Playtesting

[Dannyalcatraz]

Depending upon how much time you get, you should try to play your favorite PC archetype, but also something you don't usually play.

If the game won't let you play your faves, that may point out a weak spot in the system.

When you try to design what is, for you, an unfamiliar PC type, you're coming at the problem more like a noob, experiencing the confusion & information density of the unfamilar.

Starting at the extremes, without some experience in the sweet spot to see how things should work first, seems like it would not be as useful.

As I pointed out, ideally, you'd do that if you have other players in the group trying out the game's sweet spot. The sweet spot MUST be tested, since that is where 85%+ of the gamers lurk.

But remember, playtesting is a time-sensitive thing- if the fringes of the game don't get tested, you might find some real dragons lurking out there.

 

[Moggthegob]

theres qhere i worry, apparentally all 30 levels are a sweet spot which ill believe when i see

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The "sweet spot" to which I refer isn't in the mechanics of the level system, but in simulating character archetypes.

Any version of D&D should be able to support a human fighter or an elf wizard, etc. The fringe areas would be in oddball combos of race & class (halfling Barbarian, Half-Orc Sorcerer), unusual builds, different feat & spell choices, and so forth.

Of course, you won't know what those are until you get a good look at your PHB. A Half-Orc Sorcerer is headed towards the fringe because in 3.X, Half-Orcs have a Cha penalty, which is the casting stat for Sorcerers. Things might be very different mechanically in 4Ed, eliminating that "suboptimal" combo.

 

[Moggthegob]

See I dont know If I like that. I like that you could in fact be a lame duck adventurer. Not everyone is a great hero. Great heros need to make good decisions. One that make bad decisions should wind you weaker and cursed and such. That just the way it should be

I guess i just suspend my disbelief after most folks do.

 

[Fifth Element]

See I dont know If I like that. I like that you could in fact be a lame duck adventurer. Not everyone is a great hero. Great heros need to make good decisions. One that make bad decisions should wind you weaker and cursed and such. That just the way it should be.

You think that you should be able to be a lame duck adventurer. But would you want to play a lame duck adventurer?

 

[Moggthegob]

Honestly, I have played a few lame duck adventurers and one of them is still to this day my favorite character of all time. The type who knew he was in over his head. He was a blast to roleplay and as a result the DM took it easier becus it was clear I was having fun.
It didnt wind up mattering that my spells never worked unless they were buffs(which as a sorcerer with 13 CHA I had only one: fly)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

See I dont know If I like that. I like that you could in fact be a lame duck adventurer. Not everyone is a great hero.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to make such a PC- I'm saying that some games actually overpenalize you for trying to do that. The only way to find out if a game does that is through playtesting.

In addition, I'm also saying that there are combos of race/class/spell/feat, etc., that show up on the fringe that, because they get under-playtested, actually turn out to be more powerful than they should be.