Which rules, that we've seen so far, do you think are easiest/most fun to house-rule into PF1 games right now?
For instance, I'd love to start playing with the four degrees of success, but its feels like a harder one to swap in without bringing the whole ruleset for balance reasons.
The initiative system on the other hand seems fairly easy to play with, and I've tried it a couple of times and players liked it and character choices made more sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The obvious answer is the action economy, because we pretty much already got it from Unchained.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some weapon properties that would be nice to bring back to PF1e. Rather than have the Weapon Finesse feat, a "Finesse" weapon property makes more sense to me.
I'm not sold on the new initiative system as being an improvement, but I need to see it in action. To me it seems very murky.
If I sneak up to a door with the intention of detecting and disarming a trap when combat breaks out elsewhere in the room, does that mean I use Stealth, Perception, or Disable Device?
Yet I can see where if your Stealth action is responsible for initiating combat, then it might make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am mostly looking at the opposite..how to convert current APs to PF2.
Action economy is the easiest, but many classes need a per-basis ruling.
The obvious answer is the action economy, because we pretty much already got it from Unchained.
However, as with Unchained, it will clash with some classes, that were not designed for the 3 action economy. Classes who use a lot of swift actions work poorly in Unchained, and some feats/abilities are plain useless, like the magic shirt that lets you move your speed as a swift action, because everybody can do that in the 3 action economy. The unchained frame is great, but in PF2 classes are built with that system in mind, while in PF1 they were not. The opposite is also true: some abilities are way too good in Unchained. For example, Vital strike becomes so much better when "standard action" just means "action".
The obvious answer is the action economy, because we pretty much already got it from Unchained.However, as with Unchained, it will clash with some classes, that were not designed for the 3 action economy. Classes who use a lot of swift actions work poorly in Unchained, and some feats/abilities are plain useless, like the magic shirt that lets you move your speed as a swift action, because everybody can do that in the 3 action economy. The unchained frame is great, but in PF2 classes are built with that system in mind, while in PF1 they were not. The opposite is also true: some abilities are way too good in Unchained. For example, Vital strike becomes so much better when "standard action" just means "action".
Yeah, I've had to do a lot of ruling on various stuff to make it work better. The cavalier is a freaking mess in Unchained, for example. But having done those rulings (a fair bit I got off of one poster's write up) it seems to be working pretty well thus far.
I am tempted to port the 4 degrees of success for the purpose of getting rid of critical confirmation, and only that. I always hated having to roll a second die. However, the PF1 math is more loose than PF2's, so this may require some work to make sure it doesn't completely upend game balance.
I'm not sold on the new initiative system as being an improvement, but I need to see it in action. To me it seems very murky.
If I sneak up to a door with the intention of detecting and disarming a trap when combat breaks out elsewhere in the room, does that mean I use Stealth, Perception, or Disable Device?
Yet I can see where if your Stealth action is responsible for initiating combat, then it might make sense.
As-written, it might be hard to back-port, just due to the number of 2 skill/level classes.
I think you could use a version of it, though, just by allowing greater flexibility in how skills are used, and perhaps bumping that 2 to a 4/level.
For example, if PCs run into the Trap:
* Craft/Trapmaking to know about similar traps, and how someone might address them
* Perception, obv.
* Disable Device could be argued to be a detection skill as well
* ...and so on.
I wouldn't worry about the particular skill used very much, so long as it helps tell the narrative that you want to tell. All of this depends on your campaign, ofc, so you might give some thought to how you'd do it. I wouldn't be afraid to shake things a bit loose, though! The worst that happens is that a PC learns to approach problems based on their unique skillset, which can add flavor to a tale.
For example, someone uncovering a trap via Perception might know something's odd, but not as many details as someone using DD. Someone using Craft would have historical context, and should probably gain bonuses from it (and to reward the Craft spend).
Similar slants can be given to different circumstances and skill combos, which darn. It starts reflecting the PCs. YOu as a GM also, may "call out" some of the skill mixes you'll accept if it counts.
All of this doesn't take you to 2e, but I believe it brings you closer to the spirit of that flexibility.