D&D 5E (2014) October Playtest: Yay or Nay?

[Stormonu]

I gave up after the second packet; I didn't have a group willing to playtest, and from what I have heard secondhand of the the 3rd and now 4th packet, it sounds like it's moving away from what I want.

I'll just have to wait for the final ruleset, I guess.

 

[pauljathome]

Why not just be honest here? It's not that WotC doesn't know what they want... it's just that you don't like what they are currently doing. Stop treating WotC like they're idiots who can't design games and just admit that truth be told, you just want to see completely finished product and don't really like to see the process of how games get made.

In a thread asking about whether people are happy or unhappy with the playtesting progress it seems rather silly to insult people who have a different opinion of the process than you do.

I agree with the criticism that far too much is changing every iteration and that there is no obvious direction to what is happening. Changes seem all over the place. And some extremely important changes (eg, monster math) are NOT being made.

After a year in playtest I'd be expecting things to solidify a lot more and for them to be pretty much working on details at this point (with maybe one or two exceptions).

I'd expect the base game to be quite obvious. I'd expect the design goals to be obvious.

While I haven't done much playtesting for WOTC I HAVE been involved in playtesting RPG products for something like 2 decades now. I know that the very first drafts written by designers that have seen absolutely NO playtesting (not even with the designers own group) are generally reasonably close to the final product and almost always clearly exhibit the features that make that game special.

 

[B.T.]

After a year in playtest I'd be expecting things to solidify a lot more and for them to be pretty much working on details at this point (with maybe one or two exceptions).

This.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Why is it you seem to get more out of 5 levels in the previous packet then you do in 10 in this packet?

I think this kind of sums up one of my issues with the changes to spellcasters. In order to keep them from getting overcrowded at level 10 it looks like they made them anemic at level 1. There are clear ways around this and I'm surprised they didn't take them.

I voted negative on the poll, but I will say that a lot of the spells, maneuvers, and changes to the skill system are promising. The skill system seems to be yoyo-ing a bit; last time it had too few non-knowledge skills and now it has a ton of them (27!). I hope it'll be culled a bit again.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In a thread asking about whether people are happy or unhappy with the playtesting progress it seems rather silly to insult people who have a different opinion of the process than you do.

It also seems rather silly to insult a company for how they are doing their playtests when you have no practical knowledge of what exactly is going on.

I agree with the criticism that far too much is changing every iteration and that there is no obvious direction to what is happening. Changes seem all over the place. And some extremely important changes (eg, monster math) are NOT being made.

And why do YOU need to know any "obvious direction" to what is happening? Is that your job as a playtester? To be assured that everything is happening for a reason that you are fully aware of? Changes seem all over the place to you? Well... there's probably a reason for that which you aren't privy to. And to believe you should be privy to it is rather naive in my opinion.

And as far as "extremely important changes" that have not been made yet... why are they important? Do you have some inside knowledge of WotC to know what it is they're really concerned about testing right now?

Or is the truth more that you're more concerned with playing a "fun game" with your friends right now, than you are actually testing the rules as they stand?

After a year in playtest I'd be expecting things to solidify a lot more and for them to be pretty much working on details at this point (with maybe one or two exceptions).

I'd expect the base game to be quite obvious. I'd expect the design goals to be obvious.

If you don't know what WotC's design goals are by this point... you obviously haven't been paying much attention. Because Mearls and company have been extremely forthright during this entire process of what their goals are for the game. The only thing they haven't been as forthright on is why certain changes in certain packets are made or not made. You know why? Because it doesn't matter why they are changed! That's not our job! Our job is to test the rules they have given us and tell them why it works or doesn't work... NOT to "understand where they're coming from" with every single nitpicky little change that has occured.

While I haven't done much playtesting for WOTC I HAVE been involved in playtesting RPG products for something like 2 decades now. I know that the very first drafts written by designers that have seen absolutely NO playtesting (not even with the designers own group) are generally reasonably close to the final product and almost always clearly exhibit the features that make that game special.

And every game is exactly the same I suppose? Just like working QA for Blizzard is the exact same process as working QA for an indy publisher. Cause goodness knows that if you playtest Fruit Ninja OF COURSE those same principals will be found when you playtest World of Warcraft.

Look... if you don't like how the D&DN playtest is progressing... you have every right to criticize the items and rules you are asked to playtest. But that doesn't mean you also can insinuate the company who asked you to do this are morons.

Because doesn't that say something about you as well? Who's the bigger moron? The company that supposedly doesn't have a clue and can't seem to produce something worthwhile... or the person who volunteers to work for them for free?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

And as far as "extremely important changes" that have not been made yet... why are they important? Do you have some inside knowledge of WotC to know what it is they're really concerned about testing right now?

Or is the truth more that you're more concerned with playing a "fun game" with your friends right now, than you are actually testing the rules as they stand?

Um, he knows that monster math is an extremely important change both because it's obvious, and because Mearls has said so about a dozen times.

The reason it's so important is that if the monsters are pushovers and/or one-shotting the PCs, it's hard to effectively playtest combat. How can I test whether Parry is overpowered when monsters never hit me to begin with? How should I evaluate the power of Mage Armor when it seems fairly likely that all the monsters are going to need a decent boost in their attack bonus in the near future?

Here's another example: I want more specialties. Not JUST because I'm greedy (although I am), but because it's hard to evaluate the balance and effectiveness of the rogue and fighter maneuvers when there's not a single specialty relevant to martial offense. I'm GUESSING that a duelist fighter with a suitable specialty would be fun to play, but I apparently won't know for sure for a few more months.

I'm not as concerned about the direction of the playtest as others in this thread (even when I'm not a huge fan of specific changes), but I also don't believe WOTC has a secret master plan and therefore we can't criticize what they choose to have us test.

 

[mlund]

The changes to the cleric and wizard are aweful, after first level you basically get next to nothing more from your class then an extra slot.

Yeah, it isn't like the Wizard adds spells known to his spell book, or the Cleric has access to every Divine magic spells in that level to shove into that slot day-to-day or anything ...

Seriously, spell slots are the single most powerful and flexible commodities in Dungeons and Dragons over the last three decades.

At level 2 you get 1 spell slot and that's it. Level three an extra spell slot. Level 4 1 extra spell slot. Ect... All the way to level 10. Boring.

Yeah, I mean all those non-caster players killed themselves decades ago out of boredom.

The Wizard gets new options every level, and more slots to fill. The Rogue and the Fighter get a new "spell" every 3 levels.

Do you realize what you get by level 10 in pathfinder or even 4e?

In the former, you get a broken Quadratic Caster who makes non-casters his wand-caddies wondering if they haven't stumbled into a cleverly disguised game of Ars Magica.

In the latter you get three daily attacks, three encounter / daily utility spells, and 3 encounter spells - of which only maybe the last 2 dailies and 1 encounter do appreciable damage for your level.

- Marty Lund

 

[The Shadow]

I'm still digesting the packet, but my initial impression is one of dismay.

Backgrounds and skills are looking good. Maneuvers are getting into a good place. But a lot of other things have regressed in a way that my first impression is not to like, at all.

I think it's a profound mistake to remove Parry from the fighter. Before, even a 1st level fighter had three choices to make; now he has only two, and of the two, one is usually the obvious one to do. I think low-level fighters will suddenly be a lot less fun to play.

I could wish that rogue schemes mapped onto backgrounds again. And got interesting perks, not just skills and maneuvers. But I do have to say that the rogue maneuvers are looking better than I had feared - they need work, yes, but it's a very promising start.

I liked domains better than deities. However, I can fake it easily enough if necessary. (Just create a different 'deity' for each domain.) Turn Undead was MUCH better as a spell, I can't believe this step was demanded by so many. I have mixed feelings on the proficiencies. On the one hand, it made different clerics really different. On the other... They were getting different enough that one wondered if they were really the same class.

Taking away the at-wills... Oy. And the traditions just... don't wow me. Like someone said up-thread, they only have an effect at 1st level. (I do suspect that Shocking Grasp is a typo for the Illusionist, accidentally repeated from the battle mage. Surely they meant Disguise Self.)

Specialties are easily the biggest disappointment to me. Like, bigtime.

They are completely flavorless now. Flat, uninspiring. The most interesting ones from before have been nerfed to oblivion (Magic-User, Acolyte) or removed entirely (Necromancer).

The new Arcane Specialist has virtually no point to be taken by a character with no wizard levels. One 0-level spell once per day, yay? And the higher-level feats only have a use if you have wizard spells. But high elves still get an at-will, I don't get it.

And the names... don't get me started on the names. Mike said in his column that they sounded too much like titles in the world - I *liked* that! They hung together, they seemed like more than collections of feats. Now... they don't.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Overall improved this time, but the design took a step back in a few areas (rogue & wizard design).

 

[Treebore]

I don't give, or listen to, opinions on play test materials until the material has actually been play tested.

For anyone interested in doing some real play testing, on line, PM me about a group I am getting together on Roll 20. There are 4 of us so far. Day is not set, but it will be Wed, Thurs, or Friday. After 6 PM Eastern.