Level Up (A5E) Here's what you thought of the playtest classes

[Morrus]

Scores aren't the only thing we looked at after each playtest, but they're an easy thing to post about here and might be of interest to folks. These are the overall scores for each class as they were initially presented in their playtest form.

Of course, the feedback is what we used to make sure these classes are all awesome in their final form. We generally view 7.0 as a passing grade, but we apply that score to the individual components of the class, not the overall score for the class (so something with a score of 7.5 may have some things which did not make the passing grade, and some things which people loved). But that's far too many numbers for me to post here, so here are the overall scores.

Scores are out of 10. Generally they're taken 3 weeks after the survey goes out, as that's the period during which 90%+ of the survey results come in.

Cleric 8.2 (still ongoing)
Bard 8.2 (still ongoing)
Warlord v2 8.2
Berserker 7.8
Rogue 7.8
Ranger v2 7.3
Wizard 7.2
Adept 7.0
Sorcerer 7.0
Fighter 7.0
Warlord v1 6.8
Druid 6.3
Ranger v1 6.2

 

[Faolyn]

Does this mean we'll see a Druid v.2?

 

[Morrus]

Generally early scores drop a little by the time the three weeks are up.

 

[aco175]

I wonder if it is easier to balance martial characters, or magic using characters? Feels like fighter may be the baseline for most things.

 

[Morrus]

I wonder if it is easier to balance martial characters, or magic using characters? Feels like fighter may be the baseline for most things.

Oh it’s easy to balance things. Sword does d6, magic missile does d6, that’s all you can do, go! Perfectly balanced! The hard part is to do that and make them fun and interesting and evocative and inspire players to play them.

 

[Stalker0]

We generally view 7.0 as a passing grade, but we apply that score to the individual components of the class, not the overall score for the class (so something with a score of 7.5 may have some things which did not make the passing grade, and some things which people loved).

That was I filled out the surveys myself. Generally 7 meant I though an ability was solid, if it got an 8 I thought it was pretty cool. I only did a few 9s or 10s in all the surveys, that was reserved for things where I was like "my god why haven't we always done it this way!"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That was I filled out the surveys myself. Generally 7 meant I though an ability was solid, if it got an 8 I thought it was pretty cool. I only did a few 9s or 10s in all the surveys, that was reserved for things where I was like "my god why haven't we always done it this way!"

That's how I would score things. I don't believe in 10's unless I am truly blown away. Conversely, I'd have to think something was the worst thing I'd ever seen in this world to give it a 1.

 

[CapnZapp]

Personally I don't believe in answering surveys. I generally have too much to say for that to meaningfully boil down to a "6" or "8". If a company does a survey basically to be able to pat themselves on the back and tell everybody the work is done that's one thing, but really valuable design feedback requires a dialogue.

Fundamentally, LU or A5E needs to be able to provide a compelling reason to exist. is it enough of an improvement on 5E to justify the investment. (Of course, with the huge 5E market even modest sales number is probably good for EN Publishing, but I'm looking at it from a slightly more ambitious angle - can A5E be to 5E what PF1 was to 3.x? Does it contain too many designer darlings to be embraced by the greater 5E community? Or can it offer that sweet clean upgrade on 5E that makes it a no-brainer?)

I am not exactly clear exactly where in the development phase A5E stands currently. I don't want to look at the project while it's still dominated by promises and wishful projections, and obviously feedback is useless once development has been locked down. (Paizo is great at boasting thir community involvement but they leave so little time for feedback they can just cherrypick the parts they like, and the feedback appears to heavily skew towards the hardcore fanatics anyway which is never a great polling section to begin with...)

 

[ART!]

Nice to see the Ranger v.2 doing well.

I've played mostly clerics in recent years after having hardly ever played them (in any edition), so that's probably the Level Up class playtest I looked at the closest, and it's the one I liked the most.

 

[Waller]

Personally I don't believe in answering surveys. I generally have too much to say for that to meaningfully boil down to a "6" or "8". If a company does a survey basically to be able to pat themselves on the back and tell everybody the work is done that's one thing, but really valuable design feedback requires a dialogue.

Fundamentally, LU or A5E needs to be able to provide a compelling reason to exist. is it enough of an improvement on 5E to justify the investment. (Of course, with the huge 5E market even modest sales number is probably good for EN Publishing, but I'm looking at it from a slightly more ambitious angle - can A5E be to 5E what PF1 was to 3.x? Does it contain too many designer darlings to be embraced by the greater 5E community? Or can it offer that sweet clean upgrade on 5E that makes it a no-brainer?)

I am not exactly clear exactly where in the development phase A5E stands currently. I don't want to look at the project while it's still dominated by promises and wishful projections, and obviously feedback is useless once development has been locked down. (Paizo is great at boasting thir community involvement but they leave so little time for feedback they can just cherrypick the parts they like, and the feedback appears to heavily skew towards the hardcore fanatics anyway which is never a great polling section to begin with...)

Is it possible to sound any more entitled?

Look, you aren't going to like LU any more than you like PF2, because neither of them are making this incredibly specific imaginary game you have written in your head.