D&D (2024) Playtest 7 survey is now live.

Yaarel

He Mage
Why? If its a negligible cost, as you outline, why does it matter?
Spell components that have a costly component directly prevent innate spellcasting.

Also, they interfere with casting classes. For example, the intention is the Dance Bard casts spells via Somatic gestures, but those spells with a Verbal contradict this.

Meanwhile, the material components are almost always a waste of space, when a Wizard uses a wand, and a Cleric uses a holy symbol instead.

The spell descriptions become cleaner and clearer, and the classes become more distinctively flavorful, when 2024 deletes the spell components from the spell descriptions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Spell components that have a costly component directly prevent innate spellcasting.

Also, they interfere with casting classes. For example, the intention is the Dance Bard casts spells via Somatic gestures, but those spells with a Verbal contradict this.

Meanwhile, the material components are almost always a waste of space, when a Wizard uses a wand, and a Cleric uses a holy symbol instead.

The spell descriptions become cleaner and clearer, and the classes become more distinctively flavorful, when 2024 deletes the spell components from the spell descriptions.
Sure, they could do that...but it won't be in the next twoUA, and I guarantee the Components will be in the PHB.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
Also, they interfere with casting classes. For example, the intention is the Dance Bard casts spells via Somatic gestures, but those spells with a Verbal contradict this.
As an aside, I've actually in the past enjoyed the creativity engendered by working within these limits for a character concept: specifically as a Dwarven Wild Mage only selecting Spells that would let me wield an axe and shield without Somatic components. Those sorts of thing are very intrinsic to what makes D&D...D&D.
 

Weiley31

Legend
Reiterating that I’m getting a strong impression that WotC is trying to get the survey process over with quickly, at least regarding PHB content.
Probably cuz they feel like the PHB content, especially the classes, has taken FAR TOO LONG at this point. The update to the rule is literally next year. And they still haven't gotten to stuff like Bastions, revised CR rules, etc etc.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Probably cuz they feel like the PHB content, especially the classes, has taken FAR TOO LONG at this point. The update to the rule is literally next year. And they still haven't gotten to stuff like Bastions, revised CR rules, etc etc.
We know that the revised CR rules are a refinement of Xanathar's, they might not be running that through UA.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I agree I want them to fix some underpowered spells. But if they do not, it's less harm than not fixing the overpowered ones. You help address the caster/non-caster gap with underpowered spells at least.

I agree the jump spell is a great fixing of an underpowered spell and I hope they do more of that. I just don't think there is time for multiple playtests of that sort of thing. It either gets a thumbs up or it will default to the older underpowered version and most people just ignore that spell.

It's why I keep saying people should vote at least "Satisfied" if something is an improvement. Seeking perfection on this stuff is just another way of telling WOTC to move on to something else. We're voting for the lesser of two evils on most things at this point, and rejecting something is a vote for going back to the 2014 rules for that thing, not another iteration.
I've never believed in voting for the lesser of two evils. 1) you are guaranteed to get evil that way, and 2) you are approving of evil.

People should not vote satisfied if something is an improvement, but not something that they want, because they are guaranteeing "evil" and nothing to replace it. At least if they vote dissatisfied and it stays the 2014 version, WotC would know that it still needs changing and could work on a better replacement for a splatbook. They've shown with Tasha's and other books that they are open to making changes to improve items that need improving in later books. Better to keep things the same and work towards a real improvement and not one that's a bit better, but still bad.
 

I've never believed in voting for the lesser of two evils. 1) you are guaranteed to get evil that way, and 2) you are approving of evil.

People should not vote satisfied if something is an improvement, but not something that they want, because they are guaranteeing "evil" and nothing to replace it. At least if they vote dissatisfied and it stays the 2014 version, WotC would know that it still needs changing and could work on a better replacement for a splatbook. They've shown with Tasha's and other books that they are open to making changes to improve items that need improving in later books. Better to keep things the same and work towards a real improvement and not one that's a bit better, but still bad.
"Lesser of two evils" is a inaccurate platitude in this case, from either vantage point, as there is no evil present.

I believe in incremental change. Most players are not participating in the playtest and aren't following the conversations around it. The confusion we see in greater social media, and even these forums proves that. Implementing no change at all suggests to those people that the designers don't see the problem or are ignoring it. It is better to replace a bad rule with a less bad rule that gets enough approval in the polls and comments. There are no perfect rules to wait for. Not everyone will be happy with every rule or change.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top