Bill Bisco's page

Anyone that can fly for a long enough time and with enough arrows can kill the Tarrasque. Also, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can solo the Tarrasque. So this is fine.

Bill Bisco wrote:

Omitted

Everything interesting you say is obscured when you insist on posting crude snipes at the developers in your posts. Perhaps you have something to contribute but it's unlikely anyone reads past your bitter childish insults.

I'm curious when you are done here do you rush over to gamers den and giggle with your friends about it?

Not at all, simply demonstrating why balance issues are still extremely prevalent.

Quote:

If they are so bothersome, don't allow them in your games.

They are summoners of course they are going to have summoning, as they should.

I don't think it was a problem then or is it a problem now. Maybe for some players that can not handle it.

To many of us summoning monsters is not an issue.

Joe, that's not very helpful. It's very negative, and I feel that you telling me not to playtest a class during the time period set aside specifically to playtest a class is very helpful. You're essentially telling me to not participate in the open playtest and to keep my mouth shut because you don't want to hear any criticisms.

I don't think that discouraging playtesting is a positive way to support Paizo and the PRPG, do you?

Tom,

Sean doesn't understand methodology or statistics or base-line comparisons, if he did he wouldn't have churned out Savage Species or base design decisions on biased feedback. Unfortunately most posters are as clueless or more to these concepts as Sean is. So that certainly doesn't help the issue.

The truth is that the summoner compared to the Wizard, Cleric, or Druid is probably ok but compared to the Fighter its overpowered. Knowing exactly what standard of comparison the Summoner is compared to is critical in deciding its power-level.

Best not to get worried about it. Waste of anguish. Also funny from other posters is that tagline of "It's not broken because I can houserule it." Well first, what's your standard of comparison and second, if it wasn't broken you wouldn't have to fix it. That's the Oberoni fallacy.

Also funny is "It's not broken because I'll ban munchkins from using it." I'll make up a new fallacy to call that one (if it isn't already taken) called the Bisco fallacy.

Morgan le Fay is another good "hot witch" example. Seductress extraordinaire.

Morgan le Fay is a sorceress.

Bill Bisco wrote:

Circe is a goddess.

Her Wikipedia entry says, "In Greek mythology, Circe is a minor goddess of magic (or sometimes a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress) living on the island of Aeaea."

Bill Bisco wrote:

Medea is an enchantress.

You are nitpicking, as these terms do not have precise historical/mythological meanings. In fact, the Wikipedia entry on her says, "Medea is known in most stories as an enchantress and is often depicted as being a priestess of the goddess Hecate or a witch."

Bill Bisco wrote:

The Craft is a bad modern movie.

Your opinion. Though compared to the myth of Medea, all movies are "modern."

Witch has a distinct European meaning that is different from Greek legends.

Bill,

(1) I didn't design this class, Jason did. My feelings aren't hurt if you think the class is broken.

(2) We're presenting the class for a playtest. We're saying "as of now, this is how the summoner is, we think it's pretty good for a first run, please test it and let us know what you find." The designers aren't here to PROVE anything. There is no assertion about whether not it is perfectly balanced; that's WHY we're having playtesting. People are asserting that the class is broken; I'm asking for evidence of that.

(2a) To look at it another way, we built a car. We believe this car is as safe, economical, and fuel-efficient as any other modern car. Some people are looking at the car and saying that it's a deathtrap, too expensive, and a gas guzzler; we're asking those people to "test drive" the car to back up their initial impressions.

(3) The purpose of playtesting is to determine problems with the classes. Thus, you and other people should PLAYtest it and give feedback. Non-playtest analysis has value, but it really needs to be PLAYtested to get a true sense of how it works in PLAY.

1. I never said the class was broken or not broken, I merely implied that you have no justifiable metric to make such a decision

2. Ironic how you are asking for proof of how the class is broken, yet have failed to give proof that the class is balanced.

3. No sir, getting a random group of gamers with a random DM with his own random houserules, his own random idea of what fair items are, and his own random idea of what monsters the party should fight combined with a random selection of characters who may or may not know how to play their own characters efficiently, is in NO WAY a good methodology to judge whether something or not is balanced.

Good playtesting proof coming from a good methodology was submitted to this forum. It was completely ignored. Below are 2 samples:

Fighter Playtest

Wizard Playtest

Bill Bisco wrote:

I'm not sure if you were around the beginning with Pathfinder's Open Playtest, but basically the Playtest was a sham and the designers never intended on really making the new rules backwards compatitble or solving 3.5s instrinsic problems. So basically, when Reynolds alludes that a class is mechanically balanced when it has a free fighter as a class feature is both unconvincing (due to past playtesting incompetence and insincerity) and laughable (due to obvious repeating of 3.5 tropes).

I really have no response to this. But thanks for calling us incompetent and insincere, that's always...

That was really more towards Jason than you because I'm not sure you were hired on yet; but, regardless when designers say they want playtest help to root out balance issues and then players show them serious balance issues and the designers completely ignore them, it means that designers are not sincere and that their attempts at game balance are merely shots in the dark.

Peace,
Bill

Sebastian wrote:

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

1. How does a level 1 summoner cast rope trick?

I would say it's a rhetorical flourish intended only to avoid arguments that miss the point of the scenario A Man in Black has established to illustrate his thoughts. Otherwise, you see responses like "why doesn't the ogre just attack the summoner with the javelin" that avoid the basic thrust of the point: the minute/level duration can create situations where the summoner can overcome an encounter without personal risk.

Kinda like your response, really.

I would argue, completely outside the "does the summoner need work" discussion, that there are several already established classes that can do much the same thing (overcome an encounter without personal risk), just not with summoned creatures. I'm not attempting to derail his scenario that he's outlined--instead, I'm trying to assert that his scenario probably wouldn't occur at level 1 (or even level 2) because it's much harder for the summoner to simply "not be there" when the summons are fighting. Yes, he could summon a bunch of dogs and send them roving ahead in the dungeon to fight stuff, but he wouldn't be able to control them.

At later levels (assuming he has a wizard along who can cast rope trick) this might become an issue, but I'm curious in what gaming group would the players be okay with one character summoning a bunch of stuff and hiding while that character gets to play and everyone gets to watch? This is a logical hypothetical for a scenario, to be sure, but not a realistic expectation of how the summoner would work in an actual play environment.

Anyway, this is gamer me talking, and not Events Manager me talking. It's clear that the playtest version of each class needs some work here and there. I'm certainly not going to argue that (and neither would Jason, really).

They'll sleep for a day then :)

These situations are pretty bogus IMO. How often are you going to run into a single monster encounter? In my games it's a rarity. Now I'm used to having an oversized party, usually mine averages six. However even in smaller groups it's not uncommon to have a cohort, animal companion, autonomous spell (spiritual weapon, mage sword, flame sphere, etc) or summoned creatures. You can't realistically use single monster encounters to demonstrate your hypothesis MIB...

Take a level appropriate adventure and run 4 of it's encounters or make 4 seperate encoutners of your own, preferably not all single monster and see if the Summoner's SLA pets can destroy the Encoutner mechanic, because that's what it's based around.

--Jingle Bell Vrock

Unnecessary. The party sleeps to regain spells and daily powers as soon as 1 combat is over.

And to a previous poster: Nerfing is nerfing. If they nerf the playtest class, they nerf the class.

{2) always old, warty, and butt ugly}

Circe and Medea were witches, and were by no means old, warty, or butt ugly.

You also might want to check out a movie called The Craft, it may change your mind about what witches are supposed to look like.

{3) always cackling}

Ditto.

{4) riding a broomstick}

Not always the case. Baba Yaga used a mortar and pestle.

Wizards also have stereotypes in fiction, and wizards in the game don't necessarily follow that. Nor do monks or druids.

Circe is a goddess. Medea is an enchantress.

The Craft is a bad modern movie.

Bill Bisco wrote:

Draeke Raefel,

I'm not sure if you were around the beginning with Pathfinder's Open Playtest, but basically the Playtest was a sham and the designers never intended on really making the new rules backwards compatitble or solving 3.5s instrinsic problems. So basically, when Reynolds alludes that a class is mechanically balanced when it has a free fighter as a class feature is both unconvincing (due to past playtesting incompetence and insincerity) and laughable (due to obvious repeating of 3.5 tropes).

If you need more proof, I'll be happy to PM you some.

Peace,
Bill

So basically what you're saying is you just came back after being inactive on the forums for over a year in order to try and start a flame war?

No sir, just explaining my perspective. And with that, perhaps it would be good to get back on topic.

Peace,
Bill

Draeke Raefel,

I'm not sure if you were around the beginning with Pathfinder's Open Playtest, but basically the Playtest was a sham and the designers never intended on really making the new rules backwards compatitble or solving 3.5s instrinsic problems. So basically, when Reynolds alludes that a class is mechanically balanced when it has a free fighter as a class feature is both unconvincing (due to past playtesting incompetence and insincerity) and laughable (due to obvious repeating of 3.5 tropes).

If you need more proof, I'll be happy to PM you some.

Peace,
Bill

Enchanter Tom wrote:

It seems that SKR's argument is that summoners should be able to ruin the game with their class abilities because they won't actually use their class abilities.

My argument is that any player can be a jerk and there are no RULES in the game about not being a jerk. If I'm playing a bard, and I actually write songs for my bard to sing to represent my bardic performance ability, and in combat I-the-player insist on singing these songs at the game table even though it makes it hard for everyone else to hear the GM talking, I am (1) playing my character, (2) not breaking any rules of the game, and (3) being a jerk.

If the summoner class is balanced MECHANICALLY, and a skilled player can play the character without being a disruption to the game (which includes taking too long in combat), then there's no reason to change the class. Just because some people MAY be jerks when they play their character, and some classes are more inclined to be jerk-friendly (hello, "I stealth off by myself and pick the pockets of my allies" rogues), does not mean the CLASS needs to be changed. You don't balance mechanics with roleplaying, and you don't balance roleplaying with mechanics.

Enchanter Tom wrote:

Can anyone formulate an actual argument on why the summoner should keep his perma-summon, summon SLAs, and summoning spells?

Can you find any *evidence* that in the hands of an skilled player, the summoner as written ruins the game or ruins the fun for the other people playing? You're the one who thinks the class should change, thus it is your responsibility to provide evidence to back up your argument. "I say X is true, can anyone prove me wrong" is not a valid form of argument or testing.

Uh Sean? Your argument is basically " I designed the class therefore its balanced. Prove to me that its not balanced." The burden of proof lies with you as the designer. And let me point out that adding another class that gets a free fighter as a class feature and claiming game balance is hilarious.

Take care,
Bill

Slightly back on topic, I have another question.

When you cast Scry and it fails, how do you know whether it failed because the person succeeded on their save or you were lied to?

The problem with that stance Bill is that's only one way of interpreting Chris's statement. We often disagree on things, and apparently have different design philosophies. So when Chris says he's 'not my biggest fan' I interpret that to mean 'there are (many) things he believes and espouses that I do not believe nor espouse'. Lets not try to create insults where there aren't necessarily any.

I will agree on one point - being passive-aggressive is no way to post productively. Neither of the posts you're referring to here read as passive-aggressive baiting of me, imho.

Very well, my apologies. Perhaps it was Samuel Leming's gross mischaracterization and overreaction that got to me, and I applied it to later things that I saw.

But I'm curious: why do you consider it hypocritical?

I'm not one of Squirrelloid's biggest fans

You're issuing a veiled insult toward him. It is implying that there are some undesirable negative qualities about him. Getting onto others about not being polite, but when you perceive someone else being impolite and then consequently being impolite to them is hypocritical in my book.

If we're going to make a big deal about Squirrelloid calling someone a moron then using veiled insults against him is a big deal too.

I know 'me too' posts are redundant, but I want to echo Chris' thoughts. I too am not a huge fan of Squirrelloid, but he has done a great job in explaining his position and manages to (virtually) omit the venom from his posts. It is primarily for this reason that I am even bothering to read this thread and participate in it. I am also trying hard to see the problems he sees from his point of view, even if they are not problems for me personally. If the issues are indeed glaring enough at (what I call) the "supers" view of the game and solutions can be developed that do not wreck more tame versions of the game, then I will be won over and do my best to push for the types of changes he is proposing. For those of you reading that think that abusive diatribes are the only means to affect change or be taken seriously, I hope you...

Since this place is obviously the Uppity "let's comment on other's actions" Forum, I'll add in my bit that I think comments like

Squirrelloid,

I enjoyed your post and playtest. Thanks a bunch. I have a couple of questions. What was the point with Contact Other Plane to get the first and last name? How does this help with Divination or Scrying given the fact that you already know something about him?

Also, doesn't Contact Other Plane have a chance at lying to you and deceiving you?