[GMing Question] What PF 1 Rules are you going to try to import nto PF2?


Conversions

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"What PF1 rules do you plan to import into PF2?"

In my case, Iron Gods requires the entire technology rules, so I will try to adapt these to PF2.

Otherwise, I will be forced to cancel remain in PF1 until that campaign ends.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If possible, I will test Universal AOOs ala PF1 and replace the AOO ability with something else that buffs it (Like no penalty or more usages per round).

Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.

Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D

It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing.

That was going to be my response. I'm not interested in any of the PF1 rules. I don't play it currently because, although the Paizo folks seem like real class acts and they put high quality production values into their games, the rules in PF1 are not something I enjoy playing with. PF2 looks a heck of a lot more my speed and I'm very, very excited about it. I've even begun setting my "Breath of the Wild"-inspired game over on RPOL in anticipation of the rules coming out.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle.

I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.

I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.

WatersLethe wrote:

Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle.

I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.

The proficiencies and traits from Iron Gods, are actually a bigger concern for me.

Once that's dealt with the items would be relatively easy … if time consuming.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing.

I admit that my situation is kind of a "special case."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that haunts won’t make it over until GMG. So if they come in game then those rules - depends on where I get to in my current games


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In the playtest, haunts were a category of hazard, same as traps. Unless they changed that, they're probably available out of the gate.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I prefer PF1's hero points to the playtest's. I like PF2's bit about using all your points to save yourself from death, that part I'm keeping for sure.

I may use the Strain/Injury (homebrew) rules, but that'll be after I see how healing works.

Of course, I probably won't even be running a PF2 game until we finish Tyrant's Grasp, so....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.

I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.

WatersLethe wrote:

Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle.

I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.

The proficiencies and traits from Iron Gods, are actually a bigger concern for me.

Once that's dealt with the items would be relatively easy … if time consuming.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nothing.
I admit that my situation is kind of a "special case."

AoOs might be gone, but if you want to limit enemy movement, grappling and tripping is easier than ever and arguably more effective than AoOs anyway. An AoO can be avoided just by using an action to step, or an enemy could choose to risk the hit because it is better than remaining in melee.

We have a fighter in one game that grapples and trips all the time, despite having AoO. If he trips them, they lose an action and provoke when they stand. If he grapples them, they lose at least one action while they try to break free, and may have to waste a second action if they want to avoid AoO. Plus, both trip and grapple make the enemy flat-footed so you can pile on the damage.

Barbarians can also get AoO now in class, and they were the class that most needed it IMO.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Captain Morgan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.
I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.
AoOs might be gone, but if you want to limit enemy movement, grappling and tripping is easier than ever and arguably more effective than AoOs anyway. An AoO can be avoided just by using an action to step, or an enemy could choose to risk the hit because it is better than remaining in melee.

Don't you need a "readied action" to trip or grab someone as they attempt to move by you, or drink a protion/fire an arrow/etc.?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Free movement and melee casting/shooting/drinking in combat is fun at first, but has lead to some facepalm situations in the playtest.
Hopefully, that rule does not survive in the final version. :D
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.
I misunderstood, I didn't catch that they had no intention of fixing it. :( I had hoped that there was going to be some means for the opponent to limit a character's actions. Else, what a character can do can be done to them, and the players will - understandably - complain.
AoOs might be gone, but if you want to limit enemy movement, grappling and tripping is easier than ever and arguably more effective than AoOs anyway. An AoO can be avoided just by using an action to step, or an enemy could choose to risk the hit because it is better than remaining in melee.
Don't you need a "readied action" to trip or grab someone as they attempt to move by you, or drink a protion/fire an arrow/etc.?

To do it when they attempt to move, sure. But my point is you don't need to wait for them to move. Grapple them and they have to roll to break out before they can move, which wastes one or more of their actions-- they may not get it on the first attempt. An AoO only costs them an action at worst to avoid. It also provides 20% failure chance of any manipulate action, such as drinking a potion or casting a spell. It doesn't impact ranged attacks though.

By comparison, the AoOs of PF1 were easily dodged with the 5 foot step or withdraw action, and your grapple or trip options provoked unless you had the right feats. So I'd say it is actually easier to inflict meaningful battlefield control in PF2. It is just a thing you have to actively do rather than a thing that passively happens for everyone.

Plus, a world where AoOs aren't the norm means enemies are more likely to provoke them against the rare PC that has them, which is quite nice for the fighter.


We need to figure out what to do with classes for games that we're converting. We've got some vigilantes, an oracle, an investigator, and maybe a magus that'll need various amounts of mechanical support. There also might be a few alchemist extracts that'll need item equivalents.

But the actual rules underpinning? There's nothing I feel the need to tinker with yet. Persistent damage was probably closest in the playtest, but even that very easily might be better in the final version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As for AOOs, I also would like to interrupt things like drinking potions or casting spells when surrounded. YEah you can grab them ahead of time to prevent all this but it would still be cool.

The fact that 5-step costs an action now makes the old AOO system more powerful! Mages and Archers aren't just backing off for free anymore to avoid the AOO. SOme may say it's even more restrictive than before, but to me it means positioning is even more fundamental!

Plus by grabbing you can't do stuff like having enemies just ignore you as they run past early in the battle. It makes it so some chars can actually tank a bit without contrived mechanics like retributive strike.
The "Stand Still" feat would be quite fearsome!


Vigilante - > depends on archetype, rogue as base is probably a good idea, multiclass it

oracle - > some divine bloodline sorcerer, multiclass into something that fits his role in combat

investigator -> rogue / alchemist or the other way around

maguc - > wizard / fighter - hopefully there are supporting feats

that would be how I quickfix that party

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

As for AOOs, I also would like to interrupt things like drinking potions or casting spells when surrounded. YEah you can grab them ahead of time to prevent all this but it would still be cool.

The fact that 5-step costs an action now makes the old AOO system more powerful! Mages and Archers aren't just backing off for free anymore to avoid the AOO. SOme may say it's even more restrictive than before, but to me it means positioning is even more fundamental!

Plus by grabbing you can't do stuff like having enemies just ignore you as they run past early in the battle. It makes it so some chars can actually tank a bit without contrived mechanics like retributive strike.
The "Stand Still" feat would be quite fearsome!

Captain Morgan may be right though. Effective battlefield control may be more about changing our tactics then the system not working.

Of course, what I said about "what the player characters can do can also be done to them" is still true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For my group at least, the non-universal AoOs have been darn near universally loved. Combat feels way more mobile and fluid, and in my PF1 experiences AoOs get to actually happen sometimes because they AREN'T a universal factor everyone knows everyone has and thus almost always avoids. It makes movie by someone or casting in melee risky because they might have it but it's rare enough that you often take that chance, and joy to the Fighter when you do. XD

But yeah, we love having it as a surprise mechanic rather than a universal one.

And yeah, I'm probably on the nothing side too save for the occasional Homebrew I may need in converting a game (like making a Psionic Bloodline for Sorc to approximate a Wilder).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would certainly give a long try (like, a whole AP chapter at least) to the rules as written, before I start house-ruling, except for things that the rules don't cover yet, like the aforementioned technology rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think universal AOOs were seen as a barrier to new players because they limited what they could do and often resulted in character dying at early levels when they didn’t realise

I am sure this was mentioned by designers at some point


Considering how you can now mix and match steps and strides, Universal AoO's would largely just make combat overcautious or immobile. I like the element of Risk it involves to move away at full speed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I much prefer AoO being optional.

As others say, it makes combat much more fluid and lets them actually get used a lot more by the creatures that do possess them. This includes the PCs if the GM is playing fair.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I recall that in PF1 animal companions didn't need to be micromanaged. If I'm wrong, then that's because in the games I played DMs ruled that companions always behaved as one would expect a creature of that type to behave, unless they were given an order that they could comprehend. Like, y'know, a wolf is a pack animal. It follows the lead of those in charge. If people are sneaking around then Wolf Buddy is going stealth mode too. If folks are running away then Wolf Buddy isn't sticking around. And she never needs to be told to flank with her companions and trip opponents. She's a wolf, she'll just do that instinctively. When battle starts, what you will NEVER see happen is her just standing their awaiting orders. She'll either run for cover or prepare to bite someone's face.

In the playtest minions needed to be ordered around or otherwise they just defended themselves? Yeah, I'm going to amend that so that minions simply behave as they would ordinarily. Basically NPCs under the GMs control. If players want to take direct control of them then sure, spend an action to command them, then take control of that NPC for two of their actions. But otherwise they'll would (hopefully) be competent enough that this will never be necessary.

Maybe Wolf Buddy needs to be told to go and protect an ally who's bleeding out. But she should NEVER be told to disengage and run away from a full grown dragon. If this sort of thing isn't addressed in the final version then I'll will hammer it out as a house rule.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
I think universal AOOs were seen as a barrier to new players because they limited what they could do and often resulted in character dying at early levels when they didn’t realize.

As I mentioned above, the change in tactics will mostly be a speedbump for long time veterans. … but, I am finding that - like many of the rules changes - once one gets their head around the differences, they are generally improvements over the PF1.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aiden2018 wrote:

I recall that in PF1 animal companions didn't need to be micromanaged. If I'm wrong, then that's because in the games I played DMs ruled that companions always behaved as one would expect a creature of that type to behave, unless they were given an order that they could comprehend. Like, y'know, a wolf is a pack animal. It follows the lead of those in charge. If people are sneaking around then Wolf Buddy is going stealth mode too. If folks are running away then Wolf Buddy isn't sticking around. And she never needs to be told to flank with her companions and trip opponents. She's a wolf, she'll just do that instinctively. When battle starts, what you will NEVER see happen her just standing their awaiting orders. She'll either run for cover or prepare to bite someone's face.

In the playtest minions needed to be ordered around or otherwise they just defended themselves? Yeah, I'm going to amend that so that minions simply behave as they would ordinarily. Basically NPCs under the GMs control. If players want to take direct control of them then sure, spend an action to command them, then take control of that NPC for two of their actions. But otherwise they'll would (hopefully) be competent enough that this will never be necessary.

Maybe Wolf Buddy needs to be told to go and protect an ally who's bleeding out. But she should NEVER be told to disengage and run away from a full grown dragon. If this sort of thing isn't addressed in the final version then I'll will hammer it out as a house rule.

You'll want to make sure to weaken animal companions accordingly then, otherwise that's just unfair to the rest of the table as the companion character now basically has 6 actions per turn going on instead of basically 4 (I say basically because of things like needing to spend actions to move both into position and such since they are separate bodies, though that is also an upside) as they did previously and you're right back to the problems PF1 had with companions, summons, etc.

(Almost like there was a particular reason they implemented Minion rules. ;P)


NPC classes built with legal formulae, for all PC-able ancestries. Would be much more easier after the monster rules are published so I can polish the math though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
You'll want to make sure to weaken animal companions accordingly then, otherwise that's just unfair to the rest of the table as the companion character now basically has 6 actions per turn going on instead of basically 4 (I say basically because of things like needing to spend actions to move both into position and such since they are separate bodies, though that is also an upside) as they did previously and you're right back to the problems PF1 had with companions, summons, etc.

I don't mind nerfing companions stats. Or just banning them altogether. Anything is better than treating them like damn pokemon.


I think I'm going to try to homebrew a trait system that differs from the PF1 one in that traits have an upside and a downside built in. Just to represent those aspects of one's upbringing that are more specific than background.

Like backgrounds don't seem to do the "grew up in the witchmarket" or "hidden princess" stuff well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In 1st edition, you could "counterspell" with a dagger.

That is, ready an action to make a ranged attack if a chosen enemy begins casting a spell, which if it damages them, forces them to roll a concentration check or lose the spell.

There was no character investment in this option: you didn't need a special feat or anything else to perform it.

Is there an analogue in 2nd edition?

If not, what might a houserule look like?


rainzax wrote:

In 1st edition, you could "counterspell" with a dagger.

That is, ready an action to make a ranged attack if a chosen enemy begins casting a spell, which if it damages them, forces them to roll a concentration check or lose the spell.

There was no character investment in this option: you didn't need a special feat or anything else to perform it.

Is there an analogue in 2nd edition?

If not, what might a houserule look like?

I like that idea a lot. It gives casters one more threat to be wary of and makes scouts more viable. I hope that they did include a provision like that in the final core book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:

I recall that in PF1 animal companions didn't need to be micromanaged. If I'm wrong, then that's because in the games I played DMs ruled that companions always behaved as one would expect a creature of that type to behave, unless they were given an order that they could comprehend. Like, y'know, a wolf is a pack animal. It follows the lead of those in charge. If people are sneaking around then Wolf Buddy is going stealth mode too. If folks are running away then Wolf Buddy isn't sticking around. And she never needs to be told to flank with her companions and trip opponents. She's a wolf, she'll just do that instinctively. When battle starts, what you will NEVER see happen her just standing their awaiting orders. She'll either run for cover or prepare to bite someone's face.

In the playtest minions needed to be ordered around or otherwise they just defended themselves? Yeah, I'm going to amend that so that minions simply behave as they would ordinarily. Basically NPCs under the GMs control. If players want to take direct control of them then sure, spend an action to command them, then take control of that NPC for two of their actions. But otherwise they'll would (hopefully) be competent enough that this will never be necessary.

Maybe Wolf Buddy needs to be told to go and protect an ally who's bleeding out. But she should NEVER be told to disengage and run away from a full grown dragon. If this sort of thing isn't addressed in the final version then I'll will hammer it out as a house rule.

You'll want to make sure to weaken animal companions accordingly then, otherwise that's just unfair to the rest of the table as the companion character now basically has 6 actions per turn going on instead of basically 4 (I say basically because of things like needing to spend actions to move both into position and such since they are separate bodies, though that is also an upside) as they did previously and you're right back to the problems PF1 had with companions, summons, etc.

(Almost...

An inaccuracy, the companion character does not have 6 actions. The player has 3 actions... if they want to control their animal's actions directly, they can spend actions of theirs to control one or more actions of their companion. With feats that might even net them an extra action. I feel your statement that the gm would then need to nerf the animal isn't accurate. The only thing the gm might need to potentially adjust would be the might choose to 'consider' adjusting encounters because the Party as a whole has more actions potentially available to it. But keeping in mind those potential extra actions the party has are animal intelligence, I don't know that will normally be a significant balance threat.

Stop assuming that the player of an animal companion OWNS the actions of that companion. Flat out, they don't. If they want to directly control, sure, and they have to pay some of their actions. If not, those actions belong to the animal companion, not the player. The GM decides how these get adjudicated. I'm not controlling the GM. The GM can give them to any player they choose to, however they want, with what ever limitations, expectations along with that responsibility.

So back to the idea of what potential rules I'd be interested in potentially seeing if I can port into P2.

Yes one would be
1. Animal Tricks - [potentially translated to including all forms of Minions]
Notably as a completely options opt-in rule system for those people who can accept that minions are not PCs. Raising complexity a small bit and enabling animals to behave much closer to how animals would be expected to behave in a story, rather than a chess game. I also see mindless-instinct driven undead being another example of type of minion, which would have different sets of tricks they might be able to learn, as well as different default behaviors.

2. Campaign Traits - Although Campaign backgrounds are cool, I want to be able to give someone with a World Book background a free tie-in to the campaign without forcing them to recreate their character with a far more limited set of backgrounds. As I was thinking this through, and I don't know if I heard/saw this suggested before, but I know Trait obviously can't work since the name has a new meaning, but it suddenly occurred to me that it makes perfect sense to offer every character one of a select set of Campaign Boons. The boon would give them a small circumstantial benefit, along with a story tie in to the campaign. If necessary it can be limited to the duration of the campaign, or can be allowed to extend past that. It basically would be utilizing a mechanic that will probably exist and be tied into organizations. Campaign Boons would just be things that aren't necessarily specifically tied to a certain faction/organization. They exist due to your relationship to the campaign. They could involve having a local friend, or knowing people, or an emotional tie-in that offers you certain circumstantial bonus under certain conditions. Bonuses less than a feat, unless perhaps the boon is expendable, then it might actually be capable of reproducing an appropriate feat once, for instance.

3. Firearm rules - Ok, I might not get around to this before they come out with their own, but it does come up in my thoughts.

4. Kobold ancestry - Ok, anyone else have friends from Kingmaker?

5. Weapon specialization - Ok, I'm happy it isn't there any longer to be a feat tax to enable a tree of many math boosters and limiter for other feats. But on the other hand, it used to be that you could make a martial character who was, actually better, at using one type of sword over another. It doesn't have to be a humongous bonus, and it doesn't even have to stack with everything... it might be a conditional or status bonus so it doesn't stack with certain things. It may require practicing with the weapon 30 min a day, and maybe even re-trainable after a week for all those that think such specialization from the start is too rigid. But, come on, let a martial actually be able to specialize a little bit. (I'm inclined to think either +1 Status or Circumstantial/Conditional bonus, which would be less than a skill rank increase)

6. Kingdom/organization building - Ok, might not get this done by the time the Anniversary edition of Kingmaker comes out, but will at least be contemplating Kingdom building and downtime building of buildings/shops/organizations and potential economic and story impacts of it.

Off above topics, the discussion of AoO. At first I didn't like losing them, it but I agree, them not being 'default' really did open up people making the choice to make those formerly risky actions, which then enabled situations where those few monsters will get to surprisingly trigger them. Or it now allows you as a GM at legitimately have an monster move such, so as to trigger one, when you would normally have avoided it unless you are giving the players a freebie. I've had two thoughts about if someone were to suggest opening them up more, what I might consider. One, rumor is GMs might be able to give Feats out as 'treasure' to characters. If you like having more open AoO rules, you could offer a 'weaker' version of AoO to those who don't have it. Such an option might include. Unskilled Attack of Opportunity. [reaction] You may make an attack against the individual who would have triggered an AoO from a fighter. However, it is made at the same MAP as the last attack made during your last round. Additionally, it also consumes the first action of your next round. With that, you aren't hurting the value of the fighters full version, as much as opening up some other potential uses.

Alternately, instead of universal AoO. What if there were a teamwork style feat, that gave allies the ability to preform AoO attacks on enemies, but only if the enemy has become flat-footed? This would improve the benefits of making someone flat-footed above and beyond that conditional numerical bonus/penalty and increasing the desire to move and impart the condition, potentially making someone willing to risk it in return.

In general however, I think I like that AoO aren't simply ubiquitous now, so I wouldn't want them to return just as they were, in first edition.

Honestly, in order of importance, I'd probably look at/consider my Campaign Boons idea, and Kingdom building concepts first. Others as they came up, from character ideas I or any players I run for want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aiden2018 wrote:
rainzax wrote:

In 1st edition, you could "counterspell" with a dagger.

That is, ready an action to make a ranged attack if a chosen enemy begins casting a spell, which if it damages them, forces them to roll a concentration check or lose the spell.

There was no character investment in this option: you didn't need a special feat or anything else to perform it.

Is there an analogue in 2nd edition?

If not, what might a houserule look like?

I like that idea a lot. It gives casters one more threat to be wary of and makes scouts more viable. I hope that they did include a provision like that in the final core book.

You can do basucally that in the Playtest, and they probably kept it. You can spend two actions to Ready a single action, when you do so you set a trigger and when that trigger is met you can spend your Reaction to take the readied action. So pretty similar to PF1 except it doesn't move ypu in the init order and you could still, say, get off an attack in the same turn with that third action unlike in PF1 (however the readied action, if an attack, has MAP accordingly if you made any attacks on the turn you readied the action on, likely to prevent cheesing out two no-MAP attacks in a round).

And as for disrupting a caster, if they take damage while casting and the damage is equal to or greater than their level they lose the spell flat-out, if it's lower they don't. No roll. There is a level 4 feat that ups the loss threshold to double their level. Without the feat it's very likely a spell will be disrupted if you take a hit, with the feat it's still pretty likely I think, unless it's a pretty weak blow. Also this gives the Shield spell strategic value because the Shield Block reaction from it can very much make the difference between having your spell disrupted or not (though we don't know how Shield looks in the CRB).

TL;DR you can indeed ready actions to attack and disrupt casting, and it's normally almost certain to work if you hit but casters can get some countermeasures which I think leads to an interesting dynamic in the spell disruption system.


Loreguard wrote:
Alternately, instead of universal AoO. What if there were a teamwork style feat, that gave allies the ability to preform AoO attacks on enemies, but only if the enemy has become flat-footed? This would improve the benefits of making someone flat-footed above and beyond that conditional numerical bonus/penalty and increasing the desire to move and impart the condition, potentially making someone willing to risk it in return.

I doubt I'll use it but this is an interesting idea. Especially since it would have the consequences of activating if an enemy, for example, ran directly between two players (since it would put him in flanking and thus be flat-footed as he left).


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
Alternately, instead of universal AoO. What if there were a teamwork style feat, that gave allies the ability to preform AoO attacks on enemies, but only if the enemy has become flat-footed? This would improve the benefits of making someone flat-footed above and beyond that conditional numerical bonus/penalty and increasing the desire to move and impart the condition, potentially making someone willing to risk it in return.
I doubt I'll use it but this is an interesting idea. Especially since it would have the consequences of activating if an enemy, for example, ran directly between two players (since it would put him in flanking and thus be flat-footed as he left).

Exactly, although it increases the complexity of the battlefield situations, making placement very important. It doesn't create a default stifling of movement.

If you are worried about a spell caster casting a spell, you need to get someone on the other side of them, or use one of the several other options that can create a flat-footed situation.

Because of the added complexity, it is really not surprising it wouldn't be a default option they chose for the new game. [easily, by default, rules] However, as an opt-in rule for a table, it could make a lot of sense for a group that really loves getting into the tactical decisions that make movement and placement be very important. Who knows maybe something like that will make it into the GMG as an official variant for Tactical AoO.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think I'm going to try to homebrew a trait system that differs from the PF1 one in that traits have an upside and a downside built in. Just to represent those aspects of one's upbringing that are more specific than background.

Like backgrounds don't seem to do the "grew up in the witchmarket" or "hidden princess" stuff well.

I am pretty sure that you can do that with custom backgrounds, using the witch market per example, select to be trained in occultism, witchmarket lore, streetwise skill feat(or another that you see fit) and one boosts to int or dex and one free.


Kyrone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think I'm going to try to homebrew a trait system that differs from the PF1 one in that traits have an upside and a downside built in. Just to represent those aspects of one's upbringing that are more specific than background.

Like backgrounds don't seem to do the "grew up in the witchmarket" or "hidden princess" stuff well.

I am pretty sure that you can do that with custom backgrounds, using the witch market per example, select to be trained in occultism, witchmarket lore, streetwise skill feat(or another that you see fit) and one boosts to int or dex and one free.

Problem I have is- if my backstory is "I was apprenticed as a blacksmith... in the Witchmarket" I need to choose between the "blacksmith" and the "witchmarket child" backgrounds, unless I am creating custom background for every single combination of two things.

Where this becomes particularly troubling is with campaign backgrounds- with those almost surely more relevant to the campaign than regular backgrounds, no one is going to have mechanical weight behind any of those weird details unless they were specifically anticipated by the writer.


Gesalt backgrounds seems fairly easy. You can choose either training, lore, and skill feat independent of each other, and you forced to take both specific boosts and can not choose to take the same boost twice. (So if the two backgrounds both give dex and int, you take dex and int. If one background is dex/int and dex/strength, you can choose between any combination of 2 from dex, int and strength)


Edge93 wrote:
Aiden2018 wrote:
rainzax wrote:

In 1st edition, you could "counterspell" with a dagger.

That is, ready an action to make a ranged attack if a chosen enemy begins casting a spell, which if it damages them, forces them to roll a concentration check or lose the spell.

There was no character investment in this option: you didn't need a special feat or anything else to perform it.

Is there an analogue in 2nd edition?

If not, what might a houserule look like?

I like that idea a lot. It gives casters one more threat to be wary of and makes scouts more viable. I hope that they did include a provision like that in the final core book.

You can do basucally that in the Playtest, and they probably kept it. You can spend two actions to Ready a single action, when you do so you set a trigger and when that trigger is met you can spend your Reaction to take the readied action. So pretty similar to PF1 except it doesn't move ypu in the init order and you could still, say, get off an attack in the same turn with that third action unlike in PF1 (however the readied action, if an attack, has MAP accordingly if you made any attacks on the turn you readied the action on, likely to prevent cheesing out two no-MAP attacks in a round).

And as for disrupting a caster, if they take damage while casting and the damage is equal to or greater than their level they lose the spell flat-out, if it's lower they don't. No roll. There is a level 4 feat that ups the loss threshold to double their level. Without the feat it's very likely a spell will be disrupted if you take a hit, with the feat it's still pretty likely I think, unless it's a pretty weak blow. Also this gives the Shield spell strategic value because the Shield Block reaction from it can very much make the difference between having your spell disrupted or not (though we don't know how Shield looks in the CRB).

TL;DR you can indeed ready actions to attack and disrupt casting, and it's normally almost certain to work if you hit but casters can get some countermeasures which I think leads to an interesting dynamic in the spell disruption system.

So in short, dagger as "counterspell" still exists in almost the same exact form, and is in fact easier to do!?

And that, I will not have to make a houserule of it.


Lord Fyre wrote:
"What PF1 rules do you plan to import into PF2?"

None. They're completely different games. It'd be like asking what D&D 5th edition or AD&D 2nd edition rules I'll be importing.

I'll try to give the game a chance on it's merits. If it's awful I'll just play D&D 5th edition or PF1e. Otherwise if it's at least as good as either of those I'll start houseruling things as problems arise.


Loreguard wrote:
5. Weapon specialization - Ok, I'm happy it isn't there any longer to be a feat tax to enable a tree of many math boosters and limiter for other feats. But on the other hand, it used to be that you could make a martial character who was, actually better, at using one type of sword over another. It doesn't have to be a humongous bonus, and it doesn't even have to stack with everything... it might be a conditional or status bonus so it doesn't stack with certain things. It may require practicing with the weapon 30 min a day, and maybe even re-trainable after a week for all those that think such specialization from the start is too rigid. But, come on, let a martial actually be able to specialize a little bit. (I'm inclined to think either +1 Status or Circumstantial/Conditional bonus, which would be less than a skill rank increase)

You realize that the skill rank increase itself is the weapon specialisation of pf2? I mean (in playtest), only Fighter (who had multiple weapon specialisations) has legendary, the other martials reach master, non martials reach expert if they are lucky

In the same manner is the prophiciency ranking skill specialisation or magic specialisation for the respective skills and abilities


I'll be making a minor change, not to move Take 10 over, but to replace what my players found used it for: avoiding incompetence.

If characters are out of combat/danger, for any skill check other than disabling a device, they can choose to do it carefully and treat nat 1 and nat 20 as normal numbers.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
"What PF1 rules do you plan to import into PF2?"
None. They're completely different games. It'd be like asking what D&D 5th edition or AD&D 2nd edition rules I'll be importing.

You know people tried that, right?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.

There's some good ones! We got Archetypes from it. And it's one of my favorite implementations of that system since they include roleplaying caveats instead of just grabbing a set of beneficial mechanics.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.

There's some good ones! We got Archetypes from it. And it's one of my favorite implementations of that system since they include roleplaying caveats instead of just grabbing a set of beneficial mechanics.

Two words: Mouse Carriage


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.

Don't know about AD&D 2e, but my Pathfinder games still use XP progression and resurrection survival rolls from AD&D 1e. With sadness, we did give up on THACO though!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Polymathis wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know people tried that, right?

People try to do lots of things. Doesn't make them good ideas.

Out of interest, do you have any handy links to people trying to houserule AD&D 2e into the playtest? I'm genuinely interested what idea they could possibly want to grab from AD&D 2e that they think would work well in PF2e.

Don't know about AD&D 2e, but my Pathfinder games still use XP progression and resurrection survival rolls from AD&D 1e. With sadness, we did give up on THACO though!

Resurrection survival rolls? Ooo, what those do?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I tried adapting minion rules to 3.5 and boy was that a mistake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Resurrection survival rolls? Ooo, what those do?

Derived from your CON score as a percentile chance that the raise/resurrection would work.

If it worked you still lost a permanent point of CON afterward.
If the roll failed the death is permanent. There is no recourse beyond direct Divine Intervention at that point.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Conversions / [GMing Question] What PF 1 Rules are you going to try to import nto PF2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.