|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:04PM
#761
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
There is a distinct possibility that in the surveys this isn't seen as an issue. That not many in the bulk testing group even sound off about this or even consider it an issue. The Q&A response is likely a direct response to us in the forum. We have been talking in like 5 threads about it for weeks now with some getting quite bitter about it. There is a distinct possibility that the Q&A response represents a consensus reached by many testers that do not reside here on the forums. Even if your whole group thinks it is an issue they could be a drop in the bucket in relation to the supposedly tens of thousands of surveys they recieve that don't note this as a problem. Because I can tell you that my group on average doesn't see this as a problem so really our anectdotals cancel each other out.
Sure, that is a possibilty. Again, I wish they had said that. At least I would know why they don't seem to be listenign to my concerns. But the Q&A was written as if it weren't even on their radar.
Which is why I think it went down as follows...
Trevor, our community liaison, patrols the forums (and other sundry places on the Internet) looking for Ro3 topics. He sees the debate about fighter interaction mechanics, turns it into a question and puts it on the list of possible topics to be discussed.
Rodney Thompson takes the list and looks them over, selecting the three he thinks are most interesting and which he can actually answer. he doesn't know abotu the debates going on. he just sees the question.
He writes the answer and reviews it with the rest of the design team briefly. Then he posts it to the blog.
Seems reasonable. Problem is that the answer comes off as tinny. If the goal were to respond to the debate, it failed because it doesn't address the points being made in the debate. If the goal were to explain why this debate is largely a forum phenomenon, it didn't really address that either.
And we've seen other Q&A answers address such things. They've said things like "The playtesters said they are overhwhemingly happy with the cleric..." for example.
But with this answer I don't know if they are intending to give fighters a second background. It doesn't really seem like it. I don't know if the playtesters have convinced them the forum complaints are an aberrations afely ignored. Nothing in the Q&A indicates one thing or the other.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:08PM
#762
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
Except that they've said repeatedly they'd like to include Advanced rules to cover everything that a chunk of the consumership would like. The fact that we have to squint sideways and dig for even an inkling they might do that here indicates that they have a totally tin ear to this.
If they had said, "We understand that the fighter's Background may not be enough, mechanically, to make people feel like a fighter can contribute meaningfully in social situations alongside the other characters with their spells and skill tricks. That's why we intend to offer some Advanced rules that people can add to their fighter to give them more utility in the interaction pillar," I think most people would be happy.
I might grumble that I wish it were in the Standard Rules, but at least I understand that they understand our concern. But this Q&A sounds like they weren't even aware that this is an issue... even thought he question they are answering basically screams that it's an issue. That's why it feels like such a problem.
Sure, I can and have made up my own house rules. But I thought the point of having Advanced Rules was, if enough people want it, they'll provide it.
Vocal Minority
There is a distinct possibility that in the surveys this isn't seen as an issue. That not many in the bulk testing group even sound off about this or even consider it an issue. The Q&A response is likely a direct response to us in the forum. We have been talking in like 5 threads about it for weeks now with some getting quite bitter about it. There is a distinct possibility that the Q&A response represents a consensus reached by many testers that do not reside here on the forums. Even if your whole group thinks it is an issue they could be a drop in the bucket in relation to the supposedly tens of thousands of surveys they recieve that don't note this as a problem. Because I can tell you that my group on average doesn't see this as a problem so really our anectdotals cancel each other out.
Thing is that they're not asking about out of combat utility for fighters in their surveys, they don't really have data on it. If people have fixed it in 4th, with s a house rule, then it isn't in their data set from the character builder. The dismissiveness shown in the column is troubling.
On the survey they have this comments field that I am dead sure everyone uses. Especially those that see this issue.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:11PM
#763
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Even if they don't implement this it it is literally the easiest house rule ever made. I know, I know, "I shouldn't have to house rule to get the game I want", frankly for this edition that argument is straight tossed out everyone i9s expected and encouraged to do this. Especially when it comes to something like this. They aren't forcing you to clean up the math* you are literally just adding functionality that you think is lacking. That isn't difficult or unreasonable. It isn't like needing to create entire subsystems to make the thing work or rewriting entire subsystems it is literally...'you know what fighters need more take a second background'. Chances are if they don't include bonus skills on the fighter I will likely do this.
Except that they've said repeatedly they'd like to include Advanced rules to cover everything that a chunk of the consumership would like. The fact that we have to squint sideways and dig for even an inkling they might do that here indicates that they have a totally tin ear to this.
If they had said, "We understand that the fighter's Background may not be enough, mechanically, to make people feel like a fighter can contribute meaningfully in social situations alongside the other characters with their spells and skill tricks. That's why we intend to offer some Advanced rules that people can add to their fighter to give them more utility in the interaction pillar," I think most people would be happy.
I might grumble that I wish it were in the Standard Rules, but at least I understand that they understand our concern. But this Q&A sounds like they weren't even aware that this is an issue... even thought he question they are answering basically screams that it's an issue. That's why it feels like such a problem.
Sure, I can and have made up my own house rules. But I thought the point of having Advanced Rules was, if enough people want it, they'll provide it.
Vocal Minority
There is a distinct possibility that in the surveys this isn't seen as an issue. That not many in the bulk testing group even sound off about this or even consider it an issue. The Q&A response is likely a direct response to us in the forum. We have been talking in like 5 threads about it for weeks now with some getting quite bitter about it. There is a distinct possibility that the Q&A response represents a consensus reached by many testers that do not reside here on the forums. Even if your whole group thinks it is an issue they could be a drop in the bucket in relation to the supposedly tens of thousands of surveys they recieve that don't note this as a problem. Because I can tell you that my group on average doesn't see this as a problem so really our anectdotals cancel each other out.
Thing is that they're not asking about out of combat utility for fighters in their surveys, they don't really have data on it. If people have fixed it in 4th, with s a house rule, then it isn't in their data set from the character builder. The dismissiveness shown in the column is troubling.
On the survey they have this comments field that I am dead sure everyone uses. Especially those that see this issue.
With the specific narrow approach of the surveys I've done (each looks at specific facets of the game) I don't know that they are going to glean enough general comments from specific surveys. In addition to this, open comment data is notoriously hard to quantify and utilize.
I work in a fortune 100 company. Responses are graded on the 1 - 5 metric on surveys (with 5s as successes and 1-3s as failures). Comments are data sorted into categories for failures, and if they don't readily sort into a predetermined category, they aren't represented as any sort of metric.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:15PM
#764
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I don't know if the playtesters have convinced them the forum complaints are an aberrations afely ignored.
With each packet iteration, that's the one conclusion I'm becoming more and more certain of. How many posters frequent this forum, the most active of the 5e-devoted forums? 100? Fewer? Maybe 50? Only 20 or so of which ever post with any regularity? And only some smaller fraction of which think that this is an actual issue which needs to be addressed by a rules revision or supplement?
If the DDN playtest has even a thousand participants (and I'd bet it has significantly more, though I've no statistical backup other than the marketing survey claims of about four years ago, which clocked current D&D players in the low millions, worldwide)...even if there are only a thousand playtesters, the kvetching of three or five forum participants becomes a few very loud fish in an itty bitty pond, surrounded by a much vaster ocean which renders it insignificant.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:24PM
#765
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
If the DDN playtest has even a thousand participants (and I'd bet it has significantly more, though I've no statistical backup other than the marketing survey claims of about four years ago, which clocked current D&D players in the low millions, worldwide)...even if there are only a thousand playtesters, the kvetching of three or five forum participants becomes a few very loud fish in an itty bitty pond, surrounded by a much vaster ocean which renders it insignificant.
Mearls has said that there have been tens of thousands of participants and I have no readon to not believe him. I agree that these forums are tiny microscopic atom of the community.
However, I don't remember any questions in the playtests about interaction. Frankly, I had assumed they would be exploring those pillars later in the playtest. It didn't even occur to me that any of the comment boxes would have been appropriate to ask for fighter-specific mechanics. Until the rogue got interaction mechanics, it didnt' even occur to me that was a topic at all.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:32PM
#766
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
If the DDN playtest has even a thousand participants (and I'd bet it has significantly more, though I've no statistical backup other than the marketing survey claims of about four years ago, which clocked current D&D players in the low millions, worldwide)...even if there are only a thousand playtesters, the kvetching of three or five forum participants becomes a few very loud fish in an itty bitty pond, surrounded by a much vaster ocean which renders it insignificant.
Mearls has said that there have been tens of thousands of participants and I have no readon to not believe him. I agree that these forums are tiny microscopic atom of the community.
However, I don't remember any questions in the playtests about interaction. Frankly, I had assumed they would be exploring those pillars later in the playtest. It didn't even occur to me that any of the comment boxes would have been appropriate to ask for fighter-specific mechanics. Until the rogue got interaction mechanics, it didnt' even occur to me that was a topic at all.
Exactly. In no transparent way have they been seeking feedback on out of combat utility like we're discussing here.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:44PM
#767
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Exactly. In no transparent way have they been seeking feedback on out of combat utility like we're discussing here.
It might be something as innocent as the developers are not there yet.
I don't think tweaking the fighter for the other pillars is going to throw off the game. If they can get the combat system correct and use the fighter as the baseline, the MAIN job ofthe fighter is done. Tweaking the fighter to offer effectiveness in other pillars will not have many cascading effects.
In all honestly they can actually wait on that aspect. Maybe they will address how all the classes interact with the other pillars later. Maybe Rogue has been so well developed for Exploration because they intend for that to be their schtick.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 1:58PM
#768
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
It might be something as innocent as the developers are not there yet.
One would think that would be mentioned in the A part of this week's Q&A on that very topic.
In all honestly they can actually wait on that aspect.
They absolutely can. And has the answer been "We haven't begun to look at the interaction pillar yet" I would have been both unsurprised and content. But they didn't.
(The rogue is currently w3ell-developed for all three pillars, by the way, not just Exploration.)
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 2:19PM
#769
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
It looks like they are going with the Background as the vector to flesh out the fighter. It is not hopeless.
This would be fine, except every other class has Backgrounds. SO the Fighter has to spend his background to do anything interesting out of combat while every other class gets them by default and can use their background however they want.
The onl way this will be acceptable is if they remove all noncombat options from nonFighter classes and make the "Background=OOC" bit true for everyone.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 2:48PM
#770
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
Here's a thought. Fighters (and barbarians, but i'll focus on the fighter for now) don't have a lot going on for them out of combat. Maybe that's because the fighter is a very broad umbrella, and apart from defining how they fight, puting in place specific mecanics might funnel it into something too specific. The fighter has to be able to define the noble knight, the dirty scoundrell, the wisecracking duelist, the rampaging brute or the warrior-poet... not easy giving the whole class something that defines all these apart from the skill at arm. In the old days of D&D, the fighter was defined mostly by 2 things: being the best in combat (already covered), and being the master of passive defense: They had the most hit points they had the best armor they had the best saves they were the "I will endure" toughies So if it seems so complicated to give them something to DO outside of combat, why not give them at least an extension to their preternatural toughness to the other pillars? give them bonus to resist magic, many fighters face mages in fiction. being a good fighter is being alert, give them bonus to spot traps, or pickpockets being a fighter is also being pragmatic: maybe it can help see through bulls**t, maybe a bonus to sense motive allow them a bonus to resist intimidation, seduction or other social "attacks" a flat bonus to all saves ? In short: a special something that clearly says you're gonna have to pound real hard to bring this one down, no mater what you use I know it's not an active contribution, but when the whole party is knocked unconscious by poison in their drinks....except the fighter, Or when the fighter is the only one that resisted the charm of the lamia...I call that a contribution 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here:
http://www.radiancerpg.com
|
|
|
