D&D 5E General PHB Speculation Thread [+]

[Mistwell]

Of course I didn't act like you were able to tell the future, nor did I act like you didn't know they have internal playtesting.

I told you, the only sentence that was a reply to you in a multi-quote function that your desire was confirmed and that they were testing it internally.

"Remember, they do have internal playtesting" implies I didn't previously remember that?

 

[bedir than]

"Remember, they do have internal playtesting" implies I didn't previously remember that?

I tried to use carriage returns to make it obvious the statement in question was in general, not to either of the quoted individuals. There's a significant portion of the playing public that make statements that insist things that aren't part of UA are untested. I felt it was appropriate to point out that there is an internal playtest community.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think game rules need to be evocative.

okay.

 

[Undrave]

Also confirmed today. They just weren't part of the public play test.

Remember, they do have internal playtesting.

OF COURSE there's more spells... Well I sure hope these new spells at least help make elemental Sorcerers possible beyond Fire. And I sure hope the Cleric and Bard have more than 1 attack Cantrip.

 

[Undrave]

okay.

Or maybe I should say "game rules should not obfuscate how they work for the sake of being evocative"?

 

[Umbran]

Hey, I like art just fine, but it's not more important than the words, and its not worth it to me to buy a book with new art if the words are pretty much the same. I don't think that's all that strange. I'll get inspired by art in books with words I haven't already read and own thank you.

Mod note:
Please review the OP. This thread is about people's speculations about the unanswered questions about the book's content. It is not about whether you, personally, want those speculations to be true, for your own reasons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or maybe I should say "game rules should not obfuscate how they work for the sake of being evocative"?

You know you’re replying to a reply to a joke about Gygaxian prose, right?

ETA: Look, I never advocated for obfuscating language in rulestext, so please stop trying to invent an argument with me about it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Or maybe I should say "game rules should not obfuscate how they work for the sake of being evocative"?

You are correct. Game rules should obfuscate to encourage DMs to make their own rulings instead of relying on the rules in a game book.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

My hope is for a much more robust index AND larger font in said index, as all these eyes ain't getting any younger...

 

[Eyes of Nine]

My prediction, while not exactly positive, is that there will be little gaps and corners in the "backwards compatibility" of the new rules that will lead to at least one or two builds that turn out to be very... popular (I won't say broken, i won't say broken, I won't say broken)