Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Caedwyr's page

2,627 posts (2,629 including aliases). 5 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Since it is a Spell-like ability, what spell does it count as (and what is the spell-level) for the purpose of prerequisites?


There was a discussion on how one would develop a backdrop economy (or different types of economies for the players to interact with at different game tiers) back during the Alpha discussions.

High Level Economics in D&D

Wrecan summarizes how it might be implemented on the second page here

Kirthfinder takes some of what was discussed there and manages to make the game mechanics and magic item rules work alright for that simulation of the game world

Kirthfinder

Note that you need to request a copy of the latest version of Kirthfinder. The ones in the opening post are several years out of date.


My favourite take on Charisma is as follows:

"Charisma: Charisma strictly represents confidence, presence, and force of personality (physical attractiveness is governed by the optional Comeliness attribute; see below). It is therefore analogous to the Willpower attribute from the old Victory Games rules. To reflect this, the Charisma modifier, rather than the Wisdom modifier, applies to Will saves against compulsions, fear, etc. You also apply your Charisma modifier to certain uses of Hero Points (see below). These uses provide a disincentive for everyone other than bards and sorcerers to always make Charisma their lowest attribute.

Social skill is dictated by your bonuses in Bluff and Diplomacy—with your personal confidence and magnetism (Cha) providing a modifier, rather than dictating your baseline. People with low Charisma are typically unsure of themselves, lack presence, and are often ignored. Characters with high charisma scores are heeded; they are leaders, rather than followers.

A character with a Charisma of 1 has insufficient ego to exert executive autonomy; he or she acts as if charmed by everyone he or she interacts with. A character with a Charisma of 0 is dominated, likewise.

How Wisdom and Charisma Interact: A character with a high wisdom (awareness and caution) and low Charisma (confidence and force of personality) is likely to be timid and overly-paranoid about “getting in trouble.” His or her warnings will often be ignored by companions.

Conversely, a character with low Wisdom and high Charisma is likely to be egocentric and careless, assuming that things will “somehow work out.” He can be bold and reckless, like Douglas Fairbanks’ Robin Hood, but he or she will also often need to be rescued by companions, and may, in the worst case, have a tendency to treat others as tools.

A character with high scores in both stats is like Hammett’s Sam Spade―ruthless, domineering, guileful, and always with a backup plan or two."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paul Bunyan = Anime.


There's more than one episode.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the high level characters are mostly in the Silmarillion. The old school elves were pretty hardcore in what they did and Pathfinder doesn't do that great of a job replicating their feats.

The Quenta Silmarillion in fact was rejected by a publisher for being "obscure and too Celtic", and the power level in these stories would fit in fine with many other Celtic myth cycles.


Sometimes PEDMAS is written as BEDMAS

Brackets
Exponents
Division
Multiplication
Addition
Subtraction


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm looking at the fabricate spell more closely, and I'm wondering actually what limits are placed on what can be targeted with the spell. The spell appears to target a mass of material equal to 10 cu ft/level (or 1 cu ft/level if a mineral, which I'm not sure if uses the real-world definition of mineral or uses an undefined game version), but doesn't say that the mass of material cannot be part of another object already, except that it cannot be a creature or magic item. This makes me think that a caster could just walk up to the adamantine doors, and unless they were a magical item, just cast fabricate on the doors to create themselves some weapons or simple to make items as well as remove the doors as an obstacle. They can also potentially do that to walls, floors, ceilings, and many other potential obstacles. Aside from GM fiat, does anyone see anything in the rules/mechanics that would prevent this? Or, is this just another capability that comes online once level 5 spells become available and the types of obstacles that cease to be for parties with a member able to cast these spells?


Back before it was nerfed, Cloud Step for a monk, used to give infinite speed at level 20. Then they added a maximum slow fall distance to cloud step. I was kind of sad about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument about the difficulty and time it takes to work adamantium, is somewhat lessened by the existence of the fabricate spell.


Monica Marlowe wrote:
Christopher Wasko wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
I'm confused as to why Skeletons cannot have fighter levels. Wouldn't you just use the Adding Class Levels part of the monster advancement rules?
Skeletons are mindless, and thus unable to have class levels. Skeletal champions (essentially intelligent, sentient skeletons) can, and often do, have class levels. It's a minor distinction, really; the fact that this and the ghost thing were the most glaring issues with the proposal is testimony to how airtight it is. I wish I had this degree of raw talent, to come up with something so ridiculously tight on my first freakin' try!!! Hats off to you, m'lady, and bravo on a magnificent performance this whole season!

Thank you for the explanation, I have been at work all weekend and just rolled in to add my 2 coppers!

Thank you, you have been wonderful and I wish you all the very best.

I ended up finding the information in the Monster Roles section. Like most of the books, the organization leaves a lot to be desired and important information such as this can easily be missed.


I'm confused as to why Skeletons cannot have fighter levels. Wouldn't you just use the Adding Class Levels part of the monster advancement rules?


What is causing the extreme crushing pressures? If you are swimming in it near surface, you'd be exposed to close to atmospheric pressure or hydrostatic pressures similar to what you'd encounter in water. If you are swimming down a volcanic pipe to great depths in the planet, then the crushing pressures would come up.


Blinged out spellbooks and scrolls


Wand crafting also takes this to hilarious places and removes one of the limitations of the number of spell slots available to a paladin.


I'm with Lemmy here. I like lots of options and have purchased lots of Paizo material and oodles of 3pp options (shoutout to Interjection Games, Rogue Genius Games, Aluria Publishing, and many others). What I object to are the inclusion of non-options or poorly balanced options that won't be used by either the GMs or players due to their mechanical failings and being options that either get passed over every time due to the opportunity cost of selecting that option, or have a disruptive effect on the game out of scale of what another option with a similar opportunity cost might have.

I always welcome more quality product that makes me want to introduce it to my game. I'd prefer it if the books were shorter rather than including more filler, uninspiring, or non-options.


4 dollar dungeons I think have a 1e feel. They certainly seem to be in-depth and comprehensive and all have reviewed well.


Is the preference for someone to create a new thread on an existing subject that already has lots of discussion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had a chance to look through this in more depth and I continue to be impressed. This is a $30+ sourcebook full of ideas and a very fun sword and planets space-opera style setting and rules to run it. It would be a shame if more people didn't take the chance to check it out. I keep on coming back to how well this would let you play a Star Ocean, Xenogears, or other planetary romance-style games.


Put a seal and a straw on the potion bottle and it should be doable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the review Endzeitgeist. This sounds like a really cool fusion of sci-fi and fantasy that reminds me a bit of the Star Ocean or Xenosaga series of games in how it blends fantasy with space opera. You can't beat the price either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Geisha's inspire ability was originally supposed to last longer (an hour, I think), but someone else felt that was too long and reduced it to 10 minutes. Which makes the ability kinda pointless, honestly.

@Sean: I really appreciate the insights into the design process. I was always confused by the discrepancies between some of the things you'd written about design methodology/recommendations the design approaches taken in a number of Paizo works which seemed to go against what you'd written. In retrospect, it makes a lot more sense that the different cooks in the kitchen would have different opinions on matters, but with you being the public face for many rule/mechanics issue and a very fierce arguer on their behalf it was hard at times to keep that distinction in my mind.


Master summoner sounds like the Angel Summoner from the descriptions here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I found interesting is how both classes presented in this book work just as well on land as in the water.


This seems to have been missed entirely. Has anyone else taken a look at this product and can tell us more about what it contains?


Also, the best picture in the book is the art for the Kawauso Trueform.


I posted in another thread, but my thoughts on the matter is that while the immunities seem to be fairly impressive things that other classes cannot do, they also tend to be highly overvalued. Yes, it might mean that the Goadaikishi is strong against other elemental users, but they are still susceptible to a broad range of other effects. This puts them in the Paladin range of defenses, which while strong is not unbeatable.

My bigger concern is the capstone ability of the Wokou which seems to be extremely weak. Then again, capstones don't come up all that often so it won't have a huge in-game impact.


Didn't someone do an update to the Caravan rules that worked better than the ones presented in the AP?


I picked up my copy of Celadon Shores and it is another top quality product. I haven't looked through the whole pdf yet, but I am really liking the Godaikishi, which appears to be a elemental knight class that just oozes awesomeness. It has some powerful abilities that do things other classes can't, but it still feels balanced with a Paladin.

The Wokou didn't amaze me at first, but I'm coming around to the Fighter + Companion class combo after further reflection. The level 20 capstone is pretty underwhelming, but since capstones come into play so rarely, I'm not all that concerned. The menacing moniker from Intimidating Presence made me smile.

The Mambabarang prestige class makes for a very iconic bug caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Four Dollar Dungeons wrote:

Ultimate PSionics (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/Store/product/pid=126.html) is very good and I'm incorporating it in my next adventure.

The Mythic Monsters series (http://www.makeyourgamelegendary.com/products-page/mythic-plug-ins/) are also very good and I intend to use them later on next year in a mythic-themed adventure.

Richard

I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with these materials, as your adventures to date have been works of art.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

So, I was interested in seeing what the bestiary had to say with regards to the zombies and skeletons and it appears they say different things

PRD, Skeletons wrote:
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.

So the evil cunning lets them use weapons and armor, but doesn't spell out anything else it might do.

I'll also note that the alignment is listed as Neutral Evil and there is no mention about "Always" or other frequency. All I can find on Alignment is from the intro section which says

PRD, Bestiary Intro wrote:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Which seems to support that low intelligence/mindless creatures are generally neutral, while aligned outsiders generally fixed and the rest of the monsters can vary to a greater degree.

Now, I do think that there is some point regarding zombies and their innate unneighbourly behaviour.

PRD, Zombie wrote:


Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to
...

Thanks for the pointer. I missed that in the bestiary entry since it shows up in the template portion and not in the monster's statblock.


So, I was interested in seeing what the bestiary had to say with regards to the zombies and skeletons and it appears they say different things

PRD, Skeletons wrote:
Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.

So the evil cunning lets them use weapons and armor, but doesn't spell out anything else it might do.

I'll also note that the alignment is listed as Neutral Evil and there is no mention about "Always" or other frequency. All I can find on Alignment is from the intro section which says

PRD, Bestiary Intro wrote:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

Which seems to support that low intelligence/mindless creatures are generally neutral, while aligned outsiders generally fixed and the rest of the monsters can vary to a greater degree.

Now, I do think that there is some point regarding zombies and their innate unneighbourly behaviour.

PRD, Zombie wrote:


Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.

Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.

Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims. Most zombies are created using animate dead. Such zombies are always of the standard type, unless the creator also casts haste or remove paralysis to create fast zombies, or contagion to create plague zombies.

This seems to say that these guys, while mindless are also not exactly the best neighbours to have around. Think Leningen Versus the Ants with zombies taking the role of the army ants.


I notice that there seems to be versions 1 through V for all the psychic spells. I'd like to suggest that it might save space and simplify things to just have a single version of each spell with varying effects depending on which spell slot the spell is prepared in.


From the responses to my earlier message, it appears I failed in my communication. I was not bemoaning the inability to use a 3rd party product in Pathfinder Society, or for Paizo to adopt 3rd party products under their own banner, or even that the psychic magic is a rip-off/inferior product to Dreamscarred's psionics. Those are all things I was not attempting to say.

Instead, I was bemoaning that Paizo will frequently re-invent the wheel when a particular topic has already been done by another company to very good effect. And I'm not even all that bothered by that behaviour (although it might be nice to take full advantage of the excellent work of others and use the OGL to refine/polish an idea from time to time). I understand that different designers will have different takes on how best to implement a specific concept.

What disappoints me, is how often it appears that Paizo's developers/writers have not even done any investigation or learned from others who have already attempted to create something for the same topic. One example of this is the Medium which attempts to fill the same niche as the Occultist or some of the archetypes from Radiance House's Pact Magic series, but ends up being a much clunkier version with a number of ambiguities with respect to the influence system and the nature of the spirits which is handled more elegantly in Radiance House's books.

Now, you can agree or disagree with my assessment, but the point I wished to communicate is that I am disappointed that Paizo almost never takes advantage of the work of others as either a useful system/mechanic to use as-is, or as a useful example to draw inspiration from and learn lessons from.

It could be that my expectations are too high, but it's still disappointing to see when 3rd Party publishers seem to be able to make it work amongst each other, but Paizo cannot. I could understand if it was something that schedule constraints prevented from happening, except it frequently occurs with products that have been out for years. My expectations probably comes from my background, where doing a basic literature/case-study search is the first step in any project and this only rarely seems to be the case in the table-top RPG business.

*climbs down from his soapbox*

Feel free to ignore or ridicule as you see fit.


I've never been able to understand why Paizo designs as though 3pp does not exist, and will frequently create something that has already been done by a high-profile 3pp and still manage to create something inferior to the already available 3pp offering. I mean, I can understand wanting to create your own interpretation on something rather than just using the OGL to reprint the content, but you'd think Paizo would at least take a look at what has already been done well and take lessons from that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here are the criteria I like to use when evaluating a new class:

First off, these questions should be asked for the major level ranges (feel free to modify slightly).

Journeyman: 1-5
Heroic: 6-10
Champion: 11-15
Demi-god: 16-20

And on to the questions:

Can the class contribute meaningfully in:

1. Combat - This includes level appropriate:

a. defenses against physical and magical attacks
b. offensive capability; or
c. a way of enhancing party members such that they would realistically choose to have you accompany them
d. ability to engage with the threats in the environments you can expect to be fighting in for that level.

2. Investigations/information gathering
3. Travel
4. Diplomacy/social interactions with other denizens of the world.
5. Economic (crafting, professions, bartering, or other wealth-generating activities).

The 5 areas don't all need to be filled, but the class should be able to participate or have decent options for participating or contributing meaningfully in all categories without crippling themselves in other categories.


First off, these questions should be asked for the major level ranges (feel free to modify slightly).

Journeyman: 1-5
Heroic: 6-10
Champion: 11-15
Demi-god: 16-20

And on to the questions:

Can the class contribute meaningfully in:

1. Combat - This includes level appropriate:

a. defenses against physical and magical attacks
b. offensive capability; or
c. a way of enhancing party members such that they would realistically choose to have you accompany them
d. ability to engage with the threats in the environments you can expect to be fighting in for that level.

2. Investigations/information gathering
3. Travel
4. Diplomacy/social interactions with other denizens of the world.
5. Economic (crafting, professions, bartering, or other wealth-generating activities).

Feel free to debate or add other requirements you might use when evaluating a class. I've found using this type of checklist helps me avoid hyper-focusing on one area and entirely missing the fact that the class is going to end up sitting out large portions of the game in which they cannot meaningfully contribute.


The Occultist is already in use in Pact Magic Unbound, which is the PFRPG version of the binder. It's a fairly well-known product and will likely be the cause of some confusion.


Guang wrote:
That doesn't sound right. Wasn't there some kind of Cetecian (sp) that could go for hours between breaths? 1 hour/2 points con sounds about right in any case, would match seafolk and others.

You are probably thinking of Sperm Whales, which make dives that last for 90 minutes and dive to depths of about 2,250 m (~7,400 ft).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are looking for a full adventure path, then Way of the Wicked is one of the better ones (though not for heroes)

If you are looking for smaller adventures or short linked adventures, then you might want to check out the reviews here. There may also be some full APs here that I'm not aware of:

Endzeitgeist's reviews.

Make sure to click on the "older Entries" button at the bottom for more.

I'll let others mention their favourites


Does technology not work in Golarion/Pathfinder though? Why, with civilizations as old as they have been presented in Pathfinder, has there been so little development? The exclusive/limited list argument works for magic, but not for the setting's development in other areas. In fact, the exculsiveness of magic to a small portion of the population would seem to encourage the non-magical to find alternate paths of development even more.

It also ignores that the demographics/examples as shown in the modules and adventure paths tends to make magic a lot more prevalent than is indicated in many of these discussions.


Neongelion wrote:

This is a related thing, but I have to ponder: what are the conditions supposed to be on any given world where magic could flow in abundance or be completely non-existent? Earth, for example, had a period in its history, long long ago, where magic was at least as common as it was on Golarion, but by the present day it is all but extinct. You also have the culture that created the starship that crashed in Numeria. As far as we know, the Androffans were completely unaware of magic (given the reaction robots give to spellcasters in Iron Gods).

Which leads me to another train of thought: does magic actually hinder a civilization in terms of technological and, perhaps, cultural progress? See it like this:

Golarion: its history is bathed in magic, from mighty spellcasters to arcane and divine scars on the land. Most of Golarion is largely in a pre-industrial age, even if socio-economic conditions are somewhat better than it was in Medieval times in Europe. Still, most of it is dominated by monarchies or theocracies and slavery is legal or at least accepted in much of the Inner Sea region, even if it is frowned upon by many people.

Earth: Magic was once a powerful force but has vanished. Advances in technology by World War I is light years ahead of what most of Golarion has access to. Many nations are advanced forms of government like republics or have some system of parliament.

Androffa: No magic at all, the Androffans are capable of utilizing nanotechnology, interstellar travel, artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and so on. Government type is unknown, but we can assume some sort of federation of worlds.

Maybe pure coincidence, but it's an awfully interesting one. Also note that

** spoiler omitted **

Sometimes I wonder if Paizo actually has this all figured out or not.

Magic as a force of stasis is pretty much exactly the setup used in Dias Ex Machina's Amethyst:Revolution books.


Limited polymorph effect might work, since you'd want to have an adaption that would cover pressure effects as well. Another option would be to have more limited amulet of adaption for water to air, or for air to water, or water depth to deeper/shallower depths.

Another path, would be for such an amulet to activate latent psionic abilities to psychometabize an effect similar to adapt body at the cost of increased caloric intake to fuel each change (rules based or just flavour)


blahpers wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
blahpers wrote:
We play different games.

Exactly right!

But here's the source of the disagreements: the game you're playing doesn't really require balanced rules -- in honesty, it doesn't really really and truly require any rules at all. In contrast, the games that I and Kolo and others would like to play do require reasonably well-balanced rules, which Pathfinder does not necessarily provide.

Conclusion 1: Pathinder is not the right game for us.
Observation 1: Pathfinder is a rules-heavy game that purports to be right for us.
Conclusion 2: We're playing it wrong. You're playing it right.
Observation 2a: The devs keep telling us that no one is wrong.
Observation 2b: Your style of play works equally well with any other game, or none at all.
Conclusion 3: Neither you nor we are doing anything wrong. Instead, the parts of the game that are supposed to be working for people like us aren't. They're meant to, but they're not.

That's bad. Sorry you aren't getting what you want from the game. But not caring about balance is not the same thing as not caring about rules at all. And questioning whether such an approach is "sane" or "useful" is a little on the side of "unnecessarily adversarial".

So, is the message you are trying to convey, is that if you care about balance in your roleplaying game, we should not look to purchase Pathfinder material?


An occultist makes for a pretty good villain. You can build it along a lot of different themes/styles and it tends to come with lots of roleplaying flavour/motivation built-in. The failed binding can also be a great way to have the influence of the spirits lead the occultist/binder down a particular path.


voska66 wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.
I find balance to be only required in game where you have one clear winner and clear loser. So in Player vs Player game balance is important. In a game where the goal is not to win but create a story, develop the adventure, simulate a setting then balance is not important. The party works together and the wizard being able to move mountain while the fighter hack the bad guy in two is exciting. The Wizard dropping a mountain on the fighter and saying I win is not exciting.

What does this response have to do with my post?


The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, first off, I mean, don't just report the results of how your group did, because that is going to have all the usual problems with luck/lack of luck with the dice, but instead look at each of the parts of the scenario/module that interact or can interact with the mechanics you are testing and report what the odds of success are whenever a dice roll is called for with the builds you are using. They should also report if the class is able to significantly participate in the check or if they cannot.

The testers should also report where the new mechanics allow them to interact with the story, places where the GM had to fudge things a little to make them fit (this can be great anecdotal data to help flesh out examples in ability descriptions or maybe add another example on a table of possible skill uses).

Other useful data points are going to be how much a class depends on the other group members, are there any large achilles heels in the class or blindspots and to what degree the class is able to offer something new to the box of tools used for problem solving.

This is a rough framework and I'm sure it can be refined to be much better at organizing the questions/data collection, but it should also help minimize the usual issues of playtesting where the developers get a lot of unbalanced or misleading data or just less useful data because there's the guy who can make the commoner shine or the guy who can make the greatest blending of flavour and mechanics ever seem to be boring.

As for the simulated part, that is there because to do the mechanics heavy part of this analysis, you don't really need other people present. You can look at the target AC, saving throws, skill checks, range of skills required in the module and compare them against the sample build being used for testing the class. But, by comparing it to published modules you are working from a comparable baseline and it puts it into the language of the developers rather than the theorycrafters. Using the module also helps calibrate the theorycrafting because it lets the theories be put to the test of an actual module and helps refine the models used in the theorycrafting.

This is basically a stream of consciousness description of what I was thinking, but it roughly lines up with the evaluation/playtesting method used by some reviewers

Endzeitgeist wrote:

Step 1: I read the pdf/book. If the content is no utter wreck, I take the content with me to my group. At this stage, I usually have a dry analysis (avg damage, utility, etc.) done. Here, I do have target values – if you can out-nova psionics or sorcerors, there’s an issue, for example.

Step 2: If we’re NOT playing my main campaign, each player chooses one of the classes to playtest. S/he generates a character. I then proceed to run these characters through a module I wanted to playtest. I do this mainly because I think that scenarios à la “class xyz fights dragon in vacuum” do not represent how a class actually plays. Such tests provide an inkling, yes, but that’s about it. (See nova-issues et al.) Also: What fun is playing e.g. a super-duper-damage class that can’t do anything but squishing foes?

Step 3: I compare how the class fared with my analysis and ask my players how they experienced the class, both the player of the class and the rest.

Step 4 (optional): If all players agree that a certain content might benefit the main campaign, it is added for further in-depth playtesting. So yeah, that’s about it.

Why do I prefer this type of tests? Take IG’s Ethermancer – looked complex on paper, math was very hard to do, all day casting -> wasn’t sold. In actual game-play, the class fared much better and proved to be actually a fun addition that did not steal the thunder of the other classes while still contributing. Now my main campaign actually has one of these guys as a PC. The actual “how does it play”-experience is most important for me.

The key for me, is if Paizo/the players can come up with some good modules to use as testing templates, then the people who like to do the step one theorycrafting can also delve into some deeper analysis and review of how the classes actually handle in a game, without having to get a group of friends together. It should help increase the highly relevant participation in the playtesting.

It would also let players test out the mechanics at a broader range of levels (this will depend heavily on the choice of level appropriate modules, no level 1 dungeon crawling at level 18) and avoid the issues where Paizo doesn't have the time, or planning needed to properly review the mechanics design at all level ranges in semi-real world settings.

Like I think I've mentioned upthread, from watching the playtests, I get the impression that most theorycrafting feedback is largely disregarded, especially when it gets more complex. By putting the feedback into the module format, it will hopefully help the players get their message to Paizo more clearly and lead to a more useful playtest for all. With proper testing methodology setup, it shouldn't really take the playertests all that much longer than a normal detailed theorycrafting post either.


Skeld wrote:

PFS makes a good test environment. You have a set of short adventures that everyone should be playing basically the same way (so there are no weird houserules that interfere or interact with) and you have the potential for a wide swath of possible race/class/etc. combinations and different people with different playstyles.

Of course, the Mythic playtest didn't use PFS.

-Skeld

I agree that PFS can be useful for testing. Another way to do it, would be to do a simulated run through a PFS adventure. The drawback of course, is that PFS does not handle the higher levels very well at all. What we really need are some very good high level modules that take into account the type of capabilities characters possess for the higher levels. I seem to remember the Mythic playtest having a sample mythic adventure, but I don't remember it being all that useful and a lot of it was tied up in the mythic trials system that was later revised.

Actually, to make this more constructive, do people have some modules they suggest to use as test candidates for the different level ranges?


The thing is, you don't actually need to sit down with other players to do what I posted. In it's core, all you are running is a same-game test with a variety of combat and non-combat challenges. You can take an average paizo adventure and look at the overall goals and individual goals and then model the probabilities of a character being able to achieve those goals. I'm not talking about one fight after another, but rather attempting to run through an adventure, maybe with a generic party, maybe solo.

Theorycraft is the analysis part. Playtesting is the calibration of the models used for the theorycraft. Maybe eventually, paizo/the players can develop some standardized suites of tests to help evaluate new content.

The big point I'm trying to get across, is I think that an argument that says "with x combination of class features/feats a character will have a Z% chance of success on circumstance X. Is this intended?"

1 to 50 of 2,627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.