Guns & Gear Playtest Ending Soon

Friday, January 29, 2021

The Pathfinder Guns and Gears playtest ends on February 5th! That means you have one more week to put the gunslinger and inventor through their paces and fill out the survey. If you haven’t picked up the playtest yet, download it here. The main survey can be found here, and please use the response survey here if there are details you’d like to add that aren’t addressed in the class survey. These surveys are the main way we can collect data and sort through it, but you can also join the discussion of the classes on the playtest forum. We especially ask you to playtest these classes if you can, and the inventor in particular, since the inventor is the first brand-new class for Pathfinder 2nd Edition and your play experience will be crucial in refining it for the final book.

pathfinder guns and gears second edition playtest gunslinger iconic with a large rifle over her shoulder pathfinder guns and gears second edition playtest inventor iconic with with a small construct

If you’ve already filled out the survey, playtested one or both classes, or contributed to discussions, thank you so much! Our previous playtests have made a big difference for the final classes, and this one will as well. We appreciate you taking time in your games to improve our future releases! I want to give a special thanks to everyone who has worked hard to make sure the discussions highlight as many ideas, discoveries, and issues as possible without circular discussion on the same few points. This has been crucial in allowing us to keep up with the analysis and ideas, and your excellent engagement is going to be a huge help for these classes!

Mark Seifter
Design Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'll be filling my surveys tonight!
Was very fun to test the gunslinger, but I can't wait to play an inventor! :3


Able to fit in one more session with the gunslinger before the 5th, will be filling out the survey ASAP after that!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Didn't have time/opportunity to test but played a MACHINESMITH (created by LPJ) some years ago in Iron Gods and I'm surprised and glad to see the INVENTOR being a reasonale option to play in P2. Please don't drop the concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Got my survey in and got my players to submit their survey!

Both classes seem lots of fun, but the Inventor probably needs some tweaking. I really like the Gunslinger, though - accurate, reliable damage with the occasional explosive crit is a fun class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I want a goblin construct mini....

Dataphiles

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Looking forward to the restrospective and designer thoughts

Liberty's Edge

Based on Secrets of Magic, we might have the survey analysis on the 19th of February.

Fingers crossed.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Do the surveys and data end tonight, or tomorrow night?


I believe it's tomorrow night, but I submitted my surveys already, just to be safe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
I believe it's tomorrow night, but I submitted my surveys already, just to be safe.

Me too, filled mine out a few hours ago.

Scarab Sages

Submitted mine nine minutes after the cutoff if it was yesterday, so hopefully my firefox cache being lost didn't cost me my write in response...

Design Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry, you still have about 12 hours and when it's closed, you'll know as it won't allow you to take the survey. Thanks to everyone for participating in the playtest. You've been productive and focused, with lots of good insights that will help us dramatically moving forward!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for this one! Was actually a really fun playtest and Inventor is an excellent addition to the game as a new Class.


Finally got my survey in. Was a bit hard to get any playtesting in due to my current work schedule - but managed to run a small combat session to try out the classes (though the poor Armor Inventor didn't get a chance to do much special except roll all 1's on their Explode).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How long will the forums stay open. I did my surveys but I didn't do a summery on the game I GM'd and that could be useful but I don't have time to write it up until Saturday afternoon est


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oops, didn't fill out a survey in time…
Time for some last notes.

I hope guns are changed to be balanced around repeating crossbows, instead of reload 1 which I don't find fun. I don't like guns being high critical damage oriented.

I hope gunslinger has more interesting mechanics instead of +2 to hit.

I hope the inventor loses some strike/martial power for more interesting abilities, but I would much prefer at will abilities or building on unstable instead of daily use abilities like the alchemist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Filled out the survey with my gunslinger player yesterday, a summary of her biggest points:

- She likes the expert to legendary proficiency and doesn't want that to go away.
- Firearm Ace is easily the most powerful feat at low levels.
- Critting with a firearm feels amazing, but regular hits often don't feel good. Finding a way to make regular hits feel better without improving crits would be the biggest improvement to her.
- Aside from Firearm Ace, the best feats to her were feats that combined reloading with other actions, notably Risky Reload.
- She liked Misfire as presented, where it only happens when you do something dangerous or risky.
- Her primary weapon was an Arquebus. She found that the mental image of a tripod to be very weird. The mental image of someone using a tripod is using it prone, but that isn't a requirement for it. In fact, we could find nothing in the rules that prevented her from setting up her tripod while riding her horse.
- She was way of the sniper, and found its benefits to be lacklustre. 1d6 precision damage on a single attack isn't interesting or powerful.

Now that the playtest is over, I'm currently considering ways to homebrew the gunslinger until the full version comes out. The first thing I'm considering is removing the tripod and just having the Unsteady trait require an action to aim, but you don't have to use the action again until you move.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:

I hope guns are changed to be balanced around repeating crossbows, instead of reload 1 which I don't find fun. I don't like guns being high critical damage oriented.

Agree!

The firearms high crit is interesting but is treacherous. All the thing tends to become too extreme, the weapons becomes too strong against low AC opponents but almost useless agains high AC enemies, specially if such enemies has some kind of DR.

Maybe less fatal damage and much more base damage could solve this.

citricking wrote:
I hope gunslinger has more interesting mechanics instead of +2 to hit.

They already have. The main problems is theres too much situational feats and some unbalanced feats (but is a playtest, unbalances is expected). Probably in final versions these feats will be revised, the most useless will be removed or redone and others will be rebalanced.

citricking wrote:
I hope the inventor loses some strike/martial power for more interesting abilities, but I would much prefer at will abilities or building on unstable instead of daily use abilities like the alchemist.

Agree, there's so much potential in Inventor to be explored. In my opinion they need less martial are more gadgets. Maybe something like alchemist infused itens, but more gadget like. Something like non-magical alternatives to some magical effects like the alchemist has bombs/elixirs/mutagens, the Inventor could do a experimental and unstable rocket launcher that has a effect similar to Magic Missiles but with a elemental damage instead of energy or build a night/true vision goggles to see in dark or invisible things or make a radar that detects enemies and so on. Having their own formulas and item list.

The inventor also could have more flexible companion different from animal on bases, some thing like a armed motorcycle that has role as mount and weapon at same time (something that usually is not possible with usual mounts, except if you mount a dragon).

IMO it could be more like Inspector Gadget and less Ironman. Thats could make it more fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the alchemist is any indication, a lot of people will get grumpy if the inventor goes full support. Better to keep the martial proficiencies where they're at. An alchemist shines by supporting the team while a cleric can do that OR go off and do their own thing with full caster proficiencies. Given a choice between the two I'd prefer optional support capability, like the cleric. A class that purely exists for the benefit of others is going to leave a lot of players skipping it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
If the alchemist is any indication, a lot of people will get grumpy if the inventor goes full support.

It has nothing to do with it being full support: it has more to do with the framework like needing to pay feats for things other classes get for free, your main damage 'bonus' is damage on a miss, truly awful and/or barely useful Research Fields abilities, questionable Perpetual Infusions options...

WWHsmackdown wrote:
Given a choice between the two I'd prefer optional support capability, like the cleric.

I can't say I like the way warpriest turned out, so I hope it has better options than the cleric.


graystone wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
If the alchemist is any indication, a lot of people will get grumpy if the inventor goes full support.

It has nothing to do with it being full support: it has more to do with the framework like needing to pay feats for things other classes get for free, your main damage 'bonus' is damage on a miss, truly awful and/or barely useful Research Fields abilities, questionable Perpetual Infusions options...

WWHsmackdown wrote:
Given a choice between the two I'd prefer optional support capability, like the cleric.
I can't say I like the way warpriest turned out, so I hope it has better options than the cleric.

I was more talking about how a cloister cleric can support or go blasting depending on its whims


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I can't say I like the way warpriest turned out, so I hope it has better options than the cleric.

Me too. IMO is more efective to be a Cloister cleric and take Champion dedication to cover it's low defense and use magic to attack.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
If the alchemist is any indication, a lot of people will get grumpy if the inventor goes full support.
It has nothing to do with it being full support: it has more to do with the framework like needing to pay feats for things other classes get for free, your main damage 'bonus' is damage on a miss, truly awful and/or barely useful Research Fields abilities, questionable Perpetual Infusions options...

TBH, the very real support abilities of the Alchemist are usually casually dismissed by the people who dislike the class when those are brought up.

Many people seem to want the Alchemist to be the natural primary user of their products. I think these people have fond memories of the PF1 Alchemist whose products were naturally for their own use since they could not be used by others.

The PF2 reversal of this paradigm is not well liked by some.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
TBH, the very real support abilities of the Alchemist are usually casually dismissed by the people who dislike the class when those are brought up.

I think they are often dismissed based on their own merits: for instance, mutagens get panned because of the horribly awful penalties compared to what you get. Or that a caster can use their spells to give similar support without juggling actions around.

The Raven Black wrote:
Many people seem to want the Alchemist to be the natural primary user of their products. I think these people have fond memories of the PF1 Alchemist whose products were naturally for their own use since they could not be used by others.

I don't think that's it: Infusion was a popular discovery after all. I think it's more that the alchemist has to DO something after he's passed out his goodies and it would seem odd if that means he's not falling back to alchemy to do so.

The Raven Black wrote:
The PF2 reversal of this paradigm is not well liked by some.

I still think it's more dislike of the class itself more than the paradigm shift.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Right, a very significant portion of PF2 players came from 5e and not PF1 (including myself and every one of my players, except the several who have never played any other TTRPG at all before this). It's not really a concern of "OMG nerfed!" as much as it is "what am I actually able to do?"

For the record, the playtest Inventor does not have that problem at all. They are clearly structured like a martial, so what they have to do is the same as all other martials, plus a bag of extra tricks. I don't really see a comparison here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
For the record, the playtest Inventor does not have that problem at all. They are clearly structured like a martial, so what they have to do is the same as all other martials, plus a bag of extra tricks. I don't really see a comparison here.

I think it's in reference to the survey question that gave multiple choice answers to 'would you like the inventor to keep the martial structure or drop the proficiencies down to give it more inventions and gadgets'. One of the options would have it with a caster type base to allow for loads of class abilities instead of martial might.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was very pleased with both classes, and pleased the inventor doesnt have the problems of the alchemist. Both could use sone tweaks, but I think neither needs major rework.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I was very pleased with both classes, and pleased the inventor doesnt have the problems of the alchemist. Both could use sone tweaks, but I think neither needs major rework.

Same boat here! The implementation of the inventor concept makes me really happy and looks very engaging to play (as if I'd ever get to be a player).

I think its biggest weakness is that its name confuses people in regards to what the class actually is and offers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I think it's in reference to the survey question that gave multiple choice answers to 'would you like the inventor to keep the martial structure or drop the proficiencies down to give it more inventions and gadgets'. One of the options would have it with a caster type base to allow for loads of class abilities instead of martial might.
Sporkedup wrote:
I think its biggest weakness is that its name confuses people in regards to what the class actually is and offers.

This is the point. IMO the current playtest Inventor is more like a user super-weapon/armor/construct user than a Inventor itself. I see much more potential to a class that carries such name than just this. But i'm not saying that the Inventor is currently a bad class, just that the idea of an inventor has much more potential than was currently presented.

And I disagree a little of you about the Gunslinger. Although, unlike my opinion of the inventor, the concept behind the Gunslinger is correct. Most of its mechanics are not. We already talked about, the reloads limitations, specially if compared agains bows, different from many here I see the current misfire rules a useless rule (it's a entire mechanic that's is basically used in cases where you make a feat move that failures, or if you some rare situation where you could not clean the weapon that day, like happens to prepared casters), there's many feats that needs serious rebalances, like FIREARM ACE that is so efficient that make more sense to make it a class feature than a optional feat or COVER FIRE and TRICK SHOT that's is so situational that almost inefficient to take these feats.

I know thats most of these can be greately improved with just a little adjustments, but others requires a entire rethink how some basic mechanics like reloads works a make several changes in class to circumvent it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
For the record, the playtest Inventor does not have that problem at all. They are clearly structured like a martial, so what they have to do is the same as all other martials, plus a bag of extra tricks. I don't really see a comparison here.
I think it's in reference to the survey question that gave multiple choice answers to 'would you like the inventor to keep the martial structure or drop the proficiencies down to give it more inventions and gadgets'. One of the options would have it with a caster type base to allow for loads of class abilities instead of martial might.

[Emphasis mine for incredulity.] Ah surveys, you imperfect beasts. Like taking a potshot at an elephant, but from space, with a treetrunk fired from a bowl of soup. Questions don’t need to be leading, but in surveys they often get to be as a waypf cleaving off data groups, while leaving large portions flailing around sans meaningful options.

I pretty much stopped paying attention to the threads when it became clear that “forum views aren’t representative of player-base views” was a thing, and that a call to perhaps put out fires of circular arguments on aspects that ultimately might not be useful or focused was ignored.

I hope the Gunslinger gets good reload activities; that guns are made more useful outside of crits and that the more situational feats or those that just felt wrong (Cover Fire) are adjusted.

I hope the Inventor can have more options outside of Explode for their main schtick, for mechanical (something different) flavor (not just fire and boom) and thematic (some Inventors don’t belong to the Gremlins school of “oh, no, not again” tinkering) reasons; that Armor innovations get actual exciting tricks; and that they aren’t stuck between being considered a “martial chassis” or “interestingly tricky”.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:


I pretty much stopped paying attention to the threads when it became clear that “forum views aren’t representative of player-base views”

I find this weird that people say this too.

Like, I've introduced double-digit people to the game because I'm a fanatic and the people I've played with are the only ones I know that have played 2E (my local hobby shop says it's relatively popular, but I never see people in there playing it).

I'm not saying our opinions are better or exactly the same as the grander community, but we're literally the ones so passionate about the game that we bring others to it. Don't our voices mean something considering that?

You could just as easily argue the people who aren't as critical simply don't care, would be happy to play anything resembling said class, or ultimately would rather play another edition.

"We aren't representative of the grander community!" just feels like a cop-out to ignore opinions. The truth is that the people that are the most passionate about the game are the reason that it spreads because they are looking for other players to play with and introduce to the game.

That and most of us are so passionate we can analyze the finer points of the game, which is not something several of my players would even care to do.

Their indifference to certain mechanics doesn't change the fact that if I didn't like the mechanics/game, we wouldn't be playing 2E at all.

shrug


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I am willing to bet our discussions on the forums have a significant impact on the direction of the design, whether consciously or subconsciously.

The polls likely should try to access opinions from a wider audience, if only because us forum goers already get quite a bit of developer access. We're like lobbyists and the surveys are votes.

You can see how much impact our discussion has had by reading the recap blog posts, where the overall thrust of their direction may be survey driven, but the details about specific actions they may take often read like they're pulled directly from some discussion threads.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I don't feel unheard or underheard here at all. I imagine one of the big reasons these forums even still exist is so devs can monitor our insight and opinions!

Though admittedly I usually have bad ideas so maybe they can pass on my ramblings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sporkedup wrote:

Yeah I don't feel unheard or underheard here at all. I imagine one of the big reasons these forums even still exist is so devs can monitor our insight and opinions!

Though admittedly I usually have bad ideas so maybe they can pass on my ramblings.

Even ramblings can spark a train of thought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
We're like lobbyists and the surveys are votes.

I kinda like that.

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:


I pretty much stopped paying attention to the threads when it became clear that “forum views aren’t representative of player-base views”
I find this weird that people say this too.

In this case it's not actually something that was said. What I'm being misquoted on was the statement "Very consistently, the things that forum discussions center on and the conclusions that people arrive at just don't match what the wider audience is actually thinking or asking for[...]", in reference to a thread asking why Mark and I weren't giving more active clarifications during the playtest. As I noted after that, it's because we get a fuller picture of the correct solutions when we have actual survey data to get into the meat of what the core issues are and what the correct solutions for those issues are going to be to make the widest number of people happy. I also noted that we don't make decisions based on these circular arguments until they've been contextualized by wider data so we have a better picture of what's really going on and more voices helping shape the conversation to create the truest picture of the story possible.

Mark's been working on dissecting that data and disseminating it to the team, and we'll be working on our post-playtest blog this week to tell you all about what kinds of changes we're looking at making. I can tell you that so far, some of those changes will be things people from these forums nod their heads at and go "Hey, that's the thing I asked for", while others will be things that no one even realized had room for improvement but which will have a huge impact on how the classes are played.

Over the course of the playtest, I, Mark, and the rest of the staff have read every thread across here, Facebook, Reddit, and some other forums, watched every review video we could find, and played playtest games with dozens of people, as well as now reviewing data from many many survey takers. That's one of the reasons we included a request in the playtest welcome threads asking people not to repeat themselves and get into circular arguments; we just don't have time to go diffuse the same argument that has popped up 20 times before between mostly the same people and maybe one or two "new challengers". Especially when it's something where there's a lot of different ideas about what people actually want, many of which aren't compatible with each other, like how people want to interface with reloads (more on that in the wrap-up blog).

Quote:


I'm not saying our opinions are better or exactly the same as the grander community, but we're literally the ones so passionate about the game that we bring others to it. Don't our voices mean something considering that?

Absolutely, which is one of the reasons I felt it was so important to note that the "quote" you were responding to wasn't a quote. The arguments that people get into on forums are often niche and hyper-focused in a way that turns into people drawing lines in the sand about how their interpretation or solution is "correct", which can then further warp the conversation by creating the fallacious impression that the answer must be one of the two options presented when there's really a myriad of solutions available, some of which no one in the heat of the argument has thought of because they're so engaged in "winning" the argument that they've moved away from the more productive route of generating and vetting multiple solutions. As a result, these threads tend to be the least helpful and also the least representative of more broadly held opinions, as I noted.

I think that many people on these forums can point to things in published classes and go "Hey, I suggested that!" And I can say with absolute certainty that people who regularly frequent these forums have had a much greater impact on the current shape of the game than people who only take the surveys. But that impact doesn't come from circular arguments where half a dozen people form a wall and attack every new poster who expresses an opinion that doesn't jive with their subgroup's consensus. Those kinds of threads quickly become highly repetitive and unproductive because instead of thinking of new ideas or spending more time tinkering with builds and discussing possibilities, people turn their energy towards trying to win by zeroing in on a single idea that may just not be a viable solution.

The greatest impact people on the forums have actually comes from people like you, Midnightoker, who actively express what they want, generate ideas and share them with the community, and generally engage civilly with the other community members. And people like Deadmanwalking who has one of the most thorough understandings of the game I've seen outside of Paizo staff. Or people like AnimatedPaper who I'm pretty sure has our computers tapped to see what we're working on so they can turn around and ask the community what they think the most exciting versions of those ideas are before we've even finished sorting them out ourselves. This is a list I could actually go on about for awhile, because so many people on these forums have made contributions or expressed ideas that ultimately influenced the rules and shape of this game in ways both large and small. Sometimes they've done so in obvious ways "Hey, that's the thing we all came up with in my thread!" Sometimes they're much more subtle, like the person who spends the whole playtest offering alternatives for how to do XYZ, none of which we use but each of which lays a paving stone on the path to the final answer.

The great thing about a tight-knit community is that it creates lots of people with higher than average levels of game knowledge and system expertise. The downside is that sometimes that expertise hyper-focuses on unproductive avenues, but even when it does, it's preferable to let that energy play out. I certainly don't want to be the one who unnecessarily pulls the plug on someone's passion because the idea they're ardently championing isn't one that's going to happen. That's a surefire way to stunt their growth and blunt their potential for future contributions to the game and community. So we'll generally let those circular arguments play themselves out if you ignore our first request to not have them, as long as they're not devolving into nastiness or name-calling, but it doesn't mean we're not listening to all of you or that you're not the people who have some of the greatest influence on the game outside of the company. It just means that if you didn't get an answer to a question or assertion the first time you made it, that there's multiple possible resolutions and we're waiting to get a truer picture of what the answer that's going to please the widest number of people actually is.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I am always amazed at the evolution the devs make to the Classes from the playtest material. It ends up so good, it's pretty incredible (the investigator springs to my mind). And you people have become even better at this in PF2.

This is the very first time I answered a playtest survey. I hope I will not jinx the awesome you give us.

I hope we will get news from Deadmanwalking soon. I miss their excellent posts.

Thank you all, both Paizo and posters, for what you contribute to the excellent end result we get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Michael Sayre being awesome as per usual

Thanks for sharing Michael. I'll be sure to check my sources before I use quotes in the future :)

I'm excited to see how this playtest aftermath shakes out. I do feel like for the most part the way you all ran it this time things were super organized by comparison to some of the prior PTs (maybe I'm imagining that, but feedback in threads seemed relatively on point).

Design Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Michael Sayre being awesome as per usual

Thanks for sharing Michael. I'll be sure to check my sources before I use quotes in the future :)

I'm excited to see how this playtest aftermath shakes out. I do feel like for the most part the way you all ran it this time things were super organized by comparison to some of the prior PTs (maybe I'm imagining that, but feedback in threads seemed relatively on point).

That was thanks to all of you in our community. We asked to try to keep the feedback more on-point, and you delivered that. It was crucial for us, and it's going to have a strong positive effect in our capacity to integrate new ideas and playtest results from the community, which ultimately leads to stronger classes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do hope to get some news about the results, these classes were really popular and anticipated in my play group, and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing all the cool new gizmos I'll get to play with


This playtest felt a little wierd to me. On the one hand, most people were super concise with what they had to say and didn't ramble on too much, which is what mark and Micheal wanted. On the other hand... I check the boards many times a day to see people's ideas and experiences, and they were so slow!! Lol I sort of missed the breakneck pace of the secrets of magic playtest, even though some threads were pretty painstaking and hard to get through with all the arguments. Grass is always greener I suppose.


Gaulin wrote:
This playtest felt a little wierd to me. On the one hand, most people were super concise with what they had to say and didn't ramble on too much, which is what mark and Micheal wanted. On the other hand... I check the boards many times a day to see people's ideas and experiences, and they were so slow!! Lol I sort of missed the breakneck pace of the secrets of magic playtest, even though some threads were pretty painstaking and hard to get through with all the arguments. Grass is always greener I suppose.

Yeah. Feels like that's the trade-off you get for these classes being more niche and not as universally desirable as the Magus and Summoner. Not bashing these new classes, I'm already anticipating trying to grab G&G right as it hits PDF, but not as many people are going to want that flavor at their tables, which Mike and Mark knew going into the playtest.

If I had to guess, I'd put money on these kinds of results being the more desirable course for a playtest to go. Loads of extra play experiences don't help you if you can't find them buried in the thousand-ot posts arguing over ... well everything.

Design Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
This playtest felt a little wierd to me. On the one hand, most people were super concise with what they had to say and didn't ramble on too much, which is what mark and Micheal wanted. On the other hand... I check the boards many times a day to see people's ideas and experiences, and they were so slow!! Lol I sort of missed the breakneck pace of the secrets of magic playtest, even though some threads were pretty painstaking and hard to get through with all the arguments. Grass is always greener I suppose.

Yeah. Feels like that's the trade-off you get for these classes being more niche and not as universally desirable as the Magus and Summoner. Not bashing these new classes, I'm already anticipating trying to grab G&G right as it hits PDF, but not as many people are going to want that flavor at their tables, which Mike and Mark knew going into the playtest.

If I had to guess, I'd put money on these kinds of results being the more desirable course for a playtest to go. Loads of extra play experiences don't help you if you can't find them buried in the thousand-ot posts arguing over ... well everything.

Here's the interesting thing. We actually had more playtest results and surveys than Advanced Player's Guide, and not many fewer than Secrets of Magic, while also being really productive, non-repetitive, and full of insights. G&G Playtest has been one of the best playtests from our end that we've done, and that's all thanks to you. Thank you so much!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder if that's strongly driven by the excitement of a new class?

I can tell you from my perspective that this playtest felt much less frustrating to me. Other players were less at odds with what folks wanted or needed to see. The vibe was mellow and excited, and I hope whatever magic handed us that can be maintained in future goes!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sporkedup wrote:
I wonder if that's strongly driven by the excitement of a new class?

At the very least, the inventor benefited from not having a previous edition's worth of preconceptions and mistakes layered over everyone's perceptions of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Do want to say that as fun as four classes at once is, two and two is a lot smoother. I have to imagine significantly more so for Paizo staff.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
I wonder if that's strongly driven by the excitement of a new class?
At the very least, the inventor benefited from not having a previous edition's worth of preconceptions and mistakes layered over everyone's perceptions of it.

For those of us who play Starfinder, the inventor looked extraordinarily familiar! The Starfinder class even has a similar choice of "Robo-pet", "Fancy Weapon" or "Fancy Armor", while having the same surprisingly martial bent for a class flavored around being a tinkerer. I was actually quite surprised that I didn't see more discussion about what the inventor was bringing in from Starfinder. Perhaps the player-base venn diagram has less overlap than I thought.


Cellion wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
I wonder if that's strongly driven by the excitement of a new class?
At the very least, the inventor benefited from not having a previous edition's worth of preconceptions and mistakes layered over everyone's perceptions of it.
For those of us who play Starfinder, the inventor looked extraordinarily familiar! The Starfinder class even has a similar choice of "Robo-pet", "Fancy Weapon" or "Fancy Armor", while having the same surprisingly martial bent for a class flavored around being a tinkerer. I was actually quite surprised that I didn't see more discussion about what the inventor was bringing in from Starfinder. Perhaps the player-base venn diagram has less overlap than I thought.

I’ve never gotten to play Starfinder :( it’s not much of an excuse, just old habits I guess. Haven’t done a sci-fi game since release Star Wars.

Were there things on the starfinder class you expected to see on Inventor and didn’t? Maybe things we might see on release?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

I’ve never gotten to play Starfinder :( it’s not much of an excuse, just old habits I guess. Haven’t done a sci-fi game since release Star Wars.

Were there things on the starfinder class you expected to see on Inventor and didn’t? Maybe things we might see on release?

While many of the Mechanic's abilities are very scifi-centric (hacking, energy shields, etc), I think one of the neat niches it has is being able to temporarily turn gear into other gear. Ie. turn a datapad into a flashlight through sheer technological wizardry. Eventually you also can pick up abilities to modify weapons and armor (yours and other peoples) to adjust range increments, DCs etc. Or cause other people's gear to glitch and electrocute them from a distance. Basically more tinkering. They also get several class abilities where they can make special gadgets that do powerful things (holograms, night vision, etc)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am HERE for a hologram power that works similar to illusions

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Guns and Gears Playtest / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Guns & Gear Playtest Ending Soon All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.