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

[Haplo781]

Isn't that a problem with the player who makes the choice to do that?

Why should one archetype be punished?

 

[Minigiant]

We disagree. I thought it was dumb in 4E, time hasn't changed my mind. There's no reason taunting and brutality would work on an ooze or any number of monstrous creatures. Feints are dexterity.

In any case I don't expect it to change.

Charisma attacking is a 3e thing.
Improved Feint spamming. It doesn't work on oozes and barely on animals.

We actually don't disagree.

The thing is Mearls and Thompson's data stated that the majority of players don't want a bunch of option in combat. However instead of soloing feinting into a fighting style or subclass, they reduced it's mechanics and added it to the multitude of options for the battlemaster and bloated its total per turn options.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think anyone says the surveys were bunk.

What is constantly said is that because of the way it was handled, the playtest would have unforseen biases and holes.

WOTC realized this and for the most part their playtest for One D,&D has actively addressed those holes and boss because they analyzed the DNDN playtest in post mortem.

A lot has changed over the past decade, the target audience size has increased exponentially so it makes sense they're recalibrating. We'll see how much they actually change. There will always be things that could be done better.

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.

 

[billd91]

Why should one archetype be punished?

Is it really a punishment to give up a + here or there compared to the fighter who maxes out strength in order to invest elsewhere? No. The game tolerates a lot more than that.

 

[Haplo781]

Is it really a punishment to give up a + here or there compared to the fighter who maxes out strength in order to invest elsewhere? No. The game tolerates a lot more than that.

Yes, yes it is.

 

[Minigiant]

Is it really a punishment to give up a + here or there compared to the fighter who maxes out strength in order to invest elsewhere? No. The game tolerates a lot more than that.

It is actually a big punishment as 5e does not lower the Parity of Ability Scores and runs on a very simplified base.

When the playtest surveys told the designers that players did not want high complexity combat, some of the complexity was stripped out of 5e. These had an unexpected effect of further wonking the balance between the ability scores. And since the playtests was done in big unfocused bunches, it was not addressed.

The biggest takeaway from this post-mortem is that the design team realized they handed out too much info. So the big shocking stuff had a lot of feedback but smaller stuff snuck in the cracks barely watched.

 

[MwaO]

Just one thing I'd note about the data they're using. They had really horrifically bad survey design in multiple ways. You can see the outcome in Ranger, which the October 2013 showed people were generally really happy with the Ranger.

Really, surveys need to establish baselines. Who is taking the survey. What are their likes and dislikes. Then ask them questions. Surveys are basically useless without that. And in D&D, that means finding out favorite classes & editions. Do people answer the same way each time, etc...

 

[MwaO]

I don't think anyone says the surveys were bunk.

What is constantly said is that because of the way it was handled, the playtest would have unforseen biases and holes.

WOTC realized this and for the most part their playtest for One D,&D has actively addressed those holes and bias because they analyzed the DNDN playtest in post mortem.

I would say the surveys were bunk.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I find one way to make all martial characters more compelling is to take bard expertise away from Bards and instead give it to everyone who isn't a full caster. If spell casters are going to have utility spells they can use in place of skills they should not be on par with other characters when it comes to baseline skills.

I agree in spirit but not mechanics. The bard is squishier than a cleric with a smaller, and generally weaker, spell list so "the skillful caster" is its thing. (As compared to the super-flexible wizard or the metamagic blaster sorceror) But even if I think bard is balanced to other casters, that doesn't mean I don't think more love is needed for martial classes.

Personally I'd say that on levels 6, 10, 14, 18 the fighter & barbarian get 2 "jack of some trades" (half proficient) skills that they can trade for languages 1:1, leave as half skills, combine 2:1 for fully proficient skills/tools or layer onto an existing proficient for expertise. That gives them the ability to round out a character either broadly or deeply as the player likes.

 

[billd91]

It is actually a big punishment as 5e does not lower the Parity of Ability Scores and runs on a very simplified base.

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.