This has been a very sad play test for pretty much everyone, since it's been mostly unanswered prayers and concerns for everyone but the stalker.
Don't get me wrong, we love what Mark is doing over there, but I'm guessing that he isn't in charge of any of the other specializations, and we know Stephen tends to like to read the feedback and absorb it rather than actively participate, occasionally clarifying wording so that players can actually understand what they play test. Jason also is not in the country at the moment, which would be fine if the deadline wasn't in a week.
We've seen little influence from our tests affect the big issues we have with the Avenger and with the Warlock. From what I'm reading people are mostly satisfied with where the stalker and zealot have landed with some exceptions around the source of divine power vs. domains.
Are the devs listening? Do they have any opinions on what we find important (avenger not being strong in combat compared to full BAB classes, staggered spellcasting not functioning well and limiting choices) or is it one of those set in stone decisions that it is pointless to give feedback on.
Some sort of response would be nice.
EDIT: Also for the ACG playtest we had individual threads for each class where the devs would give direct feedback. Here we only have it for the stalker. Feeling a bit let down by the lack of organization we have going since we are the ones starting threads. I recommend that Mark at least start master threads for each specialization so we can compile the discussions had not only for our own reference, but it'll probably also be helpful to the devs to have all the relevant feedback organized in one place.
It is annoying that for dev feedback response we have stuff from Mark and...that's it. I really want to know why they seem to insist on the 5 talents towards spell casting thing, but I can't go and ask since nobody but Mark is actually on the forums much.
It is annoying that for dev feedback response we have stuff from Mark and...that's it. I really want to know why they seem to insist on the 5 talents towards spell casting thing, but I can't go and ask since nobody but Mark is actually on the forums much.
There has been some feedback (clarification about Mystic Bolts, etc), but Mark has been the most prolific. There was also the Know Direction podcast.
I know that the spellcasting tax is something that is under discussion and sincerely hope that it's removed before the final version; between that and the change to Mystic Bolt I shelved my ranged Vigilante I was making.
There was also the Know Direction podcast.
Yeah, that kind of irks me. The dev's kind of assumed everyone saw it even though it's not on the site. I shouldn't have to go elsewhere to get playtest info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)Also for the ACG playtest we had individual threads for each class where the devs would give direct feedback. Here we only have it for the stalker. Feeling a bit let down by the lack of organization we have going since we are the ones starting threads. I recommend that Mark at least start master threads for each specialization so we can compile the discussions had not only for our own reference, but it'll probably also be helpful to the devs to have all the relevant feedback organized in one place.
To be honest only about half the ACG class threads actually had feedback from developers.
While Jason clearly read and took the feedback from the first Warpriest feedback thread into consideration, he posted six times in a massive 2300-post thread that desperately needed more direction and attention. A lot of time that could have been better spent on other aspects of the class was instead spent debating topics that could have been put to rest very easily, like how the original Warpriest was locked into a single weapon based on who his deity was - all core archer warpriests had to worship Erastil, for example. A one-line post saying "I agree, the revised version won't rely as much on favored weapons" would have gone a loooong way. The revised warpriest feedback thread was slightly more active (15 posts from Jason, ~900 posts total) though most of his posts were simple clarifications. However one of them was a genuine and specific request for more feedback listing different options for how the Sacred Weapon damage mechanic could work, which was great!
Again, I want to repeat that I do think Jason read and and seriously considered the feedback, since the revised WP improved or tweaked many of the issues pointed out after the first edition was released - I don't think he "skipped it" or that he didn't consider the feedback useful. However I can't help but think that by not actively engaging in the thread or making more of an effort to interact with the playtesters, he lost out on a lot more potentially golden feedback.
Ironically, the Warpriest was basically crippled post-playtest when it was changed to strictly medium BAB progression. If that change had been run up as a test balloon (or even hinted at) during the revised play test then people could have actually provided feedback on what the class needed to balance it out after going from 'pseudo-BAB' to moderate BAB. Instead Jason got a 900 post thread of people providing feedback on a class that they assumed would be competent at fighting even without burning buff spells in every encounter. That's roughly akin to providing feedback after driving a convertible and then have the car be converted into an RV in post. Odds are your complaints about the finicky fabric top aren't all that relevant anymore.
That in turn lead to the warpriest blog debacle and ultimately, a rather underwhelming class.
Truth be told my experience with the Warpriest kind of soured me on Paizo play tests in general. It's a big part of the reason why I'm enthusiastically playtesting Path of War at the moment but I ignored both the Occult class playtests and the Vigilante.
There was also the Know Direction podcast.Yeah, that kind of irks me. The dev's kind of assumed everyone saw it even though it's not on the site. I shouldn't have to go elsewhere to get playtest info.
To be fair, Jason's been in San Paulo until today. They just launched Pathfinder in Portuguese, so they invited him to a convention down there whose name I can't remember for the life of me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, Jason's been in San Paulo until today. They just launched Pathfinder in Portuguese, so they invited him to a convention down there whose name I can't remember for the life of me.There was also the Know Direction podcast.Yeah, that kind of irks me. The dev's kind of assumed everyone saw it even though it's not on the site. I shouldn't have to go elsewhere to get playtest info.
So Jason is the only one that can mention/post quotes, ect from the podcast? If not, I'm just as irked as I was before finding out this new info.
To make the point, Mark asked me in another thread why I didn't believe what Jason said in the podcast. I replied that I couldn't believe something I hadn't seen or heard about. Someone could have made a 'hey there was a podcast about the playtest' thread and posted the highlights.
Hearing about it second hand and having to sit through a 3 hr video offsite to get playtest info doesn't make me happy.
To be fair, Jason's been in San Paulo until today. They just launched Pathfinder in Portuguese, so they invited him to a convention down there whose name I can't remember for the life of me.There was also the Know Direction podcast.Yeah, that kind of irks me. The dev's kind of assumed everyone saw it even though it's not on the site. I shouldn't have to go elsewhere to get playtest info.So Jason is the only one that can mention/post quotes, ect from the podcast? If not, I'm just as irked as I was before finding out this new info.
To make the point, Mark asked me in another thread why I didn't believe what Jason said in the podcast. I replied that I couldn't believe something I hadn't seen or heard about. Someone could have made a 'hey there was a podcast about the playtest' thread and posted the highlights.
Hearing about it second hand and having to sit through a 3 hr video offsite to get playtest info doesn't make me happy.
There were a lot of posts throughout the playtest threads where people referenced what Jason's comments were, including in the exchange in question, which went something like this (having just checked the posts in question, I think this carries the appropriate subtext in abbreviated form):
Thrawn: "Guys, as people have mentioned, the PDT already told that this aspect is changing. Let's stop talking about that part now and focus on other things."
You: "Until they actually change it, that aspect is the most important problem, so we should keep talking about it as much as possible."
Me: "Unless you don't believe Jason, you should listen to Thrawn and stop posting about things that Jason already said would change."
I don't think anyone on the staff expects everyone to watch Jason's podcast. But when there are interviews and such, please do trust other posters who reference them, since as you say, people other than Jason can post summaries and interesting tidbits (and they totally did). Chances are if they post something inaccurate, other posters who saw the interview will correct them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You make a valid point Mark, but it would help if in future Playtests there was a sticky thread where someone/the design team could have official links and updates on the design changes.
I think that would end a lot of community grief.
It would also help those of us who don't check our downloads folder regularly realize we're onto round 2 (or higher) of a playtest when they're reading through all the new comments that have been posted since they were last on.
Plus it would showcase the wonderful publicity you guys are getting.
I do agree. It's why I made my stalker thread (and I have the intent of editing things into my first post in that thread too).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... and we know Stephen tends to like to read the feedback and absorb it rather than actively participate, occasionally clarifying wording so that players can actually understand what they play test.
As the fella who uses Stephen Radney-MacFarland as his social identity, I will freely admit that's Stephen's MO in a nutshell.
That said, you should realize that we are reading, absorbing, thinking about, and internally discussing all the aspects of the playtest. I understand what you are saying, but also look at it this way: playtests are a way in which we can get feedback from you and use that feedback to create the best class we can. And like other playtests, this one comes in the midst of a jumble of other work and crazy things going on.
For instance, we are all working at breakneck speed to get B5 out the door and in your hands as quickly as possible. Jason is currently in Brazil, to celebrate the launch of the Portuguese language version of the game. I'm about to head to a convention in Tulsa to play and answer the questions of the fans out there. There are Map Packs and Flip-Mats to be done, FAQ questions to muse about, freelance designers to manage, other projects to lend a hand to, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Now what I'm not doing is giving you an excuse as to why Mark posts more than the rest of us, or why we don't post as much as Mark (the young man's an energizer rabbit, and bless him for it). What I'm telling you is that we appreciate your input, each post is weighed, considered, and discussed, and helps us create the best end product we can.
I know many of you would like us to interact with you more, but our main concern is gathering up the feedback and distilling that feedback into information that will make the class better.
I hope that information is helpful.
... and we know Stephen tends to like to read the feedback and absorb it rather than actively participate, occasionally clarifying wording so that players can actually understand what they play test.As the fella who uses Stephen Radney-MacFarland as his social identity, I will freely admit that's Stephen's MO in a nutshell.
That said, you should realize that we are reading, absorbing, thinking about, and internally discussing all the aspects of the playtest. I understand what you are saying, but also look at it this way: playtests are a way in which we can get feedback from you and use that feedback to create the best class we can. And like other playtests, this one comes in the midst of a jumble of other work and crazy things going on.
For instance, we are all working at breakneck speed to get B5 out the door and in your hands as quickly as possible. Jason is currently in Brazil, to celebrate the launch of the Portuguese language version of the game. I'm about to head to a convention in Tulsa to play and answer the questions of the fans out there. There are Map Packs and Flip-Mats to be done, FAQ questions to muse about, freelance designers to manage, other projects to lend a hand to, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Now what I'm not doing is giving you an excuse as to why Mark posts more than the rest of us, or why we don't post as much as Mark (the young man's an energizer rabbit, and bless him for it). What I'm telling you is that we appreciate your input, each post is weighed, considered, and discussed, and helps us create the best end product we can.
I know many of you would like us to interact with you more, but our main concern is gathering up the feedback and distilling that feedback into information that will make the class better.
I hope that information is helpful.
So are there things you can clear up for us? Or have any major decisions been made yet?
So are there things you can clear up for us? Or have any major decisions been made yet?
Well that is a very general and somewhat vague question. I've been going through, and continue to go through primarily zealot questions, reading where the issues are, clearing up some obvious errors, and going on to the next.
Often, when someone points out an issue, it's not really and issue, or it's an issue we have to discuss, and we don't have the question right away.
General design paradigms have been the point of discussion for most of the play test.
Have we at least opened up discussions in the dev room about things like stagnated spell casting?
So are there things you can clear up for us? Or have any major decisions been made yet?Well that is a very general and somewhat vague question. I've been going through, and continue to go through primarily zealot questions, reading where the issues are, clearing up some obvious errors, and going on to the next.
Often, when someone points out an issue, it's not really and issue, or it's an issue we have to discuss, and we don't have the question right away.
I think the biggest, major decision in regards to the Zealot (and Warlock, as a consequence) is whether spellcasting will continue to be taxed, or if they will just get spellcasting without having to pay for it.
Personally, I'm in the camp of "let them eat cake have spellcasting", and simply give the Martial specializations more standardized abilities to compensate.
If the Warlock and Zealot gain free Spellcasting progression, and the Avenger and Stalker both gain thematic abilities at every odd level, then all four specializations would end up equally balanced and useful.
General design paradigms have been the point of discussion for most of the play test.
Have we at least opened up discussions in the dev room about things like stagnated spell casting?
Of course we have. I'm pretty sure I said that anything and nearly every bit of playtest feedback (though actual playtest and musings) that is reported on this board becomes a topic of conversation within the design offices.
I think the biggest, major decision in regards to the Zealot (and Warlock, as a consequence) is whether spellcasting will continue to be taxed, or if they will just get spellcasting without having to pay for it.
This is true. We have taken a lot of time discussing it, and are looking closely at the discussions here and the playtest feedback towards making a decision for the final class.
To make the point, Mark asked me in another thread why I didn't believe what Jason said in the podcast. I replied that I couldn't believe something I hadn't seen or heard about. Someone could have made a 'hey there was a podcast about the playtest' thread and posted the highlights.
Hearing about it second hand and having to sit through a 3 hr video offsite to get playtest info doesn't make me happy.
As a member of the Know Direction Network, I can assure you that Ryan and Perram take every effort to help people like you, who don't care much for their news and reviews portions, tune in, hear the interview, and tune out quickly. Know Direction's interviews are ALWAYS the first topic of every podcast, so you can tune in, hear the interview, and turn the podcast off when its over (typically an hour to 90 minutes, depending on how chatty our guest is feeling).
For instant, in the Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-BULHMAN! episode, Ryan and Perram interview Jason for the first 90 minutes of the podcast or so, then move on to their banter segment.
I have a clear question that you can answer:
"What is the thought behind spell casting progression tied to talents?"
Not trying to sound combative, but I've been stumped on that one and it makes getting volunteers to playtest the Warlock and Zealot harder.
I think the idea is that it's meant to balance things out so that spellcasting isn't seen as "just better" than the martial specializations.
That may make it SEEM like the martial specializations have twice as many Talents, but in practice, no - the Martials are lacking even with the specializations, and the Casters have half as many talents.
A better idea would be:
1) give the Social Persona 1 Ability at 1st level, 2nd level, & every even level after that, in addition to the Talents they already get
2a) give the Martial Specializations an Ability at 1st level and every Odd level after that, in addition to the Talents they already get.
2b) give the Caster Specializations an Ability at 1st level and natural Spellcasting progression, with no actual further abilities beyond those gained from Talents
Using the Bard and the Unchained Rogue as examples, they both get LOTS of abilities every level (the Rogue gains Talents and the Bard gains Spells). The Vigilante should be designed in that same vein as well: lots of abilities and options.
Together, the Social and Specialization personas should add up to a complete class. Right now, the Social Persona is almost 1/2 of a class (much more than the Round 1 version, but it still needs work to be completely useful), and the Specializations are about 1/4 to 1/3 of a class.
If the Warlock and Zealot are given natural spell progression, then a major problem with them is solved (there are still issues, but that's the most glaring). At that point, only the Avenger would really need work (I actually want all 4 completely thrown out and replaced with a base-class-form Stalwart Defender, Mystic Theurge, Shadowdancer, a Spontaneous Alchemist, and a Wis-based Psychic, but... yeah...).
Stephen, since you're primarily focused on the zealot, you mind answering a couple of questions regarding their abilities? Specifically, I was wondering this: why have the vigilante tied to a specific spell list, instead of either: A) giving them the ability to choose freely from any of the divine spell lists, or B) giving the player the ability to choose a specific spell list. I can certainly see players of the zealot, especially if they were only planning on taking some spellcasting, wanting to pull from the paladin or ranger spell list (I know that the fey divine source gets the hunter spellcasting trick, but it was the hunter spellcasting trick that makes me thing that (given the rather small number of spells per day) the Zealot could do better with the ability to choose their spell list or with a wider range of spells than just the inquisitor list (however good it might be).
I feel that opening up the list would do some to curbing the "this is a bad inquisitor" arguments that some people are making.
Also, currently the zealot has limited or no good ways to stealth, so it makes it harder to use frightening/startling/stunning appearance. Besides adding in talents, what are your thoughts on how to make the class sneakier?
Drawing spells from the paladin spell list would indeed be good/a welcome option. We finally agree on something.
Also, currently the zealot has limited or no good ways to stealth, so it makes it harder to use frightening/startling/stunning appearance. Besides adding in talents, what are your thoughts on how to make the class sneakier?
Alternatively, make the Appearance abilities Talents, and the Guise talents into hard-coded Class Abilities.
Frankly, this option allows for a whole lot more play & design options than forcing the character to be super-sneaky.
Every Vigilante by default should be a Master of Disguise by its very theme (which is why I say the Social Persona should be the Master Spy in Base Class form), but not every Vigilante should be necessarily a super-sneaky shanker.
Being a Master of Disguise AND being super-sneaky often go hand-in-hand, but they don't necessarily NEED to be. Donning a disguise is a lot more generalized and widely applicable, while the whole "Batman Cold Open" abilities smell more of something someone specializes in and pays for, rather than being able to mimic others.
I don't think anyone on the staff expects everyone to watch Jason's podcast. But when there are interviews and such, please do trust other posters who reference them, since as you say, people other than Jason can post summaries and interesting tidbits (and they totally did). Chances are if they post something inaccurate, other posters who saw the interview will correct them.
I don't like the fact that someone that went offsite has more playtest information than someone checking actual site that made the playtest. I have yet to hear the exact information if gave, just "it'll change". A search (here) for Jason's podcast doesn't turn up anything about this playtest. I'd expect an official "hey there is a podcast up and here are the bullet points" thread/blog post not secondhand mentions. I was disappointed and irked. The post "summaries and interesting tidbits" about it totally made a successful stealth roll vs me.
Trekkie90909's comments seem spot on. An official section for each specialization with the first post noting changes, explanations and commentary would solve a lot. Pretty much like was done in the APG playtest. If you are doing that with the stalker, then awesome. I've been focusing on the warlock and haven't checked out your thread.
Alexander Augunas: And I thank you for that. For me though, it's not a time issue per se but that it's 653 MB out of my extremely limited data plan [I checked]. Until I get the time to watch it on some free wifi, I'm in the dark. Please don't think I'm upset at you guys or anything, you're just doing your jobs. I'm just irked that the staff here didn't let us know they'd disclosed pertinent information to you in a new thread/blog.
|
I think the biggest, major decision in regards to the Zealot (and Warlock, as a consequence) is whether spellcasting will continue to be taxed, or if they will just get spellcasting without having to pay for it.This is true. We have taken a lot of time discussing it, and are looking closely at the discussions here and the playtest feedback towards making a decision for the final class.
Thanks Stephen. I think we all really appreciate hearing from you. I know I'm looking forward to seeing what the class ends up as.
Stephen, since you're primarily focused on the zealot, you mind answering a couple of questions regarding their abilities? Specifically, I was wondering this: why have the vigilante tied to a specific spell list, instead of either: A) giving them the ability to choose freely from any of the divine spell lists, or B) giving the player the ability to choose a specific spell list. I can certainly see players of the zealot, especially if they were only planning on taking some spellcasting, wanting to pull from the paladin or ranger spell list (I know that the fey divine source gets the hunter spellcasting trick, but it was the hunter spellcasting trick that makes me thing that (given the rather small number of spells per day) the Zealot could do better with the ability to choose their spell list or with a wider range of spells than just the inquisitor list (however good it might be).
I feel that opening up the list would do some to curbing the "this is a bad inquisitor" arguments that some people are making.
Well, we had to start somewhere, and the inquisitor has an excellent spell list for this short of character, since in many ways the zealot and the inquisitor are cousins, and some early design in archetypes that eventually lead to the creation of the vigilante lives in the inquisitor class.
That being said, take every aspect of feedback into account, and we are not afraid to make changes to spell lists and similar big picture items when it comes to final development of the class.
But, let's talk a bit about this kind of question. I typically don't come in and answer these questions (though I occasionally do, like here) because this question is not about the class as it is. It doesn't aid you in the playtest at all. In fact, though it is structure as such, it's nor really a question at all. It's you expressing what you would rather see from the class.
Now, that's important feedback, and feedback that will breed discussion and debate as we further develop this aspect of the class. And this kind of feedback is all over the messageboards, helpful, and thought provoking. But, I really don't need to come in and answer the question and get into a multi-post discussion and debate to gain the benefit of that feedback. In fact, even though I may really enjoy that debate (because I like debate), there are some days where doing that is cross purpose to getting my work done and on time.
Now I don't mind if you form such feedback in the form of a question or in the form of a statement, but I would not expect and answer to every single bit of feedback like this in the form of a question. But I can promise you that it is read, digested, discussed, debated, considered, appreciated, and decisions are be made with in the shadows of its benefit.
All of that is original point.
Drawing spells from the paladin spell list would indeed be good/a welcome option. We finally agree on something.
We've both said a lot. It had to happen at some point =P
|
|
Well, we had to start somewhere, and the inquisitor has an excellent spell list for this short of character, since in many ways the zealot and the inquisitor are cousins, and some early design in archetypes that eventually lead to the creation of the vigilante lives in the inquisitor class.
That being said, take every aspect of feedback into account, and we are not afraid to make changes to spell lists and similar big picture items when it comes to final development of the class.
But, let's talk a bit about this kind of question. I typically don't come in and answer these questions (though I occasionally do, like here) because this question is not about the class as it is. It doesn't aid you in the playtest at all. In fact, though it is structure as such, it's nor really a question at all. It's you expressing what you would rather see from the class.
Now, that's important feedback, and feedback that will breed discussion and debate as we further develop this aspect of the class. And this kind of feedback is all over the messageboards, helpful, and thought provoking. But, I really don't need to come in and answer the question and get into a multi-post discussion and debate to gain the benefit of that feedback. In fact, even though I may really enjoy that debate (because I like debate), there are some days where doing that is cross purpose to getting my work done and on time.
Now I don't mind if you form such feedback in the form of a question or in the form of a statement, but I would not expect and answer to every single bit of feedback like this in the form of a question. But I can promise you that it is read, digested, discussed, debated, considered, appreciated, and decisions are be made with in the shadows of its benefit.
All of that is original point.
Here's a different sort of question for you. Is there any part of the Zealot (or the Vigilante overall) that you would like to see more playtest data on? I've played mine a couple times so far and I might keep repeating the same general feedback, but if you want to give us a particular direction or three to work on we can try to help out.
But, let's talk a bit about this kind of question. I typically don't come in and answer these questions (though I occasionally do, like here) because this question is not about the class as it is. It doesn't aid you in the playtest at all. In fact, though it is structure as such, it's nor really a question at all. It's you expressing what you would rather see from the class.
It's actually more along the spaghetti design (ie. throw it at the wall and see what sticks). Personally, I'd actually really like for both the zealot and the warlock to get their "spellcasting" as spell-likes, but I could certainly understand why some might be hesitant to do that. but I digress.
I'll grant that my question rambled a bit, and I do thank you for answering it. I guess I was more curious about the head/design space that was being used, as opposed to wondering about that scenario specifically.
And just so it gets said, I do believe that you are looking at feedback (of all kinds) in every way possible.
I agree with Terminalmancer, I can't get past the current problems I see with the specializations to move onto new areas.
If you had some areas of interest we could focus on that would do this discussion a world of good than us all arguing about mystic bolts for the next week.
Here's a different sort of question for you. Is there any part of the Zealot (or the Vigilante overall) that you would like to see more playtest data on? I've played mine a couple times so far and...
All of it, so get cracking. ;)
At the end of the day some of the the most useful feedback come from a few main sources:
1) I played this and really liked this, and here is why.
2) I played this and didn't like this, and here is why.
3) I played this, and really wish I could do this.
4) I played this, and really don't understand how this is supposed to work.
5) I played this and felt like I really enhanced the party and this is why.
6) I played this and didn't feel like I added to the party and this is why.
7) I played this and it seemed totally broken, and here is why.
8) I played this and it seemed totally borked, and here is why.
You'll notice I'm really big on actual play experience. Why? Are theorycrafters full of [censored]? No. I think many of us have a talent for looking at a piece of design, noticing problems and pointing them out. Often that feedback is very useful.
I also know that the field of play in Pathfinder (and games in general) is actual play. There are many mechanics that I had doubts about when I first read them, and then in actual play they were exactly what the game needed. It's the difference sometimes between reading a play and experiencing a play. I put a higher value on play, because at the end of the day we want to create the best play possible.
|
|
Here's a different sort of question for you. Is there any part of the Zealot (or the Vigilante overall) that you would like to see more playtest data on? I've played mine a couple times so far and...All of it, so get cracking. ;)
At the end of the day some of the the most useful feedback come from a few main sources:
1) I played this and really liked this, and here is why.
2) I played this and didn't like this, and here is why.
3) I played this, and really wish I could do this.
4) I played this, and really don't understand how this is supposed to work.
5) I played this and felt like I really enhanced the party and this is why.
6) I played this and didn't feel like I added to the party and this is why.
7) I played this and it seemed totally broken, and here is why.
9) I played this and it seemed totally borked, and here is why.You'll notice I'm really big on actual play experience. Why? Are theorycrafters full of [censored]? No. I think many of us have a talent for looking at a piece of design, noticing problems and pointing them out. Often that feedback is very useful.
I also know that the field of play in Pathfinder (and games in general) is actual play. There are many mechanics that I had doubts about when I first read them, and then in actual play they were exactly what the game needed. It's the difference sometimes between reading a play and experiencing a play. I put a higher value on play, because at the end of the day we want to create the best play possible.
Thanks again. You are going to have a very interestingly-formatted feedback form!
Stephen can you tell us who is in charge of what specIalization?
Thanks again. You are going to have a very interestingly-formatted feedback form!
Ha! I do. that's what I get for multitasking. Fixed. :)
Stephen can you tell us who is in charge of what specIalization?
Technically, Jason is in charge of the class as a whole, but Mark/Stalker, Stephen/Zealot, Logan/Warlock, Jason/Avenger is how the talents were initially devised, and we've kept to specializing that way in the playtest too.
|
|
Ha! I do. that's what I get for multitasking. Fixed. :)
Thanks again. You are going to have a very interestingly-formatted feedback form!
I wasn't even referring to the formatting! I was referring to my cunning plan to copy your list wholesale and then fill bits in underneath each line.
I'll happily take credit for being an accidental editor, though! I wonder what other jobs I can blunder into tonight.
Since we have at least 2 Devs paying particular attention to this thread (or at least 2 Devs that have actively responded - I know they pay attention to everything)...
The main thing I've noticed about the class is that it very much mimics Batman, the Shadow, Daredevil... a whole host of pulp-inspired vigilante heroes.
As a result, the class seems to focus much more on the "strike from the shadows; the night is your mistress" vibe, and the Appearance abilities are pretty much the poster-children for this.
On the other side of things, the Guise abilities are relegated to Talents.
I said above, but I want to both restate and elaborate that I think these are backwards.
Suddenly appearing, striking fear into your enemies, and hitting hard when you do so is a very-specific shtick. That's something you pay for; that's something only a few, specific characters use, and train specifically to do.
On the other hand, the Guise abilities make the Vigilante into a mastery of disguise. While this takes serious training, too, it's a tactic employed by a much-wider range of characters than being a shadow-striker.
The Guise abilities are also much more thematically in-line with the Vigilante as a whole - the Vigilante is, after all, a character living a double-life; almost without question, characters who are used to assuming one alternate identity are very good at assuming MULTIPLE identities, and they get better and better at becoming truly faceless as they grow.
If the Guise abilities are built into the basic architecture of the Class as hard-coded Abilities that every Vigilante knows, and the Appearance abilities are simply Talents that any Vigilante can choose, then the class becomes a more-generalized and useful class.
To wit, by making the Guise abilities into Class Abilities, you would allow players to easily make:
Arsene Lupin
Arsene Lupin III
Michael Westen & Co.
Simon Templar
Sherlock Holmes (although that may be an Investigator Archetype)
Edmond Dantes, le Comte de Monte Cristo
Doc Savage
The Spider
Count Olaf
Batman (ESPECIALLY Batman)
Rolin Hand
Artemus Gordon (may be a Gunslinger Archetype, though)
"Hannibal" Smith (although he only ever did it to scout clients, sadly)
"Faceman" Peck (he rarely used actual disguises, but he could easily assume any identity without NEEDING a disguise)
Jimmy Olsen (it's a largely-forgotten trick, but he used to be so good at it SUPERMAN couldn't recognize him, let alone Perry & Lois)
The Octopus (from The Spirit)
Inspector Clouseau
Richard Hannay
Jaqen H'ghar
There's a lot more that can be listed here.
Making the Vigilante a general Master of Disguise opens up the door for players to create a super-spy, an arms-dealer, a superhero (obviously), a grifter, an infiltrator, etc.
It leaves it a lot more open for interpretation and application than the "shows up out of no-where, beats bad guys, retreats into the shadows" motif that it currently has.
It can GAIN that series of tricks, sure - but it should be an option via Talents, rather than a base trick like being a faceless character.
---
Anyway, that's what I want to see most with this class - it becoming something that allows, by default, for a much-more general infiltrator & social sneak character, rather than the over-used lurker-in-the-shadows idea that's been done by over half-a-dozen characters.
Being a lurker-in-the-shadows is fine, but I'd rather see it being an option, not the basic architecture.
Designer
|
I think the biggest, major decision in regards to the Zealot (and Warlock, as a consequence) is whether spellcasting will continue to be taxed, or if they will just get spellcasting without having to pay for it.
This topic comes up a lot, but often couched in weird wording. Giving spellcasting as talents is an experiment. We wanted to see if any talent could be appealing enough that people would pick it over spellcasting levels. Spell levels are so strong that that's a tall order, and we were aware of that going in but wanted to give it a shot. (So far, mystic bolts seems to be the only one that provides any competition as far as I've seen.)
We're considering other ways to do spellcasting, including just making it more like a normal 6-level caster or altering the way we do the talents. We haven't made a final decision yet, but we're watching what people say about it.
To be clear, in any case the warlock and zealot will still need to pay for spellcasting. It's not a "tax," it's just that spells are valuable and their presence needs to reduce the power of the other abilities the character gets. (It's clear you get that from your post, but I've seen other posts from other people that didn't read that way.)
So the upshot is that even if the warlock and zealot get by-the-book 6-level spellcasting, they'll still need to get fewer talents, weaker talents, or pay some other price for that privilege.
wait
in a playtest
dont you give input to the devs
To be clear, in any case the warlock and zealot will still need to pay for spellcasting. It's not a "tax," it's just that spells are valuable and their presence needs to reduce the power of the other abilities the character gets. (It's clear you get that from your post, but I've seen other posts from other people that didn't read that way.)
So the upshot is that even if the warlock and zealot get by-the-book 6-level spellcasting, they'll still need to get fewer talents, weaker talents, or pay some other price for that privilege.
Any chance of not "fewer talents, weaker talents, or pay some other price for that privilege" but instead the other specializations get a boost? If each specializations 'free' abilities are equivalent, there wouldn't be a need to go out of your way to weaken the casters. I think everyone would be happier to see that instead of something getting axed.
PS: Thanks for dropping in to let us know what's being talked about Logan. :)
|
Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also wanted to talk about why we do and/or don't comment on particular threads. At least, why *I* do or don't. The other designers no doubt operate differently.
The main one is simply time. We've been working to get Bestiary 5 out, and that took priority. I've still been looking at the boards from time to time, but can't read and comment comprehensively.
The next reason is that, since I'm primarily working on the warlock, there hasn't been a lot of discussion outside of two topics: mystic bolts and how spellcasting works. As mentioned, we've gone back and forth in the offices about how those should work, and the mystic bolts changes appear in playtest round 2. In many instances, it's better for us and the class to throw a comment into our brains and mull it over for a long time rather than shooting off an answer, which can spin people off into a new conversation that might not be very useful.
Now for the larger topic: the kinds of feedback we generally get, the likelihood they're useful for us, and how I reply to them. Also, please note that these are only addressing what helps out the design team! The playtests are just as much for you as for us, so enjoy having whichever type of discussions you enjoy.
1. Playtest results. As Stephen said, comments from actual playtests are by far the most useful and relevant posts we get. We appreciate them and get good data from them. If I reply to these, it's usually just to say thanks!
2. Clarification requests. These tell us where our wording is unclear or where we've missed special cases or rules interactions that need to be taken care of. We're pretty likely to respond to these unless we've already answered the question or the question resulted from a misreading or incomplete reading, in which case other posters usually answer it.
3. Conceptual suggestions or requests. Sometimes people will tackle what they see as a conceptual issue with the class rather than a rules issue. A great example is the thread (which I can't find right now) about using the character's origin as a building block. These are sometimes useful and sometimes, but finding an interesting read can re-energize us and it's great when people are inspired. On the flipside, some big conceptual issues are already set in stone by the time we do a playtest. For instance, posts about making the vigilante not be a class at all can be fun, but that's not a change we're going to make. EDIT: And sometimes somebody makes a joke about a hedgehog with a vigilante and social nature and it ends up in the class!
4. Suggested changes. You know how I said this listing is about what helps the design team, not just what's interesting to talk about? Well, here's a good example. Posts about how *you* would do a talent differently or how you'd change the core of the class are not useful for the design team. Finding out what people think is weak or strong about an ability is, but specific suggestions on how to change it almost never are. This is a major rule of playtesting: Playtesters will tell you what they didn't like, then you need to determine what actually led to their bad experience. These aren't always the same thing.
5. This isn't as good as _______. This is a pretty mixed bag. Class design involves tweaking a lot of knobs. Sometimes a playtester compares a class to another and is super comprehensive about it! Other times they compare a part of a class to another while ignoring all other parts. The base parts of the class (number of skill ranks, save bonuses, proficiencies, etc.) often get ignored in these kinds of comparisons.
6. Comments that get buried. Sometimes a good point comes up in the middle of a thread that's been going on a long tangent for days. Frankly, it's easy to miss these! Some good feedback just gets drowned out.
I'll post the actual play test result later, I just tested the Warlock yesterday and I was so disappointed with the options that I lost interest half way through building the character. I honestly did not even want to play test it because the options were so weak.
|
Designer
|
I'll post the actual play test result later, I just tested the Warlock yesterday and I was so disappointed with the options that I lost interest half way through building the character. I honestly did not even want to play test it because the options were so weak.
EDIT: Sorry, I missed the part where you said you were posting a full report later! Disregard.
Could you please provide a little more information? What level of warlock were you creating? Were there any options you did select and consider strong enough before you lost interest? Thanks!
I think everyone would be happier to see that instead of something getting axed.Maybe not people playing other classes that *don't* get such talents. ;)
LOL Well there are ALWAYS some statistical anomalies! ;)
I think the majority "would be happier to see that instead of something getting axed." I know that you can never make everyone happy. I just think having equally tempting starting and leveling abilities would make most happy. If you have to really think and mull over which specialization is better no matter the level, it'll be a well made class. Also keeping the talent number and power the same as other specialization will make archetype creation easier. That way 'replace 4th level talent' is always there and is of equivalent power.
Alric Rahl:
1) this takes a lot of talents and the amount of spells isn't great.
2) bombs lack int to damage and are limited to * talents. This is a fairly big issue for me as it really makes a bomb build untenable.
3) even with rapid shot and TWF, once you start running into creatures with resistance you're lucky to do a handful of damage even with a multitude of shots.
I love the warlock concept, but there are a lot of things that need worked on.