I guess that if you don't mind your analysis being hand waved away as inadequate and inferior just because, then you wouldn't find it insulting.How do you know that your analysis is being hand waved away as inadequate and inferior? Is it because Jason referred to non-playtest posts as "armchair feedback"?
This thread is tantamount to it. And I'm seeing the same condescending attitude here as I've received from when I've play tested other products, but made comments outside the areas I playtested.
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
That *really* depends on the theory in question. Some theories can't be practiced; some practices are so blatantly wrong that there is literally no theory behind them no matter how much "practice" is applied.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, please don't devalue theorycraft posts. They do have a solid value.
But also, even if they are equally useful at face value, they do have less comparative value than high-volume playtest data simply by comparative advantage (because it is easier for the design team ourselves to replicate the theorycraft than the hours of playtesting).
It might have been a nicer way to say that some of the results coming back are not as useful as others. I cannot speak for the dev team, but just reading some of the threads gives you the feeling that some reviewers were just not happy with what they saw and are venting (sometimes to the extreme) rather than providing something a little more tangible than AR#E%@#%@#% IT SUCKS!!!!!1one.
A certain amount of venting is good and can help illustrate what they are upset about. Page after page of diatribe isn't helpful to the play test or the reader. Everyone knows that X didn't like what they read and doesn't think that they should need to play it. Does anyone else have anything to add to the discussion or is it another few pages of screaming and telling anyone who says different they are wrong wrong wrong!!!
I'm working on my own play testing but don't want to get drawn into the rage fest so I am unsure if I will bother to post it.
It might have been a nicer way to say that some of the results coming back are not as useful as others. I cannot speak for the dev team, but just reading some of the threads gives you the feeling that some reviewers were just not happy with what they saw and are venting (sometimes to the extreme) rather than providing something a little more tangible than AR#E%@#%@#% IT SUCKS!!!!!1one.
A certain amount of venting is good and can help illustrate what they are upset about. Page after page of diatribe isn't helpful to the play test or the reader. Everyone knows that X didn't like what they read and doesn't think that they should need to play it. Does anyone else have anything to add to the discussion or is it another few pages of screaming and telling anyone who says different they are wrong wrong wrong!!!
I'm working on my own play testing but don't want to get drawn into the rage fest so I am unsure if I will bother to post it.
You should post it when you get a chance to the playtest forum. The general discussion forum is where most of the debate is and easily avoided. Plus I wanna hear about what others are doing with their vigilantes!
Don't get me wrong, knight - playtesting is very valuable. I'm looking forward to reading your analysis when you post it. But it isn't the only kind of analysis. Like Mark just said, they all have their value.
So please don't get discouraged and please post your analysis and experience when you're done playtesting.
As a scientist who regularly collects and evaluates data, I'll tell you that all data is valuable and it's a conglomeration of all available data that helps the most.
If the devs are as good as I think they are - and based on my interactions with Mark I'm fairly confident that he is - he'll take all the good and the bad and evaluate them together. Part of doing data review when that data is from a variety of sources is evaluating the worth of each individual piece of data. Those with bad methodology get ranked less than those with solid methodology, and then they are weighted appropriately when giving a final review.
This is how review articles in the scientific arena work, and a good product designer will operate in a similar fashion.
|
Theory is a fine thing. It really, really is.
But by its very nature, theory that is not compared to practice is useless. That's true of any kind of analysis in any situation, but tabletop RPGs are no less so than any others. If it's not tested, it can't be relied on. It's sound and fury, like the Bard said, and signifies exactly jack squat.
Theory is an extremely important, even necessary first step for such things, don't get me wrong. Theory tells you where you should look for important data when it comes to testing. But if you haven't tested what you're claiming, then it's just smoke and mirrors. It needs to be confirmed with real data. That's just how this whole "theory" thing works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you not liking the fact that others do not like the class, or that they do not like it based on actual play?
Actually playing it isn't going to make comments any nicer or meaner, and is probably going to increase the amount of venting required.
To be honest, I don't care if others like or don't like the class. It doesn't affect if I'll buy the book or play the class. What I dislike is a great deal of the usual "The sky is falling!" that happens after each book or play test. It's an unfinished class from an unfinished book that we don't have all the information from. There are going to be issues; I'd think after all the play tests we'd know that by now. :)
As for the mean comments -- to be blunt some people on the boards either need to take a few minutes to scream into a pillow or log off. Attacking other posters because they don't believe what you do is jerk behavior.
@bookrat: I agree, all sorts of analysis can be helpful. But some of the threads have moved from "this is what I take from what I have read" to "how dare you believe otherwise!" It is not only discouraging, but pretty unhelpful. It is alright to be passionate about believing something is broken. Deriding others for believing otherwise is not.
Theory is a fine thing. It really, really is.
But by its very nature, theory that is not compared to practice is useless. That's true of any kind of analysis in any situation, but tabletop RPGs are no less so than any others. If it's not tested, it can't be relied on. It's sound and fury, like the Bard said, and signifies exactly jack squat.
Theory is an extremely important, even necessary first step for such things, don't get me wrong. Theory tells you where you should look for important data when it comes to testing. But if you haven't tested what you're claiming, then it's just smoke and mirrors. It needs to be confirmed with real data. That's just how this whole "theory" thing works.
I wholeheartedly concur.
One major thing missing, though, is that what people call "theory" on these boards is often actual data. Class comparison and mathematical analysis is just as much data as playtesting - just as character building is. By many people refers to these things as theorycrafting when it really isn't theory.
Theorycrafting would be, "Based on how this class works, I would predict that this other class works like this." Then we can build some characters, do a mathematical comparison, and do some playtesting - each which is a part of data collection and each has different value for different aspects of the game.
So, are you not liking the fact that others do not like the class, or that they do not like it based on actual play?
Actually playing it isn't going to make comments any nicer or meaner, and is probably going to increase the amount of venting required.
To be honest, I don't care if others like or don't like the class. It doesn't affect if I'll buy the book or play the class. What I dislike is a great deal of the usual "The sky is falling!" that happens after each book or play test. It's an unfinished class from an unfinished book that we don't have all the information from. There are going to be issues; I'd think after all the play tests we'd know that by now. :)
As for the mean comments -- to be blunt some people on the boards either need to take a few minutes to scream into a pillow or log off. Attacking other posters because they don't believe what you do is jerk behavior.
@bookrat: I agree, all sorts of analysis can be helpful. But some of the threads have moved from "this is what I take from what I have read" to "how dare you believe otherwise!" It is not only discouraging, but pretty unhelpful. It is alright to be passionate about believing something is broken. Deriding others for believing otherwise is not.
I agree with you. I remember the ACG playtest class discussion threads getting rather...vitriolic. Both in how forum posters disagreed with each other and interactions with the development team.
It was disheartening reading partway through that I didn't bother with reading anymore.
That's a shame, because I really like the ACG.
But I'll tell you, Paizo as a company is *really* good at diffusing situations and bringing negative emotions in check. I'm absolutely amazed everytime I see it.
It's really nice to see a company act in such a manner, because most people I deal with do not - even professionally.
Yeah, have to agree with bookrat. At the end of the day, a whole lot of how the mechanics of a class works boils down to dice rolls and static modifiers. These things are a matter of fairly simple mathematics.
Playtest data can also have lots of problems just by it's anecdotal nature. Unusually good/bad rolls might skew perspectives, a rules mix-up might make the class perform unusually, the particular scenario might really help/hinder the class, and all other sorts of things.
|
|
One major thing missing, though, is that what people call "theory" on these boards is often actual data. Class comparison and mathematical analysis is just as much data as playtesting - just as character building is. By many people refers to these things as theorycrafting when it really isn't theory.
This is true as far as it goes. But, even setting aside the fact that there really hasn't been a lot of actual "math" posted to the forums so far, many people - and I'm certainly not necessarily including you in this, since I don't think I've actually seen you post much in this playtest's forums so far - don't acknowledge, and often do not realize, the limitations of mathematical analysis as it relates to an RPG play experience.
Previous examples: Pun-Pun isn't a problem because no one actually makes Pun-Pun at the table. Rogue sneak attack is frequently undervalued because most melee combatants do in fact want to get flanks.
Relevant present examples: math cannot tell us how often social encounters occur in games, nor can it tell us how often those encounters turn into combat encounters without a 5-minute space in between. As a result, it's impossible to theorycraft the scope of the social persona's weakness.
Mathematical analysis does quite poorly at providing context or a sense of scale. What "the math" shows as a significant problem might or might not turn out to be one when actually sitting at the table, due to the difference in perspective. Class comparisons are inherently flawed in that they look at what class X has or doesn't have relative to class Y, but when played at the table, class Y is nowhere to be seen, and it's simply a matter of "does class X have what I need right now," which is a very different question. Having recently played through an ambush-the-social-persona combat, the distinction was made very clear to me - because in those circumstances, you switch to trying to figure out how to use what you do have to do what you need to. It turns out that decent armor, martial weapon proficiency and even lousy 1st level spells have some use when those are the tools you've got available.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I don't care if others like or don't like the class. It doesn't affect if I'll buy the book or play the class. What I dislike is a great deal of the usual "The sky is falling!" that happens after each book or play test. It's an unfinished class from an unfinished book that we don't have all the information from. There are going to be issues; I'd think after all the play tests we'd know that by now. :)
As for the mean comments -- to be blunt some people on the boards either need to take a few minutes to scream into a pillow or log off. Attacking other posters because they don't believe what you do is jerk behavior.
Which is fine. But, how is doing exactly what you are doing any different? Calling those people, (those dirty "the Sky is Falling" People), not doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about in an off-handed, name-cally way.
We all, 100%, absolutely, ultimately, quintessentially, undeniably, and completely understand that it's a playtest for an unfinished class, and that we do not have all the relevant information. That has no relevance whatsoever to, well anything. The playtest isn't about the final product, it's about all the steps to get there. Just because you happen to be one of the individuals that may like it as is, (or may not) doesn't somehow give you the right to dismiss anyone else's opinions or take some kind of higher ground.
So, how exactly is being the first person to call the other side the loony luney "the sky is falling" crowd because you just happen to like something a lot of others do not as is any different than the exact thing you seem to be complaining of? Or putting all of the blame, or attempting to put all of the burden of proof in their court any better?
Secondly, if it doesn't matter at all, as far as you and buying the book are concerned,what any other "b#+~&&@ crazy" person, that doesn't love the class as much as you do, why even post if it's not just to try to sucker-punch the other side of the rather unfinished and still being <play> tested fence without being caught, (as in hoping you are not targeted by Liz's I'm locking this thread or deleting this ass's posts).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One major thing missing, though, is that what people call "theory" on these boards is often actual data. Class comparison and mathematical analysis is just as much data as playtesting - just as character building is. By many people refers to these things as theorycrafting when it really isn't theory.This is true as far as it goes. But, even setting aside the fact that there really hasn't been a lot of actual "math" posted to the forums so far, many people - and I'm certainly not necessarily including you in this, since I don't think I've actually seen you post much in this playtest's forums so far - don't acknowledge, and often do not realize, the limitations of mathematical analysis as it relates to an RPG play experience.
Previous examples: Pun-Pun isn't a problem because no one actually makes Pun-Pun at the table. Rogue sneak attack is frequently undervalued because most melee combatants do in fact want to get flanks.
Relevant present examples: math cannot tell us how often social encounters occur in games, nor can it tell us how often those encounters turn into combat encounters without a 5-minute space in between. As a result, it's impossible to theorycraft the scope of the social persona's weakness.
Mathematical analysis does quite poorly at providing context or a sense of scale. What "the math" shows as a significant problem might or might not turn out to be one when actually sitting at the table, due to the difference in perspective. Class comparisons are inherently flawed in that they look at what class X has or doesn't have relative to class Y, but when played at the table, class Y is nowhere to be seen, and it's simply a matter of "does class X have what I need right now," which is a very different question. Having recently played through an ambush-the-social-persona combat, the distinction was made very clear to me - because in those circumstances, you switch to trying to figure out how to use what you do have to do what you need to. It turns out...
I concur. This really helps show the value of playtesting, just like Chengar's post helps show the value of mathematical analysis. Each have their different strong points, and by combining them you can get a really good picture of how a class performs.
One note though - since we're taking about data - in scientific research, data is useless without statistical analysis. This is part of why anecdotal data is so poor - it only provides a single data point. And you can't do statistical analysis on a single data point.
There are a lot of light armors you can actually wear underneath clothing. Not much different that a bullet proof vest under a tux.
|
|
I have to question why you were wearing armor, which even light armor takes a bit to don, let alone medium/heavy, in your social persona? While I admit I don't know what your social persona is, if making your social persona one that wears armor most of the time the primary way of mitigating it's 'ambush' weakness... why have it? Most secret identities are specifically supposed to be 'the everyman you see on the street', and those do NOT wear expensive ass armor. Even rich folk in Golarion do not wear multi-thousand gold magical armor every minute of the day. Or even occasionally. Those that do are basically guards, adventurers, knights, soldiers, or... well that's about it. Ya know, combat oriented professions.
I could give several answers to that. In no particular order...
1) What's the point of having a +20 to Disguise if I can't use it to make sure my armor doesn't stand out?
2) It's an elven shirt - wearing it under a tunic or blouse isn't particularly difficult in the first place.
3) The rest of my party was wearing their armor. Why wouldn't I wear mine?
Funny thing is that this also brings up another problem of the Vigilante... what about his companions... sure he is running around hidden as a normal guy in society. ..but his buddies still look like murderhobos...unless everyone is a vigilante this creates problems...
Funny thing is that this also brings up another problem of the Vigilante... what about his companions... sure he is running around hidden as a normal guy in society. ..but his buddies still look like murderhobos...unless everyone is a vigilante this creates problems...
No more than having a paladin in full plate trips up the rogue's stealth. You use the social persona for investigation and infiltration. You use the vigilante persona when you're expecting trouble. I grant all the points about the change time being problematic when stuff happens, but if I'm going to be out without my abilities, I'm going to make sure it's when I'm not going to get into a fight. The party issues are an extension of the same principle.
Funny thing is that this also brings up another problem of the Vigilante... what about his companions... sure he is running around hidden as a normal guy in society. ..but his buddies still look like murderhobos...unless everyone is a vigilante this creates problems...No more than having a paladin in full plate trips up the rogue's stealth. You use the social persona for investigation and infiltration. You use the vigilante persona when you're expecting trouble. I grant all the points about the change time being problematic when stuff happens, but if I'm going to be out without my abilities, I'm going to make sure it's when I'm not going to get into a fight. The party issues are an extension of the same principle.
But again, that requires the party and GM to work around you by either taking time away from the party so you can do your own thing or you having to do solo games...
But again, that requires the party and GM to work around you by either taking time away from the party so you can do your own thing or you having to do solo games...
I agree. That's not great, but it's not a fatal flaw. Stealth has issues (considerations?) because of the group nature of the game. So does vigilante's social identity.
|
|
1) Makes sense. Dangerous if you were found out, but ok.I have to question why you were wearing armor, which even light armor takes a bit to don, let alone medium/heavy, in your social persona? While I admit I don't know what your social persona is, if making your social persona one that wears armor most of the time the primary way of mitigating it's 'ambush' weakness... why have it? Most secret identities are specifically supposed to be 'the everyman you see on the street', and those do NOT wear expensive ass armor. Even rich folk in Golarion do not wear multi-thousand gold magical armor every minute of the day. Or even occasionally. Those that do are basically guards, adventurers, knights, soldiers, or... well that's about it. Ya know, combat oriented professions.I could give several answers to that. In no particular order...
1) What's the point of having a +20 to Disguise if I can't use it to make sure my armor doesn't stand out?
2) It's an elven shirt - wearing it under a tunic or blouse isn't particularly difficult in the first place.
3) The rest of my party was wearing their armor. Why wouldn't I wear mine?
Not terribly...? People might think me weird or paranoid, but why would it be dangerous?
3) This part is what's confusing... why is your social persona with the party at all in the first place? That's basically the fastest way to get caught. Second, why should their armor have any effect on you? When my fighter goes to visit Joe Noble, Joe doesn't put on mithril chain just because.
Well, honestly, they weren't together. We were just at the same event. Some of the people there were wearing armor; most of them were not. Some of them were PCs; most of them were not. My vigilante didn't stand out.
It's a problem with the secret identity... it doesn't fit with a party. Anymore than you ever see Bruce Wayne in the Justice League... you don't, you just see Batman. Bruce pulls the story apart and makes it about Batman, not the League. Hell, same thing with Superman and Clark Kent, who you also never see his secret identity in the Justice League.
Setting aside the many times that has not been true in the comics, this isn't something you can generalize. It has too much to do with the vigilante character and the other PCs who would be working with them. Some might have good reasons to be in proximity to the PCs, while others might not. Some vigilante personas might or might not try to let themselves be known as the party's associate as well, for that matter. There's just no way to generalize.
Which is fine. But, how is doing exactly what you are doing any different? Calling those people, (those dirty "the Sky is Falling" People), not doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about in an off-handed, name-cally way.
We all, 100%, absolutely, ultimately, quintessentially, undeniably, and completely understand that it's a playtest for an unfinished class, and that we do not have all the relevant information. That has no relevance whatsoever to, well anything. The playtest isn't about the final product, it's about all the steps to get there. Just because you happen to be one of the individuals that may like it as is, (or may not) doesn't somehow give you the right to dismiss anyone else's opinions or take some kind of higher ground.
So, how exactly is being the first person to call the other side the
loonyluney "the sky is falling" crowd because you just something a lot of others do not as is any different than the exact thing you seem to be complaining of? Or putting all of the blame, or attempting to put all of the burden of proof in their court any better?Secondly, if it doesn't matter at all, as far as you and buying the book are concerned,what any other "b@@+#%* crazy" person, that doesn't love the class as much as you do, why even post if it's not just to try to sucker-punch the other side of the rather unfinished and still being <play> tested fence without being caught, (as in hoping you are not targeted by Liz's I'm locking this thread or deleting this ass's posts).
I daresay I'm not the first person to call any side anything. What I find fascinating is that it is A-OK to be a jerk but it is not alright to call people on it.
Why does it matter to me? Because I'd like to read playtesting or theory crafting or just civin freakin conversation rather than the usual suspects acting in the usual manner until a thread gets locked or moderated to the point you cannot tell what is being said. Because in between the screaming there are actual useful pieces of information. I don't know everything about the class nor have I thought every thought about it. It is useful to see what others may have stumbled across.
If we all do, in fact, understand that it is a playtest them people might act like it is an unfinished product instead of going berserk because it doesn't cover every single item that they'd like or that there are mistakes, ideas that don't work, or whatever.
My tone, since you may have trouble reading it over the internet and want to interpret it, is one of a irritated and pissed off forum reader. I'm tired of having to wade through garbage because some people feel an obligation to behave poorly. So yeah, my post was snippy about "those" people. I expect better from people than to have to have threads locked over their tantrums.
his buddies still look like murderhobos......what exactly does a "murderhobo" look like?
Do you normally let NPCs recognize PCs on sight because "they look like adventurers?"
Well when your sword alone Costs more than a small village and you are armed to the teeth when most people can barely afford nice clothes kinda makes you stand out. Now if you go out of your way to look nice or blend in then sure... but walking around in your +5 armor and +4 flaming greatsword and bags of holdings and paying for thing with gold pieces like it is nothing tends yo make u stick out....
If we all do, in fact, understand that it is a playtest them people might act like it is an unfinished product instead of going berserk because it doesn't cover every single item that they'd like or that there are mistakes, ideas that don't work, or whatever.
That's the point of the playtest and the responses we're giving. On the side that "says it's good as is/say you shouldn't criticize it so much" are calling the critiques as "the sky is falling." They bring up the issues that "this feels useless/will probably never be used", "That if there aren't major changes there's not a 'reason' to play this class", "That most of it seems to just borrow from other classes and do worse"
And then people like you come in and give the impression
"Why are you complaining about the zealot being a weak investigator? It's a playtest, don't bring up issues about it not working right, even though that's kinda the point of the playtest, you should just playtest and be happy to see the class early, tell them all the things that works. But don't criticize it since it's only a playtest."
And I feel that the criticizing side isn't the first to start the "thread war". It's been more often people like you saying "you're going berserk", "you're saying the sky is falling", "Quit complaining the class is fine and it's only a playtest." and other such provocative language.
his buddies still look like murderhobos......what exactly does a "murderhobo" look like?
Do you normally let NPCs recognize PCs on sight because "they look like adventurers?"
|
|
I don't think I agree. If it takes my PCs casting detect magic and rolling Spellcraft to recognize a magic sword or armor for what it is, I don't think NPCs get to just eyeball you and know that either. You might well be able to say that "that guy's clearly a man-at-arms" or "either that elf is some kind of professional warrior or she's a knife-thrower in the circus (or maybe has a fetish I don't want to think about)" but I don't get how you tell a PC from an NPC just by looking.
I...
Which is fine. But, how is doing exactly what you are doing any different? Calling those people, (those dirty "the Sky is Falling" People), not doing exactly what you seem to be complaining about in an off-handed, name-cally way.
We all, 100%, absolutely, ultimately, quintessentially, undeniably, and completely understand that it's a playtest for an unfinished class, and that we do not have all the relevant information. That has no relevance whatsoever to, well anything. The playtest isn't about the final product, it's about all the steps to get there. Just because you happen to be one of the individuals that may like it as is, (or may not) doesn't somehow give you the right to dismiss anyone else's opinions or take some kind of higher ground.
So, how exactly is being the first person to call the other side the
loonyluney "the sky is falling" crowd because you just something a lot of others do not as is any different than the exact thing you seem to be complaining of? Or putting all of the blame, or attempting to put all of the burden of proof in their court any better?Secondly, if it doesn't matter at all, as far as you and buying the book are concerned,what any other "b@@+#%* crazy" person, that doesn't love the class as much as you do, why even post if it's not just to try to sucker-punch the other side of the rather unfinished and still being <play> tested fence without being caught, (as in hoping you are not targeted by Liz's I'm locking this thread or deleting this ass's posts).
In fact it was posts like yours that get threads locked because instead of discussing the problems with the class (of which there are many and is the primary purpose of play testing), you prefer to shout down us that want to fix the class. Then you cause the thread to devolve into arugments with your view point of "Oh its fine!". The class is broken as it is. Simple as that. SUre you can create contrived scenerios to justify yourself but they are cornor cases...
I don't think I agree. If it takes my PCs casting detect magic and rolling Spellcraft to recognize a magic sword or armor for what it is, I don't think NPCs get to just eyeball you and know that either. You might well be able to say that "that guy's clearly a man-at-arms" or "either that elf is some kind of professional warrior or she's a knife-thrower in the circus (or maybe has a fetish I don't want to think about)" but I don't get how you tell a PC from an NPC just by looking.
But even a person without super knowledge can tell when something looks expensive... Sure they may not be able to tell a +4 vs a +5, but they can sure as hell tell it looks VERY well made (remember, everything is Masterwork that is enchanted) and most probably magical.. and anything magical is expesive beyong their measure. Look at how much a basic peasent makes... they are not affording anything like your gear ANY time soon... and even basic guards couldn't afford that. Add in the fact that you probably don't look like your from around the area and it only makes it worse. Now if you character IS from the area and goes out of their way to blend in then sure. But a typical adventuring party tends to stick out...
Did I say it was fine? Could you point that post out to me? To my knowledge and search, I didn't post anything in the thread.
Post what is good or bad with the class; being unrelentingly negative isn't a play test, it is a diatribe. That is my awful criticism of what is going on -- not that you called the class a bad name or don't like it, or do like it, or think it is purple.
Saying it sucks is no better than saying it is great. They both are meaningless terms to people trying to collect data. Hammering home that it sucks or is great continues to be meaningless posts where people do what we are doing -- arguing about nothing.
But we have is the funny thing. We have broken the class down bit by bit. Heck, ive broken down the problems with the Avenger, stalker, and zealot ability by ability.
But even a person without super knowledge can tell when something looks expensive...
In a high society social event, wouldn't the items that DON'T look expensive stand out far more? Adventurer doesn't mean rich and rich doesn't mean adventurer.
In a high society social event, wouldn't the items that DON'T look expensive stand out far more? Adventurer doesn't mean rich and rich doesn't mean adventurer.
But even a person without super knowledge can tell when something looks expensive...
I think you are understimatig jus HOW MUCH magical gear is. Even nobles would have a hard time affording the stuff adventurers walk around with on a regular basis...
Did I say it was fine? Could you point that post out to me? To my knowledge and search, I didn't post anything in the thread.
Post what is good or bad with the class; being unrelentingly negative isn't a play test, it is a diatribe. That is my awful criticism of what is going on -- not that you called the class a bad name or don't like it, or do like it, or think it is purple.
Saying it sucks is no better than saying it is great. They both are meaningless terms to people trying to collect data. Hammering home that it sucks or is great continues to be meaningless posts where people do what we are doing -- arguing about nothing.
So far the majority of people who say it's bad say "it's bad because this" or "this doesn't work for what it seems to want to do". Then people say "quit complaining" or that "it's good". And about the only things I've heard positive about it is that it allows people to think about using the disguise skill since it's a class feature.
I think you are understimatig jus HOW MUCH magical gear is. Even nobles would have a hard time affording the stuff adventurers walk around with on a regular basis...In a high society social event, wouldn't the items that DON'T look expensive stand out far more? Adventurer doesn't mean rich and rich doesn't mean adventurer.
But even a person without super knowledge can tell when something looks expensive...
People can see magic? News to me. I'd just think it's look like masterwork items. And what rich guy WOULDN'T have masterwork? DC 20 Appraise check checks are needed for normal items. +5 for magic. How many in the crowd are rolling 25's to figure out things are magic?
So far the majority of people who say it's bad say "it's bad because this" or "this doesn't work for what it seems to want to do". Then people say "quit complaining" or that "it's good". And about the only things I've heard positive about it is that it allows people to think about using the disguise skill since it's a class feature.Did I say it was fine? Could you point that post out to me? To my knowledge and search, I didn't post anything in the thread.
Post what is good or bad with the class; being unrelentingly negative isn't a play test, it is a diatribe. That is my awful criticism of what is going on -- not that you called the class a bad name or don't like it, or do like it, or think it is purple.
Saying it sucks is no better than saying it is great. They both are meaningless terms to people trying to collect data. Hammering home that it sucks or is great continues to be meaningless posts where people do what we are doing -- arguing about nothing.
Cool, all is well then and I've apparently been wrong about what I've been reading. People have been breaking the information down, which is good, and there hasn't been much in the way of fighting. I'll wait and see how it turns out and work on my own play test.
|
|
In fact it was posts like yours that get threads locked because instead of discussing the problems with the class (of which there are many and is the primary purpose of play testing), you prefer to shout down us that want to fix the class. Then you cause the thread to devolve into arugments with your view point of "Oh its fine!". The class is broken as it is. Simple as that. SUre you can create contrived scenerios to justify yourself but they are cornor cases...
I'm actually playtesting the classes as well as theory crafting, and my reports have both offered solutions on what I see as not working and pointing out things I'm seeing as an issue. I don't mean that as "I'm actually playtesting, thus better than you", but rather I think you might be confused as to who you are replying to here. The fact that my data so far confirms a lot of issues often discussed here and other places seems to give credence to those voiced issues.
The rest of your post, beyond, "Posts like yours get stuff locked" seems to have absolutely no baring on anything said.
magic stuff glows dude.
People can see magic? News to me. I'd just think it's look like masterwork items. And what rich guy WOULDN'T have masterwork? DC 20 Appraise check checks are needed for normal items. +5 for magic. How many in the crowd are rolling 25's to figure out things are magic?
I don't care if it sings and does a jig, you need a standard action and a DC25 appraise check to figure out something is magical. That's the rules.
Either that or people are casting detect magic on everyone.
magic stuff glows dude.
People can see magic? News to me. I'd just think it's look like masterwork items. And what rich guy WOULDN'T have masterwork? DC 20 Appraise check checks are needed for normal items. +5 for magic. How many in the crowd are rolling 25's to figure out things are magic?I don't care if it sings and does a jig, you need a standard action and a DC25 appraise check to figure out something is magical. That's the rules.
Either that or people are casting detect magic on everyone.
Not sure if serious...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. That's not great, but it's not a fatal flaw. Stealth has issues (considerations?) because of the group nature of the game. So does vigilante's social identity.
But again, that requires the party and GM to work around you by either taking time away from the party so you can do your own thing or you having to do solo games...
If the Social Persona was more a "street" thing, and the Vigilante AS the Social Persona got bonuses to Disguise, to Bluff, etc., then it would work much, much better, and would be much-more applicable to any and all games.
Michael Westen and Co. from Burn Notice is a great example of how the Vigilante can still work if the emphasis of the Social Persona is on disguising, lying, gathering intel, etc. Faceman of the A-Team, as well.
These qualities and abilities would still translate to making you great at being Bruce Wayne/Batman, but with a more-generalized setup the Vigilante would fit much better into a whole host of campaigns:
You're a Superhero with a Secret Identity in such a Campaign; whether you're a billionaire playboy like Bruce Wayne, a professional in your field but generally-unknown, like Barry Allen, or an average joe like Peter Parker, that's all up to you.
You're great as a Double Agent in a war-focused Campaign.
Need a character to mix in with the Underworld and Black Markets of your campaign where the Party are a roving band of wanted men? The Vigilante is your man.
Need an Assassin character who blends in with crowds and then in a flash takes out a target in a manner that makes the Slayer look like an amateur, ala Ezio? That sounds pretty much like what the Vigilante should be.
---
Right now, the Social Persona and by extension the entire Vigilante as a whole, the Class is being Shoehorned into "Billionaire Playboy by day, Superhero by Night!"
It's fine to allow for that, but the general idea of the Vigilante can and should be much, much more than just that.
Allowing for more generalized abilities that can have multiple interpretations and applications, the Vigilante becomes a much-more well-rounded class, would be able to be thrown in to almost any Campaign seamlessly, and would get a lot of love from players.
I was in the room at PaizoCon when we all helped the design team with names and powers for the Vigilante. This week I rolled up a 9th L Vig for my weekly gaming group but quickly realized it wouldn't work for our campaign-Way of the Wicked. A few 'armchair' suggestions: All specializations should receive Catch Off Guard (1st L) and then Improvised Weapon Master (6th?) as bonus feats. As I said in that room, I don't care if you're a 'Wizard' Batman or not; Batman should be able to beat somebody senseless with a lamp. No reason to limit the power to Ranger terrains (Environment Weapon). I like the Origins idea from that other thread. A chance for lots more interesting talents and character concepts than hey, Ftr-Wiz-Rog-Cle. Mr Buhlman had already decided on these specializations when he showed up-why? Lastly, the social identity of the Vig should be a sub class that excels at whatever social combat turns out to be in the new book. Peace-Sepherum
A chance for lots more interesting talents and character concepts than hey, Ftr-Wiz-Rog-Cle. Mr Buhlman had already decided on these specializations when he showed up-why?
I imagine it's in part because Fighter, Thief, Priest, Wizard are the four traditional archetypes.
Following this would be fine - boring as hell, but fine - if the Specializations were more generic.
As it stands, though, the Specializations just ended up being 4 watered-down versions of already-existing classes, adding an even worse taste than simply having a poorly-executed class.
Having 4 familiar-yet-new ideas (probably based on Prestige Classes made 20-level Base Classes like many of the Hybrids were) in place of the Not-Fighter, Not-Rogue, Not-Inquisitor, and Not-Magus would make the class infinitely more approachable and desirable, even IF it had flaws.
Right now it's Near-Crippling-Flaws + Unoriginality that really is killing any interest in it.
The fact that it feels like over half the class is missing (no real, relevant abilities unique to the Social Persona) REALLY isn't helping much, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think theorycrafting is bad, however sometimes the tone used in some posts about theorycrafting...are not conducive to further discussion. Posting your initial thoughts on a class is good. Posting your initial thoughts, in a slighty rephrased manner, multiple of times and in multiple threads...is less useful. It comes across as shouting.
Doing the above, but then also including phrases like "garbage", "pathetic" or similar phrasings and descriptive terminology and exaggerations. Or slamming the devs, and demanding they respond to you. Well whatever you are doing, its certainly not constructive criticism.
Honestly I think the above just burns out the devs, who do read everything here. and contrary to what some posters may think, it certainly doesn't make them more likely to accept your "words of wisdom" on class options.
One idea that I have been toying with in this thread right here is taking the Vigilante and essentially making the Social Guise a full class Master Spy while the specializations being:
Full class Dwarven Defender (Shield Warden if I remember correctly)
Full Class Mystic Theurge
Full Class Shadow Dancer
Maybe a Varient Poisoner who utilizes bombs and alchemy.