Do the pre-made characters need errata?

As the title says. I ask because some of the numbers don't match exactly (for instance, the Dwarf Fighter's damage is +7, instead of the expected +5) and there are no explicit abilities to account for that. I think someone also mentioned the Human Cleric having an extra orison over the Dwarf Cleric. Are those instances intentional - the PCs use mechanics we haven't seen yet and which aren't shown in the sheets - or are they somehow wrong?
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - [i]Hávamál[/i] D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. )
Well we don't know how characters are made so at this time I think errata is jumping the gun ENTIRELY.  Wait until we get the rules for character creation and we'll be able to see where all the numbers come from and then you can go back and analyze the premades and see if their math is wrong.  At the moment just roll with it and don't worry about it.
Well we don't know how characters are made so at this time I think errata is jumping the gun ENTIRELY.  Wait until we get the rules for character creation and we'll be able to see where all the numbers come from and then you can go back and analyze the premades and see if their math is wrong.  At the moment just roll with it and don't worry about it.




umm... no.  A big part of this playtest is to test and see that the math and whatnot works, the playtest is meaningless if the numbers are all wrong.  
Without the character creation rules, the best we can do is reverse-engineering with a healthy chunk of guesswork.  The creation rules will be given to us in a month or so, be patient.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

Well we don't know how characters are made so at this time I think errata is jumping the gun ENTIRELY.  Wait until we get the rules for character creation and we'll be able to see where all the numbers come from and then you can go back and analyze the premades and see if their math is wrong.  At the moment just roll with it and don't worry about it.




umm... no.  A big part of this playtest is to test and see that the math and whatnot works, the playtest is meaningless if the numbers are all wrong.  


but since we don't know how the characters are built, we don't actually know that the numbers are wrong. And in Mike Merals' own words, "Our goal at this stage is to fine-tune the core rules. We'll ask for your feedback on character creation, advancment, and adventure design rules in the coming months."

They don't want us to worry about the numbers on the character sheet being right or not, they want us to tell them if the game system is playable, fun, and feels like D&D.
Well we don't know how characters are made so at this time I think errata is jumping the gun ENTIRELY.  Wait until we get the rules for character creation and we'll be able to see where all the numbers come from and then you can go back and analyze the premades and see if their math is wrong.  At the moment just roll with it and don't worry about it.




umm... no.  A big part of this playtest is to test and see that the math and whatnot works, the playtest is meaningless if the numbers are all wrong.  


but since we don't know how the characters are built, we don't actually know that the numbers are wrong. And in Mike Merals' own words, "Our goal at this stage is to fine-tune the core rules. We'll ask for your feedback on character creation, advancment, and adventure design rules in the coming months."

They don't want us to worry about the numbers on the character sheet being right or not, they want us to tell them if the game system is playable, fun, and feels like D&D.



I disagree.  If we don't know what is and isn't a legal character, then we don't know how reliable the numbers that we are given are.  With the 5e healing rules, whether a fighter is a d12 or a d10 hit dice is really important.  Likewise whether the fighter gets +5 to attack or +7 is really important and without knowing what the rules are supposed to be right now, we have no way to give meaningful feedback.

Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)


-Polaris  
Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)

Or they can give us something that's pretty close and ask us to focus on the rules that we do have.  I'm sure there are mistakes, there were in the 4e, and error-proofing is not as valuable as it might be while the rules are so much in flux.  Focus on the gameplay rules for now, one thing at a time.

And really, do you want them to go back to keeping the whole thing under wraps until launch day?  There's a reason they're making the playtest open this time.  Let's not have a repeat of 4e, hm? 

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

Well we don't know how characters are made so at this time I think errata is jumping the gun ENTIRELY.  Wait until we get the rules for character creation and we'll be able to see where all the numbers come from and then you can go back and analyze the premades and see if their math is wrong.  At the moment just roll with it and don't worry about it.




umm... no.  A big part of this playtest is to test and see that the math and whatnot works, the playtest is meaningless if the numbers are all wrong.  


but since we don't know how the characters are built, we don't actually know that the numbers are wrong. And in Mike Merals' own words, "Our goal at this stage is to fine-tune the core rules. We'll ask for your feedback on character creation, advancment, and adventure design rules in the coming months."

They don't want us to worry about the numbers on the character sheet being right or not, they want us to tell them if the game system is playable, fun, and feels like D&D.



I disagree.  If we don't know what is and isn't a legal character, then we don't know how reliable the numbers that we are given are.  With the 5e healing rules, whether a fighter is a d12 or a d10 hit dice is really important.  Likewise whether the fighter gets +5 to attack or +7 is really important and without knowing what the rules are supposed to be right now, we have no way to give meaningful feedback.

Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)


-Polaris  



But wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of the playtest? I thought they were giving us these advance glances at the unfinished rules because they wanted us, the players, to have a major say in how this edition turns out. If they just waited until the rules were finished to release a playtest, and all the feedback was negative, then what? They'd suddenly be months behind on their project's timeline and would be scrapping months of design work and balancing. The point in giving us the incomplete rules is so we can weed out the stuff we don't like before the whole thing is done. Then, by the time it's finished, it'll be exactly what the majority of us players want.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
The numbers obviously aren't going to add up without equations to evaluate. I think that we are supposed to give answers to questions such as "What does this iteration of rules fail to do well?" rather than "What rule statement fails to do well?". The distinction is important at this stage, since getting into discussions about whether fighters should get +2 to accuracy can easily devolve into how one edition did it better or not, or even an argument laden with 20-level to-hit spreadsheets flying back and forth.

I am a math nerd, a rules-encyclopedia type that instinctively wants to know (like others here) what makes D&DN tick. Things like "How did the fighter get that +6 to attack?" and "Do they all have +2 to attack or something?". I have to stop myself though, and ask "Why did the designers opt to leave out these formulae at such a critical phase? Aren't we supposed to provide feedback based on the numbers laid out before us?!"

I have come to a sobering, yet enlightening possibility - that the answer to my self-imposed question is "No." instead, this stage of playtest might be more about giving the designers feedback on how well the system portrays the classic D&D archetypes at starting level, and answering critical questions such as "Does the level 1 fighter hit too often to feel like a level 1 fighter?". This, as opposed to answering later questions like "Why?", or "What new rule will do it better for levels 1 through 20?" - this I think was done to allow the designers and playtesters to focus more on what doesn't feel right about this new starting point that is the Next edition of D&D, then experiment on us until they get it right before trying to ensure it all scales well.

"Is Preparation H much better on the (w)hole?" Tongue Out Yes, I think it is.

Do I know why yet? Sadly, I have no definite indication why (despite my participation in this "exclusive" playtest group).
Locke: [after mugging a merchant for his clothes] It's a little tight, but the price was right.
Amen MindWandererB.

As much as the DM in me wants clarification on...... Well everything, right now my job is not to worry about how the characters came to be but to see if I can run my group through an adventure with the fixed stats and abilities provided.

With that being said I definitely need clarification on the sleep spell to run it without house rules.

If I run it as it is written my players will turn everything into permanent sleeping trophys.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)

Or they can give us something that's pretty close and ask us to focus on the rules that we do have.  I'm sure there are mistakes, there were in the 4e, and error-proofing is not as valuable as it might be while the rules are so much in flux.  Focus on the gameplay rules for now, one thing at a time.

And really, do you want them to go back to keeping the whole thing under wraps until launch day?  There's a reason they're making the playtest open this time.  Let's not have a repeat of 4e, hm? 




I don't agree.  You don't have to keep everything under wraps to make sure that what you do release is RIGHT.  If we are to fairly and properly evaluate the rules (and YES how they function in the game IS evaluating the rules), then I fail to see how this supposed playtest is of any use at all.

-Polaris  
Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)

Or they can give us something that's pretty close and ask us to focus on the rules that we do have.  I'm sure there are mistakes, there were in the 4e, and error-proofing is not as valuable as it might be while the rules are so much in flux.  Focus on the gameplay rules for now, one thing at a time.

And really, do you want them to go back to keeping the whole thing under wraps until launch day?  There's a reason they're making the playtest open this time.  Let's not have a repeat of 4e, hm? 




I don't agree.  You don't have to keep everything under wraps to make sure that what you do release is RIGHT.  If we are to fairly and properly evaluate the rules (and YES how they function in the game IS evaluating the rules), then I fail to see how this supposed playtest is of any use at all.

-Polaris  



They've already said creation rules will come out later.  Right now, we don't know where all the numbers are coming from.  It doesn't matter.  They gave us PREGENS, so we can use as is.  If they expected us to make PCs, and then playtest, then yes, we'd have to know where everything comes from.  To obsess over this.. well, if you can't see the use in the playtest, drop out of said playtest.. the rest of us will test it and provide our feedback.
"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
Either give us pre-gens that follow the rules as they are currently written at this stage in the playtest or don't give us pre-gens at all and if necessary tell us to wait until the game is actually ready (that's an odd thought...don't release something until it's actually ready...)

Or they can give us something that's pretty close and ask us to focus on the rules that we do have.  I'm sure there are mistakes, there were in the 4e, and error-proofing is not as valuable as it might be while the rules are so much in flux.  Focus on the gameplay rules for now, one thing at a time.

And really, do you want them to go back to keeping the whole thing under wraps until launch day?  There's a reason they're making the playtest open this time.  Let's not have a repeat of 4e, hm? 




I don't agree.  You don't have to keep everything under wraps to make sure that what you do release is RIGHT.  If we are to fairly and properly evaluate the rules (and YES how they function in the game IS evaluating the rules), then I fail to see how this supposed playtest is of any use at all.

-Polaris  



They've already said creation rules will come out later.  Right now, we don't know where all the numbers are coming from.  It doesn't matter.  They gave us PREGENS, so we can use as is.  If they expected us to make PCs, and then playtest, then yes, we'd have to know where everything comes from.  To obsess over this.. well, if you can't see the use in the playtest, drop out of said playtest.. the rest of us will test it and provide our feedback.



If the pre-gens AREN'T Legal characters then any conclusions we draw from them will be automatically invalid. What is so difficult to understand about that?  If we AREN'T given enough information to give proper feedback then it simply shows that someone isn't interested in our feedback at all (because any feedback we could give would be automatically invalid).

-Polaris  

If the pre-gens AREN'T Legal characters then any conclusions we draw from them will be automatically invalid. What is so difficult to understand about that?  If we AREN'T given enough information to give proper feedback then it simply shows that someone isn't interested in our feedback at all (because any feedback we could give would be automatically invalid).

-Polaris  



Really? Why?

Even if not legal, you can comment after playing how much difference Reaping strike mattered.
Even if not legal, you can comment after playing how much defender ability of Guardian  mattered.
Etc, et cetra, etc .

You can still test the systems mechanics seperately. Even if the whole is a mystery. 
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann

If the pre-gens AREN'T Legal characters then any conclusions we draw from them will be automatically invalid. What is so difficult to understand about that?  If we AREN'T given enough information to give proper feedback then it simply shows that someone isn't interested in our feedback at all (because any feedback we could give would be automatically invalid).

-Polaris  



Really? Why?

Even if not legal, you can comment after playing how much difference Reaping strike mattered.
Even if not legal, you can comment after playing how much defender ability of Guardian  mattered.
Etc, et cetra, etc .

You can still test the systems mechanics seperately. Even if the whole is a mystery. 



If the character isn't legal, then I don't know if the entire package can be put together this way.  I can't tell you how much Reaping Strike Mattered if I am unsure if I could reasonably hit with it.  I can't tell yoiu how much Guardian Mattered, if I don't know the underlying math.


In short, as playtesters we simply aren't being given ENOUGH information to give informed feedback because if we can't trust that the character's we play are legal, then we can't trust any result from them.  Bottom line.  Wotc should have put this out when they were READY.

-Polaris    
It's immaterial to me if the character is legal or not.  I signed up to test what I was given.

As such, I test what I was given, not stress over where a +1 or a +2 here or there come from.  That comes later. 
If there are errors, they'll correct them and resend the info.

 
It's immaterial to me if the character is legal or not.  I signed up to test what I was given.

As such, I test what I was given, not stress over where a +1 or a +2 here or there come from.  That comes later. 
If there are errors, they'll correct them and resend the info.

 



If I don't know if my tool is even valid, how can I review it in a coherent way?  It's like being asked to review a book but you aren't given most of the chapters, or being asked to evaluate a wrench, but you don't even know if that wrench will pass the 'standards'
 or not.


In short, if we can't trust the tools we are given to evaluate the game (and we can not), then we can't properly evaluate the game.  It's my fairly firm opinion that Wotc isn't actually interested in our opinion anyway.  This is all a giant PR gimmick, but that's just my somewhat cynical take.

-Polaris      
You have a wrench.  You review the wrench as it was given to you.
You have a book, you review what you were given.

How is that hard?  Your "job" is to review the information/item presented to you, not worry about if the wrench meets any "standards".  That is for Wizards to deal with.  
You have a wrench.  You review the wrench as it was given to you.
You have a book, you review what you were given.

How is that hard?  Your "job" is to review the information/item presented to you, not worry about if the wrench meets any "standards".  That is for Wizards to deal with.  



I have a wrench, but I don't know if the wrench is the one that will actually be sold.  I don't even know if it meets safety standards and I don't know if it even meets the design docs of the company.  That means that any information I give back on that wrench is invalid because I am not reviewing what is supposed to be tested.


Simple enough?

-Polaris    


My biggest issue is that the pregen characters contradict the rules they've given us elsewhere.  Both of the characters that use a quarterstaff seem to be keying it (attack/damage) off of their strength stat, when in the weapon descriptions it says it can use Str or Dex which would give these characters a two or three point swing to the better.


Also the Pelor Clerics magic attack is listed at +4 while in other areas it says to use the appropriate stat bonus (WIS) with an additional +2... which would make that bonus a +6 (which is lists the Radiant Lance attack a +6 in a different section)      
It's like being asked to review a book but you aren't given most of the chapters, or being asked to evaluate a wrench, but you don't even know if that wrench will pass the 'standards'
 or not.



No, it's a lot more like being asked to review the second draft of a novel proposal that contains a typo here and there.

It's my fairly firm opinion that Wotc isn't actually interested in our opinion anyway.  This is all a giant PR gimmick, but that's just my somewhat cynical take.



Then stop wasting your time posting here. If you really are that cynical, you wouldn't waste one second of your time complaining about things you know you can't change.
It's like being asked to review a book but you aren't given most of the chapters, or being asked to evaluate a wrench, but you don't even know if that wrench will pass the 'standards'
 or not.



No, it's a lot more like being asked to review the second draft of a novel proposal that contains a typo here and there.




No, it's like being asked to review sample chapters of a book that don't (and can't) exist in the same book as the author has descrbied it.  It's a lot worse than what you want us to believe.   


   

It's my fairly firm opinion that Wotc isn't actually interested in our opinion anyway.  This is all a giant PR gimmick, but that's just my somewhat cynical take.



Then stop wasting your time posting here. If you really are that cynical, you wouldn't waste one second of your time complaining about things you know you can't change.


I will give this advice all the consideration it is due....which is none at all.

-Polaris 
There is one problem though:


You have a whole section of the rule book about weaponry ... and then have character sheets using different numbers. AND you have an adventure where PCs can find weapons and armor that they might change into. Not knowing why the weapons have different numbers (and different damage expressions) makes it hard to make use of this content they gave us.


Similarly, the fighter getting a lot more damage (through bigger damage dice and bigger fixed bonus to damage as well) is going to change the "how does the fighter feel vs. how does the rogue feel".