![]() I'll go through each of these three use cases of Brutal Strike and why they would benefit from playtesting specifically against the redesigned monsters. On the surface, it sounds like the kind of thing a player would love, building off of Reckless Attack to give more choices! Now you can deal 1d10 more damage, or push the target 15-feet and close the gap without provoking, or you can briefly reduce their speed by 15 feet. I think the UA8 Barbarian's Level 9: Brutal Strike is a fair example. EDIT: Apologies for the length of my reply. The changes in the Tiny Hut spell over the editions are a perfect microcosm of the bigger issue, as I mentioned upthread. I replied to someone else about this, but I don't think it's all or nothing – it's not about excluding or including spells, it's about how to include that legacy content without disrupting/shutting down a potential avenue for enjoying the game. For one example, maybe they've vastly improved / streamlined their external playtesting process since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Obviously, there may be flaws in my assessment. ![]() External playtesting is different, and you can see that in the lead time required for past books where public UAs were released.īasically, I'm using their own metrics from the recent past of this edition, to evaluate their timeline with the upcoming 2024 books. ![]() ![]() They definitely can do their own internal testing process, tighten that up, cut corners here or there to meet their deadline. The question is about public/external playtesting. I'm just thinking about similar UA leadtime to products that have come from WotC in the past, like the 2016 exploration UA which had a year or more leadtime prior to the November 2017 publication of XGtE. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |