# One D&D Playtest Expert Classes survey is up! Update! Now due Nov 23rd.



## darjr (Oct 20, 2022)

Update. Now due Nov 23rd.




Open until Nov 10th. Now open till Nov 23rd.  The Expert Classes playtest survey is live.










						One D&D Playtest
					

One D&D Playtest Materials  Get the One D&D playtest content, try it out in your game, and then provide feedback! Check back each month for new cont...




					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## darjr (Oct 20, 2022)




----------



## DnD Warlord (Oct 20, 2022)

was this fast? like I know I just found out but it looks like this was out less then 2 months? how can even the most hard core 'gets to play every week' gamer make it through more then a small handful of levels in 2 months?


----------



## darjr (Oct 20, 2022)

I’m at Gameholecon, can’t look at it now. Anyone get a chance?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 20, 2022)

DnD Warlord said:


> was this fast? like I know I just found out but it looks like this was out less then 2 months? how can even the most hard core 'gets to play every week' gamer make it through more then a small handful of levels in 2 months?



I am going to guess you didnt see the first one, 3-4 weeks seems to be all we will get. I feel In MY opinion it is more spin and public advertisement then playtest at this point.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 20, 2022)

Took me a solid 20 minutes to complete.  @GMforPowergamers I agree that the playtest is primarily about change management and advertising, but I also think that the results of the surveys will have an effect on the final game in 2024.  I think there are things they are certain they want to adjust, but quite a bit that they are truly testing audience reaction to see if it should be changed/included.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 20, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Took me a solid 20 minutes to complete.



took me only a little longer, this was a good length but not super long one.


OB1 said:


> @GMforPowergamers I agree that the playtest is primarily about change management and advertising, but I also think that the results of the surveys will have an effect on the final game in 2024.



I agree. I don't think they are chucking the results in a bin. I think they are more feeling out what they can and can't change. I imagine (and this is pure speculation) they have a 'we playtested and this is what we want to release' version about half done maybe first draft maybe more... and 'here are some changes we aren't sure about' and the feed back we give will massage that. 
If we all vote "I hate the bard!" it doesn't matter what they have written they will make changes (just an example I don't hate the bard). but they will be small changes, we are seeing the overall layout and concepts that are already in gear.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 20, 2022)

My strongest negative feedback in the survey was around the new Nat1 Heroic Inspiration (which my group rejected completly after loving the Playtest 1 Nat20/Crit rules) and the new Investigation/Search/Influence Actions, which I feel are unnecessary and too codified.  I gave strong a strongly positive review to Expert Class grouping in general and the Ranger specifically, and while I think the Bard and Rogue are fine, I'm not sure they are 'better' than the 2014 versions, just different.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 20, 2022)

According to some redditors, there's no comment box for rogues.

Oh this will be fun.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> According to some redditors, there's no comment box for rogues.
> 
> Oh this will be fun.



Yeah, I put my comments for rogues in the Thief Subclass comment box.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 20, 2022)

DnD Warlord said:


> was this fast? like I know I just found out but it looks like this was out less then 2 months? how can even the most hard core 'gets to play every week' gamer make it through more then a small handful of levels in 2 months?



Packets are coming about once a month, with surveys coming 2-3 weeks after. I don’t think they’re expecting us to thoroughly playtest anything in the packets. They just want to get our general impressions so they can weed out anything that’s a clear and resounding “no” on its face.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 20, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> According to some redditors, there's no comment box for rogues.
> 
> Oh this will be fun.



WotC surveys have always been kinda sloppy like that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2022)

DnD Warlord said:


> was this fast? like I know I just found out but it looks like this was out less then 2 months? how can even the most hard core 'gets to play every week' gamer make it through more then a small handful of levels in 2 months?



In aggregate, they'll get plenty of information. the most important thing is how these options feel, frankly. They are entirely capable of balancing the mechanics in house, but sometimes the community falsely decides something is broken with such a resounding consensus that they end up changing it in spite of it being completely fine by the numbers. 

The Four Elements Monk is a great example. They overvalued ki points in relation to spell slots, valued getting to choose from a list rather than getting set spells highly enough to cost shadow spells and 4elements spells differently, and while all of that made perfect sense on paper, the 4elements just sucks to play for a large swath of players, so it will almost certainly get some sort of change. 

I'm hoping they recycle the wu jen psionic disciplines from the mystic for the four elements monk, tbh. Steal it's name, too, and make the lore around the class less orientalist, while we're at it. 

/tangent

As for the survey, I was mildly surprised at how negative my detailed feedback was. 

I had a box for written feedback for the rogue, so it's only some respondents experiencing that issue. 

I gave almost entirely negative feedback on the Bard. Leaning more heavily into spellcasting rather than bardic inspiration, reducing choices, "normalizing" everything in general, all leading to a Bard that just might as well be a variant Rogue at this point. And I say that as someone who vehemently opposing consolidating the classes. This is a bad version of the Bard. The Lore College is even worse than the base class. After level 3, it has nothing that relates remotely to knowledge. Swap the extra skills for a choice of social skills, and rename it something related to being the guy satirizing the king, or dressing down the villain until he relents, etc, with flavor pulled from Irish and Scandinavian bardic archetypes, and give it a ribbon "you can gain entrance to courts and noble households in exchange for performance and bringing news from the road, and the common folk are usually eager to share gossip with you and listen to your stories and hear new songs." I'd love it, then. 

As it is, it's eating a very good Bardic archetype while doing nothing to actually fulfill that archetype.

The Ranger was mostly positive, with only a couple sore spots. Nature's Veil would be good if it didn't cost a spell slot, but is absolutely a waste of said slot as is. Either buff the effect, preferably by letting the ranger share the effect with at least one ally, or drop the spell slot cost. Foe Slayer is still terrible at that level. No one is excited to get that at level 18. I'd barely be excited about it at level 11. 

Hunter is just...boring. This impulse designers have to listen to optimizer and rework the game to drop the options the optimizers ignore is bad for games. I told them it reads like they spend too much time listening to people who yell online. 

Rogue is fine, though I challenged  the change to Sneak Attack. if the point is to limit the rogue to 1 use per round, just _do that_. Directly. let the rogue who misses on their turn use SA if they get a reaction attack. 

The Thief is excellent. I want to play a Thief with the Athlete feat and maybe Charger immediately. Charger makes a great _Fleche _fencer, and with the rest of the build makes such a fast and aggressive swashbuckling rogue that I don't know if I even need the Swashbuckler anymore. 

I took a break to write this post, and I'm going to move on to feats. There are just so damn many.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 20, 2022)

OB1 said:


> My strongest negative feedback in the survey was around the new Nat1 Heroic Inspiration (which my group rejected completly after loving the Playtest 1 Nat20/Crit rules) and the new Investigation/Search/Influence Actions, which I feel are unnecessary and too codified.  I gave strong a strongly positive review to Expert Class grouping in general and the Ranger specifically, and while I think the Bard and Rogue are fine, I'm not sure they are 'better' than the 2014 versions, just different.



While I have no strong opinion on when the Heroic Inspiration is gained, I really like the new Investigation/Search/Influence actions as it explicitly puts weight on skills that think are overused. 
I am mostly positive on the proposed changes overall I do not like having to decide on stuff without full context as to how it interacts with the rest of the rules.
For instance, I do not have a strong opinion against prepared casters, I would not like, all prepared casters to follow the same mechanic nor do I like the particular version given and I would like to see some spells known casters retained. 
I also do not like that the rogue cannot use SA on a delayed/readied action and in fact I would rather than weapon users could use their full attack action on a delayed/readied action.
I am not too bothered about the OA use case.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2022)

Feats.



Spoiler



the good
Actor is great. Athlete is great. Charger is great. I want to play a Thief with the Athlete feat and maybe Charger immediately. Charger makes a great _Fleche _fencer, and with the rest of the build makes such a fast and aggressive swashbuckling rogue that I don't know if I even need the Swashbuckler anymore. Beautiful. It sings.

Crossbow Expert is fine, and I like that it isn't required to do the sword and hand-crossbow style, it just makes it easier.

 Grappler, combined with the new unarmed strike rules, is fantastic. My monk will absolutely take it if it makes it to print.

GWM is cool. I like it. I don't really know why they changed the damage buff to adding PB to damage, but it works fine.

Mounted Combatant is cool. I'd take it as a mounted character, which is more than I can say for the original.

Ritual Caster is great. More like this, please.

Sentinel was fine as is, and this is fine. Cool. Sharpshooter is exactly what I want from such a feat now. I'd actually be excited to see a player take it.

Shield Master is good. Some will be mad it doesn't allow a bash-then-stab, but whatever. It's a good feat. Interpose Shield is solid.





Spoiler



the bad
Defensive Duelist is terrible. Make it either work like Deflect Arrows, make it last until the start of your next turn like Shield, or ditch the ASI and drop it to level 1. It's so bad. I can't even. make it the Great Weapon Master of duelist builds. So frustrating. One of my favorite things is to build a duelist that is good at the old parry-riposte. The fact that a feat called Defensive Duelist pretends to help with part of that but is actually next to worthless, sucks.

Dual Wielder sucks. I've got multiple people in my games who flat out can't update to these rules because this feat just gives you benefits that should just be general rules, and doesn't let you fight case, with two equally sized weapons that aren't small, traditionally two full length rapiers IRL, but in fantasy it's just as common to swing a staff and longsword or a sword and an axe, or whatever.
The idea of taking a feat to be able to use a rapier and main gouche is just...mindbogglingly silly.

I rated all fighting style feats very dissatisfied. They were never worth a feat, but at least the old feat that grants one doesn't waste a ton of page space making each one it's own feat. At least they're 1st level feats, but 1st level feats have their own problems as a concept right now, which I'll complain about downpost.

I laughed aloud when I read Heavily Armored. I can't believe they still think that's worth a feat. Same with Lightly Armored, though tbh at least it gives medium armor and shields. I'd just combine them with their mastery feats. Don't chain stuff like this, it's not worth it.

Keen Mind...why? I liked the original, but I get why it needed an update. Still, this isn't it. The original was very cool _conceptually. _Expertise in one knowledge skill in place of an eidetic memory? Really? No thanks.

IDK what they were thinking with the change to Mage Slayer. not worth a feat, and the original is one of my favorite feats.

Medium Armor Master... you might well have taken a feat to be able to take this. What on earth!? A very roundabout +1 AC. Not worth a feat.

Observant and Keen Mind represent the single thing I most hope gets soundly rejected in this UA. Normalization of features. I usually call it obsessive symmetry, because it is very similar to a painter ruining their own work by obsessing over symmetry at the expense of actually expressing what they're trying to express. Don't make the game less interesting. Observant needed an update, it didn't need to made into a needlessly specific version of skilled expert.

Skulker...I grimaced reading this one. Blindsight 10ft? Seriously? The original version did not need an update. Does the stealth in combat feature even help much with the stealth rules in this UA? IIRC stealth explicitly doesn't work if any hostile creature has line of sight to you, now? Whatever, if they fix the stealth rules so that stealth rogues can actually work, the feat is still pretty good, I just don't see any value in changing the vision part of the feat.

Speedster why do they keep trying to ruin my favorite feats. At least they didn't name this Mobile, because it sure as hell isn't a viable replacement for Mobile. I mean it's fine, I guess. Why does it require dashing to work?

Spell Sniper. Absolutely not. this was not a top tier feat, it was just fun and cool. Stop nerfing things that aren't top tier.

Weapon Training didn't get any better. I mean, sure they all gained +1 ASI, but if that is why so many feats got nerfed, then ditch that immediately. Either way, doesn't explain why this feat is still terrible.



And there's still the rules, I assume...

edit: oh! general feedback. 

1st level feats and 4th level feats should be balanced with eachother when you ignore the +1 ASI on 4th level feats. 1st level feats should then have a clause that if you take them after level 1 you get a +1 ASI. this way some stuff is still level gated, and level 1 is still mostly utility and theme stuff, but level 1 feats aren't a trap option after level 1.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 20, 2022)

I did make the suggestion that they rename Speedster to "Fleet of Foot" but who knows if they'll even see with all the surveys they'll have to go through.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2022)

okay I gave perfunctory feedback on the spell list. Basically that their neat little organization idea shouldn't cost classes iconic spells like Bards losing Bane, and that if they keep it, the need to add a list of bonus spells for each class, to cover those gaps without having wizards casting bane. 

for the rules, I'm not leaving too much detailed feedback. For the most part, just the rating speaks perfectly fine for me. But Hidden and Hide Action are problematic, so I've told them they need to clarify that you can burst from stealth to gank someone from which you were hidden and stab them with advantage, because as written it makes stealth a very very minor benefit. 
Long Rest I prefer the first UA version of, but I don't care too much bc I'm not strict about Long Rests anyway, you can absolutely sleep for a few hours, spend an hour doing light activity, and then sleep a few more hours, and be fully rested. People are pretty resilient, and I'm just never going to put a bunch of energy into finding every excuse to hinder the PCs. 

Tools having a normalized price is hilarious. A basic drum costs the same as bagpipes, huh? No thanks. 

Ritual Casting is the best thing in this UA. 

Unarmed Strike! The main contender for Ritual Casting's place at the top of the pile. Perfect in every way.


----------



## JEB (Oct 21, 2022)

I feel like we didn't need to be asked about the feat slots at every single available level, and every single subclass feature slot. Seemed like clutter. But I suppose that might allow someone to provide very nuanced feedback.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> They overvalued ki points in relation to spell slots,



I agree with your overall point, but this part is not quite accurate: they got the point value right, but the "feel" that accurate Spell Point conversion provided did not provide an adequate Avatar Bender experience.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I agree with your overall point, but this part is not quite accurate: they got the point value right, but the "feel" that accurate Spell Point conversion provided did not provide an adequate Avatar Bender experience.



Well, no, they overvalued the points. It absolutely isn’t just about being an Avatar bender, it’s about the gameplay being bad for several reasons, the most egregious of which is that your abilities all cost 1 more ki per use than any other subclass, which means the subclass _effectively subtracts from your power compared to a shadow monk. _

Like I said, the math makes sense on a spreadsheet, but the spreadsheet is wrong. 

One other way in which they overvalue the abilities is that I guarantee part of why the other subclasses cost spells at 1 ki per spell level, and the 4elements costs them at 1 + Spell level, is that the 4 elements monk has a list of options, and the others gain a predetermined spell at a specific level. Just like how they treat Magic Initiate and Fey Tocuhed as equal in value because Fey Touched is much more limited in scope of options. 

The problem is, you don’t get that many disciplines, the list of options isn’t that big, and the total lack of synergy with base class features means that these abilities are at odds with the class rather than purely adding to it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 21, 2022)

Man, took me an hour to fill it out, and I don't even think that I was particularly wordy.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 21, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> 1st level feats and 4th level feats should be balanced with eachother when you ignore the +1 ASI on 4th level feats. 1st level feats should then have a clause that if you take them after level 1 you get a +1 ASI. this way some stuff is still level gated, and level 1 is still mostly utility and theme stuff, but level 1 feats aren't a trap option after level 1.



Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 21, 2022)

Its a pretty detailed and granular survey.

I hope they are doing something with it!


----------



## Horwath (Oct 21, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.



this works also.

Also, if not that, an option to trade away your backgrounds +2 ASI for any feat.

or better yet, for advance players:
No background ASIs, just a choice of two feats.(4th level ones OFC)
that gives total of +2 or +1/+1 ASI and two half feat benefits.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 21, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ritual Caster is great. More like this, please.



I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!) 

When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party. 

Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!


----------



## Horwath (Oct 21, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)
> 
> When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party.
> 
> Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!



Agree,

feat should be:

Ritual caster:
+1 int, wis or cha
you gain a ritual book with two 1st level spells with ritual tag from any spell list.
you can cast these spells as rituals only.
casting ability is ability increased by this feat.

you can inscribe any ritual spell into your ritual book at a cost of 25GP per spell level.
you need one hour and one page per spell level.
you can cast ritual spells from this book as rituals of spell level equal to half your character level(round up).


that is, you can scribe spells into your book that are higher level, but cannot cast them until you get sufficient level.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 21, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.



This. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI system


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 21, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> This. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI system



we aren't sure about this, but at least in theory... but still we have only guessing to go


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.



I like that, too.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 21, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> This. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI system



I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.



Yep, and it’s pretty clear that there is no incompatibility between the two designs. You get one set of ASIs at chargen. The only issue is it makes the Tasha’s option for floating ASI redundant. 

The hurdle I need them to clear to keep me buying D&D is that Tasha’s and Xanathar’s and MotM don’t become obsolete, and the setting books stay compatible with the current rules, even if they differ stylistically.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 21, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.



True, so there is hope!


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 22, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)
> 
> When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party.
> 
> Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!



In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.

Have one list for Spells. Have a separate list for Rituals.

Rituals dont use spell slots, they take minutes to perform, fulfill different purposes, are mainly for the exploration pillar, and belong to a separate part of the game engine.

Use any Mental Ability Check to determine the success of a ritual. 

Let noncaster Classes perform rituals too. If a Fighter finds a scroll with instructions for a Ritual, no problem.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 22, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.
> 
> *Have one list for Spells. Have a separate list for Rituals.
> 
> ...



I think this is a flawed way of approaching things & that it causes caster feats to often be unappealingly bland.  Rather than making a ritual caster feat that appeals to casters who have spell slots & likely a selection of ritual spells of their own the ritual caster feat is designed primarily for "what if a noncaster wants rituals" first last & only.  That could be solved & make ritual caster a plausibly interesting feat choice if it allowed the ritual book to scribe first level rituals or rituals of any spell level the caster has slots provided the ritual is from the selected list... but it doesn't consider things like that so it's just bland for everyone.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 22, 2022)

I haven't playtested any of this so I left most questions with the Not Sure option. I took the survey just so I could write this:



> Why is there a choice between a feat and an ASI? Why not make allow PCs to take both as independent features? Combining them to me leads to two problems:
> 
> 
> Game designers now have to consider balancing a feat against an ASI on top of all other design considerations
> ...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> I haven't playtested any of this so I left most questions with the Not Sure option. I took the survey just so I could write this:



The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.

As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
> 
> As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.



Now they are making all feats basically half feats with +1 ASI.

just split those in two and have a feat slot tied to character advancement, not a class feature.
feats at levels:
1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 and *19*.
and to fill up character levels, at levels 3,5,7 and 9 you gain a skill proficiency or combination of 3 languages, tools or weapons.
at levels 11,13,15 and *17* can be expertise for all characters, as at levels 11+ everyone should be expert in a few things.
"expert" classes will still have 4 or 6 expertise before that level so they will not be overshadowed by this.

classes can then get their "bonus" feats at certain levels, and as those feat will be at "half-feat" power level, they can be more frequent too.

fighter could get 4 slots instead of current two at levels 6&14.
maybe at levels 3,7,9 and 13??
rogue can have bonus feats at levels 5 and 9, or similar.

OFC, any of those feat slots can be used to gain +1 ASI instead so non-feat groups can have their game without feats.
Except level 1 feat slot.

Edit:
lvl 20 moved to 19th level so 20th level can be opened for Epic Boon.
No expertise at 19th level


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
> 
> As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.



This assumes that they are leaning into having feats be mandatory. Which is the impression I get from having a Background grant a Feat (granted that this is just a playtest thing).

If they maintain status quo, though, then my concept makes PCs at tables which allow feats more powerful. But that is a power upgrade that targets all PCs equally. Which is a minimal adjustment for the DM... just throw more monsters, etc. to adjust for the increased party power level.

But it does seem (to me anyway) that they are implementing feats as mandatory.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
> 
> As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.



Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.

The downside of separating them is what I outlined in my previous post. To me, that is a much smaller problem for the game designers to deal with than the ones that fall out of combining feats and ASIs. Putting the two together creates a very weird design rigidity that will cause them issues now and more down the road.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.
> 
> The downside of separating them is what I outlined in my previous post. To me, that is a much smaller problem for the game designers to deal with than the ones that fall out of combining feats and ASIs. Putting the two together creates a very weird design rigidity that will cause them issues now and more down the road.



If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs.  Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?

More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs.  Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly.  Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs.  Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?
> 
> More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs.  Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly.  Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.



If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?



The idea is:

I am at a table that uses ASIs
I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> The idea is:
> 
> I am at a table that uses ASIs
> I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
> If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.



But having said that, it seems that the next edition is leaning towards mandatory feats, which makes this discussion pointless. Looking forward to your remarks.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?





Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> The idea is:
> 
> I am at a table that uses ASIs
> I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
> If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.



I didn't realize your intention was for players who don't use feats to just ignore lines in the class charts that gave out feats at certain levels.  I was not expecting that, which is why I was confused.

I was looking at it from the perspective we currently have (and as done in the playtest) wherein every time a Feat is offered in the chart... those players who don't want the 'special ability' that feats grant would instead select the "Ability Score Increase" feat that only just raised ASIs like normal.  So with that methodology in my head, in your system of listing Feats at certain levels _and_ ASIs at certain levels... I was thinking those "non-feat" players would be getting ASIs both in the Feat slot (taking the 'ASI' feat) and in the standard ASI slot you had in mind.  I misunderstood you.



Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> But having said that, it seems that the next edition is leaning towards mandatory feats, which makes this discussion pointless. Looking forward to your remarks.



"Mandatory" in as much as that they just renamed the 'Feat/ASI' feature to simply 'Feat' and made the Ability Score Increase into a "feat"-- which ends up not being a change at all other than terminology.  The only so-called Feat that everyone might not get a "choice" in the matter is the Feat that comes with each Background.  But as I said above... all the 2014 Backgrounds gave out a Feature that is essentially a Roleplaying Feat (even if not stated as such.)  So the 2024 Backgrounds just give out that Feature again but this time with a couple game mechanics attached to it.  If there are tables that are die-hard 'no Feats' players, they probably can just not use the mechanics the 2024 Backgrounds give them (or just reincorporate the Features of the 2014 Backgrounds-- not that I think most tables ever used those things much at all either, LOL.)


----------



## MockingBird (Oct 24, 2022)

I was worried about mandatory feats. I allowed them in my games but the players (who are and are relatively new) just wasn't interested in them. The ASI feat seems to fix this. I've mentioned it in both surveys. It looks to be optional even though they are still using the term feat.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

removed for reasons


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

removed for similar reasons


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I didn't realize your intention was for players who don't use feats to just ignore lines in the class charts that gave out feats at certain levels.  I was not expecting that, which is why I was confused.



Dude! My whole point was to separate the two concepts so the issues you are describing don't come up...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> Dude! My whole point was to separate the two concepts so the issues you are describing don't come up...



Okay, then nevermind.  I guess I'm not getting it, so I'll just let it go.  Doesn't matter anyway like you said.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 24, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Okay, then nevermind.  I guess I'm not getting it, so I'll just let it go.  Doesn't matter anyway like you said.



Well, poop. I wanted you to get it.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> This assumes that they are leaning into having feats be mandatory. Which is the impression I get from having a Background grant a Feat (granted that this is just a playtest thing).
> 
> If they maintain status quo, though, then my concept makes PCs at tables which allow feats more powerful. But that is a power upgrade that targets all PCs equally. Which is a minimal adjustment for the DM... just throw more monsters, etc. to adjust for the increased party power level.
> 
> But it does seem (to me anyway) that they are implementing feats as mandatory.



The second packet is explicit that Feats are assumed, and ASI was just turned into one Feat option.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Oct 24, 2022)

I completed the survey after listening to some feedback from my table. What I found:
Class Spell lists are still needed. Arcane, Primal and Divine are good but having them be the only lists makes character creation overly tedious and prone to errors.
The Bard suffers from missing spells he expects to get based on 5e and the Lore Bard loses his extra Magical Secrets. Magical secrets and bard spells being changeable is too much. Make Magical secrets set and give the Lore subclass back it's extra Magical Secrets. Inspiration on a reaction is OK.
The Rogue sneak attacking only on an action makes hide and wait for a target to appear using a readied action not work. This is the one that we really hated. No AOO and no laying in wait is bad.
The Ranger is on the right track, but needs his own spell list. Just like the bard, misses some spells that 5e players expect from the Ranger. I'd like to see the Favored Enemy still be a chosen foe. Instead of an altered Hunters Mark, just give him a similar ability that is not a spell. Let him use it on a foe deliberately, but say the Favored enemy is always affected by it. Have the damage scale. Now it can't be counter or dispelled, and doesn't cause confusion with how Hunter's Mark works. For similar reasons, just have Nature's Veil say that the when the Ranger successfully hides, he becomes Invisible. Which brings me to spells.
Conjure Barrage is weak. 'Down-casting' a weak spell is worse. Just make Multi-Attack, Multi-Shot and say that the Ranger gets a 3rd attack with Ranged or thrown weapons.
Make Barkskin affect AC but let it scale. It doesn't need to be reinvented and on the list of lackluster spells to redo it isn't the worst offender. 
The Hidden Condition is  good idea but clarify the language in the playtest. I recommend that instead of 'the condition ends', the condition stop affecting enemies that spot you, hear or or that you lose cover from. 
The halfling didn't get inspiration because he has Luck and already has a remedy for the dreaded Natural 1. 
I think it could be an optional rule anyway. 
Epic Boons need to be truly epic. In the years playing 5e, we've had a campaign go to 18th level, one to 19th and one to 20th level. It's rare and it truly deserves something amazing. As an example; Being able to Misty Step once isn't better than the Feytouched feat which you can get much earlier and gives you more. Just make an epic boon that gives you teleportation. 

My two cents. Of course, we haven't seen the rest of the design and these are playtest changes, but if we're using the 5e rules as is where there are no changes, this is what I see from where we stand.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 24, 2022)

I suppose you could rule specifically that a rogue can sneak attack when using the attack action or when using their reaction to activate a held action.   Covers ambush and excludes opportunity attacks. 

I will also be bereft when my shadow mage swashbuckler can no long get sneak damage on her green flame blade.  There must be a better way to mitigate damage stacking such as requiring the spellcasting class feature or something in the multiclass feature similar to what they do with spell slots.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 30, 2022)

Just took the survey. It really is obnoxious to have one survey page asking about all of the glossary elements and then separate pages repeating some but not all of those questions. 

It also seems silly to ask for ratings for the generic feat and subclass feature slots of the list of class features. Is my rating of the level 6 subclass feature supposed to be about the specific feature that they ask also about in the subclass section? The existing features in books they've already published? The hypothetical options we're going to see in future playtests? And do they really expect anyone to rate the level 12 Ranger feat differently from the level 8 Bard feat?

On the plus side at least there were plenty of opportunities to strongly disapprove of combined spell lists.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 30, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs.  Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?
> 
> More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs.  Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly.  Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.



Given what we've seen, it looks like 6e does intend to make fests mandatory.  Maybe the number of tables that font allow feats is smaller than WotC originally believed, or maybe they just changed their minds.  In any case, a table that does not want feats can easily just remove that option and keep the original ASI progression.

If it were up to me, I'd remove ASI past 1st level altogether, and just stick with feats.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 30, 2022)

I


Micah Sweet said:


> Given what we've seen, it looks like 6e does intend to make fests mandatory.  Maybe the number of tables that font allow feats is smaller than WotC originally believed, or maybe they just changed their minds.  In any case, a table that does not want feats can easily just remove that option and keep the original ASI progression.
> 
> If it were up to me, I'd remove ASI past 1st level altogether, and just stick with feats.



I'd remove both...


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 30, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> I
> 
> I'd remove both...



I support your opinion.  But I like feats.


----------



## MockingBird (Oct 31, 2022)

I got curious and looked to see if I could take the survey again, I can but I didn't. Think this could skew the results?


----------



## shadowoflameth (Oct 31, 2022)

I'm still feeling like every background doesn't need a feat and I don't mind level prerequisites for them but in some cases, it will hurt backward compatibility of characters. If the point is to revise the PHB and have that compatibility then perhaps taking a feat as part of your background could trump a level 4 restriction.


----------



## darjr (Oct 31, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I got curious and looked to see if I could take the survey again, I can but I didn't. Think this could skew the results?



I’ll bet they log your ID.


----------



## MockingBird (Oct 31, 2022)

darjr said:


> I’ll bet they log your



You're probably right, didn't think about that


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

darjr said:


> I’ll bet they log your ID.



i wonder about family/roomates... if they sign up for accounts with the same house/main computer will it flag? if I use my (I don't even know how many maybe 5) ways to go online to make 5 accounts do I get 5 votes (I can't imagine having the time for that)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 5, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs.  Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?
> 
> More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs.  Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly.  Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.



just for fun I want to run this numbers...

starting default array: *15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8*

take fighter (most feats) 4 6 8 12 14 16 (I am stopping at 16)
+4 at each but no more then 2 in 1 stat... seems fair

+2/+1 start makes it
16 16 13 12 10 8
4th level  18 18 13 12 10 8
6th level  20 20 13 12 10 8
8th level 20 20 15 14 10 8
12th level  20 20 17 14 10 10 (I hate having -1 to skills and saves)
14th level 20 20 19 16 10 10
16th level 20 20 20 18 11 10


okay fine lets do 19th level I came this far   20 20 20 20 13 10


----------



## darjr (Nov 5, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i wonder about family/roomates... if they sign up for accounts with the same house/main computer will it flag? if I use my (I don't even know how many maybe 5) ways to go online to make 5 accounts do I get 5 votes (I can't imagine having the time for that)



I think each ddb account gets its own ID. So unless they are sharing a twitter or apple or Google account then they’ll have their own.

Note I dint remember the full list of options for sign up.


----------



## darjr (Nov 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> Open until Nov 10th. The Expert Classes playtest survey is live.
> View attachment 264403
> 
> 
> ...



The survey is due soon. 

Get your input in!


----------



## gametaku (Nov 9, 2022)

The Survey has been extended to November 23rd


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2022)

gametaku said:


> The Survey has been extended to November 23rd



so what do you think 1st week of December for the next one?


----------



## darjr (Nov 9, 2022)

gametaku said:


> The Survey has been extended to November 23rd



Thanks! Will update.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 10, 2022)

Delayed, again. At this rate, "2024" D&D will be lucky to be an end of year release.

But I guess its still early days, we don't want to extrapolate too much.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 10, 2022)

Dangit, if I'd known they were going to push it back, I'd have talked my DM into letting me swap my stats for ranger stats for a session, so I could give responses informed by a playtest.

Now I've already filled out the survey, and I really don't want to do it all over.


----------



## Marandahir (Nov 10, 2022)

I appreciate the extended deadline. Now those who were saying "there isn't enough time to playtest these!" really should note that they've given well well well over a month for it…


----------



## Marandahir (Nov 10, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> Delayed, again. At this rate, "2024" D&D will be lucky to be an end of year release.
> 
> But I guess its still early days, we don't want to extrapolate too much.



Unlikely to have any impact on final release date.

Hasbro certainly has a mandate for WotC to release the 5e revised core rules in 2024 for the 50th anniversary.

This just gives people more time to playtest options and then respond. I waited to respond today for that very reason and will wait longer now because I want to test some more things out.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 11, 2022)

I know releasing new playtesting material while the survey from the previous one isnt closed is a bad idea, but I still wish they'd release something (could be minor, like equipment stuff or a few spells) in the meantime.

My interest span is so short. ENTERTAIN ME, WOTC!


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 11, 2022)

That took a long time to answer. And I still had to group all the 20th level feats into one "meh" comment.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 11, 2022)

I'm wondering if they're buying time to make changes to the next playtest based off some unexpected results from this one.  While the first packet introduced mostly minor changes to the way you create characters that was overall highly compatible with the original 5e rules, the Expert packet really upped the level of change.  I could imagine that they are getting a high level of mixed feedback on those changes causing overall satisfaction to be much lower than anticipated.


----------



## darjr (Nov 11, 2022)

The delay is due to pretty mundane things.

New boss, new corporate structure, new building, an ambitious schedule they’ve barely ramped to, DnDBeyond integration corporate and personal wise.

A big internal review. And implementing that review. Plus I bet they wanted to see how the first document under that new process faires, the Spelljammer errata.


----------



## Amrûnril (Nov 11, 2022)

darjr said:


> The delay is due to pretty mundane things.
> 
> New boss, new corporate structure, new building, an ambitious schedule they’ve barely ramped to, DnDBeyond integration corporate and personal wise.
> 
> A big internal review. And implementing that review. Plus I bet they wanted to see how the first document under that new process faires, the Spelljammer errata.




I hope so, but it is obnoxious to have both of the first two deadlines pushed back. As it begins to look like a pattern, people will start wondering whether to take the next playtest's initial deadline seriously. And making the announcement at the very last minute is a real disappointment for people looking forward to the next playtest.


----------

