouldn't they? Which also is probably fine for most players... except for the few that thinks that sort of standardization is "boring". But so be it.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, you call a spade a spade.

There was literally a poll they conducted at one point during the D&D Next playtest where all of the answers were some flavor of "yes." I am not joking. The most negative you were allowed to be was something like "it's cool but not my style." You literally could not choose an option that didn't approve of the thing being discussed. Of course, because it was a poll conducted on the old Wizards website, it no longer exists now, so I cannot actually give you a link for it (I mean maybe I could but I don't feel like potentially-fruitlessly digging through the Internet Archive to find a link.)

But it definitely existed, and caused some ruffled feathers, to say the least, amongst folks who weren't happy with whatever the poll was about.

WotC, during the entire time they were doing the D&D Next playtest, conducted shoddy surveys that were very clearly biased toward the answers they expected.

Did they make some mistakes? Sure. Everyone does. Was the majority of the playtest pointless or poorly run? No.

Saying they "during the entire time they were doing the D&D Next playtest, conducted shoddy survey" is insulting to everyone who likes what they did.

 

[Hussar]

So is it wrong that WotC chooses to go simpler in this case? To not go deep into the weeds trying to explain how/why a character's force of personality or their intellect allows them to be a really good swordfighter even if they are a weakling and clumsy oaf? Obviously it can be done... but it just needs more word-count and page space to do so. So is that explanation and allowance to certain players to be able to "play what they want" worth the complexity and loss of space? I think every designer and player will have a different opinion on the matter.

I'm not sure that tracks though. After all, the exact same argument applied to ASI's and now we have floating ASI's. It's far simpler, after all, if all halflings get a Dex bonus or all Goliath's get a Str bonus.

I'm not sure they need to explain it at all. After all, they don't really explain it now. We accept Str and Dex for attacks because, well, we've had it that way for fifty years. But, there's no actual reason for it to be like that. And, if the arguments against floating ASI's don't really hold much water, I'm not sure that allowing players to choose their "attack" stat is all that different.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So is it wrong that WotC chooses to go simpler in this case? To not go deep into the weeds trying to explain how/why a character's force of personality or their intellect allows them to be a really good swordfighter even if they are a weakling and clumsy oaf? Obviously it can be done... but it just needs more word-count and page space to do so.

In the context of a book that devotes more pages to spell descriptions than the class features of all the classes combined, the answer to your initial question is..

Yes

It is wrong that WoTC chooses to go simpler in this case. It is difficult to argue a case for brevity/economy of effort when this disparity exists..and has only gotten larger over the course of the edition.

 

[Oofta]

But if I can use my Cha for attacks, just like the Artificer can, or the Hexblade, then it doesn't matter so much what my Str or Dex is.

Oh, but, right. We can only have Cha for attacks because of maaaaaagic. No matter what anyone says, or any other options put forward or any possible explanation of justification, you MUST USE Dex or Str for attacks NO MATTER WHAT*

*Unless, of course, you're a caster, in which case, use whatever stat you like best.

Why do people so vehemently oppose options that in no way force them to change the way they do things but allow other people to do things they want to do? If there's an option to allow fighters to use Cha to attack, or any other stat, and you want to play the same fighter you've always played, PLAY THAT. Why do you feel the need (and I don't mean you @Defcon1 - generic you) to patrol and control what other people do at their tables?

It's just like the floating ASI arguments. OH!!! You cannot have a floating ASi, that means that you can play a strong halfling or a weak goliath, and I must tell your table that I will never play at that you must not play that way!!!

Maybe if folks would stop trying to police how other people play the game, we'd all be a lot happier.

Well, yes, only strength or dex make a difference for attacks that are based purely on a physical skill that a mundane fighter uses. It's logical and intuitive. If you want to let them use [insert ability score here] to attack, feel free to house rule it. Publish something on DmsGuild. But I want the game to have at least a nod towards ability scores making sense, even if that limits min-maxing capabilities. Because that's what we're really talking about - that if you can't use charisma to attack you have to have to reduce some ability elsewhere and gasp see a 5% reduction in something that nobody at the table will ever notice.

It's not policing what others can do. It's about game design that we enjoy. Using any ability at all to attack (especially when there are plenty of options) is counterintuitive, illogical and off-putting. When I build a PC I'm forced to make compromises and choices. I want the imagery and archetype to make sense. Using charisma to attack is not supporting any archetype, it's a parody. Compromising on what I'm good at and supporting logical tropes is a core component of the game that makes it enjoyable to me and to most people I play with.

If you want to be good at everything go back and use 3.5's point buy so you can get an 18 and the heroic point buy with 32 (or more) points. I don't want my PC or other PCs at the table being good at everything.

It's impossible to design a game that pleases everyone. Maybe if some folks would stop trying to make the game all about them and accept that there will always be compromises, they'd be a lot happier.

 

[James Gasik]

I'd like Intelligence to have an impact on physical combat. Watch the boxing match from the first RDJ Sherlock Holmes film, where he invokes the "awesome by analysis" trope to predict not only what his opponent will do, but comes up with a strategy to defeat his opponent in the most efficient way, including a diagnosis for the injuries he deals.

Seems to be an Intelligent warrior should be better than a dullard, right?

 

[Oofta]

I'd like Intelligence to have an impact on physical combat. Watch the boxing match from the first RDJ Sherlock Holmes film, where he invokes the "awesome by analysis" trope to predict not only what his opponent will do, but comes up with a strategy to defeat his opponent in the most efficient way, including a diagnosis for the injuries he deals.

Seems to be an Intelligent warrior should be better than a dullard, right?

Would you be okay with a wizard using strength to cast spells?