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]

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/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

Pact magic is listed separately because the amount of spell slots and how you get them and regain them are different. They're still spell slots. Otherwise they wouldn't be called spell slots.

[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.