Playtest Update

GreyICE · Sep 24, 2012

I can't imagine people actually willingly rolling up healbots, something the 3E cleric never was. I don't know about you, but back in AD&D we called it the "Cleric Bullet" and someone had to take the "Cleric Bullet" for the group in order to play. In D&D I invested in wands of CLW/LV with the group funds pretty much immediately if I was playing anything with healing magic, and then let the group patch themselves up with them (if people complained I asked them how much healing magic they had).

I think they just messed up their cleric build for this playtest, and hopefully they'll fix it? I dunno...

ZombieRoboNinja · Sep 25, 2012

GSHamster said:
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?

Actually, per my current understanding the system Mearls is suggesting for wizards would have that effect: you give up one or more daily spell slots for encounter spells, which would obviously be less powerful than an equal-level daily.

Manbearcat · Sep 25, 2012

I'm assuming (well hoping really) that the reason that he didn't address Races and Feats/Specialties is because that was the second playtest survey to go out. Regardless, I'm disappointed that there was not more specificity in the Fighter section. I'm glad they acknowledge Glancing Blow issues but there are plenty of other problems (such as the disparity in effectiveness of Duelist).

Overall, it would be nice if each of these Monday morning Legend and Lores (specifically the playtest ones) canvassed things in greater detail. A great many posts on these boards are more specific, thorough and entail greater insight (not that he doesn't possess it...its just not on display in many of these articles) than those in that weekly column. Its a pity.

ZombieRoboNinja · Sep 25, 2012

Manbearcat said:
I'm assuming (well hoping really) that the reason that he didn't address Races and Feats/Specialties is because that was the second playtest survey to go out. Regardless, I'm disappointed that there was not more specificity in the Fighter section. I'm glad they acknowledge Glancing Blow issues but there are plenty of other problems (such as the disparity in effectiveness of Duelist).

I think this is more of an issue for further down the road when they're finessing balance. They haven't even added specialties to fit half the fighter builds (particularly duelists and slayers), and I think that's an important next step for determining the specific power of each build and maneuver.

I mean, if they had wizards down so well that we were just worrying about the radius of fireball, they'd be ecstatic.

Manbearcat · Sep 25, 2012

@ZombieRoboNinja

Makes sense I suppose. They do have a primary design aim in this alpha of getting the feel/fluff correctly matching the mechanical underlay before they move on. However, the only reason that I am moderately skeptical is that they have addressed specific balance concerns here and there along the way. Not a grand pass across the board at balance (given the primary design aim at the present moment it makes sense) but "balance parcels" (specifically glaring ones) now and again (or at least acknowledging issues if not moving on them). The elves not having Long Swords as Finesse Weapons is an enormous incoherency (balance and implied setting fluff) in my book. It seems that should have gotten a mention/acknowledgement.

But again, perhaps Races are coming later a la the surveys.

ZombieRoboNinja · Sep 25, 2012

Manbearcat said:
@ZombieRoboNinja

Makes sense I suppose. They do have a primary design aim in this alpha of getting the feel/fluff correctly matching the mechanical underlay before they move on. However, the only reason that I am moderately skeptical is that they have addressed specific balance concerns here and there along the way. Not a grand pass across the board at balance (given the primary design aim at the present moment it makes sense) but "balance parcels" (specifically glaring ones) now and again (or at least acknowledging issues if not moving on them). The elves not having Long Swords as Finesse Weapons is an enormous incoherency (balance and implied setting fluff) in my book. It seems that should have gotten a mention/acknowledgement.

But again, perhaps Races are coming later a la the surveys.

Yeah, my expectation is that they'll quietly make minor fixes and changes as they go, like they did with a lot of the spells after the first playtest.

Manbearcat · Sep 25, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
Yeah, my expectation is that they'll quietly make minor fixes and changes as they go, like they did with a lot of the spells after the first playtest.

Likely. I must admit that I find it a bit odd that they introduced the Warlock and Sorcerer under the premise of wanting to get variants of spellcasting out there for testing when they seem to have had Arcane Traditions in the pipeline. This would have allowed them to playtest spellcasting variants while (i) sticking to their guns of playtesting "the big four" initially and would have allowed (ii) focus on the actual spellcasting variants without introducing the needless (inevitable) noise of feedback/focus on dissatisfaction with the incarnation of the Warlock/Sorcerer (which, of course, defeats the point). I've seen so much talk of the dissatisfaction of the Sorcerer and very little about the impact of the different spell-casting variants in practice. It speaks to a little bit of lack of coherency of direction (which I am all too familiar with in my line of work...so I cannot help but look for it when I see engineering projects such as this unfold). To be fair, it should have been expected. While the mechanics for the Sorcerer are exceedingly interesting, fun and functional, they changed the well-established flavor of the class greatly. I'm not surprised to see the fallout and rancor by Sorcerer aficionados.

Ratskinner · Sep 25, 2012

Tovec said:
As for healing; I'm glad they are still talking about it and thinking about it. Healing is the major issue at the heart of pretty much every thread I see. I wouldn't mind if they spent months thinking and working on nothing more than healing, just to make sure they get it right and more importantly give us a lot of options to see which is best.

I just wanted to second that emotion. This is one of the areas that really seems to divide D&Der's and really needs to be nailed.

I really wish there was some alternative mechanic to HP that would still be D&D...

Umbran · Sep 25, 2012

CasvalRemDeikun said:
Confirmation bias is where the data compiler (WotC) deliberately ignores data to favor their hypothesis ...

That's not correct. Specifically, the "deliberately" part. A great deal of confirmation bias is not conscious action.

CasvalRemDeikun · Sep 25, 2012

Umbran said:
That's not correct. Specifically, the "deliberately" part. A great deal of confirmation bias is not conscious action.

While that is certainly true, in this case WotC would be deliberately committing confirmation bias. The bottom line is, if people want their voices heard, they need to participate in the playtest and take the surveys. If they aren't participating, they SHOULD be ignored (to a certain extent).