D&D (2024) Predictions for Playtest packet 7's arrival

[tetrasodium]

Everybody seems to be forgetting they said they are adding a pile of new spells, including ones named after famous wizards.

Might add some more types of weapons.

Might add actual meaningful rules to hybrids species. Who knows what else.

That new weapons bit would be totally unexpected but nice. Especially if it adds some mechanical hooks for depth to the current always X unless dexbuild then always Y weapons tables. Splitting cantrips off into wand/staff/etc "weapons" would be nice too

 

[Henadic Theologian]

With several more playtests coming out through the end of 2023, my own feeling is that anyone and everyone who wants Multi-Speciesing rules should make sure to talk about it and ask for it in every playtest survey that comes out-- even in sections that aren't specifically about the species rules.

Because at the end of the day... having a Mixed Species entry or sidebar that lists each of the species in the 5E24 and two specific species features from each of them that will get swapped out for the two from the second species to create a mixed species character is such an easy thing to do that I don't know why Jeremy et. al. wouldn't do it.

I think that would go for those of us who want Aasimar and Genasi added to the PHB.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think that would go for those of us who want Aasimar and Genasi added to the PHB.

Always gotta push that genasi propaganda <3

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd prefer that in the PHB.

Me too, but I think that ship has already sailed.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

With several more playtests coming out through the end of 2023

Are there going to be "several more" though? We've had them at the rate out of about once every two months, and we're due another one, which means what at most two after that? And only that if they go right up to the line.

And I presume in 2024 they'll cease because they need the books to actually print.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are there going to be "several more" though? We've had them at the rate out of about once every two months, and we're due another one, which means what at most two after that? And only that if they go right up to the line.

And I presume in 2024 they'll cease because they need the books to actually print.

Doesn't two count as 'several'? (Yes, traditionally two would be 'couple', meaning you'd call 'several' at least three... but I dunno if those are officially determined definitions or not, LOL.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Doesn't two count as 'several'? (Yes, traditionally two would be 'couple', meaning you'd call 'several' at least three... but I dunno if those are officially determined definitions or not, LOL.)

I mean, I guess I've just always found it strange when people call 2 or 3 "several" because to me it means like, at least 4 and even that's pushing it. YMMV of course, I suspect how people see it used influences how they perceive it - I have noticed that well-educated Americans tend to use it for much smaller values than well-educated British people (weirdly in myyexperience less educated people just tend not to use vagueness of several and specify the actual number, which is frankly the more helpful thing to do!).

There's a lot of discussion over whether it has any specific values associated with it. Some people seem to think it means precisely 3 to 7 never more or less (!!!), others think 3-5 is covered by "a few" and several must mean 5 or more. M-W claims it means has multiple meanings including "more than one" (!!! piss off M-W lol), "more than two but fewer than many" (sure), or "a great many" but that's dialectical (it doesn't specify what dialects though).

Personally I don't think I heard or read anyone using it for less than 5 until I got on the internet in the 1990s, and I remember being very vexed by someone saying a game was coming out in "several weeks" when the release date was barely two weeks away lol.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve heard that British English speakers and American English speakers use “quite” in opposite ways - here in the US we use it to denote a significant amount or value, e.g. “that was quite a catch” meaning it was a really good catch. Whereas, (again, I’ve heard, not sure if this is accurate) that in British English it’s used to denote a small amount or value, e.g. “that’s quite amusing” meaning something is amusing, but not, like, super amusing.

No idea how it’s used in Australia or Canada.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’ve heard that British English speakers and American English speakers use “quite” in opposite ways - here in the US we use it to denote a significant amount or value, e.g. “that was quite a catch” meaning it was a really good catch. Whereas, (again, I’ve heard, not sure if this is accurate) that in British English it’s used to denote a small amount or value, e.g. “that’s quite amusing” meaning something is amusing, but not, like, super amusing.

No idea how it’s used in Australia or Canada.

There's a little more to it than that in British English - intonation and position in a sentence relative to other words can change it from limiter as you describe to a positive emphasis. I could say like "Well it was quite amusing" and it'd be definitely a limiter, whereas if I said "That was quite amusing!", would be actually a positive emphasis. If you say "actually" or "really" before quite (i.e. "really quite amusing!") that becomes a fairly strong positive emphasis. And if you put it before "the [object of sentence]" as in "quite the [object of sentence], becomes strong emphasis that is either positive or negative depending on what you're describing, which is I think more similar to the American usage you described. And you can use it just as a term of agreement too - "This is an awful party!" "Quite!" (this usage is bit class and age defined, generally but not exclusively suggesting upper-middle or upper class and likely older).

I think the general rule even in British English is that is emphasizer, and makes things stronger, it's just that in certain situations, it also says "not completely". Isn't English a great language lol?

Australian usage is similar to British, in my experience, don't know about Canadian.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a little more to it than that in British English - intonation and position in a sentence relative to other words can change it from limiter as you describe to a positive emphasis. I could say like "Well it was quite amusing" and it'd be definitely a limiter, whereas if I said "That was quite amusing!", would be actually a positive emphasis. If you say "actually" or "really" before quite (i.e. "really quite amusing!") that becomes a fairly strong positive emphasis. And if you put it before "the [object of sentence]" as in "quite the [object of sentence], becomes strong emphasis that is either positive or negative depending on what you're describing, which is I think more similar to the American usage you described. And you can use it just as a term of agreement too - "This is an awful party!" "Quite!" (this usage is bit class and age defined, generally but not exclusively suggesting upper-middle or upper class and likely older).

I think the general rule even in British English is that is emphasizer, and makes things stronger, it's just that in certain situations, it also says "not completely". Isn't English a great language lol?

Australian usage is similar to British, in my experience, don't know about Canadian.

I think this is all technically true in the American usage as well, but I think we tend to use it for positive emphasis much more often than as a limiter, and even more rarely as an expression of agreement, though I have heard it used that way.

I would assume the Canadian usage is similar to the American, but that’s just a guess.