Any one feel there is simply not enough to go on?

[ren1999]

Any one feel there is simply not enough to go on as far as the mechanics and how they were derived. After looking over it, I can give feed back about some certain things (armor being one of them) however I have no way to utilize the character creation rules.

I agree. There is not enough information to go on play-testing.

Yes, knowing where an attack bonus comes from is an important part of giving feedback. Knowing a bit about leveling-up does matter when giving feedback.

If entire parties of play-testers die at the hands of the Orc, Kobold or Hobgoblin chief, there is a big problem with the play-test.

 

[Stalker0]

This is way more than we got when the first 4e pregens got released, and I still remember how people sucked the math out of those and had the whole core basically figured out.

I'm surprised with this much people have reverse engineered the whole system yet

 

[IronWolf]

Yes, knowing where an attack bonus comes from is an important part of giving feedback. Knowing a bit about leveling-up does matter when giving feedback.

If they want to know how encounters play out, how combat works, how spells and saves work and skill checks work you can do that with the pre-gens. Trying to dig into leveling up and where the bonuses come from detracts from what they want to know now - how did encounters and core mechanics work? Were you missing too often? Did you never fail a save? Was spell broken?

Get encounter resolution mechanics squared away and *then* work your way out to character generation, level-ups, etc when you have a better idea of the power scale.

If entire parties of play-testers die at the hands of the Orc, Kobold or Hobgoblin chief, there is a big problem with the play-test.

Why would the play test be broken? Sounds like a scenario that might identify an issue that needs someone to look at it closer. It certainly might indicate a rule that is broken, but then that is the point of the play test, to see how things play out - for better or worse.

 

[Mercutio01]

I'm surprised with this much people have reverse engineered the whole system yet

I'm fairly sure people could (and may have done so already), but the OPTA specifically prohibits the distribution of such, so it's not being trafficked the way the Pre-Release 4E rules was built up here in 07/08.

 

[Transformer]

I think Wizards actively wants us not to know exactly how the numbers are derived, and I think this thread is the perfect example why. Because most people who post on D&D forums are an opinionated bunch (I include myself in this), and if they knew exactly how a given number were derived, they'd make up their minds on whether it's a good mechanic or not on the spot, before ever running the module, and then they'd just look for conformation when they ran it.

Wizards doesn't want anyone's speculative theorycraft on whether a given system for calculating a stat or leveling up is good or not. They want organic emotional reactions to actually playing the game. They aren't interested in your theory of how fighter damage should be derived. They want to know how the fighter feels when you actually play it. They aren't interested in your speculation that dwarf immunity to poison is overpowered. They'd only be interested if you played a dwarf in the module and for you it felt like a cheap shot when you got poisoned. Yes, "If entire parties of play-testers die at the hands of the Orc, Kobold or Hobgoblin chief, there is a big problem with the play-test." But if after looking at the math and reverse-extrapolating it you think an entire party might die at the hands of the orc chief, that is not a problem, until you actually sit down and play.

Anyway, I freely admit I'm as guilty of this theorycrafting-without-actually-playing as anyone. But I wouldn't criticize Wizards for failing to go out of their way to accommodate my speculation.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I agree. There is not enough information to go on play-testing.

Yes, knowing where an attack bonus comes from is an important part of giving feedback. Knowing a bit about leveling-up does matter when giving feedback.

There will be other phases of playtesting. Player decisions at chargen is very interesting, but if it was ready to be playtested, it would mean most of the other mechanics have already been set in stone, with no possibility that our feedback will change things.

The fact this playtest is missing several parts is a good sign that this isn't a repeat of the illusory Pathfinder public playtest.

If entire parties of play-testers die at the hands of the Orc, Kobold or Hobgoblin chief, there is a big problem with the play-test.

Meh. I strongly disagree.

If this adventure wasn't life threatening, it wouldn't be worthy of being called the Caves of Chaos.