WotC_PeterS talks about his "aggresive playtest" (with Le Rouse, SKR, & Noonan)

[GnomeIllusionist]

I agree with Shroomy in this case.

But a single DM will?

They don't have to though. Wizards of the Coast released at least one new sourcebook per month for 3.5E AFAIK - between about 150 and 300 pages. They need to test these products for fun, balance, clarity, etc.

An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.

They need to spend time making the rules work when used like an average group would. What persistent min-maxers can do isn't as important. Besides - would the CharOp board be pretty sad if such exploits didn't exist? They seem to get more fun out of rules that aren't water-tight.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign.

You make it sound like it's handwave simple. "The options being used" indeed.

 

[Baron Opal]

It is handwave simple.

"Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."

There you go.

 

[shilsen]

It is handwave simple.

"Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."

There you go.

What he said.

And that's if you don't catch the problem by taking a look at the feat/ability and thinking about it for 5 minutes, which frankly does the job (at least for me) most of the time.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Oh, I'm not blaming DMs at all, nor do I expect them to catch every abusable combination. I was just pointing out that the expectation to catch every abusable combination was simply not attainable.

And I suspect some abusable combos are going to be left in to see who's paying attention.

 

[Fifth Element]

An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.

Precisely.

Also don't forget that many of the abuses the CharOp people come up with are based on very specific interpretations of how some rules are written. The interpretation chosen, regardless of how reasonable it isn't, is always the one that leads to the ridiculous outcome.

 

[Ourph]

An individual DM only needs to 'check' the options being used by characters in his campaign. He doesn't need to foresee Pun-Pun or the ReCharger - he just needs to notice they are ruining the fun or challenge of his campaign and say 'no'.

By the time the problem is pinpointed a group may already have experienced weeks of unfun play and the DM's hard work on the campaign may already have been seriously compromised. As someone who doesn't like the idea of retconning several play sessions worth of events to rewind the campaign to an acceptable point, that doesn't seem like the best available option.

I'm not suggesting WotC could catch every last problem, but Fifth Element suggested that "stress testing" for powergaming options was a complete waste of time. I don't think the fact that no test can ever catch 100% of the problems is a good argument for not testing at all or doing minimal testing just to say "we did it".

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not suggesting WotC could catch every last problem, but Fifth Element suggested that "stress testing" for powergaming options was a complete waste of time.

Ew, what's that taste? Oh, it's the words you put in my mouth.

I never suggested it was a complete waste of time. Obviously some playtesting of that kind is worthwhile, but it's not as important in D&D as it might be in other fields. You work out bugs in software, for instance, because that's run by a computer. D&D has the advantage of having a human arbiter who can interpret and make decisions.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

It is handwave simple.

"Holy crap Steve, I didn't realize that a Goliath Piledriver with the Kirk Axehandle Strike can do over 300 hp with a single hit. I'll need you to choose a different feat."

There you go.

You are an optimist on a level I never am. Were all calls this obviously exaggerated there would be no issue. There would be no discussion. The calls are rarely (never?) this clear. *shrug*

 

[Baron Opal]

You have a point, my example is absurd.

However, I haven't found too many examples of problems in 3e that caused my groups (or me, as the DM) any real problems. Polymorph, et.al., was an issue, for example, but I sat down figured out what the problem I had with it was and hammered out a solution in an afternoon. Now, in my game, if you polymorph you keep the same attributes unless your size changes. Then you get +/- 4 STR and -/+ 2 DEX for each size class you shift. With change self you get the form plus one advantage from a list of 10, such as water breathing or gliding. Works great.

I don't believe that there will be a fundamental mechanical problem with the 4e rules. I'm fairly sure there will be some minor problems along the lines of the Power Attack debate (is it really worth using?). There may be one or two issues or situations along the polymorph problem (a power's definition is so loose that it opens up significant abuse). Spotting these problems, and coming up with solutions is well within our capabilities as referees of the game. And, it is the perfect thing for new referees to learn the trade on, so to speak.