D&D 5E (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Quickleaf]

I didn't view Kurotowa's comment as cynical at all. I think it's possible you view the purpose of the playtest very differently from a lot of other people.

I assure you I view it as almost purely marketing.

 

[Mistwell]

It's around the 10:00 mark


"We are also doing tons of internal playtesting on the revised monsters.... along with the new encounter building approach.... You and I have chatted in previous videos that we might send out that new encounter building in an Unearthed Arcana... Right now we are focused on playtesting that internally instead..."

"What we have discovered is that just us iterating on it over and over and over again is bearing amazing fruit. What I can report is that what people are going to see in the revised DMG is a much streamlined encounter building system.... where you are able to figure out your budget for monsters.... and you spend that budget...the end...it's going to be that simple of a process. I'm looking forward to us sharing that with people later this year."

Basically, there's no plan that he's sharing to playtest monsters/encounter building externally. Maybe they'll do it, maybe they won't.

Those words do not read that way to me. "Right now" implies "this is not how it will always be, just what it is at this moment" and "sharing later" implies a UA on it later this year. Just like they did with all the prior UAs which started with internal playtesting.

They usually withhold the plan these days on these kinds of things early in the process because years and years of mentioning a play to people on the Internet taught them that will mean they can never alter the plan if circumstances change because people flip out about any alteration and call them liars and worse. So, usually they're vague just like that - even when they're planning a UA on something.

Sounds a little like it won't be public until the DMG, but that's trying to read tea leaves. Up till now, though, yes it has been exclusively internal. That's the important bit - what's happening functionally.

The issue there is...

(a) With all the heavy design work done for the classes... it was being done in absence of external feedback on the other half of the game – the monsters/challenges/GM-facing stuff that the classes are built against. That's a huge problem, in my eyes.

It had to be really. They're putting out the PHB first, it's the most complicated changes to the game which are much harder for a DM to houserule around and take the most rules-creator experience to craft. It's not a "huge problem" to do it in an order that isn't everything all at once all the time before they drill down to the PHB. It's pretty firmly in the manageable issue. They now know what the classes look like, so as they design the monsters and encounter design, they know what pocket of power the players will be, which informs their design of those elements.

 

[Parmandur]

@Morrus they confirm that the 24th of may is NOT the release dates of the books.

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

 

[Parmandur]

The conjuration spells scored in the 70s-80s%

That doesn't surprise me, even if there were a few violent reactions online.

 

[Kurotowa]

I assure you I view it as almost purely marketing.

That's also wrong. It is information gathering of a limited and specific nature. One that is not useful in all situations. So they only deploy a UA when they have material they want UA type feedback on.

 

[Parmandur]

I assure you I view it as almost purely marketing.

Well, yes, they have always made it clear that is what UA is: to test the marketability of options. If people don't like a particular ular option, they cut it or try something else. All it ever has been or been represented as being. Nothing cynical about that.

the internal network, which mind you is huge, is what they use for rigorous testing.

The newencounter stuff is targeting the same numbers as the old stuff, so there really isn't anything to temperature test.

 

[Quickleaf]

I didn't perceive his comments about that as "exclusively" internally testing any of it. My impression was they are "currently" internally testing it. Much like they initially internally playtested the Player's Handbook materials. I think we will see UA's with new monsters. Possible also with the encounter building design.

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.

That's a narrower subset of players with preferences that can be addressed with a very easy solution already at hand - remove those spells from the game. The game will function just fine without them.

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?"

There's this assumption that: (a) because modern gamers don't play exploration like in the old days, (b) the game shouldn't involve significant attention to exploration play.

IME, it's almost exactly the reverse: (b) because the game doesn't involve significant attention to exploration play, (b) modern gamers don't play exploration.

What I end up advising the GMs I mentor is to get creative & break the rules & create new rules to facilitate exploration in a more narrative-driven approach, rather than the old way of hyper-focusing on logistics and resource management. When they make that switch, I hear GMs and their groups having a blast.

I don't view it as this small subset of players that you do. And I think D&D should be doing the job of facilitating that type of enjoyment.

They had to start with something and it makes sense to start with the first book they plan to put out...

It had to be really. They're putting out the PHB first, it's the most complicated changes to the game which are much harder for a DM to houserule around and take the most rules-creator experience to craft. It's not a "huge problem" to do it in an order that isn't everything all at once all the time before they drill down to the PHB. It's pretty firmly in the manageable issue. They now know what the classes look like, so as they design the monsters and encounter design, they know what pocket of power the players will be, which informs their design of those elements.

From a practical standpoint of book layout, yes, the PHB needs to be prioritized.

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.

They usually withhold the plan these days on these kinds of things early in the process because years and years of mentioning a play to people on the Internet taught them that will mean they can never alter the plan if circumstances change because people flip out about any alteration and call them liars and worse. So, usually they're vague just like that - even when they're planning a UA on something.

I guess that's one approach to managing expectations. I'd think there are better ways to accomplish that, but they know their fan base. I agree that this is unfortunate.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

I stopped taking them seriously when they touted the now-defunct Flex as the best Weapon Mastery.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree. But I am still disappointed with the Base Druid and Moon Druid, because I want wildshape to easily allow any beast form from a diverse fantasy world, scalable for effectiveness, without having to access the Monster Manual. Am I expecting too much from wildshape? Should it be so limited because it is tied to a full caster class?

Anyone here think the UA8 Druid gets 5 stars, with not being able to be effective at high levels in a preferred form like a wolf (because the high CR beasts are extremely limited in number and theme)? And being limited to forms in the PH appendix that won't have stats for wolverines or moosen or hiphoppopotami or other cool beasts? There are so many cool animals/beasts that can't even fit in the Monster Manual.

If this is what we get, I guess we just have to stick with reskinning (which is little different than templates, imo) or making things up as we go again.

Is the UA8 wildshape not using the PC’s HP and PB?

What else would you need for the wolf to stay usable? Spend a spell slot for scaling magical damage dice on attacks?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Monk got into the 90s approval

Very excited about this.