Will Ancestries be in the APG playtest?

[keftiu]

I know it’s primarily class-focused, but curious to see what else gets in.

[John Lynch 106]

I haven't seen any indication that they will be. Given that there aren't any really new mechanics in ancestries and they are publishing ancestries in other books without playtesting them I wouldn't expect to have them included.

I'd like them sooner as well. But unfortunately we'll have to wait 11 months for at least SOME of the content in the new book ;)

[Blave]

I'm pretty sure Jason mentioned limiting the playtest to the four new classes as to not overload the playtest with content.

Because for every bit of content they test, they get feedback that needs to be gathered and evaluated.

[Perpdepog]

And ancestries have less mechanical impact on how your character plays than your class does. They're probably focusing their efforts for the sake of their sanity if nothing else.

[John Lynch 106]

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

But that is hearsay (unless someone has a link to provide) so don't hold Paizo to that!

[Enlight_Bystand]

In the designer Q&A on the 16th they confirmed that the ancestries would not be in the playtest.

[ChibiNyan]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

But that is hearsay (unless someone has a link to provide) so don't hold Paizo to that!

Somehow the Alchemist has slipped through even after rigorous playtesting.

[Rysky]

ChibiNyan wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

But that is hearsay (unless someone has a link to provide) so don't hold Paizo to that!

Somehow the Alchemist has slipped through even after rigorous playtesting.

Possibly a victim of too much playtesting, as it went through the most revisions.

[Charlesfire]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

Probably related to the 1e Shifter fiasco...

[nicholas storm]

I remember when ACG was playtesting and several classes were terrible in the playtest, but turned out good in the released book. Who knows what would have happened if they didn't playtest those classes.

[Elorebaen]

Rysky wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

But that is hearsay (unless someone has a link to provide) so don't hold Paizo to that!

Somehow the Alchemist has slipped through even after rigorous playtesting.

Possibly a victim of too much playtesting, as it went through the most revisions.

Also, shows how challenging these things are to get just right.

[PossibleCabbage]

Rysky wrote:

Possibly a victim of too much playtesting, as it went through the most revisions.

There was also the issue where playtest class feedback could be limited to "the number of classes you played/care about" and in my experience people avoided the alchemist because it was the most new stuff to learn.

[Arachnofiend]

Charlesfire wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Based on posts I've seen on this board (I never saw the direct statement myself) I believe Paizo has committed to always playtesting classes. This was after some classes were published without playtesting and some of them were poorly received by the community.

Probably related to the 1e Shifter fiasco...

Good to see at least one good thing came out of the 1e shifter!

[Rysky]

Don't forget the reason they forewent the playtests for Starfinder and the Shifter is because of how vitrolic the ACG and Vigilante playtests were.

[Arachnofiend]

Any interaction with a gaming community is vitriolic. There are posts on the forums right now where people are mad that Paizo de-canonized them turning Azaersi's skull into a goblet. It's not good, it's not even remotely okay, but it simply is.

And if you compare the end product of the Vigilante to the end product of the Shifter then I think you'll find that sifting through the trash to find the legitimate criticism makes for a better result than ignoring all of it outright.

[Rysky]

This has honestly been minute compared to the Vigilante playtest, where most of the posts just outright hated the very concept and weren't keen to give actual feedback.

So digging through all that to find some gems was goof for the Vigilante, if that even happened, but it certainly wasn't good for the mental health of the people actually working on it.

And a playtest where the writers have to continuously interact with us is different than when a product is already out. But not by much going off the times writers have come to the boards excited to discuss the things they worked on only to get mobbed by the community (Ultimate Wilderness, Blood of the Coven, Adventurer's Guide, etc). Until the 2e playtest we barely had any writers dealing with us any more. Why would they?