[Legendary Games] Legendary Bard Playtest (Closed)

[Mairn]

This playtest is not closed. Thank you everyone for your participation, and thank you for your valuable comments!

[exelsisxax]

The spellcasting changes are terrible. All the bookeeping of a prepared caster with almost all the limitations of spontaneous casters. What's the point of making bards into 40% jankier arcanists?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm decidedly not a fan of splitting performance into "performance" and "inspiration". That's yet another thing to keep track of with a lengthy list of subchoices.

So now you've got performances, and spells, and inspirations, and masterpieces, and schools, and eight kinds of FCB, and then several of the archetypes rewrite the class table. It all strikes me as overcomplicated, and I'm not seeing the benefit.

[Unavenger]

I will add my dissent to the idea of having separate spells known and spells prepped and then casting spontaneously off your spells prepped. The fact that one of the most commonly-banned classes in the game does something slightly more annoying is no real excuse.

OTOH, having seen the inspiration-performance decoupling in action (NWN2 does it), I am in favour of that change.

Jack of All Trades seems like a really pointless attempt to backport a 5e feature sheerly for the sake of backporting a 5e feature.

I don't like how Magician's Flexibility tries to define a broad category of feats as "any feat that empowers or modifies the legendary bard's spellcasting" because that seems deliciously ambiguous. Weapon focus ray? Dimensional assault? Literally any feat that can buff attacks with a Force Sword, such as Power Attack?

I agree that archetypes that rewrite the class table are a really bad idea - if you can sum it up without having to actually write a new table, fine, but I can see players who want to use those archetypes having to do loads of back-and-forth.

[Elves]

Dual prepared/spontaneous is a headache. So is splitting performance and inspiration. That vigilante thing looks really long, so while it creates an appearance of compression to include it because you can just link to it, I don't know if that is actually efficiency in practice -- possibly better to just make a couple of your own class features.

What's your goal with this rewrite?

[Kris Moonhand]

Maybe I'm just weird, but I always hated Vancian casting. Arcanist/5e style casting is definitely preferable to Vancian for me, though it is a bit weird for a spontaneous caster. I'm not sure what you could have done other than letting them work like Clerics, though. I probably would have just given them a spellbook or something. On the bright side, it'll let me pick more of those cool Bard-only spells that I never have enough spells known to get. I only skimmed the stuff after the main class, but I like the look of it. Splitting off Inspiration from Performance was a good idea, especially since no one ever uses anything besides Inspire Courage anyways, so might as well make it an always-on thing.

Things I'm not a fan of:
Getting rid of Countersong/Distract. I know they're not used that often, but when you get to use Countersong as a Bard it always feels so good!
Only having Renown. Not every Bard is famous! Let me take the Obscurity talent in place of Renown at least, please.

And because I always like to end things on a positive note, I really liked the "Do You Know Who I Am?" feat and I can guarantee I'm gonna be taking it at some point.

[Elves]

Having a list of known spells is literally less complicated than Pathfinder's default spellbook rules.

I honestly don't understand what is giving you guys trouble with this.

Bard doesn't use a spellbook by default. By default they're spontaneous. So by adding even part of the rigors of prepared casting, you're making them more complex.

My suggestion is to do like beguiler/dread necro and give them full spontaneous casting from a very limited and strictly on-theme list.



How? "You have an always up buff you can rotate the effects of."

How is that a headache.

I'm not even trying to be mean here... but seriously.


If it's a simple idea, then condense the wording. Right now, from my perspective as a test reader, it deflects my attention. That's valid feedback.

On top of the long list of performances and schools, it just reads as too much.

What are you trying to fix compared to the default bard? Knowing this would help me give useful feedback.

[Palanan]

Just glancing at the document, I'm quite baffled by the tables for spells known/prepared. I understand this a greater-than-average bard, but it does seem substantially more complicated than what I'm used to for bards.

For someone who has spent a lot of time writing and rewriting this document, I'm sure it's all second nature--but part of receiving feedback is learning to understand how your writing looks to someone who's seeing it for the very first time.

As someone who's seeing it for the first time, to me it seems dense and confusing. I think one of the best things you can do to head that off is to provide a simple, one- or two-sentence introduction, at the very top of the document, explaining how this bard is different from the standard. That way the reader has some framework for understanding the detailed class writeup.

[Psyren]

I actually like the fact that this Bard is a prepared caster. Bards seamlessly combine music/storytelling with magic, and they form "colleges" - musical ability requires some degree of natural talent, sure, but it requires education and study as well. Arcanist-style preparation mixes both worlds, like the bard itself does. And their preparation in the morning, rather than studying a musty tome, should be playing an instrument, vocal exercises, stretches and warm-ups to get limber etc.

Personally though, I see an easy way to de-complicate the three tables - just remove the third table (spells known cap) entirely. Let them learn spells similar to how an erudite or eidetic wizard or even a witch does - from other spellcasters, by seeing/hearing them cast, by trading them with another bard, by deciphering a scroll or a poem or a difficult piece of music etc. Instead of a spellbook, they can simply hold spells in their own minds, and the fact that their spells are songs and poems and epics and sagas makes them easier to store that way than a wizard's complicated spellbook notations and formulae. They should get some spells for free as they level (1 or 2 per level) but should learn the rest by traveling and talking to people.

I would also consider letting them be 9th-level casters like 5e does. I think music is powerful enough to do things like dominate monsters or create demiplanes. That can be an archetype or optional variant though. Alternatively, you can use the Masterpieces mechanic to allow them access to powerful spell effects like these.

[Psyren]

Further thoughts on the playtest. Let me know if you'd also like me to add these as comments to the Google doc.

- I like the idea of inspirations - they allow a bard to buff themselves and their allies passively without worrying about burning through all their performance rounds during an extended exploration scene or social interaction. As several skill checks can take minutes or even hours to resolve, this is very useful. However, I don't think combat-specific boosts (attack/damage/AC/saves/DR) should be a part of that - those are exactly the buffs that SHOULD require a round-to-round resource, and that a GM should be able to challenge the party by taxing so that they are sometimes pressured into making hard choices because their bard is running on fumes. With that said however, it is yet another thing for the bard and GM to track as others have stated. As others have suggested, it might be easier to just combine the two categories or use a descriptor - e.g. "Bardic Performances with the (Inspiration) descriptor can be maintained without spending additional rounds of bardic performance." or somesuch.

- I understand the goal of adding the renown feature to the LB but I don't think that should be a baseline ability, especially one that is available so early on. You're basically telling everyone playing the class "congrats, you're 2nd level now, go pick up Ultimate Intrigue and learn the vigilante class so you know what this is giving you and what "social identity" means, and GM while you're at it you should check your campaign to see what size settlements the players are in so you can give them a good answer when they ask which settlement to pick for this and what benefits they should get." I would either scrap that, stick it in an archetype or feat, or make it available much later (boosting its power if necessary.)

- For quickened performance the wording is a bit clunky - it might be more efficient to just say they can choose to start a performance or inspiration as a move action (since there's already a general rule that you can replace a standard action with a move action.)

[GrayDeath]

I actually like the fact that this Bard is a prepared caster. Bards seamlessly combine music/storytelling with magic, and they form "colleges" - musical ability requires some degree of natural talent, sure, but it requires education and study as well. Arcanist-style preparation mixes both worlds, like the bard itself does. And their preparation in the morning, rather than studying a musty tome, should be playing an instrument, vocal exercises, stretches and warm-ups to get limber etc.

Personally though, I see an easy way to de-complicate the three tables - just remove the third table (spells known cap) entirely. Let them learn spells similar to how an erudite or eidetic wizard or even a witch does - from other spellcasters, by seeing/hearing them cast, by trading them with another bard, by deciphering a scroll or a poem or a difficult piece of music etc. Instead of a spellbook, they can simply hold spells in their own minds, and the fact that their spells are songs and poems and epics and sagas makes them easier to store that way than a wizard's complicated spellbook notations and formulae. They should get some spells for free as they level (1 or 2 per level) but should learn the rest by traveling and talking to people.

I would also consider letting them be 9th-level casters like 5e does. I think music is powerful enough to do things like dominate monsters or create demiplanes. That can be an archetype or optional variant though. Alternatively, you can use the Masterpieces mechanic to allow them access to powerful spell effects like these.


Agreed.

TRhe fully spontaneous Bard always kinda felt wrong for me, as its just strange that he cant learn a new Music/Song/Combine them/whatever.

Instead of going by the Arcanist and nab the arguably most powerful mode of casting, Psyrens Idea above ahs some merit.
Depnding if you go 9th or keep 6th, you might need balancing though.
For 6th Psyrens Idea would likely work perfectly, just limit it to say Enchantment, Illusion and Abjuration, and done.

9th: Slap a maximum number of known Spells per Level of unmodified CHa Mod+ unmodified Int Mod on top, and make them only autoleran Enchantment, Illusion and Abjuration and you should be fine as well, if one aims for a less restricted, more "regular caster" Feeling.

Or go Fixed List Caster who can, say 6 times as Class feature and via spending feats for it, add another 2 Spells known from limited Schools.
Feels less like a bard though, contrasting to being much much simpler....

The Do you know my name feat and the way you use Jack of all Tgrades is good as well. You might even reduce the minimum levels of JoaT a bit.

Ovbverall I like the concept, but it needs some polish.

[Psyren]

Agreed.

The fully spontaneous Bard always kinda felt wrong for me, as its just strange that he cant learn a new Music/Song/Combine them/whatever.

Yes, exactly. It always felt weird to me that I can't have a (legendary) bard that might make it his life mission to learn every song in existence, just like I'd think a wizard who wants to learn every spell should be a possible concept, even if that wizard needs an entire library of spellbooks on their private demiplane to hold it all. For a bard to be like "I'd love to learn that awesome magic song you just played but I don't have any spells known open" always felt off to me.

Compare that to a Sorcerer - they aren't learning about music or magic, they're learning about themselves. Learning every spell is pointless to them, because what they can't do is as much a part of their identity as what they can.

[Elves]

The concept behind bardic spellcasting is a little vague in any case. If it's supposed to be that the music is creating the magic, that should be represented mechanically and have class abilities relating to it. That's one of the things I'd definitely address in a bard redo.

Along with a more strictly thematic spell list -- why does bard get stuff like glitterdust, feather fall or summon monster that's unconnected to music or performance?

[Psyren]

The concept behind bardic spellcasting is a little vague in any case. If it's supposed to be that the music is creating the magic, that should be represented mechanically and have class abilities relating to it. That's one of the things I'd definitely address in a bard redo.

Along with a more strictly thematic spell list -- why does bard get stuff like glitterdust, feather fall or summon monster that's unconnected to music or performance?

Well, you could connect any of that stuff to music, that's fluff. What they shouldn't have is a lot of direct damage or necromancy (at least, not baseline.)

[Psyren]

Too many responses so I am not going to direct-quote things:



I actually like this idea a lot, probably going to rework Bardic Spellcasting to use this.

If I don't go with Eidetic Spellcaster, then I will try and rewrite this to make it less confusing.

Great! Yes I see no issue with Prepared Bards having a limitless spellbook in their heads, especially when this Bard is supposed to be "Legendary." Tell all the magic stories! Learn all the magic songs! etc.


No. It would likely have a bunch of unintended issues, and would also cut a ton of spells people associate with bard, like Cure spells.

Word counts exist, and the thought of going through every single available spell to make a new "more thematic" spell list that I wouldn't get complaints about for ignoring X spell from Y source book makes me want to die. No thanks.

Agreed.


Not happening. It would defeat the entire point of making inspirations separate so that the bard can actually use their performances in combat and not being locked into Inspire Courage 24/7.
I am currently debating retooling the levels inspirations are handed out though.

My one issue here is that Inspire Courage is THE combat performance. If you're going to track any of them round-by-round, this should be the one, because the player rationing those rounds between combat effectiveness for their party now vs. saving resources for future fights is the primary daily concern/interesting choice for the Bard, perhaps even ahead of their spell slots. The main combat performance being in the "Oh I just turn this on and don't worry about it for the rest of the day" bucket defeats the purpose of having a round-by-round resource in the first place.



I am still trying to figure out *something* to give them as an ACF that replaces this that doesn't use UI/Vigilante Social Talents, but most of the ideas I have come up with / have been suggested are already social talents, and just rewriting an already existing social talent is... meh.

As far as having to go read UI at level 2 goes: The book has everything referenced hyperlinked, even in the PDFs. This might have issues with physical copies, but LG products are designed to be digital products first and foremost.

I get that, but you're talking about a rework of a core class referring to one of the most niche subsystems in the game from fairly late in PF's run. And UI being available to people isn't really the point; there's a mental real estate issue whereby Bard is a class you can reasonably expect people - especially new/inexperienced people - to want to pick up and play from just a single book.

[Elves]

Word counts exist, and the thought of going through every single available spell to make a new "more thematic" spell list that I wouldn't get complaints about for ignoring X spell from Y source book makes me want to die. No thanks.

Keyword searches + using the extant list as a base makes this fairly easy. Even better you can just write new spells for the abilities you want to give them.

But that's a more general thing I'd do for a redone bard. My #1 feedback for this specific redo is still: simplify and condense.

[Mairn]

I will probably be closing this playtest in a week, since the discussion has died down completely.

If a bunch of comments and concerns are brought up I might extend it for another week or two.

[Psyren]

I will probably be closing this playtest in a week, since the discussion has died down completely.

If a bunch of comments and concerns are brought up I might extend it for another week or two.

Given that it's 4th of July weekend and this is mostly a US forum, people are probably doing family things and posting on the odd topic here and there. Something more involved like detailed critique on a playtest is probably going to take a back seat to that, so I would advise extending your playtest rather than closing it early.

I'll take another look at some of the changes and provide feedback when I can.

[Palanan]

I'm not that familiar with how an open playtest works. Does the term "playtest" usually mean just reader comments, or does it also mean gameplay with characters based on the new class?

This isn't a comment on this particular bard, just someone outside the process wondering how the term is used.

[Mairn]

I'm not that familiar with how an open playtest works. Does the term "playtest" usually mean just reader comments, or does it also mean gameplay with characters based on the new class?

This isn't a comment on this particular bard, just someone outside the process wondering how the term is used.

"Playtest" in this industry is a really bad term for what they are, but its the standard so it's what I use to avoid confusion.

In this case, the "Playtest" is essentially a Beta Read, which looks for reader comments regarding the work to solve potential issues the writer may not have noticed, or things the audience thinks the writer could improve by rewriting, clarifying, or adding to the work. Occasionally, you get people who do actually playtest the content in one of their games.

You get some companies, like Paizo, who use their Playtests as play tests where they only take critiques or criticisms on their work from people who actually tested the product in actual play. However, most small 3PP studios do not have the time, resources, or number of fans to reliably do such a thing.

[Palanan]

Okay, thanks. I was indeed thinking along the lines of the Paizo approach, where the classes are tested in actual play. In your case I grok the constraints you're working with.

[Psyren]

Okay - Got a chance to read the rework and I'm liking this version better, but I still have some notes.

Pros:
- Arcanist-style (soft vancian) preparation
- Eidetic spell learning
- Fame ability is much easier to understand
- Bardic schools (colleges?) allow for lots of customization without archetypes

Cons:
- No Inspire Courage until second level - which is the main thing to want a bard for at low levels. A 1st-level LB has no way to buff his party's attack, save perhaps debuffing enemies with Dirge of Doom, which is not a particularly strong performance due to being a fear effect.
- When you do get it, there's no reason not to simply leave it on during a fight permanently - which is what I believe the PF bard was trying to get away from by making performance round-by-round in the first place.
- Charming Performance has a much shorter duration than Charm Person - it might be better to let the LB expend rounds 1/10 min or even 1/min so that this can be used socially.
- Lamentations of Lightning is too strong to be available at level 1 (3rd-level spell), especially for a class that shouldn't be a primary blaster.
- Waltz of the Waves is too strong to be available at level 1 (4th-level spell).
- Sonata of Stone affecting legless/amorphous creatures (like oozes, swarms or snakes) feels weird.

Questions:
- It looks like they can spontaneously apply metamagic - does that increase the casting time?
- Can an undead LB inspire courage on themselves?
- Are the spells they gain from School of the Mage arcane spells? Do any spells that use a different casting modifier for another class (like Spiritual Weapon) use Charisma for the LB?
- Why is Serenade of Healing mind-affecting? What happens if you use it on an undead creature (along with Dirge Singer?) If it's truly affecting their minds, it seems that it should be granting temporary HP.

[Psyren]

- Charming Performance has a short duration as a balance point. They have Charm Person on their spell list if they want the full duration.

Granted, but I think you have a lot of daylight between hours/lvl and rounds/lvl even if you want to make the non-spell version shorter. Charm is usually a social tactic since it's so difficult to use (and adjudicate) in a combat scenario, but making it rounds/lvl basically only makes it a combat power.



- A druid casting Call Lightning at 3rd level has the spell active for 5 minutes. A legendary bard using Lamentations of Lightning at 1st level has 4 + their Cha mod rounds. Less than a minute total per day, to hit for less damage than a greatsword wielded by a 16Str character on average. By 5th level, they can only use it for 12 + Cha mod rounds, so still less than half the duration of the 3rd level spell, and that would take all of their performance rounds for the day, whereas the Druid only used a single spell slot. Call Lightning is also regarded as a fairly weak spell.

If it's seen as weak (and a glance through a couple of druid handbooks shows that not to be the case), it's because druids usually have better options for blasting - bards generally don't. Its value tends to increase dramatically when there are few alternatives (see also how Focalor tends to be rated highly in Binder handbooks, and he's also not available at 1st level.) Comparing it to a greatsword doesn't really track either, given that it's a vertical line that hits everything in its path from 100ft. away.



- Control Water has a duration of 10min/level. Walts of the Waves has a duration equal tods performance, which is going to be less than 5 minutes even at 20th level.

I'm not sure the duration actually matters much when you can sink a boat or flood a small town in seconds... More importantly though, giving this spell too early may not actually do anything, given that they can't affect a cube of water with it at 1st level - that would be the better reason to revisit the prerequisites here, at least imo.


- I don't really see the benefits of adding a bunch of text to make this not apply to a very small number of creatures.

Technically, you don't have to add anything - since you specified "beneath their feet" GMs will probably get there for oozes anyway.


Regarding the questions:

- The changes to spontaneous magic were a change the LG team has decided on, and will also apply to future spontaneous casters. We decided as a group that the casting-time increase for Spontaneous casters didn't really add anything, and made the already prohibitive system of metamagic even more annoying than it needed to be.

Thanks, that helps.


- Yes, the bard always gains the benefits of their own inspirations. Will clarify it ignores normal immunities (Edit: Turns out I had already clarified this. Why was there confusion?).

You said "even if they are immune to mind-affecting effects" - but undead are also separately immune to morale effects.


- They are treated as bard spells, so yes they are arcane spells that use the bard's casting ability modifier.

Understood - you may want text somewhere clarifying that.

[GrayDeath]

Gave it a reread, and have to agree.

Looks MUCH better now.

Overall the only points I am somewhat unsure about are the following:

Charming Performance: Its just....it should be a more social ability than Charm Person, not a LESS social one. After all, you sing/Dance/Rap/Whatever for it instead of just firing off a spell.
I would increase the duration, but (if thats considered too strong) add in a few actions that, if executed by the performer, immedeately end the effect?
Would make it more of a way to prepare social encounters/sing for peace than Charm person (which,m they also get anyway).

The Call Lightning Variant: Granted, it is worse than done by a Druid. Still, a Bard is NOT a Blaster CLass, so does he need it at level 1?

[Psyren]

That just... isn't how the spell works. It can't sink boats, and it only floods things until the duration ends.

It can explicitly create whirlpools in open water, which "puts ships at risk" :smallconfused: It's a 4th-level spell.


How often do enemies stack vertically before 5th level? How often do enemies vertically stack ever? There are exactly two edge-cases where you can hit multiple enemies with call lightning: Two creatures sharing a space (Large+ creature and Small- creature, or a mount and a rider), which rarely happens before 5th level, and a flying creature flying directly above another creature, which also rarely happens before 5th level because flying creatures tend to be horrifically unbalanced at low levels.

Greatswords can also crit, can be buffed actively by class features, and target AC compared to Saving Throws, which is usually a better option at low levels.
The 16 Str Fighter at 1st level has +4 to hit before any class features, and is targeting an average AC of 14 for a CR1 foe, with a rough DPR of 6.655 (55% chance to hit, 5.5% adjusted crit chance, 11 average damage)

The 16 Cha Bard at 1st level has a DC of 13, and is targetting an average Reflex bonus of +4 for a CR 1 foe, with a rough DPR of 4.2 (40% chance the foe fails, average damage of 10.5). This also costs them a daily resource.

I can't say I agree that mount and rider doesn't happen before 5th level. And even removing the "vertical AoE" potential, this is still a 100ft. blast with competitive damage at 1st-level on a non-blasting class.



Charming Performance: Its just....it should be a more social ability than Charm Person, not a LESS social one. After all, you sing/Dance/Rap/Whatever for it instead of just firing off a spell.
I would increase the duration, but (if thats considered too strong) add in a few actions that, if executed by the performer, immedeately end the effect?
Would make it more of a way to prepare social encounters/sing for peace than Charm person (which,m they also get anyway).

The Call Lightning Variant: Granted, it is worse than done by a Druid. Still, a Bard is NOT a Blaster CLass, so does he need it at level 1?

Indeed.

[Psyren]

I don't balance my content around house rules.

"Puts ships at risk" isn't a houserule and it's not merely the ship being immobile, it's right in the spell.

I don't know if you intend this, but throughout this thread I've seen you respond to criticism pretty aggressively. It's your playtest, I get that, but it makes me question the extent to which you actually want any constructive feedback or just a rubber stamp for this rework.

[GrayDeath]

Which is why I want to give them an option that isn't incredibly strong. You can argue it is, but I have provided math for why its not as strong as you thing, and the niche cases where it might be stronger. I can count the number of times I have fought mounted characters before 5th level on one hand, mostly because Pathfinder's mount rules are pretty terrible. It is a much more common option for PCs than it is NPCs.

And I dont have any problem with that.

But not being a Blaster and getting a Blastiing Ability AT LEVEL 1 does not quite ... fit, I think.

Give them that ability at say Level 5, or 6, and I for one have no problem with it whatsoever.


Also, on a sidenote, you might want to reduce the ... harshness of your responses a wee bit.

We are after all trying to help you make your Class good/better, without getting anything for it. The least we can expect is basic politeness, no?

[GrayDeath]

Well, apologizing for overt harshness and then totally discarding valid concerns as "but I dont like it" or differing interpretations of what the FURTHER consequences of a spell effect may be as "concerns" is certainly going to help to get more poeple to help you....not. :smallmad:


Seriously. I point out a rather obvious (if Fluff, but then again, you are making a total, new, class, which does include fluff and since you are the creator have full "control" no? ) mismatch between an ability and the Class "feel", and thats your reaction?

Yeah, I`m out. Have fun only accepting feedback that agrees with your interpretation of the game, can read your mind, and takes your con descending tone.

Jeesh.

[Psyren]

Yeah, getting written off as "creative reading" when I point out that getting 3rd- and 4th-level spell effects at level one might be a bit of an issue doesn't sit well with me either. And again, comparing a 100ft. blast to a fighter wielding a greatsword, when bards typically don't get either of those things may be mathematically similar, but isn't really an answer to the question of why bards need such an ability at level 1.

I can only hope any Corefinder beta reads are not like this experience.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
I don't know if you intend this, but throughout this thread I've seen you respond to criticism pretty aggressively.


Originally Posted by Mairn
I enjoy having beta reads and playtests for my books, but threads like this one (I have received so much uncalled for negative criticism, overly harsh criticism, and rude tones) seriously make me consider whether I actually want to post playtests in the future.

As a neutral observer, it seems to me that you’ve been taking the criticisms in this thread much too personally.

I’m familiar with the main voices offering critique in this thread, and I can guarantee you that they’re not attacking you, they’re commenting on what you’ve written. Learning to distance yourself from criticism is absolutely essential if you’re going to take best advantage of what your future customers are trying to tell you.

If you are genuinely committed to improving your work based on outside feedback, then the very best advice I can give you is to find a nonprofit writing center in your area. Sign up for a couple of classes and participate in roundtable workshops where everyone critiques everyone else’s work.

One of the first things you’ll learn is to tame the very human impulse to defend your work while others are critiquing it. It’s perfectly natural, but it also very often keeps us from hearing what we need to in order to improve our work. Participating in a creative workshop will give you a new perspective on writing and critique, and ultimately it will improve everything you create.

[Unavenger]

My favourite part is how you manage to put people down even when you actually agree with their criticism. It makes giving you advice feel really bad.

[Mairn]

My apologies then, I will try to police my tone if I post another playtest here in the future. Though, I have to admit the tone policing here is a fair bit hypocritical, considering the tone of numerous posts in this thread.

To those saying I "only change things I agree with"... why did I severely rework the class if I wasn't willing to embrace criticism? Not all criticism, and not all concerns are valid. Repeating the same concern over and over does not make it more valid. Ignoring any counterpoints to your concern does not make it more valid. It isn't really fair to expect a writer to change everything that is commented on.

[Mairn]

On second thought: After considering things, I think I have gained as much valuable information I am going to get from this playtest. The links have been removed, and the playtest is closed. I will take any concerns and criticisms that have been posted here since my last edits to the playtest and make any changes that I believe are needed.

[AlienFromBeyond]

Just because you give a piece of criticism that's acknowledged does not mean it will be acted upon, only that your piece has been heard. Mairn only started getting more harsh when people continued to harp on their same piece of feedback despite being given contrary evidence to how the base facts of their argument were incorrect. He is human, not a Solar with infinite patience.

Also Call Lightning is really, really goddamn bad. It's barely usable at level 1, in that you might actually consider using it at all, and only becomes so much worse with more levels. DoTs, of which Call Lightning effectively is, are just not effective in Pathfinder considering the average length of a combat.