| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just read that thread, and I think I lost at least three points off my IQ.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
More like Psychohistory 301: Social Implications of Quantum Physics in the Macrosphere...
Aside, let's cut Paizo a break. They have managed, in a span of 12 short months (a third of those in frickin' quarantine!), to establish years worth of content, all towards meeting the impossible reconciliation of placating older players while attracting newer players. The game is, by any metric, totally playable. Even fun, if you're feeling generous.
And sure, could there be more? Always! At the same time, mad respect for the work. Whenever I look under the hood, I am awestruck at the engineering that went in.
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More like Psychohistory 301: Social Implications of Quantum Physics in the Macrosphere...
Aside, let's cut Paizo a break. They have managed, in a span of 12 short months (a third of those in frickin' quarantine!), to establish years worth of content, all towards meeting the impossible reconciliation of placating older players while attracting newer players. The game is, by any metric, totally playable. Even fun, if you're feeling generous.
And sure, could there be more? Always! At the same time, mad respect for the work. Whenever I look under the hood, I am awestruck at the engineering that went in.
Cheers!
I'm in agreement we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The company at large has gone through a whole lot, and has managed to accomplish so much within the first year of the game.
I just wish they were more open on their end when it came to communication. They gave us the expectation that the next errata would be out before the APG. Even with it only being "the aim", it still set an expectation for a lot of players that really want to have some of these issues addressed in some fashion, especially for those who mostly play via Society.
If they were to just post up a brief blog post during today or tomorrow, just giving us the confirmation it's happening, or breaking the bad news that it'll have to come sometime after the APG, I think the vast majority of those seeking further errata would be okay with that. 'Cause the delay was at least communicated beforehand, instead of it lapsing without a word.
Maybe they can't be as on top of communication as we want them to be. If so, that's the one disappointment I would have with the company. I would understand, but the feeling is real.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest much like with FAQ issues in 1E I worry that with each new book Errata/FAQs for the older ones will fall further and further down the line and get less likely to be answered other than Society clarifications.
I mean there are still several major outstanding questions from 1E I would love official answers on that likely will never get one.
|
I'll be honest much like with FAQ issues in 1E I worry that with each new book Errata/FAQs for the older ones will fall further and further down the line and get less likely to be answered other than Society clarifications.
I mean there are still several major outstanding questions from 1E I would love official answers on that likely will never get one.
That's exactly the issue. They've got a bad track record and I don't think saying "it's all good guys,do what you've been doing" is the way to go.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish they were more open on their end when it came to communication.
They were. More so than any game developer I've ever known. And we s#$$ on them for it.
Now they're more guarded. Understandably so.
At the same time, mad respect for the work. Whenever I look under the hood, I am awestruck at the engineering that went in."Engineering" is a good word for it. And it is particularly remarkable in that engineering has not traditionally been Paizo's strong suit.
_
glass.
There are so many software-like principles in the design I have to wonder if they themselves don't have a lot of experience with Software Engineering (which I'd be surprised if no one on the staff was tbh) that they didn't consult some.
There are just too many similarities in the modular design to SE architecture patterns for it to be a coincidence.
There was talk of a PF video game a while back I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the concepts that went into that were borrowed or adapted into more compatible designs.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, there's an entire thread of people celebrating the anniversary of PF2 and some of those really love the modular design and how it was executed.
My job is Software Engineering. Perfect is the enemy of done. No project is without flaws and, outside of a few things, the vast majority of the game works fine, as is, without errata.
It is pretty trashy to accuse them of not being experienced with their own design patterns. Not liking them is one thing. Accusing them of not knowing their trade is another entirely.
I just wish they were more open on their end when it came to communication.They were. More so than any game developer I've ever known. And we s~*@ on them for it.
Now they're more guarded. Understandably so.
I don't disagree that there were a lot of bad actors in a lot of threads. But I can understand a lot of their anger even if I think they went to far.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are so many software-like principles in the design I have to wonder if they themselves don't have a lot of experience with Software Engineering (which I'd be surprised if no one on the staff was tbh) that they didn't consult some.
There are just too many similarities in the modular design to SE architecture patterns for it to be a coincidence.
There was talk of a PF video game a while back I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the concepts that went into that were borrowed or adapted into more compatible designs.
I remember from the Convention discord (and the 2E marketing push back in 2019) that Mark Seifter has a background in Computer Science, possibly in the AI field.
I don't disagree that there were a lot of bad actors in a lot of threads. But I can understand a lot of their anger even if I think they went to far.I just wish they were more open on their end when it came to communication.They were. More so than any game developer I've ever known. And we s~*@ on them for it.
Now they're more guarded. Understandably so.
Just going to point out that while true that the forums are not always Nice to Paizo, disengaging only results in further "us vs. them" mentalities on both sides.
I'll point to the kerfuffle over on Stack Exchange last November through January (and to some degree, still on going). Because staff had retreated 'up the mountain' as it were and didn't communicate in any manner other than 'degree from on high' they ended up taking unilateral action--bypassing their own rules and processes--to fire a moderator for having said something in a private channel, late on a Friday just before a Jewish holiday where the moderator in question would be offline for 96 hours. And then named her in a news interview the following day resulting in a lawsuit. Oh, and just a handful of months after changing their "be nice" policy to "make the site more welcoming."
Not saying that it'll get that bad here, just putting up a hazard sign near the slippery slope.
I don't disagree that there were a lot of bad actors in a lot of threads. But I can understand a lot of their anger even if I think they went to far.I just wish they were more open on their end when it came to communication.They were. More so than any game developer I've ever known. And we s~*@ on them for it.
Now they're more guarded. Understandably so.
Just going to point out that while true that the forums are not always Nice to Paizo, disengaging only results in further "us vs. them" mentalities on both sides.
I'll point to the kerfuffle over on Stack Exchange last November through January (and to some degree, still on going). Because staff had retreated 'up the mountain' as it were and didn't communicate in any manner other than 'degree from on high' they ended up taking unilateral action--bypassing their own rules and processes--to fire a moderator for having said something in a private channel, late on a Friday just before a Jewish holiday where the moderator in question would be offline for 96 hours. And then named her in a news interview the following day resulting in a lawsuit. Oh, and just a handful of months after changing their "be nice" policy to "make the site more welcoming."
Not saying that it'll get that bad here, just putting up a hazard sign near the slippery slope.
Well that was a rabbit hole of a read you sent me on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to go on record as saying that the staff at Paizo are incredibly kind and willing to interact with posters on these forums when the posters ask questions that are currently answerable and not under review. Also if you phrase your question in the context of a specific play situation, and then ask for advice about how it could be run, instead of demanding an official statement that you can use to beat other players over the head with as the closest thing to an "official ruling as possible" then they are more likely to provide you with advice as well. But you have to demonstrate that you are looking at it as advice and not an official ruling or else they are (rightfully) going to be hesitant to say anything if there is not an official policy already finalized and published somewhere to refer to.
I don't want to name specific names because I will probably miss one or two and feel really bad that I won't be able to edit them into this post, but there are many contributors to Paizo that regularly stop in and discuss game mechanics, story elements, and strategies for running APs here and that is a huge reason why I continue to support the company and participate in good faith discussions on these boards.
I play in PFS, GM APs, GM home brew, and even get to play in an AP and yes, every table ends up running a little bit differently and having its own set of "this is how we run things here," but the boards help make it clear what questions I should have for my GM in any PFS event (mostly I play by post) at the beginning and if I can choose to proceed accordingly.
It's not the not always being nice to Paizo thing which was being discussed - it's the frequently being abusive, vulgar, and disrespectful to people thing.
...and if anyone on the forum has an "us vs. them" mentality about the designers of the game we're all supposed to be here to discuss, that seems like a personal issue
I was just trying to throw caution flags, not saying things are bad now, just that that sort of talk can get there and get there easily. :)
I was just trying to throw caution flags, not saying things are bad now, just that that sort of talk can get there and get there easily. :)It's not the not always being nice to Paizo thing which was being discussed - it's the frequently being abusive, vulgar, and disrespectful to people thing.
...and if anyone on the forum has an "us vs. them" mentality about the designers of the game we're all supposed to be here to discuss, that seems like a personal issue
It's why I'm glad we had the politics board shut down. I don't think anything good for the site was going to come out of 2016 in that section.
I just want to go on record as saying that the staff at Paizo are incredibly kind and willing to interact with posters on these forums when the posters ask questions that are currently answerable and not under review.
Absolutely.
These people want to make games, and they do. The fact that they talk to us at all is honestly not in their best interest.
If anything is evidence of that, this thread is. They were extremely communicative during the playtests, and that's awesome. Choosing when and where to communicate is more important than the frequency. We're not entitled to their attention. Full stop.
I remember from the Convention discord (and the 2E marketing push back in 2019) that Mark Seifter has a background in Computer Science, possibly in the AI field.
Makes a lot of sense. The way the game is structured, I would call it "machine friendly" in terms of how everything is classified. Especially considering how varied the structs can be without actually making a large amount of "exceptions to the rule".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, there's an entire thread of people celebrating the anniversary of PF2 and some of those really love the modular design and how it was executed.You did not quote anybody, but the proximity suggest you were replying to Midnighttoker and/or me, in which case I respond with "yes, and we were two of those people".
It is pretty trashy to accuse them of not being experienced with their own design patterns. Not liking them is one thing. Accusing them of not knowing their trade is another entirely.Who did that?
_
glass.
This is solidly my bad. I misread Midnightoker's post.
Apologies to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, there's an entire thread of people celebrating the anniversary of PF2 and some of those really love the modular design and how it was executed.You did not quote anybody, but the proximity suggest you were replying to Midnighttoker and/or me, in which case I respond with "yes, and we were two of those people".
It is pretty trashy to accuse them of not being experienced with their own design patterns. Not liking them is one thing. Accusing them of not knowing their trade is another entirely.Who did that?
_
glass.This is solidly my bad. I misread Midnightoker's post.
Apologies to them.
I use an absurd amount of double negatives, so that's probably on me.
What I was trying to say was "They definitely have either consulted or have Software Engineers on their staff contributing because there are just way too many software engineering principles and similar architecture patterns in the design of the game for that to be a coincidence."
I'm an SE too ;) and even though I keep giving up on my pet project, I was trying to code some of the logistics of Traits/Feats and was loving how easy the sort of just "fit" into the usual standards for code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is the APG-release timed Core errata a thing now? If not, when?
Any news on the Errata front? I really look forward to errata on shields (not the basic rules but the very high hardness of sturdy shields and the extremely low hardness of all other shields) as well as some spells that can be encounter breaking (such as Repulsion). Hoping for some alchemist love too.
They've indicated it is in the works and will arrive Soon™. Just give them the space to do it right and it'll be here when it gets here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really look forward to errata on shields (not the basic rules but the very high hardness of sturdy shields and the extremely low hardness of all other shields)
Outside of some specific shields that have special abilities that involve using shield block, there isn't a reason to be expecting errata there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've indicated it is in the works and will arrive Soon™. Just give them the space to do it right and it'll be here when it gets here.
They indicated that soon would be before now, a few times. Not suggesting that people grab pitch forks, but asking is fair.
One thing I would like errataed is the witch familiar ability skilled the ability modifier used = your spell casting modifier so its really good at it but does it count as trained/expert/master/legendary in those skills for things that require you to have that level of skill to even attempt.
Your pet could in theory have legendary level roll for the check but is it only useful for things that can be done untrained?
Your familiar is not trained, it just uses your modifier. That also means that it can't do the trained actions.
Yes, but that sort of broad limitation on whats presented as a potent ability doesn't make a lot of sense.
Its pretty clear that you're correct about how it works as written, but that may not have been the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact it is called skilled but effectively you are unskilled but just supernaturally good at being unskilled is kinda weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, because the trait's name is "Skilled", I would count the familiar as Skilled, but no higher (not Expert, Master, or Legendary, no matter how high the skill bonus is)
Well "Skilled" isn't a thing, and the trait's name isn't "Trained," which is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, because the trait's name is "Skilled", I would count the familiar as Skilled, but no higher (not Expert, Master, or Legendary, no matter how high the skill bonus is)
If I were houseruling I'd just say your effective rank equals your rank in your Witch Spellcasting Tradition.
Slower progression than real skill specialists but with full progression for relevance.