Houserules you plan to use in PF1e that were inspired by PF2e


Homebrew


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not all of us have burned our PF1e books in a sign of devotion to the new edition. Some of us are still on the fence as to whether or not we'll move over to the new edition.

If for whatever reason you do decide not to move over to PF2e, what (if any) houserules will you make to PF1e that were inspired by PF2e?

Goblins as Core
So long as I'm using a homebrew setting I'm actually okay with goblins being in the homebrew setting. They'll take the tinker gnome archetype with gnomes representing the forest gnome archetype.

Leveling Up
Given (in home games) PCs are always at the same level, I like the idea of the XP required to reach the next level always being the same and XP is awarded based on how difficult the encounter was relative to the level of the PCs.
--------------
That's it for now. We'll have to see what the final rules are like.


3 Action Economy.

Maybe bulk? I need to see it.

I've been using my own version of Follow the Expert for a few years--does that count? Likewise, the tweaks to make Wild Empathy useful.

I'm buying 2e solely to steal things for my PF1 game; for me, it's basically Pathfinder Unchained, Volume 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3 action economy seems like too drastic a change to me. Although perhaps if you simply deem all spells as 2 actions it could work. Either way probably still too drastic to incorporate.

I do like follow the expert. I'd definitely include something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

3 action economy seems like too drastic a change to me. Although perhaps if you simply deem all spells as 2 actions it could work. Either way probably still too drastic to incorporate.

I do like follow the expert. I'd definitely include something like that.

I agree with 3 action. It's a fundamental change that almost all of in initiative stuff is based on. The designers had a crack at it in unchained and it was very unsatisfactory. It interacts poorly with any class that operates with actions outside of full, standard and move meaning you will be constantly adjudicating on niche interactions, and pathfinder is a game with a lot of niche interactions.

If I go back to pf I will probably take the new deity mechanics interactions, stuff like lamashtan clerics being notable healers and anathema enrich the setting for me.


I’d consider trying to use a variant of backgrounds since I already use traits and background skills and am not completely satisfied with how they work out . But that is potentially a lot of work unless it is just set on an ad hoc basis during character creation

I already did a degree of success thing in one game where the encounter in the AP had the group swarmed by ghasts in a tight space. crazy rolling on initiative left the group in basically a no win situation so I toned down paralysis . In hindsight individual initiative for each ghast might have made it less of a problem...


I rewrote the Persona system for my 2e game and made some improvements to it in the process.
Then went to my PF1 party who is also playing the same campaign, and suggested a change.
...a level check modified by charisma with a +2/4/6 competence bonus depending on fixed gain points is totally first edition, right?

Shadow Lodge

I can confirm changing PF1 to the 3 action economy is a lot of work. So much work I'm considering switching to 5e's action economy if I don't run PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In defense of the three-action economy in PF1, there's a lot of folks on these boards who had a crack at it and seemed to be pleased with the results. I'm going to run a playtest soon of my own before implementing it in a new campaign.

The best thing about the 3 action economy, IMO, is that it actually limits what PCs can do in a round--swift actions in PF1 and bonus actions in 5e both are most guilty for bogging down the game. Having to spend an action for a 5' step or a knowledge check is a good thing in just keeping everything going.

I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.


Hmm the 3 action economy might be nice. But thinking about it, isnt PF1e action economy 2 actions + 1 reaction? (AoO is a special non-action thing.)

The backgrounds in addition to traits could make for even better backstory creations.

Skill feats as a seperate pool is also good. I would probably have them every 3 levels staggered with general feats.

Also weapon properties and default Dex to attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Hmm the 3 action economy might be nice. But thinking about it, isnt PF1e action economy 2 actions + 1 reaction? (AoO is a special non-action thing.)

PF1e action economy is Standard, Move, Swift. Full round is Standard+Move but not your swift (I think). Oh and you can 5 foot step if you didn't use a move action to move.


Well the swift is also your immidiate action (aka the pf2e reaction).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.

I think Skerek means converting all the existing 1st edition classes to the 3-act system means you either have to do a lot of prep-work (pouring over 1,000+ combinations) or else adjudicate whether every "free" or "swift" or "immediate" action counts as 1 Act, a Reaction, or is indeed a "free" action.

That's a lot of work, because you are essentially trying to rebalance those classes inside of a new system when all of them were designed with a different system in mind.

If that makes sense?

Shadow Lodge

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.

Basically what Rainzax has mentioned, there are a lot of actions that need to be sorted through, just going through the the listed actions in the CRB and the unchained action economy ended up filling an A4 cheat sheet for my players, and this didn't even cover all situations. I mean, what do we do with vital strike? is that just going to be a two action attack?

Regardless of that it did create some odd situations and balance issues.
-BAB seems to be ignored when attacking, you can attack 3 times in a round with no investment from level 1. While fine in PF2 where everyone effectively has full BAB it doesn't work out as well in PF1. One of the advantages full BAB classes had was earlier access to and more iterative attacks which is completely removed here. I actually house ruled in a limit on how often you can take the attack action based on your BAB.
-Everyone can now move faster, you can take 3 move actions to move, people were already running around the battle field very quickly without this ruling.
-You can take 3 5ft steps, you can move before or after taking a 5ft step, this does allow for the withdraw action (step 5ft, move twice) but also allows for moving 5ft, moving further away, then ranged attack.
-Everyone effectively got pounce, you probably weren't going to hit with your attack at -10 (or attacks at -12). TWF became a lot more viable because of this, which honestly isn't a bad, but fighting with a big two hander is still probably better.

With enough work, it's definitely workable, but that's just it, it'll require a lot of work to make it balanced.


Skerek wrote:
With enough work, it's definitely workable, but that's just it, it'll require a lot of work to make it balanced.

That said, if the group is willing to put in the work - a lot of work - it works great.

Which is to say that the only drawback is the difficulty of initial and maintained implementation.


Currently playing Starfinder (which does have a few of the concepts of PF2 in it already).

Probably the biggest one for me is the multiple levels of success/failure in skill checks. That is huge for allowing players to do cool things outside of what they have optimized for. They may have to do it as a success with drawbacks when they can't quite hit the target DC, but they can still do it. It can still progress the story.

And it is fairly system agnostic. It won't take much work to incorporate into Starfinder or Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every race gets a free floating attribute boost.


I like having property runes separate from the enchantment track, I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes, so that you're +5 sword can be flaming one day, shocking the next, and back to flaming, or holy and disruptive on the third day! If you have all those runes on hand that is...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
I like having property runes separate from the enchantment track, I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes, so that you're +5 sword can be flaming one day, shocking the next, and back to flaming, or holy and disruptive on the third day! If you have all those runes on hand that is...

Also (I ran out of time to make an edit addendum) I'll be importing universal spell DCs, essentially all your spells will use the DC of your currently highest spell level, so when you get 3rd level spells, even your cantrips will use [10+3+mod] as it's DC. I just really like how "Hey, I'm a high level wizard, but my 1st level spells are still really easy to ignore even though I can chuck a 7th level ball of doom at your face" is no longer a thing, because it was super FeelsBadMan.jpg

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
I'll be importing universal spell DCs, essentially all your spells will use the DC of your currently highest spell level, so when you get 3rd level spells, even your cantrips will use [10+3+mod] as it's DC. I just really like how "Hey, I'm a high level wizard, but my 1st level spells are still really easy to ignore even though I can chuck a 7th level ball of doom at your face" is no longer a thing, because it was super FeelsBadMan.jpg

Consider removing bonus spells from the casting stat as well, you're giving casters a huge boost with that. It's effectively a free, better version of the heighten spell feat. Depending on the spell (blindness/deafness is a good example) you just made it viable for the rest of the caster's career.


nick1wasd wrote:
I like having property runes separate from the enchantment track, I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes...

Alternate Campaign Rule

You can swap out property runes during a short rest. Or perhaps an Occultist class can do so as a "manipulate" + "concentrate" combat action. There are property runes that grant Class Feats to those wielding the item they enchant. And property runes that grant a spell effect or the ability to cast a spell to those wielding the item they enchant.


Arcanists actually did/do have a way to change enhantments properties of items as a standard action, but limited duration.

So expanding it and giving casters the ability to change/trade/move enhancements permanently would be nice. Using a 10-min, maybe 1 hour for martials, ritual sounds like a great addition (the time can obviously change as needed to be less or impossible depending on setting/group).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not sure why people are saying so many abilities in pf1e required special adjudication in the unchained 3-action economy.

Move, standard, and swift, by default, always take 1 action. Spells and spell like abilities always take 2 actions unless their carding time was swift or immediate, then they're 1 action or a reaction as appropriate. Full-round actions take 3 actions. Anything that used an attack of opportunity was a reaction, and free actions stay free. What else is there to adjudicate?

I remember house ruling that my players could get a bonus action each round that had to be something that was a Swift action in the old economy, but honestly that probably was unnecessary.

---

Needless to say, the unchained action economy is high on my list of things I would backport to a 1e game. I would probably use a lower point buy and use the +2 ability boost from your class, along with the floating +2 for each race.

I would probably use a form of the unchained bonus progression and tweak it to let them do ability boosts every 5 levels or so, instead of the boring little +1 they get every 4 levels in 1e.

I really like how easy it is for classes to dip; it's similar to VMC but less penalizing, so I would consider playing around with that.

I like some of the ideas y'all have mentioned around spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Goblins as Core

So long as I'm using a homebrew setting I'm actually okay with goblins being in the homebrew setting. They'll take the tinker gnome archetype with gnomes representing the forest gnome archetype.

I don't see any problem with goblins being baked into a setting unlike how Golarion has gone to great lengths to make them pyro's that like to eat other PC races...

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
bulk?

Bulk is something that is making me lean to NOT play PF2: I wouldn't want to see it ported to PF1.

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
Follow the Expert

This wouldn't be a bad addition IMO.

nick1wasd wrote:
I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes

I like it! ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone gets their level in ranks in Perception for free, no need to invest skill ranks in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
caps wrote:

I am not sure why people are saying so many abilities in pf1e required special adjudication in the unchained 3-action economy.

Move, standard, and swift, by default, always take 1 action.

It's because Pathfinder's classes are largely built around the assumption that you get to use your swift action without losing attacks. Fighters are basically fine, sure, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to play a Magus in a 3-action system.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Everyone gets their level in ranks in Perception for free, no need to invest skill ranks in it.

Yes if there is something that everyone takes by default then it shouldn’t be an option but baked into the main game

There are other examples of this littered throughout


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've already converted the +10/-10 and four degrees of success rules to 1e for spells and certain class features (like assassin's death attack).

I don't do it for attack rolls because it would break the math too much - although because I use a house-ruled action economy that doesn't allow full attacks, I do give characters a level of Vital Strike for every 5 points over AC they hit by (capped by their BaB).

Another thing I've imported is 2e monster design; I've started throwing out most of a monster's stat block and giving monsters one or two memorable abilities. Like for Aydie, the ahmuuth psychopomp in Tyrant's Grasp, I kept her silence, spectral hand and chill touch SLAs but basically ignored the rest, gave her a couple tricks with her gravestones (she can spend an AoO to either give herself cover on one side like a tower shield, or to have the gravestones intercept an attack like a 2e shield block), and gave her the ability to greater teleport as a free action when she throws her dagger, arriving adjacent to whomever she threw it at.

Coming up with those changes took me about five minutes, and the result was a fight that was a lot more interesting and memorable than the vanilla "she gets maybe one use of chill touch before the PCs surround her and she just stabs with her 1d4+1 dagger while they slowly whittle down her HP" would have been.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew / Houserules you plan to use in PF1e that were inspired by PF2e All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew