David Noonan's historical perspective on 3.0 (Update: Part III posted)

[Celebrim]

"And they're a mistake. I'd contend that you put the world-story through bigger contortions explaining someone who multiclasses into barbarian than you do explaining a monk who multiclasses into something else, then takes more levels of monk."

This is an example of misidentifying the problem.

The paladin and monk multiclassing limitations are fine as optional rules (of course I tend to see all rules as optional). They are mistake only to the extent that the rules shouldn't tell you how to play. If you want to have paladin and monk multi-classing limits, then that has a lot of flavor. Nothing wrong with that. If you want open multi-classing, well, it's probably not going to be broken (although both classes were heavily front ended) and that's a valid flavor choice as well.

But the problem here is that monk, barbarian, and paladin all try to tell us too much about the class. Must you really be a primitive member of tribal warrior society to be a 'barbarian'? Is 'barbarian' really the best name for the concept here, or is the term just confusing the matter. Must you really be lawful good in order to be a divine champion? Do all skilled hunters eventually acquire divine magical abilities? Is a class loosely based on a Celtic animist priest really culturally appropriate for every setting?

Doesn't that tell you how to play in ways that are at least as restrictive as the paladin and monk multiclassing limitations?

 

[Jhaelen]

Your players are very different than mine. Mine immediately asked why that stupid rules was in there, and it was immediately the first house rule we implemented to get rid of it.

Everything that restricts willy-nilly multiclassing is a good thing, imho. So the rule definitely stayed in my game. Anyone who'd like to multiclass freely with monk or paladin is free to get one of the feats from ECS.

 

[Obergnom]

What really concerns me, after knowing all of that, they are still using pregenerated characters for the 4E playtest? Why? Having the playtesters make their own chars would be a saver way to find the unbalanced class options.

 

[Neil Bishop]

What really concerns me, after knowing all of that, they are still using pregenerated characters for the 4E playtest? Why? Having the playtesters make their own chars would be a saver way to find the unbalanced class options.

WotC needs to use the guys on their Character Optimisation boards to do the playtesting if they really want to find broken combinations. Those guys have a collective ability that I daresay is second-to-none.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What really concerns me, after knowing all of that, they are still using pregenerated characters for the 4E playtest? Why? Having the playtesters make their own chars would be a saver way to find the unbalanced class options.

Some of those pre-gen characters were really wimpy. You can find them in Enemies and Allies. The example Lidda didn't even take Weapon Finesse, despite being a halfling rogue! Instead, she tried to rely on Strength-boosting items.

 

[Glyfair]

What really concerns me, after knowing all of that, they are still using pregenerated characters for the 4E playtest? Why? Having the playtesters make their own chars would be a saver way to find the unbalanced class options.

It depends on what you want to test. If you want to test "everything" then you give the playtesters everything you have. However, if you want a focused playtest, you give the playtesters what you want them to test, then.

 

[Wormwood]

I think Vancian spellcrafting will be the cyclical initiative of 4th Edition.

I fear that Vancian spellcasting will me the monk multiclassing of 4e.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

It depends on what you want to test. If you want to test "everything" then you give the playtesters everything you have. However, if you want a focused playtest, you give the playtesters what you want them to test, then.

Why would you not want to test everything?
Epsecially with something as high-profile (and arguably controversial) as 4E?

Not to derail or devolve this into a 4E-bashing thread (since I'm still pretty neutral about whether my group is upgrading or not), but the playtesting situation (or lack thereof) has me somewhat worried.

Having the playtesters make their own chars would be a saver way to find the unbalanced class options.

I agree; each player of a group has their own "Favorite" aspects of D+D. I'm not a game-designer, but letting them make their own characters seems like a good way to test alot of rules that might normally slip through the cracks.

 

[Glyfair]

Why would you not want to test everything?

There are a few reasons. Primarily, something things are low on the playtesting priority scale. There is only so much playtesting you can do (regardless of your experience with playtesting times, there is never unlimited playtesting time).

Also, you really don't want to just give playtesters things and say "experiment" very often. They will try the popular areas, but the less popular areas don't get touched. In my experience, typical playtest report times are between once and twice a week. That's not really enough time to digest "everything" and test it all. It's better for the designers to focus on certain things that are likely to have issues.

For example, we know the PHB deadlines are approaching. Why have the players focus on the MM or DMG when that PHB needs to go out soon? On the other hand, why have them work on things that are "done" when the deadline is approaching and a few areas need to be run through their paces again?

 

[ShadowDenizen]

There are a few reasons. Primarily, something things are low on the playtesting priority scale. There is only so much playtesting you can do (regardless of your experience with playtesting times, there is never unlimited playtesting time).

I know we'll never have "unlimited" playtest time, and stuff WILL slip through the cracks regardless of the exhaustiveness...

And I don't know what "average" playtesting times are, but it seems to me that this is a VERY short time-frame; playtesting packets are just going out now, and the book (PHB) is due out in less than a year, with "promo products" out considerably sooner that that.

Also, you really don't want to just give playtesters things and say "experiment" very often. They will try the popular areas, but the less popular areas don't get touched.

Really? You think?
I disagree; I tend to think you'd get MORE useful opinions than by telling the groups to "Test rules X, Y & Z." (I don't know how rperesentative of the D+D audience I am, but if I were playtesting, and given free rein, I would LOOK for things that could be broken, or "niche" things.)

For example, we know the PHB deadlines are approaching. Why have the players focus on the MM or DMG when that PHB needs to go out soon?

I agree with this, mostly; but the books are only coming out a month apart, so if they get useful info on Monsters, or broken magic items, I would hope that they take it into account.
(Everything DOES eventually tie together, after all.)