# WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!



## Charlaquin

Any chance of a summary for those of us who can’t watch the video right now?


----------



## darjr

Note about that thing, they are trying to thread the needle but they say anything with 70% plus positive response means they are keeping it.

Edit: Also note the new playtest will be out Dec 1st









						New UA one D&D play test document Dec 1st.
					

From the latest One D&D survey response video  UNEARTHED ARCANA   The document on December 1st is the third in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player's Handbook...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## darjr

Charlaquin said:


> Any chance of a summary for those of us who can’t watch the video right now?



Listening now.


----------



## Xamnam

Oh man, did they read that one thread here?



> People have have rightly noticed that the thief subclass in the previous UA doesn't as a part of their cunning action enhancement interact with the use an object action anymore. That's intentional, that wasn't an accidental omission. We removed it from that feature because in the 2014 version of the feature it fell into an area of mechanics that we sometimes refer to as mother may I mechanics, and what we mean by that is something that is on your character sheet that really only works if the DM cooperates with you in its execution. This is as opposed to most of the features that characters have where you can reliably just use it and it does what it says on the description of the feature. We have found that in general those sorts of mechanics that kind of require DM permission or buy-in to function properly often end up being unsatisfying or they end up slowing down the game-




They name drop the Wild Magic Sorc as another prominent example they're examining.


----------



## Charlaquin

Xamnam said:


> Oh man, did they read that one thread here?
> 
> They name drop the Wild Magic Sorc as another prominent example they're examining.



Wow, that’s a huge change from the Next Playtest. I wonder what this new attitude will mean for the Stealth mechanics?


----------



## Scribe

Morrus said:


> It was surprising that the dragonborn scored lower than the ardling. The next UA will include new versions of both. The main complaints were:
> 
> -- the dragonborn's breath weapon, and confusion between the relationship between that dragonborn and the one in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.




I'm...surprised at their surprise in this regard. Why release something (Fizbans) and then go 3 steps backwards. I'd have to go look at the UA again but if I remember right, the proposed Dragonborn was plainly inferior, in every way, to the Fizbans version.


----------



## Morrus

Charlaquin said:


> Any chance of a summary for those of us who can’t watch the video right now?



Give me a chance to actually watch the thing! It's 40 minutes long! I've now posted a summary.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Admitting to and mitigating Mother May I Mechanics?

Is this going to become a Star Trek movie thing where every other big announcement is good and the next has things like prepared casting?


----------



## DND_Reborn

I'm not surprised most things score this high.

People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.

Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Alphastream

The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level. 

This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.


----------



## Xamnam

While obviously it's all dependent on execution, taking them at face value, I continued to be reassured by the philosophical guidelines they're espousing during these interviews, and if they deliver on them I think I'll greatly enjoy most of the changes. 

I mean, aside from the Long Rest one.


----------



## Geoff Thirlwell

The big difference between this and the Next playtest is that last time they issued adventures to try with the rules and in some cases pregens. I wonder how many voters actually tried the rules.
I know from my own playgroup that some would just vote for a anyth that made their characters stronger


----------



## darjr

FYI, leave good feedback in the video too.


----------



## Geoff Thirlwell

The big difference between this and the Next playtest is that last time they issued adventures to try with the rules and in some cases pregens. I wonder how many voters actually tried the rules.
I know from my own playgroup that some would just vote for a anyth that made their characters stronger


----------



## Xamnam

Geoff Thirlwell said:


> The big difference between this and the Next playtest is that last time they issued adventures to try with the rules and in some cases pregens. I wonder how many voters actually tried the rules.



Something they do mention is that they look at feedback separately from people who just read the document, and people who actually took it to a table and tested it. Both are valuable to them.


----------



## Oofta

Scribe said:


> I'm...surprised at their surprise in this regard. Why release something (Fizbans) and then go 3 steps backwards. I'd have to go look at the UA again but if I remember right, the proposed Dragonborn was plainly inferior, in every way, to the Fizbans version.



They stated that the intent is that you can still use Fizban's version after the 2024 release.  I don't have Fizban's so I can't provide any more insight.


----------



## Scribe

Oofta said:


> They stated that the intent is that you can still use Fizban's version after the 2024 release.  I don't have Fizban's so I can't provide any more insight.




Right, no books (other than Volos/MToF) have been or likely (assumption) are being removed, but it still is a weird look to have already released a clearly superior version, and they try and drum up interest with a lesser design.


----------



## overgeeked

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



And there are at least 10 players to every one DM. Players will always upvote power creep. So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.

Literally a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.




Or: most people are happy. And you are just part of the minority.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Anyone else notice they're talking about Home Base Rules?


----------



## Xamnam

overgeeked said:


> Players will always upvote power creep. So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.



They didn't mention the revisions to Sharpshooter/GWM as items that received low feedback.


----------



## Remathilis

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Better to scream how the designers are out of touch on social media comments than interact with the method of feedback they set up, I guess.


----------



## darjr

Note new playtest will be out Dec 1st


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> And there are at least 10 players to every one DM. Players will always upvote power creep. So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.
> 
> Literally a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.



I mean don't we often see things nerfed after UA articles?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Note new playtest will be out Dec 1st



tomorrow will be a high traffic day for arguments on here... leading to a week of people telling me not to criticize a playtest they want criticism for... most likely with tic tok FB and reddit arguments going even worse...


----------



## DND_Reborn

overgeeked said:


> Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.



LOL, yeah, I remember this one. Just about every group I know give a feat at first level already! This is more of just WotC catching up with what players and DMs are already doing...



UngeheuerLich said:


> Or: most people are happy.



Sure, the people who _want_ these ideas playtest them and report on how much they love them. Again, self-fulfilling.

Are they "most people"? Who knows. I doubt "most people" who play D&D are bothering to review, playtest, or fill out surveys on this material.



UngeheuerLich said:


> And you are just part of the minority.



Maybe, or maybe not.... I think I am in the majority actually. One of the millions of D&D players/DMs who aren't bothering with the playtest.

Now, I recognize I am in the minority of the direction WotC has taken the game, but that has been true for a LONG time now. 



Remathilis said:


> Better to scream how the designers are out of touch on social media comments than interact with the method of feedback they set up, I guess.



Probably. WotC is so out of touch with what I want in D&D, I don't really see the point for myself.


----------



## Vaalingrade

GMforPowergamers said:


> I mean don't we often see things nerfed after UA articles?



We usually don't see them at all after.


----------



## overgeeked

So with a dedicated One D&D subforum, why is this here instead of there? 

Also, important bit that's buried here..._*New playtest material coming December 1st*_.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



The larger questions clearly aren't up for debate.


----------



## Azzy

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Um, no. That's baseless and flies in the face of what we know about online activity. People are more likely to complain about something than make an effort to praise something. These boards are just one example of that.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> tomorrow will be a high traffic day for arguments on here...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Xamnam said:


> Something they do mention is that they look at feedback separately from people who just read the document, and people who actually took it to a table and tested it. Both are valuable to them.



How would they know you tested it?  Both kinds of respondants answer the same survey.


----------



## Remathilis

DND_Reborn said:


> Probably. WotC is so out of touch with what I want in D&D, I don't really see the point for myself.




Good news. There are plenty of other forums on this very site you could hang out on. If you're that despondent that you feel you can't make a difference, why torture yourself here?


----------



## Azzy

Geoff Thirlwell said:


> The big difference between this and the Next playtest is that last time they issued adventures to try with the rules and in some cases pregens. I wonder how many voters actually tried the rules.
> I know from my own playgroup that some would just vote for a anyth that made their characters stronger



To be fair, the OneD&D rules are usable with existing adventures.


----------



## Xamnam

Micah Sweet said:


> How would they know you tested it?  Both kinds of respondants answer the same survey.



When I filled it out, they asked at the top of each different section if you tested that aspect with actual play.


----------



## Scribe

DND_Reborn said:


> Probably. WotC is so out of touch with what I want in D&D, I don't really see the point for myself.




Its still your only chance to 'officially' voice feedback. I'm taking it.


----------



## Oofta

overgeeked said:


> And there are at least 10 players to every one DM. Players will always upvote power creep. So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.
> 
> Literally a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.




So called power creep, as long as it's evenly applied, is an illusion.  The DM has infinite dragons.  It gives people a bit more flexibility, a few more options at 1st level.


----------



## Micah Sweet

I


Remathilis said:


> Better to scream how the designers are out of touch on social media comments than interact with the method of feedback they set up, I guess.



 Don't see a point to it.  They are clearly catering to players who don't want what I want, and equally clearly there are more of them than there are of me.  At least if I express my displeasure here I can have a conversation about it.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> I
> 
> Don't see a point to it.  They are clearly catering to players who don't want what I want, and equally clearly there are more of them than there are of me.  At least if I express my displeasure here I can have a conversation about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Um, no. That's baseless and flies in the face of what we know about online activity. People are more likely to complain about something than make an effort to praise something. These boards are just one example of that.



People are also more likely to complain in the form of a social media post than in a lengthy survey that won't be directly responded to.


----------



## Amrûnril

So they seem to be thinking that, with shared Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists broken down by school, it might be a good quality of life change to provide classes with consolidated lists of the spells that can actually learn. This would be an improvement over what we saw in the Expert classes playtest, but if you're creating those class-specific lists, wouldn't making thematic/balance decisions about individual spells rather than whole schools be a good option to have? And if Wizards, Clerics and Druids are the only classes with access to the full Arcane, Divine and Primal lists, why not simply call those lists the Wizard, Cleric and Druid spell lists?

The developers don't seem to be considering the possibility that the Arcane/Divine/Primal system is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Xamnam said:


> When I filled it out, they asked at the top of each different section if you tested that aspect with actual play.



I would assume that anyone who wanted their comments to matter said they did in fact playtest it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ok, watched the first 14 minutes,  I’ll chime in on the later 2/3 of the video when I have time to watch it. Some quick thoughts on the first part:

• Interesting breakdown of satisfaction numbers: <60% = unlikely to revisit the idea. 60-69% = interest in the idea but needs significant revision. 70-79% = broad approval of the idea, might need minor revision. 80%+ = approval, try not to change it more than is necessary for balance/rules cohesion purposes.

• Everything in the survey fell into the 80%+ approval category except the natural 20 and natural 1 rules, the Aardling, and the Dragonborn, all of which fell into the 60-69% category. So we can expect very little from this packet to change between now and 2024.

• Written responses indicated that the reason for low dragonborn approval was mostly due to the breath weapon being too weak. Also some confusion with the Fizban’s dragonborn. Clarified that the Fizban’s dragonborn will still be an option alongside the more general PHB Dragonborn.

• Written responses indicated that the reason for low aardling approval was most likely due to lack of cohesive identity - are they anthros or are they Angel people, and if they’re angel people, why aren’t they a variant of aasimar? Clarified that aasimar will still be an option alongside aardlings, and indicated that in an upcoming packet they will present a new version of aardlings that leans more into the anthropomorphic animal angle instead of the angelic angle.

Personally I’m pretty pleased with that, as I liked most of what was in this packet quite a lot, except aardlings, but if they scrap the angel thing and just make them the furry race, I’ll be cool with that. Still hoping halflings get a bit of a buff alongside dragonborn, and some of the 1st level feats could do with a balance adjustment, but that will come later in the process I’m sure. I’ll be back with my thoughts on the rest of the video soon.


----------



## Oofta

Remathilis said:


> Good news. There are plenty of other forums on this very site you could hang out on. If you're that despondent that you feel you can't make a difference, why torture yourself here?




There are several people who don't play 5E that seem to only post on this particular forum only to complain (and there are a handful that don't play but still contribute).  Presumably they think it matters somehow?  Alternative is that they're just trolling, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.   

Posting on these forums is highly unlikely to change the game in any significant way, fortunately they're doing surveys.  Doesn't mean that any one person's opinion is going to matter of course and all surveys are going to be fundamentally flawed in various ways.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Amrûnril said:


> So they seem to be thinking that, with shared Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists broken down by school, it might be a good quality of life change to provide classes with consolidated lists of the spells that can actually learn. This would be an improvement over what we saw in the Expert classes playtest, but if you're creating those class-specific lists, wouldn't making thematic/balance decisions about individual spells rather than whole schools be a good option to have? And if Wizards, Clerics and Druids are the only classes with access to the full Arcane, Divine and Primal lists, why not simply call those lists the Wizard, Cleric and Druid spell lists?
> 
> The developers don't seem to be considering the possibility that the Arcane/Divine/Primal system is a solution in search of a problem.



Again, the larger questions don't seem to be open for debate.


----------



## Azzy

Scribe said:


> Its still your only chance to 'officially' voice feedback. I'm taking it.



Right, it's better to try to get your voice heard in a place where WotC is actually listening rather than just lament on random social media site (like these message boards) that WotC isn't sharing your vision.

I'm definitely not happy about all the changes, and I'm definitely letting WotC know. Will my opinions be shared by enough people, who knows, but I'm going to throw them out there nonetheless.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> I'm...surprised at their surprise in this regard. Why release something (Fizbans) and then go 3 steps backwards. I'd have to go look at the UA again but if I remember right, the proposed Dragonborn was plainly inferior, in every way, to the Fizbans version.



Their surprise seemed to be that an established race scored worse than a brand new race, since new things apparently tend to score lower than established things.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> People are also more likely to complain in the form of a social media post than in a lengthy survey that won't be directly responded to.



Citation needed.


----------



## Xamnam

Micah Sweet said:


> I would assume that anyone who wanted their comments to matter said they did in fact playtest it.



I mean, I marked that I hadn't played them. I wanted to give them my honest feedback. Things can play very differently than they read. If something read-tests poorly, but play-tests well, that could very well be an issue of presentation rather than mechanics. But sure, some people will lie. I hope people who care about the future wouldn't potentially give misleading responses.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Right, it's better to try to get your voice heard in a place where WotC is actually listening rather than just lament on random social media site (like these message boards) that WotC isn't sharing your vision.
> 
> I'm definitely not happy about all the changes, and I'm definitely letting WotC know. Will my opinions be shared by enough people, who knows, but I'm going to throw them out there nonetheless.



Of course by that argument, no one should express anything about 5e but positive stuff, since voicing your displeasure here doesn't lead to any real change.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Citation needed.



The internet.


----------



## Charlaquin

Geoff Thirlwell said:


> The big difference between this and the Next playtest is that last time they issued adventures to try with the rules and in some cases pregens. I wonder how many voters actually tried the rules.
> I know from my own playgroup that some would just vote for a anyth that made their characters stronger



Well, with the Next playtest they were trying to offer a full vertical slice of the new rules. What they learned from that thought was that it tended to overwhelm respondents and resulted in very unfocused feedback. Since then they’ve taken to doing much more focused tests of very specific individual features.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Their surprise seemed to be that an established race scored worse than a brand new race, since new things apparently tend to score lower than established things.



I suppose, but if someone gives me a great meal, then follows up with a clearly inferior version and asks me how to rate it, I'm not going to rate it favourable to what is still offered at the next table over. 



Micah Sweet said:


> Again, the larger questions don't seem to be open for debate.




Maybe, but feedback is feedback.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course by that argument, no one should express anything about 5e but positive stuff, since voicing your displeasure here doesn't lead to any real change.



If that's your take away, you missed the point entirely.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Azzy said:


> Um, no. That's baseless and flies in the face of what we know about online activity. People are more likely to complain about something than make an effort to praise something. These boards are just one example of that.



Not really.



Micah Sweet said:


> People are also more likely to complain in the form of a social media post than in a lengthy survey that won't be directly responded to.



This. 



Remathilis said:


> Good news. There are plenty of other forums on this very site you could hang out on. If you're that despondent that you feel you can't make a difference, why torture yourself here?



Even better news: I can hang out wherever I please. If you don't like what I have to say on a topic, you are also free to ignore it. 

FWIW, it is no torture. I accepted it a long time ago in 3E when WotC took over.



Scribe said:


> Its still your only chance to 'officially' voice feedback. I'm taking it.



Cool, I hope you can make a difference! (I won't hold my breath, but if it is worth it to you to try, best of luck!)



Oofta said:


> Posting on these forums is highly unlikely to change the game in any significant way, fortunately they're doing surveys. Doesn't mean that any one person's opinion is going to matter of course and all surveys are going to be fundamentally flawed in various ways.



Agreed. Every statement here is 100% accurate.



Azzy said:


> Citation needed.



Where is yours?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Azzy said:


> To be fair, the OneD&D rules are usable with existing adventures.




That, and they are releasing the classes in batches. You COULD release pregens in batches, I suppose. Maybe they'll release a party of pregens when all the classes are out.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> The larger questions clearly aren't up for debate.



Exactly. They know what they want to do, it's only the fiddly details that might be up for grabs.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> The internet.



Thanks for not supporting your claim. That helps a lot.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Xamnam said:


> I mean, I marked that I hadn't played them. I wanted to give them my honest feedback. Things can play very differently than they read. If something read-tests poorly, but play-tests well, that could very well be an issue of presentation rather than mechanics. But sure, some people will lie. I hope people who care about the future wouldn't potentially give misleading responses.



If they think it might to getting what they want, they will.  Its not like there are any consequences. I'm not responding to the survey at all, as given my preferences i see it as a waste of effort, but I can definitely see someone lying in a survey if it might push the game closer to what they want.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Thanks for not supporting your claim. That helps a lot.



You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)?  Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)?  Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.



If they care enough to actually contribute? Yea.


----------



## Zaukrie

As someone that did surveys for a living..  ...

39,000 responses is nuts. Wow.

 They clearly read the comments, as I posted before.... The comments are more important than the scores. 

Their scoring criteria is pretty close to what you'd expect. 

If you have thoughts, make them known politely in the survey.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Micah Sweet said:


> You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)?  Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.



Yeah but then you don't get anything, and people start to see you as a grouch who only complains and does nothing about it.


----------



## Azzy

DND_Reborn said:


> Not really.
> 
> Where is yours?



A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people.
Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – _White House Office of Consumer Affair._


----------



## Xamnam

Micah Sweet said:


> If they think it might to getting what they want, they will.  Its not like there are any consequences. I'm not responding to the survey at all, as given my preferences i see it as a waste of effort, but I can definitely see someone lying in a survey if it might push the game closer to what they want.



Sure, but also, one survey in tens of thousands is already going to individually matter little regardless of that, so I personally don't see much incentive to push for the tiny bit of extra recognition.

Who knows, maybe they'll value the non-playtested responses more because they're clearly telling the truth.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> If they care enough to actually contribute? Yea.



Its an issue of how much a person thinks their singular response will matter.  Judging by the overwhelming positive feedback WotC apparently received, it sounds like anyone with serious concerns was too small a demographic to matter.


----------



## Velderan

Azzy said:


> Right, it's better to try to get your voice heard in a place where WotC is actually listening rather than just lament on random social media site (like these message boards) that WotC isn't sharing your vision.
> 
> I'm definitely not happy about all the changes, and I'm definitely letting WotC know. Will my opinions be shared by enough people, who knows, but I'm going to throw them out there nonetheless.



Yep, I do think they listen and it's worth providing your feedback. The info here suggests constructive feedback that pushes an idea below the designated thresholds gives a greater chance they'll rework an idea into something that might be closer to my liking so it's worth the time spent.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)?  Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.



Sure, more people are likely to do that. But that doesn't mean that people that take the survey are more likely to praise the changes than complain about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MonsterEnvy said:


> Yeah but then you don't get anything, and people start to see you as a grouch who only complains and does nothing about it.



You don't get anything anyway.  If you're in the minority in a survey like this, your opinion won't change anything.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course by that argument, no one should express anything about 5e but positive stuff, since voicing your displeasure here doesn't lead to any real change.



I actually see that pushed a lot by people that like the product...


----------



## Morrus

DND_Reborn said:


> Maybe, or maybe not.... I think I am in the majority actually. One of the millions of D&D players/DMs who aren't bothering with the playtest.



So stop threadcrapping in the threads about something you're not involved with, please.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> I suppose, but if someone gives me a great meal, then follows up with a clearly inferior version and asks me how to rate it, I'm not going to rate it favourable to what is still offered at the next table over.



I mean, I don’t disagree, but from WotC’s perspective I can understand their surprise. Dragonborn are generally very popular, and D&D players are pretty notorious neophobes. They may have expected a bit of a satisfaction hit due to the Fizban’s comparison, but not have expected that hit to knock the satisfaction rating below that of the new angel-furry race. Note that when asked what surprised him about the ratings, Crawford’s initial response was “nothing,” then he corrected himself and said he was surprised by the Dragonborn’s rating _in relation to_ the ardlings. So, it seems he expected dragonborn to score poorly, he just also expected ardlings to score even worse.

EDIT: With “poorly” here meaning better than 60% positive, but worse than 70%.


----------



## Bill Zebub

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.




I’m not surprised that people who don’t like these changes will hypothesize/rationalize why the data is bad, rather than accept that their opinions are in the minority.


----------



## Oofta

Zaukrie said:


> As someone that did surveys for a living..  ...
> 
> 39,000 responses is nuts. Wow.
> 
> They clearly read the comments, as I posted before.... The comments are more important than the scores.
> 
> Their scoring criteria is pretty close to what you'd expect.
> 
> If you have thoughts, make them known politely in the survey.




Yeah, the sheer number of respondents is surprising, especially considering the amount of time it took to complete.  The next release is supposed to be smaller, we could see even more responses.

I don't know what some people want.  The survey isn't perfect, no survey ever is.  But they are making a significant effort to reach out to the community to get feedback.  That feedback may not match mine, but responding to a survey is going to have more impact than spending exponentially more time posting on a random internet forum.


----------



## Xamnam

Fun coincidence that they announced the Bastion (home base) rules idea right after I posted in the DM support content thread earlier wanting specifically those.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Zaukrie said:


> As someone that did surveys for a living..  ...
> 
> 39,000 responses is nuts. Wow.
> 
> They clearly read the comments, as I posted before.... The comments are more important than the scores.
> 
> Their scoring criteria is pretty close to what you'd expect.
> 
> If you have thoughts, make them known politely in the survey.




Hey! You are undermining the narrative that WotC already made their decisions and they don’t care what we think!  Stop that!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Sure, more people are likely to do that. But that doesn't mean that people that take the survey are more likely to praise the changes than complain about it.



Maybe in concept, but WotC just showed that survey takers are praising the product (overwhelmingly so).


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> You don't get anything anyway.  If you're in the minority in a survey like this, your opinion won't change anything.



So, a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## DND_Reborn

As per the mod's request, I'm bowing out. I've said my piece and stand by it. Cheers.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe in concept, but WotC just showed that survey takers are praising the product (overwhelmingly so).



So maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of people that actually like the changes and you and I are in a minority?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m not surprised that people who don’t like these changes will hypothesize/rationalize why the data is bad, rather than accept that their opinions are in the minority.



I don't think the data is bad.  I just think its more evidence that WotC is going in a direction I don't care for.

A lot of people do like it though, so good gaming and I hope things work out for everyone.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> So maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of people that actually like the changes and you and I are in a minority?



Never doubted that.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> You don't get anything anyway.  If you're in the minority in a survey like this, your opinion won't change anything.



Their scoring for accepting something in these play tests isn't "does the majority like it". The "passing grade" of UA content isn't a simple majority of over 50%. It's a requirement of having an overwhelming majority of 70% or higher. The minority of people can still influence if something makes it past the UA or not. Hell, they say that their requirement for "it's perfect, keep it the way it is" is an 80% approval rating. That means that if slightly more than one in five people that give feedback don't like something, it's still subject to change.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Azzy said:


> A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people.
> Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – _White House Office of Consumer Affair._



As a CS manager I will say this is a MAJOR truth. unhappy customers talk and complain more then happy ones say they are happy.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think the data is bad.  I just think its more evidence that WotC is going in a direction I don't care for.



And that's entirely fair. You don't have to like the changes (I don't like some of them). At least you have ENWorld's Level Up to fall back on.


----------



## Zaukrie

There are some things I liked, and some I don't like as much as I want. I let them know both. I know I won't get what I want, because I want what level up and mcdm are doing.... And this isn't that. But it is the game my friends will play, so I hope it continues to move closer to what I want.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Their scoring for accepting something in these play tests isn't "does the majority like it". The "passing grade" of UA content isn't a simple majority of over 50%. It's a requirement of having an overwhelming majority of 70% or higher. The minority of people can still influence if something makes it past the UA or not. Hell, they say that their requirement for "it's perfect, keep it the way it is" is an 80% approval rating. That means that if slightly more than one in five people that give feedback don't like something, it's still subject to change.



And the fact that nearly everything scored 80% + shows that the majority are happy with everything they've done so far.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Their scoring for accepting something in these play tests isn't "does the majority like it". The "passing grade" of UA content isn't a simple majority of over 50%. It's a requirement of having an overwhelming majority of 70% or higher. The minority of people can still influence if something makes it past the UA or not. Hell, they say that their requirement for "it's perfect, keep it the way it is" is an 80% approval rating. That means that if slightly more than one in five people that give feedback don't like something, it's still subject to change.



Heck, it’s still subject to change if 80%+ like it, they’ll just try to keep that change to a minimum at that point.


----------



## Zaukrie

There is something of a self fulfilling prophecy here. It's very unlikely people that don't play 5e are going to test things. This isn't aimed at capturing PF players, for example. That doesn't mean some things aren't changing.....


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> And the fact that nearly everything scored 80% + shows that the majority are happy with everything they've done so far.



And not everything did. The feedback still matters, even if you're in the minority.


Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe in concept, but WotC just showed that survey takers are praising the product (overwhelmingly so).



Maybe the changes are overall good and people like them.


----------



## darjr

Someone on Reddit auto transcribed the video.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Zaukrie said:


> There is something of a self fulfilling prophecy here. It's very unlikely people that don't play 5e are going to test things. This isn't aimed at capturing PF players, for example. That doesn't mean some things aren't changing.....



Why would they try to change the game to appeal more to a different community? They already have a bigger community than Pathfinder. They're not going to risk pissing off millions of their players in order to get another, smaller community to like their game more. The relatively small changes they've proposed so far have already had overblown controversy online.


----------



## Zaukrie

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Why would they try to change the game to appeal more to a different community? They already have a bigger community than Pathfinder. They're not going to risk pissing off millions of their players in order to get another, smaller community to like their game more. The relatively small changes they've proposed so far have already had overblown controversy online.



They wouldn't. Where did I say they would? I said it is likely people that play 5e will like 5e..... I'm not sure I understand your post


----------



## mamba

DND_Reborn said:


> Sure, the people who _want_ these ideas playtest them and report on how much they love them. Again, self-fulfilling.



If you do not like them and do not provide feedback, then whose fault is that... you do realize that you can provide feedback even if you did not actually playtest the rules (but at least you should have read them)



DND_Reborn said:


> WotC is so out of touch with what I want in D&D, I don't really see the point for myself.



oh, in that case, why do you even care. You seem to have no intention of using it anyway


----------



## Minigiant

Oofta said:


> They stated that the intent is that you can still use Fizban's version after the 2024 release.  I don't have Fizban's so I can't provide any more insight.



It's probably because they don't want to give Dragonhorn as much page space and complexity like the Fizbans dragonborn.


----------



## Minigiant

Wizards only getting 4 subclass.

The reign of terror of bland wizards sucking up all the PHB is over!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Zaukrie said:


> They wouldn't. Where did I say they would? I said it is likely people that play 5e will like 5e..... I'm not sure I understand your post



I thought you were framing your post as if it were a bad thing. Maybe I misunderstood you.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> There is something of a self fulfilling prophecy here. It's very unlikely people that don't play 5e are going to test things. This isn't aimed at capturing PF players, for example. That doesn't mean some things aren't changing.....



Which is a pretty significant distinction from the Next playtest. There, they were very specifically aiming to capture PF players. Now that they’ve got a stable and very large player base though, they’re looking to refine the game to make it appeal _more_ to that base. They’re looking to please their established audience, not necessarily draw in a new audience.


----------



## Zaukrie

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I thought you were framing your post as if it were a bad thing. Maybe I misunderstood you.



Nope. It was only what I typed. No hidden meaning. Surveys are hard, and I'm trying to comment on that. Sorry I wasn't clear.


----------



## darjr

Charlaquin said:


> Which is a pretty significant distinction from the Next playtest. There, they were very specifically aiming to capture PF players. Now that they’ve got a stable and very large player base though, they’re looking to refine the game to make it appeal more to that base.



I’m not so sure. It’s a good point though.

I think the problem of refining to a base is that it also means some people will be refined out.


----------



## FrogReaver

I feel wotc made their directional change clear. In that vein the content IN ONE is probably fine.  I’ve not been following it much. 

But the bigger concerns that they knew they would get strong negative feedback on they left off the survey. 

I think less self fulfilling prophecy and more marketing 101.


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> Which is a pretty significant distinction from the Next playtest. There, they were very specifically aiming to capture PF players. Now that they’ve got a stable and very large player base though, they’re looking to refine the game to make it appeal _more_ to that base. They’re looking to please their established audience, not necessarily draw in a new audience.



Agreed. Retaining this huge base of players is important to them. Putting out products that base will buy, even though they already play, even moreso.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Minigiant said:


> Wizards only getting 4 subclass.
> 
> The reign of terror of bland wizards sucking up all the PHB is over!



But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> It's probably because they don't want to give Dragonhorn as much page space and complexity like the Fizbans dragonborn.



Yep, same as Tieflings, I’m sure. No doubt options like the Archdevil-specific lineages from MtoF will still be available, but it would take up too much space to reproduce those in the PHB. Hence, a more compact general version.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> But the bigger concerns that they knew they would get strong negative feedback on they left off the survey.



Where did they ever say anything that would even suggest that they did that?


----------



## Zaukrie

I think, and I could be wrong, there is space for an improvement in the base game.... And for an additional book with more player options. Not endless books like 2e, but subclass options. 

They can't go crazy with official options like spell points, as that is a huge change for DNDbeyond and their VTT. Imo.


----------



## Jer

Vaalingrade said:


> But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?



The four wizard subclasses:


Earth-shattering Kaboom Wizard
4 Hit Points And A Dagger Wizard
Subtle and Quick To Anger Wizard
Coast Wizard


----------



## John R Davis

"the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .

Er, what was that???


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Vaalingrade said:


> But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?



My bet is they'll go with modern spellcaster archetypes, like:

Warmage (protection/anti-magic, party buff and terrain damage)
Elementalist (boomboom spells and elemental summons)
Beguiler (illusions and enchanment)
Necromancer (curses, debuff, creepy summons)

Maybe Oracle (divination and spirit summoning)?


----------



## overgeeked

One thing I want to touch on is a comment Crawford makes around 25:55 about the ranger and mother may I. 

What he's saying is basically, unless the DM bought into the features of the ranger, they never came up and so made the ranger feel less useful than the design team intended. 

As a referee who's frustrated by the 2014 ranger, as a player who loves the ranger fantasy, and as a fan who's really bothered by the lackluster presentation of the exploration pillar in 5E, I can say the exact reason why I avoided rangers and the ranger features in play. It was because the features amounted to a skip button. The ranger just auto succeeded. There was no risk, no play, no rolls...just I win. That meant they weren't fun in actual play, so we stopped playing through those bits. Because a scene where you just narrate how awesome a character is and they auto succeed at a pillar of play is dull and boring. The UA ranger with expertise is much better. Because there's a risk of failure, there are rolls involved, there's a chance of something interesting happening instead of "yep, I'm awesome. I win."


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



You don’t think that most people who had any sort of issue with level 1 feat would have said so in their written feedback?


----------



## OB1

Vaalingrade said:


> But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?



I'm guessing picking a school will be a first level feature that gives some benefit across classes (maybe one extra known spell from your school per level that is always prepared and doesn't count against the number of prepared).

The subclasses I'm guessing will be similar across all classes.  A Wizard (Mage) which is the iconic version, and then a Wizard (Warrior), Wizard (Expert) and Wizard (Priest).  Each class will follow a similar structure in the new PHB, a sort of multi-class lite.

Not surprised at all that this packet had such high approval numbers.  I'm betting packet 2 didn't do nearly as well (hence the delay in packet 3).


----------



## Blue

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it.



Just to understand, you are saying that _on the internet people are more likely to post positive things than bitch about something?!_

Please, I want to live where you do.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And not everything did. They feedback still matters, even if you're in the minority.
> 
> Maybe the changes are overall good and people like them.



The majority of respondants certainly seem to.


----------



## Scribe

Charlaquin said:


> Yep, same as Tieflings, I’m sure. No doubt options like the Archdevil-specific lineages from MtoF will still be available, but it would take up too much space to reproduce those in the PHB. Hence, a more compact general version.



The layout of the Dragonborn section in Fizbans, is a travesty of copy-paste and wasted page space. It could be done way better for sure.

I think I even worked it up, and Tiefling as well, to demonstrate how much easier to could be to save the space and retain the variety.


----------



## Blue

Micah Sweet said:


> How would they know you tested it?  Both kinds of respondants answer the same survey.



You had to indicate on the survey which parts you actually playtested.


----------



## OB1

With the new D20 Test rules being salvageable, here's what I'd love to see as a fix.

Nat20 on a D20 Test gives inspiration.  When you Nat20 on an attack roll, you can either gain inspiration or double your damage dice.  For monsters, they can double damage dice or auto-recharge any spent power.

This is a best of both worlds and gives both PCs and Monsters a lot of options when they Crit on a hit.  Just wish I would have thought of this when I was filling out the survey.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Blue said:


> You had to indicate on the survey which parts you actually playtested.



I already covered that.  People can just lie if they want WotC to think they playtested it.  No one stops them.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I already covered that.  People can just lie if they want WotC to think they playtested it.  No one stops them.



People can lie about anything in the survey. WotC has to assume that they're telling the truth.


----------



## Charlaquin

John R Davis said:


> "the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .
> 
> Er, what was that???



Automatic success on a natural 20, automatic failure on a natural 1, and critical hits being a player-only thing (and only on weapon attacks). Might also have been referring to Inspiration on a natural 20, but I don’t think so.


----------



## Blue

Micah Sweet said:


> If they think it might to getting what they want, they will.  Its not like there are any consequences. I'm not responding to the survey at all, as given my preferences i see it as a waste of effort, but I can definitely see someone lying in a survey if it might push the game closer to what they want.



This comes across as the people that don't vote, yet grumble about the government.  If you are not willing to put in the effort to try to make something better (in your view), if you later complain about you end just being hypocritical.


----------



## Oofta

overgeeked said:


> One thing I want to touch on is a comment Crawford makes around 25:55 about the ranger and mother may I.
> 
> What he's saying is basically, unless the DM bought into the features of the ranger, they never came up and so made the ranger feel less useful than the design team intended.
> 
> As a referee who's frustrated by the 2014 ranger, as a player who loves the ranger fantasy, and as a fan who's really bothered by the lackluster presentation of the exploration pillar in 5E, I can say the exact reason why I avoided rangers and the ranger features in play. It was because the features amounted to a skip button. The ranger just auto succeeded. There was no risk, no play, no rolls...just I win. That meant they weren't fun in actual play, so we stopped playing through those bits. Because a scene where you just narrate how awesome a character is and they auto succeed at a pillar of play is dull and boring. The UA ranger with expertise is much better. Because there's a risk of failure, there are rolls involved, there's a chance of something interesting happening instead of "yep, I'm awesome. I win."



Tends to be the same issue for some people with high level rogues once you get reliable talent.  Unless the DM sets up scenarios where literally no one without expertise can hope to achieve the target required, a straight skill check becomes boring.

EDIT


Spoiler: D20 TEST



D20 TEST
The term d20 Test encompasses the three main
d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack
rolls, and saving throws. If something in the
game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of
those rolls.
The DM determines whether a d20 Test is
warranted in any given circumstance. To be
warranted, a d20 Test must have a target
number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test
automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers
to the roll.

ROLLING A 20
*If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test
automatically succeeds, regardless of any
modifiers to the roll.* A player character also
gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to
the remarkable success.
Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the
test, such as range and line of sight. The 20
bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> Automatic success on a natural 20, automatic failure on a natural 1, and critical hits being a player-only thing (and only on weapon attacks). Might also have been referring to Inspiration on a natural 20, but I don’t think so.



I hope NPCs get crits, but I'd trigger cool effects over damage..... But that seems unlikely.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> The majority of respondants certainly seem to.



Presumably because they, you know, liked what they saw.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

John R Davis said:


> "the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .
> 
> Er, what was that???



 I hope that means skills and saves are not longer 20 auto pass 1 autofaill


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tales and Chronicles said:


> My bet is they'll go with modern spellcaster archetypes, like:
> 
> Warmage (protection/anti-magic, party buff and terrain damage)
> Elementalist (boomboom spells and elemental summons)
> Beguiler (illusions and enchanment)
> Necromancer (curses, debuff, creepy summons)
> 
> Maybe Oracle (divination and spirit summoning)?



I would love the wizard to have more ivocative subclasses


----------



## Oofta

John R Davis said:


> "the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .
> 
> Er, what was that???



D20 tests kind of combine ability skill checks and pretty much everything else.  The rule was that you get an auto success any time you get a 20 and an auto fail on a 1.  So have that cliff that can't be climbed?  Go ahead and try anyway, you have a 5% chance of success!


----------



## overgeeked

Oofta said:


> Tends to be the same issue for some people with high level rogues once you get reliable talent.  Unless the DM sets up scenarios where literally no one without expertise can hope to achieve the target required, a straight skill check becomes boring.



Absolutely. But at least with that it's not until level 11, which is rare air indeed. World of difference from a 1st-level feature.


----------



## Cadence

Some feels like this, but with a long ballot and no line before you get to it?


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> I hope NPCs get crits, but I'd trigger cool effects over damage..... But that seems unlikely.



Back in the video for the Origins UA, they said their intent was for recharge abilities to fill the role of critical hits in monster/NPC stat blocks, as the dynamic “something more dramatic than usual happens” moments, but in a way that is more under the DM’s control. Which logically makes sense, but of course it was never going to win out against the emotional reaction to actual critical hits.


----------



## Minigiant

Vaalingrade said:


> But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?



They will likely just do one grand generic school subclass.

Then War Magic, Bladesinger and Something else.


----------



## overgeeked

Oofta said:


> D20 tests kind of combine ability skill checks and pretty much everything else.  The rule was that you get an auto success any time you get a 20 and an auto fail on a 1.  So have that cliff that can't be climbed?  Go ahead and try anyway, you have a 5% chance of success!



Not exactly. Impossible things are still impossible and the referee wouldn't ask for a roll. I think that's even spelled out in the UA.


----------



## overgeeked

Cadence said:


> Some feels like this, but with a long ballot and no line before you get to it?
> 
> View attachment 268354



There's what...50 million D&D players. And 40,000 responded to the UA survey.


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> Back in the video for the Origins UA, they said their intent was for recharge abilities to fill the role of critical hits in monster/NPC stat blocks, as the dynamic “something more dramatic than usual happens” moments, but in a way that is more under the DM’s control. Which logically makes sense, but of course it was never going to win out against the emotional reaction to actual critical hits.



Agreed


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope that means skills and saves are not longer 20 auto pass 1 autofaill



It fell in the 60-70% approval bracket, which means the concept is salvageable but in need of major revisions. So my guess is we’ll continue to see them play with various mechanics triggering on a nat20 and/or nat1 in the playtest, but auto pass and auto fail as we saw them in the Origins UA are very unlikely to make it into the final product.


----------



## Minigiant

Micah Sweet said:


> I already covered that.  People can just lie if they want WotC to think they playtested it.  No one stops them.



You Really Think Someone Would Do That? 
Just Go On the Internet and Tell Lies?

/Buster


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would love the wizard to have more ivocative subclasses



Invocative subclasses are for warlocks


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> At least if I express my displeasure here I can have a conversation about it.




*Mod Note:*
You are not in trouble.  But this is a good place to note things to readers....

But, to what you wrote there - if you express pretty much the same displeasure every single time, you're having the same conversation every time, and it starts to look like threadcrapping.  

If you didn't like pizza, would you repeatedly enter pizza parlors and talk about how much pizza isn't for you with the patrons there?  Probably not. 

Folks who don't like the overall One D&D direction might want to consider how they engage with One D&D discussion, to make sure it stays constructive.


----------



## Charlaquin

Minigiant said:


> You Really Think Someone Would Do That?
> Just Go On the Internet and Tell Lies?
> 
> /Buster



In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



I can see how that would be possible with some of the responses, but, yeah, that's almost definitely not possible the majority of the time.


----------



## Zaukrie

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



I'll side with him, given my experience with surveys. Plus, who cares? I'll not sure what this adds to the conversation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



of everything they said that scared me the most... Written communication more then any other communication style can end up with you reading what you want into it.


----------



## Blue

Azzy said:


> So maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of people that actually like the changes and you and I are in a minority?



It's worth it for people in the minority to respond.  Again, just a 10% switch - 1 in 10 people, can bring something from liked to rework, or from rework to discard completely.

If anything, the people with negative opinions have a disproportionately large voice because 60% of replies -- all positive -- are essentially ignored.  That 60% just gets you up to "time to debate if trhis is worth including at all".  

The people with negative opinions are the strongest, and those who don't want to respond because they feel they are in the minority need to understand that.  If I recall, you voted where you had problems, and that's good.


----------



## Minigiant

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



Well they can somewhat.

People who responds based on just look would say things a lot differently from people who respond based on actual testing.

The thing is you will only be able to tell this in two ways.

One if they actually mentioned their actual play test experience and describe things that actually would happen in play.

Two based on their errors and things that they did wrong. There's some mistakes that you only make if you didn't play and if you did play.

But the only way to _really_ tell the difference between a reader and a playtester is if they gave a long response that you can pick out significant aspects of what they said to figure out if they actually played the game off they just read it.

If they go on a rant you can tell. If they don't you won't.


----------



## OB1

Charlaquin said:


> Back in the video for the Origins UA, they said their intent was for recharge abilities to fill the role of critical hits in monster/NPC stat blocks, as the dynamic “something more dramatic than usual happens” moments, but in a way that is more under the DM’s control. Which logically makes sense, but of course it was never going to win out against the emotional reaction to actual critical hits.



I missed that in the Origins video.  Since it's in the salvageable range, maybe they make attack Crits give an option to PCs and Monsters.  PCs can gain inspiration or double their damage, monsters can double their damage or recharge a spent ability.  

As a side note, I hope that the 'mother may I' approach they are talking about doesn't extend to skill checks.  I wasn't a fan of the way they codified Search, Influence and other skill related checks in packet 2, but agree that MMI shouldn't come into play in class abilities.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who filled out the survey who made it quite clear with all kinds of whackadoodle responses and points that it showed the designers those folks were just talking out their rear-ends in a stream-of-consciousness rant based on just a single reading of the packet and no playtime whatsoever.

Just like we get here on EN World after each playtest release.


----------



## cbwjm

Donto 


Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



Don't they normally have a free text section where you can state things like this?


----------



## wicked cool

Hopefully they drop the addling and fix what’s needed

Why not a survey on the official site and how about what would u like added as an added question. That’s a real survey


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> You don't get anything anyway.  If you're in the minority in a survey like this, your opinion won't change anything.



But you don't know that when your taking the survey - at least not the first one


----------



## Xamnam

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



I do think they're just referring to the fact that the survey asks you to mark if you've play tested it or not, not that they can infer that from the quality or content of responses. Here's the direct quote:


> If say a person doesn't have time to play test it's still valuable for us to get feedback on the survey, just based on the person's reading of the material, because we can tell when we're reading if feedback is based on real play experience versus first impression on reading. Feedback from both situations is helpful to us, and so I encourage people if you've at least read it, please fill out the survey, even better if you've read it and you've tried some of it out in play because we find all of our perceptions change once we get to the game table and we're rolling dice, but again all of the feedback is helpful this is.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



Heh heh... you seem to have a lot more faith in the writing ability of the people who filled out the surveys than I do, thinking they could mask their responses of actual play versus indignant initial impressions.


----------



## Minigiant

OB1 said:


> As a side note, I hope that the 'mother may I' approach they are talking about doesn't extend to skill checks.  I wasn't a fan of the way they codified Search, Influence and other skill related checks in packet 2, but agree that MMI shouldn't come into play in class abilities.



I got bad news for ya.

Skills will likely be a little bit more codified.

Especially for things that come up often.

That's why Use a Object might be changed or disappear. Because the power and utility of a class or race might be drastically changed depending on whether or not the DM is a veteran or a novice or very restrictive or very permissive.

But fret not it'll probably be in the Dungeons Masters Guide and no one reads that thing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Blue said:


> This comes across as the people that don't vote, yet grumble about the government.  If you are not willing to put in the effort to try to make something better (in your view), if you later complain about you end just being hypocritical.



I'm complaining about it now. There's no "later" about it.  I'm not interested in starting a grass-roots gaming movement, so I know my individual opinion does not matter to WotC, a view confirmed by the massive outpouring of approval they've received.  I still have my preferences.


----------



## overgeeked

Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark. 

In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.


----------



## Minigiant

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh heh... you seem to have a lot more faith in the writing ability of the people who filled out the surveys than I do, thinking they could mask their responses of actual play versus indignant initial impressions.



I went to American Public School.

I know that at least the majority of American play testers won't be able to disguise their writing enough to pretend that there's something they're not. ....


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> And the fact that nearly everything scored 80% + shows that the majority are happy with everything they've done so far.



Keep in mind these are the results from the 1st UA only. Also, there were some things that didn't do well


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> Some feels like this, but with a long ballot and no line before you get to it?
> 
> View attachment 268354



That idea only works if there actually are a lot of people who want what you want, and all of them vote too.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



When 5e was still pretty new, a LOT of people were doing white room analysis of the various classes, abilities, spells, etc.  And what we found was that 5e, more than any other edition, did _not _play out in real actual play games like the white room analysis predicted.  

So yeah, I can totally see why he said that, and agree.


----------



## OB1

Minigiant said:


> I got bad news for ya.
> 
> Skills will likely be a little bit more codified.
> 
> Especially for things that come up often.
> 
> That's why Use a Object might be changed or disappear. Because the power and utility of a class or race might be drastically changed depending on whether or not the DM is a veteran or a novice or very restrictive or very permissive.
> 
> But fret not it'll probably be in the dungeons Masters Guide and no one reads that thing.



As long as they don't change the assumption that 'The DM narrates the results, asking for a check if there is uncertainty of the outcome', I'm okay with it.  I just don't want the assumption to be that I can Influence a Red Dragon in it's lair to take a hike while I raid it's treasure hoard because I Nat 20'd an Influence (Persuasion) check


----------



## dave2008

John R Davis said:


> "the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .
> 
> Er, what was that???


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> of everything they said that scared me the most... Written communication more then any other communication style can end up with you reading what you want into it.



Well it’s good that they give it weight only when they need to dig deeper and that they are trying to understand, explicitly.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…



Most people can't help but explicitly say things like 'sounds like' or state theoretical when they complain about something they haven't experienced.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm complaining about it now. There's no "later" about it.  I'm not interested in starting a grass-roots gaming movement, so I know my individual opinion does not matter to WotC, a view confirmed by the massive outpouring of approval they've received.  I still have my preferences.



This is like going to the polls on election day, refusing to vote, and complaining that the government doesn't do what you want. 

The opinions of 5e players matters to WotC. They're interested in feedback, and they've already showed signs of changing things that didn't get high enough approval ratings.


----------



## Incenjucar

overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



Ideally, feats should offer new options of roughly equal validity, like being able to fight in precarious situations without penalty, being able to guard a doorway a little better, being able to charge a little further, being able to get around a specific defense, being good at smashing people with chairs if swords are not an option, etc.

And then you have War Caster.


----------



## Xamnam

overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



I always see these specific feats mentioned in the context of the LFQW debate, as one of the few options that can significantly help to narrow that gap. I think the "mandatory" feeling of them is more a function of martials feeling comparatively weak than it is a question of being "the best" or "perfect." And we shouldn't take optimization guides / power gamers as representative of the average player's perspective.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Didn't see the mod post right away.  I'll bow out.


----------



## Minigiant

OB1 said:


> As long as they don't change the assumption that 'The DM narrates the results, asking for a check if there is uncertainty of the outcome', I'm okay with it.  I just don't want the assumption to be that I can Influence a Red Dragon in it's lair to take a hike while I raid it's treasure hoard because I Nat 20'd an Influence (Persuasion) check




It sounds more like 

"Doing X is a Y skill check with a DC Z" is an action. But for Rogue subclass 2 and Fighter Subclass 5 will have a feature to do it as a bonus action.


----------



## mamba

overgeeked said:


> There's what...50 million D&D players. And 40,000 responded to the UA survey.



where does the 50M number come from ? That feels off by an order of magnitude

Also, this for the D&D Next playtest feels relevant here



Mistwell said:


> The forums are not necessarily representative of the larger audience. There definitely is a silent majority sometimes. A lot of times people would say something is terrible on forums, that came back with 95% approval on surveys. It was most useful to use forums when the forum views lined up with the survey data, where they could then ask forum people more about that aspect of the game.


----------



## DEFCON 1

overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



We've seen that here in several threads in the past when some players have made the claim that not min-maxing your character was you not pulling your weight and thus putting _their_ characters at risk.  And you were a bad player for doing that.

They didn't seem to appreciate it when the rest of us told them that they were playing D&D in a very special way and that most of the rest of us were absolutely fine in not going along with their hopes and dreams-- ne demands-- for "proper playing".  LOL.


----------



## Minigiant

Anyone else get the feeling that they're replacing the damage boost from great weapon master and sharpshooter with a straight damage boost to all the warrior classes.

Like a fighter will get +2 damage with one-handed weapons and a +4 damage bonus to two-handed weapons at level 4... you know.. just because.

I mean it's not a "must-have" if you "automatically have" it.  That's what they did to the ranger.


----------



## overgeeked

Xamnam said:


> I always see these specific feats mentioned in the context of the LFQW debate, as one of the few options that can significantly help to narrow that gap. I think the "mandatory" feeling of them is more a function of martials feeling comparatively weak than it is a question of being "the best" or "perfect." And we shouldn't take optimization guides / power gamers as representative of the average player's perspective.



No, we shouldn't, but as someone who's DMed for a few hundred power gamers, I don't think they're a tiny minority of the fanbase at this point. There's quite a lot of them. And their POV seems more prevalent now, not less.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Minigiant said:


> Anyone else get the feeling that they're replacing the damage boost from great weapon master and sharpshooter with a straight damage boost to all the warrior classes.
> 
> Like a fighter will get +2 damage with one-handed weapons and a +4 damage bonus to two-handed weapons at level 4... you know.. just because.
> 
> I mean it's not a "must-have" if you "automatically have" it.  That's what they did to the ranger.



I'm thinking (hoping) what they're talking about when they say weapons matter is that we're going to see some weapon capabilities similar to 4e where flails could tangle and trip, etc.


----------



## overgeeked

DEFCON 1 said:


> We've seen that here in several threads in the past when some players have made the claim that not min-maxing your character was you not pulling your weight and thus putting _their_ characters at risk.  And you were a bad player for doing that.
> 
> They didn't seem to appreciate it when the rest of us told them that they were playing D&D in a very special way and that most of the rest of us were absolutely fine in not going along with their hopes and dreams-- ne demands-- for "proper playing".  LOL.



I'm with you. None of the players I've had in 5E would agree with us. They'd agree with that poster about non-optimized PCs not pulling their weight.


----------



## Kurotowa

Vaalingrade said:


> But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?



I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.

And really, thank goodness. The lopsided distribution of subclasses in the 5e PHB was terrible at both ends. Clerics and Wizards had a lot of trash options that choked off future design space, and the classes that started with only two subclasses felt really short on choice.


----------



## MGibster

Morrus said:


> Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals.



I really, really like this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



yes this made me feel seen. I hope that they take this idea all the way and make MOST if not ALL choices be close enough to even that there is no right choice


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> Keep in mind these are the results from the 1st UA only. Also, there were some things that didn't do well



I thought this was the 2nd one... the 1st one was origins and the 2nd one was the skill expert classes


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> That idea only works if there actually are a lot of people who want what you want, and all of them vote too.



this is why I have taken to redit tic tock and FB groups to evangelize my message


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xamnam said:


> I always see these specific feats mentioned in the context of the LFQW debate, as one of the few options that can significantly help to narrow that gap. I think the "mandatory" feeling of them is more a function of martials feeling comparatively weak than it is a question of being "the best" or "perfect." And we shouldn't take optimization guides / power gamers as representative of the average player's perspective.



I hope this means they will be dealing with LFQW (although I would go with weak to simple martial to complex powerful caster)


----------



## Vaalingrade

Kurotowa said:


> I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.
> 
> And really, thank goodness. The lopsided distribution of subclasses in the 5e PHB was terrible at both ends. Clerics and Wizards had a lot of trash options that choked off future design space, and the classes that started with only two subclasses felt really short on choice.



Here's hoping.

But then, will Schools and domains be the new way to let casters fit their concept at level 1 while everyone else has to suffer 0-levels, waiting for subclass at level 3?


----------



## UngainlyTitan

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



If they do not fill the survey then why spend so much time whining here?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Micah Sweet said:


> Didn't see the mod post right away.  I'll bow out.



@GMforPowergamers : Loving a post of me bowing out of a conversation seems a little passive-aggressive.  If that's not your intent I apologize.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



If you marked it "unsatisfying" and in the optional explanation box said why and enough of you did that to drop it below 40% it would get dropped.


----------



## Manbearcat

Woah.

Jeremy Crawford putting the WotC stamp on _Mother May I is a thing and that thing isn’t WotC-new-edition-desirable_?

Bold.

Feels like this is the inverse of Mearls 5e design commentary 9 years ago-ish about _Warlords shouting arms back on_!

In light of the many conversations on the subject on here, I have to think that is going to be not well-received by a chunk of folks!


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> No, we shouldn't, but as someone who's DMed for a few hundred power gamers, I don't think they're a tiny minority of the fanbase at this point. There's quite a lot of them. And their POV seems more prevalent now, not less.



I think it is easier to share... 

3e REALLY benefited powergamers by the internet.  I went to a Con with 2 friends in 1999 and we met a couple and the woman had everything figured out "this spell + this item + this set up" for max damage pay out and what spells worked best on what types of creatures (like she memorized what they had for weak saves)   Her boyfriend also had a number break down he could do... at the time it was meaningless to me and I didn't understand at all what he was talking about, today I am 80% sure it was DPR (or something close to it) by AC Thac0 and weapon type...

Back then we thought we made power houses... in fact twice before we brought new players in to 2e to our group and learn new combos or tricks from them... this couple blew all of it out of the water.

in 2002 (please double check my username...) I had a group of power gamers and some were REALLY good at it and some kind of stank at it. However the Op board blew them all away. BUT the ones that stank at it found those and other forms and learned. 

Now you don't need to luck into meeting the couple good at math that power game and cracked the code... you just need to log on to the website.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> @GMforPowergamers : Loving a post of me bowing out of a conversation seems a little passive-aggressive.  If that's not your intent I apologize.



I loved you bowing out because it is something I don't do enough of.  MY self control when I feel I am right and someone else is wrong is low... so I was congratulating you. If you look I had actually posted about LIKEING many of your thoughts up till then.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> I loved you bowing out because it is something I don't do enough of.  MY self control when I feel I am right and someone else is wrong is low... so I was congratulating you. If you look I had actually posted about LIKEING many of your thoughts up till then.



Fair enough.  I apologize.


----------



## Xamnam

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope this means they will be dealing with LFQW (although I would go with weak to simple martial to complex powerful caster)



I would love to see it, and will be surprised if we do.


----------



## Minigiant

Kurotowa said:


> I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.
> 
> .




I think there will be a choice between Light Cleric
Medium Cleric and Heavy Cleric.

Then Domains give you a CD and bonus spells prepared.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Minigiant said:


> spells prepared.



I would like to never hear this term again, please.


----------



## Charlaquin

Manbearcat said:


> Woah.
> 
> Jeremy Crawford putting the WotC stamp on _Mother May I is a thing and that thing isn’t WotC-new-edition-desirable_?
> 
> Bold.
> 
> Feels like this is the inverse of Mearls 5e design commentary 9 years ago-ish about _Warlords shouting arms back on_!
> 
> In light of the many conversations on the subject on here, I have to think that is going to be not well-received by a chunk of folks!



It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Manbearcat said:


> Woah.
> 
> Jeremy Crawford putting the WotC stamp on _Mother May I is a thing and that thing isn’t WotC-new-edition-desirable_?
> 
> Bold.
> 
> Feels like this is the inverse of Mearls 5e design commentary 9 years ago-ish about _Warlords shouting arms back on_!
> 
> In light of the many conversations on the subject on here, I have to think that is going to be not well-received by a chunk of folks!




The way he uses it seems reasonable. Not like it was used here, not long ago.


----------



## cbwjm

Kurotowa said:


> I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.
> 
> And really, thank goodness. The lopsided distribution of subclasses in the 5e PHB was terrible at both ends. Clerics and Wizards had a lot of trash options that choked off future design space, and the classes that started with only two subclasses felt really short on choice.



I hope so, I'd much rather have crusader, mystic, or dervish as the subclass than a subclass based on the domain. That way you can have a crusader or death, war, the sun or a mystic of the same in the same temple without having to create a new class for each.


----------



## Minigiant

cbwjm said:


> I hope so, I'd much rather have crusader, mystic, or dervish as the subclass than a subclass based on the domain. That way you can have a crusader or death, war, the sun or a mystic of the same in the same temple without having to create a new class for each.



I think this is the big change.

5E was kind of written for experience DMs who would go out their way and adjust and create subclasses themselves. They expected you to take the Blasty Light cleric and Tanky Death Cleric an combine them to make a Blasty Death Cleric.

However many DMs do feel they should be forced to do the extra work. And you can't code than in a VTT or CRPG Video game.

If in the next UA did the domain type and priest type are split, it displays a change in mentality.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Vaalingrade said:


> Admitting to and mitigating Mother May I Mechanics?



Just as long as they don't give us illusions in name only, like 4E did. Minimize Mother May I, but don't eliminate it. It has its place in some archetypes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> I would like to never hear this term again, please.



I have to disagree. I think 1 (or maybe a small subset) of classes keeping that and the spell book is fine. I just want it to not be the default. 
Have clerics go back to spheres 
have warlock, sorcerer, bard, ranger be spells known
have paliden get a sphere and an oath set
let wizards keep the spell book

Then since I said MAYBE a subset I wouldn't mind if tome pact warlock got a nod to it, and the arcane trick and eldritch knight got spell books


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.



I think (and I am not the original poster but how I took it) was it will be as controversial of a statement.  I will disagree a bit (maybe cause I am on the opposite side this time) but it felt like Mearls was swinging an insult, while Crawford was trying to show a change of style.


----------



## Kurotowa

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Just as long as they don't give us illusions in name only, like 4E did. Minimize Mother May I, but don't eliminate it. It has its place in some archetypes.



I'm more okay with MMI when it's optional side content. Stuff like crafting magic items and establishing strongholds and building faction reputation. Those are things that should have a high degree of DM interface. Basic stuff? Core class features you'll be using regularly and for minor things? That stuff should just work, reliably and with a minimum of expended playtime.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Kurotowa said:


> I'm more okay with MMI when it's optional side content. Stuff like crafting magic items and establishing strongholds and building faction reputation. Those are things that should have a high degree of DM interface. Basic stuff? Core class features you'll be using regularly and for minor things? That stuff should just work, reliably and with a minimum of expended playtime.



For the class cores? Absolutely.

But I think each class ought to have several compelling subclasses that are reliable and predictable and maybe even tuned for new players. But I think there's also a place for at least a few archetypes that are a little more experimental, require a little more buy-in from DMs, etc.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think (and I am not the original poster but how I took it) was it will be as controversial of a statement.  I will disagree a bit (maybe cause I am on the opposite side this time) but it felt like Mearls was swinging an insult, while Crawford was trying to show a change of style.



Oh ok, I see what you’re saying. Makes sense.


----------



## Manbearcat

UngeheuerLich said:


> The way he uses it seems reasonable. Not like it was used here, not long ago.




Its not clear what distinction you’re drawing here?  Maybe you could elaborate what you have in mind?

What I have in mind is something like the most recent thread I interacted with on the subject had a lengthy section focused on @hawkeyefan ’s play excerpt where his employment of Folk Hero endured a GM veto. This controversy around that subject should seem to be put to bed as it exists very comfortably as a paradigmatic case of why Crawford calls out the Thief's Cunning Action.  I mean, just sub-in/out the necessary parts here:

_*Folk Hero's rustic hospitality* has been intentionally changed because the original version is a "Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying._

The confounding thing IMO is holding_ Thief's Cunning Action requiring GM permission = bad _in one hand and_ 5E core noncombat action resolution procedures = good _in the other hand.  Seems a bit of a philosophical conundrum!


----------



## Malmuria

Manbearcat said:


> *Folk Hero's rustic hospitality* has been intentionally changed because the original version is a "Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying.




Same thing with inspiration, really.  'It was ambiguous when you should get inspiration so we decided you get it on a natural 20.  Or a natural 1.  Or a natural 7.  Just, here, take your inspiration and go away.'


----------



## UngainlyTitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope that means skills and saves are not longer 20 auto pass 1 autofaill



I think it will depend somewhat on the relative popularity of the alternate version in the second playtest. Crawford called it out specifically as A/B testing and I suspect we will see more of that type of testing over the UA series.


----------



## Manbearcat

Charlaquin said:


> It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.




They're both culture war cornerstones yet in the opposite direction.  To wit:

*IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A WARLORD, PROUDLY SHOUTING ARMS BACK ON!*

<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

*AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A PLAYER ASKING A GM FOR PERMISSION TO DO THEIR STUFF AND A GM WITH A SIGN THAT SAYS "WHATEVS" ON ONE SIDE AND "VETO" ON THE OTHER...WHAT DO YOU CALL YOURSELF AGAIN?  MOTHER MAY I?  WTF?

MOTHER MAY I!*

<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

Its just rather interesting.


----------



## Manbearcat

Malmuria said:


> Same thing with inspiration, really.  'It was ambiguous when you should get inspiration so we decided you get it on a natural 20.  Or a natural 1.  Or a natural 7.  Just, here, take your inspiration and go away.'




But ambiguity is not the issue here.  

Its authority; the authority over PC-build-inherent action declarations being realized (or not) during play <because of its interaction with GM adjudication and veto authority>.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Manbearcat said:


> Its not clear what distinction you’re drawing here?  Maybe you could elaborate what you have in mind?
> 
> What I have in mind is something like the most recent thread I interacted with on the subject had a lengthy section focused on @hawkeyefan ’s play excerpt where his employment of Folk Hero endured a GM veto. This controversy around that subject should seem to be put to bed as it exists very comfortably as a paradigmatic case of why Crawford calls out the Thief's Cunning Action.  I mean, just sub-in/out the necessary parts here:
> 
> _*Folk Hero's rustic hospitality* has been intentionally changed because the original version is a "Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying._
> 
> The confounding thing IMO is holding_ Thief's Cunning Action requiring GM permission = bad _in one hand and_ 5E core noncombat action resolution procedures = good _in the other hand.  Seems a bit of a philosophical conundrum!



Rather not 

But...

... I see a difference in "the ranger feature needs a DM that actively plays into your strengt" (what Crawford called out) and general out of comabt resolution mechanics. The first one might render the whole ranger level 1 rather useless. The second one is something that should be resolved in a dialogue between players and the DM, that should not end up in a discussion if you can use an object as a bonus action or not.

Although we just got 3 out of combat actions that help structure out of combat. Crawford spoke about bastion mechanics that help with managing your home and we will probably see more noncombat guidelines.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Manbearcat said:


> They're both culture war cornerstones yet in the opposite direction.  To wit:
> 
> *IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A WARLORD, PROUDLY SHOUTING ARMS BACK ON!*
> 
> <FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>
> 
> *AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A PLAYER ASKING A GM FOR PERMISSION TO DO THEIR STUFF AND A GM WITH A SIGN THAT SAYS "WHATEVS" ON ONE SIDE AND "VETO" ON THE OTHER...WHAT DO YOU CALL YOURSELF AGAIN?  MOTHER MAY I?  WTF?
> 
> MOTHER MAY I!*
> 
> <FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>
> 
> Its just rather interesting.



yeah, I guess I can see it as a hard turn on the design philosophy (and again I am biased I am pro warlord and anti mother may I)


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Azzy said:


> Citation needed.



I don't agree with @Micah Sweet  's overall position, but he/she is right here. The citation is human nature: the direction taken is the one of lowest effort. A quick, drive-by social media post is low effort. Sitting down to fill out a survey, high effort.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Manbearcat said:


> But ambiguity is not the issue here.
> 
> Its authority; the authority over PC-build-inherent action declarations being realized (or not) during play <because of its interaction with GM adjudication and veto authority>.




The DM veto authority is a feature of DnD. So getting rid of it might be a bit too much. 
I was always rather fond of being able to have a conversation with the DM and not having to roll on "rage" or "greed" to see how your character acts. I am sure there are more elaborate noncombat mechanics, but I always experienced it more as a straight jacket instead of player authority.

But the old (default) inspiration mechanic always felt like "good boy, here is your cookie". So I like that they are getting rid of it.


----------



## niklinna

The whole warlord shouting arms back on thing would make more sense if you could chop an arm off to begin with. Back when I played a warlord, I just treated it as yelling "Pull yourself together, man!" I actually yelled that, at the table. Back when we played at tables.

Anyhow! ObTopic, it's mildly interesting that so much scored so well. Lots of upcoming changes could be inferred from that. Either they've got the pulse of the fanbase, or only those who like the playtest are responding. Or I suppose they could be lying! Plus it's all 100% compatible, win-win all around.


----------



## Blue

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would love the wizard to have more ivocative subclasses



I'm with you here.  I was the subclasses to be big changes in how they are played.  Bladesingers, Oracles, Learned Skill-Sages, Runemasters, what have you.  Not just "what school of magic do you slightly favor"?  Heck, if we want to keep school (as a sacred cow or through enjoyment), make it an additional pick much like warlocks get two choices.


----------



## Scribe

niklinna said:


> The whole warlord shouting arms back on thing would make more sense if you could chop an arm off to begin with. Back when I played a warlord, I just treated it as yelling "Pull yourself together, man!" I actually yelled that, at the table. Back when we played at tables.




It could be solved with a little update on what HP is, really. I dont mind Warlord healing as Temp HP.


----------



## Zaukrie

overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



I've played for forty plus years. Only one player has worried about perfection. I'm just not convinced it's true.  Most players don't look at optimization stuff online.


----------



## Kurotowa

Scribe said:


> It could be solved with a little update on what HP is, really. I dont mind Warlord healing as Temp HP.



The tension between "HP are meat points that let you walk off direct hits" and "HP are luck points that act as plot armor" has been around longer than I've been playing. And I came in on the ground floor of AD&D 2e. I doubt any official pronouncement would do much to shift the lines at this point.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

FrogReaver said:


> But the bigger concerns that they knew they would get strong negative feedback on they left off the survey.



What would be the point of that?


----------



## niklinna

Kurotowa said:


> The tension between "HP are meat points that let you walk off direct hits" and "HP are luck points that act as plot armor" has been around longer than I've been playing. And I came in on the ground floor of AD&D 2e. I doubt any official pronouncement would do much to shift the lines at this point.



Clearly they are both, and splitting them is impossible*. It's like the wave/particle duality. Maybe we can shoot PCs through a wall with two slots and see how it affects their hit points. (It could get messy.)

* 100% compatibility being A Goal, after all.


----------



## Oofta

Kurotowa said:


> The tension between "HP are meat points that let you walk off direct hits" and "HP are luck points that act as plot armor" has been around longer than I've been playing. And I came in on the ground floor of AD&D 2e. I doubt any official pronouncement would do much to shift the lines at this point.



The problem is that HP represent whatever you want.  It's just a game mechanic to streamline something that is far too complex for an RPG.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Blue said:


> I'm with you here.  I was the subclasses to be big changes in how they are played.  Bladesingers, Oracles, Learned Skill-Sages, Runemasters, what have you.  Not just "what school of magic do you slightly favor"?  Heck, if we want to keep school (as a sacred cow or through enjoyment), make it an additional pick much like warlocks get two choices.



every class getting the 2 subclass thing of the warlock is like a dream to me...

imagine a warmage that can be an enchanter, or evocor, or necromancer...


----------



## Scribe

Kurotowa said:


> The tension between "HP are meat points that let you walk off direct hits" and "HP are luck points that act as plot armor" has been around longer than I've been playing. And I came in on the ground floor of AD&D 2e. I doubt any official pronouncement would do much to shift the lines at this point.




I just go with "It is an abstraction of your physical and mental health, as well as your willingness to continue to fight" essentially. In that way a shout of encouragement could be temp HP as 'motivation'.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> It could be solved with a little update on what HP is, really. I dont mind Warlord healing as Temp HP.



my thing is you CAN'T in any edition shout an arm back on.  Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and Cure Light wounds restore HP and HP is nebulas from the start. so Inspiring word (or rubsome dirt on it or healing smite) just give back hp... just like second wind and spending HD.


----------



## Minigiant

Manbearcat said:


> Its not clear what distinction you’re drawing here?  Maybe you could elaborate what you have in mind?
> 
> What I have in mind is something like the most recent thread I interacted with on the subject had a lengthy section focused on @hawkeyefan ’s play excerpt where his employment of Folk Hero endured a GM veto. This controversy around that subject should seem to be put to bed as it exists very comfortably as a paradigmatic case of why Crawford calls out the Thief's Cunning Action.  I mean, just sub-in/out the necessary parts here:
> 
> _*Folk Hero's rustic hospitality* has been intentionally changed because the original version is a "Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying._
> 
> The confounding thing IMO is holding_ Thief's Cunning Action requiring GM permission = bad _in one hand and_ 5E core noncombat action resolution procedures = good _in the other hand.  Seems a bit of a philosophical conundrum!



D&D 5e was written in a way that you can tell they expected just fans of past editions would be playing it. So They assumed DMs and players had experience and just needing info on the edition's rules changes.

When 5e exploded with new players, the design team realize how poorly it was written for people who didn't have 10-50 years of D&D exp and would just run on that experience.

Further, fans now due to D&D's age have very divergent preferences and expectations.

This is why the MMI is being cut out, because the assumption can't be made anymore.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Minigiant said:


> Further, fans now due to D&D age have very divergent preferences and expectations.



this is it. If they are changing the system for the new age players they should come out and do that.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> this is it. If they are changing the system for the new age players they should come out and do that.




I think they want to, while not also alienating the "not majority perhaps but large enough" segment that could complain about any number of things, and poison the well.


----------



## Minigiant

GMforPowergamers said:


> this is it. If they are changing the system for the new age players they should come out and do that.



They aren't.
That's the point.
They aren't changing the system for the new age players.

They are changing the game so each type of player gets a similar percentage of the attention. And anything that doesn't match what at least 60% of the fandom want is *going in the trash or being sent to a setting book.*


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Kurotowa said:


> I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.




I hope you're right, I've never really liked how domains worked in 5e. I've said before that I'd love for domains to have less mechanical heft, but you get more of them, something in-between a pact and invocation. You can see two real subclasses hidden in the domains, the Divine Striker and the Potent Spellcaster.


----------



## Greg Benage

I'm glad they're getting what they consider useful information out of the survey. I agree they aren't asking for feedback on the "big questions," by and large, but I'm also not sure I want the fundamental design direction of the game to be crowd-sourced anyway.

As for my part, I couldn't answer any of the survey questions even to my satisfaction without being able to see the whole context. Like, it's true they didn't ask us for feedback on feats as part of backgrounds, but that's fine with me, since I don't know if I like it or not anyway without seeing the rest of the game.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> I thought this was the 2nd one... the 1st one was origins and the 2nd one was the skill expert classes



This is the results of the Origins UA survery. The Origins UA playtest included the Ardling and Dragonborn, two of the few things that scored badly on the survey per the video.


----------



## darjr

Yea. The lack of context is an issue.

However I think I get it when they mean use the whole rest of 5e to fill that in for the test. Sorta.


----------



## Blue

Minigiant said:


> D&D 5e was written in a way that you can tell they expected just fans of past editions would be playing it.



Considering all of the stuff they talked about attracting new players, I don't see this at all.  There are so many places where a low barrier to entry for new players to RPGs is very evident.  Are you trying to say all of that was accidental?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

One more interesting thing:

When people said, they were already backpaddling...
Crawford tells us, that they like A - B testing, because it gives them more valuable feedback.


----------



## Minigiant

Blue said:


> Considering all of the stuff they talked about attracting new players, I don't see this at all.  There are so many places where a low barrier to entry for new players to RPGs is very evident.  Are you trying to say all of that was accidental?




They expected new players. But it would be classic "John brings Jimmy to Try D&D." The DM and 4/5 players would be veterans.

"Just walk Jimmy through a Champion fighter and let's go"

What happened when you try 5e and Jimmy, Julie,and Jose are all new or not too experienced? Now 2/5 of you players are new. You could give them all champion fighters. But that would wonk up party balance and cohesion. And Jose and Julie don't want to be the same class. Whoops. the PHB wasn't written expecting new players to play anything but champion fighters.

And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> I hope you're right, I've never really liked how domains worked in 5e. I've said before that I'd love for domains to have less mechanical heft, but you get more of them, something in-between a pact and invocation. You can see two real subclasses hidden in the domains, the Divine Striker and the Potent Spellcaster.



Domain should just be a 1st level extra spells list + special channel divinity. 

The archetype, at 3rd level, should define HOW your cleric propagate the domain of their philosophy/faith: Warrior-Priest, Skilled Pilgrim, Condemner with curses and biblical blasting, Oracles etc


----------



## CleverNickName

Like I said in an earlier thread:


CleverNickName said:


> That's psychology for you.  The public playtest and the survey work together to give us the feeling of being very heavily involved at every level. In reality, this playtest is more about advertising than actually testing out the gameplay.
> 
> Did you notice that there were no questions about the game functions or mechanics in the survey?  The questions are all asking about your level of satisfaction and your age/race demographic. That information is most useful for marketing, but has little to do with the actual development of the game.   I suspect the final draft is already written, and any changes that come from the playtests will be very minor.




I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.  It's a great marketing strategy.  (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)

So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest _favorable _reaction.  I think they are figuring out how many people still need convincing....not how many changes still need to be made.

Or maybe I'm just really jaded in my old age.


----------



## CleverNickName

That said:  I'm really curious to see what they came up with for "new encounter building rules."  I've been looking for some of those.


----------



## cbwjm

Maybe this is just me, but is anyone else waiting to see what they do with classes before homebrewing up some subclasses? Since they seem to be changing some levels around to standardise things (though perhaps not across the board), it has kind of killed my enthusiasm until I know more.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.

It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".


----------



## kenmarable

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



There actually was a question asking about satisfaction with feats as part of backgrounds overall and not just of specific backgrounds. (Sorry for graining image, but I grabbed it from someone who posted filling it out on YouTube.) I mostly recalled it because I remember being glad I didn't have to just give a flat rating to backgrounds but could tell them I both really liked feats as part of backgrounds, but languages as part of backgrounds was one of the worst things in the entire document.


----------



## Zaukrie

Benjamin Olson said:


> So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.
> 
> It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".



100% they read the comments, even if the work is done.


----------



## SkidAce

Minigiant said:


> They expected new players. But it would be classic "John brings Jimmy to Try D&D." The DM and 4/5 players would be veterans.
> 
> "Just walk Jimmy through a Champion fighter and let's go"
> 
> What happened when you try 5e and Jimmy, Julie,and Jose are all new or not too experienced? Now 2/5 of you players are new. You could give them all champion fighters. But that would wonk up party balance and cohesion. And Jose and Julie don't want to be the same class. Whoops. the PHB wasn't written expecting new players to play anything but champion fighters.
> 
> And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with *all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.*



so they would be in the same boat we were in back in the beginning days?  Have you seen the 1st edition DMG/PH books? (see bold above).

Don't underestimate the group of all noobs, I bet they are having fun just like we did.


----------



## DEFCON 1

CleverNickName said:


> Like I said in an earlier thread:
> 
> 
> I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.



Well, all you need to do is remember what the game looked like after these first couple of playtest packets and if the book in 2024 has nothing new that didn't originate here and this point in time... then you can say you were right and that their "final draft" was already written.

Of course... if the new books have all kinds of stuff that had gone through two, three, four iterations in the various playtest packets over the intervening 15 months... then we all know you're just being frosty right now.  Let's see how the Ardlings look when the book gets produced in 2024 and we'll be able to see if they aren't using the playtest results for anything more than marketing.  LOL.


----------



## Minigiant

SkidAce said:


> so they would be in the same boat we were in back in the beginning days?  Have you seen the 1st edition DMG/PH books? (see bold above).
> 
> Don't underestimate the group of all noobs, I bet they are having fun just like we did.



You are missing the main difference.
It's not 1975 and D&D isn't targeting just a small fandom who mostly think the same. 

D&D is almost 50 years old, targets all demos, and has a lot more inspirations.
In 1975 your D&D could be coming from maybe ~6 mindsets. Roll the d6.
It's 2022, it's a crapshoot. You're rolling a d100. A lot of open ended assumptions don't work anymore.

You don't know their gaming experience, fantasy experiences, media experiences, etc.And D&D fandom exploded under 5e so it's even worse.

There are nothing but OSR videos on Youtube because because there are more gamers who don't understand the mentality of OSR than do.


----------



## SkidAce

Minigiant said:


> You are missing the main difference.
> It's not 1975 and D&D isn't targeting just a small fandom who mostly think the same.
> 
> D&D is almost 50 years old, targets all demos, and has a lot more inspirations.
> In 1975 your D&D could be coming from maybe ~6 mindsets. Roll the d6.
> It's 2022, it's a crapshoot. You're rolling a d100. A lot of open ended assumptions don't work anymore.
> 
> You don't know their gaming experience, fantasy experiences, media experiences, etc.And D&D fandom exploded under 5e so it's even worse.
> 
> There are nothing but OSR videos on Youtube because because there are more gamers who don't understand the mentality of OSR than do.



I hear your points, but dont feel I'm missing anything.  I am aware of all the differences in generational players (i.e. more anime swordsmen tropes than knights in plate mail, etc.)

Was just trying to say that I dont feel that the way the 5e books are written are any harder (or easier) for a group of new players to learn, play, mess up, homebrew, argue, and play than they ever were.

YMMV.


----------



## overgeeked

Zaukrie said:


> I've played for forty plus years. Only one player has worried about perfection. I'm just not convinced it's true.  Most players don't look at optimization stuff online.



I've played and run for almost 40 years. I played B/X, BECMI, AD&D, 4E, and now 5E. In that whole time I never had to worry about power gaming or optimization...until 5E. While running 5E, I've had about zero players who didn't obsess over optimization out of a cast of a few hundred.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

overgeeked said:


> I've played and run for almost 40 years. I played B/X, BECMI, AD&D, 4E, and now 5E. In that whole time I never had to worry about power gaming or optimization...until 5E. While running 5E, I've had about zero players who didn't obsess over optimization out of a cast of a few hundred.



And one of my players, who never played D&D before 5e came out and is still a teenager, cares absolutely nothing about optimization. In order to keep up in combat, the other party members always have to spend their first turns giving his characters buffs (Haste, Enlarge, Bardic Inspiration, etc). The other players care about optimization because they know my battles are often deadly, but I've never had any problems with it. They just like having powerful characters. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Color me interested in the Bastion System concept. This sounds like something a DM could find just as useful (and fun to tinker with) as a player.


----------



## Blue

CleverNickName said:


> I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.  It's a great marketing strategy.  (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)



Sure, marketing is absolutely a part of this.  Paizo did it first before PF came out, WotC did it back with Next, and they are doing it now.  That doesn't mean that they aren't actually testing things and looking for real feedback.  Considering how quickly they yanked PC-only+weapon-only crits.  Why put that in for a pure marketing?  They are creating something that they have promised to be compatible or at least backwards compatible - they aren't up for making any real structural changes within that so that limits what feedback they need.  But that doesn't mean that feedback is also a major part of this, just like marketing.



CleverNickName said:


> So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest _favorable _reaction.



I don't know if I'm reading this correctly.  It is coming across (and this could be my reading) that that they would announce a high-but-plausable result regardless of what the actual result is.  Am I misreading that?  And I very well might be.


----------



## Blue

Benjamin Olson said:


> So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.
> 
> It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".



They have already said that in some of the playtests they will be trying different things to see how they work out.  In programming and mathematics you sometime do things like that to see if there's another peak, perhaps taller, then the local maxima of the peak you are at.  That's perfectly valid.

On the other hand, they primary way they get feedback is the survey.  You have shown thoreugh your actions that 40 minutes of time (and likely a few more hours over other surveys) is not worth investing in the next 10ish years of gaming.  If you find that over the next year you complain for more than a few hours, that time would have been better used in filling out surveys.  Remember that the negative votes are the strongest - the first 60% of all of the votes that are positive are basically discarded just to get to the base "we don't want this" level.  Yet every negative vote brings it down from perfect.  Just 1 in 10 people saying negative will change something a whole category.


----------



## Blue

overgeeked said:


> I've played and run for almost 40 years. I played B/X, BECMI, AD&D, 4E, and now 5E. In that whole time I never had to worry about power gaming or optimization...until 5E. While running 5E, I've had about zero players who didn't obsess over optimization out of a cast of a few hundred.



I notice you skipped 3.0 and 3.5 in that.  They were a ridiculous hotbed of optimization.  You could have characters in the teen levels that shouldn't even be on the same planet, much less the same battlefield.  Both 4e and 5e have cut down on the possibilities of it a lot.


----------



## Jaeger

Morrus said:


> new human 83%
> dwarf, orc, tiefling, elf tied at 80-81%
> *gnome, halfling tied at 78%*




I've always thought Gnome/Halfling should just be different names for the same thing.

Never saw the need to have two similar small races that could just be made into one.




Geoff Thirlwell said:


> I know from my own playgroup that some would just vote for anything that made their characters stronger





Xamnam said:


> Something they do mention is that *they look at feedback separately* from people who just *read the document, and people who actually took it to a table and tested it.*




A good start, but...



overgeeked said:


> And *there are at least 10 players to every one DM. Players will always upvote power creep. *So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.
> 
> Literally a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.




The division that they should have made from the beginning is between results from Players vs. GM's, and weigh them equally.

The GM workload and ability to meaningfully challenge players should be important considerations.

Not segregating results this way cannot but help to skew results in favor of Player desires over the GM's that actually run the game.

No matter how many times WotC resets the clock, the weight of player survey responses as they are currently done will always drive the designers in the direction of feeling that they have to add moar powerz! Not less.


----------



## overgeeked

Blue said:


> I notice you skipped 3.0 and 3.5 in that.  They were a ridiculous hotbed of optimization.  You could have characters in the teen levels that shouldn't even be on the same planet, much less the same battlefield.  Both 4e and 5e have cut down on the possibilities of it a lot.



Yeah, it's one of the reasons I skipped it and won't touch Pathfinder. I have zero interest in that style of play.


Jaeger said:


> The division that they should have made from the beginning is between results from Players vs. GM's, and weigh them equally.



I think you mean proportionally. Equally would be one person, one vote. Proportionally would be giving more weight to DM responses.


Jaeger said:


> Not segregating results this way cannot but help to skew results in favor of Player desires over the GM's that actually run the game.
> 
> No matter how many times WotC resets the clock, the weight of player survey responses as they are currently done will always drive the designers in the direction of feeling that they have to add moar powerz! Not less.



I think that's intentional. 5E is very much a player-focused game. Almost every single book, even the modules, includes PC options...because WotC knows there's 10 players to every 1 DM. Their fanbase is the players. Not the DMs. But, they need the DMs to run their games.


----------



## Oofta

Scribe said:


> I just go with "It is an abstraction of your physical and mental health, as well as your willingness to continue to fight" essentially. In that way a shout of encouragement could be temp HP as 'motivation'.



Well, how many times in a movie is the hero down and about to go down for the count when someone or some thought give him that boost to come back swinging.  It's either a word of encouragement, a little kid, some image that seems to miraculously rally.  See the second wind tv trope.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

wicked cool said:


> Hopefully they drop the addling and fix what’s needed
> 
> Why not a survey on the official site and how about what would u like added as an added question. That’s a real survey



D&D Beyond is a an official site.


----------



## OB1

CleverNickName said:


> Like I said in an earlier thread:
> 
> 
> I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.  It's a great marketing strategy.  (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)
> 
> So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest _favorable _reaction.  I think they are figuring out how many people still need convincing....not how many changes still need to be made.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just really jaded in my old age.



I feel you, but I'm not quite that jaded.  I'd guess that 90-95% of the final draft is written in stone, and that the primary purpose of the playtest is about change management.  You tell people about the changes coming, listen to their complaints, then implement what you want anyhow.

For the other 5-10%, I'd guess that's where the A-B testing is coming in, perhaps because they were unsure the best way to move forward on some ideas, or perhaps because there was true concern that some of the bigger changes might have some blowback that any amount of change management wasn't going to convince a significant portion of the base to come on board.  I think there will be changes to the crit rules from 2014, for example, but I think they are honestly testing reaction to them to decide on what will be in the final package.

I do believe that the survey results they are reporting are real, but I would also say that they probably had a fairly good idea of what the results would be before testing.  Should something come back way out of line with what they expected, I could see them rework some of that 'written in stone' material.  In fact, I suspect this is exactly what happened with playtest packet 2, and why we are just now getting a much smaller packet 3 after a delay.


----------



## Marandahir

I was thrown aback by the headline because I couldn't imagine the Expert classes had already scored 80% or higher. 

And as I thought, this is only about the Character Origins UA, not the Experts UA.


----------



## Clint_L

I do not understand the need to automatically assume bad intent. All WotC has done has been largely up front while producing a hugely popular iteration of a game that I assume we all love. So...why not assume that they mean what they say and are actively using our feedback to inform their development of OneD&D? Like, what makes that an unreasonable assumption?

It's fine to have doubts. Doubts are healthy. But you also have to be able to ask yourself _what if I'm wrong?_ Maybe WotC isn't some corporate conspiracy to screw over their own fans. Maybe the folks working there actually love the game and value their player base and want to make the best version of the game possible, not just because that would be good business but because it would make them feel good as creators and professionals.

Criticizing their proposals is fine. It's what feedback is for. But criticizing their motives is not cool. None of us is a mind reader. It just seems like a lot of folks have made up their minds and are not even open to any positive interpretations. And that is really weird to me considering that WotC have done a very good job with the game.


----------



## Amrûnril

kenmarable said:


> There actually was a question asking about satisfaction with feats as part of backgrounds overall and not just of specific backgrounds. (Sorry for graining image, but I grabbed it from someone who posted filling it out on YouTube.) I mostly recalled it because I remember being glad I didn't have to just give a flat rating to backgrounds but could tell them I both really liked feats as part of backgrounds, but languages as part of backgrounds was one of the worst things in the entire document.
> 
> View attachment 268370




The question was definitely there. On the other hand, it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Do you approve of the idea of getting a feat at level 1? Do you approve of the assignment of specific feats to specific backgrounds? Do you approve of the option to choose your own feat as part of a custom background? Do you approve of the limited selection of feats available? And then there's the issue of treating answers on a four point scale as binary approval/disapproval. And the issue that this headline-driving question is Number 24, Subpart 5 and _still has _that degree of ambiguity..

I'm glad the developers are emphasizing their attention to written answers, but their description of approval thresholds would be far too simplistic and definitive even if the surveys were clearly written. If it's not clear whether the players and developers are interpreting the questions the same way, the issue only gets worse.


----------



## overgeeked

Clint_L said:


> I do not understand the need to automatically assume bad intent. All WotC has done has been largely up front while producing a hugely popular iteration of a game that I assume we all love. So...why not assume that they mean what they say and are actively using our feedback to inform their development of OneD&D? Like, what makes that an unreasonable assumption?



A history of dishonesty around edition changes and being a mega-corp whose only goal is profits.


----------



## MockingBird

Yeah, I'm not a fan of non-optional feats. I told them as much in every feat section that had a comment box. I feel like they listened and are trying to give us all the best of both worlds. I can handle the background feat, then just take the ASI feat when available. This makes me feel good about it. 

Not a fan of the Ardling, and told them as much. I'm really hoping they just ditch it or save it for a source book. Just make the Assimer (sp?) A core class. I feel like they may be conflicted with the results they have gotten. I'm just not a fan of the animal thing.

Touching on the few comments about changing the game up for new players. 5e has been the easiest game to teach to new players in my experience. Right now I have a game running with my wife and kids. None of them have ever played before and they have picked up on it very quickly. The oldest kid is 15, the youngest is 9. I personally don't feel like they would need to change much to on board new players.


----------



## Cruentus

overgeeked said:


> I've played and run for almost 40 years. I played B/X, BECMI, AD&D, 4E, and now 5E. In that whole time I never had to worry about power gaming or optimization...until 5E. While running 5E, I've had about zero players who didn't obsess over optimization out of a cast of a few hundred.



I have one player in my group since high school (40 years), who still plays, and still optimizes the heck out of everything.

My son who is 13 doesn't care about optimization, and would rather get on with the story and creative descriptions of the action (i.e. the rules get in the way for him).   He is a voracious reader, but finds the rules as presented in the PHB to be complicated and convoluted for no reason that he can discern.  He did DM for one group, but he decided to run a non-DnD RPG game, which the group is enjoying much more.  They are having fun, which is the whole point.

It'll be interesting to see what the OneDnD rules look like in 2024, but I haven't bought anything WOTC this year, and won't likely buy any more.  Its not what I'm looking for.  OSE scratches all the itches.

It has been fascinating, though, watching how the Next playtest went from its last playtest packet to the final product - didn't really look much the same.  So I'll be interested from an academic perspective to see how this one rolls out too.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

overgeeked said:


> A history of dishonesty around edition changes and being a mega-corp whose only goal is profits.



What have they showed to be dishonest about yet with this "edition change"? And WotC isn't a mega-corp, it's a subsidiary of one. The mega-corp isn't making OneD&D, a smaller company that's a part of it is.


----------



## Oofta

Clint_L said:


> I do not understand the need to automatically assume bad intent. All WotC has done has been largely up front while producing a hugely popular iteration of a game that I assume we all love. So...why not assume that they mean what they say and are actively using our feedback to inform their development of OneD&D? Like, what makes that an unreasonable assumption?
> 
> It's fine to have doubts. Doubts are healthy. But you also have to be able to ask yourself _what if I'm wrong?_ Maybe WotC isn't some corporate conspiracy to screw over their own fans. Maybe the folks working there actually love the game and value their player base and want to make the best version of the game possible, not just because that would be good business but because it would make them feel good as creators and professionals.
> 
> Criticizing their proposals is fine. It's what feedback is for. But criticizing their motives is not cool. None of us is a mind reader. It just seems like a lot of folks have made up their minds and are not even open to any positive interpretations. And that is really weird to me considering that WotC have done a very good job with the game.



I agree.  I don't understand the seeming need some people have to trash WOTC.  Do I agree with everything they do?  Of course not.  Heck, I look back at decisions I made in the past and can only think "What the **** was I thinking?"

But we have no reason to believe that this is all a show, that they don't really care, or that it would be a _real_ survey if only they added a suggestion box at the end so they could try to read through 39,000 responses of random thoughts on what D&D could do instead.  Of course they have ideas where they want to go with the game, that's kind of the point of being game designers.  But I have no reason to believe that they aren't being open and forthright that they really do listen to feedback.

No survey will ever be perfect.  No game will ever be perfect.  Of course as a development team they want the game to be profitable.  Duh, they want to continue receiving paychecks.  But most of the complaints seem to really be saying "They aren't doing exactly what I want, so therefore they're bad no-goodnicks who are lying to us."


----------



## Oofta

MockingBird said:


> Yeah, I'm not a fan of non-optional feats. I told them as much in every feat section that had a comment box. I feel like they listened and are trying to give us all the best of both worlds. I can handle the background feat, then just take the ASI feat when available. This makes me feel good about it.
> 
> Not a fan of the Ardling, and told them as much. I'm really hoping they just ditch it or save it for a source book. Just make the Assimer (sp?) A core class. I feel like they may be conflicted with the results they have gotten. I'm just not a fan of the animal thing.
> 
> Touching on the few comments about changing the game up for new players. 5e has been the easiest game to teach to new players in my experience. Right now I have a game running with my wife and kids. None of them have ever played before and they have picked up on it very quickly. The oldest kid is 15, the youngest is 9. I personally don't feel like they would need to change much to on board new players.




They clarified that they need to tweak the ardlings, one of the main issues is that they're too close to Aasimar so they're going to be their own thing.  I'm personally not a big fan of furries, but a lot of people are, hence tortles, harengon and tabaxi.  Good thing no one is forcing me to play one.


----------



## Minigiant

SkidAce said:


> I hear your points, but dont feel I'm missing anything.  I am aware of all the differences in generational players (i.e. more anime swordsmen tropes than knights in plate mail, etc.)
> 
> Was just trying to say that I dont feel that the way the 5e books are written are any harder (or easier) for a group of new players to learn, play, mess up, homebrew, argue, and play than they ever were.
> 
> YMMV.



The 1st Edition Books contain more info and advice on *How to Play and How to DM* than the 5th PHB/DMG. 

And the target audience was a lot more similar in preferences and the rules and advice was tailored to them.
The 5e PHB isnt too bad. But the 5e DMG is mostly useless outside of some of the charts and the magic item rules to new and vet alike.

That's why Crawford made sure to say the 2024 DMG will actually have advice and tools to actually run the game.


----------



## Incenjucar

There's just no value in being pre-angry. It just builds up a lot of stress hormones. Every edition has a chance to be your new favorite or new least favorite, and neither outcome requires stress.


----------



## Mortus

Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game. 

Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.


----------



## Incenjucar

While I personally adore feats, I hope they provide a nice simple default option for non-feat folks. There's really no reason not to. The way it was discussed made it sound like an ad for future feats, but that's just now how reality works.


----------



## Burnside

Can we talk about this bizarre pronunciation of Fizban as "Fizbin"?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Mortus said:


> Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game.
> 
> Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.



I generally dislike feats, but the way they are presented in the two first packets look kinda interesting. They are fun additions instead of ''must-haves'', ''builds defining'' or ''patches''. 

In any case, if there's too many feats to choose or they become too fiddly, I'll just remove them and let the players take the +2 ASI feat by default.


----------



## Incenjucar

Burnside said:


> Can we talk about this bizarre pronunciation of Fizban as "Fizbin"?



Dalelands accent, don't worry about it.


----------



## overgeeked

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> What have they showed to be dishonest about yet with this "edition change"?



When they said it would be backwards compatible then rolled out a bunch of stuff that wasn’t backwards compatible in the playtest. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And WotC isn't a mega-corp, it's a subsidiary of one. The mega-corp isn't making OneD&D, a smaller company that's a part of it is.



That’s pointless hair splitting.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Incenjucar said:


> While I personally adore feats, I hope they provide a nice simple default option for non-feat folks. There's really no reason not to. The way it was discussed made it sound like an ad for future feats, but that's just now how reality works.



I want to minimize any chances I ever land at a table that doesn't allow feats or that future design ever thinks to exclude them again.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I generally dislike feats, but the way they are presented in the two first packets look kinda interesting. They are fun additions instead of ''must-haves'', ''builds defining'' or ''patches''.
> 
> In any case, if there's too many feats to choose or they become too fiddly, I'll just remove them and let the players take the +2 ASI feat by default.



It seems like dividing the feats into different levels will help with the normal problem of being drowned in options that happens in base 5e. I'm already a fan of feats, and I think that the new proposed system for them is easily better than the 2014 version.


----------



## overgeeked

Mortus said:


> Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.



To me, that’s such a core part of the game (and always has been going back to B/X and AD&D) that I cannot imagine it as an “extra.”


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

overgeeked said:


> When they said it would be backwards compatible then rolled out a bunch of stuff that wasn’t backwards compatible in the playtest.



It is backwards compatible. You can play a 2014 PHB character with a OneD&D rules. I've done it. It works. They're compatible. The fact that you disagree with their definition of "backwards compatibility" doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. They even said what they mean by "backwards compatible" in one of the playtest documents.


overgeeked said:


> That’s pointless hair splitting.



No, it's an important distinction. The goals of the megacorporation aren't necessarily 100% aligned with the goals of its subsidiary. 

They've proven before that they care about more than just profit. Otherwise, they would leave books alone after they publish them and not waste time with errata. The existence of errata proves that they have motivations beyond just pure profits.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



As I have repeatedly said: they use awful survey design and push polls, not actually effective survey gathering. And, as noted, they don't seem to distinguish between "controversial but still good," "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," and "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it."

This thing you complain about here has been a problem since the D&D Next playtest. Nothing has changed about this. It just happened to actually affect something you care about this time.


----------



## Minigiant

EzekielRaiden said:


> And, as noted, they don't seem to distinguish between "controversial but still good," "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," and "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it."



I think they can tell "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it." as it wont get to 60%. That's why aardlings are staying. And the comments and video saying "they hate it" turned out to be the minority.

But "controversial but still good" and "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," will both give you 70%. So then they'd have to dig into the comments and hope to find a trend.


----------



## Reynard

I still say doing it piecemeal is an ineffective method of testing. D&D has A LOT of moving parts and how they interact is far more important than how any individual part operates in isolation. Putting out a singular big playtest packet and asking people to go hog wild is a much better way to actually figure out whether the rules work. If that's the intent. Which this probably isn't.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

CleverNickName said:


> Like I said in an earlier thread:
> 
> 
> I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.  It's a great marketing strategy.  (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)
> 
> So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest _favorable _reaction.  I think they are figuring out how many people still need convincing....not how many changes still need to be made.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just really jaded in my old age.



It's jaded that's the answer.


----------



## Charlaquin

Benjamin Olson said:


> So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.
> 
> It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".



Pretty sure the changes to critical hits was part of the “d20 test rules” that were the lowest-scoring part of the packet. They also said in the video that they were fully expecting it to get a low rating: it was always experimental, and they’ve been clear about that from day 1.


----------



## Neonchameleon

EzekielRaiden said:


> As I have repeatedly said: they use awful survey design and push polls, not actually effective survey gathering. And, as noted, they don't seem to distinguish between "controversial but still good," "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," and "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it."
> 
> This thing you complain about here has been a problem since the D&D Next playtest. Nothing has changed about this. It just happened to actually affect something you care about this time.



You're more in the Mearls era than the current one. If they're going for a 70% success rate as their primary means of feedback they do have ways to weed out over-amplified vocal minorities unless survey stuffing is going on.


----------



## Retreater

The people who are most likely to engage with the survey are already 5e fans. The new revision is changing very little. Ergo, the 5e fans are happy that few meaningful changes are being proposed.
I'm a little shocked that the entirety of the playtest packets don't have a 96% approval rate. 
I want real change to the game, but what can I do besides take a survey and respond "scrap most of this and do something new, or just reprint the 2014 version with a new commemorative cover."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

OB1 said:


> I feel you, but I'm not quite that jaded.  I'd guess that 90-95% of the final draft is written in stone, and that the primary purpose of the playtest is about change management.  You tell people about the changes coming, listen to their complaints, then implement what you want anyhow.
> 
> For the other 5-10%, I'd guess that's where the A-B testing is coming in,



I am less jaded still... but untrusting. I think they have a good chunk (more then half) written and ready. I think they have another 1/3 written but needing more passes... and the playtest CAN change some small things, and WILL influence the remaining amount a lot, and the 1/3 wip a bit and maybe make some minor changes to the half already done.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

overgeeked said:


> When they said it would be backwards compatible then rolled out a bunch of stuff that wasn’t backwards compatible in the playtest.
> 
> That’s pointless hair splitting.



That stuff was backwards compatible. It's why the playtest worked.


----------



## Charlaquin

Mortus said:


> Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game.
> 
> Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.



Alternatively, just think of “1st level feats” as background features - heck, tie them to specific backgrounds and ban custom backgrounds. Then rule that the only 4th level feat you can take is the ability score increase feat.


----------



## Majesticles

I still say that letting humans be size small was a strange and ill-advised idea.


----------



## Charlaquin

Incenjucar said:


> While I personally adore feats, I hope they provide a nice simple default option for non-feat folks. There's really no reason not to. The way it was discussed made it sound like an ad for future feats, but that's just now how reality works.



They did. The ability score increase feat.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They've proven before that they care about more than just profit. Otherwise, they would leave books alone after they publish them and not waste time with errata. The existence of errata proves that they have motivations beyond just pure profits.



This doesn’t follow. A profit-motivated company would still publish errata if they thought doing so would bring them a greater net profit in the long-term.


----------



## MockingBird

I feel like the large chunk that is already written...is the 5e rules. I was worried about the compatability but there has been nothing in the playtest so far to suggest its not. The playtest is meant to be played with 5e and focus on the changes they are trying out now.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> I still say doing it piecemeal is an ineffective method of testing. D&D has A LOT of moving parts and how they interact is far more important than how any individual part operates in isolation. Putting out a singular big playtest packet and asking people to go hog wild is a much better way to actually figure out whether the rules work. If that's the intent. Which this probably isn't.



It would certainly seem that way, but apparently that approach had poor results in the Next playtest.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Majesticles said:


> I still say that letting humans be size small was a strange and ill-advised idea.



I think it's a good idea and I like the inclusion. 


Charlaquin said:


> This doesn’t follow. A profit-motivated company would still publish errata if they thought doing so would bring them a greater net profit in the long-term.



But WotC publishes way more errata than is necessary and I don't think that it's necessarily making them money. How many people buy the books because of the errata? Because, IMO, it's almost definitely a negligible minority.


----------



## Incenjucar

Charlaquin said:


> They did. The ability score increase feat.



Those are 4th level feats.


----------



## MockingBird

Incenjucar said:


> Those are 4th level feats.



But it's specific as an alternative to "not using feat options" I feel like it's a good compromise. I do wish it have been left purely optional but I can live with this.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> It would certainly seem that way, but apparently that approach had poor results in the Next playtest.



I mean to the level of "balance" WotC aims for it will probably be fine. that is to say -- it isn't that impotant. Which is fine. I kind of agree. It's not chess or League of Legends. Balance is just not that important. I just feel like the playtest this time around is essentially all marketing and so it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Azzy

Blue said:


> It's worth it for people in the minority to respond.  Again, just a 10% switch - 1 in 10 people, can bring something from liked to rework, or from rework to discard completely.
> 
> If anything, the people with negative opinions have a disproportionately large voice because 60% of replies -- all positive -- are essentially ignored.  That 60% just gets you up to "time to debate if trhis is worth including at all".
> 
> The people with negative opinions are the strongest, and those who don't want to respond because they feel they are in the minority need to understand that.  If I recall, you voted where you had problems, and that's good.



Oh, absolutely.


----------



## Incenjucar

MockingBird said:


> But it's specific as an alternative to "not using feat options" I feel like it's a good compromise. I do wish it have been left purely optional but I can live with this.



If they do specify them as the alternative for level 1, yes.


----------



## Dr. Bull

The problem is that the original post did not follow regular rules of grammar.  The post is rushed and confused.  If you are going to post something that many people will read, please use good grammar and punctuation?  Half of all these responses are due to miscommunication.


----------



## Weiley31

I always thought calling the animal headed race "Ardling" felt like a very weird name choice. Especially for one that was supposed to be angelic or what not.

We have Archons before in the past such as the Hound, Bear, and Owl. We also had the Guardinals too.


----------



## Clint_L

Being profit motivated does not make you a terrible person or mean than profits are the only thing that matters to you. I am a teacher, and I expect to get paid. But that doesn't mean that I'm a terrible person who doesn't also want to do the best job that I can or care about my students. The world is a complex place and people can have many motivations.

The folks at WotC who are working on OneD&D are obviously profit motivated. They want to get paid and they want D&D to be successful and make lotsa money - those things are all connected. But you seldom get into those positions unless you also have a passion for what you do and are very good at it. I guarantee you that everyone on the design team is a lifelong gamer who wants to make the best game that they can. If you were in their position, you would also be trying to do the best job possible, wouldn't you?

In thread after thread I see a lot of folks basically assuming that if things aren't exactly how they wanted them to be, or how they interpreted them, then WotC are terrible corporate shills who don't care about the fans and lie for no reason. It's exhausting because thread after thread winds up going nowhere and just repeating the same accusations. Let's just focus on the game proposals and not on WotC's alleged motives.


----------



## Majesticles

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think it's a good idea and I like the inclusion.



Why, though? There are so many issues.
1) Why do only humans get this trait? do other races not suffer acondroplasia? Will I also get to play a Tiny halfling?
2) Why is achondroplasia the only disorder being mechanically represented? What if I want my character to have gigantism? Or autism? or club foot? or mermaid syndrome? The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting _every single physical deformity_, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring.
3)Why would you accept that human size is one of our most variable characteristics, and thus build in rules for smaller people ... but neglect the single most salient aspects of that size difference, i.e. strength, stride length, manual dexterity, girth?
4)And ... if we're really going to accept reality enough to argue for separate rules for smaller humans, then why are other ways that humans vary off the table? There's a LOT of variance in humanity, male to female variance alone has hundreds of measurable differences.
5)And, finally a from a different angle, we're taking a broad category that literally treated all humans identically, which is a profoundly inclusive option and choice, and are now subdividing it, creating special category based on size for variability. Do we even want to open that door, given that we already have the most inclusive option on the table?
6) I've heard some people argue humans being able to be Small is actually meant to represent children, which would have it's own problems. For one, the character is basically a child soldier. For another, does this mean orcs are born 5ft tall? And what am I to do when the pervy problem player gets his hands on this?


----------



## Sacrosanct

Clint_L said:


> Being profit motivated does not make you a terrible person or mean than profits are the only thing that matters to you. I am a teacher, and I expect to get paid. But that doesn't mean that I'm a terrible person who doesn't also want to do the best job that I can or care about my students. The world is a complex place and people can have many motivations.
> 
> The folks at WotC who are working on OneD&D are obviously profit motivated. They want to get paid and they want D&D to be successful and make lotsa money - those things are all connected. But you seldom get into those positions unless you also have a passion for what you do and are very good at it. I guarantee you that everyone on the design team is a lifelong gamer who wants to make the best game that they can. If you were in their position, you would also be trying to do the best job possible, wouldn't you?
> 
> In thread after thread I see a lot of folks basically assuming that if things aren't exactly how they wanted them to be, or how they interpreted them, then WotC are terrible corporate shills who don't care about the fans and lie for no reason. It's exhausting because thread after thread winds up going nowhere and just repeating the same accusations. Let's just focus on the game proposals and not on WotC's alleged motives.



Indeed.  I don't think anyone can question Jeremey's love of the game.  Regardless of the corporate board and their focus on profit, Jeremy is lead for D&D.  And people taking shots at his credibility or motivations because he didn't sign off on a design feature they wanted is a red flag to me of what kind of person they are for making those shots.


----------



## JEB

cbwjm said:


> Don't they normally have a free text section where you can state things like this?



Yep, and I've been making extensive use of that section in these surveys. Strongly encourage everyone to do the same.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Minigiant said:


> And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.



I suspect we're going to get a _vastly_ different DMG this time around.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> I've played and run for almost 40 years. I played B/X, BECMI, AD&D, 4E, and now 5E. In that whole time I never had to worry about power gaming or optimization...until 5E. While running 5E, I've had about zero players who didn't obsess over optimization out of a cast of a few hundred.



Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Jaeger said:


> I've always thought Gnome/Halfling should just be different names for the same thing.
> 
> Never saw the need to have two similar small races that could just be made into one.



Get the elf variants back under a half-dozen and we can talk.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.



And the 4e power gamers also had a massive amount of fun.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

overgeeked said:


> A history of dishonesty around edition changes and being a mega-corp whose only goal is profits.



People aren't mega-corporations.

A lot of the people on this site work for mega-corporations. Are they all untrustworthy automatons who only care about money? 

If you or I can work for a corporation and care about being decent people and doing a decent job, it doesn't seem like a big ask to extend that grace to the folks at WotC.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Weiley31 said:


> I always thought calling the animal headed race "Ardling" felt like a very weird name choice. Especially for one that was supposed to be angelic or what not.
> 
> We have Archons before in the past such as the Hound, Bear, and Owl. We also had the Guardinals too.




I presume the name 'Ardling' was meant to evoke a minor Guardinal. 'Guardling' seems a little odd for a race name (sounding more like an occupation), so they just condensed it.

If they decide to go fully Guardinal-like in the next packet, it might make the name seem a little more appra po.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> It's probably because they don't want to give Dragonhorn as much page space and complexity like the Fizbans dragonborn.



Kinda. But also because they don’t want to invalidate the most important player option in the book, because it’s not a new game. 


Minigiant said:


> Wizards only getting 4 subclass.
> 
> The reign of terror of bland wizards sucking up all the PHB is over!



It will be interesting. 


Minigiant said:


> They will likely just do one grand generic school subclass.
> 
> Then War Magic, Bladesinger and Something else.



I mostly agree (mark a calendar!), except that I think it could be scribes in place of Bladesinger, or War Magic-Specialist-New-New. 


overgeeked said:


> Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.
> 
> In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.



Never ceases to amaze. 

So completely opposite my experience of the game. 


Minigiant said:


> I think there will be a choice between Light Cleric
> Medium Cleric and Heavy Cleric.
> 
> Then Domains give you a CD and bonus spells prepared.



And a T-shirt!?


Minigiant said:


> They expected new players. But it would be classic "John brings Jimmy to Try D&D." The DM and 4/5 players would be veterans.
> 
> "Just walk Jimmy through a Champion fighter and let's go"
> 
> What happened when you try 5e and Jimmy, Julie,and Jose are all new or not too experienced? Now 2/5 of you players are new. You could give them all champion fighters. But that would wonk up party balance and cohesion. And Jose and Julie don't want to be the same class. Whoops. the PHB wasn't written expecting new players to play anything but champion fighters.
> 
> And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.



Nah I’ve met a lot of new D&D players who have played a couple times with friends, or have ongoing games with friends, all of whom began together.

None of them found it difficult to pick up.

In fact, things liken the ambiguity (freedom) of the skill system mostly seems to bother Raw-Only vets with old system expectations vastly more than new players, IME.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.



Funny enough, an early bad experience with power gamers is what turned me off of 3e shortly after it had come out. I had mentioned how an arcane archer sounded fun and was inundated with responses about how it was a crappy build. 

First impressions matter. Just like how I was turned off by RIFTS because my first game I was a regular dude with a whopping 1d4 MDC weapon and thought I was pretty cool. Only to meet the rest of the party. Juicers, glitter boys, etc.


----------



## tetrasodium

overgeeked said:


> And there are at least 10 players to every one DM. Players will always upvote power creep. So UAs with power creep and surveys asking what people think will get overwhelmingly positive response.
> 
> Literally a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> Like "everyone gets a free feat at 1st level" has 90+% approval. Gee...imagine that. So shock. Much surprise.



This is a good point.  I don't recall if the survey asked what percentage we GM or if we GM at all but I'd love to hear if there are areas with statistically significant differences between survey submissions from mostly gm & those from mostly/entirely player survey takers.  A difference of that sort would be statistically significant on its own.


----------



## Oofta

Retreater said:


> The people who are most likely to engage with the survey are already 5e fans. The new revision is changing very little. Ergo, the 5e fans are happy that few meaningful changes are being proposed.
> I'm a little shocked that the entirety of the playtest packets don't have a 96% approval rate.
> I want real change to the game, but what can I do besides take a survey and respond "scrap most of this and do something new, or just reprint the 2014 version with a new commemorative cover."




Why would they make major changes to the most popular TTRPG ever released? It's too bad that it doesn't work for you,  but it seems to work for a while lot of folks. It works for me and my players. It works for my Thursday group I play in.

I don't agree with everything they're playtesting.  But I read the documents,  took the survey,  made my comments.  Maybe those comments will have an impact,  maybe they won't.  But endless reprtrtive complaints on a random forum are not going to change anything. 

How many times have we questioned these same complaints only to be told "if we don't voice our concerns nothing will change"? Then when people actually have a chance to directly communicate with the developers, instead of filling out the survey and commenting people still just continue the same complaints here while ignoring survey.

The game is written to appeal to a large audience.   It's not a boutique RPG designed specifically for you, or me for that matter.  I accepted long ago that it's not all about me and when the 2024 edition comes out,  I'll either adopt it or stick with the current ruleset. What I won't do is complain endlessly  about how D&D used to be cool before they went lamestream because they don't cater to me personally. 

P.S. this turned into a bit of a rant not really aimed at anyone in particular.   I just get tired of people trashing a game I really enjoy playing on a thread about modifications to a game I'm cautiously optimistic about.


----------



## Charlaquin

DEFCON 1 said:


> I presume the name 'Ardling' was meant to evoke a minor Guardinal. 'Guardling' seems a little odd for a race name (sounding more like an occupation), so they just condensed it.
> 
> If they decide to go fully Guardinal-like in the next packet, it might make the name seem a little more appra po.



I figured it came from the Gaelic word for high, just as the tief in tiefling comes from the German word for low.

Either way, the name makes less sense if they lean into the anthro angle more than the celestial angle, as they suggested they would do in the video. I liked Hengeyokai from 4e as an anthro race, but I wonder if they’d avoid that name nowadays.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Majesticles said:


> I still say that letting humans be size small was a strange and ill-advised idea.




That's a strange attitude. As far as your meme goes, no one in real life with gigantism would count as size large in the current game, not even Andre. (They'd have powerful build, which orcs already get). They're just at the high end of medium.


----------



## JEB

Sacrosanct said:


> First impressions matter. Just like how I was turned off by RIFTS because my first game I was a regular dude with a whopping 1d4 MDC weapon and thought I was pretty cool. Only to meet the rest of the party. Juicers, glitter boys, etc.



I feel your pain. First time I tried to play Rifts, I made a rogue scholar PC, and the GM was visibly disappointed in my choice. (Shockingly, it didn't get past one session.)


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's a strange attitude. As far as your meme goes, no one in real life with gigantism would count as size large in the current game, not even Andre. (They'd have powerful build, which orcs already get). They're just at the high end of medium.



I agree with you, but I think the argument is supposed to be, if orcs have Powerful Build at their average size, gigantism _in an orc_ could reasonably result in a Large sized character.


----------



## FrogReaver

Oofta said:


> Why would they make major changes to the most popular TTRPG ever released? It's too bad that it doesn't work for you,  but it seems to work for a while lot of folks. It works for me and my players. It works for my Thursday group I play in.
> 
> I don't agree with everything they're playtesting.  But I read the documents,  took the survey,  made my comments.  Maybe those comments will have an impact,  maybe they won't.  But endless reprtrtive complaints on a random forum are not going to change anything.



To summarize... "Hush because your comments here won't change anything"



Oofta said:


> How many times have we questioned these same complaints only to be told "if we don't voice our concerns nothing will change"? Then when people actually have a chance to directly communicate with the developers, instead of filling out the survey and commenting people still just continue the same complaints here while ignoring survey.



IMO.  Some people desire the conversation.  The survey just doesn't check that box.  *And if it was just a 5-10 minute survey I might change my position, but like past D&D surveys I suspect it's going to take 30mins to an hour to complete...


----------



## Umbran

Sacrosanct said:


> Indeed.  I don't think anyone can question Jeremey's love of the game.  Regardless of the corporate board and their focus on profit, Jeremy is lead for D&D.  And people taking shots at his credibility or motivations because he didn't sign off on a design feature they wanted is a red flag to me of what kind of person they are for making those shots.




*Mod note:*
Did the irony of this not raise any flags for you?  They shouldn't take shots at his motivations, but here you are taking shots at "what kind of people they are"?

Be better, please.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> To summarize... "Hush because your comments here won't change anything"



No, it's a "D&D has a good thing going on right now, and in no way are they going to be stupid enough to purposefully ruin it". They're obviously allowing for some changes, but not enough to stop the game from being popular and making money.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> I agree with you, but I think the argument is supposed to be, if orcs have Powerful Build at their average size, gigantism _in an orc_ could reasonably result in a Large sized character.




I'm not quite sure why 5e still resists playable characters being large size, when being large (by itself) does nothing but make it so that more medium sized creatures can surround you, but it does.

It was different in 3e, for example, when being large came with some automatic mechanical assumptions (and yet, they allowed a few large playable races then!)

At any rate, if an orc becomes large, they'd really gain nothing, so the argument is weird anyway!


----------



## FrogReaver

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> People aren't mega-corporations.
> 
> A lot of the people on this site work for mega-corporations. Are they all untrustworthy automatons who only care about money?
> 
> If you or I can work for a corporation and care about being decent people and doing a decent job, it doesn't seem like a big ask to extend that grace to the folks at WotC.



1.  At the mega-corps what you say about the company in public can directly affect your livelihood, especially if it's derogatory about the company.  Which means at best you are only really hearing half the story from the people working there.

2.  It's not so much that they are necessarily untrustworthy, it's that there's a gaping conflict of interest.  Kind of like with a used car salesman or a politician.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

FrogReaver said:


> To summarize... "Hush because your comments here won't change anything"



Exactly the opposite of what he was actually saying.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Minigiant said:


> I think they can tell "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it." as it wont get to 60%. That's why aardlings are staying. And the comments and video saying "they hate it" turned out to be the minority.
> 
> But "controversial but still good" and "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," will both give you 70%. So then they'd have to dig into the comments and hope to find a trend.



The problem is in sample _representativeness_.

If a vocal minority hates something, they may drown out the mild positive responses. Consider, for instance, the playtest Warlock and Sorcerer. I have never spoken with someone who has said they actually just completely disliked them, and yet they got deleted _so hard_ the classes never recovered during the public playtest and the classes we actually _got_ were very clearly flawed and remain a sore spot for the game's balance today.

A vocal hater minority is much more driven than even a vocal adoring minority. They may even resort to underhanded tactics (like trying to respond multiple times to the survey) in order to bias the results. They will be _driven_ to respond. If most players are perfectly fine with a change but 10% hate it with a passion, you can *easily* get biased results.

Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is _more_ than enough to explain the faults of their process.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah I’ve met a lot of new D&D players who have played a couple times with friends, or have ongoing games with friends, all of whom began together.
> 
> None of them found it difficult to pick up.
> 
> In fact, things liken the ambiguity (freedom) of the skill system mostly seems to bother Raw-Only vets with old system expectations vastly more than new players, IME



Oh  when you're all new, there's no problem because you don't know when there's a mistake or that your improv is a disaster if repeated.

The issue I am describing was when you mix the old and new. 

A new DM can use the DMG for vet players because the vet players will move in way and have expectations that the DMG doesn't tell you.

For example, the master manual is not written using the rules of the dungeon master's guide. So if you run straight MM rules new players won't figure out that the monsters are too easy with all the items you tossed out and the game is too easy but veteran players will realize.

Or for players, the PHB only has few fully noob class/subclass.and none of them teach you the magic or skill system.


----------



## FrogReaver

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, it's a "D&D has a good thing going on right now, and in no way are they going to be stupid enough to purposefully ruin it". They're obviously allowing for some changes, but not enough to stop the game from being popular and making money.



The impact of whatever changes they go with is TBD.


----------



## Remathilis

Retreater said:


> The people who are most likely to engage with the survey are already 5e fans. The new revision is changing very little. Ergo, the 5e fans are happy that few meaningful changes are being proposed.
> I'm a little shocked that the entirety of the playtest packets don't have a 96% approval rate.
> I want real change to the game, but what can I do besides take a survey and respond "scrap most of this and do something new, or just reprint the 2014 version with a new commemorative cover."



I mean, I filled out all the Pathfinder 2e feedback with "scrap this and just support 5e" but they didn't listen either.


----------



## Hussar

EzekielRaiden said:


> Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is _more_ than enough to explain the faults of their process.



Do you really think that they are going through 39000 responses by themselves?  That they haven't hired a firm to handle things?

Why would you presume that WotC is doing this 100% in house?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Neonchameleon said:


> You're more in the Mearls era than the current one. If they're going for a 70% success rate as their primary means of feedback they do have ways to weed out over-amplified vocal minorities unless survey stuffing is going on.



70% success rate has been claimed as the cutoff from the Next playtest and the failure to meet it after _one single attempt_ is allegedly why the original Warlock and Sorcerer failed to get even a _single attempt_ to fix it.


----------



## Minigiant

EzekielRaiden said:


> The problem is in sample _representativeness_.
> 
> If a vocal minority hates something, they may drown out the mild positive responses. Consider, for instance, the playtest Warlock and Sorcerer. I have never spoken with someone who has said they actually just completely disliked them, and yet they got deleted _so hard_ the classes never recovered during the public playtest and the classes we actually _got_ were very clearly flawed and remain a sore spot for the game's balance today.
> 
> A vocal hater minority is much more driven than even a vocal adoring minority. They may even resort to underhanded tactics (like trying to respond multiple times to the survey) in order to bias the results. They will be _driven_ to respond. If most players are perfectly fine with a change but 10% hate it with a passion, you can *easily* get biased results.
> 
> Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is _more_ than enough to explain the faults of their process.



The DNDNext Playtest had too high a barrier for consideration. This allowed a minority to gatekeep.

This play test doesn't have that high barrier according to Crawford.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> The impact of whatever changes they go with is TBD.



But they can make a pretty good guess based on survey results. Which is why the required level of acceptance for playtest content is so high.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hussar said:


> Do you really think that they are going through 39000 responses by themselves?  That they haven't hired a firm to handle things?
> 
> Why would you presume that WotC is doing this 100% in house?



Because their surveys remain incredibly badly designed and they use primitive, simplistic metrics like raw proportion of positive response rate without, for instance, trying to capture the strength of the feeling or get anything even remotely more statistically manageable than binary yes/no.


----------



## Weiley31

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It is backwards compatible. You can play a 2014 PHB character with a OneD&D rules. I've done it. It works. They're compatible. The fact that you disagree with their definition of "backwards compatibility" doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. They even said what they mean by "backwards compatible" in one of the playtest documents.



EXACTLY!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Because their surveys remain incredibly badly designed and they use primitive, simplistic metrics like raw proportion of positive response rate without, for instance, trying to capture the strength of the feeling or get anything even remotely more statistically manageable than binary yes/no.



The survey does have a "how much do you like X" scale. There's three different versions of "Satisfied" versus "Dissatisfied" that you can choose from.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The survey does have a "how much do you like X" scale. There's three different versions of "Satisfied" versus "Dissatisfied" that you can choose from.



Then they shouldn't just use raw proportions! Standard deviation and central tendency are _incredibly important._ Distilling that down to "70% positive" is outright deceptive statistics!


----------



## FrogReaver

EzekielRaiden said:


> Then they shouldn't just use raw proportions! Standard deviation and central tendency are _incredibly important._ Distilling that down to "70% positive" is outright deceptive statistics!



Yep, but it is good marketing to be able to advertise that they have 70% positive responses for inclusion.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Then they shouldn't just use raw proportions! Standard deviation and central tendency are _incredibly important._ Distilling that down to "70% positive" is outright deceptive statistics!



Seeing the pie charts would be helpful. But I do think that it's useful to know how overall positive the feedback is.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not quite sure why 5e still resists playable characters being large size, when being large (by itself) does nothing but make it so that more medium sized creatures can surround you, but it does.
> 
> It was different in 3e, for example, when being large came with some automatic mechanical assumptions (and yet, they allowed a few large playable races then!)
> 
> At any rate, if an orc becomes large, they'd really gain nothing, so the argument is weird anyway!



Yeah, I don’t get why WotC is so averse to it either.


----------



## Majesticles

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not quite sure why 5e still resists playable characters being large size, when being large (by itself) does nothing but make it so that more medium sized creatures can surround you, but it does.
> 
> It was different in 3e, for example, when being large came with some automatic mechanical assumptions (and yet, they allowed a few large playable races then!)
> 
> At any rate, if an orc becomes large, they'd really gain nothing, so the argument is weird anyway!



Zee Bashew has a great video explaining the problems: 
But more to the point, the issues with humans being Small are many:
1) Why do only humans get this trait? do other races not suffer acondroplasia? Will I also get to play a Tiny halfling?
2) Why is achondroplasia the only disorder being mechanically represented? What if I want my character to have gigantism? Or autism? or club foot? or mermaid syndrome? The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting _every single physical deformity_, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring.
3)Why would you accept that human size is one of our most variable characteristics, and thus build in rules for smaller people ... but neglect the single most salient aspects of that size difference, i.e. strength, stride length, manual dexterity, girth?
4)And ... if we're really going to accept reality enough to argue for separate rules for smaller humans, then why are other ways that humans vary off the table? There's a LOT of variance in humanity, male to female variance alone has hundreds of measurable differences.
5)And, finally a from a different angle, we're taking a broad category that literally treated all humans identically, which is a profoundly inclusive option and choice, and are now subdividing it, creating special category based on size for variability. Do we even want to open that door, given that we already have the most inclusive option on the table?
6) I've heard some people argue humans being able to be Small is actually meant to represent children, which would have it's own problems. For one, the character is basically a child soldier. For another, does this mean orcs are born 5ft tall? Furthermore, there are certain types of people who would do VERY unsavory things if allowed to play children...


----------



## JEB

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I don’t get why WotC is so averse to it either.



I have the suspicion something broke spectacularly in a playtest involving Large characters, and rather than try to find a way to make it work anyway, they just decided to restrict playable characters to Medium or faux-medium sizes.


----------



## Charlaquin

EzekielRaiden said:


> 70% success rate has been claimed as the cutoff from the Next playtest and the failure to meet it after _one single attempt_ is allegedly why the original Warlock and Sorcerer failed to get even a _single attempt_ to fix it.



The PHB Warlock is almost functionally identical to the Next Playtest Warlock. The loss of the Next Playtest _Sorcerer_ is tragic, but the reason given for pulling back on it was that people thought it would be difficult to convert sorcerers from past editions. The idea that the 70% approval threshold played into it is speculation. But I’d also wager the fate of the Next Playtest sorcerer was part of what lead WotC to realize more focused chunks would be a better approach than full vertical slices.


----------



## Weiley31

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not quite sure why 5e still resists playable characters being large size,



The reason why, as mentioned by Crawford before, is that things start getting "interesting" as Large size PCs can affect things such as Auras getting an increase in their range and Oversized Weapons, which in the 5E rules, leads to balance going out the window if PCs were suddenly allowed to swing them willy nilly. (such as a greatsword going from 2D6 to 4D6, and so on.)

Basically: it messes with the Bounded Accuracy.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> To summarize... "Hush because your comments here won't change anything"




Not quite.  

I mean, no, the comments here won't change anything. Anyone taking the position that their own surveys are a bad source, by the same logic, should reject them using EN World, with it's smaller, even more self-selected sample as a source.  Comments here _shouldn't_ change anything.

But that's not the point.  The point is for folks to think about what is _constructive_ about their commentary.  Ask yourself what you, or anyone else, can actually get out of it.  

We have seen at other edition changes - relentlessly negative positions generally lead to trouble.  There are only so many ways to say, "I don't like it," before you have to up the ante on rhetoric, and that makes people _dig in_ rather than listen and think.  Upping the ante makes it an emotional exchange, not a reasoned one.

I can understand frustration when things aren't going in your preferred direction.  But how you use that frustration is important.  If what you get out of it is "venting", well, that may be fine for you, but it isn't fine for the discussion.



FrogReaver said:


> Some people desire the conversation.




Is it actually being presented as a start of a conversation, though?  What framing is presented to avoid it being a simple clash of like/not-like?


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> I have the suspicion something broke spectacularly in a playtest involving Large characters, and rather than try to find a way to make it work anyway, they just decided to restrict playable characters to Medium or faux-medium sizes.



There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…


----------



## Charlaquin

Weiley31 said:


> The reason why, as mentioned by Crawford before, is that things start getting "interesting" as Large size PCs can affect things such as Auras getting an increase in their range and Oversized Weapons, which in the 5E rules, leads to balance going out the window if PCs were suddenly allowed to swing them willy nilly. (such as a greatsword going from 2D6 to 4D6, and so on.)
> 
> Basically: it messes with the Bounded Accuracy.



Huh? None of those things have anything to do with bounded accuracy…


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…



They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.


----------



## Weiley31

Charlaquin said:


> Huh? None of those things have anything to do with bounded accuracy…



Okay.

_It throws the Whammie out of the Jammie. Honestly, humblest of opinions, I feel Bounded Accuracy plays a little bit part in 5e's inability to "spreads its wings" in regard to stepping out of its comfort zone with new things._


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.



I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies at once.


----------



## Charlaquin

Weiley31 said:


> Okay.
> 
> _It throws the Whammie out of the Jammie. Honestly, humblest of opinions, I feel Bounded Accuracy plays a little bit part in 5e's inability to "spreads its wings" in regard to stepping out of its comfort zone with new things._



I mean, an argument could certainly be made that BA restricts 5e’s design too much, but auras and oversized weapons simply don’t interact with accuracy, bounded or otherwise.


----------



## Weiley31

Charlaquin said:


> There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…






Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.






Charlaquin said:


> I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies.



Honestly: Large sized races have their own stuff to deal with so there's a balance factor in that. Trying to fit through spaces, dealing with smaller races, how much food they have to eat. All that stuff. In regard to Oversized Weapons, WoTC should just do it like how Pathfinder does it. An oversized Greatsword goes from 2D6 to 2D8. Etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies.



Auras, the reach of weapons is effectively higher, oversized weapons doing an extra dice of damage, trouble fitting into dungeons/other Medium-designed spaces in a setting, and the ability to grapple Huge and smaller monsters while you can't be grappled by Small and smaller monsters. 

There's a lot of minor benefits from being Large that add up to make them overpowered as a character option. Min-Maxers would pretty much always choose to be Large if they want to be a frontliner. And 5e tries to keep the race options relatively balanced.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Auras, the reach of weapons is effectively higher, oversized weapons doing an extra dice of damage, trouble fitting into dungeons/other Medium-designed spaces in a setting, and the ability to grapple Huge and smaller monsters while you can't be grappled by Small and smaller monsters.
> 
> There's a lot of minor benefits from being Large that add up to make them overpowered as a character option. Min-Maxers would pretty much always choose to be Large if they want to be a frontliner. And 5e tries to keep the race options relatively balanced.



They could balance any perceived advantages of Large races with drawbacks (and the opposite for Tiny races), but 5E design has thoroughly abandoned drawbacks for PCs at this point.


----------



## Mecheon

Jaeger said:


> I've always thought Gnome/Halfling should just be different names for the same thing.
> 
> Never saw the need to have two similar small races that could just be made into one.



Gnomes and Halfings thing isn't just "Being small". Gnomes are small fey-ish folk with the talking to animals, alongside the tinkerer, and are honestly closer to elves than they are halflings, wheras Halflings are their hobbits with the serial numbers filed off selves


----------



## FrogReaver

As a reference point I wonder what the lowest percent things have gotten on playtests is.  I'm betting even the worst things produced end up like 40-50% liked.


----------



## Weiley31

Interestingly, the ONLY Large sized PC race that "exists* in 5E currently is the Rhydan Horse from the Blue Rose Adventurer's Guide. But I don't believe there is mention or even a note about how such a thing would "normally" affect Auras and what not when playing as one.



			Rhydan – 5th Edition SRD
		


I also can't remember _EXACTLY_ where I saw it, but I did come upon a large sized 3PP race that DID state/make a note that despite it being Large in size, it was "treated as being Medium sized" in regard to effects such as Auras and what not. Which I think is a nice compromise.

All I know is that at this rate, if I want to play as an "Orc" that is "huge Statured" and can wield two handed weapons in one hand, then I'll just use the Ogrun from Iron Kingdoms: Requiem.


----------



## tetrasodium

Weiley31 said:


> Honestly: Large sized races have their own stuff to deal with so there's a balance factor in that. Trying to fit through spaces, dealing with smaller races, how much food they have to eat. All that stuff. In regard to Oversized Weapons, WoTC should just do it like how Pathfinder does it. An oversized Greatsword goes from 2D6 to 2D8. Etc, etc, etc.



No they don't really have much to deal with anymore


Spoiler: this was removed



Table: Creature Size and Scale​
TallLongSize
CategoryAttack and
AC ModifierSpecial Attacks
Modifier1Hide
ModifierHeight or
Length2Weight3Space4Natural Reach4Fine+8-16+166 in. or less1/8 lb. or less1/2 ft.0 ft.0 ft.Diminutive+4-12+126 in.–1 ft.1/8 lb.–1 lb.1 ft.0 ft.0 ftTiny+2-8+81 ft.–2 ft.1 lb.–8 lb.2-1/2 ft.0 ft.0 ft.Small+1-4+42 ft.–4 ft.8 lb.–60 lb.5 ft.5 ft.5 ft.Medium+0+0-04 ft.–8 ft.60 lb.–500 lb.5 ft.5 ft.5 ft.Large*−**1*+4*-4*8 ft.–16 ft.500 lb.–2 tons10 ft.10 ft.5 ft.Huge*−2*+8*-8*16 ft.–32 ft.2 tons–16 tons15 ft.15 ft.10 ft.Gargantuan*−4*+12*-12*32 ft.–64 ft.16 tons–125 tons20 ft.20 ft.15 ft.Colossal and Colossal+*−8*+16*-16*64 ft. or more125 tons or more30 ft.30 ft.20 ft.
This modifier applies to the bull rush, grapple, overrun, and trip special attacks.
Biped's height, quadruped's body length (nose to base of tail)
Assumes that the creature is roughly as dense as a regular animal. A creature made of stone will weigh considerably more. A gaseous creature will weigh much less.
These values are typical for creatures of the indicated size. Some exceptions exist.





as was *this* revision of that.


----------



## JEB

Weiley31 said:


> I also can't remember _EXACTLY_ where I saw it, but I did come upon a large sized 3PP race that DID state/make a note that despite it being Large in size, it was "treated as being Medium sized" in regard to effects such as Auras and what not. Which I think is a nice compromise.



Yeah, it's interesting the 5E design team defaulted to "aura would have to scale up" instead of "aura doesn't scale up, sorry".

Kobold Press's take on centaurs also has them Large size, but with a Medium-size torso for armor/weapon purposes. MCDM also provided somewhat more complicated rules for Tiny and Large PCs in an issue of Arcadia.


----------



## Charlaquin

Weiley31 said:


> Interestingly, the ONLY Large sized PC race that "exists* in 5E currently is the Rhydan Horse from the Blue Rose Adventurer's Guide. But I don't believe there is mention or even a note about how such a thing would "normally" affect Auras and what not when playing as one.
> 
> 
> 
> Rhydan – 5th Edition SRD



That’s 3rd party. And it’s _definitely_ not the only Large PC race in 3rd party materials.


----------



## Juomari Veren

DND_Reborn said:


> I'm not surprised most things score this high.
> 
> People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it. People who like the changes will playtest it and then take the survey expressing how much they like it.
> 
> Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.



I was pretty critical of a lot of little things (not normally with UA but especially with OD&D so far) and I fill out every survey, but I also love filling out surveys so I acknowledge I am probably just an outlier.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> Yeah, it's interesting the 5E design team defaulted to "aura would have to scale up" instead of "aura doesn't scale up, sorry".
> 
> Kobold Press's take on centaurs also has them Large size, but with a Medium-size torso for armor/weapon purposes. MCDM  also provided somewhat more complicated rules for Tiny and Large PCs in an issue of Arcadia.



I like KP’s centaurs a lot, though I must admit I really like the idea of centaurs needing to buy barding instead of regular armor. Gold is such a non-issue in 5e that I’m happy to pay 4x as much for armor just for flavor reasons


----------



## Scribe

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, it's a "D&D has a good thing going on right now, and in no way are they going to be stupid enough to purposefully ruin it". They're obviously allowing for some changes, but not enough to stop the game from being popular and making money.



Indeed. The MTG team did enough to damage that product, we certainly dont need the D&D team trying to rock any boats.


----------



## Clint_L

Getting back to the actual video released today, I'm not surprised by the results. Most of the stuff was status quo with minor QoL tweaks, and most folks have been pretty happy with 5e. The desire for feats at level 1, and feats being more accessible in general, tracks: folks have long been critical of the fact that while feats are both fun and provide a good avenue to customization, they are effectively locked behind the ASI barrier for most of the game.

The first proposed changes to critical rolls (1s and 20s) were instantly controversial - we already knew that one was going nowhere. The changes to Dragonbourne didn't address the main issue people had with Dragonbourne; I look forward to seeing the new ideas. And I appreciate that they identified a core problem with Aardlings being that they were perceived as replacing Aasimar (which was completely on WotC; that first iteration was really stepping on the toes of Aasimar design). If they are altered to being more of a straight-up animal/humanoid hybrid they'll probably be less controversial, though they still seem like a bit of a "trying to be everything to everyone" race.

Edit: What I mean by that last point is that they are basically saying "Hey, we've got cat-people and turtle-people and several flavours of bird-people , etc., but if none of that is working for you...why just be an Aardling and be whatever fill-in-the-blank-people you want. Which is flexible, but also going to make it hard to build a cohesive Aardling racial story.


----------



## Hussar

EzekielRaiden said:


> Then they shouldn't just use raw proportions! Standard deviation and central tendency are _incredibly important._ Distilling that down to "70% positive" is outright deceptive statistics!



You do realize that they aren't talking about their methodology right?  They're distilling it down for those of us who aren't statististions and really, really, don't care about the math.  Why would you assume that not only are they doing it in-house, but also they should lay every point out in the open so that armchair statisticians should be able to second guess every single thing they say?

FFS, take it at face value.  Presume, just for a moment, that a multi-million dollar project that has this enormous load of information, just maybe hires a firm that knows what they're doing?

Why the automatic presumption that they are lying or being deceptive?  They're telling you flat out that with certain bands they will react in particular ways.  Seems pretty straightforward.  

Oh, and, they have to be able to distill that huge amount of information in a couple of months.    Yeah, I think I'll settle for taking what they say at pretty much face value thanks.  Endlessly kvetching about their methodology when you aren't actually privy to it is a bit too far into conspiracy theory territory for me.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Majesticles said:


> 1) Why do only humans get this trait? do other races not suffer acondroplasia? Will I also get to play a Tiny halfling?



Other D&D races have a bunch of defining characteristics, a lot of them magical. Why can't Humans have the unique trait of the dwarfism mutation.


Majesticles said:


> 2) Why is achondroplasia the only disorder being mechanically represented?



Because it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference, is really easy to represent mechanically, and is pretty inoffensive to include.


Majesticles said:


> What if I want my character to have gigantism?



You can. But people with gigantism are only a few feet taller than the average person. So they'd still be Medium and there would be basically no mechanical differences.


Majesticles said:


> Or autism?



No, no, no, no, no. As someone that has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, I do not want WotC or any D&D publisher to touch the condition mechanically with a 10 foot pole. No. There is no good reason to every include mechanics for it, and basically any mechanical representation is doomed to be extremely offensive. No. Just no.


Majesticles said:


> or club foot? or mermaid syndrome?



Because those disorders would actually effect day-to-day life in a D&D world, and there might be magical treatments.


Majesticles said:


> The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting _every single physical deformity_, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring.



No, it isn't.


Majesticles said:


> 3)Why would you accept that human size is one of our most variable characteristics, and thus build in rules for smaller people ... but neglect the single most salient aspects of that size difference, i.e. strength, stride length, manual dexterity, girth?



Because small races don't have much of a mechanical difference from medium ones in D&D 5e. And the community overall doesn't like having negative traits in parts of the game they choose for visual appearance.


Majesticles said:


> 4)And ... if we're really going to accept reality enough to argue for separate rules for smaller humans, then why are other ways that humans vary off the table? There's a LOT of variance in humanity, male to female variance alone has hundreds of measurable differences.



Because including one genetic condition is not and should not be a slippery slope that requires you to require all of them.

Having six fingers is actually a dominant gene. Having 5 fingers in the real world was originally a genetic mutation. Why do D&D humans have 5 fingers instead of 6?


Majesticles said:


> 5)And, finally a from a different angle, we're taking a broad category that literally treated all humans identically, which is a profoundly inclusive option and choice, and are now subdividing it, creating special category based on size for variability. Do we even want to open that door, given that we already have the most inclusive option on the table?



Including more body types of people in the game is inclusive. Saying all humans are medium is the less inclusive option. Not the reverse.


Majesticles said:


> 6) I've heard some people argue humans being able to be Small is actually meant to represent children, which would have it's own problems. For one, the character is basically a child soldier. For another, does this mean orcs are born 5ft tall? And what am I to do when the pervy problem player gets his hands on this?



No. There is nothing in the UA Human that suggests that the "Small Humans" are children. It doesn't bring up any problems related to pedophilia or child soldiers.

And if there's a pedophile at your table, the way to "handle this" is to ban them. Kick them out. Not blame WotC for the player's actions.

This, to me, seems like a bunch of tilting at windmills and slippery slope arguments.


----------



## Li Shenron

Yeah, right...

We are a community where every single day we complain about almost every rules not working, propose house rules endlessly, and then kill each other 's ideas, the amount of naysaying overwhelmingly more than agreements. But almost every proposal WotC brings out, as long as it has the official stamp, we approve with "Bulgarian" majorities.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> As a reference point I wonder what the lowest percent things have gotten on playtests is.  I'm betting even the worst things produced end up like 40-50% liked.



If you wanted the answer, you could have watched the video. Or just the first few sections of the original post. 

The lowest percent was the d20 Test rules, which was in the 60%. And it was one of the 3 things in that percentage range. Things actually performed way higher that you speculate here.


----------



## overgeeked

Clint_L said:


> Edit: What I mean by that last point is that they are basically saying "Hey, we've got cat-people and turtle-people and several flavours of bird-people , etc., but if none of that is working for you...why just be an Aardling and be whatever fill-in-the-blank-people you want. Which is flexible, but also going to make it hard to build a cohesive Aardling racial story.



I'd rather they go with a non-divine beastfolk option. Or the mongrelfolk...but that would probably need a new name.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

overgeeked said:


> I'd rather they go with a non-divine beastfolk option. Or the mongrelfolk...but that would probably need a new name.



They said in the video that they're going to move away from the "divine" part of the Ardling and more into the "beastfolk" part of them in the UA that's coming out tomorrow. So, it looks like you're probably going to get what you want.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Oh  when you're all new, there's no problem because you don't know when there's a mistake or that your improv is a disaster if repeated.
> 
> The issue I am describing was when you mix the old and new.
> 
> A new DM can use the DMG for vet players because the vet players will move in way and have expectations that the DMG doesn't tell you.
> 
> For example, the master manual is not written using the rules of the dungeon master's guide. So if you run straight MM rules new players won't figure out that the monsters are too easy with all the items you tossed out and the game is too easy but veteran players will realize.
> 
> Or for players, the PHB only has few fully noob class/subclass.and none of them teach you the magic or skill system.



I’d classify that as an advice problem, which 5e has a _*lot *_of. 


Hussar said:


> Do you really think that they are going through 39000 responses by themselves?  That they haven't hired a firm to handle things?
> 
> Why would you presume that WotC is doing this 100% in house?



They did say “our staff”, to be fair. Might be temps in house. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Because their surveys remain incredibly badly designed and they use primitive, simplistic metrics like raw proportion of positive response rate without, for instance, trying to capture the strength of the feeling or get anything even remotely more statistically manageable than binary yes/no.






EzekielRaiden said:


> Then they shouldn't just use raw proportions! Standard deviation and central tendency are _incredibly important._ Distilling that down to "70% positive" is outright deceptive statistics!



I think they probably just don’t feel the need to deep dive on their statistics, and just talk overall satisfaction, rather than boring 90% of video viewers with “this is how we derive the overall satisfaction percentage.” 

They have a range of 6 options of satisfaction, and read the written feedback for context on the answers. It’s working for them, so…

Tbh the written feedback only needs to even be there for like half of the respondents, mostly the “I vote this bad because those specific thing, but liked everything else about” type stuff. 

The stats just need to indicate whether people generally feel good, bad, or indifferent, about a given thing. 

Remember, they aren’t trying to scientifically prove that 5e is cool and good. They’re gauging interest and satisfaction in options for a game they have quite a lot of experience managing and creating new content for.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

CleverNickName said:


> Like I said in an earlier thread:
> 
> 
> I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than _actually _getting feedback.  It's a great marketing strategy.  (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)
> 
> So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest _favorable _reaction.  I think they are figuring out how many people still need convincing....not how many changes still need to be made.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just really jaded in my old age.




Wow... that is really really sad.


----------



## darjr

You can assert anything you want. Proof matters.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> Yeah, it's interesting the 5E design team defaulted to "aura would have to scale up" instead of "aura doesn't scale up, sorry".
> 
> Kobold Press's take on centaurs also has them Large size, but with a Medium-size torso for armor/weapon purposes. MCDM also provided somewhat more complicated rules for Tiny and Large PCs in an issue of Arcadia.



Level Up handles large heritages well.


----------



## darjr

Another thing, why?

Why go through it all if they already decided? Why make a survey? Why pretend to have gone through it and generate a video? Is this marketing really worth that much?

I'd think a bean counter would nix that idea before it was a bud.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> You do realize that they aren't talking about their methodology right?  They're distilling it down for those of us who aren't statististions and really, really, don't care about the math.  Why would you assume that not only are they doing it in-house, but also they should lay every point out in the open so that armchair statisticians should be able to second guess every single thing they say?
> 
> FFS, take it at face value.  Presume, just for a moment, that a multi-million dollar project that has this enormous load of information, just maybe hires a firm that knows what they're doing?
> 
> Why the automatic presumption that they are lying or being deceptive?  They're telling you flat out that with certain bands they will react in particular ways.  Seems pretty straightforward.
> 
> Oh, and, they have to be able to distill that huge amount of information in a couple of months.    Yeah, I think I'll settle for taking what they say at pretty much face value thanks.  Endlessly kvetching about their methodology when you aren't actually privy to it is a bit too far into conspiracy theory territory for me.



I think he was more intimation incompetence than malice.


----------



## John R Davis

Oofta said:


> They clarified that they need to tweak the ardlings, one of the main issues is that they're too close to Aasimar so they're going to be their own thing.  I'm personally not a big fan of furries, but a lot of people are, hence tortles, harengon and tabaxi.  Good thing no one is forcing me to play one.



True. But you might need to DM to them.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> The internet.



With respect, the internet also tells us that the world is flat, the moon landing was a hoax and my people have space lasers that control Hollywood or something(I really didn't pay much attention to what we are supposed to have done with them).  I need more than the internet as cited proof.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)?  Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.



Speaking for myself, I'm much more likely to complain to the company asking for my opinion than I am on some a forum, though I'm not shy here, either. I let them know in no uncertain terms what I thought.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> Edit: What I mean by that last point is that they are basically saying "Hey, we've got cat-people and turtle-people and several flavours of bird-people , etc., but if none of that is working for you...why just be an Aardling and be whatever fill-in-the-blank-people you want. Which is flexible, but also going to make it hard to build a cohesive Aardling racial story.



I think it’s entirely possible to make a catch-all anthropomorphic animal race with a cohesive story. I mean, Shifters already kinda do so, albeit with some added lycanthropy baggage. Again I point to 4e’s Hengeyokai as an example of this kind of race done well. The key is just to make the diversity of forms part of their story.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I think he was more intimation incompetence than malice.



That's not really any different though.  Good grief, WotC has been doing this sort of thing for more than 20 years.  It's not like this is their first rodeo.  And, before anyone gets on about 4e, let's just remember that they did listen to a LOT of gamers for 4e - notably RPGA.  But, because they focused on organized play elements, home play became problematic.

There's no sense here that they are only listening to some of the fandom.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They said in the video that they're going to move away from the "divine" part of the Ardling and more into the "beastfolk" part of them in *the UA that's coming out tomorrow.* So, it looks like you're probably going to get what you want.



Wait, did I miss them saying the next packet comes out tomorrow? That’s a pleasant surprise!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> Wait, did I miss them saying the next packet comes out tomorrow? That’s a pleasant surprise!



Yep. They said "December 1st" for the next playtest packet. Which is tomorrow.

At least, it's in the video description.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Yep. They said "December 1st" for the next playtest packet. Which is tomorrow.
> 
> At least, it's in the video description.



Dec 1st is Today! At least here.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Yep. They said "December 1st" for the next playtest packet. Which is tomorrow.



It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems _significantly_ more extreme since.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> Dec 1st is Today! At least here.



Well, WotC's main building is in Seattle, so they use Pacific Standard Time (I live in Oregon, so I'm in the same time zone), so it's only 11:35 in their time zone. And I don't think that they've ever released a playtest document in the middle of the night.


----------



## darjr

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Well, WotC's main building is in Seattle, so they use Pacific Standard Time (I live in Oregon, so I'm in the same time zone), so it's only 11:35 in their time zone. And I don't think that they've ever released a playtest document in the middle of the night.



Curse time and those interminable time zones!


----------



## Charlaquin

darjr said:


> Dec 1st is Today! At least here.



Technically it’s “today” where I am too, by about 40 minutes But I have to count by sunrises and sunsets or it messes with my sense of reality. I had a few years where I consistently stayed up past sunrise and slept during midday, and ended up having a minor existential crisis about days being an arbitrary social construct. Which is accurate, but not healthy for me to dwell on.


----------



## EllisEthel

Coming next year from Wizards of the Coast….the exciting new adventure module for D&D…

BS1 The Echo Chamber of Approval!


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Curse time and those interminable time zones!



And sleep!  They should be up at midnight catering to us night owls.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems _significantly_ more extreme since.




I've been making 'jokes' for awhile that "Time is catastrophically out of control and hurtling toward a singularity. Soon, everything will happen all at once."

It would be funnier if it didn't feel true.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems _significantly_ more extreme since.



There's a scientific reason for this. The PBS-funded Youtube channel "Be Smart" (previously known as "It's Okay to be Smart") has a video on the effect. Long story short, stress messes with your sense of time.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I've been making 'jokes' for awhile that "Time is catastrophically out of control and hurtling toward a singularity. Soon, everything will happen all at once."
> 
> It would be funnier if it didn't feel true.



Not sure which reaction to give this as I think they’re all appropriate


----------



## Clint_L

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s entirely possible to make a catch-all anthropomorphic animal race with a cohesive story. I mean, Shifters already kinda do so, albeit with some added lycanthropy baggage. Again I point to 4e’s Hengeyokai as an example of this kind of race done well. The key is just to make the diversity of forms part of their story.



Yeah, there are ways. You could island of Doctor Moreau it, for example. But I think this also risks stepping on top of the identity of races like Tabaxi, Kenku, and Tortles. It just starts to become cluttered/confusing. "Wait...are you an Ardling Turtle-Folk? Or a Tortle? What is the difference, again?"

Also...I hate the name "Ardling" because I see "Yardling" miniatures for sale in the FLGS and they are like kiddie versions of RPG minis.

I'm not opposed to the concept - I am a serious miniatures enthusiast and painter, and I've got tons of cool minis this would let me use within official 5e rules. I'm looking forward to seeing how WotC approach this general concept from another angle.


----------



## Charlaquin

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> There's a scientific reason for this. The PBS-funded Youtube channel "Be Smart" (previously known as "It's Okay to be Smart") has a video on the effect. Long story short, stress messes with your sense of time.



Makes sense. I also started transitioning in not-online spaces with what seems to have been the worst possible timing, so that’s definitely contributing to stress levels. _sigh_. Anyway, thanks for the video recommendation, I’ll check it out and stop derailing this thread with unprompted venting


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> Makes sense. I also started transitioning in not-online spaces with what seems to have been the worst possible timing, so that’s definitely contributing to stress levels. _sigh_. Anyway, thanks for the video recommendation, I’ll check it out and stop detailing this thread with unprompted venting



No problem. I'm an autistic nerd. Infodumping and going off on unrelated tangents in conversations are some of my favorite pastimes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Clint_L said:


> Yeah, there are ways. You could island of Doctor Moreau it, for example. But I think this also risks stepping on top of the identity of races like Tabaxi, Kenku, and Tortles. It just starts to become cluttered/confusing. "Wait...are you an Ardling Turtle-Folk? Or a Tortle? What is the difference, again?"
> 
> Also...I hate the name "Ardling" because I see "Yardling" miniatures for sale in the FLGS and they are like kiddie versions of RPG minis.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the concept - I am a serious miniatures enthusiast and painter, and I've got tons of cool minis this would let me use within official 5e rules. I'm looking forward to seeing how WotC approach this general concept from another angle.



I’m not too worried about the toe-stepping. Being a fan of anthropomorphic animals myself, I am confident most of us will always favor the option that more specifically expresses the animal we want if one is available, and use the generic option when one isn’t. That is to say, if you see a tortoise-person, it’s almost always going to be a tortle, because that expresses the idea of a tortoise-person with more mechanical specificity than a generic anthro race will.

I agree Ardling is a terrible name though.


----------



## Majesticles

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Other D&D races have a bunch of defining characteristics, a lot of them magical. Why can't Humans have the unique trait of the dwarfism mutation.



Because that makes no sense. It'd be like if the defining trait of the hazodee was, say, that _some_ of them have fangs or that _some_ of them don't need to sleep. Also, are you seriously telling me that _none_ of the other races _ever_ have deformities?


> Because it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference, is really easy to represent mechanically, and is pretty inoffensive to include.



But what about the myriad of other deformities that meet that description?


> You can. But people with gigantism are only a few feet taller than the average person. So they'd still be Medium and there would be basically no mechanical differences.



Robert Wadlow was 8ft, the size of an ogre, which are Large.


> No, no, no, no, no. As someone that has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, I do not want WotC or any D&D publisher to touch the condition mechanically with a 10 foot pole. No. There is no good reason to every include mechanics for it, and basically any mechanical representation is doomed to be extremely offensive. No. Just no.



So do I. +1 Int -2Wis -2Cha. Easy.


> Because those disorders would actually effect day-to-day life in a D&D world, and there might be magical treatments.



And you think having stumpy limbs and being half the height of all your peers doesn't?


> "The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting _every single physical deformity_, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring." No it isn't.



Are we being _inclusive_ or not?


> Because including one genetic condition is not and should not be a slippery slope that requires you to require all of them.



But what abut when people _with_ those conditions start badgering WotC for stats?


> Having six fingers is actually a dominant gene. Having 5 fingers in the real world was originally a genetic mutation. Why do D&D humans have 5 fingers instead of 6?



Because that's how evolution works. By that logic our characters should be archaea drifting in the prehistoric ocean. Also, just because an allele is dominant doesn't automatically mean it's the one that came first, especially considering that the majority of other vertebrates also have five fingers.


----------



## Minigiant

Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.

Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
But

What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells? That's my guess.



People generally don't like Gnomes. Or, at least, they're everyone's favorite punching bag in the PHB.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Majesticles said:


> Because that makes no sense. It'd be like if the defining trait of the hazodee was, say, that _some_ of them have fangs or that _some_ of them don't need to sleep. Also, are you seriously telling me that _none_ of the other races _ever_ have deformities?



No, they could be just as easily saying that Humans are the only PHB race that dwarfism common enough to call for its inclusion. 

And there are already "only some members of this race have this trait" in D&D. Only some Kobolds have wings (Urds). Only some Hobgoblins have red or blue noses, and it's seen as a blessing from their god. Only some people are born with inherent magic (Sorcerers). 


Majesticles said:


> But what about the myriad of other deformities that meet that description?



Most of them don't need representation. Or would take way more words to include than just the additional two words "Small or" to their possible sizes. 


Majesticles said:


> Robert Wadlow was 8ft, the size of an ogre, which are Large.



No, Ogres are 9-10 feet tall. Goliaths can get up to 8 feet tall, and they're Medium. 


Majesticles said:


> So do I. +1 Int -2Wis -2Cha. Easy.



No. Just no. Autism is a spectrum. There is a vast variety of different traits that people on the spectrum can have. There is no single "autism mechanic" that could respectfully and correctly represent it in the game. And it doesn't need mechanical representation, that's just something you can roleplay. 

There are many, many ways that saying "autistic people are smarter, less charismatic, and less perceptive than neurotypicals" in a game book can go very wrong. Not to mention that you're not even covering other typical traits, like bad motor skills (Dexterity), the 3 different "levels", emotional confusion, and commonly comorbid conditions (ARFID, ADHD, EDS, and many others). 

There is no good way *or reason* to mechanically represent Autism or any other mental disorder in D&D. It's hard, it's messy, it's controversial. "Sometimes people are 3 feet tall" isn't hard, isn't messy, and isn't anywhere near as controversial as representing autism in D&D. 


Majesticles said:


> Are we being _inclusive_ or not?



Inclusiveness isn't a requirement to include every possible option imaginable. That's impossible. The act of including one genetic disorder or mutation doesn't mean that they have to include all others. They don't have to give mechanical representation to people without earlobes or those with heart disorders because they included a few words about how dwarfism exists. 


Majesticles said:


> But what abut when people _with_ those conditions start badgering WotC for stats?



I have autism. I will actively fight against anyone that wants it to have any kind of mechanical representation in D&D or any other TTRPG. Even other people on the spectrum. It is not a good idea. I highly doubt that any notable amount of people of any genetic disorder have "badgered" WotC into including their condition in the official books. What I suspect was the reasoning behind this inclusion was the recent changes to many races in Monsters of the Multiverse and Spelljammer (mainly the planetouched and beastfolk) that allowed for characters to be Small and Medium, and a designer at WotC recognized that this is also possible in the real world for humans, and decided to include it because it's fairly accurate to the real world. It wasn't necessary. I just thought that it was nice, like how they included sign language in the first playtest document. No one was "badgering" for its inclusion.


Majesticles said:


> Because that's how evolution works. *By that logic our characters should be archaea drifting in the prehistoric ocean.* Also, just because an allele is dominant doesn't automatically mean it's the one that came first, especially considering that the majority of other vertebrates also have five fingers.



Exactly my point! "Mutations shouldn't be represented in the game" is a terrible guideline for what gets included in the book or not, because all of modern life is a series of mutations on the tree of life that all go back to single-celled organisms a few billion years ago. Humans are a genetic condition caused by random mutations over the course of billions of years. We're just an accident, yet we're included in the conscious design of D&D. However, our ancestors, proto-humans like Australopithecus aren't included in D&D, yet we're just a mutation of them. Neither are our cousins (some of which we interbred with), like the Denisovans and Neanderthals. Neanderthals would say that we're the ones with the "genetic condition", because they came first, and that _they_ should be included in the game, not us. 

And, six digits on the limbs that became hands _did _come first. It just died out a long, long time ago. Having five digits is the mutation.


----------



## Neonchameleon

The problem with large races is simple. Unless you restrict them to invertibrates or the like they get stuck in places in your average dungeon. In a wilderness adventure they are fine, but in an average dungeon crawl they have perma disadvantage and the party might have to leave them behind.


----------



## Hussar

Minigiant said:


> Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.
> 
> Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
> But
> 
> What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.



At the risk of opening _that_ can of worms again, might I suggest that this is just another example of where halflings and gnomes just don't really register all that much on people's radars?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you could literally hand out twenty dollar bills to promote halfling PC's and it would still not rate very highly.


----------



## Azzy

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s entirely possible to make a catch-all anthropomorphic animal race with a cohesive story. I mean, Shifters already kinda do so, albeit with some added lycanthropy baggage. Again I point to 4e’s Hengeyokai as an example of this kind of race done well. The key is just to make the diversity of forms part of their story.



Dude, if they brought back the hengeyokai back (even under a different name), I'd be estatic.


----------



## Morrus

Majesticles said:


> So do I. +1 Int -2Wis -2Cha. Easy.



We are NOT going to be giving people stat penalties for autism on this messageboard. Do not go there again, please. That goes for everybody.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Minigiant said:


> Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.




Nope. Impossible, because in the first UA, they worked well together. (Inspiration on nat 20).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> People generally don't like Gnomes. Or, at least, they're everyone's favorite punching bag in the PHB.




Or, because both are small and small right now has just penalties attached to it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> At the risk of opening _that_ can of worms again, might I suggest that this is just another example of where halflings and gnomes just don't really register all that much on people's radars?
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that you could literally hand out twenty dollar bills to promote halfling PC's and it would still not rate very highly.




In 3rd edition, +1 to AC and attack rolls was quite compelling...

I don't want exactly that back, but maybe a little bonus like hide checks vs DC 10 instead of 15 would help a lot.


----------



## Horwath

Morrus said:


> In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below.
> 
> *High Scorers*
> 
> The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was getting a first level feat in your background.



Glad to see that we are doing their job for them...


----------



## FrogReaver

Li Shenron said:


> Yeah, right...
> 
> We are a community where every single day we complain about almost every rules not working, propose house rules endlessly, and then kill each other 's ideas, the amount of naysaying overwhelmingly more than agreements. But almost every proposal WotC brings out, as long as it has the official stamp, we approve with "Bulgarian" majorities.



We need a King!


----------



## Horwath

FrogReaver said:


> We need a King!



Despite claiming the contrary, people seem to like "argument ex cathedra"


----------



## Hussar

Ok, since it got quoted, I gotta ask because even after I googled it, I still don't know.

What is a "Bulgarian" majority?


----------



## Horwath

Hussar said:


> Ok, since it got quoted, I gotta ask because even after I googled it, I still don't know.
> 
> What is a "Bulgarian" majority?



maybe it's a reference to Todor Zhivkov that was de facto leader of Bulgaria from 1954 to 1989 and ruled with total approval of communist party without any possible opposition?


----------



## Hussar

Horwath said:


> Despite claiming the contrary, people seem to like "argument ex cathedra"



Or... I dunno... maybe people actually like the things that they like?  Strange but true.  

I find 99% of the "this is a huge problem in the game" type posts to be far overblown and/or self inflicted problems.  I've been playing 5e for 10 years now and rules wise, other than a few minor hiccups, I've just never had the major issues that people keep banging on about.  Something like floating ASI's instead of racial mods?  Fantastic - now everyone gets what they want.  Feat at first level?  Well, I did just that for my Candlekeep campaign and it worked great and that was quite a while before any sort of play tests.  Stripping out caster levels and replacing them with powers?  Yes please.  Gimme more of that.  Anything that makes my job as a DM easier?  I'll take it.

So, no, it's not that we're just queuing up behind whatever WotC is saying.  For some of us, we're seeing these changes as literal improvements on the game.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> Glad to see that we are doing their job for them...



Nothing WotC says or does will make their detractors happy. People complain when they aren't involved in the playtesting process (4e). People complain when they are involved and WotC isn't making the changes that they want. People complain when they are involved and accuse WotC of not doing their job.


----------



## Blue

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It is backwards compatible. You can play a 2014 PHB character with a OneD&D rules. I've done it. It works. They're compatible. The fact that you disagree with their definition of "backwards compatibility" doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. They even said what they mean by "backwards compatible" in one of the playtest documents.



I'm not who you were responding to, but I have a couple of cents to put in on this topic.  Wizards does not get to redefine backwards compatible and then say "we hit our target" - they have to use a reasonable, commonly accepted meaning of that term.

Do all the parts work together, not just segregated into different buckets?  Can I pick a 2014 race and subrace, a 1D&D background which grants a feat, any 2014 feat at 1st level because it has no prerequisites, a 1D&D class with a 2014 subclass, and so forth?  And will it remained balanced against both 2014 and 1D&D characters in the party?  Is it okay to pick up 2014 GWM in a game using 1D&D rules instead of the redone one?  How about feats that haven't been redone so the 2014 versions would still be the most reent in play?

Heck, if two players are playing twin dragonborn, identical characters with extra attack but one is using the 1D&D Dragonborn and the other using the Fizban's Dragonborn, are the two balanced against each other?  Up until MP:MotM, if any playable race got changed like Triton got darkvision, all of the previous books that had it got errata so that they were truly compatible.

There are a selection of spells that aren't on the three lists.  If PCs can no longer even pick them how are those character creation rules backwards compatible with Xanathar's and Tasha's?

My TWF swashbuckler can go on an existing adventure.  If we move from 2014 to 1D&D and they get rebuilt, they are buffed through 1st level feats and the TWF change which is really important to a rogue's bonus action economy, they are more capable.  Can they go on the adventure?  Sure.  Will they get the same experience out of it being buffed?  Likely not.  They have said that they are redoing encounter building rules, but if we need to redo encounters for already published adventures in order to provide the same level of threat and attrition, can we say it's compatible without changes?


----------



## Blue

Reynard said:


> I still say doing it piecemeal is an ineffective method of testing. D&D has A LOT of moving parts and how they interact is far more important than how any individual part operates in isolation. Putting out a singular big playtest packet and asking people to go hog wild is a much better way to actually figure out whether the rules work. If that's the intent. Which this probably isn't.



It seems like they are building towards that.  Since they have the base 5e to build on this isn't a case like D&D Next where they needed enough to be independent - with the claims that it's "just D&D" or at least that it's backwards compatible they can leverage so that the design team doesn't need to build a (semi-)complete new game before getting any feedback on it.  And each section has a manageable amount of changes that can be tested and feedback given.  But each packet so far builds on the ones before it, so that there will come a point where we have a fairly complete game.  Going through iterations there will meet your need, while still giving the designers lots of feedback leading up to that point.  Especially when you consider that they have stated that they want to try some things in an A/B testing sort of way, like critical rules or changes to how Inspiration is granted, then frequent early iterations is a good thing.  Entrepreneurs are given the advice to fail quickly - try things, and if they don't work find out soon so you can course correct.  That applies to this as well.


----------



## FrogReaver

Blue said:


> I'm not who you were responding to, but I have a couple of cents to put in on this topic.  Wizards does not get to redefine backwards compatible and then say "we hit our target" - they have to use a reasonable, commonly accepted meaning of that term.
> 
> Do all the parts work together, not just segregated into different buckets?  Can I pick a 2014 race and subrace, a 1D&D background which grants a feat, any 2014 feat at 1st level because it has no prerequisites, a 1D&D class with a 2014 subclass, and so forth?  And will it remained balanced against both 2014 and 1D&D characters in the party?  Is it okay to pick up 2014 GWM in a game using 1D&D rules instead of the redone one?  How about feats that haven't been redone so the 2014 versions would still be the most reent in play?
> 
> Heck, if two players are playing twin dragonborn, identical characters with extra attack but one is using the 1D&D Dragonborn and the other using the Fizban's Dragonborn, are the two balanced against each other?  Up until MP:MotM, if any playable race got changed like Triton got darkvision, all of the previous books that had it got errata so that they were truly compatible.
> 
> There are a selection of spells that aren't on the three lists.  If PCs can no longer even pick them how are those character creation rules backwards compatible with Xanathar's and Tasha's?
> 
> My TWF swashbuckler can go on an existing adventure.  If we move from 2014 to 1D&D and they get rebuilt, they are buffed through 1st level feats and the TWF change which is really important to a rogue's bonus action economy, they are more capable.  Can they go on the adventure?  Sure.  Will they get the same experience out of it being buffed?  Likely not.  They have said that they are redoing encounter building rules, but if we need to redo encounters for already published adventures in order to provide the same level of threat and attrition, can we say it's compatible without changes?



I'd consider it backwards compatible if characters built wholecloth from 5e rules could completely function and be roughly balanced with D&D one characters within the D&D one ruleset.

That's not what is happening though... when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working.  Just one example.


----------



## wicked cool

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.



I remember the strength percentile roll from before 3e. And 18 01% was very different from an 18 100%. That role as a very young person felt like it could make or break a fighter


----------



## Remathilis

Minigiant said:


> Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.
> 
> Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
> But
> 
> What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.



I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

FrogReaver said:


> I'd consider it backwards compatible if characters built wholecloth from 5e rules could completely function and be roughly balanced with D&D one characters within the D&D one ruleset.



That is not the backward compatibility they promised in the UA material. 
From the FAQ


> *What does backward compatible mean?*
> 
> It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run _Curse of Strahd_ in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.






FrogReaver said:


> That's not what is happening though... when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working.  Just one example.



Yes, the backward compatibility does not extend to the 2014 PHB, except for those elements that are unchanged.
My belief, so far, is that the 2014 PHB classes will be usable with the new material (if elements like the level 1 feat support is added) but the 2014 feat system will be completely replaced by the new version.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Remathilis said:


> I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.



Yup, I complained about the use of spells as differentiators instead of creating useful racial features. Even if they were the spells recast as features. Same for the ranger fixes, making these elements spells favours casters. Make them independent of spells and recharge on a short rest if they are to be used often or spend of a stat mod or prof bonus if recharged off of a long rest.


----------



## Quickleaf

Alphastream said:


> The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.
> 
> This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.



Well said!

I almost wish I had been saving these surveys as documents to refer back to later.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.



Maybe people simply prefer usable content over inspiring content.


----------



## Horwath

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.



there are power players in 5E?


----------



## Aldarc

Horwath said:


> there are power players in 5E?



See Treatmonk's "hello optimancers" audience and all the tier listing videos.


----------



## Horwath

Aldarc said:


> See Treatmonk's "hello optimancers" audience.



I would not call that power players.

just "don't take useless features" players.


----------



## Aldarc

Horwath said:


> I would not call that power players.
> 
> just "don't take useless features" players.



You asked. I answered.


----------



## Hussar

FrogReaver said:


> when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working. Just one example.



Now, just to take this particular example and run with it.

In 10 years, I can't remember the last time a rogue bothered with a free item interaction from his subclass.  I'm sure it happened.  I have no doubt it happened at some point, but, it was so infrequent that removing that would make pretty much zero difference.

So, I have to ask, how often has this come up in your last campaign?  Or whenever you've either played (or DM'd a player who had) a rogue character?  Would this make even the slightest difference in your game?  Because it honestly wouldn't in mine.  Until just now, I'd actually completely forgotten that this existed.

I wonder just how often people start talking about how these are "huge" changes but don't actually take the time to drill down to how much of a real impact it would have in their games.


----------



## Retreater

I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.
To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).


----------



## Blue

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s entirely possible to make a catch-all anthropomorphic animal race with a cohesive story. I mean, Shifters already kinda do so, albeit with some added lycanthropy baggage. Again I point to 4e’s Hengeyokai as an example of this kind of race done well. The key is just to make the diversity of forms part of their story.



I'm for this.  We already accept that there can be subraces with different physical characteristics and culture in 2014 D&D, having a common theme but different aspects to an anthropomorphic race is barely a stretch.


----------



## Horwath

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.
> To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).



We just house ruled that.

Action can be used for Bonus action
You can have your speed drop to 0 at the start of the turn to have extra Bonus action
Extra object interaction as Bonus action

Action->Bonus action
Move->Bonus action
Bonus action->Object interaction

works like a charm


----------



## OB1

darjr said:


> Another thing, why?
> 
> Why go through it all if they already decided? Why make a survey? Why pretend to have gone through it and generate a video? Is this marketing really worth that much?
> 
> I'd think a bean counter would nix that idea before it was a bud.



Because change management techniques are an amazingly good way to get people to accept change.  And while I do think that is the primary goal of the playtest, I also believe that WotC is listening to the survey and will refine based on it, especially around concepts that they aren't 100% sure about.  To be clear, I'm assuming the cost of the playtest is justified by marketing and change management, and any actual changes they make to the original plan are an additional benefit to ensure greater success of the new product.  It's smart business.


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> Maybe people simply prefer usable content over inspiring content.



after four elf types with unique racial traits, the 1D elf combined the three subraces into "lineages" which only differ by the free spells known is a regression. Worse, the wood elf became another spellcasting elf type rather than a more physical one. Ideally, I'd like to see three unique sets of racial traits. If that's not doable, then (sigh) combine the wood and high elf and keep drow unique separate. 

I think like the dragonborn, the PHB version is a step backwards from unique racial traits to generic in the name of space. Former elf (and gnome) subraces sometimes being separate races and sometimes being lineages is inconsistent and confusing design. Pick a lane and make former subraces lineages (elf, gnome), separate races (deep gnome, astral elf), or get rid of them (dwarf, halfling).


----------



## kenmarable

Hussar said:


> You do realize that they aren't talking about their methodology right?  They're distilling it down for those of us who aren't statististions and really, really, don't care about the math.  Why would you assume that not only are they doing it in-house, but also they should lay every point out in the open so that armchair statisticians should be able to second guess every single thing they say?
> 
> FFS, take it at face value.  Presume, just for a moment, that a multi-million dollar project that has this enormous load of information, just maybe hires a firm that knows what they're doing?
> 
> Why the automatic presumption that they are lying or being deceptive?  They're telling you flat out that with certain bands they will react in particular ways.  Seems pretty straightforward.
> 
> Oh, and, they have to be able to distill that huge amount of information in a couple of months.    Yeah, I think I'll settle for taking what they say at pretty much face value thanks.  Endlessly kvetching about their methodology when you aren't actually privy to it is a bit too far into conspiracy theory territory for me.



Are you saying that just maybe a _short marketing video_ might not get into the nuanced minutia of their weeks and weeks of data analysis??? _gasp_ 

Yeah, after seeing so many posts claim that survey was clearly poorly designed and ambiguous because it didn't ask all sorts of questions _that it did in fact ask_, it's hard to take many of these criticisms seriously.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> after four elf types with unique racial traits, the 1D elf combined the three subraces into "lineages" which only differ by the free spells known is a regression. Worse, the wood elf became another spellcasting elf type rather than a more physical one. Ideally, I'd like to see three unique sets of racial traits. If that's not doable, then (sigh) combine the wood and high elf and keep drow unique separate.
> 
> I think like the dragonborn, the PHB version is a step backwards from unique racial traits to generic in the name of space. Former elf (and gnome) subraces sometimes being separate races and sometimes being lineages is inconsistent and confusing design. Pick a lane and make former subraces lineages (elf, gnome), separate races (deep gnome, astral elf), or get rid of them (dwarf, halfling).



To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you.


----------



## wicked cool

I wonder how much of the cake is already baked and the survey is just bs. 

It’s a month from 2023 and the book is due in 2024 

I’m going to be cynical and say 99% of the books are written in some sort of draft and at some point soon it has to go to editing and then printing company etc. 

There are other 2023 books that also have to be edited etc with due dates ( if a book is pushed back it’s probably due to shipping delays and not actual deadlines. These deadlines are usually hard and fast and unlike a video game you don’t have the luxury of a day 1 patch

I personally hadn’t heard of an ardling prior to the play test survey etc so where was the clamoring for this spiritual race of all animal heads as a CORE race

I I I I as I can’t speak for anyone else believe this is a money grab and the backwards compatible will be an excuse and it’s going to be a requirement for when you play a sanctioned game

Am I the only 1 who sees the future
2025 Tasha’s 1 d&d cauldron blah blah to fix errors from one d&d 

One d&d new starter set
One d&d curse of strahd reprint 
Hey wizkids we are throwing you a bone. We are changing giants to gargantuan and changing large sizes etc-they did this last edition 

It’s capitalism. Hasbro owns wotc . Hasbro is a publicly traded company and one d&d helps them so you really need at some point to dump 5e. Please don’t argue that wotc presidents don’t answer to Hasbro. They all fall under the Hasbro bottom line.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yes, the backward compatibility does not extend to the 2014 PHB, except for those elements that are unchanged.



And yet so many people assert so emphatically that it will.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.
> To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip,* that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).*




Weird. I almost never play (and almost always DM), but I have noticed that, if anything, the problem with players and the action economy is the exact opposite.

You only get _one_ bonus action. So I've seen all sorts of permutations of either players assuming that they can tack on multiple bonus actions in a round (just generally, as a rider on an extra attack, etc.), or players frustrated that they have a class/build that "eats up" the bonus action economy- in other words, they have too many choices for bonus actions each round.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> With respect, the internet also tells us that the world is flat, the moon landing was a hoax and my people have space lasers that control Hollywood or something(I really didn't pay much attention to what we are supposed to have done with them).  I need more than the internet as cited proof.



Proof of fact (any fact)?  No, of course not.  Proof of human behavior?  Yes, I think so.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Oofta said:


> Why would they make major changes to the most popular TTRPG ever released? It's too bad that it doesn't work for you,  but it seems to work for a while lot of folks. It works for me and my players. It works for my Thursday group I play in.



what edition change isn't that exactly?


----------



## Blue

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is not the backward compatibility they promised in the UA material.
> From the FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the backward compatibility does not extend to the 2014 PHB, except for those elements that are unchanged.
> My belief, so far, is that the 2014 PHB classes will be usable with the new material (if elements like the level 1 feat support is added) but the 2014 feat system will be completely replaced by the new version.



This was a reply to a post that explicitly called out that Wizards doesn't get to define backwards compatibility and then claim "we hit the target".  Backwards compatibility has a reasonable, common usage meaning - putting up a narrower one does not make them right nor make it backwards compatible.


----------



## DEFCON 1

JEB said:


> Yeah, it's interesting the 5E design team defaulted to "aura would have to scale up" instead of "aura doesn't scale up, sorry".
> 
> Kobold Press's take on centaurs also has them Large size, but with a Medium-size torso for armor/weapon purposes. MCDM also provided somewhat more complicated rules for Tiny and Large PCs in an issue of Arcadia.



Seems to me that the game is working as intended then.

The whole point of having an Open Game is so that other companies can make the rules that WotC chooses not to.  So we don't NEED WotC to create rules for Large PCs when other companies have already made those rules for us instead.  If Arcadia has rules for Tiny and Large PCs... then use 'em!  That's what they're there for!

What is this issue so many people have about using products that don't have the WotC logo on the front?  Why does that bug people so much?  And don't any of (general) you tell me it's "Oh, well it's because we know the rules have been fully tested if WotC produced them!"  Baloney!  I can't go three threads down these boards without people complaining about the rules WotC have made or are offering up, saying they stink or are unbalanced or don't work.  So no... no one can sit here with a straight face and claim on the one hand that WotC's rules suck, while on the other say they can't use 3rd Party rules for stuff they want, they need WotC to make them to make sure they've been playtested effectively.

WotC does not... and quite frankly cannot and should not... produce rules for every single facet of the game.  Especially if those rules are going to require massive amounts of jerry-rigging to the base rules to get them into even a semblance of workability and balance (like trying to incorporate the Large PC option into the game that doesn't overshadow every other PC.)  That's what all the other companies making 5E products are there for-- to pick up the mantles that WotC leave for them.  Do them the courtesy of not dismissing them out of hand because it's not like you were going to like what WotC made anyways were they to do it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Reynard said:


> And yet so many people assert so emphatically that it will.



That is people for you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  At the mega-corps what you say about the company in public can directly affect your livelihood, especially if it's derogatory about the company.  Which means at best you are only really hearing half the story from the people working there.
> 
> 2.  It's not so much that they are necessarily untrustworthy, it's that there's a gaping conflict of interest.  Kind of like with a used car salesman or a politician.



allow me to say Walmart sucks as a company and an employer. I have a fiancé that was working there when I met her and 2 friends that 1 still does... do you know what the two that don't work there have in common... they talk 200% more trash about the company then they did when they were there... the 1 that still works there always down plays it "they are trying" type things.
I never worked for walmart, but I have worked for my share of crappy employers. I often didn't notice how bad they were until I got out.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Blue said:


> This was a reply to a post that explicitly called out that Wizards doesn't get to define backwards compatibility and then claim "we hit the target".  Backwards compatibility has a reasonable, common usage meaning - putting up a narrower one does not make them right nor make it backwards compatible.



Well, they do, Software companies have been doing for 40 years or more. Why should anyone expect things to be significantly different with regard to D&D?


----------



## Blue

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.



I agree with this, though the magic item expec tation in Xanathar's (pg 135) is a blessing for part of it.  But tweaking player content is the most hobbyiest facing part of this.  Even Forever-DMs deal with characters.



Retreater said:


> To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).



With 5e there has never been action economy trading - if players bring in rules from other games and other editions that is not on 5e or OneD&D to solve.

On the other hand I agree wholehearedly about the bonus action casting; it's confusing in several ways.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> There's a scientific reason for this. The PBS-funded Youtube channel "Be Smart" (previously known as "It's Okay to be Smart") has a video on the effect. Long story short, stress messes with your sense of time.



yup... so does relaxation, and long before we had fancy science terms for it "a watched pot never boils"


----------



## SkidAce

JEB said:


> I feel your pain. First time I tried to play Rifts, I made a rogue scholar PC, and the GM was visibly disappointed in my choice. (Shockingly, it didn't get past one session.)



Our rogue scholar lived for several months of play time.

Granted, he stayed OUT of the big outdoor mecha versus mega battles.  He drove the truck and coordinated from the rear, like Professor X or something.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Hussar said:


> Now, just to take this particular example and run with it.
> 
> In 10 years, I can't remember the last time a rogue bothered with a free item interaction from his subclass.  I'm sure it happened.  I have no doubt it happened at some point, but, it was so infrequent that removing that would make pretty much zero difference.
> 
> So, I have to ask, how often has this come up in your last campaign?  Or whenever you've either played (or DM'd a player who had) a rogue character?  Would this make even the slightest difference in your game?  Because it honestly wouldn't in mine.  Until just now, I'd actually completely forgotten that this existed.
> 
> I wonder just how often people start talking about how these are "huge" changes but don't actually take the time to drill down to how much of a real impact it would have in their games.



in a campaign... about a year (remember I just showed I have no sense of time) ago we had a theif with a healers kit and the healer feat to bonus action stabalize and bonus action heal (once per short rest per target) as a back up healer who ended up being our primary incombat healing sometimes.

That experence made us in our artificer game have our prime healer take the healer feat even WITHOUT being able to BA it.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Now, just to take this particular example and run with it.
> 
> In 10 years, I can't remember the last time a rogue bothered with a free item interaction from his subclass.  I'm sure it happened.  I have no doubt it happened at some point, but, it was so infrequent that removing that would make pretty much zero difference.
> 
> So, I have to ask, how often has this come up in your last campaign?  Or whenever you've either played (or DM'd a player who had) a rogue character?  Would this make even the slightest difference in your game?  Because it honestly wouldn't in mine.  Until just now, I'd actually completely forgotten that this existed.



I admit, I haven't used it compared to the dash or hide use of the bonus action. I kind of wonder if this has been a problem because people forget that Fast Hands can't be used to activate magic items that require an action (DMG 141)?


----------



## SkidAce

Charlaquin said:


> It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems _significantly_ more extreme since.



Both.

/throws hands up in the air and waves cane before going back into the house from the porch...


----------



## Maxperson

Still no packet WotC!  Some of us night owls have not only stayed up late, but gotten up early to get kids ready for school.  Tick tock!


----------



## billd91

Retreater said:


> To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).



I think a lot of this really has to come down to player style. I've got players for whom this is not a problem at all, and a couple for whom it is. But those players with problems are more likely to be the ones looking to squeeze the most out of every combat round's actions anyway no matter what the action economy or D&D edition. That's the way they play every game and they'd be doing it whether or not they could swap action types around.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems _significantly_ more extreme since.



Must be you...



> _>




<_<

~fondly pets The Device~


----------



## Blue

Maxperson said:


> Still no packet WotC!  Some of us night owls have not only stayed up late, but gotten up early to get kids ready for school.  Tick tock!



NEXT PACKET IS UP!

Cleric and Revised Species (Dragonborn, Ardling and Goliath), plus Rules Summary






						Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond
					






					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## Remathilis

I love that these debate ends up the same point and counterpoint.

"WotC doesn't listen to us!" 
Did you use the survey to voice your opinion?
"No, even if I did, they'd just ignore it!"
Did you watch the response video where they talked about the results?
"Yeah. It's all spin. It's an echo chamber!"
Maybe it's because you didn't engage with them when they requested feedback?
"No. I think they are out of touch."


----------



## Azzy

Remathilis said:


> after four elf types with unique racial traits, the 1D elf combined the three subraces into "lineages" which only differ by the free spells known is a regression. Worse, the wood elf became another spellcasting elf type rather than a more physical one. Ideally, I'd like to see three unique sets of racial traits. If that's not doable, then (sigh) combine the wood and high elf and keep drow unique separate.



I loathe what they did to most of the races, but I think the wood elf is the biggest offender IMO. Getting Mask of the Wild replaced by crappy spells is just insulting.


----------



## Reynard

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is people for you.



Actually I feel like they're mostly against me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Morrus said:


> Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it.



_Gulps nervously_ I guess I'm in the 1000 who started it but didn't finish. Feeling a bit bad given how many did!

Hopefully the new Aardling focuses on the beast-person part of its identity. D&D is surprisingly light on beast-people, except cats and birds. We don't need more Aasimar-types though, the Aasimar is fine.

Sad to hear the 70% passing grade is back. WotC management hasn't improved much, then, but I suspect the attitude is "If it ain't broke...", which will backfire eventually (it does 100% of the time), but eventually can be a long time (or a very short and surprising one).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> _Gulps nervously_ I guess I'm in the 1000 who started it but didn't finish. Feeling a bit bad given how many did!
> 
> Hopefully the new Aardling focuses on the beast-person part of its identity. D&D is surprisingly light on beast-people, except cats and birds. We don't need more Aasimar-types though, the Aasimar is fine.
> 
> Sad to hear the 70% passing grade is back. WotC management hasn't improved much, then, but I suspect the attitude is "If it ain't broke...", which will backfire eventually (it does 100% of the time), but eventually can be a long time (or a very short and surprising one).



Sadly to me the ardling still hits the celestial side pretty hard.


----------



## Morrus

Ruin Explorer said:


> _Gulps nervously_ I guess I'm in the 1000 who started it but didn't finish. Feeling a bit bad given how many did!



The weird thing? That's not a long way off the number of people who playtested _Level Up_. That number surprises me.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Hussar said:


> You do realize that they aren't talking about their methodology right?



You don't need to talk about your methodology to give actually meaningful statistics.



Hussar said:


> They're distilling it down for those of us who aren't statististions and really, really, don't care about the math.



You can distill it down while still not leaving out the information needed to draw useful conclusions. In fact, you _should_ do so. This is like saying that a graph with an _unlabelled_ shortened vertical axis is perfectly acceptable. It isn't. It may be drilling down on the difference, but making it look like thing X is massively smaller than thing Y when they're _actually_ only five percentage points apart is a classic form of manipulating the perception of data.



Hussar said:


> Why would you assume that not only are they doing it in-house, but also they should lay every point out in the open so that armchair statisticians should be able to second guess every single thing they say?



Because actual statisticians would never make the types of errors they're making, and anyone who cared about making surveys that collect _useful data_ rather than simply reinforcing the intended results would ABSOLUTELY NEVER make the kinds of surveys and polls from the D&D Next playtest--and I've seen nothing from the surveys since which suggest anything else.

Should you have even the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary, I will immediately retract all such assertions and profusely apologize. I strongly suspect you do not have such evidence.



Hussar said:


> FFS, take it at face value.  Presume, just for a moment, that a multi-million dollar project that has this enormous load of information, just maybe hires a firm that knows what they're doing?



It is difficult to make that presumption when I know, both from personal training and from working with someone whose _literal doctoral field of expertise_ is this specific subject, that these surveys are very poorly designed. If WotC _is_ hiring an "expert," they absolutely aren't getting what they're paying for.



Hussar said:


> Why the automatic presumption that they are lying or being deceptive?



Lying? I didn't say lying. I said "deceptive statistics." Because it is EXTREMELY EASY to be deceptive with statistics. It is extremely easy to do so WITHOUT ANY ILL INTENT, because statistics is an _extremely difficult_ field that involves _frequently counter-intuitive thinking_. E.g. when Gerd Gigerenzer gave a series of lectures on the subject, he asked medical doctors to evaluate a hypothetical situation. Without any further info: otherwise asymptomatic woman, whose age cohort has a 1% incidence of breast cancer, takes a breast cancer screening, which has a 10% false negative rate and a ~9% false positive rate. She gets a positive result. _Based only on this information,_ what are the patient's chances of having breast cancer? The _correct_ answer is approximately 1 in 11; in at least one lecture, _over half of the gynecologists present_ incorrectly selected "9 in 10" from the four choices presented. They themselves would be deceiving with statistics by telling the woman that result, _despite being actively interested in giving her correct information_.

Statistics are incredibly slippery, difficult things. They need to be handled with care. Presenting statistical information offhandedly is one of the greatest ways to bamboozle someone--and it often happens even when people very much, very explicitly, _want_ to be truthful, accurate, and supportive.



Hussar said:


> They're telling you flat out that with certain bands they will react in particular ways.  Seems pretty straightforward.
> 
> Oh, and, they have to be able to distill that huge amount of information in a couple of months.    Yeah, I think I'll settle for taking what they say at pretty much face value thanks.  Endlessly kvetching about their methodology when you aren't actually privy to it is a bit too far into conspiracy theory territory for me.



An actual statistician can prepare that kind of information much, much, much, MUCH faster than "in a couple of months." The kinds of straightforward, relatively ordinary statistical analysis here barely even requires training to make use of. We aren't even talking ANOVA, this is literally just summary statistics, stuff a computer can literally spit out for you in milliseconds once all the data is entered. That's yet another reason why I'm convinced they aren't making use of anyone on staff nor any consultants, because this kind of analysis _isn't that difficult_, and yet we're still seeing evidence that it's not happening, that the statistics are handled in a fashion that wouldn't pass muster in a second-term statistics class, let alone with a professional statistician.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think they probably just don’t feel the need to deep dive on their statistics, and just talk overall satisfaction, rather than boring 90% of video viewers with “this is how we derive the overall satisfaction percentage.”



It doesn't need a deep dive. "Ratings for dragonborn were 3.76 +/- 0.95 (two SD)." That gives REAMS more information than "70% of responses were positive." Even for a total layman, you now know that almost everyone gave a 3 or a 4, leaning toward 4--some people gave 5s, more than the people who gave 2s, and 1s are quite rare. With that, we can see that the response is favorable but not fervent.

And it is trivial to present that information in table form.

For goodness' sake, this is the kind of thing we _demand_ from political polling, which almost everyone is at least loosely aware of. We know that polls have a listed "margin of error" and that that margin of error is relevant and needs to be accounted for. Giving something similar here cannot possibly be that difficult, if they really want to stick with proportion statistics rather than something more generally useful.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Yup. These surveys haven't had a statistician near them. And they're being used like a drunk uses a lamp post; for support rather than illumination.

They're a basic temperature check more than anything else.


----------



## Jaeger

overgeeked said:


> *I think you mean proportionally.*




Yes, that thing. If it is better than what I said, then that's what I meant! 




overgeeked said:


> I think that's intentional. 5E is very much a player-focused game. Almost every single book, even the modules, includes PC options...because WotC knows there's 10 players to every 1 DM. Their fanbase is the players. Not the DMs. But, *they need the DMs to run their games.*




That's the thing. 

WotC said that their average "campaign" lasts something like six sessions. I just don't see how that is enough time to engage enough players to become the hobbyist GM's that will support the game years down the road.




Cruentus said:


> My son who is 13 doesn't care about optimization, and *would rather get on with the story and creative descriptions of the action (i.e. the rules get in the way for him)*_._ He is a voracious reader, but finds the rules as presented in the PHB to be complicated and convoluted for no reason that he can discern. He did DM for one group, but he decided to run a non-DnD RPG game, which the group is enjoying much more. They are having fun, which is the whole point.




_In my opinion; _A lot of people of this sensibility would be far more satisfied with something like _Dungeon World_ as a rules set. That being said, DW cannot compete with D&D for it's player network, and brand IP cachet...

So D&D it is.




Mortus said:


> Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that *they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. *I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game.




If WotC really wanted to make them optional, then they should have not put them in the PHB...

Of course, your table your rules. But in the wider D&D sphere, it seems that if it is in the PHB; players have the expectation that it's on the table. 

WotC seems to be reacting to that, hence a feat at level one for D&Done.




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Get the elf variants back under a half-dozen and we can talk.




Don't get me started!

There are _only two_ types of Elves: 

The good Elves that live on the surface, and may choose to live in a forest, or cities. Sometimes they will bless the other races with their presence, then shortly leave because of the smell.

Then you have the _Evil_, demon worshipping, boogeyman elves known as the Drow. Where even in a D&D world they are considered more of a legend used to scare children at night rather than anything real...

And all Drow info is in the MM and DMG.




Mecheon said:


> Gnomes and Halfings thing isn't just "Being small". Gnomes are small fey-ish folk with the talking to animals, alongside the tinkerer, and are honestly closer to elves than they are halflings, wheras Halflings are their hobbits with the serial numbers filed off selves




Still no need for both.

Take some hobbit traits, give them to the Gnomes, done.

One small race only please...


----------



## Blue

EzekielRaiden said:


> It doesn't need a deep dive. "Ratings for dragonborn were 3.76 +/- 0.95 (two SD)." That gives REAMS more information than "70% of responses were positive." Even for a total layman, you now know that almost everyone gave a 3 or a 4, leaning toward 4--some people gave 5s, more than the people who gave 2s, and 1s are quite rare. With that, we can see that the response is favorable but not fervent.



I work in a highly technical field.  I routinely think about my audience when speaking and writing and make sure that I target their skill level.  If I was doing a spoken presentation for a large, non-professional audience I would absolutely make sure that I couched items in easy to digest bits aimed at the lowest common denominator being able to assimilate before I moved onto my next sentence.  Especially if it's a supporting item.  Your average person does not have a grasp of what two standard deviations means, so that's just technogabble getting in the way of understanding.  They could understand 3.76 +/- 0.95, but it will likely take longer than my next sentence to work out the details of that so it's either wasted (and therefore confusion-making) detail or it means they will lose the thread and miss stuff as they work it out.

Sorry, what you suggest would be a mistake to present in a video to a large and varied audience.  Regardless if they have it in that format.  They're going to take the simplest to understand at a spoken rate and say 75%.  Not even 75.2% that the 3.76 would have given out of 5.

The format used and the widely varying audience pretty much ensure what you want would not be presented regardless if they have well done statistics or have only what you worry they have.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

EzekielRaiden said:


> It doesn't need a deep dive. "Ratings for dragonborn were 3.76 +/- 0.95 (two SD)." That gives REAMS more information than "70% of responses were positive." Even for a total layman, you now know that almost everyone gave a 3 or a 4, leaning toward 4--some people gave 5s, more than the people who gave 2s, and 1s are quite rare. With that, we can see that the response is favorable but not fervent.



I think you are giving laypeople _way_ too much credit, given how laypeople think that both weather forecasters and political polling are wildly inaccurate. (They're not, and weather prediction in particular has gotten incredibly accurate in the last decade.)

The level of innumeracy in the general public means we'd have even more bad takes on this data, just with added bad math. Admittedly, it'd be funny to see people arguing about how statistics work in YouTube comments, but I think the end result would be about the same as it is now.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Jaeger said:


> Still no need for both.
> 
> Take some hobbit traits, give them to the Gnomes, done.
> 
> One small race only please...



Again, we have many PHB species -- independent of elves -- with fewer differences than gnomes and halflings currently have.

Yes, WotC _could_ merge them together (and given what they did to each of them in 4E, I would have preferred they do that then), but they're still plenty distinct, even if they're not the choice for every player. (I mean, I've never played a cleric, but that doesn't mean I want them taken out of the PHB.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

wicked cool said:


> I remember the strength percentile roll from before 3e. And 18 01% was very different from an 18 100%. That role as a very young person felt like it could make or break a fighter



It was remarkable how many times the percentile dice (which have really dropped in popularity in the WotC era, now that I think about it) would come up with a 100 when the DM and other players went to the bathroom while the fighter was rolling up their character.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> (They're not, and weather prediction in particular has gotten incredibly accurate in the last decade.)



The problem isn't that weather forecasting is inaccurate; it is, _on the macro scale_, indeed incredibly accurate. Sometimes accurate out to weeks in advance, rarely off by more than a few degrees, etc.

The problem is that the very specific singular thing people REALLY REALLY want to know--_"will the weather be inclement during this specific time frame in this specific urban location?"_--is an extremely difficult question to answer. It depends on a host of variables which are very difficult to directly observe, especially in real time, conditions which change rapidly and often without warning, and which frequently covers (from a meteorological perspective) extremely slim tracts of land, perhaps even as small as a single street or park. _That_ kind of prediction is still spotty at best, but of course that's the thing people want to know the most and always have. "Will I need my umbrella if I take a walk now?" You can tell a whole city if they should expect rain everywhere, but telling a single neighborhood to expect intermittent light showers for a couple hours is extraordinarily difficult.

This causes laypeople to _think_ weather prediction is garbage, because _for their lived everyday experience_, yes, it is an extremely rough measure. (The fact that the percentage chance of precipitation you hear on weather reports may actually be any of the following (with made-up numbers):
A) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, 40% experienced some level of precipitation, thus there is an 40% chance that precipitation will occur
B) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, the forecaster is 80% certain that precipitation will occur, but only cover 50% of the area under analysis, thus there is a 40% chance that any given randomly-chosen area will experience precipitation.
C) There is a precipitation source (e.g. cloud front) moving toward the area, which will apply 100% coverage of precipitation, but the forecaster is only 40% certain that the source will _reach_ the destination in the prediction period, thus there is a 40% chance that precipitation will occur.

_ALL_ of these mean something different from what most people _think_ "chance of rain" means, which they interpret in the casual, ordinary-people sense of "this is the chance that, if I were to go outside today, rain would fall on me." The second case, for example, could be as high as 100% "chance of rain" in the casual sense if the person wanting the report is expecting to travel around the area in question quite a bit.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> It doesn't need a deep dive. "Ratings for dragonborn were 3.76 +/- 0.95 (two SD)." That gives REAMS more information than "70% of responses were positive." Even for a total layman, you now know that almost everyone gave a 3 or a 4, leaning toward 4--some people gave 5s, more than the people who gave 2s, and 1s are quite rare. With that, we can see that the response is favorable but not fervent.
> 
> And it is trivial to present that information in table form.
> 
> For goodness' sake, this is the kind of thing we _demand_ from political polling, which almost everyone is at least loosely aware of. We know that polls have a listed "margin of error" and that that margin of error is relevant and needs to be accounted for. Giving something similar here cannot possibly be that difficult, if they really want to stick with proportion statistics rather than something more generally useful.



We demand more detail from political polling because it matters. 

Beyond that, others have replied quite well to this, so I’ll it at that for now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> The problem isn't that weather forecasting is inaccurate; it is, _on the macro scale_, indeed incredibly accurate. Sometimes accurate out to weeks in advance, rarely off by more than a few degrees, etc.
> 
> The problem is that the very specific singular thing people REALLY REALLY want to know--_"will the weather be inclement during this specific time frame in this specific urban location?"_--is an extremely difficult question to answer. It depends on a host of variables which are very difficult to directly observe, especially in real time, conditions which change rapidly and often without warning, and which frequently covers (from a meteorological perspective) extremely slim tracts of land, perhaps even as small as a single street or park. _That_ kind of prediction is still spotty at best, but of course that's the thing people want to know the most and always have. "Will I need my umbrella if I take a walk now?" You can tell a whole city if they should expect rain everywhere, but telling a single neighborhood to expect intermittent light showers for a couple hours is extraordinarily difficult.
> 
> This causes laypeople to _think_ weather prediction is garbage, because _for their lived everyday experience_, yes, it is an extremely rough measure. (The fact that the percentage chance of precipitation you hear on weather reports may actually be any of the following (with made-up numbers):
> A) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, 40% experienced some level of precipitation, thus there is an 40% chance that precipitation will occur
> B) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, the forecaster is 80% certain that precipitation will occur, but only cover 50% of the area under analysis, thus there is a 40% chance that any given randomly-chosen area will experience precipitation.
> C) There is a precipitation source (e.g. cloud front) moving toward the area, which will apply 100% coverage of precipitation, but the forecaster is only 40% certain that the source will _reach_ the destination in the prediction period, thus there is a 40% chance that precipitation will occur.
> 
> _ALL_ of these mean something different from what most people _think_ "chance of rain" means, which they interpret in the casual, ordinary-people sense of "this is the chance that, if I were to go outside today, rain would fall on me." The second case, for example, could be as high as 100% "chance of rain" in the casual sense if the person wanting the report is expecting to travel around the area in question quite a bit.



Is there a context in which you feel this adds to the actual discussion?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> We demand more detail from political polling because it matters.
> 
> Beyond that, others have replied quite well to this, so I’ll it at that for now.



My point wasn't that this should be demanded or not.

It's that, if we _do_ demand this for _some kind_ of data that almost all people get regularly (and vigorously...) exposed to on a regular basis, at least in most Western countries, the it _should not_ be some weird bizarro expectation to think that people can _understand_ that data. Particularly with the margin-of-error stuff. That shows up in damn near all survey stuff out there. Why shouldn't it show up here?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> My point wasn't that this should be demanded or not.
> 
> It's that, if we _do_ demand this for _some kind_ of data that almost all people get regularly (and vigorously...) exposed to on a regular basis, at least in most Western countries, the it _should not_ be some weird bizarro expectation to think that people can _understand_ that data. Particularly with the margin-of-error stuff. That shows up in damn near all survey stuff out there. Why shouldn't it show up here?



Because it isn’t needed, and no, demanding in it one area does not mean that everyone, or even most people, actually understand it or care.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> Is there a context in which you feel this adds to the actual discussion?



That statistics are easy to abuse and easy to confuse someone with, _even when your literal job is to tell people useful statistics._

The literal job of a weather forecaster is to tell people useful statistics. That is what they do. That is what they _want_ to do. I genuinely believe they WANT to be useful and helpful to the general public. But crappy statistical presentation can quite literally cause them to do exactly the opposite.


----------



## tetrasodium

EzekielRaiden said:


> The problem isn't that weather forecasting is inaccurate; it is, _on the macro scale_, indeed incredibly accurate. Sometimes accurate out to weeks in advance, rarely off by more than a few degrees, etc.
> 
> The problem is that the very specific singular thing people REALLY REALLY want to know--_"will the weather be inclement during this specific time frame in this specific urban location?"_--is an extremely difficult question to answer. It depends on a host of variables which are very difficult to directly observe, especially in real time, conditions which change rapidly and often without warning, and which frequently covers (from a meteorological perspective) extremely slim tracts of land, perhaps even as small as a single street or park. _That_ kind of prediction is still spotty at best, but of course that's the thing people want to know the most and always have. "Will I need my umbrella if I take a walk now?" You can tell a whole city if they should expect rain everywhere, but telling a single neighborhood to expect intermittent light showers for a couple hours is extraordinarily difficult.
> 
> This causes laypeople to _think_ weather prediction is garbage, because _for their lived everyday experience_, yes, it is an extremely rough measure. (The fact that the percentage chance of precipitation you hear on weather reports may actually be any of the following (with made-up numbers):
> A) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, 40% experienced some level of precipitation, thus there is an 40% chance that precipitation will occur
> B) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, the forecaster is 80% certain that precipitation will occur, but only cover 50% of the area under analysis, thus there is a 40% chance that any given randomly-chosen area will experience precipitation.
> C) There is a precipitation source (e.g. cloud front) moving toward the area, which will apply 100% coverage of precipitation, but the forecaster is only 40% certain that the source will _reach_ the destination in the prediction period, thus there is a 40% chance that precipitation will occur.
> 
> _ALL_ of these mean something different from what most people _think_ "chance of rain" means, which they interpret in the casual, ordinary-people sense of "this is the chance that, if I were to go outside today, rain would fall on me." The second case, for example, could be as high as 100% "chance of rain" in the casual sense if the person wanting the report is expecting to travel around the area in question quite a bit.



You can get the level of precision that you are asking for , here's an old article about IBM's deep thunder.  It has a very high bar in the amount of inputs & number crunching capabilities needed to improve accuracy though & those results tend to be both purpose done as well as expensive.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

EzekielRaiden said:


> The problem isn't that weather forecasting is inaccurate; it is, _on the macro scale_, indeed incredibly accurate. Sometimes accurate out to weeks in advance, rarely off by more than a few degrees, etc.
> 
> The problem is that the very specific singular thing people REALLY REALLY want to know--_"will the weather be inclement during this specific time frame in this specific urban location?"_--is an extremely difficult question to answer.



That's actually where most of the gains have been made in recent years. I use a variant of Dark Sky on my phone (Mostly Sunny) and it can predict, to the minute, when rain will start in my area. My son and I have run trials to see if it works and it does, very consistently.

A lot of these complaints are legacy opinions from when weather prediction was much worse. My kids have grown up in a world where, when we look at the weather prediction on the way to school each day, we can be pretty much guaranteed it'll be correct.


EzekielRaiden said:


> _ALL_ of these mean something different from what most people _think_ "chance of rain" means, which they interpret in the casual, ordinary-people sense of "this is the chance that, if I were to go outside today, rain would fall on me." The second case, for example, could be as high as 100% "chance of rain" in the casual sense if the person wanting the report is expecting to travel around the area in question quite a bit.



The lack of understanding what the predictions mean is definitely a big issue in both the case of weather prediction and political polling, I agree.

I spent a lot of time yelling at my screen during the election when people were shocked and angry that their candidate, who had a 60% chance of winning, lost. If you had to have an operation that had a 40% chance of being fatal, you wouldn't be making any long-term plans. But vast swaths of the American public -- including a lot of people who ought to know better, like national political reporters -- cannot get their head around this. 

We need to get all these people to play some D&D. A few saving throws later, I think they're going to have a lot better grasp of statistics than they do now.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> We demand more detail from political polling because it matters.



True. But what we're measuring is also changing -- people have stopped answering phone calls from pollsters, which means that pollsters are trying to find better polling methods and so far, that's been hard, even with increased statistical rigor and the better computerized tools at their disposal.


----------



## cbwjm

Azzy said:


> I loathe what they did to most of the races, but I think the wood elf is the biggest offender IMO. Getting Mask of the Wild replaced by crappy spells is just insulting.



Yeah, I loved that woof elf ability, I'll probably drop the onednd wood elf and keep the original version.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> That statistics are easy to abuse and easy to confuse someone with, _even when your literal job is to tell people useful statistics._
> 
> The literal job of a weather forecaster is to tell people useful statistics. That is what they do. That is what they _want_ to do. I genuinely believe they WANT to be useful and helpful to the general public. But crappy statistical presentation can quite literally cause them to do exactly the opposite.



Okay. What does they have to do with the topic? 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> True. But what we're measuring is also changing -- people have stopped answering phone calls from pollsters, which means that pollsters are trying to find better polling methods and so far, that's been hard, even with increased statistical rigor and the better computerized tools at their disposal.



Sure. IMO, the actual topic doesn’t much resemble political polling, though. 

Especially in terms of what info needs to be presented and how.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

cbwjm said:


> Yeah, I loved that woof elf ability, I'll probably drop the onednd wood elf and keep the original version.



i know you meant wood... but I have lived through so many editions with so many elf subraces or (NOT ELF) races that I really thought for a moment woof was a elf subrace... I need some sleep


----------



## Oofta

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.




Those were mentioned and we'll see something next year.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.



I hope that when we see the dm facing stuff they have retooled CR.


Retreater said:


> To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).



I have a player in a game I play in that gets annoyed they can't trade a full action for a second bonus action


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GMforPowergamers said:


> i know you meant wood... but I have lived through so many editions with so many elf subraces or (NOT ELF) races that I really thought for a moment woof was a elf subrace... I need some sleep



The cooshee says "woof."

(I can only assume that Gygax got a dog around this time that he was very excited about.)


----------



## MNblockhead

Azzy said:


> Right, it's better to try to get your voice heard in a place where WotC is actually listening rather than just lament on random social media site (like these message boards) that WotC isn't sharing your vision.
> 
> I'm definitely not happy about all the changes, and I'm definitely letting WotC know. Will my opinions be shared by enough people, who knows, but I'm going to throw them out there nonetheless.



Could have an effect. I read discussions and debates on the play test materials in these boards for a few days before I read the play test materials. I find it helps me note things that might not have stood out and lets me think more about what I like and how things may work in actual play. I don't have time to play test everything and even if I did, unlikely I would play test it long enough. Whether people love or hate a proposed change, when they take the time to explain why they feel the way they do about it, it helps me better suss out how I might actually like or dislike it in a real campaign.


----------



## Oofta

cbwjm said:


> Yeah, I loved that woof elf ability, I'll probably drop the onednd wood elf and keep the original version.



Woof elf?  Is that half dog ardling half elf?


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> And yet so many people assert so emphatically that it will.




So many people do not agree on what "backwards compatibility" means.


----------



## Blue

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The cooshee says "woof."
> 
> (I can only assume that Gygax got a dog around this time that he was very excited about.)



It's likely from Cu Sidhe, the Scottish/Irish faerie hound.






						Cù-sìth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Micah Sweet

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It was remarkable how many times the percentile dice (which have really dropped in popularity in the WotC era, now that I think about it) would come up with a 100 when the DM and other players went to the bathroom while the fighter was rolling up their character.



They went to the bathroom together?


----------



## Mecheon

Jaeger said:


> Still no need for both.
> 
> Take some hobbit traits, give them to the Gnomes, done.
> 
> One small race only please...



They're not removing either of them. They're too tied into D&D's legacy at this point to the point that, if you removed one, not only would people absolutely complain (As folks did in 4E for gnomes), but you'd have to just bring them back in settings books for all of the settings that use them

And there's plenty of room for more than just two! Goblins, pixies, grippili, even nycter if we want to dig a bit


----------



## darjr

How about 
“Variant species stastictics “


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope that when we see the dm facing stuff they have retooled CR.



I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> I admit, I haven't used it compared to the dash or hide use of the bonus action. I kind of wonder if this has been a problem because people forget that Fast Hands can't be used to activate magic items that require an action (DMG 141)?




That’s been my experience. Dash and hide are overwhelmingly used more often than Fast Hands.


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> I want real change to the game, but what can I do besides take a survey and respond "scrap most of this and do something new, or just reprint the 2014 version with a new commemorative cover."



Not sure I follow, reprinting the 2014 edition seems to be the opposite of real change, so why would you want them to do that.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> Because their surveys remain incredibly badly designed and they use primitive, simplistic metrics like raw proportion of positive response rate without, for instance, trying to capture the strength of the feeling or get anything even remotely more statistically manageable than binary yes/no.



you get the strength of the feeling from there being 39000 answers....


----------



## Micah Sweet

mamba said:


> Not sure I follow, reprinting the 2014 edition seems to be the opposite of real change, so why would you want them to do that.



I believe they want one or the other, not the half-measure we're being given.


----------



## Dausuul

Reynard said:


> I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.



How so? You can still play the adventures just like before. The encounters are no better or worse designed than they were. If a fixed CR/encounter system reveals that the encounters are badly leveled, it's not "breaking" anything; only casting light on something that was _always_ broken but you couldn't tell.

I suppose it might impact XP awards for tables that use XP, but the changes would have to be really dramatic to have a significant impact.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.



Do they though ? The adventures stay as good or broken as they already are as their encounters won't change. You just might then have better tools to identify that they were unbalanced.

I don't think we get a much better solution to this though, because there is no easy answer to it. Correctly estimating encounter difficulty is difficult, too many variables.


----------



## mamba

Micah Sweet said:


> I believe they want one or the other, not the half-measure we're being given.



Agreed, but imo you cannot on the one hand say 'we need real change that goes way beyond what the playtests offer' and at the same time also say 'but I am also ok with things staying exactly as they are, just run another reprint'.

To me the OP does not like the 5e, whether in the 2014 incarnation or as 1D&D, so what this really means is 'too little change to get me interested in 5e'.

Apart from obviously being free to simply stick with the 2014 version (not that I believe they do, see above), no reprint needed for that


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Reynard said:


> And yet so many people assert so emphatically that it will.



None. No one is claiming that the new versions of a given thing will be totally compatible with the specific thing tha replaces it. 

But, you will be able to use an old life clerics domain with a new cleric class, or vise versa, because they are specifically avoiding creating incompatibility between the new classes and existing subclasses.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.




No.

For one thing, I don't think we have a guarantee that the adventures are all built strictly on the CR and encounter design guidelines in the DMG.  If not, then how those systems are revised isn't relevant.

Plus, if CR and encounter design need to be "fixed", that means they are currently broken - and any adventures made following those rules are also _already broken_.  Changing CR and encounter design in the DMG isn't going to break what is already broken.

Doubleplus - the CR and encounter guidelines are advice, not strict rules upon which the balance of the game hangs by its fingernails.


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> No.
> 
> For one thing, I don't think we have a guarantee that the adventures are all built strictly on the CR and encounter design guidelines in the DMG.  If not, then how those systems are revised isn't relevant.
> 
> Plus, if CR and encounter design need to be "fixed", that means they are currently broken - and any adventures made following those rules are also _already broken_.  Changing CR and encounter design in the DMG isn't going to break what is already broken.
> 
> Doubleplus - the CR and encounter guidelines are advice, not strict rules upon which the balance of the game hangs by its fingernails.



Yes, if the adventures didn't actually follow the design for CR, then it won't matter. If that's the case, congratulations,  you have proven that CR and encounter design are naughty word and the "fix" for 1D&D should be to just eliminate it.

But, if you do adjust individual creatures CRs and what constitutes encounters of different difficulties, and you actually used that system to build adventures, then by definition it is going to break the encounter design of those adventures? How is this even a point of connection? It is very basic logic.

We built this adventure on the premise that A+B=C. But then we realized A+B=D and codified that in the rules. Since C=/=D, the adventures are therefore broken.
And that's not even taking into account the shifts in power curve occurring in the playtest as well as changes to things like crits that will undeniably have an impact on play.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Blue said:


> It's likely from Cu Sidhe, the Scottish/Irish faerie hound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cù-sìth - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Still a very unnecessary thing to add. (Also, I am highly skeptical about any dog preferring a claw attack to a bite.)


----------



## Azzy

GMforPowergamers said:


> i know you meant wood... but I have lived through so many editions with so many elf subraces or (NOT ELF) races that I really thought for a moment woof was a elf subrace... I need some sleep



Don't forget the Woof Elf's cousin—the Tweet Elf.


----------



## cbwjm

GMforPowergamers said:


> i know you meant wood... but I have lived through so many editions with so many elf subraces or (NOT ELF) races that I really thought for a moment woof was a elf subrace... I need some sleep



Somewhere out in the world of homebrew, the woof elf exists.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

cbwjm said:


> Somewhere out in the world of homebrew, the woof elf exists.



There are those werewolf elves. Do those count?


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> But, if you do adjust individual creatures CRs and what constitutes encounters of different difficulties, and you actually used that system to build adventures, then by definition it is going to break the encounter design of those adventures? How is this even a point of connection? It is very basic logic.



No, by definition it has zero impact on the encounter design of already published adventures


Reynard said:


> We built this adventure on the premise that A+B=C. But then we realized A+B=D and codified that in the rules. Since C=/=D, the adventures are therefore broken.



yes, it could expose them for being broken, but the encounter would either have been fine or broken regardless, the only difference is it being exposed


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> Yes, if the adventures didn't actually follow the design for CR, then it won't matter. If that's the case, congratulations,  you have proven that CR and encounter design are naughty word and the "fix" for 1D&D should be to just eliminate it.




I have to ask you to keep the rhetoric away from curse words.  

But other than that, no - for one thing, when most folks say CR and encounter design guidelines are "broken" they are saying, "broken" but the problem is actually, "doesn't work _the way they want_".  

For another, these guidelines being flawed does not automatically mean the fix is to eliminate them entirely.  That does not follow in the least.  When your tire goes flat, you don't eliminate tires - you repair or replace them.  'Cuz, so far, making cars levitate isn't practical.


----------



## JEB

DEFCON 1 said:


> Do them the courtesy of not dismissing them out of hand because it's not like you were going to like what WotC made anyways were they to do it.



Who said I, or anyone else in that sub-thread, was dismissing 3P products out of hand? I have literally hundreds of 3P products for 5E, between print and digital, and integrated many of their rules into my games, sometimes in place of the official option. If an official take on, say, non-Medium PCs wasn't to my liking, I could just use one of the alternative approaches. In the meantime, such rules' existence would benefit others who do rely on official options. Seems like a win-win to me.


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.



Or, they have an excuse to revise and re-release existing adventures in new, "rebalanced" forms.


----------



## Jaeger

Quickleaf said:


> It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.




Evidently they all very much wanted to though...




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Again, *we have many PHB species -- independent of elves -- with fewer differences than gnomes and halflings currently have.*




And they _should_ be combined or eliminated altogether as needed.




Mecheon said:


> *They're not removing either of them.*




Of course not!

I have my preferences but I'm not delusional.

If anything, I fully expect WotC to add new races and sub-variants as often as they think that they can get away with it.

They sure aren't gonna let the arselings die on the vine with their 60%ish approval rating. Those guys are absolutely getting rehabbed in every playtest packet until they pass muster!

Yes, I could go through the survey process to 'make my voice heard'... But everyone and their dog here knows that there are some things that WotC just isn't gonna do. And there are also some things that are getting done come hell or high water.


----------



## Retreater

mamba said:


> Not sure I follow, reprinting the 2014 edition seems to be the opposite of real change, so why would you want them to do that.



I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful, they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."
The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience. 
Are DMs beating down the door to tell them to take away monster crits? Are players demanding tremorsense for their dwarves? Is anyone even requesting "a slightly updated version of 5e that most people can't even tell has changed?"
Do it big - or just throw some new art in a book and incorporate errata (like the 2e Players Option era "black border" books).


----------



## Jaeger

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope that when we see the dm facing stuff they have retooled CR.




_In my opinion;_ CR is impossible to get right. Too many variables, too many moving targets. 

At best they can only give you a rough guideline to bounce your game experience off of.




Retreater said:


> I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just *going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful*, *they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."*




Literally their plan.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience.



People asked for level 1 feats. People asked for ASIs to be removed from races. People asked for bad options and overpowered options to be rebalanced. People asked for backgrounds to do more than they did in the 2014 PHB. People love Dwarves having Tremorsense. 

Most of the changes are things "people asked for". The polling proves that. The fact that you don't like them or think they're sufficient doesn't mean that people didn't ask for them or that there's "no real changes" being made. 


Retreater said:


> Do it big - or just throw some new art in a book and incorporate errata (like the 2e Players Option era "black border" books).



"The changes have to be huge, or they shouldn't make changes at all" is a fallacy. There is virtue in making slight tweaks to an extremely popular thing in order to avoid pissing off their player base while still fixing some of the problems with the game. The changes don't have to be big in order for the changes to be valid.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

mamba said:


> you get the strength of the feeling from there being 39000 answers....



....that tells us nothing. You cannot reason from the sample size alone to determine how representative nor how intense the responders' feelings are. That is outright statistical fallacy.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Still a very unnecessary thing to add. (Also, I am highly skeptical about any dog preferring a claw attack to a bite.)



What about all the sad dogs we bred to basically be cats?


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> I have to ask you to keep the rhetoric away from curse words.
> 
> But other than that, no - for one thing, when most folks say CR and encounter design guidelines are "broken" they are saying, "broken" but the problem is actually, "doesn't work _the way they want_".
> 
> For another, these guidelines being flawed does not automatically mean the fix is to eliminate them entirely.  That does not follow in the least.  When your tire goes flat, you don't eliminate tires - you repair or replace them.  'Cuz, so far, making cars levitate isn't practical.



I guess I am not explaining myself well so I wil try again.

If the 5E adventures used the CR and encounter rules in their design, they assume specific values regarding CR and EL by definition. If the 2024 revision of the game changes those CR and EL values then, by definition, the adventures written for 2014 are no long "compatible" with the 2024 rules. If, on the other hand, the adventures weren't designed with the 2014 rules, it proves that those rules were never worthwhile to begin with so revisions of those rules are irrelevant and unnecessary. 

Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely. 

That is to say that a system that doesn't do what it's design intent is to do, is useless. Either fix it or eliminate it.


----------



## Retreater

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> People asked for level 1 feats.



We already had them.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> People asked for ASIs to be removed from races.



Also, already had that too.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Most of the changes are things "people asked for". The polling proves that.



The polling proves that people are happy enough with the game as-is, so nothing really changes. 


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> "The changes have to be huge, or they shouldn't make changes at all" is a fallacy.



Obviously, just "for me." If I'm going to purchase a new rule book (honestly, several copies so I can share with my group), update my digital holdings on Roll20 and other sites, learn the new systems and demand players switch over to the rules, have a clear line of "no, it says in the current book that the game is played THIS way," etc. - If I'm going to invest all that, then yes, I want it to be different enough to warrant it. 
Otherwise it's a free PDF errata.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> We already had them.



Not in the PHB.


Retreater said:


> Also, already had that too.



Not in the PHB. 


Retreater said:


> The polling proves that people are happy enough with the game as-is, so nothing really changes.



If people didn't like the changes and thought that the game was perfect as is, they wouldn't rate the changes highly. 


Retreater said:


> Obviously, just "for me." If I'm going to purchase a new rule book (honestly, several copies so I can share with my group), update my digital holdings on Roll20 and other sites, learn the new systems and demand players switch over to the rules, have a clear line of "no, it says in the current book that the game is played THIS way," etc. - If I'm going to invest all that, then yes, I want it to be different enough to warrant it.
> Otherwise it's a free PDF errata.



There's no problem with that. You don't have to engage with or buy the updated versions if you don't want to. That doesn't mean that they're wrong to do it or that the changes need to be more substantial. It's clear that people are willing to buy just slightly revised and rebalanced versions of content that we already have, as seen in Monsters of the Multiverse.


----------



## Remathilis

Retreater said:


> I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful, they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."
> The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience.
> Are DMs beating down the door to tell them to take away monster crits? Are players demanding tremorsense for their dwarves? Is anyone even requesting "a slightly updated version of 5e that most people can't even tell has changed?"
> Do it big - or just throw some new art in a book and incorporate errata (like the 2e Players Option era "black border" books).



Rhetorically, what do you want? D&D has gone through design whiplash since 3e, with 3e/4e/5e all being so different from each other that you cannot use any material as written previously without extensive rewriting. I kinda wouldn't mind being able to use older spells, treasures and monsters from one revision to the next. 

One of the things that sold me on Pathfinder was the fact it didn't completely invalidate eight years of D&D material. Most of it worked fine with a few changes, and that's about the level of changes I want here. It wasn't perfect, but a darn sight easier than trying to convert anything from 3e to 4e. I have a large collection of 5e stuff and if 1D is close enough to 5e I can use Curse of Strahd monsters or Xanathar spells with it, it's done it's job. 

I'm a little over every edition being a revolution rather than an evolution.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely.




Nope.  Sorry - I find your all-or-nothing view of this not supported by any actual _evidence_ that this is what must be.  All tools are imperfect, but houses get built anyway.


----------



## Retreater

Remathilis said:


> Rhetorically, what do you want? D&D has gone through design whiplash since 3e, with 3e/4e/5e all being so different from each other that you cannot use any material as written previously without extensive rewriting. I kinda wouldn't mind being able to use older spells, treasures and monsters from one revision to the next.



I'll be honest, and it's going to sound terrible.
3.x was out for 8 years and 4e for 5 years.
For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D. 
And the crux of my concern is that people will tire of 5.1 just like I'm tired of 5e. I think that the new fans brought in with 5e can't imagine a system different than 5e, so it's stifling progress when we're all getting outvoted by tens of thousands of gamers who don't really know game design and probably haven't tried an indie game or played anything beyond 5e.
And it sounds gate-keepy, I know, but I want a game designed by designers, not popular vote by a horde of players who outnumber their DMs and want what's best for their PCs over what makes a more dynamic, fun, and balanced experience at the table.


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful, they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."
> The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience.



Sure, these are mostly tweaks, but they do seem to mostly be tweaks for the better and make the whole thing more coherent. Neither of which is bad.

If you feel this is not enough, then do not buy it, it's simple. I am not sure what big changes you want (and by extension whether they would even be considered an improvement by 5e players rather than e.g. the OSR crowd), but WotC is clearly not interested in making any.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> ....that tells us nothing. You cannot reason from the sample size alone to determine how representative nor how intense the responders' feelings are. That is outright statistical fallacy.



Sure I can, if half / the majority of respondents do not like a feature, that is a strong dislike, if most like it, that is a strong like. I doubt the e.g. 15% who do not like a feature based on their reply hate it while the other 85% are only lukewarm, that will be a range on either side.

Not gonna bother with how representative the sample is, neither of us know so it is moot.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> If the 5E adventures used the CR and encounter rules in their design, they assume specific values regarding CR and EL by definition. If the 2024 revision of the game changes those CR and EL values then, by definition, the adventures written for 2014 are no long "compatible" with the 2024 rules.



If the monsters stay the same CR and the rules are improved, I see no downside


Reynard said:


> If, on the other hand, the adventures weren't designed with the 2014 rules, it proves that those rules were never worthwhile to begin with so revisions of those rules are irrelevant and unnecessary.



The rules were not worthless, they just were not perfect. Improvement is always worthwhile.


Reynard said:


> Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely.



Something not being entirely reliable does not make it pointless, I am sure you can think of several things where you want a prediction that is say 90% probable instead of going into it uninformed


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D.



I am sure there is, but you won't see that in the D&D juggernaut, nor should you expect to. If you corner 60% or so of the market, you won't be the one innovating / risking your player base


----------



## mellored

Retreater said:


> If I'm going to invest all that, then yes, I want it to be different enough to warrant it.
> Otherwise it's a free PDF errata.



This is intentional going to have backwards compatability.  It's selling too well to kill now.
So yea, just tweaks.

That said, have you checked out pathfinder 2?  That's different enough.


----------



## Clint_L

Retreater said:


> I want real change. And if they're not going to do that...



They're not going to do that. They've been crystal clear that they are not interested in another edition and are keeping 5e as the basis of OneD&D. Either accept it or move on because that what's happening.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Vaalingrade said:


> What about all the sad dogs we bred to basically be cats?



Ew, do they claw? They really are sad.

(I make it a rule to not interact with dogs smaller than my cats.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden

mamba said:


> Sure I can, if half / the majority of respondents do not like a feature, that is a strong dislike, if most like it, that is a strong like. I doubt the e.g. 15% who do not like a feature based on their reply hate it while the other 85% are only lukewarm, that will be a range on either side.



Not at all. Consider the following hypothetical:
60% of users like it, 40% dislike it.
Half of people who like it (so 30% of the total), like it a lot, and half only like it some.
90% of people who dislike it (so 36% of the overall userbase), dislike it a lot, and 20% (4% of all users) only dislike it some.
People who strongly (dis)like something are guaranteed to respond. People who have mild preferences don't respond.

From this, out of the total body: 30% like it a lot and all of them respond, while 32% dislike it a lot and respond. Even though the userbase has a clear majority which like it--outnumbering the dislikes three to two!--more people dislike it a lot than like it a lot, and thus only a third of all users decide the fate of the whole body.



mamba said:


> Not gonna bother with how representative the sample is, neither of us know so it is moot.



But that is _literally my point_. We have no idea how representative it is, and that is the very _reason_ we cannot conclude that the sentiment is strong based on this!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> I'll be honest, and it's going to sound terrible.
> 3.x was out for 8 years and 4e for 5 years.
> For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D.



Having entirely new editions every 5 to 10 years is bad for the game.


Retreater said:


> And the crux of my concern is that people will tire of 5.1 just like I'm tired of 5e. I think that the new fans brought in with 5e can't imagine a system different than 5e, so it's stifling progress when we're all getting outvoted by tens of thousands of gamers who don't really know game design and probably haven't tried an indie game or played anything beyond 5e.



Most people are not tired of D&D 5e. You're definitely in the minority there. In fact, 5e's still bringing in a ton of new players. And, a big part of why WotC is making these small changes is because they know that 5e is still super popular, but also want to mitigate/remove some of its worse parts to give the system a bit of a boost. 

And, no, most of the community probably doesn't know much about game design and how to balance the game. But they know what ideas and general changes they want from playing the game for years. This is why WotC sends out ideas and proposed changes in the UA, gathers feedback from people that just read it and those that actually playtested it, do their own internal playtesting, and balance the UA content before it gets officially released. 

OneD&D isn't being "designed" by the survey participants. It's being designed by WotC, and they check with their audience to see if that's what people want, and tweak things to make them more popular. 


Retreater said:


> And it sounds gate-keepy, I know, but I want a game designed by designers, not popular vote by a horde of players who outnumber their DMs and want what's best for their PCs over what makes a more dynamic, fun, and balanced experience at the table.



How do you know that the majority of survey respondents are players and not DMs? I'm a DM, and none of my players are even the least bit interested in filling out any of these surveys. We don't have any evidence to support this view. And, also, I'm not sure that players are any worse at knowing what's fun for their game than DMs are.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> Not at all. Consider the following hypothetical:



I agree that you can construe some oddball scenarios to make you point, but to me they are all pretty unlikely. To me this is more or less one continuous range and at some point it tips from like to dislike. Where that is (85/15 or 60/40) tells you how well it is liked overall.


EzekielRaiden said:


> People who have mild preferences don't respond.



that would be in my favor as it makes the percentages more representative (of the people polled, not overall)


EzekielRaiden said:


> But that is _literally my point_. We have no idea how representative it is, and that is the very _reason_ we cannot conclude that the sentiment is strong based on this!



If we have no idea, then it is not worth discussing as you are as likely to be wrong as you are to be right.

If your argument is based on assumptions of which you have no idea whether they are even remotely accurate, then you do not have much of an argument.

My only assumption is that I essentially have a linear transition from ‘love’ to ‘hate’, not a wild curve, then the percentages tell me a lot (within the limit of not knowing how representative my poll is).

As to how representative the poll is, no idea, but 39000 probably makes it more representative than you give it credit for.
You can argue that it is a self-selecting crowd, and I’d argue that so are all 5e players, so that evens that out. I.e. it is probably pretty representative of how 5e players feel about the changes and less so how TTRPG players overall would rate them - but that is probably perfectly ok for WotC’s goals


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.



Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Charlaquin said:


> Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.



Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are..._approximations_ in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).

BUT that first thing still means that there was _some_ effort at _trying_ to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you _cannot_ use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls _doesn't work_ anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.


----------



## Majesticles

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, they could be just as easily saying that Humans are the only PHB race that dwarfism common enough to call for its inclusion.



Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!


> And there are already "only some members of this race have this trait" in D&D. Only some Kobolds have wings (Urds). Only some Hobgoblins have red or blue noses, and it's seen as a blessing from their god. Only some people are born with inherent magic (Sorcerers).



Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; _all_ of them have magic, not some.


> Most of them don't need representation



And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism _need_ to be represented?


> There is no good way *or reason* to mechanically represent Autism or any other mental disorder in D&D.



So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.


> Exactly my point! "Mutations shouldn't be represented in the game" is a terrible guideline for what gets included in the book or not, because all of modern life is a series of mutations on the tree of life that all go back to single-celled organisms a few billion years ago.



That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.


----------



## Charlaquin

EzekielRaiden said:


> Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are..._approximations_ in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).
> 
> BUT that first thing still means that there was _some_ effort at _trying_ to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you _cannot_ use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls _doesn't work_ anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.



So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Majesticles said:


> Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!



It's a fantasy world. 


Majesticles said:


> Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; _all_ of them have magic, not some.



But Hobgoblins occasionally having colorful noses is a (probably genetic) trait that doesn't affect their playability. You said that no other D&D race had a physical trait that only some of them have. Whether or not that trait is magical or a defining aspect of them is not what we were discussing. You're moving the goalposts. 

Humans aren't defined by their height, either. 


Majesticles said:


> And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism _need_ to be represented?



It isn't about need. It's about _can_. As in "can it be included easily without taking up a ton of space or being disruptive". This isn't disruptive. It's just a small bit of inclusion.


Majesticles said:


> So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.



There is an important difference between physical disorders and mental ones. Mental ones still have quite a lot of stigmas with them. And they're a lot harder to represent accurately and respectfully than "some people are 3-4 feet tall instead of the usual 5-6 feet". 


Majesticles said:


> That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.



So? I don't see how that's relevant at all.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Charlaquin said:


> So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.



As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is _completely impossible_ to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position. 

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e _definitely is_ "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring _enough_ adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.


----------



## Remathilis

EzekielRaiden said:


> As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is _completely impossible_ to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.
> 
> Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e _definitely is_ "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.
> 
> I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring _enough_ adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.



I'd say they are on the level of 1e/2e or 3.5/Pathfinder. If you compare a specific element (such as the stats for a hill giant or the fireball spell) they differ, but if you lob a fireball at a hill giant, the mechanics of the resolution will be the same. 

Just a few reasons why I feel 1D is compatible with 5e as compared to older editions:

1. The base math/mechanics hasn't changed. The game is still 1d20+bp+stat. Bounded accuracy is still in play. Advantage and disadvantage are still the go-to modifiers. 

2. The spell resolution system is the same. Six rolled saves based on ability scores, spells scale with slot level. 

3. HP levels are roughly the same. HD still works, the rests mechanics haven't greatly changed. Death saves are still a thing.

4. There has been limited removal of options so far. The changes so far have been the removal of unique stats for half-species and some wizard and cleric subs. It sounds like the vast majority of options will still exist, unlike previous editions that removed classes.

5. Monster math seems like it will be close enough that existing monsters will be compatible. Coupled with the lack of major changes to the resolution system, it means most modules can be run in the system as is. 

These are not true of previous editions of D&D. I can't use a 4e power in 5e except as inspiration for a new spell or ability. A 3e spell that scales will caster level and targets fortitude can't be used as is. I can't use a kit, a prestige class, or an epic destiny in 5e again without ground-up rebuilding, but I'm pretty sure I can use most subclasses with just some elbow grease. That's what backwards compatibility means to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jaeger said:


> _In my opinion;_ CR is impossible to get right. Too many variables, too many moving targets.
> 
> At best they can only give you a rough guideline to bounce your game experience off of.



yeah but I think they could get that rough guide a bit better is all I am saying


Jaeger said:


> Literally their plan.



I know this wasn't addressed to me, but no that is NOT the plan. they aren't just relaseing the 2014 book. No they aren't just releasing the 2014 book+ errata, no the are not releaseing the 2014 book + errata + Tasha's (up till now) optional add ons. 

They are rewriting the book. Bard Ranger and Cleric are already very different, and the entire concept of feats and race/ancestry/heritage/species. Every feat is being rewritten and rebalanced, and spells are changing... now MAYBE you could argue feat and spell are just really advanced errata, and the race change is a zeitgeist change. BUT they are changing conditions as well and how rests work... any one or maybe even two or three of these may make it look hard to call it the same game as 2014, but all at once this is NOT the 2014 book, this is NOT 5e anymore. 

Now that isn't saying it wont be good. Its not saying I wont (maybe) enjoy it more the base 5e... but it is someting new


----------



## Charlaquin

EzekielRaiden said:


> As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is _completely impossible_ to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.
> 
> Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e _definitely is_ "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.
> 
> I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring _enough_ adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.



Yeah, I don’t disagree that 1D&D seems likely to be too different from 5e for “backwards compatible” to be an accurate description. I just don’t think that a better CR and encounter building system would make it backwards _incompatible_ with 5e adventures.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Ew, do they claw? They really are sad.
> 
> (I make it a rule to not interact with dogs smaller than my cats.)



I mean I have been scratched by yorkies and miniature schnauzer but also dalmatians and huskies and shepherds.  none of them I would think as there main attack though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Having entirely new editions every 5 to 10 years is bad for the game.



if this were true 5e would have bombed, it came out after 3e 3.5 4e pathfinder... so everyone had done the 5 to 10 year switch and 5e was amazing and sold like they had $100 bills hidden in the books.

I want to postulate that the reason D&D is #1 is because not in spite of it's changes.


----------



## FrogReaver

EzekielRaiden said:


> The problem isn't that weather forecasting is inaccurate; it is, _on the macro scale_, indeed incredibly accurate. Sometimes accurate out to weeks in advance, rarely off by more than a few degrees, etc.
> 
> The problem is that the very specific singular thing people REALLY REALLY want to know--_"will the weather be inclement during this specific time frame in this specific urban location?"_--is an extremely difficult question to answer. It depends on a host of variables which are very difficult to directly observe, especially in real time, conditions which change rapidly and often without warning, and which frequently covers (from a meteorological perspective) extremely slim tracts of land, perhaps even as small as a single street or park. _That_ kind of prediction is still spotty at best, but of course that's the thing people want to know the most and always have. "Will I need my umbrella if I take a walk now?" You can tell a whole city if they should expect rain everywhere, but telling a single neighborhood to expect intermittent light showers for a couple hours is extraordinarily difficult.
> 
> This causes laypeople to _think_ weather prediction is garbage, because _for their lived everyday experience_, yes, it is an extremely rough measure. (The fact that the percentage chance of precipitation you hear on weather reports may actually be any of the following (with made-up numbers):
> A) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, 40% experienced some level of precipitation, thus there is an 40% chance that precipitation will occur
> B) Under conditions resembling the (predicted) conditions of the day in question, the forecaster is 80% certain that precipitation will occur, but only cover 50% of the area under analysis, thus there is a 40% chance that any given randomly-chosen area will experience precipitation.
> C) There is a precipitation source (e.g. cloud front) moving toward the area, which will apply 100% coverage of precipitation, but the forecaster is only 40% certain that the source will _reach_ the destination in the prediction period, thus there is a 40% chance that precipitation will occur.
> 
> _ALL_ of these mean something different from what most people _think_ "chance of rain" means, which they interpret in the casual, ordinary-people sense of "this is the chance that, if I were to go outside today, rain would fall on me." The second case, for example, could be as high as 100% "chance of rain" in the casual sense if the person wanting the report is expecting to travel around the area in question quite a bit.



Snow is the worst when it’s rain turning to snow or snow turning to rain. They always under or over forecast the snow.


----------



## Oofta

Reynard said:


> I guess I am not explaining myself well so I wil try again.
> 
> If the 5E adventures used the CR and encounter rules in their design, they assume specific values regarding CR and EL by definition. If the 2024 revision of the game changes those CR and EL values then, by definition, the adventures written for 2014 are no long "compatible" with the 2024 rules. If, on the other hand, the adventures weren't designed with the 2014 rules, it proves that those rules were never worthwhile to begin with so revisions of those rules are irrelevant and unnecessary.
> 
> Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely.
> 
> That is to say that a system that doesn't do what it's design intent is to do, is useless. Either fix it or eliminate it.




In my experience you have to adjust encounters for every group no matter what.  That's been true in every edition of the game.  D&D is not  a board game with limited options and constraints for everyone, every group I have ever run for can handle different levels of challenge.  The best any encounter guideline can do is get you in the ballpark, it will always be up to the DM to adjust as needed. A guideline that works for everyone out of the box is impossible.

The guidelines can be improved, but will never be perfect. There's no reason to throw it out because it's imperfect, it just means that it should be improved.  I'd probably also include advice on _how _to adjust, when and why.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> if this were true 5e would have bombed, it came out after 3e 3.5 4e pathfinder... so everyone had done the 5 to 10 year switch and 5e was amazing and sold like they had $100 bills hidden in the books.
> 
> I want to postulate that the reason D&D is #1 is because not in spite of it's changes.



That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.  3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.  I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.


----------



## DEFCON 1

JEB said:


> Who said I, or anyone else in that sub-thread, was dismissing 3P products out of hand? I have literally hundreds of 3P products for 5E, between print and digital, and integrated many of their rules into my games, sometimes in place of the official option. If an official take on, say, non-Medium PCs wasn't to my liking, I could just use one of the alternative approaches. In the meantime, such rules' existence would benefit others who do rely on official options. Seems like a win-win to me.



It's why I tried to make sure I said further up in the post "(general) you"... trying to get across that I wasn't referring to you @JEB specifically... but just anyone out there for whom the statements might have been applicable.  My apologies if you didn't notice it or I wasn't clear.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Ew, do they claw? They really are sad.
> 
> (I make it a rule to not interact with dogs smaller than my cats.)



We built them to burrow after badgers, so they need to claw.

We then decided they need to live indoors and never, ever expend energy, so they're now nervous bundles of daemonic energy.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.  3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.  I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.



Actual causal effects are hard to determine. So we can probably not ever be sure. 

Looking at a graph of PHB sales vs stranger things and big bang theory d&d episodes on the timeline would probably be quite revealing.  I don’t know that we have that though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.



okay but what about the editions before that? 


Maxperson said:


> 3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.



yes I argue this all the time 2e, 4e, 3e, OD&D would have jumped up with all of the hype... but again the entire thing stood strong as number one for 30ish year even though it changed all the time


Maxperson said:


> I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.



right there with you... but again that boom is really the last 5 years and I think Covid it actually helped the game too, or some mix of all of them.

However my guess is what has KEPT D&D #1 since day 1 is becuse it updates and changes.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> now nervous bundles of daemonic energy.



that is totally my Stitch


----------



## DEFCON 1

If enough people believe the 2024 books will be able to be used with and alongside any number of previously published books with little to no issue and that they will be "backwards compatible"...

...then WotC can say their 2024 books are "backwards compatible" and not be the lying heathens a bunch of you want to paint them as.

Just because your 'definition' doesn't match other people's 'definition' of "backwards compatible"... doesn't mean your 'definition' is actually correct.  And in fact... based on how I see a bunch of people throw around terms like "broken"-- a term that has so many 'definitions' at this point amongst the EN World populace it might as well not even exist because it's lost all meaning-- I personally don't believe ANY of your 'definitions' for any of these words, and I don't think WotC should either.  And thankfully, they don't seem to.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I guess I am not explaining myself well so I wil try again.
> 
> If the 5E adventures used the CR and encounter rules in their design, they assume specific values regarding CR and EL by definition. If the 2024 revision of the game changes those CR and EL values then, by definition, the adventures written for 2014 are no long "compatible" with the 2024 rules. If, on the other hand, the adventures weren't designed with the 2014 rules, it proves that those rules were never worthwhile to begin with so revisions of those rules are irrelevant and unnecessary.
> 
> Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely.
> 
> That is to say that a system that doesn't do what it's design intent is to do, is useless. Either fix it or eliminate it.



Wotc doesn't use the DMG guidelines when building encounters or monsters, never have: they have different in-house tools that use spreadsheets. The book guidelines are simplified for ease of use by DMs at home, and they are always fuzzy suggestions rather than strict Math. So, no, changing the loose guidelines to fit DM needs better has no effect on published Adventures, because the combat math remains the same.


----------



## Maxperson

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay but what about the editions before that?



1e and 2e were written fairly poorly.  I suppose it's possible, but I have my doubts that those editions could have taken off in the same way.  They would have jumped in popularity with the main stream surge for sure.  I'm just doubtful that it would have been as big of a surge.


GMforPowergamers said:


> yes I argue this all the time 2e, 4e, 3e, OD&D would have jumped up with all of the hype... but again the entire thing stood strong as number one for 30ish year even though it changed all the time



Yeah  It was number 1, but it was number 1 against other systems with lesser name recognition and without that same spark(at least for me).  Early on the other games tried hard to be D&D in a way that wouldn't get them sued, so they had some silly or just subpar terms for all the same things I already had in D&D.


GMforPowergamers said:


> right there with you... but again that boom is really the last 5 years and I think Covid it actually helped the game too, or some mix of all of them.



Oh, yep.  Covid helped for sure.  A lot of people suddenly had a lot of time on their hands and probably experimented with D&D because of that.


GMforPowergamers said:


> However my guess is what has KEPT D&D #1 since day 1 is becuse it updates and changes.



Maybe.  A great many of the non-D&D names that are not number 1 have also had several updates and changes, yet they have never(other than Pathfinder which is also D&D) come close to knocking D&D out of the top spot.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> Glad to see that we are doing their job for them...



???


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> Now, just to take this particular example and run with it.
> 
> In 10 years, I can't remember the last time a rogue bothered with a free item interaction from his subclass.  I'm sure it happened.  I have no doubt it happened at some point, but, it was so infrequent that removing that would make pretty much zero difference.
> 
> So, I have to ask, how often has this come up in your last campaign?  Or whenever you've either played (or DM'd a player who had) a rogue character?  Would this make even the slightest difference in your game?  Because it honestly wouldn't in mine.  Until just now, I'd actually completely forgotten that this existed.
> 
> I wonder just how often people start talking about how these are "huge" changes but don't actually take the time to drill down to how much of a real impact it would have in their games.




The only really useful move was drawing thrown weapons. But they decided, that you can just draw them when needed in OneDnD. So good riddance.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Maxperson said:


> That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.  3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.  I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.




Highly unlikely.


----------



## Oofta

FrogReaver said:


> Actual causal effects are hard to determine. So we can probably not ever be sure.
> 
> Looking at a graph of PHB sales vs stranger things and big bang theory d&d episodes on the timeline would probably be quite revealing.  I don’t know that we have that though.




People have in the past, there wasn't a huge bump any bigger than what you would expect from general fluctuations. 

There are many things that have lead to 5E's success. Pop culture references to live streams have helped. Cultural changes with acceptance of gaming of all types being more popular and people wanting more interpersonal interactions as well. Throw in a decent rules system with a relatively low barrier to entry. Meanwhile WOTC didn't flood the market with products.

What contributed most? No way to know.


----------



## Maxperson

UngeheuerLich said:


> Highly unlikely.



Okay.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just because your 'definition' doesn't match other people's 'definition' of "backwards compatible"... doesn't mean your 'definition' is actually correct.



I honestly believe that if  most tables used 3.0 and 3.5 together the way most did 1e.2e we would call them backwards compatible... its much more how the tables (overall not 1 spesfic one) use it


----------



## Horwath

GMforPowergamers said:


> I honestly believe that if  most tables used 3.0 and 3.5 together the way most did 1e.2e we would call them backwards compatible... its much more how the tables (overall not 1 spesfic one) use it



we used 3.0 stuff in 3.5 unless that specific thing was rewritten in 3.5.

same with 3.75, err Pathfinder


----------



## OB1

Maxperson said:


> That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.  3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.  I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.



I'm not so sure about that assumption.  The home game played by the Critical Role group was Pathfinder and they specifically switched to 5e because they felt it was better suited to live play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Horwath said:


> we used 3.0 stuff in 3.5 unless that specific thing was rewritten in 3.5.
> 
> same with 3.75, err Pathfinder



yeah but most tables didn't. I have seen people take the weird no name hero thing from sword and fist and update it (since complete warrior skipped that one) but not most. 

Then again I also personally updated 2e things to 3e, and 3.5
I also took 2e and 3/3.5e stuff and updated it to 4e.
In 5e I took it one step father and had an NPC follow the 2e wizard rules and show up as 'the survivor' in a multiverse game... "Some say he is from that last universe"

I also have a spiritual sequel to that multiverse game in the works that would merge WoD, Deadlands, Torg, 2e D&D, 4e D&D, and Rifts characters into a 5e game.


----------



## Staffan

Oofta said:


> Tends to be the same issue for some people with high level rogues once you get reliable talent.  Unless the DM sets up scenarios where literally no one without expertise can hope to achieve the target required, a straight skill check becomes boring.



Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome. This creates a situation where you both have excitement over individual rolls, and (in most cases) a fair bit of certainty that the PCs will come out on top. Overall, PCs will likely have win percentages of 95% or more, even if any individual attack roll might only have a 60% chance to hit.

But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Staffan said:


> Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome. This creates a situation where you both have excitement over individual rolls, and (in most cases) a fair bit of certainty that the PCs will come out on top. Overall, PCs will likely have win percentages of 95% or more, even if any individual attack roll might only have a 60% chance to hit.
> 
> But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.



Not all of it.  I liked the setting.


----------



## Staffan

Charlaquin said:


> The PHB Warlock is almost functionally identical to the Next Playtest Warlock. The loss of the Next Playtest _Sorcerer_ is tragic, but the reason given for pulling back on it was that people thought it would be difficult to convert sorcerers from past editions. The idea that the 70% approval threshold played into it is speculation. But I’d also wager the fate of the Next Playtest sorcerer was part of what lead WotC to realize more focused chunks would be a better approach than full vertical slices.



There were a lot of problems with the D&D Next sorcerer. The main was that over the course of a day you'd go from a caster to a bruiser, and those have quite different demands regarding stats, gear, and so on. As a side effect, this meant that once you started transforming you'd be worse at casting IIRC, which meant that if you wanted to hold something back for a boss fight you nerfed yourself for the whole day. Another problem was that it was particularly draconic-themed, leaving out all the other possible sorcerer origins.


----------



## Charlaquin

Staffan said:


> There were a lot of problems with the D&D Next sorcerer. The main was that over the course of a day you'd go from a caster to a bruiser, and those have quite different demands regarding stats, gear, and so on. As a side effect, this meant that once you started transforming you'd be worse at casting IIRC, which meant that if you wanted to hold something back for a boss fight you nerfed yourself for the whole day. Another problem was that it was particularly draconic-themed, leaving out all the other possible sorcerer origins.



You definitely did not become worse at casting once you started transforming. Except in the sense that the transformations were triggered by having fewer Willpower remaining, which was your resource for casting spells.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Staffan said:


> Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome.



that is SUPER insightful... and why I wish they had worked harder at skill challanges. We need a robust system like that for non combat. (not that I am saying that skill challange was perfect at the end or that it wasn't a mess to start... but it was a start).
My hope is that Strixhave exams and social stuff gets worked on and integrated more... the influence action is a start.


Staffan said:


> But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Horwath said:


> we used 3.0 stuff in 3.5 unless that specific thing was rewritten in 3.5.
> 
> same with 3.75, err Pathfinder



3e specifically wrecked the character I was using at the time of the drop: a rogue alchemist who used a bastard sword.


----------



## Retreater

mamba said:


> Sure, these are mostly tweaks, but they do seem to mostly be tweaks for the better and make the whole thing more coherent. Neither of which is bad.
> 
> If you feel this is not enough, then do not buy it, it's simple. I am not sure what big changes you want (and by extension whether they would even be considered an improvement by 5e players rather than e.g. the OSR crowd), but WotC is clearly not interested in making any.



I'm just so sick of 5e. And the idea of the future of the TTRPG hobby being 5.1 for the foreseeable future already has my eyes glazing over.
And yes, I can choose not to buy it, and I probably won't. It doesn't keep me from wishing that things could have gone differently.


----------



## Retreater

mellored said:


> That said, have you checked out pathfinder 2? That's different enough.



Yes. I am running a weekly game of it online. It's almost "there" for what I'd want (certainly closer than 5e). 
What I don't like is that I can't find anyone locally to play it, but I can run a game of D&D every day of the week and have to turn away players.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Staffan said:


> There were a lot of problems with the D&D Next sorcerer. The main was that over the course of a day you'd go from a caster to a bruiser, and those have quite different demands regarding stats, gear, and so on. As a side effect, this meant that once you started transforming you'd be worse at casting IIRC, which meant that if you wanted to hold something back for a boss fight you nerfed yourself for the whole day. Another problem was that it was particularly draconic-themed, leaving out all the other possible sorcerer origins.





Charlaquin said:


> You definitely did not become worse at casting once you started transforming. Except in the sense that the transformations were triggered by having fewer Willpower remaining, which was your resource for casting spells.



yes and no to you both... it was a VERY different concept that while great in theory needed more work.
the sad part is a great idea with bad execution can get a 40% approval and dropped


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes and no to you both... it was a VERY different concept that while great in theory needed more work.
> the sad part is a great idea with bad execution can get a 40% approval and dropped



I mean, we barely saw any of it, it only went up to 5th level. And for those 5 levels, I thought it was pretty solid. Not perfect, but a great first draft.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> 3e specifically wrecked the character I was using at the time of the drop: a rogue alchemist who used a bastard sword.



we had a ranger/sorcerer useing haste that said he would walk if we updated before the end of the campagin


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli

Majesticles said:


> Why, though? There are so many issues.
> 1) Why do only humans get this trait? do other races not suffer acondroplasia? Will I also get to play a Tiny halfling?
> 2) Why is achondroplasia the only disorder being mechanically represented? What if I want my character to have gigantism? Or autism? or club foot? or mermaid syndrome? The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting _every single physical deformity_, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring.
> 3)Why would you accept that human size is one of our most variable characteristics, and thus build in rules for smaller people ... but neglect the single most salient aspects of that size difference, i.e. strength, stride length, manual dexterity, girth?
> 4)And ... if we're really going to accept reality enough to argue for separate rules for smaller humans, then why are other ways that humans vary off the table? There's a LOT of variance in humanity, male to female variance alone has hundreds of measurable differences.
> 5)And, finally a from a different angle, we're taking a broad category that literally treated all humans identically, which is a profoundly inclusive option and choice, and are now subdividing it, creating special category based on size for variability. Do we even want to open that door, given that we already have the most inclusive option on the table?
> 6) I've heard some people argue humans being able to be Small is actually meant to represent children, which would have it's own problems. For one, the character is basically a child soldier. For another, does this mean orcs are born 5ft tall? And what am I to do when the pervy problem player gets his hands on this?



Don't try to find logic into ideology.


----------



## Oofta

Staffan said:


> Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome. This creates a situation where you both have excitement over individual rolls, and (in most cases) a fair bit of certainty that the PCs will come out on top. Overall, PCs will likely have win percentages of 95% or more, even if any individual attack roll might only have a 60% chance to hit.
> 
> But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.




I liked the concept of skill challenges, at least for some things, but as implemented at the tables I played at they didn't work very well.  I still use a variation of the skill challenge concept now and then but it's less static and more dynamic than what 4E implemented.

Whether D&D 5E works for things outside of combat is a personal preference.  It works fine for me and I have no desire whatsoever to resolving everything with dice rolls.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is _completely impossible_ to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.



Not sure anyone goes as far as the 'almost impossible'. It essentially is never impossible to use old material, you can certainly use settings, adventure ideas, etc.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e _definitely is_ "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.



Nah, I think they basically are around a change no bigger than 1e to 2e or 3.0 to 3.5, and from the looks of it this one won't be any bigger either


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> I'm just so sick of 5e.



Play something else then instead of trying to make D&D something else


----------



## Oofta

Retreater said:


> I'm just so sick of 5e. And the idea of the future of the TTRPG hobby being 5.1 for the foreseeable future already has my eyes glazing over.
> And yes, I can choose not to buy it, and I probably won't. It doesn't keep me from wishing that things could have gone differently.




There are plenty of options out there, why do you feel that you need to come to a forum dedicated to the game just to yuck on other people's yum?  I'm still enjoying 5E, odds are I'll buy into the 2024 release as well because so far it looks like they're fixing things I don't like.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

mamba said:


> Not sure anyone goes as far as the 'almost impossible'. It essentially is never impossible to use old material, you can certainly use settings, adventure ideas, etc.
> 
> Nah, I think they basically are around a change no bigger than 1e to 2e or 3.0 to 3.5, and from the looks of it this one won't be any bigger either



Okay, but people have been _explicitly_ pushing back against that very specific claim. Because that's literally what I've said. Several times, in this thread and others, that "One D&D" is currently shaping up to be a "revised edition" 3.5-style change.

Should they push forward with any more experimental changes, like the (already not-happening-as-written) changes to critical hits, then it may become _more_ than a "5.5e" shift. But it certainly seems to be no _less_ than that at present.

Edit: Keep in mind, _when 3.5e was published_, WotC got roasted online and by word of mouth because 3.5e was considered a massive cash grab, a crappy rugpull that changed _just enough_ to force people to buy new books while still _technically_ qualifying as "compatible." The community bought the books anyway, so we can see that that reaction was something of a tempest in a teapot, but the comparison is important nonetheless. Why it's a perfectly delightful tiny step now when it was an abhorrent leap across a gulf 20 years ago, I'll never know.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

mamba said:


> Play something else then instead of trying to mase D&D something else



Good luck finding literally anything else. Believe me, I've tried. Very, very hard.


----------



## mellored

Retreater said:


> Yes. I am running a weekly game of it online. It's almost "there" for what I'd want (certainly closer than 5e).
> What I don't like is that I can't find anyone locally to play it, but I can run a game of D&D every day of the week and have to turn away players.



Thats the advantage of being new players friendly, and only making tweaks.


----------



## Horwath

Staffan said:


> Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome. This creates a situation where you both have excitement over individual rolls, and (in most cases) a fair bit of certainty that the PCs will come out on top. Overall, PCs will likely have win percentages of 95% or more, even if any individual attack roll might only have a 60% chance to hit.
> 
> But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.



this why you should use 3d6 instead of d20 for ability checks.

attacks as you stated are numerous in combat.
5 PCs, 5 rounds, 3 with extra attack, that is 40 rolls. Give or take. It should even out d20 a little.


----------



## Staffan

Oofta said:


> I liked the concept of skill challenges, at least for some things, but as implemented at the tables I played at they didn't work very well.  I still use a variation of the skill challenge concept now and then but it's less static and more dynamic than what 4E implemented.



Generally, I think a skill challenge needs to take a step back from immediate actions and look at a bigger picture.

There's a Swedish game called Eon which uses a skill challenge mechanic extensively. The way it works is that you choose three skills to roll in order to accomplish a task. Depending on the task, one (or rarely more) can be locked, meaning you must use that particular skill, whereas the others are more free-form as long as you can make a case for them. Trying the same skill more than once has a hefty penalty, and succeeding with a big margin counts as additional successes.

So, you wouldn't use a skill challenge to pick a lock on a door. Instead, the challenge would be something like "Search a room before the residents show up". In that case, the Search skill would probably be locked (Eon has significantly more skills than D&D does). You could make a case for Sleight of Hand being used as well, as it lets you open the lock quickly and easily giving you more time to search. Or maybe you'll instead use Charm to get someone to let you in, or Climb to get in via the window instead. And then some other skill to cover your exit in a similar fashion – maybe Climb if you didn't use that to get in, or Hide to stay hidden once the residents show up, or something like that. And if you fail the Sleight of Hand roll that doesn't mean that you fail the whole skill challenge, it just means that it took longer than you wanted to to open the door so you need to compensate with better rolls for the other skills in order to achieve an overall success.


----------



## Staffan

Horwath said:


> this why you should use 3d6 instead of d20 for ability checks.



3d6 doesn't change the basic problem of a single roll to determine outcome. It only shifts the odds to a bell curve. If you need a 9+ to succeed, that's 60% on d20, but approximately 75% on 3d6. But it's still a single binary yes/no roll.


----------



## billd91

Staffan said:


> Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.



In the case of skill challenges in 4e, it wasn't like the math was an improvement over a single roll of 60% success rate when it debuted. So, barring a substantial rejiggering, it wasn't really a stable structure as written. It's salvageable - SWSE has some examples that worked much better - but by the time it improved, I suspect a lot people had already ditched out of playing 4e (as my group did).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Staffan said:


> But skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort), but D&D tried that in 4e and as we know everything that came from 4e is unholy and must be purged.



As someone who skipped 4E, I would love a DMs Guild PDF that broke out those rules, updated the necessary terms and made them available for 5E DMs. (I'm not interested in getting a whole 4E PHB or DMG just for this.)


----------



## FrogReaver

OB1 said:


> I'm not so sure about that assumption.  The home game played by the Critical Role group was Pathfinder and they specifically switched to 5e because they felt it was better suited to live play.



One could presumably tell by pHB sales data and critical roll viewership metrics if critical roll had a large impact on 5e sales.


----------



## Azzy

FrogReaver said:


> One could presumably tell by pHB sales data and critical roll viewership metrics if critical roll had a large impact on 5e sales.



Keep in mind correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## Retreater

Oofta said:


> There are plenty of options out there, why do you feel that you need to come to a forum dedicated to the game just to yuck on other people's yum?  I'm still enjoying 5E, odds are I'll buy into the 2024 release as well because so far it looks like they're fixing things I don't like.



The "plenty of other options" aren't being discussed anywhere, so if I want to engage with a gaming community, I have to talk about the 20,000 lb. owlbear in the room - which is 5.1. 
Sure, I'm not going along with WotC's slapping each other on the back for designing the "perfect edition of D&D" - but do I have to? 
I haven't said anyone is wrong for liking it - just saying it doesn't appeal to me, and I've even said _why _it doesn't connect with me. I would like to see some rebalance, some redesign of the monsters, some promotion of actual engagement with the material instead of just online surveys (like the D&D Next organized play events) and self-congratulatory marketing videos. 
If all we're permitted to talk about is why this is the greatest edition of D&D ever, I think it's going to be a poor playtest indeed.


----------



## Oofta

FrogReaver said:


> One could presumably tell by pHB sales data and critical roll viewership metrics if critical roll had a large impact on 5e sales.



Wish I could find the post that had this, but there was no indication of correlation. Then again, CR took a while to grow so you'd have to have a graph of both.  Even then, as @Azzy said correlation does not mean causation. 

All we _do_ know is that CR grew out of a home game that started as a 4E one-shot that Matt did for Liam and they switched to PF 1E when they decided to do an ongoing campaign.  When they started the stream, they switched to 5E because the numbers were less finicky and gameplay was smoother and they felt it made a better presentation.

So even if CR had a huge impact, the reason CR was using 5E in the first place was because they felt 5E better suited their goals.  While I never got around to playing PF, since it was based on 3.5 I have a decent idea of how the mechanics work.  For me and my group 5E is a better version than 3.5 because of the ease of play.  It's certainly easier to pick up for newbies.

These things go hand-in-hand.  The same reasons 5E works better for CR are many of the same reasons 5E works for a lot of people.  It's a synergistic arrangement, but if 5E hadn't worked for Matt and company they would have stuck with PF.  They didn't so we'll never know.


----------



## DEFCON 1

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why it's a perfectly delightful tiny step now when it was an abhorrent leap across a gulf 20 years ago, I'll never know.



Really?  You don't know?  You can't even guess?    Okay.  Well, I'll give you a hint...

Cause it'll have been 10 years since the previous book, rather than just 3.  

Heck... people were clamoring for versions of what'll be the 2024 Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer a mere year or two after 5E's release.  People want stuff "fixed" and they _will_ get fixed stuff merely a decade after the game was first printed and they were demanding it.

The only issue is that not a single person can agree on what parts of 5E need "fixing".  And as a result... there will be plenty of stuff in 2024 where each individual person will exclaim "Why'd they fix THAT?  That didn't need to be touched!!!"  But with hundreds of thousands of different people playing, with all of them having a different list of stuff for fixing... it is literally impossible for WotC to satisfy every one.

Some of the stuff you want fixed will get fixed.  Some of the stuff you want to get fixed will not be.  And some of the stuff you think is fine will get changed as well.  And at that point you either play the new version if enough fixes you wanted occurred... or you stick with 2014 and maybe just incorporate a few of the fixes WotC made into your older game.


----------



## FrogReaver

FrogReaver said:


> Actual causal effects are hard to determine. So we can probably not ever be sure.



@Azzy you mean like this?


----------



## Oofta

Retreater said:


> The "plenty of other options" aren't being discussed anywhere, so if I want to engage with a gaming community, I have to talk about the 20,000 lb. owlbear in the room - which is 5.1.




But how are you "engaging with the community" by saying things like "I am so sick of 5E"?  I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't and nobody in the 3 groups I'm currently playing with feels that way.



Retreater said:


> Sure, I'm not going along with WotC's slapping each other on the back for designing the "perfect edition of D&D" - but do I have to?




Nobody has ever said they have the perfect edition of D&D.  Heaven forbid that the developers talk positively of their product. But what, exactly were they supposed to say?  Something along how it's a huge trash fire because 15% of the people disliked their ideas?



Retreater said:


> I haven't said anyone is wrong for liking it - just saying it doesn't appeal to me, and I've even said _why _it doesn't connect with me. I would like to see some rebalance, some redesign of the monsters, some promotion of actual engagement with the material instead of just online surveys (like the D&D Next organized play events) and self-congratulatory marketing videos.




I have no idea what "actual engagement with the material" means. 



Retreater said:


> If all we're permitted to talk about is why this is the greatest edition of D&D ever, I think it's going to be a poor playtest indeed.




Did you actually take the survey?  Provide any feedback?  Because generic complaints on this forum are pointless and are never going to change anything.  It's like me going onto a forum people use to discuss their football fantasy team only to post that I think professional sports is a waste of time and a scam.  I don't do that because there's no point, I'm not "engaging" with anyone by telling them that watching overpaid jocks (who typically last only a couple of years before retiring with lifelong injuries and disabilities) is dumb.

I just don't see how you can expect to achieve anything other than insult-by-association to those people who actually like the direction the game has taken.  It's kind of like saying "I don't think you suck, but everything you value sucks."


----------



## mamba

Retreater said:


> The "plenty of other options" aren't being discussed anywhere, so if I want to engage with a gaming community, I have to talk about the 20,000 lb. owlbear in the room - which is 5.1.
> [...]
> If all we're permitted to talk about is why this is the greatest edition of D&D ever, I think it's going to be a poor playtest indeed.



You are obviously free to voice your opinion, I am just wondering why you even bother. For one it won't change 1D&D and for another you do not make the impression of going to be playing it anyway. Am I wrong on that second part?


----------



## FrogReaver

DEFCON 1 said:


> Really?  You don't know?  You can't even guess?    Okay.  Well, I'll give you a hint...
> 
> Cause it'll have been 10 years since the previous book, rather than just 3.
> 
> Heck... people were clamoring for versions of what'll be the 2024 Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer a mere year or two after 5E's release.  People want stuff "fixed" and they _will_ get fixed stuff merely a decade after the game was first printed and they were demanding it.
> 
> The only issue is that not a single person can agree on what parts of 5E need "fixing".  And as a result... there will be plenty of stuff in 2024 where each individual person will exclaim "Why'd they fix THAT?  That didn't need to be touched!!!"  But with hundreds of thousands of different people playing, with all of them having a different list of stuff for fixing... it is literally impossible for WotC to satisfy every one.
> 
> Some of the stuff you want fixed will get fixed.  Some of the stuff you want to get fixed will not be.  And some of the stuff you think is fine will get changed as well.  And at that point you either play the new version if enough fixes you wanted occurred... or you stick with 2014 and maybe just incorporate a few of the fixes WotC made into your older game.



IMO.  One can have preferences around what they personally want changed and still be on board with believing things should be changed according to the community at large. The problem for me is being shouted down for daring to question whether the methodology being used is actually capturing the opinion of the community at large or anything remotely resembling it. 

With that said, they should use the best data they have available and the survey even if flawed is still the best available.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Oofta said:


> But how are you "engaging with the community" by saying things like "I am so sick of 5E"?  I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't and nobody in the 3 groups I'm currently playing with feels that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever said they have the perfect edition of D&D.  Heaven forbid that the developers talk positively of their product. But what, exactly were they supposed to say?  Something along how it's a huge trash fire because 15% of the people disliked their ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what "actual engagement with the material" means.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually take the survey?  Provide any feedback?  Because generic complaints on this forum are pointless and are never going to change anything.  It's like me going onto a forum people use to discuss their football fantasy team only to post that I think professional sports is a waste of time and a scam.  I don't do that because there's no point, I'm not "engaging" with anyone by telling them that watching overpaid jocks (who typically last only a couple of years before retiring with lifelong injuries and disabilities) is dumb.
> 
> I just don't see how you can expect to achieve anything other than insult-by-association to those people who actually like the direction the game has taken.  It's kind of like saying "I don't think you suck, but everything you value sucks."



Do you agree with their claim then that everyone should just be positive all the time?


----------



## Retreater

Oofta said:


> But how are you "engaging with the community" by saying things like "I am so sick of 5E"? I'm sorry you feel that way, I don't and nobody in the 3 groups I'm currently playing with feels that way.



In previous posts in this thread (and other places) I've given more specific reasons. 
I would say that of my players, about 50% across my 3 active groups of 5E players feel that way. Mostly for the reasons I've mentioned.


Oofta said:


> Nobody has ever said they have the perfect edition of D&D. Heaven forbid that the developers talk positively of their product. But what, exactly were they supposed to say? Something along how it's a huge trash fire because 15% of the people disliked their ideas?



In the announcement video of One D&D, I think it was Chris Perkins who called it (paraphrased): basically perfect. I can understand not calling it a "huge trash fire" but a little bit of grace and willingness to at least play around with the concept of "going back to the drawing board" one last time before the next 8-year edition would be a good sign that they're open to change the game and at least experiment.


Oofta said:


> I have no idea what "actual engagement with the material" means.



Like Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Dreams of the Red Wizards - organized play adventures that showcase the new design. Back in the last playtest they had organized ways to test new mechanics to report to Wizards. They'd have incentives (dice sets, minis, etc.) to promote the game and to tie in to play at stores and cons. 


Oofta said:


> Did you actually take the survey? Provide any feedback?



Yep and yep.


Oofta said:


> It's kind of like saying "I don't think you suck, but everything you value sucks."



I'm really sorry you took it that way. I'm certainly not saying everything you value sucks. I'm not even saying your preferred way to play D&D sucks. 
What I am saying is I wish that we could see some big changes and get a chance to try them out instead of being limited to basically the same (and I think, very limited) version of D&D for 10 years (plus however long 5.1 lasts). I want to see the dials and customization that was promised when 5e was first released. I want to see some elements of 4E be attempted.


----------



## Oofta

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  One can have preferences around what they personally want changed and still be on board with believing things should be changed according to the community at large. The problem for me is being shouted down for daring to question whether the methodology being used is actually capturing the opinion of the community at large or anything remotely resembling it.
> 
> With that said, they should use the best data they have available and the survey even if flawed is still the best available.




The survey is only the public portion of the testing, they also test internally with other employees along with friends and family.  In addition they have groups outside of the company running games with the new rules.  The feedback from those testing groups is a lot more in-depth than a survey.

Obviously I wish they would come to my house to ask my opinion personally, but so far no luck.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Azzy said:


> Keep in mind correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## Oofta

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you agree with their claim then that everyone should just be positive all the time?



I never said that.  I said that repeatedly stating generic "this is crap" or "the developers suck" serves no purpose.

If I say I dislike that strength based characters have no good ranged options, that's a very specific thing, an identifiable problem that I have with the game.  It's also one where I can discuss options and what I do to fix it, which in this particular case is to make bows versatile in my home game. 

I just don't see the point in stating "5E sucks and should be completely rewritten" or coming on to this forum to state "I really dislike the game" and variations therein.  Talk about specific issues, ask for input on how others have fixed it?  Acknowledge now and then that something isn't what you want?  Don't even play the game but come here only to post complaints?  I don't see the point.


----------



## Blue

mamba said:


> Agreed, but imo you cannot on the one hand say 'we need real change that goes way beyond what the playtests offer' and at the same time also say 'but I am also ok with things staying exactly as they are, just run another reprint'.



Why not?

Here, I'll say it:

I'm not interested in a bit of shifting around of the existing system that will invalidate 10 years of book purchases.  Either give me a whole new iteration, or leave well enough alone.  I enjoy 5e quite a bit, but just too-many-tweaks-to-be-errata doesn't mean I want to give up all the choices I have, or have to repurchase just because people I game with will likely move on.

Now, I don't _beleive_ they'll go either of those routes.  But that doesn't mean it isn't a valid thought.


----------



## Blue

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If people didn't like the changes and thought that the game was perfect as is, they wouldn't rate the changes highly.



I've generally been in agreement with a lot of what you are say.  I just want to point out that none of the questions were "Do you like this better than the existing feature".  I can rate pizza highly as a food I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I like it better than steak, or would want to replace a steak meal with pizza.

All we know is that OneD&D so far has come out with rules that look like they will make a fun game.  We don't have any survey feedback if people think it will make a better game than 5e - that's all based on what the designers think and provide options for.


----------



## Blue

Retreater said:


> I'll be honest, and it's going to sound terrible.
> 3.x was out for 8 years and 4e for 5 years.
> For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D.



This part I can get behind.  I enjoy 5e.  It's my favorite edition of D&D since I started playing with Moldvay Red Box.  But it's not even my favorite D&D-like game.

I have a group that isn't adventuresome when it comes to playing other RPGs.  They will switch to the 50th Anniversary Edition when it's out.  And I'll buy it to play with them.

But I wish that instead of some tweaks to improve the system, we were getting a turn of the crank and something new.

(As for the rest, my experience with newer gamers is that for every "I just learned D&D" there's one diving into as many different systems as they can have a lot of experience with other types of games as well, and that makes them great to vote for things that will upset the apple cart and give use something new.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Oofta said:


> If I say I dislike that strength based characters have no good ranged options, that's a very specific thing, an identifiable problem that I have with the game.  It's also one where I can discuss options and what I do to fix it, which in this particular case is to make bows versatile in my home game.




And we are lucky, with the clarification for drawing weapons, javelin and shield just got a huge upgrade. Still behind dex in range and damage, but one handed and with more AC.
So at least a decent option after level 5.


----------



## darjr

I will play other games. But I do not want a very different 5e. 

It’s just now getting mainstream traction and it’s a stable place for that. I also think that’s the way to grow it and the hobby.

Let other games soak up some players looking to spread their wings. Win, win in my book.

A very different version of D&D is bad for two reasons, I think. It’ll blunt the growth of D&D just when it’s about to really take off, and it’ll suck up all the other oxygen from other games, just when folks, like some of y’all in this thread, are looking for something different.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Micah Sweet said:


> Not all of it.  I liked the setting.



Yes! I would kill for a Nentyr Vale sourcebook for 5E.


----------



## Doctor Futurity

Maxperson said:


> That's possible, but shows like Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things, as well as Critical Role helped bring D&D into the main stream.  I'd argue that had a bigger impact on D&D swelling the way it did than the edition itself.  3e might have done as well or even better than 5e has if it had been the edition to benefit from those things.  I'm not saying that it would have for sure, but rather that we can't attribute the changes that 5e made as the reason.



I think we can. For example, when my son shows a sudden interest in D&D due to Stranger Things, I can hand him the latest Basic Set for 5E and he can figure it out. Although 3E did have a couple starter sets, and I think he might have been able to figure those out, I know that the next step: reading the actual main rulebook and not feeling overwhelmed, is considerably easier for someone today with 5E than it was with 3.5. Can a 12 year old figure out the 3.5 PHB? Probably, sure.....I mean, I figured out AD&D when I was 11, but the problem is that WotC is making a product for a broad audience for which there is a lot of competition with very easy to access entertainment....and that means that the PHB needs to be more accessible and easier to figure out than it used to be.


----------



## Amrûnril

EzekielRaiden said:


> It doesn't need a deep dive. "Ratings for dragonborn were 3.76 +/- 0.95 (two SD)." That gives REAMS more information than "70% of responses were positive." Even for a total layman, you now know that almost everyone gave a 3 or a 4, leaning toward 4--some people gave 5s, more than the people who gave 2s, and 1s are quite rare. With that, we can see that the response is favorable but not fervent.
> 
> And it is trivial to present that information in table form.
> 
> For goodness' sake, this is the kind of thing we _demand_ from political polling, which almost everyone is at least loosely aware of. We know that polls have a listed "margin of error" and that that margin of error is relevant and needs to be accounted for. Giving something similar here cannot possibly be that difficult, if they really want to stick with proportion statistics rather than something more generally useful.




I very much agree with the general point that the developers are doing a poor job of writing effective surveys and presenting the results in an informative way. I want to add a couple of caveats, though:

First, the percentages for each response category would be more informative than a +/- indicator. It's very easy for casual observers to confuse indicators of confidence in the mean with indicators of data spread (with a large sample size, you can end up with a very narrow standard error of the mean, even with highly variable data). Plus, the answers are neither continuous data nor a random sample from a defined population.

Second, not providing a comprehensive summary of the results is almost certainly an intentional choice. While I think the developers are genuinely interested in the results, they are (and should be) considering other factors as well, and they probably don't want to give the internet a comprehensive list of every time they diverge from public opinion.


----------



## mamba

Blue said:


> Why not?
> 
> Here, I'll say it:
> 
> I'm not interested in a bit of shifting around of the existing system that will invalidate 10 years of book purchases.  Either give me a whole new iteration, or leave well enough alone.  I enjoy 5e quite a bit, but just too-many-tweaks-to-be-errata doesn't mean I want to give up all the choices I have, or have to repurchase just because people I game with will likely move on.




you are not the one the question was directed at, and his two options weren’t ‘I like 5e, so either make a full new edition or let me stick with it’, they were ‘I cannot stand 5e, so it needs to be changed drastically - but I am ok with not changing it at all as well’

Notice the difference between your two options and his? Yours go together, his not so much


----------



## mamba

Blue said:


> This part I can get behind.  I enjoy 5e.  It's my favorite edition of D&D since I started playing with Moldvay Red Box.  But it's not even my favorite D&D-like game.




out of curiosity, which one is that and why?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

So a key part of the infamous switch to New Coke was the new formula doing better in taste tests. I had already taken to using New Coke as the metaphor for edition changes (to emphasize that I think the general rpg industry approach of retiring you existing product line, even when it's going strong, in favor of a new product line branded as the old one is a gonzo business model) but now that that they are claiming to base every decision on surveys, OneD&D is definitively "New Coke D&D" in my mind.


----------



## Incenjucar

Benjamin Olson said:


> So a key part of the infamous switch to New Coke was the new formula doing better in taste tests. I had already taken to using New Coke as the metaphor for edition changes (to emphasize that I think the general rpg industry approach of retiring you existing product line, even when it's going strong, in favor of a new product line branded as the old one is a gonzo business model) but now that that they are claiming to base every decision on surveys, OneD&D is definitively "New Coke D&D" in my mind.



...a superior product that people are too stubborn to realize they'd enjoy more than the old product despite proof?


----------



## Clint_L

The same product with minor changes that have little practical effect?


----------



## Vaalingrade

It says a lot that WotC is desperately trying to convince people there there are no new editions, that 1DD is certainly the same old 5e with a revamp and the playerbase is like 'so anyway, the new edition they're trying to sell us on..'


----------



## Blue

mamba said:


> out of curiosity, which one is that and why?



13th Age.  It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e.  It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game.  Like 5e it's quite streamlined from earlier editions, even moreso perhaps.  But it brings some improvements like a fantastic background system, the Escalation Die, and a bunch of other things.  It's a step more narrative and more gamist than D&D while still being familiar, and wants to tell damn big stories.

The whole system is up on their SRD, but the books are worth it for all of the designer sidebars.  Why they did certain rules the way they did, suggestions on what tweak and changing the rules will lead, places they disagreed and alternate rules - it's a very hackable system, robust that you can futz with it and not worry about things going haywire.


----------



## mamba

Blue said:


> 13th Age.  It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e.  It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game.



heard of it, never played it. I believe a new version should come next year (mostly minor changes from what I understand - sounds familiar…), might give it a try then


----------



## Majesticles

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It's a fantasy world.



Is that really your justification? What if I said I wanted a good portion of humans to have, say, vitiligo, for no other reason than "It's a fantasy world?"


> You said that no other D&D race had a physical trait that only some of them have.



No, I said that no other race is _defined_ by a trait that only some of them have, which was the exact justification you gave here: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!. 


> It isn't about need. It's about _can_



That's not what you said, though. You specifically said that other physical deformities don't _need_ to be represented: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!


> There is an important difference between physical disorders and mental ones. Mental ones still have quite a lot of stigmas with them.



So does dwarfism. For a long time Achondroplasia has been seen as inherently comical, the same way being Mentally Challenged once was.


> So? I don't see how that's relevant at all.



Even according to dwarfismawareness.com: Statistics Dwarfs (that's the proper plural when discussing the real-life condition, "dwarves" is the plural for the race) comprise only 1in 10,000 people. Meanwhile wikipedia says that as many as 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip:  Cleft lip and cleft palate - Wikipedia and 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 250 are born with club foot: Clubfoot - Wikipedia So if 1 in 10,000 is common enough to warrant representing, then these other conditions would be even moreso.


----------



## Maxperson

Doctor Futurity said:


> I think we can. For example, when my son shows a sudden interest in D&D due to Stranger Things, I can hand him the latest Basic Set for 5E and he can figure it out. Although 3E did have a couple starter sets, and I think he might have been able to figure those out, I know that the next step: reading the actual main rulebook and not feeling overwhelmed, is considerably easier for someone today with 5E than it was with 3.5. Can a 12 year old figure out the 3.5 PHB? Probably, sure.....I mean, I figured out AD&D when I was 11, but the problem is that WotC is making a product for a broad audience for which there is a lot of competition with very easy to access entertainment....and that means that the PHB needs to be more accessible and easier to figure out than it used to be.



Sure, but easier to figure out doesn't equate to more fun.  Don't get me wrong, I like 5e a lot.  I just enjoyed 3e more.  3e was also not nearly as hard to understand and figure out as 1e/2e were.  While it was harder than 5e to understand, it still wasn't hard at all.  System mastery was a different beast.

I think that had 3e been out when the main stream boosts happened, D&D would have seen a huge surge just like we have with 5e. Simplicity alone isn't enough to say that it would have been smaller than 5e.  We just don't know and there's no way that we can know.


----------



## mamba

Blue said:


> I've generally been in agreement with a lot of what you are say.  I just want to point out that none of the questions were "Do you like this better than the existing feature".  I can rate pizza highly as a food I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I like it better than steak, or would want to replace a steak meal with pizza.



this assumes two things which I believe are both false.

1) that no one gave feedback outside of a rating, ie no explanations / comparisons / recommendations
2) that everyone rates a feature without considering what we have now and rates something high because it is ‘still good’ instead of low because it is ‘worse than what we have now’

That the latest playtest round has changes to dragonborn specifically because people liked the Fizban version better than the previous playtest version contradicts both of them


----------



## Azzy

Majesticles said:


> Is that really your justification? What if I said I wanted a good portion of humans to have, say, vitiligo, for no other reason than "It's a fantasy world?"
> 
> No, I said that no other race is _defined_ by a trait that only some of them have, which was the exact justification you gave here: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!.
> 
> That's not what you said, though. You specifically said that other physical deformities don't _need_ to be represented: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!
> 
> So does dwarfism. For a long time Achondroplasia has been seen as inherently comical, the same way being Mentally Challenged once was.
> 
> Even according to dwarfismawareness.com: Statistics Dwarfs (that's the proper plural when discussing the real-life condition, "dwarves" is the plural for the race) comprise only 1in 10,000 people. Meanwhile wikipedia says that as many as 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip:  Cleft lip and cleft palate - Wikipedia and 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 250 are born with club foot: Clubfoot - Wikipedia So if 1 in 10,000 is common enough to warrant representing, then these other conditions would be even moreso.



I don't know what you're trying to prove or achieve, but it doesn't appear to be anything constructive.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Blue said:


> 13th Age.  It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e.  It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game.  Like 5e it's quite streamlined from earlier editions, even moreso perhaps.  But it brings some improvements like a fantastic background system, the Escalation Die, and a bunch of other things.  It's a step more narrative and more gamist than D&D while still being familiar, and wants to tell damn big stories.
> 
> The whole system is up on their SRD, but the books are worth it for all of the designer sidebars.  Why they did certain rules the way they did, suggestions on what tweak and changing the rules will lead, places they disagreed and alternate rules - it's a very hackable system, robust that you can futz with it and not worry about things going haywire.



I bought the books and still like the escalation die (and just learned how to make one on roll20 5e)


----------



## Neonchameleon

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> As someone who skipped 4E, I would love a DMs Guild PDF that broke out those rules, updated the necessary terms and made them available for 5E DMs. (I'm not interested in getting a whole 4E PHB or DMG just for this.)



If you're interested I broke down how I used (and use) them as part of my 4e Retroclone. No mechanics in the link.


----------



## mamba

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> As someone who skipped 4E, I would love a DMs Guild PDF that broke out those rules, updated the necessary terms and made them available for 5E DMs. (I'm not interested in getting a whole 4E PHB or DMG just for this.)



Google is your friend, there are tons of articles and videos on the topic, for example






						Skill Challenges Archives - Kobold Press
					






					koboldpress.com


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

mamba said:


> Google is your friend



I'll have you know that Google slept with my girlfriend.


----------



## Jaeger

GMforPowergamers said:


> However my guess is what has KEPT D&D #1 since day 1 is because it updates and changes.




Because barring 4e, D&D has managed to be 'good enough' for the majority of its player base. Being First + Good Enough = No can Defend.



GMforPowergamers said:


> yes I argue this all the time 2e, 4e, 3e, OD&D would have jumped up with all of the hype... but again the entire thing stood strong as number one for 30ish year even though it changed all the time




Because being first is VERY powerful when it comes to RPG's.

By 2e D&D had already cemented its market leader position. And the network effect of being the 800lb. Gorilla in the room smooths over any rough edges the system has.

Because as the market leader, D&D was/is Good Enough, that most players do not feel a compelling reason to go to a different fantasy RPG.

It takes a unique set of circumstances for Being First + Good Enough to not be a winning advantage.




Staffan said:


> Rob Donoghue had a thread a while back on Twitter where he pointed out that one of the reasons combat works fairly well in D&D and non-combat tasks generally don't is that combat uses a large number of rolls, where you have a fair bit of control over the circumstances of each roll, and with each individual roll being fairly low-stakes in relation to the eventual outcome. ...
> 
> But *skill checks tend to be more binary: you make one roll, and if you fail that's it. *You need to find another approach. If you can't pick the lock, you can either break down the door, cast a _knock_ spell, or find someone who has the key. And in that situation, a 60% chance of success is pretty unsatisfactory. Some games use something akin to skill challenges for important skill checks (multiple rolls, sometimes for different skills, and where a single failure doesn't wreck the whole effort),





Staffan said:


> 3d6 doesn't change *the basic problem of a single roll to determine outcome.* ...




I find it interesting that other skill based RPG's with skill systems that work exactly the same way do not get critiqued for this. It's just not an issue.

I think that it is more of a thing in D&D because of the way PC's combat ability and HP scales in comparison to D&D's tacked on skill system.  
There is just a different set of player and GM expectations of what a PC should be able to do...

I have played many skill based game systems and _"You make one roll, and if you fail that's it."_ is not an issue. You never see fans of Interlock, or BRP systems complain about the "one roll" nature of skills. If anything the arguments revolve around the skill lists themselves. Maybe it is the way those games instruct GM's to use the skill systems, or a different mindset/expectations among the player base? 




EzekielRaiden said:


> Keep in mind, _when 3.5e was published_, WotC got roasted online and by word of mouth because 3.5e was considered a massive cash grab, a crappy rugpull that changed _just enough_ to force people to buy new books while still _technically_ qualifying as "compatible." The community bought the books anyway, so we can see that that reaction was something of a tempest in a teapot, but the comparison is important nonetheless. Why it's a perfectly delightful tiny step now when it was an abhorrent leap across a gulf 20 years ago, I'll never know.




Probably because it will have been a full decade, as opposed to just three years. And 5e's reduced release schedule has not flooded the player base with official product over that timeframe. The general player base having less of a sunk cost investment in the current edition might have helped as well.


----------



## FrogReaver

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'll have you know that Google slept with my girlfriend.



See, did you a favor.  You didn’t have to that night.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Jaeger said:


> Maybe it is the way those games instruct GM's to use the skill systems, or a different mindset/expectations among the player base?



That would certainly be my suspicion. Having never played them, I cannot speak with any surety.



Jaeger said:


> Probably because it will have been a full decade, as opposed to just three years. And 5e's reduced release schedule has not flooded the player base with official product over that timeframe. The general player base having less of a sunk cost investment in the current edition might have helped as well.



3.5e came out after only three years. The number of published books, especially if you count adventures, was quite comparable to what 5e has now.

And I just flat _do not get_ the time excuse. If it's a horrible affront to "force" people to buy new books, purely on principle (which is explicitly the argument people made at the time), then it is so _actually on principle_—regardless of the timing.

It's this incredibly bizarre shift where a small handful of changes _just_ crossing the line into "new enough to need new books* was a HORRIBLE offense, one of the worst, most vile things the company could do _back then,_ and now it's not only small enough to be completely within range of beinf overlooked, it is a _good_ thing that it is a small change only just big enough to merit making new books.

It being 10 years instead of 3 simply does not explain to me why the former was _incredibly offensive_ and the latter is praiseworthy and indeed merits active efforts to redefine basic terms (like "backwards compatibility" and "what even _is_ a 'feat,' really?") in order to rationalize that "no it's not _actually_ a change at all!"


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Retreater said:


> I'm just so sick of 5e. And the idea of the future of the TTRPG hobby being 5.1 for the foreseeable future already has my eyes glazing over.
> And yes, I can choose not to buy it, and I probably won't. It doesn't keep me from wishing that things could have gone differently.



Yeah, you're definitely in the minority here. D&D 5e keeps getting more and more popular. People clearly aren't getting tired of it as quickly as you are, especially with the supplements they've published.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Blue said:


> I've generally been in agreement with a lot of what you are say.  I just want to point out that none of the questions were "Do you like this better than the existing feature".  I can rate pizza highly as a food I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I like it better than steak, or would want to replace a steak meal with pizza.
> 
> All we know is that OneD&D so far has come out with rules that look like they will make a fun game.  We don't have any survey feedback if people think it will make a better game than 5e - that's all based on what the designers think and provide options for.



If my favorite pizza restaurant (Mod Pizza) decided to become a Steak House, gave out free samples of their new steaks to the people that used to eat there, and then asked for feedback, I would negatively rate the steak even if I enjoyed it because it was good as a pizza restaurant. 

If there's something in the OneD&D playtest documents that I think doesn't need to be changed from the original version, I'll rate it negatively, even if I don't dislike the mechanic. Maybe most people don't operate like that, but to me, it's the logical way to engage in the surveys. 


Majesticles said:


> Is that really your justification? What if I said I wanted a good portion of humans to have, say, vitiligo, for no other reason than "It's a fantasy world?"



"A wizard did it" is the ultimate justification for why anything happens in a fantasy world for a reason. Vitiligo would just be a visual trait, not something represented in mechanics, too. And, yes, you could use "because magic" for why a higher percentage of the human population in a D&D world has vitiligo than in the real world. 


Majesticles said:


> No, I said that no other race is _defined_ by a trait that only some of them have, which was the exact justification you gave here: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!.



Kobolds are pretty defined by them occasionally having wings. And, as I said earlier, "it's magic" works for both Urds and humans with dwarfism. 


Majesticles said:


> That's not what you said, though. You specifically said that other physical deformities don't _need_ to be represented: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!



I never said that dwarfism needed representation. I said "it can be included easily and inoffensively". Basically nothing "needs" to be included in D&D. The PHB could just decide to abandon all other playable races and make Gnomes the only playable options. That wouldn't make the game literally unplayable, but a lot of people wouldn't like that. It's not about "needs", it's about the feasibility and pros of inclusion. 


Majesticles said:


> So does dwarfism. For a long time Achondroplasia has been seen as inherently comical, the same way being Mentally Challenged once was.



Less than most physical ones. And, as I said before, there is no good reason to include autism mechanically in the game. There's no good reason or way to do it. 

There is no easy or inoffensive way to include autism mechanically in the game. There is for dwarfism. The fact that you're getting this upset about it being included is more than a bit worrying. 


Majesticles said:


> Even according to dwarfismawareness.com: Statistics Dwarfs (that's the proper plural when discussing the real-life condition, "dwarves" is the plural for the race) comprise only 1in 10,000 people. Meanwhile wikipedia says that as many as 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip:  Cleft lip and cleft palate - Wikipedia and 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 250 are born with club foot: Clubfoot - Wikipedia So if 1 in 10,000 is common enough to warrant representing, then these other conditions would be even moreso.



And 15 percent of the population has IBS. That doesn't mean that it needs to be or should be included in the game (mechanically or otherwise). There's no upside to include it. There are, however, upsides to including dwarfism. It's simple. It doesn't take much more word count than the previous version. There's nothing problematic about it. 

Seriously, why are you getting so upset by this? What's your deal? It isn't a slippery slope and it isn't offensive. What is your issue with it?


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If my favorite pizza restaurant (Mod Pizza) decided to become a Steak House, gave out free samples of their new steaks to the people that used to eat there, and then asked for feedback, I would negatively rate the steak even if I enjoyed it because it was good as a pizza restaurant.
> 
> If there's something in the OneD&D playtest documents that I think doesn't need to be changed from the original version, I'll rate it negatively, even if I don't dislike the mechanic. Maybe most people don't operate like that, but to me, it's the logical way to engage in the surveys.




If someone is asked if they like the switch to steak and they say no, because they want it to stay a pizza place then  they are being truthful, right?

If they ask if someone if they liked the steak they were served and they liked it but say no then they're lying, right?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Be right back, creating an Irritable Bowel Syndrome feat.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> If someone is asked if they like the switch to steak and they say no, because they want it to stay a pizza place then  they are being truthful, right?
> 
> If they ask if someone if they liked the steak they were served and they liked it but say no then they're lying, right?



There is an implied "do you like this as a change from the original version" in the surveys.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jaeger said:


> Because barring 4e, D&D has managed to be 'good enough' for the majority of its player base. Being First + Good Enough = No can Defend.



being first doesn't mean you get a pass Rifts Torg (in a different way WoD that almost got em) all COULD have over taken 1e/2e... 

and 4e out sold 3e/3.5e so it has the 'not good enough' to be the second best selling D&D, and holding #1 against it's own predecessor being retro cloned by a company with a huge head start by having run Dragon and Dungeon magazine...


Jaeger said:


> Because being first is VERY powerful when it comes to RPG's.



this is reductive... how do we know how powerful being first is "because D&D is popular" 
Why is D&D popular? "Because it was first.

it could just be the best game, or it could be as I put forward in my theory the ever changing nature. 

1e/2e were pretty close to each other but were also a major change (mostly addative) to basic... but 2e grew FROM 1e.

3e was a reset, it changed a lot, 3.5 grew from 3e... but 3e had huge flaws that 4e fixed... 4e though had to compete with pathfinder (3.75) with an established base but still stayed #1, 5e was a step back in many ways between 3.5 and 4e but it also was new and different... now I am saying that adaptive changing state might have helped it stay #1 in a way basic D&D would not still be #1 if it haden't become AD&D


Jaeger said:


> By 2e D&D had already cemented its market leader position. And the network effect of being the 800lb. Gorilla in the room smooths over any rough edges the system has.



and yet the d10 system from WW somehow got close, and if WotC hadn't bought TSR it was a sinking ship, D&D would be gone.


Jaeger said:


> Because as the market leader, D&D was/is Good Enough, that most players do not feel a compelling reason to go to a different fantasy RPG.



again, we don't know that we just FEEL like that is true.


Jaeger said:


> It takes a unique set of circumstances for Being First + Good Enough to not be a winning advantage.



This is why Ford with the Modal T is still the #1 best selling car... my modal T is so awesome.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

EzekielRaiden said:


> 3.5e came out after only three years. The number of published books, especially if you count adventures, was quite comparable to what 5e has now.



Before I google search this I am going to say that doesn't feel right...
D&D 3.0 publications says 39
All 53 DnD 5E books published & to be released | Dice Cove says 53...

So okay, more or less (not counting 3pp) 5e has 1.5x the number of books 3.0 did when 3.5 came out


----------



## MGibster

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'll have you know that Google slept with my girlfriend.



That explains all the photos Google has of your girlfriend.  


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Be right back, creating an Irritable Bowel Syndrome feat.



It's a spell called Stinking Cloud.  


GMforPowergamers said:


> this is reductive... how do we know how powerful being first is "because D&D is popular"
> Why is D&D popular? "Because it was first.



I've heard it argued that D&D is the most popular because it was the first, but that's never tracked for me.  Oreo is just an imitation Hydrox, but the latter became much more popular than the former.  Moxie was one of the first mass produced sodas in the United States, and it's actually still produced today, but have you ever had one?  Don't.  It tastes like used motor oil.  The point being that many things which were original were overtaken by their imitators.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

GMforPowergamers said:


> Before I google search this I am going to say that doesn't feel right...
> D&D 3.0 publications says 39
> All 53 DnD 5E books published & to be released | Dice Cove says 53...
> 
> So okay, more or less (not counting 3pp) 5e has 1.5x the number of books 3.0 did when 3.5 came out



So, the rate _was_ quite a bit faster. About 2 years and 9 months for 39 books means around 14-15 books a year. By comparison, 5e has been out about 6-7 books a year (though it sounds like some of these aren't actually out yet, so it may be closer to 6.)

Overall, I'm actually surprised that I underestimated the amount of 5e books. As a function of the span of time involved here, this changeover isn't so far removed from the 3.5 shift.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> and 4e out sold 3e/3.5e so it has the 'not good enough' to be the second best selling D&D, and holding #1 against it's own predecessor being retro cloned by a company with a huge head start by having run Dragon and Dungeon magazine...




Did it outsell 3e ? I have no absolute sales figures, but that sounds incredibly hard to believe, esp. since the second part of the above is patently false. Maybe it did for the first month or quarter, I doubt it did so in the long run.

The Retroclone became #1 during the 4e period while 4e gradually slid to third place

Fall 2008: 4e launched, at the time #1
Q3 2009: PF1 launched, instant #2
Q3 2010: tie between 4e and PF1
Q2 2011: PF1 #1
Fall 2012: 4e sliding to 3rd place
Fall 2013: 4e sliding to 4th place
Spring 2014: 4e no longer in top 5
Summer 2014: 5e launched
Fall 2015: 5e in #1, replacing PF1

So you have a solid 4 years with PF1 as #1 while 4e gradually slides into oblivion

source: Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

mamba said:


> Did it outsell 3e ? I have no absolute sales figures, but that sounds incredibly hard to believe,



IIRC, someone at WotC said that every edition of D&D has outsold the edition that came before it. That includes 4e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> Did it outsell 3e ? I have no absolute sales figures, but that sounds incredibly hard to believe, esp. since the second part of the above is patently false. Maybe it did for the first month or quarter, I doubt it did so in the long run.



nobody has sales figures... we have statements form wotc (D&D 3E/3.5 - 4E vs 3E Sales Figures: The Facts) that 3.5 out sold 3, that 4e outsold 3.5 and that 5e out sold 4e... we also have been told in general all of them outsold 2e/1e but that comes with the covet that those numbers are not clean... so all we know is that the only source we have says each edition sold more then the last. 


mamba said:


> The Retroclone became #1 during the 4e period while 4e gradually slid to third place



why do you want to turn this into an edition war? do you have an axe to grind?


mamba said:


> Fall 2008: 4e launched, at the time #1
> Q3 2009: PF1 launched, instant #2
> Q3 2010: tie between 4e and PF1
> Q2 2011: PF1 #1
> Fall 2012: 4e sliding to 3rd place
> Fall 2013: 4e sliding to 4th place
> Spring 2014: 4e no longer in top 5
> Summer 2014: 5e launched
> Fall 2015: 5e in #1, replacing PF1
> 
> So you have a solid 4 years with PF1 as #1 while 4e gradually slides into oblivion
> 
> source: Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present



I have already spent too much time on pointless edition wars you will ignore and tell me I am wrong, but pF was a strong 2nd place (like world of darkness before it) up until 4e's last book or two and then a dead zone and the next playtest...


----------



## mamba

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> IIRC, someone at WotC said that every edition of D&D has outsold the edition that came before it. That includes 4e.



I agree that it probably did so for the first month or two, I very much doubt it for the lifetime / overall. Would be nice to have some hard numbers either way.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> why do you want to turn this into an edition war? do you have an axe to grind?



no, I am simply pointing out that your statement was wrong.



GMforPowergamers said:


> pF was a strong 2nd place (like world of darkness before it) up until 4e's last book or two and then a dead zone and the next playtest...



If that is true that would mean the last 4e book came 2.5 years or so after the 4e launch, which would mean by then it was clear that 4e was dead in the water (and we are still 5+ years away from 5e at that point)

EDIT: looks like the 4e books came out over about 4 years, but the core books all do fall in a 2.5 year span, including the Essentials version


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mamba said:


> no, I am simply pointing out that your statement was wrong.



the only information we have says it is not.
Edit: can we drop the edition war now, you don't believe anything, Okay, but that doesn't make you right


----------



## Maxperson

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'll have you know that Google slept with my girlfriend.



Google gets around. And the most frustrating thing is that when you confront it, it has an answer for everything.  Often millions of them.


----------



## mamba

GMforPowergamers said:


> the only information we have says it is not.



Actually it is, you wrote


GMforPowergamers said:


> and 4e [...] holding #1 against it's own predecessor being retro cloned by a company with a huge head start by having run Dragon and Dungeon magazine...



when for more than 4 years it failed to hold the #1 against exactly that retroclone (out of the 6 years where both overlapped...)


GMforPowergamers said:


> Edit: can we drop the edition war now, you don't believe anything, Okay, but that doesn't make you right



I never was involved in an edition war, and maybe read again what you wrote before claiming that you were right


----------



## HammerMan

GMforPowergamers said:


> the only information we have says it is not.
> Edit: can we drop the edition war now, you don't believe anything, Okay, but that doesn't make you right



Don’t respond @mamba is baiting you. Plenty of times the numbers and dates have been posted and the anti 4e crowd just ignores it.  You said your price you were right let them be wrong


----------



## mamba

HammerMan said:


> Don’t respond @mamba is baiting you. Plenty of times the numbers and dates have been posted and the anti 4e crowd just ignores it.  You said your price you were right let them be wrong



So quoting statistics that prove someone wrong now is baiting ? Also, please show me where exactly I am wrong and GMforPowergamers is right on this, given that the data agrees with my interpretation


----------



## Blue

mamba said:


> heard of it, never played it. I believe a new version should come next year (mostly minor changes from what I understand - sounds familiar…), might give it a try then



I'm running two groups doing playtesting of the new edition of 13th Age.  I'm not exactly unbiased in my enjoyment of it.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

mamba said:


> I agree that it probably did so for the first month or two, I very much doubt it for the lifetime / overall. Would be nice to have some hard numbers either way.



It doesn't matter what you _believe._ The fact is, every edition of D&D has outsold the previous edition, comfortably as I understand it. 4e did not fail as an edition financially. It only slipped _on a metric which only measures brick-and-mortar book sales_ when Wizards of the Coast _stopped publishing new books._

It's not hard to fall into obscurity when you literally don't publish books for three years. All the meantime, of course, 4e was _objectively_ making hundreds of thousands of dollars a month via DDI subscriptions, which could be tracked in real time up until Wizards nuked their forums (again...), financial success that isn't tracked by the ICv2 numbers to the tiniest degree.

4e never failed _as an edition of D&D._ It only "failed" because, with a deck horrifically stacked against it and WotC making just about every possible unwise (or even stupid) decision it could, it failed to meet Hasbro "core brand" target numbers and it got demoted to life support status. 5e then got incredibly lucky, pretty much the exact and perfect antithesis of the horrible luck 4e got, and (as much as I don't care for it) did in fact make smart marketing and at times even design decisions.

Let the "4e was a horrible failure" myth go. It doesn't serve your point, isn't constructive, and most importantly _isn't true._ 5e already won the popularity contest. Don't weaken your position trying to defend falsities.


----------



## GreyLord

mamba said:


> I agree that it probably did so for the first month or two, I very much doubt it for the lifetime / overall. Would be nice to have some hard numbers either way.




What most people miss is the subscription model.

With that in place, even if 4e sold less hardcovers in the long run, it could have made it up with subscription.

With only 10K subscriptions (I know, I know, there are those numbers that say they had up to 80K+, but we are going low on purpose) at $10 a month is an easy 100K a month.  That is 1.2 Million a year.  

You can up it as you want.   Even at 10 mil a year though, that's no where close to 50 million.


----------



## Aldarc

Oofta said:


> I liked the concept of skill challenges, at least for some things, but as implemented at the tables I played at they didn't work very well.  I still use a variation of the skill challenge concept now and then but it's less static and more dynamic than what 4E implemented.
> 
> Whether D&D 5E works for things outside of combat is a personal preference.  It works fine for me and I have no desire whatsoever to resolving everything with dice rolls.



Index Card RPG utilizes something called Effort. It's basically like rolling damage to certain ability check tasks. You may be unlocking a lock, for example, and that lock has 1 Heart (=10 HP) and a DC 13. The thief will first roll an ability check for the DC 13 lock, and then their applicable Effort die: e.g., d6 Effort die with a 4 result, reducing the lock's Heart to 6 HP. So now the thief needs at least another round or two to make the check against the lock and roll their Effort until the lock is picked. This effectively is a skill challenge.


----------



## mamba

EzekielRaiden said:


> It doesn't matter what you _believe._ The fact is, every edition of D&D has outsold the previous edition, comfortably as I understand it.



I agree, in the face of data beliefs do not matter.

Since we have no sales data that is hard to know though, isn’t it? Which is why your strong opening statement fizzles into a weak ‘as I understand it’ 



EzekielRaiden said:


> 4e did not fail as an edition financially. It only slipped _on a metric which only measures brick-and-mortar book sales_ when Wizards of the Coast _stopped publishing new books._



it slipped to second place a year after PF was out and two years before they stopped publishing new stuff, nice try

Also, if it did not disappoint, why was it phased out so fast compared to any other edition?
Honest question, I have no axe to grind with 4e


EzekielRaiden said:


> 4e was _objectively_ making hundreds of thousands of dollars a month via DDI subscriptions, which could be tracked in real time up until Wizards nuked their forums (again...), financial success that isn't tracked by the ICv2 numbers to the tiniest degree.



Several 100k a month in revenue is peanuts. A whopping 5M in revenue a year if I am generous…


EzekielRaiden said:


> 4e never failed _as an edition of D&D._ It only "failed" because, with a deck horrifically stacked against it and WotC making just about every possible unwise (or even stupid) decision it could, it failed to meet Hasbro "core brand" target numbers and it got demoted to life support status.



So you are telling me it was the most successful version up to that point yet failed to meet the target numbers and they shelved it?



EzekielRaiden said:


> Let the "4e was a horrible failure" myth go. It doesn't serve your point, isn't constructive, and most importantly _isn't true._ 5e already won the popularity contest. Don't weaken your position trying to defend falsities.



Again, I have no axe to grind, I do not care which edition is the most popular one (not that there is any doubt), but all the (albeit limited) data I have does not agree with this. So I’d appreciate if you could show some hard data that shows what you are claiming.

From what little data I saw, and the fact that 4e was killed that fast, your claim about its success does not appear to be supported - and I have zero data that contradicts this statement.

Seems more like there are some defenders of 4e out there that are still not really over this


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Aldarc said:


> Index Card RPG utilizes something called Effort. It's basically like rolling damage to certain ability check tasks. You may be unlocking a lock, for example, and that lock has 1 Heart (=10 HP) and a DC 13. The thief will first roll an ability check for the DC 13 lock, and then their applicable Effort die: e.g., d6 Effort die with a 4 result, reducing the lock's Heart to 6 HP. So now the thief needs at least another round or two to make the check against the lock and roll their Effort until the lock is picked. This effectively is a skill challenge.



And it works pretty well. 

I use the same framework as Fantasy Age for extended skill tests: the roll as a DC to beat, a require time-per-roll and a total roll required to end the test. Every point of roll over the DC is cumulated toward the total roll (minimum 1). 

So a fighter climbing a huge cliff with athletic may enter a challenge with every roll requiring 5 minutes and a DC of 13. Reaching the top of the plateau requires a total of 15 points.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
All this arguing over which edition is the bestest is not constructive.

Thread closed.


----------

