# Playtest Update



## Wizards of the Coast (Sep 24, 2012)

Letâ??s check in with Mike to see where things are and where things are going with the playtest.

Read Playtest Update on D&D Insider here!


----------



## Magil (Sep 24, 2012)

When he says he wants to address healing, it worries me--it almost sounds like he says that players have too much healing, and that's making combat less dangerous. No, the reason combat isn't dangerous is simply because monsters cannot reliably hit a player. It _should_ take multiple hits to bring a player down, there aren't very many people who want to see their character hit the floor with a single die roll, I think. It's just monsters aren't very likely to get multiple hits because of low accuracy. More importantly, the tension I like to see in combat is often created by HP totals going up and down mid-fight, which is only possible if there is enough healing to go around. There's that tension in the moment where someone drops, but the cleric just barely manages to get them back on their feet before they die. I think both higher HP and higher monster damage/accuracy would help me regain this feel.



> There are still a lot of issues with the Hit Die mechanic, cleric  healing, and death and dying. I’d like to create a simple, easy,  scalable mechanic that tackles these issues.



Remember healing surges?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 24, 2012)

The only point I think I disagree on is the warlock and sorcerer under "what went wrong." These we're by far my favorite additions. I hope the "solution" here involves revealing more sorcerous origins and warlock attack powers so people feel that eldritch blasting isn't your only option as a warlock and gish isn't the only sorcerer build.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 24, 2012)

Looks like they are acknowledging their idea that the Wizard MUST be Vancian was a giant mistake. Perhaps through the Tradition system they can make an AEDU Wizard, a Spell Point Wizard, and a full Vancian Wizard.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 24, 2012)

Instead of giving the wizard extra hit points, which makes him feel "tough," maybe give him a free reaction 'shield' cantrip to block 2 points of damage (maybe scales by level), usable once per day. 

Maybe have a few options -- "force shield" for standard mages that can block spells and missiles, "burning barrier" for fire mages that burns the attacker if it blocked a melee attack, "wind barrier" the can redirect a ranged attack if the shield blocks all the damage, etc.

I really want to write up my rogue ideas. I wish I had the time.


----------



## Raith5 (Sep 24, 2012)

Magil said:


> When he says he wants to address healing, it worries me--it almost sounds like he says that players have too much healing, and that's making combat less dangerous. No, the reason combat isn't dangerous is simply because monsters cannot reliably hit a player. It _should_ take multiple hits to bring a player down, there aren't very many people who want to see their character hit the floor with a single die roll, I think. It's just monsters aren't very likely to get multiple hits because of low accuracy. More importantly, the tension I like to see in combat is often created by HP totals going up and down mid-fight, which is only possible if there is enough healing to go around. There's that tension in the moment where someone drops, but the cleric just barely manages to get them back on their feet before they die. I think both higher HP and higher monster damage/accuracy would help me regain this feel.
> 
> Remember healing surges?




Great points, Cant xp etc etc.

I agree that never getting hit or getting knocked down in one shot are not fun. Those hp are there to get used!

I also liked the way that healing surges made hp a strategic resource rather than just a number that went up and down in 4th; where second wind was a real strategic option (except for Dwarves!). But how can healing surges or some alternative be made more acceptable by the broader D&D players?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

Raith5 said:


> But how can healing surges or some alternative be made more acceptable by the broader D&D players?




I think it's relatively easy to accept healing surges as a strategic resource that represent how far you can push yourself without taking a long rest. Second wind was also a mechanic that fit with this theme. The problem I think for many old-school D&D players is that magical healing doesn't do anything special. Where it used to be truly miraculous, giving you vigour you didn't otherwise have, with healing surges it just makes you more tired. Yes, it prolongs your ability to stay in a fight, but it also pushes you closer to having to rest, and there's not very much magical about that.


----------



## tlantl (Sep 24, 2012)

I don't much care for surge mechanics. HD healing is as close as I want to get to it. Since Mearls didn't specify what the problem is I think we should wait and see what the real issue is. 

As far as I can see in my few sessions with the rules there isn't any problem with healing. Hit points are fine and if I had a couple of near deaths I could speak to the dying rules too, but alas my group is quite capable of avoiding death especially since the monsters can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Other than this I agree pretty much with the summary of the playtest so far. There's a problem when your players are yawning during a fight. Adjusting attack bonuses helped a lot. I went with adding one to the monsters and subtracting one point from the players. It helped, but if I could have gotten rid of the arbitrary +2 entirely I would have been much happier.

I'm also happy to hear that damage from attacks is getting the knife so to speak. I am also happy to learn that the sneak attack is being rethought as well as skill mastery.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

My overall reaction is *sigh*.

I honestly think that the designers need to spend periods of contemplation in which they don't read any feedback. So many of the comments aren't constructive, but rather 'change this to how it is in this edition, I like that more'. We'll never find any compromises, any novel solutions, if we just flip back and forth between 3E and 4E.

On Wizard hitpoints he suggests they might get some more, when the real problem is the balance of HP/damage across the whole system right now. So many people don't want strict daily spellcasting, so they're throwing out the tradition to encompass every possible casting method into one class - what a mess that is going to be. On the flip side, there's the blind acceptance of expertise dice as *the* solution for the Fighter - no sign of a unified mechanic for physical combat, no caution that maybe people would have been excited by *any* system that wasn't just hit and repeat.

And that last section? Good god that's terrible analysis. Is there a correlation between those that think there are too few HP and those who think monsters are too weak? They seem like consistent desires to me, getting hit a bit more often but not going down in one hit. That sort of tension sucks. Losing half your HP in one hit, that seems about right to me.

I'd love to have the survey numbers to play with. WotC have shown consistently poor mathematical ability, and they should really be accounting for the types of players answering the surveys. For instance, if 90% of respondents prefer 4E over any other edition, and 60% of respondents want healing surges, you've got to be wary of bias - that is, if you truly want to recapture some of the old player base.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> My overall reaction is *sigh*.
> 
> I honestly think that the designers need to spend periods of contemplation in which they don't read any feedback. So many of the comments aren't constructive, but rather 'change this to how it is in this edition, I like that more'. We'll never find any compromises, any novel solutions, if we just flip back and forth between 3E and 4E.
> 
> ...



Hmm, I don´t know, if your analysis is any better.

Where I agree is, that they should do their thing... but all in all, they are doing it. The flipping between 3e and 4e and 2e or whatever seems to be more or less intentional to see, where the preferences lie. 

For me, the current hp system is not so bad. I however agree, that damage is generally a bit to high. Mostly, because everyone has a high static modifier to damage, because of the way to-hit and damage are linked (finesse weapons do a lot of damage if they are wielded by tiny dextrous but weak creatures)

So, whatever they do with healing and hp. Neither 3e nor 4e system, nor the current 5e system is perfect, but all of them work more or less for me. I however felt the hp in the first playtest not threatening enough for a first level experience.

But IF we get the first level divided into sublevels for multiclass, I could accept a higher starting hp for those "1st" level characters, as there would be an option to start lower, if you really want...


----------



## gweinel (Sep 24, 2012)

I am a bit underwhelmed from the article. I will present some thoughts about the issues that Mike writes about.  

Great part of my concerns has to do with the arcane casters. Sorcerer (as the Warlock) was a big hit imho. Actually was the best part of the new playtest. Seeing him more detached from the flavor that the designers gave him would be a disappointment. 

Wizard traditions is s subject that was overanalyzed in previous threads and really concerns me. Although i don't have any objections to see at-will, or encounter spells, it is important to see how this rule is going to be implemented. I would prefer to see a distinct, "clear" vancian wizard and any module with the alternatives magic systems. However i am wondering how practical will be to see scalable or augmented spells... 
Also it would be a mistake to see the traditions only as a way to implement the new magic system. What will happen to the old school feeling enchanters, necromancers, etc. Should they evoke the desired feeling to the people who love 1-3rd editions?

If they want a simple core (4 simple classes) the wizard with the two or three different magic systems won't help. As a matter of fact neither the fighter (as it is now) and the rogue as they want to make him. I don't have any problem with the number of choices but i think this was an aim they had back in spring. 

The rogue.







> "A smooth-talking con artist might distract enemies, evade danger, and confuse foes rather than stab them to death from behind."



 I support the rogue to have more options than sneak attack, however i am very sceptical about having the social (role playing - like smooth talking) skills to implemented in combat in a _believable_ way.

Healing. I agree there is a problem here. The mechanism of healing has to do with the rhythm in the game. As a DM and as a player the thing that i want is to have the ability to play the game in my own pace. I want not only to set the pace of my games but i also demand my gaming style to be fully supported. For example if i like the dirty gritty kind of play, i want to have the rules to play such game and i want the future products to support it. Otherwise why should i change edition if my style is not supported?  

In a general sense the article left me more sceptical than before.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 24, 2012)

Magil said:


> When he says he wants to address healing, it worries me--it almost sounds like he says that players have too much healing, and that's making combat less dangerous. No, the reason combat isn't dangerous is simply because monsters cannot reliably hit a player. It _should_ take multiple hits to bring a player down, there aren't very many people who want to see their character hit the floor with a single die roll, I think. It's just monsters aren't very likely to get multiple hits because of low accuracy. More importantly, the tension I like to see in combat is often created by HP totals going up and down mid-fight, which is only possible if there is enough healing to go around. There's that tension in the moment where someone drops, but the cleric just barely manages to get them back on their feet before they die. I think both higher HP and higher monster damage/accuracy would help me regain this feel.
> 
> Remember healing surges?




I think those two things were separate.  The healing focus relates to hit points- but monster attacks were also mentioned as being too low.


----------



## Leatherhead (Sep 24, 2012)

I still think they should shove healing out of combat and ritualize it.

Healing surges never really did what they they supposed to do well (pace out the day). Mostly because the rate at which they were expended was so wildly variable: Some roles used more by their very nature, some classes used more by virtue of being in the fray, some forms of healing were far more efficient than others, then some powers and items used them for non-healing purposes, and to top it off there are monsters who just ate them directly.  Surge value did all the uniform scaling so that a cure was a cure, but that was just a percentage of your HP to begin with, so you could easily transfer just that kind of mechanic over without the rest of the surge.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

Healing surges did one thing that made sense on paper: no matter how many maximum hitpoints you had, spending a surge made you feel 25% better. Sadly though, damage wasn't evenly distributed across the party, so some classes burned through far more than others (they didn't quite get the healing surges per class quite right). Healing that doesn't rely on spending a surge would be spent on the classes that took all the damage. Before healing surges, that's exactly what happened, all the healing would go to the party Fighter, unless everyone got fireballed or something.

To get the correct pacing, the amount of healing available should be proportional to the amount of damage taken across the entire party. I think the hybrid system of self-healing that costs hit dice and magical healing that doesn't cost hit dice will do best at achieving this. If possible, make magical healing more like old-fashioned _lay on hands_ - there is a certain amount available every day, use as much or as little as you like per shot.


----------



## Blackwarder (Sep 24, 2012)

Before this thread takes healing surges further I think it must be said:

Healing Surges Must Die!!!!!1!!1!!

Warder


----------



## Raith5 (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Healing that doesn't rely on spending a surge would be spent on the classes that took all the damage. Before healing surges, that's exactly what happened, all the healing would go to the party Fighter, unless everyone got fireballed or something.




There are two issues to address this - 1) a game system bias that gives certain classes like the fighter more surges and 2) sensible PC tactics that rotates PCs through the frontline. I wonder if other options are possible?

I quite like the idea the healing magic should not use the target creatures surges. It is magic after all - except for cases like lay on hands where surges are transferred.

I quite like the idea of PCs having reserves (or healing surges as the case may be) but there are questions about how these reserves are narrated and mechanically used.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I'd love to have the survey numbers to play with. WotC have shown consistently poor mathematical ability, and they should really be accounting for the types of players answering the surveys. For instance, if 90% of respondents prefer 4E over any other edition, and 60% of respondents want healing surges, you've got to be wary of bias - that is, if you truly want to recapture some of the old player base.



 So, if the majority of respondents prefer 4E, it must be bias, and there is this phantom fanbase that is apparently too good to participate in the playtest and tell WotC their opinion, but should be pursued ahead of the 4E crowd?  They can only cater to the people that tell them what they want.  Everyone else either doesn't understand the purpose of a playtest, or doesn't care enough to participate in it.

If they just give the finger to 90% of otheir respondents in hopes of capturing this phantom fanbase that may or may not be accessible, they would be making one hell of a gamble. If it pays off, good for them, but if it doesn't, they probably should freshen up their resumes.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 24, 2012)

I'll just say, if the game looks too much like 1e, 2e, 3.*e, or 4e, I will likely not be buying it.  Because I have those games, I have played those games, and I don't need to buy them again.

The feedback... eh.  My enthusiasm for the playtest has been dwindling.  I am still hoping it turns out awesome for me, but mostly right now I'm hoping it's good enough to be awesome for a bunch of other people.

-O


----------



## keterys (Sep 24, 2012)

Other than the Healer theme being too good, especially at 3+, I'm not sure I saw any real problems with healing in our playtests.

Then again, I also thought that hit points were too high for survivors and anyone over about 3rd level. Maybe what they actually mean is that PCs didn't need to rest often, or needed to rest too often, because of healing available? Or the cleric was too required, or not required enough? Unclear.

My last test at 4th level included a medusa, 8 hobgoblins, and a troll, and I'm pretty sure the PCs didn't need to heal during the combat. I'm not sure I consider that a bad thing, though. I did an earlier test (2nd or 3rd) in which they fought a wight, 2 zombies, 2 skeletons, 2 orogs, and a drow and that one ended with 1 PC up getting the final blow after the drow beat a strategic retreat when the combat turned (matching her tactics, but could have stayed for a TPK turns out). Ie, PCs are pretty buff.


----------



## am181d (Sep 24, 2012)

Obryn said:


> I'll just say, if the game looks too much like 1e, 2e, 3.*e, or 4e, I will likely not be buying it.  Because I have those games, I have played those games, and I don't need to buy them again.




This sort of calls into question why you bought 2e, since it wasn't that different than 1e. 

That said, I don't see any evidence that 5e will be a clone of any previous edition. 

I will say I agreed with almost everything in the latest update, particularly the need to make monsters more accurate and then general fail of the Sorcerer and the Warlock in their first outing.


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 24, 2012)

am181d said:


> This sort of calls into question why you bought 2e, since it wasn't that different than 1e.




This sort of calls into question why you bother to post, as this comment, other then being obnoxious, is totally irrelevant to the thread.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 24, 2012)

am181d said:


> This sort of calls into question why you bought 2e, since it wasn't that different than 1e.





...because I was 15 years old and that's what you did?

This may be shocking, so I invite you to sit down, brace yourself, and take a deep breath before reading this.  But now in my late 30's as a professional, a husband, and a father with over 20 more years' experience gaming, I think somewhat differently about the world and RPGs than I did as a teenager. 

-O


----------



## Scribble (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes robot Obryn! Why have you gone off programming?!?! 

Explain immediately or risk deactivation!


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> So, if the majority of respondents prefer 4E, it must be bias, and there is this phantom fanbase that is apparently too good to participate in the playtest and tell WotC their opinion, but should be pursued ahead of the 4E crowd?  They can only cater to the people that tell them what they want.  Everyone else either doesn't understand the purpose of a playtest, or doesn't care enough to participate in it.
> 
> If they just give the finger to 90% of otheir respondents in hopes of capturing this phantom fanbase that may or may not be accessible, they would be making one hell of a gamble. If it pays off, good for them, but if it doesn't, they probably should freshen up their resumes.




Yes, there would be a bias. The phantom fanbase is, in fact, potentially larger than the 4E crowd, and plays Pathfinder. They want to attract those people. The open playtest has been widely marketed and I hope many of them are taking part, but if the numbers don't reflect the distribution of the potential market, you'll only be catering to your existing market. They shouldn't give the finger to the 90%, but they should consider their views at 50% strength, if they genuinely want to attract the other crowd.

I don't know what the numbers are on the feedback on overnight healing, for instance, bu consider: if all the people who loved 1-2E wanted almost none, all those who loved 3E wanted some and all those who loved 4E wanted everything, with the respondents who loved each of those editions in the proportions 1%, 9%, 90% respectively, you could give the 90% of respondents what they want, or decide that it's an even split based on what you think the *actual* market distribution looks like, and offer all three.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 24, 2012)

From the sounds of things... right now WotC's running into an issue with regards to the naming conventions and story aspects of the wizard / sorcerer / warlock.

Traditionally, the wizard was Vancian and a studious sort that researched magic from old tomes and such.  In 3E the sorcerer was created NOT to change the wizard's story... but to change the wizard's Vancian mechanics.  Which annoyed some people in the 3# era... as there wasn't enough differentiation between the wizard and sorcerer OTHER than the casting mechanics.  The story of the two classes were pretty much the same, as were the spell lists.  It was fine for some folks... but unwelcomed for others.

So in 4E... they introduced a stronger story for the sorcerer, separating it out from the wizard.  And they carried that story change into D&DN... taking it even FURTHER apart by taking the 4E Dragon Sorcerer build and turning it into almost a shifter-esque class.

The problem that has created though is two-fold.  First, is just the number of people who didn't like the transformative story aspects, but that part can be highlighted or downplayed as much as they need over the course of the beta test.  But the second issue is those people who WANT the sorcerer to be nothing more than a wizard with no Vancian mechanics.  Enough folks don't want Vancian mechanics to the point where NOT having the sorcerer be able to take the wizard's place in this current playtest has probably lessened BOTH class's popularity.

Which means Mearls and company have talked about two different solutions-- an "Arcane Origin" wizard-ized Sorcerer origin... and/or a "non-Vancian" wizard tradition.  Basically... either a Sorcerer with Wizard story, or a Wizard with Sorcerer mechanics.  And until EITHER one gets presented as an option in the playtest... I suspect that both classes will continue to get downgraded because neither class will be giving a segment of the population what it is they truly want.

They're finding out that completely separate mechanics AND completed separated story elements for their different classes are not really what a good part of the population wants.  Many players seem to actually want a game that hews closer to the Skills & Powers / GURPS type of paradigm... where you can really make the classes in whatever format you want-- provided you aren't asked to take another class and refluff it.

It seems like having multiple formats / choices for every class is preferable to having one format per class and then being asked to just refluff if you like another class's story.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yes, there would be a bias. The phantom fanbase is, in fact, potentially larger than the 4E crowd, and plays Pathfinder. They want to attract those people. The open playtest has been widely marketed and I hope many of them are taking part, but if the numbers don't reflect the distribution of the potential market, you'll only be catering to your existing market. They shouldn't give the finger to the 90%, but they should consider their views at 50% strength, if they genuinely want to attract the other crowd.




There are several problems here.

The first is the possibility of an edition actually flopping rather than merely not performing to expectations.  Losing the 4e fan base could be catastrophic.

The second is brand loyalty.  Pathfinder players already have a game they are happy with, that is in print, and that is smart and agile enough to countermove whenever WotC looks ready to put out a new edition.  Right now, saying "There are a lot of Pathfinder players out there - we should go after them" is like Pepsi's marketing division saying "There are a lot of coke drinkers out there.  We should go after them."

The third is a mature vs an immature game.  When 4e was first published it had limited options.  More than it appeared but still very limited.  Pathfinder is _drowning_ in options even before you break out books like the Book of Nine Swords from 3.5 and throw them onto the pile.

The third is brand disloyalty.  Every person with Pathfinder has already seen WotC's work.  It's going to be hard work.

Pathfinder players are not an untapped market.  And WotC are not as good as Paizo at what Paizo do.  They especially aren't as good at it with a new product as Paizo with years of experience, foreknowledge of the playtest, and who are already talking about a Pathfinder 2 (and they will have a vision unlike WotC who seem to be producing D&D as designed by the world's largest committee).

Going after Pathfinder players is hard work.  And pissing off 4e players leaves WotC potentially ending up with no one.  I've been playtesting 5e but the more I see, the more I'm looking at other systems.  Taking Paizo on on the territory they've claimed is a Hail Mary pass, pure and simple.  And one WotC need to telegraph hard, giving Paizo literally years to prepare a response.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yes, there would be a bias. The phantom fanbase is, in fact, potentially larger than the 4E crowd, and plays Pathfinder. They want to attract those people. The open playtest has been widely marketed and I hope many of them are taking part, but if the numbers don't reflect the distribution of the potential market, you'll only be catering to your existing market. They shouldn't give the finger to the 90%, but they should consider their views at 50% strength, if they genuinely want to attract the other crowd.



 So you would trade the lesser bias, selection bias, for a greater one, confirmation bias.  That is... interesting.  Selection bias can be overcome by a greater sample, which WotC can overcome by such things as advertising and other forms of outreach.  Confirmation bias can only be overcome by the designers not holding their own opinions over what the data shows.  So not only would confirmation bias be giving the finger to the 4E crowd (if the data favors them), but also the other fanbases because their voices likewise would be ignored.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> So you would trade the lesser bias, selection bias, for a greater one, confirmation bias.  That is... interesting.  Selection bias can be overcome by a greater sample, which WotC can overcome by such things as advertising and other forms of outreach.  Confirmation bias can only be overcome by the designers not holding their own opinions over what the data shows.  So not only would confirmation bias be giving the finger to the 4E crowd (if the data favors them), but also the other fanbases because their voices likewise would be ignored.




Right now, on the WotC boards especially, there is a huge pro-4E confirmation bias. So I really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> There are several problems here.
> 
> *snip*




Right, so, why are they making a new edition? They may as well make 4.5 right, if there's no hope of attracting back 3.5 and Pathfinder fans?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 24, 2012)

I've posted about the problem with tying recharge rates to archetypes in other places.

Honestly, this is something that I think I've learned along with WotC. I was all for "If you want non-vancian, play a non-wizard arcane spellcaster" a little while ago, but I realized that this isn't exactly fair. What folks like about a given recharge mechanic and what folks like about a given archetype aren't necessarily linked. 

I'm a little nervous that the "traditions" are going to fall into the same trap of ensconcing a given archetype with a particular recharge rate, and making them inseparable. They should be separable. There's no reason to make a Blood Mage play with daily-only powers, or a Wild Mage play with an ADEU structure, or whatever. They're all just different ways to cast _Magic Missile_.

So my first idea was: Why not make Magic Missile a thing that can be cast in three different ways? 

As for healing and resting, I think I kind of have a preferred solution for this, and it's easy peasy. You don't need to raise the spectre of Healing Surges again. Just say "short rest heals you up to 1/2 your hp" and leave it up to DMs if a short rest is a night or 5 minutes or three weeks or whatever.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 24, 2012)

There is a real good reaason to blend the best parts of all 13 edtions of d&d. However they need to listen to the feed back, and they cant ignore the people who are taking the time to playtest.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 24, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Right now, on the WotC boards especially, there is a huge pro-4E confirmation bias. So I really don't know what you're talking about.



 Can you point to a post from WotC that explicitly states they are deliberately trying to get a bigger sample of 4E players?  Because WotC are the ones that are compiling and collecting data through the surveys, not forums.  Who gives a flying fart what people on WotC's boards, these boards, or any boards are saying unless it is in the surveys.  I think you are confusing what bias actually is.  Confirmation bias is where the data compiler (WotC) deliberately ignores data to favor their hypothesis (people want Old School and Old School alone).  The thing is, the idea you are putting forth, that the majority of fans taking the surveys, no matter what their proportion, should be taken at a 50% face value, is textbook confirmation bias (among other things).  Countering with "But but... their forums have a lot of 4E players on them" shows that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics.  Add into that the fact the forums are immaterial when they have said AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the surveys are their primary(possibly even their ONLY) source of feedback.

Oh, and the bottom line of the idea you are proposing is that it totally invalidates the playtest, since WotC would be better served not even bothering to collect the data in the first place rather than collect it, then ignore it.


----------



## keterys (Sep 24, 2012)

Most of what I've seen suggests that 4e players are not anywhere close to a majority of respondents in the playtest. Or participants, for that matter.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 24, 2012)

keterys said:


> Most of what I've seen suggests that 4e players are not anywhere close to a majority of respondents in the playtest. Or participants, for that matter.



 I never said they were.  What I am saying is, deliberately ignoring a sizeable portion of participants of the surveys, regardless of their prefered edition, is very bad methods and invalidates the playtest itself.  Again, if they are going to do that, they might as well not do the playtest in the first place.


----------



## mlund (Sep 24, 2012)

Increasing monster accuracy will be a nice touch. Hopefully healing adjustments will focus on the Healer specialty and maybe bringing back Second Wind or some Combat Medic functionality. The Wizard definitely needs the 1d6 Hit Die. I like the realization that the Rogue needs more than just Sneak Attack - I'd like to see debuff-based attack riders, personally.

Arcane casting is going to be the toughest nut to crack in all of this, though. I think the issue with Wizard casting is that while Vancian Casting is the traditional wheelhouse of the Wizard, the real fluff key to the Wizard is that he's an academic / scientist of the arcane. He *learns* spells as he advances through hard work and intellect. That really doesn't have anything to do with whether he casts his spells on a Daily, Encounter, or At-Will basis.

The Sorcerer has innate magic. He's *born* special. There's a real perception that he didn't *earn* what he has.

Likewise the Warlock bargained for his power. He's a hacker, a thief, or a struggling pawn of some greater entity.

The real reason that so much of the Magic-User / Wizard is a sacred cow of D&D is because he's the *Designated Marty Stew character for Nerds*. He's bookish, weak, not particularly social, and get to leverage his intelligence score into phenomenal cosmic power that puts him above all the jocks, rich kids, and religious folks of the world. To some extent, the nerdy 10-year-old kid imagines that if he were to wind up in D&D-land one day he could be a wizard because he's just so damn smart. Putting the Wizard on even footing with the Fighter always frosts some people, but when you force them to stop playing the "Wizard" and move into some other (more vulgar) fluff paradigm in order to use a particular magic system they really want people just go nuclear over it.

In the end, the 5E Wizard is probably going to have his finger in just about every arcane pie in terms of spell access and casting mechanisms in order to keep people happy. Even if you break the casting styles into 3 different academic arcane classes that are otherwise identical you'll spark some sort of awful, blood-letting knife fight between players over which class gets to be the "real Wizard" by getting that class name as opposed to "Magic-User" or "Mage" or whatever.

The Wizard is the biggest Sacred Cow in D&D, period. In fact, it's an elephant-in-the-room-sized Sacred Cow.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Tovec (Sep 24, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The second is brand loyalty.  Pathfinder players already have a game they are happy with, that is in print, and that is smart and agile enough to countermove whenever WotC looks ready to put out a new edition.  Right now, saying "There are a lot of Pathfinder players out there - we should go after them" is like *Pepsi's marketing division saying "There are a lot of coke drinkers out there.  We should go after them*."




Really not the point of this thread, but I just wanted to add:
Pepsi Challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the wiz/sorc/warl split. I think that they either need to separate mechanics from the class, so we can have a vancian warlock (preferable) or they need to cut (or fix) the fluff so that I can take the warlock and replace the wizard with him. Either way they need to do NOT what they are doing right now, as I really can't stand either the mechanics provided for the three different classes nor the fluff associated with them.

As for healing; I'm glad they are still talking about it and thinking about it. Healing is the major issue at the heart of pretty much every thread I see. I wouldn't mind if they spent months thinking and working on nothing more than healing, just to make sure they get it right and more importantly give us a lot of options to see which is best.

Lastly, I absolutely agree that there is a testing blindspot as far as the combat superiority dice for fighter. I think that people want more options, that this provides more options and so it is being artificially rated higher than it perhaps should be. I say that primarily because I want more options but I detest the CS dice. And I've seen that this split exists not only here but in the real world and other forums; either you love or hate the mechanic so they need to take another look and hopefully give us more/a different set of options instead of being locked in.


----------



## Zaphling (Sep 24, 2012)

Here are my thoughts about the 2nd playtest I downloaded.

Fighter - The expertise dice and the fighting style class feature is really good, and my players love it. I also love it. Now, their questions asked during 4e era is now answered, "Why isn't there a bow expert fighter?"

Rogue - I completely agree that Sneak Attack should NOT be the defining point of any rogue.

Cleric - I like how each domain decides a cleric's weapon and armor proficiencies, and yes, more domains mean more ways to play a cleric.

Wizard - No one played this class, I also didn't have the time to thoroughly read it.

Sorcerer - THIS ONE! THIS IS ONE BAD ASS CONCEPT! I really like how 4e defined the bloodline sorcerers, where Pathfinder adopted the idea. But 5e is advancing it one step further! I really like the idea of a Dragon Knight! Sorcerers must be played depending on their bloodline, much like a cleric who can be fully armored or armorless depending on their domains, not just pure caster types. Keep it up WOTC!

Warlock - Eldritch Blast is OP. nuff said.

Human - WHERE IS MY EXTRA SKILL AND FEAT?????


----------



## Zaphling (Sep 24, 2012)

Here are my thoughts about the 2nd playtest I downloaded.

Fighter - The expertise dice and the fighting style class feature is really good, and my players love it. I also love it. Now, their questions asked during 4e era is now answered, "Why isn't there a bow expert fighter?"

Rogue - I completely agree that Sneak Attack should NOT be the defining point of any rogue.

Cleric - I like how each domain decides a cleric's weapon and armor proficiencies, and yes, more domains mean more ways to play a cleric.

Wizard - No one played this class, I also didn't have the time to thoroughly read it.

Sorcerer - THIS ONE! THIS IS ONE BAD ASS CONCEPT! I really like how 4e defined the bloodline sorcerers, where Pathfinder adopted the idea. But 5e is advancing it one step further! I really like the idea of a Dragon Knight! Sorcerers must be played depending on their bloodline, much like a cleric who can be fully armored or armorless depending on their domains, not just pure caster types. Keep it up WOTC!

Warlock - Eldritch Blast is OP. nuff said.

Human - WHERE IS MY EXTRA SKILL AND FEAT?????


----------



## tuxgeo (Sep 24, 2012)

Zaphling said:


> Here are my thoughts about the 2nd playtest I downloaded.



. . . 


> Human - WHERE IS MY EXTRA SKILL AND FEAT?????



WotC is trying to design races that work equally well in campaigns that do use Skills and Feat and in campaigns to do not use Skills and Feats, so the Human race has been given (so far) nothing but Ability Score bonuses -- which are Background/Specialty neutral. 

That situation may change as time goes on. I have already posted elsewhere an idea about that: Reduce those blanket Human bonuses to "Two to One and One to Two" -- +2 to one stat and +1 to two other stats -- and compensate for that power reduction by giving a choice of class feature: let the player choose to give his or her PC either a bonus Skill or a bonus Feat or else something akin to 4E Essentials' "Heroic Effort" feature. That way, campaigns that don't use Skills and Feats would still have something for Human characters to put into that same feature slot.


----------



## keterys (Sep 24, 2012)

Hmm, why do so many people say that eldritch blast is OP? It does 10.5 damage while radiant lance does 8.5 on a better chassis and a fighter with a bow does 12... and the fighter has the best chassis of all for combat (more hp, more damage, more AC, more initiative, more versatility, etc).


----------



## am181d (Sep 24, 2012)

Obryn said:


> ...because I was 15 years old and that's what you did?
> 
> This may be shocking, so I invite you to sit down, brace yourself, and take a deep breath before reading this.  But now in my late 30's as a professional, a husband, and a father with over 20 more years' experience gaming, I think somewhat differently about the world and RPGs than I did as a teenager.




My point wasn't that you specifically should feel obligated to pick up 5e. Just that there's a precedent for more incremental change, there's an audience for it, and (given how well the leap from 3 to 4 went) an incentive for Wizards to play it conservative this time out of the gate.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 24, 2012)

First, PC hit points & Monster damage output are just fine

1. Lower PC attack modifiers or raise Monster ACs.  The PCs are hitting far too often for 1st level PCs. Something like 65+%  (I'd lower attacks to keep the numbers small)

2. Lower PC damage output or raise Monster HPs. Just like #1 , but 1st level PCs are 1-hitting 3rd level monsters. (Routinely given the odds in point #1 ) Again, I'd lower PC damage rates.

3. Lower PC ACs or raise Monster attack modifiers. The other side of #1 . The monsters aren't hitting almost ever. Honestly, I'd do both here. Monsters need more than a 35% chance of hitting the standard PC as most players immediately aim for the nonstandard.

4. Remove critical hits from the standard game and make them an option. Do you really want to make the game less lethal? Remove these & bonus damage due to powers and such. My monsters went from totally ineffectual for dozens of rolls to 2 crits both with rage damage on 1 PC and killed him in one round. Players should have the option to run after 1 hit against a balanced opponent.

My point, it's like the design team really dislikes randomness unlike seeing it as their best friend. As a player? Sure, I'm trying to get rid of it left and right, but as a designer it makes everything 100% easier.  Players need to know they can run and should run when the odds aren't in their favor. 

All of which leads me to the biggest problem currently with the game (and it's not healing). The game is still coming off as 95% combat rules, which was the problem with 4th edition. The almost accidentally designed exploration rules (what used to be the majority of the rules) are hard to find and almost uniformly bad and nonsensical. My advice is to stop making D&D into a combat game and realize that is as much an optional part of the game as any other.


----------



## Balesir (Sep 24, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> All of which leads me to the biggest problem currently with the game (and it's not healing). The game is still coming off as 95% combat rules, which was the problem with 4th edition. The almost accidentally designed exploration rules (what used to be the majority of the rules) are hard to find and almost uniformly bad and nonsensical. My advice is to stop making D&D into a combat game and realize that is as much an optional part of the game as any other.



I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 24, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Can you point to a post from WotC that explicitly states they are deliberately trying to get a bigger sample of 4E players?  Because WotC are the ones that are compiling and collecting data through the surveys, not forums.  Who gives a flying fart what people on WotC's boards, these boards, or any boards are saying unless it is in the surveys.  I think you are confusing what bias actually is.  Confirmation bias is where the data compiler (WotC) deliberately ignores data to favor their hypothesis (people want Old School and Old School alone).  The thing is, the idea you are putting forth, that the majority of fans taking the surveys, no matter what their proportion, should be taken at a 50% face value, is textbook confirmation bias (among other things).  Countering with "But but... their forums have a lot of 4E players on them" shows that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics.  Add into that the fact the forums are immaterial when they have said AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the surveys are their primary(possibly even their ONLY) source of feedback.
> 
> Oh, and the bottom line of the idea you are proposing is that it totally invalidates the playtest, since WotC would be better served not even bothering to collect the data in the first place rather than collect it, then ignore it.




If you read what I wrote carefully, I said that if 90% of the survey respondents prefer a particular edition, you shouldn't assume that 90% of the opinion of the market you are aiming at think as they do, that is, if you are aiming at a market that is 50% that group and 50% other, under-represented groups.

I don't understand what a post explicitly stating that they are seeking more 4E fan feedback would demonstrate to you.

If you believe that the designers don't read the message boards, or read the comments on their own columns, then I'm surprised. On occasion they even explicitly reply to a comment or address a point.

All I am proposing is that they weight the data they collect according to the market they want to aim for. They have no choice in their sample, but they can attempt to detect sample bias by observing the edition preference of the respondent. They ask that question at the start of every survey, I assume, for that very reason. To take an extreme case, if every respondent gave the same feedback and said they preferred 4th edition, you would end up believing that the market desires a game like 4th edition. However, in reality you have prior information that the market is split and, well, in that case you're a bit stuck, but if you had at least some non-4E fans responding you would consider them with some more weight than the percentage of respondents they actually make up. You would value the minority of responses greater if they form the majority of the market.

I would also appreciate if you refrain from personal attacks on my knowledge of statistics.


----------



## KidSnide (Sep 24, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?




Speaking just for myself, I'd like to see exploration rules focused on (1) how long it takes to explore an area (whether dungeon or wilderness), (2) the likelihood of being detected while exploring and (3) ways for organized communities of monsters respond to intruders.

Obviously, these would all be DM guidelines and not "rules" in the sense of "spell X has effect Y."  Likewise, it would be foolish for DMs to track time slavishly when it doesn't matter.  But at the same time, good "typical case guidelines" are extremely helpful to new DMs and for setting expectations for groups that haven't played together.  

These rules are important to allow players to intelligent tradeoffs about whether they should take the time to search carefully or hurry along before they are detected.  And -- since there is a heavy subjective element -- they are the type of rules that are served well by playtesting over a long period of time.

Other types of rules for which playtesting would be helpful:

* Investigation Rules - divination / detection spells, truth magic, knowledge / research / gather information checks, and related feats etc.  Different groups will have different desires from the information gathering mechanics.  For some groups, divination and character checks is how the PCs are supposed to solve mysteries.  In other groups, "mechanical" mystery solving spoils the fun.  D&DN should provide a dial.  Personally, I'd like to see a GUMSHOE-style skill module.

* Social Interaction Rules - charms and related magic, social skills and class abilities.  In the same way, some groups want detailed mechanics for persuasion while other groups want "light mechanics" to provide character differentiation in roleplaying.  Other groups want some social magic and little else in the way of rules.  WotC should present the range of options, so folks can test what they want.

* Extended Checks - I'm not a big fan of 4e skill challenges, but I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that some non-combat challenges should involve a number of skill checks.  This needed much more testing in 4e than it received, and I'd like to see the designers ideas on these rules early enough to go through multiple revisions. 

-KS


----------



## mlund (Sep 24, 2012)

keterys said:


> Hmm, why do so many people say that eldritch blast is OP? It does 10.5 damage while radiant lance does 8.5 on a better chassis and a fighter with a bow does 12... and the fighter has the best chassis of all for combat (more hp, more damage, more AC, more initiative, more versatility, etc).




The only thing I can guess with regards to that is the fact that Eldritch Blast scales by level. It goes up to 14 damage at 3rd level. Still, the Warlock really does feel like a poor man's Cleric who can't heal. He's terrible.

- Marty Lund


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 24, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I've posted about the problem with tying recharge rates to archetypes in other places.
> 
> Honestly, this is something that I think I've learned along with WotC. I was all for "If you want non-vancian, play a non-wizard arcane spellcaster" a little while ago, but I realized that this isn't exactly fair. What folks like about a given recharge mechanic and what folks like about a given archetype aren't necessarily linked.
> 
> I'm a little nervous that the "traditions" are going to fall into the same trap of ensconcing a given archetype with a particular recharge rate, and making them inseparable. They should be separable. There's no reason to make a Blood Mage play with daily-only powers, or a Wild Mage play with an ADEU structure, or whatever. They're all just different ways to cast _Magic Missile_.




Here's the thing: if the class archetypes can be completely divorced from mechanics like that, doesn't that kind of undercut the whole concept of class-specific mechanics?

I thought the whole point of backing away from AEDU was that it was more elegant to play, say, a rogue or fighter with a variety of flexible at-will powers rather than with an array of daily and encounter powers. This carries over nicely into wizards vs. sorcerers: wizards have to keep detailed lists and carefully plan their spells, since they're nerdy bookworms, while sorcerers can just keep tossing out whatever spells they know until they run out of juice.

I note that nobody's talking about sorcerers memorizing spells or warlocks "needing" a bunch of daily spells. And the vast majority seem happy with CS fighters with no daily or encounter powers. So really I think this is less of a system issue and more of a specific class issue. My hope is that they release the arcane sorcerer and some "wild mage" non-Vancian spellcasting traditions it does a good enough job satisfying people who like wizards and hate Vancian casting that this issue dies down.

Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).


----------



## variant (Sep 24, 2012)

I think they are being torn every which way with the Wizard. They aren't going to solve anything just by throwing all the mechanics in the same class.  There is absolutely no way that could ever be balanced and a complete nightmare for a DM with a power gamer at his table. There is also no way non-4e players are ever going to be happy with encounter powers shoved in there.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 24, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I 100% agree with more rules systems to deal with non-combat situations, but where are you seeing this in older editions? All I see is some spells with uses to obviate/bypass some non-combat situations, but I may be missing something; what do you see?



I see 10-minute turns with wandering monster checks, hexagonal wilderness maps, rules for how much area an individual can search in 10 minutes (and why they shouldn't stick around afterwards), etc.

If there isn't a single mention of the 6-mile hex, I will be sad.


----------



## GSHamster (Sep 24, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).




That's a really interesting question.

My initial thought is that most people who play clerics are pragmatists. They're choosing to play the cleric so that they can heal the group. They're less concerned with how they heal the group, and more concerned that the group gets healed. I would expect to see complaints if healing wasn't strong enough, or healing was excessively boring.

The other idea is that maybe healing fits Vancian a little better than damage. Healing is reactive, you heal what needs to be healed. Thus, a healer doesn't mind saving big heals, and indeed prefers using small heals when she can. A damage dealer on the other generally wants to use the bigger spells. Thus a lot of damage dealers prefer systems where they can use more big spells, even at the expense of many smaller ones.

Edit; To elaborate on the last point, is there any proposed alternative magic system where the wizard ends up casting _fewer_ max level spells per day than Vancian? Or do all proposed alternative magic systems allow the wizard to cast more max level spells per day?


----------



## GreyICE (Sep 24, 2012)

I can't imagine people actually willingly rolling up healbots, something the 3E cleric never was.  I don't know about you, but back in AD&D we called it the "Cleric Bullet" and someone had to take the "Cleric Bullet" for the group in order to play.  In D&D I invested in wands of CLW/LV with the group funds pretty much immediately if I was playing anything with healing magic, and then let the group patch themselves up with them (if people complained I asked them how much healing magic they had).

I think they just messed up their cleric build for this playtest, and hopefully they'll fix it?  I dunno...


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 25, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> A damage dealer on the other generally wants to use the bigger spells. Thus a lot of damage dealers prefer systems where they can use more big spells, even at the expense of many smaller ones.
> 
> Edit; To elaborate on the last point, is there any proposed alternative magic system where the wizard ends up casting _fewer_ max level spells per day than Vancian? Or do all proposed alternative magic systems allow the wizard to cast more max level spells per day?




Actually, per my current understanding the system Mearls is suggesting for wizards would have that effect: you give up one or more daily spell slots for encounter spells, which would obviously be less powerful than an equal-level daily.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm assuming (well hoping really) that the reason that he didn't address Races and Feats/Specialties is because that was the second playtest survey to go out.  Regardless, I'm disappointed that there was not more specificity in the Fighter section.  I'm glad they acknowledge Glancing Blow issues but there are plenty of other problems (such as the disparity in effectiveness of Duelist).

Overall, it would be nice if each of these Monday morning Legend and Lores (specifically the playtest ones) canvassed things in greater detail.  A great many posts on these boards are more specific, thorough and entail greater insight (not that he doesn't possess it...its just not on display in many of these articles) than those in that weekly column.  Its a pity.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 25, 2012)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm assuming (well hoping really) that the reason that he didn't address Races and Feats/Specialties is because that was the second playtest survey to go out.  Regardless, I'm disappointed that there was not more specificity in the Fighter section.  I'm glad they acknowledge Glancing Blow issues but there are plenty of other problems (such as the disparity in effectiveness of Duelist).




I think this is more of an issue for further down the road when they're finessing balance. They haven't even added specialties to fit half the fighter builds (particularly duelists and slayers), and I think that's an important next step for determining the specific power of each build and maneuver.

I mean, if they had wizards down so well that we were just worrying about the radius of fireball, they'd be ecstatic.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 25, 2012)

@ZombieRoboNinja

Makes sense I suppose.  They do have a primary design aim in this alpha of getting the feel/fluff correctly matching the mechanical underlay before they move on.  However, the only reason that I am moderately skeptical is that they have addressed specific balance concerns here and there along the way.  Not a grand pass across the board at balance (given the primary design aim at the present moment it makes sense) but "balance parcels" (specifically glaring ones) now and again (or at least acknowledging issues if not moving on them).  The elves not having Long Swords as Finesse Weapons is an enormous incoherency (balance and implied setting fluff) in my book.  It seems that should have gotten a mention/acknowledgement.

But again, perhaps Races are coming later a la the surveys.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 25, 2012)

Manbearcat said:


> @ZombieRoboNinja
> 
> Makes sense I suppose.  They do have a primary design aim in this alpha of getting the feel/fluff correctly matching the mechanical underlay before they move on.  However, the only reason that I am moderately skeptical is that they have addressed specific balance concerns here and there along the way.  Not a grand pass across the board at balance (given the primary design aim at the present moment it makes sense) but "balance parcels" (specifically glaring ones) now and again (or at least acknowledging issues if not moving on them).  The elves not having Long Swords as Finesse Weapons is an enormous incoherency (balance and implied setting fluff) in my book.  It seems that should have gotten a mention/acknowledgement.
> 
> But again, perhaps Races are coming later a la the surveys.




Yeah, my expectation is that they'll quietly make minor fixes and changes as they go, like they did with a lot of the spells after the first playtest.


----------



## Manbearcat (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Yeah, my expectation is that they'll quietly make minor fixes and changes as they go, like they did with a lot of the spells after the first playtest.




Likely.  I must admit that I find it a bit odd that they introduced the Warlock and Sorcerer under the premise of wanting to get variants of spellcasting out there for testing when they seem to have had Arcane Traditions in the pipeline.  This would have allowed them to playtest spellcasting variants while (i) sticking to their guns of playtesting "the big four" initially and would have allowed (ii) focus on the actual spellcasting variants without introducing the needless (inevitable) noise of feedback/focus on dissatisfaction with the incarnation of the Warlock/Sorcerer (which, of course, defeats the point).  I've seen so much talk of the dissatisfaction of the Sorcerer and very little about the impact of the different spell-casting variants in practice.  It speaks to a little bit of lack of coherency of direction (which I am all too familiar with in my line of work...so I cannot help but look for it when I see engineering projects such as this unfold).  To be fair, it should have been expected.  While the mechanics for the Sorcerer are exceedingly interesting, fun and functional, they changed the well-established flavor of the class greatly.  I'm not surprised to see the fallout and rancor by Sorcerer aficionados.


----------



## Ratskinner (Sep 25, 2012)

Tovec said:


> As for healing; I'm glad they are still talking about it and thinking about it. Healing is the major issue at the heart of pretty much every thread I see. I wouldn't mind if they spent months thinking and working on nothing more than healing, just to make sure they get it right and more importantly give us a lot of options to see which is best.




I just wanted to second that emotion.  This is one of the areas that really seems to divide D&Der's and really needs to be nailed.

I really wish there was some alternative mechanic to HP that would still be D&D...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> Confirmation bias is where the data compiler (WotC) deliberately ignores data to favor their hypothesis ...




That's not correct.  Specifically, the "deliberately" part.  A great deal of confirmation bias is not conscious action.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 25, 2012)

Umbran said:


> That's not correct. Specifically, the "deliberately" part. A great deal of confirmation bias is not conscious action.



 While that is certainly true, in this case WotC would be deliberately committing confirmation bias.  The bottom line is, if people want their voices heard, they need to participate in the playtest and take the surveys.  If they aren't participating, they SHOULD be ignored (to a certain extent).


----------



## Klaus (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).




There has been rumors of a divine-heritage sorcerer that might fill the "favored soul" niche.

Me, I want to see a cleric that's more of the "white wizard", unarmored type (I hoped the Sun domain would be that).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> If they aren't participating, they SHOULD be ignored (to a certain extent).




That's not confirmation bias, though.  Confirmation bias is tossing out data specifically because it does not support your desired result.

Taking data from surveys only, and neglecting other sources (regardless of whether it supports your desired result or not), may yield what is called a "selection bias".  

The natures of confirmation bias and selection bias are quite different.  Confirmation bias yields the results you want.  Selection bias may yield what you want, or not, depending on the selection.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 25, 2012)

My guess is that the people willing to play the playtest are fairly representative of the range of people who would consider buying the final product. If they love paizo or 4e too much to download a free PDF of something new, how likely are they to pay $30 for a hardcover PHB?

The whole bias argument seems moot anyway since mearls is always commenting on how "even 4e players thought xxx was too complicated." I think there's a reason the surveys keep asking your favorite edition.


----------



## GameDoc (Sep 25, 2012)

I just posted this over on the "Defining Traits of the D&D Classes" thread, but it seems apropos to the discussion of Vancian vs. non-Vancian magic going on here.



> ON VANCIAN MAGIC:
> 
> I hate it.  At least, I hate it as the core spell casting mechanic.
> 
> ...


----------



## dd.stevenson (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> My guess is that the people willing to play the playtest are fairly representative of the range of people who would consider buying the final product.




Fair enough.  Personally, I suspect that they've got themselves a playtest group that's _irreparably _skewed towards online bloggers and those who frequent online TTRPG forums.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 25, 2012)

dd.stevenson said:


> Fair enough.  Personally, I suspect that they've got themselves a playtest group that's _irreparably _skewed towards online bloggers and those who frequent online TTRPG forums.




Yeah, dunno what to do about that beyond the outreach they're already doing at conventions, etc.

I guess there's something to be said for keeping things simple for "casual" roleplayers who don't hang out on ENWorld, but I think they're doing pretty well on that front.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Yeah, dunno what to do about that beyond the outreach they're already doing at conventions, etc.
> 
> I guess there's something to be said for keeping things simple for "casual" roleplayers who don't hang out on ENWorld, but I think they're doing pretty well on that front.




Yeah, I really have no idea how the offline segment differs from the online one.  Glad it's not my problem to solve!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Here's the thing: if the class archetypes can be completely divorced from mechanics like that, doesn't that kind of undercut the whole concept of class-specific mechanics?




It does undercut it. It doesn't necessarily remove it, but it does undercut it. 

The idea is just to divorce class archetypes from having to have a particular recharge rate. Other mechanics can still distinguish classes. Wizards still use spellbooks and memorize magic, they just have a choice of how much power to invest in a spell (maybe even a choice they make when they prepare it!). Fighters still use flexible, dynamic maneuvers, they just get a choice of how much "oomph" to put into them in the moment.

But it does remove one dimension of class uniqueness. It's not a hard dimension for a given DM to add back in, but I don't think you're really wrong there.



			
				ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I thought the whole point of backing away from AEDU was that it was more elegant to play, say, a rogue or fighter with a variety of flexible at-will powers rather than with an array of daily and encounter powers. This carries over nicely into wizards vs. sorcerers: wizards have to keep detailed lists and carefully plan their spells, since they're nerdy bookworms, while sorcerers can just keep tossing out whatever spells they know until they run out of juice.




I personally do like that. But a lot of folks (especially folks who really liked the way wizards worked in 4e) really don't like that. And they should be allowed to opt out of that, while still being able to play a bookish academic spellcaster. I don't think there's anything inherent to the archetype of a bookish academic spellcaster that mandates that the magic be at a certain recharge rate.



> I note that nobody's talking about sorcerers memorizing spells or warlocks "needing" a bunch of daily spells. And the vast majority seem happy with CS fighters with no daily or encounter powers. So really I think this is less of a system issue and more of a specific class issue. My hope is that they release the arcane sorcerer and some "wild mage" non-Vancian spellcasting traditions it does a good enough job satisfying people who like wizards and hate Vancian casting that this issue dies down.




Y'know, that might be enough, but it still creates the problem of people not liking the recharge rate of the archetype. I shouldn't HAVE to play a Sorcerer to get frequent magic, right? 

As it is now, Sorcerers and Warlocks both have "daily" abilities.  Willpower points are daily, and so are Invocations. That's part of why I personally feel they're "too Vancian." And Wizards have at-wills, too. 



			
				ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Here's my question: why the heck isn't anyone but me clamoring for a non-Vancian cleric? We've got three arcane casters and people are still complaining that they can't cast Magic Missile exactly the way they want to, while the only guy who can heal is stuck with an even more convoluted Vancian system (and so far, zero options for getting rid of it).




I could go for a cleric who is only based on Channel Divinity, myself.


----------



## bogmad (Sep 25, 2012)

> As it is now, Sorcerers and Warlocks both have "daily" abilities.   Willpower points are daily, and so are Invocations. That's part of why I  personally feel they're "too Vancian." And Wizards have at-wills, too.




Except invocations are encounter abilities, able to be regained after a short or long rest.  Notice however that we have "lesser" and "minor" invocations, arguably paving the way for "greater" invocations that are daily powers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 25, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> My guess is that the people willing to play the playtest are fairly representative of the range of people who would consider buying the final product. If they love paizo or 4e too much to download a free PDF of something new, how likely are they to pay $30 for a hardcover PHB?
> 
> The whole bias argument seems moot anyway since mearls is always commenting on how "even 4e players thought xxx was too complicated." I think there's a reason the surveys keep asking your favorite edition.




I agree 100% if you don't play the playtest you might as well yell at WoTC Hq "don't pay attantion to me"


----------



## KidSnide (Sep 25, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It does undercut it. It doesn't necessarily remove it, but it does undercut it.
> 
> The idea is just to divorce class archetypes from having to have a particular recharge rate. Other mechanics can still distinguish classes. Wizards still use spellbooks and memorize magic, they just have a choice of how much power to invest in a spell (maybe even a choice they make when they prepare it!). Fighters still use flexible, dynamic maneuvers, they just get a choice of how much "oomph" to put into them in the moment.




Also, classes could be given different recharge systems without necessarily using the same mechanics.  For example, wizards could be given specific spells that, when prepared, operate as at-will or per-encounter abilities, but fighters could have an optional rule where they get fewer combat expertise dice every round, but have access to a different pool of "push yourself harder" dice that recharges after a short or long rest.

-KS


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 25, 2012)

Manbearcat said:


> I'm assuming (well hoping really) that the reason that he didn't address Races and Feats/Specialties is because that was the second playtest survey to go out.  Regardless, I'm disappointed that there was not more specificity in the Fighter section.  I'm glad they acknowledge Glancing Blow issues but there are plenty of other problems (such as the disparity in effectiveness of Duelist).




Yup... there was a short Twitter convo between Dave Chalker (of Critical-Hits), Mike Shea from Sly Flourish (I think) and Mearls where it was mentioned regarding Feats/Specialties that that info was going to be coming in through the second playtest survey, which is why Mearls didn't address it yet.  This was because of Chalker's post on his website where he talked about not really liking Backgrounds and Specialties anymore because of the character confusion they cause.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 25, 2012)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Also, classes could be given different recharge systems without necessarily using the same mechanics. For example, wizards could be given specific spells that, when prepared, operate as at-will or per-encounter abilities, but fighters could have an optional rule where they get fewer combat expertise dice every round, but have access to a different pool of "push yourself harder" dice that recharges after a short or long rest.




My first stab at it, from a different thread:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> _From here._
> 
> Magic Missile
> 
> ...




But yeah, suffice it to say that I basically agree with the idea of scaling this at the level of individual abilities, rather than necessarily at the class level. 

I mean, as much as I'd *love* to convince everyone who adores encounter magic that they are better off playing a Sorcerer than a Wizard, I don't think that's going to sell, anymore than telling me that I need to play a Wizard with at-will abilities is going to sell. The concepts aren't intrinsically linked anymore for D&D in general. We can't have a purely Vancian wizard without tossing out a chunk of 4e players, and that's not acceptable for the game in general (though it might be acceptable for your table. ).


----------



## BobROE (Sep 25, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I agree 100% if you don't play the playtest you might as well yell at WoTC Hq "don't pay attantion to me"




Yes, though it raises the question as to why a given person isn't playing the playtest.

By default it's probably going to be a relatively small subset of the gaming populous as a whole, but who's participating and why people choose to participate or not is somewhat important.

Especially if WotC is trying to widen it's user base.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Sep 26, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My first stab at it, from a different thread:
> 
> *snip*




While I think you have the right idea, I think this takes it too far and feels forced. Instead, I would suggest that there simply be some spells that, once prepared, function as an encounter or at will spell. This makes it really easy to treat those spells as modules and helps prevent a forced symmetry.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 26, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Yeah, dunno what to do about that beyond the outreach they're already doing at conventions, etc.
> 
> I guess there's something to be said for keeping things simple for "casual" roleplayers who don't hang out on ENWorld, but I think they're doing pretty well on that front.




One thing they could be doing is constantly improving their survey methods.

For example, how they got out of that last round of surveys that "turn undead as a spell" was not popular I have no idea, since the way they did the spell questions had to be a major turnoff to a lot of respondents.   All a survey like that does is suggest a followup question.

If it were me, I'd do a bunch of narrow, very simple surveys based on hints from the broader data.  Do one three times a week.  "Do you think you prefer turn undead as spell, channel divinity, stand-alone power, or other?"  Then maybe tied to a couple of related questions, such as, "Do you enjoy playing clerics?"

Some of the questions will not yield much information.  My example might be terrible.  But do enough of these on a regular basis, and the questions will get more insightful as time goes on.

I'd also like to see some ranking questions that were more focused.  For example, "You've been asked to play an arcane caster and have agreed.  Would you prefer wizard, sorcerer, warlock, or no preference?"  Follow up:  "Would you normally consider an arcane caster as a choice, or only when asked or filling a party need?"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 26, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:
			
		

> While I think you have the right idea, I think this takes it too far and feels forced. Instead, I would suggest that there simply be some spells that, once prepared, function as an encounter or at will spell. This makes it really easy to treat those spells as modules and helps prevent a forced symmetry.




I'm in!

I'd expect it to raise unholy heck if they don't nail the names on the spells, though. "Rargh, Fireball is an encounter power, 5e is for powergamers, ngngngngngnggngngngngngng." 

But heck, in this light, they can probably take some 4e powers/spells/exploits/etc. and convert them pretty directly. 

Yeah, works for me. 

As long as we're avoiding hammering a particular class into a particular recharge niche by requiring certain abilities that must come in one form or the other, I think we'll be fine.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Sep 26, 2012)

For Vancian casters, I wouldn't mind an option to prepare spells at a higher level slot (not sure how high) which enables multiple uses per day, or simply per encounter, all at the same effects as the lower prepared slot.  Perhaps with an option to overcharge it and burn it as a full daily at the actual prepared slot level.  

Level 3 Fireball, in appropriate slot does 3d6 damage.  
Prepared in a level 6 slot, it has multiple uses, perhaps one per slot level, or is just an encounter spell.  
Then if you haven't yet used the spell or another unthought of limiting factor,  you can burn it completely for 6d6 damage.

Perhaps this would work similarly for a charm spell, at the higher spell level, you can naturally charm more powerful creatures, or Multiple low level creatures..


----------



## Klaus (Sep 26, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm in!
> 
> I'd expect it to raise unholy heck if they don't nail the names on the spells, though. "Rargh, Fireball is an encounter power, 5e is for powergamers, ngngngngngnggngngngngngng."
> 
> ...



Why not take a page from the 3.5e Reserve Feats? If you take this feat/specialty (Recharge Mage?), you can cast minor versions of spells you prepare, yadda-yadda. A Recharge Mage that prepares fireball can cause minor bursts of fire, etc, etc.


----------



## hbarsquared (Sep 26, 2012)

CAFRedblade said:


> For Vancian casters, I wouldn't mind an option to prepare spells at a higher level slot (not sure how high) which enables multiple uses per day, or simply per encounter, all at the same effects as the lower prepared slot.  Perhaps with an option to overcharge it and burn it as a full daily at the actual prepared slot level.




Something like this is what I hope for.  The use of spell slots as "currency."  I like the idea of choosing how to prepare _fireball_ on a daily basis as either 3d6 or 6d6, or either as a daily or an encounter.

I also think permanent sacrifice should also be an option.  Lose two or three or four level 2 daily spell slots to make a level 1 spell at-will?

That way the base wizard is all Vancian/daily, with built in _replacement options_ for recharging and at-will, instead of tacked on at-will and recharge abilities.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Sep 26, 2012)

CAFRedblade said:


> For Vancian casters, I wouldn't mind an option to prepare spells at a higher level slot (not sure how high) which enables multiple uses per day, or simply per encounter, all at the same effects as the lower prepared slot.  Perhaps with an option to overcharge it and burn it as a full daily at the actual prepared slot level.
> 
> Level 3 Fireball, in appropriate slot does 3d6 damage.
> Prepared in a level 6 slot, it has multiple uses, perhaps one per slot level, or is just an encounter spell.
> ...




I could see something like this. Some spells already have ritual options, so alternative casting mechanisms (essentially metamagic) could be built into certain spells. For example Fireball could have:

*Renewable:* Prepare this spell as a sixth level spell. This spell is not expended when it is cast, but may not be cast again until the caster spends one minute renewing it.

*Infinite:* Prepare this spell as a ninth level spell. This spell is not expended when it is cast and may be cast again.

Doing it this way means that the designers can choose which spells get the abilities and what the appropriate level for each ability is.


----------



## hbarsquared (Sep 26, 2012)

I also think a blanket ritual option would be cool, too.  *Any* spell from your spellbook can be cast as a ritual, but it takes 5 continuous rounds of concentration in combat to cast it (or something).

I kind of like this idea, as it reminds me of Fizban attempted to cast _fireball_ while battle wheels around him.

It's also a fun option if one particular spell that you didn't prepare would be a gamechanger, and worth the five sacrificed rounds while the rest of the party holds off the hordes...


----------



## Obryn (Sep 26, 2012)

jeremy_dnd said:


> I also think a blanket ritual option would be cool, too.  *Any* spell from your spellbook can be cast as a ritual, but it takes 5 continuous rounds of concentration in combat to cast it (or something).



My concern here is with niche protection.  If, by just having Invisibility and Knock in your spellbook, you can cast them at-will...


----------



## Cybit (Sep 26, 2012)

I think rather than worrying about which audiences to capture, and who will be put off by what, that they try to make a great game using what they feel are the best parts of each edition, create it in such a way that allows gaming groups to choose from relatively iconic mechanics for a given element, and go from there.

All this "is it too much like 3.5?  is it too much like 4E?" talk are from folks who have forgotten the first rule of making a RPG; make it fun.  A good game will not make everyone 100% happy.  But it will have enough good elements for folks to deal with the bad elements.  

We all keep talking in absolutes like we're in some damn holy war, when, honestly, we're talking about game mechanics.   Ultimately, you can't recreate nostalgia, and thankfully WotC has noticed that, and is concentrating (from what I can tell) on creating a game that will allow players to create new memories to look back on.


----------



## fba827 (Sep 26, 2012)

as a random aside, the last time they did a playtest update like this, it was a couple weeks before they released the next playtest rules.  if that holds as a pattern we'll probably get playtest packet 3 in the first half of october (which is right around the corner).


----------



## hbarsquared (Sep 27, 2012)

Obryn said:


> My concern here is with niche protection.  If, by just having Invisibility and Knock in your spellbook, you can cast them at-will...




Argh, true, true.

Unless there's an intrinsic limit.  You cannot cast the same spell twice until after the first expires, or the second casting replaces.  It would solve this problem, and others....  But it might be changing the mechanics too much...


----------



## KidSnide (Sep 27, 2012)

CAFRedblade said:


> For Vancian casters, I wouldn't mind an option to prepare spells at a higher level slot (not sure how high) which enables multiple uses per day, or simply per encounter, all at the same effects as the lower prepared slot.  Perhaps with an option to overcharge it and burn it as a full daily at the actual prepared slot level.




This is type of thing best handled on a spell-by-spell basis.  A spell like fireball is probably best as a daily ability, so you just want more powerful fireballs when prepared at higher levels.  A spell like Burning Hands works as a daily ability at 1st level, but it's kind of lame to have a super-damaging 6th level Burning Hands, so offering it as an encounter ability as a higher level spell makes sense.  As noted up thread, spells like Knock and Invisibility have their own balance issues if granted as encounter or at-will abilities.

-KS


----------



## keterys (Sep 27, 2012)

KidSnide said:


> This is type of thing best handled on a spell-by-spell basis.  A spell like fireball is probably best as a daily ability, so you just want more powerful fireballs when prepared at higher levels.  A spell like Burning Hands works as a daily ability at 1st level, but it's kind of lame to have a super-damaging 6th level Burning Hands, so offering it as an encounter ability as a higher level spell makes sense.  As noted up thread, spells like Knock and Invisibility have their own balance issues if granted as encounter or at-will abilities.
> 
> -KS



I equate burning hands and fireball... what sets one apart from the other, in your mind?

I mean, fireball is just some damage to an area. It could be at-will, encounter, or daily entirely dependent on area size and damage. And as a daily, it's tricky to balance. I suspect it ends up as either a game changer, largely nullifying an encounter... or it's just a handful of damage tossed about.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 27, 2012)

I find it interesting that the thing I hate about Vancian casting (overlong lists of inflexibly prepared spells, half of which are weak for the character's level) seems to be the completely unrelated to the problem a lot of other people have with it (daily recharge rate).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 27, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Why not take a page from the 3.5e Reserve Feats? If you take this feat/specialty (Recharge Mage?), you can cast minor versions of spells you prepare, yadda-yadda. A Recharge Mage that prepares fireball can cause minor bursts of fire, etc, etc.




'tain't a horrid idea. My only concern with that is that this means forgoing other specialties -- which might be fine or maybe not. If I need to give up being a "Defender" or "Sharpshooter" to do this...feats might not be the best silo for this. 



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> My concern here is with niche protection. If, by just having Invisibility and Knock in your spellbook, you can cast them at-will...




IIRC, Mearls mentioned that they were paying attention to this -- to make sure Invisibilty and Knock and the like were balanced in effect with what someone could accomplish with a d20 roll. 

But it's a valid concern, if part of the reason Invisibility is balanced with a Dex check is that the former is spike and the latter is more averaged out.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 27, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But it's a valid concern, if part of the reason Invisibility is balanced with a Dex check is that the former is spike and the latter is more averaged out.



I think Invisibility will require a Dex check. It only conceals you visually, which was already the easy part of stealth. A thief will likely have higher Dex than a wizard (and, if he's a sneaky sort, he'll have skill training and skill mastery), so a thief will be better than an invisible wizard. In fact, a visible thief will be exactly as good as an invisible thief unless there's bright light around (since the thief can hide in shadows).


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 27, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> I think Invisibility will require a Dex check. It only conceals you visually, which was already the easy part of stealth. A thief will likely have higher Dex than a wizard (and, if he's a sneaky sort, he'll have skill training and skill mastery), so a thief will be better than an invisible wizard. In fact, a visible thief will be exactly as good as an invisible thief unless there's bright light around (since the thief can hide in shadows).




According to the current rules, invisibility just makes you count as heavily obscured, so that you can make a Stealth check without cover or darkness. A wizard who casts Invisibility on himself makes the same roll to hide as would a halfling thief rogue standing behind a chihuahua, but without the Skill Mastery. But of course if nobody's close enough to hear or smell or feel (or taste?) the wizard he automatically succeeds.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 28, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 'tain't a horrid idea. My only concern with that is that this means forgoing other specialties -- which might be fine or maybe not. If I need to give up being a "Defender" or "Sharpshooter" to do this...feats might not be the best silo for this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A variant Spells Per Level Table, then?


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 28, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> According to the current rules, invisibility just makes you count as heavily obscured, so that you can make a Stealth check without cover or darkness. A wizard who casts Invisibility on himself makes the same roll to hide as would a halfling thief rogue standing behind a chihuahua, but without the Skill Mastery. But of course if nobody's close enough to hear or smell or feel (or taste?) the wizard he automatically succeeds.



Exactly. An invisible character must still move silently to avoid detection, and a Thief is way better at moving silently than a Wizard (and the Thief will probably have stuff to hide behind anyway), so a Thief is better than an invisible Wizard. Niche protected.

An invisible Thief would be even better (in those situations where he doesn't have anything to hide behind), so it enforces teamwork. The Wizard can't be a better thief than the Thief, but he can make the Thief a better thief.


----------

