I missed a lot while I was away...
Added 2023-08-17 17:37:38 +0000 UTC
Comments
I've been pondering why Jeremy Crawford seems obsessed with the overall satisfaction score for the base classes? I fear that they might've set up an internal dogma to abandon playtest changes that score lower satisfaction than their 2014 counterparts did in the big 2021 survey. If the 2014 PH Barbarian scored higher in 2021 than the PT5 Barbarian did (77%), and the PT7 Barbarian will do, they might've committed to keeping the 2014 version as is? In that case, the nonsense about comparing the average of individual features to the overall score for the base class might reflect an internal discussion they're having about whether to keep the (satisfying) changes regardless of said dogma? The big issue is that the baseline for satisfaction has changed. In the 2021 survey, one might be satisfied with the Barbarian overall as it's good fun compared to several other flawed PH classes. But because the 2024 books is an opportunity for much needed revisions, our expectations have become unrealisticly high. For the playtest, I won't be satisfied with anything less than a Barbarian that can keep up in power with any other single class through to level 20 (or at least keep up with the scaling of the Fighter). Keeping that in mind, how should I rate the PT7 Brutal Critical? Compared to the 2014 PH, I'm satisfied that it's always a d12 regardless of your weapon. Compared to PT5, I'm unsatisfied that it's less damage at most levels. Compared to my hopes and dreams, I'm very unsatisfied with the unreliable and neglible damage from crits being the only damage boost that the Barbarian base class gets between levels 5 and 20. But since we're approaching the end of the PH playtests, the 2014 version of Brutal Critical might just be copied over to the 2024 PH if both the PT5 and PT7 versions get a lower satisfaction score? Though written feedback is important, it's difficult to quantify and act on as they're running out of time.
Thor
2023-09-19 11:51:01 +0000 UTCI certainly hope we get another pass at the Ranger before this is all said and done!!!
Horseshoe the Dwarf
2023-08-19 20:57:27 +0000 UTCI wonder how the playtest could've played out without the OGL fiasco? WotC might've been less cautious and the community might've been less critical of experimental ideas.
Thor
2023-08-19 18:36:07 +0000 UTCJust a thought on the surveys; they have mentioned that they get around 40000 responses. Millions play d&d. So the 40000 are likely the D&d obsessives ( that’s me, and most of your regular viewers). And they largely know how to optimise. Survey responses from us are not going to be very representative of the millions of more casual D&d players, who don’t do much optimisation, because they don’t know the options well enough to do it. (This describes most players I DM for). The game designers are very aware of this. Big changes in 2024 would just confuse the causal player and fracture the player base. Avoiding that is their primary goal. Otherwise they could lose a big chunk of their current business. The ogl crisis showed them how fragile their current business was. It will make them very cautious. Reversion to 2014 with a few shiny new toys to shout about while being reassuring that everything else is the same is completely normal corporate strategy. The designers probably hate that their innovative ideas go in the trash. (I work in product design for a big corp. This looks completely par for the course)
Philip Bellamy
2023-08-18 17:22:35 +0000 UTC
