Jennifer Clarke Wilkes on Paragon level Playtesting

[Ahglock]

First of all, you can't blame a play testing group for playing with the assumed roles. Second, if I don't misremember, isn't Jennifer Clarke Wilkes pretty new to the game? In that case she haven't had the time to become jaded by the traditional roles, instead thinking "Nice! A demon tainted infernal warlock, I want to play this!" I think that's the standard reaction of seeing that combo if you haven't played D&D for the last X years, really. Same with dwarven fighter; the first time you play a fantasy RPG, a dwarf will likely jump up to you say: "Play Gimli!" and you won't feel stereotypical for it.

I'm not blaming them for playing to type just like I wouldn't blame you for Lutfish .

I will blame the system though IF the penalties/benefits for playing against and to type are too large.

 

[Someone]

I'm not blaming them for playing to type just like I wouldn't blame you for Lutfish .

I will blame the system though IF the penalties/benefits for playing against and to type are too large.

They are playtesting. As far as I know, when playtesting you try to grab the system's arm and twist it until the game screams.

 

[Kintara]

Consider the list of characters. The Warlock is placed next to the Rogue. People like order. Class roles are a category, and an important component of a list of characters with just a race and class. There isn't any obvious order to the racial sequence, but it looks to me that there are two strikers in that party.

That might be flimsy, but it confirms my suspicion that the Warlock is a striker, not a controller. I wonder if they really are telling the truth about having only eight classes in the PHB. Not too long ago it was between eight and eleven (or something). I'm not saying I couldn't see three strikers in the PHB and one controller, but I guess we'll find out when the preview book comes out.

 

[med stud]

I'm not blaming them for playing to type just like I wouldn't blame you for Lutfish .

I will blame the system though IF the penalties/benefits for playing against and to type are too large.

Lutfish, while horrible, is nothing compared to surströmming ("sour herring"). That is abyssmal .

Well if the benefits are too large I agree with you. But in any game with statistically different races, some races are bound to be better for certain classes. IMO it doesn't matter as long as any race is flat out superior for a certain class.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

First of all, you can't blame a play testing group for playing with the assumed roles. Second, if I don't misremember, isn't Jennifer Clarke Wilkes pretty new to the game? In that case she haven't had the time to become jaded by the traditional roles, instead thinking "Nice! A demon tainted infernal warlock, I want to play this!"

Given that the WotC crew do read the messageboards from time to time, I can also imagine that her "infernal, naturally" comment was meant to poke fun at the "infernal warlocks will ruin D&D!!!" crowd.

 

[Stormtalon]

As long as it was a knock-down, drag-on fight which forced the PCs to scale to new heights of play just to be able to live to tell the tail....

(god, I'm bored....)

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

yay, dragons that last more than 4 rounds!

Just a couple of weeks ago, I pitted my friday-night party (4th level) against a CR-6 juvenile white dragon...

And they killed it in 4 rounds, without much trouble! I was flabbergasted!

In hindsight, there's a couple of things I could have done better (I made the dungeon roof 15 feet tall, out of concern for a TPK), but it was still a little bit anticlimatic.

So yes, new rules that make monsters more interesting and challenging, are welcome