D&D past level 10

[darkmaster]

I've heard people around here say there was a lack of playtesting past level 10 in 3.5. Sauce?

[tzor]

I've heard people around here say there was a lack of playtesting past level 10 in 3.5. Sauce?

Well there was a definite lack of playtesting PERIOD. I could try to work the numbers given the general complexity of the rule base but the numbers were no where near where the various options could be fully tested. As a result it becomes an exponential path to fail. At the higher levels there was no practical testing whatsoever.

[erik]

I believe the majority of the playtesting was prior to 3e. That's what only went up to 10th level.

The "playtesting" for 3.5 was customer input from playing 3e. I suppose 3.5 actually got more input on levels above 10 due to that, but I doubt it was cohesive or intelligible, given that the designers apparently made no good changes in response.

[Username17]

I've heard people around here say there was a lack of playtesting past level 10 in 3.5. Sauce?

The original quote was on the old old board (before the Gleema shit), and was a discussion of how awesome and comprehensive their playtesting was. Like the now infamous David Noonan tirade about how comprehensive their playtesting for 4th edition was (tracking round by round damage for characters!), the response by people with real QA experience from related industries (like the video game industry) was "That's it?"

I also personally participated in a playtest near the end, when they opened it up to people in the RPGA or something. A guy I knew brought a big pile of xerox paper in and let us make first level characters and run them through a simple adventure. My verdict on the 3e Paladin was that it played fine. Decent saves and a martial weapon got me through a basic adventure just fine.

But that was the basic problem with the enterprise. The lower level things were, the more eyes were on them. The guy I played that playtest game with hadn't even seen the high level materials. The in-office campaigns got to like level 10 or 11 or something. The emphasis was on continuous play. They weren't really interested in jumping in at high levels, everything had to be played through starting from 1st. So there really wasn't any time to get to the high levels.

4th Edition basically made the same mistake (although at least this time they did early spot checking at level 5, 10, and 15 to see if players were doing equal amounts of damage). The campaign playthroughs all started at level 1, so they go characters to about 10th level in their blogs shortly before releasing the game. So again, it's not really surprising that the high levels weren't playable - they hadn't even really tried to play them.

-Username17

[CCarter]

With the 3.0 playtests it was bad there was no higher-level playtesting, but not surprising - it took forever to reach the higher levels. A high level 3E character has access to stuff that was really intended only for use by the GM's private Elminster-type peniswizard. (Look at legend lore in the PHB and it describes characters of level 11+ as "legendary", for example).

Looking over some of the playtests reports e.g. around here http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_Group_1099.asp I'm very surprised 3.0 turned out as well as it did - couldn't find anything on higher level testing, but they were on verge of doing crap like keeping the hard cap of 25 on (some of) the ability scores. (!).

By comparison, the lack of higher level playtesting in 4E is inexcusable.

[darkmaster]

Thanks for the replies I got more than I really hopped for. If anyone knows where to find that board Frank was talking about I'd aprecated a name or link. But in all I think I've got a better grasp of why people think the way they do about 3.x around here.

[Maxus]

With the 3.0 playtests it was bad there was no higher-level playtesting, but not surprising - it took forever to reach the higher levels.

And, of course, actually putting together a level 10 or level 15 party together from scratch is unthinkable, because that's not ROLEplaying! Real playtesting starts at level 1!

And the idea that you see how you Paladin does against, oh, a kyton when he's using a greatsword, sword-and-shield, or a lance, or when he has Spirited Charge vs. Weapon Focus didn't occur to them, either.

[Draco_Argentum]

Thanks for the replies I got more than I really hopped for. If anyone knows where to find that board Frank was talking about I'd aprecated a name or link. But in all I think I've got a better grasp of why people think the way they do about 3.x around here.

Hes talking about the WotC messageboard as of two complete software changes ago. You could try the wayback machine I guess.

[tzor]

With the 3.0 playtests it was bad there was no higher-level playtesting, but not surprising - it took forever to reach the higher levels.

And, of course, actually putting together a level 10 or level 15 party together from scratch is unthinkable, because that's not ROLEplaying! Real playtesting starts at level 1!

While I would not call it "unthinkable" I would be hesitant upon giving it any signficant balance of weight in determining whether or not the system was ballanced at those levels because the characters are created making "assumptions" of how play works at the lower levels and we all know the problems of assumptions.

It's still a very good baseline initial test to verify that things are not way out of balance, as also is the various tests of hordes of min maxers who test the extreeme conditions. This is equivalent of those testers in video games who have to crash their characters in every corner in order to verify that there is not some hidden error in the map that causes a character to fall out of the gameworld. A necessary test but not a proof of balance that you need to ensure that the system is long term playable and stable.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But in all I think I've got a better grasp of why people think the way they do about 3.x around here.

It's all about comparison. If the order of 3.x and 4E's releases got swapped around, 4th Edition D&D would be hailed as a revolution in balance, class, and race design (the MMORPG/Diablo 2-ish nature would've blown peoples' minds back in 2000) while 3.X would be regarded as unplayable drek with a few bright spots in the rules. The point is that tabletop games should be getting better over time, especially with the Internet to provide feedback and a steady source of new writers.

It's exactly why Thomas Jefferson gets hailed as practically a secular saint despite, you know, owning and raping slaves while say Warren G. Harding is regarded mostly as a douche and a failure despite being way more inoffensive.

[Psychic Robot]

playing level 10+ D&D gives us a posteriori knowledge allowing us to deduce that the system was not playtested

prove me wrong

[Username17]

playing level 10+ D&D gives us a posteriori knowledge allowing us to deduce that the system was not playtested

prove me wrong

Not really. Playing level 10+ D&D tells us that whatever playtesting occurred was inadequate. It's only when they describe the process that we realize that it was inadequate because it was pretty much nonexistent.

-Username17