# One D&D origins playtest survey is live



## darjr

Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond
					






					t.co


----------



## darjr

Sorry I’m in the mountains and signal is spotty


----------



## Parmandur

It goes into detail, butnitnis not a super long survey.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Some of my feedback:


Don't like inspiration for humans, because lots of groups don't play with it, or forget they have it.  In general, I'm not a fan of racial traits for things a lot of people don't even play with.
Don't like ability modifiers for backgrounds.  The charlatan wasn't even on their list of backgrounds in the survey, but what I'm seeing is that by having a background like that, every warlock chooses that background.  When ability modifiers are tied to background, you end up having each class having the same small handful of backgrounds.  No different how everyone was a dwarf fighter, or halfing thief back in the day when abilities were tied to race.
Not a fan of level 1 feats, because a) that tells me feat chains are coming, and I hated those in 3e (along with system mastery tied to them) and b) not everyone plays with feats
Really not a fan of removing monster crits.  The reasoning was because no one likes a level 1 PC dying from a critical hit in one shot.  Remember, the _whole point_ of having fast XP progression at level 1 and 2 was to offer that zero to hero style that many of us like, and if players wanted more robust PCs, they would start at level 3


----------



## Aldarc

Sacrosanct said:


> Some of my feedback:
> 
> Don't like inspiration for humans, because lots of groups don't play with it, or forget they have it.  In general, I'm not a fan of racial traits for things a lot of people don't even play with.



Inspiration is different now. There are in-game mechanisms (rolling a 20) for gaining it. My main feedback, however, was moving Inspiration from a Nat 20 to a Nat 1, which is more psychologically rewarding. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Don't like ability modifiers for backgrounds.  The charlatan wasn't even on their list of backgrounds in the survey, but what I'm seeing is that by having a background like that, every warlock chooses that background.  When ability modifiers are tied to background, you end up having each class having the same small handful of backgrounds.  No different how everyone was a dwarf fighter, or halfing thief back in the day when abilities were tied to race.



The default is the custom background where you can choose where you want to put it. This was what everyone in my playtest group picked. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Not a fan of level 1 feats, because a) that tells me feat chains are coming, and I hated those in 3e (along with system mastery tied to them) and b) not everyone plays with feats



They are already here. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Really not a fan of removing monster crits.  The reasoning was because no one likes a level 1 PC dying from a critical hit in one shot.  Remember, the _whole point_ of having fast XP progression at level 1 and 2 was to offer that zero to hero style that many of us like, and if players wanted more robust PCs, they would start at level 3



I like the removal of monster crits. There are other ways to make a challenge deadly than RNG.


----------



## reelo

Sacrosanct said:


> Don't like ability modifiers for backgrounds. The charlatan wasn't even on their list of backgrounds in the survey, but what I'm seeing is that by having a background like that, every warlock chooses that background. When ability modifiers are tied to background, you end up having each class having the same small handful of backgrounds. No different how everyone was a dwarf fighter, or halfing thief back in the day when abilities were tied to race.




Easy fix: make Abilities and their modifiers matter LESS! 15-17 in an Ability should give a +1 modifier. 18-19 a +2, and 20 a +3.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I took the survey. Overall it was positive. Sadly I had no time to playtest yet.


----------



## Reynard

UngeheuerLich said:


> I took the survey. Overall it was positive. Sadly I had no time to playtest yet.



Out of curiosity,  does it ask you or give you a place to note whether and what you actively playtested?

I would really hate for them to put too much weight on the opinions of people that just read the doc without actually,  you know, testing the rules.


----------



## OB1

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity,  does it ask you or give you a place to note whether and what you actively playtested?
> 
> I would really hate for them to put too much weight on the opinions of people that just read the doc without actually,  you know, testing the rules.



Weirdly, it asks if you actively playtested races, background and feats, but doesn't ask if you playtested material from the rules glossary (ie Nat20, Crits, Grapple, etc).


----------



## Michael Mattei

It wasn't until I took the survey that I realized I don't like most of the changes and those I like, I do so unenthusiastically.


----------



## OB1

Sacrosanct said:


> Some of my feedback:
> 
> 
> removing monster crits.  The reasoning was because no one likes a level 1 PC dying from a critical hit in one shot.  Remember, the _whole point_ of having fast XP progression at level 1 and 2 was to offer that zero to hero style that many of us like, and if players wanted more robust PCs, they would start at level 3



I'm more than happy trading monster crits for no sneak attack and spell/smite crits from PCs.  I like that they kept them in for PC weapon damage as a nice boost to martial characters.


----------



## MockingBird

Sacrosanct said:


> Some of my feedback:
> 
> 
> Don't like inspiration for humans, because lots of groups don't play with it, or forget they have it.  In general, I'm not a fan of racial traits for things a lot of people don't even play with.
> Don't like ability modifiers for backgrounds.  The charlatan wasn't even on their list of backgrounds in the survey, but what I'm seeing is that by having a background like that, every warlock chooses that background.  When ability modifiers are tied to background, you end up having each class having the same small handful of backgrounds.  No different how everyone was a dwarf fighter, or halfing thief back in the day when abilities were tied to race.
> Not a fan of level 1 feats, because a) that tells me feat chains are coming, and I hated those in 3e (along with system mastery tied to them) and b) not everyone plays with feats
> Really not a fan of removing monster crits.  The reasoning was because no one likes a level 1 PC dying from a critical hit in one shot.  Remember, the _whole point_ of having fast XP progression at level 1 and 2 was to offer that zero to hero style that many of us like, and if players wanted more robust PCs, they would start at level 3



Almost my response word for word. I added I didn't think the Ardlings should be included in the core book but maybe a themed source book.


----------



## MockingBird

I noticed they didnt ask about the half races.


----------



## Bolares

OB1 said:


> I'm more than happy trading monster crits for no sneak attack and spell/smite crits from PCs.  I like that they kept them in for PC weapon damage as a nice boost to martial characters.



What I don't like about this is the hassle of keeping track of which dice double and which don't. I'd prefer if all dice in a crit are doubled, or even if you just double all the damage rolled on a crit.


----------



## Burnside

Some of the stuff I told them:

THE GOOD

*De-coupling Race from Culture*
Overall it's the right thing to do and I like most of the design moves that support it, including MOST of the race changes. Exceptions below.

*De-coupling Ability Scores from Race*
I liked in in Tasha's and I still like it here.

*Backgrounds*
Pushing "make your own" as the primary thing to do is good. The suggested packages make sense to me.

*Characters of mixed race/heritage*
This is a better way to handle things and while I will miss both the mechanical half-elf and half-orc nostalgically, this is the right way to go.

THE BAD

*Inspiration*
I don't think "free inspiration on a long rest" will entice people to play humans as strongly as Variant Human did. I don't like Inspiration on Nat 20s because I think Inspiration should come from non-mechanical stuff like good roleplaying, storyline goals, or just being a good player/nice person at the table - not from dice rolls.

*d20 Tests*
I hate auto-fails on Nat 1s and auto-success on Nat 20s for Skill checks.

The "if it's impossible, don't let them roll" argument doesn't always apply, mainly because there are some situations in which a thing is impossible, but you as DM don't want to tip your hand that it's impossible. For example, players encounter what they think is a person, but it's a actually a programmed illusion or construct performing a pre-determined routine. They try to "Persuade" it to do something. If I refuse a roll, I tip my hand that something is "off" with the creature. If I allow a roll and they get a Nat 20, what am I supposed to do? I don't want to be compelled to give a success on a nat 20 in that situation.

Finally, auto-fail on a nat 1 hurts players a lot more than auto-success on a crit helps them. If a thing is doable, a 20 was gonna succeed anyway. But if the player has invested a lot in that particular skill, a 1 might not have failed - now it definitely will.

I'm fine with it on Saving Throws.

*Critmas is Canceled*
Removing crits from spell attacks sneak attacks, and smites removes fun. Nobody wants this. The argument that "most players don't even know you can crit on these" is, in my experience, nonsense. And I have legitimately played 5E with ~1,000 people at this point.

The motivation for removing crits from enemies seems to be "it's not fun when your level 1 character gets splattered by one lucky shot from a goblin." The game probably is too swingy/deadly at level 1, but I think just giving level 1 character 2 hit dice so they can survive one mistake or 1 bad hit is a better solution than taking away enemy crits.

*Dwarf, Your Tool Proficiency is From God*
Bizarre choice and contrary to their overall direction. Also, not setting agnostic.

*Dragonborn*
The Fizban's direction was better than this.

THE MIXED

*Arcane/Divine/Primal spells*
I like the mechanical diversity this lends in certain cases. But I don't like the game telling me exactly where my character's magic comes from - I would rather be left to flavor that myself. Also, I have been playing with some people for years who still haven't really wrapped their heads around the CURRENT eight schools of magic and what they mean; this is just adding one more thing they'll never really understand.

*Feats for Everybody*
Level-gating some feats helps mitigate the power creep, but it's still power creep. I do LIKE most of the Feats here, and I do recognize that a LOT of people want universal Feats at level 1, so this change is at least a legitimate response to player demand. Character creation is already the most confusing part of the game for new players, and adding one more thing for them to deal with I'm not crazy about. I do think though that this will help some folks express their character concept better. I'm torn on this one. If they go nuts with Feat Chains I will 100% hate it.

*Tieflings*
I like the Chthonic and Abyssal tieflings, but I miss the diverse tiefling options offered by Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Reynard said:


> Out of curiosity,  does it ask you or give you a place to note whether and what you actively playtested?
> 
> I would really hate for them to put too much weight on the opinions of people that just read the doc without actually,  you know, testing the rules.




Yes. And I answered truthfully.
I could still give my opinion to what I like and what not.

And if they weight the answers, I am totally ok with. I hope others are as truthful as I was.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Bolares said:


> What I don't like about this is the hassle of keeping track of which dice double and which don't. I'd prefer if all dice in a crit are doubled, or even if you just double all the damage rolled on a crit.




It worked well over two editions without hassle... So probably it will work here too.


----------



## Retreater

Hopefully they do listen to those of us who haven't had time in the 2 weeks they gave us with their playtest.
I mean, am I expected to end my ongoing campaign to make up new characters and play one session and understand what's going on in the game? 
I can tell what I don't like by looking at it because I'm very experienced with 5e. I can head off what's going to be a problem at my table. 
For example, I know that characters don't need a power boost. I know that DMs don't need their ability to damage characters to be lessened. I know that I don't like Inspiration or other forms of metacurrency. 
If they actually gave us a playtest and adequate time to do it, I'd be more inclined to do so. What they posted was half-hearted and incomplete. (Like, how can we test taking away DM crits when they provide us with nothing to take its place?)


----------



## Reynard

Retreater said:


> Hopefully they do listen to those of us who haven't had time in the 2 weeks they gave us with their playtest.
> I mean, am I expected to end my ongoing campaign to make up new characters and play one session and understand what's going on in the game?
> I can tell what I don't like by looking at it because I'm very experienced with 5e. I can head off what's going to be a problem at my table.
> For example, I know that characters don't need a power boost. I know that DMs don't need their ability to damage characters to be lessened. I know that I don't like Inspiration or other forms of metacurrency.
> If they actually gave us a playtest and adequate time to do it, I'd be more inclined to do so. What they posted was half-hearted and incomplete. (Like, how can we test taking away DM crits when they provide us with nothing to take its place?)



I think your post underscores exactly why they should weight actual play responses more than "read it" responses: people are more inclined to double down on existing opinions without actual experience. If they really want to playtest this stuff then they need people to play it.

That said I am not convinced that the playtest isn't mostly marketing, not least because they aren't giving us the whole game at once and are asking for feedback without much time to actually test.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

MockingBird said:


> I noticed they didnt ask about the half races.



Hmm. Yeah, that seems a problem. While it doesn't bother _me_ much, it's clearly a controversial topic. Maybe they already scrapped the idea after seeing all the rage, so they don't need feedback on it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Bolares said:


> What I don't like about this is the hassle of keeping track of which dice double and which don't. I'd prefer if all dice in a crit are doubled, or even if you just double all the damage rolled on a crit.



I prefer "add max weapon die value" - then you don't need to pick your dice up again. (I know people like to roll dice, but you can do that NEXT round.) It keeps crits from ever being disappointing when you roll lower on two (or more) dice than you often do on one.


----------



## Retreater

Reynard said:


> If they really want to playtest this stuff then they need people to play it.



Then we need to get more than a couple weeks to do it effectively. And stuff that actually lets us try dynamics.
Like do 4 classes, 1st-3rd level with a couple of backgrounds and races. Give us a slate of a few monsters that show us new encounter building paradigms as well as what the recharge mechanics look like. 
They should give us a proper playtest if you want our feedback - and that's what I put in my survey.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

FitzTheRuke said:


> I prefer "add max weapon die value" - then you don't need to pick your dice up again. (I know people like to roll dice, but you can do that NEXT round.) It keeps crits from ever being disappointing when you roll lower on two (or more) dice than you often do on one.




I actually wrote that into the feedback form.


----------



## OB1

Reynard said:


> I think your post underscores exactly why they should weight actual play responses more than "read it" responses: people are more inclined to double down on existing opinions without actual experience. If they really want to playtest this stuff then they need people to play it.
> 
> That said I am not convinced that the playtest isn't mostly marketing, not least because they aren't giving us the whole game at once and are asking for feedback without much time to actually test.



It could also be about change management.  Curious to see if CritRole adopts these new rules in their game tonight as 'enlisted leaders' to help with the transition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I took half an hour and got all of my thoughts out.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

UngeheuerLich said:


> I actually wrote that into the feedback form.



Me too!


----------



## FitzTheRuke

When should we expect the next playtest packet?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Retreater said:


> Then we need to get more than a couple weeks to do it effectively. And stuff that actually lets us try dynamics.
> Like do 4 classes, 1st-3rd level with a couple of backgrounds and races. Give us a slate of a few monsters that show us new encounter building paradigms as well as what the recharge mechanics look like.
> They should give us a proper playtest if you want our feedback - and that's what I put in my survey.



I think they are content with what we like and really playtest it themselves.
This is how all the UA worked and this should be ok.

4e had problems because they similarily heard too much and not enough to what people like.
Too much from forums. (The famous divine vhallenge and run paladin), and not enough from the silent minority.

This is exactly what those surveys do achieve. People look at it and a lot more more do surveys than speak up in forums.
And if you only ask people in forums you tend to get a lot more negative feedback than on surveys.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

FitzTheRuke said:


> When should we expect the next playtest packet?




I hope before the 15th, but I fear we get it after the survey window closes.


----------



## payn

Retreater said:


> Hopefully they do listen to those of us who haven't had time in the 2 weeks they gave us with their playtest.
> I mean, am I expected to end my ongoing campaign to make up new characters and play one session and understand what's going on in the game?
> I can tell what I don't like by looking at it because I'm very experienced with 5e. I can head off what's going to be a problem at my table.
> For example, I know that characters don't need a power boost. I know that DMs don't need their ability to damage characters to be lessened. I know that I don't like Inspiration or other forms of metacurrency.
> If they actually gave us a playtest and adequate time to do it, I'd be more inclined to do so. What they posted was half-hearted and incomplete. (Like, how can we test taking away DM crits when they provide us with nothing to take its place?)



Tell them that; not us.


----------



## Weiley31

-I remarked that I liked the Ardling and that the only thing I'd add to it would be for a choice of Radiant or Lightning Damage being added as a choice for their resistance. (like I said, I thought of the Bear/Hound/Owl Archons when I read this.)

-I stated that I was dissatisfied with the update to Trance, via two sources released so far, not being brought over to the regular elves. Likewise, Powerful Build should be updated to what is listed within the Giff's _Hippo Build_ racial feature since that is an updated version of it. I also remarked, that if the reasoning for Powerful Build not being updated was that Perkins and the gang are worried about PC's having constant Advantage on STR Checks/Saves outside of Barbarian, that they should look back at their prior history of giving players a bit more stronger options for PCs before. Stuff like the Yuan-Ti Pureblood's _Spell Resistance_, Goblin's _Fury of The Small,_ the Strixhaven Initiate feats, Hexblade/Paladins multiclasses, etc, etc. They had no probs then so don't be so scared and be a bit braver.

-Mentioned my dislike of no crits for monsters. *Although, I totally forgot the space also meant for stuff like Sneak Attack, Smite, and so on.

-Like the new grapple rules.

-Like the Tiefling options.

That's pretty much it. Loved everything bout the Dwarf. Honestly it didn't really ask me about every single race in the packet.


-Also mentioned that the Crafter feat _kinda_ feels pointless without some form of crafting rules in it. Or at least something to make some kind of magic item. I get they are afraid to after Eberron/Artificers from 3.0/3.5, but really would be nice instead of WoTC reliance of players/dm's winging it.


----------



## Retreater

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think they are content with what we like and really playtest it themselves.
> This is how all the UA worked and this should be ok.



I dunno ... we still got the psion.
I probably think that 5e needs more change than most other players (and WotC) do. In my mind, the game is pretty much worthless after 6th level or so.


----------



## Charlaquin

MockingBird said:


> I noticed they didnt ask about the half races.



Probably because they’ve already made up their minds on the matter.


----------



## Charlaquin

Interestingly, they didn’t give a “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” option for any of these, which they usually do. And only a few had “don’t know/not sure” as an option.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

payn said:


> Tell them that; not us.



There's nothing wrong with sharing your viewpoint, especially in times like these. If someone shares views and someone else agrees with it, they can also share them in the survey.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Sacrosanct said:


> Not a fan of level 1 feats, because a) that tells me feat chains are coming, and I hated those in 3e (along with system mastery tied to them) and b) not everyone plays with feats




Do you feel the same way about feats with prerequisites in general, or just if they form "chains"?

Level requirements can exist without it being chained.

How about lineage or class restrictions?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Retreater said:


> I dunno ... we still got the psion.
> I probably think that 5e needs more change than most other players (and WotC) do. In my mind, the game is pretty much worthless after 6th level or so.




Sorry to hear that. I don't think it is.


----------



## Digdude@1970

My first post here in a very along time (when E.N. was still active)...so hello all again. Took the survey, but trying to be open minded and willing to accept these drastic changes is going to be hard. Like the backgrounds in general but would like them to decouple the racial abilities and let us choose how our races will look. This agnostic approach will appease so many of us with different views. Not a fan of inspiration, autofail/success d20 skill checks, nor pc only crits for most of the reasons already beat to death. I like the feats in general but they appear very shallow and not well developed. Seems to be a WOTC trend lately...


----------



## Burnside

Aurel Guthrie said:


> There's nothing wrong with sharing your viewpoint, especially in times like these. If someone shares views and someone else agrees with it, they can also share them in the survey.




Also people from WotC definitely lurk on this board.


----------



## Aldarc

I definitely did comment on the whole "god made me good at tools" bit of Forge Wise and similar abilities which feels like a cheap work around for features WotC clearly knows are cultural traits but somehow lean harder into racial essentialism.


----------



## Grendel_Khan

Retreater said:


> Hopefully they do listen to those of us who haven't had time in the 2 weeks they gave us with their playtest.
> I mean, am I expected to end my ongoing campaign to make up new characters and play one session and understand what's going on in the game?
> I can tell what I don't like by looking at it because I'm very experienced with 5e. I can head off what's going to be a problem at my table.
> For example, I know that characters don't need a power boost. I know that DMs don't need their ability to damage characters to be lessened. I know that I don't like Inspiration or other forms of metacurrency.
> If they actually gave us a playtest and adequate time to do it, I'd be more inclined to do so. What they posted was half-hearted and incomplete. (Like, how can we test taking away DM crits when they provide us with nothing to take its place?)




Yeah, trying to get playtest feedback after just two weeks is legitimately bizarre, and makes the whole thing seem sketchy.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

MockingBird said:


> I noticed they didnt ask about the half races.



Mechanically distinct half-races are probably more problematic than some of the other stuff that they already scrubbed from 5e for being steeped in racial essentialism. Other than a few hobbyist blog-style websites and podcasts, I haven't heard much fuss about it yet, but I could see it being thinkpiece and Twitter fodder for people looking for racist elements in D&D2024. 

They could possibly choose to put racial heritage 1st level feats in the game so that a player could pick up some traits from the other parent like Darkvision from the beginning. They could also possibly have a mixed character give up their background ASIs and feat to get the benefits of two races, but that might play into some miscegenation tropes as well.

WOTC may not want go down that road at all for futureproofing from possible critique reasons.  There is a certain faction on Twitter that refers to D&D as "that racist Dragon game" and WOTC is particularly sensitive to those sort of criticisms due to past issues in the game. WOTC didn't yield on changing the word "race" to some other term which some have demanded, so not including mechanically represented half-race characters may be part of their compromise to those arguments.  They certainly don't want to have to issue a revised PHB in 2022 because stuff like mechanically distrinct half-races that seemed fine to most people in 2022 are deemed racist or cringe in 2027.  I have concerns that they may still get some major pushback on their use of the term "race" and there is only so much futureproofing that they can do about those sort of things since it is an ever evolving discussion.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Hmm. Yeah, that seems a problem. While it doesn't bother _me_ much, it's clearly a controversial topic. Maybe they already scrapped the idea after seeing all the rage, so they don't need feedback on it.



Most likely it is a _fait accompli_ thst will be in the final rules no matter what and they aren't looking for feedback on it.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I think your post underscores exactly why they should weight actual play responses more than "read it" responses: people are more inclined to double down on existing opinions without actual experience. If they really want to playtest this stuff then they need people to play it.
> 
> That said I am not convinced that the playtest isn't mostly marketing, not least because they aren't giving us the whole game at once and are asking for feedback without much time to actually test.



It's not that kind of playtest, it's the same as UA always has been, a smell test. Present some options, let people read then, ask how they feel about them.


----------



## Parmandur

OB1 said:


> It could also be about change management.  Curious to see if CritRole adopts these new rules in their game tonight as 'enlisted leaders' to help with the transition.



Half the changes are already house rules Matt Mercer uses.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> When should we expect the next playtest packet?



Probably around the 15th, give or take. New material mod month, after the last round of surveys is closed.


----------



## Weiley31

Parmandur said:


> Half the changes are already house rules Matt Mercer uses.



Or stuff that 3PP has beaten WoTC to. For example, ability scores tied to backgrounds was done in Iron Kingdom: Requiem.


----------



## Reynard

UngeheuerLich said:


> I hope before the 15th, but I fear we get it after the survey window closes.



That means I can get 3 sessions using the UA including tonight. It's not enough but it's better than nothing.


----------



## Parmandur

Retreater said:


> I dunno ... we still got the psion.
> I probably think that 5e needs more change than most other players (and WotC) do. In my mind, the game is pretty much worthless after 6th level or so.



Yeah, there really don't seem to be any in-depth system changes coming. Just revisions.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Probably because they’ve already made up their minds on the matter.



Yeah, I assume that part is in like Flynn. I told them I liked that change, but they should lose the word "Race" and not have Dwarves be genetically smiths.


----------



## Parmandur

Burnside said:


> Also people from WotC definitely lurk on this board.



Do they...?


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> It's not that kind of playtest, it's the same as UA always has been, a smell test. Present some options, let people read then, ask how they feel about them.



And they are going to do actual game design based on that. Lol. No wonder people complain about what was lost from Next with 5E.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> That means I can get 3 sessions using the UA including tonight. It's not enough but it's better than nothing.



The next packet ahoupd be additive, not a reiterating of the same options. Probably start seeing a Class or two.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> And they are going to do actual game design based on that. Lol. No wonder people complain about what was lost from Next with 5E.



By negation, yes. In UA they present options, and find out if people like them, hate them, or are indifferent towards them. Then they keep the popular ones and balance them in private playtesting.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> The next packet ahoupd be additive, not a reiterating of the same options. Probably start seeing a Class or two.



Right but if the Origins survey closes is doesn't much matter. It's a dumb way to get feedback of such complex, interconnected systems. Which again leads me to believe it is primarily theater.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Right but if the Origins survey closes is doesn't much matter. It's a dumb way to get feedback of such complex, interconnected systems. Which again leads me to believe it is primarily theater.



It primarily shallow, not theatre. WotC has dropped options in UA when they were not popular, and occasionally gone back to the drawing board. But usually just dropped. Ao if the new Inspiration mechanics aren't popular, they'll probably just drop it. So this packet represents a maximum change, thar they can roll back based in shallow reactions from the player base. And this system has worked very well to keep the game manageable


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Parmandur said:


> The next packet ahoupd be additive, not a reiterating of the same options. Probably start seeing a Class or two.



We will know soon enough, but there is a good chance that the packets are going to be a la carte. Maybe even just getting, say, the Barbarian in the next packet and test different bits individually since they are still under the notion that this is going to be cross compatible with people's current 5e games. Since these seem to "vibe check" style smell tests anyway, I am not sure that they are going to start throwing hundred page playtest packets at us until late in the process when they start revising based on playtest input. 

I could be totally off there though. It is hard to tell at this point.


----------



## Parmandur

The Myopic Sniper said:


> We will know soon enough, but there is a good chance that the packets are going to be a la carte. Maybe even just getting, say, the Barbarian in the next packet and test different bits individually since they are still under the notion that this is going to be cross compatible with people's current 5e games. Since these seem to "vibe check" style smell tests anyway, I am not sure that they are going to start throwing hundred page playtest packets at us until late in the process when they start revising based on playtest input.
> 
> I could be totally off there though. It is hard to tell at this point.



I fully expect the playtest to be mainly one Class a month. I would suppose Ranger or Artificer first.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> It primarily shallow, not theatre. WotC has dropped options in UA when they were not popular, and occasionally gone back to the drawing board. But usually just dropped. Ao if the new Inspiration mechanics aren't popular, they'll probably just drop it. So this packet represents a maximum change, thar they can roll back based in shallow reactions from the player base. And this system has worked very well to keep the game manageable



This playtest is different, though, isn't it, being that it is for the new core books?


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I assume that part is in like Flynn. I told them I liked that change, but they should lose the word "Race" and not have Dwarves be genetically smiths.



And preferably dragonborn to not come out of the egg speaking Draconic.


----------



## Weiley31

I prefer my Lizardmen to be speaking Draconic as well.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I assume that part is in like Flynn. I told them I liked that change, but they should lose the word "Race" and not have Dwarves be genetically smiths.



It seems while they used the term "race" in the playtest packet, in the survey they just used the generic "character option."  They may just be seeing how many people bring that complaint to them independently in the survey. They seemed about ready to drop the term a year and a half or so ago, but backtracked since then.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> This playtest is different, though, isn't it, being that it is for the new core books?



I see no reason to believe that it is based on what they have said or put out there: it is structured like UA has been ever since the build untoward Xanathar's. Just a difference in degree, not process. The content is similar, the survey apparatus is the same.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> And preferably dragonborn to not come out of the egg speaking Draconic.



Yes, I did say that as well.


----------



## Parmandur

The Myopic Sniper said:


> It seems while they used the term "race" in the playtest packet, in the survey they just used the generic "character option."  They may just be seeing how many people bring that complaint to them independently in the survey. They seemed about ready to drop the term a year and a half or so ago, but backtracked since then.



I really hope they do.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I see no reason to believe that it is based on what they have said or put out there: it is structured like UA has been ever since the build untoward Xanathar's. Just a difference in degree, not process. The content is similar, the survey apparatus is the same.



I suppose it is possible that surveys of future packets will include questions regarding how it interacts with things from earlier packets, but it still seems extremely inefficient. I already have multiple players declining to adjust characters because there is no class information to see how thinsg interact. What do they think people are going to be able to test?


----------



## SakanaSensei

I’m going to fill this out after I’ve had my coffee and can get to a proper keyboard, but man oh man do I hope they don’t stay the course with forcing inspiration into the game in an unavoidable way. I know a lot of people never used it because it was easy to forget, but for my part I never used it because it’s just so disconnected from the fiction/feels game-y.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Parmandur said:


> I really hope they do.



While personally I think that the term race as used in D&D is actually probably fine with what D&D ancestries represent, if they are going to end up taking tons of criticism, explaining, defending and possibly changing it in future printings based on feedback, it is far easier to take the heat and change the term now. 

Although it could simply be that they don't want an influx of people complaining in playtest surveys about "wokeness gone mad" with them dropping the term "race" and when the 2024 actual publication comes out it will use a term like "Ancestry," "Heritage" or the like. They may have a term they are privately happy with, but don't want to cloud the playtest feedback with too much focus put on that change. The fact that they didn't use "race" in the survey could be indicative of that. 

I know some people have theorized that the previous backtrack on the term "race" has to do with its mechanical status in the OGL/SRD,  I have no clue personally about that though. I am kind of dubious on that one, WOTC has amazing legal staff at its disposal. I find it hard to believe that the OGL/SRD are written in such a way that would leave them unable to change the term race in the game. That seems to be a popular argument though so maybe there is some validity to it.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

SakanaSensei said:


> I’m going to fill this out after I’ve had my coffee and can get to a proper keyboard, but man oh man do I hope they don’t stay the course with forcing inspiration into the game in an unavoidable way. I know a lot of people never used it because it was easy to forget, but for my part I never used it because it’s just so disconnected from the fiction/feels game-y.



Additionally, a lot of people didn't use it because it so metagamey and breaks the simulation.  It was fine if you were playing a slightly narrativist tinged D&D using the personality and flaw system to grant inspiration.  The changes to now having it generate off racial features and die rolls ruins inspiration for narrativist play as well since they will probably be receiving far more inspiration to use and to share (which is now given freely between players with no inside the fiction narration to accompany it). 

Inspiration should be an optional rule at best, in the DMG, with no typing it to die rolls, class or racial features. As instituted in 2014 D&D it didn't play well with a lot of established playstyles and in 2024 D&D the new mechanics totally trashed the one playstyle it did work in. 

Most of my commentary in the survey was around this issue as well.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Half the changes are already house rules Matt Mercer uses.



I wonder if that is what they meant when they said things were already popular house rules


----------



## OB1

The Myopic Sniper said:


> Additionally, a lot of people didn't use it because it so metagamey and breaks the simulation.  It was fine if you were playing a slightly narrativist tinged D&D using the personality and flaw system to grant inspiration.  The changes to now having it generate off racial features and die rolls ruins inspiration for narrativist play as well since they will probably be receiving far more inspiration to use and to share (which is now given freely between players with no inside the fiction narration to accompany it).
> 
> Inspiration should be an optional rule at best, in the DMG, with no typing it to die rolls, class or racial features. As instituted in 2014 D&D it didn't play well with a lot of established playstyles and in 2024 D&D the new mechanics totally trashed the one playstyle it did work in.
> 
> Most of my commentary in the survey was around this issue as well.



I'd say your own or other's success leading you to be inspired to do better today is a wonderful narrative tool, and works well in simulation as well.  Think of a sports team being inspired by a great play, leading to a swing in momentum.  And I think humans waking up with inspiration is a beautiful way to simulate the optimistic and ambitious nature of our species 

Also, the old rules (at this time) for giving out inspiration based on being yourself (following your flaws, bonds and ideals) still is in play, and works just fine with the new system on top of it.


----------



## the Jester

reelo said:


> Easy fix: make Abilities and their modifiers matter LESS! 15-17 in an Ability should give a +1 modifier. 18-19 a +2, and 20 a +3.



Talk about doing away with backwards compatibility.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I suppose it is possible that surveys of future packets will include questions regarding how it interacts with things from earlier packets, but it still seems extremely inefficient. I already have multiple players declining to adjust characters because there is no class information to see how thinsg interact. What do they think people are going to be able to test?



System interactions aren't a problem for the public playtest, that's what they take care of in their private NDA playtest network. That's why the packet begins by asking people not to worry about balance concerns, because they will handle that latter. This is only about whether people like the ideas.

They expect people to mix and match with 2014 options, as Crawford laid out in the video. They are meant to be compatible.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if that is what they meant when they said things were already popular house rules



It was already common before Critical Role adapted it,because Mercer read the forums to see what house rules he liked.

 It I think it definitely spread it farther, in a feedback loop.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Parmandur said:


> It was already common before Critical Role adapted it,because Mercer read the forums to see what house rules he liked.
> 
> It I think it definitely spread it farther, in a feedback loop.



I’m not sure what Critical Role house rules you’re seeing in the playtest. Mercer is very good about reining in players going wild over a nat 20 on skill checks by asking them “for a total of…?” Instead of it being an auto success, they do grappling RAW, they don’t use inspiration… honestly, outside of his homebrew subclasses, potions as a bonus action, and the potential to fail resurrections via a skill challenge, I’m having a hard time coming up with things Matt doesn’t run by the book, especially since Campaign 2.


----------



## HammerMan

I went through and it took almost an hour.  Pretty thorough but also not as much as I would have liked


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Please consider going through your posts on ENWorld this weekend and putting your finalized thoughts from the 1D&D threads in as survey responses. Your feedback matters and this is your best shot at having it heard.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> System interactions aren't a problem for the public playtest, that's what they take care of in their private NDA playtest network. That's why the packet begins by asking people not to worry about balance concerns, because they will handle that latter. This is only about whether people like the ideas.
> 
> They expect people to mix and match with 2014 options, as Crawford laid out in the video. They are meant to be compatible.



This is, unfortunately, one of those things that people are just never going to accept no matter how many times or in how many ways WotC says it.


----------



## CubicsRube

FitzTheRuke said:


> I prefer "add max weapon die value" - then you don't need to pick your dice up again. (I know people like to roll dice, but you can do that NEXT round.) It keeps crits from ever being disappointing when you roll lower on two (or more) dice than you often do on one.



As someone that routinely rolls less than average even on crits, I support this initiative.


----------



## Charlaquin

Aw, crap, I forgot to mention wanting the option to play Small dwarves, elves, and dragonborn.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> This is, unfortunately, one of those things that people are just never going to accept no matter how many times or in how many ways WotC says it.



To some degree, probably inevitable. But the system is still working for them, so I guess they get the idea across well enough.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> It was already common before Critical Role adapted it,



there is no way you can know how popular or common a house rule is


----------



## MonsterEnvy

FitzTheRuke said:


> When should we expect the next playtest packet?



I predict when the survey ends.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

CubicsRube said:


> As someone that routinely rolls less than average even on crits, I support this initiative.



Me too. We call it "critiful" when it happens.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> there is no way you can know how popular or common a house rule is



WotC has some pretty I'm depth market research going on. Also, D&D Beyond has houserule information built in.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

GMforPowergamers said:


> there is no way you can know how popular or common a house rule is



If it's mentioned repeatedly online on reddit, message boards, YouTube videos, actual plays, etc., you can make some educated inferences.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If it's mentioned repeatedly online on reddit, message boards, YouTube videos, actual plays, etc., you can make some educated inferences.



funny how personal experience and seeing things online is cool when it's something people agree with...


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> funny how personal experience and seeing things online is cool when it's something people agree with...



Well, Jeremy Crawford is the one with actual data on the topic, so that's the main point of real evidence. That anecdotal evidence lines up with what WotC says they have statistical evidence for is not surprising. They will have even better statistics after this survey, ans we'll see what sticks.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Well, Jeremy Crawford is the one with actual data on the topic,



no he doesn't no survey, nothing in beyond tracts house rules


Parmandur said:


> so that's the main point of real evidence.



there is no evidence


Parmandur said:


> That anecdotal evidence lines up with what WotC says they have statistical evidence for is not surprising.



they didn't say they had evidence they said what they believe... and as I am told when I bring up monte cook, one creator isn't the same as a company


Parmandur said:


> They will have even better statistics after this survey, ans we'll see what sticks.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no he doesn't no survey, nothing in beyond tracts house rules
> 
> there is no evidence
> 
> they didn't say they had evidence they said what they believe... and as I am told when I bring up monte cook, one creator isn't the same as a company



They survey constantly. There have been large and detailed annual satisfaction surveys, ad well as other market research going on constantly. On what basis do you doubt that they have information...?


----------



## overgeeked

I'm assuming they'll filter out my input given I started with B/X and that I'm old. But whatever.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> They survey constantly. There have been large and detailed annual satisfaction surveys, ad well as other market research going on constantly. On what basis do you doubt that they have information...?



on the basis that none of those surveys (That I have been filling out UA ones, general ones ect) ask about house rules


what evidence do you have that they ever polled for this?


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> on the basis that none of those surveys (That I have been filling out UA ones, general ones ect) ask about house rules
> 
> 
> what evidence do you have that they ever polled for this?



Crawford said they have data to show this. I see no reason to that is the information that they have...and after thus survey, they'll really have the data about how to move forwards, anyway, so ita moot point. Why are you being so aggressive over this...?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Crawford said they have data to show this. I see no reason to that is the information that they have...and after thus survey, they'll really have the data about how to move forwards, anyway, so ita moot point. Why are you being so aggressive over this...?



because you are claiming some insider knowledge of what they have, and appealing to authority of "the data proves it" when we have no way to tell what the data is or if there is data...


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> because you are claiming some insider knowledge of what they have, and appealing to authority of "the data proves it" when we have no way to tell what the data is or if there is data...



WotC has data, we do not. WotC claims X based on data, and observation backs up X. Ergo, we can reasonably believe that WotC probably believes what they are saying.


----------



## JEB

I wish they'd made the survey publicly accessible, to get the widest possible input from players... but they clearly only wanted D&D Beyond users to participate, so at least that's consistent. (To be fair, the Next playtest operated much the same, signup was required. Though it's hard not to suspect this time that there's an ulterior motive, boosting their DDB membership numbers...)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> WotC has data,



we have no way of knowing what they do and don't have


Parmandur said:


> we do not. WotC claims X based on data,



and that could just be "I have seen them played that way at cons and my friends games" 


Parmandur said:


> and observation backs up X. Ergo, we can reasonably believe that WotC probably believes what they are saying.



I'm not saying they don't BELIEVE that it is right, I am questioning if there is anyway to even guess if they are...


----------



## Marc Radle

Just tried to create an account in order to take the survey …

What’s with needing to use Apple or Google? You can’t just create an account using your normal e-mail address, etc. ???


----------



## MonsterEnvy

JEB said:


> I wish they'd made the survey publicly accessible, to get the widest possible input from players... but they clearly only wanted D&D Beyond users to participate, so at least that's consistent. (To be fair, the Next playtest operated much the same, signup was required. Though it's hard not to suspect this time that there's an ulterior motive, boosting their DDB membership numbers...)



Make an account, that’s how you are supposed to be able to access the playtest rules in the first place.


----------



## JEB

Marc Radle said:


> Just tried to create an account in order to take the survey …
> 
> What’s with needing to use Apple or Google? You can’t just create an account using your normal e-mail address, etc. ???



Nope, they specifically want you to tie in an existing account. You can also use a Twitch account, which is what I did (not really anything useful to marketers on it).


----------



## MonsterEnvy

GMforPowergamers said:


> we have no way of knowing what they do and don't have
> 
> and that could just be "I have seen them played that way at cons and my friends games"
> 
> I'm not saying they don't BELIEVE that it is right, I am questioning if there is anyway to even guess if they are...



And it seems silly to do this, seems like doubting for the sake of doubting. You have already been wrong about One D&D stuff.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Parmandur said:


> WotC has data, we do not. WotC claims X based on data, and observation backs up X. Ergo, we can reasonably believe that WotC probably believes what they are saying.



What house rules exactly are you talking about, and what is the connection to Critical Role you were trying to make?


----------



## JEB

Oh. Heh. Technically you can get to the survey without D&D Beyond, just like you can technically get to the packet without D&D Beyond. I suppose I shouldn't post the link, though.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> I wish they'd made the survey publicly accessible, to get the widest possible input from players... but they clearly only wanted D&D Beyond users to participate, so at least that's consistent. (To be fair, the Next playtest operated much the same, signup was required. Though it's hard not to suspect this time that there's an ulterior motive, boosting their DDB membership numbers...)



It's a free account.


----------



## Parmandur

SakanaSensei said:


> What house rules exactly are you talking about, and what is the connection to Critical Role you were trying to make?



Whether a 20 is a success, or a 1 a fumble. Jeremy Crawford said those are extremely common house rules, common enough that they don't want to swim upstream against how people actually play.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> we have no way of knowing what they do and don't have
> 
> and that could just be "I have seen them played that way at cons and my friends games"
> 
> I'm not saying they don't BELIEVE that it is right, I am questioning if there is anyway to even guess if they are...



They have the means, motive and opportunity. I'll believe my observations and WotC statements about data, because at a certain point skepticism isn't tenable.


----------



## Parmandur

MonsterEnvy said:


> And it seems silly to do this, seems like doubting for the sake of doubting. You have already been wrong about One D&D stuff.



Incredulity is as much a problem as credulity.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> It's a free account.



Which is still a barrier that narrows your feedback pool. That it also requires an Apple, Google, or Twitch account to get that account is an additional barrier. A completely open survey, like they did for 5E Unearthed Arcana, has a larger potential feedback pool and is more likely to represent the widest possible swath of D&D players.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Parmandur said:


> Whether a 20 is a success, or a 1 a fumble. Jeremy Crawford said those are extremely common house rules, common enough that they don't want to swim upstream against how people actually play.



"and what is the connection to Critical Role you were trying to make?"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*Mod Note:*

We don’t usually moderate use of the upvote/emoji system, but we WILL if we detect a pattern of abusing it for mockery/harassment.  At least one person in this thread is on the verge of crossing that line.  

STOP.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> This is, unfortunately, one of those things that people are just never going to accept no matter how many times or in how many ways WotC says it.



When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously,  if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design,  it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about. It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.  Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.



Eh, I think we can be pretty sure that's not true. If that was so, we'd have gotten a psionic class, and they wouldn't have revised the kender, off the top of my head.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously,  if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design,  it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about. It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.
> 
> I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.  Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.



They say this literally every time they discuss UA. It isn't a tool for gathering hard math data, it is market testing. It prevents them from working beyond draft form on rules that aren't popular. The hard testing comes after the UA draft, in the private play test network.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> They say this literally every time they discuss UA. It isn't a tool for gathering hard math data, it is market testing. It prevents them from working beyond draft form on rules that aren't popular. The hard testing comes after the UA draft, in the private play test network.



Quote it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> I prefer "add max weapon die value" - then you don't need to pick your dice up again. (I know people like to roll dice, but you can do that NEXT round.) It keeps crits from ever being disappointing when you roll lower on two (or more) dice than you often do on one.



So does maxing the normal dice and then rolling again.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Reynard said:


> When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously,  if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works,



Where are you getting this notion?


Reynard said:


> it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design,  it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about.



They absolutely should care. It’s more important than most other factors.


Reynard said:


> It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.



This is a grossly overwrought usage of the term predatory.


Reynard said:


> I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.



The case is the opposite of this.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Quote it.



The packet talks about how this is not a balancing playtest, Crawford talks about the process a bit in the video attached, and he has detailed it in numerous Sage Advice videos, please do look them up if you want to know.more about the process. Mearls, back in his Happy Fun Hour, talked extensively about this as well, as thst was a demonstration of the initial drafting phasez what they would do before a UA article, which then they would survey and see if people were interested enough to move along to hard playtesting. UA is taste testing, not math balance testing.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

doctorbadwolf said:


> So does maxing the normal dice and then rolling again.



? I'm not sure what you mean. Why would you max a die you've already rolled and then roll it again? That's just a wasted step. I mean, yeah, it's the same thing, other than the waste of time.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> When and where do they say this?



Literally right at the beginning of the playtest packet, in the sidebar marked “this is playtest material.” Here’s the relevant bit:



	
		Power Level. The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form.
		
	




Reynard said:


> And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater?



To get a sense of general interest (or disinterest) in the options presented. They want to know the audience’s broad emotional reactions to the concepts. They work out the design specifics between their designers and their private playtesters.


Reynard said:


> Seriously,  if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design,  it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about.



I strongly disagree that the designers shouldn’t care about the audience’s feelings. That’s… kinda the thing they should care about the most. But, yes, you have correctly identified that gauging feelings is the purpose of the open playtests.


Reynard said:


> It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.



It isn’t disingenuous at all; they are very open about the fact that they are gathering feedback on the concepts, not the specific design. The feedback does absolutely matter, because if the general response to an idea is too negative, they’ll change or (more likely) drop it.


Reynard said:


> I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.  Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.



They do very much care what the fans think. Or more precisely, how the fans feel. The lesson they learned from 4e is that feel is paramount. But no, they don’t care about fans’ design ideas, and have never really claimed they do.


----------



## JEB

Having just finished the survey, I'd say the new inspiration and long rest rules are among the things most subject to change. They called them out specifically in my survey.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

JEB said:


> Having just finished the survey, I'd say the new inspiration and long rest rules are among the things most subject to change. They called them out specifically in my survey.



I don't recall the Long Rest rules being any different than they are in the 2014PHB (other than explicitly pointing out that you can have a short rest if you are interrupted more than an hour into a long one). I can't imagine why they'd change it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't recall the Long Rest rules being any different than they are in the 2014PHB (other than explicitly pointing out that you can have a short rest if you are interrupted more than an hour into a long one). I can't imagine why they'd change it.



They were just clarifying that any amount of combat interrupts a long rest, unlike the previous ruling of it requiring 1 hour worth of combat to end a long rest.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't recall the Long Rest rules being any different than they are in the 2014PHB (other than explicitly pointing out that you can have a short rest if you are interrupted more than an hour into a long one). I can't imagine why they'd change it.



If you check the glossary in the packet, they did change the rules somewhat.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They were just clarifying that any amount of combat interrupts a long rest, unlike the previous ruling of it requiring 1 hour worth of combat to end a long rest.



Also that an interrupted long rest becomes a short rest (as opposed to no rest) if it was at least an hour long.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> If you check the glossary in the packet, they did change the rules somewhat.



Well, I haven't done a side-by-side read through, but from memory it looks no different, other than the short rest when interrupted, like I said. Am I missing something?


----------



## SakanaSensei

FitzTheRuke said:


> Well, I haven't done a side-by-side read through, but from memory it looks no different, other than the short rest when interrupted, like I said. Am I missing something?



Not that I'm aware of.


----------



## JEB

FitzTheRuke said:


> Well, I haven't done a side-by-side read through, but from memory it looks no different, other than the short rest when interrupted, like I said. Am I missing something?



Again, the new rules are more forgiving in some ways (since a failed long rest just turned into nothing before, and you had to start over) and less forgiving in others (RAW it used to take an hour of combat to interrupt a long rest). It's not as big a change as to inspiration, but it may still affect player behavior towards rests.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't recall the Long Rest rules being any different than they are in the 2014PHB (other than explicitly pointing out that you can have a short rest if you are interrupted more than an hour into a long one). I can't imagine why they'd change it.



In addition to the change you mentioned here, the new wording makes it unambiguously clear that any amount of combat will interrupt a long rest. The current wording could be interpreted as listing combat as one of the types of strenuous activity, of which it takes a total of one hour to interrupt a long rest. Indeed, this is how I interpreted it (and low-key I suspect this is one of the things they’re changing to match how most people actually play it, rather than a clarification of the original intent.)


----------



## MNblockhead

Aldarc said:


> Inspiration is different now. There are in-game mechanisms (rolling a 20) for gaining it. My main feedback, however, was moving Inspiration from a Nat 20 to a Nat 1, which is more psychologically rewarding.



Ooooh.  I LIKE that. Whatever the One DnD RAW is, I think I'll use this as homebrew. Wish I read this before responding to the survey. I would have given the same comment.


Aldarc said:


> The default is the custom background where you can choose where you want to put it. This was what everyone in my playtest group picked.




Yeah, I REALLY hope that make it blindingly clear that the example backgrounds they give are just that--examples.  Sure, a lot of players, especially new players, will just select an existing background, and that's fine--its good to have many examples to make it easy for new players to get started. But anything they do to make the use of custom background more common, the better.  I mean, this is how is was supposed to work in the 2014 PHB, but  so few people do this.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ah, right. The old "hour of combat" idea. Nice they got rid of that weird bit. I forgot about it because I ignored it, not being able to imagine a combat lasting 601 rounds.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> ? I'm not sure what you mean. Why would you max a die you've already rolled and then roll it again? That's just a wasted step. I mean, yeah, it's the same thing, other than the waste of time.



What? 

It’s simple. When you crit, you max the normal damage dice, you don’t roll them. Then you roll the dice “again”. 

You always get a better result than you would have without critting, but you still roll dice for damage. It still has some swing. 

Idk how else…a crit in 5e has two sets of damage dice. The houserule I’m referring to has you roll one set and max the other, and then add the result.


----------



## Charlaquin

MNblockhead said:


> Yeah, I REALLY hope that make it blindingly clear that the example backgrounds they give are just that--examples.  Sure, a lot of players, especially new players, will just select an existing background, and that's fine--its good to have many examples to make it easy for new players to get started. But anything they do to make the use of custom background more common, the better.  I mean, this is how is was supposed to work in the 2014 PHB, but  so few people do this.



It is clear in the playtest document. But, some people just refuse to accept it anyway. I don’t think there’s a way to word it that will make those people believe them.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> It is clear in the playtest document. But, some people just refuse to accept it anyway. I don’t think there’s a way to word it that will make those people believe them.



Put the rules for building your own background in the PHB with like 3 examples. Put the rest in the DMG.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> Ah, right. The old "hour of combat" idea. Nice they got rid of that weird bit. I forgot about it because I ignored it, not being able to imagine a combat lasting 601 rounds.



It’s not necessary for a combat to last 601 rounds to interrupt a long rest. Any combination of strenuous activity that lasts for an hour interrupts a long rest. That could mean 59 minutes and 55 seconds of walking and one round of combat, for example.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Put the rules for building your own background in the PHB with like 3 examples. Put the rest in the DMG.



The problem with that is people who want to just pick an example and go would only have three options in the PHB to choose from. That’s not even enough to cover a reasonable selection of ASIs, let alone skills, tools, and languages.


----------



## JEB

Charlaquin said:


> The problem with that is people who want to just pick an example and go would only have three options in the PHB to choose from. That’s not even enough to cover a reasonable selection of ASIs, let alone skills, tools, and languages.



A workaround might be to present several variations of the same background, to explicitly show that they can be customized. And maybe walk players through it. Depends how much space they want to devote, though.


----------



## MNblockhead

Reynard said:


> When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously,  if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design,  *it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about*. It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.
> 
> I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.  Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.



I'll leave it to you and others who have put more thought into it on whether the stats are good and whether the playtest is just theater.  But I disagree that nobody should care about "feelings."  I think a huge part of 5e's success is the feelings it evoked. It felt like D&D getting back to its roots while still using a lot of modern mechanics. "Feelings" had a lot to do with why I bought 5e and got back into TTRPGs.  They did a phenomenal job with the feel of the game. And yes, there are some rules that just by reading them wouldn't feel right to me and I wouldn't need to play test them.


----------



## MNblockhead

JEB said:


> Having just finished the survey, I'd say the new inspiration and long rest rules are among the things most subject to change. They called them out specifically in my survey.



Starting to feel a bit alone in my liking the new inspiration rules.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

doctorbadwolf said:


> What?
> 
> It’s simple. When you crit, you max the normal damage dice, you don’t roll them. Then you roll the dice “again”.
> 
> You always get a better result than you would have without critting, but you still roll dice for damage. It still has some swing.
> 
> Idk how else…a crit in 5e has two sets of damage dice. The houserule I’m referring to has you roll one set and max the other, and then add the result.



I was talking about that in the post you first responded to. But for some reason you appeared to be instructing me to do it the opposite of what I suggested. (Which is, if you roll your attack and damage together, and you get a crit, you just add max weapon damage to the roll.) 

For some reason it sounded like you were _disagreeing_ with that, and telling me that I should instead max that roll, reroll, and add that result.

At ant rate, I assume we get to the same thing, even if for some strange effect of the limitations of conversing by post we appear to be disagreeing somehow.


----------



## Charlaquin

JEB said:


> A workaround might be to present several variations of the same background, to explicitly show that they can be customized. And maybe walk players through it. Depends how much space they want to devote, though.



Well the packet does walk you through it. But I think an “Alice and Bob” example would probably be a good idea to have.


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> It is clear in the playtest document. But, some people just refuse to accept it anyway. I don’t think there’s a way to word it that will make those people believe them.



I think it will get more normalized through DnD Beyond.  The character generator should step you through building your custom background.  The selection of an example should be an option not the default. 

For those creating characters with pen and paper from the print book, I agree, I don't think any amount of wording will change much.


----------



## MNblockhead

Haplo781 said:


> Put the rules for building your own background in the PHB with like 3 examples. Put the rest in the DMG.



Nah.  This is content for players. To help players. I wouldn't want players to have to get the DMG or the DM to have to hand over the DMG to the players. 

I could see it being an appendix of the PHB.  But that's kinda bad design in it will just exacerbate the back-and-forth page flipping you already have to do when building characters.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> And preferably dragonborn to not come out of the egg speaking Draconic.



maybe it's genetic memory?


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> maybe it's genetic memory?



That’s not really a thing though… like, there’s some evidence that _might_ suggest certain trauma responses can be passed on hereditarily, but it’s shaky and poorly understood.


----------



## Horwath

Charlaquin said:


> That’s not really a thing though… like, there’s some evidence that _might_ suggest certain trauma responses can be passed on hereditarily, but it’s shaky and poorly understood.



dragons and magic, what can I say. Maybe throughout the ages they figured it out.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> maybe it's genetic memory?





Charlaquin said:


> That’s not really a thing though… like, there’s some evidence that _might_ suggest certain trauma responses can be passed on hereditarily, but it’s shaky and poorly understood.



Maybe they're playing off of the idea that all Dragon Wyrmlings are born knowing how to speak Draconic (but not Common or any other language) somehow? Not that this is any better, but that's what I thought it was alluding to when I first read it.


----------



## Marc Radle

JEB said:


> Nope, they specifically want you to tie in an existing account. You can also use a Twitch account, which is what I did (not really anything useful to marketers on it).



Wow, that … really stinks.
So if you don’t have any of those accounts you can’t sign up? Looks like I’m not taking the survey I guess.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

MonsterEnvy said:


> And it seems silly to do this, seems like doubting for the sake of doubting.



Its not doubting for doubtings sake, it's worry especially with new information. 


MonsterEnvy said:


> You have already been wrong about One D&D stuff.



yes everyone gets things wrong all the time...


----------



## Retreater

Charlaquin said:


> The current wording could be interpreted as listing combat as one of the types of strenuous activity, of which it takes a total of one hour to interrupt a long rest.



So - just double check my math - that's a 600 round combat to last an hour?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> I was talking about that in the post you first responded to. But for some reason you appeared to be instructing me to do it the opposite of what I suggested. (Which is, if you roll your attack and damage together, and you get a crit, you just add max weapon damage to the roll.)
> 
> For some reason it sounded like you were _disagreeing_ with that, and telling me that I should instead max that roll, reroll, and add that result.
> 
> At ant rate, I assume we get to the same thing, even if for some strange effect of the limitations of conversing by post we appear to be disagreeing somehow.



Ah okay, yeah I think we do the same thing. I don’t roll attack and damage together, but otherwise it’s the same thing.


----------



## Gladius Legis

The survey has So. Many. Typos.

Which leads me to believe that this playtest process is nothing more than a pointless dog and pony show and WOTC is not taking it remotely seriously.


----------



## Charlaquin

Horwath said:


> dragons and magic, what can I say. Maybe throughout the ages they figured it out.



But you can excuse anything that way. If it doesn’t fly for other cultural traits, it shouldn’t for languages either.


----------



## Charlaquin

Retreater said:


> So - just double check my math - that's a 600 round combat to last an hour?



Or 10 rounds of combat and 5 hours and 59 minutes of any other strenuous activity. Or any other combination that totals 1 hour.


----------



## renbot

Bolares said:


> What I don't like about this is the hassle of keeping track of which dice double and which don't. I'd prefer if all dice in a crit are doubled, or even if you just double all the damage rolled on a crit.



Why not just a flat damage bonus on a crit? That's the easiest solution.


----------



## Maxperson

I made more comments in the boxes than any other survey I've filled out.  And the Sage and Pilgrim backgrounds weren't on the list to rate. I had to write my ratings of those in the box.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Or 10 rounds of combat and 5 hours and 59 minutes of any other strenuous activity. Or any other combination that totals 1 hour.



I'm not going to be doing that.  I mean, combats last an average of like 3 rounds.  You can have the entire adventuring day(6-8 encounters) in the middle of the long rest and only use up 1 minute 48 second to 2 minutes of combat.  That's going to screw up a long rest.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Or 10 rounds of combat and 5 hours and 59 minutes of any other strenuous activity. Or any other combination that totals 1 hour.



Yeah, the change is clearly meant to allow the 5-minute workfsy to be nipped in the bud.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> I'm not going to be doing that.  I mean, combats last an average of like 3 rounds.  You can have the entire adventuring day(6-8 encounters) in the middle of the long rest and only use up 1 minute 48 second to 2 minutes of combat.  That's going to screw up a long rest.



It’s all so much ado about nothing anyway, because the new wording clearly states any amount of combat interrupts a long rest now.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Gladius Legis said:


> The survey has So. Many. Typos.
> 
> Which leads me to believe that this playtest process is nothing more than a pointless dog and pony show and WOTC is not taking it remotely seriously.



The survey is not by WotC, though they could have sent the document with the typos, who knows? 

I'm not sure how a poorly edited survey leads you to conclude anything about the playtest process though. Likely not the same people involved, one way or the other.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Gladius Legis said:


> The survey has So. Many. Typos.
> 
> Which leads me to believe that this playtest process is nothing more than a pointless dog and pony show and WOTC is not taking it remotely seriously.



I didn't notice any typos, and I normally have a good eye for that kind of thing.


----------



## MockingBird

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I didn't notice any typos, and I normally have a good eye for that kind of thing.



Yeah I was way to into my thoughts to even notice any.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I didn't see any either, and I am mildly OCD compulsive about these things.


----------



## Parmandur

I also didn't notice any, but I'm a phonetic reader who studied German and Medieval literature, so I tend to elide over spelling errors usually.


----------



## CrashFiend82

I found the survey very simple and intuitive. I got questions about almost all of the rules iterations, though I had to parse some of the questions. For example it took a moment to understand that the D20 Test question was about the auto Crit/fail rules. I answered in the text box about my opinions. I also liked that they offered an optional text box at the end for thoughts. I think the randomized questions where applicable made sense. Ask each person about a handful of backgrounds, it gives enough data points overall without making the survey take an hour.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I didn't see any either, and I am mildly OCD about these things.



Pet peeve here: you may be mildly _compulsive_ about these things, but unless you have an irrational fear that your family might die if you don’t spot the typos, it’s not OCD. Everyone experiences compulsions. _Obsessive Compulsive Disorder_ is a very serious anxiety disorder that causes some people to become obsessively consumed by those compulsions, often to the point of experiencing debilitating fear if a compulsion isn’t satisfied.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> Pet peeve here: you may be mildly _compulsive_ about these things, but unless you have an irrational fear that your family might die if you don’t spot the typos, it’s not OCD. Everyone experiences compulsions. _Obsessive Compulsive Disorder_ is a very serious anxiety disorder that causes some people to become obsessively consumed by those compulsions, often to the point of experiencing debilitating fear if a compulsion isn’t satisfied.



I thought about editing that post, and probably should have. You are absolutely right. I am compulsive, but not quite OCD (thankfully). I should be more sensitive to those who experience the true thing. Apologies.


----------



## Charlaquin

FitzTheRuke said:


> I thought about editing that post, and probably should have. You are absolutely right. I am compulsive, but not quite OCD (thankfully). I should be more sensitive to those who experience the true thing. Apologies.



No worries. It’s one of those things that’s really pervasive in common parlance. I appreciate you being so receptive to me pointing it out


----------



## Azzy

Who! Done!

Never before have I used the comment boxes in their surveys so much or written so much!


----------



## Quickleaf

Azzy said:


> Who! Done!
> 
> Never before have I used the comment boxes in their surveys so much or written so much!



Same. That was a beast to get through. Mostly "dissatisfied" answers with lots of explanation.


----------



## Starfox

Funny thing: When I googled to find the feedback, Google landed me here.


----------



## darjr

Starfox said:


> Funny thing: When I googled to find the feedback, Google landed me here.



We’ve made it.

Also yes fill out the commentary blocks with as much as you need to.


----------



## Amrûnril

Didn't notice any typos, though sometimes it was hard to predict whether to give written feedback on an initial question or whether there would be a more detailed followup where it would fit better. More importantly, though, the text box for age only allows two characters. This is blatant exclusion of centennarian players!



renbot said:


> Why not just a flat damage bonus on a crit? That's the easiest solution.



 The _easiest _solution would be no extra damage on a crit.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

darjr said:


> Also yes fill out the commentary blocks with as much as you need to.



Within 200-500 words. I always push the upper end of the number of words you're allowed to give for feedback.


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> I also didn't notice any, but I'm a phonetic reader who studied German and Medieval literature, so I tend to elide over spelling errors usually.



LOL! Studying phonetics destroyed my abilility to spell English properly. My spelling used to be impeccable before then.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Pet peeve here: you may be mildly _compulsive_ about these things, but unless you have an irrational fear that your family might die if you don’t spot the typos, it’s not OCD. Everyone experiences compulsions. _Obsessive Compulsive Disorder_ is a very serious anxiety disorder that causes some people to become obsessively consumed by those compulsions, often to the point of experiencing debilitating fear if a compulsion isn’t satisfied.



What you are describing is severe OCD.  Mild OCD does exist and does not noticeably impair daily living.


----------



## Charlaquin

Maxperson said:


> What you are describing is severe OCD.  Mild OCD does exist and does not noticeably impair daily living.



Obviously OCD can vary in severity, but in my experience when someone says “I have mild OCD about [thing]” they usually mean “I have a mild compulsion related to [thing].” If it doesn’t noticeably impair daily living (without some form of treatment) then it isn’t a disorder.


----------



## Maxperson

Charlaquin said:


> Obviously OCD can vary in severity, but in my experience when someone says “I have mild OCD about [thing]” they usually mean “I have a mild compulsion related to [thing].” *If it doesn’t noticeably impair daily living (without some form of treatment) then it isn’t a disorder.*



Tell that to all of the psychologists.  They've decided that they are still a disorder.  Like high functioning alcoholics, high functioning people with mental disorders still have a disorder.


----------



## Li Shenron

Sacrosanct said:


> Some of my feedback:
> 
> 
> Don't like inspiration for humans, because lots of groups don't play with it, or forget they have it.  In general, I'm not a fan of racial traits for things a lot of people don't even play with.
> Don't like ability modifiers for backgrounds.  The charlatan wasn't even on their list of backgrounds in the survey, but what I'm seeing is that by having a background like that, every warlock chooses that background.  When ability modifiers are tied to background, you end up having each class having the same small handful of backgrounds.  No different how everyone was a dwarf fighter, or halfing thief back in the day when abilities were tied to race.
> Not a fan of level 1 feats, because a) that tells me feat chains are coming, and I hated those in 3e (along with system mastery tied to them) and b) not everyone plays with feats
> Really not a fan of removing monster crits.  The reasoning was because no one likes a level 1 PC dying from a critical hit in one shot.  Remember, the _whole point_ of having fast XP progression at level 1 and 2 was to offer that zero to hero style that many of us like, and if players wanted more robust PCs, they would start at level 3



I had exactly the same thoughts.


----------



## Osgood

My basic feedback:

Not a fan of the crit changes, though I’m not opposed to some measure of change to how DM crits work to help low level PC survivability (something like +1d6 for CR 2 and lower, +2d6 for CR 3-5, and so on).
Half races is okay, but I’m not thrilled with it. I would prefer a mechanic that allows you to select x number of traits from either parent. Now to balance that, you’d have to denote eligible traits on each race with an asterisk or something (maybe some traits count as two or three like the elf’s lineage).
I like the idea of the ardling, but it needs some work. Radiant resistance is weak compared to other damage those since so few monsters deal radiant damage. Some guardials have had resistance or immunity to acid, cold, and lightning damage, so perhaps add one of those to each legacy.
I prefer the dragonborn from Fizban’s, at least in the distinction of chromatic, metallic, and gem variations. The breath weapon damage doesn’t feel right to me, and I would prefer a different expression of daconic senses than darkvision since it is way too common, perhaps an activated blindsight.
I like backgrounds, including granting feats and moving ASIs out of races—once you made the ability increases fully flexible, they no longer made sense as a racial trait.
To reinforce the customisation of backgrounds, perhaps say things like “Lanages: Gnomish or one of choice.” It might also make sense to add a “custom background” listing, where all the options are “one of choice” or “two of choice“ to make it crystal clear that this is an option.


----------



## overgeeked

Most of my feedback has already been covered by others, but I did offer praise on the removal of background features. Considering the lengthy and intractable arguments that result in the precise reading and use of those features, all I can say is good riddance.


----------

