I really love Pathfinder. I actually liked the ideas and options of the Advanced Class Guide-the execution, not so much. I wouldn't touch Mythic with a ten foot pole. My question is-are the rigors of a production schedule having a serious effect on the quality of Pathfinder products? I think that Mythic, the ACG and the Vigilante playtest (I know it's a playtest but it needed more work) were in such questionable shape they shouldn't have been released. People out there would add other things to this list I'm sure. Should Paizo rush out additions to the volume of new, untested rules instead of new content? I admit to having an axe to grind; I'd like to see a hardcover city book once a year along the lines of Bard's Gate or the Shackled City. Occult Adventures looks good to me but now I know Pathfinder fans who just aren't going to buy it.
By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?
Just curious, but what's wrong with the Advanced Player Guide? It has some of the best classes for Pathfinder, like Oracle and Inquisitor.
Did you perhaps mean the Advanced Class Guide?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Mythic Adventures, it's a very nice toolbox :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?
Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.
Probably not a concern anymore, as they have hired more staff, and I am unaware of any major editing issues in either Pathfinder Unchained or Occult Adventures so far.
The Vigilante is a playtest, and so shouldn't be held to the same standard as a finished product, especially since it's one small section of a much larger hardcover.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, they're symptomatic of a problem of being a game publisher. People expect perfection out of a company run by humans, and gamers have absurdly high standards evaluated by moving goal posts.
The criticism is not appropriate for the Vigilante Playtest because THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of releasing it was for players to pick it apart and FIND problems or issues that were missed or not conceived of. That's why it's called Playtest or Beta. No one was charged for downloading it, nor was anyone required to do so.
The playtests are a farse anyway though. I mean Paizo intentionally released a nerfed version of the kineticist class for the playtest instead of the actual version they were intending, rendering the whole thing moot. Similarly, in previous playtests for things like Ultimate Combat, I realized that Paizo's open playtests were just publicity gimmicks.
Whaizo. Just Whaizo.
Probably not a concern anymore, as they have hired more staff, and I am unaware of any major editing issues in either Pathfinder Unchained or Occult Adventures so far.
The Vigilante is a playtest, and so shouldn't be held to the same standard as a finished product, especially since it's one small section of a much larger hardcover.
I guess my point is that the hardcover will then contain a bunch of untested archetypes and feats. I'd rather get more content than more rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.
Or maybe your production schedule is too tight. *rimshot*
Euughh. I meant 'Advanced Class Guide'. Not APG. Wouldn't hire myself as editor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.
|
I guess my point is that the hardcover will then contain a bunch of untested archetypes and feats. I'd rather get more content than more rules.Probably not a concern anymore, as they have hired more staff, and I am unaware of any major editing issues in either Pathfinder Unchained or Occult Adventures so far.
The Vigilante is a playtest, and so shouldn't be held to the same standard as a finished product, especially since it's one small section of a much larger hardcover.
Technically rules are content, and I do love me some options when making characters. But I agree we could probably use some more campaign setting books. I would love to see a whole hardcover book dedicated to Casmaron or Tian Xia, but I don't know if campaign books sell as well as the setting neutral books, so they probably don't want to go too far into that territory.
And personally I'm not too concerned about GenCon, and book deadlines. They brought on new staff to deal with the increased workload. And judging from the ACG errata, even with plenty of time to work on it, they can still have problems in editing, and quality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.
The Vigilante idea is fine; having a character with alternate "personas" can lead to a lot of really awesome uses: infiltration & sabotage, information gathering, assassinations, etc. No Base Class has ever had built-in mechanics for letting you play Michael Westen, Simon Templar, Ezio, Hunter Rose, etc... the closest anyone's ever had has been the Master Spy, but that starts way past lv5. So the Vigilante, in theory, would be spectacular for this niche.
The problem is they got a little completely overzealous with forcing the whole "aristocrat by day, hero by night" thing, which made it basically useless during Round 1 because it required a VERY specific game to function at all in; then it also fell into the same blase "I can be anything!" shtick that the Medium does (except the Medium is at least a 4th-level psychic by default and can change up roles day-by-day, plus it can fill a LOT more roles than just 4). If the class threw out the Specializations and focused almost singularly on being a "Master Spy Made Base Class" I think the overall effect and response would have been drastically better.
That being said, classes HAVE gone through radical redesigns from Playtest to Print before, so it's a little too early to call the Vigilante a complete wash.
I really love Pathfinder. I actually liked the ideas and options of the Advanced Players Guide-the execution, not so much. I wouldn't touch Mythic with a ten foot pole. My question is-are the rigors of a production schedule having a serious effect on the quality of Pathfinder products? I think that Mythic, the APG and the Vigilante playtest (I know it's a playtest but it needed more work) were in such questionable shape they shouldn't have been released. People out there would add other things to this list I'm sure. Should Paizo rush out additions to the volume of new, untested rules instead of new content? I admit to having an axe to grind; I'd like to see a hardcover city book once a year along the lines of Bard's Gate or the Shackled City. Occult Adventures looks good to me but now I know Pathfinder fans who just aren't going to buy it.
I don't think anyone was expecting Mythic Adventures to be balanced compared to the other PRD books - NO "Epic/Immortals" rules have ever been balanced in the game's history. When you're playing Demigods, you have to expect & accept that there's going to be a whole lot of asspulls and imbalance issues.
Mythic Adventures works fine in a campaign if you go in knowing that you're basically playing with Super Saiyans, and thus almost never lose; and at the absolute worst, the Mythic rules are still AMAZING for creating Boss monsters.
The ACG was an editing nightmare, yes, but Paizo's instituted new editing parameters, and the results are telling: Pathfinder Unchained has had next-to-no editing problems. Very few games are error-free, especially when the rules are printed in large books like the PRD books are.
As someone said earlier, Game Companies as a whole have a problem with editing - Munchkin has gone through at least a dozen revisions of rules, Magic the Gathering is constantly refining errata on older cards to fit with the current rules of the game (usually extremely minor changes), to say nothing of errors in 3.5 books, etc.
If you think Paizo has editing problems, I warn you to NEVER look at any gamebooks published by smaller companies, because your eyes will likely explode.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, they're symptomatic of a problem of being a game publisher. People expect perfection out of a company run by humans, and gamers have absurdly high standards evaluated by moving goal posts.
I haven't followed vigilante playtest, although just hearing the concept, it's no bueno for me. But I'm not going to get into that.
Mythic Rules were a mythic train wreck though, and all they did was help widen the martial/caster gap by enough room to put 10 more classes in. Oh, hey there ACG.
ACG I actually give more slack since they were kind of trying for new things here (some retooled semi new things), and some of them hit the mark, unlike Mythic Rules accomplishing almost nothing. For every 1 good story I hear about mythic, there's about 10 "why would this ever exist" stories that trump it.
The problem with the ACG is this deluge of errata showing that the product was rushed out the door. It's not a great book, a lot of the errata is being poorly received (we can claim that for being 'got used to it' syndrome, but it's still being rejected by a good many forum goers, myself included), and a lot of the book itself isn't really great itself.
These are BIG hardcover books, they were major releases, and they were at worst duds and at best lukewarm inclusions into the RPG line. Even the unchained book has bee meh for anyone not named Rogue. Unchained Barb was clunky in trying to stop rage cycling, unchained summoner was trying to salvage something that for the most part while unique as hell was so rife for abuse that it made powergamers salivate, which this new versions...eh. Unchained monk I don't have huge issues with, but at the same time, I'm so ambivalent to it that it might as well not exist.
Really I'm banking on Occult Adventures (and the Kineticist) to pull me back into the flock or if it's time to flock off, and preliminary buzz is that this book is what the kids will call 'neat', so I'm crossing my fingers here. But Paizo has a lot of ground to make up for with this book, especially for poor Gencon hardcover releases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the Mythic-bashing is a load of hooey.
Is it over-the-top powerful? Absolutely without question.
Is it bad, poorly done, or rushed? No, not really.
Sure there are the odd editing/clarification issues, but given you're looking at an entire book of crunch, it's not abnormal. People just didn't get what they imagined it would be and are overly critical for that reason.
I'm happily playing WotR right now (up to 14th level, 6 tiers) and it's been darned, darned fun. Can we curb-stomp almost every challenge? Yes. Have there been deaths? Yes. Were they temporary? Well, yeah. More importantly: is there a sense of being truly world-changing noteworthy well-known legendary adventurers? Heck yes.
Most games shouldn't have mythic content in them, but this kind of story, it's okay to stack all the cards and mangle the enemy.
|
|
Most of the Mythic-bashing is a load of hooey.
Is it over-the-top powerful? Absolutely without question.
Is it bad, poorly done, or rushed? No, not really.Sure there are the odd editing/clarification issues, but given you're looking at an entire book of crunch, it's not abnormal. People just didn't get what they imagined it would be and are overly critical for that reason.
I'm happily playing WotR right now (up to 14th level, 6 tiers) and it's been darned, darned fun. Can we curb-stomp almost every challenge? Yes. Have there been deaths? Yes. Were they temporary? Well, yeah. More importantly: is there a sense of being truly world-changing noteworthy well-known legendary adventurers? Heck yes.
Most games shouldn't have mythic content in them, but this kind of story, it's okay to stack all the cards and mangle the enemy.
And there's another 1 to add to the list of threads in the WOTR section that read "Mythic killed our game."
As I stated in my post, the problem is the difference in scope between mythic martials who generally swing harder and maybe move around a little more, and mythic casters who make castles out of nothing and nothing out of encounters.
Mythic was not an evenly handled subject, it was (as most Paizo material tends to be) HEAVILY in favor of casters because the only thing better than magic is MYTHIC magic. Trust me, I did a review of mythic stuff in the realm of Alchemist vs. Barbarian for value, and Alchemist got so much cooler stuff than Barbarian that it almost made me wonder if Mythic rules were a way to nudge martials into going with 3/4th casters just to stay with the curve.
The line "it wasn't what we wanted" is thrown around as though the people who are unhappy have a very small box for what they wanted, but my Mythics expectation box for martials was very accommodating, and very little of it was filled. My caster box however was overflowing (mythic fireballs are awesome, mythic most spells are awesome) while mythic martial feats are...aside from Mythic Vital Strike (it was a mythic feat to make that feat valid), mostly yawners or things that should have been included already (mythic weapon finesse, anyone?), so the product failed to deliver on what I wanted for a mythic martial, which was something other that larger numbers for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playtests are a farse anyway though. I mean Paizo intentionally released a nerfed version of the kineticist class for the playtest instead of the actual version they were intending, rendering the whole thing moot. Similarly, in previous playtests for things like Ultimate Combat, I realized that Paizo's open playtests were just publicity gimmicks.
Whaizo. Just Whaizo.
I think you are not interpreting statements about the kineticist in the way they were intended. They released a less powerful version of the class to see what people thought regarding power level, etc. Because if it was too powerful and needed to be brought down, people would be screaming NERF at the top of their lungs. It's a lot easier to buff than nerf a class.
My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.
There is just not enough time in the development process to do something like that. By the time something goes to playtest the sections of a book need to be locked down, including the rough sketch of a class. In a perfect world it would be great to have time for playtesting and idea building, but the economic reality just doesn't allow that.
I think mythic rules are actually pretty good, they do what they do rather well, especially considering most "Epic" level rules are all over the place (for example look at 3.5e's epic spell rules).
And the ACG is pretty decent aside from the editing issues; with things like Slayer making a more balanced fighter replacement, hunter making a more balanced druid replacement, bloodrager being a cool concept to play, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep meaning to get Mythic, but haven't yet. It sounds like it has some fun ideas in it that I could find a use for.
I liked the ACG, and got it on release. I've used it in games without any problem, and intend to keep using it without the errata.
I had no interest in the Vigilante class thematically, but after watching the playtest I intend to get the book for the systems. It looks like an attempt at building a semi-classless ala carte features approach, which is a great idea.
What were you complaining about?
The Advanced Class Guide, by the nature of all of the other classes and archetypes already published, was going to have more niche content that would be less widely accepted. Considering that some people don't like/use parts of the Core Rulebook, having some overlap and/or different options to meet certain concepts, as well as pushing in some new directions, I'd say it was an overall success. There are certain concepts I can now achieve with the ACG that didn't work very well before and there is a broader palette of concepts that are "ready to go" from 1st level. Some things don't suit my tastes, but I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Mythic Adventures was always going to be a niche product. One thing that seems to never be mentioned by the detractors is that gaining mythic tiers is 100% in the narrative control of the GM. You can run a "mythic game" where the PCs only gain one or two mythic tiers (at any point in their careers); you don't have to go to 20 levels/10 mythic tiers. Look at Mythic Adventures like a spice rack: using it too much can overwhelm the base product.
The playtests are a farse anyway though. I mean Paizo intentionally released a nerfed version of the kineticist class for the playtest instead of the actual version they were intending, rendering the whole thing moot. Similarly, in previous playtests for things like Ultimate Combat, I realized that Paizo's open playtests were just publicity gimmicks.
Whaizo. Just Whaizo.
I think you are not interpreting statements about the kineticist in the way they were intended. They released a less powerful version of the class to see what people thought regarding power level, etc. Because if it was too powerful and needed to be brought down, people would be screaming NERF at the top of their lungs. It's a lot easier to buff than nerf a class.
This is correct.
Mark knew what he was doing and was a very responsive developer. By the end of the playtest he agreed with the feedback saying
-Not enough damage
-Not enough utility
-Burn, as it was, was horrid
-Not enough skill points and class skills
And said he would make those aspects better.
I have yet to see the new Kineticist, but if it fails to meet those points it's simply because he wasn't allowed to buff the class due to Paizo's phobia of "at will" abilities.
The playtests are a farse anyway though. I mean Paizo intentionally released a nerfed version of the kineticist class for the playtest instead of the actual version they were intending, rendering the whole thing moot. Similarly, in previous playtests for things like Ultimate Combat, I realized that Paizo's open playtests were just publicity gimmicks.
Whaizo. Just Whaizo.
I think you are not interpreting statements about the kineticist in the way they were intended. They released a less powerful version of the class to see what people thought regarding power level, etc. Because if it was too powerful and needed to be brought down, people would be screaming NERF at the top of their lungs. It's a lot easier to buff than nerf a class.
This is correct.
Mark knew what he was doing and was a very responsive developer. By the end of the playtest he agreed with the feedback saying
-Not enough damage
-Not enough utility
-Burn, as it was, was horrid
-Not enough skill points and class skillsAnd said he would make those aspects better.
I have yet to see the new Kineticist, but if it fails to meet those points it's simply because he wasn't allowed to buff the class due to Paizo's phobia of "at will" abilities.
I would say that three of the four of those had a resounding consensus in the playtest. I am glad to say that they have been significantly increased (two of them by a factor of x2, including the 4+Int skill points I had wanted all along and many more widl talents known by default). The one that was not a consensus (the statement on burn is not an accurate portrayal of the aggregated majority of playtesters' feedback) but still existed in some feedback was still important, and allowed me to hone and improve the trade-offs and mitigation, while including an archetype that removes burn from the equation and still keeps the static hit/damage numbers without needing to engage in the burn dynamic.
I really love Pathfinder. I actually liked the ideas and options of the Advanced Players Guide-the execution, not so much. I wouldn't touch Mythic with a ten foot pole. My question is-are the rigors of a production schedule having a serious effect on the quality of Pathfinder products? I think that Mythic, the APG and the Vigilante playtest (I know it's a playtest but it needed more work) were in such questionable shape they shouldn't have been released. People out there would add other things to this list I'm sure. Should Paizo rush out additions to the volume of new, untested rules instead of new content? I admit to having an axe to grind; I'd like to see a hardcover city book once a year along the lines of Bard's Gate or the Shackled City. Occult Adventures looks good to me but now I know Pathfinder fans who just aren't going to buy it.
A - No. No problem.
B - City books would fall under the campaign setting line, not the RPG line.
My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.The tremendous shouts of applause when the idea was announced at the Paizocon dinner beg to differ. No one is twisting your arms to play the class or buy the book. You've got plenty of time to cancel your subscription and reup it later if you wish.
To be fair, audiences are there to applause.
Also I bet that audience didn't expect the vigilante to be the class it is.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, audiences are there to applause.Also I bet that audience didn't expect the vigilante to be the class it is.
to be completely fair, happy people are less vocal then unhappy ones.
while a few/some/lots of people (I don't know the numbers) are unhappy with the outcome of the vigilante, some others (like me) are really happy and see many uses for this class.
Paizo cannot satisfy everyone, but imo they do their best to satisfy most of us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there's another 1 to add to the list of threads in the WOTR section that read "Mythic killed our game."
How do you take my telling you that it's working for us as a +1 for a thread where it doesn't?
As I stated in my post, the problem is the difference in scope between mythic martials who generally swing harder and maybe move around a little more, and mythic casters who make castles out of nothing and nothing out of encounters.
Mythic was not an evenly handled subject, it was (as most Paizo material tends to be) HEAVILY in favor of casters because the only thing better than magic is MYTHIC magic. Trust me, I did a review of mythic stuff in the realm of Alchemist vs. Barbarian for value, and Alchemist got so much cooler stuff than Barbarian that it almost made me wonder if Mythic rules were a way to nudge martials into going with 3/4th casters just to stay with the curve.
This. Again. Only cranked up to 11.
Look. The job of martials is to bang two things together. HOW they do it is up to the player, but it's always going to be "bang two things together". Casters in 3.x have spells that do things. This is all by design. If a player wants to bang two things together, they can play a martial. If they want to create pits, or do mind-control or teleport the party somewhere, they can play a caster.
If you want something in between, also known as "nice things", try Path of War.
Of course something that amps up the narrative power level underlines the "disparity".
Also, in our party, our single martial out-does everyone else. Why? Because his player knows how to make things work. And frankly with Mythic Vital Strike and a few other abilities, he puts out double to triple the results of the two casters.
The line "it wasn't what we wanted" is thrown around as though the people who are unhappy have a very small box for what they wanted, but my Mythics expectation box for martials was very accommodating, and very little of it was filled. My caster box however was overflowing (mythic fireballs are awesome, mythic most spells are awesome) while mythic martial feats are...aside from Mythic Vital Strike (it was a mythic feat to make that feat valid), mostly yawners or things that should have been included already (mythic weapon finesse, anyone?), so the product failed to deliver on what I wanted for a mythic martial, which was something other that larger numbers for the most part.
So... your box was exactly the size of "make martials and casters the same" and you're suggesting it isn't a small box? Huh. That's never what Mythic was advertised as being. I believe that product is called "4e", and I don't mean that as a slur.
If the game is "does the product give martials nice things while nerfing casters", you're going to hate pretty much every product with crunch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Mythic:
I would very strongly recommend to anyone looking to play a mythic game that they get either Mythic Solutions or The Mythic Hero's Handbook from Legendary Games (the Solutions rules are in the Handbook, so don't get both except for budget reasons). The suggested solutions go a long way to re-balancing the mythic benefits back toward "normal" (while still ramping your game up to 11), and go to great lengths to identify the problems, and typically offer multiple possible solutions to them.
I think the hardest part would be remembering which options you've implemented.
|
Contributor
|
Regarding Mythic:
I would very strongly recommend to anyone looking to play a mythic game that they get either Mythic Solutions or The Mythic Hero's Handbook from Legendary Games (the Solutions rules are in the Handbook, so don't get both except for budget reasons). The suggested solutions go a long way to re-balancing the mythic benefits back toward "normal" (while still ramping your game up to 11), and go to great lengths to identify the problems, and typically offer multiple possible solutions to them.
I think the hardest part would be remembering which options you've implemented.
Agreed. I like Mythic, but applied without restraint, it shatters the game. Their fixes are basic but effective. ^_^
I wholeheartedly agree. Mythic Solutions works well for keeping mythic under control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.
Apparently it's hard to make one post without majors errors so perhaps Paizo's doing better than you think?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently it's hard to make one post without majors errors so perhaps Paizo's doing better than you think?By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.
He's not getting paid or asking for money for his posts.
But keep trying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loved everything about Mythic. Played it all the way from level 1 to 20/tier 10 (ran the game actually).
It let the Fighter shine, and the casters got new shinies too! Everyone had fun.
The mythic monsters were GREAT... It's one of my favorite books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to the op, yes.
I got in to Pathfinder at the start because of higher quality control and lower production schedule than the deluge of books produced yearly by WotC. The early books were all pretty high quality, and had a higher ratio of usable content than I had come to expect from 3.5 releases. I feel that as the company grew in popularity, however, they started to fall into the same traps: increasingly outsourcing work to people with poor rules understanding, bad editing, more books per year with less worthwhile content per book, and poor internal consistency in both balance and mechanics in individual books.
I feel that Mythic was a turning point for the company, as it represented a lot of the above issues. It has great ideas, and is more fun than Epic because it isn't just a scaling set of numbers with a broken epic casting system. The core concepts are great, and the ability to tack on the system at any level makes it a really usable toolbox, WotR is even a fun campaign (playing it right now actually) but... execution was lacking. Abilities vary wildly for no reason (archmage abilities vs. hierophant, power attack vs. deadly aim), the mechanics just don't work in places, and of course the balance between paths and even various abilities within paths are just poor. Many classes were left behind, caster's got almost all the love, and the little mini-splats they released to accompany the main mythic release (yay, more books...) were really didn't even amount to a bandaid.
Around then, more "companion" books to the main products started being released, and the company seemed to decide on a new heavy handed errata policy that simultaneously ignored known issues (such as with Mythic) and focused on adding more "balance" rather than clarifying actual writing errors (crane style, I'm looking at you). One of the things I liked about Paizo initially was that my books mattered; they didn't make sweeping changes, didn't obsolete old content with every new book, and even if I wasn't fond of how something worked, I could at least trust that the text of my book was correct (minus typos of course). Now... well, the ACG and accompanying errata appear to exemplify the problems with the company. Hopefully it represents a low point for Pathfinder, rather than a new normal. Unchained was a promising new start, though it had its own issues that are beyond the scope of this post.
The designers seem to be backpedalling and trying to rectify some of the above problems, but it is unclear at this point if they can do so. Production demands are high, the system is bloated, and many of the changes that need to be made to the system (like a cleaned up 2nd ed., in line with many of the Unchained options, to make the system more accessible to new players) are difficult to accomplish. I really want Paizo to do well, despite some frustrating misteps on their part, but I feel like Occult and the books that follow will be a make-or-break for both my group, and many other frustrated fans.
One other thing: it seems like in recent years the company stared catering disproportionately to the whims of (admittedly loyal, enthusiastic, and big-spending) PFS members. Many of the heavy-handed "balancing" errata from the last few years seems to be focused on making PFS work. Further, while PFS represents a ready playtesting pool, it may be the wrong demographic to target; PFS players are highly invested in existing rules which makes it difficult to introduce sweeping system repairs, are comfortable with rules oddities/minutiae that casual players often find alienating, and are likely to be more enthused by niche concepts (vigilante) than the casual player that wants more broadly applicable concepts. Whether to cater to the most loyal fans or to make yourself broadly appealing is an issue for every company, and a hard balancing act that I don't envy having to maintain... That said, I think they may want to start re-focusing if they are to maintain broad and lasting appeal into the next decade rather than being supplanted by 5th ed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex, I favorite'd that because it's nice to hear an opposing view point and I love your positive attitude :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex, I favorite'd that because it's nice to hear an opposing view point and I love your positive attitude :-)
I mean, for realsies, some of that stuff was CRAZY, but it was supposed to be!
Gave me a chance to pull out all the stops and throw Great Wyrms with levels in Fighter at them...
Half-Red Dragon moss trolls (only able to be killed by suffocation, oh yeah!)...
Stuff like that.
Good times.
Apparently it's hard to make one post without majors errors so perhaps Paizo's doing better than you think?By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.He's not getting paid or asking for money for his posts.
But keep trying.
I thought it made the point pretty clear. Enjoy the sky falling in your world. Meanwhile those of us that can actually GM don't have these problems.
Better gaming through better GM'ing. Period.
I am not actually all that sure that errata is made solely to align with PFS. However PFS (for better or worse) provides a standardized gaming environment for Paizo folks to both recruit new players as well as get a general sense of what is and isn't being played or causing problems.
It's a lot harder to get data from people who play outside of that environment, and because of differences in house rules/play style/GM ability/campaigns/etc, there is no standardization to determine if something should be changed or not.
Similarly...a lot of the current issues in the game system derive from the original update from 3.5 to Pathfinder (Mythic aside). Stuff like fighter-caster diparity need addressing in the core rule book, and that is best done in a new edition, not as patches in supplemental rule books. Otherwise you risk obsoleting existing books. Stuff like Unchained can only go so far.
'Better Gm'ing' means bupkus. That's a total cop-out if I've ever seen one. In PFS, you don't HAVE that option, and many GM's (Many I'd assume from your tone are better than you) are uncomfortable with the increasing NEED to house rule and otherwise 'fix' and patch things that keep coming out.
|
|
It too easy to say the debs are human when mistakes happen. Once, twice, three time. After that it's simply making the same mistakes over and over. I respect the debs. I'm no longer giving them a free pass on repeating the same mistakes anymore. Either we get new material that is either too powerful it not worth taking. Their seems to be a adamant refusal to find any mide ground. Errata is even worse. Either what needs to be fixed is ignored. Or nerfed to almost being useless IMO. A good example is Divine Ptotection. What was a strong feat perhaps too good. Is now almost worthless IMO. A DM would either have to give it to me for free. Or I need to be payed at least a six figure amount before I ever added to my character sheet. It's frustrating really.
As for the play tests agreed they are a farce. A feel good PR thing for the fans. The debs can and will ignore any of the play tests if they ready have a set idea in mind of what a class should be. I actually like Mythic. The main issue for me never using it is that Mythic enemies don't scale properly with players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the play tests agreed they are a farce. A feel good PR thing for the fans. The debs can and will ignore any of the play tests if they ready have a set idea in mind of what a class should be. I actually like Mythic. The main issue for me never using it is that Mythic enemies don't scale properly with players.
It isn't necessarily a bad thing for them to do what they want without input occasionally. It gives the freedom to do new things and take the game in directions that the fan community might not be capable of. That said, glaring mechanical issues need fixes and sometimes those don't get listened to either.
I actually like mythic too, or at least the ideas behind it. But it reads like a really good playtest document... a great start, but it needs significant refinement. Instead of getting that refinement, it just languishes. And WotR is fun as campaigns go, but the modules are hilariously outmatched by mythic characters. Aside from perhaps one fight, our group could have completed the first 4 books without mythic tiers at all (can't comment on the last books, haven't started them yet). Mythic play would really have benefitted from a more extensive bestiary and pre-made npc's, as regular critters become a joke, and modding every single encounter with mythic stats is just too much work (I play modules so that I don't have to do the leg work of getting all the stats together myself).
Apparently it's hard to make one post without majors errors so perhaps Paizo's doing better than you think?By "APG" did you really mean "ACG"?Oh, yeah. Too much coffee.He's not getting paid or asking for money for his posts.
But keep trying.
I thought it made the point pretty clear. Enjoy the sky falling in your world. Meanwhile those of us that can actually GM don't have these problems.
Better gaming through better GM'ing. Period.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.
I love the vigilate concept but I'm the GM. This class in playtest is awesome as villain for the PCs. It's perfect! As a player it's usable but no where near as good as it is for GM to use against the players.