# When are we getting the second playtest document?



## Ancalagon

Hello

I'm pretty sure that the playtest document is just the first of several.  Does anyone know when the next one is coming out?  Will it be for classes?  Feats?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Ancalagon said:


> Hello
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the playtest document is just the first of several.  Does anyone know when the next one is coming out?  Will it be for classes?  Feats?



I was about to ask the same thing this very minute. (les grands esprits de rencontrent!)


----------



## Charlaquin

They said packets would be _approximately_ once a month, but that it wasn’t a set schedule. So, probably soon, but also maybe not. We won’t really know when it will be until it drops, unless they announce it in advance. No word yet on what it will contain either, though some folks have speculated that they might be doing one class per packet, based on the fact that one class per packet once a month or so would line up with the 12 to 18 months time frame.


----------



## MarkB

At the very least they'll want to wait until the current survey closes on the 15th, to prevent contamination of the results.


----------



## Ibrandul

MarkB said:


> At the very least they'll want to wait until the current survey closes on the 15th, to prevent contamination of the results.



Perhaps. But WotC has no idea how to design and conduct a survey, so who knows?

Proof positive: the “rate each spell individually” survey from a while back listed each spell in alphabetical order, in the same order for every respondent. In a very long survey like that one, where respondents answer the same question dozens of times about different items, a nonrandomized question order guarantees skewed results, with the alphabetically later entries getting less attention, less thorough and less well-considered feedback, and more negative ratings. Survey Design 101, day one; WotC flunked.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I am betting Thursday when the Survey for the first UA closes.


----------



## Mind of tempest

I crave more hopefully stuff that matters to me more.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Mind of tempest said:


> I crave more hopefully stuff that matters to me more.



Well the next one is probably going to be classes.


----------



## Haplo781

MonsterEnvy said:


> Well the next one is probably going to be classes.



And hopefully where we'll see some significant changes.


----------



## MarkB

jeremypowell said:


> Proof positive: the “rate each spell individually” survey from a while back listed each spell in alphabetical order, in the same order for every respondent. In a very long survey like that one, where respondents answer the same question dozens of times about different items, a nonrandomized question order guarantees skewed results, with the alphabetically later entries getting less attention, less thorough and less well-considered feedback, and more negative ratings. Survey Design 101, day one; WotC flunked.



On the other hand, you'll get that fatigue no matter what order the list is in, and at least if WotC know which order you rated them in, they can account for it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

MarkB said:


> On the other hand, you'll get that fatigue no matter what order the list is in, and at least if WotC know which order you rated them in, they can account for it.



How do you account for people caring less about later questions?  By you not taking those results as seriously?  How does that help anyone?


----------



## MarkB

Micah Sweet said:


> How do you account for people caring less about later questions?  By you not taking those results as seriously?  How does that help anyone?



How do you account for people caring less about randomly-ordered questions? By not taking any of the results seriously?


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> How do you account for people caring less about later questions?  By you not taking those results as seriously?  How does that help anyone?



You can place them in random order for each survey to decrease order effects.  They don’t but could.  

“The expression “order effect” refers to the well-documented phenomenon that different orders in which the questions (or response alternatives) are presented may influence respondents' answers in a more or less systematic fashion (cf. Schuman & Presser, 1981).”


----------



## Micah Sweet

Warpiglet-7 said:


> You can place them in random order for each survey to decrease order effects.  They don’t but could.
> 
> “The expression “order effect” refers to the well-documented phenomenon that different orders in which the questions (or response alternatives) are presented may influence respondents' answers in a more or less systematic fashion (cf. Schuman & Presser, 1981).”



I believe you.  I'm saying that not randomizing the list gives you less viable data for the later questions, a problem that otherwise can't be fixed.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Micah Sweet said:


> I believe you.  I'm saying that not randomizing the list gives you less viable data for the later questions, a problem that otherwise can't be fixed.



Yes—agreeing with you.   In real research and test design the bar is higher.  I guess they think they will get good enough here.  

I am jaded too and sometimes wonder how much they change as a result of surveys but hopefully they listen.

At the same time most casual players probably don’t even know about this.


----------



## Parmandur

MarkB said:


> At the very least they'll want to wait until the current survey closes on the 15th, to prevent contamination of the results.



Probably they'll close the survey when they open the next section on Thursday.

I think a Class, or maybe two, seems plausible.

The only thing we know is that there is about a year of monthly UA planned, and that the first one was the big one, and subsequent UA will be smaller and more focused. So, Classes seem plausible for most or even all subsequent UA.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I imagine all the Classes will be part of the Class UA but no Subclasses yet.


----------



## Sir Brennen

With at least a dozen UAs coming out, I’m thinking we may not get all the classes at once, but maybe a couple per doc, with subclasses. And some may not be included because they will have small to no changes. 

It’s possible they may add a few new subclasses, or make some of those from existing supplements part of the core PHB.

 It’s also possible they add an entire new class to the PHB, like the Artificer. Again, depending on the extent of new material that could be it’s own UA.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Sir Brennen said:


> With at least a dozen UAs coming out, I’m thinking we may not get all the classes at once, but maybe a couple per doc, with subclasses. And some may not be included because they will have small to no changes.
> 
> It’s possible they may add a few new subclasses, or make some of those from existing supplements part of the core PHB.
> 
> It’s also possible they add an entire new class to the PHB, like the Artificer. Again, depending on the extent of new material that could be it’s own UA.



Given that they intend to go through all three core books, I am thinking classes will be one UA while Subclasses will be a later one.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> I imagine all the Classes will be part of the Class UA but no Subclasses yet.



I would imagine it's more likely they will do a single Class with all Subclasses, and any relevant rules adjustments.


----------



## Parmandur

Sir Brennen said:


> With at least a dozen UAs coming out, I’m thinking we may not get all the classes at once, but maybe a couple per doc, with subclasses. And some may not be included because they will have small to no changes.
> 
> It’s possible they may add a few new subclasses, or make some of those from existing supplements part of the core PHB.
> 
> It’s also possible they add an entire new class to the PHB, like the Artificer. Again, depending on the extent of new material that could be it’s own UA.



I think it's entirely possible that all further playtest documents may be Classes, frankly.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> Given that they intend to go through all three core books, I am thinking classes will be one UA while Subclasses will be a later one.



They don't necessarily intend to test all the core books. I doubt any Monsters will be put in UA, since none ever have. Classes may be all that they intend to put through the UA process.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> I doubt any Monsters will be put in UA, since none ever have.



It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.

Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.


----------



## Jahydin

I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.

Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.

Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I read somewhere that they were looking for our feedback on Layouts at some point (next is likely class-based). If we only do one class at a time for here on out, we won't get to anything else. So let's hope that we see more than one class. It will be telling either way.


----------



## MockingBird

Jahydin said:


> I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.
> 
> Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.
> 
> Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.



If WotC is really intending the new changes to be backwards compatible then we technically have most of the rules in current 5e. I get what you mean though and it would be nice to see the whole picture of what they are wanting to do. It is annoying getting pieces of the changes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jahydin said:


> I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.
> 
> Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.
> 
> Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.



Yeah, doing it this way seems more like a marketing gimmick, since you can't see rules interactions.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.
> 
> Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.



I think Monsters of the Multiverse is just a fait accompli, yeah, along with all of the other new Monster design which has been consistent the past two years. No real need to test it. I think that when Crawford said this first playtest was the big rules one...he meant it. And future packets will be about standard UA options for the core, to male sure they pass the public smell test.


----------



## Parmandur

Jahydin said:


> I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.
> 
> Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.
> 
> Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.



We've already had the ruleset for 8 years, thisnis just about new options on that chasis.


MockingBird said:


> If WotC is really intending the new changes to be backwards compatible then we technically have most of the rules in current 5e. I get what you mean though and it would be nice to see the whole picture of what they are wanting to do. It is annoying getting pieces of the changes.



We are getting the pieces that they want tonsee reactions to, the overall picture is...5E, with new optional pieces.


Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, doing it this way seems more like a marketing gimmick, since you can't see rules interactions.



Rules interactions aren't looked at in UA, never have been. These tests are about gauging public reception to an idea on a shallow level. Rules interactions get tested later.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> It's certainly possible that Wizards doesn't have any interest in public feedback on monsters, and MOTM represents a fait accompli. But I don't think we can determine anything about what will be in the One playtest packets based on past UAs. They've already included other material that wasn't tested in UAs, such as changes to combat, inspiration, and rests. And the D&D Next playtest certainly included monsters.
> 
> Also, considering some of the grumbling about the changes to monsters in MOTM, it would be sensible to provide an opportunity for large-scale public feedback. At least people would feel they had an opportunity to steer things, whether or not they did.



I don’t think they really asked for much feedback on monsters back during the Next playtest either. There were some polls about iconic monsters’ lore and visual designs. And I think I remember one about monster stat block layout. But I don’t think the actual monster stats themselves were ever polled, and when people would ask about that, they would say they’d work that out later and they were more concerned with getting the core mechanics and PC options feeling right first.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> We've already had the ruleset for 8 years, thisnis just about new options on that chasis.
> 
> We are getting the pieces that they want tonsee reactions to, the overall picture is...5E, with new optional pieces.
> 
> Rules interactions aren't looked at in UA, never have been. These tests are about gauging public reception to an idea on a shallow level. Rules interactions get tested later.



That's my point: they don't want real feedback.  They just want to see if a lot of people don't like it, and why doesn't seem to matter.  That's the only reaction they care about, because its the only one that changes their actions.  They should just tell people that's what they're doing.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think they really asked for much feedback on monsters back during the Next playtest either. There were some polls about iconic monsters’ lore and visual designs. And I think I remember one about monster stat block layout. But I don’t think the actual monster stats themselves were ever polled, and when people would ask about that, they would say they’d work that out later and they were more concerned with getting the core mechanics and PC options feeling right first.



Yeah, and in 8 years of UA, they have never tested a single Monster aside from some Summon stat blocks (which were about a Spell or Class feature). And rhey published a lookout of Monsters.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> That's my point: they don't want real feedback.  They just want to see if a lot of people don't like it, and why doesn't seem to matter.  That's the only reaction they care about, because its the only one that changes their actions.  They should just tell people that's what they're doing.



I mean...they have, repeatedly. And that is real feedback, it prevents things thst nobody wants from clogging the game and wasting deeper development time.


----------



## Maxperson

MarkB said:


> At the very least they'll want to wait until the current survey closes on the 15th, to prevent contamination of the results.



That's what I figured they were waiting on.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I mean...they have, repeatedly. And that is real feedback, it prevents things thst nobody wants from clogging the game and wasting deeper development time.



Then they might as well have their survey be, "how many stars would you give this?" And leave it at that.  If they don't care about people opinions beyond that, there's no point to asking for them.


----------



## Horwath

Or a new take on 100 feats or so that we now have in the game.

you know, balance and stuff...


----------



## Mephista

Thursday drop, then?


----------



## Sir Brennen

Micah Sweet said:


> Then they might as well have their survey be, "how many stars would you give this?" And leave it at that.  If they don't care about people opinions beyond that, there's no point to asking for them.



Where are you getting that they don't care about opinions?

Any individual opinion will be taken into consideration with a _whole bunch of other people's_ opinions. Not all opinions will agree with each other, so by necessity, there are some that won't result in changes. Doesn't mean they "don't care about" opinions.

However, it is a natural tendency to value our own opinion above others, and many players will think they're "being ignored" because their opinion/suggestion was in the minority, and so changes didn't go in that direction.

That is not the same thing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> That's my point: they don't want real feedback.  They just want to see if a lot of people don't like it, and why doesn't seem to matter.  That's the only reaction they care about, because its the only one that changes their actions.  They should just tell people that's what they're doing.




They are telling this for 10 years now... And giving the time to playtest UA and giving feedback, this is also what anyone could figure out themselves.

And this is the best way to handle it. They are game designers. We are customers (and armchair game designers). They want to gauge what we like and what we don't like, find out what is rejected and possibly, maybe have us find obvious flaws that slipped by and are menaingful for the average gamer.

So in a sense, it is partly marketing and partly getting around selection bias to get meaningful satifactory scores.
And still, they probably have found themselves and algorithm by which they weigh the answers to get us well liked books...

... and spelljammer, which might have suffered a bit because they were probably distracted from getting the core of A*D&D
ready for playtest.

*anniversary


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Then they might as well have their survey be, "how many stars would you give this?" And leave it at that.  If they don't care about people opinions beyond that, there's no point to asking for them.




Isn't this nearly exactly what we are doing. With a few fields for own suggestions.
I think they will have an algorithm to funnel some of those suggestions to them. Probably some AI that finds often used keywords and then gives a sample of those answers.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

This is certainly a popularity contest at this point.  If they are on the level, the main rules are there.

This is “do you like these tweaks?”  But it seems like their pool of tweaks to consider is mostly decided.  

It does not disappoint me necessarily since I have been pretty happy with 5e.  If someone is not this is probably not the most encouraging scenario.


----------



## Gorck

I wonder which order we'll see the class playtests released.  Maybe they'll start with the classes that most people think need the most help (Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer).  maybe they'll release the easy-to-fix classes first to give themselves more time to work on those harder ones.  Maybe there will be some classes that don't get changes at all from 5e.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Warpiglet-7 said:


> This is “do you like these tweaks?”  But it seems like their pool of tweaks to consider is mostly decided.



That's likely true, but the pool of tweaks had to come from somewhere. It's not like WotC hasn't been observing actual games, reading forums, and getting feedback from previous UAs. The changes they're offering for review didn't form in a vacuum.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Sir Brennen said:


> That's likely true, but the pool of tweaks had to come from somewhere. It's not like WotC hasn't been observing actual games, reading forums, and getting feedback from previous UAs. The changes they're offering for review didn't form in a vacuum.



Agreed.  I think they have a pool based on older feedback observations etc

I just don’t think they are going to listen to big requests at this point that they have not already put on the list to evaluate.

And honestly it suits me.  I don’t want my books and things to be suddenly worthless or not compatible.  I have not worked though most of it!

I really hope for mix and match ability.  If u like this monster, use it.  Like the new one better? Use it.  And the yawning portal, saltmarsh?  Drop em in your 5.5 stuff.

Exciting times.  We shall see where it goes.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Isn't this nearly exactly what we are doing. With a few fields for own suggestions.
> I think they will have an algorithm to funnel some of those suggestions to them. Probably some AI that finds often used keywords and then gives a sample of those answers.



Have any of those suggestions _ ever_ led to meaningful results?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

There's only two things in the current playtest that I object to (not that I have a problem with either, but I see both as things that the game would be better off without) and NEITHER of them came up on the Survey (IIRC).

1) I think the game is better off with Crits on 20's. Crits can mean something _different_ than "double damage dice" but whatever that is has to be a bit more than "inspiration", IMO.

2) Half-Races. I don't mind the idea presented in the playtest packet, but too many people appear to have (at least) half elf and half orc characters that they feel they'd have a hard time rebuilding in 50AD&D. I honestly don't expect them to keep this rule anyhow, which is probably why they didn't even bother to ask about it.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Then they might as well have their survey be, "how many stars would you give this?" And leave it at that.  If they don't care about people opinions beyond that, there's no point to asking for them.



I mean...that's what they do, for each element they want to know a reaction to. It's a 5 star system.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Have any of those suggestions _ ever_ led to meaningful results?



If you.look at the Xanathar's and Tasha's UA (which arr the model for what they are doing now at a bigger scale), then you will see that they revisit several options towards the end of the run. Per Crawford's discussion in Dragon Talk and Sage Advice, these were options that were well liked but had issues for people in not quite hitting the theme the first time (the Genie Warlock springs to mind on short notice). So, yes, the usual result is "they donloke it, cut it," but there are middle results where they bring an idea back to the drawing board based on comments and mixed reaction.


----------



## Parmandur

Gorck said:


> I wonder which order we'll see the class playtests released.  Maybe they'll start with the classes that most people think need the most help (Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer).  maybe they'll release the easy-to-fix classes first to give themselves more time to work on those harder ones.  Maybe there will be some classes that don't get changes at all from 5e.



I think the likely possibilities is that they will do it in alphabetical order (which they did for Xanathar's UA), in order of dissatisfaction (so Ranger first), or by some thematic group of pairings (like with Tasha's UA).


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Half-Races. I don't mind the idea presented in the playtest packet, but too many people appear to have (at least) half elf and half orc characters that they feel they'd have a hard time rebuilding in 50AD&D. I honestly don't expect them to keep this rule anyhow, which is probably why they didn't even bother to ask about it.



On the contrary, I think there is zero chance they don't move forwards with that change, and feedback wasn't welcome because it is happening.


----------



## ECMO3

Gorck said:


> I wonder which order we'll see the class playtests released.  Maybe they'll start with the classes that most people think need the most help (Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer).  maybe they'll release the easy-to-fix classes first to give themselves more time to work on those harder ones.  Maybe there will be some classes that don't get changes at all from 5e.



after tashas rangers do not need more help


----------



## Gorck

ECMO3 said:


> after tashas rangers do not need more help



True.  I was thinking about the PBH Ranger, which was . . . not good.  Tasha's fixed the class, but now they need to consolidate it into one entry rather than having it scattered across 2 books.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Have any of those suggestions _ ever_ led to meaningful results?




I don't know, because I only know a tiny fraction of those suggestions... my own...


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> On the contrary, I think there is zero chance they don't move forwards with that change, and feedback wasn't welcome because it is happening.



Well, I guess we will see. It strikes me as something that has three major problems that normally (IMO) would cause them to not move forward with due to:

1) It vastly bucks with tradition.
2) It screws up existing characters and therefore is unpopular.
3) It upsets some mixed-race real people.

These seem to me to be strong reasons why they'd backtrack on it.

Personally, I don't mind the playtest rules, but I don't see them moving forward with it. (UNLESS they come up with a way to swap a few abilities among mixed-race characters, at which point it might work. But that would require another pass at it.)


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Well, I guess we will see. It strikes me as something that has three major problems that normally (IMO) would cause them to not move forward with due to:
> 
> 1) It vastly bucks with tradition.
> 2) It screws up existing characters and therefore is unpopular.
> 3) It upsets some mixed-race real people.
> 
> These seem to me to be strong reasons why they'd backtrack on it.
> 
> Personally, I don't mind the playtest rules, but I don't see them moving forward with it. (UNLESS they come up with a way to swap a few abilities among mixed-race characters, at which point it might work. But that would require another pass at it.)



Half-Elf and Half-Orc from the 2014 PHB can still work in the game, is someone wants to use them, but this tefluff method is much, much less problematic.


----------



## Vael

I'm hoping this week, and also hoping for a class package. Now, I doubt we'll get all of them, so I'm thinking/hoping for 4 classes. Now, the obvious first four are the usual suspects: Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard. But I'm hoping they'll do the proud nails first: Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk and then Warlock (and we'll get a clearer picture of if they're doing anything with Short Rests in One DnD).


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> That's my point: they don't want real feedback.  They just want to see if a lot of people don't like it, and why doesn't seem to matter.  That's the only reaction they care about, because its the only one that changes their actions.  They should just tell people that's what they're doing.



Well, I mean, Level Up did heritages first, _then _individual classes. They just didn't wait a month between playtests and were _obviously_ interested in feedback, since they had a forum dedicated to it and not just a questionnaire.

Of course, it's entirely possible, even likely, that WotC is monitoring r/onednd and this forum and taking copious notes and just don't have someone dedicated to talking to the public. 

(I will be sticking with LU and 5e, so the end result of these playtests isn't actually important to me.)


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Half-Elf and Half-Orc from the 2014 PHB can still work in the game, is someone wants to use them, but this tefluff method is much, much less problematic.



Yeah, I get that. Unfortunately, that's NOT going to work to please just about anyone who wants the mixed races to exist. I agree with you that it maybe _should_, but it won't. You and I don't have to worry about that, but WotC does.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Faolyn said:


> Of course, it's entirely possible, even likely, that WotC is monitoring r/onednd and this forum and taking copious notes and just don't have someone dedicated to talking to the public.



It's also fraught with peril that an employee who actually engages with the public will (accidently or not) put their foot in their mouth and do more damage than good. Better to quietly watch and report.


----------



## Parmandur

Vael said:


> I'm hoping this week, and also hoping for a class package. Now, I doubt we'll get all of them, so I'm thinking/hoping for 4 classes. Now, the obvious first four are the usual suspects: Rogue, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard. But I'm hoping they'll do the proud nails first: Sorcerer, Ranger, Monk and then Warlock (and we'll get a clearer picture of if they're doing anything with Short Rests in One DnD).



Tasha's never did more than 2 at a time, and that UA was on a much tighter timeline, I would expect probably just 1.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yeah, I get that. Unfortunately, that's NOT going to work to please just about anyone who wants the mixed races to exist. I agree with you that it maybe _should_, but it won't. You and I don't have to worry about that, but WotC does.



Sure, but I thinknthey may have already done the calculus.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Parmandur said:


> I would imagine it's more likely they will do a single Class with all Subclasses, and any relevant rules adjustments.





Parmandur said:


> I think it's entirely possible that all further playtest documents may be Classes, frankly.



That does not make sense with what they outright told use the UA's would be.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> That does not make sense with what they outright told use the UA's would be.



They said subsequent UAs would be smaller and more focused than the first one, without as much rules content (so each one notably less than 21 pages, max). And there will be about a year's worth according to their initial plan, so about enough for one Class a month. They didn't say much else.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Parmandur said:


> They said subsequent UAs would be smaller and more focused than the first one, without as much rules content (so each one notably less than 21 pages, max). And there will be about a year's worth according to their initial plan, so about enough for one Class a month. They didn't say much else.



They outright said they were going to focus on Spells, DM material, Monsters, and other things.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> They outright said they were going to focus on Spells, DM material, Monsters, and other things.



When did Crawford say that in the UA video, specifically? Not saying that you are wrong, but exact quotes would be helpful.


----------



## Faolyn

MonsterEnvy said:


> They outright said they were going to focus on Spells, DM material, Monsters, and other things.



I have to say, focusing on playtesting monsters is kind of weird, unless they're trying for a very different format.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Faolyn said:


> I have to say, focusing on playtesting monsters is kind of weird, unless they're trying for a very different format.



They may want to change around the math and such. 

Anyway we will find out soon enough what the next UA is.


----------



## Vael

Parmandur said:


> Tasha's never did more than 2 at a time, and that UA was on a much tighter timeline, I would expect probably just 1.




Possibly, I guess it depends how much work has been done. If it is going to be one at a time, I still think WotC should give priority to the 4 I named because they've had more issues, so more time to playtest and work on them would be a good idea.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> No word yet on what it will contain either, though some folks have speculated that they might be doing one class per packet, based on the fact that one class per packet once a month or so would line up with the 12 to 18 months time frame.



I like that speculation is all over the map on this, from your comment here all the way to the comments directly above mine. 

I think we will get groups of classes, to give testing time to process, and leave some buffer time in case anything bombs.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I like that speculation is all over the map on this, from your comment here all the way to the comments directly above mine.
> 
> I think we will get groups of classes, to give testing time to process, and leave some buffer time in case anything bombs.



Well, the buffer time is what Crawford is allowing for if the playtest goes past a year, up to 18 months...which would lineup with doing a Class a month with the expectation that a redo might be needed.

But we'll see the shape of it soon enough, and groupings like Tasha would make sense.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Half-Elf and Half-Orc from the 2014 PHB can still work in the game, is someone wants to use them, but this tefluff method is much, much less problematic.



No, it isn’t. It is vastly more problematic. 

I am not just a Mexican who looks Anglo, my ex is not just a Jew who looks Black. 

It is insultingly reductive, and actively erases mixed-race people from the “flagship” presentation of the game. 

It’s the only thing that they’ve tested that has made me feel unwelcome in the game, or made me really angry.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it isn’t. It is vastly more problematic.
> 
> I am not just a Mexican who looks Anglo, my ex is not just a Jew who looks Black.
> 
> It is insultingly reductive, and actively erases mixed-race people from the “flagship” presentation of the game.
> 
> It’s the only thing that they’ve tested that has made me feel unwelcome in the game, or made me really angry.



I appreciate that you feel that way. But Mexicans and Anglos, Africans and Jews are all the same species, which is significantly different than the weirdness surrounding the traditional Half-Elf and Half-Orc. Increasing options and open-endedness in fluff is, imo, a worthwhile path to take. This makes creating a character occupying that cultural liminal space easier, not harder.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I appreciate that you feel that way. But Mexicans and Anglos, Africans and Jews are all the same species, which is significantly different than the weirdness surrounding the traditional Half-Elf and Half-Orc. Increasing options and open-endedness in fluff is, imo, a worthwhile path to take. This makes creating a character occupying that cultural liminal space easier, not harder.



Erasing existing mixed race representation in the game is not acceptable.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Erasing existing mixed race representation in the game is not acceptable.



But it isn't, it's reframing the mechanical representation to make new combinations more simple to implement. I have no doubt that Half-Elf and Half-Orc characters will remain in the art and fiction prominently. Heck, one of the main announcements at the WotC Presents is a webcomic starring a Half-Elf teenager, Half-Drow even. But now it is just as easy to put out a Half-Gnome/Dwarf character, or a Half-Kenku/Half-Tortle.


----------



## Faolyn

Parmandur said:


> I appreciate that you feel that way. But Mexicans and Anglos, Africans and Jews are all the same species, which is significantly different than the weirdness surrounding the traditional Half-Elf and Half-Orc. Increasing options and open-endedness in fluff is, imo, a worthwhile path to take. This makes creating a character occupying that cultural liminal space easier, not harder.



I really don't think it would. It's just asking people to say "I'm a elf stat-wise, but really I'm actually half-elf, half-human" In a game where race is a second thought, that's fine, but in a game that historically has statted out every possible race and subrace, including probably twenty or so different types of elves, not giving a way for people to play the type of half-whatever they want is a big step backwards--and, as @doctorbadwolf said, pretty darn insulting to many people.  

It would have been _really _simple for them to let people mix-and-match traits to create their half-whatevers. If they were really worried about balance, they could have simply put an asterisk next to one trait in every racial block and said that you could switch that one trait out for a different race's asterisk'd trait and then made sure that each asterisk'd trait was "equal" in terms of power.


----------



## Parmandur

Faolyn said:


> but in a game that historically has statted out every possible race and subrace



I think that's a history they are looking to change. Hence making Background more important to the power equation than Race.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I like that speculation is all over the map on this, from your comment here all the way to the comments directly above mine.
> 
> I think we will get groups of classes, to give testing time to process, and leave some buffer time in case anything bombs.



That’s speculation for you. We’re all just guessing based on little but our feelings.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Sure, but I thinknthey may have already done the calculus.



Sure, we agree on that. We only differ on which way the math lands. While I don't mind the new "refluff" method, I've listened to folks like @doctorbadwolf, and I hear them. I suspect WotC hears them too. 

If they're not going to put in Half Elves and Half Orcs, then they HAVE to come up with a method to mix them properly (though they'd still be left with the fact that those two have an identity of their own in the game that doesn't exactly put them half-way between their "parents". (Half Orc less so, of course.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Jahydin said:


> I'm pretty bummed this is the way they decided the playtest would go.
> 
> Would have preferred the entire rule set drop so it was easier to see how everything interacted at the same time.
> 
> Also, reading about actual playtests instead of whiteboarding/speculating would be a lot more fun and informative.



I’ve seen a lot of actual playtesting accounts. The rest of the rules are just the existing rules. 


Parmandur said:


> But it isn't, it's reframing the mechanical representation to make new combinations more simple to implement.



I mean if you just don’t care because you like it, you can just say that.  


Parmandur said:


> I have no doubt that Half-Elf and Half-Orc characters will remain in the art and fiction prominently. Heck, one of the main announcements at the WotC Presents is a webcomic starring a Half-Elf teenager, Half-Drow even. But now it is just as easy to put out a Half-Gnome/Dwarf character, or a Half-Kenku/Half-Tortle.



Is it? Are you playing such a character if there is no mechanical difference between you and a Gnome, or a Kenku? 

Beyond that, the optics matter. I’m hardly alone in seeing this as the rules telling me that my identity isn’t valid.  


FitzTheRuke said:


> Sure, we agree on that. We only differ on which way the math lands. While I don't mind the new "refluff" method, I've listened to folks like @doctorbadwolf, and I hear them. I suspect WotC hears them too.
> 
> If they're not going to put in Half Elves and Half Orcs, then they HAVE to come up with a method to mix them properly (though they'd still be left with the fact that those two have an identity of their own in the game that doesn't exactly put them half-way between their "parents". (Half Orc less so, of course.)



Exactly this. D&D is a game wherein the mechanics are part of the story, and players want to have their story choices to have mechanical weight. 

It’s be fine if they still had the half-elf and half-Orc in the new PHB, and had a little more mechanical mixing between your parent races. 

But both reducing mixed heritage to “you’re one thing and can describe yourself how you want”, and removing the two most prominent mixed heritage races that have been part of the game for decades, feels like being told to gtfo.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean if you just don’t care because you like it, you can just say that.



I like it, yes, because I find it very much less problematic than the hybrid vigor/blood quantum ickiness inherent in traditional D&D Half-Elves and Half-Orcs which TSR and WotC never managed to escape.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Is it? Are you playing such a character if there is no mechanical difference between you and a Gnome, or a Kenku?



Yes, mechanics are just mechanics. This provides a scaleable solution that allows for greater variety in character concept realization.

That said, I respect your feelings on it, and if you want to have the last word, be my guest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I like it, yes, because I find it very much less problematic than the hybrid vigor/blood quantum ickiness inherent in traditional D&D Half-Elves and Half-Orcs which TSR and WotC never managed to escape.



I have never heard anyone suggest such a thing in my life, and I find the notion rather odd. The tie between D&D races and IRL races is how D&D races can speak to an experience. Half elves speak to certain mixed race experiences, as do half orcs. They do so differently from eachother, as well. 


Parmandur said:


> Yes, mechanics are just mechanics. This provides a scaleable solution that allows for greater variety in character concept realization.



No. If you say, “you can call you elf a gnome” and provide no actual gnome mechanics, in a game based on concepts represented with distinct mechanics, you’ve removed gnomes. Full stop.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Warpiglet-7 said:


> At the same time most casual players probably don’t even know about this.



Given how many people downloaded the playtest document, I'm not sure if that's a big enough number to worry about.

It would be _nice_ for WotC to get more engagement from the player who only plays with their family every year at Christmas, but it's hardly essential for this survey to reach them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Sir Brennen said:


> It’s also possible they add an entire new class to the PHB, like the Artificer. Again, depending on the extent of new material that could be it’s own UA.



I still fantasize about them swinging for the fences and bringing back the Marshal/Warlord.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

ECMO3 said:


> after tashas rangers do not need more help



Yeah, I expect 99% of what's in Tasha's to be added to the 2024 rulebook, along with maybe a balance pass on the subclasses, and they'll call it a day.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Faolyn said:


> I have to say, focusing on playtesting monsters is kind of weird, unless they're trying for a very different format.



I mentioned it on another thread, but this is a monster book format I'd love to see 5E adopt: The Monster Overhaul.

I appreciate that there's an audience for RPG books as books to just be enjoyed, but I think maximum utility at the table is what should be guiding most game publishers' design decisions. Give me an MM that will negate the need for me to have a half dozen other books nearby to fill in the gaps, including a print out of my Google Doc of random names by NPC type.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have never heard anyone suggest such a thing in my life, and I find the notion rather odd. The tie between D&D races and IRL races is how D&D races can speak to an experience. Half elves speak to certain mixed race experiences, as do half orcs. They do so differently from eachother, as well.



You haven't heard of the staggeringly precise quantifications of how Black ancestry granted differing civil rights, both in the U.S. and South Africa (and I suspect, elsewhere), along with the incredibly racist bases for such reasoning?

I hear you on wanting to feel represented in D&D, but does that necessarily have to come with being multi-racial gives a character mechanical benefits distinct from either parent?

It's not my personal experience, so I'm asking and listening here: Are the specific half-ancestry mechanical differences required to tell those stories and represent characters of that sort of background?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I mentioned it on another thread, but this is a monster book format I'd love to see 5E adopt: The Monster Overhaul.
> 
> I appreciate that there's an audience for RPG books as books to just be enjoyed, but I think maximum utility at the table is what should be guiding most game publishers' design decisions. Give me an MM that will negate the need for me to have a half dozen other books nearby to fill in the gaps, including a print out of my Google Doc of random names by NPC type.



I'm in the audience you're talking about, and have been since the mid '80s.  I would never buy any book that is presented as you describe.  4e wasn't nearly that bad and it still turned me off for that reason.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm in the audience you're talking about, and have been since the mid '80s.  I would never buy any book that is presented as you describe.  4e wasn't nearly that bad and it still turned me off for that reason.



You were turned off because the books were _too useful? _I feel like I'm not grasping your meaning here.

I don't mean that books shouldn't be beautiful or have nice fluff. I'm on record as thinking the 3E Draconomicon is arguably the best first-party D&D book of all time.

But I think of the 3E Monsternomicon or Atlas Games' Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary. Both of them were _gorgeous_, but were so overly designed that, with the Fantasy Bestiary especially, it greatly slowed down play at the table just trying to find the information I needed at the table. (Which is a shame, because the Fantasy Bestiary is stuffed full of great monsters that are just my style.)


----------



## Faolyn

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You haven't heard of the staggeringly precise quantifications of how Black ancestry granted differing civil rights, both in the U.S. and South Africa (and I suspect, elsewhere), along with the incredibly racist bases for such reasoning?
> 
> I hear you on wanting to feel represented in D&D, but does that necessarily have to come with being multi-racial gives a character mechanical benefits distinct from either parent?
> 
> It's not my personal experience, so I'm asking and listening here: Are the specific half-ancestry mechanical differences required to tell those stories and represent characters of that sort of background?



I think it's less about mechanics and more about recognition and validity. If only "whole" or "pure" races are presented (in a game that has traditionally _had _half-races), then it suggests that those people of mixed ancestry don't count and even don't exist. As I suggested earlier, they could have simply let people switch out one or a couple of abilities rather than create half-elves and half-orcs and even that would be enough to show that mixed ancestry is a thing that is recognized as valid.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Faolyn said:


> I think it's less about mechanics and more about recognition and validity. If only "whole" or "pure" races are presented (in a game that has traditionally _had _half-races), then it suggests that those people of mixed ancestry don't count and even don't exist. As I suggested earlier, they could have simply let people switch out one or a couple of abilities rather than create half-elves and half-orcs and even that would be enough to show that mixed ancestry is a thing that is recognized as valid.



I suspect they're worrying about folks min-maxing those rules, but off the top of my head, I don't see any egregious ways to break things by allowing that. If you haven't submitted a survey yet, I'd put that in the big block at the end as a suggestion.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I suspect they're worrying about folks min-maxing those rules, but off the top of my head, I don't see any egregious ways to break things by allowing that. If you haven't submitted a survey yet, I'd put that in the big block at the end as a suggestion.



I am of the strong opinion that races should have inate and cultural traits and that the latter should be select one from a short list. Like Dwarves could have Forge Wise, Heavy Armour prof and a couple of others, pick one and these could be swappable or else nominate a traits that are swappable and make it so. I did write that up in the survey.

Edit: Spelling


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngainlyTitan said:


> I am of the strong opinion that races should have inate and cultural traits and that the latter should be select one from a short list. Like Dwarves could have Force Wise, Heavy Armour prof and a couple of others, pick one and these could be swappable or else nominate a traits that are swappable and make it so. I did write that up in the survey.



And I strongly disagree. Culture should not be connected to racial mechanics at all. It should be separate and available to be chosen by any race. Tying culture to racial mechanics is an awful decision.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You haven't heard of the staggeringly precise quantifications of how Black ancestry granted differing civil rights, both in the U.S. and South Africa (and I suspect, elsewhere), along with the incredibly racist bases for such reasoning?



What? I said I’ve never heard someone suggest that D&D half elves and half orcs represent anything like the blood quantum ideology or anything associated with it. 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I hear you on wanting to feel represented in D&D, but does that necessarily have to come with being multi-racial gives a character mechanical benefits distinct from either parent?



I mean, yes, frankly. 

Imagine a game in which different cultures have different stats. Now imagine that a marginalized culture that you are a part of is not given stats in a new version of the game, even though that culture’s history in the game is basically as long as the history of the game. Instead, you’re told by the game that your identity can be reduced to “looks however you want, but uses all the mechanics of one neighboring culture”. 

Like I genuinely don’t see how any of what I’m saying is even controversial. 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's not my personal experience, so I'm asking and listening here: Are the specific half-ancestry mechanical differences required to tell those stories and represent characters of that sort of background?



Yes, effectively. 

Things that you “reflavor” into the game only exist at your table. They aren’t part of The Game. They therefor aren’t part of the culture of the game. When the game books remove something mechanically, but give you permission you never needed anyway to describe your character as that thing they’ve removed mechanically, they have erased that thing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

doctorbadwolf said:


> What? I said I’ve never heard someone suggest that D&D half elves and half orcs represent anything like the blood quantum ideology or anything associated with it.



I apologize, I misunderstood you.

I do think this is WotC is heading off anticipated trouble, rather than trouble that's already here. But I think the blow-ups over the drow and orcs are just the beginning and I have a hard time seeing the change to half-races as anything other than them trying to prevent a blow-up over those rules.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Imagine a game in which different cultures have different stats. Now imagine that a marginalized culture that you are a part of is not given stats in a new version of the game, even though that culture’s history in the game is basically as long as the history of the game. Instead, you’re told by the game that your identity can be reduced to “looks however you want, but uses all the mechanics of one neighboring culture”.
> 
> Like I genuinely don’t see how any of what I’m saying is even controversial.
> 
> Yes, effectively.
> 
> Things that you “reflavor” into the game only exist at your table. They aren’t part of The Game. They therefor aren’t part of the culture of the game. When the game books remove something mechanically, but give you permission you never needed anyway to describe your character as that thing they’ve removed mechanically, they have erased that thing.



An eloquent and compelling argument. We'll see if WotC is listening.


----------



## Parmandur

Faolyn said:


> I think it's less about mechanics and more about recognition and validity. If only "whole" or "pure" races are presented (in a game that has traditionally _had _half-races), then it suggests that those people of mixed ancestry don't count and even don't exist. As I suggested earlier, they could have simply let people switch out one or a couple of abilities rather than create half-elves and half-orcs and even that would be enough to show that mixed ancestry is a thing that is recognized as valid.



The new rules provide more options for hybrid characters, not fewer.


----------



## MockingBird

doctorbadwolf said:


> What? I said I’ve never heard someone suggest that D&D half elves and half orcs represent anything like the blood quantum ideology or anything associated with it.
> 
> I mean, yes, frankly.
> 
> Imagine a game in which different cultures have different stats. Now imagine that a marginalized culture that you are a part of is not given stats in a new version of the game, even though that culture’s history in the game is basically as long as the history of the game. Instead, you’re told by the game that your identity can be reduced to “looks however you want, but uses all the mechanics of one neighboring culture”.
> 
> Like I genuinely don’t see how any of what I’m saying is even controversial.
> 
> Yes, effectively.
> 
> Things that you “reflavor” into the game only exist at your table. They aren’t part of The Game. They therefor aren’t part of the culture of the game. When the game books remove something mechanically, but give you permission you never needed anyway to describe your character as that thing they’ve removed mechanically, they have erased that thing.



I agree whole heartedly with you. I think the way they are going about it is not good.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I apologize, I misunderstood you.



It’s cool. I actually kinda feel like the proposed rules are closer to Blood quantum, actually. Doesn’t matter what the other parents background is, you are always one race and only one race. 

Just one drop is all it takes. 

No. Absolutely not. I am both things. The end. 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I do think this is WotC is heading off anticipated trouble, rather than trouble that's already here. But I think the blow-ups over the drow and orcs are just the beginning and I have a hard time seeing the change to half-races as anything other than them trying to prevent a blow-up over those rules.



Yeah, absolutely. And I think they are within reach of rules that won’t cause the same problems. 
Just make it so size can be chosen from either race regardless of your “main” mechanical race, and be proactive and explicit that you can swap proficiencies, and it’s 90% there. 

An updated custom lineage ruleset that includes a table of existing races traits that you can use to make a lineage would work too, frankly. 




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> An eloquent and compelling argument. We'll see if WotC is listening.



Thank you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The new rules provide more options for hybrid characters, not fewer.



In the same way that getting rid of race mechanics would provide more options. 

As it is, there aren’t hybrid characters. There are just elfs with tusks.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

The Star Wars Saga Edition model for creating new “near human” species is a great mechanical model for making a mixed race character. 









						Near-Humans
					

Reference Book: Star Wars Saga Edition Unknown Regions Throughout much of the galaxy, Humans are the most commonly encountered Species. Not surprisingly, after a millennium of interstellar travel and colonization, an enormous number of humanoids share a common genetic code. Commonly called...




					swse.fandom.com


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> In the same way that getting rid of race mechanics would provide more options.



I mean,  that might be a good idea, frankly. Just expand Background more and drip "Race."


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I mean,  that might be a good idea, frankly. Just expand Background more and drip "Race."



I’m not a fan of the “this is thorny so we should just ditch it altogether” option, especially when there are so many ways to go that don’t lean into that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m not a fan of the “this is thorny so we should just ditch it altogether” option, especially when there are so many ways to go that don’t lean into that.



That does seem to be WotC's go-to though.


----------



## JEB

Micah Sweet said:


> That does seem to be WotC's go-to though.



But they have been known to reverse course as well - remember when we lost alignment in official products and it came back within products in the same year?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Parmandur said:


> I mean,  that might be a good idea, frankly. Just expand Background more and drip "Race."



That's too big of a change for 2024, though.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> But they have been known to reverse course as well - remember when we lost alignment in official products and it came back within products in the same year?



True, but they didn't ask people if they liked removing alignment in the first place.  They just did it.


----------



## Haplo781

Micah Sweet said:


> True, but they didn't ask people if they liked removing alignment in the first place.  They just did it.



And they should have stuck with it.


----------



## Parmandur

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That's too big of a change for 2024, though.



Probably. Pity.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I do think this is WotC is heading off anticipated trouble, rather than trouble that's already here. But I think the blow-ups over the drow and orcs are just the beginning and I have a hard time seeing the change to half-races as anything other than them trying to prevent a blow-up over those rules.



Honestly, I am surprised they even kept the term "race" in the game. That has been a major request of a lot of gamers interested in social justice issues on Twitter and WOTC seemed to be headed that way as recently as a year ago.


----------



## Parmandur

The Myopic Sniper said:


> Honestly, I am surprised they even kept the term "race" in the game. That has been a major request of a lot of gamers interested in social justice issues on Twitter and WOTC seemed to be headed that way as recently as a year ago.



My feedback was that they should drop the word.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

The Myopic Sniper said:


> Honestly, I am surprised they even kept the term "race" in the game. That has been a major request of a lot of gamers interested in social justice issues on Twitter and WOTC seemed to be headed that way as recently as a year ago.



That's still doable -- they don't have anything like a final draft for the 2024 PHB yet. It's a little more work than just doing a copy and replace on the document (you have to make sure you don't have any unintended typos, with "brace" being turned into "bancestry," or the like), but it's something they can do relatively late in the game.

I wouldn't rule out a press release and a YouTube video announcing something like them dropping the word some time next year.


----------



## Faolyn

Parmandur said:


> The new rules provide more options for hybrid characters, not fewer.



They don't. New rules would be actual mechanics. What they're saying is "just pretend your elf is a half-elf."


----------



## Parmandur

Faolyn said:


> They don't. New rules would be actual mechanics. What they're saying is "just pretend your elf is a half-elf."



Background Feats can do a lot of the legwork here, and provide more variety of individual expression.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And I strongly disagree. Culture should not be connected to racial mechanics at all. It should be separate and available to be chosen by any race. Tying culture to racial mechanics is an awful decision.



The you better tell Wizards about that because they are. But I do not have an objection to what you are saying. However, every race will also be a member of a culture, will they not? So, what is the issues when picking a race to picking up a cultural trait or two. I do not have a problem if this comes from a cultural pool as long as the trails cover the common existing racial tropes for the traditionalists.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

UngainlyTitan said:


> The you better tell Wizards about that because they are. But I do not have an objection to what you are saying. However, every race will also be a member of a culture, will they not? So, what is the issues when picking a race to picking up a cultural trait or two. I do not have a problem if this comes from a cultural pool as long as the trails cover the common existing racial tropes for the traditionalists.



Then separate Race and Culture into two different options. Race is all of the genetic and "magical" parts of your race that you get just for being a member of that race (spellcasting, extra movement speeds, extra senses, etc), while Culture is the proficiencies that you get for being a member of that culture (a warrior culture would give proficiency in certain weapons, while a mining/smithing culture would give proficiency in smith's tools). 

And I did mention this in the feedback survey.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Then separate Race and Culture into two different options. Race is all of the genetic and "magical" parts of your race that you get just for being a member of that race (spellcasting, extra movement speeds, extra senses, etc), while Culture is the proficiencies that you get for being a member of that culture (a warrior culture would give proficiency in certain weapons, while a mining/smithing culture would give proficiency in smith's tools).
> 
> And I did mention this in the feedback survey.



That is what I was advocating for, more or less, obviously not very well but we are in agreement, i think.


----------



## vagabundo

I'm an elf, but my grandfather was an orc and somewhere I had a Dragonborn ancestor:

I can pick one elf, orc and dragonborn trait. I don't think its mechanically hard to do if its structured right.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Then separate Race and Culture into two different options. Race is all of the genetic and "magical" parts of your race that you get just for being a member of that race (spellcasting, extra movement speeds, extra senses, etc), while Culture is the proficiencies that you get for being a member of that culture (a warrior culture would give proficiency in certain weapons, while a mining/smithing culture would give proficiency in smith's tools).
> 
> And I did mention this in the feedback survey.



The Level Up solution.


----------



## Mind of tempest

vagabundo said:


> I'm an elf, but my grandfather was an orc and somewhere I had a Dragonborn ancestor:
> 
> I can pick one elf, orc and dragonborn trait. I don't think its mechanically hard to do if its structured right.



dude, you know how fast that would turn in to min-maxing right?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mind of tempest said:


> dude, you know how fast that would turn in to min-maxing right?



How bad can you possibly min-max based on 05e's racial abilities?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> The Level Up solution.




Please don't turn 5e into level up...

... we already have level up, and it is a good game which is slightly more complex than core 5e.

We still need a simpler core 5e. Having 2 level ups makes one redundant.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Please don't turn 5e into level up...
> 
> ... we already have level up, and it is a good game which is slightly more complex than core 5e.
> 
> We still need a simpler core 5e. Having 2 level ups makes one redundant.



I'm right there with you, although I don't need 5e anymore.  I just don't think WotC will "fix" the fighter the way some people here want.  They have no financial motivation to do so.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm right there with you, although I don't need 5e anymore.  I just don't think WotC will "fix" the fighter the way some people here want.  They have no financial motivation to do so.




The already did a fix. A good fix with the new grapple and shove rules.

And they buffed str and versatile in one go.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> The already did a fix. A good fix with the new grapple and shove rules.
> 
> And they buffed str and versatile in one go.



You're right.  Fighter fixed forever.  No one needs to talk about this ever again.


----------



## Faolyn

Parmandur said:


> Background Feats can do a lot of the legwork here, and provide more variety of individual expression.



So then you have to sacrifice a potentially useful feat for something to flavor your choice in race. Effectively, a tax on half-races.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm right there with you, although I don't need 5e anymore.  I just don't think WotC will "fix" the fighter the way some people here want.  They have no financial motivation to do so.



Actually, they do have financial reasons to change the fighter: people aren't going to want to buy a game that's _exactly _like the old game, because who wants to shell out $40 or more for a book that doesn't change what you want changed? 

If they _don't _"fix" the fighter (or any other class or race or ability), it will be because of internal reasons, a misunderstanding of what players want, because just as many or more players want it the original way as want it changed, or out of a desire to keep it simple--_not _because of financial reasons.


----------



## Gorck

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but I'm new around here.  What's broken about the Fighter?


----------



## eyeheartawk

Gorck said:


> I'm probably going to regret asking this, but I'm new around here.  What's broken about the Fighter?


----------



## ersatzphil

doctorbadwolf said:


> I actually kinda feel like the proposed rules are closer to Blood quantum, actually. Doesn’t matter what the other parents background is, you are always one race and only one race.
> 
> Just one drop is all it takes.
> 
> No. Absolutely not. I am both things. The end.



I... man, that's a _hell_ of an argument. I'd seriously recommend putting that verbatim in the playtest feedback.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

UngeheuerLich said:


> Please don't turn 5e into level up...



I don't think there's any danger of it happening, no matter how many times it's mentioned on the 1D&D forum, any more than people posting that "Android did it first" on articles about iPhones will get Apple to give up on iOS.


----------



## MarkB

vagabundo said:


> I'm an elf, but my grandfather was an orc and somewhere I had a Dragonborn ancestor:
> 
> I can pick one elf, orc and dragonborn trait. I don't think its mechanically hard to do if its structured right.



So basically, as with backgrounds, the default option is Custom Race, and then there's a list of Example Races such as humans, elves, dragonborn and tieflings. It's doable, certainly, but I don't think they'd have much luck selling it to the playerbase at large.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

ersatzphil said:


> I... man, that's a _hell_ of an argument. I'd seriously recommend putting that verbatim in the playtest feedback.



Thanks, I may just do that.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> My feedback was that they should drop the word.



There is no way to use the term "race" casually.

Even in best case senarios, I end up with sentences like:
"To focus on the themes and tropes of a setting, pick say five races to center the setting around, and remove the other races."

Then cringe at the wording.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Actually, they do have financial reasons to change the fighter: people aren't going to want to buy a game that's _exactly _like the old game, because who wants to shell out $40 or more for a book that doesn't change what you want changed?
> 
> If they _don't _"fix" the fighter (or any other class or race or ability), it will be because of internal reasons, a misunderstanding of what players want, because just as many or more players want it the original way as want it changed, or out of a desire to keep it simple--_not _because of financial reasons.



Maybe.  Maybe the changes to races and such are the main changes to 1d&d, and the class stuff will be minor.  They said the first UA would be the big one.  

Maybe they'll trust that all the new art will encourage people to open their wallets.  Apparently, that was their main stated selling point for Spelljammer.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I don't think there's any danger of it happening, no matter how many times it's mentioned on the 1D&D forum, any more than people posting that "Android did it first" on articles about iPhones will get Apple to give up on iOS.



WotC's design parameters are nearly opposite those of Level Up, as far as I can tell.  That's why they're not getting any more of my money.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC's design parameters are nearly opposite those of Level Up, as far as I can tell.  That's why they're not getting any more of my money.



a) can you define them
b) you got evidence beyond feelings?


----------



## vagabundo

MarkB said:


> So basically, as with backgrounds, the default option is Custom Race, and then there's a list of Example Races such as humans, elves, dragonborn and tieflings. It's doable, certainly, but I don't think they'd have much luck selling it to the playerbase at large.




Well it would be the default for "half" races. But you could just have the standard packet of traits if you just want to roll and elf. Basically a multiclassing for races option. As long the the option was presented as an way that shows its an equal to picking a "full" race option I think it could satisfy people who want that from a fluff or from a mechanical perspective. 

2.5 edition (Players Options: Skills and Powers) had something similar based on a point system, really just minor/major traits, 5 or 10 points. It had a smaller list for the Half-elf or Half orc picked from the Elf or Orc lists, but it could have easily just allowed pick and mix without too much trouble - since it was probably not very balanced, but its lots of fun.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mind of tempest said:


> a) can you define them
> b) you got evidence beyond feelings?



Level Up is designed to add a bit more complexity and mechanical options to the game, with an emphasis on expanding the exploration and social pillars mechanically in a fun way.  1D&D (and it's parent 5e under WotC) wants to lower the bar for new players and simplify the game as much as possible without cutting too deeply into the fun parts.  I've seen no evidence they intend to do anything interesting with the noncombat parts of the game either.

The two games' handling of half-heritage characters are brilliant examples of this fundamental difference.


----------



## Charlaquin

MarkB said:


> So basically, as with backgrounds, the default option is Custom Race, and then there's a list of Example Races such as humans, elves, dragonborn and tieflings. It's doable, certainly, but I don't think they'd have much luck selling it to the playerbase at large.



I think that would be harder to do with races than it is with backgrounds because races don’t have standardized benefits, and many of the features they grant are hard to evaluate compared to one another. Many attempts have been made at assigning point values to various race features but they all have to make certain assumptions that don’t always hold up in other areas. I’m not saying this couldn’t be done, but it would be very tricky. Maybe you could turn all racial features into 1st level feats, and race could grant you some number of said feats? That’d be very PF2.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up is designed to add a bit more complexity and mechanical options to the game, with an emphasis on expanding the exploration and social pillars mechanically in a fun way.  1D&D (and it's parent 5e under WotC) wants to lower the bar for new players and simplify the game as much as possible without cutting too deeply into the fun parts.  I've seen no evidence they intend to do anything interesting with the noncombat parts of the game either.
> 
> The two games' handling of half-heritage characters are brilliant examples of this fundamental difference.



Yeah, 1D&D and LU feel very much feel like 5e’s version of the basic/advanced split. If I end up disliking the 1D&D changes, LU would probably be the game I’d switch to.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> I've seen no evidence they intend to do anything interesting with the noncombat parts of the game either.



Yeah, I mean, to be fair we haven't had the material that would really show that, but certainly nothing indicates 1D&D is seeking to improve the social/exploration pillars so far, and it's not been a goal mentioned by the designers.

Who knows though, maybe there'll be an entire playtest document on it. I just really doubt it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, I mean, to be fair we haven't had the material that would really show that, but certainly nothing indicates 1D&D is seeking to improve the social/exploration pillars so far, and it's not been a goal mentioned by the designers.
> 
> Who knows though, maybe there'll be an entire playtest document on it. I just really doubt it.



I expect those will be mostly left alone. I’d bet the remaining packets are tweaks to the classes, and additional passes at things that polled poorly the first time. And I’m confident the new MM will update all the stat blocks to MMotM standard, but that those changes won’t be presented for public playtesting in UA.


----------



## Haplo781

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe.  Maybe the changes to races and such are the main changes to 1d&d, and the class stuff will be minor.  They said the first UA would be the big one.
> 
> Maybe they'll trust that all the new art will encourage people to open their wallets.  Apparently, that was their main stated selling point for Spelljammer.



I don't care for 5e's art style, so unless they hire folks like William O'Connor and Wayne Reynolds back on I'd rather no art whatsoever.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah, I mean, to be fair we haven't had the material that would really show that, but certainly nothing indicates 1D&D is seeking to improve the social/exploration pillars so far, and it's not been a goal mentioned by the designers.
> 
> Who knows though, maybe there'll be an entire playtest document on it. I just really doubt it.



Speaking of which, Cubicle 7 just launched a Kickstarter campaign to make a book based on their Adventures in Middle Earth journey rules. After having recently run a dissatisfying (to me, at a minimum) traditional caravan adventure, I'm sorely tempted to pick this up.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Speaking of which, Cubicle 7 just launched a Kickstarter campaign to make a book based on their Adventures in Middle Earth journey rules. After having recently run a dissatisfying (to me, at a minimum) traditional caravan adventure, I'm sorely tempted to pick this up.



I have backed it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> I expect those will be mostly left alone. I’d bet the remaining packets are tweaks to the classes, and additional passes at things that polled poorly the first time. And I’m confident the new MM will update all the stat blocks to MMotM standard, but that those changes won’t be presented for public playtesting in UA.



I expect all of those things to happen.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Haplo781 said:


> I don't care for 5e's art style, so unless they hire folks like William O'Connor and Wayne Reynolds back on I'd rather no art whatsoever.



Big fan of pouches, huh?


----------



## MockingBird

I think I'm the only person who doesn't like Wayne Reynolds art work. It's good, he's talented for sure, I just don't like the style.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> You're right.  Fighter fixed forever.  No one needs to talk about this ever again.




Do you really think so?
I had so much to talk.


----------



## Haplo781

eyeheartawk said:


> Big fan of pouches, huh?



Where else are you going to keep the bag of ball bearings, bell, tinderbox, 3 spare daggers, flask of oil, crowbar, 50 feet of rope, hammer, candle, 10 pitons, hooded lantern, and week's worth of rations?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MockingBird said:


> I think I'm the only person who doesn't like Wayne Reynolds art work. It's good, he's talented for sure, I just don't like the style.



Between his close association with Pathfinder and 4E, I cannot imagine they will be using him much for 1D&D.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Haplo781 said:


> Where else are you going to keep the bag of ball bearings, bell, tinderbox, 3 spare daggers, flask of oil, crowbar, 50 feet of rope, hammer, candle, 10 pitons, hooded lantern, and week's worth of rations?



The dungeonpunk aesthetic from 3E makes a lot more sense for D&D than the 2E style of art, much of it inspired by 19th century illustrators. Lovely art, but not believable adventurers, much of the time.

I assume most of Larry Elmore's heroes starved to death in the dark in their first dungeon, other than the female adventurers, who likely died of pneumonia on the way in.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC's design parameters are nearly opposite those of Level Up, as far as I can tell.  That's why they're not getting any more of my money.




Well, then, maybe you'd prefer to take your input to the Level Up forum?  This is the One D&D Forum, and repeatedly mentioning that you aren't going for the game starts looking like threadcrapping.  Not all discussions have to be for you, especially when they are clearly about a game that isn't for you.


----------



## Parmandur

Well, this is interesting: I just checked the playtest pagez and the survey has been extended to September 26th. Ao we may or may not see a new packet until then...?


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Well, this is interesting: I just checked the playtest pagez and the survey has been extended to September 26th. Ao we may or may not see a new packet until then...?



That is interesting. Did they not get enough feedback, or are they getting so much feedback that they wanted to give folks more time? (Though a more boring answer could be that they simply don't have the next packet ready.)

EDIT: Compromise possibility #4: The feedback they got suggested some fundamental changes to subsequent packets that they are now taking in.


----------



## darjr

I saw that too. I think that's the date for the next one and someone jumped the gun. Just a guess.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> That is interesting. Did they not get enough feedback, or are they getting so much feedback that they wanted to give folks more time? (Though a more boring answer could be that they simply don't have the next packet ready.)
> 
> EDIT: Compromise possibility #4: The feedback they got suggested some fundamental changes to subsequent packets that they are now taking in.



Who knows?


----------



## Azzy

MockingBird said:


> I think I'm the only person who doesn't like Wayne Reynolds art work. It's good, he's talented for sure, I just don't like the style.



No, you're not the only one.


----------



## Parmandur

MockingBird said:


> I think I'm the only person who doesn't like Wayne Reynolds art work. It's good, he's talented for sure, I just don't like the style.



I was over it nearly twenty years ago, when I had barely started playing. Just not my aesthetic.


----------



## Azzy

Parmandur said:


> Who knows?



The Shadow knows.


----------



## Azzy

Parmandur said:


> Well, this is interesting: I just checked the playtest pagez and the survey has been extended to September 26th. Ao we may or may not see a new packet until then...?



I am sad. I wanted something new to digest and talk about.


----------



## Haplo781

Date got pushed back?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> I expect those will be mostly left alone. I’d bet the remaining packets are tweaks to the classes, and additional passes at things that polled poorly the first time. And I’m confident the new MM will update all the stat blocks to MMotM standard, but that those changes won’t be presented for public playtesting in UA.



I'd be surprised if literally all they do for the _entire rest of the playtest_ is go over classes/subclasses and stuff that didn't play well from this playtest, I really would.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Haplo781 said:


> Date got pushed back?



They didn't give a date AFAIK. People were just assuming from when the feedback closed.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The dungeonpunk aesthetic from 3E makes a lot more sense for D&D than the 2E style of art, much of it inspired by 19th century illustrators. Lovely art, but not believable adventurers, much of the time.



I can't say I agree.

Dungeonpunk is a dreadful and totally "unrealistic" aesthetic, as in, it doesn't make sense even in the context of the setting, as it lacks "internal logic". There's no way people would be able to operate in half of the outfits 3E had them in, let alone do stuff like load up treasure and trudge around and so on.

Your main critique of 2E's art seems to be "people were too thin", which doesn't really hold up historically/archaeologically, or even logically. 2E's art was certainly closer in terms of internal logic to the implied setting 2E was presenting than 3E's dungeonpunk was.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I assume most of Larry Elmore's heroes starved to death in the dark in their first dungeon, other than the female adventurers, who likely died of pneumonia on the way in.



I mean, the famous "dead baby dragon" picture is Elmore, and none of that really holds up for it, does it? It's one of the most "D&D" paintings ever painted. Also personally I wouldn't say Elmore was "the" 2E artist. Just one of. I think Keith Parkinson did more, and Jeff Easley did the covers.

People are moaning about Wayne Reynolds (aka WAR) in the context of 3E. He didn't very much 3E art. He did a ton of 4E and Pathfinder art.

The real "dungeonpunk" guy is Todd Lockwood. He's THE 3E artist. His style is THE 3E style.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'd be surprised if literally all they do for the _entire rest of the playtest_ is go over classes/subclasses and stuff that didn't play well from this playtest, I really would.



We'll see, but that fits the tineline and what Crawford has intimated on the public aspect of the playtest. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> They didn't give a date AFAIK. People were just assuming from when the feedback closed.



Yeah, total assumption on our part. Not necessarily connected, though I do not believe they have dropped any UA while an active survey is posted in the past.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> that fits the tineline



My problem is that that is the entire basis for the assumption. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense. It's just kind of neat. But these things are rarely that neat, and you couldn't do a proper playtest unless there was significant flex time, because you can't do each class once, for one month. Some classes will instantly have accepted changes, but others they may need to bring back. So it's too neat of an assumption. I will genuinely be shocked if it's anything that neat - and if it is, it proves the entire thing is kind of a sham, like they already know what they want to do, because of the lack of flex time.


----------



## Staffan

eyeheartawk said:


> Big fan of pouches, huh?



Pouches are awesome.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Staffan said:


> Pouches are awesome.
> View attachment 261446



I know that says Liefeld drew that, but his feet aren't obscured by mist or end in points, I therefore declare this a fake.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> My problem is that that is the entire basis for the assumption. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense. It's just kind of neat. But these things are rarely that neat, and you couldn't do a proper playtest unless there was significant flex time, because you can't do each class once, for one month. Some classes will instantly have accepted changes, but others they may need to bring back. So it's too neat of an assumption. I will genuinely be shocked if it's anything that neat - and if it is, it proves the entire thing is kind of a sham, like they already know what they want to do, because of the lack of flex time.



Itless be ause it is "neat," and more that it mirrors exactly what they did with Xanathar's and Tasha's UA runs, which are more of a precedent than Next for what they seem to be doing.

Note that Crawford said the plan was for a year long (about 12 month) test, with up to 18 months for flex time. That would line up with the primary focus being Classes, with half a year to reiterate if needed, which would still give over half a year for publication. Very reasonable, given the 2 month turnaround for WotC from the printer.


----------



## darjr

The survey due date got pushed back, but I’m not sure about the next packet.

I suspect it is also pushed back.









						Playtest Survey due date pushed to the 26th
					

On the one dnd playtest page the due date for the playtest survey now says Sept 26th.    https://www.dndbeyond.com/claim/source/one-dnd




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'd be surprised if literally all they do for the _entire rest of the playtest_ is go over classes/subclasses and stuff that didn't play well from this playtest, I really would.



I don’t think that’s _all_ they’ll do, I just think that will be the bulk of it. For example, I wouldn’t be sur continue to get little rules glossary tweaks like we got at the end of the first packet. But I really think system level changes will be few to none, and that the significant majority of what they present for playtesting will just be PC options; races, backgrounds, classes, subclasses, feats, and spells. Maybe like a revised ideals/traits/bonds/flaws system since that’s apparently being decoupled from background.


----------



## Shiroiken

Staffan said:


> Pouches are awesome.



"Dad?!?"
- Hope


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

If they released a new playtest packet while the old survey is still up, they would get a bunch of mixed surveys because people cannot read too good / keep their playtest2 thoughts in their pants for a few days. I don't see that happening.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that’s _all_ they’ll do, I just think that will be the bulk of it. For example, I wouldn’t be sur continue to get little rules glossary tweaks like we got at the end of the first packet. But I really think system level changes will be few to none, and that the significant majority of what they present for playtesting will just be PC options; races, backgrounds, classes, subclasses, feats, and spells. Maybe like a revised ideals/traits/bonds/flaws system since that’s apparently being decoupled from background.



Ideals/traits/bonds as a formal system seems to be gone: they didn't include any in the new Starter Set, or any Baclgrounds in the past couple years.

I thinknitnis instructive to look at what WotC did for Tasha's: between September 20q9 and June 2020, they put out 13 UA articles, starting with batches of Subclasses, then some spells and Clads options, then revisits of the Subclasses, then Feats...and then publication.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Ideals/traits/bonds as a formal system seems to be gone: they didn't include any in the new Starter Set, or any Baclgrounds in the past couple years.



Well, it’s definitely gone from backgrounds, and the UA decouples Inspiration from them as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t continue to exist as a descriptive element of the character, like alignment, height, weight, age, hair, eyes, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets dropped, but nor would I be surprised if it lives on independently of backgrounds.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Well, it’s definitely gone from backgrounds, and the UA decouples Inspiration from them as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t continue to exist as a descriptive element of the character, like alignment, height, weight, age, hair, eyes, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets dropped, but nor would I be surprised if it lives on independently of backgrounds.



Leave it to DM and table adjudication, most likely, under advice in the DMG.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Well, it’s definitely gone from backgrounds, and the UA decouples Inspiration from them as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t continue to exist as a descriptive element of the character, like alignment, height, weight, age, hair, eyes, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets dropped, but nor would I be surprised if it lives on independently of backgrounds.



Witchlight has the personality stuff for NPCs. 5.5 might have it separate from background.


----------



## Yaarel

The personality is good for the player to keep in mind, but difficult for the DM to track for Inspiration. So 5.5 disconnects personality from both background and inspiration.


----------



## MarkB

darjr said:


> The survey due date got pushed back, but I’m not sure about the next packet.
> 
> I suspect it is also pushed back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Playtest Survey due date pushed to the 26th
> 
> 
> On the one dnd playtest page the due date for the playtest survey now says Sept 26th.    https://www.dndbeyond.com/claim/source/one-dnd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



It could be the other way around in terms of cause-and-effect. Maybe there was something in the feedback from the first playtest that caused them to want to make another pass on the next playtest packet before releasing it, leading to a delay, and they decided that if it was going to be delayed anyway, they might as well let the survey keep on running.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

MarkB said:


> It could be the other way around in terms of cause-and-effect. Maybe there was something in the feedback from the first playtest that caused them to want to make another pass on the next playtest packet before releasing it, leading to a delay, and they decided that if it was going to be delayed anyway, they might as well let the survey keep on running.



If people hated the new Inspiration system and the classes all got alternate uses of Inspiration as class features (ex. Channel Divinity consumes your inspiration rather than being a short rest or long rest mechanics) they might have to do a lot of reconfiguring of the classes if they were thinking of making Inspiration have more mechanical expressions in the game.


----------



## Haplo781

The Myopic Sniper said:


> If people hated the new Inspiration system and the classes all got alternate uses of Inspiration as class features (ex. Channel Divinity consumes your inspiration rather than being a short rest or long rest mechanics) they might have to do a lot of reconfiguring of the classes if they were thinking of making Inspiration have more mechanical expressions in the game.



Hmm what about making it per short rest and reducing short rests to 5 minutes?


----------



## MarkB

The Myopic Sniper said:


> If people hated the new Inspiration system and the classes all got alternate uses of Inspiration as class features (ex. Channel Divinity consumes your inspiration rather than being a short rest or long rest mechanics) they might have to do a lot of reconfiguring of the classes if they were thinking of making Inspiration have more mechanical expressions in the game.



I really hope that's not it. That's one of my favourite things from the playtest.

If I had to guess, though, it would be the other half of that equation - the changes to critical hits. That doesn't seem to have landed well with anyone. If they're walking that back, then there may have been class features for a variety of classes that were intended to compensate for it or otherwise work with it which need to be reworked.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Haplo781 said:


> Hmm what about making it per short rest and reducing short rests to 5 minutes?



I always preferred going to shorter short rests, but they obviously seem to have been thinking that proficiency bonus per long rest is the way to go and that groups still wouldn't use their short rests even if they were five or ten minutes. 

Moving mechanics of what had been short rest abilities over to consuming inspiration instead leads to some interesting spotlight moments like a Cleric suddenly getting access to Turn Undead in the middle of a ghoul battle after rolling a 20. 

On the other hand, if they were planning something like that for every class and the new Inspiration system tanked in the survey, they might have to go back to the drawing board to find some way to inject that sort of excitement without everything simply being proficiency bonus per long rest. I think there might be a reason other than the new Human why they rolled out the new Inspiration system so early in the playtest.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

MarkB said:


> I really hope that's not it. That's one of my favourite things from the playtest.
> 
> If I had to guess, though, it would be the other half of that equation - the changes to critical hits. That doesn't seem to have landed well with anyone. If they're walking that back, then there may have been class features for a variety of classes that were intended to compensate for it or otherwise work with it which need to be reworked.




That is probably even more likely. While reaction to the new Inspiration rules that I have seen have largely been "possibly needs work, but promising;" the reaction to the new critical rules has been far more negative so if they were introducing a lot of class features to rebalance the system after changing crits that might require some major rewrite/rethinks. Though my feeling is that Jeremy Crawford seemed to know the way the wind might be blowing when he talked about it in the first playtest roll-out video.  I think they would have contingency plans for the new crits, but I am not exactly sure of their process at this point.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Hmm what about making it per short rest and reducing short rests to 5 minutes?



Currently short rests seem to still be an hour, since having a long rest interrupted after an hour or more explicitly grants the benefits of a short rest in the UA.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

The more I’ve thought about crits, the more I want to know what their entire plan was. If it was always just the crit change, with no new ways to get explosive damage moments for rogues, for instance, then it’s a big nope. If they had cool limited features planned like a backstab that adds damage x/day when you get a sneak attack while hidden, or something, I might be okay with it. 

But my group and many other groups go the other way, and make crits more reliably big damage.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> The more I’ve thought about crits, the more I want to know what their entire plan was. If it was always just the crit change, with no new ways to get explosive damage moments for rogues, for instance, then it’s a big nope. If they had cool limited features planned like a backstab that adds damage x/day when you get a sneak attack while hidden, or something, I might be okay with it.
> 
> But my group and many other groups go the other way, and make crits more reliably big damage.



I suspect that they would have been bolder with designing damage spike features in the future if they had the security of knowing they wouldn’t do twice as much damage 5% of the time. I’d have expected to see such features more often, and for those we saw to be stronger when they showed up.


----------



## Chaosmancer

This seems like a good thread to pop into and ask about this, sorry if I'm disrupting a conversation. But I'm seeing like... a LOT of videos from various DnDtubers talking about how One DnD is broken and needs fixed, or One DnD isn't this or is that... 

Was there a new playtest document I missed? Cause... they seem to be making incredibly strong claims, which don't match with... a single playtest document whose survey results we don't even know yet.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Youtubers are going to make bold, controversial statements, won't you please click on them, please.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> I suspect that they would have been bolder with designing damage spike features in the future if they had the security of knowing they wouldn’t do twice as much damage 5% of the time. I’d have expected to see such features more often, and for those we saw to be stronger when they showed up.



Yeah, I’ve been riding a middle line in my own system, where “Great Success” is quite rare on the dice, but can be gained by spending 2 AP to “push” a Total Success, where pushing any other result up the ladder only costs 1 AP (attribute point). 

So, you can choose to do a super move, but only at a cost and only when you’re already firing on all cylinders. 

Idk how that could be translated to D&D , though.


----------



## Haplo781

Chaosmancer said:


> This seems like a good thread to pop into and ask about this, sorry if I'm disrupting a conversation. But I'm seeing like... a LOT of videos from various DnDtubers talking about how One DnD is broken and needs fixed, or One DnD isn't this or is that...
> 
> Was there a new playtest document I missed? Cause... they seem to be making incredibly strong claims, which don't match with... a single playtest document whose survey results we don't even know yet.



It's just drama queen being drama queens.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, I’ve been riding a middle line in my own system, where “Great Success” is quite rare on the dice, but can be gained by spending 2 AP to “push” a Total Success, where pushing any other result up the ladder only costs 1 AP (attribute point).
> 
> So, you can choose to do a super move, but only at a cost and only when you’re already firing on all cylinders.
> 
> Idk how that could be translated to D&D , though.



Top of the dome: Spend Inspiration to turn a hit into a critical hit. Natural 20 gives you inspiration, which you can either spend immediately or bank.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Top of the dome: Spend Inspiration to turn a hit into a critical hit. Natural 20 gives you inspiration, which you can either spend immediately or bank.



That’s actually really good. It uses the particulars of the system to make a semi-random move that also has an element of choosing your moment. Very cool.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Chaosmancer said:


> This seems like a good thread to pop into and ask about this, sorry if I'm disrupting a conversation. But I'm seeing like... a LOT of videos from various DnDtubers talking about how One DnD is broken and needs fixed, or One DnD isn't this or is that...
> 
> Was there a new playtest document I missed? Cause... they seem to be making incredibly strong claims, which don't match with... a single playtest document whose survey results we don't even know yet.



welcome to click farming it is the way of things.


----------



## Audiomancer

eyeheartawk said:


> I know that says Liefeld drew that, but his feet aren't obscured by mist or end in points, I therefore declare this a fake.



Among comics fans, this is known as the Liefeld Paradox.

If we start with the two following theorems:
1. Liefeld cannot draw feet.
2. Liefeld always draws pouches.

Then, the question is raised, “If a character has feet that are pouches, would Liefeld be able to draw them?”

Debate over this question among fans raged for years, leading to a violent confrontation between rival factions at the 2009 San Diego Comic Con, after which public discussion of the Paradox was actively suppressed. But it appears we now have the answer.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Chaosmancer said:


> This seems like a good thread to pop into and ask about this, sorry if I'm disrupting a conversation. But I'm seeing like... a LOT of videos from various DnDtubers talking about how One DnD is broken and needs fixed, or One DnD isn't this or is that...
> 
> Was there a new playtest document I missed? Cause... they seem to be making incredibly strong claims, which don't match with... a single playtest document whose survey results we don't even know yet.



None that I am aware of, it is just the algorithm feed you outraged outliers like it always does.


----------



## darjr

There is a reason Nerd Immersion and others often set their thumbnail so they look annoyed or fed up.


----------



## CrashFiend82

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Youtubers are going to make bold, controversial statements, won't you please click on them, please.



That and a number them don't seem entirely knowledgeable about the current rules or have even read the full Playtest Packet. I watched a few that claim the new Playtest says many things it does not or argue weird interpretations that make almost no sense.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

There is a lot of confirmation bias that happens during these times.  

I am as guilty of it as the next person.  It’s human nature as they say.  

As odd as it sounds I am both excited about some of what we hear and also not sure I am going all in.  I am hopeful it’s a plug in what you like deal—-if they have some improvements over 5e I would be happy to use some of them.  

As a result, I am open to see what happens.  If you are already torqued off about 5e, how could you really listen?

It’s like disliking 3.0 and hearing about 3.5.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Warpiglet-7 said:


> There is a lot of confirmation bias that happens during these times.
> 
> I am as guilty of it as the next person.  It’s human nature as they say.
> 
> As odd as it sounds I am both excited about some of what we hear and also not sure I am going all in.  I am hopeful it’s a plug in what you like deal—-if they have some improvements over 5e I would be happy to use some of them.
> 
> As a result, I am open to see what happens.  If you are already torqued off about 5e, how could you really listen?
> 
> It’s like disliking 3.0 and hearing about 3.5.



honestly seems a wise way of looking at this.

personally, I am hopeful to see what happens to see if I need to start looking for a new system but I shall wait and see.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Mind of tempest said:


> honestly seems a wise way of looking at this.
> 
> personally, I am hopeful to see what happens to see if I need to start looking for a new system but I shall wait and see.



I may be really turned off by the final product.  I just don’t know yet.  

We just played last night and had a blast with regular 5e.  I can’t lose too much no matter what they crank out.  I have been through this before—-skipped whole editions and played AD&D 1e until almost 2000.

If I don’t like it I know what to do!  Keep having fun with what I got


----------



## Mind of tempest

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I may be really turned off by the final product.  I just don’t know yet.
> 
> We just played last night and had a blast with regular 5e.  I can’t lose too much no matter what they crank out.  I have been through this before—-skipped whole editions and played AD&D 1e until almost 2000.
> 
> If I don’t like it I know what to do!  Keep having fun with what I got



your attitude is just wait and see a commendable attitude not hoping but not despairing


----------



## Charlaquin

CrashFiend82 said:


> That and a number them don't seem entirely knowledgeable about the current rules or have even read the full Playtest Packet. I watched a few that claim the new Playtest says many things it does not or argue weird interpretations that make almost no sense.



I brought up the playtest with a coworker who plays D&D. She was like “I haven’t read it, but my roommate hates it, he says the new rules for fighters are really bad.” I’m like… “I think your roommate is confused…”


----------



## Sacrosanct

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I may be really turned off by the final product.  I just don’t know yet.
> 
> We just played last night and had a blast with regular 5e.  I can’t lose too much no matter what they crank out.  I have been through this before—-skipped whole editions and played AD&D 1e until almost 2000.
> 
> If I don’t like it I know what to do!  Keep having fun with what I got



Yep. I skipped 3 and 4e. I don’t expect such radical changes that I can’t keep playing and enjoying the game. We shall see.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Charlaquin said:


> I brought up the playtest with a coworker who plays D&D. She was like “I haven’t read it, but my roommate hates it, he says the new rules for fighters are really bad.” I’m like… “I think your roommate is confused…”



dear gods what on earth is wrong with that roommate?


----------



## Charlaquin

Mind of tempest said:


> dear gods what on earth is wrong with that roommate?



My best guess is that somewhere along the line someone misheard, misremembered, or misunderstood hearing someone else talking about the _unarmed fighting_ rules, and through the telephone game that got distorted to “fighter rules.”


----------



## Sacrosanct

Any time there are ANY changes, there’s always that contingent of people who HATESSSSS IT!  And they make sure to tell everyone.


----------



## Charlaquin

Sacrosanct said:


> Any time there are ANY changes, there’s always that contingent of people who HATESSSSS IT!  And they make sure to tell everyone.



Though I wonder how the explosion of D&D’s popularity with 5e, along with the boost social media gives particularly to “hot takes” is going to affect the reception of these changes. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that we see a new edition war over changes that look insignificant to us veterans of the previous edition wars.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Sacrosanct said:


> Yep. I skipped 3 and 4e. I don’t expect such radical changes that I can’t keep playing and enjoying the game. We shall see.



I skipped 2e, 3.5 and 4 beyond buying a lot of it and several sessions.

My group was so reenergized with 5e.  Maybe there will be some fun 5.5 tweaks.  I am hoping the art is a little more humanocentric compared to Tasha’s…a lot to find out


----------



## darjr

I've given every edition of D&D a fair shake. Often years. Except 2e, but I came around eventually.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Now, the follow-up question: When are we getting the THIRD one? I think today was the earliest possibility, and that seems to be not happening.


----------



## Azzy

FitzTheRuke said:


> Now, the follow-up question: When are we getting the THIRD one? I think today was the earliest possibility, and that seems to be not happening.



The survey doesn close until Nov 10, so the new playtest won't drop before then.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I have been through this before—-skipped whole editions and played AD&D 1e until almost 2000.




_Nobody likes a quitter._
-Keith Richards, probably.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Azzy said:


> The survey doesn close until Nov 10, so the new playtest won't drop before then.




Right. That seems logical, although I had the impression that their original intent was to drop them monthly, but sixth-weekly would do it, I suppose. Especially if they keep them meatier, like the second one.


----------

