|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know there is a deadline and everything, but I really would like to see a second playtest with the changes that they collected from all the feedback in the forms and forums to see what we can really expect and most of our concerns with this wonderful class can vanish.
Specially I would like that summoners got more flexibility through "subclasses" ( racket, doctrine, thesis, edge ) so we can get more options later since we can have options that are more narrow and have lesser chance to break the class if combined with other options or acquired through a dedication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect to see devs commenting on the playtest and how it wet, but I wouldn't put money on seeing a round two. They put forth what they wanted tested and it got tested. This was a stress test of mechanics not a call for design submission.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect to see devs commenting on the playtest and how it wet, but I wouldn't put money on seeing a round two. They put forth what they wanted tested and it got tested. This was a stress test of mechanics not a call for design submission.
There is too much "new" rules this time.
4 slot casting, shared HP, shared conditions, shared items, tandem actions.Too much concept difference from the 1st edition, no summon bonus, no archetypes, no evolution points, different spellcasting list and style, no independent eidolon...
Too much missing information, what happens when you try to cast a spell from a staff that you no longer have slots? How mount an eidolon interacts with spells that change size? Can an eidolon carry items like tower shield? A ladder? Healer tools? Can I make a eidolon with a space inside it and use it like an armor to "ride it"? What happens with a list of conditions when it affects either the eidolon or the summoner like blindness, prone, etc...
A second round playtest can help to mitigate it and enable the final version to be better and enjoyable
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see either a revision pass on this test to iron out things like the staff vs limited slots, or a second round of testing with some newly introduced concepts
The test boards have slowed quite a bit in the last week, and much of what is being posted now are just tired variations on what we've seen half a dozen times in the week before
I would be interested to know if there are still solid numbers of playtest surveys being submitted
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be interested to know if there are still solid numbers of playtest surveys being submitted
I've been waiting until after the last real session I get to play prior to the end of playtest to submit mine. I assume I'm not the only one.
Out of interest, why not submit multiple times to reflect growing impressions on the class(es) you've been playing?
Out of interest, why not submit multiple times to reflect growing impressions on the class(es) you've been playing?
My conclusions have developed over time, and I'm hoping to get more play and less simulations to ensure that I have a better idea how things actually work in a real game and not a combat sim.
I'm also planning on getting a comprehensive list of observation and concerns from my fellow players to go with it. Theyre not as heavily invested, and they're going to have good composite input about the things they didn't like and the things they raised eyebrows over.
Out of interest, why not submit multiple times to reflect growing impressions on the class(es) you've been playing?My conclusions have developed over time, and I'm hoping to get more play and less simulations to ensure that I have a better idea how things actually work in a real game and not a combat sim.
I'm also planning on getting a comprehensive list of observation and concerns from my fellow players to go with it. Theyre not as heavily invested, and they're going to have good composite input about the things they didn't like and the things they raised eyebrows over.
I guess that's an advantage of being in an area not in lockdown with a group that gets together both regularly, and is willing to blow a day to run a one off to get a feel for the classes.
Out of interest, why not submit multiple times to reflect growing impressions on the class(es) you've been playing?My conclusions have developed over time, and I'm hoping to get more play and less simulations to ensure that I have a better idea how things actually work in a real game and not a combat sim.
I'm also planning on getting a comprehensive list of observation and concerns from my fellow players to go with it. Theyre not as heavily invested, and they're going to have good composite input about the things they didn't like and the things they raised eyebrows over.
I guess that's an advantage of being in an area not in lockdown with a group that gets together both regularly, and is willing to blow a day to run a one off to get a feel for the classes.
We play on Roll20, and sometimes its a struggle to get everyone together to play regularly.
I'm also the only one in the group whose overly interested in the playtest classes (well, one is interested in magus but not in rebuilding a character to test it) which means a playtest one-shot or two was sadly out.
So I gotta work with what I've got.
Luckily, roll20 and access to its bestiary functions and combat automation make simming combats and such solo pretty easy... but I personally have few reservations about the classes combat strength as it stands.
Its lags in some places, and it looks like an easy fix to me to reccomend what to do there. Thats definitely the easy part imo.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to imagine just doing a second round of playtesting, because we don't have to think about what would need to get cut to make room for that.
Maybe that would require that there is no review pass done for items, spells, and archetypes in the book, and they're inconsistent as a result of being written by many different people with no coordination or balancing.
Or it might not be possible without pushing back the release and we get one less book entirely next year, ignoring what that would cost Paizo.
Perhaps it could be done by cutting Summoner and just focusing on Magus.
Playtests are a lot of work, and not cheap in terms of money or the developers' time! As much as I'd love for every class to get six months of monthly playtest patches, I'm happier getting the playtest and the book containing other things and getting lots of new ancestry content next year.
Mark likely only has a few months to get all the data together, finish writing things out and get it in so the editors can go over it for months formatting before print next year. Several AP stuff has been in a year before print as a deadline, so we can't be sure there's really much time for this plus what ever else he might be working on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with working in iterations is that multiple iterations may lead to a better product, each individual iteration is costly (either time, money, some other resource, or all at the same time). And public playtests are probably the costliest type of iteration run by Paizo. We as consumers would be serviced by another round, but the cost/benefit calculation looks a lot different from the other side of the window.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see either a revision pass on this test to iron out things like the staff vs limited slots, or a second round of testing with some newly introduced concepts
The test boards have slowed quite a bit in the last week, and much of what is being posted now are just tired variations on what we've seen half a dozen times in the week before
I would be interested to know if there are still solid numbers of playtest surveys being submitted
I got tired of theorycraft and don't get answers from the devs to things that could be simple as "oh that's a mistake, we forget to add a 0 instead of - at the lower level spells and with this you can cast spells from staffs."
In my opinion the playtest should evolve whenever something like that comes to the table, a GitHub style to report possible errors, suggestions, and commit possible fixes to the devs would be awesome for example.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, some clarifications do seem easy to give and would help getting more consistent data from the playtest. Still, if we aren't getting them, there must be a good reason.
About a hypothetical second round, it's something that comes out during every single playtest. And yet it never happened, even for things much bigger than two new classes: unfortunately, there's only so much time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, some clarifications do seem easy to give and would help getting more consistent data from the playtest. Still, if we aren't getting them, there must be a good reason.
About a hypothetical second round, it's something that comes out during every single playtest. And yet it never happened, even for things much bigger than two new classes: unfortunately, there's only so much time.
I don't have your kind of optimistic view, maybe is just a company policy that is related to some bureaucracy BS, maybe paizo is being "cheap" and don't want to pay one person to handle those kind of feedbacks, there is a lot of possibilities and not all of them are "good reasons" since the release, despise the variant rules, that the name speaks for themselves, there was never something that changes the game like the summoner ( I didn't even looked at the magus after got disgusted for what happened to the summoner ).
APG was bigger, but didn't change the basic rules like the summoner is doing.I would expect and even be more comfortable with a witch having a linked HP with the familiar then a summoner with the eidolon for example.
Bard was a 6 level caster that become full caster, while summoner became a broken caster.
There is nothing before that shares actions, conditions or HP before...