Vic Ferrari's page

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

I have more than one itch to scratch:

I would like extra weapon damage dice not to be tied to +X weapons, but level.

I want them to drop the whole UTEML deal, just a weird new thing (no legacy or traction), delivers no power, it comes to nothing.

Remove all icons/symbols, not just because I am vision impaired (the 2 and 3 action symbol are hard to differentiate at a glance), they also just look cheap and tacky (the Reaction one looks like a men's restroom sign).

Whether you like it or not, 5e is clearly not a mistake for WotC, for reasons already started.

My fear for PF2e is that they're imitating some of the changes in other games like 13th Age or 5e without having the core soul of those games. PF2e remains a rules-heavy fiddily system. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Honestly, I suspect it will succeed if it manages to avoid annoying people too much so that they can continue to enjoy what Paizo is actually good at: adventures.

At the same time, there *must* be at least one 3pp looking at doing what many of us wanted PF2e to be: a clean up and reboot of PF1e/3.5 that makes Unchained-like changes but that isn't a completely new system. Who will Paizo Paizo?

Bingo; one of the best posts, so far.

You also hit on something very important, "Soul". The problem with 4th Ed is not the mechanics, per se, it's a great game, just, to me, it started to feel dry, shallow, soulless. That is why after about 50+ hours of DMing/playing, I became disillusioned. The even bigger problem, for me, with the Playtest, is it feels like all of those unfortunate things, and more (byzantine, dense), before I even DMed/played.

I honestly feel they might have gone in the wrong direction with this baby (incorrect gauge), maybe something more between 3rd and 5th Ed would be better received, not something more complex than 3rd Ed. I do not hear/see anyone clamouring for that, even Monte Cook admitted it's overwrought: "What have we wrought?"

What I asked was really, "What do you think of when you hear Pathfinder?" Albeit worded a bit poorly perhaps.

Some early on decided to answer with the simple, and appropriate
"A continuation of 3.5." To which I asked to follow up question.
"If so, why did you take the initial plunge into Pathfinder and put your trust and dollars into a mid sized publishing company?" Which frankly has gotten some pretty good answers as well.

Yea, as Paizo had been publishing Dragon with 100% official material, APs, and many ex-WotC employees work there, more than makes it reputable. Erik Mona worked on one of the best 3rd Ed books, ever, Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss (fantastic book, and useable in any edition, some great lore, and lots of nods to Greyhawk and Planescape). They have more than proved that they deserved to take on the 3rd Ed legacy, if only they would keep to it.

Campaign was fun. One of us had a hard copy phb. We all had pdfs. My wife and two other players said they hated character creation from the pdfs. So for the next campaign we went with pathfinder as it was in print.

Yes, character creation, which I feel is the most byzantine and least fun in the Playtest, compared to any iteration, to date. As for drawing in new players, I do not see it happening (I know some will now claim how this is the first edition they have drawn in new players and all that, I still don't buy it, just history repeating).

Vic Ferrari wrote:

This reminds me why In houserule spell DCs in 3rd Ed/PF to = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + spellcasting mod.

Another of 3rd Ed's blunders that PF failed to address.

There are good reasons to avoid giving PCs too many daily uses of abilities with DCs that high within the 3e/PF math.

Not really, works fine.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

This reminds me why In houserule spell DCs in 3rd Ed/PF to = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + spellcasting mod.

Another of 3rd Ed's blunders that PF failed to address.

Wow is that a weird house rule...

Not weird, rather common, and other things in the game follow that formula.

This reminds me why In houserule spell DCs in 3rd Ed/PF to = 10 + 1/2 hit dice + spellcasting mod.

Another of 3rd Ed's blunders that PF failed to address.

sherlock1701 wrote:

It says a friendly creature, not a creature with the friendly condition. Those are two very different things.

Forgive me for trying to salvage the paladin (and make a joke).

if it was a joke it's alright, but "salvaging" the paladin?

wut?

paladin atm is one of the strongest classes in the game, both offensively and defensively.

I am hoping it is not so pigeonholed into heavy armour and a defender role, upon release.

Designing/building NPCs and monsters, for me, can be its own fun mini-game (game within a game), but it shouldn't be required, as people that enjoy that, seem to more be the exception, than the norm.

ShadeRaven wrote:

@Vic: PF1 seems to have set a must-optimize standard for Pathfinder campaigns, at least in the minds of many of its players - and, for all I know, that's justified because without it, characters can't be successful. We haven't played through enough material to know if the math insists on optimization as a lot of what I run is homebrewed conversions of classic AD&D modules or, like we are currently doing, the Rise of the Runelord AP that is a bit older so maybe not as deadly(?).

PF1 APs don't require optimization, really, though a lot of people do seem to play that way. Most of the published material expects a medium level of experience, so they don't expect the PCs to be extremely optimized. My group has played probably about half of them so far with characters that are reasonably effective at what they do, but not what you'd consider optimized (we take a lot of options for flavor or non-combat-based things) and we haven't gotten steamrollered yet.

The playtest does seem to expect PCs to be optimized, currently--at least to a greater degree than PF1--but I'm hoping that the fixes to the monster math they've mentioned will alleviate the issue. (Also hoping similar fixes will be made to skill DCs, without requiring items to be successful.)

I agree, the APs do not expect the level of crunching that some embrace in a game like this. That would be disastrous, as some play more casually.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

this is one reason why things like the mention of more Golarion-specific content in bestiaries and so forth strike me as a very good thing, in reinforcing Pathfinder's distinct identity.

For me, I've had more games of pathfinder that had absolutely nothing to do with Golarion than those that did. As such, infusing Golarion into the rules as a default actually makes it harder for me to tell and play in the pathfinder games I have enjoyed in the past. For me, Golarion doesn't equal pathfinder: it's just a single setting on the pathfinder spectrum.

I totally agree. D&D/PF are games to support many worlds, and apparently the majority of home games take place in homebrewed campaign settings. I like Golarion, but it's simply one of many worlds with which to use the PF rules.

I'd prefer if it was +1 to three or four scores, every 5 levels. Increasing above 18 does not cost more.

Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

You do realize that a gaming system comes out its out forever. My old DM still plays 1st edition D&D. It only drys up when you let it.

Sure, but no one makes APs for 1st edition D&D, or splatbooks/setting books.

Not really true, for many reasons.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its true that stuff is hidden deep. It blew me away the first time I found that chart that listed all of the AC values and had a certain to hit bonus all different weapons got to hit vrs different AC's. I think the assumption being some weapons would be better at puncturing armor then others. (war picks got a huge bonus against higher ACs)

That one is not so hidden (weapon type vs. armour), also an optional rule in the 2nd Ed PHB. It's actually quite cool, and can make some weapons that are usually ignored, to be actually used.

I didn't even know that chart made it to second. We found it needlessly complicated. Sometimes the logic made sense with it and then sometimes it didn't as well.

They streamlined it in 2nd Ed, so it's Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing vs. Armour Type. Quite nice, I think I might go and see how I can implement it in 3rd Ed/PF and 5th Ed.

Its true that stuff is hidden deep. It blew me away the first time I found that chart that listed all of the AC values and had a certain to hit bonus all different weapons got to hit vrs different AC's. I think the assumption being some weapons would be better at puncturing armor then others. (war picks got a huge bonus against higher ACs)

That one is not so hidden (weapon type vs. armour), also an optional rule in the 2nd Ed PHB. It's actually quite cool, and can make some weapons that are usually ignored, to be actually used.

Yes I was going more for the strange funny. But yes it always strikes me as odd when I see things we used to do in 1st D&D seem to come back around in these later games. There was a ton of things in 5th that reminded me more of 1st then any other editions. some things in PF1 as well that took me back that I saw vanish in between editions.

I can dig that, and I agree that the 1st Ed AD&D PHB and DMG can be byzantine, hard to find stuff, and pretty much no two tables are alike (rules-wise).

The beauty of that 1st Ed AD&D DMG is, I seem to always find something new, after all these years, wild.

A houseruled version of 3rd Ed, but the houserules do not go far enough to address the problems in 3rd Ed.

I think that damage bonuses should come from level, is that "martial ability"? I don't know. I also see no reason for saving throw bonuses to be coming from "elsewhere" and I'm rather meh on the idea of attack and AC bonuses coming from item quality.

I totally agree, I despise Item bonuses and extra weapon damage dice coming from +X weapons, and you should not need magic armour to keep up in the Saving Throws dept.

I have houre-rules to a take care of it, but I would like to see where they go with this situation in the final product.

Level 10 Paladin vs. Level 4 Rogue?

Rogue: +4 Proficiency, +4 from DEX, Expert in Stealth (+1) = +9

Paladin: +10 Proficiency, +0 to +1 from DEX, untrained in Stealth (-4), Armour Check Penalty from +2 Full-Plate (-3) = +4.

I think you need a lvl 15 Paladin to beat a lvl 4 Rogue (assuming it obtains a +3 Full-Plate).

All this does is remind me that the paladin is pigeonholed into heavy armour and a low Dex.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

@ShadeRaven: It makes complete sense to me that your 5e groups would love PF2e playtest so much. That is entirely consistent with what I have observed among my own group.

Weird, in my group the two die-hard 5e fans are the ones who most dislike the playtest rules. One in particular has hated almost everything about the system and the steps it's taken.

That is more-or-less my experience. The Playtest seems like a heavy, niche game. and for some reason, to me, feels like a Sci-Fi RPG, converted to the Fantasy milieu.

I think being able to get extra weapon damage dice sans magic weapons would be good, but perhaps a die or so behind what magic weapons give. That's sort of a 'best of both worlds' situation, in many ways.

Yes, a nice bonus, but not mandatory, to keep up.

I didn't think 3rd ed was recognizable as AD&D, and it took that game some time to grow on me.

I have seen this pitch before, doesn't seem honest, in comparison. 3rd Ed took from latter day AD&D (PO and such).

In that vein, PF2 will still be Pathfinder, The engine got an upgrade, and we finally got airbags, but it's still Pathfinder, it's the system we have driven for ten years, but with a new engine and new features. Now we need to wait for all our favorite accessories and mods to come out for it.

Not really, I do not feel that way, it is too revolutionary to be considered close to the game we have been playing for 10-years. Just like 4th Ed is a far cry from the same game as 3rd Ed, despite the designer marketing spin of: "Ze game remains ze same.", that now makes my blood curdle a bit.

I'm pretty sure every gnoll has fingerprints that no other gnoll has.

Also koala bears.

I also want mandatory extra weapon damage dice divorced from +X weapons.

@ShadeRaven: It makes complete sense to me that your 5e groups would love PF2e playtest so much. That is entirely consistent with what I have observed among my own group.

For me and mine: strike that, reverse it. 5th Ed and the Playtest are almost diametrically opposed RPGs.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Right, so, what's the problem?

Well, like I said in the posts above, if there are traits that every member of species X in the Bestiary has, and those are the versions most likely to be encountered in any DM's game (which they are, because this is the base Bestiary), and PCs can't get access to that trait, then the game is either providing common representatives of that species that have abilities the PCs can't have, or uncommon representatives of that species that aren't marked as uncommon and will be the most common versions used.

So, only if the DM dictates that a particular member of a species is unique, can it get away with unique features that are not available to PCs?

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I don't understand the idea that direction of coming changes being 'Spoilers.' This isn't about plot points, it's about knowing the potential future of the game, and allowing for informed feedback, which is the entire point of a playtest. I do understand not wanting to taint the survey data with information not in the current updates. But once that concludes, I would really hope you err on the side of transparency. That way we can give maximum feedback while it's still relevant.

I read that as a playful way of saying, "Because we are still in the process of working and reworking things, it is too soon to tell you what might change because we do not want to set up false expectations."

Transparency is great, but that doesn't mean communication shouldn't be timed well. Many of us geeks also have a VERY bad habit of taking the slightest hint of a rumor of a possibility as SOLID INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT and then get mad when reality hits and we act like our total misinterpretation/speculation is an act of betrayal on the part of the person who shared the rumor.

Nice, you summed up the 5th Ed playtest.

"Just the other day, we completed a huge examination of the math behind much of the game and discovered a number of issues, based on your feedback. This has been going on for a while and the results are something that we're sure that you're going to like."

Now that's what I'm talking about!

I want more MADness, all around, and with the generous Ability Score generation method and improvement rate, this could be an edition to really make that happen.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

citricking wrote:

This would make make bonuses increase by 1 per level, so doubling in power every three levels instead of every two, but still at a consistent rate.

That is one thing (+Level) we house-rule out, in home-games.

I agree that Item bonuses need to go, and your damage output for weapons mostly coming from your +X weapon.

As for Ability Score increases, I think some are okay (started in 1st Ed AD&D), but the amount in the Playtest, is vulgar, to me.

Agree 100%

I would like that they went with Pillars of eternity way.

You get your abilities at 1st level, and except magic items they DO NOT CHANGE over leveling.

I wish we would get extra set of 4 increses at 1st level and that is it.

That would give 20 in one stat(races with penalty would have "only" 18) and good to go.

Ancestry: 2 fixed boosts, 1 free, 1 penalty
Background: 1 fixed boost, 1 free
Class: 1 fixed or limited free boost,
Bonus 1: 4 boosts,
Bonus 2 4 boosts,

That could end with; 20,18,16,14,10,8

I do not want a 20 or 22, out the gate. I want starting scores to be limited to 18, at 1st-level, so you can get that 22, at 20th-level. I just find the ability score increases, overall, is too much.

I have to say I'm generally disappointed by the poll results. Though I'm pleasantly surprised that a bunch of people weren't interested in maintaining wands as is. Still, people wanting artifacts in first printing, liking the icons,

Liking Icons is the one that made me the most crestfallen. Not only do they give me difficulty, due to my vision impairment (hard to differentiate the 2 and 3 action symbol, at a glance), I find them aesthetically unpleasant and cheap, think so about 4th Ed, too. Icons are great for CCGs, but I have never dug them in RPGs. If the entire layout, formatting, order, colours, icons, etc, doesn't change, rather drastically, I have a feeling when I open my copy of PF2, I might have a "My eyes!" moment.

I feel like they have an idea of what the want to do already, and just wanted some outside opinions to shape it a little. A lot different than the 5e playtest which went through many iterations and gathered data from a much wider audience. If this was a bad or good thing remains to be seen.

Yes, I have mentioned this before, it seems like it was designed in isolation, by a few. That they decided on the direction they want, and are not going to deviate much from the path they have chosen.

The angry player attitude is so far departed from my experience, and I have literally DMed hundreds of campaigns, one-offs, D&D Encounters, and conventions combined. But a lot of that came back before the internet became what it is now (in fact, before there was an internet the public could reach at all).

Ah, yes, the entitlement movement I have heard/read about seems to have really surged during 3.5's run.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Exactly, vs. same level opponents, nothing changes, but it opens up the threat range of different level opponents. The ghoul can now hit the 20th-level fighter on a natural 19 or 20. This also highlights the weird, arbitrary, extra +5 the ghoul gets to hit (where is it coming from?), so, the ghoul should actually be +1, or +2 to hit.

I kinda of felt that really annoying in 5e. I would rather be completely outmatched by monsters that are really stronger than me, and really outclass monsters weaker than me.

Right on, and that's what they went for with +Level, it is just easily removed, and one of the designers even mentioned that might show up in a future product.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Did I miss an Ancestry update where gnomes got 25 ft. speed?

Either are all Small PC races (and dwarves) should get 20 ft. speed, or none of them.

It was 1.4 update to present.

Ah, so only dwarves are hosed?

Currently I find the idea that a Mercenary Scout gets to deal 2 x weapon damage with his non-magical kukri and shortbow, while a PC needs a potency rune to achieve the same to be... dubious. I will withhold judgement until I see the creation rules, however.

Ah, yes, now this really bothers me, and is another reason why I would like additional damage dice tied to proficiency and level, not magic weapons and some NPCs just have it, because...