More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:18 pm

Just had to mention this one thread...
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... instCR8Foe

Really, it should've ended back at page 1 when Godwin's Law was invoked.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:53 pm

virgileso wrote:Just had to mention this one thread...
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... instCR8Foe

Really, it should've ended back at page 1 when Godwin's Law was invoked.

I don't think they realize that testing the class would involve running multiple test at said level with a variety of monsters of that EL to determine the balance of the class.
(yes Frank did say that, but no one on the thread seems to have listened to that part)

What Corian of Lurkshire on page 3 said was just plain dumb and non constructive. It's a playtest, asshat. Saying that people should do something better with their time doesn't help in the least.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:16 pm

The fact that the Paizo people seem to think only running through adventures (presumably preferentially theirs, which actually's a very important data point) like idiots gives meaningful feedback, like if we couldn't analyze anything and predict, or like, as Frank said, we didn't play unfortunately similar material for years already, doesn't help ...

Hilarious example: one of the authors for whom I "playtested" said I gave the best advice of the pool (you bet one of the playtests had a guy with ECL 5 and 1 level of wu jen). I'm not sure whether my comments made it clear that I GM'd all of 2 sessions (not that I tried to hide it) ... and I'm not Frank (well, I was uncapitalizedly frank ...).

EDIT: for your amusement. But I'd ask that, if any of you posts: however much you complain about the baiting, you make sure every post has on-topic discussion, and nothing that should be counted as personal insult.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:52 pm

I don't think many know what "playtesting" actually means. You are suppose to bend it until it breaks, then you tell about what you did to break it. It is pretty bloody hard to test something when you are playing four classes together (four test at the same time) and get any real concrete results that aren't tainted by another classes actions.

If you test each class separably then make a party of characters that covers each other weaknesses, and test that.

Mostly what I see is cause some of the problems is that it has to backwards compatible with 3.5. So even if an awesome idea is brought up, if it can't be shoehorned to be compatible with 3.5 it doesn't go. It feels like it might end up like Diablo d20 (a bad mix of the previous edition and the newer one). Hopefully, I'm wrong.

While the adventure are a very important data point I have really only seen about 2 or 3 people talk about the results of an adventure. WOTC has a crap load of free ones so why are they not using those?

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Thu May 01, 2008 12:06 am

Leress wrote:Mostly what I see is cause some of the problems is that it has to backwards compatible with 3.5. So even if an awesome idea is brought up, if it can't be shoehorned to be compatible with 3.5 it doesn't go. It feels like it might end up like Diablo d20 (a bad mix of the previous edition and the newer one). Hopefully, I'm wrong.

While the adventure are a very important data point I have really only seen about 2 or 3 people talk about the results of an adventure. WOTC has a crap load of free ones so why are they not using those?

Good idea on the adventures - I might post it once I find the proper place to. Backwards compatibility: what makes me fall over laughing's that people have downed a number of new ideas because of it, but they were, on average, less disruptive than the things done right since prior open playtesting - making characters have different bonuses and even numbers of feats than they do in previous published adventures. For example, giving the fighter a good completely non-numerical ability at each even level would be a vastly better approach than anything involving extra bonuses or feats. That reminds me: adding secondary effects to evocations is a better approach than either lowering levels or adding damage, because it doesn't change any part of the text of previously published characters ...

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:14 am

Bigode wrote:For example, giving the fighter a good completely non-numerical ability at each even level would be a vastly better approach than anything involving extra bonuses or feats.

You mean like the Tome Fighter

That reminds me: adding secondary effects to evocations is a better approach than either lowering levels or adding damage, because it doesn't change any part of the text of previously published characters ...

What kind of secondary effects?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:39 am

Well I wouldn't say the Tome Fighter is vastly better than any other D&D warrior, but it is competent.

And for Evocations has anyone thought up alternatives to the status effect variants, amped damage (such as the 'plus damage' feat concept I proposed a while ago, may or may not have been a flop), or reduced spell level?
I'm leaning towards status effect too, much like the Orb series has a little something extra, although it should be more varied than just "You lose your next action".
Still, more damage would be a Good Thing since the role of Evocation was lost since AD&D, when all monsters had d8 HD with tiny CON bonus to HP and the spells could end encounters quicker.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu May 01, 2008 1:44 am

sigma999 wrote: And for Evocations has anyone thought up alternatives to the status effect variants, amped damage (such as the 'plus damage' feat concept I proposed a while ago, may or may not have been a flop), or reduced spell level?
I'm leaning towards status effect too, much like the Orb series has a little something extra, although it should be more varied than just "You lose your next action".
Still, more damage would be a Good Thing since the role of Evocation was lost since AD&D, when all monsters had d8 HD with tiny CON bonus to HP and the spells could end encounters quicker.

Amped damage and reduced spell level have been put on the table on the Piazo boards and with much debate.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu May 01, 2008 2:52 am

I'm actually trying to get a playtest thread going that has a party that will face challenges individually on MW, but it sat a couple weeks and now people aren't checking it.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu May 01, 2008 2:59 am

Leress wrote: Amped damage and reduced spell level have been put on the table on the Piazo boards and with much debate.

Cool. Which subforum(s)? Is there one for magic specifically or is it in 'general'?

Edit: found one - http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... MoreDamage

shau · Post by **shau** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:09 am

CO board is now officially a clubhouse.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1016146

Who wants to bet these numbers are cited in the middle of some serious nerd fighting?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu May 01, 2008 12:18 pm

Hey, I got votes despite never having ever posted on those boards, ever.

-Username17

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Thu May 01, 2008 6:38 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Hey, I got votes despite never having ever posted on those boards, ever.

-Username17

Even funnier is that it looks like people think you and K are the same person.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu May 01, 2008 6:46 pm

Leress wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Hey, I got votes despite never having ever posted on those boards, ever.

-Username17
Even funnier is that it looks like people think you and K are the same person.

I'm sure for a while it was on the verge of happening. Truly, with two finely-honed minds sharing the same nervous system, FrankandK would have been able to redesign Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 with godlike intuition, thinking nothing of rewriting the most complex messes of rules so that all would have the ability and the chance to stab things. In the face. Yea, verily.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:35 pm

Ironic that the two would be assumed the same, given emphasis on Frank AND K in every thread about the Tome series here.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:06 pm

sigma999 wrote:Ironic that the two would be assumed the same, given emphasis on Frank AND K in every thread about the Tome series here.

They used the same account on WotC after Frank was Skip-banned.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:32 pm

New high for over-compensating mods:
From ENworld
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p ... ost4198838

Originally Posted by muffin_of_chaos
God, you're such a tool. This doesn't make any sense. You know it, I know it, they know it.
Originally posted by Plane Sailing
Completely inappropriate behaviour, muffin_of_chaos. Don't post in this thread again. Any similar use of bad language towards other people will result in a suspension.

Two things here:
One- tool is bad language now? Even when it isn't the band?
Two- He was quoting, and mocking, himself

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu May 01, 2008 11:36 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote: They used the same account on WotC after Frank was Skip-banned.

I noticed.
But upon seeking out Home Base (here) one might also note that they are not the same person.
I assume the majority of Wizzers never looked past the "K" account on The Wiz.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri May 02, 2008 5:18 am

Seem like you guys can start a fervor even when you are not there...

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pa ... lls&page=1

Jacob_Orlove · Post by **Jacob_Orlove** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:15 am

I particularly enjoyed:

Lich-Loved (Pathfinder Charter Subscriber), Yesterday, 05:02 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The locking of the Fighter/CR thread sets a poor precedent. It would seem that viable discussions can be closed down for everyone based on the behavior of a few. Who would have guessed that a wide-ranging debate with multiple, polite participants could be stifled simply by a few causing enough trouble in a thread? This sort of approach to addressing the problem only supports the points of those that shout the loudest and dare anyone to disagree.

Bad decision, Paizo.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri May 02, 2008 8:15 pm

Leress wrote:
Bigode wrote:For example, giving the fighter a good completely non-numerical ability at each even level would be a vastly better approach than anything involving extra bonuses or feats.
You mean like the Tome Fighter

Well, taste differences might dictate other abilities instead, but certainly that's the example I'd point to.

Leress wrote:
Bigode wrote: That reminds me: adding secondary effects to evocations is a better approach than either lowering levels or adding damage, because it doesn't change any part of the text of previously published characters ...
What kind of secondary effects?

Depending on what flavor you want, you could go with, well, whatever: maybe lightning bolts blind targets - or maybe they daze, or maybe cones of cold generate difficult terrain - or maybe they bull-rush people away ... the list goes on, you could do anything; the important part is that changing the core book text is better than anything that might have retroactive influence on previous material; remember that even if those effects required saves, the stat blocks would likely already be written in "DC X + spell level" form, so it doesn't matter (actually, it's an advantage, because while I intend to go with Frank's version for my games, for published material the DCs listed actually wouldn't hold, since the spells would be in the wrong levels). And, changing damage values has a number of issues in any case (such as the ones Frank pointed in the Paizo thread), and is especially worse if you're supposed to check damages in stat blocks.

Sigma wrote:Well I wouldn't say the Tome Fighter is vastly better than any other D&D warrior, but it is competent.

WTF, man? While a warblade might have the better chance of winning a duel (and I'm totally not confident on that), the fighter goes much better on monsters - and the warblade's the best warrior WotC put out, unless you were counting full divine spellcasters. So, how's it not a lot better?

FrankTrollman wrote:Hey, I got votes despite never having ever posted on those boards, ever.

-Username17

And you say they don't have a sense of history.

But I find it slightly more hilarious that Aelryinth, Khan, Sinfire Titan, and maybe 1 or 2 others got voted. But hey, Otto got voted just once! Anyway, the fact that I'm commenting on it doesn't mean I don't consider it stupid.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat May 03, 2008 10:55 pm

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... st15770453

Post #2 and #17 are what cause my head to hurt.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sun May 04, 2008 2:24 am

#2 is only marginally annoying. #17 is a classic, though: "It's not exotic because it's in the PHB."

Edit: Even worse, I decided for some ungodly reason to use the dormant account I created around the time of the 4e announcement to post in that thread (as Warlord Kelvin). What was I thinking?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:32 pm

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1027879

The Concerns and Criticisms forum is full of...something.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue May 06, 2008 6:54 pm

Mostly grasping at straws. But I notice with interest that the two pieces which really stand out as looking terrible are the Draconian and the Tiefling. I mean, they look really bad. That's not good, because those are the races which have been created/reimagined for 4e.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Lee Moyer's warlock woman is flat and uninteresting - really looks like it belongs on a Greco Roman Urn rather than an attention grabbing illustration. But looking at it doesn't make me hate the 4e Warlock outfits, it just doesn't inspire. The rest of the pictures vary in quality from meh (3 princesses) to great (the warrior woman at the top). But the "new" race art looks like crap.

Other than that, I seriously don't understand what the guy is going on about. It's a bunch of women in light or no armor and a bunch of them have bare midriffs. I... don't even care. Come back to me when they are showing skinny large breasted women with heavy plate on the shoulders and other joints and practically naked boobs. If unarmored people want to show belly button I don't even care. Would they rather we went to historical accuracy and dressed the women up in nothing but blue finger paint?

-Username17