D&D (2024) Playtest Druid and Paladin One D&D survey is live.

[Maxperson]

unless you are aware that the players of your game rarely ever play that way

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Also, if they always considered this an oversight they have reason regardless of even that

So things that are good but accidents are things that we have a reason to undo. I guess we have reason to get rid of microwaves, super glue, potato chips, the implantable pacemaker and penicillin.

They have no GOOD reason to change this. They can only hurt things and not help by making the change.

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I mean most tables play with fewer encounters per day, so insisting on something being fine if they ran 6-8 encounters is irrelevant when they consistently run 2-4

So things that are good but accidents are things that we have a reason to undo.

a happy accident is not a mistake. WotC deems this a mistake

They have no GOOD reason to change this. They can only hurt things and not help by making the change.

I’d say @FitzTheRuke gave good reasons for this change

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They have no GOOD reason to change this. They can only hurt things and not help by making the change.

I still don't get you here. You don't like it and almost nobody plays with it, but you think that they have no good reason to change it? Aren't those two things good reasons?

I also don't understand why you think that it will only hurt and not help to change it. How can the game be that fragile around 6-8 encounters per day, if everyone already ignores it?

 

[tetrasodium]

if everyone already ignores it?

Agreed but it's not just "everyone"... Even wotc's own adventures fail to even approach the unreasonable 6to 8 encounter day horizon.. The reasons for that makes the 6to 8 expectations built in even worse. People don't ignore it because they are aiming for a different feel or whatever. They ignore it because that kind of mind numbing slog makes the grindiest gdindfests look positively sedate. Any amount of testing should have revealed that you simply can't fit that many encounters in a session unless the players are like level one (or close). It also would have revealed that the gm is not only powerless to enforce the baseline expectation but faced with player facing design elements that make doing so a losing battle.

I one d&d needs to do much better at empowering the gm to manage pacing of adventuring days while ditching the 6to 8 encounter expectations in favor of pcs with resource pools fitting how people actually play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed but it's not just "everyone"... Even wotc's own adventures fail to even approach the unreasonable 6to 8 encounter day horizon.. The reasons for that makes the 6to 8 expectations built in even worse. People don't ignore it because they are aiming for a different feel or whatever. They ignore it because that kind of mind numbing slog makes the grindiest gdindfests look positively sedate. Any amount of testing should have revealed that you simply can't fit that many encounters in a session unless the players are like level one (or close). It also would have revealed that the gm is not only powerless to enforce the baseline expectation but faced with player facing design elements that make doing so a losing battle.

I one d&d needs to do much better at empowering the gm to manage pacing of adventuring days while ditching the 6to 8 encounter expectations in favor of pcs with resource pools fitting how people actually play.

Sadly, I don't think they can do without changing the all-important math and, more importantly, admit the error of creating the 6-8 encounter work day.

 

[mamba]

Sadly, I don't think they can do without changing the all-important math and, more importantly, admit the error of creating the 6-8 encounter work day.

Since no one is using that many encounters, you might as well change the math, it already is broken

As to admitting errors, why not do that. 1DD seems to be more about that than a grand new design anyway, so it fits right in

 

[Micah Sweet]

Since no one is using that many encounters, you might as well change the math, it already is broken

As to admitting errors, why not do that. 1DD seems to be more about that than a grand new design anyway, so it fits right in

I haven't heard anything resembling an admission of error from WotC outside of the OGL debacle and various inclusion-based issues. This concern is different.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean most tables play with fewer encounters per day, so insisting on something being fine if they ran 6-8 encounters is irrelevant when they consistently run 2-4

Oh, well then the change to paladins is entirely irrelevant and shouldn't even be contemplated. If they understand that most tables only run 2-4 encounters and want to correct for it, then they need to scrap 5e entirely since that's what it would take to rebalance the game for 2-4 encounters. Changing the paladin does absolutely nothing to adjust the game down to 2-4 encounters daily.

If their goal is to adjust things so that the game runs on 2-4 encounters they need to completely rewrite combat, every character class(and not just change the abilities a bit like they've been doing), subclasses, magic items, spells, monsters and more. It would be a true non-compatible 6e.

a happy accident is not a mistake. WotC deems this a mistake

Wouldn't be the first or even tenth time that they've been wrong.

I’d say @FitzTheRuke gave good reasons for this change

To make some DMs happy? I doubt anywhere close to a majority were unhappy with combat encounters just because of the paladin. I certainly never had an issue with it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

To make some DMs happy? I doubt anywhere close to a majority were unhappy with combat encounters just because of the paladin. I certainly never had an issue with it.

I've never had a problem with the Paladin, but I've also never had a Paladin use more than one smite IN THE SAME ROUND, which is what you seem to think it so horrible that they've nerfed. Even with 2-4 encounters per day, most Paladins will "save it for later".

I also really don't understand why the game would need a complete overhaul to facilitate 2-4 encounters per day when "everyone" already plays that way. The game clearly works as is with it. Yes, I agree that there's a few parts that clash, but there's also a few parts that clash with 6-8. For one, that everyone would be bored with the inevitable cakewalk and would probably have blown their resources (needlessly) by the time they got to 8, they'd be unhappily spamming at-wills. OR if they got really, really good at expecting 8, they'd be so careful with resource management that they'd never use anything "in case they need it for later".

Again: Tell me why they can't tweak the parts that clash with the foolish assumption.

 

[Parmandur]

I've never had a problem with the Paladin, but I've also never had a Paladin use more than one smite IN THE SAME ROUND, which is what you seem to think it so horrible that they've nerfed. Even with 2-4 encounters per day, most Paladins will "save it for later".

I also really don't understand why the game would need a complete overhaul to facilitate 2-4 encounters per day when "everyone" already plays that way. The game clearly works as is with it. Yes, I agree that there's a few parts that clash, but there's also a few parts that clash with 6-8. For one, that everyone would be bored with the inevitable cakewalk and would probably have blown their resources (needlessly) by the time they got to 8, they'd be unhappily spamming at-wills. OR if they got really, really good at expecting 8, they'd be so careful with resource management that they'd never use anything "in case they need it for later".

Again: Tell me why they can't tweak the parts that clash with the foolish assumption.

Getting multiple Smites a turn is such a corner case that it slipped entirely through Next playtesting and a year or two of play before WotC realized how ludicrous it could be: Joe Mangianello scored 323 points of damage in one Round on air in a game DMed by Mearls in like '17 or so, and that was pointed out as not RAI even if it was RAW. This is just fixing an unlikely corner case, that's all.