Pathfinder Society Playtest Rules: Gunslinger and Inventor

I completely fail to see why Archetypes are not permitted in PFS for these playtest characters.

To have a successful experiment, a baseline must be run. If there is a problem with the new class, developers need to know.

I already have three inventor and gunslinger ideas going.... I haven't even opened the play test yet! :)

The Raven Black wrote:

I completely fail to see why Archetypes are not permitted in PFS for these playtest characters.

To have a successful experiment, a baseline must be run. If there is a problem with the new class, developers need to know.

If the problem can be easily resolved with fighter feat X, that should be in the comments. Allowing Fighter feat X without the baseline hides the issue.

I already have three inventor and gunslinger ideas going.... I haven't even opened the play test yet! :)

Well said. Thank you!

Gary Bush wrote:

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

Alex's comment above contradicts this. And yes, I understand that what is written is given more weight than what a someone from Organized Play staff says on the boards.

Alex Speidel wrote:

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

(emphasis added by me)

So let this discussion begin...

This is in direct conflict with the rules and therefore cannot be made as a 'clarification' this is errata... that requires a changing the written rules.

No, it does not.

This is a part of the special rules for playtesting, as stated in the blog. As such it does not in any way contradict the guide.

Further, the Guide itself has a process for incorporating exceptions, as such clarifications posted here on the boards are binding, even without a change to the guide.

Please underline where it is found in the special rules for playtesting

Welcome to 2021! How about a playtest to start off with a bang? After not participating in the Pathfinder Secrets of Magic playtest and reading the feedback from our players and GMs, we put our heads together to come up with a way to engage our Organized Play community that worked within the Pathfinder Society framework. We settled on a model based on the Starfinder Society method that will allow our community to participate in the Pathfinder Guns & Gears playtest (see the announcement here). This framework works within established Society guidelines, doesn’t leave credit on unusable characters, and encourages players to get involved. We believe this method is flexible enough to use for future playtests and will add a section to the Guides to Organized Play to provide guidance to players and GMs.

But enough with the whys and wherefores. Let’s get to the details:

Playtest Period: Pathfinder Society participation in the Guns & Gears playtest runs from publication on January 5 to February 5, 2021. Once this period has expired, players can no longer use the gunslinger or inventor playtest classes until their publication in a future Pathfinder product.

Playtest Classes: This playtest includes the gunslinger and inventor classes as outlined in the Guns & Gears playtest found here.

How It Works: We're opening up Society play for the playtest classes via the use of custom created characters that operate much like our pregenerated characters. We believe this should encourage players to test the waters with custom builds, be it with current scenarios or through our growing stable of repeatable options.

Creating a Playtest Character: Prior to playing a scenario during the playtest period, a player can determine if they want to playtest either of the new classes. The character must have all levels in a single playtest class, and not take archetypes. Although archetypes are important for the playtest as a whole, we're limiting play to single classes in the Organized play portion of the playtest for simplicity. Depending on the tier of the scenario, the player can then use a 1st-, 3rd-, or 5th-level character using the eligible playtest classes and created using the following guidelines.

1st Level: The character can be made using the character creation rules presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.
3rd Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 2nd-level and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 25 gp on other available equipment.
5th Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 4th-level, two 3rd-level, one 2nd-level, and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 50 gp on other available equipment.
Credit: Choose which of your characters will receive the credit at the beginning of the adventure. The credit earned for playing a Guns & Gears playtest character follows the same rules and guidelines as applying credit for a pregenerated character, presented in the Applying Credit section of the Player Basics page of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.

With all this in mind, we encourage our players to take an active part in the Guns & Gears playtest, both by sharing your opinions online in the playtest forums and by completing the playtest surveys. We hope that by opening up the means in which players can create and customize characters for the playtest, that we can see some unique and fun builds using these new classes and that such tests will provide the design team with priceless field-agent feedback!

We’ll see you back on January 7 for our first monthly update of 2021.

Until then, don’t forget to explore, report, and cooperate!

I'll abide by the Errata provided, but will point out that it is not a Clarification, as it does not clarify any of the wording...

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

I like to think that I have average reasonable-ness, and I would not take Alex's statement about the limited time playtest to mean that I could disallow, say, Swashbucklers because they're just too complicated for me to GM or whatever.

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

If the reasoning applies to the playtest classes, why does the exact same reasoning not also apply anywhere else?

It opens a door, that IMHO, should not be opened.

This is a clear violation to being able to take any legal character to any legal table... That has always been one of the biggest selling points for PFS, in my experience at least.

If the reasoning applies to the playtest classes, why does the exact same reasoning not also apply anywhere else?

It opens a door, that IMHO, should not be opened.

This is a clear violation to being able to take any legal character to any legal table... That has always been one of the biggest selling points for PFS, in my experience at least.

No it doesn't, for the simple reason that playtest material is clearly and unambiguously distinct from published material.

But you've spoken your piece. Repeatedly. Let it go.

Ummm

Further, the Guide itself has a process for incorporating exceptions, as such clarifications posted here on the boards are binding, even without a change to the guide.

Wouldn't this alone be enough? The specified post that clarifies that GMs can opt in was a clarification post and posted here on the boards.

ok after reading all this is, is this play test going too far in the jokey way. blowing up mines at your feet to jump farther, shooting your sword for extra dmg, running and shooting guns behind you to move faster. like this is some loony toons stuff.

Yeup! The gunslinger is the biggest mixed bag of cool, fine, eye-rolling, and WTF!! options I've seen.

I've only read a little bit of the inventor, and it doesn't seem quite as bad as the Gunslinger, but seems a little more slapstick than I want.

Gunslinger should have been 1 or more archetypes since they don't seem to have enough reasonable ideas for a full class.

Inventor just isn't for me.

Probably gonna pass on this book since I think I'll have enough options that don't bug me as much with the CRB, APG, Character Guide, Ancestry Guide, and Secrets and Magic.

***the above is just my personal opinion, but if you enjoy the crazy of these two classes, that's awesome. No judgement here.

Gary Bush wrote:

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

I guess I see how it is being handled as the right way.

The noble Picaroon is no longer a fringe archetype! HURRAH!!!

Tempest_Knight wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

I guess I see how it is being handled as the right way.

A clarification is by definition clarifying unclear wording... not creating a new rule out of whole cloth...

The Guide allows for clarification to be immediately enforced/enforceable...

There is a right way, and this isn't it... but we are also being told that there is not intention on doing it the right way, so...

Then I guess will just have to enjoy the Playtest and provide much needed feedback.

A clarification is by definition clarifying unclear wording... not creating a new rule out of whole cloth...

The Guide allows for clarification to be immediately enforced/enforceable...

There is a right way, and this isn't it... but we are also being told that there is not intention on doing it the right way, so...

While I believe we disagree on whether the GM fiat w/ respect to disallowing playtest material is a good idea, we appear to agree that, whatever the ruling there is, it belongs in the guide.

When they switched to HTML I was really hoping the guide would become much more of a "living" document, but that hasn't panned out.

Speaking of martial classes, I wondering if we'll get Samurai and Ninja as Archetypes or something else maybe?

From looking at the actual firearms.

Arquebus and musket are pretty much the same thing historically. Neither are a sniper's weapon. Both are largely volley fire weapons. Also both were semi-accurate a lot longer than the functional ranges given.

A matchlock would be a better choice for the sniper weapon as that was the "light 50" of it's day with rifling and other innovations on them.

Including breach loading and magazines.

It'd be cool if you could include some higher-end weapons like that as a possible solution for the reload issues that are already seen in the class.

There were plenty of flintlock weapons that had all of these features early on in the history of firearms.

Also, musket and pistol damage should be about the same, just shorter ranges on the pistols. The idea that a pistol only does a d4 seems absurd when both can blow a hole straight through you in reality.

Does this offer a way for the Drifter style (“sword-and-gun”) to reload, or is that going to be pretty much exclusive to that one two-weapon archetype?

Does this offer a way for the Drifter style (“sword-and-gun”) to reload, or is that going to be pretty much exclusive to that one two-weapon archetype?

Drifter gets reload at 6th level, but the model they are testing in the playtest seems designed to encourage drifters to use multiple guns and quick draw, or use thrown melee weapons and toss them when they need to reload. (Reload kicks in at 6th level, when striking starts being neccessary.)

Also, musket and pistol damage should be about the same, just shorter ranges on the pistols. The idea that a pistol only does a d4 seems absurd when both can blow a hole straight through you in reality.

Impact force is a function of velocity squared.

the longer barreled muskets did an order of magnitude more damage.

The d4 -> d8 fatal is actually a really good modeling of the fact that firearms do very little actual damage unless they hit a vital organ, at which point they are crippling.

Bobbi Burgess-Bruton wrote:

Does this offer a way for the Drifter style (“sword-and-gun”) to reload, or is that going to be pretty much exclusive to that one two-weapon archetype?

Drifter gets reload at 6th level, but the model they are testing in the playtest seems designed to encourage drifters to use multiple guns and quick draw, or use thrown melee weapons and toss them when they need to reload. (Reload kicks in at 6th level, when striking starts being neccessary.)

Oh! I don't know how I didn't notice! Thanks much!

Liam wrote:

Also, musket and pistol damage should be about the same, just shorter ranges on the pistols. The idea that a pistol only does a d4 seems absurd when both can blow a hole straight through you in reality.

Impact force is a function of velocity squared.

Velocity is a function of barrel length.

the longer barreled muskets did an order of magnitude more damage.

The d4 -> d8 fatal is actually a really good modeling of the fact that firearms do very little actual damage unless they hit a vital organ, at which point they are crippling.

Flintlock muskets and pistols used about the same powder charges and projectile sizes. You don't see drastic size differentiation til you start getting into 19th century guns like revolvers.

The length of barrel affects accuracy. More if it is actually rifled.

I've shot things with period accurate versions of both, and at the same calibers they do similar damage. Like I said, both will blow a hole straight through you.

The idea that the same powder charge and same ball somehow does more damage from a longer gun isn't correct. You usually carried guns that took the same size because when they issued you your ball mold to cast your ammo, you only needed one.

If you had a 53 caliber musket, you usually had pistols the same size.

If you pop a vital organ with any caliber ball, you're pretty well dead. But PF doesn't roll that way.

Muskets aren't rifled, and most pistols weren't either. They are smoothbore and a pain to hit stuff with at longer ranges.

Rifling is a later development. Rifling does affect the damage since less gas gets around the ball on its way out, which increases the back pressure behind the ball/bullet, which, if your rifling isn't too fouled, and it doesn't jam (aka, you keep your gun cleaned) it travels faster and does more damage.

I just wish they weren't being so primitive with the guns, what with Alkenstar in the setting and all.

^Come to think of it, Alkenstar being the only game in town for guns might be the reason why they are so primitive -- no serious competition. Yeah, I know Numerian stuff is way ahead of them, but last I checked, the Numerians are WAY OFF from being able to make more of it (as opposed to scrounging up some more that they hadn't found before), so Numeria can't be a serious exporter of technology.

If I recall correctly, Alkenstar only exports low grade firearms, and keeps the higher tech guns (revolvers, actual rifles) for themselves.

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Liam wrote:

Also, musket and pistol damage should be about the same, just shorter ranges on the pistols. The idea that a pistol only does a d4 seems absurd when both can blow a hole straight through you in reality.

Impact force is a function of velocity squared.

Velocity is a function of barrel length.

the longer barreled muskets did an order of magnitude more damage.

The d4 -> d8 fatal is actually a really good modeling of the fact that firearms do very little actual damage unless they hit a vital organ, at which point they are crippling.

Flintlock muskets and pistols used about the same powder charges and projectile sizes. You don't see drastic size differentiation til you start getting into 19th century guns like revolvers.

The length of barrel affects accuracy. More if it is actually rifled.

I've shot things with period accurate versions of both, and at the same calibers they do similar damage. Like I said, both will blow a hole straight through you.

The idea that the same powder charge and same ball somehow does more damage from a longer gun isn't correct. You usually carried guns that took the same size because when they issued you your ball mold to cast your ammo, you only needed one.

....

Rifling is a later development. Rifling does affect the damage since less gas gets around the ball on its way out, which increases the back pressure behind the ball/bullet, which, if your rifling isn't too fouled, and it doesn't jam (aka, you keep your gun cleaned) it travels faster and does more damage.

I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

The longer barrel greatly accelerates the ball because, as you yourself note, the ball spends more time traveling down the barrel with back pressure behind it.

Unless you are firing into ballistics gel or some sort of similar medium, I seriously question the assertion that either will "blow a hole right through you."

Liam wrote:

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Liam wrote:

Also, musket and pistol damage should be about the same, just shorter ranges on the pistols. The idea that a pistol only does a d4 seems absurd when both can blow a hole straight through you in reality.

Impact force is a function of velocity squared.

Velocity is a function of barrel length.

the longer barreled muskets did an order of magnitude more damage.

The d4 -> d8 fatal is actually a really good modeling of the fact that firearms do very little actual damage unless they hit a vital organ, at which point they are crippling.

Flintlock muskets and pistols used about the same powder charges and projectile sizes. You don't see drastic size differentiation til you start getting into 19th century guns like revolvers.

The length of barrel affects accuracy. More if it is actually rifled.

I've shot things with period accurate versions of both, and at the same calibers they do similar damage. Like I said, both will blow a hole straight through you.

The idea that the same powder charge and same ball somehow does more damage from a longer gun isn't correct. You usually carried guns that took the same size because when they issued you your ball mold to cast your ammo, you only needed one.

....

Rifling is a later development. Rifling does affect the damage since less gas gets around the ball on its way out, which increases the back pressure behind the ball/bullet, which, if your rifling isn't too fouled, and it doesn't jam (aka, you keep your gun cleaned) it travels faster and does more damage.

I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

The longer barrel greatly accelerates the ball because, as you yourself note, the ball spends more time traveling down the barrel with back pressure behind it.

Unless you are firing into ballistics gel or some sort of similar medium, I seriously question the assertion that either will "blow a hole right through you."

Black powder weapons have a maximum of around 1500fps. And that's with rifling. (I looked it up) Muskets and pistols don't have as good of a gas seal (well, unless the pistol is rifled) and they top out at around 850fps, maybe 1000 if both the gun and the ammo are exceptionally well made.

Don't forget that these weapons were also used for hunting. They ARE effective weapons. I wouldn't want to be shot even by the smaller .4x caliber pistols and rifles.

All that being said, my major complaint is that the guns are, well, boring and they are being typical making the same damage mistakes as 1e did.

I always thought that rifling is supposed to increase accuracy because the rotating bullet acts like a hyroscope, traveling in a straighter line...

The impact velocity is also a function of distance to target and caliber, both affecting it negatively. A larger caliber shot may have more energy when leaving the barrel but not as much of it will remain after traveling 100 ft through the air.

The hitting of vital organs is reflected in the fatal property of the firearms, I think it's rather accurate... But I agree that the base damage seems low. Maybe they should get an accuracy boost, thus increasing critical chance? Another out of the left field idea - bonus damage from Perception proficiency rank...

Scatter weapons should perhaps also have more damage at close range.

I hope these comments are added to the discussion on the playtest forums. They are very interesting.

I always thought that rifling is supposed to increase accuracy because the rotating bullet acts like a hyroscope, traveling in a straighter line...

The impact velocity is also a function of distance to target and caliber, both affecting it negatively. A larger caliber shot may have more energy when leaving the barrel but not as much of it will remain after traveling 100 ft through the air.

The hitting of vital organs is reflected in the fatal property of the firearms, I think it's rather accurate... But I agree that the base damage seems low. Maybe they should get an accuracy boost, thus increasing critical chance? Another out of the left field idea - bonus damage from Perception proficiency rank...

Scatter weapons should perhaps also have more damage at close range.

My father was a part-time black powder gunsmith when I was growing up. Made his own pistols and rifles and I was his cheap labor. LOTS of stock sanding.

Yeah, muskets (which aren't rifled) lose power fast. People forget that these weapons are "fit on build." They aren't like our modern interchangeable parts weapons and your ammo wasn't made to the same standards and usually fit poorly, and let lots of gas escape, even with wadding. Because the rifling engages with the bullet, less gas escapes.

Also black powder is way less energetic than modern smokeless powders.

I also think they should add some kind of "repeating" firearm at a much higher price point. I'm NOT talking like a revolver or even a metallic casing. There's weapons that have internal powder and projectile magazines that being reloading to a lever pull. They ALSO have the tradeoff of making a misfire so much more exciting...

I also think they should add some kind of "repeating" firearm at a much higher price point. I'm NOT talking like a revolver or even a metallic casing. There's weapons that have internal powder and projectile magazines that being reloading to a lever pull. They ALSO have the tradeoff of making a misfire so much more exciting...

Are we talking a Pepperbox, like PF1 had?

Playtest rules are now up on the Guide Website.

I don't know. It makes sense to me that pistols do less damage than muskets. Muskets are larger and require two hands, and therefore should do more damage than the smaller one handed pistol. You can't expect a dagger to do as much damage as a greatsword, right?

Liam wrote:

I also think they should add some kind of "repeating" firearm at a much higher price point. I'm NOT talking like a revolver or even a metallic casing. There's weapons that have internal powder and projectile magazines that being reloading to a lever pull. They ALSO have the tradeoff of making a misfire so much more exciting...

Are we talking a Pepperbox, like PF1 had?

Could be that, or maybe a lever magazine rifle like some of the wheel lock rifles had during the renaissance. Tilt it down, cycle the lever and your gun is loaded and packed with a fresh pan. Cock and fire. Keep it clean or it may just harm you.

Playtest rules are now up on the Guide Website.

Thank you...

I would argue that it should be a matter of Opting Out, instead of Opting In... but that is just my opinion...

You can't "opt out" of GMing for other classes, regardless of whether you're familiar with their mechanics, so I don't see why this would be any different.

PFS2 puts more onus on the players to know their material.

In the end, it will not really matter. Unless someone is playing alot, you are likely not going to see very many playtest characters.

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

That is an Opt-In. Since that is how Alex stated the rule, that is what went into the guide.

Aside from that Opt-Out is rarely a practical, ethical choice. The inability to Opt-Out of something you are unaware of, or unaware of your ability to opt out of, can cause hurt feelings, surprise, and negative game experiences. It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing. It can also create a moral pressure to stay in, since you are making an exception of yourself by opting out.

Opt-In means that only GMs who are happy and enthusiastic about testing the rules, and ensuring that the playtest will not disrupt other players enjoyment, will take part in the playtest.

Keep in mind that Paizo playtests are *not* glorified advertising. They typically contain rules elements that are designed to push boundaries and which can be frustrating and or non-functional. It is quite reasonable for a GM to decide that they do not want to deal with that in their game, and would prefer to stick to the well balanced, well tested rules. Keep in mind also that the Playtest rules have not gone through the Additional Resources team, and may contain content that is not appropriate for Organised Play. Rules that require far more GM interpretation and variation than Org Play is willing to tolerate, Rules that are overpowered, or which address themes not appropriate in Org Play. (I haven't seen the later in this playtest, but we are writing these rules to apply to future playtests as well.)

It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.

Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:

It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.

Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

And the VO corps is advised to work to getting those disruptive GMs to either stop their disruptive behavior or leave Organized Play...

That is in the Guide...

bugleyman wrote:

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:

It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.

Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

And the VO corps is advised to work to getting those disruptive GMs to either stop their disruptive behavior or leave Organized Play...

That is in the Guide...

No one said anything about "disruptive GMs." If I didn't know better, I'd say that you seem determined to reframe player entitlement as a GM problem.

And by all means, tell me more about this "VO corps" of which you speak... :P

Alex Speidel wrote:

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

I fixed it for you...

We were given a suggestion, notice the use of the word "should"...

And we were given an option to Opt-Out...

And by all means, tell me more about this "VO corps" of which you speak... :P

I wonder what color their rings are.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:

It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.

Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

And the VO corps is advised to work to getting those disruptive GMs to either stop their disruptive behavior or leave Organized Play...

That is in the Guide...

No one said anything about "disruptive GMs." If I didn't know better, I'd say that you seem determined to reframe player entitlement as a GM problem.

And by all means, tell me more about this "VO corps" of which you speak... :P

I think his concern, one tha5 I am also nervous about, is that this might open up the possibility of GM’s disallowing other character option that they dislike from their tables, or refusing to GM if said character is not withdrawn. For example, I might say that I often find Chaotuc Neutral characters incredibly disruptive(I do, and often restrict them from my h9me games.) if I were to refuse to GM any table with a chaotic neutral PC, that would make me a disruptive GM in this organized play campaign.

Y’all often point out that the GM for the PFS campaign is the organized play coordinator, and we need to play by her rules.

All of that being said, Alex described the Playtest as an opt-in from my perspective, and so long as it remains that way for only the playtest, I think it is an excellent middle ground for allowing playtest8ng innPFS.

I think his concern, one that I am also nervous about, is that this might open up the possibility of GM’s disallowing other character option that they dislike from their tables, or refusing to GM if said character is not withdrawn.

See, I just don't get this fear. At all. The line between "playtest content" and "published, sanctioned content" seems crystal clear. The first is subject to GM approval (it has "test" in the name!), the second is not. There is no slippery slope to be found here.

bugleyman wrote:

And by all means, tell me more about this "VO corps" of which you speak... :P

I wonder what color their rings are.

It depends on the forum. On our local discord, mine is Green, my VLs are purple, and VA's are blue.

medtec28 wrote:

I think his concern, one that I am also nervous about, is that this might open up the possibility of GM’s disallowing other character option that they dislike from their tables, or refusing to GM if said character is not withdrawn.

See, I just don't get this fear. At all. The line between "playtest content" and "published, sanctioned content" seems crystal clear. The first is subject to GM approval (it has "test" in the name!), the second is not. There is no slippery slope to be found here.

The commentary about GM’s “Opting-Out” by refusing to run games, and discussion of “Player Entitlement” as justification for same are where my concerns are.

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:

Alex Speidel wrote:

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

I fixed it for you...

We were given a suggestion, notice the use of the word "should"...

And we were given an option to Opt-Out...

I see no difference in your suggested fix. You both are saying the same thing. No is going to force you to GM playtest if you don't wish to. All you have to do is make it known in advance.

I think what you want is to deny a player from playing a playtest without notice. To me that falls into being a jerk GM.

Speaking as a GM whose current schedule did not leave me the bandwidth to read the Playtest, I was happy to run Lions of Katapesh for Playtest characters. Their players excitedly explained every aspect of their builds to me as we went, and I had great fun learning from them.

The players got to playtest the gunslinger and inventor, and I got to experience their vicarious excitement and STILL learn about these Playtest characters while having a fun romp with lions and yummy goblin appetizers. Win, win!