I have to agree that many early level encounters in PF2 APs are just way too brutal. As a DM, I roll behind the screen specifically so I can tone down the number of times the party gets critted at these levels. As they level up, I start to do that less and less. By level 3, we are basically playing straight.
This is all with me giving the party 5e style spell slots, plenty of hero points, and a generous amount of added magic items and consumables.
At the end of the day, there is no point in blaming the AP though. Ultimately, the DM has to treat everything (the rules, the adventures, etc) as suggestions and then adjust them to meet the needs of the party.
- Im gonna have a leshy in the Tipsy Tengu chatting it up with the party about poor wages. He will describe how they get pay deductions for materials used in labor and how at the end they may only end up with a pittance for a week of work. He won't work at the Pagoda but will say that cheap non-human labor is a widespread thing in Absalom. This guy won't be a kobold, so it won't telegraph it too much.
- None of the kobolds outright killed any other workers. Instead, Rekarek rigged some of building to collapse. It was supposed to happen once the non-kobold workers in the area were off shift (and the area was clear) but the manager forced them to work overtime. Now Rek's desperate and, fearing being brought up on murder charges, she's threatening to bring the whole place down unless she's given a pardon (partial bluff, she can only take down some of the construction).
- Rek will let the party pass uninjured if they agree to see her and her compatriots safely out of the city unharmed with enough money to sail to another port of call. The manager will agree to pay for this if the party keeps it all hush-hush. This will come back to bite them later when the Ollo hears of it and they end up getting a lower stipend (or maybe lose some of their discount at the quartermaster). He cannot fire them since he has no hard evidence but he puts the party on notice. The choice won't be murder the kobolds or no. It will be follow the law and bring in this person whose recklessness led to death of coworkers or free this person who was mistreated by their employers and acted out of desperation.
- Rek will be initially hostile as she is scared. Her and her people will fight but can be reasoned with. However, odds are these kobolds will fall if the party does not approach with stealth and do things like listen to kobold conversations, try to knock out/question guards, etc.
- Rek may agree to be taken in but only if those kobolds she has enlisted in her cause go free. Taking this middle way does not come with any blow back and gains the party some kobold contacts. However, it may comprimise their ideals if they are hardcore pro-law.
- Skerix cautioned Rekarek against sabotage. The humans "held" there are sympathetic to the kobold cause but Rek won't let them leave (leverage she can't let go of). So Skerix took them in. Skerix is more than willing to talk. However, she too is scared of the police and will fight back if attacked. In essence, Skerix has broken no laws and is much the same situation as the humans with her.
- The manager doesn't reveal the poor pay or overwork. She just states that these kobolds killed some non-kobold workers and destroyed a part of the pagoda. She paints them a ravenous and she laments hiring them.
Casters in my games get 5e/arcanist casting. Spontaneous casters get a few extra class dependent perks. Spells prepped/known is basically just spell mod+level (again, some perks for varios spontaneous casters).
Wizards get 2 thesi (2 major, 2 minor). And their feats and class features are reworked a bit (basically, that whole bonded item crap is removed, there are no generalists).
With all this, casters still trail behind the raw power of melee martials but the added flexibility makes them actually great to have around. I even nerfed electric arc a bit (3 actions to hit two targets) and players didn't mind. Made other cantrips interesting enough to use on occaision.
We have to agree to disagree on this one. This sort of thing brings back my worst memories of 3.x games. With players cobbling together options that make little narrative sense together and seeking mechanical advantage by doing ridiculous things like carrying around bags of rats and attacking teammates.
If that works for your table, fine. But players that seek mechanical advantage at all cost even when breaking the narrative for others just have no place in games I run.
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
1. Savage animal companions increase the dex cap on heavy barding by 1.
2. When the animal companion first specializes, they get expert in barding. If it's savage, it gains +1 strength instead of +1 dex.
That way, the AC on a str companion is still worse but it's not way way worse. Also, they don't fall behind on attack.
Anyone else think animal companion types are a bit unbalanced? The dex based ones can get expert (nimble) and then master (using dex specializations) prof with unarmored. Strength based options leave armor prof at trained. Considering that higher dex also means higher ac, the str based companions seem really really hosed.
Base ac unarmored (not counting level) seems to be able to reach 24 with all those bonuses (10+X). Unlike PCs, I can't find a rule that caps ac from dex at 5 for animal companions. Other benefits include more sneakiness and better reflex saves.
Typical str companion: +2 base dex, base trained unarmored, +1 dex mature, +1 dex savage, +1 dex specialized.
Base ac unarmored (not counting level) seems to be 17.
The strength companion can wear heavy barding but due to the dex cap that only increases ac potential by 1. So, 18.
I know the str based companions do a bit more damage. By the time it's specialized, the strength based companion will probably do a few more points of damage due to having a higher die size weapon and like 3 more from higher strength (maybe 6 more damage on average or so).
Also, the first time you get specialized, you get +1 dex but not +1 str. So the str based companion will have 1 less bonus to attack than the dex companion.
Looking at it, str based animal companion seems like a trap to me.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm over here wondering why you all are so fixated on a white room simulation with an equal level opponent, when most combats I've played have usually included many lower level opponents and maybe one equal or greater threat.
Statements like "most enemies will have hard AC" might work from a descriptive standpoint when you poll the bestiary, but ignore that they will appear in significantly uneven amounts at different points in an individual players carrier.
Hypothetical DPR against an equal level opponent is neat, but if a tactic is stronger against slightly below level opponents and only slightly less optimal against an equal or higher level opponent then I think there's a fair argument that the average player may actually be better off taking the approach that your modeling seems to be optimized for.
But the low ac guys don't really matter much, honestly. They are fodder. My party nearly wiped on the first boss to Fall of Plaguestone. They didn't sweat anything prior. None of of the packs of enemies really phased them. But the first boss, by himself, was enough to drop two PCs and an animal companion while taking the other two PCs below half.
So, ya, scrub clean up is fine and all but the way PF2 math works, modeling against high ac is more pertinent in measuring how good an ability is in play when it really really counts.
At my table, I made a custom "mage" class. Basically, a pf2 wizard with arcanist/5e casting, 2 thesises, one extra spell slot for their school and no arcane bond. LINK
Despite all these buffs (which effectively boil down to flexibility), it seems very balanced with the party martials (a monk and a ranger) and the mage player is having fun.
If there is something about the game that doesn't work for you, PF2 is very modular so you can pretty easily change it. Just talk to your players, figure out where the ruleset falls short and make adjustments.
PF2 is really good and is my current go to for Fantasy d20.
There are a couple bits that could be better. The thing I most dislike most is the strict Vancian system but its very very easy to patch that out. Another bit that I think could be a bit better is the NPC stat blocks. They rely a bit too much on tags and that results in a fair amount of page flipping from the monster, to the monster abilities pages and other pages related to said tags. In play, its not the best. The whole perception, tracking hidden, point out stuff is also a bit of a sore point in play. The last sore point are afflictions. Those tend to be a bit of a pain to track in play. They really could have looked to creating a bit more ease of play in general.
Almost everything else is great. The game feels much more tactical than 5e without the rules heft of 3.X. There is no death yo-yo and less quickie I win buttons. The rules could be a bit better organized, but they feel consistent and easy to suss out once you land on the page you need. The 3 action system is satisfying and does not slow down play after a couple sessions of experience with it. The new crit system and the 4 levels of success is well done. The enemies are memorable and the encounters you can build with them are exciting.
Cool, so we've finally moved away from people thinking they could rub the pommel of their sword on an injured guy or spit from afar or something to heal someone with battle medicine.
"and uncommon spells typically cost at least 100% more, if you can find someone who knows them at all."
Here is one that DMW only quotes a piece of (but not the best bits). Right before the quoted section it states:
Quote:
"At the start of the campaign, communicate your preferred expectations on rarity to the players. Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices."
No, sorry, they cannot just find any uncommon options. They find the uncommon options they qualify for or the ones I deem appropriate.
Edit: Again, it explicitly states the default there. Uncommon stuff not gained through discrete options is clearly not listed.
Draco, I get when you are saying. You want there to be another tag for "Feature Locked" and another for "Hard to Get" but, frankly, I think this game has enough tags as it is and could do with a culling of excess tags and rules cruft, honestly. Reading the bestiary is an exercise in frustration, for example - especially crap like the Gelatinous Cube, where I have to flip back and forth on crap like Engulf and the like.
The rulebook is big enough as it is (frankly too big) and there is way too much granularity in many parts of it (particularly around skill actions and basic functionality being locked behind a plethora of skill feats). I for one am happy Paizo chose not to add more than what they did.
At the end of the day, Uncommon is there. The book gives some guidance on how its to be used. Common sense states that feature locked Uncommon stuff from the CRB is largely allowed but everything else is something a Novice GM can say no to without getting into a parliamentary debate about it with their players. I don't need 3 more paragraphs and several more tags to figure that out.
The inferred intent with Uncommon items seems more and more to be that they should be harder to get than Common items, but far from impossible if you actively seek them out.
That is actually completely incorrect. Devs have said multiple times they tagged many things as uncommon to give cover to DMs that simply didnt want them in their games. This is particularly true of certain spells but also true of splat that comes later that DMs just dont want to deal with. The only other type of "Uncommon" is stuff that is locked behind class features or feats (a-la focus spells, etc). There are some exceptions (like racial weapons) but even those are subject to GM fiat.
Which is, again, why I feel that there should have been two tags for it. "Uncommon" which represented a sort of rarity ("these hard-to-find X can be difficult to track down, see [acquiring rare items rules]") or location aspect ("this item is common in Osiron, acquiring one in another region may be difficult to track down, see [acquiring rare items rules]") and another tag for class feat/feature things (going to call it "Special Access").
Anything that should be completely under gm fiat is what Rare is for. That's why Rare exists. There is nothing wrong with the Rare tag.
The inferred intent with Uncommon items seems more and more to be that they should be harder to get than Common items, but far from impossible if you actively seek them out.
That is actually completely incorrect. Devs have said multiple times they tagged many things as uncommon to give cover to DMs that simply didnt want them in their games. This is particularly true of certain spells but also true of splat that comes later that DMs just dont want to deal with. The only other type of "Uncommon" is stuff that is locked behind class features or feats (a-la focus spells, etc). There are some exceptions (like racial weapons which could follow your "hard to get" notion) but even those are subject to GM fiat.
As far as stuff from adventures, they have stated that they wanted you to look at a PCs character sheet and see what adventures they went on. "Oh, "Staff Acrobat", he must be playing Extinction Curse." Therefore, no, we wouldn't be able to just nab stuff from wherever (from their intent, anyways).
That said, changing shields like you're proposing isn't likely to visibly break anything, so much as its going to make winners and losers of many shields (Spellguard/Reflecting are almost certainly the best choices, anything else is much smaller utility than those)
Cool, two choices is better than one (since without sturdy, blocking is dumb) so that is already a clear improvement. Since folks who want to block well have to invest in feats or class features to do so (shield block, reactive shield, etc), sturdy is too much of a "forced non-choice" for any shield build. I bet I can homebrew a few more enhancements (or modify existing ones on the fly) to make the choices more interesting. Solution found.
I have been playing d20 long enough that I homebrew all the time. Iam not afraid to play with numbers and systems. Ultimately, I am responsible for whether or not my group has fun. Not Paizo or it's rules. So if I can adjust something that I think is problematic, I just do. Then it's my fault if things go south. And that's just fine.
Also you wrote:
Quote:
"At level one, your only option is the "sturdy" equivalent because no equipment at level 1 provides significant magical utility."
That's not how my suggestion would work.
Edit: I said the shield's level determines the bonus it would get. Since sturdy doesn't start until 4th level (lesser sturdy), I would not apply it to a level 1-3 shield. No offense, but if you don't bother to read folks posts correctly, you shouldn't be criticizing them.
Well, seems like an easy fix to me. Just get rid of the sturdy shield and, instead, simply give magical or special material shields the hardness/HP of the corresponding sturdy shield of the same or lower level. That way those stats are just a function of the shield's level.
And in doing so, remove any need for players ever to compromise and decide if they want the utility of a magical shield with a power, or the durability of a sturdy shield.
That's not a fix, that's massive power creep for a play style that is already extremely powerful.
It's not power creep though. For shields to be as useful at level 15 as they are at level 1, they need to be sturdy. All you are doing by doing as I mentioned is maintaining efficiency while allowing other enchantments. This is kinda like those auto bonus progression variants but only for shields.
I dunno, I'll probably end up doing this if I have shield users in my next game.
I would say PF2 mechanics emphasize threat and Paizo themes often highlight loss and darkness. I would not call PF light hearted.
The mechanics, such as the wounded condition and the condition system in general, are far more hardcore than 5e or even Savage World's comparable systems. Those would be much more "light hearted" mechanically by my estimation.
The adventures published by Paizo tend to feature far more gritty themes than those other systems as well. Savage Worlds adventures tend to be light hearted in that they feel like serialized fiction from the 50s/60s (in particular their best, 50 Fathoms, and stuff like Deadlands). 5e are very much traditional fantasy. Even Strahd, their horror module, is not really all that horrific.
By comparison, Paizo tends to do alot with darker themes other company's tend to sidestep in some (though not all) of their APs - especially the urban ones. I don't want to post spoilers though, so I will leave it at that.
I would say that knowing how gritty Paizo writing can get, I hope they tread at least somewhat carefully when doing an AP that grants PCs police powers.
The tropes the OP is complaining about are found in Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian media. Manga, Anime, film, television, games and more from those countries is filled stories of like the ones likely being presented in FotRP.
As such, I don't see what the problem is with the theme or the trope. I mean are Wutang Clan racist because they love themes from old Japanese Samurai/Ninja films and feature that in their work?
Saying that it is problematic for Paizo to present a set of Wuxia adventures is like calling Record of Loss War (a Japanese anime) problematic because it presented Western European fantasy tropes.
The question lies not in whether exploring these themes is ok (it is) but in making sure to do so in a way that doesn't make the individuals presented into caricatures of ethnic stereotypes. We will have to wait and see there.
I have found that making Electric Arc use two actions to hit one target and three actions (with material component) to hit two brings it inline nicely while still allowing it to hit two targets. It's not auto used every round and some builds pass on it for other cantrips and that prevents stuff like reach spell subverting the one meaningful limitation that's keeping it somewhat inline.
I do think Daze and Acid Spray could use some love. But other cantrips are fine compared to what ranged martials can do.
I am starting another campaign for some friends that are relatively new to roleplaying and am cobbling together the house rules for that game.
I had introduced them to the hobby with 13th Age since its relatively rules light but is similar to PF2 in some ways (like how level is added to things). As we transition to PF2, I want to make a few changes so that PCs remain as broadly capable as they seem in 13th Age. So these are the rules I am mulling over.
1. Intelligence Bonus: A PC's Intelligence modifier may be used to increase a skill from Trained to Expert INSTEAD of training a new skill (but not for taking an Expert skill to Master or beyond).
2. Lore Skills: At levels 1, 7 and 15, PCs get a special Skill Increase that can only be spent on Lore Skills. This will allow PCs to easily become legendary in a Lore skill (or Expert in several) while still advancing their other skills.
3. Untrained Skills: Add level to Untrained Skill Checks right from level 1.
There are a couple issues that jump out at me when I consider these house rules.
Issue 1: Some feats like Untrained Improvisation and Gnome Obsession are now useless or near that. Other feats based around getting expert skills seem less attractive. Problem? Or whatever?
Issue 2: PCs will reach Expert in a lore and possibly a couple skills at level 1. This is normally 2 for Rogues and 3 for everybody else. Would that be too much success early on?
Of the three house rules, I think the first is most possibly problematic but I do like that it makes Int attractive. Still I am likely to scratch that one. Anywho, any folks out there ever dabbled with any house rules similar to this? What was it like in play?
EDIT: I was also thinking of scrapping the Int house rule and adding a skill feat that lets you bump a skill from trained to expert or expert to master or even master to legendary. Each feat could be taken only once and would have some kind Int requirement. Hmm...
I think the issue is that the alchemist (and to a certain extent, some champ builds) are designed far, far too narrowly to exploit weaknesses. If those weaknesses are not prevalent in play, the class is very meh, at least early on.
This isn’t true either, or at least it isn’t judging by the printed monsters we have printed so far. Nothing is weak to acid or electric, and there’s 3 things weak to sonic. If the aim was to have them target weaknesses, then any bomb except cold and fire is pretty bad.
I just mention it since often when I hear Paizo folks discuss the Alchemist (or the Champion with its "Good-aligned" damage), I feel like I hear them say stuff certain options being great because of weaknesses. But, ya, I agree. I don't think weaknesses are enough of a thing to balance a class around.
Someone mentioned that the difference between the best and worst classes isn't that large in PF2. That may be true at higher levels but not in beginning play.
Now, these are just my observations from running some low level games that have had Alchemists in them. I have not played an Alchemist myself since I am a forever GM (and I thus rarely get to play).
At lower levels, where I find most of my campaigns take place in, a caster that does nothing but spam stuff like produce flame or telekinetic projectile seems better than an alchemist. If the caster uses something comparatively op like electric arc, the alchemist kinda starts to feel comparatively underwhelming. If the caster actually uses his spell slots well...whew, no contest.
As a dedication, it doesn't seem absolutely terrible. I could see someone nabbing it with an Ancient Elf or something. But as a class, it's the last thing I would advise any of my players start with.
I think the issue is that the alchemist (and to a certain extent, some champ builds) are designed far, far too narrowly to exploit weaknesses. If those weaknesses are not prevalent in play, the class is very meh, at least early on.
The flick mace is not allowed in my games both for how silly it is and because there's no way it should be a d8. If you want reach with a 1h weapon at my table, you will have to settle for the scorpion whip's d4.
This is the 1.4 update to my homebrew Neo-Vancian (5e-style) variant casting classes and related play aides. Please read this Reddit post if you would like a full rundown on design goals and methodology.
CHANGES & NEW STUFF A Note on the Why. My group wants to have a crack at the whimsy-filled Extinction Curse. One player thought it would be fun to play a Halfling Witch. Another was eyeing the Skald (Bard). After talking with them, I whipped up a Neo-Vancian Witch and made a smattering of other changes.
The Witch. I try to skew close to the original design in most cases but this is somewhat different than the APG Playtest take on the class (Neo-Vancian casting, patron choice matters more, a divine option is included, Cackle is useful, etc). Also, I kinda felt that the Witch was a bit too similar to the Mage (Wizard) so I did remove the Improved Familiar Attunement thesis from the Mage (Wizard) just to help them feel more distinct. The Witch's familiar also gets one more ability to start but the Witch no longer gets access to the Enhanced Familiar feat (it's somewhat baked in). I have not yet made a multiclass archetype version of the Witch. By the way, I couldn't come up with an alternative name that I or my player were happy with. I had considered "Crone" but it didn't quite fit.
MORE Small Tweaks to Spontaneous Casters. My spontaneous caster variants no longer gain a class feat at level one (which I had added in my last version). Feedback from my players suggested that the feat was not particularly necessary for the Thaumaturgist (Sorcerer) and seemed unsatisfying for the Skald (Bard). For my new campaign, my Skald (Bard) player asked for something that worked with his Performance skill and that gave him a tiny bit more flexibility. So, I gave the Skald (Bard) the "Practice" feature instead. The Skald (Bard) may now Retrain spells/cantrips at the same time that they Earn an Income from using Performance during downtime. This starts at 1 spell or cantrip a week at Trained, that increases to 2 at Expert, 3 at Master and 4 at Legendary. He seemed happy. I don't foresee further iterations here but if they do come, they will come from actual play experience at my table.
THE GOODS The Mage, [UPDATED!], the Wizard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Shaman, the Druid alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Skald, [UPDATED!], the Bard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Thaumaturge,[UPDATED!], the Sorcerer alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Vicar, the Cleric alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Witch, [NEW!], the Witch alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Archetypes, does not yet include the Witch (PDF)(InDesign)
Related Tweaks (PDF)
PF2 4x6 Spell/Action Cards (PDF)(InDesign)
Spell Tracker (PDF)
A NOTE ON BALANCE
I care about balance but perfect mechanical balance is not my top priority. My group just doesn't obsess over that sort of thing. I chiefly focus on facilitating ease of play and on character options being compelling in a mechanical and narrative sense. I aim for said options to feel effective and fun in an adventuring party. Once I get in that ballpark, I call it good and move on.
My perspective on being “in that ballpark” may be different than yours. If you demand tighter balance than what is presented here then, by all means, continue to use the stock options or make your own.
Well, it's not just mechanics to everyone. Some folks are heavy into the narrative. Playing a Sorcerer is basically a fantasy dude with the X-gene. That doesn't appeal to everyone.
Oracle has a different feel. That feel has a strong ludonarrative harmony with the curse mechanics. Once they balance it a bit better, I can see a definitive draw on that alone.
This is a the 1.3 Update to my homebrew 5E-style variant casting classes and related play aides.
THE NEW GOODS
The links in the original post are automatically updated with the latest version. Various typos and formatting errors were addressed. Also, spontaneous casters now gain a class feat at level 1 to give them some added oomph early on. Below are links to the new files.
The Archetypes (PDF) (InDesign) New archetypes for my homebrew 5e-style casting classes.
Related Tweaks (PDF) Tweaks were made to certain related character options.
Not yet since thats not a thing my players are exploring. It probably wouldnt be that different from stock as far as how many spell slots. Probably something akin to spells known/prepped being like spell ability mod (which is likely lower than a full caster) + max spell level (instead of character level) or some such. Otherwise more or less the same as current caster dedication beyond that. I might give thaumaturge dedication bloodline granted spells so theres a point to pick it over a prep dedication if a player were to ask.
Looking over the Shaman, it's interesting that you didn't increase the access to Focus points for wild shapers. One of the most common complaints is that you gain access to more and more shapes, but your number of focus points doesn't keep pace. What do you think of either changing the Refocus requirements, or allow the Shaman to gain 1 more Focus point with each feat that expands Wild Shape (and more broadly, whenever you gain a feat that provides a focus spells you gain 1 more focus point, up to your max of 3.)
I don't like the idea of making too many large design changes - especially not blind. The wild shape thing is one where I just don't have enough understanding as to why the devs did what they did.
I would rather not make dozens of changes if I can help it and, instead, stay closer to stock. With the exception of getting rid of the cleric doctrine for my player (to make a more "5e option" available), the changes have largely been to accomodate the changes to casting rather than dramatically alter game balance.
Some other changes above have also been to simplify things or to reduce book keeping. But I dont want to commit to dozens of tweaks that are not born out of the needs of my actual play.
I hope its alright if I start a new thread for my newest release. This thread is for my complete 5E-style casting alternative. Before I get into the the how and what of this, I want to delve a bit into some of the larger drivers that led me and my home group to move towards these changes.
DESIGN GOALS
Our group wanted a few things. First, we wanted casters to be more flexible. We were OK with toning down spells and the move from straight save or suck to 4 degrees of success. However, we were not OK with PF2's strict Vancian systems and were a bit more at home with the 5E implementation. We knew that spontaneous casters were a bit more flexible but the sorcerer and the bard simply did not appeal to my players or fit the character types they wanted to play.
A secondary goal for us was ease of use at the table. My players wanted to quickly select their spells and painlessly track their use. While this could be done OK with a spell list using the stock system, it wasn't as easy as we were used to in 5E.
Our last goal was around giving casters a bit more oomph. They had been nerfed significantly from 3.X (and we are ok with that to an extent). But having to deal with strict Vancian as well made casters just feel lackluster. They may well indeed be "balanced" but they didn't seem fun. We were hoping to make playing a caster a bit more enjoyable. That is SUPER subjective. So, please be aware that this is more fun for US but may not be more fun for YOU. YMMV
Please be aware we came to these goals AFTER playing through several playtest scenarios AND the Fall of Plaguestone. We are gearing up for my PF2 conversion of Curse of the Crimson Throne and wanted to alter things before starting that.
THE GIST
So, the gist is this:
1. Prepared casters get to prepare a number of spells equal to their base spellcasting ability modifier plus level every day. When a prepared caster uses a prepped spell, it is not expended but an appropriate spell slot is.
2. Spontaneous casters get to know a number of spells equal to their base spellcasting ability modifier plus level every day (sorcerer bloodline spells do not count against this limit).
3. All casters may spontaneously heighten their spells (whether prepared or known) into higher level slots by using those higher level slots.
With all these things in there, class feats and features had to be changed or removed to better work with new mechanics. The Wizard in particular had to undergo massive changes and significant thought went into balancing different schools against the universalist and how to balance the Wizard against the Sorcerer.
THE GOODS
Here are the links to the classes themselves. Please note that I have provided these as alternative classes with different names. This means my players know that any Wizard feat that may be released later is not going to work with the Mage I present unless I vet it first, for example. Additionally, this reinforces that using these classes is, for me, optional. If a player wants to play with the vanilla casters, they may do so. I have not bothered with Multiclass Dedications for these. They should be more or less like the vanilla ones.
I have linked by the PDFs and my InDesign files. Please note the InDesign files do not have fonts embedded. They are commercial and you will have to get them on your own. I am providing the InDesign files so those of you that have your own ideas about addressing concerns about casters in PF2 can do so on your own time and in your own space. Please be aware that more thought and energy was put into the Mage and the Vicar since those are the classes that my players will be using in our upcoming campaign.
The Mage, Wizard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Shaman, Druid alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Skald, Bard alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Thaumaturge, Sorcerer alternative (PDF)(InDesign)
The Vicar, Cleric alternative* (PDF)(InDesign)
*Significant changes were made to the Cleric in putting together the Vicar. These are mostly to meet what my player wanted from the class.
PLAY AIDES
One of the benefits of the casting classes linked above is that tracking spell use is pretty easy for all of them. We use spell (and action) cards which I am putting together and a small tracker sheet. The cards and the tracker sheet are all meant to be printed out on 4x6 cards. You have to have a printer that allows for that and you typically have to define a custom paper size to do it.
Here are the links:
PF2e 4x6 Cards* (PDF)(InDesign)
Spell Tracker Card (PDF)
*Please note that my group's house rules are reflected in these cards. This is notable in stuff like Electric Arc being a bit nerfed and in Orc Ferocity being a free action.
A few notes on the Spell Tracker:
1. The drop down does not show up when you print.
2. The Spell Tracker can help the Mage I made track his special "School Slot" as well. When you click on a check box before printing, a grey out star appears to denote a "School Slot."
3. You will likely need to open this in Adobe Reader (not your web browser) to get it to work.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
These are the house rules our group will be using. If you have your own wildly different thoughts on how to balance this stuff or you feel this is crazy OP or whatever, please offer those alternatives in your own threads. However, if you find any typos or would like to provide specific constructive feedback on the solutions provided here, please do so.
Anywho, thats it, I hope folks find this useful. I am still working on the PF2 cards and will be updating them based on what my group members need over the course of play. I may also update other items as time goes by depending on player feedback.
Thanks to Malfast for the Roll for Combat reference. It's kind of indirect, but it sounds like a good ruling, and counters what I've been calling the "stern glance" version of Battle Medicine.
So it's been stated, according to the guys at Roll for Combat, by someone at Paizo, that Battle Medicine:
- requires a healer's tools
- requires one hand to use
- only requires one action IF your healer's are in a bandolier.
Although this does seem to contract the listed stats of healer's tools (requiring 2 hands) it seems like a good compromise.
Let's just hope that it makes it into print in the next errata.
Walked away from the thread for a couple months. Came back. Looks like common sense won. We'll see when the errata hits but thats how I've been playing with it.
I thought it was funny people assumed you could patch people up with no hands, or by rubbing your weapons against them or whatever.
I would ask that you please post them to your own house rules thread, if thats ok. This is more for my releases. If you have any InDesign questions though, please reach out.
Alright, here is the Thaumaturge (aka the Sorcerer). It was actually a lot easier to put this together than I thought. Almost no changes were needed to feats and the like (just a few minor tweaks here and there since heightening isnt limited in my homebrew).
I mostly just made some changes to spell repertoire and heightening language.
Basically, the thaumaturge gets spells known equal to their base charisma plus level. Their bloodline spells do not count against this limit though. So, they have more spells on hand than the mage or vicar. Also, they still have more spell slots. And, like all casters in my homebrew, they can freely use higher level slots to heighten spells they have at hand.
I'm on a bit of a roll with these. This was super fast to put together. I think I will be able to get the Shaman (aka the Druid) and the Griot (aka the Bard) out somewhat sooner than I thought. I will then give them a pass and put all out in one thread as a sort of 5e-ification of the magic system for PF2.
Thanks for linking my stuff. I hope folks find it useful.
I'll probably do all those classes eventually (the Griot for the Bard, the Shaman for the Druid and the Thaumaturgist for the Sorcerer - likely abandoning the Alchemist to mediocrity). I will present them as some sort of mass 5e style magic replacement. I just can't do those anytime soon since I have a campaign to prep. But if you want to present your take, have at it - thats why I released the InDesign files.
You may need the fonts as well. I don't think InDesign embeds them. Some fonts, like Taroca, are available for free. The others cost money.
InDesign is easy for me to use. I used to work in a print shop over a decade ago and learned to do alot of pre-press design work (with InDesign, Publisher, Photoshop, etc). I have since built my skills with them just doing random homebrew stuff. Not sure how easy or hard it would be for a novice to learn nowadays but I bet you can do basic stuff easy enough and find guides for other stuff you want to do. The software now is alot more user friendly. I don't know of any beginner sites since I started learning on these programs a while ago.
Just please leave some kinda attribution in there ("Base Layout by Data Lore" or some such) if you use it. Thats always good practice when using other folks templates.
Ahh, thanks, I didn't know about it. It looks very similar to the Glaive. Both are a 1d8, deadly d8, and reach weapon. It just trades forceful for sweep and trip. It is a good weapon, but it's close enough that I can't really see trading one to Advanced without the other. Is it just the number of traits (3 vs 4) that you are basing it on?
Ya, it is good enough to me to be on par with how other advanced weapons compare to their martial counterparts. Opinions can vary but that's where I landed.
Take a look at the Dwarven Waraxe vs the Bastard Sword, for example. Its just the Sweep trait added on but one is advanced and the other is not.
True, but you don't typically find wolves as mounts at the town stables. I was thinking of a Ranger's animal companion, which starts at size small. I figured that (or a similar ability) would be the most likely way to use Rough Rider
The Mount action would not allow you to mount anything, even something with the Mount trait (these are different things) that isn't at least one size larger. So, the rule is redundant.
Basically, you don't need to say that you can't mount the small wolf since the rule for the Mount action already doesn't let you mount the small wolf.
If you want any feedback on that stuff, here you go. Feel free to ignore otherwise.
Spoiler:
Samurai wrote:
The Goblin Rough Rider granting Mount Trait, but only when it becomes large enough for the goblin to actually ride it (Mature Animal), otherwise it would look like a goblin mini-bike
Not needed, the Mount action states "You are adjacent to a creature that is at least one size larger than you and is willing to be your mount." So, its handled by the action.
Quote:
I lowered the normal flickmace damage to 1d6, but gave it the Two-handed d8 trait so if someone really wanted that d8 they can get it by using both hands.
Adding that two handed property makes it a bit too good, imo. ESPECIALLY with an einhander fighter build. But, I think its a silly weapon and had considered outright saying it didn't exist in my world, so I am hyper biased against it.
Quote:
I also created a Rapid Reload level 3 General feat (so people besides Ranger can get it) that allows the use of a Reaction as 1 action worth of reloading.
I kinda like the ranger having his own special joojoo with the xbow. Niche design is fun, IMO, so I shy away from making class stuff into general stuff. That being said, Rapid Reload is fairly innocuous, so, probably no big deal.
I think most spells are fine. Most seem a bit weak, honestly. But, with the added flexibility, they should be about right.
Edit: Just saw that you mentioned other house rules. I have a few. They are only for stuff that has come up for me.
1. Simplified Movement. All squares are 5 feet if not in difficult terrain (5e style)
2. Goblins. Rough Rider (ancestry feat): Wolves and goblin dogs you ride gain the Mount trait.
3. Orcs/Half-Orcs. Orc Ferocity (ancestry feat): Now a free action instead of a reaction.
4. Fauchard. Nerfed. Now Advanced.
5. Flickmace. Nerfed. Now deals d6 damage (instead of d8)
6. Rapid Reload. Now a level 2 ranger feat (needed for a player who wanted a specific, non-op ranger build to be possible).
Hmm, so I made some spell cards and shared them with my group. We collectively decided to go full 5e style casting. Basically, all kinds of casters can just spontaneously heighten their spells.
This was mostly due to ease of use. It will just be less book-keeping to say I have these spells prepped (stack of cards) and I have this many slots (tracker sheet with bubble by level). Thats a much more user friendly set up and that matters alot to me. Sure some slots may be special or this or that but its still less fiddly than memorizing different versions of the same spell.
I think with sorcerers, I will give them spell mod + level spells known but won't count their bloodline spells against the limit. So, they will still have more spells on hand, more slots generally and flexibility that a specialist mage would not.
The bard will just get spell mod + level spells known but their feats already have ways to expand on that and even let them poach spells from other lists.
So, I think it works out and its much more streamlined and less exceptions based.
I have updated the Mage and the Vicar. I will probably make the Sorcerer rules (I will call it a Thaumaturge) next week as a proof of concept.
For reference, the spell cards look like this: LINK (this is my nerfed Electric Arc)
I am still working on the tracker sheet but it will also likely be on a 4x6 card.
