Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6170665" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I've been (and still am) extremely optimistic about the final 5e product, as long as the playtest continued in the manner it was. It meandered a lot, and each packet made significant changes. But if each packet can be considered a point on a scatter plot graph, I think it is heading in the right direction.However, I'm concerned about the early end of the playtest for a few reasons.1. It seems like they really need a chance to make adjustments to the Sept packet and see how we feel about them. It's a major update, and the history of the playtest has demonstrated that it takes a couple packets to get anything major &quot;right.&quot;2. I know I've brought up little details that I haven't seen anyone else talk about (I'm not arrogant enough to assume no one else brought them up in the survey--but they weren't a topic of any online discussions I saw), and they were easy fixes that were actually addressed in later packets. Without opportunity for such feedback, a lot of such thing might slide right under the radar.3. It &quot;feels&quot; a little premature. As far as concepts, there are still some big things that haven't been addressed sufficiently. Monster design, magic items, healing modules (whatever happened to the scalable regeneration with a slow healing default that was mentioned on more than one occasion?) and the legacy system, for starters.Three more packets is probably about right. One seems to be really pushing it.Of course, I might be wrong, and they might show off their brilliance. I'm sure it will be a lot better than a lot of people think it will. If that's the case, I will be quite happy. Otherwise, I'm going to end up, yet again, with an edition of D&amp;D (like every other one) that has flaws requiring way more house-ruling that I care to do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6170665, member: 6677017"] I've been (and still am) extremely optimistic about the final 5e product, as long as the playtest continued in the manner it was. It meandered a lot, and each packet made significant changes. But if each packet can be considered a point on a scatter plot graph, I think it is heading in the right direction. However, I'm concerned about the early end of the playtest for a few reasons. 1. It seems like they really need a chance to make adjustments to the Sept packet and see how we feel about them. It's a major update, and the history of the playtest has demonstrated that it takes a couple packets to get anything major "right." 2. I know I've brought up little details that I haven't seen anyone else talk about (I'm not arrogant enough to assume no one else brought them up in the survey--but they weren't a topic of any online discussions I saw), and they were easy fixes that were actually addressed in later packets. Without opportunity for such feedback, a lot of such thing might slide right under the radar. 3. It "feels" a little premature. As far as concepts, there are still some big things that haven't been addressed sufficiently. Monster design, magic items, healing modules (whatever happened to the scalable regeneration with a slow healing default that was mentioned on more than one occasion?) and the legacy system, for starters. Three more packets is probably about right. One seems to be really pushing it. Of course, I might be wrong, and they might show off their brilliance. I'm sure it will be a lot better than a lot of people think it will. If that's the case, I will be quite happy. Otherwise, I'm going to end up, yet again, with an edition of D&D (like every other one) that has flaws requiring way more house-ruling that I care to do. [/QUOTE]

Verification