Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6067072" data-attributes="member: 95493">This is going to be long, I apologize in advance.Actually, if you are meant to live in the house - ie. Play the Playtest - then you need SOME furniture. It doesn't really matter what that furniture looks like but it should exist there in some form. That is how you can tell if the spacing in a room is good, or just so you can live and experience the house while building it. Also if there wasn't a minimum level of creation - no floor or roof - then you wouldn't have a house to put the furniture in to begin with.I think this is a more than valid problem. I happen to agree with it immensely. That is part of the problem I see with several mechanics which are in the current package. It doesn't follow from the rest of your argument, but I do agree this is a concern - that is all.I think the problem with this is it tries basically to tell WotC to give up making 5e because only small companies, the REAL guys can do it and they can't. I don't think that is valid. You probably need smart, and independently clever people to create something new - the next "monopoly" (meaning something new and very fun like it not the name itself) isn't going to be thought up by Hasbro. It will be bought by hasbro and sold by them but hasbro execs won't sit in a room somewhere making it up on the fly all by themselves. They will make the next monopoly (meaning the same game with a new format) will be thought up by hasbro execs in a room somewhere.That is why it is likely to say that hasbro can say "make 5e of DnD" but they can't say "make all fighters have the Sweeping Strike power"That second part has to come from smart and independent people. Luckily WotC hires smart and independent people. They have a tendency to hire, use them for a while, and fire, then repeat that process even. So those kinds of ideas WILL happen, but only if those creators are free (independent) to create and design new things.The only thing that worries me here is that the past couple packets seem to reuse any decent idea and turn them into mediocre ideas, so I'm not sure what happened but they started out fresh enough.I think part of the problem that ForeverSlayer is talking about is how WotC has committed to certain ideas like no concept of BAB, but expertise dice will be there. How they have locked in certain concepts already and are going forward without looking at other ideas, or without thoroughly testing those concepts to see if they work the best.Actually, Paizo did an alpha and a beta, then released the "final" product for pathfinder. So comparing an alpha to an alpha of a different type. I'll give you it is an unequal comparison, as they ARE working on very different things. But they ARE (or were) both doing Alpha Playtests as well.And again here I think ForeverSlayer is arguing that even if they are set they aren't done. They aren't where they should be before moving onto random powers for fighters, or new spells or more levels. I disagree with many things ForeverSlayer is saying, but I do agree partially with the "finish one thing" aspect he was trying to bring across.For shidaku: See.Now, I disagree with this specific comment, but that was more or less what I was saying.As far as this quote - how many people were urging for 1-20 (or more?) material right out of the gate? I think they probably should have gotten here more slowly or realized the kinds of changes people are expecting for that dramatic level increase but I don't think there is ANY problem with allowing people to playtest the same material at levels 1-20.Actually, for a BETA you might expect a more complete product to test. A BETA should normally have figures and concepts in place and they shouldn't really be altered so long as things work.An ALPHA on the other hand would play around with numbers, ideas and in some cases even try to figure out what they want to achieve and how easy or hard it is to get there. This packet is in TERRIBLE shape for a BETA test. It is a fairly decent (probably a bit above average) for an ALPHA test however. It just isn't finished enough to be a BETAGranted, all this is in my opinion.I do agree with the "absolutely right" comments you were making though.Again, I disagree with the use of BETA here, but as far as ALPHAs go I don't see any problem with devs being ahead of us. It helps reduce those simple bugs that plague game design. That is why many games have public (or private) playtests before releasing something a final product to everyone. It is a smart play. It bugs me that WotC seems to only give us material from older playtests though, instead of sprinkling in the new stuff they've been testing as well. If they know when releasing test 1 that they are test 5 and that certain pieces from 1 will no longer exist in 4 versions they should probably release things that will be (at least closer to) what they have in 5 or maybe 4. There is no reason to be THAT far or different when doing multiple tests.After doing a bunch of designing and testing myself. I know it doesn't usually work that way. It CAN if something is REALLY different but 9/10 changes you make at levels 1-5 wouldn't really change levels 15-20.Ex. If you gave the fighter an extra feat that gave them +2 at level 1, that is HUGE for a level 1. By 20 they have other things that will affect that total. It might still be important but it won't be as important at later levels.Obviously, with that said, if you changed Vancian for AEDU then it changes everything. But again that only something you can properly experience when you have levels 1-20 done. It is hard to see what impact something like that would have on the game if you only have 1-5 at the time. Similarly, if you are trying to scale spells down and reduce spell levels from 1-9 (by 20th) and instead have 1-7 then that changes a lot. How could you know what that would change or how it balances without having the full availability of levels?I think your "solid foundation" will emerge as they finally decide where they want certain concepts to land. I don't think they know where that is yet. I agree with earlier posters that monster math is on the back burner. That might have an impact on PCs but it isn't something that will really affect the average PC. It PCs are drawn from monsters then it will have a much larger impact but that is something they will have to address.However, I don't see how they would build PC math and monster math completely in tandem. One would overpower the other and you would have no baseline to compare when you release a new product. If a simple +2 to damage and attack solves the problem in the short term that is fine, do that. But if the monsters are completely different from one pack to another you would have no easy way of telling of a mechanic for the fighter/rogue/MUs got better or worse - or more situational.</blockquote>

Verification