Playtest Package needs errata...

Seriosly, I've been looking though the package and noticed mistakes, omissions and misprints. Took me no more then 30 mins. Here is what I have found so far...

*Cleric of Moradin has a heavy shield, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Cleric of Pelor has a quarterstaff, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Most weapons have proficiency bonus that is not listed anywhere
*Armor Dex bonus rounding not clarified if rounded up or down
*Medium armor is worthless to anyone that has at least +1 dex bonus and access to light armors

Seriosly, I've been looking though the package and noticed mistakes, omissions and misprints. Took me no more then 30 mins. Here is what I have found so far...

*Cleric of Moradin has a heavy shield, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Cleric of Pelor has a quarterstaff, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Most weapons have proficiency bonus that is not listed anywhere
*Armor Dex bonus rounding not clarified if rounded up or down
*Medium armor is worthless to anyone that has at least +1 dex bonus and access to light armors




*The proficiency issues are likely Domain features (for example, perhaps War Domain clerics can use heavy shields, and Sun Domain clerics can use quarterstaffs). 
*I'll give you the Weapon proficiency bonus, and it's probably why Rapiers cost more than Short Swords, despite Short Swords otherwise being strictly better weapons.
*Armor Dex bonus needs to round down.  ALWAYS round down.  It says this in the packet. 
*Medium armor is useful to people who want to wear medium armor for theme.  Everyone has essentially the same AC minus Wizards who can't use armor. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

It's a goddamn playtest packet. It doesn't need errata, it needs testing. 
As for your first three, those are of little importance since it's just for playtesting.
For Armor Dex, sure. Rounded up would make more sense from a design perspective. This would help with medium armors.
 
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
Be nice to know if the rules presented are correct or the character sheets are though. I think it's best to assume the character sheets are and go from there.
Something I noticed, that I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not, is that the rogue's daggers do 1d6 damage but the weapon list has it at 1d4. Maybe rogues bump up the damage die on them but it doesn't say that anywhere.
Something I noticed, that I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not, is that the rogue's daggers do 1d6 damage but the weapon list has it at 1d4. Maybe rogues bump up the damage die on them but it doesn't say that anywhere.




Because we weren't given any rules we needed to know to build Rogues – any passive, baked-in benefits like that are hidden on the Character Sheets, so that we're not distracted by all this other stuff.  This isn't a give-away so that we can play a new version of D&D; it's a playtest so that we can give feedback on specific game features like adv/dadv and balance of the four core classes in their most basic forms with each other. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

....and the first feedback is "Your playtest pre-gens don't match the rules presented."
Playtest fail.
Having to ask "Are the rules for play correct or is the sample sheet correct?" means that you are already corrupting any data you hope to receive from the test.
If you really want a playtest to be meaningful you have to make sure all the testers have the same starting point.
Seriosly, I've been looking though the package and noticed mistakes, omissions and misprints. Took me no more then 30 mins. Here is what I have found so far...

*Cleric of Moradin has a heavy shield, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Cleric of Pelor has a quarterstaff, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Most weapons have proficiency bonus that is not listed anywhere
*Armor Dex bonus rounding not clarified if rounded up or down
*Medium armor is worthless to anyone that has at least +1 dex bonus and access to light armors




For the first two look on the second page under Class Features, specifically the area titled WEAPON & ARMOR PROFICIENCY.  That'll answer those.

Rounding: Check page 4 of the DM info.  Section titled, Rounding Down.  That'll clear that up for ya right away.

Weapon proficiencies, well as others have said, we're in the playtesting phase.  And this current phase has nothing to do with testing the rules of making a character.  The sole purpose of this intial playtest phase is to test core rules of the game.  Character creation comes later.  That'll be where we can actually, step by step, take a character from race to class, to level and know exactly all the math involved.

While I'm not sure medium armor is useless, I will somewhat agree that right now the biggest issue with the playtest is that light armor is probably the best choice, or at even with medium.  And heavy armor gets shafted.     
....and the first feedback is "Your playtest pre-gens don't match the rules presented." Playtest fail. Having to ask "Are the rules for play correct or is the sample sheet correct?" means that you are already corrupting any data you hope to receive from the test. If you really want a playtest to be meaningful you have to make sure all the testers have the same starting point.



THIS, very much this.  If the Pregen character's don't follow your own rules then all the equipement and combat rules presented in the package are essentially worthless since the platform we are asked to test with is fundamentally corrupt.


-Polaris
Just because the proficiency rules and a couple class features were left hidden doesn't make the rules package worthless.  We're not supposed to be building characters, we're supposed to be playing the ones built for us and telling them if the characters play alright with the rules as written, and suggesting changes.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Just because the proficiency rules and a couple class features were left hidden doesn't make the rules package worthless.  We're not supposed to be building characters, we're supposed to be playing the ones built for us and telling them if the characters play alright with the rules as written, and suggesting changes.



With a flat curve those +1 and +2 bonuses become critically important especially with advantage and disadvantage, and not having them correct means that we don't know how the characters work in relation to the printed rules we are suppsed to be testing and that means the playtest is fundamentally corrupt and worthless.

-Polaris
Seriosly, I've been looking though the package and noticed mistakes, omissions and misprints. Took me no more then 30 mins. Here is what I have found so far...

*Cleric of Moradin has a heavy shield, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Cleric of Pelor has a quarterstaff, but lacks proficiency to use it
*Most weapons have proficiency bonus that is not listed anywhere
*Armor Dex bonus rounding not clarified if rounded up or down
*Medium armor is worthless to anyone that has at least +1 dex bonus and access to light armors



Medium Armor is a bad choice for anyone with  =>+2 DX mod, ie DX14+. Sounds okay to me.

It's the typos that crack me up, that and "fire" a bow. The caves map is very poor - a more easily printed version would be handy.
Fortunately the typos won't need errata, unless you count Turn Undead flavor text saying turns them to ash but there being no rules for this...
(Crit Success = ash or is it Undead level based or PC v's Undead level...) 
Just because the proficiency rules and a couple class features were left hidden doesn't make the rules package worthless.  We're not supposed to be building characters, we're supposed to be playing the ones built for us and telling them if the characters play alright with the rules as written, and suggesting changes.



With a flat curve those +1 and +2 bonuses become critically important especially with advantage and disadvantage, and not having them correct means that we don't know how the characters work in relation to the printed rules we are suppsed to be testing and that means the playtest is fundamentally corrupt and worthless.

-Polaris



But you're not supposed to use other weapons than what you have!  It's not worthless – but we SHOULD be telling them to include the proficiency bonuses in the playtest packet next time.  Everything is completely playable – use the character sheets when the two disagree; the disagreement is likely a hidden class feature element that is not important right now if we know it or not. 

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Just because the proficiency rules and a couple class features were left hidden doesn't make the rules package worthless.  We're not supposed to be building characters, we're supposed to be playing the ones built for us and telling them if the characters play alright with the rules as written, and suggesting changes.



With a flat curve those +1 and +2 bonuses become critically important especially with advantage and disadvantage, and not having them correct means that we don't know how the characters work in relation to the printed rules we are suppsed to be testing and that means the playtest is fundamentally corrupt and worthless.

-Polaris



But you're not supposed to use other weapons than what you have!  It's not worthless – but we SHOULD be telling them to include the proficiency bonuses in the playtest packet next time.  Everything is completely playable – use the character sheets when the two disagree; the disagreement is likely a hidden class feature element that is not important right now if we know it or not. 



What if we want to play a human wizard?  What if we want to buy or exchange equipement?  If we weren't supposed to test those rules, then why include them at all.  Right now, it's GIGO.  (Garbage In==Garbage Out)

-Polaris


Edit PS:  Without information telling us what's a mistake and what's a hidden feature (either class or gear) it's NOT playable as it is.  Why?  Because we don't know how key portions of the system work (such as what attack bonus the fighter gets if he picks up a Greatsword lying on the floor...or what damage).

  
You're not buying equipment because you're in the Caves of Chaos. None of the playtest adventure occurs in an area where you could buy or sell.  Or perhaps you want to play a different adventure than the material was made for?  That's not what the playtest is about.  It's not about giving us tools to play the game.  It's about giving us the minimum tools needed to playtest a couple features that they want our feedback for.  In a future playtest we'll see everything you want.  If you don't intend on actually using the playtest rules as intended, you're not really helping the playtest and I guess whether it's worthless to you or not is meaningless since your feedback isn't helping them achieve the playtesting they want to see. 


Unless WotC comes out and says there's mistakes, always assume they aren't mistakes but hidden features.  Don't have the DM leave a greatsword lying on the floor for the fighter.  Play through the adventure without giving characters new equipment.  It's fully playable that way.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

You're not buying equipment because you're in the Caves of Chaos. None of the playtest adventure occurs in an area where you could buy or sell.  Or perhaps you want to play a different adventure than the material was made for?  That's not what the playtest is about.  It's not about giving us tools to play the game.  It's about giving us the minimum tools needed to playtest a couple features that they want our feedback for.  In a future playtest we'll see everything you want.  If you don't intend on actually using the playtest rules as intended, you're not really helping the playtest and I guess whether it's worthless to you or not is meaningless since your feedback isn't helping them achieve the playtesting they want to see. 


Unless WotC comes out and says there's mistakes, always assume they aren't mistakes but hidden features.  Don't have the DM leave a greatsword lying on the floor for the fighter.  Play through the adventure without giving characters new equipment.  It's fully playable that way.



If I don't know that my characters are legal then I can't give valid feedback on the rules.  If we weren't supposed to "deal" with equipement, then why include it with a list of prices?  If we weren't supposed to tinker with the attack bonuses, then why include the rules that allow us to figure them out?

Right now this is smelling like a playtest with only one "right" answer because the relevant data is being hidden from us.  Garbage In==Garbage out.  If the characters aren't legal characters then that's garbage in.  That should not be difficult to grok.


-Polaris  
I saw somebody say this before, but complaining about portions of the game being missing is like testing a first person shooter game's physics and complaining that the score counter doesn't work.
I saw somebody say this before, but complaining about portions of the game being missing is like testing a first person shooter game's physics and complaining that the score counter doesn't work.



A valid complaint.  Otherwise don't include the score counter.  Really it's not hard.  Either tell us what's under the hood or take it back until it's ready.  As it is, I can not use the pregens as written because I have zero confidence that they will accurately test the game physics.


-Polaris  
Even if there are mistakes they are irrelevant for testing the core mechanics. They aren't looking for feedback on character/item balance and design at this stage. If I were to guess, I'd say they deliberately excluded many of those those rules so that people wouldn't focus on them. However, some still are bound and determined to try to hunt down those missing +1's even though it is impossible and make that the basis of their analysis, which is unfortunate since their comments will mostly likely just be ignored by the designers. Focusing on the obvious and trivial will not help make this game great.
Even if there are mistakes they are irrelevant for testing the core mechanics. They aren't looking for feedback on character/item balance and design at this stage. If I were to guess, I'd say they deliberately excluded many of those those rules so that people wouldn't focus on them. However, some still are bound and determined to try to hunt down those missing +1's even though it is impossible and make that the basis of their analysis, which is unfortunate since their comments will mostly likely just be ignored by the designers. Focusing on the obvious and trivial will not help make this game great.



The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and with what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).

See the problem?  If I can't trust the tools I am given, I can't provide meaningful feedback on what is built with them or how well they did.


-Polaris
Even if there are mistakes they are irrelevant for testing the core mechanics. They aren't looking for feedback on character/item balance and design at this stage. If I were to guess, I'd say they deliberately excluded many of those those rules so that people wouldn't focus on them. However, some still are bound and determined to try to hunt down those missing +1's even though it is impossible and make that the basis of their analysis, which is unfortunate since their comments will mostly likely just be ignored by the designers. Focusing on the obvious and trivial will not help make this game great.



The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and wth what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).

See the problem?  If I can't trust the tools I am given, I can't provide meaningful feedback on what is built with them or how well they did.


-Polaris



I agree. You should not be providing any playtest feedback.

 Any Edition

Even if there are mistakes they are irrelevant for testing the core mechanics. They aren't looking for feedback on character/item balance and design at this stage. If I were to guess, I'd say they deliberately excluded many of those those rules so that people wouldn't focus on them. However, some still are bound and determined to try to hunt down those missing +1's even though it is impossible and make that the basis of their analysis, which is unfortunate since their comments will mostly likely just be ignored by the designers. Focusing on the obvious and trivial will not help make this game great.



The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and with what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).

See the problem?  If I can't trust the tools I am given, I can't provide meaningful feedback on what is built with them or how well they did.


-Polaris



Right on the cleric (I'm looking at the Pelor one right now) it says that you gain a +2 bonus to all attack rolls of spells. So +4(Wis) and +2 is +6

Even if there are mistakes they are irrelevant for testing the core mechanics. They aren't looking for feedback on character/item balance and design at this stage. If I were to guess, I'd say they deliberately excluded many of those those rules so that people wouldn't focus on them. However, some still are bound and determined to try to hunt down those missing +1's even though it is impossible and make that the basis of their analysis, which is unfortunate since their comments will mostly likely just be ignored by the designers. Focusing on the obvious and trivial will not help make this game great.



The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and wth what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).

See the problem?  If I can't trust the tools I am given, I can't provide meaningful feedback on what is built with them or how well they did.


-Polaris



I agree. You should not be providing any playtest feedback.




How nice and so very elitist of you. Sod off.


-Polaris   


Right on the cleric (I'm looking at the Pelor one right now) it says that you gain a +2 bonus to all attack rolls of spells. So +4(Wis) and +2 is +6




Right.  Now check the Attack (spell) line on the same character sheet.  It says +4.


-Polaris

Right on the cleric (I'm looking at the Pelor one right now) it says that you gain a +2 bonus to all attack rolls of spells. So +4(Wis) and +2 is +6




Right.  Now check the Attack (spell) line on the same character sheet.  It says +4.


-Polaris



I see "Radiant lance(+6) (1d8 + 4 radiant)" . . .

The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and with what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).


-Polaris



I get what you are trying to do and agree those aspects need to be tested eventually. However, they are not interested in feedback on items and spells at his time. Right now they are only focusing on key core mechanics such as checks, adv/dis, saves etc. The specific numbers you use to test those mechanics really don't matter that much.

In fact, from a perspective of checking the system for robustness (how well a system can handle extreme or unusual values) having wonky numbers actually helps. I develop abstract systems as part of my profession, and in testing a system it is often useful to keep throwing crazy/unusual numbers at it see if it holds together or breaks. Thus, a "failure" of a system in a test is actually a very good thing. It shows were something went wrong and gives you clues on how to fix it, where nice perfect numbers would reveal nothing. It's much better to find these things now and resolve them than after release when it is too late to make changes easily.

Right on the cleric (I'm looking at the Pelor one right now) it says that you gain a +2 bonus to all attack rolls of spells. So +4(Wis) and +2 is +6




Right.  Now check the Attack (spell) line on the same character sheet.  It says +4.


-Polaris



I see "Radiant lance(+6) (1d8 + 4 radiant)" . . .



Look under SPELLS.  It explicitly says that spells attack at +4.


-Polaris

The problem is that right now I can't trust the character sheets and can't give them the feedback on what they do want.  How can I comment on how a Greatsword works if I don't know if it's a d12 or 2d6 weapon, don't know who can wield it and with what bonus (or lack of one) ect.  How can I rate the effectiveness of clerical combat spells if the ACTUAL CHARACTER SHEET and included rules can't tell me with any certainty if it's a +4 to attack or a +6 to attack (and both are equally valid given the material we were given).


-Polaris



I get what you are trying to do and agree those aspects need to be tested eventually. However, they are not interested in feedback on items and spells at his time. Right now they are only focusing on key core mechanics such as checks, adv/dis, saves etc. The specific numbers you use to test those mechanics really don't matter that much.

In fact, from a perspective of checking the system for robustness (how well a system can handle extreme or unusual values) having wonky numbers actually helps. I develop abstract systems as part of my profession, and in testing a system it is often useful to keep throwing crazy/unusual numbers at it see if it holds together or breaks. Thus, a "failure" of a system in a test is actually a very good thing. It shows were something went wrong and gives you clues on how to fix it, where nice perfect numbers would reveal nothing. It's much better to find these things now and resolve them than after release when it is too late to make changes easily.



I vehemently disagree.  You can not build on a foundation of sand.  If the actual tools we are given are flawed, then the data will be flawed as well, and then future decisions based on that will be flawed and you quickly have a cascading problem.


Do it right the first time when testing or don't do it.  That means you give us the CORRECT and COMPLETE (as currently known) rules to test, or wait until they are in a testable form.


-Polaris     
I assume it's modifying a normal +2 for spell attack rolls that we don't know about, and that +4 is the actual modifier (or said another way, "Since you have a Wis +4, the +4 replaces the +2 and thus is an additional +2).  In the case where you can't tell if they mean (A) or (B), go with the answer that is more supported by the sheet – aka, the +4, not a +6 that isn't written anwhere on it. 

I mean, it COULD be a mistake, but you should just use the sheet as written, use any rules in the How to Play document that are applicable, and don't worry about discrepencies.  We're not here to errata the sheets, we're here to see if the game is running well with characters build as their sheets say. 

I'm not going to tell you to not play, just that you should use the sheets as written and not worry about discrepencies like that.  That's not what we're testing.  We're not testing what a Greatsword does – the Fighter uses a Greataxe, but not a Greatsword.  Maybe the items shouldn't have been included in the document, but they included them a bit to help us better understand how the items we have work.  They're not there so we can purchase more, since there's no shop in the Caves of Chaos

There are a FEW weapons you can pick up in the adventure, but these aren't important again since it's not what we're playtesting for.  I understand what you're saying, and I wish I could see any hidden weapon stats since I would want to pick up those weapons and use them in my playtest, but I'm not beholden to do so.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe



I see "Radiant lance(+6) (1d8 + 4 radiant)" . . .



Look under SPELLS.  It explicitly says that spells attack at +4.


-Polaris


Ah, I see it now. I'd say they probably made a mistake on that entry there and forgot the +2 bonus that spellcasters get.


I see "Radiant lance(+6) (1d8 + 4 radiant)" . . .



Look under SPELLS.  It explicitly says that spells attack at +4.


-Polaris


Ah, I see it now. I'd say they probably made a mistake on that entry there and forgot the +2 bonus that spellcasters get.



That makes sense – they auto gave you +4 for your full Wisdom, but then to clarify told you that means you get +2 on top of the spellcaster +2 – it doesn't stack, it replaces.  It was a bit confusing doing it that way though, so I understand why you were concerned.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

.
*Armor Dex bonus needs to round down.  ALWAYS round down.  It says this in the packet. 
*Medium armor is useful to people who want to wear medium armor for theme.  Everyone has essentially the same AC minus Wizards who can't use armor. 



From a straight standpoint, medium armor is useless, aside from Splint.  Which is ridiciliously expensive.

Its not a thematic choice to give yourself penalties for no good reason.  Which is Preciesely what medium armor is about.
If you round up, you at least have a closet case of 12-14 Dex.  (~20% of the population using random 3d6 rolling).  Also, where in the packet does it say so?  I read the packet on 'how to play' three times now, and don't see it....but I am blind sometimes.

edit> Nevermind found it...in the DM Packet.  Why on earth it would be there and not in the same packet as the only rules to divide is found, is beyond me.
Sign In to post comments