| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest thing, and the thing that probably crippled it's budget, is getting pounce at lv4, though it's a worse version than the pounce the druid gets at lv6 because the shifter's animal form is nerfed.
Adding to this: it gets rake at level 15 with tiger and the dino gets really weak foreclaws at level 8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got any actual links or are you just gonna keep saying that. Also something being "entry-level" doesn't mean it has to be an objectively bad class.
2. Clearly, Paizo did. There are several blog posts detailing that very exact phrase. As to whether players wanted it or not, this thread, and several others, are proof of whatever that answer really is.
I was always under the impression the core classes were "entry level" classes....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not just the druid that outshines it but every shapeshifting based archetype. Also I was hoping to finally have a good natural attack focused martial class but you only get two claw attacks and claws are the only options:(
The class also really lacks class options. Ones that would make sense would be favored terrain, resist nature's lure, some immunities(disease, poison, paralysis, aging, etc.), a speak with animals constant effect, bonuses to skills like 1/2 your shifter level to perception, at will minor morphic ability, etc.
I find it strange that it doesn't have disguise as a class skill. Plus other skills that would have made sense as class skills would be intimidate, k(geography), k(local), and sense motive.
Also a few more weapon prof. would have nice like bolas, boomarang, great club, long spear, net, short bow, whip, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and dollars to donuts if folks ALL take the 'pounce' forms they'll be nerfed/banned faster than you can say 'foam toy' in Organized Play.That's based on previous experience when everyone started taking 'a thing', so I'm not talking out of my butt here.
I feel like this means the Oozemorph is unlikely to make the cut, since everybody is going to want to play a Kitsune oozemorph since they apparently don't lose the "Change Shape (Su)" racial ability so you can just ignore most of the downsides of the archetype.
How are we comparing it here, are we including expanded sources for content or are we making it a "fair" comparison by only using the base material a class has to work with? Because I'd say it's probably hovering around the level of a CRB-only Monk or Fighter."worse than a druid" is not exactly an uncommon criticism.Haven't read this entire thread, but: how does the Shifter compare to martial classes? Can it compete with, say, the Slayer, which I remember reading that Paizo thought was pretty well balanced?
The Shifter works much better than a core monk, it has better attack/damage and ac, it fills a role well. It's comparable to a fighter, good at melee fighting with minor other powers. I'd fairly call it tier 4.
It's also nice to have low powered options for when you want a low powered game. So if you want a game where everyone plays lower powered classes the Shifter would much better than a druid or a feral hunter or every third party shapeshifter I've seen.
Got any actual links or are you just gonna keep saying that. Also something being "entry-level" doesn't mean it has to be an objectively bad class.
2. Clearly, Paizo did. There are several blog posts detailing that very exact phrase. As to whether players wanted it or not, this thread, and several others, are proof of whatever that answer really is.
Hmmmm, can't seem to find it now. I'm probably just misremembering where I heard it, or that I heard it at all. Oh well.
Either way, it doesn't change the factor that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now, so it's a moot point that there are links of this being the case or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be disappointing to you, but for what they were striving to create (entry level shapeshifting class), it hits on all the marks it's supposed to hit.
I just think the expectations everyone was wanting were simply too much and too different compared to what was being promised and created.
Like I said, entry level = beginner box. I don't see the class being useful outside of NPC levels and the beginner box, which means they hit the mark they wanted to hit.
They just didn't hit the mark we wanted it to hit, which is more our fault than theirs.
I feel though, this is fixable (for us) over time. The level of system knowledge/mastery can be assumed to be higher for splatbooks (Player Companions say) than it is for hardbacks, and every class has received some good archetypes *after* the book it was printed in.
The issue I have is if we're "fixing" the shifter through an archetype, what class features can you trade away? There's not a whole lot to give up.
It's going to take more than an archetype to save the original class from being bad. Even a classic Barbarian is going to be fairly strong, and certain archetypes are just icing on an already delicious cake.
This is more like a pecan pie fed to a bunch of people who have minor allergic reactions to peanuts, or dairy fed to people who are lactose intolerant...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is really no excuse in letting a class's main thing be less versatile than a secondary feature of another class.Yeah, but "worse than a druid" is not exactly an uncommon criticism.
But worse than the druid at the thing its supposed to be good at is.
(although not unique, the chained rogue got this a lot...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a brainwave actually while comparing it to the Fighter. Instead of archetypes "fixing" the class, like the Fighter archetypes attempted to do with varying degrees of success, would something like "Advanced Aspects" work? Instead of gaining additional aspects at higher levels, you improve parts of your selected aspects above and beyond what you normally get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far the shifter is not sounding like a tier 4 class. Swashbuckler and unchained rogue set the low end of that tier and the shifter talk has not communicated enough abilities for the class to see equivalent to those two.
The impression is that it falls behind a CRB only fighter in tier 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Herolab has a brand new paw icon that is placed next to the one/two-hand boxes if you carry a weapon in hybrid form and the equip boxes are greyed out so you cannot equip a weapon. As Herolab is the official character sheet, I assume this is from input from Paizo and is working RAI.That may be wrong but more often than not Herolab is accurate.
I'll be filing a bug report.
I should be able to equip armor after using wildshape and weapons while in a hybrid form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was always under the impression the core classes were "entry level" classes....Got any actual links or are you just gonna keep saying that. Also something being "entry-level" doesn't mean it has to be an objectively bad class.
2. Clearly, Paizo did. There are several blog posts detailing that very exact phrase. As to whether players wanted it or not, this thread, and several others, are proof of whatever that answer really is.
The druid is still the most complicated class in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh.
I've always felt Wizard is more complicated. Go figure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The druid is still the most complicated class in the game.I was always under the impression the core classes were "entry level" classes....Got any actual links or are you just gonna keep saying that. Also something being "entry-level" doesn't mean it has to be an objectively bad class.
2. Clearly, Paizo did. There are several blog posts detailing that very exact phrase. As to whether players wanted it or not, this thread, and several others, are proof of whatever that answer really is.
It's also the most entry level because you don't even have to understand 1/6th of your character to contribute meaningfully to the party.
Hand a new player a decent stat array and a Druid and they can handle the rest. It's what we do to noobs to get them to speed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now we're using the fighter as our benchmark again?No, just pointing out that the druid having a secondary class feature that is better than an entire class is not a new thing.
In vague fairness, a Core druids animal companion is NOT better than a Core fighter except maybe at level 7 and 8.
I admit that its close to as good. But it really is worse. Pouncing kitty cat is great under the right circumstances but a fighter is much more versatile and does nearly as much damage.
I admit that an animal companion which the druid buffs to heck IS arguably better. But the class feature alone is NOT.
Huh.I've always felt Wizard is more complicated. Go figure.
The layer the druid superimposes on how their polymorph effect works is going to hedge the wizard out.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, it doesn't change the factor that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now
I don't think that you can conclude that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now. Lets take the Advanced Class Guide. Very clearly, they did NOT want to publish what actually got published. The size, extent and speed of the errata proved that.
I find it hard to believe that Paizo actually wanted to publish a shifter class that is being met with such nearly universal dislike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, druids don't feel as 'crunchy' to me as Wizard (or even *Shifter* now).
I realize that's not actually the case, but...
Either way, it doesn't change the factor that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now
I don't think that you can conclude that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now. Lets take the Advanced Class Guide. Very clearly, they did NOT want to publish what actually got published. The size, extent and speed of the errata proved that.
I find it hard to believe that Paizo actually wanted to publish a shifter class that is being met with such nearly universal dislike.
I understand that point, and as a fellow game designer, I agree with that sentiment.
Logically speaking, however, if they didn't want to publish it, they have the option to not publish it, and delay the official publication until they felt it was a product of an appropriate standard. The backlash from delaying a product, I imagine, is much more preferable than the backlash for a product that is horribly received altogether.
Them not doing that in this case tells us that they felt it was acceptable, and went with it. The negative criticism is really just the customer base saying, "Paizo, you done f@#$ed up."
Still, druids don't feel as 'crunchy' to me as Wizard (or even *Shifter* now).I realize that's not actually the case, but...
And druid can be made easier depending on optional picks. Domain/herbalism is a LOT easier than a companion. Wildshape can be replaced or limited with archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See problem I have with uses based on per hour is what If I miss call my use for 1st hour for easy fight then I run our at hour 6 or so for the boss cause maybe I thought we would rest or something in between.Only an issue at 1st level. At second, you use one block and still have a second block to use later.
When you do rounds you're VERY limited to use/scope, especially for form changes that have non-combat uses. You have a dozen or two rounds of change and that not much use in an underwater/swim adventure or flying/climbing up a mountain, ect or scouting an encampment as a skunk.
So rounds/day make sense for a combat buff like rage but not so much for a more universally useful buff like changing your shape.
Instead of rounds, how about you get 1 hr/level, but use them in 10 minute increments minimum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rounds are only a great amount if it's a combat only thing. The moment you think about OoC you just don't have enough.
Like rage, plenty rounds for combat, But if you wanted to angryly climb or swim with the rage powers for that, you're looking at burning quite a lot of rage rounds for that OoC use and might easily cut into your actual combat usage. (biggest issue I have with the medium archetypes that can spontaneously get a spirit, you have no where near enough rounds to reasonably do anything OoC with it. )
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of rounds, how about you get 1 hr/level, but use them in 10 minute increments minimum.
For simplicity (and ease of play) I'd prefer if minor and major aspects were tracked in hours / level, but not needing to use all of them at once (minimum 1 hour / activation or change, 'though).
Keeping track of different durations sounds too fiddly for a class that's not a spellcaster, and shouldn't have to worry about buff X going down in 7 rounds, and buff Y going down in 70 minutes, and buff Z remaining up for 7 hours. That's just annoying, and I'd rather not deal with it for the shifter.
Heck, I'd be fine with a looser version of the class that had no duration at all. It shifts, and it stays shifted until it deliberately changes back, changes to something else, or loses consciousness. That would require the class be balanced to be 'always on' and not centered around any sort of resource-management, but, IMO, it already is.
The claws power is already a precedent for that notion. (and that's a good thing, since I'd hate to use up my rounds of claws for the day and spend any remaining rounds of combat hoping my enemies get a staph infection from my raggedy hangnail...)
So now we're using the fighter as our benchmark again?No, just pointing out that the druid having a secondary class feature that is better than an entire class is not a new thing.In vague fairness, a Core druids animal companion is NOT better than a Core fighter except maybe at level 7 and 8.
I admit that its close to as good. But it really is worse. Pouncing kitty cat is great under the right circumstances but a fighter is much more versatile and does nearly as much damage.
I admit that an animal companion which the druid buffs to heck IS arguably better. But the class feature alone is NOT.
Except at 4th level where the large Constrictor Snake comes online. This AC does massive damage and is Core. My Druids like to sit back and eat popcorn at this level as the Constrictor Snake alone is enough to shame the Fighter.
The Druid might be powerful and flexible but they are a pain to prep and to play well. My 10th level Druid for example has 11 Wild Shapes and 20 summons stated out along with his prepared spell list. Also considering that the spell list might change considering what type of Wild Shape he plans on using that day it makes for quite the complicated operation. Hence I can see the purpose of a simpler class for player who enjoy playing martial characters.
They just didn't hit the mark we wanted it to hit, which is more our fault than theirs.I dunno. When Paizo hypes up being able to turn into an owlbear by combining owl and bear traits I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the players for not realizing that what they actually meant was that you could turn into a bear with a competence bonus to stealth checks.
I'd say it is, for the sole reason that Paizo's design philosophy didn't match up to what they wanted the design to be, and as such were going to be at odds from the beginning. It's also not the first time that the PDT hasn't been clear on what certain rules are actually supposed to be when, as written, they either don't work, or work in a way that wasn't supposed to work to begin with, so it's not really any breaking news, either.
The only thing you can blame Paizo for on this front is over-exaggeration of creative writing in an attempt to entice people into sales, in which case you're basically blaming the creative writers for doing their job, writing so well to entice sales even if it's in the event of something that's negatively received afterward (similar to how commercials try to hype up movies that are actually bad to raise the sales on the movie so it isn't a bust, or so it gets even more revenue), and that's not exactly fair for them to be blamed, either.
All I can say is that people should read such entries more carefully and not buy into the creative writing so gullibly. One thing I noticed in the Force of Nature blog post, for example, was the mention of claws and aspects multiple times, with them being nothing but linear scalings, which makes for a boorish class when looked at from an objective standpoint of classes having variety besides typical one-trick-pony stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except at 4th level where the large Constrictor Snake comes online.
So, lets run the numbers.
A constrictor snake at L4 has 24 Str, 16 Dex, 4 HD, BAB of 3, and is large.
So, it has a +9 to hit for d4+10 damage. Grab and constrict gives it a likely (but not at all guaranteed) additional d4+10 damage. So, 25 damage assuming the constrict goes off. 2 Feats to customize. Likely power attack and either Wpn focus or toughness.
CMD for grab is +15.
AC of 14.
A bog standard boring L4 Human Core Ftr has a Str of 20, a two handed sword. 5 of his feats went to Furious Focus, Wpn Focus, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Wpn spec
He has a +1 sword (costing 1/2 the cost of an amulet of mighty fists).
His AC is likely something north of 16. CMD is going to be something like 20 ish.
He has a +11 to hit. Always power attacks. Does 4d6+16 damage
(7 str, 1 sword, 6 power attack, 2 wpn spec). 30 pts of damage. Which, depending on how the snake is built, is fairly likely to kill it in a single blow.
So, he has a better to hit, higher AC, more hit points and does MORE damage on his one hit than the snake does, even assuming that the snakes grab goes off.
Seems to me that this very boring fighter build out damages the snake, at least on the first hit. And BOTH fighter and snake are likely going down on the second, even if the fighter was grabbed.
And the fighter has a bow as well, easy access to magic like potions of enlarge person, etc etc etc. Together with all those wonderful skill points :-) :-) :-)
Don't get me wrong. The druids animal companion is a WONDERFUL class feature. And it only takes a couple of druid buff spells to change the above comparison. Its FAR too powerful when compared to a Core fighter, especially considering what else the druid brings to the table. But, by itself, I'll maintain that the companion is inferior to a fighter. Not a LOT inferior but inferior none the less
|
|
The Druid might be powerful and flexible but they are a pain to prep and to play well.
Thought I'd separate out my two replies :-).
No argument there at all. My druid was a PFS character. I had 5 or 6 different spell load outs depending upon what the group required (a druid is a moderately good healer if needs must :-)).
Once she hit level 17 I had to build a spreadsheet to handle the shapechange spell. It was the only way to keep track of both buffs and changes in form. And even the spreadsheet "only" covered the 15 or so common forms that I took while adventuring.
She was a Lion Shaman which reduced the summoning work considerably. She never summoned anything except Pussy Cats except under the most dire of circumstances (something like twice from level 4 through 18). Partly for thematic reasons, partly for mechanical reasons. I did pre calculate WHICH pussy cat to summon at each level of SNA, of course :-)
Except at 4th level where the large Constrictor Snake comes online.
So, lets run the numbers.
A constrictor snake at L4 has 24 Str, 16 Dex, 4 HD, BAB of 3, and is large.
So, it has a +9 to hit for d4+10 damage. Grab and constrict gives it a likely (but not at all guaranteed) additional d4+10 damage. So, 25 damage assuming the constrict goes off. 2 Feats to customize. Likely power attack and either Wpn focus or toughness.
CMD for grab is +15.
AC of 14.
A bog standard boring L4 Human Core Ftr has a Str of 20, a two handed sword. 5 of his feats went to Furious Focus, Wpn Focus, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Wpn spec
He has a +1 sword (costing 1/2 the cost of an amulet of mighty fists).
His AC is likely something north of 16. CMD is going to be something like 20 ish.
He has a +11 to hit. Always power attacks. Does 4d6+16 damage
(7 str, 1 sword, 6 power attack, 2 wpn spec). 30 pts of damage. Which, depending on how the snake is built, is fairly likely to kill it in a single blow.So, he has a better to hit, higher AC, more hit points and does MORE damage on his one hit than the snake does, even assuming that the snakes grab goes off.
Seems to me that this very boring fighter build out damages the snake, at least on the first hit. And BOTH fighter and snake are likely going down on the second, even if the fighter was grabbed.
And the fighter has a bow as well, easy access to magic like potions of enlarge person, etc etc etc. Together with all those wonderful skill points :-) :-) :-)
Don't get me wrong. The druids animal companion is a WONDERFUL class feature. And it only takes a couple of druid buff spells to change the above comparison. Its FAR too powerful when compared to a Core fighter, especially considering what else the druid brings to the table. But, by itself, I'll maintain that the companion is inferior to a fighter. Not a LOT inferior but inferior none the less
You can't Vital Strike until 6th level at the earliest, because you need BAB +6, so that's wrong.
|
|
You can't Vital Strike until 6th level at the earliest, because you need BAB +6, so that's wrong
You're quite right. My mistake. So, that is 23 damage vs 25. Still very comparable and I don't think that it invalidates my main point. Even by raw damage numbers the fighter usually outpaces the AC (level 4 and 7 being the absolute best for the AC comparatively speaking.
......hmmmhhhh.....product page has been up for several hours....still doesn't look like we are going to get any formal response/discussion from dev's.
Makes me feel like I'm wasting my time saying anything....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
......hmmmhhhh.....product page has been up for several hours....still doesn't look like we are going to get any formal response/discussion from dev's.
Makes me feel like I'm wasting my time saying anything....
I suspect the initial reactions to newly released product seem more important to the fans than to developers.
I would have thought they’d give it some time for the community to experience actual play before launching into discussions of things which may seem less important down the track. This would be true even if the shifter was universally disliked - it will take time to ascertain exactly what the biggest dislikes are.
Creative energy spent chasing down every objection is energy coming away from product currently in development (so even if you think the shifter was a failure - explaining how decisions were made is less important than ensuring future products are given sufficient attention).
Paizo have clearly noticed the feedback. Personally, I’d always rather get a consistent and coherent response to issues than a rushed, knee jerk answer. I also suspect waiting a while will result in a more fruitful discussion between developers and disgruntled fans (disappointed fans? Not sure which is better).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
......hmmmhhhh.....product page has been up for several hours....still doesn't look like we are going to get any formal response/discussion from dev's.
Makes me feel like I'm wasting my time saying anything....
I suspect the initial reactions to newly released product seem more important to the fans than to developers.
I would have thought they’d give it some time for the community to experience actual play before launching into discussions of things which may seem less important down the track. This would be true even if the shifter was universally disliked - it will take time to ascertain exactly what the biggest dislikes are.
Creative energy spent chasing down every objection is energy coming away from product currently in development (so even if you think the shifter was a failure - explaining how decisions were made is less important than ensuring future products are given sufficient attention).
Paizo have clearly noticed the feedback. Personally, I’d always rather get a consistent and coherent response to issues than a rushed, knee jerk answer. I also suspect waiting a while will result in a more fruitful discussion between developers and disgruntled fans (disappointed fans? Not sure which is better).
We have been waiting a while.....patiently....that's the problem. A lack of response will actually cause more problems, as people become more and more frustrated about feeling like their disappointment is not heard. It would be better at this point to say "it is what it is, deal with it"....and let people respond to that....then keep people hanging wondering what is going to happen ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean months not a week or two.
I know people want an answer now as to “why did this feature have such-and-such duration?”, “why can’t you do both X and Y?” “Why wasn’t there an open playtest?”
But answering those doesn’t actually change the game (and pulling attention from whatever they’re working on now would change the game for the worse - we just wouldn’t see it for six months or more).
I think a better outcome will come by giving the community time to see the book in use and watch the shifter in play. Then some problems might turn out to be bigger than they appear now and others that seem like dealbreakers might turn out to be balanced (or at least acceptable).
It won’t make people happy to have their questions unanswered for a while, but there are other consequences in addressing the current crop of concerns beyond the level of engagement (at least if it’s done properly, in a considered and collegial way that Paizo like to address faq/errata).
I’d love it if you got a monstrous Q and A thread with the developers/designers/editors all chipping in answers. Or if mark is willing to put in some time addressing specifics. I’m just not convinced that’s the best for the game in the long run.
I heard someone suggest an faq/errata drop was planned sooner rather than later, so if that’s true it will hopefully bring some resolution.
I literally just got my copy 2 maybe 3 days ago now so its still pretty fresh for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean months not a week or two.
I know people want an answer now as to “why did this feature have such-and-such duration?”, “why can’t you do both X and Y?” “Why wasn’t there an open playtest?”
But answering those doesn’t actually change the game (and pulling attention from whatever they’re working on now would change the game for the worse - we just wouldn’t see it for six months or more).
I think a better outcome will come by giving the community time to see the book in use and watch the shifter in play. Then some problems might turn out to be bigger than they appear now and others that seem like dealbreakers might turn out to be balanced (or at least acceptable).
It won’t make people happy to have their questions unanswered for a while, but there are other consequences in addressing the current crop of concerns beyond the level of engagement (at least if it’s done properly, in a considered and collegial way that Paizo like to address faq/errata).
I’d love it if you got a monstrous Q and A thread with the developers/designers/editors all chipping in answers. Or if mark is willing to put in some time addressing specifics. I’m just not convinced that’s the best for the game in the long run.
I heard someone suggest an faq/errata drop was planned sooner rather than later, so if that’s true it will hopefully bring some resolution.
I believe there are some that feel if future products are of this quality then we really don't have anything to worry about by sacrificing dev time now, since things that are bad aren't really worse off if it's it's a little worse.
Also many people aren't going to play this class because of it's massive letdown, I've seen quite a few people who were excited about this idea decide they'd give it a pass since it wasn't good, and people that knew nothing of the class also say they'd give it a pass because it wasn't good. So actual play data when it's not a playtest where you know the product is likely bad but can be better with your experience will likely be slow and from a non-representative distribution.
How does two-handed weapon warrior compare melee-wise to shifter?
lv1 2d6+6 vs 2 for 1d4+4
lv4 2d6+6 vs pounce with 3 attacks for like 1d6+5 from +2 strlv5 warrior has str belt to shifter's +2 strength for minutes
lv8 shifter's minutes of str goes up to +4 maybe faster than str belt
lv9 shifter's get str and dex for minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe there are some that feel if future products are of this quality then we really don't have anything to worry about by sacrificing dev time now, since things that are bad aren't really worse off if it's it's a little worse.I mean months not a week or two.
I know people want an answer now as to “why did this feature have such-and-such duration?”, “why can’t you do both X and Y?” “Why wasn’t there an open playtest?”
But answering those doesn’t actually change the game (and pulling attention from whatever they’re working on now would change the game for the worse - we just wouldn’t see it for six months or more).
I think a better outcome will come by giving the community time to see the book in use and watch the shifter in play. Then some problems might turn out to be bigger than they appear now and others that seem like dealbreakers might turn out to be balanced (or at least acceptable).
It won’t make people happy to have their questions unanswered for a while, but there are other consequences in addressing the current crop of concerns beyond the level of engagement (at least if it’s done properly, in a considered and collegial way that Paizo like to address faq/errata).
I’d love it if you got a monstrous Q and A thread with the developers/designers/editors all chipping in answers. Or if mark is willing to put in some time addressing specifics. I’m just not convinced that’s the best for the game in the long run.
I heard someone suggest an faq/errata drop was planned sooner rather than later, so if that’s true it will hopefully bring some resolution.
Well I disagree with those people quite strongly.
However, I’m pretty sure the developers don’t feel like that (and they’re the ones who have to decide “do I work on this product or wade into an in depth discussion about why I made the decisions I did six/nine months ago”). Plus, given it’s a group effort, it’s unlikely one person will really be able to answer everyone’s questions.
I’m not arguing people shouldn’t want some Q&As now, just that I wouldn’t expect it now.
Edit: I should also make clear that it’s just a guess on my part. I don’t have any insight into what Paizo are actually going to do. Mark seems willing to engage at some level at least - perhaps people should try asking a question in his thread (?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve,
Mark didn't work on the Shifter directly, and he's said that a few times already. Asking him repeatedly about a class he didn't work on is kind of like asking a quarterback why the defensive line isn't getting any sacks in American football, so to speak.
Mark's awesome and I appreciate his input so far, but the hope continues to be that someone who was more 'hands in the gearbox' could 'show their math', unmolested, so folks could see the design parameters they were forced to work with, and why this class went together about as well as Justice League
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve,Mark didn't work on the Shifter directly, and he's said that a few times already. Asking him repeatedly about a class he didn't work on is kind of like asking a quarterback why the defensive line isn't getting any sacks in American football, so to speak.
Mark's awesome and I appreciate his input so far, but the hope continues to be that someone who was more 'hands in the gearbox' could 'show their math', unmolested, so folks could see the design parameters they were forced to work with, and why this class went together about as well as Justice League
I realise that. He has nonetheless been responding.
Paizo also take a fairly collaborative approach and given the PDT (of which Mark is a member) now have oversight of the class and are likely to be the ones responsible for any changes - he may well have a useful perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually enjoyed the Justice League movie but I am not enjoying the shifter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah we-ji way to divide people even more!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean months not a week or two.
Once opinions are formed it's all but impossible to change them.
Just look at the fighter. Most people completely discount all the wonderful things fighters have gotten over the years because they formed their opinion of fighters based on Core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It won’t make people happy to have their questions unanswered for a while, but there are other consequences in addressing the current crop of concerns beyond the level of engagement (at least if it’s done properly, in a considered and collegial way that Paizo like to address faq/errata).
I’d love it if you got a monstrous Q and A thread with the developers/designers/editors all chipping in answers. Or if mark is willing to put in some time addressing specifics. I’m just not convinced that’s the best for the game in the long run.
Steve,
I disagree entirely with the premise of this argument. At this point we have a ruleset that is meant to be read like a lawyer (i.e. an attack action is a specific type of standard action) or read as common sense (the ooze base form doesn't have a speed because you should intuit that you keep your base speed).
We have a dev base that gives rules updates to third parties before they update their customers, we have rules changes that have straight out been made to balance a part of the game that is supposed to be separate (crane wing nerf re:society games). While I appreciate Mark (and I do the more of these things that crop up the more 'swimming with the sharks' any interaction gets), the devs need to be willing to slow down and get it right *more than any other line Paizo produces*.
This is the thing - if an AP volume is a flop, heck even if an AP is a flop it doesn't impact the entire game. This isn't true of the ruleset. Dev's are human they make mistakes - but with a ruleset they are loath to faq/clarify regularly on, and rules they encourage people to nitpick to death when they make a FAQ on the meaning of what 'is' means in this clause, they need to get it right.
If this is impossible with '2 hard cover rulebooks a year' (which is really one because honestly one is always a bestiary) then they should slow down that pace, for the good of the game.
|
|
They answer FAQs and clarify as regularly as their schedule allows, the only FAQ I've heard them delaying is the Bardic Masterpieces one since due to the sheer number of them it would require an entire blog post.
As for updating "third parties before they update their customers" they work tightly with Herolab because they're supplying the ruleset to their customers. Herolab pathfinder customers are Paizo customers.
As for nitpicking that's Person A having one interpretation and Person B having a different one, there's not getting it "right" in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They answer FAQs and clarify as regularly as their schedule allows, the only FAQ I've heard them delaying is the Bardic Masterpieces one since due to the sheer number of them it would require an entire blog post.
They have more devs than ever before - if they can't fix the mistakes, they can't help the players with ambiguous/broken rules, and they can't make time to get the new stuff right, then frankly this is a problem with the company and rule set that needs to be fixed. The same devs that can't be bothered to issue statements (not even interact) to the community have no problem hawking personal rpg lines on a frequent basis.
As for updating "third parties before they update their customers" they work tightly with Herolab because they're supplying the ruleset to their customers. Herolab pathfinder customers are Paizo customers.
Herolab covers more than Paizo - so your last statement is factually wrong. That is besides the point that once they have a rule change - they should post the thing before it has time to go to another company and then be programmed in and sent out via an update schedule. That is - the time between having an answer and hero lab implementing it, is far larger than the time needed to let the community know of a change - and frankly there is no excuse for that.
As for nitpicking that's Person A having one interpretation and Person B having a different one, there's not getting it "right" in that regard.
No - nitpicking is when you say 'an attack action is a specific type of standard action' - sorry but when you make rules that require reading the combat section as a lawyer - you *encourage* nitpicking. Most FAQ's come down to this - such as what 'wielding' means as another example - there are many and I could go on.
After the ACG we were told by Paizo, that as a company they would fix things. Yet here again (around the same time in the release schedule IIRC) we have another 'wow - what happened' moment.