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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6171791" data-attributes="member: 95493">[sblock][/sblock]Mike could have saved some time. He could have gone back to the first two 5e L+L articles (early January of last year I believe) to garner these tidbits of "insight" into the playtest community. Personally, I'm seeing a lot of repeats with similar wording in this recent article compared to the earliest ones about 5e. Is that just me?(Bold emphasis is mine..)[sblock][/sblock][sblock][/sblock]I mean there are things that have fallen by the wayside. Apparently we didn't like the "ultra-customized character creation," (Jan 16, 2012 Article) as much as we liked "to jump into the game quickly" (Aug 19, 2013 article). Although I certainly do. The "You like that every class has the potential to contribute in  most  situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain   things if that fits the class's image." wasn't explicitly stated in the first two articles, but that has long been a goal and was in other articles so I'm counting it.All I'm saying is that Mike doesn't seem to be giving us anything NEW here. His revelations might be just that - to WotC - but they shouldn't be. They aren't to the rest of us. I'm just disappointed that this is how it ends.I'm more disappointed because, as of the latest packet, they haven't nailed down OR given real options for the most basic tweaks. The fighter is in constant flux, but I don't know that the "choice points" have been settled on. HP, rest, and recovery are all still a mess from where I'm sitting. All of this would be fine as long as WotC would be aware of these issues. But no, they've captured the "feeling of DnD" and now they just have to do the minor step of ironing out math. Because that is the easiest step really.[/sarcasm] If they want to go with a certain feeling or think they've found it that is fine, but I don't know that they have. I'm certainly not part of it, haven't been yet and I'm just getting shut out further with each successive packet.Beyond that, I agree with @Jester Canuck that "as many playtesters as 3e" isn't a good sign as 3.0 had holes large enough to drive a car through - necessitating 3.5's "fixes". 4e had terrible, nearly immediate and very necessary errata too. It seems like they should go back and talk to Jan 9, 2012's Mike Mearls as he seemed to think "There is a lot of  work to be done, and I’m hoping you have the time,  energy, and  inclination to pitch in. We sure hope you do, as we seek to  make gaming  history by shaping the future of D&D, together." I notice "together" was patched onto the end there. I guess what he really meant was "for a while, until we get the feel right" instead of "help us make an edition of the game." Worst still when you think that the public playtest is over because they don't want us to see what a more finished product might look like, 'cus money. I guess our work is over. I wonder if Mike and the rest really feel as though the tough stuff is done, as he correctly predicted "there is a lot of work to be done." and now they're saying goodbye to a group who can (with the right asking) find and eliminate big problems quickly and efficiently.But for now, I guess I'll just have to re-affirm that I'm done, at least until it gets decent or until they want my input. *Throws hands up in despair and apathy.*</blockquote>

Verification