Wizards getting character choice feedback from CB

[Prestidigitalis]

I don't think we even could have more fighter articles. I mean, what's left?

You obviously haven't read any of the old April issues of Dragon. The good folks at WotC are endlessly inventive.

 

[Destil]

I think the smaller things will be where this can do good. The trap of seeing lots of wizards and few seekers, so let's make more wizard stuff should be pretty clear.

But things like power X or feat Y are really popular and have interesting mechanics. We can use something like that as a mechanical hook to build class Z.

Once house rules come up seeing the numbers on expertise and similar feat tax feats or seeing the disparity in AC on certain builds at high levels would be really good, too.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Alternatively, they could actually publish their findings and ask for comment, as in: (wording is obviously just handwaving)

Swarm Druids don't seem to be very popular. What should we do?

a. Stop publishing content for them
b. Publish more fluff / support for reflavoring
c. Improve the mechanics, e.g. better armor proficiencies, longer ranged attacks, higher damage attacks
d. Add more feats
e. Add more powers
f. Add more paragon paths

Yeah, that's good too. Isolated CB data are very hard to analyse correctly.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yeah, that's good too. Isolated CB data are very hard to analyse correctly.

Sadly, it's already been done on the CO forums. In fact, most of this stuff has already been solved. WotC just needs to read their own stuff.

 

[Phaezen]

Sadly, it's already been done on the CO forums. In fact, most of this stuff has already been solved. WotC just needs to read their own stuff.

I am fairly certain that CO is not the way most people play D&D. In any event being able to compare CO builds with popular CB builds will give WOTC a lot more information to work from.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I am fairly certain that CO is not the way most people play D&D. In any event being able to compare CO builds with popular CB builds will give WOTC a lot more information to work from.

Well, let me put it another way.

WotC looks at swarm druids and notes that nobody plays them. They ask "What can we do?"

CO already has the answer though.

WotC looks at Seekers and notes that nobody plays them. They ask "What can we do?"

Except this is stuff CO already knows and can, again, already answer.

 

[BASHMAN]

Another problem is "wow a lot of people are taking this feat/power/race/build over the others. We'd better nerf it." Personally I'd prefer if the reaction was "we'd better make the other options more useful so people won't feel that Feat/power/race/build X is a "non-choice".

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I am fairly certain that CO is not the way most people play D&D. In any event being able to compare CO builds with popular CB builds will give WOTC a lot more information to work from.

The CO guys have a much better grasp of the rules than the designers and developers employed by WotC. They live and breathe the mechanics in a way that not even the salaried designers and developers do. This was also the case (and in a more pronounced way) when 3.5E was the current ruleset.

WotC has always seemed to ignore this tremendous resource on their own boards. Think about all the broken rubbish published for 3.xE. So much of that would have been caught if WotC had asked certain key CO board members to sign NDAs and then pull it apart. It's the same now (although we don't see as much broken rubbish - the only broken rubbish from WotC is its suite of electronic tools [and content-free magazines]).

 

[Aegeri]

I am fairly certain that CO is not the way most people play D&D. In any event being able to compare CO builds with popular CB builds will give WOTC a lot more information to work from.

This is true, but you have to bear in mind that some of these issues are inherently obvious. Nobody is playing Swarm Druids because MM3+ monsters deal so much damage and the Swarm Druids AC is so terrible that any DR is worthless. Their primary feature, their DR and burst powers are huge liabilities.

Nobody is playing the seeker because it's desperate for support and is a bit broken (except for one specific build).

Nobody is playing the Runepriest because while it has a solid base, it doesn't have support.

In fact, I can tell you that I see in all my games classically: Fighters, Wizards, Clerics and Rogues. Because they have the best options and support by far. I very rarely see Runepriests (1, unfortunately he died ), Seekers (nobody seems to want to play one) and Ardents (too much like a Warlord I guess?).

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

WotC has always seemed to ignore this tremendous resource on their own boards. Think about all the broken rubbish published for 3.xE. So much of that would have been caught if WotC had asked certain key CO board members to sign NDAs and then pull it apart. It's the same now (although we don't see as much broken rubbish - the only broken rubbish from WotC is its suite of electronic tools [and content-free magazines]).

Well, they haven't ignored the CharOps boards for this edition; quite the opposite, in fact. They've looked at and specifically nerfed unbalanced CharOps combinations, although it has taken them some time.
E.g. Blood Mage forced movement damage, Orb Wizard stunlocks, Feychargers, infinite damage loops (Punisher of the Gods, IIRC), White Lotus Swordmage shenanigans, Sorcerer Daggermaster crit-fishers, Student of Caiphon radiant cheese, Windrise Ports multiclass abuse.

But they haven't nerfed infinite oregano yet.