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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7682590" data-attributes="member: 7006">My own personal guess is that it's the same thing as what they gave us during the playtest-- finding out how we "feel" about design ideas and their place within the D&D game.  Almost everything in the Open Playtest was asking us about feel, and they didn't care one lick about our opinions on the numbers, math, or balance.So for instance, they gave us a packet with alignment restrictions back on the paladin and monk so that we'd comment on how we felt about them.  Presumably based on our responses... they chose not to hardwire any alignment restrictions in the final game because enough people said the restrictions didn't feel right.Now in all these UA articles... they gave us an artificer that was a wizard sub-class to see how that felt to us.  It seems like most people here on the boards responded that it didn't feel right (and I presuppose the responses in the surveys also reflected that.)  As a result, I would expect that when an artificer finally gets released, it won't be a wizard sub-class.They gave us psionics rules with all the pseudo-scientific terminology stripped out it.  I would imagine specifically *because* it was a change from the standard way psionics had been presented recently, and they wanted to see how we felt about that change-- whether we thought it felt right for the game or not.  And I suspect most of our feelings on the matter will end up being reflected in the final presentation of the Mystic/Psion/Psionicist (or whatever they end up calling it based upon the responses they got.)And now... they are giving us the idea of the prestige class for 5E.  And I would suspect that what they're looking to find out is not whether specifically the "Rune Mage" should be a prestige class (or a feat, or a feat string, or a sub-class or whatever), but how we feel about the prestige class concept in of itself.  For fluff concepts that really don't fit within a particular class to be a sub-class, but also don't have the heft to be a full 20 level class... how do we feel about five levels you can multiclass into?  And I would suspect that our feelings on whether we do or do not like the concept of a 5 level "mini-class" will impact how things like the Rune Mage and the Artificer and the Warlord and the Shaman and the Rage Mage and the Defiler et. al. could all possibly be presented into the game eventually (if at all.)And I think this is why we haven't seen any real "updates" to these articles.  Because they don't need our opinions on the math or the fluff they've given us-- all that stuff will get honed in by their Alpha testers.  What we're doing is being the ones to help them find the direction they want to go first, and then they and their Alphas will test the actually nitty-gritty crunch.</blockquote>

Verification