| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theory crafting is the work of a single mind. It is loaded with biases (whether they be valid or not valid). And while there are things like statistics, that can help evaluated the 'numbers'. There are TONS of things that cannot be quantified numerically. First and foremost among these is fun. You know, the most important thing with regard to playing a GAME. All the theory crafting in the world cannot tell you if a class/feat/spell is fun to play. Actual games involve other people, it involves a mix of ideas and biases, and the results of dice rolls, and choices, and circumstances. That is what the devs want to see.
My impression from everything i've seen, the devs are MOST interested in things that interfere with fun, theme, and concept, and only partially concerned with things like numbers and 'balance'. They dont throw the latter group out the window, but the first group has priority. The only way to see if a class plays out according to its theme, and allows you to fufill your concept while being fun to play, is to play with it.
Obviously not everyone will be able to get in several sessions with thier home group to playtest. But that isnt necessary. This is 2013. We have the internet. Rogue Eidolon and I put together a simple playtest of the swashbuckler in about a combined 2 hours for 2 encounters. And you know what? I noticed things there that I didnt in theory crafting, even in those very simple very quick encounters in a medium in which i am not familiar (play by post).
Get 1 or 2 other people on at the same time, and run a playtest right on the forums with some monsters/npcs out of the prd. It wont take long and can potentially give you different insight then theory crafting did, and be much closer to what the devs want in terms of feedback.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This playtest is progressing almost exactly like all the playtests before it. The only difference I can see offhand is there seem to be more people disagreeing with the basic premise of these classes than in previous playtests (or perhaps they are simply more vocal).
Also, I think Kolokotroni's post above is dead on in response to the OP.
-Skeld
|
This early in the development process, the devs are very likely AWARE of the many points given by theorycrafters. After all, they ARE theorycrafters.
What they are looking for is big flaws that do not appear in the theorycrafting of a single class but raise their heads when people actually try to build PCs and play them with a group of other classes against the monsters and challenges of actual play.
Because balancing and fine-tuning the mechanics of a class is something they can work on in the latter weeks of the playtest.
But identifying as early as possible the points that would make a class just fail is crucial this early in the playtest.
So the...@AD - And they gave monk and rogue alternative classes...ciretose, I find you to be one of the most rational and valuable commenters on these boards, so your comments have heavy weight with me.
But is it your true opinion that the way to "fix" the rogue and monk is to replace them with new classes that might address the old classes' problems but also change the flavor rather dramatically?
I've got a player who loves monks. He has been bummed out since we converted to PF by his inability to create a monk that satisfies his goals. He's not going to want to play a replacement class. He wants to play a monk.
I don't think they are going to be able to "fix" the monk or rogue until the next edition. Doing so would obsolete the core version, and that isn't something I see them being interested in doing.
I think "a" monk is pretty good right now. It just isn't the unarmed monk.
I think the investigator or slayer fill the two things people complained about wanting in a rogue.
While neither is the perfect, I try to avoid having the perfect be the enemy of improvement.
Ah, so does that imply that you have more or less given up on the existing issues in the already published rules then?
Last I checked the Paizo staff on these boards have said they have no current plans to do a 2nd edition. So to say they won't be fixed until a new edition essentially is the same as saying they won't be fixed.
Which I think is a problem that can't be fixed with contrived new classes that will just cost people more money and which GMs may or may not accept in their games.
I have to admit that "Oh you want a fix for the monk? Buy this new book and accept the new flavor, oh and talk your GM into accepting (and buying) it too" isn't really the sort of "solution" to the problem that I would prefer.
I can see it bringing smiles to the finance dept at Paizo though.
i've brought up a possible solution in another thread:
.pdfsgive folks that've purchased the books a code to download any updates/erratas for their book as a free pdf, which gets updated every so often as newer changes come about. new folks purchase the pdf as normal and then get the same treatment--free downloads of any updates for that pdf if any changes/updates are made to it.
pretty much completely snuffs the excuse of "b-but it costs so much moooooney to reprint all these books and actually make the system as good as it could be", provided people actually grab and pay attention to the updated material. the only folks that would get the short end of this are people who refuse to use pdf files for whatever reason (and these are the same people who tend to cry about changes, since it makes their precious hardcover now useless for a section).
i've brought up a possible solution in another thread:
.pdfsgive folks that've purchased the books a code to download any updates/erratas for their book as a free pdf, which gets updated every so often as newer changes come about. new folks purchase the pdf as normal and then get the same treatment--free downloads of any updates for that pdf if any changes/updates are made to it.
pretty much completely snuffs the excuse of "b-but it costs so much moooooney to reprint all these books and actually make the system as good as it could be", provided people actually grab and pay attention to the updated material. the only folks that would get the short end of this are people who refuse to use pdf files for whatever reason (and these are the same people who tend to cry about changes, since it makes their precious hardcover now useless for a section).
Your provision is the reason this doesnt happen. There are people who prefer to use physical copies of their books, and dont want to use pdfs. This is not a small portion of the market. Alienating them, and particular making it difficult for them to get involved in organized play where you have to bring a copy of the rules you are using with you, is a bad idea. And while tablets are becoming more and more common, they are not yet ubiqutous enough to make pdfs the primary medium for the rules instead of the physical book.
What you are asking is contrary to business practices paizo has more or less drawn the line on. PDFs will look like the printed books, including the errata (in the lastest printing) all the way down to page count and layout. Could they change those practices? Maybe, but ignoring them and saying it would be easy to just give updates in pdfs is a meaningless argument.
Convincing paizo to move away from their stance on what they are willing to change would be a prerequisite to your idea even being arguable, let alone acted upon.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the p'n'p RPG hobby is a peculiarly technologically conservative group - it's 2013 and you can find on regular basis posts that go along the line of "why are PFS scenarios PDF only, I only use my computer for Notepad and e-mail, I'm not into those weird Adobe things" or "I don't care that the rules are available at PRD/D20PFRD, nothing more advanced than a calculator at my table!".
Also, the p'n'p RPG hobby is a peculiarly technologically conservative group - it's 2013 and you can find on regular basis posts that go along the line of "why are PFS scenarios PDF only, I only use my computer for Notepad and e-mail, I'm not into those weird Adobe things" or "I don't care that the rules are available at PRD/D20PFRD, nothing more advanced than a calculator at my table!".
"In fact we're going back to the basic box! Not this new agey "advanced" game kids are messing with these days."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, did I really read a post saying that theorycrafting should be ignored because some people are bad at theorycrafting? That's hilarious. That implies that every playtester is great at playing. There is going to be noise from both sources based on people who aren't very good at critical thinking.
I wonder how much of the testiness of the Paizo responses I'm seeing is coming from the fact that there's a significant amount of pushback on these new classes from both theorycrafters AND playtesters.
At this point it seems clear that Paizo is going to push this book out regardless of the feedback they get, and they are not planning on doing more than some minor fluff changes based on feedback at this point.
So let's just get it over with and see what the market does with it. Maybe I'll be surprised and it will be a huge hit and all my players will come to me begging to play one of the new classes. If so that's good for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the issue that I am not sure a lot of the theorycrafters really play the game or think of the game in anything which resembles the average roleplayer. Some particularly vocal proponents of theorycrafting in this thread have basically argued in other threads that playing anything but a wizard or druid was pointless, and you are stupid to ever want to play anything else. I honestly don't think the theorycrafting of those sorts of folks is remotely helpful.
At this point it seems clear that Paizo is going to push this book out regardless of the feedback they get, and they are not planning on doing more than some minor fluff changes based on feedback at this point.
Just because they haven't released a detailed list of what they'll change, doesn't mean they aren't planning on making mechanics changes. They're keeping the core identities of the classes the same, but pretty much anything else can be changed, so lets just wait and see before jumping to any conclusions.
LOL, did I really read a post saying that theorycrafting should be ignored because some people are bad at theorycrafting? That's hilarious. That implies that every playtester is great at playing. There is going to be noise from both sources based on people who aren't very good at critical thinking.
I wonder how much of the testiness of the Paizo responses I'm seeing is coming from the fact that there's a significant amount of pushback on these new classes from both theorycrafters AND playtesters.
At this point it seems clear that Paizo is going to push this book out regardless of the feedback they get, and they are not planning on doing more than some minor fluff changes based on feedback at this point.
So let's just get it over with and see what the market does with it. Maybe I'll be surprised and it will be a huge hit and all my players will come to me begging to play one of the new classes. If so that's good for everyone.
We are not even a week into the playtest...perhaps it's a tad early for declarations of "PAIZO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OUR OPINIONS!"
Fair enough. We will just have to wait and see. I know that none of my players has expressed the slightest interest in these classes so far. The only ones I am mildly interested in are the arcanist and swashbuckler. If I get a chance I will throw those two into my game as NPCs and see how they work.
I guess if you don't care enought to at least playtest it, the chances are great that you will not care enought to buy it.
Some of us have the desire, but lack the time and opportunity.
|
But Hunter and Warpriest have extremely large amounts of traction with the playerbase (people like pets and WoW Beastmasters in particular, and Warpriest sounds cool and gives flashy cool abilities that seem fun). My fear here is that playtest reports are going to be generally favorable towards them, and disguise how bad they are.
Have you been reading the playtest reports in the feedback portion of this?
Because I have and that's not the feeling I've gotten from them at all.
So far the impression I've been getting is:
Hunters are the diet coke of druids.
...
Warpriests are mediocre to "alright".
....Skalds are Bard minus but spell kenning's neat.
For all this doomsaying here that's not what I've really been seeing so far.
You do realise, you just backed up his exact points, don't you?
'Diet Coke' Druid is not exactly a ringing endorsement. It's saying there's something missing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Hunter and Warpriest have extremely large amounts of traction with the playerbase (people like pets and WoW Beastmasters in particular, and Warpriest sounds cool and gives flashy cool abilities that seem fun). My fear here is that playtest reports are going to be generally favorable towards them, and disguise how bad they are.Have you been reading the playtest reports in the feedback portion of this?
Because I have and that's not the feeling I've gotten from them at all.
So far the impression I've been getting is:
Hunters are the diet coke of druids.
...
Warpriests are mediocre to "alright".
....Skalds are Bard minus but spell kenning's neat.
For all this doomsaying here that's not what I've really been seeing so far.
You do realise, you just backed up his exact points, don't you?
'Diet Coke' Druid is not exactly a ringing endorsement. It's saying there's something missing.
Then you missed the context of his post.
HE believed that because people tend to be look at shiny things that the y'll gloss over the mechanical flaws in playtest reports.
However this is not the case. So yes, the playtesting is more or less supporting his points. But not his fears about playtesting itself ignoring them.
Going completely off topic, how did we come up with the term "theory crafting?" There are theories, and the people who develop theories and theorists. How did we get theory craft? Is that for people who post builds they never play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess if you don't care enought to at least playtest it, the chances are great that you will not care enought to buy it.Some of us have the desire, but lack the time and opportunity.
You post fairly regularly on the boards. Do you have an hour or two in the next few weeks where you could devote a portion of your attention to a playtest? Play by post is a very valid option. And you only need one or two other board members to be active at the same time. Rogue eidolon and I got through an encounter in about an hour doing the swashbuckler. He controled a swashbuckler and a 2handed fighter for comparison. I controled an npc cleric and a enemies (drawn from the prd). Given the frequency of your activity on the boards I am skeptical that you dont have the opportunity or time to do something equivalent, or probably something more elaborate. I strongly encourage you give it a shot.
Especially since JB has already announced MAJOR revisions to come up for the Arcanist.We are not even a week into the playtest...perhaps it's a tad early for declarations of "PAIZO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OUR OPINIONS!"LOL, did I really read a post saying that theorycrafting should be ignored because some people are bad at theorycrafting? That's hilarious. That implies that every playtester is great at playing. There is going to be noise from both sources based on people who aren't very good at critical thinking.
I wonder how much of the testiness of the Paizo responses I'm seeing is coming from the fact that there's a significant amount of pushback on these new classes from both theorycrafters AND playtesters.
At this point it seems clear that Paizo is going to push this book out regardless of the feedback they get, and they are not planning on doing more than some minor fluff changes based on feedback at this point.
So let's just get it over with and see what the market does with it. Maybe I'll be surprised and it will be a huge hit and all my players will come to me begging to play one of the new classes. If so that's good for everyone.
And SKR has more or less confirmed the same for the hunter as well.
Going completely off topic, how did we come up with the term "theory crafting?" There are theories, and the people who develop theories and theorists. How did we get theory craft? Is that for people who post builds they never play?
From what I've seen it's mostly a derogatory term for people who build characters and have strong opinions on mechanics but don't actually play enough to see how they work in action.
It's usually called when arguements come up about Monk, Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard. In the cases of Monk, Fighter, and Rogue they are generally considered the weakest classes on paper but there is always defenders for the class who are usually people who have a perfect time having fun with them.
In some ways I'm a 'theorycrafter' because I have a lot of builds for characters in mind and sometimes on paper but I have little time to play them out and see if they actually work. I'm currently GMing one weekly game and Playing one weekly game in addition to organizing home playtests for the new classes. Not including the playtests my ability to see what works is limited to one character that is meant to win and a bunch of NPCs that are meant to lose at any given time.
From personal experiences theorycrafting goes both ways in terms of actual effectiveness of determining how useful a class or build will be in play. I run a game that is 75% full casters and they have trouble fighting one CR 5 monster from the Bestiary at lvl 8. In the game I'm playing the vanilla Rogue is being very helpful and effective and this is his first real game. (came to session one with a Beginner Box character sheet.) If those games are your only experiences theorycrafting comes off as useless because the player that's playing the almighty Wizard is a theorycrafter and utterly useless while the noob Rogue is doing a good chunk of damage and finding all the traps. However in past games I know players who theorycraft a lot because there's only so much PFS in a week who make effective builds no matter what class they build as well as players who are just playing like crap because they have no strategy or system mastery. My personal conclusion eventually became that theorycrafting is very useful but not the end-all be-all of system mastery, because unlike games like Magic: the Gathering circumstance varies and matters way to much for it to be too effective of a form of analysis.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, one of you needs to explain to me precisely why Paizo should risk alienating the majority of their player base just to satisfy one niche of playstyle. Why should they roll the dice and risk it all on all these theorycrafters absolutely unproven opinions of what would make their game better. That is just bad business. Better to lose the niche customers than the core of their player base.
Because making changes, to satisfy the players who value PC effectiveness has zero impact on the players who play classes purely for their flavour.
The flavour remains the same, regardless of the underlying mechanic.
A player who wants 'an outdoorsy character with a wolf' above all else, so they can bring a toy wolf to the table, and make its head go up and down, while they make woofing sounds, and turn it over to tickle its tummy, and nuzzle it and pet it and wuv it for ever and ever and ever, will not care which class is more effective, between Hunter, Ranger, or Druid.
So why not go under the hood, tinker with each class to make them comparable?
The player whose aim is to 'make a character that I can contribute to the goals of a campaign, from level 1 to level 20' will notice if the mechanics work against that aim.
The vulpaphile won't even notice the difference.
Kolokotroni, I've considered PbP a couple of times, but for some reason I've never pulled the trigger. I should look into it more.
As far as my participation on these boards, I am almost always multi-tasking when posting here. Right now, for instance, I am in a meeting at work and working on updating a document for my boss. I am either blessed or cursed with extremely fast reading and typing skills, so a post that looks like it might have taken me a long time generally takes me no more than a few minutes, and usually only a few seconds.
I assume that if I actually play by post, I'll have to invest more of my brain in the activity.
But it's worth looking into. Not just for play testing, but in general because of our infrequent gamer group meetings.
Kolokotroni, I've considered PbP a couple of times, but for some reason I've never pulled the trigger. I should look into it more.
As far as my participation on these boards, I am almost always multi-tasking when posting here. Right now, for instance, I am in a meeting at work and working on updating a document for my boss. I am either blessed or cursed with extremely fast reading and typing skills, so a post that looks like it might have taken me a long time generally takes me no more than a few minutes, and usually only a few seconds.
I assume that if I actually play by post, I'll have to invest more of my brain in the activity.
But it's worth looking into. Not just for play testing, but in general because of our infrequent gamer group meetings.
Same thing for me, not that I would post at work or anything *shifty eyes* but seriously, its not much more attention then posting on the boards. But even if you cant do it when you normally post, I am pretty certain you could find an hour or two and someone on the boards with the same hour or two.
So, one of you needs to explain to me precisely why Paizo should risk alienating the majority of their player base just to satisfy one niche of playstyle. Why should they roll the dice and risk it all on all these theorycrafters absolutely unproven opinions of what would make their game better. That is just bad business. Better to lose the niche customers than the core of their player base.Because making changes, to satisfy the players who value PC effectiveness has zero impact on the players who play classes purely for their flavour.
The flavour remains the same, regardless of the underlying mechanic.
A player who wants 'an outdoorsy character with a wolf' above all else, so they can bring a toy wolf to the table, and make its head go up and down, while they make woofing sounds, and turn it over to tickle its tummy, and nuzzle it and pet it and wuv it for ever and ever and ever, will not care which class is more effective, between Hunter, Ranger, or Druid.
So why not go under the hood, tinker with each class to make them comparable?
The player whose aim is to 'make a character that I can contribute to the goals of a campaign, from level 1 to level 20' will notice if the mechanics work against that aim.
The vulpaphile won't even notice the difference.
Two things;
I think that mechanics have an impact on flavor. I know it does for me. Saying that it doesn't does make me feel bad because I feel like it attempts to invalidate my own mechanics to flavor concerns and I imagine others could feel the same.
I don't think anyone outright disapproves of theorycrafting. I think that the overabundance of it compared to playtest feedback makes it less useful but I don't think it's an argument of 'either or'. I do not think non-playtest analysis is still valid because changes are occurring because of it. But I also think that playtest data is incredibly important and the relative lack of it inflates it's importance.
Lead Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
I just want to chime in here a bit to set the record straight.
1. We do value theorycraft. You could define that as our job, for the most part. Considering the amount of time the design team and I have spent pouring through theorycraft to pull out data, to suggest that we dont appreciate it is just flat out wrong.
2. We do push people to actually playtest. That is the other component of this process and we need to get feedback on how things are playing in their current iteration. That information is valuable to us as well, in some cases more valuable as it proves or disproves the theorycraft.
3. The reason we are so vocal on this is that it is hard to get in the quantities we need. This is not our first playtest, and history has shown us that if we don't push for it, we dont get enough to help even out for variance and playstyle (which is why PFS is an added boon for us, they work on the same playing field in terms of build and expectations).
This whole process is a delicate one as best. We have to pour through mountains of feedback to get at the source of problems and find solutions. A balanced approach helps us out a lot, with theory and play working together to get us some reliable and useful data.
Alright, I gotta get back to the Arcanist rewrite.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is a playtest. We are asking primarily for playtest experience and data from those experiences. It's all in the name.
We know we will get other types of analysis. It is also very helpful and we do look at it and take it to account. We welcome all sorts of feedback on the classes. We love it actually.
But Christmas (a.k.a. my birthday) is coming, and all we want for the holidays is some playtest. Did I mention that this is called a playtest? :)
Thank you. And consider every playtest you do just an early birthday gift to me. Or not. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Happy birthday Jesus!
Err...Stephen...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Christmas (a.k.a. my birthday) is coming, and all we want for the holidays is some playtest.
Your birthday falls on Christmas? That's rough, I'm a 12/23 myself. All I want for Christmas is to have a half-way decent party for once and for people to stop wrapping my birthday presents in Christmas paper.
So, one of you needs to explain to me precisely why Paizo should risk alienating the majority of their player base just to satisfy one niche of playstyle. Why should they roll the dice and risk it all on all these theorycrafters absolutely unproven opinions of what would make their game better. That is just bad business. Better to lose the niche customers than the core of their player base.Because making changes, to satisfy the players who value PC effectiveness has zero impact on the players who play classes purely for their flavour.
It'll probably have no direct, immediate impact on the players.
Think about this though:
What do you then do about all the past material that isn't balanced? If Pathfinder suddenly need to be balanced at that level, then it follows all the previous material needs revisiting and revising. Books will need replacing. Now you have an impact on the players as they need to choose between carrying around an extra pile of revision sheets, buying new books, moving to electronic format, or not updating (the latter not being an option in PFS play.)
That's also a cost to Paizo, which undoubtedly ends up passed on to the customer through higher prices. Finally, it can't all be done overnight. You're effectively asking for a whole new development pass over the entire game, and that's the point where someone has to look at the figures and decide if it's worth it or not.
I honestly think it's somewhat impractical to go changing the entire game at such a fundamental level at this point, when - bottom line - it's selling well as it stands.
Or, if you keep the balance purely to the new book - what's the point when the rest of the game isn't balanced in the same way?
From a purely business perspective - balance the costs against the benefits. We can only guess at those figures, as we don't know how many extra sales they'd see from the work, or what the work would cost, or what the knock-on effects would be to the player base.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, I am also a Christmas birthday boy (not exactly on Christmas day, but close enough that I grew up with a "combined" present most years...) It's always funny to see others who have the same issues about never really getting a birthday celebration because there's so much going on already around the holidays.
I'm good with it though. I'd mostly just as soon forget my birthday. :)
So, one of you needs to explain to me precisely why Paizo should risk alienating the majority of their player base just to satisfy one niche of playstyle. Why should they roll the dice and risk it all on all these theorycrafters absolutely unproven opinions of what would make their game better. That is just bad business. Better to lose the niche customers than the core of their player base.Because making changes, to satisfy the players who value PC effectiveness has zero impact on the players who play classes purely for their flavour.
It'll probably have no direct, immediate impact on the players.
Think about this though:
What do you then do about all the past material that isn't balanced? If Pathfinder suddenly need to be balanced at that level, then it follows all the previous material needs revisiting and revising. Books will need replacing. Now you have an impact on the players as they need to choose between carrying around an extra pile of revision sheets, buying new books, moving to electronic format, or not updating (the latter not being an option in PFS play.)
That's also a cost to Paizo, which undoubtedly ends up passed on to the customer through higher prices. Finally, it can't all be done overnight. You're effectively asking for a whole new development pass over the entire game, and that's the point where someone has to look at the figures and decide if it's worth it or not.
I honestly think it's somewhat impractical to go changing the entire game at such a fundamental level at this point, when - bottom line - it's selling well as it stands.
Or, if you keep the balance purely to the new book - what's the point when the rest of the game isn't balanced in the same way?
From a purely business perspective - balance the costs against the benefits. We can only guess at those figures, as we don't know how many extra sales they'd see from the work, or what the work would cost, or what the knock-on effects would...
Also for home games it's somewhat unnecessary. After introducing a few third party products balance has stopped becoming an issue aside from a few weaker third party classes since they don't get as regular support.
LOL, I am also a Christmas birthday boy (not exactly on Christmas day, but close enough that I grew up with a "combined" present most years...) It's always funny to see others who have the same issues about never really getting a birthday celebration because there's so much going on already around the holidays.
I'm good with it though. I'd mostly just as soon forget my birthday. :)
Same here. Over the years I've just kind of tuned it and Christmas out. Now my girlfriend is a HUGE Christmas fan. This morning I was reading an article on how much it sucks to have a Christmas birthday when *out of nowhere* she sighs and starts listing all the fun Christmas activities we have to do this year.
Alright, I gotta get back to the Arcanist rewrite.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Hey, Jason, is there any prediction of when we get to see the updates to Arcanists and (hopefully) Swashbucklers and Hunters? Or at least a few more comments from the design team on the concerns raised about those classes?
Hopefully we get to playtest the revised versions too. :)
Post removed along with some replies. Remember the first rule of the Paizo boards, please.
Hey, Jason, is there any prediction of when we get to see the updates to Arcanists and (hopefully) Swashbucklers and Hunters? Or at least a few more comments from the design team on the concerns raised about those classes?Alright, I gotta get back to the Arcanist rewrite.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Don't forget Warpriests.
|
|
This, and also, a lot of the theorycraft is off-base still. Sturgeon's Law very much applies to message boards and it's a lot easier for them to encourage playtest rather than wade through piles of conflicting theorycraft. After all, if they make it clear how much they value playtesting, they might convince people to playtest that might otherwise not have done so. This isn't a knock against theorycrafters, just an attempt to focus the feedback.I would understand this point of view if the theorycrafting was actually conflicting, but in general, it's fairly unified on several issues.
Hunters, Warpriests, and Skalds, for example, have legitimate problems that the vast majority of analysts agree on. Swashbucklers have a lot of conflict about weapon choice, but the save issue is again, acknowledged universally.
Not as universal as you seem to think. You seem to be seeing what you want to see, that which agrees with your opinion. Also don't forget people are more likely to voice negative feedback than positive. We are more likely to criticize than to praise
But these obvious mechanical issues keep getting swept under the, "I can't wait to hear about your playtest" rug.In fact, other than minor typos and clarifications, the only issue that has really been addressed so far in the playtest was non-mechanical. Just about everyone complained about the (lack of) flavor in the Arcanist and they swiftly went about correcting it. This bothers me--they're putting "feel" above effectiveness.
Speaking for my own sake, "feel" will always come before "effectiveness". Paizo caught me by writing great stories. They have kept me by backing up those stories with mechanics (classes, feats, etc.) that capture my imagination.
Also when we sat down to do our playtest, we talked about not playing the class that we liked the most but rather the one we wanted to see in play. I chose the Bloodrager because it was the class that had interested me the least when I read the short descriptions. If I can find time to playtest more I intend to play a Swashbuckler at 1st, to see if the lack of Weapon Finesse at 1st level truly plays as bad as it seems it will.
In science they don't just accept the theoreticians word that something is right, the test it with experiments. After that they test it again and again and again, ad nauseum. They do this to ensure the math errors are not the reason something works. Theorycrafting only goes so far and if it was all that was necessary, Paizo could do all that they need in house.