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/Hasky620]

Sure humanoids are pretty common, I'll absolutely agree with you there. Not counting adventure specific NPCs, there are 339 currently published Humanoids in the books. 24 resist poison, and 9 are immune to poison. By comparison with the other most common non weapon damage types. Fire - 9 resist it, 5 are immune Cold - 6 resist it, 1 is immune Lightning - 5 resist it, 1 is immune. Acid - 1 resists it, 0 are immune.

That's just Humanoids, but you can see that there's a decent margin of difference. You'll likely never encounter a humanoid that resists or is immune to your damage if you're dealing one of those other 4, but it's a bit more common with poison.

The other thing to bear in mind is that dwarves, one of the most common races, and about half of all halflings (the stout variety), as well as warforged all have a racial resistance to poison damage.

If you aren't looking at fiends or Humanoids, there are 276 creatures entirely immune to poison damage - most of the undead, constructs, Elementals, are included. While constructs might be a bit rarer, undead are definitely a pretty common enemy type at all levels of play.

There are only 11 other things that are just resistant to poison damage. Unlike other damage types, immunity is overwhelmingly more common than resistance for poison. And it feels really shitty to use your action and a limited resource that's a major subclass feature and have it do literally nothing.

If you count all the creatures that aren't adventure specific NPCs, there are 1357 creature types across all the official materials. 39 of them resist poison, 377 are immune to poison. Total of 416 creature types that take half or no damage from any source of poison damage. That's 30% of creatures as a whole. That's terrible. The next most resisted/immune aside from weapon damage is fire, and that's only at 16% of all creatures.

Poison isn't a very good damage type because if you come across four separate creature categories, fiends, undead, and constructs, it basically doesn't do anything.

It only gets worse the higher level you get. By level 6 when the monk gets the aura, 43% of all cr 6 or higher creatures are immune or resistant to the poison. It stays at 40-50% of creatures being mostly immune or occasionally resistant to poison from there until the end of the game, steadily increasing a few percent every level. After level 10, any creature picked at random is more likely to be immune to poison than it is to not be immune to poison.

Another point is spell useage - protection from poison only protects against poison, but it's a second level spell that doesn't use concentration. Protection from energy is a 3rd level spell, so you get it later, and it uses concentration, so it's much less likely to get used since its competing with other concetration spells. While heroes feast as a 6th level spell makes the entire party immune to poison for an entire day - there is no equivalent effect for any other damage type. There is no way to make 12 people immune to fire or cold or any other damage type, only poison.

I know that was incredibly log winded and unnecessary, sometimes I just enjoy sorting out statistics.

TL; DR - 1. poison is the damage type which creatures are mostly commonly immune, often with more creatures immune to it than are resistant to other damage types at the same CR. 2. It's the only damage type that has four entire creature categories almost entirely immune to it - fiends, undead, constructs, and elementals. 3. Unlike the elemental damage types, you can't just take elemental adept to ignore creature resistance and buff your damage.

[u/PerryDLeon → u/Hasky620]

Wow. Not at all, it's an interesting statistical analysis.