Playtest Update

Obryn said:

...because I was 15 years old and that's what you did?

This may be shocking, so I invite you to sit down, brace yourself, and take a deep breath before reading this. But now in my late 30's as a professional, a husband, and a father with over 20 more years' experience gaming, I think somewhat differently about the world and RPGs than I did as a teenager.

Click to expand...

My point wasn't that you specifically should feel obligated to pick up 5e. Just that there's a precedent for more incremental change, there's an audience for it, and (given how well the leap from 3 to 4 went) an incentive for Wizards to play it conservative this time out of the gate.

First, PC hit points & Monster damage output are just fine

1. Lower PC attack modifiers or raise Monster ACs. The PCs are hitting far too often for 1st level PCs. Something like 65+% (I'd lower attacks to keep the numbers small)

2. Lower PC damage output or raise Monster HPs. Just like #1 , but 1st level PCs are 1-hitting 3rd level monsters. (Routinely given the odds in point #1 ) Again, I'd lower PC damage rates.

3. Lower PC ACs or raise Monster attack modifiers. The other side of #1 . The monsters aren't hitting almost ever. Honestly, I'd do both here. Monsters need more than a 35% chance of hitting the standard PC as most players immediately aim for the nonstandard.

4. Remove critical hits from the standard game and make them an option. Do you really want to make the game less lethal? Remove these & bonus damage due to powers and such. My monsters went from totally ineffectual for dozens of rolls to 2 crits both with rage damage on 1 PC and killed him in one round. Players should have the option to run after 1 hit against a balanced opponent.

My point, it's like the design team really dislikes randomness unlike seeing it as their best friend. As a player? Sure, I'm trying to get rid of it left and right, but as a designer it makes everything 100% easier. Players need to know they can run and should run when the odds aren't in their favor.

All of which leads me to the biggest problem currently with the game (and it's not healing). The game is still coming off as 95% combat rules, which was the problem with 4th edition. The almost accidentally designed exploration rules (what used to be the majority of the rules) are hard to find and almost uniformly bad and nonsensical. My advice is to stop making D&D into a combat game and realize that is as much an optional part of the game as any other.

howandwhy99 said:

All of which leads me to the biggest problem currently with the game (and it's not healing). The game is still coming off as 95% combat rules, which was the problem with 4th edition. The almost accidentally designed exploration rules (what used to be the majority of the rules) are hard to find and almost uniformly bad and nonsensical. My advice is to stop making D&D into a combat game and realize that is as much an optional part of the game as any other.

Click to expand...

I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?

CasvalRemDeikun said:

Can you point to a post from WotC that explicitly states they are deliberately trying to get a bigger sample of 4E players? Because WotC are the ones that are compiling and collecting data through the surveys, not forums. Who gives a flying fart what people on WotC's boards, these boards, or any boards are saying unless it is in the surveys. I think you are confusing what bias actually is. Confirmation bias is where the data compiler (WotC) deliberately ignores data to favor their hypothesis (people want Old School and Old School alone). The thing is, the idea you are putting forth, that the majority of fans taking the surveys, no matter what their proportion, should be taken at a 50% face value, is textbook confirmation bias (among other things). Countering with "But but... their forums have a lot of 4E players on them" shows that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics. Add into that the fact the forums are immaterial when they have said AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the surveys are their primary(possibly even their ONLY) source of feedback.

Oh, and the bottom line of the idea you are proposing is that it totally invalidates the playtest, since WotC would be better served not even bothering to collect the data in the first place rather than collect it, then ignore it.

Click to expand...

If you read what I wrote carefully, I said that if 90% of the survey respondents prefer a particular edition, you shouldn't assume that 90% of the opinion of the market you are aiming at think as they do, that is, if you are aiming at a market that is 50% that group and 50% other, under-represented groups.

I don't understand what a post explicitly stating that they are seeking more 4E fan feedback would demonstrate to you.

If you believe that the designers don't read the message boards, or read the comments on their own columns, then I'm surprised. On occasion they even explicitly reply to a comment or address a point.

All I am proposing is that they weight the data they collect according to the market they want to aim for. They have no choice in their sample, but they can attempt to detect sample bias by observing the edition preference of the respondent. They ask that question at the start of every survey, I assume, for that very reason. To take an extreme case, if every respondent gave the same feedback and said they preferred 4th edition, you would end up believing that the market desires a game like 4th edition. However, in reality you have prior information that the market is split and, well, in that case you're a bit stuck, but if you had at least some non-4E fans responding you would consider them with some more weight than the percentage of respondents they actually make up. You would value the minority of responses greater if they form the majority of the market.

I would also appreciate if you refrain from personal attacks on my knowledge of statistics.

Balesir said:

I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?

Click to expand...

Speaking just for myself, I'd like to see exploration rules focused on (1) how long it takes to explore an area (whether dungeon or wilderness), (2) the likelihood of being detected while exploring and (3) ways for organized communities of monsters respond to intruders.

Obviously, these would all be DM guidelines and not "rules" in the sense of "spell X has effect Y." Likewise, it would be foolish for DMs to track time slavishly when it doesn't matter. But at the same time, good "typical case guidelines" are extremely helpful to new DMs and for setting expectations for groups that haven't played together.

These rules are important to allow players to intelligent tradeoffs about whether they should take the time to search carefully or hurry along before they are detected. And -- since there is a heavy subjective element -- they are the type of rules that are served well by playtesting over a long period of time.

Other types of rules for which playtesting would be helpful:

* Investigation Rules - divination / detection spells, truth magic, knowledge / research / gather information checks, and related feats etc. Different groups will have different desires from the information gathering mechanics. For some groups, divination and character checks is how the PCs are supposed to solve mysteries. In other groups, "mechanical" mystery solving spoils the fun. D&DN should provide a dial. Personally, I'd like to see a GUMSHOE-style skill module.

* Social Interaction Rules - charms and related magic, social skills and class abilities. In the same way, some groups want detailed mechanics for persuasion while other groups want "light mechanics" to provide character differentiation in roleplaying. Other groups want some social magic and little else in the way of rules. WotC should present the range of options, so folks can test what they want.

* Extended Checks - I'm not a big fan of 4e skill challenges, but I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that some non-combat challenges should involve a number of skill checks. This needed much more testing in 4e than it received, and I'd like to see the designers ideas on these rules early enough to go through multiple revisions.

-KS

keterys said:

Hmm, why do so many people say that eldritch blast is OP? It does 10.5 damage while radiant lance does 8.5 on a better chassis and a fighter with a bow does 12... and the fighter has the best chassis of all for combat (more hp, more damage, more AC, more initiative, more versatility, etc).

Click to expand...

The only thing I can guess with regards to that is the fact that Eldritch Blast scales by level. It goes up to 14 damage at 3rd level. Still, the Warlock really does feel like a poor man's Cleric who can't heal. He's terrible.

- Marty Lund

Kamikaze Midget said:

I've posted about the problem with tying recharge rates to archetypes in other places.

Honestly, this is something that I think I've learned along with WotC. I was all for "If you want non-vancian, play a non-wizard arcane spellcaster" a little while ago, but I realized that this isn't exactly fair. What folks like about a given recharge mechanic and what folks like about a given archetype aren't necessarily linked.

I'm a little nervous that the "traditions" are going to fall into the same trap of ensconcing a given archetype with a particular recharge rate, and making them inseparable. They should be separable. There's no reason to make a Blood Mage play with daily-only powers, or a Wild Mage play with an ADEU structure, or whatever. They're all just different ways to cast Magic Missile.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing: if the class archetypes can be completely divorced from mechanics like that, doesn't that kind of undercut the whole concept of class-specific mechanics?

I thought the whole point of backing away from AEDU was that it was more elegant to play, say, a rogue or fighter with a variety of flexible at-will powers rather than with an array of daily and encounter powers. This carries over nicely into wizards vs. sorcerers: wizards have to keep detailed lists and carefully plan their spells, since they're nerdy bookworms, while sorcerers can just keep tossing out whatever spells they know until they run out of juice.

I note that nobody's talking about sorcerers memorizing spells or warlocks "needing" a bunch of daily spells. And the vast majority seem happy with CS fighters with no daily or encounter powers. So really I think this is less of a system issue and more of a specific class issue. My hope is that they release the arcane sorcerer and some "wild mage" non-Vancian spellcasting traditions it does a good enough job satisfying people who like wizards and hate Vancian casting that this issue dies down.

Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).

I think they are being torn every which way with the Wizard. They aren't going to solve anything just by throwing all the mechanics in the same class. There is absolutely no way that could ever be balanced and a complete nightmare for a DM with a power gamer at his table. There is also no way non-4e players are ever going to be happy with encounter powers shoved in there.

Balesir said:

I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?

Click to expand...

I see 10-minute turns with wandering monster checks, hexagonal wilderness maps, rules for how much area an individual can search in 10 minutes (and why they shouldn't stick around afterwards), etc.

If there isn't a single mention of the 6-mile hex, I will be sad.

ZombieRoboNinja said:

Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).

Click to expand...

That's a really interesting question.

My initial thought is that most people who play clerics are pragmatists. They're choosing to play the cleric so that they can heal the group. They're less concerned with how they heal the group, and more concerned that the group gets healed. I would expect to see complaints if healing wasn't strong enough, or healing was excessively boring.

The other idea is that maybe healing fits Vancian a little better than damage. Healing is reactive, you heal what needs to be healed. Thus, a healer doesn't mind saving big heals, and indeed prefers using small heals when she can. A damage dealer on the other generally wants to use the bigger spells. Thus a lot of damage dealers prefer systems where they can use more big spells, even at the expense of many smaller ones.

Edit; To elaborate on the last point, is there any proposed alternative magic system where the wizard ends up casting fewer max level spells per day than Vancian? Or do all proposed alternative magic systems allow the wizard to cast more max level spells per day?