I get the feeling that Paizo learned a lot from the ACG playtest: specifically, that it's better to have something underperform in the playtest and get a boost upon release (e.g. Hunter) than to scale back power levels after they're out in the wild (e.g. Warpriest).
I do think that means we'll see small bumps to each of the classes when the final book is released, although much of it may come in the form of new feats, spells, and magic items.
Lead Designer
|
Hey there folks,
I get that some feel these classes are underperforming in some venues and situations. This is certainly something we are going to address going forward. That said, one of our primary focuses on a play test like this is whether or not the classes work as a concept and whether or not their mechanics are clear, usable, and fulfilling their intent.
The triggering condition for a second round is a class that needs a complete rebuild, or at the very least, very significant revisions to the core way it operates. Right now, we do not think that is entirely necessary. Changing an abilities save, damage, or flavor does not qualify. We can get a good gauge of that with the data we in the process of collecting. Scrapping an entire ability chain, adding a significant number of new class features, or rewriting the entire class would trigger a second round, but I am not seeing the need for that just yet.
Time will tell, but we got a bit burned in the past by being a bit too reactionary on this front and we are taking a bit more measured caution with this particular play test.
Thank you all for the feedback. We are listening and are looking forward to continuing the process.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Over on the Topless Robot Blog there were twenty questions asked to D&D's 5th edition R&D team. One answer stuck out for me and is probably relevant to this playtest.
"We felt that the overall feedback cycle on the game had been broken. There are people on forums and social media who talk to us, but we suspected that they didn't represent the overall preferences of D&D players as a whole. The playtest was aimed at broadening the audience we communicated with and using that dialogue to direct our work."
There are problem with some of the classes but most of them are not really broken to the point where they can't be tweaked in house. I think that anyone claiming that they are significantly more damaged than that are exaggerating. I also imagine that the devs would want to take more than just the paizo forum's perspective on the classes and react to more than just general forum panic and uproar which is definitely not always on point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
I get that some feel these classes are underperforming in some venues and situations. This is certainly something we are going to address going forward. That said, one of our primary focuses on a play test like this is whether or not the classes work as a concept and whether or not their mechanics are clear, usable, and fulfilling their intent.
The triggering condition for a second round is a class that needs a complete rebuild, or at the very least, very significant revisions to the core way it operates. Right now, we do not think that is entirely necessary. Changing an abilities save, damage, or flavor does not qualify. We can get a good gauge of that with the data we in the process of collecting. Scrapping an entire ability chain, adding a significant number of new class features, or rewriting the entire class would trigger a second round, but I am not seeing the need for that just yet.
Time will tell, but we got a bit burned in the past by being a bit too reactionary on this front and we are taking a bit more measured caution with this particular play test.
Thank you all for the feedback. We are listening and are looking forward to continuing the process.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
That's...discouraging. Without a MAJOR revision of the Burn mechanic and how Blasts scale in general, I know I'd never probably play a Kineticist in a real game, and I think a lot of the playtesters agree.
So if those things aren't getting changed (which would indeed be a core change to how the class works), I may have to write off the Kineticist, as cool of a concept as it is.
Over on the Topless Robot Blog there were twenty questions asked to D&D's 5th edition R&D team. One answer stuck out for me and is probably relevant to this playtest.
"We felt that the overall feedback cycle on the game had been broken. There are people on forums and social media who talk to us, but we suspected that they didn't represent the overall preferences of D&D players as a whole. The playtest was aimed at broadening the audience we communicated with and using that dialogue to direct our work."
There are problem with some of the classes but most of them are not really broken to the point where they can't be tweaked in house. I think that anyone claiming that they are significantly more damaged than that are exaggerating. I also imagine that the devs would want to take more than just the paizo forum's perspective on the classes and react to more than just general forum panic and uproar which is definitely not always on point.
If that's the case, why bother doing a playtest here at all?
Writing off all criticism as "general forum panic and uproar" and using that as a reason to ignore it makes the entire playtest process pointless. You may as well just cut out the middleman and ship it without asking anyone at that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Rynjin. I love the idea of the Kineticist and tried very hard to make it work for me but if Burn and Feel the Burn stand as is, at best it'll go to my 'maybe dip' pile and not in my 'single class' pile. On top of that it looks like a ranged con based class but is in reality a dex/str based melee class. If it doesn't need "significant revisions" then I have little hope for the class going forward.
As I can see, Burn is a very significant ability, that is, at least, controversial.
I never thought I'd actually completely agree with Graystone, but, uh... yeah, this is a thing, then.
There won't be a second round unless a class "needs a MAJOR revision"?
So, the Medium requiring either a wholly-new HD/BAB Chassis - or better yet leave the HD/BAB as is but give it 6/9 spellcasting levels with a defined list of general-purpose spells at each level - along with giving it actual class mechanics independent of Spirits that make it FEEL more like a "Medium" and less like a Pokemon Trainer, and heavily rewriting the Influence mechanic to probably remove the "DM's forced to turn your character into an NPC for a day" clause... that doesn't count as a "MAJOR revision?"
Removing Burn from the Kineticist isn't a "major revision?"
Assigning the Psychic, Spiritualist, and Mesmerist to be Alternate Classes to the Sorcerer, Summoner, and Bard, respectively, rather than being glaring palette-swaps of those base classes isn't a "major revision?"
I really like the IDEAS of the Occultist, Kineticist, and, honestly, the Medium, but the Medium especially needs a full-body makeover before it's even close to being playable.
Apparently those more-familiar with the Kineticist also believe that Burn needs to be taken out back and Old Yeller'ed.
@ Rynjin, I'm not writing off all criticism from the forums I'm saying that its not necessarily the end-all be-all of representing the player base. The forum playtest isn't unimportant but I imagine that developers would want more than just that. Lowering the importance of online reactions is nowhere near the same as eradicating it.
Also I feel like that post shows how reactionary the forums can be. I saw
Scrapping an entire ability chain, adding a significant number of new class features, or rewriting the entire class would trigger a second round, but I am not seeing the need for that just yet.
However your response is in reaction with a mechanic of one of the six classes that is one of the worst problem in the playtest but probably doesn't necessarily need all that much revision considering that its a simple mechanic, not to mention that its entirely possible that the devs perceive reliance on Feel The Burn is the actual culprit. From my point of view Kineticist is definitely the most damaged class but wouldn't expect it alone to warrant a full scale reboot.
As well, with my quote and my own post were worded as "broadening" feedback sources and "more than" but reduced to "Writing off all criticism". I feel like this happens a lot on the forums and if designers/developers feel the same they I imagine that they'd want to broaden their feedback sources past the forums.
Apparently those more-familiar with the Kineticist also believe that Burn needs to be taken out back and Old Yeller'ed.
I wouldn't even go that far. If you uncoupled feel the burn from burn and then reworked the amount of burn you take it could be saves IMO.
Once that's fixed, it needs a big bump in skills, skill points, utility abilities and overall more options to avoid the 'cookie-cutter' build you need to make it work. Then the melee options need fixing since a ranged class shouldn't have melee as it's best option... But at least it doesn't need a major revision... :P
Apparently those more-familiar with the Kineticist also believe that Burn needs to be taken out back and Old Yeller'ed.I wouldn't even go that far. If you uncoupled feel the burn from burn and then reworked the amount of burn you take it could be saves IMO.
Once that's fixed, it needs a big bump in skills, skill points, utility abilities and overall more options to avoid the 'cookie-cutter' build you need to make it work. Then the melee options need fixing since a ranged class shouldn't have melee as it's best option... But at least it doesn't need a major revision... :P
I keep seeing this but IS it a ranged class? Actually that's a bad question, its main ability is a ranged attack so sure, I guess. Better question; should it really default to being a ranged class? I like the default assumption as being a switch-hitter regardless of how the class actually functions. Or rather I hoped the design assumption was switch hitting.
I keep seeing this but IS it a ranged class? Actually that's a bad question, its main ability is a ranged attack so sure, I guess. Better question; should it really default to being a ranged class? I like the default assumption as being a switch-hitter regardless of how the class actually functions. Or rather I hoped the design assumption was switch hitting.Apparently those more-familiar with the Kineticist also believe that Burn needs to be taken out back and Old Yeller'ed.I wouldn't even go that far. If you uncoupled feel the burn from burn and then reworked the amount of burn you take it could be saves IMO.
Once that's fixed, it needs a big bump in skills, skill points, utility abilities and overall more options to avoid the 'cookie-cutter' build you need to make it work. Then the melee options need fixing since a ranged class shouldn't have melee as it's best option... But at least it doesn't need a major revision... :P
Nope, not even a switch hitter. If you do ANYTHING other than melee, you lost out on damage. There is no way around it. It's like making the best attack option for the gunslinger the musket bash over the head...
|
Lead Designer
|
Folks, lets all just scale back on the pronouncements a bit. These are not the final versions of these classes. While I think a lot of the concerns addressed in these posts will be part of our revision, I think folks are trying to quantify magnitudes on a different scale then we do.
We are not writing off criticism. Far from it, but we are careful to take things in measure. We just launched the surveys and those are going to tell us a lot about the status of these classes.
I am not going to address specific issues here in this thread, as this is by no means the place for it. If folks are going to devolve into arguing with one another on such issues, this thread will be locked (not even a warning at this point.. just letting folks know to keep it civil).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I kinda second Malwing's idea, too - broadening the playtest base would be a good idea.
There are a lot of optimizers on the boards here, as well as people focused primarily on PFS. PFS is a wholly different beast than your typical home game, and the "value" of any given class (which usually means strategic) seems to be weighted much differently in PFS than it is in home games.
I think it'd be a bit better of a litmus to expand the testing to pool to include people who play Pathfinder, but don't visit the forums (meaning, really, the majority of players). This would also include lots of players who play casually, and aren't optimizers or powergamers.
I kinda tend to side with the non-optimizers, even though I like to optimize myself, and my posts concerning the OA playtest have largely been about how labyrinthine a Class the Medium seems; to me the value of a class is how original/unique to Pathfinder it is, how well it embodies a character archetype, how balanced it is, and how easy it is to use without sacrificing a happy-medium-level of complexity (so, of course, I've liked every one of the 32 Base Classes thus far).
My gripe with the Medium is that it doesn't seem to fit any of these qualities except originality/uniqueness, which is honestly a first for me. I personally don't want to see that in Pathfinder, and I really don't want that to be a precedent to be set (since, so-far, I've had nothing but praise for the system, even mechanics I don't personally use in my games).
My stance is supported by some, while others are happy with the class being a giant build-it-yourself collage of abilities.
There are other divided arguments apparently concerning other class' mechanics (Burn keeps coming up for the Kineticist; I'm sure there are other arguments for the other classes).
Getting feedback from outside of the forums may help give a better idea of what the general gaming public considers "acceptable" in a class.
We just launched the surveys and those are going to tell us a lot about the status of these classes.
Where can these be found? I looked earlier today can couldn't find a trace.
We just launched the surveys and those are going to tell us a lot about the status of these classes.Where can these be found? I looked earlier today can couldn't find a trace.Check the blog that went up this afternoon.
Jason
Ah, you guys put it up 50 min ago. Cool, off to check them out. :)