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.
N N 959 wrote:
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).
captain yesterday wrote:
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.
Same with PF1 (Unchained RAE, been using it for years, it's what PF2 uses, just cleaned up a bit).
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.
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.
Yes, exactly, no spotlight hogging, but not just a useless wallflower, or worse, a liability.
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).
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.
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.
N N 959 wrote:
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.
Ha, well let's not get hysterical, hates a strong word, and I have never said I hate it.There's quite a bit I like, so far: the proficiency system (it inspired me to tinker with the proficiency Bonus of 5th Ed), action economy (though I have been a fan since Unchained's RAE), Monsters, Perception not being a skill; I've just not been cheerleading every aspect of it as some have for the past year or so.
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.
N N 959 wrote:
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?
N N 959 wrote:
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.
The 3.0 Ranger has spells, only 4th Ed made them spell-less.
scary harpy wrote:
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.
We have enough of those, at this point, I miss good old fashioned demon worshipping faerie drow!
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.
Cole Deschain wrote:
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).
The ShadowShackleton wrote:
I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Yeah, there's one film where the male warrior lead castrates himself and becomes a woman-warrior demigod type (transcends), wild stuff, vey cool.
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.
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.
scary harpy wrote:
They should also be Fey (save the night hag).
That's not all they do, at all, this just confirms the dishonesty I suspected.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.