“If this were the final version of the game, what would I house rule and why?”


General Discussion

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I rather like a lot of things about the basic system of the game itself, but I hate everything to do with character creation. So I would likely just grab the things about the system I like and carry them back to PF1.


Nox Aeterna wrote:
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...

Half? A bold choice. I'd stick with the name... And maybe some of the art. The rules? Even the parts that seem ok in a vacuum don't seem to fit together in play and don't find a happy middleground: you either have way too good [cleric healing] or too bad [as likely to strangle as heal with healing feat or free traps for rangers...].

It's like they took every alternate rule they could think of, tossed it at a wall and are seeing what sticks. That doesn't seem like the right approach with such a short self imposed end date but we'll see.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For now (without play testing mind you, I may get to do some tonight, and next week)

1 Shields no longer require an action to use. This is just silly, and an unnecessary nerf for sword and board fighters.

2 Crafting, and Performance have sub skills. I think it's unrealistic for a shipwright, to be able to make a sword. Or a blacksmith to be able to repair a wagon. Simple repairs I can see, mending clothing is so easy any-one can do it. Performance is I feel the same. A Harpist might know the theory, but without the training wouldn't make a good Sax player.

4 Move half of the class specific feats to the general feet section, and give a selection of different ones. Anything that was a combat feet, or metamagic feat should be available to everyone who can use it. I'd start looking at the many PF1 Archetypes, and build new lists from there.

5 Each skill increase improves two Proficiencies. Seriously, you only get ten to work with for skills, armor, weapons, and saving throws.

6 Speaking of Proficiencies, I'd Double the bonus after Trained. Either that or I'd go with Yolande d'Bar's idea.

Honestly, I'd be more likely to continue using PF1 if the game was finalized as it is right now. I would import the ideas that I like, but that'd be it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1) Gut the majority of the class feats for the martial classes and turn them into a general-access feat pool. For the Barbarian, Ranger, and Rogue, the gaps would then be filled by the cool talents and abilities that were added in later on in PF1e's development cycle. For the Fighter, since the majority of the class would be gone, it would have to pull much more heavily from archetypes that exist in addition to good old AWT/AAT.

Seriously, there's an archetype for Fighters that lets you jump off a charging horse and stab someone with a spear, then rebound and land back in the saddle. WHY IS THAT NOT AVAILABLE AS A FEAT IN PF2E? THAT'S SUCH A COOL THING. And there's tons of other abilities like that stuck in the archetypes, which could be used to make the Fighter into a badass fighting man who can specialize into a specific tree of weapons or get a smattering of slightly less awesome abilities instead of even more literally "combat feats: the class".

2) Readjust the scaling for skills and proficiency. Untrained is 1/2 level, Trained is level, and each step above that adds another +3. I might also just reinstate skill ranks and use those instead of the level bonuses from proficiency.

3) Make Resonance into the Occultist's focus points. Resonance isn't spent, but is instead allotted to magic items. Consumables (scrolls, wands, and potions) don't use resonance, since they're already limited through the change in economy. Permanent items meanwhile can have their bonuses improved in some way by additional investment. Maybe make a general feat to spend some amount of time to re-allot resonance without resting.

4) Alchemist gets spell points for their abilities. Martial classes get Stamina, even if it's just the "make yourself more accurate" use. Maybe even add on an ability to spend some amount of stamina to stabilize and return to consciousness, like a Hero point, since martials are going to be on the front line a lot more.

5) Racial Heritages are just gone and replaced with normal racial bonuses, I guess some racial feats from PF1e can be implement as racial heritage feats instead. Signature Skills are chosen on creation. Maybe use the SF-style point buy instead of the current "reference three different sources to get your skill allocation" system.

6) Old-style multiclassing with new style multiclassing. It's not like they're incompatible with each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another one I'm thinking of: reducing multiple attack penalty (and effects that require it) by proficiency. Basically, Expert -4/-8, Master -3/-6, Legendary -2/-4. That would make Legendary proficiency feel pretty legendary, and give high level Fighters a benefit.


Scythia wrote:
Here's another one I'm thinking of: reducing multiple attack penalty (and effects that require it) by proficiency. Basically, Expert -4/-8, Master -3/-6, Legendary -2/-4. That would make Legendary proficiency feel pretty legendary, and give high level Fighters a benefit.

Are you going to give Monsters the same advantage? There are some pretty substantial balance factors build in around those numbers. High level fighters already deal competent damage compared to the other classes and monsters of their level. By instituting that change you'd be giving high level fighters a massive advantage that would have them outpace the other martial and monsters of their level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Here's another one I'm thinking of: reducing multiple attack penalty (and effects that require it) by proficiency. Basically, Expert -4/-8, Master -3/-6, Legendary -2/-4. That would make Legendary proficiency feel pretty legendary, and give high level Fighters a benefit.
Are you going to give Monsters the same advantage? There are some pretty substantial balance factors build in around those numbers. High level fighters already deal competent damage compared to the other classes and monsters of their level. By instituting that change you'd be giving high level fighters a massive advantage that would have them outpace the other martial and monsters of their level.

I could add it to monsters, as soon as I find where their proficiency level with their attacks are listed... oh wait, they specifically aren't built with PC rules. If I did the full monster rewrite it would take for me to keep PF2 as-is, I'd work it in then, but monsters would be changed a great deal more as well.

I'm okay with the Fighter being the best at weapon damage, that would be a feature not a bug.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Too much at this tsage :(

I would have to ditch exploration and resonance rules, since they are not really working. Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level". Replace magic weapon bonuses with level-related bonuses, rewrite lots of monster statistics, rewrite many spell statistics, change sorcerer bloodline/class feat rules, add many skill-related and a number of class feats to fill the holes (i expect to see it in the full-version anyway, looks like all that was just removed from the playtest). Ditch trinkets a as kind of magical items, make a lot of new magical items to fill the gaps properly. Make ways to enhance spell DCs (feats and items). Fixed a number of feats like battle medic etc; scratched some feats I would rather allowed anyone "trained" to use (forager and survey wildlife etc. - I am looking at you). Rerwrite companion and snare-making rules completely, they do not look really playable now.

Overall, I believe devs would make most of that work themselves by the spring, saving me all that :)


Laik wrote:
Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level".

What is cool about the +Level deal, is how easy it is to play with (I generally like +0, but +1/4, and +1/2 level is good, too), depending on the vibe you are going for, you could even go for +2 per level, so your 20th level fighter has an AC of 50, naked.


Laik wrote:
Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level". Replace magic weapon bonuses with level-related bonuses,

So, SWSE, basically. I hated it then too.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Laik wrote:
Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level".
What is cool about the +Level deal, is how easy it is to play with (I generally like +0, but +1/4, and +1/2 level is good, too), depending on the vibe you are going for, you could even go for +2 per level, so your 20th level fighter has an AC of 50, naked.

Ye, the system is highly modular, with many independent subsystems, which is great for modders who love to houserule a lot. Easy to revise, easy to bloat-up later. A game system made for designers, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Laik wrote:
Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level". Replace magic weapon bonuses with level-related bonuses,
So, SWSE, basically. I hated it then too.

True, the +Heroic level thing makes the game totally break down at higher levels, I mean, seriously silly. I omit the +Heroic level, bring the AC bonuses from armour down, and replace BAB with a class bonus to attacks, like the standard Ref, Fort, Will bonuses you get from the classes. Totally falls into place, have had a lot of fun with the game after that (a few other tweaks here or there, but nothing major), it still stands up as a well designed d20 system, aside from the +Heroic level crapola.


Laik wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Laik wrote:
Replace the "1 per level" with "+1/2 per level".
What is cool about the +Level deal, is how easy it is to play with (I generally like +0, but +1/4, and +1/2 level is good, too), depending on the vibe you are going for, you could even go for +2 per level, so your 20th level fighter has an AC of 50, naked.
Ye, the system is highly modular, with many independent subsystems, which is great for modders who love to houserule a lot. Easy to revise, easy to bloat-up later. A game system made for designers, lol.

Ha, totally, I was just saying PF2 seems like an advanced/niche, heavy RPG, not really for casuals or beginners.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / “If this were the final version of the game, what would I house rule and why?” All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion