NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6313387" data-attributes="member: 1465">None of these.IMHO it's not an intended result, but a by-product of the playtesting process. Probably they assumed that when the majority doesn't say "change it", then it means it doesn't need to be changed. But the majority doesn't notice a problem until later, unless the problem is glaring or involves emotions. And even if the majority really doesn't have a problem with it, this doesn't mean it's not worth improving it (anyway, most of those who don't have a problem with it, won't have a problem with an adjusted version either).This is why I used the not-so-nice expression "sloppy". It's the attitude of thinking your work is good enough when it's enough for the majority. And it's a trap, not for the company (they know they'll sell the product anyway) but for the customers, who get an iPhone full of bugs because the developers thought the customers didn't deserve more.It's a pity, because 5e as a whole looks amazing to me. It has great ideas and is built on a good vision with good values. Mearls even talked about "design finesse" in a few articles, but anyway it's not Mike who designed the functional details of 5e, so I am not blaming him. Considering that the PHB just went off to the printers (so the MM still have weeks and the DMG a few months), it means they had something like 3/4 of a year for fine-tuning the mechanics and relative numbers, but have they really done it? All I have heard is that they buffed all monsters' hit points, probably by the same proportional amount. edit: I'm looking at the bigger picture, the weapon list is really a minimal problem here; it's just that all the little irritating details don't seem to have been addressed at all since the last playtest packet (at least from what I've seen so far in the previews)Definitely. Not to mention that it's not really a good principle to keep problems in your design (instead of removing them) because anyway later there'll be something that will compensate... like in 3e where they used prestige classes to "fix" the problem with multiclass spellcasters <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /></blockquote>

Verification