D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Remathilis]

Mathematically, it's the same sort of resource pool as Paladins. As long as adequate Short Rests are available, and given a normal Adventure Day (which WotC isnmaking any changes to, which makes sense to me based on my experience), then the Monk is just fine.

And that's the problem. Playing a monk (or warlock) requires the following metagame knowledge:

1. I will get the opportunity to take a short rest multiple times during the adventure.
2. The breaks will come frequently enough that I can gauge my resource pool and how close I am to a refill.
3. Said rests will come when I need them to.

That is an awful lot of metagame knowledge to rely on. And I don't like that the rules assume Union mandated breaks be built into every adventure regardless of the plot or situation.

Add on the fact that monks need points to do almost anything, you will find your points at low levels goes by fast. Unless your action is just "punch once or twice" you will be out of di instantly. Most subclass features further dip into that pool. A shadow monk could use pass without trace, sneak up on a foe, FoB them and then use step of the wind to escape and be out of di in two rounds.

They still have a chance to up the DPS and reduce the drain on di so as to allow the monk cool things without emptying in one fight. They also have the chance to make short rests not a mandatory design step but a tool. But I feel we're probably going to have the 2014 PHB with a new cover at this point.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

That’s… why there are write-in comment fields. If you like the general idea of something but want to see it iterated on, vote satisfied (not very satisfied) and explain what kind of changes they would need to make to bump that up to very satisfied.

Or you vote unsatisfied and write what you'd like to see iterated to bump that up to satisfied? I have no faith that they read the comments on stuff that passes their magic percentage barrier.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or you vote unsatisfied and write what you'd like to see iterated to bump that up to satisfied? I have no faith that they read the comments on stuff that passes their magic percentage barrier.

Even the stuff that doesn't hit that I'm skeptical that it matters after packet 6.

We've had a decade of "it's left like that [half finished] "simplified"to make it easier for you to houserule and homebrew with it" and after wotc themselves crashed into the same brick wall of "wotc did polls of what's fun" in the first few packets they seem ready to immediately go back to painting a pretty landscape on it Wiley coyote style for gms after spending the last several months reinforcing the wall.

 

[Parmandur]

And that's the problem. Playing a monk (or warlock) requires the following metagame knowledge:

1. I will get the opportunity to take a short rest multiple times during the adventure.
2. The breaks will come frequently enough that I can gauge my resource pool and how close I am to a refill.
3. Said rests will come when I need them to.

That is an awful lot of metagame knowledge to rely on. And I don't like that the rules assume Union mandated breaks be built into every adventure regardless of the plot or situation.

Add on the fact that monks need points to do almost anything, you will find your points at low levels goes by fast. Unless your action is just "punch once or twice" you will be out of di instantly. Most subclass features further dip into that pool. A shadow monk could use pass without trace, sneak up on a foe, FoB them and then use step of the wind to escape and be out of di in two rounds.

They still have a chance to up the DPS and reduce the drain on di so as to allow the monk cool things without emptying in one fight. They also have the chance to make short rests not a mandatory design step but a tool. But I feel we're probably going to have the 2014 PHB with a new cover at this point.

Yes, using one's in-game abilities requires some awareness. Same as managing a Wizards Spell slots across a full adventuring day.

It's really a table issue, and the fact that WotC isn't making any changes to the adventure day suggests that the current structure is working for most tables.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or you vote unsatisfied and write what you'd like to see iterated to bump that up to satisfied? I have no faith that they read the comments on stuff that passes their magic percentage barrier.

No, it must pass the percentage barrier, or they will discard it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

No, it must pass the percentage barrier, or they will discard it.

I'll grant that at this point, yes, they are signaling being in panic mode and just looking for things to cut.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'll grant that at this point, yes, they are signaling being in panic mode and just looking for things to cut.

It’s not about panic mode. This is how the Unearthed Arcana playtest process has worked since all the way back in the D&D Next days. It’s not a secret - WotC has openly and repeatedly said this is how it works, but for some reason people keep being surprised when WotC does exactly what they keep saying they’ll do, and keep doing.

It’s very simple: if the general response is “unsatisfied,” they don’t consider the idea good enough at base to be worth iterating on to bring it up to “satisfied.” On the other hand, if the general response is “satisfied,” they consider it a worthwhile idea, and are willing to do some iteration to try to bring it up to “very satisfied.”

We can certainly argue about whether or not that’s a good policy, but they’ve been very consistent in it for the past decade. Whether you think it’s a good policy or not, it should at least be clear that the most effective way to engage in the playtest process is to vote “very satisfied” if you want to see something preserved as-presented, vote “satisfied” and give feedback if you want to see something iterated on, and vote “very dissatisfied” if you want to see something abandoned entirely. “Dissatisfied” is mostly an ineffective response for achieving any specific goals; it moves the needle towards the thing being scrapped, but not as much as “very dissatisfied” does. I guess maybe pick that option for things you don’t really want, but could live with if they make it in?

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s not about panic mode. This is how the Unearthed Arcana playtest process has worked since all the way back in the D&D Next days. It’s not a secret - WotC has openly and repeatedly said this is how it works, but for some reason people keep being surprised when WotC does exactly what they keep saying they’ll do, and keep doing.

It’s very simple: if the general response is “unsatisfied,” they don’t consider the idea good enough at base to be worth iterating on to bring it up to “satisfied.” On the other hand, if the general response is “satisfied,” they consider it a worthwhile idea, and are willing to do some iteration to try to bring it up to “very satisfied.”

We can certainly argue about whether or not that’s a good policy, but they’ve been very consistent in it for the past decade. Whether you think it’s a good policy or not, it should at least be clear that the most effective way to engage in the playtest process is to vote “very satisfied” if you want to see something preserved as-presented, vote “satisfied” and give feedback if you want to see something iterated on, and vote “very dissatisfied” if you want to see something abandoned entirely. “Dissatisfied” is mostly an ineffective response for achieving any specific goals; it moves the needle towards the thing being scrapped, but not as much as “very dissatisfied” does. I guess maybe pick that option for things you don’t really want, but could live with if they make it in?

Packet 6 does not glow with calm confidence.I don't think that they planned on getting caught between level up (5e with some slight twists and lots of polish), ToV(5e with some guidance?), The unnamed mcdm thing(heroic tactical cinematic fantasy),and the two Darlington press games (long term play focused on character progression and I dunno). Meanwhile wotc is stuck with bad push polling aimed at 5e without a twist tactical components or examples of guidance and promises of pixie dust behind the curtain.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We all need to also remember that we are all each just one vote in a pile of like 40,000. Which means our individual opinions, votes, and ideas we type into the comments sections are barely a blip in the entire process. So none of us should in any way be demoralized OR get our hopes up from anything that appears in these packets. Our feelings are virtually meaningless.

These packets should be treated as curiosities. Nothing more. Participate in them if for no other reason than it might make you feel good to get your feelings down on paper (the same reason why all of us spend hundreds of thousands of words typing in threads after threads after threads here on EN World when they serve no actual purpose)... but know that you are merely the smallest cog in an otherwise huge playtest machine and if you disappeared it would have almost no practical effect.

Once you can do that and just forget about all of this meaningless hoo-haa until the books finally get released next summer and you can see what they actually look like... the happier you are ultimately going to be. Because then you'll be able to just take the books or leave them as-is, and have no residual sadness or anger over the things that did or did not make it from the previous 18 months.

 

[Charlaquin]

Packet 6 does not glow with calm confidence.

I don’t think we can reasonably glean anything about the emotional state of the designers from the content of UA6. What we can glean is… well, exactly what they told us in the companion videos. Unified subclass progression, spell preparation correlating 1:1 with spell slots, generalized wild shape templates, and epic boon feats at 20th level all came in at under 80% satisfaction, and so are not being developed further. Weapon mastery and several of the changes class features did meet that benchmark, and are being explored further.