D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[Nikosandros]

So, if it's fully equivalent, why do you use slower method of calculating hit?

For me personally, it is not slower. I'm very used to descending AC and I prefer it.

However, it is mostlly an "aesthetic" choice for me. I've never used it for modern D&D.

 

[Clint_L]

It bears repeating that the weapon mastery properties are not in their final form.

We can only give feedback based on what we've actually seen. We can't say nothing and then just assume the problems will be magically addressed, especially when they ares structural problems. The whole point of the UA is to give feedback based on the proposals as they currently exist. That's what this survey specifically asks us to do.

The monk now does not have to compete with paladins going nova. (Divine smite with highest slots twice per turn and on opportunity attacks).. How is that factual untrue?

The monk does not have to compete with great weapon masters.

What is factually untrue is your assertion that 2024 monks are in a better place relevant to other classes than they were in 2014. Just take 2 minutes to watch the treantmonk video linked above (and helpfully started right at the salient point) or the deep dive on the UA Monk. If you are interested in looking at and responding to the actual math that is presented. Which is not, incidentally, some "white room" simulation of an esoteric situation but simple analysis of baseline numbers by folks who have been doing it for awhile.

 

[tetrasodium]

So, if it's fully equivalent, why do you use slower method of calculating hit?

Every time I see someone make this claim it kinda highlights that they never used it or don't recall much about it In actual play it was orders of magnitude faster because the precalculated table for d20 rolls was already on the character sheet next to each of a PCs weapons. Just roll the d20 and eyeball the die then eyeball the sheet for an immediate number or confirmation of success/fail depending if you already knew the target ac or not.

 

[Remathilis]

Every time I see someone make this claim it kinda highlights that they never used it or don't recall much about it In actual play it was orders of magnitude faster because the precalculated table for d20 rolls was already on the character sheet next to each of a PCs weapons. Just roll the d20 and eyeball the die then eyeball the sheet for an immediate number or confirmation of success/fail depending if you already knew the target ac or not.

You could construct a Maxtix on your character sheet (or use the ones in the 1e DMGs) but even cross-referencing charts is slower than "total vs target number". If you like Thac0/downward AC for aesthetic reasons, that's fine, but I don't think anyone can agree the upward AC is functionally an improvement for ease of play.

Moreover, my point is that D&D has changed things that "worked" for things that work better. I feel the next PHB is playing too safe and trying to ignore known issues with the 5e ruleset because they are going all-in on "ze games ze same".

 

[Parmandur]

You could construct a Maxtix on your character sheet (or use the ones in the 1e DMGs) but even cross-referencing charts is slower than "total vs target number". If you like Thac0/downward AC for aesthetic reasons, that's fine, but I don't think anyone can agree the upward AC is functionally an improvement for ease of play.

Sure, the current system works better...but it's the same mathematical structure, just approached slightly differently.

Moreover, my point is that D&D has changed things that "worked" for things that work better. I feel the next PHB is playing too safe and trying to ignore known issues with the 5e ruleset because they are going all-in on "ze games ze same".

Right, that's the whole point of the UA process: figuring out what changes work better. Start wide with a bunch of ideas, narrow down through internal playtests and public surveys. In the end, changes that are genuinely better for users get published.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We can only give feedback based on what we've actually seen. We can't say nothing and then just assume the problems will be magically addressed, especially when they ares structural problems. The whole point of the UA is to give feedback based on the proposals as they currently exist. That's what this survey specifically asks us to do.

Which makes sense. But repeating again and again how useless flex is for the monk does not help your point. We know it is bad. We know it will get an overhaul, at least if we tell them we don't like it. But it really makes no sense to base all your anger on a probably outdated ability.

What is factually untrue is your assertion that 2024 monks are in a better place relevant to other classes than they were in 2014. Just take 2 minutes to watch the treantmonk video linked above (and helpfully started right at the salient point) or the deep dive on the UA Monk. If you are interested in looking at and responding to the actual math that is presented. Which is not, incidentally, some "white room" simulation of an esoteric situation but simple analysis of baseline numbers by folks who have been doing it for awhile.

Which is why I said it needs buffs...

and looking at his builds, I stand my point that he looks at very optimized builds and that it is impossibke to optimize the monk in any way due to the lack of feat options.
Also I am not sure he uses any subclass for the monk and compares it against the berserker and the champion (probably optimized with feats).

Use the subclass options and you are looking at constant advantage (shadow monk darkness or hand monk pushing prone, or all attacks aster a successful stunning strike).

 

[Remathilis]

Right, that's the whole point of the UA process: figuring out what changes work better. Start wide with a bunch of ideas, narrow down through internal playtests and public surveys. In the end, changes that are genuinely better for users get published.

But we never got to test the long rest recharge monk. We were given the same monk with a few changes that made it at best the same and possibly weaker. We tested wildly different types of druids and warlocks to see if there was any feedback. Druid was negative, warlock we don't know yet. Monk got caught up with the other six classes and was never given an overhaul to assess. That tells me one of the following: 1) almost all large redesigns are shelved in favor of minor tinkering, 2. They never had an idea for how to fix the monk and they punted until they could put it with the "minor changes" classes and 3. Either every larger change was universally hated so far OR they never intended to implement most of them anyway.

I came into this playtest very excited, but I must feel a bit of dissolution after packet 6 and the backtracking. I'm sure the 24 PHB will be good and I'm probably going to pick it up, but for the first time I feel apathetic to playtesting and giving feedback because I feel the first few packets have all been in vain. Very little of those packets are in this one. I almost feel like they should have started with this packet because it has more in common with the 14 PHB than any packet before it.

 

[Clint_L]

Which makes sense. But repeating again and again how useless flex is for the monk does not help your point. We know it is bad. We know it will get an overhaul, at least if we tell them we don't like it. But it really makes no sense to base all your anger on a probably outdated ability.

I’m not angry, I am critiquing it. As WotC asked me to do. And apparently you haven’t read much of my critique if you think flex is my main issue. I nutshell my constructive feedback on page 4, and have discussed at length in many threads.

Which is why I said it needs buffs...

and looking at his builds, I stand my point that he looks at very optimized builds and that it is impossibke to optimize the monk in any way due to the lack of feat options.
Also I am not sure he uses any subclass for the monk and compares it against the berserker and the champion (probably optimized with feats).

Use the subclass options and you are looking at constant advantage (shadow monk darkness or hand monk pushing prone, or all attacks aster a successful stunning strike).

He specifically discusses the effect of subclass, and of shadow in particular. So you’re not even watching it, yet feel qualified to offer a critique. Similar to how you reduce my criticism to “U just mad about flex!”

 

[tetrasodium]

You could construct a Maxtix on your character sheet (or use the ones in the 1e DMGs) but even cross-referencing charts is slower than "total vs target number". If you like Thac0/downward AC for aesthetic reasons, that's fine, but I don't think anyone can agree the upward AC is functionally an improvement for ease of play.

Spoiler: It was part of the sheet itself.

You need to look at the d20 either way, no time difference. You need to memorize or look at the sheet either way, minimal if any time difference. You need to do some math either way but one version has you do it when you level up or change gear rather than every roll, obvious time difference.

Moreover, my point is that D&D has changed things that "worked" for things that work better. I feel the next PHB is playing too safe and trying to ignore known issues with the 5e ruleset because they are going all-in on "ze games ze same".

Agreed entirely about change being needed over time. That's why I didn't comment on it until the "slower method of calculating" comment was made by someone else

 

[UngeheuerLich]

He specifically discusses the effect of subclass, and of shadow in particular. So you’re not even watching it, yet feel qualified to offer a critique. Similar to how you reduce my criticism to “U just mad about flex!”

Not at the linked part. I saw him discussing it. At that particular scene he has marks for berserker barbarian, champion fighter, but just monk in his graph... So not my fault...

So please, don't tell me I did not watch it at all.

For your convenience see attachment.

Edit: not that I disagree with treantmonks assessments. But he seems a little bit biased here... and not looking at that as level headed as he looks at other classes.

I did not look further at this video. I swa the other one where he discussed the monk specifically and I agree with all his points (to state it once again).

And still I stand my point: nova power of other classes was reduced. Monk can (nearly) keep up using subclass abilities as long as they have ki. Not enough. But not too hard to fix.

So, looked further into the video. Now he says that the shadow monk can get well above baseline. Still behind other classes. But he does not even mention speed, consistent obscurement due to darkness. Mobility due to shadow step. Deflect missile, stunning strike, even when they are not powerful enough. Good saving throws for all stats just one level later.

So chosing exactly level 13, where the monk gets no powerup at all is not a dumb choice to prove that he is underpowered (which I agree with, did I mention that?).