D&D 5E So... what happened during the playtests?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

So I played 2nd ed, was pretty excited about 3rd ed, was annoyed with 4e and did other things (not saying that 4e was bad! just not for me) , and I ignored the 5e playtest process. Now I'm back and it seems that 5e a pretty good edition.

But... well it seems that missing the playtest I missed part of the "5e story". So what happened? How was it run? Was it helpful? What changed? I know they were extensively debated at the time, but I am not keen on reading dozens (hundreds) of old threads about the topic...

 

[Sacrosanct]

The "5e story" was different from table to table, depending what the group's style was. I imagine a group of 4e fans probably played the 5e playtest in a much different way than my group (AD&D fans). For us, the entire playtest period was pretty much "Let's take these AD&D modules and convert them to 5e and play that." Conversion was super easy, but what it meant was that we often ended the adventures by the time the PCs hit level 7-9 (as that's what the modules mostly ended at). So in our group, we didn't have a lot of experience playtesting higher level PCs. I think the biggest thing that changed was that monsters got a huge boost in HP, and went from level based to CR based.

We did not worry about uber balance, or any of that. Our goal was to see if we could achieve the style we wanted, and if we had fun.

For us, 5e playtest delivered in spades.

 

[TerraDave]

WotC took the playtest more seriously then I think a lot of us expected. They started with a very streamlined ruleset, and some of that, at least in spirit, is still there. But they where not afraid to add things, get feedback, and then revise. Sometimes in a major way.

At one point a bunch of classes had those dice like the battle master still does. Proficiency gave you a die to add instead of a fixed bonus. There was a lot of talk about auto-success in several cases, which got narrowed down to just a very few cases. The fighter had a "damage on a miss" ability that caused a lot of controversy. Monster math changed quite a bit. They had a more involved set of exploration rules. The first sorcerer and warlock where very different. Backgrounds (or the equivalent) where quite different. An intoxicated condition (that is worth finding and adding back in). Etc. and so on and so forth.

I was not always happy with a particular rules set. But I was very impressed by their ability to take in the survey feedback and make it better each time.

 

[cmad1977]

Spoiler alert:
It ended with a pretty good product.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So what happened?

I sat down with my players, explained that we would be trying out unfinished rules for a new version of D&D, and that they should all join me in providing feedback on what we think of those rules and what our preferences are.

How was it run?

If you mean how was it run at each table, I can only say that at my table it was run just like we run any other game. If you mean how was the playtest run, the public portion basically operated in a cycle of release packet of rules > give a couple months for people to have opportunity to explore that packet > survey about that packet with a few general preference questions thrown in > repeat.

Was it helpful?

Since the final version of 5th edition basically reads as exactly what my group asked for via our feedback during the playtest, I view it as having been very helpful (compared to the prior two editions which I had no input in the making of, and was not a fan of).

What changed?

Too much to list, but not so much that the initial playtest material and final game aren't clearly the same set of rules.

One thing that is noteworthy is that classes meant to focus on weapon use, like fighters, ended up with multiple attacks at higher levels even though the idea of a single attack that scaled in damage at higher levels was tested out.

 

[Ancalagon]

An intoxicated condition (that is worth finding and adding back in).

That will definitely be useful for a Yoon-Suin game...

 

[Gnarl45]

Hello

So I played 2nd ed, was pretty excited about 3rd ed, was annoyed with 4e and did other things (not saying that 4e was bad! just not for me) , and I ignored the 5e playtest process. Now I'm back and it seems that 5e a pretty good edition.

But... well it seems that missing the playtest I missed part of the "5e story". So what happened? How was it run? Was it helpful? What changed? I know they were extensively debated at the time, but I am not keen on reading dozens (hundreds) of old threads about the topic...

There was a lot of online discussion during the playtest that Wizards of the Coast pretty much ignored .

They started with a lightweight version of D&D with streamlined rules, few character options, no tactical combat, and average math and the polls told them that was good enough to make petty much every happy except a few vocal minorities on the Internet. They decided to ignore the edition warriors and refined the original system.

What really changed was Wizards of the Coast's official statements.

 

[Morrus]

There was a lot of online discussion during the playtest that Wizards of the Coast pretty much ignored .

They started with a lightweight version of D&D with streamlined rules, few character options, no tactical combat, and average math and the polls told them that was good enough to make petty much every happy except a few vocal minorities on the Internet. They decided to ignore the edition warriors and refined the original system.

What really changed was Wizards of the Coast's official statements.

This isn't even slightly what happened.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Due to my old man's brain, I don't really remember the expanded exploring rules. Does anyone know what packet that was in? I might go back a re read it, thanks

 

[pukunui]

That will definitely be useful for a Yoon-Suin game...

Intoxicated = poisoned with an additional effect for magic users:

"To cast a spell, the creature must first succeed on a DC 10 Constitution check. Otherwise the spellcasting action is wasted, but the spell is not."