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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9091971" data-attributes="member: 6807784">I think the worst thing about this playtest is that for some reason, it became common belief that something's first public draft or second public draft should be perfect.Anyone who has done any art, no matter what it is, can likely say that the first draft is often one of the worst drafts. The second cna get a lot better or worse, because it's just the second. You really need at least three public drafts to hone in on playtest feedback and create something polished. WotC has essentially scrapped everything after just one or two drafts. They did so for time, but in doing so, they really sacrificed, to me at least, the sancticty of the playtest. I don't mean this in some big dramatic way. It's just, if we were only going to get 1 or 2 drafts, this was never a real playtest from the jump. There was no real itteration that went on for most of the classes except those debuted in the beginning. Because of that, we didn't get a chance to really explore the experiments they started, and we were expected to confidently say if the experiments were a succes before they realistically could have been.This applies to things making it in the book too. There is no way that Flex is something that people would want added to the game. Maybe if it was a two die upgrade or maybe if it was a die upgrade and +1 damage etc, but ultimately, that's just one of many things that tested well but would still benefit from another draft. Weapon Mastery overall could use a little bit more added to it in terms of depth (for high level options). The fact that it has an 80% now doesn't mean its perfect, just that it's satisfactory. A third test on Weapon Mastery and a willingness to further explore the concept would be great for the system as a whole.So, even if the new Warlock scored 80% for example, it still wouldn't get another public draft to further fine-tune and enhance it. Viewed like this, it really doesn't matter what % something got, since it was never going to be highly polished regardless.Furthermore, the methodology of the playtest really sucks too. Many games do a single 100-page playtest that they update with feedback. This allows you to see the core of the game and to imagine how things play out. Instead, we were given things piecemeal and told to use them with existing 5E paradigms and then to judge them.Since it's been confirmed that other things, such as a Wilderness survival game, were scrapped due to being too complicated (and literally never saw the light of day), just shows that 1D&D's playtest period really was just a joke in the end. We're getting some nice additions (Weapon mastery, subclass upgrades) and a lot of errata. All this effort and discussion just to get almost no changes and an inherently flawed playtest procedure freaking sucks. Big L, WotC. I've been defending 1D&D for a long time, but now I've lost the glaze in my eye.</blockquote>

Verification