Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
Just for the record, I'm not trying to be vitriolic or anything, I just feel like this playtest isn't going to yield any useful results, because they're not testing a system, they're still testing numbers handed down arbitrarily.

Since the monsters' attack/damage values are not derived in any transparent way, it will be hard to determine if this is a numbers issue or a mechanical issue.

See above.

OK, so even if we all report a lot of problems, unless WotC is actually made of wizards, I don't see how this playtest feedback will actually indicate whether a problem is with the system, or just the numbers in the system, or some combination of the two. In fact, if they've been working on this for supposedly about a year, I'm kind of aghast that this is all they have to show for it; "Here, test these arbitrary numbers and see if they fit. If they do, we'll make a system around these benchmarks. If not, we'll try another arbitrary batch of numbers and see what happens. Until the deadline comes, then, whatever batch of arbitrary numbers we're on will probably just get printed. Or maybe one of the earlier ones we liked better. Whatev. Have fun playtesting and be sure to purchase the final product, 'cause your input mattered!"
While I enjoy the marked pessimism and general feelings of uselessness you make a few assumptions. That the creators find the numbers arbitrary is one important one.

We do not see how these creatures were built, they, however, do. If creature X deals too much damage they can look at those numbers and see why. Maybe the template they used does not work. Maybe it's as simple as they put a +2 damage somewhere in an ability that doesn't make sense. Or maybe the fundamental math is wrong. Maybe through looking at what the big complaints are they can get a pretty good statistic of what works and what does not over the testing process. Hell, even if they are using random numbers, simply charting what gets shown as too weak or too strong until a good middle ground is created is a pretty easy statistical problem.

Now we can complain about this process sure. But data will still come. Also I kind of doubt this playtest is really about the numbers. It's more a mechanic check. Is this mechanic fun? Do you think the saving throw mechanic looks like it could work? How about the hard limit of 3 new spells per level does that seem a happy compromise?

Because you are right, to get a real analysis on the exact balance we will need more information, and they have said they will provide that information in the next batch of tests. But for now, it's simple a "does this feel good" type of analysis. Which is still useful. If everyone and their grandmother started yelling about the loss of base attack bonus they may try and find a way to somehow put that in, or at least show some system of gaining accuracy.