D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[MerricB]

It would take a ton of work for a 4e DM to run this thing.

What you're basically saying is that in 4E it took a ton of work to homebrew an adventure. That you can't run a 4E encounter on the fly, because you need to do a ton of work to set up maps, terrain and miniatures.

 

[DMSamuel]

What you're basically saying is that in 4E it took a ton of work to homebrew an adventure. That you can't run a 4E encounter on the fly, because you need to do a ton of work to set up maps, terrain and miniatures.

That isn't my point. My point is about expectations. 4e players expect the game to run a certain way and will expect support for that. When I make a homebrew adventure I expect it to be a lot of work, and I would expect it to be work basically any edition, so that isn't really on point.

My complaint is about the marketing of the product. If you market something as usable with a specific edition then it should be easy to use with that edition. Now... I may find it relatively easy to use because I have been DMing for 25 years, but those that have only played 4e and have been running other encounters seasons will expect to have maps and tokens and encounters set up to run this product. For them, it will take a ton of work to get this thing to the table smoothly. Are you disagreeing with that?

 

[D'karr]

Are you disagreeing with that?

I do disagree with that. If your assertion was correct this adventure would be a ton of work to run in any edition, at this time. The adventure requires some work, not a ton - in any edition. This is work that most DMs are willing to do, and have been doing since D&D was merely a twinkle on Gygax's and Arneson's eyes.

 

[Obryn]

That isn't my point. My point is about expectations. 4e players expect the game to run a certain way and will expect support for that. When I make a homebrew adventure I expect it to be a lot of work, and I would expect it to be work basically any edition, so that isn't really on point.

My complaint is about the marketing of the product. If you market something as usable with a specific edition then it should be easy to use with that edition. Now... I may find it relatively easy to use because I have been DMing for 25 years, but those that have only played 4e and have been running other encounters seasons will expect to have maps and tokens and encounters set up to run this product. For them, it will take a ton of work to get this thing to the table smoothly. Are you disagreeing with that?

I dunno man, I've been converting 2e Dark Sun adventures to 4e for a few years now. It's not really that hard.

But yeah, it'll be different for Encounters DMs.

-O

 

[DMSamuel]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then. As I said, FOR ME it isn't a big deal as I have been running and converting adventures from one edition to the next for ages, but I am not so sure that 4e encounters DMs will feel that it is that easy. Just my first impressions is all.

In any case, it seems to be a damn fine 5e adventure, which is what this thread is really about, so I'll not say another word about 4e in this thread.

 

[gyor]

The thing that I find problematic is that we haven't yet gotten to playtest a bunch of stuff at all: no dragonborn or tiefling, no sorcerer, bard or warlock, no multiclassing- all important elements. I would expect that those things ought to receive at least a chance at revision through playtesting, and I'd think that a massive playtest of multiclasing would "stress test" a ton of combos and ferret out a lot of hidden problems. Here's hoping that there's still enough time for feedback on this stuff to matter.

Also, here's hoping for a fix to the human!

Bards and multiclassing will be in the next packet and I feel it will be likely to have the Tiefling and Dragonborn.

Also remember that after the last packet will be surveys and stuff on it and Mearls still will have the internal testers which will be fine for stuff like fixing the math, polishing, and adding more subclasses and the like. Its the general direction that is almost set, that's the public tests primary perpose while the the internal test is focused on polish and will continue.

I mean I feel like they really are close.

 

[Manbearcat]

But yeah, it'll be different for Encounters DMs.

-O

Hey Obryn. Can you explain what that usage is. Are Encounter DMs (i) amateur DMs that don't have enough seasoning to run a session off the cuff/on the fly, (ii) DMs that are expecting to have encounter-specific props/tokens/maps and blurbs of text to advance a session, (iii) both, (iv) something else? I really don't know. I've seen that used in multiple cases and I've got an extrapolated understanding of the Encounters Program but I'm not entirely sure what Encounters DMs is meant to entail and what it does not.

4e is such an easy system to run, with such clear/explicit math and combat encounter advice that its hard for me to imagine not being able to create engaging, diverse, dynamic combat encounters off the cuff. Use large battlefield, mix in equal parts hazards, terrain powers, hindering, blocking, and difficult terrain...budget encounter...forced movement + mobility + p42 + monster math on a business card = win. Doing that off the cuff is dreadfully easy.

 

[the Jester]

Bards and multiclassing will be in the next packet and I feel it will be likely to have the Tiefling and Dragonborn.

Also remember that after the last packet will be surveys and stuff on it and Mearls still will have the internal testers which will be fine for stuff like fixing the math, polishing, and adding more subclasses and the like. Its the general direction that is almost set, that's the public tests primary perpose while the the internal test is focused on polish and will continue.

I mean I feel like they really are close.

So let's say, for the point of speculation, that the multiclassing system in the next packet proves substantially flawed, and feedback reveals that. Back to the drawing board!

But what about that system? I just feel like multiclassing is one of the biggest parts of the game that is easy to miss a lot of problems with during design, and that it, specifically, ought to have serious stress testing. While if the next packet's multiclassing system is good enough, one packet will be enough to thrash it out, if it's terrible, one packet may not be enough. And that means that there won't be enough stress testing to ensure that there aren't hidden flaws and major broken combos.

 

[Dannager]

Could you provide a link where they say this is a concept test?

Look, you don't know what this means. Or you're pretending not to. Either way, it's time to stop. WotC has been running a playtest. They are providing non-final rules materials to players with the expectation that they will play the game using those rules and provide feedback on what they liked and what they didn't like. That's a playtest. Yes, as part of that playtest, they are testing various concepts out. That doesn't mean that it isn't a playtest. That doesn't mean that playing is irrelevant. Why are you continuing to try and push this?

 

[Jester David]

Look, you don't know what this means. Or you're pretending not to. Either way, it's time to stop. WotC has been running a playtest. They are providing non-final rules materials to players with the expectation that they will play the game using those rules and provide feedback on what they liked and what they didn't like. That's a playtest. Yes, as part of that playtest, they are testing various concepts out. That doesn't mean that it isn't a playtest. That doesn't mean that playing is irrelevant. Why are you continuing to try and push this?

Concept testing is very different than playtesting.
Concept Testing versus playtesting.

By definition, playtesting involves finding bugs and improving mechanics, not revising and rebuilding the game. Problematic's haven't been resolved by fixing bugs but completely rebuilding the mechanic.

We're not participating in a playtest, we're market research. We're part of a mass focus group.