Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid

[jgsugden]

...
You mean you don't see it?
They removed an entire mechanic, either so late there was no playtesting, or with such inept playtesting that no-one caught the error with the feat directly related to that mechanic.

That is your massive problem? That one of the last balance edits they removed dealing with the size of an opponent when grappling didn't have all references to it removed from the books?Uhhh... agan. They made an intentional choice on hwo the game should work. They made changes to their plan. They failed to make the correct edits to implement the new plan, but it was a new plan that was a result of their intent - and they did nothing to change that intent since then. They're happy with the balance. As suh, this is just an editing error. They made no changes to the balance of the game.

Codswallop! Pure and simple. Removing an entire mechanic and not having even the basic testing needed to catch an error with the associated feat is not "catching an edit". It's "changing how a system works intentionally" and then not giving it even the basic level of proofing.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Let me walk this thorugh.

D&D Next went through a lot of internal playtest. They brought it to a good place and sent it out for external playtests with the full expectation that it still needed work. They obtained feedbak, made large edits and sent it back out. They collected more feedback and made more edits. Amongst these back and forths were edits to grappling and how it was impacted by size. It doesn't look like all of the changes to grappling took place early - but instead that they continued to revise them until close to release. When they made their final decisions on what to include they failed to omit an implication of the old ruling from a feat that dealt with grappling. Note that this was in an entirely different section of the book from the grappling rules.

And this situation is your evidence that there was no real playtesting of the edition and everything that fails to meet your idea of how the game should work is an error in their judgment.

When we know there were hundred of thousands of hours of playtesting and months and months of development time put into each cycle of revisions to the game.

Your expectations do not align with reason.

 

[Yunru]

That is your massive problem? That one of the last balance edits they removed dealing with the size of an opponent when grappling didn't have all references to it removed from the books?Uhhh... agan. They made an intentional choice on hwo the game should work. They made changes to their plan. They failed to make the correct edits to implement the new plan, but it was a new plan that was a result of their intent - and they did nothing to change that intent since then. They're happy with the balance. As suh, this is just an editing error. They made no changes to the balance of the game.

Good sir, I accuse you of double standards!

First you claim that everything must of been intentional because everything was rigorously tested.

Now you dismiss my claim as a reference they failed to remove.

Well then, sir, answer me this:
If everything is so thoroughly tested, why did the grappler feat not get caught by any of the playtesters, since according to your removing a mechanic would of been thoroughly tested?

Either some things were simply not as thoroughly tested, in which case your argument against this thread is false, or the playtesters are provably fallable, in which case your argument against this thread is false.

 

[jgsugden]

Good sir, I accuse you of double standards!

First you claim that everything must of been intentional because everything was rigorously tested.

Now you dismiss my claim as a reference they failed to remove.

Please read my prior posts before misstating the.

Well then, sir, answer me this:
If everything is so thoroughly tested, why did the grappler feat not get caught by any of the playtesters, since according to your removing a mechanic would of been thoroughly tested?

Because it was a minor edit to remove a minor mechanic located in a disassociated location.

Either some things were simply not as thoroughly tested, in which case your argument against this thread is false, or the playtesters are provably fallable, in which case your argument against this thread is false.

Or you're talking about a minor issue as if it was a major catastrophe. This is a very strange hill to die upon. This was a minor edit with minor implications.

They probaby tested it both ways. They probably had versions of the text for both options. They probably, accidentally, included the wrong text in the feats rea, and the right text in the grapplig section.

Either way, I'm done. Your perceptions are your own (and seem pretty lonely, here ...). You can believe as you wish. This is not a rule that will change.

 

[Yunru]

Or you're talking about a minor issue as if it was a major catastrophe. This is a very strange hill to die upon. This was a minor edit with minor implications.

Again with the dismissal. It may be minor, but it would of been noticeable. If it had been playtested, it would of immediately been picked up by everyone with the feat. There are no minor implications to this, not when the foundation of your argument was "everything was tested well enough this couldn't have been missed."

 

[dave2008]

Good sir, I accuse you of double standards!

First you claim that everything must of been intentional because everything was rigorously tested.

Now you dismiss my claim as a reference they failed to remove.

Well then, sir, answer me this:
If everything is so thoroughly tested, why did the grappler feat not get caught by any of the playtesters, since according to your removing a mechanic would of been thoroughly tested?

Either some things were simply not as thoroughly tested, in which case your argument against this thread is false, or the playtesters are provably fallable, in which case your argument against this thread is false.

You realize there a text books that have been through multiple editions and each time they still find errors. You can't expect, no matter how good the editing and playtest, for them to catch everything.

And this is an editing error, not a play-testing error. In theory, the play test feedback directed them to make the grappling mechanic a particular way. Then the editors should have made sure all rules match the direction determined from the designers and play testers. The editor.

Finally, something can be thoroughly play tested (and edited) and still have errors. Humans are fallible. It is not a one or the other requirement. I can be completely true that: 5e had the largest, longest, and most thorough play test of any edition of dungeons and dragons; the playtest informed many of the numerous revisions through the Next playtest to the final version of 5e (there were a least 8 I believe); and there are mistakes, errors, and content that was not caught or corrected by the playtest.

 

[dave2008]

Again with the dismissal. It may be minor, but it would of been noticeable. If it had been playtested, it would of immediately been picked up by everyone with the feat. There are no minor implications to this, not when the foundation of your argument was "everything was tested well enough this couldn't have been missed."

Did you participate in the playtest? I did. Did I notice this issue - no. It happens - move on man.

 

[Yunru]

Did you participate in the playtest? I did. Did I notice this issue - no. It happens - move on man.

That's my point though: it happens.

Which was what I was arguing the entire time, because his point was that if it wasn't intentional it would of been caught.

 

[dave2008]

That's my point though: it happens.

Which was what I was arguing the entire time, because his point was that if it wasn't intentional it would of been caught.

That is not how I understood his argument. In addition I understood yours to be, essentially:
because it wasn't caught it couldn't have been playtested thoroughly.

Again the issue you are hung up is not a good example. The grappler feat is an editing issue - not a playtest issue.

 

[Yunru]

That is not how I understood his argument. In addition I understood yours to be, essentially:
because it wasn't caught it couldn't have been playtested thoroughly.

Again the issue you are hung up is not a good example. The grappler feat is an editing issue - not a playtest issue.

Yes well, as someone previously proposed, so could the rounding down.
It could easily have been intended to round up (it certainly makes more sense), but was omitted and then that omission was fixed - incorrectly.

 

[WaterRabbit]

In probably the most basic concept of an RPG you tend to have 3 designations. The warrior, the skilled, and the magic user. Then you have hybrid designations of these etc. In a game where all warriors are mechanically identical I think most players are happy just roleplaying differences between various warriors. The same with skilled and magic users. However, in a game where multiple classes fall under the warrior designation and each have their own special abilities that give them a certain playstyle distinct from other classes that fall under that same warrior designation, I think it's only natural to desire and expect other concepts to have mechanical support for their distinct playstyles as well.

I don't think this is a given. The basic concepts are more: Combat (Fighter), Social (Bard), Environment (Thief) which match the general types of challenges players face. A D&D wizard can fill any of those roles. Almost all of the classes in D&D are hybrids to some extent.

The fourth challenge is more of a player challenge than a character challenge (Puzzles, tactics, etc.). Players (even in RPGs) tend to be a mix that tends more or less toward either goal-oriented or process-oriented.