PAIZO please do more playtests for each new classes


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was reading some topics complain about unbalances of many non-core classes and some recurrent complain about them and one thing I notice (and maybe many others noticed too) is how much the core book was tested by community compared to other books.

One of the big difference from core classes and new books classes is how less these classes are tested. We only receive a playtest version, test it for about 1-2 months then Paizo closes the class do all their changes based on feedbacks but when the book arrives some time later many people starts to complain about class faults specially when compared to similar core classes and many people ends thinking that is more about Paizo has more love to CRB (kkk) but in pratice this probably is more about the difference that the new class are just less tested.

In order to avoid this my suggestion is to Paizo simply do more playtests. Not only give us the first class concepts to us test but also give us a reviewed version to test it again! And even also may a 3º version too!

This may help to give us better class versions and could prevent to happen some that some "fixes" like happened to witch class that made the class less interesting for many people or even to help the designers to having more focus in some other aspects that aren't changed in new version but still have complains like happened to magus AoO.

I know that theses extra test phases maybe delay the books delivery but IMO I prefer a book that take one or two more months to be delivered but with better developed content.

Liberty's Edge

14 people marked this as a favorite.

They would likely produce less books and these books would be more expensive. Not sure the customers base would follow suit.


Yeah. Playtests cost time and money to run, probably more the former than the latter but that's still lost revenue. On top of that, like TRB said, the more playtests there are, the further back the books get pushed, which also means that the price point has to go up to compensate for the loss, or they have to just eat the loss and make less money overall.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The classes that suffered the most here are the APG ones, and that mostly comes down to the problem of playtesting four classes at once and some of those classes changing very significantly from playtest to release.

SoM and GnG classes aren't perfect but generally work a bit better, so I think Paizo has learned in that respect. Fingers crossed on Dark Archive fixing up those classes.

Iterative playtests obviously sounds great, but I'm not sure how economically feasible it is. Paizo is struggling right now and I'm not sure that something like that is practical for them at all.

Liberty's Edge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Putting it bluntly, if I have to pay 50% more for a book, I prefer it be because the authors get a 30% raise rather than a class gets 5% better thanks to iterated playtests.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It is very hard to overstate how expensive playtests have to be. Just looking at the man hours involved in setting them up, managing the community/answering questions, sifting through the data, then meetings to discuss the outcomes. There is no way it's not pricy.

Sure, they could do more but I think they may have hit the sweet spot where they get enough player feedback without both locking themselves into a design box and not driving up cost and pushing out the timeline.

With more playtesting iterations you will also start to get playtester fatigue, and the second/third iterations start to get responses from a suspiciously similar subset of diehards. How much do we really want that group dictating design direction?

Overall I think Playtests are a useful tool that have done a LOT for Paizo (their products are better but also their goodwill with the community is stellar because of them), but it's not a panacea and ultimately could easily be overused.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Playtsest magus vs release magus has my full confidence in their current playtsest formula


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

On the contrary, as I have raised in another thread, release magus has quite a few "friction" points particularly in the melee mode that would have been worked out in a later playtest. (Arcane cascade being super hard to use, action econ with conflux spells is very very inflexible, etc)

I notice this issue in general whenever a class gets a major rework after playtest, since the rework doesn't get a chance to be tested.

Perhaps a wider group of closed playtesters that can run continuously with new versions of the class? I don't know the answer.


I liked slide casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’d wait to see how the Dark Archive classes shake out before clamoring for this. Here’s hoping they’re good in the final release.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We've been specifically told that the playerbase's capacity to playtest is one of the limited resources they juggle. More playtest runs means consuming more of that resource per class release... which means fewer class releases. I'm not sure I want that.

Admittedly, I'd prefer a somewhat more robust errata system, so as to more easily fix the little annoyances, but I understand that that's somethign that involves a number of nontrivial trade offs as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
I liked slide casting.

Yeah, I really miss that. I feel like if current melee magus could stride as part of spellstrike it would go a long way towards helping it out.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Admittedly, I'd prefer a somewhat more robust errata system, so as to more easily fix the little annoyances, but I understand that that's somethign that involves a number of nontrivial trade offs as well.

Agreed. When errata is almost certainly unlikely to fix things it makes a more robust playtest time more important. If errata were open to tweaking things to buff a weaker class or subclass or make something more fun to play, it would matter a bit less.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

There's definitely a very different point if view when it comes to balance between paizo and (probably?) most playtesters. Things like moving powerbudget from one thing to another (see witch casting -> hexes) are easy to say, but when the buff to one thing is tiny and the nerf to another is huge, it sort of turns into a monkey's paw situation.

I'm pretty worried about how psychic is going to come out for this reason. The main complaint I saw (and had) was that it straight up wasn't strong enough, and it was said that it's going to be buffed at the cost of being able to do less at will stuff (which like, porque no los dos?)

Grand Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not see the problems that others seem to be seeing.


I've got high hopes for the thaumaturge and psychic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:

There's definitely a very different point if view when it comes to balance between paizo and (probably?) most playtesters. Things like moving powerbudget from one thing to another (see witch casting -> hexes) are easy to say, but when the buff to one thing is tiny and the nerf to another is huge, it sort of turns into a monkey's paw situation.

I'm pretty worried about how psychic is going to come out for this reason. The main complaint I saw (and had) was that it straight up wasn't strong enough, and it was said that it's going to be buffed at the cost of being able to do less at will stuff (which like, porque no los dos?)

Yeah, I love the flavor on psychic, hope it turns out well. Realistically no occult casters will compare to bard in pure power hah, but I really want psychic to be cool and strong!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
I'm pretty worried about how psychic is going to come out for this reason. The main complaint I saw (and had) was that it straight up wasn't strong enough, and it was said that it's going to be buffed at the cost of being able to do less at will stuff (which like, porque no los dos?)

I’m not sure I share your takeaway from the post-playtest blog for the Psychic; it seems like they’ve mostly just moved away from having a strict gameplay loop (wait until turn 3 to Unleash), and are giving the Amps some actual teeth because of it. Both of those are changes I gladly welcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's good about the psychic. The amps are more interesting than the unleashed psyche thing. I hope the flaming amp stays in. I like the pyro kinesis and psychic fire concept. Would go well with flame oracle multiclass if the area cantrip sticks around.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hot take: I'd rather never see another full class released if it meant they start to actually start chugging out the potential mountain of Class Archetypes we've been teased with for over a year now.

I still want more Classes, don't get me wrong, but I'd prefer the expand on the stuff they already made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Hot take: I'd rather never see another full class released if it meant they start to actually start chugging out the potential mountain of Class Archetypes we've been teased with for over a year now.

I still want more Classes, don't get me wrong, but I'd prefer the expand on the stuff they already made.

We need at least Inquisitor and Kineticist back before they turn off the tap, IMO. I know folks also want the Medium, and maybe a new class to scratch the Warlord itch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Hot take: I'd rather never see another full class released if it meant they start to actually start chugging out the potential mountain of Class Archetypes we've been teased with for over a year now.

I still want more Classes, don't get me wrong, but I'd prefer the expand on the stuff they already made.

We need at least Inquisitor and Kineticist back before they turn off the tap, IMO. I know folks also want the Medium, and maybe a new class to scratch the Warlord itch.

Also Shifter!

Also (insert increasingly niche personal obsessions here)! They can't miss those! Those are important!

My real problem with archetypes is... there are some really cool things I want to do, and there are some archetypes that at least theoretically will help me do them... but the actual practical impact of the archetypes is that I wind up notably weaker than if I ignored them. Sometimes (especially with class archetypes) I wind up weaker that I would have if I hadn't taken them even if you ignore the cost of the feats.

I understand that Paizo has to be ruthless with the balance sometimes, and that it's better to undertune than overtune, especially with stuff that's supposed to be niche. (Having oozemorph be so weak that no one wants to play it is... thematically appropriate, at least. Having it be so strong that large numbers of people are actively trying to figure out how to justify having it in their build would get weird.) At the same time, if it's just bad I'll never play it, and an enormous stack of archetypes that I'll never want to use doesn't do me a lot of good, you know?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Hot take: I'd rather never see another full class released if it meant they start to actually start chugging out the potential mountain of Class Archetypes we've been teased with for over a year now.

I still want more Classes, don't get me wrong, but I'd prefer the expand on the stuff they already made.

I don't think it's that hot of a take. More options for existing classes is probably the number one thing I hear requested in a lot of the non-paizo circles I interact with.

There's been a real craving for class archetypes, for class feats, for more class paths. We haven't really seen a big expansion of class options since the APG and there are very few class archetypes.

Though at the same time I can see where Sanityfaerie is coming from too. Spellshots and Elementalists do kind of... curb my enthusiasm for future class archetypes a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Though at the same time I can see where Sanityfaerie is coming from too. Spellshots and Elementalists do kind of... curb my enthusiasm for future class archetypes a bit.

Poor spellshot. Just about my favorite idea but... wow. A dedication feat that maybe saves you a copper, non scaling way damage, and the only change it makes is your class DC is lower because you will never have int as high as Dex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing the Wrath of the Righteous crpg really makes me miss the dozen archetypes per class world of 1e, it really let you make a specific focused idea that was quite distinct from every other character made with that class.

I love the generic (as in they can go with any class, not that they're boring) archetypes of 2e as well, just wish we had some of both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
I do not see the problems that others seem to be seeing.

I feel the same, honestly, I think the premise of the classes we got having problems that would have been solved with more playtesting is wrong.

Like, I think Magus action economy is supposed to be as tight as it is, because of how much compression is actually happening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It genuinely feels like a lot of the complaints about the post-core classes are similar to the complaints people had about the core classes when 2e was new. While there are assuredly valid complaints, some of this stuff takes "play around with it until you figure something out."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally would like to see more erratas with baseline changes like the one the alchemist got. However ttrpg designers are in a tricky spot in that regard; certain part of their playerbase (like myself) welcome such things with open arms, while others dislike them, as it somewhat undermines the hardcover material that they paid good money for, as it's now outdated.

If every hardcover came with acces to a pdf version (that got updated/patched whenever needed) that would be awesome imo. I primarily buy every book to support paizo, enjoy the art, and read the fluff. When it comes to the actual mechanics and at table play, I almost never use the books. AoN all day when I'm sitting at the table, and AoN would be easy enough to keep up to date with the newest PDF erratas. For me that would be the best of both worlds.

While yes - more playtesting would maybe catch some of 'problems' people experience, alot more become visible after the playerbase has had time to actually play with the new content.

That's at least my experience playing online games that has balance patches released frequently - Its hard to read in a patch note what's broken and what's undertuned, until you play quite a bit (hard, not impossible).

TLDR; don't spend more money on playtesting, but make a living online document thats regarded as the official up to date rules, and don't see it as a failure when said document needs a revision


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm wrong and thinking too much from my own experience, knowledge and logic that may differ from that what really happen in Paizo productions but I don't think that add one or two more interaction would increase the costs too much. Usually each class receive one responsible designer for it and this designer don't keep fully focused in design this class during all playtest duration. They mostly take notes about forum/reddit/surveys responses and tests and based on them they review their design ideas for the class. During this time other designers and writers also are working in other parts and ideas for the book.

So I don't think this would increase the book cost so much as some of you think. Instead this probably will consume more time instead due the time needed to wait the test players to fully test and respond. I yet this additional time don't need to be 2 or 3 times the current playtest time. Instead Paizo can simply diminish some part of playtest period between tests and present a new version.

The Raven Black wrote:
Putting it bluntly, if I have to pay 50% more for a book, I prefer it be because the authors get a 30% raise rather than a class gets 5% better thanks to iterated playtests.

So I don't think that this new playtest will increase a book price so high and this additional time probably will be paied to the designers because they are working on it.

Furthermore I think that the class probably will improve more than 5% and more important this could prevent some design decisions that may prevent some players to even consider to play a class due things like "witch's 'monkey's paw situation'" or "magus's incapacitated due AoO" where are considered so big drawbacks that made many player to even consider to play with some class due it.

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
I do not see the problems that others seem to be seeing.

Because different people have different perspectives from each point of view and need.

For example, for me a Magus being unable to spellstrike due the opponent have AoO isn't an impediment to play with one because I don't care that some times I won't able to use my main ability due some opponent have a reaction that can prevent it (but still bother me the fact that in end game this happen about 1/3 of times and many times vs mostly deadliest opponents) but for other players this simply make the class completely unplayable and I understand their view point.

But if this was saw and better considered in a playtest this could be avoided by some class feature or feat even maybe forcing some kind of 3-actions move with some high level class feat. There's could be "fixed" if in someway the designer saw this as a problem that may prevent some players to even consider to play with the class and this could have better chances to happen if there had been more playtests phases.

Gaulin wrote:
I'm pretty worried about how psychic is going to come out for this reason. The main complaint I saw (and had) was that it straight up wasn't strong enough, and it was said that it's going to be buffed at the cost of being able to do less at will stuff (which like, porque no los dos?)

I also afraid to what design choices could be made to psychic. We don't have any contact with any changes made after the playtest. Maybe the designer could made a great work done a new reviewed class with no/minor flaws or maybe he/she could still keep some more serious flaw that can make the class unplayable for many people or even could create a new one trying to solve something. We don't know because we don't receive any new feedback ultil the book being fully released and then they will have no more time to fix.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Admittedly, I'd prefer a somewhat more robust errata system, so as to more easily fix the little annoyances, but I understand that that's somethign that involves a number of nontrivial trade offs as well.
Agreed. When errata is almost certainly unlikely to fix things it makes a more robust playtest time more important. If errata were open to tweaking things to buff a weaker class or subclass or make something more fun to play, it would matter a bit less.

Yep. The problem with erratas is that they aren't so strong to do big changes. Yet the can do some effective thing. They used an errata to add medium armor to alchemist (but IMO they didn't see that the currently main problem of alchemist is the lack of mastery in simples/bombs attacks or maybe they saw but to fix this they need to do many more balance modifications in class that are too big to do in just erratas) and can use this for example to do a "fix" for Magus AoO problem but yet probably are not enough to rebalance the witch class for example.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the goal of the playtest is to make the final version of the class attractive to as many people as possible. It cannot be to make it attractive/satisfying to EVERYBODY.

There is little value added by a playtest iteration if it just changes who is satisfied by the class without significantly increasing the number of potential customers.

Liberty's Edge

Note that I am talking here about open playtests. Short playtests with a small crew to refine the final version should be considered.

But then I guess Paizo does this already.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TBH I feel the errata on Alchemist only added changes that should have gone to the final version but were lost somewhere along the way.

So, real errata, rather than stealthy modification of the class.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
We don't know because we don't receive any new feedback ultil the book being fully released and then they will have no more time to fix.

When you are creating something under strict deadlines, your ability to make big changes decreases drastically as time passes. When you are nearing the end, taking into account new input becomes detrimental to the end product.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are certainly valid critiques of Paizo but eventually you have to just say "good enough" and move on. No project is going to be perfect and diminishing returns on iteration really eat away at a project very quickly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think the goal of the playtest is to make the final version of the class attractive to as many people as possible. It cannot be to make it attractive/satisfying to EVERYBODY.

Yes I agree but I'm not talking about a class no being attractive/satisfying to everbody I talking about classes that even for those who play with it have problems. No magus player like to receive an AoO when trying to spellstrike, no witch player fells good when saw a wizard casting the double of fireballs when you barely can cast 3 and so on.

Make more tests isn't about to allow to do a perfect OP class, is about to avoid pass things that are simply not fun or appear to be too unbalanced because even the paizo best designers are human and could made bad decisions and that could be prevented with just a little more test phases.

The Raven Black wrote:

Note that I am talking here about open playtests. Short playtests with a small crew to refine the final version should be considered.

But then I guess Paizo does this already.

Yes I don't remember where a I saw but some designers already told that they do more internal tests. But even with those internal tests as software developer I can say that there's a big difference between close and open tests. People outside the development see many things that those are involved in development simply ignore due they minds already focused in their line/cases of use. A software poorly tested by outsiders almost always suffer from many bugs and usage/interface complains when compared to those pass trought many open tests.

The Raven Black wrote:
YuriP wrote:
We don't know because we don't receive any new feedback ultil the book being fully released and then they will have no more time to fix.
When you are creating something under strict deadlines, your ability to make big changes decreases drastically as time passes. When you are nearing the end, taking into account new input becomes detrimental to the end product.

I completely agree with you here that's why I'm asking for more test phases during the test period after this the diagrammatic process and the final production phases restrict any changes a lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
YuriP wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong and thinking too much from my own experience, knowledge and logic that may differ from that what really happen in Paizo productions but I don't think that add one or two more interaction would increase the costs too much. Usually each class receive one responsible designer for it and this designer don't keep fully focused in design this class during all playtest duration. They mostly take notes about forum/reddit/surveys responses and tests and based on them they review their design ideas for the class. During this time other designers and writers also are working in other parts and ideas for the book.

You're talking about increasing class development time from anywhere to 1 - 3 months. That's going to increase costs significantly. It might even result in fewer products per year, maybe 2 rulebooks instead of 3, because of that increased time further reducing revenue. Regardless, I'm not disappointed enough in any post-CRB class to think that more playtesting is what's needed. I think not testing 4 classes at the same time has made a bigger dent in the issue than more playtesting could.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Multiple plaaytest phases will cost time and money that could up the costs and delay the book. Each phase of testing will also bring diminishing returns, and will imo see Resement and friction rise in the community. A couple of things happen in playtests. And as a class gets closer to the final version some patterns start to emerge.

1) People who complain that their personal vision of the class doesn't match the design of the class will continue. They will passively aggressively refer to it by other names, and criticisms will continue to become fore focused on the what the class should be( even if many others like or love the implementation of the class)instead of the fiber details that will actually be useful to make the version the designers are going with improve.

2) bad faith actors who beleive that since their personal suggestions weren't implemented means, "paizo doenst actually listen" will show up, or increase in volume, as the versions the designers become more refined.

3) friction will increase on the forums, about how the class should go. As the times goes on, and often the same debates arise. Fatigue will set in. This will require more active moderation on that side of the forum.

Basically while one or two things may eventually be noticied or changed, the things that are already committed to, and have been given positive feedback to. Will just be scrutinized more. Fatigue and friction will set in.

I recall the nightmare that was the 1e Vigilante playtest. And while the final class is great, one could argue some flaws still exist. Because people will always find something wrong. And there were many exhausting and toxic moments in that plautest. As well as Sally toxic situations in playtests since then. ( not as many but they still exist)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather the money/time be spent on errata systems for the game and slight class tweaks instead.

The majority of what came from the last 3 playtests is fine and 100% playable within a good margin of balance.

The oracle plays well but a couple of mysteries need adjustment and one needs fixing (lore oracle simply doesn't work mathematically and its curse actively disables its benefit)

The witch will be contentious regarding the familiar, but outside of that the primary issue is hex balance (but only slightly) and imo the hex immunity being the biggest offender.

Outside of that there isn't any huge glaring problem in the other 6 classes that have been released. Not perfect, but not broken enough that another playtest would have been sensible.

There are other parts of the book that could have had another pass, like the elemental spell list not even having all the elemental spells from the crb, but again... miniscule changes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:
I recall the nightmare that was the 1e Vigilante playtest. And while the final class is great, one could argue some flaws still exist. Because people will always find something wrong. And there were many exhausting and toxic moments in that plautest. As well as Sally toxic situations in playtests since then. ( not as many but they still exist)

And a hugely bad consequence was that the next class (the Shifter) had no open playtest at all, which ended up a bad decision.

Thankfully both for Paizo and for us, they went back to open playtest on a grand scale for PF2 CRB.

Radiant Oath

Squiggit wrote:
Paizo is struggling right now and I'm not sure that something like that is practical for them at all.

Source?

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I would rather the money/time be spent on errata systems for the game and slight class tweaks instead.

Absolutely agreed. The best playtest is to actually publish it. Paizo should keep moving forward. The best solution to weak class is to publish a stronger class that hits the same tropes. If investigator is weak, make a detective, if witch is weak, make a warlock. A small bit of power creep can be fine, if it keeps people excited about the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AceofMoxen wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Paizo is struggling right now and I'm not sure that something like that is practical for them at all.

Source?

Well one of the primary PF2 architects, Mark Seifter, left a few months back because his wages were too low to start a family. This was AFTER Paizo unionized, as well. Even with a union lobbying they for them they still can't pay people enough keep them around... Which doesn't make it seem like they can afford to delay products being released.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Absolutely agreed. The best playtest is to actually publish it. Paizo should keep moving forward. The best solution to weak class is to publish a stronger class that hits the same tropes. If investigator is weak, make a detective, if witch is weak, make a warlock. A small bit of power creep can be fine, if it keeps people excited about the game.

I disagree with this, that is the path to trash content and what WotC did with their glorified errata books masquerading as core books Tashas and Multiverse.

Okay that is a harsh statement but still, PF2e classes take a lot of pages I don't want that level of page count wasted on powercrept classes for niches that exist.

WotC gets away with it because of their size, it would really hurt Paizo as a much smaller entity imo.

I want:
- a playtest
- a solid feedback/reporting feature (both for the benefit of us as users, but also for data archiving and easier use for devs)
- a better errata delivery device (filters, dates and generating pdfs based on user settings)
- freedom for devs to tweak the classes a little bit post launch akin to the alchemist changes
- ditching the "errata only comes with the reprint" model, I understand the concerns but I believe it does more damage than good

Devs only have so much free time, paizo only have so many resources.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Paizo is struggling right now and I'm not sure that something like that is practical for them at all.

Source?

Well one of the primary PF2 architects, Mark Seifter, left a few months back because his wages were too low to start a family. This was AFTER Paizo unionized, as well. Even with a union lobbying they for them they still can't pay people enough keep them around... Which doesn't make it seem like they can afford to delay products being released.

One does not necessarily follow the other. People have stated that wages at Paizo are low for the area where the company is located and possibly low for the industry, but I don't actually know about average TTRPG developer wages.

And negotiations are still ongoing, as last we were informed(some tweets about negotiations ongoing in March of 2022). Until then, the company operates with its previous policies in regards to pay and bonuses.

And the company might have just been willing to let Mr. Seifter go and pursue his fortune elsewhere rather than offer more money. While his design expertise was no doubt appreciated, it is by no means necessary or exclusive to the product.

Now, Paizo has been hit with many product release delays and perhaps that has affected the bottom line, but we're never really going to be privy to the company's health in that regard unless someone says something they shouldn't. Saying that Paizo is struggling because one developer left feels a bit of a stretch.

Paizo Employee Designer

22 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to make two comments unrelated to the main discussion here

1) I don't think anyone is coming at this with malice, but all the same, please be extremely careful about stating something as fact if it is not. Even if the causal link appears to be very clear, attributing the source by saying something like "James Case said he left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter" is VERY different from "James Case left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo's breakroom coffee is too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo doesn't care about its breakroom supplies". Statements tend to start at the beginning of this chain and drift further with each iteration, eventually ending somewhere like "Paizo doesn't care about its employees' nutrition at work," which is in no way what was initially stated. I've personally had to deal with at least one professionally major and quite frankly personally hurtful instance of this "incorrect conception that started from somewhere correct but very limited, but then spiraldrifted due to hasty telephoning" that has cost me a lot of energy at work I'd rather spend making games. Please note I'm intentionally picking a flippant and silly example to reduce the chance this statement can be construed out of context.

2) Please note that while some very salient protections go into place at the moment a union is formed, the majority of what people think of as the benefits of a union are the result of bargaining, which is a long and involved process taking many meetings. The national average time to first contract is over a year. The process is important but it is by no means a snap fingers done.

That's all! I'm not going to weigh on on the content of the playtests other than to state that I'm really looking forward on updating people on the revisions to the Dark Archive classes later in the month! \^_^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Case wrote:


That's all! I'm not going to weigh on on the content of the playtests other than to state that I'm really looking forward on updating people on the revisions to the Dark Archive classes later in the month! \^_^

Woot Woot


James Case wrote:
That's all! I'm not going to weigh on on the content of the playtests other than to state that I'm really looking forward on updating people on the revisions to the Dark Archive classes later in the month! \^_^

I'll admit, I got a little hyped at that.

I mean, I don't think I'll personally play either one, but I'm real interested in the implied trajectory data.

...

...and now I suddenly feel awkward for no discernable reason. This wasn't me totally missing the point. I swear!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Case wrote:

I'm going to make two comments unrelated to the main discussion here

1) I don't think anyone is coming at this with malice, but all the same, please be extremely careful about stating something as fact if it is not. Even if the causal link appears to be very clear, attributing the source by saying something like "James Case said he left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter" is VERY different from "James Case left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo's breakroom coffee is too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo doesn't care about its breakroom supplies". Statements tend to start at the beginning of this chain and drift further with each iteration, eventually ending somewhere like "Paizo doesn't care about its employees' nutrition at work," which is in no way what was initially stated. I've personally had to deal with at least one professionally major and quite frankly personally hurtful instance of this "incorrect conception that started from somewhere correct but very limited, but then spiraldrifted due to hasty telephoning" that has cost me a lot of energy at work I'd rather spend making games. Please note I'm intentionally picking a flippant and silly example to reduce the chance this statement can be construed out of context.

2) Please note that while some very salient protections go into place at the moment a union is formed, the majority of what people think of as the benefits of a union are the result of bargaining, which is a long and involved process taking many meetings. The national average time to first contract is over a year. The process is important but it is by no means a snap fingers done.

That's all! I'm not going to weigh on on the content of the playtests other than to state that I'm really looking forward on updating people on the revisions to the Dark Archive classes later in the month! \^_^

Both are fair points, James. I'm outside my edit window to make my post more accurate, but if a mod would like to delete it or edit it I won't be offended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there is a 2 months playtest that about half way through (on average) just stops receiving new feedback, why not split it into a two part playtest of one month each?

The short time frame makes sure that there isn't an extensive lul where nothing is happening. Because you are testing the same class you can reuse the questionare with only minor changes to account for the devised version. The dual process also ensures that most of the issues are corrected before a final release.

Now some might say that would cost more money and time. But is it really more? If you have a two month playtest with two months post playtest to develop the class, that is four months. If you split it into two sets of playtests of one month each with one month of dev time to impliment feedback, that is still four months. Besides, there should be plenty of time between the time a class gets playtested and the time they are released. There is no reason why they should be released within months of each other at the first available book.

Finally, I would like to point at the original Advanced Class Guide playtest, which did in fact had a revised version posted. At that time they were testing 10 classes, but they can't do the same in PF2e testing only 2?


If I were to have my choice of scheme, it'd be 4 classes per playtest like with the APG but with 2 due for the next book and 2 for the book after.

That way you have two brand new classes in each playtest alongside two that are receiving a second pass.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
James Case wrote:

I'm going to make two comments unrelated to the main discussion here

1) I don't think anyone is coming at this with malice, but all the same, please be extremely careful about stating something as fact if it is not. Even if the causal link appears to be very clear, attributing the source by saying something like "James Case said he left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter" is VERY different from "James Case left Paizo because the breakroom coffee was too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo's breakroom coffee is too bitter", which is very different from "Paizo doesn't care about its breakroom supplies". Statements tend to start at the beginning of this chain and drift further with each iteration, eventually ending somewhere like "Paizo doesn't care about its employees' nutrition at work," which is in no way what was initially stated. I've personally had to deal with at least one professionally major and quite frankly personally hurtful instance of this "incorrect conception that started from somewhere correct but very limited, but then spiraldrifted due to hasty telephoning" that has cost me a lot of energy at work I'd rather spend making games. Please note I'm intentionally picking a flippant and silly example to reduce the chance this statement can be construed out of context.

2) Please note that while some very salient protections go into place at the moment a union is formed, the majority of what people think of as the benefits of a union are the result of bargaining, which is a long and involved process taking many meetings. The national average time to first contract is over a year. The process is important but it is by no means a snap fingers done.

That's all! I'm not going to weigh on on the content of the playtests other than to state that I'm really looking forward on updating people on the revisions to the Dark Archive classes later in the month! \^_^

Both are fair points, James. I'm outside my edit window to make my...

It's no problem and I'm personally not offended, but I think it'd just make for a more positive and sustainable online environment to keep things to the facts and make it clear who has said what. I don't feel the need to erase the post history because I think it's important the trajectory be clear. That's all, back to talking about classes and playtest!

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PAIZO please do more playtests for each new classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.