| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I finally finished it.
For those who didn't follow. I had the idea of doing a poll using Google Forms putting the ideas of what several players would like to see changed in PF2. After spending a few days collecting suggestions the poll is ready!
https://forms.gle/ujdVQeVXiwYwK1G88
This poll has no concerns about balancing or even absurd requests. The idea was simply to take stock of how popular some ideas for changes some players would like to see implemented in the system.
This is a completely unofficial poll, without any involvement from Paizo. It's just something I did for fun, but obviously nothing prevents Paizo from someday looking at it, or even doing something similar. So don't expect anything from that, it's just to see how popular some ideas can be!
Results link (will changing in real time):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe8F5qQgAV3-gKlSKytABvNDffNfi98HU1 DiIfYGdFNh3zTKg/viewanalytics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I finally finished it.
For those who didn't follow. I had the idea of doing a poll using Google Forms putting the ideas of what several players would like to see changed in PF2. After spending a few days collecting suggestions the poll is ready!
https://forms.gle/ujdVQeVXiwYwK1G88
This poll has no concerns about balancing or even absurd requests. The idea was simply to take stock of how popular some ideas for changes some players would like to see implemented in the system.
This is a completely unofficial poll, without any involvement from Paizo. It's just something I did for fun, but obviously nothing prevents Paizo from someday looking at it, or even doing something similar. So don't expect anything from that, it's just to see how popular some ideas can be!
Thank you for putting in the time and effort to do this. I appreciate getting to add suggestions for voting, getting to vote, and getting to see how the vote tally is going. I believe this can be a very useful tool for GMs and more importantly the devs to know what the general gaming public wants. I hope you put this up on other sites like Reddit as well to expand the voter base.
Looks like some of your percentage are off -- while you capture the "No changes" response, if someone doesn't check that, but also doesn't want any changes in a subsection, they get ignored, when they shouldn't be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Percentages are indeed wonky, but I don't think that is something that YuriP can change.
It looks like each section gets its own percentage bucket, and it only counts if someone marks at least one response in each category.
So things like the Bard class changes and Druid class changes that only have one response will always be at 100%.
And that is probably just a 'feature' of the polling site's management.
Percentages are indeed wonky, but I don't think that is something that YuriP can change.
It looks like each section gets its own percentage bucket, and it only counts if someone marks at least one response in each category.
So things like the Bard class changes and Druid class changes that only have one response will always be at 100%.
And that is probably just a 'feature' of the polling site's management.
Yes unfortunately the percentages are based in responses of a same group in Gogle Forms not in all responses at all. So if someone not vote a group then he/she won't be counted at all in percentage.
I could solved this using only on group but all responses would be mixed and the poll format would become too exhaustive. So just try to ignore the percentages.
Maybe I try to do a global summary some moment later. But you already able to see how many people voted and how many votes are in each option. So you already have an idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you could have had a "no changes in this category" option to avoid that problem. But yes a post process step were you set the denominator to the number of respondents, is probably needed whenever you decide to close the poll.
I thought about putting it on reddit too, but I thought it wouldn't be fair to the people there because they didn't have the necessary space to give their suggestions as well.
The next time I raise a poll with democratic participation in this way, I will post there as well.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Anyway bump to more people see the poll.
Bump again
The survey as a whole is a lot to work through, and the options mentioned are often pretty niche. Maybe you could try to condense it in some way? Also it might be nice to choose between whether you agree, disagree, or are neutral on these suggestions instead of just selecting which ones you support.
Thanks for the suggestions.
In a next poll I will follow them but I don't pretend to do new poll until we get a new errata or new info (maybe after Paizocon) to prevent to do the same questions again and make these polls repetitive.
Let's bump this a little more.
I think if you did this in the future each section should be a question with the answers being yes or no, or yes, no and some other relevant third option. It would get much longer, but then we'd have better results
I enjoyed taking this survey. I was worried that it would be overwhelming, but dividing the changes into categories helped keep them digestable.
Same. I was so relieved to see the organized categories. My eyes and attention span thank you, YuriP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah, there are plenty of changes that would go way against the 2e balance ( and also would require some feats adjustmenets ).
Yes. I didn't restricted them to any balance reason. The main idea of the poll is notice how popular are some players suggestions and desires than really consider if they are balanced nor meets the currently game design concepts.
|
Woah, there are plenty of changes that would go way against the 2e balance ( and also would require some feats adjustmenets ).
I admit I skipped around 70/80% of the proposals for that matter, focusing on the other ones ( deciding whether I like them or not ).
Yeah. I feel like if I lived in a world where all of these changes were implemented into Pathfinder 2E I'd be finding another game to play.
Bump this a bit more. Monday I will make a summary of all current votes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ps: YuriP I agree with the others you should definitely put this on reddit. Having a larger number of people answering the survery would be a good thing.
For sure. But this was the first poll I did here, I'm gaining a lot of information and experience with it, next time I'll do a double post here and on Reddit.
However, I don't want to post another poll before the news that are spoken at Paizocon, because after it there will probably be a lot of people changing their opinions or being inspired by new ideas.
Bump
OK, we probably won't get much more votes now so I will do a summary and my analysis.
Currently total when I posting this is 74 responses. Ordering them from most to less votes we have:
Lore skill from backgrounds auto scaling like the Additional Lore feat = 50 votes
Stroger hexes cantrips (stronger as Psychic Uniq Cantrips) = 49 votes
Up to master progression to alchemists weapons proficiency = 47 votes
More and stronger focus spells for Wizards = 45 votes
Battle Forms able to heightened without obligatory size grow = 44 votes
Companions size grow being optional = 43 votes
Stronger and progressive general feats that keeps good in high levels (like Weapon Proficiency feat using same class proficiency bonus) = 42 votes
Removal of refocus expansion feats but integrate it into normal refocus activity (refocus 2 points at lvl 11 and 3 points at lvl 17 automatically) = 41 votes
Give Swashbucklerand autoscaling style based skill that boosts to E/M/L at L2/7/15 = 37 votes
Give auto scaling E/M/L in craft as a class feature at L2/7/15 = 36 votes
Non-deific faiths (animists, ancestor worshipers, etc.) champions = 36 votes
Turn Cackle as a class feature = 35 votes
More martial Warpriest = 34 votes
Improve the power of Reload weapons to make them more competitive to bows and throw weapons = 32 votes
Better cantrips accuracy (in par to martials with item bonus) or higher base damage = 32 votes
Add to Elemental Sorcerer's elemental type damage for Air, Earth, and Water could be versatile Slashing, Piercing, and Cold respectively, just so they're not all plain Bludgeoning = 32 votes
Rework many MC archetype dedications (like balance stats requirements and give more useful effects for dedications like Fighter Dedication) = 31 votes
Re-balance on mutagens making them less awful = 31 votes
Level 10 Quickened casting feat should be boosted from once per day to once per hour or 10 minutes = 29 votes
Add more and change some existent spells and cantrips to have variable action options with same spell (like heal/harm and Horizon Thunder Sphere) = 29 votes
Arcane Cascade instance as free-action or reaction = 28 votes
Riposte gains panache = 28 votes
Selectable Key Ability Score (KAS) selection of STR, DEX, or INT = 27 votes
Devise a Stratagem roll as optional (being able to discard the DaS roll and then able to try a normal roll to same target) = 27 votes
Turn Augment Summoning focus spell as a free-action metamagic spell casted before summon a creature = 27 votes
Consider to add more monk weapons options = 26 votes
Give oracles extra spells depending from mystery like the sorcerer bloodlines and psychic conscious mind = 26 votes
Synthesist Summoner subclass option or class variant = 26 votes
Increase low level infusion count to give more resources at early levels or provide the perpetual infusions at L1 (with Weaken versions of level 1 bombs/alchemical items or using more actions) = 25 votes
Turn Spell shot to be just a Way instead of a Class Archetype = 25 votes
Boost the power of monk weapons = 25 votes
Canny Acumen should just increase the proficiency rank one step with a cap of master instead of waiting until level 17 = 24 votes
Make overlapping languages during character creation allow you to choose another accessible language, like how skills work with backgrounds and some feats = 24 votes
Improve Alchemist MC to just give and advanced alchemy level of level-4 like the gunslinger as a L6 feat = 24 votes
Turn Running Reload as a class feat = 24 votes
More ways to use DaS with other active checks (DaS + RK, DaS + Trip, DaS + Demoralize, etc.) = 24 votes
Effortless concentration available to all casters = 23 votes
Add an "Alchemical Horror" research field (something that allows Alchemist to do permanent mutations in itself or in a familiar/companion similar to Inventor Innovations) = 23 votes
Re-balance Oracles to significant boost in power of the mystery benefits if they want to keep the current curse downsides = 23 votes
Make a bounded spellcasting Warpriest variant = 22 votes
Non-arcane magus variant = 22 votes
Less region locked feats (like allowing more easier access to things like magical tattoos) = 21 votes
Use different colors to "passive" traits (traits without rules inside them) and active traits (traits with rules inside them) = 21 votes
Let summon spells/rituals work with monsters with Troop trait = 21 votes
Improved and more level consistent summon spells making them able to summon creatures 3 levels bellow of double of spell level/rank = 21 votes
Change the superstition instinct anathema to allow spells/magic items/etc. from allies = 21 votes
Makes Companions and Familiars Independent by default (able to use an action even if you don't use an action to command) = 20 votes
Rework the Panache to removal critical failure effects and to not allow opponents becoming immune to it = 20 votes
Allow a free-action implement switch per turn = 20 votes
Champion MC make the armour auto scaling with your class proficiency just like the sentinel archetype = 19 votes
Better Backstabber trait progression to making it improve with until +4 (improving with Striking rune instead) = 18 votes
Stronger Mind Smith weapons damage dice = 18 votes
Allow more open selection and non-linked selection of causes and tenets = 18 votes
Include a few more of the weirder less taken blade ally runes in the base selection and other feats that boost options (e.g., crushing, extending, etc.) = 18 votes
Ranged attacks for Eidolon as level 1 class feature = 17 votes
Martial summoner with caster eidolon class option/variant = 17 votes
Remove uncommon traits from classes and ancestries (instead of make like every game rarity references from Absalom view point) = 16 votes
Make alignment damage to affect everyone (only outsiders like celestials, fiends, aeons, protean, azatas... having immunity) = 16 votes
Less 'safe' design guidelines risking a bit power creep in change to have more fun options = 16 votes
Add Crossbow Terror feat to Drow Shootist Archetype = 16 votes
Remove ki spells prerequisites from focus spells feats = 16 votes
Remove proficiency in martial weapon prerequisite from Marshal Dedication feat = 16 votes
Make several psychic feats that do aoe friendly fire more party friendly = 16 votes
Allow Swashbuckler to use Dex bonus as damage bonus instead of Str in similar way that Thief rogues does = 16 votes
MP (Spell/Mana Points) as Variant Rule option to Spell Slots = 15 votes
Better scaling for Fatal trait to become in pair to Deadly trait progression = 15 votes
Consider extending the range of reactions or creating a cause that is more considerate/less bounding on a ranged champion = 15 votes
Extend the blade ally free runes to unlink it to causes and tenets = 15 votes
Give gunslingers a 1 free action reload per round = 15 votes
More spellslots per rank (spell level) = 14 votes
Make focus points qualify as a basic spell casting feature to allow to activate cast a spell magic items without need to take casting archetype feats = 14 votes
Rework finishers to just end the Panache instead of block more attacks in same turn = 14 votes
Flexible Spellcasting as default rule without archetype nor spellslot reduction = 13 votes
Merge prepared and spontaneous staffs benefits to all casters (allowing spontaneous casters to add more charges to staff and prepared casters to cast a non-prepared staff spell using spell slots at cost of 1 charge) = 13 votes
Turn Raging Thrower as class feature instead of class feat = 13 votes
Devise a Stratagem as reaction feat (integrate DaS with AoO reaction) = 13 votes
Consolidate monk weapons feats/stances into a single monastic weaponry feat = 13 votes
Lower the Battle Oracle major curse stupified condition to 1 = 13 votes
Turn Swashbuckler ranged weapon feat as build into the precise strike class feature = 13 votes
Make a bounded spellcasting class variant = 12 votes
Ability to transfer weapon property runes to bombs. Essentially add the runes to pre-made bombs and quick alchemy bombs = 12 votes
Add consumable trinkets to investigator that works in a similar way to alchemists tools, elixirs and bombs = 12 votes
Unleash Psyche duration equals to rage (1 minute unleashed than 1 minute stupefied 1) = 12 votes
Give an option to psychic to try to mitigate Stupified Unleash side-effects using an action = 12 votes
Allow thaumaturge to use 1+ handed weapons (bows) while keeps an implement in other hand = 12 votes
Gives access to Convincing Illusion for Bards and Occult/Arcane and Fairy based Sorcerer bloodlines = 11 votes
Stronger Double Shot and Triple Shot feats = 10 votes
Level 1 Counterspell feat should also allow you to react/use the shield cantrip or w/e to just give a save to the spell for allies or penalize to hit if a spell attack roll = 8 votes
Give ways to mitigate the -1 AC = 8 votes
Extend rage length to 2 minutes = 8 votes
Make a bounded spellcasting druid variant = 8 votes
Make Panache works as a stackable pool rather than a yes/no = 8 votes
Give the animal barbarian a 1D4 ranged unarmed thrown strike at level 1 = 7 votes
Remove the short/longbow from monastic weapons because now we have a monk bow = 7 votes
Cleave reaction with suffer/make Multiple Attack Penalty = 6 votes
Reduce raging resistance to level 5 = 5 votes
Decrescent Spellslots per level (Like level 1 starting with 6-8 spell level/rank 1 spell slots decreasing until spell level/rank 9 spell slots is to currently to 2-4 depending from your class) = 4 votes
Add a Divination Rune Lord option to Rune Lord archetype = 3 votes
I don't want that anything change at all (keep as is it) = 2 votes
The first thing to notice is the very low number of people that voted that don't want to change anything. Almost all participants wants at last one of these options confirming IMO that almost every player want that something works differently in the game even if most of then don't agree in what to change.
The second point I notice is that only very few options received the simple majority (half + 1) and most of them are things that's already discussed many times in this forums like better cantrips for witches, better focus spells for wizards, master weapons proficiency for alchemists, optional size grow for companions and battle forms and more recently the removal of tax feats from refocus activity but one less discussed thing is about auto-progression of class dependent skills/lores something that I honestly didn't expected that was so voted.
The third point I noticed is that several other issues that are normally discussed a lot here on the forum, such as questions related to Swashbucler and the Investigator did not get a majority. Initially I even thought it was because it was about specific issues of these classes, but the specific issues of the Witch and Wizard contradict this theory. Apparently, their current problems just didn't bother them enough to even be worth the attention of many of the voters.
And you, what do you think of the results of this poll? (you can criticize the poll methodology too, I know I made a lot of mistakes and I have a lot to improve, but if possible focus on the answers)
I might suggest the following:
- Scale of 1 to 5 (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree). This allows for a better weighted response test to see whether people who didn't 'vote for something' actually oppose it or simply don't care. Are people who want something strongly aligned with the specific solution, or only weakly aligned. Then we can test not just a % of who is in favour vs. who is not, but also provide a weighted 'ranked ballot sum' to show the overall desire for a specific option.
- Provide a 6th option for not applicable so you can remove base votes and calculate percentages on everything with different number of responses. The assumption being that if you can't force a vote on a topic that the default is their vote is discounted from the denominator when determining a ranking/weighted response.
Thanks for the suggestions, I was really thinking about making changes in this regard in the next poll. However, I don't intend to do it with such a large scale, just with "disagree, neutral, agree", because more than that starts to generate subjectivity (it is difficult and relative to quantify what is strongly disagree and strongly agree for example) and such a large scale it's most useful when you're competing between options, which has never been the interest of these polls, so much so that you can mark all options if you like them all, or none if you don't like any.
As for the sixth option, it won't be necessary, because once I put more than one option per answer, among the 3 possible "alignments" :P I can make the answer mandatory in the forms.
- I feel like the fact that the best voted option is ~67% points and its on a pretty non-offensive auto-scaling background lore that this points to a broader issue with the survey. First, that we need more respondents as a N=74 isn't that great. Second, the survey format has failed to engage the audience. I think the above two items would help resolve that.
I agree that a better format is needed, and that I also need to publish the poll better. So much so that next time I intend to post on PF2's Reddit as well. But don't expect an extraordinary increase in the number of voters beyond reddit's most passionate additional users. Because this is not a playtest survey, it's just a popularity contest of several suggestions given for several issues involving different classes and game mechanics that bothered or that awakened the creativity of some players.
It's not something with a great pretension, it just serves to see how popular some ideas and suggestions given by a part of the so-called "silent majority" that are eventually mentioned here are.I also didn't give much time to the survey as a whole, either to raise questions or to vote on it, this reduces the number of voters, but my intention was never to take the entire PF2 community, just an active portion of it to get a better idea of the popularity of some questions. Even in the next polls, I don't intend to give much more time than that (it will also be a week raising the questions and another one voting so that the subject doesn't end up getting lost or becoming outdated with some release).
- A clear preface on the intent of the survey built into the survey.
I didn't do it for a very simple reason.
I already knew that the poll would be long due to the large amount of suggestions, I knew that the preface would end up being redundant with the forum post and therefore I wanted to make the poll as lean and with less text to make it less tiring for those who wanted to vote. So much so that one of the problems with accounting for the percentages came from the fact that I broke the questions into categories and when Google Forms does that, it separates the count. I'll have to separate them some other way within a single question so he doesn't do that in the next one.
But anyway, I don't intend to put big prefaces or explanations in the next polls either, because I want to avoid making them tiresome for whoever is going to vote. I want the thing to be interesting, fun and arouse people's curiosity to see what they agree and disagree with others.
- Some options are intended as trade offs. Like alchemical bombs getting property runes comes at the expense of bombs power budget. The fact that people in this thread are assuming that these are all 'unbalancing options' points to either a miscommunication of the option or a bias in taking the survey that needs to be addressed in a preface. Specifically that not every option is simply a 'yes and' but may have a balancing factor for it.
At this point I intend to take this into account when researching questions and suggestions.
I tried my best to keep them close to what was posted by each one, I didn't worry about balancing or even compensations. Because not everyone wants or cares about it (although apparently most do). I've just simplified some of them to try to make them easier to understand with as little text as possible (again, the idea is to make polling as un-tiring as possible).
In the next poll I'll emphasize this when it comes to taking suggestions (and probably stop taking suggestions scattered in different threads, unless I want to get hold of them myself to put in the poll :P) that everyone can do the suggestion of what you want, regardless of precepts such as balancing or compensation, but you should take into account that not everyone else will think that way and that perhaps it would be more interesting for your suggestions to consider this.
But I don't intend to put any additional explanation or context in a next poll (with the exception of small examples in parentheses), because as I already emphasized, I don't want to make the poll tiresome.
- Each subsection of the survey needs a clear standard question that says something similar to "This class needs some change but it isn't represented in the options presented". Basically a way to show whether a fix is needed and test whether the present options are their preferred solution.
Thanks for the suggestion. But I won't do that. It is not the intent of this type of poll. If someone wants to make a different suggestion, they should do so before the survey of suggestions is made, including the possibility of discussing options with each other and changing them before the poll is set up.
The idea is not to do a poll similar to a class playtest, where we not only vote for the alternatives proposed by the designers but also have space to give our own suggestions and feelings, but rather something that was done after that, with you already understanding that there are things to be improved, either to improve the gameplay or to make something more attractive, already with the proposed suggestions (including those of the voter himself if he has posted) and see if others agree with you.I would agree with "Lore skill from backgrounds auto scaling like the Additional Lore feat." I think that's a fairly minor change that would likely not impact overall game balance.
I also like the option to have more spells with variable action economy. Having spells with 1/2/3 action variants can take more space in the books, but has a nice flow with the 3-action system. I really like the choices with "do I power this up or should I use my feat to give it reach?" This again is something that I feel can be done without a balance swing for the game designers.
I was personally surprised by how much people who voted cared about balance. It's just as vocal to see people complain here on the forum that the current balance of the game makes them not have fun, or feel weak, or make suggestions for big boosts without worrying about balance and similar things, than to see people choose the safer options for me was even a little surprising.
Many of the options feel like "make my favorite class a little cooler."
And actually they were. In the end, many people come to the forum to give suggestions and criticisms, which in the final analysis is just that. It's people complaining that the class they want to play or the build they'd like to build isn't as cool as they'd like it to be, so a lot of suggestions are based much more on that than real concerns about things being poorly balanced or not working well.
All of that said, looking at the survey structure disincentivized me from taking the effort to check each box and read through the vast number of options, much less weigh the impact of each change against the others and the overall impact on the game system as a whole.
This is a problem. I accept suggestions.
-Make prestidigitation less strict and allow the cantrips to do things like create magical sparkles, illusionary rain in a 5x5 square, glowing eyes or other cool magic tricks that don’t effect mechanics but are great for role play
This was too cosmetic but I can add it to the next. Just don't expect too many votes.
-Remove barbarian anathema
I skipped over this one. Sorry.
Seeing that champion is the only class that has clauses, and is the only class that has a redemption focused thing, I would appreciate this. If D&D can have non religious paladins I think PF2e can have non religious champions. Or at the bare minimum make another class that has an oath or clause of redemption without religious ties. I would like to be constrained by the flavor of edicts of a clause with being constrained by the flavor of a deity. It’s going to be tiring to constantly remind people that my character’s affinity for flowers has nothing to do with Shelyn and that it’s supposed to be his own unique thing and the flowers are about him and his kind not Shelyn
Non-deific faiths (animists, ancestor worshipers, etc.) champions = 36 votes
Despite being relatively popular, it still seems not to have excited many people.
I personally am still a little hesitant with champion suggestions, I want to see what the new alignment system looks like first.
If the new alignment system please removes the Follower alignment of the deities without putting anything in its place, in fact the chance of having champions that are much more flexible with deities will be much higher.
Turn Cackle as a class feature = 35 votes
Oh god please no, not this
Cackle doesn’t fit all witches. I don’t want my divine themed fervor witch with a mini silver dragon familiar to cackle like the wicked witch of the west. Not all witches cackle.
I agree but was pretty popular and look, witches were the last class on the poll's suggestion list and yet cackle as a class feature received almost half of the votes.
But for split things like that I personally prefer it to remain as an optional feat.You left out a couple things in the poll
-Make prestidigitation less strict and allow the cantrips to do things like create magical sparkles, illusionary rain in a 5x5 square, glowing eyes or other cool magic tricks that don’t effect mechanics but are great for role play
That could be either a focus spell effect or a low level spell ( since it might involve deception and appearance modifications).
As for the barbarian anathema... Why?
They are pretty permissive compared to champions, clerics, druids, etc... ( apart from the animal which is probably the best, and deserves a more limiting anathema).I’ve seen a lot of people despise barbarian anthema
People don’t like being told to Role-play a certain way
People are accepting of anathemas for Druids clerics or champions because that’s a part of them
But people want to be an epic raging martial character without weird RP restrictions
Honestly, I don't think this demand will be that relevant. Unlike the anathemas of the clerics and especially the druids and champions, the anathemas of the barbarians are much less impactful and restrictive. I personally don't see many people complaining about them, with the exception of one or another punctual like the Spirit Instinct anathema that has a problematic interpretation and the Superstition Instinct that basically prohibits coexistence with spellcasters that provide some kind of support or healing.
In the end I see it more as a problem of some specific instincts than a general problem and I believe that many people see it the same way.
Oh yeah also you forgot to put this:
-Change MC/class archerype ability score prerequisites for fighter and champion to be more flexible with different martial types in mind
Forcing us to have 14 dex and 14 str is weird
And not all champions are bulky and muscular. A swashbuckler should be allowed to take champion (liberator) archetype of Cayden with 10 str and 14 dex. High dex nimble champions can exist, especially with all the deities with finesse favored weapons
This was embedded into "Rework many MC archetype dedications (like balance stats requirements and give more useful effects for dedications like Fighter Dedication)"
OK, that kind of included 2 suggestions in 1. But for me as both were part of rebalancing MC dedications I preferred to put them together.
- A graded scale of 1 to 5, 1 to 10, etc. Gives you a basis to assess the voracity/strength of people agreement or disagreement. That is an important factor. There is a strong difference between something that is 100% polarizing (either folks hate it or love it) vs. something that is relatively neutral with those who like it really liking it. You're effectively limiting the end result capabilities of your analysis and I'm not sure why? At the end of the day you could have the graded scale and 100% ignore it if it becomes too much to analyze for your intent, but still have it there for a second pass if that becomes of interest. You're essentially future proofing the data collected and might make it very useful for other's use/analysis beyond your own when discussing these ideas at a future date (especially if you can release the data on a read only googlesheet or similair).
But these nuances are subjective and furthermore make the whole thing very difficult to summarize.
It is the example of you evaluating a food, or the quality of a service or an application for example with 1-5 stars. Some will only give 5 stars if the thing is exceptional, others will give 5 stars to anything they like a little, others will give 1 star to things they don't like, even if just one point bothered them and so on.
That kind of subjective nuance is good for competitions, when you want to do a ranking or something. But it's not interesting in what I want to raise here. For me a simple, like, dislike and neutral (I don't care) is much more accurate because it doesn't seek to get intensity.
The idea would simply be to allow the voter to think "OK, I like this (doesn't matter how much or how little) I would like this to be implemented some day" and tick the like, or "I don't like this, I wouldn't want this to be implemented some day" and mark the I don't like it and finally the "whatever, for me it's fine as it is, but it's also OK to change to that" which is the neutral.
This way it will be possible to quantify if an idea is good enough, or if people don't even want to see it and it will also be possible to filter out those who simply weren't interested in the issue.
It was at this point that I thought that my poll was currently flawed and that I will correct it in the next one.
The rationale for a section specific question like 'is there a fix you think needed, but its not listed here' is to give you a way to assess the global feeling on a class. You could have 90% of respondents agree the alchemist needs a fix, but if no one option gets a 50% or above then that provides some flavour for your analysis. In particular if you look to do additional polls, you can assess what poll categories need fresh/new ideas and are worth revisiting vs. which ones are not.
It's interesting. I can try as an additional question and ask to answer in the forum in question.
You're streamlining the wrong thing. Its more of a get them in the door issue. If your post is a long winded preface you'll lose potential respondents who don't want to engage even before they click on the link to the poll. But lets say that '30%' of people who would never have read the forum post do click the link because the post is short/sweet and the preface provides high level survey goals/considerations then even if you lose 'half of those people' due to a preface in the poll your still gaining a good chunk of additional respondents. Its car salesman psychology. If you already say 'yes to something' (i.e., you already 'clicked the link') you're more likely to keep going vs. nope right out of there. Those of us who were always going to take the poll will still take the poll. You might argue we are the worst sorts of respondents because we're the 'vocal' people with ideas that likely juxtapose other suggested ideas (i.e., we have bias and baggage) vs. the people you really want to capture data from which are the less community engaged 'typical TTRPG player'.
The other reason you might do a preface is to provide guiding principles for answering (like options in green are add onto the existing game design, options in blue are balanced against an option in the text to maintain game balance, etc.).
The other other reason you might do a preface is to allow the survey to be shopped around on different forums as a standalone 'product'. Like you could post it in 100s of different PFS discords, reddit, and other places go to discuss this game. The wider your input sources the more representative of the greater PF2e community the answers will be. Either way, you should try to get as many respondents as possible to make the actual metrics you receive more meaningful.
I still think that putting a lot of text in the poll will scare people, even doing something simple in the post, because it will do something similar to click baits, where people click and see something different than they would like, get irritated and leave in the middle.
But the idea of spreading the link organically is interesting. I can put a quick preface to say what the poll is, but I'll still try to keep it as succinct as possible.