One D&D is one D&D too much (-)


log in or register to remove this ad


Micah Sweet

Legend
OK, but it isn't about trusting them. Just trust what is in front of you and don't jump to conclusions. At least that would be my advice.
That doesn't make sense to me in this context. They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them. How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?
 



wicked cool

Adventurer
did they say the changes to races are official? why make these changes in the newest books and then backtrack out of them (dragonborn breath attack was recently changed is an example).

is there new leadership running this? related-watching a video on the new starter set and it doesnt build on the 2nd starter set. they had a great idea for sidekicks but if you didnt pick that set up you would have no idea.

it feels like pieces are being lost on the way with changes made
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
This conversation has taken a turn for the truly weird.
It really has! Which is not entirely unexpected, I guess...we've seen this happen before.

For some folks, change is always a bad thing...it's either immediately bad, or it's a portent of bad things to come, or it's an indictment against things they enjoy, or some weird combination of the three.

But I must have gotten a lot older since 2008 and 2009. Or maybe the pandemic etc. has given me more perspective on such things? Not sure. I just can't get as engaged as WotC needs me to be. I've been trying to get excited about it, but all I've got are cartoon memes and jokes, or the occasional, unhelpful "doesn't Tasha's already do this?" It feels like just an extra-noisy Unearthed Arcana to me.
 
Last edited:



dave2008

Legend
That doesn't make sense to me in this context. They don't indicate which of the rules changes in their playtest are subject to customer input, but we know it isn't all of them. How do you trust what is in front of you in that circumstance?
All of the rule changes presented are subject to customer input, why would you think otherwise? It will probably become more clear in the survey I guess, but why would you assume some of the changes are not up for customer input? I mean, how do you: "...know it isn't all of them."

For example, people where that Tasha's racial ability score revisions we definitely going to be the 2024 standard. No change, that was it. Yet, the changed it it in the very first playtest UA. It seems to me anything is up for grabs.

I bet they currently feel more confident about some changes more than others, but I am sure that if a change gets a really bad reaction it will be revised or dropped.
 


Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Given that the stuff seen in D&D Next changed significantly over the course of the playtest, from initial playtest materials to final version, this suspicion doesn't seem to be based in evidence.
I don't agree at all with the idea that this is a false playtest, but I do think that because the end result has to be compatible with 5e there are a lot more invisible barriers to where the material can end up than when DnD Next was happening.

It's like we are remodeling a house (but can't change any load bearing features) rather than building a new house with reclaimed parts of the old one.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I don't agree at all with the idea that this is a false playtest, but I do think that because the end result has to be compatible with 5e there are a lot more invisible barriers to where the material can end up than when DnD Next was happening.

I don't think they are "invisible". I think, as well-versed gamers, we can probably see them when we look and think about it a bit.

It's like we are remodeling a house (but can't change any load bearing features) rather than building a new house with reclaimed parts of the old one.

The question there becomes "What is a load-bearing feature?"
 


The way I see it, these are some things that can't change in 5.5/6e/D&D Larry without risking breaking compatibility.
  • Bounded accuracy/flattened math
  • Action economy (with bonus actions)
  • Spell progression and class feature accumulation
  • Healing and recovery
  • Default encounter building and challenge assumptions
I think the last two are possible to change, but you have to accept there will be knock-on effects. Not enough to break basic compatibility though, imho. With Healing/Recovery you could change the default, but have an optional rule for the old default, and note that older material had that default.

With encounter building, I think you could change back to 3-4 "Hard" (by 5E rules) encounters as the default without causing a major problem. But yeah if you want much further than that you'd be changing maths more fundamentally.
 



The way I see it, these are some things that can't change in 5.5/6e/D&D Larry without risking breaking compatibility.
  • Bounded accuracy/flattened math
  • Action economy (with bonus actions)
  • Spell progression and class feature accumulation
  • Healing and recovery
  • Default encounter building and challenge assumptions

I also think the last 2 should change to make the game better.
Prewritten adventures already don't really follow these assumtions, and even if they do, players don't want to play that way and recover more than they should.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
And they've screwed it up completely again by giving us tons of "Default" backgrounds, which they have to bloody realize most people will read as "THE ONLY BACKGROUNDS THAT ARE LEGAL!!!".

Why is lack of reading comprehension WotC's problem?

8) Healer changes - Yeah wth? Why did they nerf the non-magic healing? So dumb. It was already not great. Just add the magic bit on for goodness sake.

9) Savage Attacker - I laughed pretty hard when I saw they'd managed to make one of the very worst Feats even worse.

Agree, these both need buffed. Though, I have noted that the Healer feat can be repeatable for immediate healing. I'm considering doing the following

you can heal 1d6+4+prof once for free per short rest. Otherwise it costs and HD and is HD + prof + their Con. I also want to give something for during short rests, but I'm not sure what.

Savage attacker... someone said something interesting about combining it with Charger, I'm going to be looking into that soon.

10) Inspiration is still ultra-trash, not sure why you're worried about balance. It'll just be this dumb thing people forget to use except now everyone will be cursing up a storm when they roll a 20 because everyone in the party already has Inspiration, or everyone but that jerk who keeps using it for trivial bollocks and thus effectively forcing every new point on to him.

This is the most utterly bizarre argument I have ever seen.

On one hand, it will be terrible because everyone will hoard it and it will be wasted when they roll 20's. On the other hand, it will be terrible because one player won't hoard it and will get all that inspiration that would otherwise be wasted because no one can take it.

Huh? How is the player using their resource and taking what no one else can because they are all waiting for the long rest to delete their inspiration they held on to "just in case" a jerk? Seems like he's just lucky to be playing with a bunch of hoarders with good dice luck.

They make this ridiculous song-and-dance about how they're making so the game is more like how it's really played, and they don't let Inspiration be either:

A) Added "after the fact"

or

B) Simply used to re-roll

Pretty much everyone who even uses it, uses it that way. They also don't let people have more than 1 point, which is so, so dumb. Like, I get limiting it, but to 1? No. Go away. Rethink!

Other than the harsh rhetoric, I agree. I think using it for a re-roll or after the fact is the way to go. Heck, I'm planning on looking around and seeing if I can't build more funtionality into Inspiration anyways.
 


The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top