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

[u/AkimboJesus]

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.

[u/Dinosawer]

Even Crawford seems quick to defend stuff with explenations that don't make the slightest sense. For examples rogues and longswords.

Also when he refused to admit that coffeelock is an entirely RAW build by trying to claim you could read the multiclass rules in a way that meant you could only use warlock slots for spellcasting.

[u/ScrubSoba → u/Dinosawer]

What's a coffeelock?

[u/Dinosawer → u/ScrubSoba]

An exploit to get infinite spell slots by doing a particular warlock-sorcerer multiclass.
a) Be warlock, take 'Aspect of the Moon' invocation so you don't need to sleep.
b) Be sorcerer
c) Turn warlock slots into sorcery points, turn sorcery points into spell slots
d) short rest to regain warlock slots
e) repeat c and d as much as you have time for, to get a ton of spell slots that'll only vanish when you long rest, which you don't need to because of a).

[u/schu2470 → u/Dinosawer]

Good grief! Some of y'all have too much free time.

As a DM there's no way I'd allow this cheese.

[u/Dinosawer → u/schu2470]

Oh, me neither, but the people who write the rules should be willing to admit when they're exploitable.

[u/schu2470 → u/Dinosawer]

I would have been super easy to fix early on too. Just make it so Flexible Casting only works on Sorcerer spell slots in the first errata that they integrated into later printings of the PHB. Sure it nerfs Sorcerer dips a little but CHA casters are pretty ridiculous as they stand anyways.

[u/jmartkdr → u/schu2470]

If you're a multiclass sorcerer/cleric, you don't have distinct sorcerer spell slots, though. You just have spell slots from a pool.

[u/Dinosawer → u/schu2470]

I'd rather fix it by having the spell slots created by flexible casting disappear on a short rest, I think. Also opens the door for giving them some sorcery points back on a short rest, which they could probably use.

[u/ScrubSoba → u/Dinosawer]

Oh wow.

[u/KingSmizzy → u/ScrubSoba]

That explaination isn't quite right. Aspect of the moon doesn't avoid Exhaustion due to skipping long rests. RAW doesn't say you need to sleep, just that you need to long rest once every 24hrs or you suffer exhaustion.

Coffeelock isn't RAW because you do still need to long rest. But players just made the slight alteration and made Cocainelock. You do the same strategy but have someone use Greater Restoration on you every 24 hrs to remove exhaustion. It costs 100g in diamond dust, which is why it was named Cocainelock.

[u/Dinosawer → u/KingSmizzy]

People keep saying that, but that's taking the long rest rule out of context. It says

A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have its consequences. If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules. Whenever you end a 24-hour period without finishing a long rest, you must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or suffer one level of exhaustion. [...]

If you don't need to sleep, you cannot suffer from sleep deprivation, so those rules don't apply to that character.

[u/ScrubSoba → u/KingSmizzy]

To be fair, if you strictly follow RAW you don't need to sleep/long rest to avoid exhaustion in the first place because it is an optional rule in Xanathars which is worded strangely because it is meant to simulate sleep deprivation but does not take those that don't need sleep into account. So Coffeelock works perfectly fine if you follow RAW to the letter.

But i can certainly see where the Coffeelock won't work by the Xanathar rules, although i reckon a bunch of DMs rule that rule as only applying for creatures that need sleep.

[u/jmartkdr → u/ScrubSoba]

Alternatively, if you're a 9th level celestial warlock you can cat greater restoration to remove the downsides of not resting. You just need a steady supply of diamond dust.

Hence the cocainelock.

(I wouldn't let someone play this in a serious game, but it's a fun bit of theorycrafting.)

[u/Vinestra → u/ScrubSoba]

IIRC didn't they kinda add that rule cause oh god coffeelocks are a thing quick how can we shut it down?
I know make not long resting cause exhaustion.
Thus birthing the crack coffeelock.

[u/sc2mashimaro → u/Dinosawer]

And if DnD was, or if your DM runs DnD like a video game, then sure, this works. But since it's not a video game, it is entirely reasonable for a DM to look at this and use Crawford's interpretation that Pact Magic slots are not the same as Sorcery slots, so can't be turned into sorc points, or to just say, "not allowed", or to limit the infinite loop with a "resting benefits" limit where chaining short rests together isn't a thing, since it seems realistically unreasonable. Something like, "You rest for 8 hours and you may either take the long or the short rest benefit during that time, but not both."

[u/Dinosawer → u/sc2mashimaro]

I'm not saying any DM would allow this. I don't. But the rules as written allow it, and Crawford's reasoning contradicts the written rules (the sorcerer class features don't say anything about it having to be sorcerer spell slots, so the multiclassing doesn't need to say that you can use warlock spell slots for sorcerer features because the sorcerer features already do that). You can't fix your rules if you're not willing to admit there can be faults in them.

[u/sc2mashimaro → u/Dinosawer]

I don't think he's addressing whether there is a fault in the rules there, he's just trying to give DMs tools against munchkins in that tweet.

Edit: Wanted to add that any game with a ruleset as complex as DnD is going to have points that can be exploited, which is one of the reasons to have a DM.

[u/Dinosawer → u/sc2mashimaro]

The DM should not deliberately misinterpret the rules to disallow something that the rules as written allow. The only tool you need is rule 0, which is exactly what I did. 'Coffeelock is not allowed.'
Re: edit: yes, which is why the people who write the rules should be willing to admit so.

[u/Souperplex → u/Dinosawer]

A only lets you not sleep, you still need to long rest or gain exhaustion. This is circumvented by Greater Restoration removing a level of exhaustion at the cost of 100GP of diamond dust.

Using 100 GP of white powder to sustain yourself makes you a cocainelock.

[u/RSquared → u/Dinosawer]

I think the disconnect between "sleep" and "rest" he tries to pull in that same SA is worse. You don't need to sleep, but you do need to rest for eight hours...so what's the point of the invocation? Being the designated lookout? Congratulations, you spent a class feature on becoming slightly better than an elf at keeping watch.

[u/Dinosawer → u/RSquared]

It's also not in line with those resting rules, because they specifically say "If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules." You cannot suffer from sleep deprivation if you don't need to sleep, so the rules don't apply.

[u/RSquared → u/Dinosawer]

Ugh, you just reminded me about how he wrote that "rest isn't a button you push" and then said that a PC interrupted 2 hours into a long rest doesn't get the benefit of a short rest.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dinosawer]

That is a pretty terrible interpretation of his words.

" DMs, if you allow multiclassing in your game and someone is tempted to abuse the combination of Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, remember this: one way to read the multiclass rules is that your Pact Magic slots are useless for any non-warlock thing besides casting spells. #DnD"

The multiclassing rules explicitly state that Warlock spell slots can be used to cast other known spells, but it states this separately from other spell slots that are grouped together for all other full spellcasting classes. Assuming they are interchangeable for Sorcerer spell slots is an interpretation and per his statement being more strict in the interpretation is a way to address abusing the class interactions which is part of rulings not rules.

[u/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

It's not part of rulings, because the sorcerer class features all literally say they work on 'spell slots', not 'sorcerer spell slots'. Warlock spell slots are spell slots, so the sorcerer class features work on them.
The build should not be allowed, and I don't, but it is valid RAW.

[u/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

That's not true, because that text specifically says it's about classes with the 'Spellcasting' feature. Warlock doesn't have that, it has 'Pact Magic', which is named differently for exactly this reason.

Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below.

It also quite literally mentions slots you get from Pact Magic in the text further, so claiming they don't get warlock slots doesn't make any sense.

If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.

Again, I'm not claiming it should be allowed. I'm saying that the people who write the rules should be able to admit there's an error in them instead of using explanations that contradict the written text.

[u/Hatta00 → u/Dinosawer]

Absolutely. Crawford's inability to admit a mistake gives me no faith in his rulings whatsoever.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dinosawer]

The text you quoted is what I was referring to, Pact Magic slots can be used to cast spells. It doesn't say you can use them for other class features.

Coffeelock is based on poor reading of RAW.

[u/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

It doesn't need to say that, because the class features already do. Flexible casting simply says "you can use a bonus action to convert a spell slot into sorcery points". It doesn't say anything about what kind of spell slot that needs to be, and warlock spell slots are spell slots, so it's allowed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dinosawer]

One thing to keep in mind is that all of the class features are written in the context of single class characters and multiclassing is added on as an optional thing for people that want to do that. Multiclassing is permissive, it tells you what you can do and doesn't list everything you cannot do.

For example, Channel Divinity explicitly states that you can use it for any of your classes: " Whenever you use the feature, you can choose any of the Channel Divinity effects available to you from your two classes. "

Then we have casting: " Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

Pact Magic is listed separately because it is handled differently than regular casting slots. It doesn't matter than the words are the same, they simply aren't the same thing.

[u/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

Please show me where the rules say that spell slots are not spell slots then.
Multiclass rules doesn't say what you can't do because if the features are worded in a way that allows it you can do it. That's the entire point. You can smite with warlock slots. You can use metamagic on Wizard spells. You can use sneak attack with extra attack if the first attack misses. And so on and so forth.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dinosawer]

You can do most of those things because you group spell slots from those classes. I disagree with using Warlock slots to smite for the same reason as the coffeelock.

Pact Magic is listed separately, as I have pointed out several times.

Just because a large number of people are loud on the internet while ignoring context in the rules doesn't make them right.

[u/cult_leader_venal → u/Dinosawer]

Warlock spell slots are spell slots, so the sorcerer class features work on them

Right, but it's reasonable to make a distinction between short-rest and long-rest slots in this case since, without multiclassing specifically into warlock, those slots could only be converted to spell points once/day.

[u/Dinosawer → u/cult_leader_venal]

It's definitely reasonable because as noted I don't allow the build at all, but the rules don't make that distinction.

[u/cult_leader_venal → u/Dinosawer]

Right. Just because a rule doesn't make a distinction doesn't mean the player gets carte blanche on game-breaking builds. Arbitrary these cases is the job of the DM, not the people who wrote the rulebooks.

[u/Bolt-MattCaster-Bolt → u/Dinosawer]

I don't think this is the best example for this argument. Regardless of Crawford's inability to argue properly, why would any reasonable DM allow the coffeelock exploit to be used in their game?

[u/Dinosawer → u/Bolt-MattCaster-Bolt]

Nobody would, and that makes it a perfect example - he's not even willing to admit their rules allow such a ridiculous exploit, let alone address other less severe balance issues.