The forum is part of it, but you really need to create a Post-game questionnaire for GMs and Players to fill out.
This is a great idea. It'd be lot easier to review than a jumbled series of "My playtest" threads. Threads are still useful (and interesting) from a qualitative point of view, but that content could still be on the questionnaire under "comments."
I don't see the need for anonymity, but offering options is always fine. I'd be curious to see other people's results.
I'd love to see the data too, but survey systems would need to guard against abuse. Paizo has the advantage of having every downloaded Beta registered to a player, and they can make us log in to do playtest reports (if they went with a system like this) which should eliminate some abuse.
I wouldn't put it past some folks on the internet to look at the results of such a survey and decide that "Gee, not enough people hate CMB as much as I do, I'm going to complain about it 50 times." There's a narrow but important difference between that and: "Dear Paizo, my group played with CMB today and we found that not being able to pull off trip attacks made it less fun for some players." Of course, you do miss out on the community discussion in this manner, but nobody's suggesting we shut down the forum!
|
However, given a mathematical analysis under the conditions of a fighter with a Fortitude saving throw of +6, a (generous) Wisdom modifier of +1, and a cloak of resistance +5 pitted against a wizard using a quickened dominate person spell in conjunction with a standard dominate person spell (Intelligence modifier of +10), we can see that the fighter has a +12 Fortitude saving throw vs. two DC 25 spells.
Yes in this scenario the wizard will own the fighter because to cast one quicken dominate person and one regular dominate person, the wizard will have to be 18th level, while for the fighter to only have a +6 to his Fort save, he can be no higher than 9th. However, if you make the two of equal level then the fighter has +11 and a much better chance of resisting. And just for reference dominate person requires a Will save not a Fort save.
|
Yes in this scenario the wizard will own the fighter because to cast one quicken dominate person and one regular dominate person, the wizard will have to be 18th level, while for the fighter to only have a +6 to his Fort save, he can be no higher than 9th. However, if you make the two of equal level then the fighter has +11 and a much better chance of resisting. And just for reference dominate person requires a Will save not a Fort save.
However, given a mathematical analysis under the conditions of a fighter with a Fortitude saving throw of +6, a (generous) Wisdom modifier of +1, and a cloak of resistance +5 pitted against a wizard using a quickened dominate person spell in conjunction with a standard dominate person spell (Intelligence modifier of +10), we can see that the fighter has a +12 Fortitude saving throw vs. two DC 25 spells.
Dave, Fortitude looks like a typo. If you switch it to a will save, the fighter is 18th level and the argument makes sense.
I would just like to urge Joana to take care with statements like this. Someone is likely to start bringing up the Golden Ratio or Quantum Physics in an effort to prove that Life is Math.
Don't poke the bear! ^_^y
As for this post and topic. Mathematical analysis is a very important part of playtesting. Realizing that something is mathematically unbalanced is a good tool for realizing that perhaps this mechanic should be investigated. Do I then determine a statistical value of the imbalance and call it done? Um...no. There is not a single scientific field in the world where that would be acceptable. Science, while a theoretical field in many ways, requires practical and tested results.
I agree with what many of the other posters here have said, numerical testing must be balanced with actual tabletop (or virtual tabletop) testing with other players. Playing chess with yourself doesn't really teach how to be a championship chess player does it? That would require having absolutely no bias or preferences. As just about everyone in the world has preferences, I think this is a moot point.
As for calling it to account that some of the current developers were playtesters of 3.5. Wow, an audacious statement. Note however that this was during the WotC 3.5 production era. It seems to me that we can take it on a little faith that Paizo is rather more receptive to hearing what players and fans say that WotC was at that time. Note that I am not bashing WotC, just saying that they are a larger company that had a great deal more pressure on them to produce a finished product, likely without the time to fully playtest everything.
Do also note that no one has ever concisely proven that Life is purely understandable through math. Its been tried though.
|
|
Dave, Fortitude looks like a typo. If you switch it to a will save, the fighter is 18th level and the argument makes sense.
I got that as well, underling.
However, it is unfair to assume the fighter has the minimum saving throw allowed and a cloak of resistance, yet the wizard has a very optimized Intelligence score, that's just manipulating the data, which is why Vic is asking for us to actually play rather than spout numbers.
P_R's situation is easily remedied:
Iron Will
Inherent Wisdom bonus of +2
Starting Wisdom of 14
Headband of Wisdom +6 (now the fighter has a 70% chance to save, 60% if the wizard has both Spell Focus feats)
Protection from X/Magic Circle Against X (immunity)
Ring of Counterspells (dominate person) (immunity)
It's not fair to give the wizard all the advantage and assume the fighter is a big dummy who doesn't know his own weaknesses. The reason I argue this is because it actually came up in my 10th level playtest (hold person instead of dominate person). After the cleric's holy symbol was sundered, he stopped bragging about forcing fighters to make Will saves.
I don't see why Paizo should be relying on math analysis from charitable players. Surely someone in the company is capable of crunching the numbers on a uniform probability distribution.
Are they ignoring posters who bring their own analysis? Perhaps they just do their own, it's not hard.
So how important can such analysis be in playtesting, when it isn't playing? Some on this board seem to presume that the designers aren't doing their jobs.
|
|
Dave, Fortitude looks like a typo. If you switch it to a will save, the fighter is 18th level and the argument makes sense.Yes in this scenario the wizard will own the fighter because to cast one quicken dominate person and one regular dominate person, the wizard will have to be 18th level, while for the fighter to only have a +6 to his Fort save, he can be no higher than 9th. However, if you make the two of equal level then the fighter has +11 and a much better chance of resisting. And just for reference dominate person requires a Will save not a Fort save.
However, given a mathematical analysis under the conditions of a fighter with a Fortitude saving throw of +6, a (generous) Wisdom modifier of +1, and a cloak of resistance +5 pitted against a wizard using a quickened dominate person spell in conjunction with a standard dominate person spell (Intelligence modifier of +10), we can see that the fighter has a +12 Fortitude saving throw vs. two DC 25 spells.
Which is why I didn't bust his chops about it more. I'm sure I have, or will, make a similar mistake that will be obvious to everyone but me. Besides, the way people slapped me around for suggesting a panda monk player race, I think I should be allowed one or two.
|
Now, don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to theorize—that's where the TEST part of playtesting comes in. If you think a particular rule is problematic, set up a scenario to exercises that rule—ideally, a somewhat "realistic" scenario that one might find in a published adventure—and try it out with some friends. But please do it by actually PLAYING—and then, at the appropriate time, tell us about your playing and your testing in the playtest feedback forums.
Thanks!
I could probably write two or three pages of highly cynical, less than useful, "flavor text" to express my feelings on this, but even someone as annoying as me has to accept when such self-indulgence simply is not useful. I will therefore cut to the chase:
Exactly!
Thank you Vic for a simple, direct, explanation of what playtesting is, including why it is distinct from theorizing.
Although such things can be assumed, it is sometimes useful to have direct confirmation that basic concepts like this are understood by the people running things to help support continued confidence that they are doing things "right".
Preposterous. If one can make an argument and support it mathematically, it should be given just as much consideration as someone who playtests the game.
(snip some stuff)
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
I have a really good idea. Why don't all of us stop posting, and let Psychic_Robot post his detailed mathematical analysis of everything in the Beta rules and provide Jason with the answers to all the imbalance problems.
That way we can have the final Pathfinder RPG rules by December 2008 and not have to wait till August 2009!
I can just see it now, my group meets in January 2009, after converting their characters to the new PfRPG rules, and we continue with Rise of the Runeloreds compaign. We would be about 3rd level then. The first night, we would run into
Weeks later, after they have rolled up new characters many times, we all decide to play chess instead.
-- david
Papa.DRB
ps. The above post is exceedingly condescending and snarky, but I can no longer deal with a 15 year old who has just taken his freshman year Introduction to Statistics course and has to show his knowledge of all things to the world.
pps. My 14 year old grandson is going to be a high school freshman in one week and he has Introduction to Statistics as his 2nd math course in the 2nd half of the school year, so he will be 15 when he is finished. And he is just enough of a smart ass to be this arrogant.
ppps. I'm taking a self imposed 3 day "suspension" in posting, so no need for Gary or Vic to impose one, but I feel so much better getting this off my chest.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Jason wrote:
In a playtest it doesn't work. Why not? Because a playtest involves playing the game. With people. Who will call bullsh*t on you when you are being stupid. Starting with the DM. Continuing with the other players. Hopefully ending with you yourself realizing you are being an idiot.People at the table being able to call BS on abuse of a rule doesn't preclude fixing the rule.
It's true. I've chimed in several of these threads with suggested fixes for some of the brokennesses (like the efreeti/wish/binding business). I have no problem with suggesting fixes to things. I voted for clarifying the wording on PB spells in the other thread. But here's the thing...
I just think it is also silly to pretend that the ability (and likelihood) of the other people at the table calling BS is a non-factor. Like any rule or law, it's not just about what you COULD do, it's about what you could get away with doing. If in a real, actual D&D game the thing you propose would get laughed off the table, then it's a moot point whether you in theory could draw the lines of how it could work.
Rule 0 is the principle that the DM is free to disallow anything stupid (in his/her view or the view of the players at the table). BUT, that leaves things in the hands of the DM. There is also your responsibility as a player to have some sense of sanity about what you should try to bring to the table. Compare the mindset of "I'm going to take whatever I can get unless and until someone stops me." That's relying on Rule 0 to prevent twinkiness. Before you ever get to Rule 0, though, is your own sense of being a rational gamer who is participating in the rule system with the other people at the table. You yourself should be able to see when a 'broken' corner case is a retarded abuse, and you should have the maturity to say to yourself, "Yeah, I guess that could work, but that's stupid" and not bother wasting everyone else's time bringing it up at the actual game you are playing.
Consider this Rule -1, which is a priori to Rule 0: Don't be a jerk.
|
some good points about product useabilityI agree. For one, my playtesting has confirmed that it is now a pain in the rear to find the Spells section, previously in the back of the PHB, but now somewhere in the middle of the Beta book.
I used the little 2'X.5' post-it tabs, and label the tap left sticking out about 4mm. Not being a smartarse, just saying how I dealt with the same dilemma.
cheers
|
Preposterous. If one can make an argument and support it mathematically, it should be given just as much consideration as someone who playtests the game. Vic, you can peruse these forums and see people who have...
...never had problems with the caster-noncaster imbalance.
...never had problems with spells like polymorph, shapechange, and gate.
...never had problems with a level 20 fighter built using only the Core books.
...had druids be the weakest member of the party.Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
How much do I need to playtest to tell you that Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Diehard aren't worth the cost of a feat? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that the fourth iterative attack a fighter gets is worthless? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that save-or-dies break the game? How much do I need to playtest to tell you that wizards smoke commoners?
lol I have a lvl 19 FIghter/ lvl 2 rogue/lvl 1 ranger that is fantastic and nothing wrong with him at all.
ANother game we have a druid and he is by far the weakest member in the party... all others are also 3.5 core classes... Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard and the odd ball can never do anything worth doing Druid who has to have me make wands of Cure for him all the time cause he SUCKS!
Never had a problem with polymorphs or shapechange or gate, they are fine with some common sense.
High level the casters dominate damage but die so quick. So the fighter has a different role... more protector or defender than offensive.
|
|
This is why I dislike class vs. class analysis and prefer class vs. monster analysis. The monster doesn't have the options (just take it as is in the MM).
The real problem is that when you look at characters people actually build, you rarely see heavy investment in defenses until you run out of good offensive investment. You do see heavy specialization in offenses. Its not unreasonable to assume a fighter will be mostly unprotected.
Further, investing in offense is *better* than investing in defense, because you generally have one style of offense (Saves, attack roll/damage) but there are 4 different defenses (with associated DR or resistance). So investing in offense is 4x as effective as investing in defense.
And then of course you have the fact that the best defense is killing your opponent. Given D+D quickly becomes rocket launcher tag, this is actually a really good defense.
There are exceptions. Improving AC is often better in saves, especially early, because so many more monsters attack ACs than saves. Resistance bonuses are very efficient. And at some point you run out of ways to spend cash to generally improve offense (so a lot of cash does get spent on defense). There are a lot more feats that boost offense, especially for non-casters. Feats like Iron Will take a distant back seat, because unlike cash, it takes a lot longer to exhaust all the good offensive feats. I've only ever seen feats like Iron Will taken as pre-requisites for PrCs.
Summary: Assuming PCs will optimize for offense is generally born out. Assumng they will optimize for defense? Not so much.
I have to call you on this one. What you said made no sense except in a self-indulgent bubble of reasoning.
I will repeat myself: using a PUBLISHED ADVENTURE, a level 10 fighter held his own against a level 10 cleric and a level 10 sorcerer, because of his defensive preparations. It took more than 1 round to decide the fight (if I remember correctly, it was in the neighbourhood of 6 rounds).
Quite frankly, if you can't see beyond "combat must be won in round 1", which is as big a fallacy as I can think of, then I don't see the point in continuing a discussion with you, since you obviously have a preconceived and limited notion of how to play D&D, and I am not going to change your mind, however narrow it may be.
Can't we just have one active thread that isn't all about Psychic Robot?!!!!!
Who?
:D
|
|
Can't we just have one active thread that isn't all about Psychic Robot?!!!!!
It's suppposed to be all about me, darnit!!!
Tarren, are you still around? I'm starting a PbP based with Red Hand of Doom and Pathfinder Beta and I would like you to join.
See here for details.
I do not see why my mathematical analysis would be worth my while if I know that it is going to be largely ignored in favor of the opinions of some "playtesters" because they are playing the game.
Mathematical analysis is far more efficient than playtesting, and it yields more accurate results.
If a playtester consistently rolls 20s throughout a playtest session, one could very easily say that wizards are underpowered because his character resisted all their spells. He could thus argue that wizards need a boost to their spell DCs.
Obviously, this is not the case.
However, given a mathematical analysis under the conditions of a fighter with a Fortitude saving throw of +6, a (generous) Wisdom modifier of +1, and a cloak of resistance +5 pitted against a wizard using a quickened dominate person spell in conjunction with a standard dominate person spell (Intelligence modifier of +10), we can see that the fighter has a +12 Fortitude saving throw vs. two DC 25 spells.
This thus gives the fighter a 65% chance of success against a single spell, which drops to a meager 42% chance of success given the second spell. We can thus conclude that the fighter's 58% chance of total and permanent negation from combat in a single round is unacceptable and he ought to be balanced in some manner against such attacks.
One could argue that the wizard would have to anticipate the fighter's existence as a threat, which is not guaranteed, and thus the mathematical results could be discarded on the basis of "it didn't really happen in the game." This, of course, is true, but given that the wizard has any number of spells that could eliminate the fighter entirely--such as wall of force--and that he would be quite the fool not to prepare or scribe a single one of those spells, we can thus conclude that the argument that "it didn't happen in a playtest" is invalid for this particular scenario.
[b]To summarize: ignoring mathematical analysis in favor of playtesting is foolhardy at best and a...
Does presenting your analysis take any more effort than defending your use of mathematical analysis? It seems like it would be a lot less work to just put the math up there to be judged, than to constantly write posts about it?
You don't want to post the math because you think people will ignore it, but you could just as easily say people are ignoring your points because you are not putting hte math up for judgment.
Frankly, Psychic Robot has a great point that a quite important thing in game design balance is that statistically the numbers add up to reasonable percentage chances for each type of character to succeed. I think DnD 4E tried to do achieve its "balance" by streamlining the rules in a similar fashion.
However, as was also noted- there are a lot of factors in each battle. It's rarely a case of Rogue 1 attacks Fighter 1, no modifiers in equipment, etc. when characters are conflicting, there are other "mooks" other allies, and sometimes weather situations, and other modifiers at work. DMs also adjust on the fly.
Math is necessary and great to use to set a baseline on balance, but unless PR has a computer that contains a spreadshheet which processes every possible variable, it is unlikely that he could feasibly demonstrate the actual balance ratios inherent in every game situation. Math provides an EXCELLENT starting point for gameplay analysis, but I suppose, as someone else stated, Paizo has simply run all the basic numbers themselves, so they'd rather see how tactical situations (with height, etc) play out... It's not as someone stated "very much of a 21st century" way of playtesting... but at least it is a way of playtesting.
That being said, I really think that if PR or someone else does post some legitimate mathematical model on the situation, it might be well worth paizo's time in taking a look at, just in case paizo missed something in their analysis.
Best,
~LD.
I tire of hearing about the value of a certain feat, or that this class is inferior. This is a roleplaying game, quit assessing the absolute value of every aspect to determine what the "best" character is. IMAGINE a character and build it, not to be the best, but to be true to itself. Then play the game using him, even if he has inconsistencies, hang-ups, or passions that get in the way of him being the maximum value. ROLE-PLAYING.
This is what mathematical analysis will get you--the only weapon the country has is a nuke--the only character in the movie "Spider Man" is Spider-Man--you messed up your life by not buying a Honda in 1987--your employer just replaced you....
There are places where math is appropriate--damage value comparison of weapons to make adjustments in the rules, not for selection-- and so forth.
Vic, I think you need to make "assignments" for focusing on certain aspects of the game. A free-form testing will leave areas untouched, and personal agendas followed, which ultimately is to no one's advantage (even if they don't realize it).
I tire of hearing about the value of a certain feat, or that this class is inferior. This is a roleplaying game, quit assessing the absolute value of every aspect to determine what the "best" character is. IMAGINE a character and build it, not to be the best, but to be true to itself. Then play the game using him, even if he has inconsistencies, hang-ups, or passions that get in the way of him being the maximum value. ROLE-PLAYING.
This is what mathematical analysis will get you--the only weapon the country has is a nuke--the only character in the movie "Spider Man" is Spider-Man--you messed up your life by not buying a Honda in 1987--your employer just replaced you....
There are places where math is appropriate--damage value comparison of weapons to make adjustments in the rules, not for selection-- and so forth.Vic, I think you need to make "assignments" for focusing on certain aspects of the game. A free-form testing will leave areas untouched, and personal agendas followed, which ultimately is to no one's advantage (even if they don't realize it).
And how.
I tire of hearing about the value of a certain feat, or that this class is inferior. This is a roleplaying game, quit assessing the absolute value of every aspect to determine what the "best" character is. IMAGINE a character and build it, not to be the best, but to be true to itself. Then play the game using him, even if he has inconsistencies, hang-ups, or passions that get in the way of him being the maximum value. ROLE-PLAYING.
This is what mathematical analysis will get you--the only weapon the country has is a nuke--the only character in the movie "Spider Man" is Spider-Man--you messed up your life by not buying a Honda in 1987--your employer just replaced you....
There are places where math is appropriate--damage value comparison of weapons to make adjustments in the rules, not for selection-- and so forth.
Is it not the goal of the Pathfinder development team to balance the game? Is it not part of balancing the game to make things more equal? Is it not part of balancing the game to remove "newbie traps" that are, overall, completely worthless?
|
|
Is it not the goal of the Pathfinder development team to balance the game? Is it not part of balancing the game to make things more equal? Is it not part of balancing the game to remove "newbie traps" that are, overall, completely worthless?
These rules are designed with backwards compatibility in mind. Meaning that if you already own a bookshelf full of 3.5 rulebooks, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to work with only a minimal amount of conversion. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots of the 3.5 rule set, making a number of existing books even easier to use.
I don't see the word BALANCE in there at all. Moreso, these "newbie traps" you speak of, if they aren't forcing you to take them, why complain about them? If a half-elf Paladin wants to take Negotiator as a feat, why complain? Because that person deserves disdain as a "newbie"? Maybe they just don't care to maximize their characters combat ability.
EDIT: I meant to quote the original complete PRPG announcement, but now can't find it.
Is it not the goal of the Pathfinder development team to balance the game?
Actually I don't remember the designers mentioning the term in their rationale for PfRPG. Did they? (Could be wrong.)
Is it not the goal of the Pathfinder development team to balance the game? Is it not part of balancing the game to make things more equal? Is it not part of balancing the game to remove "newbie traps" that are, overall, completely worthless?
Not necessarily. I read an interview with the WOTC developers where they admitted that they intentionally left subpar feats in the game. They said they got the idea from "Timmy" cards in Magic: The Gathering, where some cards are just worse than others. The intent is to reward players who understand the game enough to avoid the subpar feats.
I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way to go, but it was an intentional part of the Skinner box that was WOTC 3.x.
IME, 'subpar' feats like Iron Will also make decent feat taxes for prestige classes or adequate feats for quickly buffing a monster.
My concern about playtesting is this: are we going to be able to playtest the final rules? The Beta is basically Alpha 3 with new rules; I'm OK with that, given limitations on Paizo's time and effort. However, if there are plans to address other issues, is there a way to get an errata sheet in 6-8 months? Enough time to test the release candidate, as it were?
|
|
I don't think they said anything about balance. Personally, I wouldn't like that idea anyway. Making the core classes all the same doesn't seem like a good idea. IMHO, each of the classes bring something unique to the game. And not everyone is looking to min/max their character for combat effectiveness, some groups just want to sit down and have fun.
When did all RPG design enthusiasts become obsessed with balance? I ever saw a word about it prior to 3e— so given that it was the first system to make balance between PCs the goal, I think they did an alright job.
Some of my fondest characters were the weakest members of their respective parties.
I play commoners.
If the developers are not worried about balance, then why would they nerf such things as gate and shapechange?
If the developers are not worried about balance, then why would they nerf such things as gate and shapechange?
You do see that:
1) the goal of the designers is to balance every feat versus2) the developers are not worried about balance
is a false dichotomy, right?
You're also begging the question that the point of the changes to gate and shapechange was 'nerfing'. Aren't there other reasons these rules could have changed? Can you name three?
Meh. The whole sound and fury can be distilled down:
Some folks like a lot of mechanical rules to prevent abuses by min/maxers. To them the joy of the game is well-written consistent mathematics and statistical analysis. It annoys them to no end when someone discovers a way to 'break' the game. They desire classes, feats, skills and races that are balanced so people will not construct gawdawful abortions like Pun-pun the Kobold. Rules interpreted as a closed system (RAW).
Some folks like to freeform interpret the rules to fit their own game table. They don't get worked up about the math, they feel that 'Rule 0' is the Holy Grail, and the DM can rule any way they damn well please, and to Hades what some book or min/max munchkin says. They dwell on the character, the story, not the math. Rules interpreted as an open system (RAI).
And neither way is wrong. Much like the whole 3E/4E brouhaha we need to find a way to peacefully coexist so as to promote good feeling and serenity amongst our small community.
|
|
If the developers are not worried about balance, then why would they nerf such things as gate and shapechange?
Probably because (in bold):
These rules are designed with backwards compatibility in mind. Meaning that if you already own a bookshelf full of 3.5 rulebooks, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to work with only a minimal amount of conversion. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots of the 3.5 rule set, making a number of existing books even easier to use.
|
|
"Am I the only one around here who cares about the rules!"
that's kinda funny, with respects to the way i game. i've pretty much ignored most "rules" anyway, so all of these "mathematical" discussions are funny as heck to me.
call me strange, but my 1e roots are too deep. i've always dm'ed by ear, without fussing with those new fangled "CRs" and such. furthermore, i've always been fond of the way wizards could just wreck shop at higher levels (but then i kinda kept the old school thoughts on disrupting casting alive in my home game also...)
and i honestly don't think i've ever used the term "sub-optimal" to describe a character in my life. but then, i've always been more of a "roleplayer" than a "rollplayer", so i base my character builds on how i want to roleplay the character within the parameters of the setting, not how they'd perform in combat...
oh, well, maybe this game has just passed my old self by...
|
|
"Am I the only one around here who cares about the rules!"that's kinda funny, with respects to the way i game. i've pretty much ignored most "rules" anyway, so all of these "mathematical" discussions are funny as heck to me.
call me strange, but my 1e roots are too deep. i've always dm'ed by ear, without fussing with those new fangled "CRs" and such. furthermore, i've always been fond of the way wizards could just wreck shop at higher levels (but then i kinda kept the old school thoughts on disrupting casting alive in my home game also...)
and i honestly don't think i've ever used the term "sub-optimal" to describe a character in my life. but then, i've always been more of a "roleplayer" than a "rollplayer", so i base my character builds on how i want to roleplay the character within the parameters of the setting, not how they'd perform in combat...oh, well, maybe this game has just passed my old self by...
I forgot the ;)
It's a movie quote, by the way, from a very quotable movie.
|
|
"Am I the only one around here who cares about the rules!"that's kinda funny, with respects to the way i game. i've pretty much ignored most "rules" anyway, so all of these "mathematical" discussions are funny as heck to me.
call me strange, but my 1e roots are too deep. i've always dm'ed by ear, without fussing with those new fangled "CRs" and such. furthermore, i've always been fond of the way wizards could just wreck shop at higher levels (but then i kinda kept the old school thoughts on disrupting casting alive in my home game also...)
and i honestly don't think i've ever used the term "sub-optimal" to describe a character in my life. but then, i've always been more of a "roleplayer" than a "rollplayer", so i base my character builds on how i want to roleplay the character within the parameters of the setting, not how they'd perform in combat...oh, well, maybe this game has just passed my old self by...
I forgot the ;)
It's a movie quote, by the way, from a very quotable movie.
*drinking a white russian*
sorry, i knew what you were doing, but it just made me think about all of this we've been going around about the last week or so since the beta got into our dirty little hands :)
|
|
Ja, in retrospect, i seem to have been a bit overly anxious with the new release. I notice that people are trying to fix classes/skills/feats/spells, and Paizo just started ability scores and races. It's going to be a long road ahead to the Final release, and it's going to have it's bumps. The first one being the biggest, it seems.
I tire of hearing about the value of a certain feat, or that this class is inferior. This is a roleplaying game, quit assessing the absolute value of every aspect to determine what the "best" character is. IMAGINE a character and build it, not to be the best, but to be true to itself. Then play the game using him, even if he has inconsistencies, hang-ups, or passions that get in the way of him being the maximum value. ROLE-PLAYING.
Why use D&D rules at all? You can just role-play without them.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't have much to add to the current trend in this thread (in part because it's become the same old, same old), but I do have a question about actual playtest feedback.
What general format is preferred for playtest feedback? Do you want a summary of each session, with details from every combat, how spells, feats, classes, etc. worked out? Would you instead prefer quick thoughts on what stood out, either rules that worked well, or rules that didn't, either by being broken, inferior to other options, or simply too good? So far, I've been leaning towards the latter, but I want my feedback to be as helpful as possible to Paizo, so I'd be happy to tailor it to give the kinds and amounts of detail that they're looking for.
|
|
I don't have much to add to the current trend in this thread (in part because it's become the same old, same old), but I do have a question about actual playtest feedback.
What general format is preferred for playtest feedback? Do you want a summary of each session, with details from every combat, how spells, feats, classes, etc. worked out? Would you instead prefer quick thoughts on what stood out, either rules that worked well, or rules that didn't, either by being broken, inferior to other options, or simply too good? So far, I've been leaning towards the latter, but I want my feedback to be as helpful as possible to Paizo, so I'd be happy to tailor it to give the kinds and amounts of detail that they're looking for.
The difficulty I have is that I end up with pages of notes, but after posting them in the Playtest forum I have nowhere else to put them, or I feel it is a waste to make a new thread for one line of text about one rule.
|
|
Good catch by the way. I dig your style, Dude.
*drinking a white russian*sorry, i knew what you were doing, but it just made me think about all of this we've been going around about the last week or so since the beta got into our dirty little hands :)
the Dude will abide :)
edit: oh, yeah, greatest...movie...ever (that isn't raging bull...)