D&D (2024) Playtest 6 Survey is Open

[doctorbadwolf]

Pretty much said any capstone not equal to Cleric's souped up Wish it's not a worth our time.
Also suggested monks should get invocations like the warlock, call them Stances and raid 3.5's Tome of Battle for ideas.

I’m doing a similar thing with my duelist, but I call them Regimens (might change to techniques), and you know more than you have prepared for the day, more like the artificer’s infusions.

The idea being you have to ready yourself and perform ritual preparations in order to focus on specific techniques, like the ability to create blades and balls of air when you strike, extending your reach with weapons and unarmed strikes, or performing very fast and deadly charge attacks, or fighting acrobatically, or gaining a riposte any time someone misses you while they have disadvantage, etc.

 

[the Jester]

It doesn't matter what good is in the packet because 2014's short rest nova class design was toxic enough to fix it in warlock in the packet immediately prior to this one where it was preserved. The fly speed changes are channeling the same sort of appear to fix the letter of a problem by doing something that taking deliberate pains to avoid doing anything that will actually fix the problem. There is too much toxic in this packet to avoid being lethal to any possible good elsewhere.

Maybe when we start seeing videos doing the post survey breakdowns on packet5 & wotc's responses there it might be justified to jump through the hoops, but packet 6 dug a very deep hole.

That's certainly an opinion.

 

[Clint_L]

Get out my head, please!

Though I think the nerf to Moon Druid wasnt a bad idea, replacing those features with the extra moonbeams features seems weird, if probably thematic. If I play a Mood Druid, I play them to spend all my slots to regain MOAR WILDSHAPES and spend my days in beast form, not to cast spells.

I understand that Monstrosities are a weird catch all category, but at least giving access to the more beast like of them (griffon, owlbears, gorgon etc) would make senses, even if you only get a restricted list like you use to with the 2014 elemental shapes.

Those were among the nine I suggested.

Edit: specifically, I suggested:

Level 6: griffon, shellshark, ankheg, radiant attack option, and option to spend a spell slot to gain advantage on a number of attacks up to the level of the spell slot.

Level 10: owlbear, phase spider, winter wolf, and add wisdom bonus to primal strike attacks.

Level 14: sea lion, gorgon, bulette, and can make melee attacks using spell attack modifier.

 

[MockingBird]

Phase spider wild shape would be fun

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Took the survey. Rated nearly everything as satisfied or better. Even the monk.

I can see behind numbers and see enough potential to make it better in the next overhaul.
I used the commentary function on every monk ability to tell them what is needed.

I also left no doubt what I think about divine smite as a spell.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I can see behind numbers and see enough potential to make it better in the next overhaul.

If people are satisfied with it, there won't be an overhaul, since it's clearly fine! Oh the other hand, if people are unsatisfied with it... there still won't be an overhaul, they'll just toss the whole thing away.

Such fun surveys these are.

 

[Remathilis]

If people are satisfied with it, there won't be an overhaul, since it's clearly fine! Oh the other hand, if people are unsatisfied with it... there still won't be an overhaul, they'll just toss the whole thing away.

Such fun surveys these are.

The best we really can hope for are some changes in di points (amount, recovery, and cost) and individual abilities, which is very possible and likely. But there was never a chance of structural overhaul.

 

[Parmandur]

The best we really can hope for are some changes in di points (amount, recovery, and cost) and individual abilities, which is very possible and likely. But there was never a chance of structural overhaul.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[chris_the_nerd]

It is clear to me that they are reading and responding to feedback, and that there is possibility for nuance in our responses.

Where there's risk is in knee-jerk condemnation of things that could be improved but are not there yet. Just being negative or making ridiculously overblown rhetorical sweeps risks losing any improvement. At heart, the designers are going to go conservative and not innovate if new ideas are just slammed down.

We've seen it with the subclass levels: Keeping the different levels for different classes is a conservatism they aren't going to fight for [i.e. fight to avoid], given the desire among a vocal group for "backwards compatibility" (a concept variously defined but raised by many as a sacred cow). And so we lose out on innovation, and the possibility of improvement.

We've seen it with Wild Shape. The proposal for templates was initially weak, and got slammed. So they're giving us what we had before, even though (as discussions on these boards and elsewhere have shown this past week) there's appeal for a few specific templates that can improve as the druid levels up. If we're lucky, and if we provide thoughtful feedback, there's a chance we can get it. But just slamming what they've given us? Then they'll play safe, and just replicate what's in the PHB 2014.

Just knocking things reduces innovation and is a voice for conservatism. I'd much rather see new ideas and improvement, and so my comments will praise what Iike (a lot -- this was the most promising package we've seen yet), but argue for changes on the things that don't work for me.

I've been a longtime lurker of these boards and I finally saw something I felt the need to respond to here. Everyone here, Reddit, elsewhere, needs to read your post because this is precisely the sentiment we need to take into these surveys. Like WOTC, don't like WOTC, trust them or not...none of that matters. The only thing that matters is filling out the surveys with constructive feedback. Otherwise we end up with something that's barely different than the 2014 material when the end goal should be to improve on what's working.

I just keep having a nagging feeling that a lot of the playtest surveys are getting filled with responses from people who, ultimately, don't matter: folks who aren't going to buy the books regardless, folks who want the game to not change at all, or folks who want a completely new system. I know they have some smart, dedicated folks over there and I hope they have ways of weeding out the opinions that really have no bearing, but then I see what they did with Wild Shape and have to wonder. There was so much fervor for overhauling the ability and then the pushback was just so overdramatic that they ended up more or less reverting the feature to the version that's problematic and, if that stands, we end up with a Wild Shape that's not fundamentally "fixed" compared to the issues with the 2014 version all because the survey respondents couldn't try to be more constructive. Comparing a suggested change to war crimes doesn't give the designers the information they need to improve a suggested feature (why is it strong/weak, what ideas could make it better, what interactions does it break, etc.).

EDIT: Just adding that WOTC may or may not take our suggestions and we may not end up with 100% of what we want (in fact, that's basically a guarantee), but the only way we get anything improved on at all is by engaging in good faith and providing constructive feedback.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I've been a longtime lurker of these boards and I finally saw something I felt the need to respond to here. Everyone here, Reddit, elsewhere, needs to read your post because this is precisely the sentiment we need to take into these surveys.

Thank you so very much. Welcome to the boards.