paizo.com Recent Posts in What Playtesting Ispaizo.com Recent Posts in What Playtesting Is2012-11-15T20:34:02Z2012-11-15T20:34:02ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsPathfinder X (alias of Xaaon of Xen'Drik)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1972008-12-29T07:11:13Z2008-12-29T07:11:13Z<p>In Multiple groups, allowing the GM to roll.</p>
<p>Run the same game with multiple groups, run individual encounters.</p>In Multiple groups, allowing the GM to roll.
Run the same game with multiple groups, run individual encounters.Pathfinder X (alias of Xaaon of Xen'Drik)2008-12-29T07:11:13ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsAzzyhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1962008-09-17T04:37:48Z2008-09-17T04:37:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote><p> yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.</p>
<p>Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.</p>
<p>yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is. If someone realizes that the current definition of CMB allows a 10th level fighter to grapple successfully in almost every situation, then does it matter that the realization came through playtesting, or a thought experiment?</p>
<p>I realized the definition of maneuvers is broken through a thought experiment. So does that mean they will ignore it and leave it as is, since that is not valuable to them? They never caught it. </blockquote><p>Ugh.
<p>Thought experiments are great, but they do fall short of repeated playtesting. Thought experiment rely on strict, controlled situations that doesn't allow for the myriad of variables to crop up in actual play. While something may look pat on paper, actual playtest may expose something quite different.</p>
<p>Thought experiments are useful, but without playtesting they're meaningless. Even Einstein would tell you that a scientific theory is only good if observable evidence backs it up.</p>
<p>Thought experiments are good — as the first step in the process. It must then be proceeded by playtesting. Then the evidence must be weighed against the theory and the theory revised as necessary.</p>
<p>So... I repeat, thought experiments are nice, but they are no ends unto themselves — they must be backed with actual testing.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to offend you, Krome, or anyone else. I just want to kill the theoretical vs playtesting debate once and for all. We need <b>both</b>, but in the end observable data trumps theory.</p>Krome wrote:yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.
Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments...Azzy2008-09-17T04:37:45ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1952008-09-16T13:07:06Z2008-09-16T13:07:05Z<p>Power dipping is not and never was an even divide. Especially when you stop at an odd Fighter level than isn't 1. The rest I'm not even touching. You do whatever you want. Just leave me out of it. Simple as that, and there will be no problem.</p>Power dipping is not and never was an even divide. Especially when you stop at an odd Fighter level than isn't 1. The rest I'm not even touching. You do whatever you want. Just leave me out of it. Simple as that, and there will be no problem.Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-16T13:07:05ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1942008-09-15T16:20:02Z2008-09-15T16:20:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> You can continue to post, if you please, but I won't be reading anything else you write. I deal with unpleasant students as part of my job, and I'm not getting paid enough to do so here.</blockquote><p>Heh. Chris is thinking the same thing as me. Ignoring people is so much easier than trying to reason with them - especially when your day job is reasoning with them.
<p>I'm not calling out any posters in particular, I'm just agreeing with Chris in general. I find the boards much more tolerable if I just do not respond to certain avatars (okay, I will pick on Aang).</p>Chris Mortika wrote:You can continue to post, if you please, but I won't be reading anything else you write. I deal with unpleasant students as part of my job, and I'm not getting paid enough to do so here.
Heh. Chris is thinking the same thing as me. Ignoring people is so much easier than trying to reason with them - especially when your day job is reasoning with them. I'm not calling out any posters in particular, I'm just agreeing with Chris in general. I find the boards much more...Jal Dorak2008-09-15T16:20:01ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsKirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1932008-09-15T14:55:57Z2008-09-15T14:55:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">neceros wrote:</div><blockquote> Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here. </blockquote><p>Very well-said, Neceros. Indeed, I'm currently in a natural disaster relief zone, and it's less messy outside than it is in this thread.
<p>Are melee guys outclassed by casters at high levels? Yes.
<br />
Does anyone play the game at those levels? Some, but not most.
<br />
Can they be "fixed"? Yes; suggestions were given on other threads — mechanical suggestions, with rules language, not just "Use Bo9S or you suck" — Robert Brambly, for example, posted a complete variant fighter, with new class features, that would do the trick nicely. </p>
<p>But, overall, does it matter if the fighter is "made of fail" or whatever, if we're all having fun? Probably not. On the other hand, what good is a mathematically-perfected gem of a system if evetyone associated with it is constantly bickering instead of playing?</p>neceros wrote:Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here.
Very well-said, Neceros. Indeed, I'm currently in a natural disaster relief zone, and it's less messy outside than it is in this thread. Are melee guys outclassed by casters at high levels? Yes.
Does anyone play the game at those levels? Some, but not most.
Can they be "fixed"? Yes; suggestions were given on other threads -- mechanical suggestions, with rules...Kirth Gersen2008-09-15T14:55:31ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsChris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1922008-09-15T14:29:31Z2008-09-15T14:29:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote> My tone is arrogant and dismissive, yet you refer to those 'dirty optimizers' as a bunch of teenage kids. Irony much? Ignoring your complete failure to even insult properly (and yes now, I am b••••slapping you back in line for attacking me) here...</blockquote><p>Actually, I'm referring to individuals I know. They're all teenagers.
<p>I have not attacked you. In fact, in other discussion threads, I've supported your position, despite your tone.</p>
<p>That ends now. You've made an another enemy.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Keeping up with enemies means enemies get stronger faster than you do. Simple as that.</p>
<p>Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use one of the later melee classes, made after the devs learned from their mistakes and got it right this time. 2: Powerdip the early ones (your only option if you have a DM who doesn't know better and actually believes core is balanced against any and all logic). After all, the core melees are front loaded. They get most of what they will ever get worth getting in the first few levels, then a lot of crap or nonexistent features composing a bunch of dead levels after. So, the poor melee trying to stay on par with the enemies despite some DM out to get him with illogical templated creatures power dips, taking a few levels of each to get a pseudo quadratic effect and attempt to delay his inevitable uselessness.</blockquote><p>I disagree with almost all of this. Beginning with your misuse of the terms quadratic and linear. One note: if the Dungeons Master is "out to get" a PC with oddball creatures, she always can, and that's not a problem with the rules.
<p>If you think a 3/3/3/3 Level Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Rogue is that much better than a 12th Level Barbarian or Ranger, my experience differs from yours.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote>While I'm at it, I will smite another false statement of yours. All 'core only' or 'only one splat' means is assuring C/D/W utterly dominate (extreme high end of power spectrum) and F/M/P utterly fail (extreme low end of power spectrum) with the only one that could feasibly be called useful without being overpowered being the Bard, and the other 4 (Barb/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer) being slightly further away from the two poles while being nowhere the center. That sort of setup can't be very fun for anyone involved. Not even the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, as I can't imagine they want their teammates useless and thereby being dead weight they have to pull. To get the gap to a somewhat reasonable width you must use the later, better written books. Period.</blockquote><p>I disagree with •all• of this.
<p>Take a look at the D&D games being played at the next convention you attend. Take a look at (a) what material is being actually allowed in use, and (b) what character levels are being represented.</p>
<p>How many tables are playing at character levels 4 - 8? How many are being played at levels 16 - 20?</p>
<p>Core-only, and core-plus-one, work fine at the levels where people are playing. Melee characters fit in fine when the sorcerer is casting a single third-level spell a day. </p>
<p>You are too contemptuous to take a look at actual play. "That sort of set-up can't be very fun for anyone involved." And yet ... people seem to be having fun.</p>
<p>And here's the heart of the matter. Instead of presenting your evidence, asking people here for their critiques, and joining in the conversation, you have decided to label anyone with different exprerience as "wrong, false, unreasonable... Period." You shun other people's advice and experience, and you close off conversation with your disrespect. </p>
<p>You will never learn anything with that attitude. If you're not interested in what other people say, then just post and leave.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote><p>You sound like one of those people who doesn't even know what optimization is ... but insists on attacking it at every turn, only to fail your Balance check and fall flat on your face. Please prove me wrong by demonstrating ability to post intelligently in response without further attacks.
</p>
</blockquote><p>You can continue to post, if you please, but I won't be reading anything else you write. I deal with unpleasant students as part of my job, and I'm not getting paid enough to do so here.Crusader of Logic wrote:My tone is arrogant and dismissive, yet you refer to those 'dirty optimizers' as a bunch of teenage kids. Irony much? Ignoring your complete failure to even insult properly (and yes now, I am b****slapping you back in line for attacking me) here...
Actually, I'm referring to individuals I know. They're all teenagers. I have not attacked you. In fact, in other discussion threads, I've supported your position, despite your tone.
That ends now. You've made an another...Chris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2008-09-15T14:29:28ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1912008-09-12T22:40:17Z2008-09-12T22:40:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">neceros wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote>Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use... </blockquote><p>You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else.
<p>One does not need to optimize to be better than the monsters in the books. Only people who intend to do theoretical battle, or player versus player needs to power their character in such ways.</p>
<p>The monsters out of the books are meant for normal characters. You don't need to be a triple-threat, or even a double-threat.</p>
<p>There is no way that the developers or designers will be able to balance the system to the point that optimizers won't be able to make everyone else feel less than they are, short of playing Fourth Edition.</p>
<p>Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here. </blockquote><p>Two words. The first is Bull. Can you guess what the second is?
<p>If you are a non caster, you are assuredly behind. It may be only somewhat (Rogue), it may be by a massive amount (Fighter) but you are behind. To make up for this, you must optimize. Period. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. It equals 11 if you house rule counting to Base 3, but noone cares because base 10 is the assumed norm. The correct answer is 2 + 2 = 4. Simple as that. And when people such as yourself not only fail to grasp very basic concepts such as this but pull crap like disgrace to optimizers, elitism, and other such BS out of their ass while playing passive aggressive and trying to make it seem as if it were all my fault, guess what? Mr. Crusader of Logic demonstrates his Smite Imbecile class ability. For great justice.</p>
<p>Likewise, if you are a character who is naturally exceptionally strong you either hold back a bit, or outclass everyone. A newbie's Druid is about as good as the optimizer's super Fighter at best (and more likely still superior) despite the massive difference in playing and optimization skill between them.</p>
<p>Fourth edition = let's delete all classes but one, then make it look as if there are actually many different classes instead of Everyone Is The Same Group Think Kumbayah. It technically is balanced, but you could do exactly the same thing by just saying x class only and save your cash. Who cares?</p>
<p>Now, does anyone have something constructive they would like to say to me or anyone else, or is this just going to go on for a while?</p>neceros wrote:Crusader of Logic wrote:Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use...
You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else. One...Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-12T22:40:14ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting Isneceroshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1902008-09-12T18:14:28Z2008-09-12T18:14:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote>Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use... </blockquote><p>You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else.
<p>One does not need to optimize to be better than the monsters in the books. Only people who intend to do theoretical battle, or player versus player needs to power their character in such ways.</p>
<p>The monsters out of the books are meant for normal characters. You don't need to be a triple-threat, or even a double-threat.</p>
<p>There is no way that the developers or designers will be able to balance the system to the point that optimizers won't be able to make everyone else feel less than they are, short of playing Fourth Edition.</p>
<p>Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here.</p>Crusader of Logic wrote:Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use...
You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else. One does not need to...neceros2008-09-12T18:14:25ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1892008-09-12T12:08:44Z2008-09-12T12:08:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote> Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies.</blockquote><p>"Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
<p>As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You <b>can't</b> keep up with the enemies.</p>
<p>What you <b>can</b> do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM sends all those half-demon vampire trolls against the party, to offer her some challenge, and the poor, solidly-built ranger and fighter/dwarven defender get in their way.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote>With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything. </blockquote><p>"pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
<p>And yes, despite your arrogant, dismissive tone, a twinked-out "just for theory" build will indeed dominate combat. I've seen it happen repeatedly, when high-schoolers who peruse optimization boards actually try to bring a gimmicked build to a table. It's one of the reasons that DM's restrict their players to "Core-only" or "only one splatbook" characters. </blockquote><p>My tone is arrogant and dismissive, yet you refer to those 'dirty optimizers' as a bunch of teenage kids. Irony much? Ignoring your complete failure to even insult properly (and yes now, I am b••••slapping you back in line for attacking me) here...
<p>Keeping up with enemies means enemies get stronger faster than you do. Simple as that.</p>
<p>Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use one of the later melee classes, made after the devs learned from their mistakes and got it right this time. 2: Powerdip the early ones (your only option if you have a DM who doesn't know better and actually believes core is balanced against any and all logic). After all, the core melees are front loaded. They get most of what they will ever get worth getting in the first few levels, then a lot of crap or nonexistent features composing a bunch of dead levels after. So, the poor melee trying to stay on par with the enemies despite some DM out to get him with illogical templated creatures power dips, taking a few levels of each to get a pseudo quadratic effect and attempt to delay his inevitable uselessness.</p>
<p>While I'm at it, I will smite another false statement of yours. All 'core only' or 'only one splat' means is assuring C/D/W utterly dominate (extreme high end of power spectrum) and F/M/P utterly fail (extreme low end of power spectrum) with the only one that could feasibly be called useful without being overpowered being the Bard, and the other 4 (Barb/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer) being slightly further away from the two poles while being nowhere the center. That sort of setup can't be very fun for anyone involved. Not even the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, as I can't imagine they want their teammates useless and thereby being dead weight they have to pull. To get the gap to a somewhat reasonable width you must use the later, better written books. Period.</p>
<p>You sound like one of those people who doesn't even know what optimization is (hint: Monkey Grip is its opposite, psionics is inferior to magic, 9d6 HP damage a round at level 15 is utterly pathetic) but insists on attacking it at every turn, only to fail your Balance check and fall flat on your face. Please prove me wrong by demonstrating ability to post intelligently in response without further attacks.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:Crusader of Logic wrote: Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies.
"Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You can't keep up with the enemies.
What you can do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM...Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-12T12:08:40ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1882008-09-10T20:51:35Z2008-09-10T20:51:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lich-Loved wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote>Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.</blockquote>Not attacking you at all with this but... no one here is Einstein. </blockquote><p>If they are, I implore them to do something more useful with their time. And also explain how Einstein was cloned/resurrected/brought forward in time.Lich-Loved wrote:Krome wrote:Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
Not attacking you at all with this but... no one here is Einstein. If they are, I implore them to do something more useful with their time. And also explain how Einstein was cloned/resurrected/brought forward in time.Jal Dorak2008-09-10T20:51:34ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsLich-Lovedhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1872008-09-10T20:43:04Z2008-09-10T20:43:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote>Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.</blockquote><p>Not attacking you at all with this but... no one here is Einstein.Krome wrote:Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
Not attacking you at all with this but... no one here is Einstein.Lich-Loved2008-09-10T20:43:04ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsZynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1862008-09-10T20:07:29Z2008-09-10T20:07:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote> yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is. </blockquote><p>I don't think that is the case. I believe that Vic has said that the thought experiments are useful. But. They very much prefer the playtests to pure thought experiments and if you do a thought experiment, that it would be much more useful if you then do a playtest to test what you experienced in the experiment.Krome wrote:yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is.
I don't think that is the case. I believe that Vic has said that the thought experiments are useful. But. They very much prefer the playtests to pure thought experiments and if you do a thought experiment, that it would be much more useful if you then do a playtest to test what you experienced in the experiment.Zynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)2008-09-10T20:07:28ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsKromehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1852008-09-10T19:55:43Z2008-09-10T19:55:42Z<p>yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.</p>
<p>Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.</p>
<p>yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is. If someone realizes that the current definition of CMB allows a 10th level fighter to grapple successfully in almost every situation, then does it matter that the realization came through playtesting, or a thought experiment?</p>
<p>I realized the definition of maneuvers is broken through a thought experiment. So does that mean they will ignore it and leave it as is, since that is not valuable to them? They never caught it.</p>yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.
Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not...Krome2008-09-10T19:55:42ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsZynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1842008-09-10T19:50:49Z2008-09-10T19:50:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Thank you, Zynete.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>I think that it is limited to the spellcaster's spells. However, I think the response would be that spells are not just limited to damaging opponents, the 10th-level mage will likely have access to better defensive spells that might just give him that four times the hit points, and four times the ability to dodge attacks.Chris Mortika wrote:Thank you, Zynete.
I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.
I think that it is limited to the spellcaster's spells. However, I think the response would be that spells are not just...Zynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)2008-09-10T19:50:49ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1832008-09-10T19:30:10Z2008-09-10T19:30:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Vic Wertz wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that. </blockquote><p>ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current definition allows STR modifier and BAB to be added twice to the attacker's roll.
<p>So, I am going to assume then, that since you have so many talented people on the payroll to fix those problems that it is intentional to add Str modifier and BAB twice to the maneuver rolls.</p>
<p>Come to think about it, in the course of playing there are a LOT of things that would be overlooked. Which of course would make for a very sloppy ruleset. I assume you guys aren't really wanting a sloppy ruleset. </p>
<p>So, I am left confused... </blockquote><p>I don't think he is saying the Beta is perfect. I think they are playtesting right alongside us.Krome wrote:Vic Wertz wrote:
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that.
ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current...Jal Dorak2008-09-10T19:30:09ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsKromehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1822008-09-10T19:19:31Z2008-09-10T19:19:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Vic Wertz wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that. </blockquote><p>ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current definition allows STR modifier and BAB to be added twice to the attacker's roll.
<p>So, I am going to assume then, that since you have so many talented people on the payroll to fix those problems that it is intentional to add Str modifier and BAB twice to the maneuver rolls.</p>
<p>Come to think about it, in the course of playing there are a LOT of things that would be overlooked. Which of course would make for a very sloppy ruleset. I assume you guys aren't really wanting a sloppy ruleset. </p>
<p>So, I am left confused...</p>Vic Wertz wrote:We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that.
ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current definition allows STR...Krome2008-09-10T19:19:30ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsChris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1812008-09-10T19:09:09Z2008-09-10T19:09:09Z<p>Thank you, Zynete.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.</p>Thank you, Zynete.
I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.Chris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2008-09-10T19:09:09ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsZynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1802008-09-10T18:52:36Z2008-09-10T18:52:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> "pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand. </blockquote><p>I believe he is referring to the increase in power spellcasters experience. Specifically comparing their increase in power as they level to a quadratic curve and comparing the increase in power of a fighter to a linear curve (at some level the power of the quadratic character will shoot past the power of the linear character and that gap will only continue to widen). So in this case the fighter-type character is attempting to close that gap by taking prestige classes and such to try to keep up with the power of spellcasters (becoming psedo-quadratic).Chris Mortika wrote:"pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
I believe he is referring to the increase in power spellcasters experience. Specifically comparing their increase in power as they level to a quadratic curve and comparing the increase in power of a fighter to a linear curve (at some level the power of the quadratic character will shoot past the power of the linear character and that gap will only continue to widen). So in this case the fighter-type character is attempting to...Zynete (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8)2008-09-10T18:52:35ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsChris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1792008-09-10T16:41:02Z2008-09-10T16:41:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote> Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies.</blockquote><p>"Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
<p>As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You <b>can't</b> keep up with the enemies.</p>
<p>What you <b>can</b> do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM sends all those half-demon vampire trolls against the party, to offer her some challenge, and the poor, solidly-built ranger and fighter/dwarven defender get in their way.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote>With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything. </blockquote><p>"pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
<p>And yes, despite your arrogant, dismissive tone, a twinked-out "just for theory" build will indeed dominate combat. I've seen it happen repeatedly, when high-schoolers who peruse optimization boards actually try to bring a gimmicked build to a table. It's one of the reasons that DM's restrict their players to "Core-only" or "only one splatbook" characters.</p>Crusader of Logic wrote:Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies.
"Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You can't keep up with the enemies.
What you can do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM sends all those...Chris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2008-09-10T16:41:00ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1782008-09-10T13:33:02Z2008-09-10T13:32:23Z<p>Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies. With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything.</p>Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies. With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything.Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-10T13:32:23ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsChris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1772008-09-09T18:57:37Z2008-09-09T18:57:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Samuel Weiss wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
No, that might, at most, make you a bad social player, optimizing your own enjoyment at the expense of others, but it does not automatically make you a bad roleplayer.</p>
<p>The same optimization of personal enjoyment at the expense of others can and does occur regularly when the self-indulgent roleplayer takes actions in game that hinder the success or enjoyment of the group as a whole while holding up the shield of "But I am just roleplaying my character!" That is bad roleplaying. Both are bad social playing.</p>
<p>Likewise claiming someone's character is too good, and therefore your character is marginalized. Particularly when combined with deliberate hamstringing of your character in development, it is used to attempt to dominate play with your character, and with your roleplaying, however good or bad it might be.</blockquote><p>I think we're more or less in agreement, Sam, we're just using different terminology. To me, "social play" is an esential part of "role-playing". It doesn't make sense to me to talk about "role-playing" without addressing the reality of people around the table-top.
<p>For example, I can come to a beginning campaign and say that I'd like to play Galdalf, "except that he needs to start as a half-Celestial 3rd-Level Wizard, 3rd-Level Druid, 4th-Level Mystic Theurge, because he's just that powerful." Even if I were a gifted actor and able to improvise a terrific performance of Gandalf's character, it would be a lousy role-playing job, because the other (1st-Level) characters would have almost nothing to do.</p>
<p>(Unless we were playing <i>Ars Magica</i>)</p>
<p>When Aaron Allston wrote "Strike Force" for <i>Champions</i>, which is essentially his memoir of how to run a game notorious for having characters of drstically different levels of effectiveness, he gave us his house rules on power levels, that put hard caps on characters' speeds, effective attacks, defenses, and so on. He allowed each PC to break <i>one</i> of those caps. So you could play "the dude with awesome defenses", but not "the dude with awesome defenses, attacks, and investigative powers."</p>Samuel Weiss wrote:No, that might, at most, make you a bad social player, optimizing your own enjoyment at the expense of others, but it does not automatically make you a bad roleplayer.The same optimization of personal enjoyment at the expense of others can and does occur regularly when the self-indulgent roleplayer takes actions in game that hinder the success or enjoyment of the group as a whole while holding up the shield of "But I am just roleplaying my character!" That is bad...Chris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2008-09-09T18:57:34ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsSamuel Weisshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1762008-09-09T18:00:59Z2008-09-09T17:57:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense, doesn't make you a bad roleplayer. Bringing your "three-base-classes-and-two-prestige-class-with-feats-that-were-never-meant -to-work-together" character to a table and trying to play it, does indeed make you a bad role-player, <b>because you are setting up a PC-playing-piece that will dominate play, and are wrecking other people's fun unless they also design twinky munchkin characters</b>. </blockquote><p>No, that might, at most, make you a bad social player, optimizing your own enjoyment at the expense of others, but it does not automatically make you a bad roleplayer.
</p>
The same optimization of personal enjoyment at the expense of others can and does occur regularly when the self-indulgent roleplayer takes actions in game that hinder the success or enjoyment of the group as a whole while holding up the shield of "But I am just roleplaying my character!" That is bad roleplaying. Both are bad social playing.</p>
<p>Addition:
<br />
Likewise that is used as a weapon, claiming someone's character is too good, and therefore your character is marginalized. Particularly when combined with deliberate hamstringing of your character in development, it is used to attempt to dominate play with your character, and with your roleplaying, however good or bad it might be.
<br />
Again, that is always bad social playing, it may or may not be bad roleplaying.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense, doesn't make you a bad roleplayer. Bringing your "three-base-classes-and-two-prestige-class-with-feats-that-were-never-meant -to-work-together" character to a table and trying to play it, does indeed make you a bad role-player, because you are setting up a PC-playing-piece that will dominate play, and are wrecking other people's fun unless they also design twinky munchkin characters.
No, that...Samuel Weiss2008-09-09T17:57:49ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsChris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1752008-09-09T17:18:50Z2008-09-09T17:18:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Crusader of Logic wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The Stormwind and Oberoni is strong in this one.</p>
<p>Stormwind (Fallacy): There is an inverse relationship between one's ability to optimize and one's ability to roleplay. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. There is no correlation between ability to optimize and ability to roleplay. It is just as likely a person will be good at both as bad at both as good at one and bad at the other.</blockquote><p>True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense, doesn't make you a bad roleplayer. Bringing your "three-base-classes-and-two-prestige-class-with-feats-that-were-never-meant -to-work-together" character to a table and trying to play it, does indeed make you a bad role-player, <b>because you are setting up a PC-playing-piece that will dominate play, and are wrecking other people's fun unless they also design twinky munchkin characters</b>.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CoL wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Oberoni (Fallacy): Something can be fixed, ergo it is not broken. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. Broken is broken, regardless of whether it can be fixed or not until such time as it is fixed.
</p>
</blockquote><p>True, as far as it goes. But there's a diffrence between rules that stymie play (3.0's version of <i>blade barrier</i>just doesn't make sense, 3.5's <i>find the path</i>, when cast the way it's intended, makes the game less exciting) one one hand, and rules that everyone interprets the same way(<i>Pathfinder</i>'s use of the term "at will"), and which don't interfere with play at all, on the other. The latter rules aren't broken; they might be subject to better phrasing, but that's a smaller issue.
<p>And as people have mentioned, just because someone looking to do violence to a game system can break a rule, doesn't mean that rule is broken.</p>Crusader of Logic wrote:The Stormwind and Oberoni is strong in this one.
Stormwind (Fallacy): There is an inverse relationship between one's ability to optimize and one's ability to roleplay. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. There is no correlation between ability to optimize and ability to roleplay. It is just as likely a person will be good at both as bad at both as good at one and bad at the other.
True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense,...Chris Mortika (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2008-09-09T17:18:48ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsCrusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1742008-09-09T17:10:36Z2008-09-09T17:10:36Z<p>Longer versions: http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-822626</p>
<p>http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=46916</p>
<p>It took 5 seconds on Google to find both. Which is longer than it took to copy paste and write this.</p>Longer versions: http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-822626
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=46916
It took 5 seconds on Google to find both. Which is longer than it took to copy paste and write this.Crusader of Logic (alias of CrusaderofLogic)2008-09-09T17:10:36ZRe: Forums: General Discussion (Prerelease): What Playtesting IsJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ippo&page=4?What-Playtesting-Is#1732008-09-09T17:03:26Z2008-09-09T17:03:26Z<p>We've been through that, Crusader.</p>
<p>Could you link to the description of the fallacies for those of us who don't know them?</p>We've been through that, Crusader.
Could you link to the description of the fallacies for those of us who don't know them?Jal Dorak2008-09-09T17:03:26Z