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

[Mistwell]

I hope you're right! And that may be the case! You raised this point in your second post, so I'm replying to both here...

There is a real question of lead-time, however. There is a huge amount of playtesting that needs to happen between player classes & monsters. Playtesting leads to design iteration. IF there is going to be meaningful external feedback in that process (I'm arguing there that there needs to be), we're running out of time for that feedback to be incorporated because we don't have anything tangible about their redesigned monsters / encounter building.

I've heard this "running out of time" claim many times over the past year. The lead designer literally just said in the very video for this thread that they intend to still be playtesting in May. How are we running out of time, and why do people keep claiming they know the due date for this stuff? We don't even have a firm commitment that all three books will be out this year. All we really know is PHB 2024. There does appear to be time to playtest DMG and MM material.

It troubles me so much when I hear this. One of my passions is mentoring new GMs – I did this for my nephew, a friend at my local game store, a friend back in the Navy, and a dozen or so folks online – it's a small number of people I know, but it's what I've got. One of the questions that I get consistently asked is "how do I do overland travel / exploration so it's fun?"

Yes, and I replied about the exploration segment that I agree. It's the spells section I disagreed about, and while there is some overlap between the two, not really. New players should start with the game as written and then see what they like and remove stuff they don't like after they have tried it out. That's working as intended.

However, from a design standpoint, focusing on player-facing content first, and then GM-facing content second is a disaster waiting to happen. At this scale of design, it's both happening at the same time. If you neglect one, that's how unforeseen play issues arise (e.g. the monk's Stunning Fist having multiple problematic interactions with different types of monsters). Designing in isolation almost always causes significant downstream problems.

That seems like hyperbole backed by no evidence. The basic monster design is the same they're just adding more and varied abilities to those monsters it seems. The CR system will change but that has no real impact on PC design. I am not seeing the problem and I think you'd need to do a lot more to demonstrate it's a problem. It's not like we're starting from scratch here and suddenly monsters have no AC and use an entirely different basic mechanic for ordinary elements of combat.

 

[Shardstone]

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.


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.


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!

I agree. However, seeing what Mearls has made on patreon in just a few weeks compared to the wotc playtest kinda opened my eyes. Like oooooh...this really is all they think they should do.

 

[Shardstone]

I've heard this "running out of time" claim many times over the past year. The lead designer literally just said in the very video for this thread that they intend to still be playtesting in May. How are we running out of time, and why do people keep claiming they know the due date for this stuff? We don't even have a firm commitment that all three books will be out this year. All we really know is PHB 2024. There does appear to be time to playtest DMG and MM material.




Yes, and I replied about the exploration segment that I agree. It's the spells section I disagreed about, and while there is some overlap between the two, not really. New players should start with the game as written and then see what they like and remove stuff they don't like after they have tried it out. That's working as intended.


That seems like hyperbole backed by no evidence. The basic monster design is the same they're just adding more and varied abilities to those monsters it seems. The CR system will change but that has no real impact on PC design. I am not seeing the problem and I think you'd need to do a lot more to demonstrate it's a problem. It's not like we're starting from scratch here and suddenly monsters have no AC and use an entirely different basic mechanic for ordinary elements of combat.

Its because crawford a few videos ago said they didnt have time to keep trying big changes, so now people are worried about how much time is left.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

That seems like unsubstantiated hyperbole too. You don't pay huge teams of employees to review every comment of every one of thousands and thousands of submissions for a side secondary purpose. And we've seen them make major revisions to the rules based on that feedback. So naw, I think you're reaching on that one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

UA8 Wildshape uses "Known Forms" which are beast stat blocks that will be included in the PHB. It has the same Max CR and Fly Speed restrictions as 2014 PHB. The key difference is you maintain your proficiency bonus and your Hit Points, just gaining temporary HP when you Wildshape equal to your druid level.

And guess what's NOT included in UA8 – what those beast stat blocks will look like! Amazing. Right now, we're assuming they look like the stat blocks in the 2014 PHB or 2014 MM.

When I read it, immediately I imagined those Summon Shadow / Summon Fey spells from TCoE that require reworking the maths as you level – basically it's ideal for an online play environment where those maths are offloaded to the application.

Right so assuming 2014 wolf stats, the only thing I can imagine it’s lacking at higher level is multiattack, right? Its attack, HP, knockdown DC, saves, etc, should all scale as the Druid levels.

 

[Mistwell]

Its because crawford a few videos ago said they didnt have time to keep trying big changes, so now people are worried about how much time is left.

They reached the point with the PHB classes that they were nearing the end of the major changes phase. I don't recall him saying that about MM and DMG content.

 

[mamba]

you might ask - why have a public playtest at all!

my answer to that is that they want to avoid accidentally creating another 4e without realizing it, because they have no idea what their audience actually wants / likes

Anything beyond that is nice to have, avoiding such a trap is the main goal

 

[Shardstone]

That seems like unsubstantiated hyperbole too. You don't pay huge teams of employees to review every comment of every one of thousands and thousands of submissions for a side secondary purpose. And we've seen them make major revisions to the rules based on that feedback. So naw, I think you're reaching on that one.

How am I reaching when they said they were reverting back major changes to better preserve cross comapability? Or when they said they cit the new wilderness exploration system? Like the very obvious design here is conservative, which is fine, but aim literally just pointing out what they said too lol

 

[Quickleaf]

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

I don't want you to trust my word. I'll share my maths. Btw I previously shared them on ENWorld waaay back in 2017 but finding stuff can be a p.i.t.a.

5e Quickling (abbreviated from VGtM): CR 1 (200 xp); AC 16; HP 10; Multiattack (x3): +8 hit, 8.5 (1d4+6) damage.
Blurred Movement. Attack rolls against the quickling have disadvantage unless the quickling is incapacitated or restrained.
Evasion. If the quickling is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.

CR calculation is average of Defense CR and Offense CR. See DMG page 274 for the monster maths table.

Because there are no direct/easy equivalents to Blurred Movement and Evasion, I am not factoring those into the Defense CR calculation. Certainly they SHOULD be factored in, but I'm leaving them out to magnify the extend of the CR inaccuracy assigned to this monster.

Defense CR
HP 10, AC 16 = CR 1/4

Offense CR
25.5 DPR with +8 to hit = CR 5

Total CR
( 5 + 0.25 ) / 2 = 2.625, rounded up to CR 3

If we assume that Blurred Movement is worth +2 AC, and Evasion +1 AC – based on my experience, these are reasonable estimates – the quickling's effective AC becomes 19, making its defense CR = 1, and squarely putting its total CR at 3.

In other words, any way you slice the cake, it's a CR 3 monster (according to 2014 DMG maths).

 

[Shardstone]

They reached the point with the PHB classes that they were nearing the end of the major changes phase. I don't recall him saying that about MM and DMG content.

The general masses dont care about that.