Community

Step 1 on its own is basically meaningless. The process requires both steps.

Also I'm not convinced that playtesters get access to _everything_. For example, did many people get the halfling article with the auspicious dice? I'd not be surprised if there's a bit of a difference between a DDI article for a wotc staffer, an LFR module, and one item of hundreds that was done hurriedly by someone to make up for an unreliable freelancer (or submitted late by said).

I probably should have post this here -

This might be nothing but hoping people here are more informed.

Reading through some threads I've seen some people saying Wizards might be nerfing some PP features and others just hinting that Wizards is looking into it.  Then there's also the problem of someone taking a single comment that they've heard and posted, then having others run with it, blowing it  out of proportion.

So has anyone heard anything definite on if any Paragon Paths are being errated?

If so, what have you heard and where from?

- then in the errate thread.

So has any one heard anything?  One of the rumors floating around is some big changes like all the ones in the Nov update.  Another is that Wizards is just 'testing' the consumers seeing if they'll stand another big round of 'nerfs' to everyone's favorite overpowered class.  Then there's just the possiblity one single comment was taken out of context.

Dec 11, 2009 -- 10:31AM, Uthrac wrote:

Dec 5, 2009 -- 2:28AM, RCanine wrote:

LFR DMs shouldn't let anything happen when a player uses Solar Enemy.

LFR DMs should enhance the fun at the table, whenever possible. "Your power does nothing" is not fun. 

I bet I can DM an adventure where it is incredible fun...:P
Of course, that adventue may have flying pigs, hell freezing over, and Morris dancers.

Gomez

Dreadnaught is a PP that got errated this last go-round, so PPs are clearly not "untouchable."

That's not to say that I've heard anything specific on the chopping block, just that the precident has been set that paragon paths may be tweaked.

Dec 14, 2009 -- 9:10PM, Cailte wrote:

Benird is talking RPGA, and I know from talks around the tables this last weekend that the local play testers for Arts were very unhappy with the final module as an example. (No I'm not sure that is one that had Benird's name on it for PT.)

I generally use all comments I receive - either to change or to clarify.
In DALE1-7, I assume it is about the last combat? I toned down the combat for low tier, using the possibilities I had in the time frame (and a little trick). Initially I changed both, but then the high tier didn't seem a proper challenge, so I changed that one back, but then forgot to adjust it in a different way (some monsters were lowered in level though).  (Not to open this discussion here, there is a thread fior DALE1-7. It is merely to indicate that if changes are not as you expect that doesn't mean your comments weren't listened to)

So comments do get used and acted upon - but it is not always easy to determine what changes are then needed.
One way to steer this is to supply suggestions on how to make an encounter more or less challenging (taking into account both tiers). It helps authors/editors to get an idea on how combats may work better.

To stay OT: I don't know how well playtested content from WotC is, but I do know that even with feedback comments (which comes in various degrees of detail), you odten still have to guess on how to make the content better (specifically combats).

Gomez