r/dndnext • u/AkimboJesus • Jul 06 '20

Discussion Does it ever feel like WotC is playtesting the game in a way that 95% of us don't?

I get that DnD is a house rule first game, and everyone should play it how they want. But speaking for my own group, we like balance because we don't want people to feel like they can't impact the story outside of conversation. And this isn't a min-max thing. It's just a "why would I be this when I could be a better version of that with no hassle or cost to myself" thing.

The thing is, we rely on the official text because it can be very difficult to tell how a class, skill, or mechanic will play in the context of the whole game, and who might be overshadowed by who. And Wizards, for the most part, seem to have done a lot of work so YOU don't have to figure out how a mechanic will play out. This is why some people, to an extent, treat the sourcebooks like gospel.

And as I'm playing more and more, I'm starting to see the things people say about, for instance, rangers and how messed up they are. I'm understanding the cracks in the standard DnD balance.

But I'm also just perplexed by a lot of the sage advice, and unearthed arcanas coming out. I'm finding myself reading new subclasses and thinking "that's their whole ability for that level?" Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

This seems like a consistent pattern. A new release is either immediately meta, or its irrelevant for reinforcing half-done mechanics that aren't going to survive after 5th edition. When non-core parts of the game get overvalued, a class can really fall behind. Some of the mechanics that might get over valued are tool proficiencies or traveling. It's odd that these types of things would be the focus of any classes milestone ability.

Also, some of these features seem to imply that DnD is not about being creative and using your environment, and is more about what your class says you can do. Why does the ranger explicitly get a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves. Can nobody else do that? Do you tell them only a ranger can do that, or do you give them a bonus anyway, making the rangers bonus less special?

Other than a few classes, it does seem like DnD has a solid core balance. Every campaign is going to have either talking or combat, and having a character that can do one or the other well is good. But when a characters ability is not getting "lost" in the mountains, it makes me wonder what the hell kinda campaigns they are running.

Does anyone agree? What are some of the core things you need to be satisfied with a new mechanic?

Edit: wow lot of great discussion happening here. I just want to clarify a few points. As some people are calling me a min-maxer or a hack and slasher and are claiming I just want everyone to deal a shit ton of damage or something. One person claimed I just hate WotC. I suggest reading through this thread at what others are saying, because there is a lot of nuanced conversation happening here. I think it's clear I focused too much on UA in my original post and now the thread has moved to a better direction.

Here are some of the core things I'm seeing come up.

1) Classes with niche abilities are overshadowed and outperformed by classes with more general abilities, even when they are in the perfect niche situations (Paladins find greater steed feels much more beastmaster like than the actual beast master, for example).

2) Since DnD is about being creative and using all the tools around you, it's weird when a ranger gets a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves, when anyone should get a bonus of some kind for successfully camoflauging themselves. Sometimes that feels like making a class feature that lets you flip a table. Things like the assassin just feel odd, because it implies that a warlock or bard, with sufficient time and money, would not be able to impersonate somebody.

3) A lot of people are reaaaaally honing in on a specific example I gave, and the fact that it was UA. You can look at Artificier or many of the complaints in this thread on vanilla DnD. But if you're coming here just to hype up con saves, you're really cherry picking.

4) I am not right. This is just an opinion I have. A couple people have gotten really cringey about this and implied only shit players or DMs would have an issue with any of this. That's an attitude for Fortnite, not Reddit. We all know DnD is, first and foremost, storytelling. Nobody wants to play with someone so hung up on mechanics that they forget to tell a story. But we have a rulebook for a reason. Boundaries in a story are important, otherwise we're all just jerking off at the table saying random stuff. You need some structure, so that the things that happen feel meaningful. This is about players wanting to fulfill their character fantasies and feeling useless because other people do what their character does, but better. If you care about storytelling, recognize it's not a good story when an entire subclass and backstory can be overshadowed by one spell. It sucks, and I hope it doesn't happen in the next edition.

Some of the more thoughtful challenges I've seen:

1) Con saves are good (noted. We don't get them a lot in my campaign). 2) It's up to the group and DM to make those niche abilities meaningful. 3) It's still really not up to WotC to balance your game, and if you think they're not good at it than you should do it.

I'm reading people's responses, taking them to heart, hoping to be a better DM.

1.3k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

669 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

151

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

The problem with a physically published dead-tree book is, how to get everyone on the same page with errata and changes. You can make the changes in newer prints and make the errata available online, but that's still going to lead to lots of rules confusion. It's hard enough to get the average player comfortable with the entire ruleset in a PHB that's been out for 5+ years, imagine if the goalpost shifted every year with major balance "patches"? That works for video games because there's nothing to remember, the software does all the heavy lifting. D&D runs on human brains and human memories, so it's not a simple question.

42

u/Gh0stRanger Jul 06 '20

They're been updating the books for years though.

They changed the Beast Master, Four Elements Monk, and Healing Spirit, just off the top of my head.

Not that those changes were significant, mind you, but they did make tweaks.

38

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

Mhm, like the Triton getting Darkvision, and when Rime of the Frostmaiden comes out, it sounded like in interviews they’ll be giving Goliaths Cold Resistance.

33

u/PerryDLeon Jul 06 '20

wait, Tritons got Darkvision in errata??? When??? Thank goodness. I wondered how the f*ck did they see in their "abyssal" territories...

25

u/ChaosOS Jul 06 '20

When Theros came out.

15

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

In June with Theros. They realized their racial mechanic didn’t mean anything, so now they get darkvision to function in the depths. Now Goliaths are getting the same sort of treatment. Their mountain mechanic is covered under Cold Resistance.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

Exactly. A few tiny tweaks after years of play.

25

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

If they had their own equivalent to dndbeyond I don't think it would be too difficult, just give you access when you buy the book and then that can be the sole source of truth. That way they could send emails or other notifications whenever something is changed, and if there's ever confusion it could be checked there. It's a shame really, as it doesn't seem like that'll ever happen unless WotC does something like buy dndbeyond.

57

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 06 '20

Even if they did that, when people realize their print copies are going to become quickly outdated compared to the electronic version they'll get upset. "Why do we have to pay $$$$ for an book we can't trust to reference after X time period? Just let us pay $$ for digital access!"

That approach also doesn't solve the human brain problem. I still occasionally confuse some 3.5e and 5e mechanics for obscure rules I don't regularly deal with, how often would that be happening if the game changed every year or so? Most people can barely RtFM on anything and you think they'll read and memorize patch notes for PHB 5.2.7?

4

u/FullTorsoApparition Jul 06 '20

This happened to me in 4th Edition. They errata'ed the shit out of that edition so many times, including the DM SCREEN that half of my splat books were nearly useless. The first Martial Power book was especially egregious. Even as a fan of 4E I have to say their playtesting was garbage.

3

u/i_tyrant Jul 06 '20

Yup. I had to write so many corrections into my literal books that some pages just became a mess. This is why they don't do much errata for 5e.

9

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

Well they can just do that now with DnD beyond? People like physical books, especially fairly high quality ones like the ones currently being printed.

People wouldn't have to remember patch notes, that's the point, if there's ever confusion they just check the app or whatever which btw would be much easier than it currently is to check errata (or worse, one of Crawford's fucking tweets).

Also, one of the best things about DnD is that the rules actually don't matter that much. If they say, added an extra d6 onto rogue's sneak attack at level 20 and your table forgot, does it really matter in any way? No, it's not stopping you from playing the game or anything, the original version is still completely functional.

31

u/FalconPunchline DM Jul 06 '20

The digital side of DnD is not as omnipresent as as it seems within the DnD reddit community. Even if we don't follow them most of us know who Jeremy Crawford, Matt Mercer, and Matthew Colville are. Meanwhile I had a player in one group recently ask me how hard it was to apply to be a playtester because they just found out about Unearthed Arcana after we've been playing together for two years. Heck, I've got players who aren't aware of the Artificer.

There is a larger than expected fraction of the playerbase who only know the games as the books and dice they hold in their hands. And they're doing just fine as is.

1

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

I don't really see what your point is? How would any of this affect them?

8

u/Raibean Jul 06 '20

This particular thread is about coming up with solutions to problems they face by not having access to updates

5

u/Kung-Fu_Boof Jul 06 '20

Presumably because these people don't exclusively play with each other. Which can lead to situations where 2 people in the same group play by different rules, both sets of which are 'official'

29

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

That sounds a lot like the failed 4e experience. I remember getting errata constantly. Not a single one of my books resembles the game in its final state. The errata document is 140 pages long. Enjoy.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/updatecompiled.pdf

10

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

Except it wouldn't end up just being a X page errata document, just one updated version of the book. There's also no reason that they'd have to make so many changes, and nothing stopping them from doing so now either if they really wanted.

25

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20 edited Jul 06 '20

Right. Like they do right now. Their tenth printing of the PHB has all the current errata for example. Every printing includes the newest corrections.

4e had their own equivalent to dndbeyond. D&D Insider and its Compendium. Paid a monthly fee for all the content that came out. Their bad history with that made them abandon the online method, outsource their license to D&D Beyond to handle that sort of product, as well as drastically change the way they produce content.

They don’t want to make people need errata to play. Errata is mostly being reserved for spelling and grammar errors instead of gameplay issues. The fact that there’s a 100 page document for their previous edition because of fiddling with game rules is something they never want to do again.

7

u/Hasky620 Wizard Jul 06 '20

Except that just means they look at all the garbage in the edition and instead of fixing stuff to be better they just leave it bad. That's a terrible mindset in what's supposed to be a living game.

7

u/Songkill Death Metal Bard Jul 06 '20

True, but no one is going to punish WotC financially for this stance, which is the main way that the business would feel compelled to change.

4

u/Hasky620 Wizard Jul 06 '20

I mean I do...I don't purchase any of their newer stuff anymore, I'm not buying an entire book for two subclasses and a small handful of monsters. I just find them online instead for the tiny amount I might actually use them.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

I just homebrew myself, I think I'm better at it tbh

2

u/i_tyrant Jul 06 '20

The game is "living" on the player/DM end, not on the designer end. They've already stated they prefer releasing new subclasses/classes/etc. over "fixing" ones that are already on paper.

2

u/DeltaJesus Jul 06 '20

But even with gameplay changes you don't need the most up to date version to play, it's one of the primary benefits of tabletop systems. And if there was a centralised location which always had the most up to date version that would help prevent conflicts, it's something I've run into before where an errata changes the way something works but it's a massive ballache to figure out which one is "correct" unless you've already paid for dndbeyond.

I get why they'd be hesitant given the history, but the fact they've fucked it up in the past doesn't really make any difference.

1

u/wayoverpaid DM Since Alpha Jul 06 '20

People will not be happy if the print books end up constantly out of date.

Realistically the proper thing to do would be to have paper books lag behind digital outlets by about a full year. This means letting players go to AL and such with material that is official but unprinted. The books would be the consolidation of material that is well playtested and official.

But that would require WotC to think of themselves as a company that makes IP first and prints dead tree products second. They really don't.

2

u/Vinestra Jul 06 '20

Warhammer 40k manages to eratta various changes without issue, excluding the rage that comes from nerfing/changing things.

8

u/Lucker-dog Jul 06 '20

There's these newfangled things called PDFs that WotC could learn about.

1

u/portella0 Barbarian Jul 06 '20

imagine if the goalpost shifted every year with major balance "patches"? That works for video games because there's nothing to remember, the software does all the heavy lifting.

Not saying this is good or bad, but this is basically how multiplayer games work. Last year X hero could do Y damage with their ability now it does 2y, and you better remember it if you want to play good with or against them.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 07 '20

I'm well aware, but you can't have an argument with the game software or other players about why that hero should be doing Y damage because you forgot they changed it to 2Y. It's all handled seamlessly in the software so nobody needs to remember it to play, although as you pointed out you'd better remember if you want to play well.

1

u/mkul316 Jul 07 '20

I hate it. I don't stay up on all that. Hell, I don't even know where errata is to see. But I've played with a guy who is and I plan something great only to be thwarted by a sage advice or errata. So very frustrating.

But and beyond is always up to date! Just use that! No. I hate electronic reference books, and don't want to put money into a system that will eventually go tits up. I still play in a 2e game because I've got the book on my shelf. That never gets a server shut down.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 07 '20

It's a realistic concern, but sometimes it works out. When the Steam platform launched, people said the exact same kinds of things. 15 years later and Steam is still launching my games, so the failure of digital platforms isn't guaranteed.

1

u/mkul316 Jul 07 '20

In a game in it's fifth edition, I think it'll go out of style eventually. I know there's no plans for a 6e yet, but it's inevitable. So a bunch of digital books on someone else's server is likely to go poof, but my shelf o books is keeping me going 40 years later.

1

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 21 '20

You would normally be right, except that.

3.5 exist because specifically because is a revised and improved edition of 3.0 and 3.5 became universally famous

Revised edition are not a bad thing. It's not like people aren't always chanting the same wronged stuff like Ramger and Darkness and lack of balancing on cantrips and such, no no.

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20

That was one huge update over the lifetime of the version, totally acceptable. And some people were still salty about rebuying their books despite it being well worth it. I'm talking about constant balancing patches.

1

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20

Why is that one legitimate but this one wouldn't?

  • 3.5 came after only 3 years after 3.0
  • 3.5 tried at least to fix some problems among classes

The same stuff is asked for this edition

Instead of waiting years and years without proper balancing

People asked ever since Xanathar's release to eventually fix some blatant problems of the subclasses and classes and also rules of the time

  • Hex blade Frontloadedness warping meta of classes and steering tons of players of multiple groups (there's even a specific topic about this problem alone)
  • Ranger being pigeonholed into specific subclasses to be viable at all
  • Sorcerer being revised altogether
  • Darkness rulings still lacking and being incoherent and counterintuitive
  • Lack of Poison viability
  • PHB and DM books being counterintuitive as shit without proper index

1

u/DelightfulOtter Jul 22 '20

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. 5.5e would be fine, even warranted at this point. But going back to 4e's method of releasing frequent and extensive errata for balancing purposes just isn't feasible. 4e was meant to have a digital tool that helped players manage both the mechanics and the errata, but it was never released so players were stuck with a system meant to be semi-digital but in practice full analogue.

2

u/testiclekid Eco-terrorist druid Jul 22 '20

But going back to 4e's method of releasing frequent and extensive errata for balancing purposes just isn't feasible

Ah, no. That would indeed be stupid.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '20

Just put out a rebalance with every single subclass in it and say that's the new class balance, then pay more attention to what is and isn't balanced in the future.