I didn't perceive his comments about that as "exclusively" internally testing any of it. My impression was they are "currently" internally testing it. Much like they initially internally playtested the Player's Handbook materials. I think we will see UA's with new monsters. Possible also with the encounter building design.
I hope you're right! And that may be the case! You raised this point in your second post, so I'm replying to both here...
There is a real question of lead-time, however. There is a huge amount of playtesting that needs to happen between player classes & monsters. Playtesting leads to design iteration. IF there is going to be meaningful external feedback in that process (I'm arguing there that there needs to be), we're running out of time for that feedback to be incorporated because we don't have anything tangible about their redesigned monsters / encounter building.
That's a narrower subset of players with preferences that can be addressed with a very easy solution already at hand - remove those spells from the game. The game will function just fine without them.
It troubles me so much when I hear this. One of my passions is mentoring new GMs – I did this for my nephew, a friend at my local game store, a friend back in the Navy, and a dozen or so folks online – it's a small number of people I know, but it's what I've got. One of the questions that I get consistently asked is "how do I do overland travel / exploration so it's fun?"
There's this assumption that: (a) because modern gamers don't play exploration like in the old days, (b) the game shouldn't involve significant attention to exploration play.
IME, it's almost exactly the reverse: (b) because the game doesn't involve significant attention to exploration play, (b) modern gamers don't play exploration.
What I end up advising the GMs I mentor is to get creative & break the rules & create new rules to facilitate exploration in a more
narrative-driven approach, rather than the old way of hyper-focusing on logistics and resource management. When they make that switch, I hear GMs and their groups having a blast.
I don't view it as this small subset of players that you do. And I think D&D should be doing the job of facilitating that type of enjoyment.
They had to start with something and it makes sense to start with the first book they plan to put out...
It had to be really. They're putting out the PHB first, it's the most complicated changes to the game which are much harder for a DM to houserule around and take the most rules-creator experience to craft. It's not a "huge problem" to do it in an order that isn't everything all at once all the time before they drill down to the PHB. It's pretty firmly in the manageable issue. They now know what the classes look like, so as they design the monsters and encounter design, they know what pocket of power the players will be, which informs their design of those elements.
From a practical standpoint of book layout, yes, the PHB needs to be prioritized.
However, from a
design standpoint, focusing on player-facing content first,
and then GM-facing content second is a disaster waiting to happen. At this scale of design, it's both happening at the same time. If you neglect one, that's how unforeseen play issues arise (e.g. the monk's Stunning Fist having multiple problematic interactions with different types of monsters). Designing in isolation almost always causes significant downstream problems.
They usually withhold the plan these days on these kinds of things early in the process because years and years of mentioning a play to people on the Internet taught them that will mean they can never alter the plan if circumstances change because people flip out about any alteration and call them liars and worse. So, usually they're vague just like that - even when they're planning a UA on something.
I guess that's one approach to managing expectations. I'd think there are better ways to accomplish that, but they know their fan base. I agree that this is unfortunate.