D&D Next Feedback: Playtest Survey (01/10)

D&D Next Feedback 
Playtest Survey (01/10)

By D&D Team

Dear Dungeons & Dragons® Playtester, We hope you had a happy holiday, and have been enjoying the playtest materials from December 17. Today, we have a new D&D Next survey, which focuses on core rules, classes, maneuvers, feats, spells, and high-level play. Please take some time to respond. We’re eager to receive your feedback!.

Talk about this Survey here.

OH SNAP! Surveys goin' down!
My two copper.
I was about to say "Yo. Where dat survey at, dawg?"

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I should of taken longer on the survey, now I have to go shovel snow.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Its taken them a year to ask what your favourite edition is? Oh well that was a hard one and 2nd ed got the nod.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Its taken them a year to ask what your favourite edition is? Oh well that was a hard one and 2nd ed got the nod.




i think that question's been in every survey so far.

did anyone notice that the specialties and backgrounds were from the last packet? 

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

Its taken them a year to ask what your favourite edition is? Oh well that was a hard one and 2nd ed got the nod.



DDN got my nod
My two copper.
Did anyone else's questions relate to the packet from a while back (Necromancer speciality, 3-skill Backgrounds, etc.)?
Did anyone else's questions relate to the packet from a while back (Necromancer speciality, 3-skill Backgrounds, etc.)?



Yes.  The spell lists as well.

Bug? 
Spell section wasn't complete either. Left feed back on wish, timestop and meteor swarm anyway. Also said why I did not like stuff in particular weapons, humans overpowered and boring, and thief back ground needs to grant proficiency in thieves tools. Probably the main gripes I suppose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I think this survey is out of date. It isn't just the specialties and spells, theres all sorts of strange things (we haven't had a finess 'category' of weapons for a while.
My survey wasn't anything like what most of you are saying. Everything was up to date and all the spells were there. Guess they fixed it. Wow, just realized I spent four hours on that. I really hope they read the novel's worth if text I write in each of them.

I wonder if the "your favorite edition" question is always present as a way to see if fans of certain editions leave the playtest in droves because of changes in a certain iteration. Or to see if changes they heard about bring them back after previously leaving. Or it could just be a way to add weight to the poll results.
I believe that the link here goes to a different survey than the link I received by email.

The metagame is not the game.

Some one could put up a poll asking "what is your favorite edittion", so we can have an idea about what people is answering in the surveys ... At least people form this forum.
The link was fixed.

Interesting that they ask what kind of media plateform we are using...
"UPDATED MY JOURNAL" ... urrr, survey!  (No fans of the old PS:T meme I see)

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
I wish it wasn't required to put a rating on every spell if you just want to rate some of them. I realize that clicking "no opinion" on all of them doesn't take that long, but I feel like it could just be optional. (Although I'm not some kind of survery design expert.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Ugh... finally finished. Like Gazra, probably took me ~4 hours to do. Took the time to mention the things I really did like as well as the stuff that could be improved.

My general comment on spells was in addition to general balance to keep an eye out for how spells can affect a setting.

Heh... it's probably going to take them a month just to read through all these reports.

My survey is asking me about my satisfaction with grapple, weapon proficiency and fallling rules in the How To Play section... but I can't find any mention of that anywhere in that pdf. I've searched the DM guidelines, feats and character class pdfs and I can't find anything there either...


am I being stupid? What are these rules, anyway?

Grapple is on page 12 of How to Play.  Falling is on page 8 of How to Play.  I don't think there's a section on weapon proficiency per se, just a description of what the consequences of NOT having proficiency are for your attack roll (on page 15 of How to Play).

hrm. I had better redownload the packet 'cause it looks like I might have an old file here. Glad I caught it, thanks!

am I being stupid? What are these rules, anyway?

They're in there, but they're hard to find.  From what I recall:

Falling is 1d6 per ten feet, to a maximum of 20d6.

Grappling is a strength check opposed by strength or agility; dragging someone with you costs double movement; you can spend another action while grappling to pin someone; escaping a grapple requires an opposed strength or agility check.

If you're not proficient in a weapon, you have disadvantage on attack rolls and advantage does not cancel it.  Weapon attack bonus also only applies to weapons in which you're proficient.

The metagame is not the game.

What bugs me about the current packet is how monsters are starting to use different rules from players to an extent that they need to have different critical hit rules.


Monsters clearly need to be designed differently from players but the totally different stat weights given to monsters so far means if I want the party to be ambushed by a band of human rogues, I can't actually make them human rogues 'cause the game can't handle it. Even weirder, if one of them is an NPC that joins them, I need to have them follow one set of rules before they join the party and a different set of rules after.


It's just not cricket.

I wish I could retake it. I entered several opinions, but didn't feel up for describing how I felt about the bestiary (which does need a few tweaks for dragons, etc.).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls

What bugs me about the current packet is how monsters are starting to use different rules from players to an extent that they need to have different critical hit rules.


Monsters clearly need to be designed differently from players but the totally different stat weights given to monsters so far means if I want the party to be ambushed by a band of human rogues, I can't actually make them human rogues 'cause the game can't handle it. Even weirder, if one of them is an NPC that joins them, I need to have them follow one set of rules before they join the party and a different set of rules after.


It's just not cricket.




I quite like monsters having different rules because it gives you the possibility to have simplier monsters thus making my life as DM easier. The vast majority of monsters dies in less than 5 rounds, no sense in making them complicated as a PC that lasts for years in game time.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


 Even weirder, if one of them is an NPC that joins them, I need to have them follow one set of rules before they join the party and a different set of rules after.


It's just not cricket.




See it like this. When the character is an NPC, the PCs will be able to see only a part of what he can do so you model it like a monster.
In real life my customers know that I'm an engineer so they can see I have the “Explain abstruse metallurgical property” feat, but don’t know that I’m a Tai Chi practitioner.


When the NPC joins the party and spends more time with the other PCs all his abilities become  apparent. In real life my friends know I’m an engineer, a tai chi practitioner and a Nintendo/D&D addict with the ability not to doze off even after hours of play during the night. 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


I quite like monsters having different rules because it gives you the possibility to have simplier monsters thus making my life as DM easier. The vast majority of monsters dies in less than 5 rounds, no sense in making them complicated as a PC that lasts for years in game time.



Yeah I agree. There is a time for complex monsters or enemy NPC's with full PC builds - reocurring villains, BBEG, etc - but for most monsters I prefer they be simple to run, simple to create, and simple to swap in and out of encounters on the fly to adjust for variantions in the party's strengths and weaknesses. There's no need for every monster to work exactly the way PC's do - a PC is there for the long haul (ideally) and there's only a few of them, and each one has its own player who is focused only on that PC - the monster is only there for a brief time and there are dozens or even hundreds of them, and the DM has to run all of them in addition to his/her many other duties. So PC's and monsters are completely different concepts that should (most of the time) use different rules. IMO, of course.


What I want is for the basic conventions of the game like what a critical hit means, relative stat weights and the curve of what makes you more powerful to remain the same for players and monsters. This has nothing to do with fluff or narrative, it has to do with ease of use and keeping the learning curve shallow.


Ultimately what I'll end up doing is throwing all of the monsters out of the window wholesale and use the monsters as ideas for my own things, which is what I've done in every WOTC published edition of D&D to date.


The publisher can say whatever they want, but in my game when someone rolls a crit, that will mean the same thing whether it's a DM controlled thing or a player controlled thing.


If I end up liking 5e enough to buy it and this remains, it'll mean that they won't get my money for the monster resources in game.



edit: people seem to misunderstand me: I want monsters and characters to be built differently, but I want the stat weights and mechanics they use to remain as much the same as possible.


What I want is for the basic conventions of the game like what a critical hit means, relative stat weights and the curve of what makes you more powerful to remain the same for players and monsters. This has nothing to do with fluff or narrative, it has to do with ease of use and keeping the learning curve shallow.


Ultimately what I'll end up doing is throwing all of the monsters out of the window wholesale and use the monsters as ideas for my own things, which is what I've done in every WOTC published edition of D&D to date.


The publisher can say whatever they want, but in my game when someone rolls a crit, that will mean the same thing whether it's a DM controlled thing or a player controlled thing.


If I end up liking 5e enough to buy it and this remains, it'll mean that they won't get my money for the monster resources in game.



edit: people seem to misunderstand me: I want monsters and characters to be built differently, but I want the stat weights and mechanics they use to remain as much the same as possible.




Oh yeah, I agree with you there.

What I want is for the basic conventions of the game like what a critical hit means, relative stat weights and the curve of what makes you more powerful to remain the same for players and monsters. This has nothing to do with fluff or narrative, it has to do with ease of use and keeping the learning curve shallow.


Ultimately what I'll end up doing is throwing all of the monsters out of the window wholesale and use the monsters as ideas for my own things, which is what I've done in every WOTC published edition of D&D to date.


The publisher can say whatever they want, but in my game when someone rolls a crit, that will mean the same thing whether it's a DM controlled thing or a player controlled thing.


If I end up liking 5e enough to buy it and this remains, it'll mean that they won't get my money for the monster resources in game.



edit: people seem to misunderstand me: I want monsters and characters to be built differently, but I want the stat weights and mechanics they use to remain as much the same as possible.




Oh yeah, I agree with you there.




I do too. Sorry for the misunderstanding  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)


I quite like monsters having different rules because it gives you the possibility to have simplier monsters thus making my life as DM easier. The vast majority of monsters dies in less than 5 rounds, no sense in making them complicated as a PC that lasts for years in game time.



Yeah I agree. There is a time for complex monsters or enemy NPC's with full PC builds - reocurring villains, BBEG, etc - but for most monsters I prefer they be simple to run, simple to create, and simple to swap in and out of encounters on the fly to adjust for variantions in the party's strengths and weaknesses. There's no need for every monster to work exactly the way PC's do - a PC is there for the long haul (ideally) and there's only a few of them, and each one has its own player who is focused only on that PC - the monster is only there for a brief time and there are dozens or even hundreds of them, and the DM has to run all of them in addition to his/her many other duties. So PC's and monsters are completely different concepts that should (most of the time) use different rules. IMO, of course.






That's why I really liked the way 2e designed monsters.   Each hit die was a d8 which would result in monsters that had about the same hit points and attack progression as the average PC in the party.  You didn't have to use the monster creation rules.  In fact, you could add any class like feature you wanted to an NPC and the players could never tell the difference. 

In my campaigns, I generally like to pit the players up against non-monsters types when they are in civilization.    For that reason, my players expect human wizards to work like the wizard in the party.   The same is true for the other classes.      Often the players will make choices in game based on these assumptions.   For example,  if the pcs are going to attack a secret underground temple to Cyric, they might debate how they are going to thwart spells like Silence.   If they are going to assult a wizard they might consider trying to steal his spell book first.  

For that reason I never liked 4e monsters with their contrived hit points a damage outputs.   When we played 4e, my players had in character expectations that were seldom met. Unless they metagamed and used what they knew about 4e monster design they couldn't plan an adequate attack strategy.    "Oh he is most likely a solo monster, they have high AC value so we need to assist each other"  or "he is a defender, expect him to have high hit points, and take out the controllers first.";  those are not the kinds of discussions I want my players to talk about at the table, it just doesn't fit with my playstyle.  



That's why I really liked the way 2e designed monsters.   Each hit die was a d8 which would result in monsters that had about the same hit points and attack progression as the average PC in the party.  You didn't have to use the monster creation rules.  In fact, you could add any class like feature you wanted to an NPC and the players could never tell the difference. 

In my campaigns, I generally like to pit the players up against non-monsters types when they are in civilization.    For that reason, my players expect human wizards to work like the wizard in the party.   The same is true for the other classes.      Often the players will make choices in game based on these assumptions.   For example,  if the pcs are going to attack a secret underground temple to Cyric, they might debate how they are going to thwart spells like Silence.   If they are going to assult a wizard they might consider trying to steal his spell book first.  




I'm with you 100% on this. I never played 4e so I can't comment on that part from experience, but I think 2e handled monsters perfectly. And though I have posted this many times on these forms, I'll say it again; the 2e Monstrous Manual is my all-time favorite D&D book of any kind.

I still use the 2e monster manual to this day and find the general design principles behind them to be the most solid of my options.
There is one major flaw I've noticed with these surveys: In asking for a satisfaction level for each specific game element they often miss an entire dimension of issues with the elements. I routinely give the feats and manuevers low satisfaction, but that's partly because they're so poorly balanced and implemented as a whole. When there's no general sense of balance I don't know if something is overpowered or under powered, I just know that these elements should not be considered equivalent.

Obviously, I can mention my concern about balance in the optional comments section, but for practical reasons most of how they read these surveys is through analysis of the aggregate data. This means the reason why game elements get high or low reviews can be easily overlooked.

I find that's true with any list of powers in these surveys. I especially hate it that i have to input a value for each and every one when I've really only got feedback about how they fit into the system or I've got a comment about one or two things.


A drop down menu of all the items with a "none" option in say 5 lines would be much better for me. I could then find the specific things I'm particularly satisfied or unsatisfied with and say so.


Anyway - how often do people feel so strongly about a single maneuver or spell that they need to rate their satisfaction seperately from another maneuver or spell?

Interesting that they ask what kind of media plateform we are using...

This, I cheated and pretended I already had a Windows Tablet. (I WANT one, but the Surface Pro isn't out yet... nor do I have the money.) Sounds mean, but it's more honest then saying I have an iPad even though I actually do have an iPad. I never use that thing. If I answered truthfully on actual possession of objects, that would be misleading to what their audience consists of.

Also, hadn't read the all the polearm stuff until they asked about it. Holy cow, that stuff is awesome. I can't imagine it being fair, because the fact that one feat makes them into double weapons means you have access to both two weapon bonuses AND the polearm stuff. Oh well, I love polearms so it make me happy.
I actually LOVE the fact they are polling for mobile devices. Hopefully that means they'll take a larger look at content for them!
My two copper.
Why do I get the feeling that had I answered "4E" on the favourite edition question my entire survey would've been ignored?

Either way answering these surveys is such a pain in the neck. I wish they'd find some better way to ask about specific feats / spells. That gets tedious in a hurry.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I put "Other:None" for mobile devices. I have no use and no desire for any of them. I'm guessing they've polled that question so as to determine which platform they're going to support more seriously, which I'm also guessing means that they haven't got the time and/or funds to support all of them. Hmmm.....

Otherwise, I've generally rated this packet between dissatisfied and very dissatisfied, and never voted above "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied". Actually, Ive rated all packets like that now that I think about it (except the first, which I would have rated as detestable if I could have).
There is something that I put in my feedback that I feel needs addressing.

Longbow: 1d8, 150/600 range
Heavy Crossbow: 1d10, 100/400 range
Light Crossbow: 1d8, 80/320 range

They should get rid of the loading property for crossbows.  The loading property doesn't serve to balance the weapons.  The longbow is better in every way than the light crossbow but doesn't need a loading mechanic to balance it.  Also, the heavy crossbow only does an average of 1 point of damage more than the longbow, but it suffers a shorter range; that doesn't need a loading mechanic to balance it.  All the loading mechanic does, as currently implemented, is make crossbows into inferior weapon choices.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

There is something that I put in my feedback that I feel needs addressing.

Longbow: 1d8, 150/600 range
Heavy Crossbow: 1d10, 100/400 range
Light Crossbow: 1d8, 80/320 range

They should get rid of the loading property for crossbows.  The loading property doesn't serve to balance the weapons.  The longbow is better in every way than the light crossbow but doesn't need a loading mechanic to balance it.  Also, the heavy crossbow only does an average of 1 point of damage more than the longbow, but it suffers a shorter range; that doesn't need a loading mechanic to balance it.  All the loading mechanic does, as currently implemented, is make crossbows into inferior weapon choices.


The original reason it was balanced was because Crossbows were simple weapons. Is this no longer the case?
My two copper.
Sign In to post comments