Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Our 4th Playtest - Going for the Crown
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="VinylTap" data-source="post: 6024640" data-attributes="member: 6697217"><p>I see the criticism of the playtest package's difficulty rating from a lot of people, and a lot of discussion about it. </p><p></p><p>Do people really believe that there is much to be gained by WOTC attempting to balance the internal dynamics between monsters/PC's before the combat system is fully developed(or at least close to publishable?). Does anyone, really, believe the power imbalance isn't completely intentional and by design? </p><p></p><p>How do you balance this sort of thing when basic combat mechanics are still in such flux? It would literally be wasted work as the system changed and evolved through the design process. Any internal balancing is going to be instantly undone by even a moderate modification of a PC or monsters 'damage out-put'. </p><p></p><p>Does anyone think WOTC released this set of rules thinking the monster/pc damage balances were functioning like they would be in a published polished product? There seems to be a common consensus that damage is too high, and monsters are too easy in the current play-test, but for me, that just sounds like things are working as they're suppose to. This is an opportunity for WOTC to test a lot of different design waters, and get pretty much instant feedback from the community. Do people think they would be better served by not pushing the combat system in extreme directions and getting feedback on it? Now they've got 'data' to work on, but without the initial testing of that 'high damage' scenario, there's little 'data' to move forward with, just more designer intuition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="VinylTap, post: 6024640, member: 6697217"] I see the criticism of the playtest package's difficulty rating from a lot of people, and a lot of discussion about it. Do people really believe that there is much to be gained by WOTC attempting to balance the internal dynamics between monsters/PC's before the combat system is fully developed(or at least close to publishable?). Does anyone, really, believe the power imbalance isn't completely intentional and by design? How do you balance this sort of thing when basic combat mechanics are still in such flux? It would literally be wasted work as the system changed and evolved through the design process. Any internal balancing is going to be instantly undone by even a moderate modification of a PC or monsters 'damage out-put'. Does anyone think WOTC released this set of rules thinking the monster/pc damage balances were functioning like they would be in a published polished product? There seems to be a common consensus that damage is too high, and monsters are too easy in the current play-test, but for me, that just sounds like things are working as they're suppose to. This is an opportunity for WOTC to test a lot of different design waters, and get pretty much instant feedback from the community. Do people think they would be better served by not pushing the combat system in extreme directions and getting feedback on it? Now they've got 'data' to work on, but without the initial testing of that 'high damage' scenario, there's little 'data' to move forward with, just more designer intuition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Our 4th Playtest - Going for the Crown
Top