D&D (2024) Please focus on concept, not numbers.

[UngeheuerLich]

As seen in other threads, people are complaining, that something is weak, because it only does X damage instead of Y.

My general advice from 10 years of reading UA and even playtesting:

It is much more important to check if the concept is sound, if abilities work well with each other (bonus actions, concentration) and see regular use.

Also check if abilities actually do what they advertise, without chosing the right feat etc.

Numbers can always be tuned up or down. Just give that as feedback, but don't make this the reason, why you reject an overhauled ability.

 

[cbwjm]

NEVER!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also check if abilities actually do what they advertise, without chosing the right feat etc.

But this is fundamentally a question about numbers ...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. It is not. Tweaking numbers is easy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. It is not. Tweaking numbers is easy.

Not as easy as all that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not as easy as all that.

I can tweak 1d10 to 2d6 or 3d6 easily.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As seen in other threads, people are complaining, that something is weak, because it only does X damage instead of Y.

My general advice from 10 years of reading UA and even playtesting:

It is much more important to check if the concept is sound, if abilities work well with each other (bonus actions, concentration) and see regular use.

Also check if abilities actually do what they advertise, without choosing the right feat etc.

Numbers can always be tuned up or down. Just give that as feedback, but don't make this the reason, why you reject an overhauled ability.

Fantastic advice! One that I hope EVERYONE remembers.

Here's another one for folks to remember-- new rules that appear in multiple packets are not guaranteed to be there till the end and can still get changed later on as new items appear in the Glossary and have effects on previous ideas... and new rules that don't appear in a subsequent packet does not mean they've been completely eliminated from consideration. They can still reappear as part of other new ideas that get introduced later.

So don't get so worked up on when rules appear or disappear or reappear. Just because a rule you think is bad has appeared in two or three packets, it doesn't mean it's now automatically in. Always remember to continually let them know not only that you don't like the rule, but the reasons why it doesn't work. Especially if they try it several times with different ideas.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can tweak 1d10 to 2d6 or 3d6 easily.

Which doesn't mean you'll get things right. Ideas on the other hand are easy to come up with - but it's only when you apply the numbers and then check for synergies and interference that you see if they are useful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Which doesn't mean you'll get things right. Ideas on the other hand are easy to come up with - but it's only when you apply the numbers and then check for synergies and interference that you see if they are useful.

Of course. This is why we playtest those mechanics and give feedback.

I think giving feedback that this is bland, or that damage is not up to par are valid.

What I have seen however is: "The ability is bland because it does not do enough damage compared to the old one."
This is not a valid criticism.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What I have seen however is: "The ability is bland because it does not do enough damage compared to the old one."
This is not a valid criticism.

[Citation needed]

If you're talking about the Conjure Barrage you're confusing two criticisms.

• It's bland because literally all it is is an additional spell known from the spell list with a ribbon bonus.
• It's  bad because it is mechanically weak as demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't even match up to the old weak ability.

Both tediously bland and mechanically useless are legitimate criticisms. If it were a good spell that would not make it worthwhile as an ability when literally anyone could prepare that spell - but it isn't even a good spell. Confusing the two is not a legitimate defence. And something being so useless that it can be criticised from multiple angles doesn't somehow make it immune to criticism.

The ability in question is at least as rancid as anything in the 2014 ranger without even any sort of spice to disguise the taste. It's the worst of all worlds.