Headmaster Toff Ornels

Vidmaster 1st edition's page

65 posts. Alias of Vidmaster7.


RSS

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I had players that loved rolling and others that hated it. My bad luck player had a barb that had managed to roll under a 4 for like 5 levels of hp. I pretty well started giving him a free re-roll because I felt bad for him. I think It's fine for people that like that strong element of chaos in their games and players that have really good luck. I think I prefer standard. That said I think the two dice idea is the best one I've seen so far for fairer hp distribution.


I've noticed stone giants look more and more like stone golems as time passes. They were grey sure but now they look like big rock statues.


Woran wrote:

Talking about giants, in our Kingmaker campaign, we adopted Munguk, the hill giant. We invested a bit in him (because yes, he eats a lot, but construction in the capital goes so much easier when you have a walking crane to help you out).

So the GM gave him a few monk levels.

We had to draw out another group of hill giants, and took Munguk along. Long story short, one of the giants throws a rock at Munguk, who has deflect arrows. Which succeeds and deflects a rock the size of a small van.

It was glorious.

My second oldest and most played character was a storm giant. It was 1st edition AD&D but if it had been pathfinder he would of been a brawler. as it was he was a fighter that eventually took levels in psion (or the equivalent anyways their was some house ruling involved.) I used to love it when other giants would throw rocks at us. the deflection of the occasional ballista was fun too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always rated it by the death strike. That was the main difference between the 1st edition (D&D) rogue and assassin. So I always figured that was what they needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm but will it be simple enough to move me away form my free form you level when it is right for the story method?


I think (It's been awhile memory is foggy) in 1st edition AD&D a Very high charisma would give you bonuses against charms and mild altering stuff which always made sense to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is reminding me of conversations about Elminster I've had.


As far as arms and legs go. Back in the games I played in AD&D they had a ability called sharpness which was like vorpal but slightly less auto-kill that could take off limbs you would roll randomly for which limb head was in fact still an option.


I've seen systems that got rid of it and just used the bonuses M&M for one. Like they said it above its mostly so you can still roll if you want and tradition.

I always thought having a difference in 1st edition D&D from anything below like a 14 was pointless. Since nothing changed character wise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
The day I take RPG opinions from a baby is the day I voluntarily pick up a duck in a dungeon.
What about ducklings?

Now your throwing out the hard decisions.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The day I take RPG opinions from a baby is the day I voluntarily pick up a duck in a dungeon.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.
This statement legitimately confuses me. What specifically does the 2E or 3E Paladin have that a Paladin (Champion) doesn't?

Like if we are talking 1st D&D they were really more like a cavalier with extra stuff maybe that's what he means?


Yeah Hp has increased signifiantly in later editions which I approve of. I think Zeuz the god had only like 3-4 hundred hp back in 1st. Tarrasuqe had maybe around 2-3 hundred I think as well. so more helps for sure.


Oh yeah a fighter in D&D 1st editon was great until the wizard came into power then it was all about magic.

At low levels figther could be a bit rocket taggy in that they tended to kill and be killed with in one strike for a little bit, but it wasn't as guaranteed as high level casters.

The way to survive and I had a 14th level fighter in 1st which is like a 20+ toon in 3rd the trick was to get as many magic items as you could to help you survive the doom magic.


Oh yeah Paladin's with their "consecrated marvel-movie" were great at killing casters since 1st yo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"
I mean, I'm personally very disappointed that the statistics don't represent me. I'm extremely unhappy with where this edition is going and I'd like to see it change, but it is what it is I guess. I just might never play pathfinder again once the PF1 games dry up.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone remember when having a high Int gave you bonus exp?


Its all over now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a reason in 1stD&D cleric wore that full plate ;)


In my days sonny we took our +2 and we were happy about it.


Ahlmzhad wrote:

Frankly I'd just as soon roll party vs monster initiative each round, than do it in the string as I think it gives the party a nice ability to act in unison instead of a mass of reactions.

Many of the examples of it hurting the party, like the flying Inquisitor, are really bad play. Leaving yourself separated and exposed for a full round is going to set you up for death.

My one suggestion would be as a DM I try to spread the attacks out over the party rather than going after one or two party members (unless they put themselves in an exposed position out front of the party). That's a more logical pattern for attacks than selective targeting. That way everyone gets some damage, and you don't as DM choose to take out 2 or 3 party members. Players like to play, not watch, so yeah everyone gets hurt, and you may die, but I'm not going to pick the ones that do in the first round of a fight.

I will usually run all of one type together, with leader/special types going solo. With party initiative affected by their positioning at the point initiative was called. Nothing is more ridiculous than the two fighters in the doorway standing still for a round while everyone behind them moves up and attacks.

That is how we did it in 1st edition D&D but since people tend to have their own individual initiative modifier it seems wrong in later editions. plus it invalidates some feats and class features.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Grey Star wrote:
The DM of wrote:
The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.
In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.
Minor nitpick, but I think it was still Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha back then, if my memory serves right.

You forgot comeliness!


The big limiter in 1st D&D btw was mostly that you couldn't (or for some it was very very difficult) to make items or buy them straight out. You got what dropped.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Really if noone TPK'ed I would think the game might be to easy. In fact I think the numbers should be higher maybe not old school I went through 5 characters high but still


LordVanya wrote:

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah In 1st If you were a high enough level wizard numbers stopped really mattering it was more enemy power. I could get in the middle of an army radiate heat and kill everything in range.

At least in 3.5 it wasn't quite THAT bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Vic, if you can imagine, than why can't you imagine high level characters from older editions of D&D (Whether it was from OD&D, AD&D, 2e, or 3e)
I can imagine and have DMed/played high level AD&D, 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed characters, and they normally do not work this way, unless you are using something like the Epic Level Handbook or something.

1st edition AD&D 12th level Paladin 200 soldiers.


Coins was so confusing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Hello, I saw some good spell nerfs, but I think Wish and Miracle are still dumb, but now even more dumb because they are free?

Note: saying they are level 10 spells are not an excuse, that just means PF2 goes to level 18 and pretends level 19 and 20 play is functional

You get one 10th level spell per day. At 20th level. If you have the right Feat. They're really pretty limited.

CWheezy wrote:
Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

It's...less than ideal. It's not a new edition change, though. They've always been organized like that. I believe even back to AD&D and the like.

CWheezy wrote:
Color spray nerf is good, an aoe save or die is lame.

At 1st level? Absolutely. I wouldn't object to higher level area save or die effects, but not one that's a 1st level spell.

CWheezy wrote:
Simulacrum nerf: it no longer exists. This is a pretty good nerf, the spell was broken in concept.

Some spells are left out of the playtest that will be included in the final version. Animate Dead is an example of this explicitly, and Simulacrum may be another.

Personally, I think making it clear that the loyalty of a Simulacrum is dubious combined with clarifying what spells they get could make it very workable. Though, strictly speaking, I suspect it'd be a Ritual rather than a spell per se.

CWheezy wrote:
Prismatic wall: this nerf is pretty good, playing around one used to be pretty dumb, but now you can actually maybe go through one!
You can? It still involves seven saves, several potentially fatal. The damage is a tad bit lower, but only a tad bit.

I think in the 1st edition books they were by level.. but they had other problems.


Yeah I've always done secret rolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah they have been required since 1st edition D&D when you needed +1 (2 3 etc) weapons to deal damage to certain enemies.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Wrong its a Carbon copy of 1st edition D&D. Its got most of the same classes and monsters, you even roll a d20 to hit! The rogue is just the thief renamed.


Yeah sometimes in the 1st edition books information is unfortunately divided between multiple books.


I don't know if you ever made it to high level with a 1st edition wizard you were pretty well unbeatable but as a fighter you hit more and get more attacks. Like for a wizard you needed the figther to keep you alive long enough to become a god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone obviously didn't play through the D&D edition changes.


Hey now I may not know second but I know 1st. I never could get my DM to update so we just stopped playing with him eventually (there were other reasons). I wasn't saying the favored enemy changed in 3.5 just the combat style options. 3.0 had that thing where if you took one level of ranger you automatically gained all the two weapon feats and as long as you kept perform up your 1 level of bard would give you all the performances too. So that was probably a good call changing that and making them lighter too more skills etc.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
In my days we wouldn't of bothered trying to shove a potion down a commoners throat. Waste of a perfectly good potion. Also its not like you could just go out and make one you had to luck out and hope a monster dropped one.
Healing skill is going to be good enough for a level 1 commoner, and if it's not he or she was supposed to die anyway and you still get credit for trying.

That sounds good to me sonny.


Voss wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Extra Veteran NPC: Back in my day he would've lived....

Grandpa Veteran: Back in mine we wouldn't have wasted good loot on filthy peasant. Probably just picked a fight with a kitten anyway.

If we are talking kill kittens then RIP You will be missed....


In my days we wouldn't of bothered trying to shove a potion down a commoners throat. Waste of a perfectly good potion. Also its not like you could just go out and make one you had to luck out and hope a monster dropped one.


There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking? for example a pick axe would get a high bonus against higher ac's while say a whip would get bonuses vrs lower ac's however the chart was kind of all over the place.


Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.
1st Ed AD&D is rules heavy, extremely, if you actually use the rules in the PHB and DMG. They managed to capture an old school feeling with 5th Ed, but it is basically a stripped down 3rd Ed, with some 4th Ed and PF1 bits thrown in. I really like 5th Ed.

In a way I suppose but there was quite a bit that was left up to the DM to decide in 1st. You had to make things up quite often for unusual circumstances. I'll admit the actual rules are very similar but the feel of playing the game reminded me a lot more of 1st then 3rd. Which I suppose is that rules light part mostly. It had class and spells rules but very little on the environment and achieving tasks and knowledge stuff rules. I know a lot of time we ended up just saying make a stat check.


To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.


Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
Just for informational purposes the 1st edition D&D barbarian did in fact have a similar mechanic. In fact barbarians could not use magic items starting out and could gradually as they level be allowed to use magic items. They would destroy most magic on sight and had bitter and typically dangerous relationships with spell casters (dangerous for the spell caster!)
Yes, and the paladin had features that made the entire class notorious for years. I'm glad that those sorts of bugs were gradually fixed as the editions upgraded.

Are you referring to the item restrictions they had? I believe it was 4 weapons a shield an armor and 4 misc magic items. I might be forgetting one or 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just for informational purposes the 1st edition D&D barbarian did in fact have a similar mechanic. In fact barbarians could not use magic items starting out and could gradually as they level be allowed to use magic items. They would destroy most magic on sight and had bitter and typically dangerous relationships with spell casters (dangerous for the spell caster!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I don't see why people attack Wuxia like it's something out of the ordinary.
It is.
The Monk archetype is a concept that exists in more cultures than Druids, which were a celtic only concept that didn't even have nature powers. The paladin class is based on a insanely specific group of twelve warriors of Charlemagne. The Bard concept as exists in Pathfinder, doesn't even exist in any real world culture.

I always heard the original monk was based on David Caridines character from Kung Fu. I think the characters name was Kwai Chang Caine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I think to 'justify' why Paladin (the most armor focused class) should be lawful good only, a dev should describe how to build a proper Gorumite Iron Knight in PF2.

The LG Paladin should just be one flavor of Holy Warrior/Warpriest/Paragon. Devoting an entire class to what amounts to a specific archetype is a waste.

that would make sense if it wasn't for the fact its been its own class almost sense conception (granted at one point it was almost like a archetype for cavalier but I digress)


N N 959 wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
I didn't have a high enough wisdom score for spells which honestly you got so late anyways who cares.

Yup. But watch out, if you get access to any spell on your spell list, it would be "wildly unbalancing."

Quote:
A ranger being a ranger has very little to do with spells heck ask Aragorn.

I will, but first, I'm trying to find a healing Cleric from any non D&D fantasy novel/movie/cartoon.

1.I'm sorry but have you seen the low level ranger spells in 1st they weren't that helpful.

2.What does that have to do with anything? but since you don't know the original Clerics in original D&D were partly inspired by the medieval chivalric orders such as the Templars and Hospitallers. These were effectively warrior monks. Their spells are heavily taken from the bible.

incidentally ranger was literally originally made with Aragorn as the original example hence why favored enemy used to be just bonuses vrs orcs and goblinoids


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to play the ranger? eh You kidding my first character was a ranger back in 1st edition. I didn't have a high enough wisdom score for spells which honestly you got so late anyways who cares. A ranger being a ranger has very little to do with spells heck ask Aragorn.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>