I decided against being actively involved early on. I'd like to see more structure in the proceedings. It is nice that people have a place to openly evaluate, but sorting the wheat from the chaff can be a headache.
Perhaps there should be a standard form filled out by all of the players and GM post-session. This would contain open ended questions, designed to organize the issues and solicit the designer's goals.
I think opinion still has a role in the playtest, but the process would be much improved by a standardized method.
I liked it, but then again I like arguing about stuff.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I had a good time with it, and figured out places to slip APG classes into my ongoing campaign and try out some tricks with them. Perfect info? Naw, but interesting I think, and it showed up some corner cases where playing it didn't seem to work exactly like reading it.
|
I had a good time with it, and figured out places to slip APG classes into my ongoing campaign and try out some tricks with them. Perfect info? Naw, but interesting I think, and it showed up some corner cases where playing it didn't seem to work exactly like reading it.
+1! Today I'm going to run a session game featuring an elven alchemist villain, and the next two adventures are going to include (at least) oracles and inquisitors.
I loved the process, and getting a good look at the new classes. I *was* initially skeptical about classes called 'Inquisitor', 'Oracle', 'Witch' and 'Alchemist' (potentially either too much overlap with existing classes, or could easily end up having bland abilities), but Paizo surely proved me wrong! :)
I really loved the summoner class. The other classes looked ok (to me) but the summoner really sang out to me as something I wanted to try.
I'll likely buy it no matter what but I hope and pray and hope and pray that they fix what they did to the summoner in the last iteration of it.
I enjoyed the testing process though. Its always good to sit and read the thought processes of others, whether or not I agreed with them. The more input the designers receive the better off the classes we get, will be.
-S
In a few weeks I going to start a new campaign, and made the APG classes available for my players as options.
3 of them chose to use them!
I have a Cavalier, an Inquisitor, and an Oracle in my group. I'm even letting another player use a homebrew class we found online called a Gunslinger (a fighter/ranger hybrid with some rogue evasion progressions that can't use armor) leaving only one other player using a core class - a rogue!
It should be interesting, to say the least.
|
In a few weeks I going to start a new campaign, and made the APG classes available for my players as options.
3 of them chose to use them!
I have a Cavalier, an Inquisitor, and an Oracle in my group. I'm even letting another player use a homebrew class we found online called a Gunslinger (a fighter/ranger hybrid with some rogue evasion progressions that can't use armor) leaving only one other player using a core class - a rogue!
It should be interesting, to say the least.
Wayfinder #1 or #2 (free paizo download) also has a Gunslinger class...
Wayfinder #1 or #2 (free paizo download) also has a Gunslinger class...In a few weeks I going to start a new campaign, and made the APG classes available for my players as options.
3 of them chose to use them!
I have a Cavalier, an Inquisitor, and an Oracle in my group. I'm even letting another player use a homebrew class we found online called a Gunslinger (a fighter/ranger hybrid with some rogue evasion progressions that can't use armor) leaving only one other player using a core class - a rogue!
It should be interesting, to say the least.
#2 does
I have been playing around with the alchemist to great effect and my Evil and/or insane DM threw us a curve ball by putting us up against a Summoner and his little "pet".
The playtest was loads of fun and it's clear that paizo has listened to the players. I can hardly wait til August. :)
|
|
The alchemist proved to be really nasty in a cramped space when the PCs could not use their numbers and mobility against him. Plus he had two rogue "minions" to block them off from reaching him; even with the cover the rogues provided to the PCs, it was a good pay-off (the alchemist still had +6 to hit Touch AC). At first the PCs crowded together, but pretty soon they learned that it's better if some of them retreat out of the room (that splash damage is truly murder if everyone constantly takes 6-7 pts. of damage per round).
They avoided TPK with a well-timed 'Hold Person' (the only weak save the alchemist had) and after they cleared the minions they had it easy with 'Coup de Grace'. The alchemist still had full HPs, but unfortunately failed two saves in a row. It was a close call, though, and I had a blast with the alchemist; I would definitely love playing one. A couple of the players also became interested in this class.
|
For y'all who participated in playtesting the APG classes, what'd you think of the process, especially the second time 'round. (The first was the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Book with its Alpha and Beta testing). Easier this time? Harder? Any particular surprises?
On the most part I found the whole process enthralling, actually its been dead (or at least feels that way) around here since the test ended. So +1 for engagement and "being part of the process."
I think I found it most frustrating when debate raged on and on and on with no official end to it. Either a "we like it the way it is" or "we acknowledge there is a problem." The play test felt in that respect kind of superficial or at least one directional, like we are play testing to keep you interested, but aren't even reading your feedback. This might not be the case, but that was my feeling.
So overall I was happy, but room for improvement.
Over all I still prefer the 4 winds version of the witch from Paths of Power
I really appreciate that Paizo gives its customer base influence that way (though I didn't contribute anything myself). I'm sure it's mutually beneficial, though I wouldn't want to be the one reading through all the comments from the peanut gallery. A lot of chaff to be sorted through, for sure...
Zo
|
|
I started a group usying the APG classes in the PFRPG mods "test of the Everflame and they were jonesing for a striaght Cleric but managed to survive, overall I like the new classes and the Summoner comes out WAAAAY ahead as far as power goes. other than this no gripes .
I feel the input was well heeded and the second release corrected the possible flaws .
So a rounding HUZZAH to Paizo!
|
|
I really appreciate being able to be a part of the process! I respect Paizo for tapping their target customer base for these things... I think it really helps us connect with them, so they see what we are looking for! I have long since discovered, though, that we don't all want the same things...
Super kudos to Paizo for letting us be a part of this process...
Director of Game Design
|
Although I have very little time to do anything right now other than finish the APG, I wanted to take a second to say...
Thanks for taking part and I am glad that most folks had a good time taking part in the APG playtest. This one was quite a bit more difficult than the core rulebook playtest, being that the classes were new, but the feedback and playtest data we received has really helped to shape these classes.
Back to work...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It was a lot of fun and gave everyone a chance to see the new character classes before they became official. And the needed changes to the character classes worked really well.
(And it gave my players, who were still at lvl 2 in ROTR) a chance to play different kinds of characters and experience different roles of PF.
Thanks again.
joela,
Love and enjoyed the open play test (silent member). One of the very great ideas to come from Paizo.
I have to agree with Evil L here. Some more enforced structure would be beneficial and appreciated.
- A general format for posting input.
- A separate place to post results/observations/opinions.
- A separate place to discuss those results/observations/opinions.
- A separate place to comment on those results/observations/opinions or ask for clarification.
Things get lost in the "crowd" of replies that it gets hard to either follow the item (op or op responses) or to keep it on track to the op. Discussions are needed but let the data be also kept separate for easier examination, classification, quantification and locating. I'm sure you get my point.
Also, perhaps some method to contact peeps to ask for more information or a clarification other than just adding a post and hoping they see it.
Thanks.
- V
|
|
I have to agree with VooDoo that more structure is needed for commentary. More explicit rules on naming threads and making it one issue per thread could cut down on the amount of wasted duplication.
With the end of the playtest, I've had issues finding prior comments on the various classes as I looked at an Oracle for a new campaign. I would suggest a separate section in the message bords where it would remain until the product is released (then it could be archived).
And I came late, but I still think Oracles are underpowered in the current playtest version. Another Oracle issue was the limited number of mysteries which were offered to playtest. Since the mysteries are a major part of the ORacle class, not being able to compare the mysteries could allow problems to slip by into production.