Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.
Yes, but you should use the same rules when optimizing them. If you use splat books to beef up one, then you should also use splat books to beef up the other. If you don't, then the comparison is irrelevant.
Actually our entire group has copies of the print beta test, but saying that the content wasn't play tested is likely to come off as insulting because I'm sure it was internally play tested. Almost nothing in print ends with a full open play test. We were lucky to get any feedback at all. And games that have open betas at the end usually don't allow consumer feedback to change that many things -- they're just looking for bugs, not balance issues.
I wouldn't sat that, but I learned a valuable lesson during the playtest. Not to get involved in bickering matches. Since no one here has seen the final rules or played with the final version and there is only so much I can reveal right now, it is not a very productive use of my time to get involved.
That said, I do still read the thread and the discussion here is less than cordial. I would suggest that folks cool down a bit, take a step back, and consider for a moment that this is a very complex game and no two groups are alike. If you can't find common ground, maybe you should just accept this fact and move along. No need to browbeat one another.
Actually, to be honest, I didn't think there was as much flaming on this thread as there is on many others.
Just to be clear, I like Pathfinder and one change to the Bard isn't going to keep me from buying or using the final rules. And of course, we don't know what the final rules will look like, but since paizo is putting out previews and taking the trouble to explain changes in the final version, one would expect there to be comment and debate on them even if we don't know what the complete final rules will look like. That's the point of the previews, right?
Also, in this one instance, this particular change is something that I would have liked to have discussed and tested earlier--given that it is a fundamental change to the core of a base class. Of course, as others have said, I'm sure there was time pressure at the end of the design, and of course Paizo didn't have to have an open playtest at all and it's great that they did and I'm thankful that they did. But if you're marketing anthem is: "It's your game now!", you create a bit of an expectation on the playtesting end that players will be able to discuss at least the most fundamental changes to core or iconic mechanics. That may explain some of the frustration in this thread. On the whole, though, I don't think many people are going for the nuclear option on this one.
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
I have to disagree any new bard has to stand up to what is currently available in Legends of Kalamar, Living Arcanis and Pathfinder Society. In the world of organized play the PF bard is a vast improvement.
Doug
Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.Yes, but you should use the same rules when optimizing them. If you use splat books to beef up one, then you should also use splat books to beef up the other. If you don't, then the comparison is irrelevant.
yes.
Jason you and the rst of the team have all done a great job. I will buy the book and now, after all the complaints going on in this and the cleric thread (and some others), I will buy the PDF too.
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
Quite wrong.
If you want to compare a 3.5 bard + SC + MIC + ECS + CM splatbooks, then you must compare that to the Pathfinder bard + SC + MIC + ECS + CM splatbooks.
What would you do if you were a restaurant critic? Go into Denny's and order a single egg on a plate, then go to IHOP and order a full breakfast with 2 eggs, hash browns, bacon, sausage, pancakes and an english muffin, then write an article saying IHOP's breakfast is far superior to Denny's?
You're doing the same thing here.
So be fair. If you want to compare bards, the easiest comparison is without any splat. Pathfinder vs. PHB. If you want to throw splatbooks into your comparison, then throw them onto both sides and then compare.
I can't even begin to understand why anyone would compare them otherwise...
Yes, but you should use the same rules when optimizing them. If you use splat books to beef up one, then you should also use splat books to beef up the other. If you don't, then the comparison is irrelevant.
Exactly: we need to control our independent variables. If I take a core-only Pathfinder character and compare him to a 3.5 character who's all 'roided up on the Book of Exalted Cheese, The Uber Grimoire of Broken Smack, and Joe Schlepp's Third Party Splatbook of Doom... well, the PF guy will look fairly lame in comparison. But if I take the PF and guy and the core guy, and then compare them as-is, and then compare them BOTH splatted up... that's a more useful test.
EDIT: Curses! Ninja'd by Blake.
For those suggesting the bard changes should have been available in beta testing, you're right, but you're also wrong.
You're right, because the guys and gals at Paizo should have fixed the bard much earlier and put their fixes into the open beta much earlier so we could see them. In a perfect world, they would have.
Instead, what happened was they made some small adjustments to bards and put those into the beta and we DID play with their 'fixed' bard during open beta.
Then, as crunch time was upon them, and the publication deadline was imminent, they looked at the results from all the playtesting, bard and everything else, made some final ajustments based on our feedback and their own observations, then sent it off to the publisher.
Another round of beta testing would have been prohibitively costly for many reasons. I won't go into all those reasons. This is something I do in my daily existence, so I can feel some empathy for the decision Paizo had to make.
But I would hope that the majority of the bard fans participating in this thread can understand that they did give us something to playtest, they did take our feedback and make adjustments accordingly, they did improve the bard as they felt appropriate based on our feedback, but they had no time for additional playtesting, and they were not about delay shipment and go over budget for the sake of a few last minute changes, so they shipped what they had.
All of which is more than any other gaming company with which I am familiar has done for any other PnP RPG to my knowledge.
Did it all work perfectly? Probably not. But they did the best they could with time they had, and did much more than anyone else, so I think they deserve a whole lot of credit.
What they don't deserve is anyone telling them they ran their company wrong or made bad business decisions, or they should have drivien their company into financial insecurity for the sake of letting us critique their last-minute changes further.
So give them credit where credit is due.
EDIT: Curses! Ninja'd by Blake.
Few things sneakier than a 60' tall tarrasque in a black gi and black mask sneaking up behind you for a little Dim Mak goodness...
Oh yeah, I got the Dim Mak. In spades!
Cue the music!
Do - do - do - doooooo - - - dee do dee do dee do dee do...
For those suggesting the bard changes should have been available in beta testing, you're right, but you're also wrong.
You're right, because the guys and gals at Paizo should have fixed the bard much earlier and put their fixes into the open beta much earlier so we could see them. In a perfect world, they would have.
Instead, what happened was they made some small adjustments to bards and put those into the beta and we DID play with their 'fixed' bard during open beta.
Then, as crunch time was upon them, and the publication deadline was imminent, they looked at the results from all the playtesting, bard and everything else, made some final ajustments based on our feedback and their own observations, then sent it off to the publisher.
Another round of beta testing would have been prohibitively costly for many reasons. I won't go into all those reasons. This is something I do in my daily existence, so I can feel some empathy for the decision Paizo had to make.
But I would hope that the majority of the bard fans participating in this thread can understand that they did give us something to playtest, they did take our feedback and make adjustments accordingly, they did improve the bard as they felt appropriate based on our feedback, but they had no time for additional playtesting, and they were not about delay shipment and go over budget for the sake of a few last minute changes, so they shipped what they had.
All of which is more than any other gaming company with which I am familiar has done for any other PnP RPG to my knowledge.
Did it all work perfectly? Probably not. But they did the best they could with time they had, and did much more than anyone else, so I think they deserve a whole lot of credit.
What they don't deserve is anyone telling them they ran their company wrong or made bad business decisions, or they should have drivien their company into financial insecurity for the sake of letting us critique their last-minute changes further.
So give them credit where credit is due.
Well said. As a programmer myself, I often have to make this kind of call as well. You try and get as much in as possible, but if you're a smallish organization as Paizo is, you just don't have the resources to delay indefinitely, and even if you did I'm sure people would start complaining because other material ended up getting released later. But if this does turn out to be a really bad call on their part (which I'm not totally convinced it is; waiting for the final) then I'm sure they'll fix it later which is totally possible. And until then in your homes and hobby shops go ahead and change the rules to fit your tastes until then.
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splat books.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
then it will destroy the 3.5 one. He gains more feats. And ability that took 1 spell, 2 fest and 2 magic items.
So now you do not need 1 spell, 2 fest and 2 magic items to be that good. 3.5 Bard vs PF bard =PF bard wins. 3.5 Bard splat vs. PF bard splat= PF bard wins
Do splat vs splat . Core will never win vs 100+ books ...never
Then, as crunch time was upon them, and the publication deadline was imminent, they looked at the results from all the playtesting, bard and everything else, made some final ajustments based on our feedback and their own observations, then sent it off to the publisher.
This is a bit hard to swallow for the Bard.
I get that with the Cleric people cried that Channel Energy was too powerful as it was written in the Beta - and I chose to not "shout them down," which seems might have been a mistake.
But did anyone really claim that the Bards' Performance was grossly over powered and had to be reduced in duration by one half, at minimum?
I realize there had to be quite a few people complaining about the "all day" ability of the Bard. But did anyone complain that the Bard, at it's minimum, was too much?
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splat books.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
then it will destroy the 3.5 one. He gains more feats. And ability that took 1 spell, 2 fest and 2 magic items.
So now you do not need 1 spell, 2 fest and 2 magic items to be that good. 3.5 Bard vs PF bard =PF bard wins. 3.5 Bard splat vs. PF bard splat= PF bard wins
Do splat vs splat . Core will never win vs 100+ books ...never
Using the 3.5 spells for 3.5 and pathfinder spells for pathfidner though in a core vs core fight, I don't like your chances.
Then, as crunch time was upon them, and the publication deadline was imminent, they looked at the results from all the playtesting, bard and everything else, made some final ajustments based on our feedback and their own observations, then sent it off to the publisher.This is a bit hard to swallow for the Bard.
I get that with the Cleric people cried that Channel Energy was too powerful as it was written in the Beta - and I chose to not "shout them down," which seems might have been a mistake.
If you had tried to "shout them down," I would have hoped you would be moderated out of the thread. We're all better served by everybody making their case without being obnoxious about it. If you don't get your way, then you can say that someone else made a better case in the end rather than gripe about being unable to be heard because of too many people shouting each other down.
If you don't get your way, then you can say that someone else made a better case in the end rather than gripe about being unable to be heard because of too many people shouting each other down.
But there were no cases made.
There were X number of people saying how they loved the Channel Energy from the Beta, and Y number of people who claimed it was overpowered. (From my limited memory, X > Y in shear number.)
It was purely statement of opinion, and it seems that one opinion was chosen over the other.
Not that any great argument was made for it one way or the other.
I chose to not argue against those that claimed it was overpowered, in part, because they didn't choose to argue against those who claimed they loved it. (The majority of the reason is there wasn't anything to argue over except opinion, and I [perhaps foolishly] felt it in poor taste to start an argument.)
Please, build a 3.5 bard and you have +3 inspire courage easily at level 3 (inspirational boost, song of the heart), then later add badge of courage and vest of legends and go to town.) And with melodic casting, the bard can keep singing and cast spells.
Awesome! So you're telling me Lem can have +4 Inspire Courage at 5th level, with two feats to spare, *and* sing and cast spells at the same time? That's like double-raging the entire party with none of the drawbacks! Maybe he can use one of those feats for Crafting those two items you talked about!
Thanks so much! PF Bard blows away 3.5! Do you have any other tips?
|
as seen in the preview 3.5 bard vs PF bard without any splats, with the feats we know about, the PF bard is better only at first level. I personally don't think moving it to a move action later on makes up for the difference in uses.
1st 3.5 1/day 6 rounds for 1 use with stopping after first round 1 combat
1st PF 8 rounds average 2 combats
using that same thinking for the next levels you get this
2nd 3.5 12 rounds 2 combats
2nd PF 10 rounds 2 combats
3rd 3.5 18 rounds 3 combats
3rd 3.5 12 rounds 2.5 combats
I can keep on going, but as you can see the PF bard starts getting behind right away. Adding 2 rounds a day does not equal a use per day because you can't get a full average combat out of it.
Now if I added just one feat from a splat book, extra music, the difference is much greater for the 3.5 vs the PF bard.
the PF bard does have one advantage the rounds per day vs the use per day, not every combat will you need to use IC every round, so a PF bard can pick and chose when he uses it, a 3.5 bard uses it and it is gone. at lower levels maybe 1-5 that might make the difference, but the averages quickly start working for the 3.5 bard after that point.
3.5 also has something the the PF bard can't get, yes it is from a splat book, but it is from a common one, Complete adventure, Lingering song which makes a PF bards songs last for a whole minute (10 rounds) after he is done performing. IMO since it is based on the concept of lingering which we suspect the PF bard can't do, it can't be taken by a PF bard.
so with the way I play a Bard, on average the 3.5 for me is better with his performing.
other play styles may come with other conclusions.
by the way I never did the perform all day thing, that is cheese and to me unrealistic and should be killed by any GM.
Director of Games
|
Lets just take it back a notch folks. This is, nor has it ever been, a democracy. When it came to the playtest, we implemented some ideas that were only mentioned by one or two people and ignored some that were clamored for by dozens. In the end, I felt that channel energy was too powerful, especially in fights against undead, so it was altered.
Do not fool yourself into thinking that we counted the number of posts in support or against one idea or another. The playtest was a great chance for us to get feedback from those who are passionate about the game. We got it... a lot of it. For every point, it seems, there were folks arguing both sides of it. Of course, the end result is going to be one that is not what some folks want. Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
using that same thinking for the next levels you get this
2nd 3.5 12 rounds 2 combats
2nd PF 10 rounds 2 combats3rd 3.5 18 rounds 3 combats
3rd PF 12 rounds 2.5 combatsI can keep on going, but...
No no, please do go on. I want to see:
"12th 3.5 72 rounds 12 combats
12th PF 30 rounds 6 combats"
3.5 also has something the the PF bard can't get, yes it is from a splat book, but it is from a common one, Complete adventure, Lingering song which makes a PF bards songs last for a whole minute (10 rounds) after he is done performing. IMO since it is based on the concept of lingering which we suspect the PF bard can't do, it can't be taken by a PF bard.
Well that is one way of looking at it. Another is that while the PF Bard doesn't linger, it doesn't mean they can't. Lingering Song seems like a great feat name to introduce that ability. And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.
So with even the most conservative remake of the feat ("doubling" the linger instead of setting it at 1 minute or adding 5 rounds) would let it linger 2 rounds per use (1 extra round after you stop singing). This would be more useful at higher levels when you can stop and restart as a move or swift action of course.
Remember, Pathfinder *can't* incorporate those feats directly into the rulebook - they aren't OGL and there just wasn't space to redesign everything. But that's no reason to deny them their function.
using that same thinking for the next levels you get this
2nd 3.5 12 rounds 2 combats
2nd PF 10 rounds 2 combats3rd 3.5 18 rounds 3 combats
3rd PF 12 rounds 2.5 combatsI can keep on going, but...
No no, please do go on. I want to see:
"12th 3.5 72 rounds 12 combats
12th PF 30 rounds 6 combats"3.5 also has something the the PF bard can't get, yes it is from a splat book, but it is from a common one, Complete adventure, Lingering song which makes a PF bards songs last for a whole minute (10 rounds) after he is done performing. IMO since it is based on the concept of lingering which we suspect the PF bard can't do, it can't be taken by a PF bard.Well that is one way of looking at it. Another is that while the PF Bard doesn't linger, it doesn't mean they can't. Lingering Song seems like a great feat name to introduce that ability. And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.
So with even the most conservative remake of the feat ("doubling" the linger instead of setting it at 1 minute or adding 5 rounds) would let it linger 2 rounds per use (1 extra round after you stop singing). This would be more useful at higher levels when you can stop and restart as a move or swift action of course.
Remember, Pathfinder *can't* incorporate those feats directly into the rulebook - they aren't OGL and there just wasn't space to redesign everything. But that's no reason to deny them their function.
To be fair, the thing you're missing is that you don't need 72 rounds of combat a day. Even if your group does double the length predicted, you'd only need 40 rounds a day at 4 fights a day.
So saying that you get 72 rounds of combat a day is better than what you get in Pathfinder is kind of silly since it's highly unlikely that you'll ever need that many. It's like having more food than you can eat. It just goes to waste.
40 rounds for 4 fights? Damn your spell casters are out by the 2nd fight 20 rounds and all of casting every round of every combat
I still do not see a point in using this ability every round of every combat. You guys are wanting an always on power not bardic music
40 rounds for 4 fights? Damn your spell casters are out by the 2nd fight 20 rounds and all of casting every round of every combat
Except that would bring us back to caster spells lasting more than one round per use... Which then brings us to Bards can cast spells too... Which brings us to if the class was to be a spellcaster, you're better playing a spellcaster... Rinse, repeat.
Come on, let's not keep the circular arguments going for no good reason.
I was just saying that no class with magic ability can do it every round of every combat. The new bard can do many things but bardic music is not an always on ability so yeah it can not be done every round all the time.
Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.
Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.
Nice, but where does it say so?
And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.Nice, but where does it say so?
I think what he is referring to is the standard:
"the bonus lasts until the start of your next turn."
Sort of a lingering effect… sort of not.
Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
we can't all get what we want, can we? Now all that we want and not everybody. If a fighter lover wants wizards to be weaker and a wizard lovers want wizards to be more powerful, they can't both get what they want. A lot of the playtesters got a lot of what they wanted.
|
|
And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.Nice, but where does it say so?
I was wondering the same thing.. thought maybe I missed that.
that would kind of make the per round concept odd, since really you would be getting 2 round per use. so you would use it every other round instead of every round.
but maybe I missed that.
anyway, I am hoping there is more to the bard that we have not seen that makes all the diference up, maybe some cool feat or something.
And actually, the PF Bard *does* linger after you stop singing, just only for one round.Nice, but where does it say so?I think what he is referring to is the standard:
"the bonus lasts until the start of your next turn."
Sort of a lingering effect… sort of not.
I would say not. ...and I can't find that in the blogg preview.
Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
Who said that?
I don't know that anyone asked for the bard to be this way, and I don't even recall anyone on this thread saying we did.
Are you putting your own inferences on people's posts?
If you don't get your way, then you can say that someone else made a better case in the end rather than gripe about being unable to be heard because of too many people shouting each other down.But there were no cases made.
There were X number of people saying how they loved the Channel Energy from the Beta, and Y number of people who claimed it was overpowered. (From my limited memory, X > Y in shear number.)
It was purely statement of opinion, and it seems that one opinion was chosen over the other.
Not that any great argument was made for it one way or the other.
I chose to not argue against those that claimed it was overpowered, in part, because they didn't choose to argue against those who claimed they loved it. (The majority of the reason is there wasn't anything to argue over except opinion, and I [perhaps foolishly] felt it in poor taste to start an argument.)
What happened to beefing up the core classes? That was a stated goal, I can't see it though. Neither the bard nor cleric seem beefier to me. They seem weaker actually.
|
Director of Games
|
Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
I think your being a bit too argumentative here.
In some cases, the playtesters got exactly what they were asking for, well, some of the playtesters. In other cases, we decided to go in a different direction. I think you are falsely implying that we did not consider the feedback at all, which is not the case.
Listen, we knew going in to this that there were going to be some decisions that did not please every player. That is the nature of setting things in stone.
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop. This change has been made. It was the result of feedback, although perhaps not as directly as some of the other changes to the rules. It was also the result of our own internal decision making process. You can either try out this change, in which case I think you will find that is not nearly so bad as some here would imply, or you can ignore it and go back to the old system (or your own houserule). That is your choice. Arguing here over what did or did not happen is a waste of time and energy.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.
I have my popcorn, flamethrower, basket of kittens and catapult all ready
I have my popcorn, flamethrower, basket of kittens and catapult all readyJason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.
Kittens?
KITTENS?
KITTENS?
KITTENS?
"BURP!"
Pardon me, back to your reading now everyone, nothing to see here, move along...
yes. Dogs would be better. I like kittens ;-)
Yes,
Dogs are annoying a yappy. A basket full of poodles and/or chihuaha's would be excellent ammunition for the catapult (pupapult?).
|
Jason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.
no, no, no. wait until the wizard preview's released. there's going to be (another) outcry of why the class way overpowers the Pathfinder fighter. Again ;-)
I have my popcorn, flamethrower, basket of kittens and catapult all readyJason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.Kittens?
KITTENS?
KITTENS?
KITTENS?
"BURP!"
Pardon me, back to your reading now everyone, nothing to see here, move along...
Hey if ya wanting a little tribble love all ya have to do is ask. We have orgy's on Thursdays and ya can bring the chains and whipped creams any day. You Big bad kitty you..rowr
no, no, no. wait until the wizard preview's released. there's going to be (another) outcry of why the class way overpowers the Pathfinder fighter. Again ;-)Jason, if you think this is bickering... wait until the Druid Preview, and you will see real bickering.. ;-)
I do not want to have to shut this thread down, but the pointless bickering here has got to stop.
That outcry is long and outgoing, and relatively mute. It will be little more (probably less) than the outcry during the fighter or sorcerer previews.
The druid however, was hotly argued during the entire playtest, with everyone shouting more instructions than the guys on the trading floor at the NYSE. And since none of those were implemented during beta, everyone will have the same gripes they have here, some nonsense about Paizo having no authority to make changes that didn't get tested in beta, or something to that extent.
Hue and cry, I tell ya, hue and cry.
Me, I'm waiting for people to fatten up on popcorn, kittens, puppies, whatever is their snack food of choice.
My snack food of choice, of course, is all those fattened people.
Who said that?Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
Isn't that what this means?
they did take our feedback and make adjustments accordingly
And don't make me go dredging through the other preview threads for other peoples' examples.
I think your being a bit too argumentative here.
I'm being too argumentative? I've been mostly silent on the Bard (after voicing my concerns), but I'm being too argumentative?
I think you're taking advantage of my general good nature of allowing myself to be made example of.
Who said that?Ultimately... we made the choices we made because we feel they lead to a better game.Precisely my point.
Those that are patronizingly claiming that you and your team "took our feedback, and gave us what we asked for," are... Well... Deluded is the most polite word that comes to mind.
True, you and your team listened to feedback, but ultimately made your own choices on the game.
Claiming we, the playtesters, got what we asked for is false.
Isn't that what this means?
they did take our feedback and make adjustments accordingly
Don't take this as attacking you - I'm merely defending me.
You really should post the whole post instead of one line. I also said,in that same post:
"they looked at the results from all the playtesting, bard and everything else, made some final ajustments based on our feedback and their own observations, then sent it off to the publisher."
Further, "take our feedback and make adjustments accordingly" means no more and no less than what it says: our feedback influenced their decisions. It does not mean that it drove, defined, or decided their entire decision or that they gave us exactly what we asked for. Given the wide range of feedback, it was impossible to do everything that everyone demanded. I'd be amazed if they did anything that anyone demanded exactly as per the actual demand.
So no, I didn't say we got what we asked for, patronizingly or otherwise.
I did say that they listed to our feedback and made decisions accordingly. That our feedback influenced their decision. That's all. And I do believe that Jason himself came on here and confirmed that.
So yeah, you might need to dredge up the other posts to support your claim.
Well, I was going to agree with DM_Blake that no one here said they gave us what we asked for on the bard, so that comment was a bit off base, until I saw Jason's response that stated that this change was the result of feedback (albeit not as directly as some other changes).
I think this is the part that's most frustrating to me. I can completely accept that lots of decisions would be made by the designers on the final product that would not necessarily be the decisions that I would want most. For example, I hated the change to combat expertise, but at least we got to discuss it and I understand at least the rationale behind it and how the designers got there.
But, respectfully, the problem with this particular change is that it doesn't seem to be the result of any particular feedback. In fact, I went back to look a bit at the bard beta playtesting threads, because this seemed like it was a drastic change that came out of left field. I found a thread where Jason was asking for advice on bardic music, but I didn't find any discussion about anything like what we got. I may have missed the discussions that Jason is thinking of entirely, but if so, I'd be interested to see what feedback inspired this change, indirect or not.
By the way, I don't think any of these kinds of questions are inappropriate for discussion here, so long as we discuss the issue like adults. I would hope no one disagrees with that, but if so I'm curious as to why.
|
Director of Games
|
But, respectfully, the problem with this particular change is that it doesn't seem to be the result of any particular feedback. In fact, I went back to look a bit at the bard beta playtesting threads, because this seemed like it was a drastic change that came out of left field. I found a thread where Jason was asking for advice on bardic music, but I didn't find any discussion about anything like what we got. I may have missed the discussions that Jason is thinking of entirely, but if so, I'd be interested to see what feedback inspired this change, indirect or not.
The change came out of a couple of places, IIRC. The first was the desire for more uses of bardic performance at lower levels, but to avoid class dipping for a big first level payout in uses. There are a number of threads that talked about this desire. Combine this with discussions about adding more powerful abilities to the mix and adding some life to the less useful abilities and you can see where some of this came from. That, at least, is some of the indirect sourcing that led to these changes.
I know that you are not pleased with this change, but until you have gotten a chance to try it (and it sounds that some folks have been playing around with it), I would not get too upset. The ability is still good and still sees frequent use, it is just a bit more tactical and a lot more flexible.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, I was going to agree with DM_Blake that no one here said they gave us what we asked for on the bard, so that comment was a bit off base, until I saw Jason's response that stated that this change was the result of feedback (albeit not as directly as some other changes).
I think this is the part that's most frustrating to me. I can completely accept that lots of decisions would be made by the designers on the final product that would not necessarily be the decisions that I would want most. For example, I hated the change to combat expertise, but at least we got to discuss it and I understand at least the rationale behind it and how the designers got there.
Something doesn't have to be specifically suggested by playtesters to be the result of feedback. Positive feedback about the barbarian rage power may have inspired them to try it with the bard as well, plus other feedback on the new powers introduced. That's the creative process for you. One idea, and how people interact with it, leads you to other ideas.
|
I think Jason is right though. Things have become a little too heated on these boards over the last few weeks. I don't know... maybe there's something in the air. I blame Transformer 2.
But hey, let's remember that they tried to be nice and give us previews of the final PRPG, and what happens? people telling them off 'cause they're mad their own houserules did not make it in the final version of the game... I for one really appreciate the previews, and would hate for them to stop or that some kind of threads lockdown would be enacted for a while. Some of you guys just like to push other people's buttons; if the hat fits, you know who you are... and please stop pushing buttons! :)
Let's all relax and discuss things with civility, and let's try to remain respectful of one another.