Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6655295" data-attributes="member: 996">Promises, promises... The playtest surveys were not the greatest.  They were self-selecting, for instance.  Not just in only people interested enough to join the playtest, but also in losing people who were disappointed with the playtest as they dropped out. [sblock]This is juts an anecdote, so pay it no mind, but of the groups associated with the FLGS where I was running the playtest, something around 40 or 60 gamers, maybe more, maybe a dozen looked at the playtest and actually played it at least once, and only 3 (including myself, the DM) toughed it out through Murder in Balder's Gate.  That's pretty dismal.  When I went back and asked about it, the ones who had dropped out because they were disappointed with Next admitted to /never/ having filled out a survey.[/sblock] The playtest surveys also looked pretty slanted. For instance, questions were often asked in the form "Which of the following best represents the ____ as it appeared in the classic game."  Now, if you hated ______ in the classic game, and you're answering honestly, you're going to be voting for something you can't stand.  Like the WotC survey this month where psionics and warlords were conspicuously absent from a long list of "types of characters you'd like to see developed," the playtest surveys just left obvious stuff out.  Particularly stuff from 4e, but also things from 3.x, like PrCs.  So, yeah, not the most dependable data. Yep.  It blows away the idea of balancing-across-level.  5e adopting the 3e convention of all classes advancing on the same exp chart and being able to mix/match levels in multiple classes also makes it critically important that classes not only balance at any given level, but that level 1 of each class balance neatly with any other level of every other class (which is basically impossible, and the one major strike against 3e-style MCing).Of course, part of the issue is that most groups start at 1st, and many campaigns break up for a wide variety of reasons before they've run their course.  Yes, balance and playability issues almost certainly play a part in that, but so do lots of RL life concerns.  So does simple time.  If any edition worked well at higher levels, it was 4e, but it's run was so short, groups that didn't play intensively hadn't reached higher level by 2012.  I'm running a campaign that's currently 16th, at the time of the playtest survey, it was under 10th.  Currently, the 5e games being played in & around my FLGS are obviously pretty low level, while others that have be running since long before 5e released or paragon or epic, so, today, a survey of levels being played would look different.5e's 11+ levels don't fill me with confidence, either.  The 1 1 1 1's trailing off on slots, and the questionable capstone abilities makes me think it'll see a lot of 1-10 play, and probably the classic mid-level sweet spot.   Level 1 can suck pretty hard.</blockquote>

Verification