Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9625978" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, I don't expect perfection, and said as much: WotC simply didn't do enough playtesting to even identify things like &quot;Spells of 4th+ are stupidly OP&quot; or &quot;Monks look awesome on paper but actually suck a lot to play&quot;. Relatively minor issues, like in 4e where there was a Ranger power that, if you stacked enough crit-boosters, could become functionally infinite damage; that's a small thing that can be fixed in errata and most folks won't care that much.But the hatred of errata really did hobble WotC when it came to 5e. Remember when they were playtesting Storm Sorcerer stuff, and people (quite validly) complained that this would devalue the existing Sorcerer subclasses, because Storm was going to get bonus spells that (say) Dragon and Chaos didn't have? The obvious solution there was to errata past Sorcerers to match. It wouldn't be a huge change, something that could've been integrated into new printings of the PHB with relatively little fuss.What did WotC do instead? They basically straight-up said &quot;ah, we hear you loud and clear, we'll take those unfair bonus spells away from Storm and everything will be fine!!!&quot; The player hatred of errata prevented them from fixing issues with Sorcerer, Ranger, and others. That was one (of several) reasons why 5.5e had to happen; the 50th anniversary was simply a convenient time alignment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9625978, member: 6790260"] Well, I don't expect perfection, and said as much: WotC simply didn't do enough playtesting to even identify things like "Spells of 4th+ are stupidly OP" or "Monks look awesome on paper but actually suck a lot to play". Relatively minor issues, like in 4e where there was a Ranger power that, if you stacked enough crit-boosters, could become functionally infinite damage; that's a small thing that can be fixed in errata and most folks won't care that much. But the hatred of errata really did hobble WotC when it came to 5e. Remember when they were playtesting Storm Sorcerer stuff, and people (quite validly) complained that this would devalue the existing Sorcerer subclasses, because Storm was going to get bonus spells that (say) Dragon and Chaos didn't have? The obvious solution there was to errata past Sorcerers to match. It wouldn't be a huge change, something that could've been integrated into new printings of the PHB with relatively little fuss. What did WotC do instead? They basically straight-up said "ah, we hear you loud and clear, we'll take those unfair bonus spells away from Storm and everything will be fine!!!" The player hatred of errata prevented them from fixing issues with Sorcerer, Ranger, and others. That was one (of several) reasons why 5.5e had to happen; the 50th anniversary was simply a convenient time alignment. [/QUOTE]

Verification