I guess it's only fair to point out that, once the arguments reached a fever-pitch and people basically broke down and tried to ask what Jason said basically amounted to "We want you guys to figure it out for yourselves." Which may have been a valid response, but it was also among the least helpful things he could have said right then.
It was also the only sensible thing to say, since making customers angry is not really a good way to sell more books, and stating preference for either the flufftest or crunchtest side would antagonize the other.
Normally, I don't usually agree with what I am about to say but because game balance for Pathfinder is on the line, I'm going to cave and make this suggestion.
I believe there should be a "zero tolerance" rule for post attitude in the playtest forum...etc.
I whole heartedly agree with this. Basic civility should be a given. I do wonder if the posters guilty of the bad manners evidenced in the playtest so far communicate with others this way face to face - if so I woud be suprised if they had any teeth left!
|
Rugby!
off-topic
I'm Welsh, I lived through the nineties when we were all kinds of awful so rib away. Looking forward to the Heineken Cup starting this weekend.
My club, Llanelli Scarlets, are weak at the moment, not much money but we've got a few serious quality players (Stephen Jones, Matthew Rees, Dai Lyons, Regan King) and some promising youngsters.
I don't watch League, although I don't mind a bit in training while the forwards are practicing their drills.
What's you club/country?
Rugby!off-topic
** spoiler omitted **
I whole heartedly agree with this. Basic civility should be a given. I do wonder if the posters guilty of the bad manners evidenced in the playtest so far communicate with others this way face to face - if so I woud be suprised if they had any teeth left!
Just because you seem to think it's ok to use violence as a response to mere words doesn't mean everyone does.
|
|
I whole heartedly agree with this. Basic civility should be a given. I do wonder if the posters guilty of the bad manners evidenced in the playtest so far communicate with others this way face to face - if so I would be surprised if they had any teeth left!Just because you seem to think it's ok to use violence as a response to mere words doesn't mean everyone does.
You might argue that part of the problem is caused by posters who don't realise the difference between hyperbole and rudeness.
Skullking is clearly employing hyperbole to make a point, he even gave you a nice exclamation mark to make it clear.
Let's play nice.
You might argue that part of the problem is caused by posters who don't realise the difference between hyperbole and rudeness.
Skullking is clearly employing hyperbole to make a point, he even gave you a nice exclamation mark to make it clear.
Oh, you didn't realize the irony?
I can explain it slowly and more clearly:
- Zero tolerance as discussed above means ban for certain statements, such as attacks or threats or insults to other posters.
- Implicit support of violence against posters you disagree with falls under zero tolerance.
- The hyperbole argument does not hold in a zero tolerance context, since anyone could break the rules and argue the zero tolerance does not apply to him because it's only hyperbole.
- Therefore, his post supporting zero tolerance would actually get him banned.
Which I think is funny.
Also, I wasn't aware that the exclamation mark was remade into a hyperbole designation mark. But since you so nicely informed me that I'm not even able to realize the difference between hyperbole and rudeness, it's probably just yet another failure on my part.
|
Oh, you didn't realize the irony?
I can explain it slowly and more clearly:
- Zero tolerance as discussed above means ban for certain statements, such as attacks or threats or insults to other posters.
- Implicit support of violence against posters you disagree with falls under zero tolerance.
- The hyperbole argument does not hold in a zero tolerance context, since anyone could break the rules and argue the zero tolerance does not apply to him because it's only hyperbole.
- Therefore, his post supporting zero tolerance would actually get him banned.
Which I think is funny.
Also, I wasn't aware that the exclamation mark was remade into a hyperbole designation mark. But since you so nicely informed me that I'm not even able to realize the difference between hyperbole and rudeness, it's probably just yet another failure on my part.
Nowhere in Skulking's post is he advocating violence. He is merely acknowledging the likely outcome of those people's forum behaviour in face-to-face communication.
Allow me to be more explicit however so there is no confusion. I do not in any way advocate violence in response to words. I do, however, acknowledge the reality that if I were to talk to people in the real world in the same manner that people on the playtest forums have talked to others, I would get beat up. I am not unique in my physicality, ergo I can assume that what applies to me in this regard applies to anyone else who falls into the rather wide category of average gamer. Thus if those people who act like rear-endhats on the message boards do so in their day-to-day face-to-face communications they are in fact likely to get beat up routinely. This is in no way a threat against anyone. Just a statement of facts and my opinion regarding the logical conclusion reachable from said facts.
Graywulfe
Allow me to be more explicit however so there is no confusion. I do not in any way advocate violence in response to words. I do, however, acknowledge the reality that if I were to talk to people in the real world in the same manner that people on the playtest forums have talked to others, I would get beat up. I am not unique in my physicality, ergo I can assume that what applies to me in this regard applies to anyone else who falls into the rather wide category of average gamer.
This causes more confusion and doesn't clear up anything. Direct insults which might be argued to justify a violent response are being deleted by the moderators already, and everything else would (or at least should) not evoke violence as a reaction, at least not in people without severe emotional or mental problems.
It might be argued that it's different in prison or if you live in the ghetto, but for average people in a reasonably civilized country....
But I don't know how and where you live, so sorry if I am mistaken in my assumptions because of your ready acceptance of violence in everyday life.
Just because you seem to think it's ok to use violence as a response to mere words doesn't mean everyone does.
It's like this: you don't have to support violence as a conversation response for the possibility of violence as a conversation response to have a moderating effect on people's natural tendencies to be abrasive jerks. The lack of that possibility, however remote, leads to some people being much bigger jerks on the Internet than they'd risk in a face to face conversation.
Allow me to be more explicit however so there is no confusion. I do not in any way advocate violence in response to words. I do, however, acknowledge the reality that if I were to talk to people in the real world in the same manner that people on the playtest forums have talked to others, I would get beat up. I am not unique in my physicality, ergo I can assume that what applies to me in this regard applies to anyone else who falls into the rather wide category of average gamer.This causes more confusion and doesn't clear up anything. Direct insults which might be argued to justify a violent response are being deleted by the moderators already, and everything else would (or at least should) not evoke violence as a reaction, at least not in people without severe emotional or mental problems.
It might be argued that it's different in prison or if you live in the ghetto, but for average people in a reasonably civilized country....
But I don't know how and where you live, so sorry if I am mistaken in my assumptions because of your ready acceptance of violence in everyday life.
In your world, do people get to talk crazy without fear of consequences?
In your world, do people get to talk crazy without fear of consequences?
It's not crazy talk, it's specifically talk that some people here find sufficiently offensive to warrant a violent response but the forum moderators don't think is delete-worthy.
And yes, I would say that the things on the forum that the mods do not delete would not result in violence.
Alright I think we are starting to get a tad off topic a bit (thought I can be blamed for that). As Evil Lincoln said, "Let us not steer this thread into the very behavior we aim to dispel."
Upon further thinking, I would like to rescind my suggestion and instead suggest the following.
I agree that we should have two playtest forums. One for actual playtest data and one for theorycrafting and mathematics. Both are important for balancing issues. Then, to lessen the moderating burden off of Paizo, I think that the playtest data forum should have a couple prominent posters from the community as moderators (Rogue Eidolon comes to mind thanks to the standardized playtest thread RE created) that make sure only data is posted in the threads, while the theorycrafting forum should also have some of these elevated moderators to make sure people don't lose themselves from the ultimate goal of balancing the magus. I think that this is will help future playtests.
|
In your world, do people get to talk crazy without fear of consequences?It's not crazy talk, it's specifically talk that some people here find sufficiently offensive to warrant a violent response but the forum moderators don't think is delete-worthy.
And yes, I would say that the things on the forum that the mods do not delete would not result in violence.
Please bury the horse.
Alright I think we are starting to get a tad off topic a bit (thought I can be blamed for that). As Evil Lincoln said, "Let us not steer this thread into the very behavior we aim to dispel."
+1
Please read the title of the thread.
Please do that.
Thank you.
Have a Day.
Please bury the horse.
+1
Please read the title of the thread.
Please do that.Thank you.
Have a Day.
I'm not sure if your strategy of derailing the thread in order to stop thread derailment is such a good idea. But its great that you try, at least.
I think this could be the best way.
I still think my idea of one thread for both of those and one thread for discussions (or arguments I suppose) would work best :<
If you mean no arguing in the actual playtest thread then I agree. If someone disagrees because they think someone intentionally skewed the result than make a link to the actual playtest thread, in the thread that actually talks about the skewed results.
I think a subforum is needed. One thread can not contain all the arguments/debates that will arise.
Actually, in the specific case I was referencing, the posters really wanted to know what the Magus is intended to be doing with his abilities, so that more focused feedback could be provided. While this seems obvious, there was always a chance that the playtesters were "doing it wrong" and they wanted to be sure that they hadn't misread anything. For example, while you can play a Rogue by participating in full-frontal charges, it's less than ideal and won't give good results. They just wanted to know that, yes, the Magus is intended to be tossing spells while in melee a fair bit.
On the other hand, it's nice for them to let players figure out how they'd like to play the Magus. I saw a couple different paths that could be chosen based on available spells and arcana and it was nice to look at the class and figure out what could be done with it. I'd prefer that to the devs saying "here's a class, play it this way".
A lot of excellent ideas here. I'm in favor of anything that stops the "we don't care if you had fun playing a unusable class" crowd. Separate forums is a good start, the hard part is segmenting them properly to gather the maximum usable data. I kind of like the data vs discussion split.
|
|
Allow me to be more explicit however so there is no confusion. I do not in any way advocate violence in response to words. I do, however, acknowledge the reality that if I were to talk to people in the real world in the same manner that people on the playtest forums have talked to others, I would get beat up. I am not unique in my physicality, ergo I can assume that what applies to me in this regard applies to anyone else who falls into the rather wide category of average gamer.This causes more confusion and doesn't clear up anything. Direct insults which might be argued to justify a violent response are being deleted by the moderators already, and everything else would (or at least should) not evoke violence as a reaction, at least not in people without severe emotional or mental problems.
It might be argued that it's different in prison or if you live in the ghetto, but for average people in a reasonably civilized country....
But I don't know how and where you live, so sorry if I am mistaken in my assumptions because of your ready acceptance of violence in everyday life.
This is last I will continue with this derailment.
Acknowledging that some people get violent when confronted with constant rude behavior, is not ready acceptance. I acknowledge the reality I live in, even if I abhor certain aspects of it. There is a difference, even if you refuse to accept it.
Graywulfe
I think this could be the best way.
I still think my idea of one thread for both of those and one thread for discussions (or arguments I suppose) would work best :<
If you mean no arguing in the actual playtest thread then I agree. If someone disagrees because they think someone intentionally skewed the result than make a link to the actual playtest thread, in the thread that actually talks about the skewed results.
I think a subforum is needed. One thread can not contain all the arguments/debates that will arise.
Yes, basically. Ideally the first forum - the one for testing - will have replies that are more or less only bumps or continuations of the thread.
Theorycraft and "playtest" threads crapped on themselves and each other. Seperating the two into two different subforums wouldn't help at all - it would just foster more hate between them.
- I would like to see a separated forum for formated playtest and number cunching, and one for discussion about the playtest.
- As for formated playtest it could be interesting to have the playtest be conduct through specific already available scenario using the iconics as other party members.
- I would also inforce a zero tolerance policy in these forums. Any one cought would be banned for these specific forums only, for a limited period of time (i.e.: 24h). Repetitive bans may be subject to a major punishment (i.e.: complete ban or else).
- I would like to see a separated forum for formated playtest and number cunching, and one for discussion about the playtest.
- As for formated playtest it could be interesting to have the playtest be conduct through specific already available scenario using the iconics as other party members.
- I would also inforce a zero tolerance policy in these forums. Any one cought would be banned for these specific forums only, for a limited period of time (i.e.: 24h). Repetitive bans may be subject to a major punishment (i.e.: complete ban or else).
You could have a suggested encounter - that people run through and report back on. For example 3rd level magus on a 10'/90' torch lit bridge over fast flowing water with 3 goblins 100 foot away at the north end of the bridge armed with short bows and moving forward and 3 goblins that have just jumped out of the shadows 15' away to the south.
(the above is off the top of my head not sure how it would test the Magus If I had more time set something up to to test fighting and spell casting and party interaction)
The point is to get people to try the same encounter and see if how the class performs.
- I would like to see a separated forum for formated playtest and number cunching, and one for discussion about the playtest.
- As for formated playtest it could be interesting to have the playtest be conduct through specific already available scenario using the iconics as other party members.
- I would also inforce a zero tolerance policy in these forums. Any one cought would be banned for these specific forums only, for a limited period of time (i.e.: 24h). Repetitive bans may be subject to a major punishment (i.e.: complete ban or else).
You could have a suggested encounter - that people run through and report back on. For example 3rd level magus on a 10'/90' torch lit bridge over fast flowing water with 3 goblins 100 foot away at the north end of the bridge armed with short bows and moving forward and 3 goblins that have just jumped out of the shadows 15' away to the south.
(the above is off the top of my head not sure how it would test the Magus If I had more time set something up to to test fighting and spell casting and party interaction)
The point is to get people to try the same encounter and see if how the class performs.
Something like that could be useful--I know it got somewhat tedious for our group to run through the same encounter many times with slight variations, so distributing that across multiple groups would make it much less daunting (all told, we managed to run through at least some of the encounters all 12 times as I had desired, but not all). For instance, if Magus gets a round 2, I can update my Magus pregen and then just release all the pregens our group used and the encounters we played with, and other people can give them a shot too.
|
|
This is the problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
People, we are getting to look behind the curtain and playtest things FOR FREE BEFORE THE BOOK COMES OUT!
The developers listen to our input AND MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE IT BEFORE THE FINAL VERSION!
Remember WOTC. Remember how they gave us the finger and put out 4th edition with no playtest and told us to suck it and like it? Remember how many crappy splatbooks came out which threw off the whole balance and left huge loopholes.
Remember the old way?
We are very lucky, and we've forgotten how much better things are now and feel entitled, WHEN WE ARE GIVEN FREE STUFF TO PLAYTEST!
Seriously...
This is the problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
People, we are getting to look behind the curtain and playtest things FOR FREE BEFORE THE BOOK COMES OUT!
The developers listen to our input AND MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE IT BEFORE THE FINAL VERSION!
Remember WOTC. Remember how they gave us the finger and put out 4th edition with no playtest and told us to suck it and like it? Remember how many crappy splatbooks came out which threw off the whole balance and left huge loopholes.
Remember the old way?
We are very lucky, and we've forgotten how much better things are now and feel entitled, WHEN WE ARE GIVEN FREE STUFF TO PLAYTEST!
Seriously...
Can we really just err on the side of not insulting other games? Some of us rather enjoy 4e and never heard WotC tell anyone to suck it.
Actually, they sent me an e-mail.
|
|
Actually, they sent me an e-mail.
Was that the one titled "Your old books are invalid, buy new ones and subscribe to our online thing. K thx!"
Paizo is very good to the gamer, and a lot of people on the messageboard complain the sun is too bright and water is too wet.
If you can, maybe add an ignore feature to the messageboards or ideally a way to vote up or down comments.
Other than that, people should appreciate the free.
Actually, they sent me an e-mail.Was that the one titled "Your old books are invalid, buy new ones and subscribe to our online thing. K thx!"
Paizo is very good to the gamer, and a lot of people on the messageboard complain the sun is too bright and water is too wet.
If you can, maybe add an ignore feature to the messageboards or ideally a way to vote up or down comments.
Other than that, people should appreciate the free.
"So long, and thanks for all the cash!"
- WotC
Actually, they sent me an e-mail.Was that the one titled "Your old books are invalid, buy new ones and subscribe to our online thing. K thx!"
Paizo is very good to the gamer, and a lot of people on the messageboard complain the sun is too bright and water is too wet.
If you can, maybe add an ignore feature to the messageboards or ideally a way to vote up or down comments.
Other than that, people should appreciate the free.
"So long, and thanks for all the cash!"
- WotC
Guys
Gold Five: Stabilize your rear deflectors... Watch for attempts to restart edition wars.
Gold Leader: They're coming in! Three snipes at posts 2-10!
Gold Leader: It's no good, I can't resist!
Gold Five: Stay on topic.
Gold Leader: *We're too close!*
Gold Five: Stay on topic!
Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!
[he too is seduced by the edition war; Gold Five tries to escape but is fatally dragged in]
Gold Five: Gold Five to Red leader, lost perspective, lost my cool.
Red Leader: I copy, Gold Leader.
Gold Five: It came from... behind!
Yeah. Edition warring isn't going to contribute to improving the playtest. Let sleeping dogs lie, to say nothing of dead horses.
|
|
In your world, do people get to talk crazy without fear of consequences?It's not crazy talk, it's specifically talk that some people here find sufficiently offensive to warrant a violent response but the forum moderators don't think is delete-worthy.
And yes, I would say that the things on the forum that the mods do not delete would not result in violence.
Please bury the horse.
Alright I think we are starting to get a tad off topic a bit (thought I can be blamed for that). As Evil Lincoln said, "Let us not steer this thread into the very behavior we aim to dispel."+1
Please read the title of the thread.
Please do that.Thank you.
Have a Day.
Azmyth's "+1" hit on one thing I thought might be useful: Rankings for posters.
On other websites you can give a post a "thumb's up" or "thumb's down", effectively a +1 or -1. The lower a post's score, the more grayed out it gets, thus removing it from the conversation. The key would be to have these rankings be attached to the poster as well as their individual post, so that trolls get a progressively worse score as they troll.
If trolls are truly a vocal minority, then the majority of upstanding players would be able to effectively squelch them, while the minority of trolls could not grief the upstanding players with "-1" votes because there are too few trolls (though we would need a control so that your "-1" to the poster can only be done once per person, so that a single troll cannot hammer "-1" on a poster to grief them.)
As for he other ideas presented:
# Zero tolerance policy.
(I vote for the ranking policy instead)
# Separate forums for Data and Discussion.
I think this might work, it would definitely be nice to get a clear look at all the data.
# A playtest data form that solicits specific data types.
I think this is a great idea. It might also be useful to add the ability for players to vote or score ideas. For example, a post asking something like "Is the Magus' ability X underpowered/not useful enough" and players could click a radio button to score 1-5 on the idea (1 being disagree, 5 being agree, etc.).
# Limit responses to 1 per day per thread.
I disagree, I think the poster rankings would be enough.
# Register as a playtester to eliminate drive-by posting.
I would be ok with this.
# Conduct the playtest at paizocon
This idea, while limiting overall participation, would be one great tool in addition to the open playtest online.
# Sticky the formatted response thread
Agreed.
I think there are social issues inherent in post ranking that the Paizoans want to avoid.
For my part, I think it would be interesting if there were just a plus one button. You could see posts that were highly valued by other posters, and you could emphasize helpful posts without having to response and type "+1", but you couldn't use it as a tool for more negativity.
So, I'll say that's a very interesting idea Archimedes, but I have an issue with the "-1" button and there is a biiiiiiiig looming security issue there, no?
I think one thing that might be useful is organized play by post playtesting here on the boards. Not only does that make it easy to point out why ability x worked out the way it did, but it lets the devs see first hand how it went.
It would also let some people who may not have the time in their groups to do a formal playtest (where there is focus on the thing being playtested) get in on it.
It also means that if you have a theoretical argument of 'this is broken' or 'this is garbage' it becomes a relatively simple matter to put it up against a monster or two and see.
You also potentially get to see how the play tested material works outside your group's bubble. So you can see it with different play styles, dm styles, scenarios you may not normally see. I did some of this with the APG play test but it was a bit haphazard, but I think if we could get it organized could be a real asset to all of us.
Not all of us can just throw down and make a group/game to test a character t the drop of a hat :p
Not all of us can just throw down and make a group/game to test a character t the drop of a hat :p
And among that number, well....let's just say it can become a miasma to mull through to find the odd diamond.
Not all of us can just throw down and make a group/game to test a character t the drop of a hat :p
of course, I imagine it being more like a sit and go tournament thing. Let someone post "i have an idea, anyone wanna try out an all magus party?" If enough people are interested create a PbP thread and try it out. Even if you only get through one encounter or half an encounter, it provides legit insight that we can do here on the boards instead of just arguing theory which is less of what the devs want to see.
Not all of us can just throw down and make a group/game to test a character t the drop of a hat :p
My compromise is to let people fabricate data, and playtest with so-called "thought experiments". The catch is that they have to do a requisite amount of statting and submit their data with as much detail as it would take to run it — no "armchair playtesting" as it were.
The goal should always be to post just enough data so that another person can reproduce your results and confirm your statements. That is what it means to be rigorous. If people don't do at least this much, then I have no good reason to believe what they're telling me.
So yes, you can post data without pulling a gaming group together. But you have to earn my respect by providing verifiable data before you can expect me to believe your statements. That makes sense, right? If not, then I have some Good News to share with you.
This is why I think a form that solicits crucial data might really help. If you're going to submit a thought-experiment to prove a point, you have to at least live up to a minimum standard of data that applies to full playtests as well.
I really think thought-experiment playtesting might prove more useful than full game testing (faster and more flexible), if it is done right. But simply reading the class and offering your "expert evaluation" is something best kept in the proposed "discussion forum" where all such threads are nestled amongst each other, no longer pretending to be verifiable data.
My compromise is to let people fabricate data, and playtest with so-called "thought experiments". The catch is that they have to do a requisite amount of statting and submit their data with as much detail as it would take to run it — no "armchair playtesting" as it were.
The goal should always be to post just enough data so that another person can reproduce your results and confirm your statements. That is what it means to be rigorous. If people don't do at least this much, then I have no good reason to believe what they're telling me.
So yes, you can post data without pulling a gaming group together. But you have to earn my respect by providing verifiable data before you can expect me to believe your statements. That makes sense, right? If not, then I have some Good News to share with you.
This is why I think a form that solicits crucial data might really help. If you're going to submit a though experiment to prove a point, you have to at least live up to a minimum standard of data that applies to full playtests as well.
I really think thought-experiment playtesting might prove more useful than full game testing (faster and more flexible), if it is done right. But simply reading the class and offering your "expert evaluation" is something best kept in the proposed "discussion forum" where all such threads are nestled amongst each other, no longer pretending to be verifiable data.
Very well said all the way around.
I whole heartedly agree with this. Basic civility should be a given. I do wonder if the posters guilty of the bad manners evidenced in the playtest so far communicate with others this way face to face - if so I would be suprised if they had any teeth left!Just because you seem to think it's ok to use violence as a response to mere words doesn't mean everyone does.
I never once said it was ok to use violence, please re-read my comment above.
To reiterate I just wonder if such bad mannered people talk to others like that in real life. If they do, I would not be surprised if one day they do run into someone (not me) who does think that the best way to shut a smart mouth is to hit it.
Coming back on topic - I think a zero tolerance policy (or something like it, such as three strikes and you are out) should be adopted. Just as rudeness is not accepted in real life - it should it be accepted on the boards. there is just no reason to be uncivil unless you are into cyberbullying.
Coming back on topic - I think a zero tolerance policy (or something like it, such as three strikes and you are out) should be adopted. Just as rudeness is not accepted in real life - it should it be accepted on the boards. there is just no reason to be uncivil unless you are into cyberbullying.
Zero tolerance for 'rudeness' is extraordinarily difficult to implement in a message board. There is a short jump from snarky comment to straight up rude and its not always evident to poster or to the person the comment was directed at. Things like sarcasm and humor dont always translate well on message boards and to punish people for that is pretty silly in my opinion and would potentially drive alot of the character out of conversations.
Not all of us can just throw down and make a group/game to test a character t the drop of a hat :pThan not all of us are qualified to comment on a play test.
And here I was, completely unaware that Paizo put you in charge of selecting who's allowed to playtest...
|
First I want to say I hope open play testing stays around in some form or another. I love the fact that paizo does this with some pathfinder products.
I do agree that something needs to be done though. The problem is some of the posters in the play test forums. Personally I am in favor of the zero tolerance policy in the play test forums. Simple reasons those are a special privilege that paizo offers us.
I've stayed quiet on the issue for a long time. HOWEVER: I think that, while the open playtest is a GREAT idea, I also think that there are many different kinds of gamers and power-levels of chars.
I've read so many threads in which I thought: "Where's the problem, I just disallow this particular combination/PowerGaming-try as a GM, that's it."
I've got the impression that, while some people are serious about giving GREAT balancing info, a bunch of guys are just whining about how specific classes lend/don't lend themselves to powergaming.
Balance IS extremely important, but not everything. At least that's what I'm thinking: Spellcasters should be weak at first level - later, they should bet better. I'm old-school that way. The GM is there for a reason and can regulate just about everything.
I also think that GMs CAN balance a LOT of styles of gamers.
That being said: Please, people: There are SO MANY different play styles, just because you consider something imbalanced does not mean that it is - Please do give your opinions! We all (I know at least I do!) enjoy your opinions! However, please don't consider your opinions the only valid ones.
That's all I have to say about the topic, thank you for reading this post,
all the best and good gaming to you all (and all of your play-styles),
Endzeitgeist
Not even WOTC tried to make a base 20 level gish class in all of the 3.x splat they churned out.
Huh? What about the duskblade and the hexblade?
Huh? What about the duskblade and the hexblade?Not even WOTC tried to make a base 20 level gish class in all of the 3.x splat they churned out.
I don't really think that the Hexblade counts because it's spellcasting is so limited in both amount and type. It was more like a fighter with some magical tricks like a Jonah Hex character.
The Duskblade.. that you have me there, I'd completely forgotten about them, because I never for my life saw anyone play one. I would note that it's spell selection was considerably more restricted than the magus. And I think that when most people are thinking gish, they're looking to see a bit more of the "magey" stuff the Magus spell list provides.
I'm not saying either was perfect, just that wizards did TRY to make an arcane caster that also fights. I definately prefer the magus to both, but I wouldnt mind seeing a hexblade like class done right (didnt like the WotC class much) where a class is full bab and 4 levels of casting with something like the witch's hexes. Kind of like Paladin is to Cleric as this new class is to witch.