Pathfinder 2: A desire for a modular game.

[Malk_Content]

I've brought it up a few times in various threads where it seems conflict arises from two or more valid ways of viewing things (and thus playing the game eventually) but I thought it worth discussing in its own right.

With all my disagreements with people over various things some circle back to easily adjustable numbers (+level) or mechanically similar (Resonance, split pools, tolerance leading to status effects over rolls to overspend) that could be used without detriment to the rest of the system. I have my preferences for all of these and if I have to advocate for one way to do it I'll advocate for my preferences. If I "win" the ideal version of the game then others "lose" theirs.

So what I would like to be seriously considered, is to have as many variant rules presented alongside their "defaults" in the final product. Established at the beginning should be charts for converting DCs from + Full Level to + Half Level and + No Level. There should be presented the three or four ways of handling Resonance that are most compatible with each other, yet give different feels and restrictions. If there is space in the tables items should have their Weights alongside Bulk. The bestiary and monster creation rules should have charts for easily converting away from the default assumptions towards the more bounded accuracy options.

In short I hope the final rulebook presents a game that not just can be tweaked (as all games can) but shows you exactly how in the most common ways asked for and importantly raises those variants out of online discussions and homebrew to the status of actual rules. For while I don't care one iota that my game is homebrew or not, many do.

[Yolande d'Bar]

I'd love this too, but I think it's more reasonable to ask that the Gamemastery Guide for 2e be merged with the toolkit approach of Pathfinder Unchained into a hybrid book of advice & variants. And, as long as I'm wishing, including the best of the subsystems from Ultimate Campaign as well

I'm betting that the Core book needs to have one and only one way of doing things for the benefit of PFS (and perhaps the sanity of whoever's formatting it); but some bold optional systems, especially for folks who like to remove +level, for instance, should become available soon thereafter.

I like to run tough, OSR-influenced, resource-driven games, with no magic shops, and few level appropriate encounters, so options for hacking 2e toward this approach would be really welcome.

[Voss]

Pass. I'd much rather have a coherent and cohesive ruleset than a bunch of optional variant systems. The point of having game rules and, frankly, a design team, is to produce a coherent product, not a bunch of suggestions. People have material from over a dozen different editions and spinoffs if they want a personal kludge to use in their home game.

It's much easier to find a game (and play) if everyone is on the same page.

[Seisho]

I'm with voss
I wouldn't mind if they add books with variant rules later on though (like after half a dozen other core books), but for the start they should focus on getting the core together and as smoothly working as possible.

And I would guess if you want to go with +1/2 level, just halve the level on the dc chart.

[Bardarok]

I like variant rules but I agree the CRB needs to be a cohesive thing. The game mastery guide would be a good place to hold a bunch of alternate rules.

[Crayon]

Leaving aside the fact that marketing copy insists that PF2 is already modular, I really don't see what the point would be.

If PF2 does indeed prove as ill-suited to my desired mode of play as it appears, surely it makes more sense to abandon it and choose a system that can do what I want without fighting me every step of the way?

[Bardarok]

Crayon wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that marketing copy insists that PF2 is already modular, I really don't see what the point would be.

If PF2 does indeed prove as ill-suited to my desired mode of play as it appears, surely it makes more sense to abandon it and choose a system that can do what I want without fighting me every step of the way?

I dont think that extreame of a stance is universal. If you overall liked the system and a few simple to implement alternative rules would fix whatever problems you had then it would make sense to stick with the system. While that might not be your situation I expect there will be people who would rather use alternate rules than learn an entirely new system. Of course the other option is always just sticking with PF1 which is a good option too.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

All great stuff to have in the GMG2, but way too much page space for CRB2, as well as being potentially confusing to newbies.

[Malk_Content]

For me I worry that leaving it too long will just mean that for those for whom variant rules could save the system, they'll already have moved on. I don't think establishing a "Brown coloured sidebars are optional ways of doing things" in the introduction would hurt the cohesion of the product at all. PFS, AP etc would all be written with the default (non-sidebar) rules in mind. I see it also as a way to compromise with hardliners on multiple sides of several topics without harming the core product.

Of course if the GMG comes out very quickly on the heels of the Core book then that would be an okayish place for such rules.

[thejeff]

Malk_Content wrote:

For me I worry that leaving it too long will just mean that for those for whom variant rules could save the system, they'll already have moved on. I don't think establishing a "Brown coloured sidebars are optional ways of doing things" in the introduction would hurt the cohesion of the product at all. PFS, AP etc would all be written with the default (non-sidebar) rules in mind. I see it also as a way to compromise with hardliners on multiple sides of several topics without harming the core product.

Of course if the GMG comes out very quickly on the heels of the Core book then that would be an okayish place for such rules.

It's certainly possible to have some alternate rules in the Core books.

Too much emphasis on it cuts into space for the default rules (as well as both development and playtest effort) and fragments the game as groups all work with different combinations of the various defaults.

And if adventures and other future material all are developed for the default, that's a problem too. Unsupported rules material is rarely a good thing for a line. It inevitably happens eventually, but you don't want to embed it from the beginning.

[AnimatedPaper]

Bardarok wrote:

Crayon wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that marketing copy insists that PF2 is already modular, I really don't see what the point would be.

If PF2 does indeed prove as ill-suited to my desired mode of play as it appears, surely it makes more sense to abandon it and choose a system that can do what I want without fighting me every step of the way?

I dont think that extreame of a stance is universal. If you overall liked the system and a few simple to implement alternative rules would fix whatever problems you had then it would make sense to stick with the system. While that might not be your situation I expect there will be people who would rather use alternate rules than learn an entirely new system. Of course the other option is always just sticking with PF1 which is a good option too.

Easy to implement can be difficult to determine from the outside. Like the Half-level suggestion would require completely rewriting the NPC creation tables, all DCs, quite possibly how armor works and the skill system in its entirety. Probably need to look at how iteratives work, if they work. Monsters would be deadlier for a LOT longer than intended, and players would advance as characters much slower, both in terms of their ability to attack and their defenses against it. The no+level would even be more dramatic, and frankly a much bigger departure from the feel of PF1 than +level in PF2.

Resonance might be very easy to strip out. Or it might be equally game breaking in ways that aren't obvious to the community.

[Mekkis]

Indeed, one of the drawbacks of monsters no longer using PC rules means that there is no accountability with regards to monsters' stats.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Mekkis wrote:

Indeed, one of the drawbacks of monsters no longer using PC rules means that there is no accountability with regards to monsters' stats.

You can find a ton of quotes from Mark that monsters only used the same rules as PCs in name only in design. They were designed the way they were in spite of the rules, not thanks to them.

[Tholomyes]

I'll admit, "modular" as a buzzword has some negative connotations for me, based on the 5e playtest, so I'm citing my bias, but I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think the best way to make the best designed game is to go into it with the understanding that it has to be a cohesive whole. A modular game is one in which there is no cohesive whole, because any aspect of the system might be subject to removal. Once a cohesive whole is established, then I think work can be done to create alternate rules and tweaks to the system.

While the GMG would be a logical place to do this, I'm not sure it's the right one, either. Even with a Playtest, and the gap between CRB release and GMG release, I don't think that's enough time to achieve the system mastery required to implement alternate rules systems. Maybe there could be charts to scale down proficiency to half-level, with DC adjustments, monster-adjustments, CR-equivalency adjustments, ect, but that's about as far as I could see the GMG going, and even that might be unfeasible (For example, how do CR equivalences change when the APL-2 monster goes from an chance to hit of 40% to 45%, and the chance of the party hitting goes from 65% to 60%, and the same with saving throws/spell DCs, combat maneuvers, ect?)

[CrystalSeas]

Tholomyes wrote:

While the GMG would be a logical place to do this, I'm not sure it's the right one, either.

<snip>

(For example, how do CR equivalences change when the APL-2 monster goes from an chance to hit of 40% to 45%, and the chance of the party hitting goes from 65% to 60%, and the same with saving throws/spell DCs, combat maneuvers, ect?)

That sounds like the kind of developer-level mathematics text that is best left to some really arcane publication. I'd really hate to see anything like that (or even the "scale down proficiency to half-level" algorithms and formulae) in a Game Master handbook that is meant to introduce new players to storytelling and game decision making.

Perhaps a separate world-building/homebrew handbook would be an appropriate place.

[Malk_Content]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Tholomyes wrote:

While the GMG would be a logical place to do this, I'm not sure it's the right one, either.

<snip>

(For example, how do CR equivalences change when the APL-2 monster goes from an chance to hit of 40% to 45%, and the chance of the party hitting goes from 65% to 60%, and the same with saving throws/spell DCs, combat maneuvers, ect?)

That sounds like the kind of developer-level mathematics text that is best left to some really arcane publication. I'd really hate to see anything like that (or even the "scale down proficiency to half-level" algorithms and formulae) in a Game Master handbook that is meant to introduce new players to storytelling and game decision making.

Perhaps a separate world-building/homebrew handbook would be an appropriate place.

The further away it gets from Core the less likely it'll be to a) ever be a thing b) actually of use to those who would want it, because they've already stopped playing by then.

Surely all it takes is a half a paragraph stating that these are not core assumptions to get around confusing new GMs.

[Vic Ferrari]

I like modules, variants, being able to dial the game to where I like it. Initially, in the 5th Ed playtest, they mentioned modularity, and dials, unfortunately they have not delivered much in that regard, but it's easily hackable, regardless.

So, I like this idea, I don't care what book they put it in, as long as they put it out there; I already plan on tinkering with +Level.

[QuidEst]

We already know the formula for half-level progression conversion: subtract half-level from any modifiers on stuff with levels. Static DCs will need to be tweaked by hand (although the scaling DC table might be helpful for a guideline). I’m guessing these static DCs are a reason it will be difficult to include half-level as a sidebar item.

I don’t think that’s something the game should be expected to support in the rules, though. It’s handling of having skills progress half as fast is probably the much simpler “it takes 2000 experience to level up this game instead of 1000”.

Scaling things down to half progression is going to be pretty weird. When you’re level 20, you’ll have the accuracy increase of PF1 Wizard’s BAB. Buffs to any d20 roll will be overpowered- Maestro Bard’s boosted Inspire Courage will be treat you as four levels higher for accuracy, with an occasional crit for six levels. How much higher level should a boss be? Abilities were balanced on the assumption that a dedicated Bard could boost two, on rare occasions even three levels of accuracy. When it’s one thing, that’s not bad. If there are a couple things providing buffs or debuffs, though, that level+2 boss doesn’t have a big margin on numbers. Pushing it further means the boss’s other abilities get too powerful for the party.

If you mostly want monsters to stay relevant, I think you’ll get better balance results by adding half the level difference to under-leveled monsters in fights. If it’s about the difference between low and high level characters, Pathfinder scaled a lot of important things as full level (invested skills, full BAB, and CL).

[Vidmaster7]

I feel like if you want to take away the + level thing just minus all the challenges AC's hit rolls etc. by the level of the players right? That should pretty well work universally

[Vic Ferrari]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I feel like if you want to take away the + level thing just minus all the challenges AC's hit rolls etc. by the level of the players right? That should pretty well work universally

I believe it's as simple as removing +Level from everything, so for a 10th-level monster, just subtract 10 from its AC, saves, attacks, skills, etc.

[Malk_Content]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I feel like if you want to take away the + level thing just minus all the challenges AC's hit rolls etc. by the level of the players right? That should pretty well work universally

I believe it's as simple as removing +Level from everything, so for a 10th-level monster, just subtract 10 from its AC, saves, attacks, skills, etc.

There will need to be guidelines. This will, for example, mess up CR expectations quite a lot as enemies will never fall off the bottom end of "cannot have an effect" and thus need to be factored into difficulty and reward.

[Vic Ferrari]

Malk_Content wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I feel like if you want to take away the + level thing just minus all the challenges AC's hit rolls etc. by the level of the players right? That should pretty well work universally

I believe it's as simple as removing +Level from everything, so for a 10th-level monster, just subtract 10 from its AC, saves, attacks, skills, etc.

There will need to be guidelines. This will, for example, mess up CR expectations quite a lot as enemies will never fall off the bottom end of "cannot have an effect" and thus need to be factored into difficulty and reward.

Yes, as monsters are now a threat for a wider range of levels, and some DCs, like that DC table from the Running the Game blog.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

Malk_Content wrote:

So what I would like to be seriously considered, is to have as many variant rules presented alongside their "defaults" in the final product.

...

In short I hope the final rulebook presents a game that not just can be tweaked (as all games can) but shows you exactly how in the most common ways asked for and importantly raises those variants out of online discussions and homebrew to the status of actual rules. For while I don't care one iota that my game is homebrew or not, many do.

I also appreciate options, and optional rules, appearing in print. Yes, I can and will homebrew content and make house rules, when things appear in print then they get supported by automation.

I don't care if the options appear in a 32-page soft cover supplement. Make Hero Lab support them along with the support for a GM exporting a campaign configuration to share with players.