I've removed a post. Remember the most important rules of the Paizo message boards.
I'd like to note that so far I've made two threads about how to conduct my playtests to gain the most beneficial information. Both threads have had no replies. I don't think there are THAT many people interested in playtest data over their own design philosophies and criticisms on the classes very existence.
I know there was a controversial post summed up as 'class imbalance is a myth created by people with agendas'. Now regardless of if you feel that this is true or not, after reading some of the unhelpful posts on this subforum doesn't the 'agenda' part feel a little true?
When discussing classes at a game store where I work the idea came up that Pathfinder's success is evident that the fans believe that change=bad. Some posts since before the playtest started gives credit to this idea. I'm sure this isn't the majority because this resembles threads I see over at WotC whenever something new happens in Magic: the Gathering, and the game never explodes due to any changes and new stuff. This also resembles old forum posts I've found about criticisms about Pathfinder during it's initial playtest (calling it Pathfailure) due to how they conduct playtests and how they believe that the game had changes from 3.5 that ruin the game entirely. However the same posters and players are still currently playing pathfinder games and having fun, even the ones that are still complaining about how Pathfinder works.
Once upon a time I had a real hard time getting into D&D 3.5. I had recieved the three core books as a gift and decided to DM a game to get a better grasp of it without a mountain of splatbooks. When everyone was there and started making characters one player actually slapped some money on the table and said that he'll put some money down so that we can go to the store and buy and play a 'better game'. The answer was 'no' but the damage was done even after he left. The campaign didn't even start because there was a bitter taste in everyone's mouth, like the guy farted and then left the room. I don't want to play games with this person anymore. The point of that story was that sometimes people will come over when one game or way of playing is inevitable and loudly try to drive his way of playing home, disregarding that everyone else at the table is having fun, leaving a metaphorical fart that makes everyone bitter over the entire experience.
Bottom line I think what I'm trying to say is, can we please either see how these work, at an actual play table (my playtest this weekend includes noobs and munchkins for more effective coverage) OR make criticisms on the mechanics and offering functional fixes.
This as opposed to discussing whether or not they should be doing these classes in the first place, Whether or not they should be hybrids or complaining that amalgamations aren't unique.
I'd like to note that so far I've made two threads about how to conduct my playtests to gain the most beneficial information. Both threads have had no replies. I don't think there are THAT many people interested in playtest data over their own design philosophies and criticisms on the classes very existence.
Honestly, we'd rather you playtest what you're interested in, rather than trying to assign different playtest materials to different people. In other words, I'd rather you try a class you think would be fun (or a problem) and knock it around a bit, than tell you "playtest the slayer at level 15" when you don't like martial characters or high-level play.
The playtest is supposed to be fun for the playtesters, after all...
Would it be more interesting for you to receive playtest feedback based on pure combat situations, or based on going through an adventure/scenario (or even a series of such), or would both approaches be about equal?
Would it be more interesting for you to receive playtest feedback based on pure combat situations, or based on going through an adventure/scenario (or even a series of such), or would both approaches be about equal?
Both approaches are about equal. While we are very interested in how these classes do in combat, we are also looking for playtest experience in every form. How well did they contribute to the group outside of combat? Were they fun to play? What did players like about them? Were they useful in other kinds of encounters? Did they provide interesting RPG hooks, and so on.
Play experience is key.
I'd like to note that so far I've made two threads about how to conduct my playtests to gain the most beneficial information. Both threads have had no replies. I don't think there are THAT many people interested in playtest data over their own design philosophies and criticisms on the classes very existence.Honestly, we'd rather you playtest what you're interested in, rather than trying to assign different playtest materials to different people. In other words, I'd rather you try a class you think would be fun (or a problem) and knock it around a bit, than tell you "playtest the slayer at level 15" when you don't like martial characters or high-level play.
The playtest is supposed to be fun for the playtesters, after all...
I'm not really assigning classes and levels. I'm just holding module sessions and letting the them play what they want. For the most part my problem is that I'm trying to figure out how to gather data and what data I should be asking for, especially since a lot of them don't post on the forums and I'd need to gather their impressions myself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I asked at the end of my playtest:
What was the most fun aspect of your character's class? (This is to gauge what works, it's important to let the design team to know this).
What was the least fun aspect? (This is just to gauge what the player didn't enjoy about the class. They don't need to have an answer to this if they enjoyed it all. This is important data.)
What bit of rules did you have most trouble with, for example what did you find confusing, or not useful about your abilities, what abilities didn't you use at all this session? (This question is to gauge what language might be unclear, and whether some abilties need to be cut or changed)
Would you still play [component of class] knowing this class exists as an alternative? (This question is to gauge whether the hybrid robs too much of the parent classes uniqueness.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'd start with:
* Do any of the classes seem exceptionally powerful or weak in combat, especially compared to its related classes?
* Do any of them seem especially fragile?
* Are they particularly good or bad at performing tasks expected of them, both as adventurers and for their role in the party (skills, NPC interaction, investigation, and so on).
* Any mechanics that are cumbersome in play?
* Any rules that were confusing or you had to make a ruling on?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would grab an encounter from pretty much any Adventure Path or module, create level-appropriate characters with standard gear...but don't do just one encounter. The first encounter of the day for the group will always be at max potential, but how well will the classes perform when they're lower on options? How about against multiple creatures, in different terrain, flying, planar locales? How do they handle creatures that block certain styles of play (high DR creatures, creatures with spell resistance, creatures with immunities, *!*(!()&)(*(& derghodaemons, for example)?
@Malwing (or anyone else really): If you're willing to run an online game, I'm sure you could scrounge up plenty of willing testers, myself included. I bet there's more than a few people with a free day over Thanksgiving weekend for a live game, or a PFS scenario Play-by-Post should be able to finish before the test is over.
I'll add the questions to my questionnaire.
I'll also record how often each class gets chosen.
I had planned to run;
The Penumbral Accords
Echoes of the Overwatched
Hall of Drunken Heroes
The Darkest Vengeance
Voice in the Void
The Dragons Demand
and possibly Carrion Crown.
On the subject of the thread, I think multiclassing is somewhat nerfed in Pathfinder so the hybrids seem to have a place in the game. Especially for a person like me who does not favor multiclassing. I have different opinions on how many classes there needs to be in the game, especially since archetypes exist but the game is far from my design philosophies and I think that hybrid classes is a logical step given how the game already works. I see the 'point' in having hybrids and personally I see design space within the fact that they exist.
@Malwing (or anyone else really): If you're willing to run an online game, I'm sure you could scrounge up plenty of willing testers, myself included. I bet there's more than a few people with a free day over Thanksgiving weekend for a live game, or a PFS scenario Play-by-Post should be able to finish before the test is over.
I've never played online so I'd more likely play than run due to awkwardness.
I do feel like table data will be useful, in that I can directly see physical reactions, gauge excitement, and factor in the incredibly noobish players I have as well as the whole Cheetoes and Mountain Dew atmosphere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when multiclassing, assuming you are looking at a true multiclass as opposed to a 1-3 level dip, at 10th level, often you are playing a lvl 5/5 character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 5 powers.
The Hybrid class, at 10th level, you are playing a character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 8 powers (but minus some of the powers).
Which is exactly why I'd like to see a solution for all multiclassing instead of Paizo just picking their favorite multiclass combinations and making them cooler. All these hybrid classes do is leave the less "popular" multiclass combinations even further behind.
Which is exactly why I'd like to see a solution for all multiclassing instead of Paizo just picking their favorite multiclass combinations and making them cooler. All these hybrid classes do is leave the less "popular" multiclass combinations even further behind.when multiclassing, assuming you are looking at a true multiclass as opposed to a 1-3 level dip, at 10th level, often you are playing a lvl 5/5 character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 5 powers.
The Hybrid class, at 10th level, you are playing a character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 8 powers (but minus some of the powers).
If we assume that each core and current base class (except Magus) is a factor, how many combinations does that make? Would it be fun of they just scrapped the ACG and it be remade to fit all those combinations? (my answer is yes but...)
*edit* I got 153 classes, so no, no to that. I don't want books for 153 classes. lets just stick with popular combinations and leave it alone.
There's obviously way too many possible combinations to make a hybrid class of each pairing ... but particularly for the spellcasting classes, I'd really like guidelines for hybridizing them with a non-casting class in a way that doesn't end up with them being completely ineffective against level-appropriate challenges. Particularly with multiclass casters, you get more useless the higher level you get: At 4th level, you're only one spell level behind, but you just keep falling farther and farther behind the benchmark for what spells the adventure expects you to able to access until at 20th, you're four levels behind and can't cast anything the BBEG can't save against on a 2.
Which is exactly why I'd like to see a solution for all multiclassing instead of Paizo just picking their favorite multiclass combinations and making them cooler. All these hybrid classes do is leave the less "popular" multiclass combinations even further behind.when multiclassing, assuming you are looking at a true multiclass as opposed to a 1-3 level dip, at 10th level, often you are playing a lvl 5/5 character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 5 powers.
The Hybrid class, at 10th level, you are playing a character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 8 powers (but minus some of the powers).
If we assume that each core and current base class (except Magus) is a factor, how many combinations does that make? Would it be fun of they just scrapped the ACG and it be remade to fit all those combinations? (my answer is yes but...)
*edit* I got 153 classes, so no, no to that. I don't want books for 153 classes. lets just stick with popular combinations and leave it alone.
Nice hyperbole you got there bro.
Bet you I could do it in 20 feats/ a few ACFs.
I was serious about being in favor of hybriding all the classes until I calculated the number.
doesn' Rogue Genius Games have a product like that?
Yes they do, Feats of Multiclassing. I recently approved it for my home games.
Dammit, I mixed you up with Mark Moreland. Sorry about that!I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark.My name is not Mark. Just say'n.
Them's fighting words.
Why would there be a development pass? I mean, I've never seen one before aside from third party stuff.
I cant speak for everyone but I know most of the hybrid classes are things I wanted to do. In the case with the Arcanist its something that I didn't know I wanted to do but now I want to do. I'm happy with most of them the way they are now and these classes aren't even done yet.
Warpriest is not living up to my expectations because of one thing that could possibly change, and it's not full BAB/d10HD.
Please do not use 'We' in your phrases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If negative feedback is unhelpful and unwanted, then why is it far more likely to earn a Dev response than positive feedback or criticisms that offer actual suggestions?
This thread is proof enough that this is happening.
Why not engage in positive discussion and ignore the negative snark?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less of a matter of negative feedback but negative feedback that seems like its against the idea to begin with and disregarding players like myself that have been excited for this since it was mere whispers in the messageboards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That'd be fine if there had been a development pass, but there wasn't.
There was a preliminary development pass—by Stephen, Jason, and myself. We knew it was going to go to playtesting after that, and then be developed again in response to playtest feedback.
It has never been our practice to have a "public development pass" for any Paizo product (although most people seem to think "open public playtest" means "I get to suggest how to rewrite the playtest material entirely"). We don't crowdsource our development.
This is the first chance we're getting to look at the classes and tell you what is or is not at a fundamental level living up to the expectations of those who requested and/or supported them.
Your expectations were based on (1) a name, and (2) one to two sentences describing the class, at best. This blog post is all the information we previewed about the warpriest, and it says: If the actual playtest material doesn't match your expectations based on those two sentences, perhaps you were reading too much of your own desires into that very tiny amount of material you were provided.
In other words, you built up your own expectations, and you are disappointed because the playtest doesn't match your expectations. However, the playtest does match what we already told you about the warpriest. Your expectations are your own.
If negative feedback is unhelpful and unwanted, then why is it far more likely to earn a Dev response than positive feedback or criticisms that offer actual suggestions?
This thread is proof enough that this is happening.
Why not engage in positive discussion and ignore the negative snark?
Because if someone is setting fire to your house, your priorities are (1) get them to stop starting fires, (2) put out the fires, and (3) salvage the unburned stuff from your house.
Honestly, I'm tired of the negativity. We get that some people don't like the idea of hybrid classes at all, but we're moving forward with that design concept anyway because we don't make decisions for the game based on what some people like or dislike, we write for a larger audience. So in the interest of moving on, I'm closing this thread. If you don't like the idea of hybrid classes, and you choose to not playtest any of them, you should find something better to do with your time than continue to post in the playtest boards for this book.
Thread closed.