Are these ideas terrible?
Giving the monk 12 hp a level? I feel like thru deserve it as masters of their body and physical perfection.
Add 1.5 STR to melee weapon damage when held in 2 hands?
Increasing duration of spells by one degree, such as 1 minute > 10 minutes > 1 hour > 8 hours > 24 hours etc, etc. Obviously with discretion.
Change most damaging cantrips to 1 action (V or S), but each casting of a cantrip adds an action to cast the next one (usually 2/turn max).
Make goblins an uncommon (but still playable race)?
Decease everyone's base move speed to 20, 15 for dwarves and shorter races? Elves can have 25.
Give a monk something that adds their WIS to AC instead of DEX? A feat maybe? For your beeftastic monkeybois.
Not necessarily serious about these, but all comments should be constructive.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would help if you'd have numbered them...
1) I think Monk needs one more something, but not this. Because, Barbarian.
2) No. Not even as a feat. Because Critical hit math. But, perhaps as a homebrew Fighter Stance?
3) Leaning towards no. I like the new "balanced" magic, and feel it is tenuous one. Largely because skills.
4) No. This would increase the damage output of spellcasters too much without resource expenditure.
5) Sure. Like, you can already do that. Can't you?
6) I am curious why you are proposing this, actually. Like, what is the reasoning?
7) Yes, but not for free: example
Cheers!
It would help if you'd have numbered them...
1) I think Monk needs one more something, but not this. Because, Barbarian.
2) No. Not even as a feat. Because Critical hit math. But, perhaps as a homebrew Fighter Stance?
3) Leaning towards no. I like the new "balanced" magic, and feel it is tenuous one. Largely because skills.
4) No. This would increase the damage output of spellcasters too much without resource expenditure.
5) Sure. Like, you can already do that. Can't you?
6) I am curious why you are proposing this, actually. Like, what is the reasoning?
7) Yes, but not for free: example
Cheers!
Another one: a penalty for reach weapons attacking 5ft away? Or disallow it entirely?
To answer yours:
So barbarian is defined by +2 hp level? I never thought that made sense.
Critical hits just double your STR, right? And the majority of damage comes from damage dice anyway?
3 & 4) We just disagree on casters, and that's fair. I think they're pretty weak, to they point that they're better off being primarily martials with a few spells as backup, and it's clear you're on the other side. Agree to disagree? There's 10 billion angry posts on this as is.
5) I guess? I was mostly asking if it's a good idea, not whether it's possible. You could make longswords uncommon if you wanted, but hopefully not without reason.
6) to match move speeds in 1e? Or why did everyone in Golarion get 15ft~ faster one day?
7) I'd be fine with that as a feat. Your homebrew is cool but too involved for the question posed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk vs Barbarian:
Kind of yes?
What is the problem with Monk that you think +2 HP will fix?
I ask because if you say "Defense" I can respond by pointing to their expert unarmored proficiency and bonuses from some stances. My personal problem with them is that they have a greater dependency on multiple ability scores (ST/DX/CON/WIS) than other melee focused characters with a single workaround that locks them out of taking interesting stances.
1.5x ST 2-hand:
One more reason.
Giving THF a bonus is like giving non-THF a penalty. I like that the distance between THF and other styles in this edition is smaller. This encourages diversity. To me, I'd rather see cool THF feats than just more damage bonuses.
Magic:
Ok deal.
Goblins:
If you are asking is Paizo will do this, my guess is no - they consider Goblins an iconic part of their brand. If you are asking if people will do so, yes. But more to the point. The tone of this edition is more "DM control" than last edition for better or for worse (I am in the "good thing" camp). As such, and in light of Paizo's relationship to Goblins, I suppose I either don't understand the "why" of this question or... what?
Speed:
In first edition, you could "double move" as a full round action. Anywhere between 2x to 3x to 4x (to 5x with Run) faster than a base speed of 30. So, if a comparison can be made, I think Golarians just got slower?
My reason is that difficult terrain (and other "halving") will eat up a larger proportion of a lower speed, taking away from the dynamic tactical movement aspect. I feel 25 feet as baseline is a nice balance.
Monk AC:
Beeftastic
Paizo, with a single exception right now (Thief), is shying away from "ability score replacement" options, perhaps as an overcorrection to some of the silliness from first edition.
I do share the opinion that granting "WIS to AC" as a feat suddenly makes Monk Multi-class a very attractive option for Wisdom-based casters.
If you homebrew, bake it into the "1st-level only" benefits of the class and I think you should be fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't think a monk's strategy should be to tank the damage it doesn't sound like their style to me. To me a monk has been more about avoiding damage theme wise.
Are these ideas terrible?
Giving the monk 12 hp a level? I feel like thru deserve it as masters of their body and physical perfection.
Add 1.5 STR to melee weapon damage when held in 2 hands?
Increasing duration of spells by one degree, such as 1 minute > 10 minutes > 1 hour > 8 hours > 24 hours etc, etc. Obviously with discretion.
Change most damaging cantrips to 1 action (V or S), but each casting of a cantrip adds an action to cast the next one (usually 2/turn max).
Make goblins an uncommon (but still playable race)?
Decease everyone's base move speed to 20, 15 for dwarves and shorter races? Elves can have 25.
Give a monk something that adds their WIS to AC instead of DEX? A feat maybe? For your beeftastic monkeybois.
Not necessarily serious about these, but all comments should be constructive.
Outside of the first and the last one the others had been answered by rainzax so i make my words the same as his on those.
But for the first one well they do have that already... They got legendary in unnarmed showing they are masters of it, giving them more HP just makes them have the HP of barbarians and then the AC of a paladin, i would rather give them a bit more mobility if that's the case.To the WIS to AC... I think it will come eventually. But i really don't see much use for it with mountain stance existing and with how much you can pump your dex. I mean even if you dump dex to a 14 early on you can get to the cap level 20
Monk vs Barbarian:
Kind of yes?
What is the problem with Monk that you think +2 HP will fix?
I ask because if you say "Defense" I can respond by pointing to their expert unarmored proficiency and bonuses from some stances. My personal problem with them is that they have a greater dependency on multiple ability scores (ST/DX/CON/WIS) than other melee focused characters with a single workaround that locks them out of taking interesting stances.1.5x ST 2-hand:
One more reason.
Giving THF a bonus is like giving non-THF a penalty. I like that the distance between THF and other styles in this edition is smaller. This encourages diversity. To me, I'd rather see cool THF feats than just more damage bonuses.Magic:
Ok deal.Goblins:
If you are asking is Paizo will do this, my guess is no - they consider Goblins an iconic part of their brand. If you are asking if people will do so, yes. But more to the point. The tone of this edition is more "DM control" than last edition for better or for worse (I am in the "good thing" camp). As such, and in light of Paizo's relationship to Goblins, I suppose I either don't understand the "why" of this question or... what?Speed:
In first edition, you could "double move" as a full round action. Anywhere between 2x to 3x to 4x (to 5x with Run) faster than a base speed of 30. So, if a comparison can be made, I think Golarians just got slower?
My reason is that difficult terrain (and other "halving") will eat up a larger proportion of a lower speed, taking away from the dynamic tactical movement aspect. I feel 25 feet as baseline is a nice balance.Monk AC:
Beeftastic
Paizo, with a single exception right now (Thief), is shying away from "ability score replacement" options, perhaps as an overcorrection to some of the silliness from first edition.
I do share the opinion that granting "WIS to AC" as a feat suddenly makes Monk Multi-class a very attractive option for Wisdom-based casters.
If you homebrew, bake it...
Do keep in mind that I'm coming to this with genuine interest and not just to argue. But the answers you've given that are quantitative are more helpful than the qualitative. But everyone's feedback is appreciated.
Also I think my question about reach got missed? Atm as I understand there's no penalty to attacking adjacent creatures with a reach weapon?
It would make monks less MAD. I think it's more a legacy of 1e than an actual issue in 2e, as you've demonstrated.
1) I feel like 2 handed weapons are kind of weak, but I guess that's not taking into account traits and bonus dice? Honestly I think the decision was about streamlining the math. An addition +1 or +2 to damage isn't anything to write home about. Or is it? I really don't know. Right now it makes sword and board the most optimal 1-handed practice without feat investment, and that's not necessarily bad.
2) There's plenty of good reasons to make goblins uncommon, but mostly it's for GMs who get a bad taste from the idea of goblin PCs? Personally I feel like the new goblins add to the spirit of the game, even if they basically flip 10 years of convention on it's head
Not asking Paizo to change their mind on this, the books are printed and honestly I'm fine with it.
3) Yeah, forgot about that. Point taken :) The speeds are still wicked janky. Also still feel like small races (except goblins) should have 20ft speed.
4) As above, your point on monk is well taken. But I don't think monks should be fragile and dodgy. They should be tough as nails and dodgy. I guess I can live with 10.
...Monk vs Barbarian:
Kind of yes?
What is the problem with Monk that you think +2 HP will fix?
I ask because if you say "Defense" I can respond by pointing to their expert unarmored proficiency and bonuses from some stances. My personal problem with them is that they have a greater dependency on multiple ability scores (ST/DX/CON/WIS) than other melee focused characters with a single workaround that locks them out of taking interesting stances.1.5x ST 2-hand:
One more reason.
Giving THF a bonus is like giving non-THF a penalty. I like that the distance between THF and other styles in this edition is smaller. This encourages diversity. To me, I'd rather see cool THF feats than just more damage bonuses.Magic:
Ok deal.Goblins:
If you are asking is Paizo will do this, my guess is no - they consider Goblins an iconic part of their brand. If you are asking if people will do so, yes. But more to the point. The tone of this edition is more "DM control" than last edition for better or for worse (I am in the "good thing" camp). As such, and in light of Paizo's relationship to Goblins, I suppose I either don't understand the "why" of this question or... what?Speed:
In first edition, you could "double move" as a full round action. Anywhere between 2x to 3x to 4x (to 5x with Run) faster than a base speed of 30. So, if a comparison can be made, I think Golarians just got slower?
My reason is that difficult terrain (and other "halving") will eat up a larger proportion of a lower speed, taking away from the dynamic tactical movement aspect. I feel 25 feet as baseline is a nice balance.Monk AC:
Beeftastic
Paizo, with a single exception right now (Thief), is shying away from "ability score replacement" options, perhaps as an overcorrection to some of the silliness from first edition.
I do share the opinion that granting "WIS to AC" as a feat suddenly makes Monk Multi-class a very attractive option for Wisdom-based casters.
Edit: The question was misread by me.
So about reach weapon penalties... I see no reason for it. Reach is an increadible expensive trait to have. Giving it a penalty without balancing to the other side will make reach just a bad trait and make the 1 handed reach weapon just better...| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would help if you'd have numbered them...
1) I think Monk needs one more something, but not this. Because, Barbarian.
2) No. Not even as a feat. Because Critical hit math. But, perhaps as a homebrew Fighter Stance?
3) Leaning towards no. I like the new "balanced" magic, and feel it is tenuous one. Largely because skills.
4) No. This would increase the damage output of spellcasters too much without resource expenditure.
5) Sure. Like, you can already do that. Can't you?
6) I am curious why you are proposing this, actually. Like, what is the reasoning?
7) Yes, but not for free: example
Cheers!
Another one: a penalty for reach weapons attacking 5ft away? Or disallow it entirely?
To answer yours:
So barbarian is defined by +2 hp level? I never thought that made sense.
Critical hits just double your STR, right? And the majority of damage comes from damage dice anyway?
3 & 4) We just disagree on casters, and that's fair. I think they're pretty weak, to they point that they're better off being primarily martials with a few spells as backup, and it's clear you're on the other side. Agree to disagree? There's 10 billion angry posts on this as is.
5) I guess? I was mostly asking if it's a good idea, not whether it's possible. You could make longswords uncommon if you wanted, but hopefully not without reason.
6) to match move speeds in 1e? Or why did everyone in Golarion get 15ft~ faster one day?
7) I'd be fine with that as a feat. Your homebrew is cool but too involved for the question posed.
#1 I agree with others, more HP isn't the monk thing, it is not being hit despite wearing no armor. If you want a 'tanking' ability for a monk. Perhaps have a type of Stance that allows them to take a reaction and 'take' a hit and do something like cut the damage in half, or absorb a certain amount of damage by rolling with the strike. [perhaps something similar to shield mechanic, that after the reaction they become flat-footed or something like that] That could allow them to do some limited tanking against a single foe.
#2 As mentioned by someone it is buffing two handed attackers, is sort of a cut against all the other styles. The 1.5x is also kind of contrary to their general trend of getting rid of fractions. (though they still sometimes have 1/2 level for some things such as resistance) So if you did implement something like this, you probably need to do something like the baseline MAP penalty for two handed weapons +6 instead of +5 (which arguably would make more sense). You also are stuck potentially having to consider if you need to remove the bonus damage done by the weapons that change damage when used two handed, since you just moved the justification to it to the persons STR.
#3 & #4 Why did you ask the question, if the very first thing you seemed to throw out on them when someone didn't think they were good ideas was, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am in general far more supportive of the no votes. Wholesale increasing duration seems like a bad idea. There is a degree to which I considered the idea of potentially allowing higher ranks in their traditions' skill potentially have a minor boost/scaling of some timings. Not by a factor of ten, but perhaps something like 1min -> 2min at expert, 3 at master, 4 at legendary. It gets more complicated when considering certain spell levels the 'baseline' skill is higher, so the base adjusted, making it more complicated to define well. Those were reasoning I stopped contemplating it. Perhaps as a weaker version of Extend Spell metamagic, enabled by skill rank and an extra action, instead of feat and extra action? As to making cantrips typically only one action, since they scale faster than natural weapon damage (more akin to expected magical weapon damage), it seems like a really bad idea. Or at least is my initial opinion.
#5 doesn't break anything. The GM can always do that, if you want to approve any such goblin ideas to make sure they fit into the campaign, it makes perfect sense. Basically, I think the rules structure explicitly supports this concept as a GM choice.
#6 It is a minor enough change. Seems like it might have a negative impact as it makes penalties more impactful. It makes running speeds now slower, and will reduce movement in combat. I'm not inclined to want to implement it myself, but I don't know one could tell if it creates a breaking situation unless you try it. Note it makes the elf's additional +5 feet even more powerful, since the average just got lower.
#7 With the way Monks work, this sounds like something that could be a key part of a new Monk Stance. An awareness based combat stance. It would allow Wis to be used as the bonus to AC. Would potentially limit any attacks to someone who made a melee strike at you in the last round, and might allow a 'reaction' that allows you to strike someone else in response to their making a melee attack against you.
...reach is an expensive trait...
Expensive how? Compared to other traits? A lot of other traits are wicked situational or just plain weak compared to reach, especially now that you can attack 5ft and 10ft away. Maybe require the flickmace to have an interact action to change reach? Honestly I'm not a fan of the weapon in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
good stuff
1) That's fair. I disagree, but Paizo disagrees with me for what it's worth. Seems like this is a small issue either way. But with fort good saves an extra 2 hp/level allows a monk to have a lower CON and thus less MAD. But MAD is way less of an issue in 2e thankfully.
2) Not buying this as a big issue. Not really worth changing it to be honest, much like reach its more a question of versimilitude. The fraction thing is a good point though. It could just be a +1 for STR14-17, +2 for STR18-21, +3 for STR22+ etc. It's unlikely to get higher than +3 right?
3 & 4) Not trying to stiffle conversation, just trying not to derail into whether the nerfing of magic was a good idea. May have course corrected too hard. Your points on duration are very solid, and I like tying it proficiency. Yeah, two cantrips a round might be an issue. What about a cantrip and a spell? Or just two actions, no secondary spell action? I guess the MAP doesn't apply to cantrips, that's an issue.
5) This is totally subjective, but particularly for Golarion games would you restrict goblin PCs? Or require a really strong argument/concept for a goblin PC? I really don't have a dog in the fight, tbh.
6) Yeah, I was convinced out of this. I forgot about running in 1e. I'm a dummy.
7) I like it as a stance, but it needs to be something that a WIS caster can't easily MC into. I might in my home game just allow Monks to use WIS or DEX, whichever is higher, but I'm also chaotic evil.
... some people just want to see the world burn. I'm one of them :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are these ideas terrible?
Giving the monk 12 hp a level? I feel like thru deserve it as masters of their body and physical perfection.
Add 1.5 STR to melee weapon damage when held in 2 hands?
Increasing duration of spells by one degree, such as 1 minute > 10 minutes > 1 hour > 8 hours > 24 hours etc, etc. Obviously with discretion.
Change most damaging cantrips to 1 action (V or S), but each casting of a cantrip adds an action to cast the next one (usually 2/turn max).
Make goblins an uncommon (but still playable race)?
Decease everyone's base move speed to 20, 15 for dwarves and shorter races? Elves can have 25.
Give a monk something that adds their WIS to AC instead of DEX? A feat maybe? For your beeftastic monkeybois.
Another one: a penalty for reach weapons attacking 5ft away? Or disallow it entirely?
My first thought anytime someone proposes house rules is always "have you already played the game, or are these ideas that come to you while reading the book?" When I finally got to play PF2 for the first time it turned out some things were more important than I thought and others were less an issue. The best house rules are built to fix things that you have actually observed at the table :)
1) I think you overestimate how MAD monks are in this edition. The stances tend to favor either Strength (especially the mountain stance) or Dexterity (the finesse styles). It's enough to be "okay" at the other stat. So that leaves points to boost Constitution. Also, you don't actually need Wisdom unless you're using Ki powers, so that also makes you less MAD.
2) Two-handed weapons consistently have bigger damage dice than one-handed ones, and that matters a lot because many of the things that make you hit harder (power attack, striking runes) only increase your dice. So two-handed weapons already profit more from those.
3) The new model of the game is a deliberate turn away from heavily buffer parties. They wanted less stuff that was on for most of the time. So, less things stack, and most buffs run out sooner. Also, you have more things that you need to do after combats that take at least 10 minutes (recover focus, treat wounds, repair shields). If you change durations, that's all going to go a bit askew. I personally got rather tired of tracking which of a dozen buffs were currently active in PF1 so I rather like this change in design.
4) The general principle when assigning an action cost to something not already covered is "make it 1 action, unless you don't want people to do it more than once per turn". Many attack cantrips don't involve attack rolls, so they don't get any less accurate if you get to use them twice per turn. Not sure that's a good idea.
5) Honestly I think goblins didn't turn out so bad. This fire-ship has kind of sailed for me.
6) Why? Keep in mind that move speed and cantrip range (usually 30ft) should be considered together.
7) For those monks there's the mountain stance that basically allows you to play a Dex 10 monk with no problem. It's considered one of the good stances currently.
8) Why? If you consult reenactors they can often show you close-up technique with big weapons that look quite effective. So "realism" isn't such a strong argument. First edition nostalgia? I rather like the simplification in second edition.
...reach is an expensive trait...Expensive how? Compared to other traits? A lot of other traits are wicked situational or just plain weak compared to reach, especially now that you can attack 5ft and 10ft away. Maybe require the flickmace to have an interact action to change reach? Honestly I'm not a fan of the weapon in general.
Yes as both it takes a lot from the weapon to give it reach, obviously it's a great trait after all. The only trait that seems more expensive than that is fatal. So nerfing it to only attack 10 feet just makes the weapon worse... If you will do that you would probably need to fill in a small trait to compensate or... Increase their damage die.
Without considering how would it work with creatures that have natural reach......I guess the MAP doesn't apply to cantrips, that's an issue...
Aplies to some cantrips not to others depends on the attack tag. So if it lacks an attack roll normally it does not apply otherwise it does and increases MAP
This is totally subjective, but particularly for Golarion games would you restrict goblin PCs? Or require a really strong argument/concept for a goblin PC? I really don't have a dog in the fight, tbh.
No... Because it's a race in the core already and the lore now suports it. I don't understand... If you don't have a dog in the fight why are you asking about it. I can understand a houserule... But why would you do it if it does not bother you.
some stuff
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but have played the game. Normally I'd disagree with your assertion (which in my experience tends to be little more than gatekeeping) but in this case my expectations and actual play were completely different.
I think most of your points have been covered by previous posters and my responses to them, but in regards to your implications that I'm just holding on to nostalgia, I'd strongly suggest the revisiting (or looking up) the terms versimilitude and gamism before continuing. But you (and others) make a good point about simplicity. That said, if simplicity was king, 5e would be the most popular tabletop... ;)
I'm saying two-handed weapons feel weak, and experience (my own subjective experience) backs this up.
Do keep in mind that I'm coming to this with genuine interest and not just to argue.Me too, sorry if that's not coming across well?
Not at all, I was talking about myself. People tend to tend into my statements, or more likely I come across as a jerk. I guess I'm saying it's not on purpose.
Just look at the title of the thread to see how serious I am. If I instituted all or none of these houserules it would matter very little. Except maybe changes to magic and telling my players they can't play goblins. They'd tear me limb from limb.
more stuff
I was thinking more like a -1 or -2 penalty like a volley weapon at most. Not 100% I'm convinced, but you make an excellent argument.
Zyphus bless chill touch. But seriously I guess it just hasn't come up for me. With that in mind, do cantrips really scale that much faster than weapons?
The new lore is not universally beloved nor is it honestly well explained. I can imagine few good explanations, any more than suddenly good undead or ogres are common and a playable race.
That said you could play a goblin in 1e, and I'm a huge fan of against type characters so long as they don't stray too far Drizzt. I wouldn't allow someone to create a nation of lawful good goblins on Golarion (or zombies or ogres or daleks) but in a homebrew setting sure.
This may baffle you, but I'm asking questions because I want to hear what other people think and share my own (admittedly questionable) opinions. I'm not here to have strangers tell me what to think. That said, I'm also not against having my mind changed either.
I probably shouldn't have brought goblins up at all, considering how divisive the topic is. I think I'll close the chapter on this houserule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of your points have been covered by previous posters and my responses to them, but in regards to your implications that I'm just holding on to nostalgia, I'd strongly suggest the revisiting (or looking up) the terms versimilitude and gamism before continuing.
I'm aware of the difference; you didn't spend a lot of time giving reasons for your proposals though, so it's not always easy to tell whether you're doing it for verisimilitude or game balance reasons. For example the reach weapon thing; from a verisimilitude standpoint the "dead zone" is really not a great idea, but if you really wanted weapon size to matter, you should also start enforcing a difference between say, swords and daggers. That's a pretty deep rabbit-hole.
With regards to game balance, I think they went to great lengths to try to give each weapon a different reason for choosing it, and the reach weapons don't feel overpowered (with the possible exception of the gnomish flickmace).
But you (and others) make a good point about simplicity. That said, if simplicity was king, 5e would be the most popular tabletop... ;)
I'm saying two-handed weapons feel weak, and experience (my own subjective experience) backs this up.
Well simplicity itself is not a simple concept. I've learned from bitter experience that house rules are themselves a layer of complexity, and each well-intended one does come at an additional cost of "Oh, but in Joe's game things are different, and in Tom's game.." So every house rule needs to be weighed as "is the improvement in the game experience really worth the extra mental encumbrance?"
So my standard advice is to only use house rules to fix absolutely burning issues, not small itches.
Regarding moving.
Golarians did get a faster, PF2 is slower only when taking a single action, but the trade off is more granularity in how a round is spent.
Comparing unarmored speed for a human in both editions has PF1 taking 60ft, while PF2 takes 75 ft.
Applying armor penalty (-10 ft) makes PF1 take 40ft, while PF2 takes 45ft.
Difficult terrain halves speed in both edition PF1 takes 30ft (6 squares), while PF2 takes 35ft (7 squares).Elves hit the motion jackpot going from a full round base speed of 70ft for 1 type, to base 90ft for everyone; A full 30ft faster than PF1 before applying other speed boosts.
PF1 was 120ft with the run action.
I guess the MAP doesn't apply to cantrips, that's an issue.Out of curiosity, why wouldn't it? If you wanted to make cantrips one action rather than two that would still make the ones that affect your enemies attacks. As a houserule I wouldn't mind it too much, though the damaging cantrips would need their math tweeked to be about on par with weapons and their damage, or maybe even a little below in that case. Being able to hit a guy multiple times and pile on damage is one way martials stay ahead of the curve now after all.
While it technically only applies to attack cantrips, I've been corrected on this. See I'm learning things already!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of your points have been covered by previous posters and my responses to them, but in regards to your implications that I'm just holding on to nostalgia, I'd strongly suggest the revisiting (or looking up) the terms versimilitude and gamism before continuing.I'm aware of the difference; you didn't spend a lot of time giving reasons for your proposals though, so it's not always easy to tell whether you're doing it for verisimilitude or game balance reasons. For example the reach weapon thing; from a verisimilitude standpoint the "dead zone" is really not a great idea, but if you really wanted weapon size to matter, you should also start enforcing a difference between say, swords and daggers. That's a pretty deep rabbit-hole.
With regards to game balance, I think they went to great lengths to try to give each weapon a different reason for choosing it, and the reach weapons don't feel overpowered (with the possible exception of the gnomish flickmace).
But you (and others) make a good point about simplicity. That said, if simplicity was king, 5e would be the most popular tabletop... ;)
I'm saying two-handed weapons feel weak, and experience (my own subjective experience) backs this up.
Well simplicity itself is not a simple concept. I've learned from bitter experience that house rules are themselves a layer of complexity, and each well-intended one does come at an additional cost of "Oh, but in Joe's game things are different, and in Tom's game.." So every house rule needs to be weighed as "is the improvement in the game experience really worth the extra mental encumbrance?"
So my standard advice is to only use house rules to fix absolutely burning issues, not small itches.
Apologies from coming off like a jerk, on a rereading my snark meter went to 11. Thanks for your level-headed response. Lots of posters would (understandly) get upset.
Your points are really good. My biggest issue is with 1-handed weapons used as two-handed (longswords, warhammers, battleaxes and the like) but that's really already covered anyway.
Consider me convinced on this one.
Your point on houserules is far truer than I'd ever admit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No worries :)
Well, considering 1H weapons used 2H. I think looking at the weapons table and how every weapon has special properties now, it's obvious that the designers wanted there to be some reason to pick each particular weapon, as opposed to PF1 where half the weapons were never the best choice for anything.
If we compare for example a longsword, greatsword and bastard sword:
Longsword: 1H, 1d8, versatile P
Bastard sword: 1H, 1d8, two-hand 1d20
Greatsword: 2H, 1d12, versatile P
Each of these has its own advantage. Bastard sword gives you the flexibility to go 1H if you need a hand free (to grab a potion maybe), or to start out 1H but if that's no longer relevant (your shield was broken, so you shake it off) you can go 2H. But you paid for that flexibility by not getting "versatile P".
You remark that you're not that impressed by the bigger damage die that full on 2H weapons and weapons with the two-hand property get. But I think the difference is more important than you give it credit for. Look at Power Attack for example:
POWER ATTACK [two-actions]FEAT 1
FIGHTER FLOURISH
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice.
Using power attack with a greatsword or bastard sword nets you an additional d12, while on a longsword it only gets you a d8. And if you're using power attack, it's quite likely that it's the only strike you make that turn (certainly the last one, since it raises your MAP by two steps). The odds of a fighter critting with power attack are pretty good. That's a 4d12 crit then, which is really quite a lot at level 1, and quite a lot more than a 4d8 crit.
Likewise, Striking runes amplify the difference in damage dice.
To look at the issue from another direction: you're not happy with longswords not benefiting from being used two-handed. But that's kinda the whole reason for bastard swords to exist, to have that flexibility. If you made longswords better two-handed, you'd also have to give something extra two bastard swords and greatswords, otherwise you invalidate those weapons.
And then you get a much bigger gulf between someone using a regular 1H weapon and someone using an uber-deadly 2H weapon. Either one build is going to be over-powered or the other is going to be under-powered, at least compared to the out of the box rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we compare for example a longsword, greatsword and bastard sword:
Longsword: 1H, 1d8, versatile P
Bastard sword: 1H, 1d8, two-hand 1d20
Greatsword: 2H, 1d12, versatile P
Well, I'd say that a Bastard Sword would be definitely unbalanced then.
:d
That's a typo.
The actual stats are:
Bastard sword: 1H, 1d8, two-hand 1d200
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are these ideas terrible?
Giving the monk 12 hp a level? I feel like thru deserve it as masters of their body and physical perfection.
Add 1.5 STR to melee weapon damage when held in 2 hands?
Increasing duration of spells by one degree, such as 1 minute > 10 minutes > 1 hour > 8 hours > 24 hours etc, etc. Obviously with discretion.
Change most damaging cantrips to 1 action (V or S), but each casting of a cantrip adds an action to cast the next one (usually 2/turn max).
Make goblins an uncommon (but still playable race)?
Decease everyone's base move speed to 20, 15 for dwarves and shorter races? Elves can have 25.
Give a monk something that adds their WIS to AC instead of DEX? A feat maybe? For your beeftastic monkeybois.
Not necessarily serious about these, but all comments should be constructive.
1) Eh… it's kind of stepping on Barbarian's toes by having high accuracy, high defense, and +4 Con worth of free HP. Maybe 11 hp as a compromise? That's only +2 Con.
2) Yeah, that's broken. Two-handed is already the "best" for certain schools of thought (e.g. "I want to kill it as quickly as possible."). You shouldn't also add on even more for free.
3) Wow that would be far-reaching. I'd say instead, let casters tell you their favorite spell they feel is too short, and bump that one up a step just for them if it's reasonable.
4) No way. That just makes casters flat-out the best ranged characters with no competition.
5) This is supported by the rules. Changing the rarity of things is what the rules presume you'll do as a GM.
6) You could reduce the speed, but it makes the game less fun. Don't make the game less fun. It's also very easy to take advantage of, because now it's much easier for elves to get double or more of the movement of other ancestries- once you can get more than double, your opponent is almost entirely helpless.
7) It's something designers are trying to avoid in general, but should be okay for a house-rule feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should point out, if it's not obvious, I'm not planning to use any of these houserules or any houserules honestly when I run 2e (at least to begin with). Not that I necessarily think they're all bad but the point wasn't to "fix" 2e as to understand the choices made. Plus if I do houserule, it'll be from a place of better understanding.
For the record, I always play D&D5e with houserules and don't have any houserules in PF1e.
To dive deeper:
1) Monk is pretty weak in 1e unless you have a high system mastery. Unchained mostly fixes this. From what I understand, this isn't an issue in 2e, which is great.
I still want monks with a reason to really focus on WIS. It'll probably come out in later products, but for now I'm not super happy with this answer to MAD monks.
2) I think there's more elegant options to this. My big issue is with using 1-handed weapons two-handed. I'm thinking a better plan is to give them +1 damage die size if they don't have the two-handed trait that increases their dice by 2, or something similar.
3) Durations only need fixing if you want casters that feel like 1e. Not everyone does. But yeah, that's a way overcorrection. Tying it to spell proficiency (trained, expert, etc) is a good fix. Not yet sure how to increase scale without going way overboard.
4) Like #3, not everyone wants to see casters who are 1e levels of effective. But for those who think Paizo went too far and want to give back to casters, 1 action cantrips are a cool way to make magic feel like magic again. Not everyone wants this, and that's cool. If you think that this isn't the way to solve the problem, cool, suggest another one. But if you don't think there's a problem, there's 1.2 billion threads that already cover that argument. Let's agree to disagree.
5) Like I said, I kind of regret including a very subjective question in a series of less subjective ones. Yes, I know a GM can adjust rarity. I'm wondering whether they should, especially in Golarion.
I want Golarion goblins, not green kinder. That doesn't mean they're all little toothy CE psychopaths, but it does mean a goblin PC should be even more exceptional than other races. Unless it's a goblin campaign, I don't want more than one or two goblin PCs per party.
At least until Paizo explains the miraculous change in the goblin race with something better than marketing and brand identity. Not everyone feels the same way, and that's fine.
6) Yeah, reducing speed was a bad idea. Scratch it from the record. I did bad math.
7) Answered this in #1.
The mental math involved in why folks go to sleep one night and wake up the next and tons of stuff has suddenly changed with no (or poor) explanation is too much for me. As books come out, it may be explained but more likely they'll continue like nothing happened.
All of this said, I'm planning on running the first book of
Hell's Rebels in 2e and won't be making any changes save for creatures that aren't in the bestiary.
I should point out, if it's not obvious, I'm not planning to use any of these houserules or any houserules honestly when I run 2e. Not that I necessarily think they're all bad but the point wasn't to "fix" 2e as to understand the choices made.
Plus if I do houserule, it'll be from a place of better understanding.
What is the point of the post then? I mean i thought those houserules were supposed to be what you planned for a table or what a DM planned for you... If not what is the use of discussing something you just pulled out of a hat and no one ever will use them? Sorry i am not trying to be annoying... Just confused as to why...
What is the point of the post then? I mean i thought those houserules were supposed to be what you planned for a table or what a DM planned for you... If not what is the use of discussing something you just pulled out of a hat and no one ever will use them? Sorry i am not trying to be annoying... Just confused as to why...I should point out, if it's not obvious, I'm not planning to use any of these houserules or any houserules honestly when I run 2e. Not that I necessarily think they're all bad but the point wasn't to "fix" 2e as to understand the choices made.
Plus if I do houserule, it'll be from a place of better understanding.
It's because I exist to confuse you apparently? :P
I might use them, or different ones. Or none. I'm still learning the system, and as a (admittedly unpublished) game designer, tinkering is a big part of how I learn.
Playing is too, and I've been doing a lot of that too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) There are weapons that let you switch between one and two hands. They get less other stuff as a result of that flexibility. If you slap a free bonus on one-handed weapons, those will just be the best weapons. Which is fine, I guess? But it’s like asking about giving two-handed weapons -2 damage. The game will carry on with a small imbalance and more similar choices.
3) Expert, Master, and Legendary casting each give a 1/day duration bump on a cast spell, perhaps. It makes getting those boosts more exciting.
4) Cantrip are already useful and scale well. Doubling the number of times you can use them in a round, or adding them as freebies on other spells is a serious wrench in balance. Hmm, so maybe remove some of the buffs? Once you’re an expert caster, you can cast a cantrip as one action once per round, but you cast it as an unheightened cantrip.
5) I get a little tired of, “until Paizo explains this” (they did explain it), but plenty of GMs will be doing this. It’s fine.
5) I get a little tired of, “until Paizo explains this” (they did explain it), but plenty of GMs will be doing this. It’s fine.
It's a matter of opinion. If my answers tire you, I suggest not asking ;) I can't promise the quality of my responses will improve at all.
I could be more honest and less kind and say it was a marketing decision in a losing battle to other games, as these changes blatantly break the established lore of the setting and a good explanation is deeply unlikely because it's based on sales not lore. Which is fine, Paizo is a company not a charity.
Maybe the come up with a miraculous explanation why the same setting has warped so drastically that's deeply satisfying. More likely they don't. It's their product to sell. But I fell in love with Pathfinder because of the Golarion setting- and I know that's not the case with everyone.
In regards to cantrips, trying them to proficiency (or even a feat) is a good compromise. Like, pick 1 cantrip and reduce it to 1 action or something.
The problem with one action cantrips is that it essentially solves a caster's third action.
Right now most spells are two actions, which leaves the caster one action left over to do whatever. You could move, raise a shield, cast a one-action spell, make a weapon attack (that sucks because your accuracy sucks).
Having cantrips that cost one action sort of makes it the default for this third action in a way that I think makes casters feel a lot more turrety. Essentially by giving them a better button you end up reducing their flexibility in how they use that third move a bunch.
It also completely kills caster-gishes.
I'm thinking a better plan is to give them +1 damage die size if they don't have the two-handed trait that increases their dice by 2, or something similar.
I think this might devalue options a bit too much. A longsword user would effectively be trading 1 damage for the ability to use the weapon one-handed when they want to compared to a greatsword and the bastard sword kind of loses its niche entirely if that's the case.
I could be more honest and less kind and say it was a marketing decision in a losing battle to other games, as these changes blatantly break the established lore of the setting
Can't really agree with this one either. Goblins have been a functional PC option for the majority of PF1's lifetime. They're hardly new, even if putting them in the CRB is.
....
4) Cantrip are already useful and scale well. Doubling the number of times you can use them in a round, or adding them as freebies on other spells is a serious wrench in balance. Hmm, so maybe remove some of the buffs? Once you’re an expert caster, you can cast a cantrip as one action once per round, but you cast it as an unheightened cantrip.
....
I have to confess, if you are wanting an option for cutting 2-action cantrips down to 1-action that sounds like a pretty decent option for expert casters. Giving them the ability to cast the spell, but as a 1st level spell. It leaves them with the option to cast quicker, but a reason to do the full version.
I probably wouldn't do that house rule of my own inclination, but if someone felt they needed some extra one action casting options, this might be something I could get behind.
The problem with one action cantrips is that it essentially solves a caster's third action.
Right now most spells are two actions, which leaves the caster one action left over to do whatever. You could move, raise a shield, cast a one-action spell, make a weapon attack (that sucks because your accuracy sucks).
Having cantrips that cost one action sort of makes it the default for this third action in a way that I think makes casters feel a lot more turrety. Essentially by giving them a better button you end up reducing their flexibility in how they use that third move a bunch.
It also completely kills caster-gishes.
I'm thinking a better plan is to give them +1 damage die size if they don't have the two-handed trait that increases their dice by 2, or something similar.I think this might devalue options a bit too much. A longsword user would effectively be trading 1 damage for the ability to use the weapon one-handed when they want to compared to a greatsword and the bastard sword kind of loses its niche entirely if that's the case.
I could be more honest and less kind and say it was a marketing decision in a losing battle to other games, as these changes blatantly break the established lore of the settingCan't really agree with this one either. Goblins have been a functional PC option for the majority of PF1's lifetime. They're hardly new, even if putting them in the CRB is.
I don't think there's a good way of putting this, but how closely did you read my post?
Okay, if you think 1 action cantrips aren't a good idea, how do you suggest buffing casters? If your answer is you prefer casters as they are, then you don't really have anything to say that hasn't already been said.
Okay, how do you suggest solving the issue of using one-handed weapons *should* have some kind of advantage? Give them a trait of some kind? If you like things how they are, again, you aren't saying anything new or helpful.
Seriously, please reread the post you quoted. You're answering non-questions. I have played a goblin in both 1e and 2e. I've played Pathfinder for 8+ years, which I guess makes me a bit new (non-sarcasm) but I don't need a rundown of basic Paizo facts.
Goblin PCs (or just non-evil) goblins are exceptional in 1e. There's a warning to letting a player play one. Let's quote the 1e SRD:
"Crazy pyromaniacs with a tendency to commit unspeakable violence, goblins are the smallest of the goblinoid races. While they are a fun-loving race, their humor is often cruel and hurtful. Adventuring goblins constantly wrestle with their darkly mischievous side in order to get along with others. Few are truly successful."
Now for 2e
"The convoluted histories other people cling to don’t interest goblins. These small folk live in the moment, and they prefer tall tales over factual records. The wars of a few decades ago might as well be from the ancient past. Misunderstood by other people, goblins are happy how they are. Goblin virtues are about being present, creative, and honest. They strive to lead fulfilled lives, rather than worrying about how their journeys will end. To tell stories, not nitpick the facts. To be small, but dream big."
I don't think I misunderstood the new poor green kinder. I think Paizo misunderstood 10+ years of their own publishing, or realistically, realized they were losing badly to 5e and the indie game community. It's a good business decision (and part of a campaign of retconning and sterilizing their history). I don't begrudge them that.
However you come down on this issue (since this is a houserule thread, and the official ruling is green kinder AR canon) we can at least agree there's a massive, unexplained (or weakly explained) jump.
I'm well aware this is just my opinion, but I feel confident in it. That said, let's stop talking about goblins or make a separate thread (this goblin dog has been beaten to death).
Are these ideas terrible?
Giving the monk 12 hp a level? I feel like thru deserve it as masters of their body and physical perfection.
other people have talked about this, you've acknowledged it, but monks are meant to DODGE! and if they don't, that's what Mountain and Ironblood stances are for
Add 1.5 STR to melee weapon damage when held in 2 hands?
So, the thing people keep >not< bringing up about this whole 1h/2h debate is the FIGHTER FEAT (that they pay for) called dual-handed assault, which for a 1 action flourish, that lets you amp up the damage die on a 1h weapon when you wack someone with it with 2 hands on the hilt. Would you want to give a free version of a buy-in feat exclusive to the class meant to murderize things?
Increasing duration of spells by one degree, such as 1 minute > 10 minutes > 1 hour > 8 hours > 24 hours etc, etc. Obviously with discretion.
I also like the proficiency tied duration increase, my table almost did something like this when we started a homebrew playtest game we subsequently ported to full edition, but seeing the full version durations, felt it wasn't needed. The idea is solid, although I personally feel it's unneeded
Change most damaging cantrips to 1 action (V or S), but each casting of a cantrip adds an action to cast the next one (usually 2/turn max).
So, my personal fix to this that I wrote up, was tacking on an extra action to treat the spell as another tier of heightening up, I.E. for 3 actions, as a 5th level caster, you cast Produce Flame at 4th spell level for 4 dice of damage. It makes it cost opportunity, but it's not stupid levels of stronk.
Make goblins an uncommon (but still playable race)?
no comment, other than that's exactly why rarity was implemented, and I'm personally fond of the rebrand with Goblins being mischievous little freaks who often become evil, but not always
Decease everyone's base move speed to 20, 15 for dwarves and shorter races? Elves can have 25.
Resolved other places, but my personal injection is that makes Fleet almost a necessity for everyone that doesn't wanna hobble across the battlefield like that scene in Monty Python. Also overland exploration would be ****ed
Give a monk something that adds their WIS to AC instead of DEX? A feat maybe? For your beeftastic monkeybois.
Stance, baked in swap-out feature via archetype, level 12+ feat so that multiclass can't snipe it for greed.
Not necessarily serious about these, but all comments should be constructive.
I hope I met this, I'm at work all grumbly like, so sorry if I came off as sharp with any of my comments
Well honestly, if the damage boost of Dual-Handed Assault is given for free, I would expect that feat to get changed to provide a different benefit. I would give a boost to all weapons wielded 2-handed; Yes I know it would increase overall damage.
Dual-handed assault is a good point.
Maybe add a trait to one-handed weapons wielded in two hands?