Vic Ferrari's page

Another vote; everyone should be able to get at least Expert in any weapon and/or armour.

Yes, a lot of good posts; as Nightwhisper said; it's basically a way to bump 1st level hit points/survivability (also some flavour).

Like in 1st Ed AD&D, the Ranger starts with double Hit Dice/2d8, potential 16 hit points, before Con mod.

In 4th Ed you get a set number, by class (4, 5, 6, or 7), plus your Con score, so usually between 14 and 20 or so hp.

In the first 5th Ed playtest packet, 1st level hit points were 1 class hit dice, maxed (10 for fighter, etc), plus your Con score; I wish they had kept that.

Players should also get some degree of reward for system mastery. I think Paizo does as well, that's why they changed the system. When WoTC built the foundation for 3.5, optimization wasn't really a thing and WotC didn't anticipate the problems that would arise.

3.0 had plenty, haste abuse, crunching crit ranges (15-20, maybe even lower), and you have some really funky splat action (Arms & Equipment Guide is classic).

Baby Samurai wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Baby Samurai wrote:

The Rot Grub wrote:

PF2 lets you move and make a 2nd attack automatically from Level 1, without investing feats.

So does PF1.

Fair. But PF2 lets you make a second attack with any weapon. And without a penalty to the first.

Same with PF1 (Unchained RAE, been using it for years, it's what PF2 uses, just cleaned up a bit).

Not everyone has Unchained.

I, for one, do not (the only Pathfinder Classic rulebook I don't have).

It's been free on the PFSRD for years. I only bought a copy after seeing what it had to offer via the online SRD, same with Occult Adventures.

Baby Samurai wrote:

The Rot Grub wrote:

PF2 lets you move and make a 2nd attack automatically from Level 1, without investing feats.

So does PF1.

Fair. But PF2 lets you make a second attack with any weapon. And without a penalty to the first.

Same with PF1 (Unchained RAE, been using it for years, it's what PF2 uses, just cleaned up a bit).

PF2 lets you move and make a 2nd attack automatically from Level 1, without investing feats.

So does PF1.

Am I just blind? I scoured the site for character sheets for 2.0 and this thread was all I found for official stuff. I may check out unofficial ones but it seems odd that they're not readily accessible unless I somehow missed them.

Just scroll up to the top of this page, and there is a link to both B&W and colour.

IMHO, there's a difference between a "GMPC" and an NPC that for whatever reason accompanies the party of adventurers on their mission.

A GMPC is a very dangerous proposition for many reasons that would be totally off-thread to get into. The main ones, though, are:
- Since the DM knows all the secrets, his GMPC should never come up with clever ideas for the party.
- The DM is already rolling for all the adversaries and playing the roles of all NPCs encountered. He shouldn't also be burdened with playing the role of a party member. Less DM focus and less player spotlight time.

I can sympathize with a DM who never gets to just be a player. Try talking some of your pals into doing a rotating DM campaign.

If it's just so you can play with character creation alongside the players, great. But I'd still argue that it's essential to relegate all decisions and die rolling for that GMPC (especially during combat) to a competent player to control, as if he were a minion of some sort.

Bingo; and good one about letting one of the PCs run the NPC in combat, that can be fun for the player who wants to try something else out.

Wheldrake wrote:

If you create a DMPC, I strongly suggest you hand off the character sheet to the most experienced player and have him run it in addition to his own character.

Be sure that the DMPC is a passive character that doesn't come up with his own ideas and just goes along with the group.

Also be sure to treat him like a "red shirt". When the going gets tough, he'll be the first to die. That way you can also test out the rules for the dying condition. <g>

I'd actually be careful with this. Maybe it's just the people I've played with, but I've found that I catch more flak for having an incompetent GNPC rather than one that's too competent. Very much a "Why is this person here again?".

I've found a good balance by having a GNPC that's a level behind people, but helps shore up some of the party's weaknesses. Like, say, a guide that knows some stuff about the wilderness we're in.

Yes, exactly, no spotlight hogging, but not just a useless wallflower, or worse, a liability.

This is nothing new (dwarves making good fighters, etc); have fun mixing it up. Plus, with PF2's generous ability score generation method, everything is pretty much equal, beginning stat-wise.

It seems like crossbows should be the best ranged weapon for a creature with no ability score bonus and little training, just like real life.

5th Ed allowing Dex mod to crossbow damage seriously bothers me.

Some monsters now have some really distinctive, interesting, unique Actions (the marilith, etc).

Baby Samurai wrote:

Yes, the colour version's better, but due to my eye condition (Retinitis Pigmentosa), I find the format/layout way too busy, cluttered, makes my eye water and get a headache.

The official character sheet is awful. Busy, cluttered, hard to find stuff, and all these funky shapes that don't have any real purpose.

Which is why I really prefer some version of BlueJay64's retro character sheet. Looks similar to the PF1 character sheet, and once a wee bit of tweaking gets done, it'll be perfect.

I'll check it out, but over the years I tend to like to format my PCs/NPCs in the monster format (more or less), from whatever edition I am playing/DMing. Its fun, easy fo find stuff, and looks cool (kind of an official feel).

I absolutely adore the colour sheet. The coloursu they chose, the bordering, shapes, lack of white space, and such. It helps soo much with my visual issues with colour shifted eye.

I've always had trouble with that, so this is rather nice.

Yes, the colour version's better, but due to my eye condition (Retinitis Pigmentosa), I find the format/layout way too busy, cluttered, makes my eye water and get a headache.

PF1e has a bunch of systems that were developed with different math and advancement systems in mind, some interacted, others did not and some had conditional interaction.

What do you mean by all these different systems?

What's the issue here? Specifically, they wanted to make sure that it was the same game at its heart. If it suddenly turned into DnD 5e, that wouldn't fulfill this requirement, because that changes the stories told by a ridiculous amount.

I think 5th Ed is more amenable to telling stories in Golarion than PF2, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed/PF1 Lite.

Baby Samurai wrote:

I feel the ranger has become less attractive with each new edition since 1st Ed AD&D.

The Playtest forced me to take a long look at my understanding of the class and its concept. My take away is the concept has been heavily diluted over the years, as compared to something like the Fighter or Wizard. It also suffers from a kind of inherent challenge: it's often a core class with a theme that is very situational. So how do you create a class that is "nature-themed" but generally useful? The Druid did it by giving it high level agency in Spells and Combat (companion and shape-shifting).

The narrative dilution then makes it hard for the designers to focus in on what makes the class class concept compelling. What is it that really exemplifies a Ranger for players? Is that something that works in the course of normal game play?

Bingo, the Ranger seems to have developed an identity crisis. Different people seem to want it to be different (often very) things, seems hard to reconcile at this point.

Baby Samurai wrote:

That I can buy, but not that PF2 is easier to teach than any previous edition of D&D/PF.

Well, you hate the system so that's not super surprising.

Ha, well let's not get hysterical, hates a strong word, and I have never said I hate it.

I feel the ranger has become less attractive with each new edition since 1st Ed AD&D. The 2nd Ed AD&D ranger seemed to become a bit Drizzt-based (TWF, I do not like the ranger being specifically associated with a fighting style), and just lost all vibe. The 3rd Ed one was a bit underwhelming, the 4th Ed one was just a cuisinart, and apparently it's one of the least popular 5th Ed classes.
WotC has released several variants, and have been talking about alternate class features (like substitution levels).

Baby Samurai wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

GameDesignerDM wrote:

I always find it odd how spells are often considered a big core feature of the ranger, where the inspiration and iconic ranger from fantasy wasn't a spellcaster, and his only real 'magical' aspects came from his race and being heir to to a legendary bloodline. Pitfalls of the original design, I guess.

I've always preferred spell-less rangers, but to each their own. The 2E Ranger seems like a big improvement over the 1E version, imo.

I believe in 3.0 they had no spells at all, which was consistent with Aragorn.

The 3.0 Ranger has spells, only 4th Ed made them spell-less.

1) And 5e brought Spells back, awarding them at 2nd level instead 4th. Obviously WotC thought spells were an important part of the concept...more so than in 3.5

3) The real problem with spells in PF1 and 3.5 is how they are implemented. The system is objectively bad, the idea of spell use for the class, imo, is not.

1) Yeah, and they released a spell-less ranger variant, but it gained no traction.

2) Do you mean the magic/spellcasting system, in general?

Well, I think that really depends on how you built and played your 1e Ranger. Objectively, the 2e is not an "improvement," because the class can actually do far less than it could in 1e. It is a fundamental change to the class which is going to appeal to some, especially those who really didn't like the 1e Ranger.

Yeah, I like rangers having some magic, sets them apart from a wilderness warrior fighter-type, magic is like a tool for them.

In 1st Ed AD&D it was fun blapping things with a magic missile.

GameDesignerDM wrote:

I always find it odd how spells are often considered a big core feature of the ranger, where the inspiration and iconic ranger from fantasy wasn't a spellcaster, and his only real 'magical' aspects came from his race and being heir to to a legendary bloodline. Pitfalls of the original design, I guess.

I've always preferred spell-less rangers, but to each their own. The 2E Ranger seems like a big improvement over the 1E version, imo.

I believe in 3.0 they had no spells at all, which was consistent with Aragorn.

The 3.0 Ranger has spells, only 4th Ed made them spell-less.

Yes, some of us have been excited and have active groups? Does that surprise you?

That I can buy, but not that PF2 is easier to teach than any previous edition of D&D/PF.

Baby Samurai wrote:

Dracovar wrote:

And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?

We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!

I don't miss them at all.

Right on; I think they have become watered down, lost their alien faerie-land aspect. I also don't like that they became so Lolth focused, whereas earlier they worshipped other demons (and evil elemental gods).

Though, I do like the planar neutral Norse drow of Svartalheim.

Baby Samurai wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Just a nod to the Succubus thread.

And Redeemed Mind Flayers!

And Redeemed Drow! NO, wait! I don't want to turn back into an Elf. Like, can that even happen?

We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!

Just a nod to the Succubus thread.

And Redeemed Mind Flayers!

Good people kill good people sometimes. It's one of the sad facts of life.

Yeah. sometimes the party might have to throw down with a celestial or what-have-you. I do not think only monsters of evil alignment are to be fought by PCs.

I think context matters; in my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign, the PCs went to a dinner party at a succubus' pad in the Upper Ward, and no one killed anyone on sight.

Wow, suddenly people having all this experience teaching these new players PF2 in the last 9 days, impressive.

I am having a hard enough time with the colour coding and icons in the CRB, this really makes my eyes water. I will be sticking with typing up PCs similarly to the monster format.

So what is assumed normal? Because I know it is assumed normal for things to take place in temperate woodland area, but you probably do not run into wolves in the desert or the ocean and these places are also normal places.

Yeah, common is relative, so it's just amongst their type, like in the Abyss, you are more likely to bump into a dretch, than a balor.

Also, monster/NPC/encounter design just got a HECK of a lot simpler, and the fact that we've moved away from "monsters use roughly the same build rules as PCs" and into "monsters do what is needed for their role in the adventure" is the most anti-rules lawyer thing I've seen in decades.

Yes, I really like some of the monster design (marilith demon actions), and great to port over to 3rd Ed/PF1 (using Unchained's RAE, which PF2 cleaned up nicely).

I also like the format: top (opening of encounter, senses, languages, etc), middle (defences, etc), and bottom (Actions, spells, etc).

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.

I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.

Ashborne wrote:

*** Caution - - - - Rant Ahead ***

Extreme Magocracism

Wuxia heroes will want a long talk with this person...

No, seriously, in wuxia stories, it's the warriors who have a way easier (and safer) path for ascending to a higher plane of existence, not the caster equivalents. Quite the striking opposite of European chivalric stories, really.

Yeah, there's one film where the male warrior lead castrates himself and becomes a woman-warrior demigod type (transcends), wild stuff, vey cool.

They could have gone back to just the core 4, and everything else an archetype.
Every new class is pretty much a derivative of one of the 4. I guess psionic/psychic have always been the real outsiders.

I really like it, have used the Silver Standard for 5th Ed for a few years. Gold is generally rare and special, so I like that to be reflected in the multiverse. It also has a bonus of making copper pieces worth carrying.

We've been going with omitting + level since the playtest for some adventures (we also tried out + level x2), just opens up monster threat ranges. I prefer it, as I am not into number inflation like I used to be, and I like 20 orcs to always be a problem for 1 PC to take on.

Like Inigo, the best swordsman in the land, even he can't take on 20 guards at once.

Well, it seems like goblins were considered as vermin, and yes, those can be kill on sight, that''s how cats came to hang out with humans.

Couldn't agree more. It's not just the art. Everything from the iconography to copy, to page and stat block layouts, the character sheet, et cetera...

Yes, I find the colour coding, fonts, and icons very unpleasant on the eye (though I do have a condition), and at a glance I have a hard time telling the difference between the 2 and 3 action icon; I mentioned this in the surveys.

I would like the Occultist to return, and they could reintroduce a form of resonance.

scarletrose, I understand the sentiment. My favorite monsters are hags…but not the way they are designed now.

While they are described as “monstrous witches”, I find there is very little ‘witchy’ about them outside their covens. They are more like Ogresses with a few special abilities. They can’t even cast a spell to heal themselves!

I used think the Adept NPC class was a perfect fit for hags: they gained a familiar, a few low level spells and some skills…and they only had to meditate on wicked philosophy (no particular deity needed)! This let them fit the Halloween Witch Archetype nicely.

They should also be Fey (save the night hag).

Conditions in 5e that give either advantage or disadvantage:

Blinded, Charmed, Frightened, Invisible, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Stunned, Unconscious (not really counting this one of course but for completion's sake), and Exhaustion.

That's not all they do, at all, this just confirms the dishonesty I suspected.

I've played a mindflayer before. Not redeemed but he did like to tell bad jokes that the party had to laugh at if they wanted to keep their brains.

Telepathic jokes, I like it.

Baby Samurai wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Baby Samurai wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).

But all the conditions largely give Disadvantage. Which means they don't actually stack in any meaningful way. You can do lots of different actions, but they don't actually mean anything because the end result is the same.

That is absurd, which leads me to believe you are either totally ignorant of the rules of the game, or are deliberately spreading propaganda (an agenda). It's fine not to like a game, but to completely misrepresent it, is just not cricket.

The lack of redemption of non-pretty Evil is also definitely an issue in need of addressing.

Yeah, there is a cool Redeemed Mindflayer Monk in the 3rd Ed BoED I always liked.

For all the freedom 5e gives you very quickly end up standing still and attacking.

Odd, I find the opposite. As movement is not an action and you can move freely while attacking, it has way more movement than any previous edition, especially 3rd Ed/PF1, with its stand-and-whack encouragement (Full attack).

I am very happy that PF2 has taken on Unchained's Revised Action Economy, that has definitely helped my 3rd Ed/PF1 games.

Baby Samurai wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).

Looking over the final material, it looks like the theme from the playtest stayed with regards to casters.

Namely, if you try to play a caster who wins fights outright like casters did in PF1e, you will fail and feel like casters such because Paizo has worked hard to make that really, really hard to do.

I really like that. Something 5th Ed did; casters are definitely not the big damage dealers (Paladins can get absurd spike damage), and they curbed save or suck.

I suppose if you didn't mind reinventing the myths you could have succubi be both male and female and be seduction and incubi be both male and female and well you know.

I still think of the incubus as described in AD&D: "a succubus shape-changed into male form".

It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?