|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 11:55AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2007
|
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
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 12:20PM
#2
|
|
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 12:25PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 12:34PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:39AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:48AM
#6
|
|
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:59AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2001
|
....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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 12:10PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 1:45PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
....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
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 1:51PM
#10
|
|
|
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.
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
|
|
|
