|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the question I want to take the time to answer. I will do my best to format this post in a way that is easy to read and fulfills its purpose. Some of these issues and solutions stem from my own frustrations, others come from frustrations of my players. You (players, GMs, and designers) may not agree with everything I have on this list, but as far as I can tell they address theming or design issues I have with the game in its current iteration. Without further ado:
Honestly, I love the resonance system as a concept, but there are major flaws in its implementation that I wish to see ironed out before the final game. Most of it comes down to the need to track multiple resource pools unnecessarily.
a. Consumables and charge based magical items no longer cost resonance
- Alchemical Consumables Still Cost Resonance (see below with the alchemist)
Problem: The usage of consumable magic items exacts a double toll on its users. The user must spend resonance to activate it, and spend irretrievable gold to acquire it.
Wands no longer have charges (and as such should maybe cost more)
Problem: The resonance system offers a way for the system to move away from having to track the charge levels of individual items by and large. For the purpose of healing, a wand of heal (2) heals 3 times as much per resonance point as a wand of heal (1). Players should need no further incentive to invest in the stronger item at that point. I believe the charges are wholly superfluous.
Staves can be invested in multiple times per day, (and now takes 10 minutes?)
- Casting from a staff still costs both resonance and charges (they are the sole exception to the rule about charges)
- There is now room for a staff user's feat -- Staff Savant: You can charge a staff with 3 actions.
Problem: When comparing and contrasting wands and staves, there are three major differences:
- Staves must first be invested to be used, as such they cost more.
- Staves are flexible, they contain multiple spells.
- Wands are unlimited in their uses per day (so long as you have resonance and sufficient charges or better yet charges are removed from them)
So, the main draw of staves is they're flexible, but the main cost is the increased resonance point cost to use them and the day-long downtime between recharging them. But is there any benefit to this time restriction? I'd argue that if a user has resonance and an hour (or 10 minutes, or whatever) to spare, they should be able to invest again to use their staff further.
Now, you may be wondering why I want to remove charges from wands but not staves. Well, the staff charge system serves a major purpose in my view: First, it increases the opportunity cost of staves, and second it leaves in a system for managing multiple different spells of varying levels within the same item while keeping the same resonance point cost. Is it perfect? No. But I like the implementation myself.
Resonance is now flat 3+level instead of cha+level
- Alchemists still add int to their resonance pool
Problem: It appears resonance is this universally useful tool, yet aside from the fact that pathfinder 1 had use magic device as a charisma skill, there's little reason for it to be tied to charisma (other than perhaps that charisma should be more useful). I could go either way on this one, except for that alchemists should add their intelligence to their pool, not simply substitute the other bonus.
Trinkets are no longer consumable and their cost increases appropriately (becoming the “permanent level 1 magic item” which no one can seem to find)
Problem: Trinkets... are a neat idea I guess. The problem I find is the combination of them being consumable, being expensive for a level one player but being useless beyond that point makes me wonder if they would be better employed as permanent items, like weaker versions of higher level items. Consider, the potency crystal. In RAW, for one resonance, you can activate it as a free action for 2gp to get a single strike in where that weapon is enhanced to a +1 weapon. If, however, the player spent 50% more money for a scroll of magic weapon and handed it to a wizard, they'd get a potential 10-30 more strikes out of that gold. The difference is staggering. Trinkets could remain the level 1 boon they are but simply not be consumed on use. They're still hugely expensive per resonance, but in this way they'd be attractive.
The vast majority of items which have an activate action with a limit of “once per day” no longer have that restriction.
Problem: Again, we see the resonance system existing alongside another system of tracking which we shouldn't need. Again, I love resonance, so let me use it! Is it really game breaking to be able to use the Cape of the Mountebank (for example) multiple times a day? As a GM, "Hey, it's your level 11 magical artifact!" -- I'd remove this restriction.
Oof. Now that we have the big one out of the way, let's hit this fairly small one. First, a lot of powers seem pretty weak generally. I'd like to see their effectiveness normalized at least a little (buffed generally, I'd hope). That's a bigger problem than I can house rule though, and something that I consider more of a content issue than a foundational issue. Instead I'll focus on a bit more of a glaring issue.
- You gain power points equal to key ability modifier plus level/2
- Additional powers do not increase pool
Problem: With powers generally being as weak as they are, and spell points being as scarce as they are, one starts to question why the system is there in the first place. At the very least, players should be gaining spell points as they level.
Side note: Further down, I have some editorial suggestions about spell points and powers.
The purpose of this section is to address the concerns of myself and my players who feel their options are too limited in their build craft, particularly at lower levels. This is especially potent from players of Pathfinder 1E, who feel that their options are greatly reduced from what they had before even with similar builds (like a mostly-core level 16 paladin). These adjustments broaden those horizons some while hopefully not causing uncalled for player power creep.
You gain an additional class feat at level 1 and every 3 levels after (4, 7 etc)
Problem: In PF1, classes gained access to many flavorful class features. In PF2, many of these appear to be moved out into feats (which I think is very fun!)
The problem seems to be that in PF2, all characters gain a feat every other level but get fewer class features. This hurts the fighter most of all, as they went from some features and a feat almost every level to about the same amount of features (plus flexibility) and a feat every other level.
With multiclasses and prestige classes being feats now, the problem is exacerbated, where cool builds don't open up until really late, most notably the theurge (caster with 2 spell lists).
1 more feat per 3 levels will help here, without massively buffing PC power (and thus forcing a rebalance of the entire system).
The numbers could be tweaked, certainly. Perhaps 1 feat at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 instead. The point is I think more class feats are called for.
You now begin play with 2 ancestry feats at level 1
Problem: A lot of ink has been spilled here so I'll be brief. Half-Orc/Elf feats feel weird because options don't open up until much later. Feels odd that you'd only unlock feats of your own blood and ancestry until you're several levels into your adventuring career.
All classes gain access to the following feats as class feats
- General Focus -- You gain a general feat
- Skill Focus -- You gain a skill feat
- Skill Training -- You gain a skill increase
Problem: 9 times out of 10, these skill feats and general feats are not as good compared to a class feat, but sometimes taking one opens up build options which would be otherwise unavailable until much later due to the slower rollout of these general feats. Or maybe you just wanna take hefty hauler at level 1.
Get ready. Most of this section stems from perhaps a sense of unmet expectations. The idea of "trained skill unlocks" was very exciting to me, and so I was pretty disappointed to see that so few of them got impactful, exciting unlocks. I'll lay out a list of feats which I believe should become trained skill unlocks, but won't go into detail on most of them. Those that didn't get an addition were ones which I felt didn't need it.
Several skill feats have become trained skill unlocks. (Recognize Spell, battle medic, etc) -- Backgrounds that would have granted this feat now grant a different feat
- Acrobatics -- Cat Fall
- Arcana, Nature, Occultism, Religion -- Recognize Spell
- Athletics -- Quick Jump
- Crafting -- Quick Repair
- Deception -- None Sidenote: Ya'll feint is really good. Read that business.
- Diplomacy -- Hobnobber
- Intimidation -- Intimidating Glare
- Lore -- ??? Sidenote: I'm not really sure what purpose lore serves in the game at this stage. I don't know how to approach it as a GM, and I don't know why I would want it as a player (unless the adventure told my GM to tell me to take it.)
- Medicine -- Battle Medic Sidenote: Nonmagical healing is so exceedingly rare, despite it being needed more than ever that gating this ability off behind a feat feels really strange.
- Performance -- Fascinating Performance
- Society -- Sign Language
- Stealth -- Experienced Smuggler
- Survival -- None
- Thievery -- None
All classes gain 2 floating signature skill selections
Problem: Many of my players have complained to me about not being able to select skills as signature that they would like to be able to use. They question why their class should entirely dictate what skills they can master or become legendary in.
The difference in power for any caster between PF1 and PF2 is stark. Again, the underlying systems I think are great, but the initial content pass on the playtest spells combined with the reduced meaning of what "full spell progression" is too much. I have some minor suggestions for at least addressing some easy problems.
Spells per day progression goes from 0 to 2 to 4 instead of 0 to 2 to 3 (+1 for sorcerer)
Problem: At the very least, it's odd that every other level one gains access to one fewer spell. The reduction in the amount of spells which can be prepared per level down to 3 is again in stark contrast from the 6 or 7 one could prepare from PF1e. Now, I'll agree that casters were far better than martials in 1e as the next guy, but again I think this is too far.
Sorcerers can heighten lower level spells spontaneously without knowing the higher level variant
Problem: The fact that sorcerers have to learn the higher level variant just feels like a slap in the face to a class that historically has been the weaker cousin to its prepared counterpart. I'd remove this restriction.
More Heightening
It's a cool concept, but it'd be a shame to see all these core, staple spells not gain heightening capabilities and fall by the wayside as splatbooks come in full of heightening capabilities. Not all of them need heightening, mind, but there are a number of easy ones, like magic weapon! (example: Heighten +2, increase the potency by another +1)
I'll only be able to comment on classes I've been exposed to so far. This means: No druids, no barbs, no rangers. That said, I'll do my best with what I have.
Sidenote: Clerics. Clerics are really good. But I don't think they're *too* good, I just think their relative strength is indicative of a larger problem. I think rather than bumping the cleric down, the healing capability of any party should be increased, whether that's by reducing access to non-magical healing options, giving druids and other casters better access to healing abilities (better goodberries with the above spell point change, perhaps?), and/or increasing the availability of healing via magic items. This could also perhaps be solved with this "healing surge" system I've heard about from dnd5e, or the stamina system from starfinder. I'm down for anything!
Alchemist
- Items with the infused trait do not cost resonance to use for anyone.
- Items made from the quick alchemy feat remain usable until the next time the alchemist does their daily preparation (or at the same time as advanced alchemy items becoming inert)
Problem: Consider, the alchemist as a support. A supportive alchemist is hardly any more than a drain on their party's resources. The cleric need not use its ally's resonance when healing, nor need the wizard do the same when applying haste. Why then should the alchemist, who spent their own resonance creating these alchemical items, force their allies to spend yet more resonance to use them? It's a strange situation which makes the class at the very least seem unwelcome in the group.
Further, the efficient alchemy feature allows an alchemist at preparation to make items at double the efficiency per resonance than quick alchemy. Therefore, holding your resonance to use it for quick alchemy is for those emergency situations where you "have just the thing for this" and you'll whip it up. The extremely limited duration by which that item is usable makes for annoying action economy management, especially when trying to make something like an antidote.
Wizard
- The wand from makeshift wand feat has 3 charges but costs no resonance to use
(This one mostly just keeps up with the above changes to wands)
Monk
- Monastic Weaponry is a level 1 free class feature
Problem: Most monk weapons are at best "okay", gating them behind a feat makes the option completely unattractive.
Sorcerer
- Bloodline powers are now optional (they become feats which can be selected, with appropriate prerequisites)
Problem: Much ink has been spilled here as well, so I will simply offer my +1 to this minor change.
Last, but not least in my house rules is actions. Where I have one minor change:
The interact action allows the character to interact once with each hand (sheathe 2 weapons, draw a weapon and open a door, etc)
Problem: As one of my players walked through the dungeon with 2 hands free, he looked at me in confusion when I said he had to spend 2 actions to draw both of his weapons. This seemed strange to both of us. You have 2 hands, and 2 weapons, just pull both of them out at once!
That's all for now! Later I'll do a post on what I perceive as severe core content problems and some editorial changes which should make the rule book easier to navigate.
Outside the playtest, for some home-games, we are currently going with:
+Level is omitted.
Touch Armour Class is omitted.
Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).
Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.
Potency Runes are omitted.
Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws (and DC), and Spell Rolls (and DC).
Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice
so you don't gain either attack bonus or skills or base saves through levels? I mean I don't like the +1 for everything because it creates problems in the math for me, but not having anything but proficiency to scale the numbers with level is worse than 5e.
|
|
Outside the playtest, for some home-games, we are currently going with:
+Level is omitted.
Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws (and DC), and Spell Rolls (and DC).
Level
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice0
After having played a certain adventure with a certain creature 2 levels higher than the party (no spoils), I've come to appreciate the level growth quite a bit. You know that old problem with the pathfinder action economy making it so single boss enemies die just by virtue of not having enough actions to keep up with a party of 4 or 5?
Well... their higher level attack bonus combined with the "10 over DC crits" rule makes such encounters VERY dangerous, and I think in a good way. Personally, I like the level growth in the proficiency system very much.
Assurance comes with training.
Trained characters can succeed at DC 5 checks without rolling unless suffering from some physical or mental malady
Same for Expert at DC 10 check
Master for DC 15
Legendary for DC 20
The return of Take 10 and Take 20
For characters Trained or better in a skill in non stressful situations.
Take 10 takes no extra time. Take 20 takes 10 minutes though.
Monks get weapons Level 1.
Characters get two ancestry feats Level 1.
One ancestry feat Level 2.
The rest as usual
Master skill training skill feat
Req: Must be Level 11. Choose a skill you're expert in. You improve to Master.
Legendary skill training skill feat
Req: Must be level 17. Choose a skill you're master in. You improve to Legendary.
I like plus Level. It allows for higher level characters to really rip through lower level monsters that they used to have trouble with.
Also I've never been a caster and I'm sad 2e spellcasting didn't become simpler. (I do feel it needed a nerf though which is accomplished.)
Might be naive but I don't see why prepared casters can't undercast their prepared spells at will (using up a prepared lower level spell in the process) while spontaneous casters can't heighten their spells at will (using up a higher level spell slot).
Also I'd rename Spell Points to Power Points and get rid of ability scores (ability modifiers can go up by 0.5s as usual).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, if this were the final version of the game, I'd just keep playing 1e and cancel my subs (except the AP).
There's no reason to play a game that's less fun with less options and requires more work than the one I have right now.
-Skeld
Idk, I house ruled the hell out of 1e because I had so many problems with it but liked the content breadth. 2e has a much better foundation on which to build content but has some rough edges which can be smoothed out with relatively simple house rules, and the content will come with time. If it released as is, I'd be disappointed but I'd still play it with these house rules.
I get the sense I'm a bit in the minority on that though.
|
|
Then you don't like P2. The system underlying the +lvl scaling is Bound. Literally nothing about design concerns you've listed is easier with the +lvl scaling tacked into P2.
One of the designers said something about off-the-cuff monster creation is a lot easier with the +lvl growth, so I'll reserve final judgment until those are released. So far, again, I still like it from both sides of the table.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) all casters become arcanist style. Can heighten on the fly. Sorcerers can use their limited special ability to heighten to raise a spell one level higher than effective than they can cast.
2) all players get 3 Ancestry Feats at 1st and when they would get an Ancestry feat they get an extra class feat
3) remove magic weapon bonus dice and make it tied to level 4/8/12/16/20
4) add heal to occult list
5) simple hand waive the lawful good restriction on paladins. Any pc playing a non LG paladin I would refer them code wise to the code of conduct found in the 1e Champions series of splat books
6) make up new Mc Feats and homebrew prestige chains
But I'm pretty happy over all with it. I think the core math is better than most. I like dangerous combat and the economy reminds me of what was right with 4e without the duldrum of the power system
Ps. Make a hero lab style character sheet... The old 1e hero lab sheet is simple but it's so easy to read.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably wouldn't bother at this point. There's too many things I'd need to change, and the core mechanic is one of those things. I'm starting to think the game isn't intended for how my group plays. There are a handful of things I plan on back porting to PF1, so it's not a total wash.
This should be great for PFS players though, and I'm happy that they will be in a different system from PF1. I'd be quite happy if both systems continued their development.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd pick and choose a few things out of 2e and then port them into 1st. And then play 1st. There are APs for years out there.
I might even look at 2e APs because the Golarion story is strong enough for me. Then I'd convert them to 1st for my purposes.
As-is, 2e is not my game. It has some good ideas. But that's not enough to entice me to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Use PF1 XP system
2) Use PF1 Hero Points system
3) Use PF1 DCs for stuff like climbing, fog, doors, locks, just so there would actually be an established reality for the world and I don't have to stare at that table on p.337 and think about it everytime somebody tries to do something
4) Keep the math but cap the +1/level by proficiency (i.e. expert proficiency can't get you higher than +10, master +15 etc.) so that high-level wizards don't have the BAB of fighters and the AC of naked monks. The proficiencies are a really good idea, but the +1/level, not so much.
5) Continue to use useful rules like Sunder, Coup-de-grace, +1 for height advantage etc. etc.
6) Do something to ensure that super-nerfed conditions like paralyzed, drained, are still scary instead of a minor inconvenience
7) Resonance, dying rules, I have no idea but something needs to change
8) Move some class feats into general feats. Allow feats so anyone can pick up expert, master and legendary expertise in a weapon, skill, armor, whatever. (In the playtest, I was super annoyed that the only way my druid could even be trained in the use of the trident--the holy weapon of her god!--was to multi class into fighter.)
9) Fold some existing skill feats into rewards for achieving higher levels of proficiency in a skill.
10) In general, proficiencies of all sorts need to be more important and exciting than your character's level. Proficiencies are one of the best thing this game has going, but they hardly matter at all right now. Achieving Master in a weapon should automatically (without having to take a feat) open up all sorts fo fighting possibilities heretofore impossible. Likewise, Religion. Likewise, Nature. Likewise Mastery of chainmail, for instance. Likewise, Master reflex saves.
Being expert, master, legendary, should be an achievement and all sorts of new possibilities should open up when I get there.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also would bring back "take 10" pretty fast (and get rid of most of the multiple-roll skill checks, too), but the biggest house rule I'm going with when I start in on a true homegame and not a playtest is:
The GM very rarely rolls any dice.
Not only do I hate the idea of Secret checks, but with the rare exception (mostly for things like Trapspotter/Trapfinding) I don't want to roll against the players, at all. You want to fireball a monster? Roll a spell attack against its save+10. You are getting attacked by a monster? Roll your defense (basically AC-10). You're hurt? Well, roll the damage against you, too.
The players get to control very little in the game and the idea that I should be busily rolling dice behind the screen and chuckling to myself is a bad old notion that should just die.
I know there are other systems out there that do this (though they have their own problems), but PF2 is pretty easy to accomplish it in with only a few minor tweaks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this were the final version of the game, I wouldn't houserule anything.
I'd just not play it.
I'd stick to playing PF1e, use the Unchained action economy, ABP, and skill unlocks as well as the 3rd party Spheres of Might/Power from Drop Dead Studios. There's nothing I like from 2e that isn't done better with this framework, especially with the unbounded modifiers across same level characters - I actually like that characters of the same level can be radically different in their likelihood to pass or fail certain checks, especially skill checks.
Double proficiency bonuses.
Untrained in a skill becomes +1/2 level.
Add General Feats: Weapon Focus (improve proficiency one degree with a chosen weapon group), Armor Focus (improve proficiency one degree with a chosen armor weight category), Shield Focus (improve proficiency one degree with shields).
Monsters would be completely redone. (if they're going to be built differently than PCs, then I would reintroduce types among them (physical, magical, skillful, so on) rather than have them all be good at everything.
Return to static skill DCs.
Remove Vancian casting entirely in favour of a spell point casting system.
Wands no longer have charges, instead they become the equivalent of reusable scrolls (and have static results of average rolls --ie wand of level one Heal will always return 6 HP as if a 4 was rolled and caster had wis 14) that consume resonance per casting.
Others as well, this is just off the top of my head.
|
|
2. Players roll for everything:
I was actually talking to a friend about this today :) It seems like an interesting approach. Perhaps we could have a situation where "The Players roll everything" or "The Defender never rolls". I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of those approaches. iirc Numeria is a game which employs "The Players Roll Everything"
Advantage/Disadvantage:
I like this mechanic from 5e, but there it had the disadvantage (heh) of affecting the die roll too much. With 2d10, advantage means rolling 3d10 and dropping the lowest die, and disadvantage means dropping the highest die.
I'm not feeling this or the 2d10 thing. I think it over-normalizes the die, but maybe i'm just too attached to that volatility.
Inherent item bonus:
Someone likes automatic bonus progression ;) I agree to an extent here, but iirc runes can be removed and put on different items so I think the problem magic items had in pf1 aren't there in pf2. I could go either way on this.
1. Shields:
Shield Hardness is doubled. A simple change that makes shields more usable.2. Armour:
Simplified Armour system: individual armors don't exist, just types.
I feel like the shields thing is indicative of how mandatory healing is, and thus how absolutely necessary mitigation is. I think at the very least it should be clearer about how much shields block, but doubling the amount might be a bridge too far. Then again, when was the last time your shield got hit and NOT dented?
The armor change sounds like a pretty slick idea. The variation between armors is pretty minor, but it allows some wiggle room from "I don't any dex" to "I have like 2 dex" and the spaces in between. I could get behind this though.
Shared hero points
I really like this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double proficiency bonuses.
Untrained in a skill becomes +1/2 level.
Add General Feats: Weapon Focus (improve proficiency one degree with a chosen weapon group), Armor Focus (improve proficiency one degree with a chosen armor weight category), Shield Focus (improve proficiency one degree with shields).
Monsters would be completely redone. (if they're going to be built differently than PCs, then I would reintroduce types among them (physical, magical, skillful, so on) rather than have them all be good at everything.
Return to static skill DCs.
Remove Vancian casting entirely in favour of a spell point casting system.
Wands no longer have charges, instead they become the equivalent of reusable scrolls (and have static results of average rolls --ie wand of level one Heal will always return 6 HP as if a 4 was rolled and caster had wis 14) that consume resonance per casting.
Others as well, this is just off the top of my head.
Let me know how double proficiency bonus works out. Unless you change the underlying system, it's just going to make the gap between a Trained and Legendary PC huge. One will pretty much auto-succeed at what they do while the other struggles with stuff. It also requires reworking monster math, because they're currently designed to fit the -2/+0/+1/+2/+3 system.
With an increase in proficiency bonus, those Focus feats immediately become feat taxes that everyone who's not legendary must take. This means your martials become straddled with feat taxes to be effective, while spellcasters enjoy their automatic legendary proficiency in spell rolls, spell attacks and DCs.
The monster specialty thing sounds a lot like the types of monsters in 4e (Skirmisher, Brute, Soldier etc.). It's a good idea, I think.
The gap between a trained and legendary PC should be huge. That's the difference between an apprentice electrician and Nikola Tesla.
I was pretty unimpressed by most of the general feats, so giving a few options that are desirable doesn't seem like much of a downside to me.
I don't know if I'm willing to put enough effort in to revamp all the monsters, so that's just speculative for now.
1. You can select class feats from any class, as long as there is no class feature prerequisite.
2. Remove resonance, make all activatable items 1/day, bring back a universal Use Magic Device that lets you squeeze more uses out per day, remove any sort of restriction on consumables besides actions and gold.
3. Give everyone two race feats at first level, and remove level restrictions.
4. Backgrounds become: Choose a stat increase, a skill feat, and two signature skills.
5. Give paladins a smite ability baseline and make retributive strike a feat. Also give a bonus reaction along with divine health. Make lay on hands usable with full hands baseline.
6. Make Hunt Target instead allow you to make a strike as a reaction at any time during a round for the next three rounds with no MAP.
7. Make sneak attack apply to any weapon type.
8. Give out more skill increases.
9. Remove armor check penalty and movement speed reduction for all armors.
10. Make fighter and paladin armor proficiency boosts apply to all armors, not just heavy.
11. Allow general feats to purchase class feats.
12. Make several skill feats baseline to the skill (pick pocket, recognize spell, etc.)
13. Remove multiple rolls for disable device checks.
I'll try to remember the rest later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was the final version? I'd either stick with pathfinder classic or try out a new game. I'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of things in the current playtest I'd like to see elsewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd see if I could cannibalize some of the rules that are playing out reasonably well (action economy, bulk instead of weight, and scaling cantrips, for example) and integrate them in a balanced way into PF1E.
But the base system? I wouldn't. The 2 rulesets thing (different rules for "the party and whoever is on their side" and "everything else in the known universe" for character creation, initiative ties, dying, etc.) is just a hard stop for me. It's not the game world I want to run or play in.
I'm not even sure what, exactly, the intended benefit of this change is. It was one of the best things about going from AD&D2.5E to D&D3.0E was that we not only had the tools, but the tools could be applied to the world as a whole. Once I had that, I never wanted to go back to the opaque and arbitrary model of world creation.
I'll keep running the playtest, and hope for the best. I really want 2E to be the sparkly new and improved version of 1E. I'm not sure it's feeling like that for me, so far. YMMV.
We will houserule dying to something a lot simpler, possibly 5e style.
I'm going to try and get the game changed to the way I think it should work through the play test before I house rule anything.
Potentially signature skills out or giving fighter an extra skill. Probably changing sorc greater and advanced powers to feats and possibly playtesting how a crossblooded sorc works by porting over an equivalent of the expanded domain power.
Otherwise I'm happy with the bulk of the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for big sweeping changes (that'd very likely need some more specific tuning afterwards), i'd probably do these off th top of my head:
- nerf all DCs and monster skills/attacks by 2-3 (so optimized characters don't have a 50/50, and unoptimized characters have a more decent chance at a given task)
- alter signature skills' limitation to legendary-only, and grant a bonus signature skill of the player's choice. and give pretty much every non-caster a few extra skill points to actually make use of skills.
- list perception as a skill again--currently it acts like a skill (several skills, now), calculates like a skill, and scales like a skill. just save people the confusion and call the duck a duck.
- [this is the most controversial/in need of individual balance] combine all class features from levels 1-3 or 4 into level 1 and work up from there, to actually begin play as the class as advertised, not a half-gimped version (and actually lets players interact with the "build your own class" design like class feats and archetypes/multiclassing from the start in a meaningful way). this also grants everyone a general feat at 1 so people can actually flex out of their paizo-decided compartments a little (such as wielding a different weapon.
- look over actions and costs VERY closely and eliminate needless action-taxes, as the rules currently disallow any caster/alchemist from ever, EVER using a two-handed weapon or shield due to sheer action economy nightmare from handedness-changing and spellcasting. this makes things like staff-wielding wizards, "link" bards a la LoZ, and most stripes of gish completely impossible.
- split weapon-specific class feats/abilities (TWF, quickdraw, etc) off into general feats again to cut down on reprinting for every class entry's off-brand flavor, replace with something actually attractive to choose for those classes that specialize in it (bonuses on top, not basic competence).
- upgrade master and legendary skill feats to be actually impressive--be it emulating magic or otherwise approrpaitely world-changing stuff (stealthing so hard you become invisible in darkness, diplomacy so hard you basically charm without repercussions, etc).
- goodbye resonance, you useless, over-corrected mechanic to punish everyone for a problem that only exists in paizo's houserule collection content. swap alchemist to simple "X crafts per day" along the same baseline accordingly, with +2 crafts tacked on whenever they take bomb feats or something, like all the other spell point classes' feats in the same vein.
- swap weapon and armor bonus scaling/dice over to player proficiency, since they already have matching tracks, and allows players to be competent even if their magical +5 sword of awesome is stolen or they are taken prisoner.
- rebalance class feats to appropriately scale with their peers--rangers shouldnt be getting "craft free traps at a penalty" at the same level wizards get "9th-level spells".
- redial some classes to better fit their "design directions". for example: completely overhaul the paladin's retributive strike--include some sort of active ability for the player to incentivise being the enemy's focus (like a group challenge), increase the penalty/debuffs for ignoring them, add additional RS's in a turn as you level (like a scaling combat reflexes) to allow you to actually make use of your other reaction abilities (AoO and shield warden)
- look into converting/rebalancing DSP's "path of war" content or something similar to give martial classes something "on top" of their class abilities to balance against spellcasting's strong power/utility (even 2e's diminished casting).
- rolling back a few of the more extreme nerf-angles that were taken on spellcasting. there were several means of dialing back spellcasting from 1e, and 2e seems to have applied all of them where they only needed perhaps one or two (leaves casters feeling terrible, and comes with "too rare to actually use" syndrome for their few good spells in play).
of course this amount of homebrewing would effectively be me just making a wholly different system, which raises the question as to why i wouldn't just do that to begin with...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if this was the final version of the game, i would have to sit and write again atleast half the book to be worth playing...
So i wouldnt do it.
Anyway: The entire magic system, rebalance and recheck the familiar and AC, check over the items, probably alter the skill system, find a way to remove the expected 50% status the game is trying to build...