Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Amrûnril" data-source="post: 9101130" data-attributes="member: 6841183">Zooming out to some of this thread's broader questions, I think that there's certainly room to argue about whether about whether the developers are making good decisions about the game, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that they're making good decisions about survey design and interpretation.The developers are collecting data in one form (a 5 point approval scale), treating it as if its a different form of data (a binary approval rating), and then applying arbitrary cutoffs to resolve a question survey participants were never asked: Should an unsatisfactory idea be revised or discarded? Would the majority of playtesters have liked to see a different version of template-based wildshapes? I have absolutely no idea, but I know it's not a question that can be answered with any confidence using the data the developers are citing.It's also worth noting that none of these questions of data interpretation are actually relevant to the issue of spell lists, since the surveys never actually asked about shared spell lists- the developers seem to have been responding to written feedback on less specific related questions. Personally, I'm thrilled with this news but perplexed by the focus on the Wizard- the one class that has essentially the same spell list under both systems. Shared spell lists were a mistake not because they somehow hurt the Wizard, but because they take away the possibility of distinctive spell lists for Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/arcane-divine-primal-spell-lists-are-the-benefits-real.692499/" target="_blank">while also failing to achieve any of their purported benefits</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Amrûnril, post: 9101130, member: 6841183"] Zooming out to some of this thread's broader questions, I think that there's certainly room to argue about whether about whether the developers are making good decisions about the game, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that they're making good decisions about survey design and interpretation. The developers are collecting data in one form (a 5 point approval scale), treating it as if its a different form of data (a binary approval rating), and then applying arbitrary cutoffs to resolve a question survey participants were never asked: Should an unsatisfactory idea be revised or discarded? Would the majority of playtesters have liked to see a different version of template-based wildshapes? I have absolutely no idea, but I know it's not a question that can be answered with any confidence using the data the developers are citing. It's also worth noting that none of these questions of data interpretation are actually relevant to the issue of spell lists, since the surveys never actually asked about shared spell lists- the developers seem to have been responding to written feedback on less specific related questions. Personally, I'm thrilled with this news but perplexed by the focus on the Wizard- the one class that has essentially the same spell list under both systems. Shared spell lists were a mistake not because they somehow hurt the Wizard, but because they take away the possibility of distinctive spell lists for Sorcerers, Bards and Warlocks, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/arcane-divine-primal-spell-lists-are-the-benefits-real.692499/']while also failing to achieve any of their purported benefits[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification