I don't quite agree with you here. If you have changed the whole system around a maneouver, you can't just put it back and expect it to work well because it worked well in a previous (but basically a completely different) system.
D&D 5E October Playtest: Yay or Nay?
I don't quite agree with you here. If you have changed the whole system around a maneouver, you can't just put it back and expect it to work well because it worked well in a previous (but basically a completely different) system.
Depends entirely on what it is that you are fairly confident "works" and also depends on how many changes to "the whole system" we're actually talking about here.
For instance... WotC knows that Magic Missile works as a 1d4+1 per missile spell. We've seen it work that way for almost 40 years. So now... they can play around with it. Make it an at-will cantrip. Make each missile get added based on spell level. Or like in Essentials base it on a straight number of damage. The spell system is not going to change so dramatically that all of a sudden 1d4+1 per missile is going to break the entire system. Now yes, it might not end up being the best choice once things get finalized... but they always have that baseline to use and go back to if they ever need to "cleanse their palate" of a bunch of weird variations they've done over succeeding packets.
I suspect that where people are getting hung up on is the idea that once something is found to apparently work pretty well... that's where the testing ends. Which is by no means the case. Just because you have something that seems to work there might still very well be an idea out there that is even better. Especially when it ties itself in with all the other components of the system as they get finalized too.
You can't just stop innovating. Creating. Testing. It should NEVER stop until you've finalized the document. Because if you do, that's when you end up with a mediocre mess. And anyone who wants WotC to stop fiddling with any specific rule at this stage in the process because they think the rule as it stands is perfect (and if they do, it's because WotC "has no plan for what they're doing!")... is just asking for WotC to release a crap game.
I wasn't talking about it "breaking the system" when put back in, but that it wouldn't fit in after changing the rest of the system, being either to weak or to powerful or using a mechanic that doesn't fit in with the rest.
In other words, I don't think you can take something out of the testing early on because it works fine and put it back in at the end if you haven't found a better version of it and expect it to works as first tested.
In other words, I don't think you can take something out of the testing early on because it works fine and put it back in at the end if you haven't found a better version of it and expect it to works as first tested.
nightwalker450
First Post
I think the other part of note, is that things are taken out of the playtest in order to force us to playtest other things. Playing the exactly same character for the next year (because his testing is done) isn't helping them test anything else.
So if your usual class is turning you off right now, play something else. Then when its feedback time, put a side mention in that the wizard didn't have any appeal making you want to play it, so you only tested the fighter. Otherwise you play your usual class and give it an honest play, not just complain that it was changed.
Honest play is giving feedback based on how the current game played, not on how your previous games/editions played.
Or there's the other option stick with the packet that appealed to you the most, or patch it into your current edition and be done with playtesting. Houserule an idea of a game to hold you over until you're ready to see what the next edition will actually look like. Giving feedback of "How dare you test stuff" to a playtest isn't helping them, other than someone to laugh at over the water cooler.
So if your usual class is turning you off right now, play something else. Then when its feedback time, put a side mention in that the wizard didn't have any appeal making you want to play it, so you only tested the fighter. Otherwise you play your usual class and give it an honest play, not just complain that it was changed.
Honest play is giving feedback based on how the current game played, not on how your previous games/editions played.
Or there's the other option stick with the packet that appealed to you the most, or patch it into your current edition and be done with playtesting. Houserule an idea of a game to hold you over until you're ready to see what the next edition will actually look like. Giving feedback of "How dare you test stuff" to a playtest isn't helping them, other than someone to laugh at over the water cooler.
Nothing personal against youbut I take this post of you, in particular your first spontaneous rant against moving back to less-than-at-will cantrips, as a sign that we're all spoiled by editions power creep.
Before 3e there was no such thing as cantrips AFAIK. Some classes gave you ONE spell per day, still most D&D players thought that it was an amazing game. 3e gave us a bunch of cantrips because we complained that one spell per day was too little, we "needed" more. Now we saw a version of 5e that gave us unlimited cantrips, and anything less is "a waste of time"?
Notice that all the rest of your suggestions are about adding more and more to everybody. It's understandable, because we're all living in a world where they try to teach everybody that the more stuff you have on the plate, the happier you are, but let's keep in mind that in a level-based game what really matters is the relative power (aka "balance") between different player characters, and the balance between them and the challenges they're going to face.
Thus it might feel like the game is "better" if you throw more stuff at everyone, but truth is that it isn't, because you then have to balance that with increasing the challenges. It doesn't get better, it gets more complicated, which of course equals better to some players, but it WILL get more complicated anyway as level increases. No real "need" to inflate the starting point.
I'm not talking about inflating the starting take the cleric, I just want Orisons to be at will and as good as Wizard Cantrips or at least better then they are and for a return of Channel Divinity simular to as it was in the prevous two playtests. Right now Clerics are useless as anything, but healbots and not even that good at that with so few slots.
Iosue
Legend
I essentially agree with DEFCON 1. WotC has a plan, they have a direction, and they are making purposeful decisions in the playtest. If it looks messy, that's because the kind of playtest they are attempting is a messy business, and most companies of WotC's size don't open games of this kind of high-profile this early in the process.
Take for example, 4e, in this thread on RPG.net. They start in June 2005. Over the course of the next year, they tear everything down and rebuild it several times. This is the part of the process we are in. They have a direction, and they maintain it, but that still results in false-starts and dead-ends. It takes them two full years from the start of the process until they get to "Full-On Playtesting", with "all designers and developers and many other WotC employees [doing] nothing but playtest D&D 4E for three solid weeks," leading to "ongoing playtesting using in-house groups and the personal game groups of most of the R&D staff that continues to the end of the year." We're basically a little over a year from the start of design.
That said, I do think people are picking up on adjustments WotC has made as they've navigated through this unprecedented process. Mearls originally expressed plans to move very slowly and deliberately -- to first just test the core mechanics with pre-gens, starting with levels 1-3, then 1-5, and finally getting up to level 10 before introducing character creation rules and going through the whole process again. They've introduced chargen a lot earlier than planned. I also believe their original intention was to just let the core fighter be the Basic D&D fighter, and introduce new options for him when they introduced the tactical and narrative combat rules. Fan outcry led them to beefing up the core fighter before introducing the extra combat modules.
My speculation is that WotC expected to be able to have a more structured, deliberate pace, doing focused testing on new and/or different components with each iteration. But fans/playtesters haven't been on board with that. There's been a lot impatience, a lot of focus brought onto things WotC wasn't particularly interested in testing at the moment. So I think they've added a bit of a marketing/customer satisfaction aspect to the playtest. Partly as a way to maintain interest over the long haul, and partly because if you say, "Don't worry about class balance, or monster math right now, just tell us how these core resolution mechanics feel," and you get a craptonne of responses saying, "Fighters are boring and the monster math is off," then you might as well throw some design at those folks and see what comes of it, while still focusing on the things you want to focus on. That's very much what the Warlock/Sorcerer, Rogue expertise dice, and the monster adjustments feel like to me. I don't think at the moment they are especially concerned with the specifics of fighter maneuvers, damage vs healing, monsters to-hit, or truly introducing Warlocks and Sorcerers. They take and appreciate the feedback on those, but I think what they were looking at in the May playtest was how people liked the advantage mechanic, how they liked ability/skill rolls, how people enjoyed specialties and themes as a feat and skill delivery system. What they were looking at in the August playtest was if the chargen was appealing to those who want fast chargen as well as those who like customization. The October playtest is about magic items and getting a feel for level progression.
When Mearls says, "The core is set," he's not saying that the core game as it is now in the playtest (or in whatever iteration they are playing in-house) is the locked-down game. He's saying that they've got the broadstrokes of the core down pat. People like advantage. They like the modular chargen. Expertise dice and maneuvers provide a simple way to provide potential complexity in the core game for those who want it. Things like that. They'll continue to tweak and riff, and now they'll start throwing in more options and seeing how people respond to those.
Take for example, 4e, in this thread on RPG.net. They start in June 2005. Over the course of the next year, they tear everything down and rebuild it several times. This is the part of the process we are in. They have a direction, and they maintain it, but that still results in false-starts and dead-ends. It takes them two full years from the start of the process until they get to "Full-On Playtesting", with "all designers and developers and many other WotC employees [doing] nothing but playtest D&D 4E for three solid weeks," leading to "ongoing playtesting using in-house groups and the personal game groups of most of the R&D staff that continues to the end of the year." We're basically a little over a year from the start of design.
That said, I do think people are picking up on adjustments WotC has made as they've navigated through this unprecedented process. Mearls originally expressed plans to move very slowly and deliberately -- to first just test the core mechanics with pre-gens, starting with levels 1-3, then 1-5, and finally getting up to level 10 before introducing character creation rules and going through the whole process again. They've introduced chargen a lot earlier than planned. I also believe their original intention was to just let the core fighter be the Basic D&D fighter, and introduce new options for him when they introduced the tactical and narrative combat rules. Fan outcry led them to beefing up the core fighter before introducing the extra combat modules.
My speculation is that WotC expected to be able to have a more structured, deliberate pace, doing focused testing on new and/or different components with each iteration. But fans/playtesters haven't been on board with that. There's been a lot impatience, a lot of focus brought onto things WotC wasn't particularly interested in testing at the moment. So I think they've added a bit of a marketing/customer satisfaction aspect to the playtest. Partly as a way to maintain interest over the long haul, and partly because if you say, "Don't worry about class balance, or monster math right now, just tell us how these core resolution mechanics feel," and you get a craptonne of responses saying, "Fighters are boring and the monster math is off," then you might as well throw some design at those folks and see what comes of it, while still focusing on the things you want to focus on. That's very much what the Warlock/Sorcerer, Rogue expertise dice, and the monster adjustments feel like to me. I don't think at the moment they are especially concerned with the specifics of fighter maneuvers, damage vs healing, monsters to-hit, or truly introducing Warlocks and Sorcerers. They take and appreciate the feedback on those, but I think what they were looking at in the May playtest was how people liked the advantage mechanic, how they liked ability/skill rolls, how people enjoyed specialties and themes as a feat and skill delivery system. What they were looking at in the August playtest was if the chargen was appealing to those who want fast chargen as well as those who like customization. The October playtest is about magic items and getting a feel for level progression.
When Mearls says, "The core is set," he's not saying that the core game as it is now in the playtest (or in whatever iteration they are playing in-house) is the locked-down game. He's saying that they've got the broadstrokes of the core down pat. People like advantage. They like the modular chargen. Expertise dice and maneuvers provide a simple way to provide potential complexity in the core game for those who want it. Things like that. They'll continue to tweak and riff, and now they'll start throwing in more options and seeing how people respond to those.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
I will say that around the first playtest I had a lot more confidence that WOTC knew what they were doing with the playtests and feedback. But then I saw them making changes in response to feedback (like going back and forth on Turn Undead), with Mearls directly stating that they were making these changes in response to feedback, and that made me lose a bit of blind faith in their 11th-dimensional chess game.
I think they KNOW how to make an extremely polished, well-balanced, and tactically interesting game. It's called 4e. But they also know that in making that game they alienated a lot of people (including me, to some degree) and lost some of the ineffable "feel" of D&D. So now they're trying to find a sort of middle ground, a balanced but iconic game, and that means a decent amount of flailing about to see what's really "core" to the gameplay experience.
This is a really hard task. If you asked me, I'd say it's ludicrous to keep Turn Undead as a class feature. Why waste like 1/4 of the class description on an ability that will only get used in like 5% of encounters, when it works just fine as a spell? But apparently the ravening hordes demanded it or it's Just Not My D&D, so here it is again.
The upshot is that they're VERY RESPONSIVE to feedback. They'll abandon or repurpose great class designs and elegant gameplay mechanics if enough people say it doesn't feel right (adieu, draconic sorcerer...). They'll also dig in and create awesome new mechanics if the demand is high enough (hello, CS). So it really is up to us to be loud and vocal despite not knowing their top-secret plan.
This playtest is a focus group as much as it is anything. It's our job to give overall impressions and say what turns us on and off about the playtest.
Now, obviously DEFCON has a point that the playtest may be targeted in ways we can't be sure of. For example, they probably took out the cool knockback and trip maneuvers from fighters NOT because they're gone forever, but instead in order to encourage people to use the non-maneuver versions they've added to the core combat rules. And wizards and clerics probably start with one spell now NOT because they think everyone will love that, but in order to see at what level there's a "sweet spot" for daily spells. (If the feedback says everyone loves wizards at levels 6-8, I bet we'll see wizards hovering around 6-8 spells per day next time around.) But if I say I'm disappointed in this playtest because wizard traditions are boring compared to the draconic sorcerous origin and the warlock fey pact from the last playtest, that's probably valuable information.
I think they KNOW how to make an extremely polished, well-balanced, and tactically interesting game. It's called 4e. But they also know that in making that game they alienated a lot of people (including me, to some degree) and lost some of the ineffable "feel" of D&D. So now they're trying to find a sort of middle ground, a balanced but iconic game, and that means a decent amount of flailing about to see what's really "core" to the gameplay experience.
This is a really hard task. If you asked me, I'd say it's ludicrous to keep Turn Undead as a class feature. Why waste like 1/4 of the class description on an ability that will only get used in like 5% of encounters, when it works just fine as a spell? But apparently the ravening hordes demanded it or it's Just Not My D&D, so here it is again.
The upshot is that they're VERY RESPONSIVE to feedback. They'll abandon or repurpose great class designs and elegant gameplay mechanics if enough people say it doesn't feel right (adieu, draconic sorcerer...). They'll also dig in and create awesome new mechanics if the demand is high enough (hello, CS). So it really is up to us to be loud and vocal despite not knowing their top-secret plan.
This playtest is a focus group as much as it is anything. It's our job to give overall impressions and say what turns us on and off about the playtest.
Now, obviously DEFCON has a point that the playtest may be targeted in ways we can't be sure of. For example, they probably took out the cool knockback and trip maneuvers from fighters NOT because they're gone forever, but instead in order to encourage people to use the non-maneuver versions they've added to the core combat rules. And wizards and clerics probably start with one spell now NOT because they think everyone will love that, but in order to see at what level there's a "sweet spot" for daily spells. (If the feedback says everyone loves wizards at levels 6-8, I bet we'll see wizards hovering around 6-8 spells per day next time around.) But if I say I'm disappointed in this playtest because wizard traditions are boring compared to the draconic sorcerous origin and the warlock fey pact from the last playtest, that's probably valuable information.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
I agree overall. The caveat I'd add is that the "red meat" they're throwing us with maneuvers, etc., is probably necessary to get a real feel for the rest of it. For example, my feedback on specialties would be very different playing the first playtest fighter versus the second fighter, because without the added excitement of CS dice, the fighter would NEED feats to be much more complex and involved.
In the current playtest, I'm guessing you're right about wanting a feel for level progression. But they may have erred in starting the spellcasters with so little, because now some people will choose to try a fighter or rogue rather than sit through a bunch of encounters at first level where their cleric is a subpar fighter with one Cure Light Wounds in reserve.
nightwalker450
First Post
--Wow I got off on my topics and posted a TWF thing here for some reason...
Anyways on this I think if everyone is playing fighter/rogue instead that's feedback in itself.
Anyways on this I think if everyone is playing fighter/rogue instead that's feedback in itself.
Last edited:
pauljathome
First Post
Nothing personal against you
.
I don't think that "spoiled" is the right word.
I've played lots of different versions of D&D. Right now my favourite version is Pathfinder. One of the (many) things that I LIKE about Pathfinder is the fact that wizards get free use cantrips that are actually of minor use in combat.
At low levels it means that a wizard can still contribute when out of spells without having to use a crossbow. I like that.
Its not that I'm spoiled. Its that I find that it makes a superior game. Why should I go back to a style that I personally find inferior.
Note. I'm NOT saying that you're wrong if you prefer limited or non existant cantrips. I'm just stating what I prefer.
And therein lies WOTCs problem, of course. They're trying to please both of us
