DDXP characters - unexpected tactics?

[cdrcjsn]

Going over the pregen sheets from DDXP, I noticed that the warlock had a class(?) ability that gave them a +1 to hit a target if they were the closest opponent to the target. Basically this means that they will probably need to stay fairly close to their opponents to make the best use of their abilities, while remaining far enough not to trigger Opportunity Attacks since all their powers are ranged. This is somewhat surprising if you consider the 3e warlock who mainly sniped and dropped invocations from a distance.

Did anyone else notice any similar tactics dictated by class abilities that might not be apparent at first (other than the cowardly paladin tactics that's been indicated is going to change)?

 

[Sadrik]

the cowardly paladin tactics that's been indicated is going to change

That is wacked. Paladin marks you and then runs away. For weeks the marked target is cursed with a penalty and radiant damage if s/he does anything offensive. Yay, playtesting... :\

 

[DeusExMachina]

Except that marks don't last beyond an encounter...

 

[JesterOC]

That is wacked. Paladin marks you and then runs away. For weeks the marked target is cursed with a penalty and radiant damage if s/he does anything offensive. Yay, playtesting... :\

They did playtest and they did find and fix it. I hear many people say this, as if they had been playing with this rule for 10 months and only found it now. More likely it was a change that was put in right before they made the character sheets, and before they found out it was too late.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

It's hard for me to believe that it took an external playtest to figure this one out.

Ken

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's hard for me to believe that it took an external playtest to figure this one out.

It didn't.

The character sheets for DDXP were in production. The internal testers found the issue, made a change, and it's apparently sorted. But the change was too late for the DDXP sheets... so the people at DDXP had the pre-change version.

What startled some of the designers, apparently, was how quickly the players found the loophole that had already been fixed in the rules they didn't have yet.

-Hyp.

 

[helium3]

It didn't.

The character sheets for DDXP were in production. The internal testers found the issue, made a change, and it's apparently sorted. But the change was too late for the DDXP sheets... so the people at DDXP had the pre-change version.

What startled some of the designers, apparently, was how quickly the players found the loophole that had already been fixed in the rules they didn't have yet.

-Hyp.

Wait. So even if this is true . . .

(1) The Paladin's marking ability was only recently added to the game? Seriously? That seems like a pretty major change to be making to a class only a few months from printing time. Or were the DDXP sheets printed several months ago?
(2) The designers have significantly underestimated your "average" player's ability to find loopholes (and presumably unexpected synergies as well) in the game system.

See, this just ties back into my worries from months ago that they were making unreasonable assumptions about the quality of their inhouse playtesting.

 

[Kordeth]

Wait. So even if this is true . . .

(1) The Paladin's marking ability was only recently added to the game? Seriously? That seems like a pretty major change to be making to a class only a few months from printing time. Or were the DDXP sheets printed several months ago?

Far more likely is that they tweaked how the paladin's mark worked and didn't immediately recognize that whatever the revised mechanics were allowed for abuse. And I would certainly imagine, given the sheer volume of stuff that needed to be printed, prepped, and made ready for the DDXP, that yes, the sheets probably were printed a month or so back. Indeed, the original dev post that concerned the exploit said it was found and fixed a month ago--so presumably the sheets were printed around then, if not before.

(2) The designers have significantly underestimated your "average" player's ability to find loopholes (and presumably unexpected synergies as well) in the game system.

Yeah, that was pretty naive.

See, this just ties back into my worries from months ago that they were making unreasonable assumptions about the quality of their inhouse playtesting.

So...the playtesting does its job--notices a bug, reports it, and gets it fixed--and you're worried about the playtesting not working? Umm....huh?

 

[tomBitonti]

Wait. So even if this is true . . .

(1) The Paladin's marking ability was only recently added to the game? Seriously? That seems like a pretty major change to be making to a class only a few months from printing time. Or were the DDXP sheets printed several months ago?
(2) The designers have significantly underestimated your "average" player's ability to find loopholes (and presumably unexpected synergies as well) in the game system.

See, this just ties back into my worries from months ago that they were making unreasonable assumptions about the quality of their inhouse playtesting.

Ya, I'm with helium3 on this one. (Thx helium3 and hypersmurph!)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Having done game design, I know how hard it can be to spot loopholes when you're too close to the source material.

That said, I hope they catch and fix as many as possible before the books get printed. Everyone knows there WILL be errata but let's all hope it's kept to a minimum.


Fitz