D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Quickleaf]

It is and remains CR 1, and it might be adjusted to better reflect that CR, as mentioned

Right, this gets to the heart of the issue...

Because if that's the way they go, then the 2024 Quickling will deal significantly less damage than the 2014 Quickling. Why? Because the 2014 DMG maths pin the 2014 Quickling as a CR 3 (technically 2.5).

So if they produce an adventure that mentions 2d4 quicklings for a party of 3rd level PCs – that makes sense in their re-tooled 2024 guidelines, but it's very likely a party killer if the GM uses the quicklings in VGtM.

it will hit in accordance with its CR

Right, same issue. Now the 2024 hobgoblins will do significantly less damage than the 2014 hobgoblins. We have two versions within "the same edition" (technically three if you count Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse).

because they are improving their math / formula, so the monsters match the CR better


feel free to, I still disagree with you too

By "improving" you mean actually getting the maths right the second time around...hopefully?

 

[Shardstone]

I'm excited for them, and I love Jeremy and Todd's enthusiasm, but man their playtesting priorities seem bizarre to me. All the points they keep congratulating themselves for, are the very points that have me raising my eyebrow.

We have a public playtest...of exclusively player-facing content...so the only metric of monsters/challenges for us to compare this player content to...is the old stuff we have.

And then... we're informed they are changing some things in their monster/challenge design... and they are exclusively internally testing their new monsters and encounter building... why on earth? EDIT: "exclusively" is my own cynical take, not verbatim.

Then the questions that are NOT asked during their playtest feedback process are enormous. It's this very very pigeonholed process (yes, I gave that feedback on Playtest Packets 1-6, got too tired to keep saying the same thing when 7-8 came out).

For example...they talk about honoring the history of D&D on its 50th anniversary...and we still have low level spells like Goodberry or the heavily powered-up 5e Leomund's Tiny Hut that are radically disruptive to exploration styles of play which were historically a big part of D&D. Did we ever get playtest material addressing these spells? No. Did we ever get playtest material reimagining the scant exploration rules for a modern audience? No.

It's absolutely mind boggling to me. Please, someone help me understand?

Quick, I hate to break it to you, but this is the reality of the current WotC team. We are not getting serious fixes and the playtest is to drum up interest and engagement first, finding holes to fix a far away second.

 

[Yaarel]

We have a public playtest...of exclusively player-facing content...so the only metric of monsters/challenges for us to compare this player content to...is the old stuff we have.

And then... we're informed they are changing some things in their monster/challenge design... and they are exclusively internally testing their new monsters and encounter building... why on earth? EDIT: "exclusively" is my own cynical take, not verbatim.

Regarding monsters for playtesting against.

The monsters in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse are the most recent update of the math of 5e.

This product is compatible with 2024 moving forward.

Even if the designers tinker with some monster features, or add or delete monsters, the fundamental math of 2024 appears to be Mordenkainen. So it is a suitable source to build playtest scenarios, until we get more info about 2024 monsters in a future UA.

For example...they talk about honoring the history of D&D on its 50th anniversary...and we still have low level spells like Goodberry or the heavily powered-up 5e Leomund's Tiny Hut that are radically disruptive to exploration styles of play which were historically a big part of D&D. Did we ever get playtest material addressing these spells? No. Did we ever get playtest material reimagining the scant exploration rules for a modern audience? No.

This valid issue, seems more to do with designing a setting. To remove official options and to add variant or indy options is normally a necessary part of DM worldbuilding.

So, discussing which spells are or arent appropriate belongs in the DMs Guide. (Along with which species are or arent appropriate, classes, backgrounds, equipment, skills, toolsets, etcetera etcetera.)


Regarding spell balance. I am delighted the designers have been updating various subpar (and a few problematic) spells with more powerful (or more coherent) versions. I am even more delighted that feedback is majorly positive.

2014 did a good job of removing the overpowered spells from earlier editions, but left many subpar spells in place. At least some of these subpar spells are getting a boost. I hope all of them do.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm here for you, but I am not sure what you are confused about. What do you need help with understanding? Or, perhaps more importantly, why do you need to understand?

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but in case it wasn't clear from my earlier post...

• Why is the playtest exclusively focused on player-facing content, when design necessitates looking at both player-facing and GM-facing material in concert?
• Why are they hyper-focusing on class design, without addressing larger rules issues around, for example, exploration?
• Why are their playtest surveys structured to focus on this narrow bandwidth of commenting on class/subclass design at the expense of bigger picture questions?

 

[mamba]

@FitzTheRuke you called it: they plan to be still working on the books in May!

I am wondering about the timeline now. If the PHB is still being worked on in May, then I am not sure it can be available before September / October.

If the releases are staggered on top of that, then I don’t think they will be releasing all three core books this year (I assume PHB comes first, but even if it didn’t it would not be guaranteed)

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What is the CR of a quickling? Is it 1 like VGtM says or 3 like the DMG maths say?

The 2024 should more closely match a CR 1 (at least that is the stated goal).

Will a 2024 hobgoblin hit like a 2014 hobgoblin?

It will hit appropriate for its CR (at least that is the stated goal).

Why are they (WotC) upturning higher CR monsters to be more threatening if there’s nothing wrong with them?

I strongly disagree with you.

They have admitted there are some errors in some of the monsters math. But it is not universal and not universally one direction (all easier or all harder). For example, all dragons after the MM have been "weaker" but more CR appropriate. I expect the 2024 MM to follow the same line of thinking. Tweaking some monsters as needed to make them more correctly reflect their CR. That has been their stated goal from the beginning.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but in case it wasn't clear from my earlier post...

• Why is the playtest exclusively focused on player-facing content, when design necessitates looking at both player-facing and GM-facing material in concert?
• Why are they hyper-focusing on class design, without addressing larger rules issues around, for example, exploration?
• Why are their playtest surveys structured to focus on this narrow bandwidth of commenting on class/subclass design at the expense of bigger picture questions?

They actually said at ome point there was a new exploration subsystem coming for the ranger to spec into, but they cut it and did the AB testing on ranger instead. So, they just dont want to do that.

 

[mamba]

Right, this gets to the heart of the issue...

Because if that's the way they go, then the 2024 Quickling will deal significantly less damage than the 2014 Quickling. Why? Because the 2014 DMG maths pin the 2014 Quickling as a CR 3 (technically 2.5).

did not do the math, I’ll go with you on that…

So if they produce an adventure that mentions 2d4 quicklings for a party of 3rd level PCs – that makes sense in their re-tooled 2024 guidelines, but it's very likely a party killer if the GM uses the quicklings in VGtM.

possibly, but then according to the CR math it should not be, so what did they do for the past 10 years?

No idea if there is an adventure with such an encounter today, but I would expect them to follow their own guidelines (by and large). So the issue is not getting introduced by 2024, but it might get solved by it…

Right, same issue. Now the 2024 hobgoblins will do significantly less damage than the 2014 hobgoblins. We have two versions within "the same edition" (technically three if you count Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse).

see above, that would be a fix to an existing issue, not the creation of a new one

By "improving" you mean actually getting the maths right the second time around...hopefully?

no, I mean improving, I am not counting on them getting it right. I am not sure there is a right, the game is much too variable for that

 

[Quickleaf]

Quick, I hate to break it to you, but this is the reality of the current WotC team. We are not getting serious fixes and the playtest is to drum up interest and engagement first, finding holes to fix a far away second.

I know you're probably right. I like the designers a lot, really and truly, besides James Haeck I'm probably Chris Perkin's number 2 fan. I've converted seven of his old adventures in Dungeon magazine for 5e one-shots. I read his Iomandra (sp?) posts. I've absorbed every bit of publicly available gaming wisdom from him. Even though we never met, he has been a significant impact on me, in a similar way that Wolfgang Baur has been. And I want to support those designers, but the overall ecosystem they (WotC) are operating in with this playtest just seems devoid of the things I'm looking for.

Regarding monsters for playtesting against.

The monsters in Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse are the most recent update of the math of 5e.

This product is compatible with 2024 moving forward.

Even if the designers tinker with some monster features, or add or delete monsters, the fundamental math of 2024 appears to be Mordenkainen. So it is a suitable source to build playtest scenarios, until we get more info about 2024 monsters in a future UA.

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I never picked up MPMotM because it seemed really thin on lore and it was republishing stuff I already own in a new format.

This valid issue, seems more to do with designing a setting. To remove official options and to add variant or indy options is normally a necessary part of DM worldbuilding.

So, discussing which spells are or arent appropriate belongs in the DMs Guide. (Along with which species are or arent appropriate, classes, backgrounds, equipment, skills, toolsets, etcetera etcetera.)

Regarding spell balance. I am delighted the designers have been updating various subpar (and a few problematic) spells with more powerful (or more coherent) versions. I am even more delighted that feedback is majorly positive.

2014 did a good job of removing the overpowered spells from earlier editions, but left many subpar spells in place. At least some of these subpar spells are getting a boost. I hope all of them do.

They have made selective improvements with certain spells in the playtests, definitely. Guidance pops out in my mind as a great change. I guess the big picture questions about play style being dramatically influenced by spells is... I don't think it's a black/white include/dis-include the spell issue... rather it's "how can we include this legacy content in a non-disruptive interesting fun way?"

Not to bag on Tiny Hut again, but if you take the time to compare Tiny Hut through every edition, it powers up through the editions, eventually becoming the "force field" version in 4e where the limiting factor is it's exclusively a ritual that costs gold. And the 5e version? Keeps the "force field", makes it an action, removes the time/gold cost. Which was completely unnecessary... and diminishes the original flavor of making a safe shelter from the elements.

So can it be included in the game without being disruptive (or requiring GM mental gymnastics)? Absolutely! It was before!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but in case it wasn't clear from my earlier post...

I couldn't really follow your earlier post. These bullet points are much more helpful. Thank you!

• Why is the playtest exclusively focused on player-facing content, when design necessitates looking at both player-facing and GM-facing material in concert?

I imagine because they information they have suggest that is what is important to people. And they have already gave some DM-facing items (bastion rules) and they had least planned have some more DMG focused playtests. I still expect them, but we will see.

• Why are they hyper-focusing on class design, without addressing larger rules issues around, for example, exploration?

First, not everything needs to have a public playtest. In fact, they mentioned that in the interview. 2nd, I'm guessing exploration rules might be more DM focused and could be part of the DMG playtest. 3rd, you don't need a more extensive exploration system. Class design is a lot more important to people than exploration rules.

• Why are their playtest surveys structured to focus on this narrow bandwidth of commenting on class/subclass design at the expense of bigger picture questions?

That I don't know, but I would guess that they feel they have the answers on the bigger picture questions. Therefore they do not feel the need for a public playtest.

I would remind you that a public playtest is nor required to make a good game or good rules. In fact, some have suggested that it has even hurt the game! So, you might ask - why have a public playtest at all!