Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[Mistwell]

I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence.

Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick. Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.

In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role. The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department. The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it. The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.

So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?

 

[Cybit]

Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick. Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.

In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role. The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department. The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it. The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.

So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?

Aye, the low AC is super brutal, and unlike other editions of D&D, there are few to any ways to bump their AC. When building characters, unless they're wearing heavy armor, I basically tell folks to make Dex their second highest attribute, otherwise they'll get killed AC wise.

Also, the HP really starts play a massive factor once you get to 6th level or so. Fireball and Lit Bolt (and other damage spells) don't autoscale with character level, which puts a giant dent in their damage as players get higher level.

 

[Prickly]

I also find that with the monsters low hit bonus, high AC character are very difficult to hurt

 

[pemerton]

FWIW, as someone who has access to more...recent documents, I would not worry about this. Assuming they keep down this route, they actually did solve some of the biggest discussions that these boards have had, including one that recently re-surfaced.

In your capacity as a wielder of more recent documents, I wonder if you've tested polymorph, dominate and/or stoneskin. I wouldn't expect you to tell the boards who those worked (NDAs and all that), but they look like fairly obvious stress points in the latest playtest. (Mage Armour also looks pretty good, but not quite as worrying as those others.)

 

[Lokiare]

Have you seen it in actual playtesting? In my playtesting experience, the wizard goes down quick. Their AC lags the rest of the party, their hit points lag the rest of the party, and if they're not extra careful and spend turns doing things like disengaging and moving instead of casting a spell, they get knocked out often.

In a game with bounded accuracy, we're finding AC plays a much more significant role. The wizard seems to consistently lag behind in this department. The rogue does a bit as well, but they have maneuverability and stealth features that make up for it. The wizard in theory can have those as well, but in practice they have to have those spells and know to cast it, and they usually don't, while the rogue is basically using those abilities at-will and without spending an action for them.

So bottom line, have you found in your playtests that this tends to be a real issue with the mage class, or are you making your assumptions purely on a theoretical basis from reading the text and not playing it out to see if there is something you're not accounting for when the text meets the field of play?

Mage Armor with a decent Dex (16) is AC 16 which is the equivalent of chain mail. It lasts 8 hours and doesn't require concentration. Its one of those non-choice spells that is so good you always have it prepared or on a scroll.

Since the open play test documents state that an average day is 4 equal level encounters, that means by level 5 the caster can pretty much cast 1-2 daily spells per encounter. With one of the 1st level ones being the no brainer Mage Armor. The other spell could easily be something like Blink which is better than plate armor, unless all the monsters ready an action to hit the Wizard when they return.

Something like Blur is also statistically better than plate armor (Plate armor is a 15% chance for a +0 attack, whereas Disadvantage against AC 16 is 6.25%) and being a level 2 spell can be cast multiple time at mid to high level.

Since Wizards can pick their spells on creation and level up, there is no reason they shouldn't have these common always useful in nearly every situation spells.

TL.DR Your Wizard was doing it wrong.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I've seen what they've presented so far and their articles on design and not once do they acknowledge the problem. It would be foolhardy to assume they will change something with no evidence

It'd be foolish to assume that just because they're not talking about it, they haven't seen it. It'd also be foolish to assume you can "run the numbers" on a playtest doc and get relevant results for the published game. The purpose of a playtest is to be usefully flawed. If you found a flaw, that's working as intended.

I wouldn't go that far, we draw conclusions from what rules packets we have seen.

Not set in granite perhaps, more like a little brick and mortar.

More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.

 

[Lokiare]

It'd be foolish to assume that just because they're not talking about it, they haven't seen it. It'd also be foolish to assume you can "run the numbers" on a playtest doc and get relevant results for the published game. The purpose of a playtest is to be usefully flawed. If you found a flaw, that's working as intended.



More like gravel and slushy jell-o. The purpose of a playtest isn't to be a sneak preview, it's to find flaws and errors. While it's not an entirely empty dataset, you'd have to have an agenda to assume that the published game is going to look pretty much like those docs between two shiny covers.

The problem is they've found other flaws and talked about fixing them. They haven't even acknowledged the problems I've posted about which indicates to me that its unlikely to be addressed. All they would have to do to appease me is put a single line in one of their articles or interviews:

"We are aware of <insert problem here> and we are looking at various ways of mitigating it."

They put out several articles per month and yet not a single sentence to hang my hope on...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is they've found other flaws and talked about fixing them. They haven't even acknowledged the problems I've posted about which indicates to me that its unlikely to be addressed. All they would have to do to appease me is put a single line in one of their articles or interviews:

"We are aware of <insert problem here> and we are looking at various ways of mitigating it."

They put out several articles per month and yet not a single sentence to hang my hope on...

Hey, I'd like them to comment on it to, if only to lay out their thinking on it, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and we don't have all the information quite yet.

 

[Lokiare]

Hey, I'd like them to comment on it to, if only to lay out their thinking on it, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and we don't have all the information quite yet.

Absence of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence of absence either...er... I mean the fact they haven't addressed it in articles and blogs doesn't mean its being changed or fixed either. Its more likely they haven't addressed it, because wouldn't they want to announce that they fixed another problem?

 

[Mistwell]

Mage Armor with a decent Dex (16) is AC 16 which is the equivalent of chain mail. It lasts 8 hours and doesn't require concentration. Its one of those non-choice spells that is so good you always have it prepared or on a scroll.

I asked if you found this true in play, and you responded with theory again - theory based on a specific ability score and spell choice despite the small number of choices early on, and the inability to know how long a day will be in a given scenario (it lasts 8 hours, but the day is 24 hours, and monsters don't just wait for you to cast it again). So I guess that answers the question - you have not, in fact, found it to be the case in actual play, and every conclusion you've drawn is based on faulty hypothesis and averages which don't account for anything varying from the center of that average.

Since the open play test documents state that an average day is 4 equal level encounters,

And that's more theory based on averages rather than what actually happens. I think I have my answer.

You should maybe try the game you're critiquing. I think you will find it plays different than you might think.

TL.DR Your Wizard was doing it wrong.

Complete with "badwrongfun" for a game you have not even played, in response to someone actually playing it?

Yeah, the only badwrongfun is not even playing. That, that's badwrongfun.

You now have multiple reports from people who have actually played it, and found their experiences differ from your hypothesis. Results trump hypothesis every time - that's how science work, and it's why you make the hypothesis to begin with, to test it in practice and see if it holds up. So far, it has not.

Four encounters is an average not a pre-programmed fixed sum in a zone. So half your days will have more than that (sometimes a lot more), and half less (sometimes a lot less). 8 hours is only 1/3 of the day, and things don't just conveniently wait for you in the chaos of the adventure. Spell slots are often used based on immediate survival needs and circumstances, not average utility. And in practice, the mage get fairly easily get trounced if he's not extra careful, sometimes losing entire turns just to maneuver away from foes rather than casting a spell.

The game is a heck of a lot less predictable and static than some other versions of D&D. It's not based on set piece encounters and combats that are exactly on par with average party level and evenly spaced encounters and convenient resting places to recover. It's a much more dynamic style of play encouraged by these rules than some other versions encouraged. You should try it, rather than speculating about it. I think you will find it does not play like you think it should.