# What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? (+)



## Grantypants (Aug 25, 2022)

What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? Assuming that all the changes made in the first packet stick around and keeping in mind the design goals that have been discussed publicly, how do you build off those changes to make an interesting and fun 5.5e?

I want to see more monsters redesigned around having recharge abilities. The abilities may or may not begin an encounter charged. 
I also expect to see more spells redesigned to require saving throws rather than targeting AC. That would help ease the blow of losing critical hits on spells. I also expect to see feats, class features, and maybe new spells or magic items that improve martial characters' crits. More damage on crit, wider crit range, crit effects that apply to class features like sneak attack, etc.


----------



## delericho (Aug 25, 2022)

Some sort of limit to cantrips, so they can't just be spammed endlessly.

But the big changes that I'm hoping to see are mostly in the DMG, and I don't expect them to feature in the playtest much, if at all.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 25, 2022)

I expect to see minimal changes.  I hope to see a lot of changes.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 25, 2022)

A few slip-ups mentioning the "new edition."

 Removal of 4e vestiges.  Come to think of it, revival of 3e's "vestiges" from Tome of Magic.


----------



## tetrasodium (Aug 25, 2022)

We don't know much just yet so it's hard to guess what areas might be needed or obviously incomplete



A new vision/darkness/darkvision module that stops pretending that it's ok to eliminate darkness as a tool because the gm _could_ totally make use of toxic GM'ing practices.  Preferably one that includes shorter ranges & possibly old vision types in addition to a party vision range so I stop hearing how bob has 120' superior darkvision & should use bob for all descriptions of what the party sees while running about with effectively perfect vision with no light sources.
Rework of cantrips.  I don't care if cantrips  still exist, but I want to see them tied to specific wands & no longer scaling by character level so casters are placed back into the treasure tables.
reworked ability score generation.  keep the current 4d6keep3 & even a 27point pointbuy but make those the variant options with 3d6 don't reroll 1s or 2s & an equivalently reduced pointbuy the default
change stat=19 items to old style stat +2/+4/etc items
the return of body slots & slot affinities to the character sheet & magic items.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 25, 2022)

I would love to see:

1: A better way of handling magic item distribution and treasure.

2: Hit Dice as a spendable resource to do more heroic things.

3: More combat maneuveres (3e style not Battlemaster) handled the way grapple has been. Do X at Y cost

4: Better monk

5: Make Metamagic a caster thing through feats like Metamagic adept and make the sorcerer cool in a different way.

6. Make lots more feats 

7. Add damage beyond hp loss. For instance ability point damage, longer term conditions, negative levels etc.

Other than that, I like the system and think it is very robust.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 25, 2022)

Grantypants said:


> What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? Assuming that all the changes made in the first packet stick around and keeping in mind the design goals that have been discussed publicly, how do you build off those changes to make an interesting and fun 5.5e?
> 
> I want to see more monsters redesigned around having recharge abilities. The abilities may or may not begin an encounter charged.
> I also expect to see more spells redesigned to require saving throws rather than targeting AC. That would help ease the blow of losing critical hits on spells. I also expect to see feats, class features, and maybe new spells or magic items that improve martial characters' crits. More damage on crit, wider crit range, crit effects that apply to class features like sneak attack, etc.



Historically, they have never tested Mosnters in UA, and I doubt that will change here. Monsters of the Multiverse is the preview if how they will change the MM material.

In terms of what I expect from future packets: per Crawford in the UA video, this packet was the big one, with future packets over the next year being more tightly focused. I expect it to kostly be just the Classes, one packet per Class. So I expect the next packet to be Artificer or Barbarian, if they are going alphabetically (depends on if Artificer is being considered for the PHB, or if the Barbarian is getting a name change), or Ranger if they going in order of magnitude of change.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 25, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> We don't know much just yet so it's hard to guess what areas might be needed or obviously incomplete
> 
> 
> 
> A new vision/darkness/darkvision module that stops pretending that it's ok to eliminate darkness as a tool because the gm _could_ totally make use of toxic GM'ing practices.  Preferably one that includes shorter ranges & possibly old vision types in addition to a party vision range so I stop hearing how bob has 120' superior darkvision & should use bob for all descriptions of what the party sees while running about with effectively perfect vision with no light sources.



 I do not have a problem with this.


tetrasodium said:


> Rework of cantrips.  I don't care if cantrips  still exist, but I want to see them tied to specific wands & no longer scaling by character level so casters are placed back into the treasure tables.



No way do not want that. 


tetrasodium said:


> reworked ability score generation.  keep the current 4d6keep3 & even a 27point pointbuy but make those the variant options with 3d6 don't reroll 1s or 2s & an equivalently reduced pointbuy the default



Not to bothered though I prefer 4D6 drop one.


tetrasodium said:


> change stat=19 items to old style stat +2/+4/etc items



Don't follow


tetrasodium said:


> the return of body slots & slot affinities to the character sheet & magic items.



Nope, I like atunement and concentration not a fan of body slots.

I also think that these change are too much had would make all existing books obsolete which is not part of the stated intension of the changes.


----------



## Grantypants (Aug 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Historically, they have never tested Mosnters in UA, and I doubt that will change here. Monsters of the Multiverse is the preview if how they will change the MM material.



Historically, that is correct. However, I think rebalancing monster crits with recharge abilities will require rewriting a lot of monster stat blocks to include more recharge abilities. If they want useful feedback on their proposed changes, they should release some monsters written with those changes in mind. 

Less than half of the Monsters of the Multiverse monsters have recharge abilities. I don't think that using those as written is enough to adequately test this design change.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 26, 2022)

I love that magic initiate now means I can make an actual staff mage. That makes me happy.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 26, 2022)

Some examples of why it might be worthwhile to remove crits from monsters/NPCs.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 26, 2022)

Grantypants said:


> Historically, that is correct. However, I think rebalancing monster crits with recharge abilities will require rewriting a lot of monster stat blocks to include more recharge abilities. If they want useful feedback on their proposed changes, they should release some monsters written with those changes in mind.
> 
> Less than half of the Monsters of the Multiverse monsters have recharge abilities. I don't think that using those as written is enough to adequately test this design change.



Yeah, I just don't think thst they will.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Aug 26, 2022)

I hope to see a specific exploration of classes and spells specifically as they relate to tiers 3&4.


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Aug 27, 2022)

1) Classes with baseline Extra Attack (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin) have their levels stack when multi-classing (not counting Fighters extra Extra Attacks) just like full casters do for spell slots.

2) Standardized when subclass are gained across all classes. Preferably everyone picks theirs at level 1.

3) Rules for crafting items that are actually reasonableness within the confines of an Adventure. I don't mean 3.5s DMG make whatever you can imagine, but anything already listed in the current editions books.

4) Wizard actually get class features outside of subclass.

5) Sorcerer feel like they are being of natural/supernatural magic and not weakish wizards. Sorcerer exclusive spells.

6) Warlocks lose their "spellcasting". Give them at will spell-like and proficiency per Short/Long rest spell-like.

7) Actual use for wealth.

8) No more dead levels; and no I don't consider new spells levels a class feature sans the level you acquire it. Use these levels for non-combat features.


----------



## pgmason (Aug 27, 2022)

Things I'd like to see:

Reintroduction of Bloodied, and effects which key off it, so that creatures (and PC) don't just have a binary status of absolutely fine or down.
Meaningful character development choices beyond L3 (other than just choosing spells) - sub-sub-classes, prestige classes or whatever.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

Epic Level Gameplay


----------



## TheSword (Aug 27, 2022)

I’d like to see the shield spell fixed - ideally limited to a maximum AC of 20.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I’d like to see the shield spell fixed - ideally limited to a maximum AC of 20.



Or better yet remove all those stupid stat caps they’ve putting on everything.

It’s really ruining the game.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 27, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Or better yet remove all those stupid stat caps they’ve putting on everything.
> 
> It’s really ruining the game.



I don’t understand. Are you talking about the non-magical 20 cap to ability scores? How do they ruin the game?


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I don’t understand. Are you talking about the non-magical 20 cap to ability scores? How do they ruin the game?



Ability scores shouldn’t be capped. I takes away from customization and the point of leveling up if you can never go past 20.

It’s bot like the Ability Scores can even go that high now that they got rid of Epic Levels. What’s the point in capping them?


----------



## JEB (Aug 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Historically, they have never tested Mosnters in UA, and I doubt that will change here.



That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 27, 2022)

JEB said:


> That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).



This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.


----------



## JEB (Aug 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.



The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.

Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 28, 2022)

JEB said:


> The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.
> 
> Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.



Yes, it's for Core books. But format wise, we are looking st a dozen or so packets of somewhat less than twenty pages each (possibly much less, we'll see).


----------



## MarkB (Aug 28, 2022)

I'd like to see readied actions reworked. Allow classes with Extra Attack to make their extra attacks when using a readied Attack action, and also remove the punitive and overcomplicated rules for readying a spell.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Ability scores shouldn’t be capped. I takes away from customization and the point of leveling up if you can never go past 20.
> 
> It’s bot like the Ability Scores can even go that high now that they got rid of Epic Levels. What’s the point in capping them?



If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?

The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Aug 28, 2022)

I don't think it will happen but, if Feats will no longer be optional, drop ASIs. For half Feats just allow +1 to any score. Simply increasing numbers doesn't feel like it adds much to a character, just makes monsters fall out of scale faster. I would allow fighters and rogues the option only from their extra Feats.


----------



## tetrasodium (Aug 28, 2022)

CrashFiend82 said:


> I don't think it will happen but, if Feats will no longer be optional, drop ASIs. For half Feats just allow +1 to any score. Simply increasing numbers doesn't feel like it adds much to a character, just makes monsters fall out of scale faster. I would allow fighters and rogues the option only from their extra Feats.



I agree, going back to the old style where you got a feat at these points & an attribute bonus at those points would be a big improvement over5e's  _"maybe my PCs have a 5+prof+mods or maybe it's 3+prof+more feats"_ would simplify things a lot for GMs trying to balance encounters & magic items across the party.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

TheSword said:


> If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?
> 
> The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.



If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?


----------



## tetrasodium (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?



5e missed the mark on the math. There's no meaningful difference between specialized niche & good at secondary niche.  Worse there's no meaningful tradeoff any longer so you have PCs good to great at almost everything


----------



## TheSword (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?



Well there is specialization and hyper specialization. One is good for the game… one Imho is bad for the game. An opinion I developed after 12 years of playing Pathfinder and 3e.

Hyper specialization trivializes challenges and often leaves the character vulnerable in other ways. It can also imbalance the party and cause friction with the DM when they either don’t allow each encounter to be trivialized or have the temerity to capitalize on a PCs weaknesses.

Wizards are cool. Wizards with spell DCs of 20+ are not fun for anyone other than the wizard. Ergo, cap Stats to 20


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Aug 28, 2022)

More STUFF TO BUY. I mean come on. Why do they even bother to give players above level 3 any monetary treasure? The PCs have absolutely nothing to spend it on.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Aug 28, 2022)

we are likely to see changes to base races again based on feedback and mostly classes and relevant feats beyond that unknowable.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Well there is specialization and hyper specialization. One is good for the game… one Imho is bad for the game. An opinion I developed after 12 years of playing Pathfinder and 3e.
> 
> Hyper specialization trivializes challenges and often leaves the character vulnerable in other ways. It can also imbalance the party and cause friction with the DM when they either don’t allow each encounter to be trivialized or have the temerity to capitalize on a PCs weaknesses.
> 
> Wizards are cool. Wizards with spell DCs of 20+ are not fun for anyone other than the wizard. Ergo, cap Stats to 20



Isn’t the point that other party members are supposed to cover each other’s weaknesses? I don’t see anything wrong with having a wide variety of challenges that can’t be overcome just by the Wizard having a high INT score.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 28, 2022)

I hope to see a warlord class


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 28, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> 5e missed the mark on the math. There's no meaningful difference between specialized niche & good at secondary niche.  Worse there's no meaningful tradeoff any longer so you have PCs good to great at almost everything



Until you get a save or skill that you have an 8-13 in and no prof


----------



## TheSword (Aug 28, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Isn’t the point that other party members are supposed to cover each other’s weaknesses? I don’t see anything wrong with having a wide variety of challenges that can’t be overcome just by the Wizard having a high INT score.



Because there aren’t many things that aren’t overcome with a DC 21 save. Few creatures can last against that and those that can seem
blaggy after unless used sparingly.

I’m all for DMs dropping the restrictions if they want. Though I usually see the call come from players.


----------



## aco175 (Aug 28, 2022)

Fix trinkets and components.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 28, 2022)

TheSword said:


> Because there aren’t many things that aren’t overcome with a DC 21 save. Few creatures can last against that and those that can seem
> blaggy after unless used sparingly.
> 
> I’m all for DMs dropping the restrictions if they want. Though I usually see the call come from players.



It seems like DMs don’t like to increase creature difficulty. There are lots of ways to add countermeasures without it feeling like BS.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 29, 2022)

With the new integration of Feats as a core part of the game, with levels and so on, I'm curious about how they'll work with ASIs. They also seem lower-powered in general (although them being Level 1 might be part of that).

I'm thinking they might do something like the ASI is +1 to ONE stat, and you also get a feat. This will allow players to not fall behind on their primary stat, while still benefiting from feats.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 29, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> Or better yet remove all those stupid stat caps they’ve putting on everything.
> 
> It’s really ruining the game.



I would say, put cap of 18(+4) to ability scores.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 30, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would say, put cap of 18(+4) to ability scores.



We should get rid of levels too.

Realtalk: I think adding an Agility ability score would be nice.


----------



## glass (Sep 12, 2022)

I don't expect to actually see anything, because seemingly they are only releasing them on D&DBeyond and presumably that is not going to change. But as to what I am expecting to hear about secondhand....



TwoSix said:


> I expect to see minimal changes. I hope to see a lot of changes.



I am kinda the opposite. I would rather see minimal changes for real backwards compatibility - genuine revised core books rather than a new edition of the game. Well, either that or a real 6th edition that is not afraid to make significant changes to fix things, but I think it is a bit early for that with the way things are going right now.

I expect we will see lots of little changes similar to the first packet, but spread accross the rest of the game. Enough to break compatibility, but not enough improvement to be worth the overhead. Whoever picked 5.5 for the thread prefix here was prescient, since it would not have fitted what they had announced at the time, but it is looking incredibly apt now...


----------



## pgmason (Sep 12, 2022)

@glass You know you can sign up for free to D&DBeyond right? You don't need to spend anything to access the playtest materials.  There's really no reason not to.


----------



## glass (Sep 12, 2022)

pgmason said:


> @glass You know you can sign up for free to D&DBeyond right? You don't need to spend anything to access the playtest materials.  There's really no reason not to.



I know that signing up for D&DBeyond at the most basic level does not have a monetary cost. I do not consider "money" to be the only possible reason not to sign up for _yet another_ online account...I have far too many already.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I agree, going back to the old style where you got a feat at these points & an attribute bonus at those points would be a big improvement over5e's  _"maybe my PCs have a 5+prof+mods or maybe it's 3+prof+more feats"_ would simplify things a lot for GMs trying to balance encounters & magic items across the party.




Please not.
Increasing ability scores was a bad idea im hind sight. At least, as long it informs attack bonus, damage and save DCs.

If they were purely related to skills, I would be ok with that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> We don't know much just yet so it's hard to guess what areas might be needed or obviously incomplete
> 
> 
> 
> change stat=19 items to old style stat +2/+4/etc items




I had to laugh out loud... for me, giving a fixed bonus IS old style...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I'd like to see readied actions reworked. Allow classes with Extra Attack to make their extra attacks when using a readied Attack action, and also remove the punitive and overcomplicated rules for readying a spell.




No. I came to the conclusion, that use it or lose it is better for the game flow.

On the other hand, extra attack needs better wording (akin to haste).


----------



## beancounter (Sep 12, 2022)

I'd like to see them spread class features, powers and abilities out over higher levels instead of front loading everything.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I had to laugh out loud... for me, giving a fixed bonus IS old style...



I think we can both agree that the odds of attributes going back to the pre-d20 +/-1 at like 15 & 6 or whatever it was is a thing that almost certainly won't be seeing.  Since attributes aren't likely to be going back to the pre-d20 way of handling bonuses  there's no reason for +attribute gear to go back to that scaling rather than using the old d20 era +N style.  The pre-d20 style causes them to make a dramatically larger impact.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

The d20 "old" way was making thise items mandatory. I don't want them back.
Never.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The d20 "old" way was making thise items mandatory. I don't want them back.
> Never.



Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now.   If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18)  +4  format doesn't even exist to them.  Having magic items required was a good thing.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 12, 2022)

beancounter said:


> I'd like to see them spread class features, powers and abilities out over higher levels instead of front loading everything.



I would like the opposite,

all features up to level 11, after that just improvements of current features and more usages.

no need to wait 14 levels or more before your character goes online.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 12, 2022)

Expect: relatively minor tweaking of character options.

Hope: get rid of ASIs or at least put them in +1 feats. New Monster manual with more interesting/varied abilities and tactics, especially that get recharged on a nat 20. Inspiration officially re-roll. Every class gets a signature ability that costs inspiration.

And a pony. I want a pony.


----------



## masshysteria (Sep 12, 2022)

I'm hoping to see the following:

*A better economy.* What do players do with all the gold that is awarded to them? What does the magic item economy look like (the answer to this may differ in based on campaign setting and I'd love it: Eberron v. Dark Sun v. Forgotten Realms)?
*Uses for all the saving throws* or a return to Fortitude, Will, and Reflex. Some saves just never seem targeted by spells or monsters and therefore the presidencies in them seem wasted. If there is a return to the three saves, some sort of 4e like conversion rule of taking the higher of either X or Y legacy save and applying it to Z new save could work.
*A Charisma caster converted to a Constitution caster.* There are too many charisma casters right now with the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. At a table with these you end up with a lot of skill overlap. Changing the Warlock or Sorcerer to Constitution could really set them apart from other casters. They would be better at Concentration checks and have more hit points, open them up for new styles of play.
The *return of the Warlord* class. I know parts of it are found in things like the Battle Master and it had a lot of powers based in grid-based combat. But I'd love to see it be reworked and leveraging 5e's cool additions like advantage and inspiration, in addition to movement, temporary hit points, and saving throws.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now.   If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18)  +4  format doesn't even exist to them.  Having magic items required was a good thing.




I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.
I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.

I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.

This is also the reason why I endorse multiclassing as it works in 5e. It allows me to develop my character in very different ways. Feats help too. And subclasses, and some class abilities that allow for a choice.

I don't like builds that are planned from the beginning and need certain items to function.
In 3e and 4e, in my opinion, magic items lost the magic and became tools to increase numbers, just to keep up with expected target numbers.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.



Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black"  5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.


UngeheuerLich said:


> I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.
> 
> I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.
> 
> ...



If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that.  Specifically you should not give them out in your game.  5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to_ exist_".  I could gave said bring back rather than change x to y, but maybe that word choice is  frustration over fighting 5e's enforced one true way for so many years.  With 5e being tuned so players almost always succeed the difference between +4 &from an item +5 from a base stat is that the character with the +4 from an item almost always succeeds at the thing associated with the item _and_ has a +5 elsewhere to almost always succeed on some other area as well.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black"  5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.
> 
> If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that.  Specifically you should not give them out in your game.  5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to_ exist_".




Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
If both are in the game, I can live with that.
Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.

And no. I would prefer if they don't come back, because it takes up space that could be used for things I like more.
But I won't come here crying if they end up along with the items I like, and maybe even use them once in a while. 

Btw, there are already +2 items in the game: ioun stones, and my character uses one of them.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
> I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
> If both are in the game, I can live with that.
> Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.
> ...



I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to _their_ game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots _and_ attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in.  If I try it tends to result in one of two things:

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."  - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together_(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them)_. so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist  - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores  or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.
If both _existed_ in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to _their_ game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots _and_ attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in.  If I try it tends to result in one of two things:
> 
> "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."  - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together_(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them)_. so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
> I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist  - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores  or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.
> If both _existed_ in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"




They both exist already. At least the +2 versions for certain stats.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 12, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> They both exist already. At least the +2 versions for certain stats.



GM: "You find boots of dexterity +2, they add +2 to dex while worn & attune:yes"
Player: woah! woah woah how do I handle that?
GM: It's like an ioun stone of agility but boots
player: ok a put my new boots over my boots of elvenkind
GM: You can't wear two pairs of footwear
player: Ok
-later-
Player: I walk up with boots floating around my head since they are  like an ioun stone.
GM: no they are boots, you need to wear them on your feet for them to work
Player: "you _said_ they were like an ioun stone why do you make everything so complicated instead of just giving normal magic items"


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> GM: "You find boots of dexterity +2, they add +2 to dex while worn & attune:yes"
> Player: woah! woah woah how do I handle that?
> GM: It's like an ioun stone of agility but boots
> player: ok a put my new boots over my boots of elvenkind
> ...




Yes!  With the right rules, we will all be immune to stupidity.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 12, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> GM: "You find boots of dexterity +2, they add +2 to dex while worn & attune:yes"
> Player: woah! woah woah how do I handle that?
> GM: It's like an ioun stone of agility but boots
> player: ok a put my new boots over my boots of elvenkind
> ...



I'd go ahead and allow it, just to make the player commit to having a pair of boots orbiting his head at all times.


----------



## d24454_modern (Sep 13, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would like the opposite,
> 
> all features up to level 11, after that just improvements of current features and more usages.
> 
> no need to wait 14 levels or more before your character goes online.



That would just discourage leveling up.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 13, 2022)

d24454_modern said:


> That would just discourage leveling up.



how?

who would be against more HP, more spell slots, higher level spells, more sneak attack dice, more usages of your features based on your prof bonus, higher skill bonuses(especially with expertise), more attacks per Attack action?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 13, 2022)

Horwath said:


> who would be against more HP, more spell slots, higher level spells, more sneak attack dice, more usages of your features based on your prof bonus, higher skill bonuses(especially with expertise), more attacks per Attack action?




The monsters?


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 13, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The monsters?



that is entirely dm dependent, thus not relevant.


----------



## Delazar (Sep 13, 2022)

I would love to see Extra Attacks and Multiattacks gone. One turn = one attack action. Make it scale like a cantrip. If it _needs _to target multiple targets, makes it a saving throw, or just make it so that the same attack roll applies to all targets.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I would love to see Extra Attacks and Multiattacks gone. One turn = one attack action. Make it scale like a cantrip. If it _needs _to target multiple targets, makes it a saving throw, or just make it so that the same attack roll applies to all targets.



Hard disagree, Extra attacks are one of the things that reward fighters levelling up. Makes the player feel bad ass.  On the other hand multiattack feels right for some monsters, a  dragon that does claw, claw, bite feels more dragoney than one that just does claw or bite. 
And since multiattack is bad ass the players feel bad ass after taking down such a foe.


----------



## Delazar (Sep 13, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Hard disagree, Extra attacks are one of the things that reward fighters levelling up. Makes the player feel bad ass.  On the other hand multiattack feels right for some monsters, a  dragon that does claw, claw, bite feels more dragoney than one that just does claw or bite.
> And since multiattack is bad ass the players feel bad ass after taking down such a foe.



I would prefer some sort of special maneuver that hits multiple targets, and less dice rolling on single target. Why roll 9 times (20th level fighter + action surge + bonus attack) against a single target? Give me one huge limit break style attack that destroys the monster and his children for 5 generations to come (with half damage on a miss ...)


----------



## Horwath (Sep 13, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I would love to see Extra Attacks and Multiattacks gone. One turn = one attack action. Make it scale like a cantrip. If it _needs _to target multiple targets, makes it a saving throw, or just make it so that the same attack roll applies to all targets.



I disagree with this.

multiply attacks reduce swingyness of combat and makes martials more reliable.

I would start with 2 attack per attack actions at 1st level.
then increase for martials to number of attacks equal to proficiency bonus.(new attack at levels 5,9,13&17), 6 in total
"half-martials" can get extra attack at levels 9&17(total of 4)
caster or 1/3 martials can get extra attack at level 13(total of 3)

then you can have TWF just have one and a half number of attacks. round up. making attacks with one hand then the other, starting with main hand. Off hand must be light weapon.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I would prefer some sort of special maneuver that hits multiple targets, and less dice rolling on single target. Why roll 9 times (20th level fighter + action surge + bonus attack) against a single target? Give me one huge limit break style attack that destroys the monster and his children for 5 generations to come (with half damage on a miss ...)



I get that but I suspect that many other players prefer the build up of attacks. Rolling many many dice is a reward in itself. It is why the game has all these bloody dice.


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 13, 2022)

Majority of stuff that was cut from 4e integrated back in. Especially around Monsters/NPCs, XP budgets. etc..


----------



## Horwath (Sep 13, 2022)

vagabundo said:


> Majority of stuff that was cut from 4e integrated back in. Especially around Monsters/NPCs, XP budgets. etc..



We have lot's of 4E stuff just integrated badly or worse. Some better.

short rests 1hr instead of 5min
HD random healing instead of fixed 25% of max HP
encounter(short rest) powers/features
at-will scaling cantrips, 5E did this better.
5E again has medium armor. bad choice.


----------



## Delazar (Sep 13, 2022)

oh yes, thinking about it, I would like Short Rests to be 5 minutes, but only available 2 times/day, or something like that. 

Like, it's a resource? ok, then let me use it when I need it, not at the whims of the DM (yes now you have one hour time, no now you don't)


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 13, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I'd go ahead and allow it, just to make the player commit to having a pair of boots orbiting his head at all times.



Player: "jfc why did you tell me I can't wear two pairs of boots this whole body slots thing is just too complicated when you can't even keep it straight"... 

Doing that kind of murders the reason for wanting to use body slots to limit gear so a player doesn't have too many things contributing to one little niche of competence in the first place.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 13, 2022)

Grantypants said:


> Historically, that is correct. However, I think rebalancing monster crits with recharge abilities will require rewriting a lot of monster stat blocks to include more recharge abilities. If they want useful feedback on their proposed changes, they should release some monsters written with those changes in mind.
> 
> Less than half of the Monsters of the Multiverse monsters have recharge abilities. I don't think that using those as written is enough to adequately test this design change.



Unfortunately, as I've explained in another thread, they do not want useful feedback.  They want to know if people like what they presented.  That's all.  I have to agree with @Parmandur.  We won't see the purported monster recharge abilities until release, or possibly a locked-in preview before then.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 13, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Unfortunately, as I've explained in another thread, they do not want useful feedback.  They want to know if people like what they presented.




Next time you hang out with the WotC team, when they finish telling you what they are thinking could you tell them I said “hi”?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 13, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Next time you hang out with the WotC team, when they finish telling you what they are thinking could you tell them I said “hi”?



You can see what they care about by how they respond to surveys.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

To be honest I think that we over emphasise these surveys. I think that the D&D Next surveys were playtest surveys in that our response to mechanics was noted and acted upon but the UA playtests since 5e launched are to my mind, more market response surveys. Is the plurality of the playerbase going to accept the "what ever" for a given value of "what ever".


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 13, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Unfortunately, as I've explained in another thread, they do not want useful feedback.  They want to know if people like what they presented.  That's all.  I have to agree with @Parmandur.  We won't see the purported monster recharge abilities until release, or possibly a locked-in preview before then.



We already have them, in several printed books, anyways.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 13, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> We already have them, in several printed books, anyways.



The proof is in the 2024 Monster Manual.


----------

