If we could just have a thread asking what Mark and the rest of the design team can can not say.


Summoner Class

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pronate11 wrote:
richienvh wrote:

I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I agree with you.

Me apologizing, even though I never engaged in any of the behaviors you mentioned was just an attempt at moving forward in the exact manner you mentioned. Sorry if that seemed like attempting to change anything. Didn’t mean to silence, nor invalidate anyone

Never let someone tell you you can't apologize. It's how we find empathy and how we start introspection. Only the one you may have hurt knows if you hurt him, and while others can offer reassurance and support, the apology is still very important, even if no one reads it. You're growing as a person, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. A mistake is only a crime if you do it a second time.

^ this. So much of this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:

I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I agree with you.

Me apologizing, even though I never engaged in any of the behaviors you mentioned was just an attempt at moving forward in the exact manner you mentioned. Sorry if that seemed like attempting to change anything. Didn’t mean to silence, nor invalidate anyone

Now it's my turn to apologize, LOL. I was replying to Skyler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts. It doesn't really matter if the devs post or not. Because when they post it doesn't actually quell anything ever. At most it gives some players a false sense of justification and warps the narrative of feedback given.

Fact is if it is harped on endlessly, chances are there is a reason.

And keep replying and keep jockeying for a better Magus/spell strike and if they feel it is too much, well I'm sorry I'm still going to keep in going and doing my part. You have absolute authority to ignore me on it if you desire devs. No hard feelings.

That all said.

Spell strike needs an adjustment so I have a reason to use it with cantrips over just once per fight to get energized strikes and ignore it the rest of the fight.

And portal slide should work with cantrips.

What haven't you taken time to clear up the ambiguous corner case stuff for staves or eidolon summoner interactions this could help us better playtest your current material.

A dev posting a clarification on how a rule works is valuable and doesn't muddy anything imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know that a second round of playtesting is wishful thinking, but it would really help to get some more concrete insights on the fate of the classes, probably after the playtest is done.

I know I only speak for myself,but the tables I DM and play in will be keeping the Magus and Summoner as viable options until publication, so, I know I'll be looking to gleam as much as I can from a potential stream (probably looking for inspirations for homebrews to adress concerns until the classes are published next year)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:

I know that a second round of playtesting is wishful thinking, but it would really help to get some more concrete insights on the fate of the classes, probably after the playtest is done.

At this point, I think a second round of playtesting would be a disaster if things didn't go the way some people wanted and they were extremely vocal about it.

Some players would roll with it and happily test a second iteration regardless, armed with new knowledge of the direction the devs wanted to take the class - but others would probably vocally object and add noise.

I'd love more info, and I'll test regardless.

I dont know that Paizo will be interested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd agree if the survey didn't also ask about different playstyles the two classes could potentially have and asked you to pick one you'd prefer.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

THAT'S IT!

EVERYBODY SIT DOWN!

I swear I will pull this thread over if you don't settle down back there!

Spoiler:
Ok fine, it's too late, you kids screwed up now! I'm making the executive decision here, this is now a thread about Goblin Pickle techniques, specialties, and theorycraft.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

THAT'S IT!

EVERYBODY SIT DOWN!

I swear I will pull this thread over if you don't settle down back there!

** spoiler omitted **

Both my Age of Ashes campaigns had evolving and out of control pickle subplots, one of which featured a Goblin.

My player actually wrote a pickle jingle to sell them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

THAT'S IT!

EVERYBODY SIT DOWN!

I swear I will pull this thread over if you don't settle down back there!

** spoiler omitted **

Both my Age of Ashes campaigns had evolving and out of control pickle subplots, one of which featured a Goblin.

My player actually wrote a pickle jingle to sell them.

We need Pickle Eidolon and Pickle Striking Magus Synthesis


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
this is now a thread about Goblin Pickle techniques, specialties, and theorycraft.

I mean, if you're trying to say that the type of brine that you use doesn't involve STRICT measures of 3 parts boiled horse blood, 2 parts dog bile, and at least three rotted teeth harvested recently (preferably from the brewer themselves), then I'm not sure what to tell you.

It's pretty clear that RAI that Goblin brine consistently pickled in this way provides the BEST pickled eyes.

I'll fight tooth and nail before I see these recipes for success reduced to comical storage containers of detached floating retinas. Honestly, if we're going down that route, why pickle anything at all? Just eat it fresh, because what's the point.

I'd really like to hear from the DEVS on why pickling shouldn't be done in exactly this way because seriously, there just isn't a lot of support for anything else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
this is now a thread about Goblin Pickle techniques, specialties, and theorycraft.

It's pretty clear that RAI that Goblin brine consistently pickled in this way provides the BEST pickled eyes.

I'll fight tooth and nail before I see these recipes for success reduced to comical storage containers of detached floating retinas. Honestly, if we're going down that route, why pickle anything at all? Just eat it fresh, because what's the point.

I'd really like to hear from the DEVS on why pickling shouldn't be done in exactly this way because seriously, there just isn't a lot of support for anything else.

The issue is the level restriction. People are forced to use the substandard dwarven, or even the *shudder* elven pickling techniques, because they simply can't get access to the Goblin recipes until much higher levels. You can sorta fudge it with the Orcish ones, but they just aren't the same

Design Manager

25 people marked this as a favorite.

I think everyone has a point here, in that posting critiques is expected during a playtest but doing so in a respectful fashion being more productive.

I want to circle back to what I said before. If you post your opinion once, we will take you seriously. It's OK to post with strong disagreement (but please try to do so respectfully if you can). But the flip side of the idea that posting once is sufficient is that there's no need to continue belaboring the point, or as MartialMasters put it to "harp on endlessly" because part of giving your opinion complete respect when you post it once is that posting it again doesn't increase that. At best, you're not adding any more weight to your point, but a worse case is that it could cause your repetition to feel more like background noise and devalue it, and worst of all for you is if you drown out the voices that agree with you. In other words, it's possible that by endlessly harping on the same opinion, you might dilute your opinion's strength because of the perception that "it's mostly just the same few people harping on it endlessly."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

I think everyone has a point here, in that posting critiques is expected during a playtest but doing so in a respectful fashion being more productive.

I want to circle back to what I said before. If you post your opinion once, we will take you seriously. It's OK to post with strong disagreement (but please try to do so respectfully if you can). But the flip side of the idea that posting once is sufficient is that there's no need to continue belaboring the point, or as MartialMasters put it to "harp on endlessly" because part of giving your opinion complete respect when you post it once is that posting it again doesn't increase that. At best, you're not adding any more weight to your point, but a worse case is that it could cause your repetition to feel more like background noise and devalue it, and worst of all for you is if you drown out the voices that agree with you. In other words, it's possible that by endlessly harping on the same opinion, you might dilute your opinion's strength because of the perception that "it's mostly just the same few people harping on it endlessly."

Thank you Mark for being so patient with these forums. It can't be easy to shift through all these posts to actually fine valid criticisms and ideas. I'm going to assume there's very good reasons you didn't answer any of my questions and I hope you have a wonderful day. (none of that was sarcastic, I genuinely mean it.)

Design Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pronate11 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

I think everyone has a point here, in that posting critiques is expected during a playtest but doing so in a respectful fashion being more productive.

I want to circle back to what I said before. If you post your opinion once, we will take you seriously. It's OK to post with strong disagreement (but please try to do so respectfully if you can). But the flip side of the idea that posting once is sufficient is that there's no need to continue belaboring the point, or as MartialMasters put it to "harp on endlessly" because part of giving your opinion complete respect when you post it once is that posting it again doesn't increase that. At best, you're not adding any more weight to your point, but a worse case is that it could cause your repetition to feel more like background noise and devalue it, and worst of all for you is if you drown out the voices that agree with you. In other words, it's possible that by endlessly harping on the same opinion, you might dilute your opinion's strength because of the perception that "it's mostly just the same few people harping on it endlessly."

Thank you Mark for being so patient with these forums. It can't be easy to shift through all these posts to actually fine valid criticisms and ideas. I'm going to assume there's very good reasons you didn't answer any of my questions and I hope you have a wonderful day. (none of that was sarcastic, I genuinely mean it.)

Looking back at your original post, two of the questions can be answered with a similar answer to a post I made previously: all feedback is valuable, but playtest data is the most valuable because, while anecdotal, it represents feedback that is very time-consuming for us to generate compared to other types of feedback, so it provides the best value. That's not to discourage other forms of feedback; give whatever you have time and capacity to give, and it's always valuable the first time you give it. Just to say that the playtest data is especially useful.


To be fair, I was under the impression actual playtest feedback was most valuable because you are testing a class to function within actual gameplay, which is more applicable than, say, some hypothetical scenario or build that won't come up except for the most stringent of circumstances.

My only complaint is that I can't appropriately playtest the classes because I do not have an opportunity to do so between my now two gaming groups, and by the time an opportunity will arise, the classes/book will probably already be published.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, one playtest is all that is really needed for content like this. The feedback isn't so much them getting an idea of balance they had no idea on, it is getting a general feeling for how things work in a variety of play scenarios.

Changing elements of the chasis and moving number balance values around doesn't invalidate a lot of that feedback and it will continue to have worth.

I do think the core game could have done with another year in the oven and a second playtest. I love PF2e and it is a great system but taking a WotC approach and how they ran the D&D next playtest would have been awesome.

Also, anyone who subscribes to the "it's their job" mentality. I only hope you are young enough to learn from your mistaken values/views where other people are concerned.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


I do think the core game could have done with another year in the oven and a second playtest. I love PF2e and it is a great system but taking a WotC approach and how they ran the D&D next playtest would have been awesome.

It's worth keeping in mind that if you were to compare Paizo and WotC to individual businesspeople, Paizo is the equivalent of a scrappy young innovator living project to project, loving what they do but always with the knowledge that if a project fails, it could be their last one. WotC is more like a venture capitalist who can not show up to his office for a year and still make a cool million off his existing investments. With PF1 already well down the road to dying, a second year of playtesting may or may not have made a better game, but it definitely would have meant the company hit COVID without the buffer of a year's worth of momentum on a successful new system protecting the consumer base and shoring up finances, and could have easily led to there just not being a Paizo today.

Publishing is a business a lot of people are just getting out of because of how slim the profits are, and if you aren't printing your own money in the form of cardboard crack, there's a lot of things that just aren't logistically or financially feasible. (One might also point to the pages and pages of 5E errata and dozens of threads and web-fixes for classes like the ranger to note how "useful" that second year of playtesting was for 5E, but that's not really here nor there.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say that COVID was not something anyone planned around. But it is a good example of you dont know whats in the future.

I would had personally like a more controlled playtest back then. There was a lot of stuff changing too quickly and a lot of stuff that became irrelevant or caused problems later on.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I will say that COVID was not something anyone planned around.

While that's not exactly true, no one claimed otherwise and it isn't really pertinent.

Quote:

But it is a good example of you dont know whats in the future.

Like the blizzards a few years back that shut down all of Diamond's distribution and nearly took out a few publishers along with successfully taking out more than a few FLGSs around the country. Or any of a variety of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other events that significantly disrupted distribution networks around the globe, costing publishers and game companies hundreds of thousands of dollars that many of them didn't really have. Something always happens every few years and the scale can be anything from an inconvenience to a catastrophe. During playtest years for a new edition, this kind of vulnerability is multiplied many times over, because you have the already dwindling population of the old edition that shrinks even more significantly as many consumers stop spending on the outgoing edition to save up for the new one, and there isn't any income really coming in yet from new consumers. A company that doesn't plan their finances around the fact that a disaster will strike when they're most vulnerable is a company that won't be around very long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes careful planning is very important. As for money, part of the problem about the outgoing system, is that it depends entirely on how the company markets the new system. Paizo went with the strategy of saying PF1 would get no more support, which cuts more funding than saying "PF1 support will be phased out".

But then again I am no marketer so there are many considerations I might be missing. I do know however that the playtest was weird, and this one is shaping to be weird for totally different reasons.

Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've had to remove an awful lot of bickering, and people trying to avoid the bad language filters. Be respectful of each other. This is not the place for hurling insults around.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Secrets of Magic Playtest / Summoner Class / If we could just have a thread asking what Mark and the rest of the design team can can not say. All Messageboards