|
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished reading through Jason's thread on the point of hybrids, and I have to say that I'm really disappointed with the way much of the community is handling this playtest. A few things about these classes are not going to change, most notably that they exist and that they are each going to be mechanically rooted in two existing classes. I know a lot of you don't like that (and frankly I'm not sold on hybrids without significant blending, myself), but there are only two productive ways to handle your frustration:
1) Sit this playtest out. If new classes aren't your thing, accept that this playtest isn't for you and plan not to purchase the book. If you find the concept of hybrids irredeemably repugnant, do likewise. They're happening, and all complaining serves to do is increase the volume of text the designers have to wade through to get the useful feedback. If you think these concepts are awful, it's childish to actively contribute to making them worse by gumming up the data. You've written them off. Let people who haven't have their shot at helping to improve them.
2) Playtest. Endure for the greater good, and provide feedback, suggestions, and data that will help improve each of these classes. I happen to quite like the concept of hybrids, but I believe many of the new classes as-written need some mechanical massaging to help their individual components more seamlessly integrate. I've picked my favourites and I'm diligently working to provide useful (not pointlessly critical) opinions, feedback, and suggestions to help make these classes the best they can be. It's the only sure road to meaningfully improve anything about these classes. I'll admit that I'm struggling to stay positive with the investigator, but I'm trying. Maybe for some of you who really aren't taken by these classes, working to improve your least favourites would be more productive? Just try to focus on improvement since "tearing down" isn't an option.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am seeing all the people with complaints (myself included) also contributing alternatives and recommendations. I don't follow every poster but I have seen a LOT of constructive criticism in the threads. I have yet to see anything like the vitriol against gunslingers/katanas/summoners. Those who are unhappy come off as disappointed, not angry.
I just finished going to every class thread offering my take on the class and how to improve them. I don't particularly want ten new classes getting dropped on js all at once, but we are going to anyway so I would like to see them improved as best as possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may just be seeing individual posts and not connecting them with other more productive posts from the same posters, but it just struck me that a ton of content on this board so far has been pointless whining about the base concept, which is not only making it more difficult to find the substantial posts, but likely also making it more difficult for the designers to maintain their open-mindedness toward such ideas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's theorycrafting right now. There hasn't been enough time to playtest much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a fair amount of people calling for scrapping of the existing classes and even the entire concept of hybrid classes. Not all of the critics, I grant you, but some.
I know yesterday after reading through a lot of threads while procrastinating, my overall sense was one of negativity, and not constructive negativity.
I agree; I would understand people's displeasure AFTER giving the classes the proverbial spin. Calling them bad after just giving them one read is a bit premature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I haven't fully playtested this thread, but I think the designers should just scrap the idea. I mean, a thread suggesting that negativity isn't the answer to everything? Horrible, it should just be a post/archetype in another thread.
\end{tongue-in-cheek}
Touché.
It's theorycrafting right now. There hasn't been enough time to playtest much.
Exactly. There have been some people, like Coridan, who are being constructive. The greater percentage, in my eyes anyway, started being negative minutes after they read the information without running the playtest at all. Everyone is welcome not to like the material as presented, but if your entire argument is "I don't like it!", that isn't helpful to anyone.
|
My playtest mainly possible on the weekends, so all I have been able to do is mention how I feel initially with the presented material. (Which has been a bit negative, though not nearly as bad as some...)
That being said, I completely agree with you. I will try to inject some of these into my home campaign and see how they work.
I'm playtesting this Sunday. At the moment I'm just picking out the things that are immediate character creation nightmares.
It is all about perspective. I used to see the Magus, and try to see its flaws. My biggest issue is that it is a lesser caster than the Wizard and uses a similar, but cut down, list of spells. My character was a wizard with a fighter level and plans to take the first level in Eldritch Knight at level 7' he is level 4 and we just finished the first book for Rise of the Runelords.
I remade my character as a level 4 Magus. I lost all of my utility spells, but I was playing more like a Magus anyway. I took the Bladebound and Kensai archetypes. I have to say that I like my character better and I do not have to wait until level 9 to start being my character concept. In fact it is even better than what I was planning. So I am less of a caster, I just had to realize and accept it. He is a lot tougher overall instead.
So to all the nay-sayers. Just try it first.
It is all about perspective. I used to see the Magus, and try to see its flaws. My biggest issue is that it is a lesser caster than the Wizard and uses a similar, but cut down, list of spells. My character was a wizard with a fighter level and plans to take the first level in Eldritch Knight at level 7' he is level 4 and we just finished the first book for Rise of the Runelords.
I remade my character as a level 4 Magus. I lost all of my utility spells, but I was playing more like a Magus anyway. I took the Bladebound and Kensai archetypes. I have to say that I like my character better and I do not have to wait until level 9 to start being my character concept. In fact it is even better than what I was planning. So I am less of a caster, I just had to realize and accept it. He is a lot tougher overall instead.
So to all the nay-sayers. Just try it first.
Funny you made the exact character I am playing through RoTRL right now. . . but no, not switching it to Magus.
Wholesale negativity about the very concept of the book may not be overly productive--
Pretty sure we are getting this book no matter what, and getting these classes as well. . .
HOWEVER,
I think that pushing for the classes that are pretty uninspiring now (Arcanist, Warpriest, Skald, ect) to get more interesting abilities like the classes that are exciting now (Bloodrager, Shaman) has its place.
Look at Arcanist. . .Abilities at 1st and 20th level, then some bonus feats and scribe scroll-- is it any wonder that I don't see the point of this being its own class?
The one new thing it brings is an alternate way of preparing spells which could be covered without building an entirely new class more effectively.
So why not give the class some unique abilities somewhere in those 20 levels? Something a little more justifying the new class?
Skald and Warpriest have the opposite problem-- a ton of abilities, but they amount to not that much that is unique to the class. Ok, the Fighter/Cleric gets bonus feats and blessings and channel energy . . . got it, but blessings are basically a spell like ability at 1st and 10th level. . .
Also, Splish splash! I have a feeling there will be 100 times more characters with 1 level Warpriest than there will ever be Warpriests played without multi-classing.
I like it when a class has a feature or two shared with another class, but the current line up of hybrid classes takes that too far. Yes, I understand this is inherent to the concept. There are also some great original class features to be found in the hybrids. I would like to see more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try and run some tests between matching Barbarian totem/bloodline themes if can get the time.
Also going to try and not let it devolve into slashfic.
Don't lie to us, we know how it will end.
In defense of wholesale negatibity, it *can* be a useful thing. For instance, if Paizo decided that the next book was going to only communicate its game mechanics by means of a rebus, that was the only concept set in stone, and that it was seriously intended to fit in with existing books rather than being some sort of Pathfinder gag gift. I think we can all agree that'd be pretty stupid and the only reasonable feedback we could give is "change it until it's no longer recognizable".
The real problem is people are taking 10 Eldritch-Knight-turned-full-class, and judging them as though they are intended to be 10 Maguses. And if they believe the fundamental premise of hybrids is terrible and useless, well, they should voice that as much as they want, at least until SKR says "okay, we get it, just stop now". Which he more or less has. But that's not because negativity is inherently bad or useless, it's because they've considered it, weighed it against the investment in the book, analyzed its future potential, and decided to go ahead with the fundamental concept anyway. I can guarantee you that if they had a crystal ball that told them hybrids would be universally hated, and sales would only be 5% of the next lowest major crunch book, they would scrap the idea instantly. But they don't, and we're the next best thing.
#
Look at Arcanist. . .Abilities at 1st and 20th level, then some bonus feats and scribe scroll-- is it any wonder that I don't see the point of this being its own class?
The one new thing it brings is an alternate way of preparing spells which could be covered without building an entirely new class more effectively.
So why not give the class some unique abilities somewhere in those 20 levels? Something a little more justifying the new class?
Skald and Warpriest have the opposite problem-- a ton of abilities, but they amount to not that much that is unique to the class. Ok, the Fighter/Cleric gets...
The Arcanist is a non-vancian caster that prepares spells. Conceptually, it may be the most important class in the playtest.
The skald, on the other hand, takes one classes special ability and gives it to the whole party.
Wholesale negativity about the very concept of the book may not be overly productive--Pretty sure we are getting this book no matter what, and getting these classes as well. . .
HOWEVER,
I think that pushing for the classes that are pretty uninspiring now (Arcanist, Warpriest, Skald, ect) to get more interesting abilities like the classes that are exciting now (Bloodrager, Shaman) has its place.
And at the point you push for those changes or improvements rather than "Don't bother printing this book/class", you're actually providing valuable feedback rather than forum clutter.
In fact, just look at the reactions in some of the Arcanist threads now, there was a lot of feedback on the class itself and how it didn't really stand out, and there's already been replies from the devs about what they're thinking of doing to change it that have people celebrating.
The decision on the book going to print is pretty much set in stone before playtesting begins - they don't need the players to tell them whether it's worth doing (that much I'd pretty much expect them to be able to do themselves by now, if only from internal canvassing to see who thinks it would be a terrible idea), what they want to know is how the players would like to see it done - and they already know it's a given that there will be some who simply don't want that book anywhere near their game no matter how they do it. They're more interested in the opinions of the people that will buy it if those ten classes are done right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In defense of wholesale negatibity, it *can* be a useful thing. For instance, if Paizo decided that the next book was going to only communicate its game mechanics by means of a rebus, that was the only concept set in stone, and that it was seriously intended to fit in with existing books rather than being some sort of Pathfinder gag gift. I think we can all agree that'd be pretty stupid and the only reasonable feedback we could give is "change it until it's no longer recognizable".
I think we can probably agree though that if something that insane had a developer thinking it was a good idea in the first place and had managed to sell management on the idea, that the entire organization had gone crazy enough that they'd do it no matter what the customer base thought ;)
(*cough* Windows 8 *cough*)If something has managed to reach an open playtest stage, then they've likely already got a handle on player demand for it enough to know it's going to sell if it's done right. Those last four words are the important part :)
#Look at Arcanist. . .Abilities at 1st and 20th level, then some bonus feats and scribe scroll-- is it any wonder that I don't see the point of this being its own class?
The one new thing it brings is an alternate way of preparing spells which could be covered without building an entirely new class more effectively.
So why not give the class some unique abilities somewhere in those 20 levels? Something a little more justifying the new class?
Skald and Warpriest have the opposite problem-- a ton of abilities, but they amount to not that much that is unique to the class. Ok, the Fighter/Cleric gets...
The Arcanist is a non-vancian caster that prepares spells. Conceptually, it may be the most important class in the playtest.
The skald, on the other hand, takes one classes special ability and gives it to the whole party.
Great. . . so give me that way of preparing spells as an alternate spell method-- don't make me look at yet another barren empty class chart and tell me its a new thing. . .
Which I guess Paizo figured out because they changed it. . .
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm going to keep a calm tone for this one, I promise.
...Yep. Calm tone.
Alright - negativity is a fundamental part of useful criticism. This goes with part two of my post as well: critical feedback is not a personal attack.
If I say unto Joe Designer, "RipShredKill is a terrible class and you are a terrible person," then yes, I'm being fundamentally unhelpful. Even just, "RipShredKill is a terrible class," isn't particularly helpful since it doesn't point Joe Designer to what's causing the flaws. But if I say to Joe Designer, "RipShredKill is a terrible class; its abilities have severe action conflicts, it's in powerful need of wording cleanup and its skill list doesn't support key class features," then while I've been negative I have also been helpful. The combination of 'negative' and 'helpful' is critical review and it's a fundamental part of getting better at anything and everything writing-related.
Yes, it's important to know that you did something right but it's also important to know WHY. "RipShredKill is awesome," is just as useless as "RipShredKill is terrible." "RipShredKill is awesome; the wording on Murderize is very elegant and the ability solidly executes its concept," is better. You can even get mixed reviews; "I like Shred Into Bits as an ability concept but the wording could use some cleanup to get the function it looks like you're going for."
Criticism you don't want to hear isn't automatically bad criticism. When we tell the developers that we think that the Arcanist spellcasting is overpowered or that Brawler suffers from being just as shamefully useless as its parent classes we are attempting to improve the product. If we see multiple deep flaws we point them out. That doesn't make us naysayers or haters - it makes us, wait for it, playtesters. It's up to the devs to use our information and opinions how they like but telling us that we're wrong for having them? Seems a bit, ah, insulting. Frankly I think the folks who ended up not liking the majority/all of the classes and yet continue to provide feedback on them deserve medals - they're investing their time and energy in improving a product they don't like and maybe even won't use because they want to see the game they love improve. Plenty of RPGs would kill for that kind of loyalty. Please don't spit in its face.
@Prince of Knives
Constructive criticism, useful criticism and critical review do not qualify as wholesale negativity.
The wholesale negativity has fundamentally lacked critical review of the material.
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.
As is "The devs don't care and won't change these classes at all"
@Archomedes - I sent you a PM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Prince of Knives
Constructive criticism, useful criticism and critical review do not qualify as wholesale negativity.
The wholesale negativity has fundamentally lacked critical review of the material.
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.
As is "The devs don't care and won't change these classes at all"
I can get behind that, but I've been watching this too; a lot of legitimate criticisms are being classified as bellyaching, and it's frustrating to watch. In particular there's this community's bizzare and kinda hostile attitude towards 'theorycrafting', which...I think maybe I need to not get into in this thread, as it's not the place for it.
However, I want to address this statement directly:
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.
This is legitimate feedback. It might not get listened to (and I wouldn't blame the devs entirely for it - they have bills to pay) but it is legitimate. Design space is an important concept and if the developers are hearing that the new classes are trampling all over occupied design space then they really need to listen to that criticism and make a decision about whether or not they care. Some design space deserves to be trampled on! The conceptual and mechanical spaces occupied by classes like Fighter, Monk, and Rogue, for example, are begging for something better to fill it in, something that's capable of being heroic. The design space occupied by Wizard or Sorcerer or Cleric, on the other hand, is much more powerfully filled both in terms of thematic space and mechanical space and a lighter touch is needed.
Is it accurate that Warpriest is redundant? Maybe. But the fact that they're getting the statement is significant and it deserves looking into. "This space is full," is at the heart of these 'don't make this book' complaints.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like some of the criticism, even though it is good constructive criticism, I've seen, because I disagree with it. That criticism doesn't cause my to feel negative emotions, it makes me want to engage in the playtest and "prove" my side.
The criticism that contains "advice" such as
Do Better.or
don't make this book
is inherently negative, there are worse examples but I refuse to waste my time wading through threads searching out negativity.
This negative "advice" is a drain on my interest and willingness to participate in the playtest. I can only imagine how it makes the writers of said material feel. Yes I know thick skin and all, but you can only be told you are worthless, the core statement of negative "advice" like that, so many times before some part of you starts to wonder if it is true.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.This is legitimate feedback. It might not get listened to (and I wouldn't blame the devs entirely for it - they have bills to pay) but it is legitimate.
No, it isn't. This book was decided on months ago, approved by upper management, and solicited to distributors. The book can't be canceled at this point, it's been decided. Saying, "don't do this book" is pointless and not worthwhile "feedback." Just like saying "just go with 4th edition" in response to Paizo saying, "we're going to publish our own 3.5-compatible game." Or telling a couple who's announced they're having a baby, "get a dog instead, pets are better than having kids."
Decision made. Saying, "don't do that" is useless at that point.
And if you actually mean, "the warpriest is redundant to the cleric," then you should actually say that instead of burying that nugget of advice in a vague, useless comment like "don't do this book." The latter doesn't provide any explanation or reasoning, it's just shouting against the wind. It's like telling your sister, "don't date that guy" when you really mean "he's a violent drunk."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playtesting without criticism is not playtesting, it's mere fanwank.
That said, "do better" or "don't do this book" isn't criticism. Even if you don't have any positives, at least point out what you most strongly feel are the negatives.
Or, alternatively, don't plug up the playtest boards. Hell, personally I think the game would be better off if the only future additions to the RPG line were more Bestiaries. To me, practically everything else beyond the APG has been unneeded. But I don't clog up every playtest board by screaming BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT BLOATED BLOAT.
Even if it's tempting sometimes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.This is legitimate feedback. It might not get listened to (and I wouldn't blame the devs entirely for it - they have bills to pay) but it is legitimate.No, it isn't. This book was decided on months ago, approved by upper management, and solicited to distributors. The book can't be canceled at this point, it's been decided. Saying, "don't do this book" is pointless and not worthwhile "feedback." Just like saying "just go with 4th edition" in response to Paizo saying, "we're going to publish our own 3.5-compatible game." Or telling a couple who's announced they're having a baby, "get a dog instead, pets are better than having kids."
Decision made. Saying, "don't do that" is useless at that point.
And if you actually mean, "the warpriest is redundant to the cleric," then you should actually say that instead of burying that nugget of advice in a vague, useless comment like "don't do this book." The latter doesn't provide any explanation or reasoning, it's just shouting against the wind. It's like telling your sister, "don't date that guy" when you really mean "he's a violent drunk."
I don't object to anything said here, but...you missed my point. My point in saying that it's a legitimate criticism was not to say, "Don't write the book is an option." Of course it's not an option. If you've released it to the public for a playtest chances are you're legally obligated to write this thing by now. The point I was making is that it's legitimate because it indicates a real problem.
You'll note that in the few threads I've walked into I do bring up specific problems with classes on the conceptual/mechanical level. Bringing up those problems doesn't mean I'm snorting the haterade (though, for all future reference, I am); it means that from the playstyle and groups I'm approching the classes from problems exist.
This is the internet. Communication problems happen. A valuable skill for designers is the ability to read the implications of 'unhelpful' critique. Why is someone saying this? How might I get them to stop?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.
This is legitimate feedback. It might not get listened to (and I wouldn't blame the devs entirely for it - they have bills to pay) but it is legitimate.
No, it isn't. If you actually mean, "the warpriest is redundant to the cleric," then you should actually say that instead of burying that nugget of advice in a vague, useless comment like "don't do this book."
You missed my point. It's legitimate because it indicates a real problem. It means that from the playstyle and groups I'm approching the classes from problems exist.
Then tell us about the problem. Don't just say, "don't do it."
If you don't say what the problem is, other than "don't do this," or even "I'm not going to buy this," you are wasting your time and mine because I can't do anything with that information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "don't do it" responses do serve a purpose: they indicate that a lot of Paizo's customers are dissatisfied with this product. That may not be helpful for fixing the flaws in these classes (although, for those who think that the flaws are too many and too significant for what we've seen of this book to be salvaged by a month of playtesting, that's kind of a moot point). However, it seems that this sort of feedback should still be useful to Paizo with regard to larger goals.
While it would of course to prudent to hold off on drawing too many conclusions until sales numbers come in, this sort of negative feedback does show that many customers feel this book is not something they would want to spend money on. I don't think anyone who has been criticizing this product earnestly thinks that Paizo will stop working on this book this far into production. That's absurd. Rather, people are say that they personally don't like the direction Paizo is taking with this product.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then tell us about the problem. Don't just say, "don't do it."If you don't say what the problem is, other than "don't do this," or even "I'm not going to buy this," you are wasting your time and mine because I can't do anything with that information.
If you (and other Paizo devs) are going to ignore usable information because there is something that bugs you in the comment, just say that so people know not to put a bit of venting in their otherwise useful comment.
Because "I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill" is totally usable and meaningful information. You might not agree with it, but you have to expect to get some feedback in play testing that you don't agree with. Other people probably DO agree with it. I'm not in the playtest but from what I've seen, I sort of agree that there is redundancy in these new classes that adds nothing to the game but more bloat.
Is "the bloat to new usable content ratio in this book is too high" unacceptable feedback Sean? Because if that's not the sort of feedback you want, just tell us not to bother giving you our opinions. But if it IS acceptable but "don't do this book" makes you ignore it, just tell us that if you don't like the tone of a message you'll ignore it. That's helpful for your testers and general customers too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to follow up a bit, one of the consistent criticisms I've offered of Pathfinder's overall marketing direction over the past few years has been that there has been too much bloat and too little correcting of known problems.
This book just reinforces that opinion and demonstrates to me that Paizo intends to continue down that path. Which I personally find disappointing.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "don't do it" responses do serve a purpose: they indicate that a lot of Paizo's customers are dissatisfied with this product.
... this sort of negative feedback does show that many customers feel this book is not something they would want to spend money on.
"A lot" and "many" are very relative terms. Is that 5% of the people posting in the message board threads? 25%? 50%?
And even if you do find an exact percentage of all the people in the playtest, we don't even know what ratio that is to the total number of customers who buy a typical core book. Are the boards proportionately representative to those customers? Or are they a subset of the most opinionated?Any negativity to any degree means that whatever it's attached to instantly become worthless, then?
I'm assuming that you understand that
"Your haircut is ugly. Try a different style."comes off very differently than
"You know, you would look really good with a haircut that doesn't cover up your eyes so much."
or even just
"That haircut isn't flattering, you should change it."
And if you don't understand the difference, well, that's on you.
If you (and other Paizo devs) are going to ignore usable information because there is something that bugs you in the comment, just say that so people know not to put a bit of venting in their otherwise useful comment.
From the blog announcing the playtest:
And from the sticky post of every class thread Jason created:
Have you built a character or two? Have you used them in your game? Have you had a chance to try them out? Are your thoughts and comments based on actual play? Have you tried to fit these classes into your game? Have you tried a few mock encounters?
No?
Then you're skipping a very important part of the process of understanding these classes. In fact, you've skipped just about everything we asked you to do for this playtest.
In fact, to quote you, AD:
You've opted out. You're not part of the solution. You're like a person who critiques political candidates, but doesn't actually vote.
Is "the bloat to new usable content ratio in this book is too high" unacceptable feedback Sean?
Yes, it's unacceptable because it's based on near-complete ignorance of the contents of this book. You've seen 50 pages of playtest material... out of a book that's 256 pages long. How would you know how much "usable content" (whatever that means) the book has if you haven't seen anything but the playtest material?
But if it IS acceptable but "don't do this book" makes you ignore it, just tell us that if you don't like the tone of a message you'll ignore it. That's helpful for your testers and general customers too.
I shouldn't have to remind you to be polite. "Don't be a jerk" is the most important rule of the message boards, and it's under the Submit Post button every time you post something.
We're having a playtest. You can choose to ignore it. You can choose to post unproductive comments (like "don't publish this book"). Or you can participate in the playtest and actually try playing these classes. We're a restaurant, you're a frequent patron of our restaurant, we've created ten new menu items, and we'd like you to tell us what you think of how they taste... but you refuse because you don't like how they look, or because fettucine marinara is redundant to fettucine alfredo, or whatever. You were asked to taste these dishes, and you won't... but despite that, you're more than willing to tell us that these dishes are a failure and we shouldn't bother making them (oh, and that you haven't liked our food for a while).
(Case in point... searching your posting history, I don't see any posts by you in the Mythic Adventures playtest forum, or in the APG playtest forum, and only a handful by your alias in the UC playtest forum. It's possible the search function isn't turning up all your posts, but it appears that you haven't really tried to participate in any playtests.)
I welcome constructive criticism. "Don't publish this book" isn't constructive criticism." "I don't see what niches these fill" isn't quite, either. I shouldn't have to explain to you what is constructive criticism, or what politeness is, or how to frame a critique in a way that's not dismissive or insulting.
And I've spent far too much time explaining why these sorts of comments aren't helpful to the playtest.
This conversation is done.