Yesterday, Update 1.6 went live marking the end of the Playtest Updates. I thought now was a good time for a retrospective and had been planning to make this thread...but it looks like I'm not the only one who thought this was a good idea.
Would it be possible to have new survey for a perspective that includes all updates?One of the few remaining surveys I want to make sure we get out there is one talking specifically about the changes in the updates.
Just because it is in an update does not mean it is final. The updates are specifically so we can test out additional rules for the game.
So I'll be looking forward to that survey! But until then let's chat about the Updates here.
What Update was your Favorite?
Update 1.2 remains my favorite for abolishing Signature Skills and increasing the minimum skill threshold for all classes. Unlocking Skill proficiency had a drastic impact on the game and enabled a broad range of new character options. I'd love to see something similar implemented for all proficiency.
What Update did you Hate?
Oddly enough, I feel the most negatively about Update 1.4. It took a step in the right direction but in the process messed up several Ancestries. Gnomes made out like bandits while the changes to many other Ancestries were lackluster. Also, I hate what it did to Dwarves. This is a hard one because, in theory, I like the direction but I hated the details of the implementation.
Bonus: Rank the Updates.
I'm not taking this bonus question - I can't remember what Update 1.3 even changed - but I have a feeling it might show up on a survey.
Bonus: What Update do you wish we'd seen during the Playtest?
I'd have loved to see an Update focused on Exploration Mode along the lines of the Resonance Test. The core rules for Exploration Mode only take up two pages...so it would have been feasible to test out revisions to them.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to comment on the individual updates but I will comment on the playtest process as a whole.
Rules as a whole needed to be updated
I think Paizo should have tried harder to come up with a way to update the actual pdf and so be able to send out a new pdf together with a changelist for each update.
I don't know anything about the publishing technology they're using but I DO know that it can be MUCH easier to update a primarily text document than Paizo's process.
I'm not talking about a pretty, nicely formatted book. I understand why that is both difficult to update AND why they wanted to get it into our hands. There has been lots of feedback requested on style, icons, colours, etc.
But they could ALSO have given us a basically text only copy of the rules that changed with each update. I'd be flabbergasted if there aren't already such documents floating around internally within Paizo. I'm pretty sure that the developers actually WRITE their rules in something closely approximating Word (I KNOW that developers in other companies do).
When I look at the update document my immediate reaction is "Wow. Its just NOT worth my time to even try and recreate any characters. Far, far too much work to sift through all those changes." I looked at the changes in areas that I personally care about a lot (eg, druids and wild shape) but, even there, I very likely missed some of the changes.
There seems to have been a significant drop in people actually playtesting as the playtest proceeded (based on evidence from the web). A significant part of that is, IMO, that Paizo made the process more difficult than it could have been.
Lots of key things have NOT been changed
While I think the vast majority of changes have been steps in the right direction I think that there are many things that have not been addressed that frankly should have been
Like everybody, I have my pet issues that haven't seen much love (Druid Wild Shape and Skill Feats being my personal top 2). Of those, one is sort of a nit and an edge case (Wild Shape) but the other is very, very fundamental to how the game will actually play. Exploration mode is another example that clearly, clearly needs much more love AND testing of any changes
I understand that they didn't have time to revamp all the Skill Feats but they DID have (or should have found) time to say something like EITHER
1) We think the skill feats are basically about right. Expect some minor tweaks but nothing major
2) We agree, the current set of skill feats are too weak. We've modified the feats for Bluff and Acrobatics as examples of the kind of power level we're looking for.
IF the current feats are too bland and too weak THEN they need to playtest at the vague approximation of where they think things SHOULD be.
I suspect that they like where skill feats are (or, at least, aren't planning on changing them). Knowing that would change my opinion of the game substantially.
Developer feedback was way too scattered
I understand that they're very busy and there are lots of sites that they needed to hit.
But they could have reasonably easily decided that one platform (paizo.com/playtest would be my preference) would be the ONE place you needed to go to track the play test. One place that would ALWAYS be updated.
Mark had his Noted! Thanks! thing going for awhile but it stalled (I assume due to the pressures of work). That alone was VERY useful. Its VERY helpful to know that your comments have at least been heard.
Too short a playtest
Yeah, I'll join with everybody else saying that the playtest was just too short. I think they'd have been far better served by opening up the basic contents 4-6 months before Gencon (given the book was PUBLISHED as an actual book at GenCon they had the material fully there 4-6 months ahead of time. If not more.
That would have hurt sales at GenCon but it would have made for a playtest more than twice as long. That benefit outweighs the problems (IMO).
If they had to make that a semi-limited Sign NDA We Have to Trust you limited playtest that would be fine. But its pretty clear that the internal playtesting that they DID do was inadequate (Resonance, Signature Skills being prime examples of things that got slapped down HARD and QUICKLY).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Update was your Favorite?
1.2, possibly because it was the first one for me (I wasn't playing when 1.1 was released). But it also set a great tone, personally, since one of the first things I didn't like was signature skills and shortly after mentioning that in a survey, they were gone.
Obviously that wasn't because of my feedback alone, but it creates a really positive test experience when that type of change happens.
Really, I liked almost every update, as with one exception I think they all moved the game forward. Every time I got one, it was better than the one before...
What Update did you Hate?
1.6, sadly. We've got wonky stuff like "Barbarian rage lasts an effectively random number of turns based on an ever changing flat check that will require me to have the rulebook open every turn to even know what to do". From a simple playability perspective, I recoil at the amount of needless complexity in that. Needless complexity is a thing that has come up before and it's something I don't like.
I also loathe the Cleric changes, or more specifically the lack of them. Rebalancing the class away from Channel would be fine given how it's the only good class feature right now (and it's extremely good), but they just nerfed the stuffing out of it and left basically everything else alone. Meanwhile Wizards (who already have more spells and more spontaneous spell options) get the option to swap spells around, which given the extra Heal castings Clerics (especially low CHA ones) are going to need now is something that class needs?
It feels like they think Clerics are fine without channel, when the reality is more like Clerics are fine because of channel, and the result is not great. Had more changes come along with it, that likely wouldn't have been an issue. Then there's the "you should be able to use things in both hands and still cast" change, which makes sense right up until you realize that without Emblazon Symbol, you still need a free hand to cast the three action Heal due to the material component. Being a three action cast, you can't free up a hand and cast it in the same turn. So now it's "you can have both hands full except if you want to cast this one spell, which you will probably want to because it's awesome, and in that case you must keep a hand free so you don't waste a turn getting ready to cast it."
Which really sticks out for how wonky it is. It doesn't feel like the class is getting a whole lot of attention with well-intentioned but not fully thought out changes like this. (I assume it was an oversight since most spells benefit from the change.)
The Paladin stuff is the big talking point on here... I don't mind the direction. I've always had non-LG Paladins in my games because people want to play them. Calling them something else is fine, and the ideas are fine, but they're still heavily reactive and protective only they don't have the battlefield control options required to really do that job. So I don't think the implementation is there yet.
Bonus: What Update do you wish we'd seen during the Playtest?
Rituals. They're a neat idea that got absolutely no attention whatsoever.
Also, spells. I realize updating the spell list is hard, but so many spells are so weak that it would have helped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.6, sadly. We've got wonky stuff like "Barbarian rage lasts an effectively random number of turns based on an ever changing flat check that will require me to have the rulebook open every turn to even know what to do". From a simple playability perspective, I recoil at the amount of needless complexity in that. Needless complexity is a thing that has come up before and it's something I don't like.
I see this argument a lot but I really think you guys are being over dramatic. Do you really think it will take you longer than a single fight to pick up on the flat check 0, 5, 10, 15 , 20? I don't think any of my players will have trouble with that. And barbarian isn't a very taxing class to play to begin with. If this was a mechanic on a bard or a wizard then I could understand but really this is like the only thing you will need to track, and it's dead simple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this argument a lot but I really think you guys are being over dramatic. Do you really think it will take you longer than a single fight to pick up on the flat check 0, 5, 10, 15 , 20? I don't think any of my players will have trouble with that. And barbarian isn't a very taxing class to play to begin with. If this was a mechanic on a bard or a wizard then I could understand but really this is like the only thing you will need to track, and it's dead simple.
1.6, sadly. We've got wonky stuff like "Barbarian rage lasts an effectively random number of turns based on an ever changing flat check that will require me to have the rulebook open every turn to even know what to do". From a simple playability perspective, I recoil at the amount of needless complexity in that. Needless complexity is a thing that has come up before and it's something I don't like.
I don’t understand this complaint. You already had to track how many rounds you’ve raged for in the old system. So there’s nothing new to track here...
(The “extra rolling” complaint makes more sense — it will slow down the game a tiny bit more. By itself, not a big deal, but lots of little time increases can add up...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this argument a lot but I really think you guys are being over dramatic. Do you really think it will take you longer than a single fight to pick up on the flat check 0, 5, 10, 15 , 20? I don't think any of my players will have trouble with that. And barbarian isn't a very taxing class to play to begin with. If this was a mechanic on a bard or a wizard then I could understand but really this is like the only thing you will need to track, and it's dead simple.
Honestly? Yes. And I'm not the only one in my group who will have issues with it (without going into details, learning disabilities and numeracy difficulty are not that abnormal).
Can I learn it eventually? Probably, I've learned more complex rules than that. But it won't happen in one fight, or likely even one session.
That doesn't make this in any way a good idea for a way to manage rage duration and the recoil when I first saw it was a real thing. It's much too complicated for the "problem" it's trying to solve (which I'm not even convinced is a problem in the first place).
If other people think it's fine, that's cool. But I really dislike this change and the whole direction of "toss in random checks that are unique to this one single ability rather than following a common mechanic".
(Also, if I DM, I have to worry about this along with everything else that a DM is already tracking, unless NPC Barbarians just ignore it because reasons, which is its own whole can of worms.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this argument a lot but I really think you guys are being over dramatic. Do you really think it will take you longer than a single fight to pick up on the flat check 0, 5, 10, 15 , 20? I don't think any of my players will have trouble with that. And barbarian isn't a very taxing class to play to begin with. If this was a mechanic on a bard or a wizard then I could understand but really this is like the only thing you will need to track, and it's dead simple.
1.6, sadly. We've got wonky stuff like "Barbarian rage lasts an effectively random number of turns based on an ever changing flat check that will require me to have the rulebook open every turn to even know what to do". From a simple playability perspective, I recoil at the amount of needless complexity in that. Needless complexity is a thing that has come up before and it's something I don't like.
It wastes time on a needless roll that doesn't even vaguely address the problems with the class, which are mostly that most of the totems have major systemic problems (some of which a random duration makes worse) and rage is... not good in the first place. A trivial damage bonus (compared to monster HP) for a burned action, an AC penalty and a completely dead round is stupefyingly bad.
Damage bonus isn't trivial first of all. In fact conditional flat damage bonuses are ridiculously rare and really good in the playtest. The AC penalty is bad sure but it's just a -1 nothing impossible to deal with, and the Temp HP is great especially if you rage more than once in a combat. This specific change wasn't trying to buff the class or anything like that (even though it is a flat buff no matter what you say. The average rage rounds goes up.) That's what the expert proficiency buff was for. This is more an experimental change for those that thought the old rage was a bit too structured and didn't fit the theme of the class. For instance you would plan out your turns while raged knowing exactly when rage was going to run out so you're in the best position when your fatigued. Preparation and planning doesn't really fit the theme of the barbarian right?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preparation and planning doesn't really fit the theme of the barbarian right?
Neither does Rage running out after 2 rounds because you rolled poorly, though. Twelve seconds is less "rage" and more "preschool temper tantrum".
A set duration that allows a bit of planning has the virtue of simplicity and speed.
Preparation and planning doesn't really fit the theme of the barbarian right?Neither does Rage running out after 2 rounds because you rolled poorly, though. A set duration that allows a bit of planning has the virtue of simplicity and speed.
How doesn't that fit the theme? Anger and rage is chaotic it makes much more thematic sense that the duration is variable rather than rigid. Single flat check at the end of each round won't take up much time. In fact the next person can start their turn while you roll it since it doesn't even have an effect until the start of your next turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, barbarians aren't inherently chaotic, neither are anger or rage (or lawful people wouldn't experience them).
Second, why take up any time?
Preparation and planning doesn't really fit the theme of the barbarian right?
It fits it fine. 'Barbarian' doesn't mean 'must be an idiot.'
I mean the fact that you literally can't do anything that requires any kind of complex thinking while raging kinda disputes that right? I think a barbarian planning out their set rage rounds is super meta gamey and doesn't fit the class at all.
Edit: To explain my point a bit further. I don't mind if a barbarian is smart or tactical while they aren't raging. I just don't like how WHILE the barbarian is raging (specifically on the very last turn of raging) they will plan out how they will start the next turn without rage. Usually meaning they will move out of melee and try to hide or defend themselves for the fatigue round. I find this utterly immersion breaking that a barbarian is doing this WHILE raging. The variable rage rounds makes this much better since you never know if your rage will end early or will go longer. So you're incentivized to stay fighting and rewarded in fact if you roll well.
I mean the fact that you literally can't do anything that requires any kind of complex thinking while raging kinda disputes that right?
No. They do the planning before, and hit the rage button when they feel pressed or want to let go. You're mistaking 'limited on complex tasks' with 'no thought.'
Read some Norse sagas that feature berserkers (one of the few source materials 'barbarians' are drawn from), they're often devious, cunning and vicious little <deleted>. And they work themselves up, biting on shields and froth at the mouth. 'And' not 'instead'
I mean the fact that you literally can't do anything that requires any kind of complex thinking while raging kinda disputes that right?No. They do the planning before, and hit the rage button when they feel pressed or want to let go. You're mistaking 'limited on complex tasks' with 'no thought.'
Read some Norse sagas that feature berserkers (one of the few source materials 'barbarians' are drawn from), they're often devious, cunning and vicious little <deleted>. And they work themselves up, biting on shields and froth at the mouth. 'And' not 'instead'
Read my edit. I don't mind that type of planning at all. But that is never how it works out in context. Usually what happens is on the last round of rage the barbarian will disengage and get to an advantageous position for their next round. the fact this is happening DURING rage is what irks me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate Unburdened being turned into a heritage. A lot of the stuff in 1.4 was good, but I really hate that.
I was happiest about signature skills being removed.
About the Barbarian rage, you're getting on average .38 more rounds of rage per use of the ability, so I consider that an improvement (and now there's design space for feats to extend it even more.) I honestly never liked how Rage was only ever 3 rounds, now you have a ~44% chance of getting more than 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There always was design space to extend it.
Feat: Extended Rage. You rage for X more rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the Rage mechanism working nice if we could make the Flat DC to be -(CON).
Example
CON Bonus: +4
Flat DC Round 1: 0-4 = -4
Flat DC Round 2: 5-4 = 1
Flat DC Round 3: 10-4 = 6
...
This makes Rage less predictable and rewards who advances constitution.
Still I would go a little farther and add CON as a Class Ability, so those who want to rage more rounds could start with 18 CON
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate Unburdened being turned into a heritage. A lot of the stuff in 1.4 was good, but I really hate that.
I was happiest about signature skills being removed.
About the Barbarian rage, you're getting on average .38 more rounds of rage per use of the ability, so I consider that an improvement (and now there's design space for feats to extend it even more.) I honestly never liked how Rage was only ever 3 rounds, now you have a ~44% chance of getting more than 3.
Still happy about the death of sig skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, modifying the flat check by Con is a really clever idea, actually.
Favourite Update:
Whichever gave us a slightly better Skill system, because for a brief moment I thought that Paizo is actually moving in the right direction with this, even though it was just a tiny step.
Runner up: Resonance. The removal of Resonance was the most positive thing that happened in the Playtest
What Update did I hate?:
Does the original Playtest Document count as an update? If not, then probably the Ancestry one, because, while a small improvement, it was even smaller than the Skill Update and disappointingly fixed not much and even that only half heartedly.
What Update do I which to have seen?:
Too many to count
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Favorite Update:
1.2. Signature Skills are probably the most disliked thing in the original document by far, removing them was a huge step forward. Proficiencies and Skill Feats still need lots of work, but that was a great update in general.
Unfavorite Update:
Actually, 1.6. It wasn't a bad update, it was pretty decent, but after being advertised as the big update that will improve classes, it left me very disappointed. Alchemist fixes were great but not enough. Cleric heal nerf was deserved but the fact that Domain Powers and Divine Spells are really unintersting was not addressed in the slightest. Druid changes were welcome, but again, not enough. Apart from the number issues, the fact that a high-level Druid can't do an 8-hour long trip while transformed in a horse, for example, is still very weird. Although I'm a fan of Arcanist-style casting and kind of like the Wizard change in a vacuum, it made them even more powerful than other casters, and the Sorcerer was left even more in the dust. Finally, Paladins. I loved them being open to NG and CG, but I still can't believe that not being reaction-based is not an option, and that Smite Evil is LG-only.
Update that I'd like to see:
Complete rework in the way that Medium and Heavy Armor work. Having all Skill Feats follow the Catfall model of scaling would also be great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yesterday, Update 1.6 went live marking the end of the Playtest Updates. I thought now was a good time for a retrospective and had been planning to make this thread...but it looks like I'm not the only one who thought this was a good idea.
Would it be possible to have new survey for a perspective that includes all updates?One of the few remaining surveys I want to make sure we get out there is one talking specifically about the changes in the updates.
Just because it is in an update does not mean it is final. The updates are specifically so we can test out additional rules for the game.
So I'll be looking forward to that survey! But until then let's chat about the Updates here.
What Update was your Favorite?
Update 1.2 remains my favorite for abolishing Signature Skills and increasing the minimum skill threshold for all classes. Unlocking Skill proficiency had a drastic impact on the game and enabled a broad range of new character options. I'd love to see something similar implemented for all proficiency.
What Update did you Hate?
Oddly enough, I feel the most negatively about Update 1.4. It took a step in the right direction but in the process messed up several Ancestries. Gnomes made out like bandits while the changes to many other Ancestries were lackluster. Also, I hate what it did to Dwarves. This is a hard one because, in theory, I like the direction but I hated the details of the implementation.
Bonus: Rank the Updates.
I'm not taking this bonus question - I can't remember what Update 1.3 even changed - but I have a feeling it might show up on a survey.
Bonus: What Update do you wish we'd seen during the Playtest?
I'd have loved to see an Update focused on Exploration Mode along the lines of the Resonance...
Hard to say what the favorite update is. I guess the expanded multiclass and/or ancestry options, though I wish they were balanced a little better amongst themselves, several of which being "gateways" into abuse *cough*Channel Life*cough*.
The least liked update would probably have to be when the only major changes were to the Dying rules. The sad thing is not so much that the dying rules are what they are, but that it took ~4 different updates to reach that point.
As for what I'd want to see in playtest updates? More major changes to auxillary options like familiars and animal companions (which are currently trash or super-niche/munchkin choices). These need to be buffed and actually useful to the party in ways other than being added spell batteries to casters (for familiar choices) and "permanent summon speed bumps" for Druids and Rangers, respectively.
There have been so many rules and abilities that we've looked at and went "Huh?" over. For example, Breath of Life? Still broken. It heals for some HP, but places characters at Dying 3 yet. Would they stabilize automatically because of the HP, or still have to make Stabilization checks or risk being Dying 4? What about the bonus to stabilization checks, how long does that last? On the next check they make period? There's no duration and no effect on it. Also, flying rules are janky as hell and have no mention as to how they work in numerous commonplace instances, such as being knocked unconscious while flying. When does an unconscious target fall? Immediately? At the end of their turn (because they cannot spend an action to maintain flight, but otherwise assume to be flying)? The rules don't say, and these distinctions have been important to find out for the purposes of playtesting, but haven't been addressed whatsoever. I'm not saying I expect it to be addressed specifically, but I won't hold my breath for the final release to actually have these kinds of changes and rules fixed (or at the very least clarified in the book).