New Survey Results Video

[Boverk]

Hello! They just posted a New Survey Results | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana video, so I wanted to share the link. I haven't watched it yet, but will soon.

YouTube Link to Video (https://youtu.be/P459wTB9NMs)

[Psyren]

Highlights:


Weapon Mastery scored really high and is confirmed to be in 5.5. All the options score high too, EXCEPT Flex.
Barbarian was 77% and most features scored 80+. Berserker was a clear winner, going from 29% in 2014 to 84% in the playtest.
Fighter was 75%, most features again scored 80+. People want Weapon Expert/Adept to be buffed, and they have committed to that.
Champion was another winner, going from 54% to 74%. (Interesting note - they confirmed that they see Champion as not only the best "beginner Fighter," but one of the best beginner subclasses in the entire game period.)
Sorcerer went from 60% to 72%, which they see as more to do. Mixed response to the sorcerer unique spells, lots of enthusiasm for metamagic with two exceptions (see below.)
Most metamagic scored extremely high *e.g. Careful Spell got 89%. The two exceptions were Seeking Spell at 74%, good but not great. The other of course was Twinned Spell at 60%, which they will take another look at.
UA 7 is going back to class spell lists :smallsigh: I suppose this means though that Bard won't be the omnicaster we're seeing in 6 anymore.
Draconic Sorcerer got 73%. This was driven by the dragon wings being tied to the concentration spell, everything else scored high. Now that classes are going back to nonstandardized progressions, they'll revert the wings to being always on and higher level.
Warlock is going back to Pact Magic :smallsigh: but they're still committed to addressing the limited slots and short-rest dependency in some other, balanced way that we won't see until UA 7.
Warlock is going back to being based on one stat only :smallsigh:
Hex will be getting buffed.
Wizard got 70%. Their conclusion here is quite odd, they seem to think people are upset that wizard doesn't have far and away the best spell list in the game due to the Arcane List being open to everyone thing. Apparently their feedback is showing that people want every list in the game to be notably worse than the Wizard list, so that's where they're headed.
Evoker scored very well (number not given, likely 80+.)
Going back to Warlock, their modularity and invocations are seen as the core part of their identity, and they're going to lean more into that.

[diplomancer]

Looks like all my main concerns were addressed, and that the new Warlock was seen by the majority of the community as the horrible distortion of the Warlock class it is (it's the one class they did not even mention the satisfaction rate, so I assume it must have been terrible. "We definitely heard you" was all they said about the feedback. Couldn't be clearer).

Good. Seems I'm still a possible customer, though the fact that they even thought this was a good idea is concerning.

Also happy about going back to class lists. A strong Class identity is good.

Edit: Their exact words: "We see this as... as a good test. For us, the main purpose of all of this was to know what people think. And people let us know it. "(very nervous laughter).

[Atranen]

UA 7 is going back to class spell lists :smallsigh: I suppose this means though that Bard won't be the omnicaster we're seeing in 6 anymore.

This is great to see. I've hit on this every survey so far, so I'm hopeful that they'll be making the change permanent.


Looks like all my main concerns were addressed, and that the new Warlock was seen by the majority of the community as the horrible distortion of the Warlock class it is (it's the one class they did not even mention the satisfaction rate, so I assume it must have been terrible. "We definitely heard you" was all they said about the feedback. Couldn't be clearer).

Good. Seems I'm still a possible customer, though the fact that they even thought this was a good idea is concerning.

Also happy about going back to class lists. A strong Class identity is good.

I'm also a little hopeful here given how we've seen the druid shake out. It seems like their strategy is to push far in the initial phase, but come back down to earth if that gets panned.

Overall I've been pretty happy with what I've seen from the playtests recently--much happier than I was early on. I'm not thrilled to have to switch to a new system, but I don't have many major issues with the new design.

[Boverk]

Good Summaries above, so I won't post a full one. A few of the solid confirmations:


Weapon Expert and Adept need to be improved, but Weapon Mastery is here to stay
Individual Class Spell Lists are coming back, Mystic Arcanum will be a core feature
Warlocks will be Charisma based only
Pact Magic is coming back



I would have liked more details on how the individual spells were received (like Sorc. Burst, etc) and I would liked to have heard feedback on the wizard's Spell Creation feature.

[Psyren]

For me, the one silver lining of class spell lists returning is it's probably going to revert the Bard to being a trickster/controller with some healing magic like it should be. This baby with the bathwater approach is otherwise disappointing.



I would have liked more details on how the individual spells were received (like Sorc. Burst, etc) and I would liked to have heard feedback on the wizard's Spell Creation feature.

That they didn't mention it suggests to me that it did fine. If anything, class lists means it'll be even easier to put things like that as Wizard exclusives.

[Boverk]

For me, the one silver lining of class spell lists returning is it's probably going to revert the Bard to being a trickster/controller with some healing magic like it should be. This baby with the bathwater approach is otherwise disappointing.



That they didn't mention it suggests to me that it did fine. If anything, class lists means it'll be even easier to put things like that as Wizard exclusives.

Agreed to both.

I am curious if their fix for warlock being either 1 minute short rests like the monk or just more pact magic slots. Either way, a Pact Magic user with more uses of pact magic is my chosen fix for the warlock.

[diplomancer]

One thing about their methodology that is concerning: They've mentioned about a few classes how the class got an overall score of X, but that all or most of its features scored significantly above X, and that this is a sign that people actually evaluate a class higher than X.

No. Just no. People may like all the features of a class individually and still think that the class is missing something, or that the sum of the parts is not satisfactory.

[Zevox]

Just finished watching it myself.

Biggest news to me is easily them ditching the universal spell lists for class ones, to which I say: hallelujah! That was never a good idea, and the Bard in particular really emphasized why, not fitting with that system at all in either attempt they made to make it. It just affects class identity too much and homogenizes things too much to do it that way.

Second biggest is Warlocking keeping Pact Magic but them thinking they have another way to address their resource issues. And while I'm happy they won't use that half-caster setup, I'm reserving judgment on the whole, as I feel like the short rest dependency really needs to be addressed. My fear is they just slap a "shorter short rest 1/day" feature on them and call it enough, like the Monk; I want a better solution than that kind of band-aid. I am pleased that the class is returning to a single casting stat again, but noticed they didn't mention which; I hope it's Charisma.

Wizard confuses me? Like, yes, the universal spell lists eating into its identity was bad and is one reason I'm glad those are gone, but that's a bit separate from what they were doing with the class itself. They mentioned a mixed response to the new "spells" (/class features they made spells for no good reason), so hopefully those get overhauled or dropped as well, but they strangely avoided addressing them in any detail.

Sorcerer, also mixed response to the new class "spells", which I'm also on the negative side of, so here's hoping that means changes there. And Twin Spell. Though yay for Dragon Wings reverting!

Don't really have much to say about Fighter, Barbarian, or Weapon Mastery myself. Weapon Mastery is just a lesser version of the Kobold Press weapon manuevers my group already plays with to me, so unless they expand it, my group will likely ignore it and keep using that anyway. I am not surprised Berserker got a high score, though, it's deserved; hope they see another of the much-criticized subclasses, Four Elements Monk, get a lower one and go back to the drawing board there.

[Psyren]

Second biggest is Warlocking keeping Pact Magic but them thinking they have another way to address their resource issues. And while I'm happy they won't use that half-caster setup, I'm reserving judgment on the whole, as I feel like the short rest dependency really needs to be addressed. My fear is they just slap a "shorter short rest 1/day" feature on them and call it enough, like the Monk; I want a better solution than that kind of band-aid.

100% agreed, this wouldn't be enough.


I am pleased that the class is returning to a single casting stat again, but noticed they didn't mention which; I hope it's Charisma.

I dunno... I feel like if it was Cha they would have simply said it's reverting to 2014. But if this process has taught me anything it's that they're happy to run back to their comfort zones at the drop of a hat, so.

Personally, I was looking forward to another Int-based caster option in Core (no, EK and AT don't count.)



Sorcerer, also mixed response to the new class "spells", which I'm also on the negative side of, so here's hoping that means changes there. And Twin Spell. Though yay for Dragon Wings reverting!

Don't really have much to say about Fighter, Barbarian, or Weapon Mastery myself. Weapon Mastery is just a lesser version of the Kobold Press weapon manuevers my group already plays with to me, so unless they expand it, my group will likely ignore it and keep using that anyway. I am not surprised Berserker got a high score, though, it's deserved; hope they see another of the much-criticized subclasses, Four Elements Monk, get a lower one and go back to the drawing board there.

What I find amusing is that Baldurs Gate 3 is doing way, way more with weapons than 5e is. You'd think they'd borrow a leaf from that playbook.


Agreed to both.

I am curious if their fix for warlock being either 1 minute short rests like the monk or just more pact magic slots. Either way, a Pact Magic user with more uses of pact magic is my chosen fix for the warlock.

I feel like if the answer was just "2014 pact magic but more of it" they'd have easily been able to say so instead of playing so coy. But again, what do I know.

[Zevox]

Personally, I was looking forward to another Int-based caster option in Core (no, EK and AT don't count, and .
I'd be on board with another Int-based class, but not Warlock. I cannot see them as anything but Charisma-based, personally.

Heck, if I could have anything I wanted we'd have a proper Psion as a second Int-based class in the PHB, albeit not as a "caster" in the sense of using the existing spellcasting mechanics. But sadly pretty clear at this point that's never happening, and I don't just mean the PHB part.


What I find amusing is that Baldurs Gate 3 is doing way, way more with weapons than 5e is. You'd think they'd borrow a leaf from that playbook.
Really? I hadn't heard that. Will be interested to see how they did that, then. I've still got a few weeks to wait for that though.

[Psyren]

Really? I hadn't heard that. Will be interested to see how they did that, then. I've still got a few weeks to wait for that though.

BG3 has things like bonus action pommel strikes, shoves, bleeds, charge attacks, cleaves etc. None of these require specific class features or feats to use.

[GooeyChewie]

I’m quoting Psyren to give my thoughts on the topics, not as a response to any particular poster.



Weapon Mastery scored really high and is confirmed to be in 5.5. All the options score high too, EXCEPT Flex.
Good, I like Weapon Mastery. I’d still like to see more depth to martial combat, but it’s a good start.



Barbarian was 77% and most features scored 80+. Berserker was a clear winner, going from 29% in 2014 to 84% in the playtest.
I can’t say I paid too much attention to Barbarian, but I’m glad players seem to like it.



Fighter was 75%, most features again scored 80+. People want Weapon Expert/Adept to be buffed, and they have committed to that.
Good, because while I approve of Weapon Mastery I was a bit worried they might think it solved all the shortcomings of martial combat.



Champion was another winner, going from 54% to 74%. (Interesting note - they confirmed that they see Champion as not only the best "beginner Fighter," but one of the best beginner subclasses in the entire game period.)
Personally I disagree that Champion is the best beginner Fighter. I find it too simple, leaving the player bored fairly quickly. Weapon Mastery does help it a bit in that regard, though, so I can see how the approval rating went up.



Sorcerer went from 60% to 72%, which they see as more to do. Mixed response to the sorcerer unique spells, lots of enthusiasm for metamagic with two exceptions (see below.)
The sorcerer specific spells were very thematic, but also mechanically underwhelming, so I totally get the mixed reaction.



Most metamagic scored extremely high *e.g. Careful Spell got 89%. The two exceptions were Seeking Spell at 74%, good but not great. The other of course was Twinned Spell at 60%, which they will take another look at.
Twinned Spell probably did need a bit of a downgrade, and that’ll never be popular. But they probably did go too far (completely changed it, really), so I’m happy it’ll get another look.



UA 7 is going back to class spell lists :smallsigh: I suppose this means though that Bard won't be the omnicaster we're seeing in 6 anymore.
Good. I liked the idea in theory, but as more and more UAs added exceptions and class-specific spells, the Arcane/Divine/Primal lists became more cumbersome than they were worth. And while it is thematic for Bards to pull from other lists, our group felt having all three lists was overkill already.



Draconic Sorcerer got 73%. This was driven by the dragon wings being tied to the concentration spell, everything else scored high. Now that classes are going back to nonstandardized progressions, they'll revert the wings to being always on and higher level.
I wouldn’t be opposed to “concentration until higher level when it becomes always on.” The wings are already a level 14 feature; pushing them further up will mean very few campaigns get to them.



Warlock is going back to Pact Magic :smallsigh: but they're still committed to addressing the limited slots and short-rest dependency in some other, balanced way that we won't see until UA 7.
I still maintain making short rests 10 minutes would go a long way to helping parties regularly incorporate them into the adventure day.



Warlock is going back to being based on one stat only :smallsigh:
Oh… that one surprises me. I know a lot of people felt Warlocks lost a ton of flavor in the UA, but I thought it was almost entirely because of Pact Magic and that most people viewed the variable ability score casting favorably. I guess it did make Warlock easier to dip for multiclassing, but I hate to see multiclassing rules impact single-class players that way.



Hex will be getting buffed.
Good!



Wizard got 70%. Their conclusion here is quite odd, they seem to think people are upset that wizard doesn't have far and away the best spell list in the game due to the Arcane List being open to everyone thing. Apparently their feedback is showing that people want every list in the game to be notably worse than the Wizard list, so that's where they're headed.
I agree with Psyren here, that’s an odd conclusion. I want each class to feel unique. Giving Wizard pretty much all the spells on all the other arcane lists does not work towards that goal.



Evoker scored very well (number not given, likely 80+.)
Cool.



Going back to Warlock, their modularity and invocations are seen as the core part of their identity, and they're going to lean more into that.
Yay for invocations. But it feels a bit disingenuous to praise their modularity while removing the modularity of being able to pick your spellcasting modifier.

[Psyren]

Saw this quote on the DDB forums that sums up my feelings:

"At first we were getting a new edition. Then it got scaled back to 5.5e. Now it is Tasha 2.0."

Not sure why I expected any better, but at least there are some decent improvements to look forward to (hi, Rogue.)

[Atranen]

I'd prefer warlocks as INT casters too. I hope they're keeping that option open.

[Psyren]

I'd prefer warlocks as INT casters too. I hope they're keeping that option open.

Agree. They are "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse" - not bardic sexpots or sorcerous trust fund recipients.

[Atranen]

Agree. They are "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse" - not bardic sexpots or sorcerous trust fund recipients.

Making them INT based also helps with some of the multi classing issues they've raised concerns with, so there's a chance they'll follow through.

[Hael]

This has to be something of an embarrassment to their design team. The immense majority of big game changing ideas they have proposed for this UA have ended poorly. At least they aren’t doubling down on some of this stuff.

Just tweaking bad features/spells and buffing a few things by adding relatively obvious features that exist in a lot of homebrews (things like weapon masteries, cunning strikes) was probably not what they had in mind going into it. But I think thats about the best we are going to get without a full rewrite.

I’m anxious about the actual spell list rewrite. I’m deeply worried that they are going to nerf spellcasting to the ground in the most tragic way possible (both by nerfing damage, which is exactly the opposite of what they need to do for many blasting spells as well as removing a lot of the hard CC). And while i’m ok for buffing martials, I don’t want a pathfinder2 situation either. Spellcasters need to be super powerful, they just need real drawbacks.

[stoutstien]

Im curious. Are they still sharing the volume of responses? In wondering how much smaller the playtest group is getting due to the natural decline in interest you see and then stepping in rakes every other step.

[Psyren]

This has to be something of an embarrassment to their design team. The immense majority of big game changing ideas they have proposed for this UA have ended poorly. At least they aren’t doubling down on some of this stuff.

They didn't end poorly though. Most of the big ideas got majority approval. WotC just happened to set this ridiculous target of anything that doesn't score 80% or higher is potentially on the chopping block for themselves. And then didn't even let us vote on some of the reversions, like "hey, most people liked the standardized subclasses, so we're going back to 2014 subclass progressions, this choice won't be on the survey."


As for spell lists, I have little doubt that their mandate of preserving the Wizard list as the only good one, we're going to be yet again stuck with nobody else being able to summon anything or have weaker control/information gathering or literally anything that isn't blasting, and oh by the way wizards will be the best at that too, you're welcome."


Im curious. Are they still sharing the volume of responses? In wondering how much smaller the playtest group is getting due to the natural decline in interest you see and then stepping in rakes every other step.

Not sure what point that would serve. Let's say the first UA ended up with 100k responses and the latest one is down to 25k. That's still orders of magnitude more feedback than they'd ever get from a forum/Reddit post, YT video, or even social media, so it would still trump all of those other avenues.

[Unoriginal]

I agree this is a weird lesson to learn from the Wizard spell list.


Saw this quote on the DDB forums that sums up my feelings:

"At first we were getting a new edition. Then it got scaled back to 5.5e. Now it is Tasha 2.0."

Not sure why I expected any better, but at least there are some decent improvements to look forward to (hi, Rogue.)

I remember you defending the idea this was not a new edition pretty adamantly.

[Psyren]

I remember you defending the idea this was not a new edition pretty adamantly.

I was defending its backwards compatibility, even when they were taking bigger design swings.

[stoutstien]

Not sure what point that would serve. Let's say the first UA ended up with 100k responses and the latest one is down to 25k. That's still orders of magnitude more feedback than they'd ever get from a forum/Reddit post, YT video, or even social media, so it would still trump all of those other avenues.

Because I have a feeling that the diversity of feed back would probably shrink in a disproportionately fashion. We saw it in the next playtest as well and that one started out a lot smaller but the content was spread out over nearly 2 years of release.

[Psyren]

Because I have a feeling that the diversity of feed back would probably shrink in a disproportionately fashion. We saw it in the next playtest as well and that one started out a lot smaller but the content was spread out over nearly 2 years of release.

Eh, I think once you're in the thousands (if not tens of thousands) it's going to be a pretty representative sample. Still, I'm never opposed to them sharing more data.

[Kane0]

Ive checked out somewhat at this point, so im not terribly enthused but its good to see they arent so proud as to plough ahead with things and actually walk back what gets smacked.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ive checked out somewhat at this point, so im not terribly enthused but its good to see they arent so proud as to plough ahead with things and actually walk back what gets smacked.

Yeah. I'm in the same boat. Maybe there's hope?

[stoutstien]

Yeah. I'm in the same boat. Maybe there's hope?


Ive checked out somewhat at this point, so im not terribly enthused but its good to see they arent so proud as to plough ahead with things and actually walk back what gets smacked.

Same.

Hard to say where it will end up based on all the last minute they had in the last playtest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same.

Hard to say where it will end up based on all the last minute they had in the last playtest.

I'd almost be on board (reluctant to rebuy everything) if they did a "clean up" release. Basically don't change any of the core, but just clean up language, add more explanations where needed, and fix the things that are well known to be broken/bad. And sell it as such.

Or go all the way and make significant changes to core, enough to justify it as a new edition entirely. And market it as such.

But the half-way stance they've landed on, trying to have and eat the marketing[1] cake? No thanks.

[1] insert portal joke here, since "marketing" and "lie" are...not all that different.

[MadMusketeer]

Agree. They are "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse" - not bardic sexpots or sorcerous trust fund recipients.

Sure - but Warlocks being INT-based raises the somewhat difficult to answer question of why on Earth they don't simply become Wizards instead? There's no longer the logic that they don't have the intellect to handle it, becoming a Warlock doesn't (in-game) grant you powers beyond that of the Wizard as a base (less, in fact), and, don't forget, you have to sell your soul (or at least, make a deal with, in most cases, a morally ambiguous entity at best).

Given this, why on Earth would a perspective spellcaster with high intelligence become a Warlock instead of a Wizard? Laziness? Sure, that makes sense as a motivation, but it's also very specific - it doesn't fit that many characters, especially compared to Warlocks without Int as their main stat. Sorcerer is something you're born as - the logic as to why you would become a Warlock instead is clear and well-defined. Further, even though anyone can become a Bard, Bards are fundamentally very specific and different from Warlocks - it isn't hard to imagine why someone wouldn't work to becoming a bard, as there honestly isn't much overlap, even in theme. But Wizards? There is so much conceptual overlap between the two classes, particularly with Warlock as an INT caster. Both are Arcane, not only in magic but in theme. In fact, Wizard is such a conceptually broad class that I have trouble thinking of situations in this context (from an in-universe perspective) that can describe a Warlock but not a Wizard, and that creates problems.

[Kane0]

Sure - but Warlocks being INT-based raises the somewhat difficult to answer question of why on Earth they don't simply become Wizards instead?

Lacking in education resources. Might have no associates to contact, materials to draw on or other factor inhibiting their learning so they are driven to reach out to less reputable yet more available sources.

[Psyren]

Sure - but Warlocks being INT-based raises the somewhat difficult to answer question of why on Earth they don't simply become Wizards instead?

Why don't Artificers? or Eldritch Knights? Sharing a casting stat doesn't mean equal affinity/preference.

[MadMusketeer]

Why don't Artificers? or Eldritch Knights? Sharing a casting stat doesn't mean equal affinity/preference.

Sure, but both of those have good explanations - Artificer is fundamentally a job, and has a much different focus to Wizards, and Eldritch Knights are (literally) Fighters first. Both of those have a ton of good reasons to not be Wizards - the relative breadth of character motivations or backstories that lead you them instead of Wizard is, IMO, much higher than for Warlocks, especially Int-based warlocks - if 'warlocks' are fundamentally "seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse" (your words, not mine) then that is either a concept that is incredibly narrow (hunter of forbidden knowledge doesn't really have much room for variation of motivations, and can also just be covered by pretty much any other class, especially the Wizard) or, in a very direct way, overlaps with the Wizard. If you are a magical scholar of some kind, what's the reason to become a Warlock instead of a Wizard? Maybe forbidden knowledge, but again, that applies to the current Warlock, along with a whole bunch of other concepts.

Also, a secondary problem - 'forbidden knowledge' isn't generally that relevant to D&D campaigns most of the time, and is kind of an 'already fulfilled' motivation - you sold your soul and acquired forbidden knowledge already, which makes it less interesting/broad as a character trait that's the default for a whole class IMO.

To be very clear, I'm not saying that INT-based Warlocks make less sense - on the contrary, they're probably a more logical way of handling the class, depending on your point of view. I just think that handling it as Charisma makes enough sense, and it allows for (IMO) more potential for different character concepts.

[GooeyChewie]

If you are a magical scholar of some kind, what's the reason to become a Warlock instead of a Wizard?

Because while a Wizard has studied the ways of arcane magic, you have studied the ways of {insert your patron type here}.

[Anymage]

But Wizards? There is so much conceptual overlap between the two classes, particularly with Warlock as an INT caster. Both are Arcane, not only in magic but in theme. In fact, Wizard is such a conceptually broad class that I have trouble thinking of situations in this context (from an in-universe perspective) that can describe a Warlock but not a Wizard, and that creates problems.

If a class is just something that anybody can become if they train at it (excepting sorcerers with their inborn magic), I have a feeling that charismatic people would see less draw to bargaining away their souls when they can get most of the same benefits from learning how to sing.

The bit you said about wizard being such a broad concept is the core of the problem here, not Int-warlocks. Conceptually broad classes alongside full classes that embrace a subconcept are going to be a little tricky if you treat them as actual in-game elements instead of rough bundles of associated mechanics,.

[diplomancer]

In my experience, the more usual Warlock trope (definitely informed by how the class is mechanically, naturally) is a bargain under duress, usually near death. From there the character starts building a new life under (many times against) the Patron's influence.

I think the class could indeed embrace both casting stats with a few tweaks here and there (Wisdom, not so much, imo). But I also understand the multiclassing concerns that would make this flexibility a problem.

Personally, I prefer them as Cha-based, but that may be due to habit and familiarity; if they were Int-based, they could be made to work as well.

[Bosh]

One of the things that has me scratching my head about WotC is their insistence on not having class-based spell lists. Don't really see what the benefit is of having three lists instead of one for every class. Any gains in terms of simplifying the rules or reducing the amount of stuff that newbies have to learn is very minor, it makes casting classes that are already too samey even more samey, and it causes all kinds of problems with clerics being better at casting classic paladin spells than paladins and the like.

I'm also sad that turning bards into half casters isn't even being considered. With bards being full casters they either are overpowered or end up as mostly "just another spell caster" as being a caster is so damn powerful that if you give a class much beyond full casting they become overpowered which limits the amount that a balance bard class can do aside from casting.

[Zevox]

One of the things that has me scratching my head about WotC is their insistence on not having class-based spell lists.
I've got good news for you then, because one of the biggest takeaways from this video is that they're abandoning that and going back to class-based spell lists.

[Skrum]

Warlock is going back to Pact Magic :smallsigh: but they're still committed to addressing the limited slots and short-rest dependency in some other, balanced way that we won't see until UA 7.
Warlock is going back to being based on one stat only :smallsigh:


Who the heck answers these. The warlock class is not good. The short rest thing is not good. The new changes were a great step. I mean, I'll hold final judgement until I see what they come up with, but this is super frustrating to hear.



Wizard got 70%. Their conclusion here is quite odd, they seem to think people are upset that wizard doesn't have far and away the best spell list in the game due to the Arcane List being open to everyone thing. Apparently their feedback is showing that people want every list in the game to be notably worse than the Wizard list, so that's where they're headed.
[/LIST]

Lolol. No comment.

[Kane0]

Who the heck answers these. The warlock class is not good. The short rest thing is not good. The new changes were a great step.

You and I differ, but I didnt bother with this survey.

Im sad that the multiple casting stat stuff got dropped though.

[ZRN]

Who the heck answers these. The warlock class is not good. The short rest thing is not good. The new changes were a great step. I mean, I'll hold final judgement until I see what they come up with, but this is super frustrating to hear.

Hard disagree; it would've been a shame to turn the most mechanically distinct caster into "ranger/paladin but with wizard spells and a My Chemical Romance t-shirt."

[animorte]

Highlights:
I think you could have thrown in a few more of these - :smallsigh: - to get the point across. :smalltongue:

There are several points I take issue with, especially their ignorance-is-bliss "hur-dur Wizard this, Wizard that."

Going back to Warlock, their modularity and invocations are seen as the core part of their identity, and they're going to lean more into that.
But this point is my favorite. It's what they're all about as far as I'm concerned. :smallsmile:

Summary is much appreciated!

[Aimeryan]

Agreed to both.

I am curious if their fix for warlock being either 1 minute short rests like the monk or just more pact magic slots. Either way, a Pact Magic user with more uses of pact magic is my chosen fix for the warlock.

The feedback I gave as a suggestion was for Pact Magic to be a 1 minute refresh, twice per Long Rest, and for there to be some invocations that gave a few low level Spell Slots per Long Rest to play around with (level gated, naturally).

The utility function of having a few low level Spell Slots to play around with is one of the things that makes casters fun, so I can see that this is desired. However, there has to be a cost involved, and given the invocations for getting Spell Slots were an idea already present in UA 5 it felt like a good idea to go from there. The problem with the Spell Slot invocations in the UA were that they involved your best Spell Slots, so were basically mandatory, and they only gave one per Long Rest each (and were Spell Specific) which felt bad. Converting this into giving a few low level Spell Slots solved both these issues, while also solving for the desire for low level Spell Slots.


I'm hoping that the Paladin still gets an expanded spell list from the 2014 version, because the 2014 version is dire. I wasn't fussed about class lists vs type lists, but I did like that it fixed that issue. Actually, probably the same with Warlock level 1 class list being pretty bad; hopefully that gets expanded too.

Possibly the major reason Wizards class identity was being so eroded was because the subclasses give so little, and the base class gets nothing unique after level 1 until level 18 other than the class list and number of Spell Prepared/Known. Even the level 1 unique features were just Arcane Recovery (which is just a few extra Spell Slots) and Ritual Casting. So, if you take away the class list and ritual casting uniqueness then you are almost completely reliant on subclass features to feel different to other Spellcasters - and as mentioned, Wizard subclasses are known for being extremely shallow. I cannot recall, but I think the difference in Spells Prepared/Known were diminished too?

Ideally, they would shore up the base class with unique features, but that would be giving more power to Wizards so...

[Skrum]

Hard disagree; it would've been a shame to turn the most mechanically distinct caster into "ranger/paladin but with wizard spells and a My Chemical Romance t-shirt."

Yes, but the warlock is not a particularly functional class. I like the differences too, but the class needs to actually work. And the new design still had PLENTY of innovative stuff - choosing a casting stat, a build-defining cantrip selection, limited access to "full caster progression." There's no way that class played like the ranger or paladin

[stoutstien]

Yes, but the warlock is not a particularly functional class. I like the differences too, but the class needs to actually work. And the new design still had PLENTY of innovative stuff - choosing a casting stat, a build-defining cantrip selection, limited access to "full caster progression." There's no way that class played like the ranger or paladin

Funny how different table experiences are. IMO The warlock is one of the few classes that DO play close to what its package is advertising.

[diplomancer]

Yes, but the warlock is not a particularly functional class. I like the differences too, but the class needs to actually work. And the new design still had PLENTY of innovative stuff - choosing a casting stat, a build-defining cantrip selection, limited access to "full caster progression." There's no way that class played like the ranger or paladin

Choosing a casting stat: What exactly is "innovative" about that. To be sure, it was one of the few "ok" features of that thing, but I wouldn't call it "innovative". It just allows you to better select what skills you want to be good at. Or worse, to go for Wis because Wis saves are more prevalent, and Perception is the most important skill. True, also opened new multiclassing options, but I'm not sure that is even a plus, as it is definitely harder to balance.

"build-defining cantrip selection": you mean, the Pact Boons, that the Class already had, and was changed to a Cantrip because of the new "everything is spells" philosophy?

limited access to "full caster progression"... as opposed to the access to full caster progression that the class already had.

Only thing I agree in this post is that the class wouldn't play like a ranger or paladin, because Rangers and Paladins are actually well designed classes (well, the original Paladin is a well designed class, and the Ranger is getting there through multiple iterations). It would play like a worse Wizard.

[Unoriginal]

Sure - but Warlocks being INT-based raises the somewhat difficult to answer question of why on Earth they don't simply become Wizards instead? There's no longer the logic that they don't have the intellect to handle it, becoming a Warlock doesn't (in-game) grant you powers beyond that of the Wizard as a base (less, in fact), and, don't forget, you have to sell your soul (or at least, make a deal with, in most cases, a morally ambiguous entity at best).

Given this, why on Earth would a perspective spellcaster with high intelligence become a Warlock instead of a Wizard? Laziness? Sure, that makes sense as a motivation, but it's also very specific - it doesn't fit that many characters, especially compared to Warlocks without Int as their main stat. Sorcerer is something you're born as - the logic as to why you would become a Warlock instead is clear and well-defined. Further, even though anyone can become a Bard, Bards are fundamentally very specific and different from Warlocks - it isn't hard to imagine why someone wouldn't work to becoming a bard, as there honestly isn't much overlap, even in theme. But Wizards? There is so much conceptual overlap between the two classes, particularly with Warlock as an INT caster. Both are Arcane, not only in magic but in theme. In fact, Wizard is such a conceptually broad class that I have trouble thinking of situations in this context (from an in-universe perspective) that can describe a Warlock but not a Wizard, and that creates problems.

Wizards trade time and gold for their powers. Quite a few Warlocks don't have those luxuries, quite a few others havr them but think going for the "get entity's power" is a better way, and quite a few Warlocks don't have the choice.

[ZRN]

Yes, but the warlock is not a particularly functional class. I like the differences too, but the class needs to actually work. And the new design still had PLENTY of innovative stuff - choosing a casting stat, a build-defining cantrip selection, limited access to "full caster progression." There's no way that class played like the ranger or paladin

There were definite problems with the 2014 warlock but ditching the whole design - especially the core concept of "full caster spell power but powerful cantrips or weapon attacks instead of lower-level spell slots" - seemed unnecessary.

I don't mind them trying stuff out, except that they apparently tried out a bunch of stuff that seems to me mostly pointless (who was sitting around saying, "I wish my bard didn't have his own spell list?") and in so doing burned up a lot of time.

Like, the second-draft rogue was pretty good. What were they thinking even playtesting the first-draft rogue that was basically "2014 but with some nerfs"? Did they think people would be super happy about that? Why not just try out Cunning Strikes in the first draft and have more time to refine it? Silly.

[Psyren]

My main wishlist for Warlock:

1) Some means of having low-level slots or casting separate from their nukes. Casting Shield from a 5th-level slot just feels bad.

2) They shouldn't just get more pact slots and call it a day. That has too much potential to overtune them. For example, even adding a third pact slot per short rest at level 7 means they'll have up to nine 4th-level slots per adventuring day when most other full casters have 1-2

3) Should either work with multiclassing in some way or not be spellcasting at all. I constantly have to explain to newer players that they have to track spell slots and pact slots separately, or be careful which one they're casting X from.

4) Bring back choosing casting stat, that was the most interesting Warlock update they tried by far.


I think you could have thrown in a few more of these - :smallsigh: - to get the point across. :smalltongue:

There are several points I take issue with, especially their ignorance-is-bliss "hur-dur Wizard this, Wizard that."

But this point is my favorite. It's what they're all about as far as I'm concerned. :smallsmile:

Summary is much appreciated!

No problem!

The places I ":smallsigh:" were the conclusions I disagreed with; if I didn't, it's likely because I agreed, e.g. them recognizing that Seeking Spell and Twinned Spell need more work, or that the Sorcerer unique spells were lackluster and needed a redesign.

[diplomancer]

My main wishlist for Warlock:

1) Some means of having low-level slots or casting separate from their nukes. Casting Shield from a 5th-level slot just feels bad.

If it's optional at a cost (say, an invocation that gives you X castings/LR (where X is either your proficiency or your casting stat)) I'm ok with that. I would not like it if it came from the general "power budget" of Pact Magic.


2) They shouldn't just get more pact slots and call it a day. That has too much potential to overtune them. For example, even adding a third pact slot per short rest at level 7 means they'll have up to nine 4th-level slots per adventuring day when most other full casters have 1-2.

I'm in favor of them getting the 3rd slot at level 9, because the math works out better that way. I expect them to make it easier for them to recover their slots, and maybe even decouple them entirely from Short Rests.




3) Should either work with multiclassing in some way or not be spellcasting at all. I constantly have to explain to newer players that they have to track spell slots and pact slots separately, or be careful which one they're casting X from.

Meh... I'll take your word for it that it's a problem for new players, but I don't see how it's a greater problem than tracking other castings of spells that are not from the Spellcasting feature (say, from races, backgrounds, feats, ki, etc).


4) Bring back choosing casting stat, that was the most interesting Warlock update they tried by far.

I didn't like Wis as casting stat for Warlocks, I think not only it doesn't fit their fluff, but it would be strictly better than the others (unless the game rebalanced Perception and Saving Throws). Choice of Int or Cha does not bother me, but I understand the concern with multiclassing.

[ZRN]

My main wishlist for Warlock:

1) Some means of having low-level slots or casting separate from their nukes. Casting Shield from a 5th-level slot just feels bad.

2) They shouldn't just get more pact slots and call it a day. That has too much potential to overtune them. For example, even adding a third pact slot per short rest at level 7 means they'll have up to nine 4th-level slots per adventuring day when most other full casters have 1-2

3) Should either work with multiclassing in some way or not be spellcasting at all. I constantly have to explain to newer players that they have to track spell slots and pact slots separately, or be careful which one they're casting X from.

4) Bring back choosing casting stat, that was the most interesting Warlock update they tried by far.


1. An invocation that gives you low-level spell slots seems pretty easy to implement. But also, Shield shouldn't exist in its current form, and if it does, warlocks shouldn't get it.

2. Agreed. Another reason invocations are a good answer here: the current warlock isn't really undertuned, just focused in a way some people don't prefer. But it's also the most malleable class in the game thanks to invocations, so use those!

3. I don't see a clean way to do this... I think warlocks are a complex class and multiclassing makes everything more complex, so if you can't deal with that, don't combine the two.

4. Agreed. Although I'm not sold on Wisdom as an option.

[Psyren]

I'm in favor of them getting the 3rd slot at level 9, because the math works out better that way.

That's still up to nine 5th level slots at level 9 when most full casters get one, assuming they stay SR-linked.


I expect them to make it easier for them to recover their slots, and maybe even decouple them entirely from Short Rests.

The latter would be wonderful but I have heavy doubts.


An invocation that gives you low-level spell slots seems pretty easy to implement. But also, Shield shouldn't exist in its current form, and if it does, warlocks shouldn't get it.

Shield is just one prominent example of low-level-nonscaling-high-utility. There are also spells like Misty Step, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Vortex Warp, Rope Trick...

[diplomancer]

That's still up to nine 5th level slots at level 9 when most full casters get one, assuming they stay SR-linked.

True. Meanwhile other full casters have 3 4th level slots, 3 3rd level slots, 3 2nd level slots, and 4 1st level slots. I've done the math on spell points, and it's pretty much a tie. Or, to be more precise, Warlocks are ahead on level 9, but by less than the amount of points they were behind on level 8, so I believe that is acceptable (whereas with only two slots they fall far behind). And by level 10 they are tied (warlocks are one spell point behind, if I remember correctly), and remain tied until about level 17.




The latter would be wonderful but I have heavy doubts.

Well, they said they would maintain Pact Magic but deal with the issue of Warlocks not having enough access to their slots. Decoupling from Short Rests would be the easiest way to do it. I just hope they just don't triple the slots (as that has its own issues).




Shield is just one prominent example of low-level-nonscaling-high-utility. There are also spells like Misty Step, Absorb Elements, Silvery Barbs, Vortex Warp, Rope Trick...

Shield is the most problematic, along with Silvery Barbs. The fact that these two spells get so much flack is to me an indication that it is they that are the problem, not the fact Warlocks can't optimally use them. Absorb Elements is far more circumstantial, Misty Step is not that spammable (I think it will be a rare fight where you will use it more than once). Rope trick is a current Warlock's wet dream, and they would happily cast it at whatever slot if they had access to it, Vortex Warp may be nice but I wouldn't know because I've never used it nor seen it used; clearly not a must-have, OP spell.

[Dienekes]

My main wishlist for Warlock:

1) Some means of having low-level slots or casting separate from their nukes. Casting Shield from a 5th-level slot just feels bad.


What's interesting to me is, I see the Warlocks Pact magic as a means of pushing the class toward and away from specific spells. I kinda think it's a good thing that there are classes that have a reason to not pick Shield. Honestly I want to nerf the spell anyway, but all together having a class whose mechanics make taking Shield, Silvery Barbs, and Misty Step optimal and another class who makes it not optimal is a good thing in my book.

I wish more classes had mechanics with those kind of interactions.



3) Should either work with multiclassing in some way or not be spellcasting at all. I constantly have to explain to newer players that they have to track spell slots and pact slots separately, or be careful which one they're casting X from.

4) Bring back choosing casting stat, that was the most interesting Warlock update they tried by far.


I do agree that the multiclassing is wonky and choosing casting stats was at least conceptually interesting, however.

[Zevox]

What's interesting to me is, I see the Warlocks Pact magic as a means of pushing the class toward and away from specific spells. I kinda think it's a good thing that there are classes that have a reason to not pick Shield. Honestly I want to nerf the spell anyway, but all together having a class whose mechanics make taking Shield, Silvery Barbs, and Misty Step optimal and another class who makes it not optimal is a good thing in my book.
I sort of agree. I don't have a problem with Shield, etc as-is, but I don't think they should bend over backwards to let the Warlock use them. That the class' design makes it work best with spells that upscale or simply the highest-level spells available to it is a feature of how Pact Magic works, not a bug. Those spells are not mandatory, and shouldn't be treated as if they were. That the Warlock can't use them very effectively is just fine, and doesn't need to be changed.

Personally, all I want from the Warlock is for the short rest issue to be addressed. Preferably by completely decoupling them from the short rest recharge aspect of it, but since they said they're bringing back Pact Magic, I'm guessing that part will remain as well, and they'll just do something to give the Warlock more resources to work with. I just hope it's not a mere band-aid like the Monk's new "shorter short rest 1/day" mechanic.

Well, I also want the class' casting stat to be Charisma, which I'd assume it will, but they didn't specify, so very slight concern there. I don't like the idea of any class being able to choose between multiple casting stats, but if that had to happen, it should at least not be locked to specific pact versions like it was previously - it was kind of depressing reading over that and realizing that the Warlock I played as my first 5E character was literally impossible to play under those rules, because you couldn't be a Charisma caster with the Tome pact.

[Rukelnikov]

I haven't been filling surveys or discussing UAs much in the forums since I realized we aren't getting a new edition, but I watched this video and what I got from it was "We are going back on pretty much every significant change we proposed". At this point its kinda sad tbh.

EDIT: I do agree they could take a look at what others are doing with the property, as Psyren mentioned, BG3s weapons are much more interesting than what this UA proposes (even if their adaption of the system is rather loose)

[Skrum]

This is a little bit of a tortured analogy, but as someone who follows combat sports, it really makes sense to me -
The 2014 warlock is like a poorly trained fighter that can also hit really hard. "This new fighter can hit so hard, he's def a match for the champ, did you see what number he got on the punching machine??"

Except that's of course not how fighting works, and not the real secret sauce of full casters.

A fighter that can punch super duper hard but has none of the other parts of fighting (technique, defense, conditioning, ring IQ, strategy; a million other things) *is not a good fighter.* They might look scary hitting a heavy bag, but any halfway decent opponent is going to make them look foolish. They're gonna go out swinging giant, telegraphed punches and the guy who knows what he's doing is never going to get hit because they actually know how to fight.

That's the warlock. They might throw a fireball at level 5. They might banish someone at level 7. They might....ew, their 5th level spells are kinda bad...But point is, they superficially do the same thing as a full caster. Except they have none of the utility, connective pieces, defense, tactical options, ANYTHING - just a big dumb puncher with no conditioning so they tire themselves out almost immediately. Sure, they might occasionally get lucky and land the KO in the first 30 seconds. But if they don't land the knockout blow (combat-shaping big spell), they've got nothing. Just stand there, shooting eldritch blast and hoping no one notices them and that the rest of the team can handle it.

Warlocks have a lot of build options. That's why they're great class to combine with other classes. But they have extremely low utility (and no staying power). On their own, they're....well they're bad. Boring to play, and comically outshined by other classes in anything the warlock tries to do. Hexblade is a bad fighter, tomb is a bad wizard, etc.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is a little bit of a tortured analogy, but as someone who follows combat sports, it really makes sense to me -
The 2014 warlock is like a poorly trained fighter that can also hit really hard. "This new fighter can hit so hard, he's def a match for the champ, did you see what number he got on the punching machine??"

Except that's of course not how fighting works, and not the real secret sauce of full casters.
Sort of like Deontay Wilder vs Tyson Fury? (Particularly second match after Tyson figured him out.)

[Skrum]

Sort of like Deontay Wilder vs Tyson Fury? (Particularly second match after Tyson figured him out.)

I almost referenced them xD

Though I do actually think Wilder is a better boxer than warlock is a spellcaster

[Kane0]

This is a little bit of a tortured analogy, but...

Again, we differ. I think youre measuring the warlock entirely on its spell slots, and undervaluing invocations.

Ill grant you warlocks cant go nuclear in one or two encounters like full casters can, but I think thats a good thing.

[Skrum]

Again, we differ. I think youre measuring the warlock entirely on its spell slots, and undervaluing invocations.



Like....what invocations are you talking about. Cause the majority of invocations are of the "allow the warlock to do something at a completely average level that they were bad at before."

Agonizing Blast makes a cantrip do base weapon damage (not more than base weapon, and no where close to optimized weapon damage. Just...mediocre)
Thirsting Blade gives them extra attack, which half of the other classes just get. Again, it brings warlock up to Replacement Level. Not above.
Tomb of Levistus is a straight trap
Cloak of Flies is completely unusable for a straight class warlock
There's a bunch of invocations that (sort of) add a spell to your spells known list
Devil's Sight is cute, but without sources of magical darkness aside from your spell slots, it's gonna be very limited
Eldritch Mind is a workhorse but entirely unexciting
Rituals are extremely game-dependent, so I can see Book of Secrets being quite solid, but I think it much more likely that it's something you'll take and then forget you have. Especially if there's a wizard in the party.

Repelling Blast is probably the single best, generally useful invocation but at the end of the day it's not really gonna do all that much unless you build for it - which probably means, like Devil's Sight, committing spell slots. At which point, again, you've become kind of a gimmick.

There are enough invocations that OTHER CLASSES will probably see something to like. Which, again, warlocks are a great dip class. Probably the best dip class, in fact. But the warlock itself is lacking that connective tissue, or even something like core power/identity, that invocations are kinda wasted on them.

[diplomancer]

Like....what invocations are you talking about. Cause the majority of invocations are of the "allow the warlock to do something at a completely average level that they were bad at before."

Agonizing Blast makes a cantrip do base weapon damage (not more than base weapon, and no where close to optimized weapon damage. Just...mediocre)
Thirsting Blade gives them extra attack, which half of the other classes just get. Again, it brings warlock up to Replacement Level. Not above.
Tomb of Levistus is a straight trap
Cloak of Flies is completely unusable for a straight class warlock
There's a bunch of invocations that (sort of) add a spell to your spells known list
Devil's Sight is cute, but without sources of magical darkness aside from your spell slots, it's gonna be very limited
Eldritch Mind is a workhorse but entirely unexciting
Rituals are extremely game-dependent, so I can see Book of Secrets being quite solid, but I think it much more likely that it's something you'll take and then forget you have. Especially if there's a wizard in the party.

Repelling Blast is probably the single best, generally useful invocation but at the end of the day it's not really gonna do all that much unless you build for it - which probably means, like Devil's Sight, committing spell slots. At which point, again, you've become kind of a gimmick.

There are enough invocations that OTHER CLASSES will probably see something to like. Which, again, warlocks are a great dip class. Probably the best dip class, in fact. But the warlock itself is lacking that connective tissue, or even something like core power/identity, that invocations are kinda wasted on them.

Tell me you've never seen a well built Warlock without telling me you've never seen one.

1- yes, Warlock utility comes not only from their spells, but from their invocations and Pact Boons. Not that their spell utility can be ignored entirely. Warlock, for instance, is the best Fly caster, and Fly trivializes a lot of non-combat challenges (and they can then rest and get the slot back before getting into combat, which no other caster can do. I'd like to see a 9th level Wizard using a 5th level slot to make their party fly to overcome some exploration challenge. I've done it without hesitation with my 9th level Warlock).

2- Pact of the Chain is so powerful in the exploration pillar, it breaks the game, at level 3, mind you, and DMs have to nerf it.

3- in the combat pillar, a Pact of the Chain Warlock has a bonus action attack that gives enemies that fail a save permanent disadvantage to all their attack and ability checks for the rest of the combat (or get out of the fight entirely if they are particularly unlucky). If enemies are immune to poison, he can have a bonus action attack that gives out 1d6+stat damage, better than a feat like PAM, and at range.

4- you've mentioned how agonizing blast gives Warlocks "the equivalent of average weapon damage". Fair enough. What other full caster has another at-will action as good as that?

5- at-will Silent Image and/or at-will Disguise Self. If you can't see the utility from that, you lack imagination.

And that's before you start looking closer at combos like Sculptor of Flesh + Healing Light. I still remember my DM's shock when I pulled that off on a 0HP party member. Or the fact that a summonning spell that lasts for one hour pairs wonderfully well with a class that can get the slot back after that hour is past. Or the crazy broken stuff like the Ravnica Background that gives you Animate Dead... or combining the Actor Feat with the Voice of the Chain Master to create chaos in ways that will be remembered by your party members for years (notice I haven't mentioned yet any multiclassing shenanigans?).

Really, talk to any player who has played a full class Warlock in a party that has regular Short Rests, and ask him what is his main gripe with the class. The answer will probably be "too few invocations". They are that good (and fun!). I know I had far more trouble deciding which invocation to get than which spell to get, or when to cast it.

[Skrum]

Tell me you've never seen a well built Warlock without telling me you've never seen one.

1- yes, Warlock utility comes not only from their spells, but from their invocations and Pact Boons. Not that their spell utility can be ignored entirely. Warlock, for instance, is the best Fly caster, and Fly trivializes a lot of non-combat challenges (and they can then rest and get the slot back before getting into combat, which no other caster can do. I'd like to see a 9th level Wizard using a 5th level slot to make their party fly to overcome some exploration challenge. I've done it without hesitation with my 9th level Warlock).

2- Pact of the Chain is so powerful in the exploration pillar, it breaks the game, at level 3, mind you, and DMs have to nerf it.

3- in the combat pillar, a Pact of the Chain Warlock has a bonus action attack that gives enemies that fail a save permanent disadvantage to all their attack and ability checks for the rest of the combat (or get out of the fight entirely if they are particularly unlucky). If enemies are immune to poison, he can have a bonus action attack that gives out 1d6+stat damage, better than a feat like PAM, and at range.

4- you've mentioned how agonizing blast gives Warlocks "the equivalent of average weapon damage". Fair enough. What other full caster has another at-will action as good as that?

5- at-will Silent Image and/or at-will Disguise Self. If you can't see the utility from that, you lack imagination.

And that's before you start looking closer at combos like Sculptor of Flesh + Healing Light. I still remember my DM's shock when I pulled that off on a 0HP party member. Or the fact that a summonning spell that lasts for one hour pairs wonderfully well with a class that can get the slot back after that hour is past. Or the crazy broken stuff like the Ravnica Background that gives you Animate Dead... or combining the Actor Feat with the Voice of the Chain Master to create chaos in ways that will be remembered by your party members for years (notice I haven't mentioned yet any multiclassing shenanigans?).

Really, talk to any player who has played a full class Warlock in a party that has regular Short Rests, and ask him what is his main gripe with the class. The answer will probably be "too few invocations". They are that good (and fun!). I know I had far more trouble deciding which invocation to get than which spell to get, or when to cast it.

I'm honestly not even sure quite how to answer, because we're clearly playing entirely different games.

Casting fly? Exploration Pillar? You're talking about "bypassing" stuff that didn't matter. DnD isn't a MMO; there isn't a series of obstacles to overcome, and then if you can't beat them/bypass them, the DM is like "well, better go back to a lower level area and grind some gear." They are telling a story, and like....even in a sandbox-style game, the players are going to end up where the DM wants them or needs them to be. Outside of true survivalist, hexcrawl style game, there is no exploration pillar. Not really. What do you even mean by "breaking the game" in the Exploration Pillar? Like the DM is like "ahg you found the secret tunnel that bypasses every single defense and leads directly into the villain's bedroom! And he's sleeping!! Curses!"

In a practical sense, Pact of the Chain is ridiculously fragile. An imp still has 13 AC. A +7 attack at disadvantage has a 56% chance to hit. And 10 hit points, like a single potshot will take them off the board. So unless they're hiding, all the time - which they're proficient in but not great at - it is very likely they get swiped. Seriously, I tried playing pact of the chain: the familiar died, constantly. And then the warlock died, but that's another story.

Other spellcasters don't need at-will damage that's as good as eldritch blast - they very quickly have enough spell slots that they have much better things to do than cast cantrips. And just like the rogue discussion in that other thread, being able to use an ability at will doesn't mean all that much.

If the DM goes way out of their way to give a warlock a ton of short rests, sure, the warlock works relatively fine - but that's like saying "the fighter looks great if the DM gives them a bunch of gear that makes up for their glaring weaknesses." True, but you've also admitted the class isn't very good, and the DM needs to be mindful to give them a leg up - if not outright contrive scenarios where they can feel useful.

To Be Clear - warlock is my favorite class. Of my 5 active characters, 3 of them have warlock levels - in fact, they are primarily warlock (5 or more levels each). But all 3 are multiclass, because I long ago figured out that warlock, by itself, is half a class. Very similarly to the fighter, rogue, and barb, warlock looks great up to level 5. But then it stops scaling properly, develops gross deficiencies, and becomes a real drag to play.

[Dienekes]

I'm honestly not even sure quite how to answer, because we're clearly playing entirely different games.

Casting fly? Exploration Pillar? You're talking about "bypassing" stuff that didn't matter. DnD isn't a MMO; there isn't a series of obstacles to overcome, and then if you can't beat them/bypass them, the DM is like "well, better go back to a lower level area and grind some gear." They are telling a story, and like....even in a sandbox-style game, the players are going to end up where the DM wants them or needs them to be. Outside of true survivalist, hexcrawl style game, there is no exploration pillar. Not really. What do you even mean by "breaking the game" in the Exploration Pillar? Like the DM is like "ahg you found the secret tunnel that bypasses every single defense and leads directly into the villain's bedroom! And he's sleeping!! Curses!"

Different games indeed. In mine, having a miniature invisible completely expendable flying scout is solid gold.

And yes they die. So what? Every attack roll or spell aimed at them instead of one of the more powerful full party members is a good thing. That means your distraction is doing its job.

[Kane0]

I'm honestly not even sure quite how to answer, because we're clearly playing entirely different games.


Too true.
10char

[Rukelnikov]

Like....what invocations are you talking about. Cause the majority of invocations are of the "allow the warlock to do something at a completely average level that they were bad at before."

Agonizing Blast makes a cantrip do base weapon damage (not more than base weapon, and no where close to optimized weapon damage. Just...mediocre)

A Sorlock spamming EBs is one of the most consistent damage options out there, I still think its a better ranged attacker than pretty much everyone else from 11th level onwards,

[Skrum]

In mine, having a miniature invisible completely expendable flying scout is solid gold.

And yes they die. So what? Every attack roll or spell aimed at them instead of one of the more powerful full party members is a good thing. That means your distraction is doing its job.

Expendable in what sense? A warlock's pact is a pretty significant part of their build. Even more so if you devote additional invocations to it (I mean, Investment of the Chain Master is needed if you want any chance at all of the familiar being usable in combat). And it can just get turned off, from a single attack. Not even the boss's attack, like a minion could just boom, shoot it. And now you have effectively no pact until you short rest again.

That's...Like I just really don't see the benefit. What is it actually doing that wasn't going to happen anyway. Like even most scouting doesn't actually change what happens next. So you know there's 6 monsters up ahead. You would've found that out when you rolled initiative. DnD isn't generally a granular enough game for that kind of information to matter - as many rules as it has, the minutia of combat that a real soldier might use is entirely subsumed in "make an attack using your proficiency bonus plus relevant ability score."

[Dienekes]

Expendable in what sense? A warlock's pact is a pretty significant part of their build. Even more so if you devote additional invocations to it (I mean, Investment of the Chain Master is needed if you want any chance at all of the familiar being usable in combat). And it can just get turned off, from a single attack. Not even the boss's attack, like a minion could just boom, shoot it. And now you have effectively no pact until you short rest again.

That's...Like I just really don't see the benefit. What is it actually doing that wasn't going to happen anyway. Like even most scouting doesn't actually change what happens next. So you know there's 6 monsters up ahead. You would've found that out when you rolled initiative. DnD isn't generally a granular enough game for that kind of information to matter - as many rules as it has, the minutia of combat that a real soldier might use is entirely subsumed in "make an attack using your proficiency bonus plus relevant ability score."

Literally from the last game I DMed active scouting allowed the party to avoid two encounters completely and determine the whereabouts of part of the McGuffin.

I’m sorry but your style of gameplay sounds incredibly dull to me. Where all the choices out of combat are insignificant next to what occurs in.

To me that’s like replacing the full roleplaying potential of D&D with a tactics game. A mediocre tactics game at that.

[Kane0]

I know it was a few months ago, but where were you for these threads @Skrum?

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655636-Thoughts-on-the-Warlock-Changes

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?656059-New-Warlock

[diplomancer]

I'm honestly not even sure quite how to answer, because we're clearly playing entirely different games.

Indeed we are. You've mentioned before how you basically play a 5-MAD day, with only one super deadly fight per day. I'm glad you enjoy it, but it's explicitly not what the game was designed for.

[paladinn]

So this thread seems to have become all about the warlock. When I evaluate a class/subclass, I tend to go back to the original and figure out what was the intent. For warlocks, when they were intro's in 3.5, I believe they were supposed to be about the invocations. Yes, the pact set the tone; but they didn't get spells. I know lots of things changed when 5e came out. But I'd like to see a warlock more focused on the invocations than on spells. The point is that they didn't Need spells. They are like the "innate caster" concept taken to the next level, beyond even the sorcerer. And since they don't have to mess with spells, they can also focus on stuff like combat ability.

Just my $.02

[Unoriginal]

Skrum, in a sceario where AC 21 is too low for melee and where the long rest classes barely go through attrition, and where acquirimg information on upcoming enemies is useless because unlikely to have any impact on the encounter, it is logical the Warlock performs poorly (outside of maybe a dedicated Repelling Blast spammer).

That being said, every single character I've ever created for 5e would perform poorly. Basically all but a few select builds would.

[Goobahfish]

Yep, every day I am more convinced that 5.1 should be the correct moniker for this edition.

They are basically backtracking everything that would actually make this a different edition. Instead, it is really just one giant errata...

RE: New Warlock. I actually liked it. A lot. But then I also like the old Warlock. Almost as if having both would be cooler than having neither.

To be honest, I would actually prefer if the Sorcerer were the 'Pact Magic' caster with metamagic and the Warlock was the Mystic Arcanum half-caster with Invocations.

I feel like that would actually reflect my mental image of the fantasy. Sorcerers being spell-spammers but kind of limited to lower level spells feels more like the 3.5e era sorcerer. Warlocks being a half-caster with 'pact-like mystic arcanum' invocations and a more fleshed out pact feels more interesting.

Ah well. That ship has sailed. There is no 6e. Just 5.1. I guess it means this subforum survives :)

[Damon_Tor]

Ive checked out somewhat at this point, so im not terribly enthused but its good to see they arent so proud as to plough ahead with things and actually walk back what gets smacked.

I'm way past all that. I'm jaded to the point where I assume all the bad changes they proposed were bad on purpose so when they roll them back their other slightly less objectionable changes seem better by comparison. IE, the "New Coke" gambit.

[animorte]

I'm way past all that. I'm jaded to the point where I assume all the bad changes they proposed were bad on purpose so when they roll them back their other slightly less objectionable changes seem better by comparison. IE, the "New Coke" gambit.
Which is becoming increasingly frustrating to me because knee-jerk reaction or polarizing possibilities seem like its legitimately intimidating WotC from taking steps to change things.

Sometimes it gives me the impression that the community doesn't really want a new edition. We're just coming up on that big 5-0.

[Zevox]

Sometimes it gives me the impression that the community doesn't really want a new edition.
Well, yeah, isn't that obvious? When people are largely happy with the current edition, interest in a new one is going to be small to nonexistent by default.

[Psyren]

Even if they revert to mostly 2014 design at the end of this process, I'm hopeful that we get a Tasha 2.0 / Unchained or something where they decide to reintroduce some of the more exciting innovations as optional progressions. I could easily see a truly templated Wild Shape showing up as optional in a later book, similar to what they did with the Beast Master's companion, for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, yeah, isn't that obvious? When people are largely happy with the current edition, interest in a new one is going to be small to nonexistent by default.

Yeah. The entire selling point of this new edition seems to be "we want more money." Which is valid from a business perspective, but not exactly hype inducing as a customer. Not only that, the attempt to have their cake and eat it too by proclaiming backwards compatibility but then trying to make it worth buying was an issue from the get go.

If there are enough changes to warrant a new edition (and whatever you call it, trying to get people to buy an entire new set of core books on mechanical grounds is always a new edition), then go all out. Actually make a new edition. Break those taboos. Have a vision of something new. Don't just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, design by focus group fashion. And don't try to claim that you're not actually doing a new edition. If you don't want to address the fundamental core of the game...don't. Just put out a splat like Tasha's[1].

Then again, I don't trust current WotC with a new edition anyway. They've shown less than no ability to write coherent fiction/worldbuilding and only mediocre mechanical abilities. Not only that, they've thrown out the entire core ethos of 5e and gone all in on the feature bloat and power gallop. So yeah.

[1] Except with some kind of sense of both thematics and balance. Seriously--Tasha's was a train wreck in both aspects.

[Psyren]

As a reminder, a lot of their changes did have majority support. They just set a near-impossible 80% bar for themselves for something to not be subject to the chopping block. So I don't find the "people didn't want change" argument to be quite as compelling; they're just being cowardly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a reminder, a lot of their changes did have majority support. They just set a near-impossible 80% bar for themselves for something to not be subject to the chopping block. So I don't find the "people didn't want change" argument to be quite as compelling; they're just being cowardly.

Majority of a tiny (relative to the player-base), self-selected-as-syncophant/fan-boy response base. And as the UAs go on, that response base shrinks with everyone who tunes out, leaving only those who are already basically satisfied or enthusiastic about the current direction.

Design by committee/focus group is always a bad idea.

[Psyren]

Majority of a tiny (relative to the player-base), self-selected-as-syncophant/fan-boy response base.

Ah yes, the resort to namecalling one's opponents strat. Typical.



Design by committee/focus group is always a bad idea.

Funnily enough, we're not too far apart on this one. I wish they had been willing to stick to their guns a bit more strongly rather than getting spooked by surveys indicating fear of change.

[animorte]

As a reminder, a lot of their changes did have majority support. They just set a near-impossible 80% bar for themselves for something to not be subject to the chopping block. So I don't find the "people didn't want change" argument to be quite as compelling; they're just being cowardly.

Funnily enough, we're not too far apart on this one. I wish they had been willing to stick to their guns a bit more strongly rather than getting spooked by surveys indicating fear of change.
This, exactly. I don't feel like their 80% is unrealistic; it sets a reasonable goal, given that anything above 60 still "needs improvement." Them talking in that way gave the impression that they were willing, and prepared, to actually put in the work.

It just feels like they got to a certain point where putting in the extra work to modify something that additional 20-30% was too daunting, I suppose?

[Zevox]

As a reminder, a lot of their changes did have majority support.
Citation needed. Aside from those they haven't backed down on, which would those be? Because in these videos, they never cite specific numbers for anything that didn't clear the 60% threshold they set as their "needs improvement, but salvageable" bar, which seem to be the only things they're fully backing down on. Things like Wild Shape or the Warlock rework. Whereas they're perfectly happy to throw out the numbers for anything that exceeded that.

[Aimeryan]

Well, yeah, isn't that obvious? When people are largely happy with the current edition, interest in a new one is going to be small to nonexistent by default.

If you try to sell a new 'Magenta Edition' to the Red Lobsters of Redania to replace their beloved 'Crimson Edition', then yeah, you're likely to get pushback. Indeed, you might end up with something closer to a 'Spanish Crimson Edition' that people are much slower (if at all) to move to because of how similar it is to what they arlready have.
If they want to do a new edition, they would be better served by targeting the Blue Whales of Blueant with a 'Cobalt Edition'.

Personally, I'm doing nothing if not waiting for an edition that is the spiritual successor to 3.5e with improvements in the digital space to speed up the game, fresh content, and updated material. Target me, please!

[animorte]

If you try to sell a new 'Magenta Edition' to the Red Lobsters of Redania to replace their beloved 'Crimson Edition', then yeah, you're likely to get pushback. Indeed, you might end up with something closer to a 'Spanish Crimson Edition' that people are much slower (if at all) to move to because of how similar it is to what they arlready have.
This why I have no interest in what Kobold Press is doing. Everything I've looked at is basically just extended 5e. The more WotC continues to revert decisions, the less likely I am to participate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah yes, the resort to namecalling one's opponents strat. Typical.



People invested in this enough to follow it online, fill out online surveys, and have D&D Beyond accounts are definitely not a normal unbiased sampling of the population-base. In fact, they're much more likely to be those who are interested in new editions and enthusiastic about those changes--those who are turned off generally won't vote in later surveys.

So it's not name-calling--it's accepting reality. Those who participate in the surveys, especially after the first, are already self-selected for high approval for what WotC is doing. Which makes appeal to popularity rather hollow in my mind.


This why I have no interest in what Kobold Press is doing. Everything I've looked at is basically just extended 5e. The more WotC continues to revert decisions, the less likely I am to participate.

Whereas I'm not particularly interested in their work despite wanting a real serious extension and polishing of 5e's core. I just don't think KP is doing a good job with it. I like their monsters, mostly, but their player options (especially) have tended toward the over-egged and overly-complex. As do their monsters, just to a lesser (and mostly ignorable) extent. It's why I'm actually biting the bullet and making my own fork of the 5e SRD, with a bunch of changes to the content (less to the core, except spell-casting).

[Psyren]

People invested in this enough to follow it online, fill out online surveys, and have D&D Beyond accounts are definitely not a normal unbiased sampling of the population-base. In fact, they're much more likely to be those who are interested in new editions and enthusiastic about those changes--those who are turned off generally won't vote in later surveys.

So it's not name-calling--it's accepting reality. Those who participate in the surveys, especially after the first, are already self-selected for high approval for what WotC is doing. Which makes appeal to popularity rather hollow in my mind.

You can say you distrust respondents investment without calling them "syncophants" (sic) and "fan-boys." It just undermines whatever point you're trying to make when you resort to such an attitude.


Citation needed.

...All the survey result videos are still up on their channel :smallconfused: Pick whichever one you like. Some examples off the top of my head:

- Ardling was 60% favorable and didn't make it.
- Jump Action "scored well on a purely quantitative level."
- "every individual feature" in the Playtest 2 Bard was 70s or higher. Note that includes stuff that got removed next go-round, like Reaction-based Inspiration and the school-based arcane list.
- Just over 50% preferred statblock wildshape to template wildshape, rather than it being a "runaway thing" (Crawford's words) but they scrapped it entirely rather than iterate.

It's all over the playtest.

[Atranen]

As a reminder, a lot of their changes did have majority support. They just set a near-impossible 80% bar for themselves for something to not be subject to the chopping block. So I don't find the "people didn't want change" argument to be quite as compelling; they're just being cowardly.

I, for one, have complete faith in the leadership of WotC. They've got the data, they know what the players want; I'm sure they'll end up making the right decision.

[Corran]

Then again, I don't trust current WotC with a new edition anyway. They've shown less than no ability to write coherent fiction/worldbuilding and only mediocre mechanical abilities. Not only that, they've thrown out the entire core ethos of 5e and gone all in on the feature bloat and power gallop. So yeah.
Their most recent stuff before the playtest packets felt a lot like trying to sneak a good dose of 4e logic into 5e. I dont know if it's stubbornness, a lack of any other ideas, or if they see potential for it for something else (eg easier AI DMing?), but what I realized is that I'll have to settle for being interested in every other edition from now on.

[animorte]

In fact, they're much more likely to be those who are interested in new editions and enthusiastic about those changes--those who are turned off generally won't vote in later surveys.
This is undoubtedly true. It requires effort to read through all that, accounted for changes/reverts, and then take the survey. Interest is generally the prerequisite to putting in that effort.

So it's not name-calling--it's accepting reality.
I mean, it is technically both, but I see your point.

...All the survey result videos are still up on their channel :smallconfused: Pick whichever one you like. Some examples off the top of my head:

It's all over the playtest.
Yeah... Those numbers are exactly why I said they're just getting lazy and don't want to actively improve much of anything in the gray area between majority and definite (which is literally 51-80%)...

Their most recent stuff before the playtest packets felt a lot like trying to sneak a good dose of 4e logic into 5e. I dont know if it's stubbornness, a lack of any other ideas, or if they see potential for it for something else (eg easier AI DMing?), but what I realized is that I'll have to settle for being interested in every other edition from now on.
To me it says they're still attempting to pull from various sources and learn from mistakes. I don't recall who said it within the past few months (paraphrased, of course), "just because something didn't do particularly well doesn't mean there weren't good ideas within."

[Psyren]

I, for one, have complete faith in the leadership of WotC. They've got the data, they know what the players want; I'm sure they'll end up making the right decision.

I'm sure whatever they land on will still be the #1 selling TTRPG on the planet. That doesn't mean I don't think it could have been bolder.



Yeah... Those numbers are exactly why I said they're just getting lazy and don't want to actively improve much of anything in the gray area between majority and definite (which is literally 51-80%)...

The silver lining I see here is that "this won't make it to the 2024 PHB" doesn't mean "this will never see print." For example, they've promised the Ardling will show up in the future.

[Zevox]

...All the survey result videos are still up on their channel :smallconfused:
Yes, and I was hoping you could cite those. Thank you for at least what you did give, though I wish you wouldn't leave it to me to do your work of find where they were actually given.


- Ardling was 60% favorable and didn't make it.
Ardling was 60% favorable in the first pass. They did not specify what it got the second time around, just said it's being dropped but they hope to bring it back later. That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about.


- Jump Action "scored well on a purely quantitative level."
Sure, but it shouldn't be surprising if they could see that the critics of it had a fair point there regardless of the scores. Plus the Jump action is part of the rules glossary in the back, and I'd be willing to bet you they don't get a lot of detailed feedback on that compared to the things that are the big draw, the classes and races.


- "every individual feature" in the Playtest 2 Bard was 70s or higher. Note that includes stuff that got removed next go-round, like Reaction-based Inspiration and the school-based arcane list.
Right, but they still consider that to have room for improvement, so of course they were going to change some things to try and do that - most likely the things that were in the 70s, since they did say some were in the 80s, and nothing was below that. We don't yet have results for those revisions for the second time around, but I'd bet that the spell list change lowered their score, and that was a major contributor to them deciding to drop the three universal spell lists, since it's pretty clear the Bard was the class they were having the hardest time making work with that. And we may yet see reaction-based Inspiration return if it resulted in a lower score than the first time around.


- Just over 50% preferred statblock wildshape to template wildshape, rather than it being a "runaway thing" (Crawford's words) but they scrapped it entirely rather than iterate.
That's our one clear case of something scoring under 50%, though - just because it's barely doesn't change that. Why on earth would they iterate on it rather than scrap it at that point? They've made it clear that they consider 60% the minimum threshold for something to be salvageable in their eyes.

[animorte]

The silver lining I see here is that "this won't make it to the 2024 PHB" doesn't mean "this will never see print." For example, they've promised the Ardling will show up in the future.
That's fair. I'm just hoping they'll settle on a reliable foundation (core) in which all classes have actually learned something over the past ten years. Such as Tasha's Ranger, more Warlock Invocations, etc..

Speaking of which, equal number of subclasses to represent all classes is one of my favorite decisions.

[Psyren]

Yes, and I was hoping you could cite those. Thank you for at least what you did give, though I wish you wouldn't leave it to me to do your work of find where they were actually given.

Based on the below, clearly hyperlinking them wouldn't have made any difference, so I made the right call in saving my time.


Ardling was 60% favorable in the first pass. They did not specify what it got the second time around, just said it's being dropped but they hope to bring it back later. That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about.

It's the kind of situation I'm talking about too - something getting dropped despite majority support. Even if the second pass fell below 50, it still had a majority in the first.



Sure, but it shouldn't be surprising if they could see that the critics of it had a fair point there regardless of the scores. Plus the Jump action is part of the rules glossary in the back, and I'd be willing to bet you they don't get a lot of detailed feedback on that compared to the things that are the big draw, the classes and races.

For the record, I was strongly against the Jump Action. My only point was that I was in the minority, not that I disagreed with their decision on that one.



Right, but they still consider that to have room for improvement, so of course they were going to change some things to try and do that - most likely the things that were in the 70s, since they did say some were in the 80s, and nothing was below that. We don't yet have results for those revisions for the second time around, but I'd bet that the spell list change lowered their score, and that was a major contributor to them deciding to drop the three universal spell lists, since it's pretty clear the Bard was the class they were having the hardest time making work with that. And we may yet see reaction-based Inspiration return if it resulted in a lower score than the first time around.

Actually they cited Wizard, not Bard, as the reason for deciding to revert to class spell lists. You don't have to believe them of course.



That's our one clear case of something scoring under 50%, though - just because it's barely doesn't change that. Why on earth would they iterate on it rather than scrap it at that point? They've made it clear that they consider 60% the minimum threshold for something to be salvageable in their eyes.

Because statblocks solve none of the problems they brought up when they decided to change it in the first place.

About the only mitigant was reducing each druid to a limited number of "forms known." I was pleased about that, but on further review I concluded it wasn't enough, and said as much in my survey.

[Zevox]

Based on the below, clearly hyperlinking them wouldn't have made any difference, so I made the right call in saving my time.
I looked up the videos for every one of those except Jump to make sure I had the information correct.


It's the kind of situation I'm talking about too - something getting dropped despite majority support. Even if the second pass fell below 50, it still had a majority in the first.
And if it fell below 50 in the second, that doesn't matter to you in the slightest?


Actually they cited Wizard, not Bard, as the reason for deciding to revert to class spell lists. You don't have to believe them of course.
No, they gave the lack of class spell lists as what they think was causing the most criticism of the wizard (while skimming over the "mixed" reception of the new Wizard "spells"). They actually brought the spell lists up in between discussing the Sorcerer and Warlock, and were vague regarding the specific reason for the change, just saying it had become clear there was "a desire for classes to go back to having their own spell list," and referencing that just making a handful of spells class-specific hadn't been enough. And of course they weren't going to bring up the Bard feedback specifically, since that playtest isn't the one they were discussing here. My suspicion of that being a major factor (note: "a major," not "the only"; I certainly feel the universal lists were causing problems in areas other than just Bard as well) in the decision is only that at this time, but we'll see what they say when they get to the feedback discussion for the most recent playtest there.


Because statblocks solve none of the problems they brought up when they decided to change it in the first place.

About the only mitigant was reducing each druid to a limited number of "forms known." I was pleased about that, but on further review I concluded it wasn't enough, and said as much in my survey.
If fixing those perceived problems results in most people disliking the new version, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that fixing those perceived problems suddenly becomes less important than making more people happy with the feature. And since they pretty clearly indicated that one got a lot of passionate feedback, they likely had a clear view that they weren't going to accomplish that by making minor tweaks to what they had.

[ZRN]

Yeah. The entire selling point of this new edition seems to be "we want more money." Which is valid from a business perspective, but not exactly hype inducing as a customer. Not only that, the attempt to have their cake and eat it too by proclaiming backwards compatibility but then trying to make it worth buying was an issue from the get go.

If there are enough changes to warrant a new edition (and whatever you call it, trying to get people to buy an entire new set of core books on mechanical grounds is always a new edition), then go all out. Actually make a new edition. Break those taboos. Have a vision of something new. Don't just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, design by focus group fashion. And don't try to claim that you're not actually doing a new edition. If you don't want to address the fundamental core of the game...don't. Just put out a splat like Tasha's[1].


Counterpoint: once they've made the business decision that it's not worth actually going all in on a new edition (as they obviously have), do they want every new D&D player for the NEXT decade trying to roll a 2014 beast master ranger? Might as well update the books so the "core" stuff is fun to play.

[animorte]

Counterpoint: once they've made the business decision that it's not worth actually going all in on a new edition (as they obviously have), do they want every new D&D player for the NEXT decade trying to roll a 2014 beast master ranger? Might as well update the books so the "core" stuff is fun to play.
Oooh yeah, that's why I said this:

That's fair. I'm just hoping they'll settle on a reliable foundation (core) in which all classes have actually learned something over the past ten years. Such as Tasha's Ranger, more Warlock Invocations, etc...

[paladinn]

As some have said, I'll be satisfied if they can just solidify the "core." There have been so many mods to classes over XGtE and TCoE that they need to go back and consolidate. That way no one needs to waste time going over class descriptions/features that are obsolete. So from that angle, it truly wouldn't be a 6e. The ranger is the prime example of this.

One mod I would like to make to a "core" mechanic: Officially allow adding 1/2 proficiency bonus to non-proficient saves. A 10th level fighter saves no better than a 1st level wizard on a non-proficient stat. No bueno.

[Quietus]

As some have said, I'll be satisfied if they can just solidify the "core." There have been so many mods to classes over XGtE and TCoE that they need to go back and consolidate. That way no one needs to waste time going over class descriptions/features that are obsolete. So from that angle, it truly wouldn't be a 6e. The ranger is the prime example of this.

One mod I would like to make to a "core" mechanic: Officially allow adding 1/2 proficiency bonus to non-proficient saves. A 10th level fighter saves no better than a 1st level wizard on a non-proficient stat. No bueno.

That wouldn't be nearly so much of an issue if they didn't have save DC bloat. Monsters do not need save DCs of 23-26, those register as "don't bother if this isn't your primary stat or using proficiency, or both". In a similar vein I hope that they ditch any items that increase players' save DCs, because against, monsters do not need to be contending with save DCs of 20+.

[Psyren]

I looked up the videos for every one of those except Jump to make sure I had the information correct.

Great, you didn't need me doing it then and my time was well-spent.



And if it fell below 50 in the second, that doesn't matter to you in the slightest?

That would depend on how far below 50 it fell. But as I stated, I don't think it did regardless.



No, they gave the lack of class spell lists as what they think was causing the most criticism of the wizard (while skimming over the "mixed" reception of the new Wizard "spells"). They actually brought the spell lists up in between discussing the Sorcerer and Warlock, and were vague regarding the specific reason for the change, just saying it had become clear there was "a desire for classes to go back to having their own spell list," and referencing that just making a handful of spells class-specific hadn't been enough. And of course they weren't going to bring up the Bard feedback specifically, since that playtest isn't the one they were discussing here. My suspicion of that being a major factor (note: "a major," not "the only"; I certainly feel the universal lists were causing problems in areas other than just Bard as well) in the decision is only that at this time, but we'll see what they say when they get to the feedback discussion for the most recent playtest there.

The fact remains that you have no justification for blaming/ascribing revisitation of class spell lists on the Bard as of yet; the only class they tied the decision to was Wizard. It's possible that doing this will end up making their lives easier for the Bard, but the other factual statement is that Bard Spellcasting in playtest 2 scored 70+, unless they were flat-out lying for no reason.



If fixing those perceived problems results in most people disliking the new version, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that fixing those perceived problems suddenly becomes less important than making more people happy with the feature. And since they pretty clearly indicated that one got a lot of passionate feedback, they likely had a clear view that they weren't going to accomplish that by making minor tweaks to what they had.

"Most people disliking the new version" is exactly the premise I'm refuting. 70% favorable for a feature is majority like, not majority dislike, yet they scrapped it anyway. I'm not even saying they're wrong to do so in every instance (cf Jump Action) but it makes the premise that they're bowing to the will of the majority in every instance specious. They have a secondary, self-imposed threshold of chasing "delight" which I don't believe to be realistic for every functional change.

[Skrum]

"Most people disliking the new version" is exactly the premise I'm refuting. 70% favorable for a feature is majority like, not majority dislike, yet they scrapped it anyway. I'm not even saying they're wrong to do so in every instance (cf Jump Action) but it makes the premise that they're bowing to the will of the majority in every instance specious. They have a secondary, self-imposed threshold of chasing "delight" which I don't believe to be realistic for every functional change.

Yeah, I really agree with this. It's setting a bar that's so high you end up with a very strong status quo bias. Me, I like change. I play more DnD than most (average between 2 and 3 times a week, for the last 2.5 years). 5e is, overall, a great game. But play as much as I have, and yeah, little warts show up. I was personally really looking forward to a new, more refined game (basically, I wanted 3 --> 3.5). But the more these playtest packets come out, it really feels like the scope is being cut back again and again and again. It's disappointing.

Something I keep in the back of my mind when it comes to survey results is, on any survey, there's some percentage of people that'll give the "ridiculous" answer, no matter what (think of that survey that was bouncing around a few months ago about what animals people though they could beat in a fight, and something like 3-6% of respondents said they could take a gorilla or grizzly bear). I'm not saying an 80% threshold is going to make good ideas fail because 21% of respondents are dingbats who'll give the bad/indefensible answer, but....I think it's flirting with that. Factor in the portion of players that have strong ideas about stuff but don't understand the mechanics enough to accurately diagnose problems, and that adds up to me wanting to see the devs believe a little more in their own expertise.

[Kane0]

I play more DnD than most (average between 2 and 3 times a week, for the last 2.5 years). 5e is, overall, a great game. But play as much as I have, and yeah, little warts show up

So were the warts you noticed being addressed in the playtests?

[Nagog]

Wizard got 70%. Their conclusion here is quite odd, they seem to think people are upset that wizard doesn't have far and away the best spell list in the game due to the Arcane List being open to everyone thing. Apparently their feedback is showing that people want every list in the game to be notably worse than the Wizard list, so that's where they're headed.
[/LIST]

On the one hand, Wizard as-is has most of it's identity tied up in it's spell list, so I can understand why some people would bemoan that the identity is being lost if that isn't unique to them anymore.

HOWEVER

This should be fixed by giving Wizards some actual class features. I'm personally against the spell editing class features on the premise that if something exists in RAW, it shouldn't and probably wont be something most DMs will be cool with doing outside of that RAW method. Meaning if you want to work with a DM to create a custom spell for your character, with this in place you're probably out of luck if you're not a Wizard or if your idea isn't a slight alteration of another spell.

For clarification, Widowgast's Vault of Amber (from Critical Role campaign 2) is far from overpowered, but would be impossible to create with OneD&D's proposed custom spell mechanics.

[Zevox]

Okay, you're making it rather difficult to avoid this getting excessively contentious, Psyren. So I'm going to try to just hone in on the important part here:


"Most people disliking the new version" is exactly the premise I'm refuting. 70% favorable for a feature is majority like, not majority dislike, yet they scrapped it anyway. I'm not even saying they're wrong to do so in every instance (cf Jump Action) but it makes the premise that they're bowing to the will of the majority in every instance specious. They have a secondary, self-imposed threshold of chasing "delight" which I don't believe to be realistic for every functional change.
The remark you were responding to there was about the one case where we know the feature fell below 50% - that's the one and only reason I made that part of the comment, I was addressing Wild Shape, specifically. The point was that it shouldn't surprise you that fixing the perceived problems with Wild Shape became less important to them when they discovered that their fixes made the feature that much less popular.

That said, let's get to the heart of this. What features are we discussing here? Because the features that come to my mind when discussing this, the few major features that have proposed, then backed off, are:
- Three universal class spell lists.
- Standardized subclass levels.
- The initial Wild Shape revision.
- The Warlock revision.

Those are the biggest departures from existing 5E design that they've proposed, to my view (plus Weapon Mastery, but they haven't backed off that one, since it is popular). Of those, the first two were never directly polled on the surveys to my recollection - they were just sort of part of the design of all of the classes incidentally, and never got their own dedicated question. They seem to have backed off those because they've identified them as the cause of problems they were getting a lot of criticism for - i.e. the Dragon Sorcerer's wings feature, to name one recently-specified example - but their remarks about those decisions have been too broad to ascribe the decision to any single specific thing.

For Wild Shape, we know it got under 50%, full stop - that it was close doesn't make that less true. For Warlock, we have no idea, they simply gave no numbers, just discussed people being attached to Pact Magic and its distinctiveness, and that it will be coming back as a result. Which strongly implies it fell short of their 60% "salvageable" threshold, but tells us nothing more. So saying that any of those had majority support, I would definitely have to argue against; we either know they didn't, or have no idea whether they did.

Now, there's obviously many other changes they've proposed and then dropped, but those were all much smaller changes, and in many cases I expect it could still be possible for them to be brought back if removing them proved unpopular (i.e. reaction Bardic Inspiration). I suppose you could toss the Ardling in there too, but it's just a new race, not a major change like the above, and they explicitly just decided it probably should be introduced in a different book instead of the PHB, they didn't back off ever printing it.

[Rukelnikov]

"Most people disliking the new version" is exactly the premise I'm refuting. 70% favorable for a feature is majority like, not majority dislike, yet they scrapped it anyway. I'm not even saying they're wrong to do so in every instance (cf Jump Action) but it makes the premise that they're bowing to the will of the majority in every instance specious. They have a secondary, self-imposed threshold of chasing "delight" which I don't believe to be realistic for every functional change.

Not really, chasing 80% satisfaction is akin to chasing an 80 metacritic score, for a brand as big as dnd I think its a good number to have as the floor.

[Skrum]

So were the warts you noticed being addressed in the playtests?

Some yes, some no.

I mean, I have some very specific mechanical critiques that amount to bug fixes - on one hand, sure, it'd be great to address that stuff in 5.5, but it's also stuff that the table I've played at has addressed to some degree. So it is less important in that regard.

More broadly, I really liked most of the "big" changes they were making. Warlock, rogue, and fighter were all getting pretty cool changes - they still are, but they also seem to be reeling them back in b/c of fanbase reactions, which stinks. I liked the maximalist versions (and think they should've gone further, particularly for fighter and rogue).

Wasn't as big of a fan of the combined spell lists, but I could also see the upside to it. And while I had some concerns about some of the spellcasting buffs in terms of balance (wizards creating spells and bards being omnicasters), I was still interested to use some inarguably flavorful and cool new features.

I think my only real objection was the changes to the paladin - they seemed to be getting nerfed, which is just crazy to me. Paladin is at the sweet spot of not only overall class power, but also what I feel a good martial class SHOULD play like. 2014 paladin is a top 5 designed class among all classes in 3.5 and 5e, IMO. I don't really understand why it was being messed with.

[Quietus]

For clarification, Widowgast's Vault of Amber (from Critical Role campaign 2) is far from overpowered, but would be impossible to create with OneD&D's proposed custom spell mechanics.

Pretty sure that was just a reflavor of leomund's secret chest? Just using amber instead of, you know, the chest.

[Psyren]

Not really, chasing 80% satisfaction is akin to chasing an 80 metacritic score, for a brand as big as dnd I think its a good number to have as the floor.

I think aiming for 80 is fine. Anything that falls short of that automatically being on the chopping block is not.


*snip*

let's get to the heart of this. What features are we discussing here? Because the features that come to my mind when discussing this, the few major features that have proposed, then backed off, are:
- Three universal class spell lists.
- Standardized subclass levels.
- The initial Wild Shape revision.
- The Warlock revision.

They're seemingly backing off way more than these, but fine, I'll focus on these four.

1) Universal Spell Lists scored high. It also has benefits for future releases (name all the splats that have added Artificer spells since Tasha's.)

2) Standardized subclass levels scored high. They also have other benefits - they're a way to bring prestige class design back to D&D, they allow more tables to experience a subclass' entire progression (out of curiosity, I wonder how many 5e games let a paladins get to actually play with their entire subclass), which means they can collect better data for future subclass design, etc.

3) I won't rehash the wild shape debate here. All I'll point out is that the reversion addresses only one of the problems they initially set out to solve, and even that one is partial at best.

4) I won't rehash the warlock debate here. I'll reserve judgement on their decision to revert to pact magic until we see specifics.

[Zevox]

They're seemingly backing off way more than these, but fine, I'll focus on these four.

1) Universal Spell Lists scored high.
2) Standardized subclass levels scored high.
Citation needed, badly. As mentioned, I do not believe those were ever polled as individual concepts at all.

[Psyren]

Citation needed, badly. As mentioned, I do not believe those were ever polled as individual concepts at all.

"Every individual feature in the Bard scored 70 or higher." Their spellcasting was explicitly on that survey.

Actually, I even lowballed that. Crawford's exact quote was "The Bard features were all - if you look in the core class - in terms of feedback were all in the high 70s and low 80s."

[Atranen]

"Every individual feature in the Bard scored 70 or higher." Their spellcasting was explicitly on that survey.

"The Bard spell list" and "Universal spell lists generally" are different.

[Psyren]

"The Bard spell list" and "Universal spell lists generally" are different.

Spellcasting was a feature in that bard, and it scored either high 70s or low 80s. I'm aware you're saying that was in spite of universal lists rather than because of them.

[Zevox]

"The Bard spell list" and "Universal spell lists generally" are different.
Indeed. And the Bard spell list isn't even actually a part of the Bard class survey, their spellcasting rules as a whole are, of which the way they handle the spell list is only one part. Trying to claim that means that even the Bard spell list alone had that much support is trying to use that data point to infer more than is reasonable, much less universal spell lists as a whole.

I'll also note the lack of any citation about standardized subclass levels.

[Rukelnikov]

I think aiming for 80 is fine. Anything that falls short of that automatically being on the chopping block is not.

But that's not what they said, below 60 is chopping block.

I do not expect the final product to look exactly like the last UAs they put out during this playtest, nor would I expect to only see the things that score more than 80 in said last UAs reviews, so the stuff that scores between 60 and 80 in the last reviews will likely go on a case by case basis of "needs more work" and "we'll drop this".

FWIW their approach reminds of the problems a bad Nash Equilibrium can get, where no side is willing to change what they are doing because it leads to a worse scenario for them, but by doing so they can't ever get to the actual best scenario for both of them.

[Psyren]

FWIW their approach reminds of the problems a bad Nash Equilibrium can get, where no side is willing to change what they are doing because it leads to a worse scenario for them, but by doing so they can't ever get to the actual best scenario for both of them.

That's how it feels to me too.


But that's not what they said, below 60 is chopping block.

Below 60 is chopped. Below 80 is chopping block, i.e. potentially up for summary elimination without further iteration. They might iterate, or they might not; increasingly they have been opting for "not."

[ZRN]

This has to be something of an embarrassment to their design team. The immense majority of big game changing ideas they have proposed for this UA have ended poorly. At least they aren’t doubling down on some of this stuff.

Just tweaking bad features/spells and buffing a few things by adding relatively obvious features that exist in a lot of homebrews (things like weapon masteries, cunning strikes) was probably not what they had in mind going into it. But I think thats about the best we are going to get without a full rewrite.

To me the distinction youÂ’re making between “big” features they cut and “tweaks” theyÂ’re keeping seems flawed. Like, synchronized subclass progression was such a minor “feature” they never even mentioned it until after it was cut. The class groups and unified spell lists were both attempts to organize existing stuff more than they were attempts to rework or redefine anything, and once they realized that those models caused as much confusion as they solved, they got axed. The warlock changes to casting style were substantive, but so were a lot of the other warlock changes they’re presumably keeping and/or iterating on; based on the improvement in the second play test rogue I hold out some hope there.

Meanwhile, what’s still presumably “in”? Well, off the top of my head, they’re adding orcs and removing half-orcs and half-elves (and most subraces); they’re cutting like 8 wizard and cleric subclasses and adding like 12 to the other classes to bring everyone to 4 options; they’re adding level 1 feats; they’re adding rider effects on every attack for martial classes (weapon mastery); and they’re starting all subclasses at third level. I’m pretty sure any one of those changes feels like a bigger deal than any of the cut features from my previous paragraph.


IÂ’m anxious about the actual spell list rewrite. IÂ’m deeply worried that they are going to nerf spellcasting to the ground in the most tragic way possible (both by nerfing damage, which is exactly the opposite of what they need to do for many blasting spells as well as removing a lot of the hard CC). And while iÂ’m ok for buffing martials, I donÂ’t want a pathfinder2 situation either. Spellcasters need to be super powerful, they just need real drawbacks.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure you’re safe on this count. I really don’t expect a thorough rewrite of the 80-page rules-dense spell chapter. At best I’m hopeful they’ll do the level of edits they did to feats - trim the overpowered ones and the actually broken ones and mostly ignore the rest. Like, I give Simulacrum a 80% chance of being changed, Shield a 50% chance, and stuff like fireball and fly and fey step <10%.

[Brookshw]

FWIW their approach reminds of the problems a bad Nash Equilibrium can get, where no side is willing to change what they are doing because it leads to a worse scenario for them, but by doing so they can't ever get to the actual best scenario for both of them.

Kind of an absurdity really considering they can always do optional rules that would make respective camps happy.

[Psyren]

Kind of an absurdity really considering they can always do optional rules that would make respective camps happy.

They very well might do this (like they've decided to do for Ardling, since all supplemental material is optional by default.) In fact, I'm hopeful that even if they don't do, say, templated Wildshape in the PHB, that we'll get Pikel's Forest of Everything with those options later on.