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

[Oofta]

I AM talking about the video... in the video they say that an overwhelming majority wanted no rules for social and very different rules for explorations... but instead of taking that to the entire game, they excluded spell casters.

They did discuss it and based on feedback chose not to change anything. Maybe they will for the next release.

What else is there to say?

 

[Mistwell]

the cop out is they DIDN"T listen when it came to spells just non magic characters... they (and you) cherry picked "no social rules" to mean social spells Aokay

Again, I mentioned this to someone else above, this part changed in the next video and they explain why. They found in actual practice, due to time pressures of combat which were removed in non-combat situations, people liked MORE options during non-combat (which I assume includes more spells even for social situations) than they wanted for combat. They were less satisfied as options increased for combat, and more satisfied as options increased for non-combat. They did listen - it's just that it seems what people stated at first they wanted for non-combat ended up not being what they were satisfied with when it came to actual stuff they put out in the playtest.

I suspect for non-combat, while a spellcaster might spend the resources to do something, the actual play experience concerning the result of that spell was shared by all at the table and not really a spotlight issue on the spellcaster.

 

[Mistwell]

If that's true then why do they have SO many non combat spells if they are not used?

You have not read it yet but my response above is the answer to this - they found very clearly and consistently over a huge swath of playtesters that game satisfaction went way up as options for non-combat increased. Which was a shock to the creators.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I like the main gist of your idea....but it bothers me how often you bring out "apology edition"

But I respect your thoughts.

I get it.

It bothers me how often it's relevant.

Like I wish so much of 5E's fundamental design didn't just circle back to that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, I mentioned this to someone else above, this part changed in the next video and they explain why. They found in actual practice, due to time pressures of combat which were removed in non-combat situations, people liked MORE options during non-combat

the thing is again, I would agree with that assesement and it lines up with what I saw in 20014 AND still see today, but for some reason we take all those abilities from fighter and some/to most from rogue and monk but keep them with casters... it's odd

They were less satisfied as options increased for combat, and more satisfied as options increased for non-combat. They did listen - it's just that it seems what people stated at first they wanted for non-combat ended up not being what they were satisfied with when it came to actual stuff they put out in the playtest.

except again they some how still made some classes only have combat features (or at least mostly)

I suspect for non-combat, while a spellcaster might spend the resources to do something, the actual play experience concerning the result of that spell was shared by all at the table and not really a spotlight issue on the spellcaster.

this is an interesting bit and lines up with what I see at a micro level but not the MACRO level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You have not read it yet but my response above is the answer to this - they found very clearly and consistently over a huge swath of playtesters that game satisfaction went way up as options for non-combat increased. Which was a shock to the creators.

again as I said in my last responce... that finding lines up perfectly with what I have found. HOWEVER I also see that most to all of those options for non combat things are hidden behind spells

 

[Mistwell]

the thing is again, I would agree with that assesement and it lines up with what I saw in 20014 AND still see today, but for some reason we take all those abilities from fighter and some/to most from rogue and monk but keep them with casters... it's odd

except again they some how still made some classes only have combat features (or at least mostly)

this is an interesting bit and lines up with what I see at a micro level but not the MACRO level.

I am not sure players care who initiates the ability to alter the situation out of combat. Mearls focuses on how in out of combat situation the players all talk among themselves about a plan on how to deal with the challenge. I imagine, in the context of spells which influence social interaction, that means the players include as part of the plan, "The Wizard casts charm person" and then once the charm happens all the players participate in what comes next. The fact the wizard is the one who expended the resources isn't particularly relevant to the spotlight that comes as a result of the spell. The fighter player might tell the wizard player, "Ask him where the secret entrance to the palace is at" and that's as much interaction as the Wizard player is having as well.

My audio is screwy but I think the part of the video in question starts here?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The point is that there are many, many options.
Don't like a basic fighter? Sweet. Try someone who grapples, uses "exotic" weapons (nets, polearms, etc.).
Don't want to do that? Cool. Try a subclass like Eldritch Knight or Battle Master.
Don't like any of those options? Well, that's okay. Build your own flavor by multiclassing.
Want a few more options? Maybe check with your DM about adding some of the tactical options from the DMG (or various 3rd party sources). Or maybe some flavorful magic items would be a good way to liven things up.
Maybe you'd rather play a monk, ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc.?
Oh, none of those ideas will work for you? Maybe D&D 5e isn't the game for you. Try looking at 3.x/4e/PF1/PF2 or something else to see if it's something you like.

Or you could just have a Fighter that, as a baseline, was a little more mechanical and worked a bit better, and there could be a special dumbed-down version for the increasingly few people (mostly grogs) who actually wanted that, rather than the default being so featureless and Feat-reliant.

Also you accidentally bring up another issue with 5E - weapons. They're incredibly boring. They're just complicated enough to be mildly annoying (unlike, say, OD&D), but they're not complicated enough to be engaging or interesting (unlike 3E/4E, even 2E, arguably).

You also bring up another issue - the "tactical options", most of which rely entirely on you using your Reaction. And that just doesn't work well in 5E, because you get one Reaction, and only one, per turn, ever. Which I get the design behind, but the "tactical options" are pathetic, because they're pretty much all balanced as if you had multiple Reactions, like 2E/3E/4E, i.e. they're typically very poor bang for your buck, whatever the cost is.

Really, what you're doing here is illustrating my point. 5E is an upgrade from 3E for martials, in terms of relative power, but not a huge one (it did more to squash down full casters than bring up martials, but a downgrade in terms of interesting-ness from 3E, and a massive downgrade in both from 4E. It's perfectly reasonable and right to feel that that is not a good thing, and was a serious mistake, and should be address. You've put no real counter-arguments, just workarounds which as I've said, don't really work.

And not a single thing you've suggested addresses one of the most fundamental issues with Fighters - doing anything at all successfully outside of combat, except Athletics checks, and even then the Paladin is likely just as good, and the Barbarian is likely considerably better. That's just outright bad design. That's not something you can fix in a reasonable way with existing rules. It requires a redesign, and hope 1D&D will achieve that. Fighters just got underdesigned for both outside-combat pillars.

The only light at the end of the tunnel here, and hopefully it's not Mirage Arcana or something, is that 1D&D changing how Feats work hopefully means they won't design the 1D&D Fighter to rely on "I got more Feats than other people" in the same way (because level-locking Feats will make the Fighter "Feat advantage" potentially significantly less useful), which will also potentially open things up design-wise on the Fighter subclasses. I'm fine with there still being a "Fighter for buzzed grogs*", but like, make the same thing for the other classes if you're going to do that, and if you can't do it for the other classes, just don't do it. Don't penalize an entire class for a tiny subset of people who play it.

* = I mean it's not like I'm never a buzzed grog, but you get my point I think.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am not sure players care who initiates the ability to alter the situation out of combat. Mearls focuses on how in out of combat situation the players all talk among themselves about a plan on how to deal with the challenge.

that matches my experience both at experienced and newb games. Everyone pools a 'what can we do' list and then decide on a plan...sometimes it happens at the moment with out of game talk but over time people get used to what others have and can do. "The warlock can talk with animals at will" or "The warlock knows all languages" or "The ranger has a spell to help us all stealth better" becomes just a known thing.

I imagine, in the context of spells which influence social interaction, that means the players include as part of the plan, "The Wizard casts charm person" and then once the charm happens all the players participate in what comes next. The fact the wizard is the one who expended the resources isn't particularly relevant to the spotlight that comes as a result of the spell. The fighter player might tell the wizard player, "Ask him where the secret entrance to the palace is at" and that's as much interaction as the Wizard player is having as well.

again, but thing is that I don't understand why all of (okay it's most not all of them) are located in the spells not other subsystems.

My audio is screwy but I think the part of the video in question starts here?

thank you

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks are getting a little testy in here.

When folks get testy, there's red text and someone ends up unhappy. You don't want to be the unhappy one, right? So, if you're feeling testy, maybe find another discussion for a while.