Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6040616" data-attributes="member: 84383">So I myself am pretty disappointed about the new playtest packet. I have a theory on why we are seeing what we are though. 1) WOTC has talked repeatedly about paring things down to the minimum necessary to play what you want. Perhaps some of the removals and changes in this packet were an experiment to help further ascertain exactly where that line is. Especially in the case of things like adding manuevers to the rogue, they might have started bare bones and unpolished, rather than add on unneccesary whistles and strip them off later. 2) To keep their feet on the ground. When designing something (or coming up with any new ideas really) it is easy to get caught up in The Answer (TM) that you discovered. It is often very helpful to take a step back and go in a completely different direction, then compare the results. This can lead to improvements that would never have occurred to the designer(s) otherwise. 3) WOTC is constantly working ahead of what the public sees. That is an obvious must to get the job done right and on time. It is possible that much of what we are seeing is a half-finished idea (especially in the case of the wizard and cleric). When they decided to make some sweeping changes, like the swappable magic mechanics mentioned, they realized that much of their previous work would half to be redone. Since the new version isn't ready yet, we got this. A peak into the R&D process and a fulfilment of their promise for an October update. (This decision could have been reached in tandem with point 2). That one or more of these is at least partially true seems much more likely than that WOTC just has no eartly clue at all what they are doing even though they have more experience in the game design field than anyone on this forum. I'm not saying they are perfect or have a grand plan, just that they are not idiots. I'm sure many people will disagree, but food for thought.</blockquote>

Verification