Unchained, can it live up to all these expectations?


Product Discussion

101 to 150 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Mark Seifter wrote:

Sorry, the zombie and virus example is an actual quiz question from the class I TAed. I edited in an upshot paragraph for what the effect is, but it basically simplifies to something akin to Occam's Razor. Let's say you have a circuit that isn't working, and you figure it has to be one of three particular transistors that is causing it. You take out the first transistor and test it on the ammeter and it's completely shot. This lowers the chance that the other two are broken. Sure, they might still be broken too, but since transistor 1 being broken would cause the problem in and of itself, it's now much less likely that the other 2 are broken. But let's say transistor 1 works fine. Now it's become more likely that the other 2 are broken than it was before you tested transistor 1.

Does that make sense?

<nitpick>

Each circuit is either broken, or it isn't. Once you've tested the first one, the amount of information available has changed, allowing you to be restate your original hypothesis.

</nitpick>


Papa-DRB wrote:

Can you simplify this for a retired dumb electrical engineer whose college days included transistor circuits?

-- david

edit: and use simple words, please.

In my experience, "dumb" and "electrical engineer" are mutually exclusive. ;-)

Designer

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Thanks Mark! I'm sure you and everyone there will do your best. I am (and have expressed openly) utterly disappointed with the releases of the ACG but I'm pretty sure that need not be said again.

I do think Paizo should probably put a dedicated staffer on FAQ's for a few (or several even) months to address the growing concern of needed FAQ's. I know you can't do everything, but there are a lot of issues that haven't been addressed for years. I would also like to see the FAQ section totally rebuilt, I know it is laid out per book, but its not very intuitive and often I can't find FAQ's for days that I know exist because of the layout. I know some say its fine but some are in my boat, I find it awfully hard to navigate and fins anything on there.

Anyway, to be somewhat constructive here, here are some needed FAQ

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

I am happy to tell you that the vast majority of your high priority FAQs are on my short term list as well. Also, the Elf thing in low priority seems pretty clear to me that it's total limit, not starting amount, and that it's no FAQ needed. Does someone have an ambiguity in there that makes it less clearcut? (if so, send me a PM or make another thread for it)

Designer

bugleyman wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Sorry, the zombie and virus example is an actual quiz question from the class I TAed. I edited in an upshot paragraph for what the effect is, but it basically simplifies to something akin to Occam's Razor. Let's say you have a circuit that isn't working, and you figure it has to be one of three particular transistors that is causing it. You take out the first transistor and test it on the ammeter and it's completely shot. This lowers the chance that the other two are broken. Sure, they might still be broken too, but since transistor 1 being broken would cause the problem in and of itself, it's now much less likely that the other 2 are broken. But let's say transistor 1 works fine. Now it's become more likely that the other 2 are broken than it was before you tested transistor 1.

Does that make sense?

<nitpick>

Testing something one circuit has no effect on whether others are broken (that is, the likelihood of the other 2 being broken does not change). Each circuit is either broken, or it isn't. Once you've tested the first one, the amount of information available has changed, allowing you to be restate your original hypothesis.

</nitpick>

We are talking about different things, but we are both right. I was talking about P(T2 broken) vs P(T2 broken | T1 broken). For sure P(T2 broken) is always constant.


Mark Seifter wrote:
We are talking about different things, but we are both right. I was talking about P(T2 broken) vs P(T2 broken | T1 broken). For sure P(T2 broken) is always constant.

Mark:

Don't mind me. I might be slightly pedantic. And by slightly, I mean "very."

;-)


Mark Seifter wrote:
Papa-DRB wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Posted a whole lot of stuff that I don't have a clue about...

Can you simplify this for a retired dumb electrical engineer whose college days included transistor circuits?

-- david

edit: and use simple words, please.

Sorry, the zombie and virus example is an actual quiz question from the class I TAed. I edited in an upshot paragraph for what the effect is, but it basically simplifies to something akin to Occam's Razor. Let's say you have a circuit that isn't working, and you figure it has to be one of three particular transistors that is causing it. You take out the first transistor and test it on the ammeter and it's completely shot. This lowers the chance that the other two are broken. Sure, they might still be broken too, but since transistor 1 being broken would cause the problem in and of itself, it's now much less likely that the other 2 are broken. But let's say transistor 1 works fine. Now it's become more likely that the other 2 are broken than it was before you tested transistor 1.

Does that make sense?

Yes. Occam's Razor I understand, and your example is perfect. thanks,

-- david


Mark Seifter wrote:
I am happy to tell you that the vast majority of your high priority FAQs are on my short term list as well. Also, the Elf thing in low priority seems pretty clear to me that it's total limit, not starting amount, and that it's no FAQ needed. Does someone have an ambiguity in there that makes it less clearcut? (if so, send me a PM or make another thread for it)

Thanks! Yeah, reading it again it seems fine, I just saw another thread where it was being discussed so brought it up for inclusion's sake. Good luck, hope you get everything squared away, you've renewed my hope so don't let us down ;)


bugleyman wrote:
Papa-DRB wrote:

Can you simplify this for a retired dumb electrical engineer whose college days included transistor circuits?

-- david

edit: and use simple words, please.

In my experience, "dumb" and "electrical engineer" are mutually exclusive. ;-)

Thanks Bugley!

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and reply to it. Be civil to each other and leave drama from other threads out of this one, please.


Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.

I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).


Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.

I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).

I'd tell him what you think would make you feel better about the playtest.

I think on the wake of the ACG, it's hard to be excited about anything Pathfinder. But, couldn't hurt to tell him what you think it needs to get you excited.


Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.
I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).

I'd tell him what you think would make you feel better about the playtest.

I think on the wake of the ACG, it's hard to be excited about anything Pathfinder. But, couldn't hurt to tell him what you think it needs to get you excited.

There's not much to do, though... As you said, it's the ACG that is making it difficult for me to get excited about future releases. My disappointment with this book tainted my interest in future releases.

Instead of excited anticipation, right now, all I can muster is cautious expectation...


What was wrong with the Mythic rules? Sorry I'm way out of the loop and the impression I had was that people liked Mythic. I read through it once and never used it because honestly it seemed more complicated than half my players can handle.


Malwing wrote:
What was wrong with the Mythic rules? Sorry I'm way out of the loop and the impression I had was that people liked Mythic. I read through it once and never used it because honestly it seemed more complicated than half my players can handle.

I don't know if people like it or not. I honestly have no idea how (un)popular they are. All I can say is that I don't like them.

IMHO, they are a pointless power creep that adds very little more than inflated numbers. Mythic rules also imply that the only way for a character to have superhuman abilities is having mythic tiers, despite the fact that any character beyond 6th level is already far and beyond what normal humans can do ("You can't really play Hercules without using Mythic rules!"). It takes options that should exist in the game (like a generic Dex-to-damage feat) and puts them forever beyond the reach of normal games.

I was excited to play WotR 'til I found out it uses mythic rules. At that point, I automatically lose all interest in playing or GMing anything that uses Mythic rules. That how bad I think Mythic is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On mythic rules:
Also, Mythic rules add a hellish lot of work for a GM and a ton of unnecessary abilities to PCs (players already fail to remember all the abilities of their 6th level character, do we need to add two other sheets of stuff?). And not just that, it makes a hell to rebalance every challenge. Mechanic-wise, to implement mythic is very masochistic.
More so in perspective of the fact that, while it damages the game mechanically, it doesn't really add anything to its feel and atmosphere; creatures above a certain level are already "mythic", and gain abilities and numbers at a certain rate... what mythic rules do is add more stuff at a quicker rate. If you want a campaign with superpowers, you can just start with PCs at a level higher than 1, and you'll also retain an established balance.
On a side note, it's hilarious how in Mythic Adventures the non-mythic characters are always spoken of as mundane and not so great just to bolster the false feeling that mythic ones are the true legends. "Yeah, that Wizard who disintegrated a Dragon is really a vulgar commoner... it's that one with Fireball and a couple mythic tiers who is truly legendary!"
Seriously, let's maintain some soberness.

Back on topic...
As someone who never had all the problems people keep crying about with Monks, Rogues, etc., I just hope the redesigned classes end up being balanced and not just crazy like the ones from Advanced Classes Guide.


Best summary of how I see Epic/Mythic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/

I've been completely disinterested in the last three playtests -- but it wasn't Paizo's doing. It was the participants.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/
I've been completely disinterested in the last three playtests -- but it wasn't Paizo's doing. It was the participants.

What? You were put off by TRUE GAMERS BEING PASSIONATE? Preposterous.


I really have no idea what to think about PF unchained. So many years of "Rogue talents are fine", "2 skill s point per level for the fighter is ok", "there is no martial/caster imbalance" and etc that I can not see how they will address the things I find bad designed with PF.

EDIT: Although, to be fair, the did addressed a lot of thing for the monk.


I remember seeing a forward by Monte Cooke about Pathfinder developers discussing and understanding why certain things worked the way they did and applauded them continuing the logic. I think that Pathfinder follows a traditional internal game logic that they don't want to disrupt because its very ingrained in the game and Pathfinder unchained is a loophole to disrupt game assumptions without touching things they're afraid to touch.

I'm pretty sure I'll see Pathfinder Unchained much like Ultimate Campaign where I'll have subsystems I use all the time, ones I'll use on a case by case basis, and some I'll never bother with. So I guess I'm hyped but expecting some turds based on the nature of the product.


On Mythic Adventures, I thour that's what it was supposed to do. Like it was essentially ten extra levels that can be concurrent if you feel like complicating your life.

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:

I think it's the aftermath of ACG. It's still upon us so it's hard to be excited for a new book when a current one is still receiving negative reviews.

Still the playtest should be interesting. Thanks again for the comments Mark. I'm glad you keep on posting here on the forums for us and hope ou keep it up.

Actually, I really like the ACG, and can't really complain all that much about the needed errata. But to be honest, I am still in a wrestling match with Mythic Adventures and WotR, we sometimes stop for a heated love affair, before re resume... it's complicated ^^

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/
I've been completely disinterested in the last three playtests -- but it wasn't Paizo's doing. It was the participants.

My participation in both the Mythic and ACG playtests were minimal precisely because of the drama that the playtests seem to attract. I've also noticed that a portion of that drama seems to cling to the forums well after the playtest if over. Most of it seems to move over into the Rules forum where it gets convolved with RAW/RAI?Rules angst.

-Skeld


Malwing wrote:
What was wrong with the Mythic rules? Sorry I'm way out of the loop and the impression I had was that people liked Mythic.

Nothing. It's very popular and complaints are few.


Mythic is gonzo.

I (and a number of others) like gonzo. (I've reworked my RoW campaign to use mythic, and am playing in a homebrew mythic game being run by a friend. My next homebrew campaign will use mythic as well.) Your mileage may vary.

But yeah, my interest in the playtest threads plummeted like a brick when I determined the bulk of each thread was the same two or three people ranting endlessly and drowning out all other discussion.

I'm looking forward to the OA playtest because I want to see the classes. I expect the threads will downgrade into wastes of time, though.

Heh. All I actually want out of Pathfinder Unchained is a GM friendly summoner. As it is now, I find making NPC summoners to be a ridiculous time sink unless I cop out by going master summoner and completely ignoring the eidolon. Faster-to-build eidolons would be fantastic.

Anything else the design team does on top of that would be gravy.

Shadow Lodge

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/
I've been completely disinterested in the last three playtests -- but it wasn't Paizo's doing. It was the participants.

There were playtests?


In regards to Occult Adventures, I'm probably going to quietly playtest at home and post feedback. The ACG playtest was emotionally exhausting and ideas from table experience seems to get more traction than constant rants that they should burn the project to the ground and start something else. During the playtest I had the very unpopular opinions that the classes should not have their own spell lists because it would be more difficult to assign third party spells to them and that Bloodrager did not necessarily need to have spells at all or it would feel like it's overshadowing Barbarian. While I think there are good arguments against that most of the arguments I got was "But there NEEDS to be a full BAB arcane caster" and "Paizo should not care about third party design space"(The latter I find a bad argument because this design space would include Player Companion spells.) I can't complain too much because Two of the classes got their own spell lists (which is already proving to be a pain in the butt when it comes to splatbooks and third party spells, thanks guys...) so it must have been a popular enough opinion to give out unique spell lists.

While I am very dissatisfied with the editing mistakes and maybe a few feats I've been happy with the overall result.

With Pathfinder Unchained the entire book is supposed to be a set of take-it-or-leave-it subsystems/rewrites so exactly how high can our expectations be when not opting in is the assumed option? Even if it's an editing nightmare what's being sold is essentially house rules so the idea is more valuable than the crunch. The worst case scenario is that all of the subsystems/rewrites are terrible, but I think with the stuff promised people are going to buy it based one three or four things even if they don't use the rest of the book.

What is apparently supposed to happen;

New Barbarian: I didnt' think we needed a new one but people are complaining that Bloodrager makes it obsolete so I guess...

New Monk: I've been hearing people complaining about Monk since I started playing the game. While I've never felt underpowered while playing a monk I guess that's what people want...

New Rogue: Whatever they could do with the rogue couldn't be worse than what the Rogue is now and from convention videos it looks like it gets a lot of debuff stuff which makes me happy. I'd get the book just for the new Rogue. I've done it for third party materials so why not?

New Summoner: Sure whatever.

New action resolution mechanics: I'm curious but not excited. This is something to ignore or the most spectacular thing ever.

math-lite system for on-the-fly monster creation: Oh god does this hype me. Anything to make DMing easier.

new system for generating dynamic magic items that go far beyond a simple +1: This is one of those things that if it works at all I'd probably buy the book just for it no matter what it does.

new resource pool for martial characters: I already bought a third party product do this so it may be redundant.

new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components.: I always felt like material components were the most ignored and useless thing in the game so this is another thing I'd probably buy an entire book for no matter what it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big problem with Mythic: Much of it is just "more numbers, higher numbers, better numbers". That's the stuff that doesn't need a new ruleset for.

The smaller, but still significant problem with Mythic: It locks options that shouldn't need Mythic (a viable Vital Strike, Dex to damage) to Mythic, which is annoying.

The good parts about Mythic: It DOES provide a number of, as someone put it, "gonzo" abilities that really give the game more of a powerful feel without simpy being more numbers. Seven League Leap, for instance.

All in all, it's a mixed bag. I like it, but only parts of it, and I can see why people can be unhappy with it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A handy guide to surviving the playtest.

Grab a group of players, and put together some characters using playtest rules.

Run an adventure.

Report your findings, and perhaps some suggestions for improvements and changes (AFTER the bit with the findings).

Only visit the specific class pages to grab errata by looking specifically for posts from the Devs.

Do not engage with the theorycrafters, they will only make you sad.
I repeat. Do not. Engage.

Enjoy the free preview of the cool class that's going to be out soon and enjoy a cool refreshing beverage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Theorycraft in a playtest is often more useful than actual gameplay, since given the exceedingly short timespan you're given, you can really only run a few short adventures at best.

Circumstances, character choice, etc. skew the actual results a lot more in those circumstances.

Frex, if you were playtesting the Swashbuckler. The adventure you ran him in just happened to have no Fort or Will saves required from the Swash, or the one she did roll were passed because he rolled high n the die.

Given that data points, Swashbucklers fare just fine.

However, as much as people decry "useless" theorycraft, it can easily show that is not the case. In a game based 80% on math, working out the proper mathematical chances of your Swash surviving various things requiring Fort or Will saves ends up with data that is gong to be more correct in the long term than that one adventure you ran.


Its not that theory crafting is useless but but unlike play testing it contains information the developers already have and despite being based on the math vary wildly from each other during play testing. Not to mention situations like Rogue sucking so much but I still see one in every party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
unlike play testing it contains information the developers already have

It doesn't, though. That's why the playtests are run. Players can often spot things the devs missed or hadn't thought through.

Just because they have everything that would allow them to gather the data, does not mean they actually HAVE said data, or have completely thought through the implications of it. If they had, there would be much less need for playtesting.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is me not engaging and drinking a cool beverage.


Rynjin wrote:
Malwing wrote:
unlike play testing it contains information the developers already have

It doesn't, though. That's why the playtests are run. Players can often spot things the devs missed or hadn't thought through.

Just because they have everything that would allow them to gather the data, does not mean they actually HAVE said data, or have completely thought through the implications of it. If they had, there would be much less need for playtesting.

I concur.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Theorycraft in a playtest is often more useful than actual gameplay, since given the exceedingly short timespan you're given, you can really only run a few short adventures at best.

...

However, as much as people decry "useless" theorycraft, it can easily show that is not the case. In a game based 80% on math, working out the proper mathematical chances of your Swash surviving various things requiring Fort or Will saves ends up with data that is gong to be more correct in the long term than that one adventure you ran.

Theorycrafting is a valuable tool, yes. But like all tools, you need to know when to use the proper one, and how to use it properly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a playtest that didn't have both theory craft and play data would be doomed to fail as a play test, because you really need both to be able to gauge anything.


In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's everyone without spells needs skills. Cause, otherwise, your out of combat contributions will end up being small.

And from a class design stand point the brawler could have acrobatics, Escape artist, perception and intimidate as important class skills, while also needing/wanting some others like Stealth.

personally I'd like to see fighters jumped up to 4. I'm pretty ok with every other 2 skill point class.

Shadow Lodge

Theorycraft push the limits of the system, this is unlikely to happen on the playtests since, but there are player who really like to push the limits of the system in game. By optimizing to the max you can find loopholes and abuses. Theoricraftign is not useless however maybe some people should stop beign so negative in general


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.

Without skills, spell-less classes can barely contribute out of combat. This is why skill points are important, because they give some versatility to the classes that need it the most.

This is a big issue, and one of the main reasons Fighters are considered underpowered (and boring) by many players, because unless they can stand still and hit stuff, they have nothing significant to do.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.

We have have this conversation before, we will never reach an agreemnet, I honestly can not imagine how can someone think like you.

So, in order to not talk about that again I rephrase, "You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that restricting Warpriest class abilities to the god favored weapon was a bad idea"

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I think a playtest that didn't have both theory craft and play data would be doomed to fail as a play test, because you really need both to be able to gauge anything.

I also think that theorycraft and playtest data can both be valuable. Of course, some examples of each of them are not valuable, and some of each of them are. Clearly theorycraft will depend on the backing in math and mechanics, but to give an example of playtest data that isn't valuable, in previous playtests, there have sometimes been posters who want to get Class X to have a strong save of a certain kind, typically a Will save, so they build a playtest character who dumps Wisdom to 7, doesn't take Iron Will or a trait for Will saves, and then fails a whole bunch of Will saves.

In general, representative playtests are more valuable to us here because they're far more time-consuming to generate, so they're a resource that is scarcer, and even if we had infinite time, we still can't generate playtests on our own that test the ephemeral factors that vary from person to person. Theorycraft we can generate ourselves quite easily, but there's still value in that a different set of eyes might see something we didn't. Especially theorycraft with lots of math. When building the kineticist, I made a giant spreadsheet full of math of current options as touchstones, and I'm pretty likely to be interested in significant derived math in the coming playtest for my classes. However, I'm even more likely to be interested in playtest data because no matter how good we are at analyzing it from our armchair, sometimes things are revealed in the actual game that we didn't anticipate. Some mechanics, for instance, are mathematically and mechanically sound but just aren't as fun to play, and that's something impossible to know without a lot of people trying them out, a lot of different people than the actual designers themselves. I've been playtesting both my classes in Skull and Shackles (happy talk like a pirate day today too, yarr!!!!) for hours every day after work to reveal any hidden lessons, but even then, it's more important to have playtest data from as many different people as possible in order to learn many different perspectives.

In any case, this topic about the playtest is I think a useful one, but it isn't really about Unchained. We may want to go to a new thread with this soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Theorycrafting has a place but in just about EVERYTHING the practical & actual trumps theory. Theoretical and/or statistical analysis is fine but let's not pretend that the scientific method is getting rigorously applied here. In most cases, the "analysis" is comparable to a bunch of sports fans arguing the merits of a fantasy football (insert preferred sport, if you prefer) league and their Dream Team.

And with RPGs, there are multiple, yet equally valid play styles to consider. The majority of the Theorycrafting on these boards that I've read, particularly with respect to playtests, make zero provisions for that consideration. Honestly, most of it comes across as political lobbying for what they want rather than objective analysis. Not all, certainly, and perhaps "most" is overstating it. Perhaps, it's just another very vocal and belligerent minority but it certainly undermines the "statistical sample".

In any case, I've been pretty happy with Paizo's ability to solicit feedback without surrendering the development process or sacrificing design goals. YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue with theory crafting is twofold.

1. Its way more abundant than anything. I'm not saying it's useless but three minutes after numbers are released it seems like everyone is an expert producing results that are impractical in an actual game. Eventually you can weed through everything and get the theorycrafting that's actually useful and find things you didn't think of but gameplay data and impressions are so rare by comparison it becomes valuable.

2. I cannot ignore popular theorycrafting that does not work at the table. Happens often enough where I have to doublecheck it by goldfishing a PFS module before I believe popular assertions and I take numbers with a grain of salt.

I'm not against theory crafting but its only as useful as the crafter and isn't the end all be all of analyzing parts of the game because of gameplay biases and ignoring factors that show up in actual game play.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem isn't that theory crafting is a part of the playtests, the problem is that people have trouble receiving criticism or being told "no" without getting butt-hurt.

Participate and contribute, but leave the 'tude at the door.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Drop it, please.


Lemmy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In the Brawler thread some people asked for that calss to only have 2+int skills per level because fighter have that numbe of skill points. You do not really need 10 playtest game sesions to note that was a terrible idea.

This is a big issue with me, sure I like having more skill points, but what does the brawler really need them for? It's not like his class abilities require it like with the ranger or rogue (and ergo slayer).

I just don't understand this whole "evarY1 neEdz alL da SkilLZ" notion that has come over the forums lately.

Without skills, spell-less classes can barely contribute out of combat. This is why skill points are important, because they give some versatility to the classes that need it the most.

This is a big issue, and one of the main reasons Fighters are considered underpowered (and boring) by many players, because unless they can stand still and hit stuff, they have nothing significant to do.

I have few issues with such characters because I don't feel out of combat requires skills to be able to play the game per say.

The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

Personally, I think a more real problem with the game has to do with internal balance. MAD classes and SAD classes often are defined by being either martial oriented or magic oriented, and I feel the game could seriously benefit if Unchained presented an alternate ability generating system that granted a way to have better physical scores than mental scores without breaking game balance.

If it was possible for fighters to get the same physical stats you see normally (usually 18 14 14) and still be able to invest into a mental stat (like a 14 INT) we would see a lot less complaints about their lack of skills me thinks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I have few issues with such characters because I don't feel out of combat requires skills to be able to play the game per say.

Impossible? No, of course not... But if your character has no skills and no spells, what does she do out of combat? Most martial characters have little to nothing else to rely on.

Admittedly, you might compensate to varying degrees through roleplaying, but that's basically the GM giving you "imaginary skill points" to reward the player, which is not a bad thing (nor is it related to class, so it's still unfair and unbalanced), but why not have it written down in official rules if that's going to be the case anyway?

master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.

You shouldn't need an specific archetype to do basic stuff. And no matter what skill role you want your character to play, he'll need at least 4 skill points to be good at it. 2 skill points will, at best, make you mediocre at a single skill role.

IMHO, every class other than Int-based full casters (i.e.: Arcanist, Witch and Wizard) should have at very least 4 skill points per level, and every spell-less class should have at least 6.

I mean... How difficult is it to learn to use heavy armor that it leaves no time for the Fighter to learn other stuff? How come a Druid has time to cast spells, turn into animals, and find an animal companion and still have more time to learn twice as many skills than Fighters, who are completely devoted to mastering non-magical abilities?

master_marshmallow wrote:

Personally, I think a more real problem with the game has to do with internal balance. MAD classes and SAD classes often are defined by being either martial oriented or magic oriented, and I feel the game could seriously benefit if Unchained presented an alternate ability generating system that granted a way to have better physical scores than mental scores without breaking game balance.

If it was possible for fighters to get the same physical stats you see normally (usually 18 14 14) and still be able to invest into a mental stat (like a 14 INT) we would see a lot less complaints about their lack of skills me thinks.

MADness and SADness do have influence over a character's versatility, but that's not all... Fighters are reasonably SAD, actually... They need Str as their main attribute, and Dex and Con, which everyone needs anyways. However, they do need a decent Wis score to compensate for that awful will save, since even taking a trait and a feat will not suffice at mid/high levels, so Int is pretty low at the list of priorities.

101 to 150 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Unchained, can it live up to all these expectations? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.