|
I'm somewhat appalled at some of the messages I've read in the last 20 minutes of perusing the Alpha 2 messageboards... Such vitriol I haven't seen since I left the 4e boards the day Pathfinder was announced.
For example, take a look at the post about Sorcerers still being "crippled" - how is that helpful? If I was Jason, I would be highly pissed off and offended. There is a reason this is an open playtest, ALPHA stage production at this point. It's not going to be perfect the day it's released for download.
How about using language and posting things that actually HELP progress the development of the game, instead of ripping the $*!t out of what you're reading without offering any decent alternative?
I just think that some of the posts I've read have been very disrespectful and should be tempered, and redirected into offering suggestions or explaining - logically, not emotionally - why someone might think that it isn't the best way to do it.
Thanks for Alpha 2, Paizo (all involved). Hopefully you aren't too discouraged by the people I speak of above. Now I'm off to read my copy. :)
|
Well said. Initial reactions and gut reactions are fine, but not only is some of this initial ‘feedback’ non-constructive and bordering on rude … it doesn’t really carry much weight when it’s posted within an hour or two of the document becoming available … if you don’t like something, fine, say so … but maybe you should give it enough time that you’ve a) digested the entire document and b) had enough time to actually playtest something in a meaningful way, at least to the point of making up a character and doing a quick combat test or something (don’t want to playtest it – ok. But at least let enough time pass that its conceivable you may have done so). Kind of adds some implied weight to your reaction.
Well done on this Paizo is my gut reaction (non play-tested).
I think Paizo has done a fantastic job on AR2. I hope to see more. So far the more i have seen of what Jason is doing with the Pathfinder RPG the more and more I am sure I am switching to it.
I do agree that the AR2 forums so far seem much more combative in the postings. Hopefully that will mellow by tomorrow. I also am not seeing a lot of the names i was used to seeing in the AR1 forums...of course AR2 did just come out. I will take full fault for perhaps crossing that line myself in the "Sorcerer still crippled" thread and will try to be more mindful of that.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I'm getting tired of people basing base class power on random splat book PrC ex Frenzied Berserker. These are base classes balanced for the setting and each other. They shouldn't be balanced against splat books that came out at the end of 3.x's power creep.
There are a few things I'm not sure if I like alot I love. I'm going to think about it for a bit before I go bashing.
Keep up the good work! We'll work out all the kinks before this is all said and done.
Fizz
I think that most people who are venomous (no pun intended) were expecting very specific things, and were upset when something different appeared instead.
Was I surprised to see Elves lose their Unnatural Beauty? Not really, the +5/+10 bonus to ALL diplomacy was potentially abusive. Might it rear its head as a background feat? Absolutely.
Was I shocked to see barbarians can do elemental damage? You betcha. But I'm willing to give it a whirl before declaring that it's broken. Compared to some of the stuff in the 'we don't care anymore' splat books? It's downright balanced.
Sorcerers get fewer cantrips than wizards? Huh? Someone obviously thinks that spontaneous casting is WAY more powerful than in SRD. Until I look at what they gained and lost in comparison with Wizard, I'm not ready to call them 'crippled' or 'downgraded'.
Druids and barbarians get more skill points than their cleric and fighter counterparts? I can only explain this as hangover from the SRD. Either that, or give some sort of feat to the 'civilized' classes that gives them that bonus 2 SP per level. Ooh, background feat, select only at first level.
Blink, blink. Anyway, before I ramble as I often do, my point is this - people DO have emotional attachments to the game, especially for things they'd like to see. I think Paizo is doing what they can. Naturally, they're trying to appeal to the wider gamer market, and I can't get everything I want the way I want it. But other people have other viewpoints; for those with more emotional investment, the emotional response is their initial one.
Hm. Sleep. Soon.
Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.
Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.
I think you have been at the center of too many 4e debates and have just grown a very think skin for it but I could be wrong I haven't been on these boards long enough to say for sure.
Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.I think you have been at the center of too many 4e debates and have just grown a very think skin for it but I could be wrong I haven't been on these boards long enough to say for sure.
I blame the Adult Swim Message Boards if I've been desensitized.
I blame the Adult Swim Message Boards if I've been desensitized.Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.I think you have been at the center of too many 4e debates and have just grown a very think skin for it but I could be wrong I haven't been on these boards long enough to say for sure.
Sure it's always ATHF fault in the end...:)
I'm pretty happy with what I've read (granted as I'm at work I've not been able to really dig down deep) but the socr stuff seems good, even though they are losing some spell power in the end.
|
Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.
It's just a notch or two over the "too heated/too whining/too rude" mark. It's not bad, but the same things can be expressed without so much aggressivity, remaining passionate about someone's own opinions.
To me, it's more a matter of a pleasant read than actual rudeness.
Also, hearing a calm and civil discussion makes me more interested into it, while the more the screams and rants, the more I'm inclined to dismiss it and walk away.
Am I the only one not seeing this? Honestly, it aint that bad.I think you have been at the center of too many 4e debates and have just grown a very think skin for it but I could be wrong I haven't been on these boards long enough to say for sure.
I was about to say the same.
Rude is subjective, different people can look at the same comment by someone and say, "that's rude." "that's honest." So, it's not inherently true that comments are rude. I read the sorcerer comments (maybe a different thread) and more took it for whining. I'm sure folks have thought some of my posts are "whiny." Its important to realize that it is their choice to view them as whiny.
It's really up to Jason Buhlman and the hard-working folks at Paizo as to whether or not they are offended. They are in control of their emotions, so it is up to them whether some irate grognards is going to affect their day or even their quality of life at work.
Paizo is trying to please hard-core long-time gamers. I'm sure they realize they can't please everyone and that everyone has opinions. Its not like Paizo or Jason is new to the game of publishing.
I DO ALSO think that people WHO ARE PLEASED with Alpha 2 need to speak loudly. We don't want the "Negative Nancy's" to get the most say in the PRPG Playtest :) Instead of railing against whiners and aggressive posters... inspire the content folks to speak up!
Rude is subjective, different people can look at the same comment by someone and say, "that's rude." "that's honest."
I agree that rude is subjective but you can be honest,not like something, and still be polite. I agree that the comments were more whining then rude though.
|
|
I'm somewhat appalled at some of the messages I've read in the last 20 minutes of perusing the Alpha 2 messageboards... Such vitriol I haven't seen since I left the 4e boards the day Pathfinder was
announced.
Welcome to the Paizo alpha forums. The best place to find people complaining about problems before they actually play using the rules.
Yes, I'm talking about you 15-minute-adventure-day people.
|
|
I'm thrilled we are involved in this playtest, and I consider it a privilege. If Jason even uses one or two of my suggestions or tweaks, I will be gratified I had a small part in creating a new edition of D&D.
I am certainly going to chime in as both a playtester and an armchair general, but I am going to keep a few things in mind.
1) My opinion is only an opinion, and Paizo's opinion outranks mine.
2) Playtest feedback is more valuable than armchair designer opinions.
3) There's no point in getting worked up -- if I really don't like the way a rule is handled, or I like an alpha playtest rule that got scrapped, the Pathfinder Rule Police will not bust down my door if I keep using it in my personal game.
Hopefully we can all relax, and not get so emotionally invested in an alpha playtest, of which a good portion could get thrown out at any point.
|
I'm somewhat appalled at some of the messages I've read in the last 20 minutes of perusing the Alpha 2 messageboards... Such vitriol I haven't seen since I left the 4e boards the day Pathfinder was announced.
For example, take a look at the post about Sorcerers still being "crippled" - how is that helpful? If I was Jason, I would be highly pissed off and offended. There is a reason this is an open playtest, ALPHA stage production at this point. It's not going to be perfect the day it's released for download.
How about using language and posting things that actually HELP progress the development of the game, instead of ripping the $*!t out of what you're reading without offering any decent alternative?
I just think that some of the posts I've read have been very disrespectful and should be tempered, and redirected into offering suggestions or explaining - logically, not emotionally - why someone might think that it isn't the best way to do it.
Thanks for Alpha 2, Paizo (all involved). Hopefully you aren't too discouraged by the people I speak of above. Now I'm off to read my copy. :)
Yeah...They need Better Report Writing Skills.
1. They should at least have the nuts to suggest that Sorcerers work better with Spell Mastery (as an alternative to spellbooks for wizards);
2. That the Hit Dice seem to keep climbing (I was always happy with D4 because it forced you to be wary of foes - but I guess some were not);
3. That it is outrageous to be able to enchant Magic items when sorcerers should be restricted to enchanting themselves as magic items (even as charged ones aka Jemoba's Mask - his face is enchanted as a mask of invisibility -thus Jemoba's tattoo covered face can be used after his death).
In regards to the Sorcerer, we noticed it's continued weakness as well (and some of my players were equally eloquent in their displeasure). We implemented a mechanic similar to the Sword Sage in the Book of Nine Swords. We eliminated the spells per day mechanic for sorcerers, kept the spells known, and allowed use once per encounter. We included the recharge option of one spell for one standard action. We also modified a feat for sorcerers that would allow them to recharge their caster level in spell slots in combat as a full-round action. Both actions provoke attacks, of course.
This makes the Sorcerer a powerful spellcaster, as opposed to the Wizard's retarded cousin. We haven't found it to be over-powered, though you may decide to limit the in-combat recharge.
In regards to the Sorcerer, we noticed it's continued weakness as well (and some of my players were equally eloquent in their displeasure). We implemented a mechanic similar to the Sword Sage in the Book of Nine Swords. We eliminated the spells per day mechanic for sorcerers, kept the spells known, and allowed use once per encounter. We included the recharge option of one spell for one standard action. We also modified a feat for sorcerers that would allow them to recharge their caster level in spell slots in combat as a full-round action. Both actions provoke attacks, of course.
This makes the Sorcerer a powerful spell caster, as opposed to the Wizard's retarded cousin. We haven't found it to be over-powered, though you may decide to limit the in-combat recharge.
I can definitely see where this will make the Sorcerer a powerful caster. Now, instead of raising your hands during the last battle of the day and saying "Sorry, all out!", you can just wade in with a new Fireball followed by a Magic Missile, then help a buddy with a Bull's Strength all as though you were well rested and hadn't spent the day fighting. Though this does present the problem of controlling a Sorcerer's casting outside of combat. You will still need a way to control that.
Another concern I have always had is with the Wizard. I will always end up playing a Sorcerer (given the choice between the two)on the account of one thing: the Wizard's spells per day. I understand that the low spells per day is supposed to balanced by the number of spells they can know, but then on top of that you have to prepare each spell at the beginning of the day. You may know 25 3rd level spells, but you can only prepare between 4 - 8 per day, and you have to do it before you know what you will need for the day. Now, you just gave Sorcerers not only spontaneous casting, but effectively a limitless number of spells per day. Add into that equation the new Bloodline feature of Sorcerers, and now you have someone who need...
I've actually had the opposite problem. Almost no-one wants to play the sorcerer because of their limited spells known and lack of comparable bonuses. It may be because of my group's tendency to be big into item crafting. Personally, I use items to make up for the limited spells per day. With the wizard, you can memorize the stand-by blaster and booster spells, while keeping a few scrolls on hand for those spells that are really important, but not frequently used. Or a wand or per day item. The flexibility and utility overcome the raw power, but that's just for us.
I am considering a further reduction to the spells known, though. I haven't seen the rule in use but once, and not at particularly high level. We'll see how it works out.
Let's not turn this thread in yet another sorcerer debate... There are plenty of those anyway.
I just think that some of the posts I've read have been very disrespectful and should be tempered, and redirected into offering suggestions or explaining - logically, not emotionally - why someone might think that it isn't the best way to do it.Thanks for Alpha 2, Paizo (all involved). Hopefully you aren't too discouraged by the people I speak of above. Now I'm off to read my copy. :)
I wholeheartedly agree. On that same note I have allowed others personal cutting remarks get me angry and posting negatively. And I have to apologize to everyone for that.
Here's a thanks to all the Paizo members sifting through our posts for the few nuggets of playtest gold found herein.
Everyone else makes a good point. I also want to point out that I love alot of the new rules, and while I don't agree with the sorcerer necessarily, I love your grappling rules(without the grappled condition, haven't really warmed to that one yet). I really would rather stick with the 3.5 rules, and I dig that you are putting so much work into this. There are a lot of us who appreciate that. Thanks, guys.