D&D (2024) One D&D is one D&D too much (-)

[Greg K]

So far, I am, overall, unimpressed.

I do like the addition of Orc as a PC race , Primal as a spell category, Thievs' Cant as language acquired from background, and Slowed as a condition

Things to which I am having mixed reactions to include the feat from backgrounds and moving the ability increases entirely to background. With regards to the former,I like it, but what does this mean for feats being optional? As for the former, I kind of like how Pathfinder 2 (from what I hear) uses both for increase.
Also, I think backrounds should grant 2 choice from among tool proficiencies and languages. So a character could choose 2 of 1 or 1 of each.

As for the rest, it did nothin for me- especially the Ardlings. So many better things they could have included as races, imo.

 

[ThrorII]

Mod Note:

Hopefully, you mean that in the least offensive way possible, yes?

Of course. I didn't even think of any other way until you pointed it out.

I'm commenting on flying fey (or I guess celestial?) anthropomorphic animals.

I do appreciate the chance to clarify for you, though!

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, it was. If this is the level of stuff to expect in a couple years, it will be pretty bad stuff.

shrug It's just a playtest. Give feedback or don't give feedback.

I doubt I'll bother, TBH.

Or not. Up to you, I guess.

 

[DND_Reborn]

shrug It's just a playtest. Give feedback or don't give feedback.

Or not. Up to you, I guess.

If later playtest material looks more promising to me, then I might. But given the type of game I like and the direction WotC is going, I doubt it will be the case. Hopefully, I am wrong. Time will tell.

 

[Morrus]

If later playtest material looks more promising to me, then I might. But given the type of game I like and the direction WotC is going, I doubt it will be the case. Hopefully, I am wrong. Time will tell.

I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.

Good point.

However, in prior UA material, things I gave feedback to which I didn't like nearly always still made it into new material. So, either I am most definitely in the minority OR the "feedback" really isn't considered much unless it appeals to the devs. I highly suspect it is the former, and I would certainly hope not the later.

 

[Remathilis]

Good point.

However, in prior UA material, things I gave feedback to which I didn't like nearly always still made it into new material. So, either I am most definitely in the minority OR the "feedback" really isn't considered much unless it appeals to the devs. I highly suspect it is the former, and I would certainly hope not the later.

I'm sure they read the feedback. Compared the absolute nerdrage from the fey-pocket kender to the more "traditional-boring" ones in the second UA for a good example of which squeaky wheels they are listening to.

 

[Lanefan]

I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches.

Ideally, yes.

In practice, however, we have no way of knowing how cast-in-stone the 5e -> 5.5e changes are and-or how open the designers are to changing any given element be it major or minor. Which proposed changes are merely proposals and which ones are already locked in?

Baked-in feats as opposed to feats being completely optional, for example - we don't know if this idea really is a trial balloon (meaning feedback on it has relevance) or whether it's locked in (meaning feedback on it is a waste of time).

 

[Morrus]

Ideally, yes.

In practice, however, we have no way of knowing how cast-in-stone the 5e -> 5.5e changes are and-or how open the designers are to changing any given element be it major or minor. Which proposed changes are merely proposals and which ones are already locked in?

Baked-in feats as opposed to feats being completely optional, for example - we don't know if this idea really is a trial balloon (meaning feedback on it has relevance) or whether it's locked in (meaning feedback on it is a waste of time).

Dunno what to tell you. Do what you gotta do, I guess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel you are fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of 'playtests', and are confusing them with 'previews'. Playtests are tools for (amongst other things) eliminating potential approaches. If you only respond to the playtests you 'like' you're missing the point of them. But you do what you need to do.

I think the idea here is that these may be previews masquerading as playtests for marketing purposes.