7
\$\begingroup\$

The question Have the D&D 5E designers ever done an official commentary about why they have designed certain rules the way they did? was recently closed due to lack of focus (the close reason I chose) and designer reasoning being off-topic. I don't pretend to know the asker's intent, but I believe a similar question could be asked, while remaining on-topic. On to the example questions...

How has True Strike evolved from its first appearance in 5e to today?

The cantrip true strike is considered weak by well-respected build guides, such as Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e. I am curious how (or if) the cantrip changed from the earliest D&D Next playtest to today. I'm interested in any errata (silent or otherwise) as well as its addition/removal from (sub)class spell lists. Any changes to true strike proposed in Unearthed Arcana would also be interesting.

This is more of a baseline than a controversial question. I feel like this is pretty clearly on-topic. It only covers the facts without mentioning developer commentary. Good answers may contain some developer commentary, but that's fine. It's a bit far from the original question, though.

Where can I find official commentary on the changes made during the D&D Next playtest?

I didn't participate in the D&D Next playtest, but I've heard that the developers released several versions, acquiring feedback between each one. Did the developers provide official responses to the feedback? By official responses, I mean articles, blog posts, and videos where a D&D designer is speaking in an official capacity about the feedback they've received during the playtest. Similarly, did the developers provide official responses regarding changes they made in response to said feedback?

If such commentary exists, where can I find it?

This feels a lot closer to the original question. I believe it's on-topic, since it's asking where to find something that either exists or doesn't. It doesn't care about what the designer reasons are, just where they are. It may need to be narrowed a bit if there are too many possible sources of official commentary. Answers may quote pieces of developer commentary to avoid hiding too much data behind links.

Where can I find official commentary on the spell True Strike?

I didn't participate in the D&D Next playtest, but I've heard that the developers released several versions, acquiring feedback between each one and providing official commentary. By official commentary, I mean articles, blog posts, or videos where a D&D designer is speaking in an official capacity about changes during the playtest. (I'm not really interested in Twitter commentary, unless it's clear that the tweets are made in an official capacity.)

Did any of this official commentary touch on the cantrip true strike? If so, where can I find it? Similarly, is there any official commentary after the playtest about true strike? If so, where can I find it?

For some reason, this one feels like a gray area. It's like asking about a specific event (the D&D Next playtest) feels fine, while asking in general terms, doesn't.

As a follow-up: what if this third question didn't mention true strike at all? Such a question seems too broad, but that's mainly because I don't personally know of a single source that contains all official commentary. It seems incorrect to judge a question's scope based on presumed answers.

Are the these similar questions on-topic? Are they also good questions?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That third question is the one I really wanted to ask originally, but struggled with due to aforementioned gray area. \$\endgroup\$ – ZarHakkar Jul 12 at 13:03
3
\$\begingroup\$

The first question is for sure one that is well scoped. It is possible to ask a question that is hard to answer. Well, that's OK, we may need to be patient and see if anyone with that long of a memory has something to offer.

I asked a question about what people learned from the module/adventure "Murder in Baldur's Gate" which was released during the play test and was supposed to be compatible with 3.x, 4, and 5e. I had to wait a year for an answer.

Question number 2: while this may get some negative feedback as a shopping type of question, the decision at WotC to drop their forums and to basically 'disappear' a variety of community dialogue on the new edition evokes this kind of question.

I am searching but I can't find it.

We have product-identification questions that are in that style, so this one is probably OK. But, it may also be perceived as a shopping question.

Question 3: not sure what to do with that one. I think that some of the play test is covered by NDAs, and people may know the answers but do not want to violate the NDA.

Given that I disagree with the "{alleged} wisdom of the crowds" approach to how designer-reasons questions are treated here, I have nothing further to add "policy"-wise. Beyond that, I left a comment under the referenced question about using youtube searches for Mike Mearls, and way back machine as a resource for a lot of stuff that disappeared from easy-to-Google stuff.

Nitsua60 very kindly, in chat, provided a link to a wayback post of Mike Mearls, which has links to a few other WoTC era posts. In it he discusses various design philosophy points. You'll want to play around with wayback machine itself to get searches for detailed points on classes or features to find out if a particular topic has been addressed in that manner.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I believe your comment as well as mine about the Sage Advice Compendium, Dragon Talk podcast, and Twitter accounts were edited/deleted \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Jul 11 at 22:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 rats. :-( \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 11 at 22:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .