Levels of the playtest?

[Dausuul]

It did occur to me though that maybe the new system is so fundamentally scalable that if they get the balance right on one level they get it right at every level.

I think this is probably right as far as "the math" goes. Once they find the right balance of attack to defense values and damage to hit points, the nature of the d20 system is such that they merely have to maintain that balance across all levels and everything works out. If a 5th-level character typically has +10 to attack and a 5th-level monster typically has an AC of 18, then you can give a 25th-level character +30 to attack and a 25th-level monster an AC of 38 (or whatever).

However, the devil is, as ever, in the details. I'm almost positive that characters' special abilities will change from tier to tier, not just in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of style and effect. Playing a Heroic character should feel different from playing a Paragon, and both should feel different from playing an Epic character. That means they will need abilities that work in different ways, and those abilities will still have to be playtested.

Not that I'm overly concerned about this. One of the stated goals of 4E is to make the game fun across levels 1-30, rather than working only in the "sweet spot" of 4 to 14. They must know they can't achieve that without playtesting at all levels, and I'm sure such playtesting is taking place. (Although there's probably some extra emphasis on the Heroic tier, just because actual play usually takes place at the low levels and doesn't get into the high-end stuff.)

They've said they are? The dragon encounter the Jester mentions certainly is at least paragon? Containing information is not a marketing strategy but mainly a way to avoid disinformation. The pit fiend is just a monster and while you can certainly infer a lot it is hardly similar to hearing what a wizard can do at lvl 23 in a playtest report.

The dragon had 1,000 hit points. Compare that to the pit fiend, a 26th-level elite monster, at 350. Now, obviously dragons are solo monsters and thus tougher for their level, but still, it would be preposterous to suppose you'd be fighting critters with 1,000 hp at Heroic tier and fighting creatures with 350 at Epic.

The dragon was certainly Paragon, and I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't Epic. Even 3E doesn't have non-epic creatures with that many hit points. The tarrasque only has 858.

 

[xechnao]

They've said they are? The dragon encounter the Jester mentions certainly is at least paragon?

So what? They did not give an adventuring spotlight yet. They could have just pitted PCs against monsters in random and not so random combat "arenas" to test drive encounter balance.

a way to avoid disinformation...hearing what a wizard can do at lvl 23 in a playtest report.

I see no problem with that for Wotc at this point. They could never please everybody. Some people will be enthusiastic with it, some people will take a more pessimistic attitude as has always been the case -assuming they did not screw up things in a way to allienate everybody but I highly doupt they are even capable of such a botch.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Like what and for what reason? For tactical marketing use?
Besides as far as crunch goes they allready gave the pit fiend example. I am afraid that they have not any solid adventure paragon and epic appropriate -it is something more demanding and I think they could not bother to playtest appropriatly.

Perhaps because lower-level game play is fairly "generic" fantasy. Higher-level games are much more D&D-esque, hence revealing monsters in the MM (most higher level monsters are D&D's own creation - beholders, mind flayers, demons and so on), showing Paragon Paths (i.e. PrCs), which are only making sense with more information how they world.

Furthermore, the designers often produced higher-level material that was less good in the past. Perhaps the designers are focusing on the lower-level stuff, where they are more "experienced" and leave the epic complexities to the RPGA optimizers, as these guys always outwitted the R&D team - except for mearls, perhaps, as he's pretty much a gearhead as well.

Furthermore, the low level tier was traditionally the most played one - it's simply something that appeals the most to the user base, hence they write about it.

Cheers, LT.

 

[xechnao]

Higher-level games are much more D&D-esque, hence revealing monsters in the MM (most higher level monsters are D&D's own creation - beholders, mind flayers, demons and so on), showing Paragon Paths (i.e. PrCs), which are only making sense with more information how they world.

What you are saying means that they started playtesting after they worlded everything and after DMs grasped everything plus prepared everything. Because as I tried to point out proper adventuring preparation in paragon and epic needs a better grasp of the campaign situation. We are legendary heroes by now so why can't we recruit some town militia against this threat...?...and stuff like that need to be thought out. Definately more demanding than heroic PoL.

I simply think they could not bother with such a task.