Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OB1" data-source="post: 8839131" data-attributes="member: 6796241">This is total speculation on my part, but I would guess that the data WotC got back prior to the original close of the survey contained results were far enough off from what they were hoping that it gave them pause (and likely very different that the feedback they got on packet 1).  They extended the deadline both to take a deeper look at the initial results and to see if they could get more results in.  The other extensions may be a way to buy time to rework the next class group based on those results, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next packet is a revision of the Expert group instead.    Packet 2 is a massive amount of change to the way the game is played by PCs, whereas packet 1 really only changed the edges of how you create a 1st level character.  While I agree that the P2 changes are still fully compatible with 5e in terms of the math, the style and feel of it is way different.  But to me at least, it didn't feel like those changes would result in a better or worse play experience, just a different one. With the core 3 books all hitting the top 15 in ALL BOOKs sold on Amazon this week 8 years after their release, there's got to be real debate at WotC over making any changes that could cause that number to drop long term.  Do we make a small set of changes with the goal of continuing the slow steady growth of D&D over the next decade, or go for a large set of changes which would create a massive 1 or 2 quarter spike in sales but with an unknown growth period after.  If they want both, IMO, then they are going to need the class playtests to be hitting a 70-80% approval rating, and I just can't imagine that packet #2 got much higher than 50-60% overall.</blockquote>

Verification