not at all, I said the threshold said there should be an iteration and instead they threw it out, which is exactly what happened. I have no idea what is misleading about that. All I see is you making unfounded excuses for a thoroughly broken playtest.
None of this follows from premise to conclusion. You ignored what their methodology actually is, chose to cling to a “not automatically thrown out” threshold as if it had ever been presented as a “this is automatically in” threshold, with a strong default toward compatibility when in doubt, and now you’re mad that stuff you liked didn’t make the cut.
I mean, I would be fine with that, but it would want it to coincide with an environment of less overall spells being cast or moved into non-combat situations. Spells already eat up enough cognitive load at the table without making them take even longer to adjudicate.
No, it was the threshold to iterate on it, they did not iterate on it and instead threw it out. There is nothing to argue about here, you are denying facts.
That is a direct falsehood. Multiple, actually. You said that they threw things out due to a vocal minority of “naysayers”, which there is no evidence of whatsoever, first of all.
Prove it. Provide direct evidence of them explicitly saying that they will always iterate on something that hits 70% even if it hits that threshold with no real enthusiasm, or what it potentially changes or replaces scored higher, etc.
The evidence is that it exceeded 70% and they threw it out despite this.
yes, because that is what iterating means. How can you get from 70% to 80% with iteration when you never show it in a playtest again?
When did I ever say the playtest process was good, healthy, or effective? I’ve been critical of their approach since D&D Next. I just accept that it’s not going to change.
Same. I think their overall approach is pretty terrible, but I'm not mad about it. I'm just not going to drop the money on the new books.
