Thanks for that . I expected it to be well reasoned !
The comments on Int are interesting. Extra trained skills is useful as they cover more of the total number than they used to.
There is also the language element and having the highest scores in 3 of the 5 monster ID skills and scope for Lore to actually be useful
My wizard comments are spinning off the fact that there is a new thread raging on this now
I am going to look into implementing your alchemist fixes as I have one in my group . Although his main frustrations seem to be not hitting at level 1 more than anything. I am trying to nudge him to put his Dex up to 16
The problem with INT is it's front-loaded benefits.
Trained isn't honestly worth that much on its own past level 7. Once you're expected to have expert at least in opposed checks.
If the APG introduces General/Skill Feats that elevate Trained -> Expert or Expert -> Master with an INT Prerequisite, then it'll have more value, but it's below mediocre on anyone without INT as a primary IMO. There are cheaper ways to get Training in a skill than spending an ability boost.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for that . I expected it to be well reasoned !
Thanks, I try. :)
The comments on Int are interesting. Extra trained skills is useful as they cover more of the total number than they used to.
It's true. Int-based Skills in particular often work out as very good choices for
There is also the language element and having the highest scores in 3 of the 5 monster ID skills and scope for Lore to actually be useful
Yep. Very much a good side of Int.
My wizard comments are spinning off the fact that there is a new thread raging on this now
Yeah, I figured.
I am going to look into implementing your alchemist fixes as I have one in my group . Although his main frustrations seem to be not hitting at level 1 more than anything. I am trying to nudge him to put his Dex up to 16
Nothing is really gonna help in a game with math as tight as PF2 if accuracy is bad. That said, as a bomber, my fixes do up accuracy without requiring Quicksilver Mutagen, so they'll be some help unless he was already using that.
The problem with INT is it's front-loaded benefits.
Trained isn't honestly worth that much on its own past level 7. Once you're expected to have expert at least in opposed checks.
If the APG introduces General/Skill Feats that elevate Trained -> Expert or Expert -> Master with an INT Prerequisite, then it'll have more value, but it's below mediocre on anyone without INT as a primary IMO. There are cheaper ways to get Training in a skill than spending an ability boost.
I disagree. Training gets you to the point where cheap low-level items can put you at 50% at on-level checks for basically your whole career, and ways to get additional Trained Skills aren't as common as all that if you also want to actually have Skill Feats and other options.
I do agree that more ways to get Skills to Expert would be helpful in this regard, but I wouldn't say it's strictly necessary.
I really like the philosophy of enhancing the game and allowing people to play stuff that is a bit harder/weaker w/o taking away from other stuff. Salesmanship is a good anology.
With that in mind if people worry about Int being weak I have two recommendations that I've been very happy with that add options and keep the FEEL of the different stats.
1) Make recall knowledge attractive in more situations, and a great option. I dislike rolls for information that can give you nothing. So I play it like everyone has Dubious knowledge in a way. In combat I play it as:
Critical Success: Like success but either get one more fact, or also know the weakest save.
Success: Know the creatures name, or some identifying information. Know one relevant fact, weakness, a narrative description of an ability, etc. Know the creatures Highest Save (They are "Resilient", "Reactive", "Stubborn").
Failure: Like Success but one of the non-name facts is wrong.
Critical: Failure: Everything is wrong!
This way you only know if you you crit succeeded the secret check (you get more units of info). Spellcasters are encouraged to play with someone who does recall knowledge in combat, its another good third action for skills to use. Players don't need to have meta-knowledge to know how to target spells. They can just spend actions and roll to get help/clues.
2) A skill feat like Intimidating Prowess that lets you add a bonus to Wis-based Recall Knowledge checks.
It all means characters like wizards FEEL like the smart guy who contributes knowledge to the party.
Note: I changed Dubious knowledge to add one fact to each success state that is 50/50 incorrect. My philosophy is generally that incorrect information can be more fun than just nothing. You can prove it wrong, or have zany misunderstandings. Nothing means no progress/etc.
|
|
I feel like there's no need for Recall Knowledge to know Saves. The vast majority of the time, you can tell an enemy's highest Save by looking at them, and that's not metagaming (I mean, assuming a Bear is tough is not a stretch, and something that is intuitively obvious to your character).
And I think that if the GM isn't giving most of the rest of that info on a Success, they're doing it wrong. The book specifically notes that a successful Recall Knowledge on a Troll would give you knowledge of its regeneration, for example.
As for failures...I think upgrading them is a decent House Rule, but not my particular taste, and doesn't make Int better indeed, it debatably makes it worse since it makes people just taking the Knowledge skill then never investing in Int more effective. I don't think this part actually effects things enough to matter either way, but I wouldn't call it a boost to Int.
On the Feat idea, you have my interest. I think that's a sweet idea, though I'd have to think about how to implement it. Would it be one Skill Feat each for Nature and Religion? Or a single Skill Feat under another Skill? Or a General Feat? I'm interested any way you look at it, I'm just not positive on details.
I feel like there's no need for Recall Knowledge to know Saves. The vast majority of the time, you can tell an enemy's highest Save by looking at them, and that's not metagaming (I mean, assuming a Bear is tough is not a stretch, and something that is intuitively obvious to your character).
Often true, especially with players who recognize creature archetypes, but not all large creatures are strongest save Fort, etc. Like the Icewyrm is a Huge Dragon-Serpent made of Ice, highest save is Ref, etc. This takes any requirement on the player for knowing the tropes and mechanics of the underlying game and gives the player information they can work and play with in game.
And I think that if the GM isn't giving most of the rest of that info on a Success, they're doing it wrong. The book specifically notes that a successful Recall Knowledge on a Troll would give you knowledge of its regeneration, for example.As for failures...I think upgrading them is a decent House Rule, but not my particular taste, and doesn't make Int better indeed, it debatably makes it worse since it makes people just taking the Knowledge skill then never investing in Int more effective. I don't think this part actually effects things enough to matter either way, but I wouldn't call it a boost to Int.
Fair.
On the Feat idea, you have my interest. I think that's a sweet idea, though I'd have to think about how to implement it. Would it be one Skill Feat each for Nature and Religion? Or a single Skill Feat under another Skill? Or a General Feat? I'm interested any way you look at it, I'm just not positive on details.
I decided on one Feat for Nature, Religion & Medicine, because you use those three each for Recall Knowledge only individually far less than you use Intimidation. It's a skill feat otherwise. Basically the same wording as Intimidating Prowess.
|
|
Often true, especially with players who recognize creature archetypes, but not all large creatures are strongest save Fort, etc. Like the Icewyrm is a Huge Dragon-Serpent made of Ice, highest save is Ref, etc. This takes any requirement on the player for knowing the tropes and mechanics of the underlying game and gives the player information they can work and play with in game.
Sure, but examples like that are vanishingly rare, and even there giant snakes having high Reflex isn't exactly unexpected. Every snake-related monster I can find has Reflex as at least their second highest Save...so assuming a huge one has Will as their low Save is both logical, and in fact correct, even if you're not positive which is higher between Fortitude and Reflex.
I decided on one Feat for Nature, Religion & Medicine, because you use those three each for Recall Knowledge only individually far less than you use Intimidation. It's a skill feat otherwise. Basically the same wording as Intimidating Prowess.
Fair enough, and like I said I really like this idea, so my version is now listed in the House Rules document.
Is it supposed to be Medicine, Nature, and Religion, or should that be an 'or' there?
|
|
Is it supposed to be Medicine, Nature, and Religion, or should that be an 'or' there?
It's supposed to be 'and'. You need all three.
It's intended to be good specifically for high Int people and their extra Skills at Trained, and the initial prerequisite for Intimidating Prowess involves a Skill at Expert, so three at Trained seemed a good way to balance things out.
I was thinking about just making Nature, Religion and Medicine Int or Wis skills outright in my games. Both because it gives a little incentive to silo int and it sort of rubs me the wrong way thematically that you can't really be an 'academic' expert in anatomy or animal species or religious iconography (etc.).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about just making Nature, Religion and Medicine Int or Wis skills outright in my games. Both because it gives a little incentive to silo int and it sort of rubs me the wrong way thematically that you can't really be an 'academic' expert in anatomy or animal species or religious iconography (etc.).
It's certainly an idea. I'm not sure Int needs the help, honestly, and Lore goes a fair way to allowing you to be an academic expert in any of those things, IMO.
But it's not out of the realm of possibility that seeing Int be less than useful in play might change my mind.
I'm just really struggling to see the value you have in INT.
And I say that as a GM that's extremely on the generous side with the Recall Knowledge action.
Let me propose a scenario:
A Fighter, has all the CON/DEX/STR they want, and they have the choice of ONE mental stat to bump.
They can choose WIS, and they would gain Perception (initiative), Will Saves, better percentages of tiers of success on Medicine, Religion, Nature, and Survival. It opens up the Playstyle of being a Medic or a Tracker and it makes you generally better at combat.
(I realize Wisdom is better than the other two, so let's pay attention to the next comparison closer)
They can choose CHA, and it will open them up to a strong Demoralize action (combat relevant), stronger Feint action, Innate Spell DC (small but something), better percentages of tiers of success on Diplomacy, Deception, Intimidation, and Performance.
That's two directly combat applicable actions they get at least 10% better outcomes on with a +1 bonus per ability boost choice.
They can choose INT, and they will get a Trained Skill, a Bonus language, and better percentages of tiers of success on Crafting, Arcana, Lore, Occultism, and Society.
Arcana, Crafting, Lore, Occultism, and Society have Recall Knowledge as an option for in Combat influence, and that's it.
A bonus language has no effect on Combat. A single additional trained skill in this case also leads to little effect on combat because Athletics is guaranteed and you gain 4 more skills (background included) plus a lore.
So at level 1, when INT is the most valuable, it still less presence than the other two in combat, since the only thing INT brings to the table in combat is Recall Knowledge and a bonus skill (and you get Athletics and 4 others which means you can cover just about every single "combat relevant" skill).
And when you compare out of combat presence INT loses again IMO to the other two simply because CHA provides social presence and WIS has Perception, Nature, and Religion.
I just don't see it.
Until there are General/Skill Feats with an INT prerequisite, it's borderline meaningless to a non-primary Class.
Rogue would have been a really unfair comparison, but considering the Fighter is one of the other primary candidates to have the "flex" option, I figured it made sense as a choice (since these two are the least MAD classes IMO that don't encourage pumping the other two via Class abilities).
What specifically makes you value INT increases so much as they are now? I give out way more information than some GMs on RK, but honestly that kinda knowledge won't have nearly the same effect as making your opponent Flat-footed/Frightened or resisting powerful Will effects.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large part is that almost your entire set of examples is combat-based. IME, and certainly in games I run, while combat is useful and necessary it's probably less than half the game.
And on the non-combat side, while the Skills under Wis and Cha are likely as good and useful as those under Int, Int actually giving additional Skills is a pretty huge advantage, with more Skills equating to more options for things to do.
So, again IME, you're right that people don't pick Int over Wis or Cha necessarily, but historically in my games they pick it over Dex (on characters with Medium Armor or better) or Con (in many other cases). And don't usually regret it.
So...it depends heavily on how combat focused your game is. I don't disagree that more Int-options, especially in combat, would be good for PF2 as a whole, but this is my House Rules thread, and those House Rules are inevitably tied to the style of games I run, and those have a greater non-combat focus than some and thus Int is significantly better than it might be in a more combatively focused game.
I'll just leave it alone and say Skills matter a lot at my tables. I make them roll for just about anything that even remotely makes sense.
I do not think INT even comes close in out of combat, in combat, or as a choice for anyone not trying to be an INT MCD or INT Primary. To each their own.
This Alchemist looks much much better than the actual alchemist. Has anyone seen someone use this homebrew in play?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely off topic of the current discussion in this thread, but I would like your analysis DMW on a house rule I have just implemented in regards to action economy and casters.
First some context. Players playing casters IME seem dissatisfied with their experience. Some feel it’s lack of damage, some feel they are behind on the proficiency curve, and some feel (looking at you cleric) that entire turns are taken up healing martials thereby limiting their own fun.
After some analysis, I believe that proficiency is not an issue. Casters are behind by one proficiency level on levels 5, 6, 13, and 14 but are ahead at level 19 and 20 when compared to non-fighter martials. Strangely, the more martial spellcasters (bard, cleric, Druid) are behind for 12 levels on martial proficiencies (although this isn’t where my focus is for this post). Damage and spell design has some issues but these are minor in my opinion. Where the larger issue seems to be in my mind is action economy. Martials get two or three attacks a round which means they are likely to hit at least once. From a play experience this is satisfying. Conversely, casting a spell takes two actions. If the spell is largely ineffective, the player has fewer options to feel they have meaningfully contributed with their last action. Compounding this, when martials take a feat they usually get further benefits to action economy. Essentially they do three things squeezed into two actions. Spellcasters, on the other hand, add actions to their spell to manipulate their spells (meta magic feats for example). Thus action economy seems incredibly punishing to spellcasters.
Therefore, I implemented the following rules:
1. All 2 action spells now cost 1 action but have the flourish trait meaning another flourish spell cannot be cast this round
2. All 1 action, variable action spells (heal, harm, magic missile, etc) and 3 action spells are not altered which means they do not have the flourish trait.
Edit: 3. This also decouples the V, S, M components of spells to actions. Spells still keep whatever is required to cast them, they just don’t equate to an action anymore (for example a 2 action spell with V and M still requires that but it’s done for 1 action now instead of 2)
In effect, this keeps almost all the same the same limitations on casters in terms of what they are limited to casting in a given round with maybe a slight loosening on the reigns. Ultimately, this gives casters an additional action to use for movement, pulling stuff out of their pack, skill checks, or the occasional third 1 action spell which gives a slight damage increase while they have the available resources.
I have had this in play for one session but it had a very noticeable effect on the fun factor of spellcasters. Healers, in particular, could do a 1 action heal, a flourish spell, and still make a decision for their third action. They seemed to have more choices which led to more fun with only a minor bump in damage.
Two questions arose from that session. First, Quicken Spell which I said either removed the flourish trait or did it’s current effect on a nonflourish spell. Second was magic items which I ruled that 2 action magic items were also 1 action with the flourish trait. This kept casters from double dipping with spells and items but interestingly enough, the magic item rule benefits martials as well as casters for action economy.
In my own experiences as DM (nearly done 2 full 1-20 level campaigns), I have not enjoyed spellcasters because using 2 actions on a spell that fails is a complete waste of a turn. But during this session, I had a dragon and I made liberal use of spells and melee attacks unlike anything before. It seemed liberating and very enjoyable. Also, I have found magic item use on both sides of the screen to be lessened due to the action economy and I feel this house rule improves that area as well.
Thanks for reading and for any insight you may have and I apologize if this is off topic for your thread. If you experience any of the above in you group, I highly encourage you to give this a try, even for a single session and get feedback.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This Alchemist looks much much better than the actual alchemist. Has anyone seen someone use this homebrew in play?
I haven't yet. Maybe next AP I run, we'll have to see.
Completely off topic of the current discussion in this thread, but I would like your analysis DMW on a house rule I have just implemented in regards to action economy and casters.
For me, this rule seems like overkill. Yes, sometimes an enemy will Save, but generally spells have effects even on a successful Save, often pretty impressive ones, and if the enemy is critting their Save and getting away completely unscathed, either that's just a fluke, or odds are martials can't hit with their second attack except on a 20 anyway (since you're likely fighting a much higher level foe). Casters don't generally feel weak or ineffective in my experience.
That said, it sounds like you're having problems with casters that I just haven't, and two level 1 to 20 games is more than I've done in PF2. So maybe this House Rule is entirely right for your game specifically.
The concern I'd have going forward with it is whether the issue you're having is specific to certain kinds of caster or play styles. What classes did your players use and what did a normal turn look like for them?
Because if those are what's leading to suboptimal results and they adjust those Classes and tactics on top of your House Rule, they might wind up overpowered, and going back to the salesmanship analogy, it's really hard to remove a major power up House Rule without people being unhappy and feeling like you're punishing them.
I mean, Bard is widely considered one of the best Classes in the game already, and this powers them up at least as much as any other caster (more, really, Bard action economy is one of their biggest disadvantages, and this largely solves that problem for them). Do this and they probably become the most powerful Class in the game by quite a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your feedback.
In regards to the bard, what do you feel becomes that much more game breaking for them? I’m genuinely curious. This suggested house rule still keeps a tight reign on what a caster can and can’t combine with magic in a given round. Thus it must be the extra action, perhaps as a stride to get out of harms way?
In my own games the issue seems to be the healer role but every player including myself has felt that casters turns just don’t feel as fun as a martials these days regardless of class and it’s not about the math. Casters are generally limited in how they can play around with the action economy when they spend turns casting spells. And god forbid if they add a meta magic action.
When you DM, have you ever found yourself saying that casting a spell seems suboptimal to the melee options?
Again, just trying to understand the concern you see in case I haven’t seen it.
Thanks again
On the animal companions running: how does this Run activity interact with the Horse Gallop action? Seems like it would either render it irrelevant or vastly power it up.I mean, they'd stack, giving a galloping horse, effectively, 140 feet of movement in a turn. This is exactly what the Bestiary entry for a Riding Horse (who also has the Gallop activity) already has available, so I'm not really seeing an issue per se.
Well, they wouldn't stack as written, no. Gallop is a two action activity. Run is a two action activity. The two would be mutually exclusive. You could certainly say they can stack(we are house ruling here anyway) but that's not an obvious conclusion given how activities normally work.
|
|
Thanks for your feedback.
You're quite welcome, I'm always happy to be of assistance.
In regards to the bard, what do you feel becomes that much more game breaking for them? I’m genuinely curious. This suggested house rule still keeps a tight reign on what a caster can and can’t combine with magic in a given round. Thus it must be the extra action, perhaps as a stride to get out of harms way?
Moving, attacking personally (with all their buff and debuff stuff, a Bard attack can be almost on par with an unbuffed Fighter's), using Intimidate to make casting the spell easier on top of casting and attacking...
All sorts of stuff, really.
In my own games the issue seems to be the healer role but every player including myself has felt that casters turns just don’t feel as fun as a martials these days regardless of class and it’s not about the math. Casters are generally limited in how they can play around with the action economy when they spend turns casting spells. And god forbid if they add a meta magic action.
Caster action economy is a bit more restricted, it's true, but I've seldom seen it become a real problem. They can cast and perform another action, which is fine in most cases.
If you really feel like metamagic specifically is a problem, maybe make that not cost an action to do. That's a much lower impact House Rule and thus less potentially disruptive.
I'd also definitely wait for the APG before doing this. It's out in less than three weeks with a bunch of new spells and Class options, and thus likely to entirely change the balance of some things, so large changes right before it comes out strike me as a bad call.
When you DM, have you ever found yourself saying that casting a spell seems suboptimal to the melee options?
Not really, no. They tend to be debuffs rather than instant wins, but debuffs are super good in this system. Cantrips are worse than martial attacks for the most part, but even there Electric Arc is only slightly so.
Again, just trying to understand the concern you see in case I haven’t seen it.
Really, I just have no idea what spells your players are using that they feel like they wasted a turn on anything less than a crit success by the victim. It also sounds like they may be playing healers when they don't want to, which is never a good time, but not strictly a power level issue.
Thanks again
Again, you're quite welcome. It's really no problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they wouldn't stack as written, no. Gallop is a two action activity. Run is a two action activity. The two would be mutually exclusive. You could certainly say they can stack(we are house ruling here anyway) but that's not an obvious conclusion given how activities normally work.
As written they would 100% work. I specifically note in Run that you can use it for two action activities, giving the specific example of Long Jump. I did that very intentionally to allow exactly this sort of thing.
Well, they wouldn't stack as written, no. Gallop is a two action activity. Run is a two action activity. The two would be mutually exclusive. You could certainly say they can stack(we are house ruling here anyway) but that's not an obvious conclusion given how activities normally work.As written they would 100% work. I specifically note in Run that you can use it for two action activities, giving the specific example of Long Jump. I did that very intentionally to allow exactly this sort of thing.
Word. Didn't see that mentioned in your description here, is all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Added a new Feat allowing anyone who wants to do so to inflict nonlethal damage at no penalty. Basically because that seems like a thing that should exist.
Spells are a little more complicated thematically and there's already a Wizard Feat for that, but weapons just shouldn't be that hard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Added rules upgrading attack cantrips other than Electric Arc (which doesn't need the help). These mostly amount to upgrading their die size by one, though Daze and Acid Splash are a tad more complicated than that, and I upgraded melee cantrips even more (two die sizes, to be specific) to make up for the risks involved.
I also added (or, to some degree, re-added from the playtest) an item for adding to spell attack rolls. It's pretty bare bones, as I feel like my item design is one of my weakest areas in PF2 rules, but it's probably okay. I may adjust levels of the higher level versions up slightly and add once per day spells of some sort. I'm thinking about it.
I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the rules stuff I've added in the last few days. I obviously think they're good House Rules, but feedback is always useful (I probably owe the idea for my modest Int-boost to the earlier discussion with Midnightoker in this thread on the subject of boosting Int, for example, as I wouldn't have been thinking about the idea otherwise).
EDIT: Also added a new Class Feat for Witch, since that seemed reasonable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came up with a cool, and relatively minor, improvement to Intelligence, so I have added it. In short, when you get your Int to 20 or 22 you can get a Skill Increase instead of a new Trained Skill.
My favorite rule of yours so far!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've added a new General Feat adding additional Skills at Expert with an Intelligence Prerequisite. I'm actually pretty uncertain on power level here, and have gone back and forth a lot on this one. It's tricky trying to balance different categories of Feat against each other and this one runs right up against Skill Mastery from Rogue and Investigator Dedication.
Feedback would be very appreciated.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came up with a cool, and relatively minor, improvement to Intelligence, so I have added it. In short, when you get your Int to 20 or 22 you can get a Skill Increase instead of a new Trained Skill.My favorite rule of yours so far!
Thanks. :)
I've always felt the barrier to high Int allowing skill increases was making it better to raise after character creation than during it. Doing it this way means that it is definitionally only Int boosts from leveling that can get you this, which rather solves the issue.
I actually also misphrased in that post, as it also works at Int 24 (though that requires an Item, obviously).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On Skill Expertise;
I really like this as a feat. Barring skilled human, a few classes and archetypes, only being able to reliably raise two skills to expert before the master increases start showing up feels bad, and having more ways to expand your skillset while still working within the boundaries of the game could make a fun difference.
Expert "might not be much", but any opportunity to increase proficiency without spending those precious level increases just... again, FEELS good. It's a feel good feat!
I also added (or, to some degree, re-added from the playtest) an item for adding to spell attack rolls. It's pretty bare bones, as I feel like my item design is one of my weakest areas in PF2 rules, but it's probably okay. I may adjust levels of the higher level versions up slightly and add once per day spells of some sort. I'm thinking about it.
Perhaps it can also help improve the spell DC of the caster. Make it more useful in general as spell attack rolls won't affect everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it can also help improve the spell DC of the caster. Make it more useful in general as spell attack rolls won't affect everything.I also added (or, to some degree, re-added from the playtest) an item for adding to spell attack rolls. It's pretty bare bones, as I feel like my item design is one of my weakest areas in PF2 rules, but it's probably okay. I may adjust levels of the higher level versions up slightly and add once per day spells of some sort. I'm thinking about it.
Spell DCs are actually pretty finely balanced.
When you run the numbers on attack spells though, it's kind of clear that they would be on par if they had a bonus equivalent to a level appropriate potency rune at all levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through the HR as they currently are:
Ability Score Change: Intelligence
This is great, more new skills has diminishing returns after a point, and bumping intelligence after character creation doesn't always feel rewarding. This is basically just for alchemists, investigators, witches, and wizards, but it's a good rule.
Save Changes & Innate Spells & Minions Changes Perfectly fine houserules I don't use, but that work. I'd probably use the minion Run change on the fly if it ever came up, which it won't often, so I don't codify it for my players.
Alchemist Changes I like your approach, I have a different one. I used yours for a while though, and they work, I just wanted to try something with much less text to give my players.
Witch Changes: Very cool. Would probably use if a player wanted more cantrips.
Wizard Changes Also cool. Tbh I just let the players choose how they dispatch foes they drop to 0, but I like your approach.
Archetypes: Excellent, would also do this if a player wanted and archetype from level 1.
Feat Changes
I don't need Take Them Alive as mentioned above.
I do something similar to Skill Expertise, but a bit different. It's level 3 (as an alternative to untrained improvisations broad skill use, it encourages more narrow use). It only requires 14 Int (I think 14 is a spot where a non-Int focused character can start that says to me: Hey, my character is clever. (It's equivalent to 16 at 7th.) I only have it bump one skill.
Expansive Knowledge, I do the same.
Spell Changes: Cantrips I do the same. I sat down and ran the numbers, and electric arc still has it's niche, but this means that other cantrips actually fill their niches instead of being comically less good than EA. This and +item bonuses to spell attack rolls basically makes cantrips very tightly balanced against martial characters all day damage. ***** Best change!
Spell Duelist’s Gloves
I have a similar item.
I want to ask Why start at level 3? Just because of the price?
And Why are they more expensive than weapon runes? Because you feel the devs maybe had a reason as to why they were too powerful for the game?
I made them all become available at the same levels as potency runes, that's the intention for me, so spell attack rolls don't arbitrarily fall behind.
I had them priced at 80%, 65%, 50% the equivalent rune prices. This is because they mostly boost cantrips (which fall off), and limited use abilities, while not actually opening up property rune slots. So they are not as valuable as weapon potency increases, IMO. I decided if I was going to have them, I wanted them to be a competitively priced option for spell-casters looking to make attack rolls, but not have that be the main thing they do.
Alchemical Items & Monster Changes
Seems fine, I houserule the intimidate thing as well.
Alchemist Changes I like your approach, I have a different one. I used yours for a while though, and they work, I just wanted to try something with much less text to give my players.
Interested in sharing them? In the interest of comparing the two. I'm using a different rule to DMW's but I'm thinking of changing. Would like to see another alternative if it's proving successful - especially if it's less wordy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Skill Expertise;
I really like this as a feat. Barring skilled human, a few classes and archetypes, only being able to reliably raise two skills to expert before the master increases start showing up feels bad, and having more ways to expand your skillset while still working within the boundaries of the game could make a fun difference.
Expert "might not be much", but any opportunity to increase proficiency without spending those precious level increases just... again, FEELS good. It's a feel good feat!
Thanks. A General Feat to increase Skills is one of those very logical things for the rules to support that just don't quite exist yet.
And Expert plus well below current level items can pretty readily get your chances of success vs. on-level opposition to 60% or so, so I'd say it's mechanically relevant.
Perhaps it can also help improve the spell DC of the caster. Make it more useful in general as spell attack rolls won't affect everything.
No, as vagrant-poet notes I think Spell Save DCs are actually pretty balanced, and certainly far more powerful than attack roll spells, so doing that would potentially unbalance the game and not solve the problem I'm trying to solve (which is that attack roll spells are worse than spells that rely on a Save).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through the HR as they currently are:
Ability Score Change: Intelligence
This is great, more new skills has diminishing returns after a point, and bumping intelligence after character creation doesn't always feel rewarding. This is basically just for alchemists, investigators, witches, and wizards, but it's a good rule.
I think it might tempt the occasional other character into going for a 20 or 22 if that fit their concept, honestly. Or at least, such temptation is the hope. :)
Save Changes & Innate Spells & Minions Changes Perfectly fine houserules I don't use, but that work. I'd probably use the minion Run change on the fly if it ever came up, which it won't often, so I don't codify it for my players.
I like having all my House Rules codified so that my more system-interested players have the opportunity to read through them and adjust their play and choices accordingly. If your players care less about system in and of itself this is much less of an issue, of course.
Alchemist Changes I like your approach, I have a different one. I used yours for a while though, and they work, I just wanted to try something with much less text to give my players.
Like JerkyGunner I'm interested in what your alternative is. I don't like being wordy for the sake of being wordy, this version is just the least wordy version I could get that does all the specific things I want.
Witch Changes: Very cool. Would probably use if a player wanted more cantrips.
Yeah, it's a simple little quality of life change. I really like those.
Wizard Changes Also cool. Tbh I just let the players choose how they dispatch foes they drop to 0, but I like your approach.
For me, instituting a rule where you can take anyone alive with no effort has some moral implications I don't like (ie: I don't always want to deal with the PCs taking every single enemy prisoner, but I have a hard time saying they're Good if they always choose killing over capture when both are equally difficult).
I may overthink this kind of thing, but so will some of my players if I institute a rule like this.
Archetypes: Excellent, would also do this if a player wanted and archetype from level 1.
Yep. Another one of those 'quality of life' improvements I mention above.
Feat Changes
I don't need Take Them Alive as mentioned above.
That's fair.
I do something similar to Skill Expertise, but a bit different. It's level 3 (as an alternative to untrained improvisations broad skill use, it encourages more narrow use). It only requires 14 Int (I think 14 is a spot where a non-Int focused character can start that says to me: Hey, my character is clever. (It's equivalent to 16 at 7th.) I only have it bump one skill.
Yeah, the current level is intentional, as it's when you start needing to give Trained skills bonuses for them to stay relevant...this Feat being a fix for that specific issue. The higher level and prerequisite also let me make it two skills, which I think makes it more worth taking.
Expansive Knowledge, I do the same.
It's a fun little Feat and I'm happy to have thought of it (another thing I believe the Int discussion with Midnightoker led to).
Spell Changes: Cantrips I do the same. I sat down and ran the numbers, and electric arc still has it's niche, but this means that other cantrips actually fill their niches instead of being comically less good than EA. This and +item bonuses to spell attack rolls basically makes cantrips very tightly balanced against martial characters all day damage. ***** Best change!
Yeah, I've always thought Electric Arc was at about the right place power-level wise. Bringing the other cantrips on par makes the whole thing feel a lot better.
Spell Duelist’s Gloves
I have a similar item.
I'm not surprised, it's a pretty obvious addition. I was hoping for an official version in the APG to save me the work, but since it didn't happen I finally made my own. I still hope we'll get an official version eventually, but in the meantime this will have to do.
I want to ask Why start at level 3? Just because of the price?
No, it starts at level 3 because it gives a cantrip, which is meaningful and better than a +1 on its own, which is what a +1 weapon grants.
And Why are they more expensive than weapon runes? Because you feel the devs maybe had a reason as to why they were too powerful for the game?
The 3rd level one is more expensive because it provides additional bonuses (in the form of a cantrip, quite relevant at the levels you get it). The +2 version is actually cheaper than the equivalent Rune. The +3 version, I probably overpriced (I was just looking at the rough range for items of that level), and have since dropped from 10,000 gp to 9,000 gp...still technically higher (by 65 gp) but I like round numbers and the Weapon Rune of that level is about the cheapest level 16 item available.
I made them all become available at the same levels as potency runes, that's the intention for me, so spell attack rolls don't arbitrarily fall behind.
I'm just not worried about spell attacks being 1 accuracy behind at level 2. In fact, it's probably for the best. My power up on cantrip damage makes them maybe a little too good at levels 1 to 3, honestly. They're fine by the time people get Striking Runes but a slight delay in accuracy very early on seems fine.
I had them priced at 80%, 65%, 50% the equivalent rune prices. This is because they mostly boost cantrips (which fall off), and limited use abilities, while not actually opening up property rune slots. So they are not as valuable as weapon potency increases, IMO. I decided if I was going to have them, I wanted them to be a competitively priced option for spell-casters looking to make attack rolls, but not have that be the main thing they do.
This is arguable, but non-consumables within a level fall within a pretty specific range on their costs, and I'd rather not mess with that. Still, this is a pretty good argument for them giving free additional spells once per day (or something like that...I'll come up with something) so they have an additional benefit, something that I am probably adding at some point.
Alchemical Items & Monster Changes
Seems fine, I houserule the intimidate thing as well.
Yeah, it's a pretty logical idea that will basically never come up, but makes me feel better to have in the document.
Interested in sharing them? In the interest of comparing the two. I'm using a different rule to DMW's but I'm thinking of changing. Would like to see another alternative if it's proving successful - especially if it's less wordy.
Like JerkyGunner I'm interested in what your alternative is. I don't like being wordy for the sake of being wordy, this version is just the least wordy version I could get that does all the specific things I want.
Caveat: I like your changes, they cover a lot of specific issues with alchemists. They also require having access to that list of changes while using them as a player. Specific issues ~ Specific solution.
I decided to try the following: Move every non-universal non-feat class feature that doesn't boost armor, save, or Perception proficiency forward TWO levels.
Chirurgeon, add: When using an alchemical elixir that restores Hit Points, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the amount of Hit Points restored.
Mutagenist, add: When you come under the effects of a bestial mutagen your body swells and twists, reduce the Dex Cap of any armor you are wearing by 2, but you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your AC from your imposing new form. Whenever you’re affected by a bestial mutagen you gain a number of temporary Hit Points equal to your level plus your Intelligence modifier.
I've played with it a lot less so far, and only starting at level 4, so I skipped testing the still awkward lower levels.
The class features feel powerful and good when you get them, as opposed to a little too late. But it hasn't felt overpowered so far.
The premise is basically, the Dev team were too cautious. Let's be a less cautious without re-writing the whole class. So it's not going to fix everything, just feel a bit more oomph-ey.
DMW, do you have any thoughts on the Signature Spell class feature of spontaneous casters? I get the feeling it limits what they can do and I'm not sure if I want to do away with it, tweak it, or just leave it as is.
What do you think?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMW, do you have any thoughts on the Signature Spell class feature of spontaneous casters? I get the feeling it limits what they can do and I'm not sure if I want to do away with it, tweak it, or just leave it as is.
What do you think?
I think it's really useful, as compared to just casting spells at whatever level you like, both to prevent analysis paralysis and keep the power level of spontaneous casters reasonable.
It certainly does limit what they can do, but not in a bad way, IMO. Truly limitless options become confusing and slow down gameplay, as well as pretty definitionally making them more powerful than prepared casters if they're truly limitless.
All that said, in the playtest, they had it so you could select your Signature Spells on a daily basis (however, you only had a limited number of them, even compared to the final official numbers...I seem to recall two to four, possibly based on your level), I prefer the way they wound up doing it officially, but I think that version is probably fine, balance-wise, if you want to change things up a bit.
Some questions on the spell related changes :
> Witch
What was the thought behind the Witch feat? It is supposed to basically be “half” of cantrip expansion and hence a level 1 feat?
What about the indirect impact of allowing multiclass witches to select a witch hex now. It is unclear whether restricting this was a deliberate design choice
> Cantrips
- Not directly cantrips but how does reworking all of these reflect on the minor oracle focus powers? Unless I am misreading them several seem awful. But I think I have overlooked the one action cost on some
- Chill Touch: jumps two dice sizes . Why? Does it lose the enfeebled effect as a trade off? If so why not 1 jump and keep it?
- Daze: a substantial boost. Does it lose the stunned part on a crit fail?
- Disrupt undead : no proposed changes. Should this be boosted as it is niche ?
- Divine Lance: what are your thoughts on alignment damage in general. I think it should be half if one step away and it potentially only is not for simplicity ...
- Produce flame : why more damage in melee?
- Ray of frost : as with the others does it keep the non damage effect
- Spirit object : why is this different to the changes to telekinetic projectile . (Looks very similar in the core as well other than flavour)
- Telekinetic projectile : ranged d8 plus casting mod takes this above most martial ranged weapons. Same with other boost ms when compared to shortbows. Is the rationale here that they take two actions , stricter range , can (in theory) be dispelled etc?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
> Witch
What was the thought behind the Witch feat? It is supposed to basically be “half” of cantrip expansion and hence a level 1 feat?
Hex Cantrips are better than normal cantrips (or at least, the best of them are), so giving two with a single Feat would be overkill, but thematically it's also something a Witch should theoretically be able to start with (if they get a 1st level Class Feat).
What about the indirect impact of allowing multiclass witches to select a witch hex now. It is unclear whether restricting this was a deliberate design choice
That's an intended interaction. Hex Cantrips are very flavorful as well as good, so getting one via Witch Multiclass is a solid option to have available, IMO.
> Cantrips
- Not directly cantrips but how does reworking all of these reflect on the minor oracle focus powers? Unless I am misreading them several seem awful. But I think I have overlooked the one action cost on some
Honestly, I just haven't had time to look through all the Oracle Focus Spells yet. Looking at them I might well adjust a few of them. That said, they're Focus Spells rather than Cantrips and so intentionally balanced against, say, Fire Ray (which I think is a fine Focus Spell) rather than strictly against cantrips.
In short, I may change them due to believing they are undertuned, but that's kind of an entirely separate issue from cantrip changes.
- Chill Touch: jumps two dice sizes . Why? Does it lose the enfeebled effect as a trade off? If so why not 1 jump and keep it?
It does not lose anything. And the extra jump in die size is to properly reflect the increased difficulty and danger of engaging in melee combat. Martials already have this gap, with a greataxe doing a lot more damage than a longbow, and it's a good gameplay mechanic I see no reason not to include casters in.
- Daze: a substantial boost. Does it lose the stunned part on a crit fail?
No. Only the damage is changed. All these changes only change what they say they do.
- Disrupt undead : no proposed changes. Should this be boosted as it is niche ?
It should, yes. I just missed it in going over the list of damaging cantrips. It has now been changed and added to the list.
- Divine Lance: what are your thoughts on alignment damage in general. I think it should be half if one step away and it potentially only is not for simplicity ...
That's probably correct, but simplicity is good, so I'm disinclined to change it.
- Produce flame : why more damage in melee?
As discussed under Chill Touch above, I think melee cantrips should do more damage to reflect the increased risk in using them.
- Ray of frost : as with the others does it keep the non damage effect
It does.
- Spirit object : why is this different to the changes to telekinetic projectile . (Looks very similar in the core as well other than flavour)
At the moment, I'm simply upping die size on most of these (melee cantrips aside), not going into more in-depth balance changes. Also, on a balance level, Spirit Object has a lot of utility uses that Telekinetic Projectile doesn't, and can benefit from flanking, which is neat.
- Telekinetic projectile : ranged d8 plus casting mod takes this above most martial ranged weapons. Same with other boost ms when compared to shortbows. Is the rationale here that they take two actions , stricter range , can (in theory) be dispelled etc?
It's mostly the two actions and bad range increment, but basically yes.
I hadn’t noticed the flanking which is hilarious to me. I hope the 2E RoW pod I listen to finds use for that with one of the winter witch villains. But chances are they use higher level spells and die like most enemies !
|
|
It has occurred to me that, while I think Wizards are mostly fine, a dedicated and optimal Evoker (or Necromancer) focusing on damage shouldn't need to multiclass into Sorcerer for Dangerous Sorcery. So I feel like they should get an equivalent bonus.
That being the case, I'm adding additional benefits to each Arcane School about commensurate with a single Class Feat. Some of these are easy (I have ones for Abjuration, Evocation, Necromancy, Enchantment, and Universalist, and some ideas for Illusion), but the remainder I'm having trouble coming up with good solutions for.
So, anyone have some good ideas for those?
Conjuration looks like a limited cackle in design - is that right ?
The Transmutation needs more because the rest are currently roughly equivalent of feats with some limitations and the transmutation one isn’t . Can’t think of anything myself for now
The transmutation cantrip is a thing though. Hard not to notice it is mentioned by a very vocal forum member fairly often
But it more seems like one or two new ones need making (harder design point I know). I am struggling to remember what the transmutation cantrips were in 1E
*
Is Dangerous sorcerer as big a deal as implied by you granting it to certain wizards? I haven’t looked into it in detail. Seems very small at low levels . But is it that there are so few static damage boosts in general ?
*
How do you square these extras in terms of wizards compared to sorcerers. I guess the logic is that bloodlines are more useful due to:
- generally better focus spells
- skills granted
- blood magic effect
Perhaps there is something in blood magic that can be applied to transmutation as lots of them add “riders” to spells that boost those who cast them or have them cast on them
Incidentally when I one day run Rise in 2E I am going to keep the transmutation lists how they used to be - “Thassilonian transmutation” if you will
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conjuration looks like a limited cackle in design - is that right ?
Yes. It has specific advantages for summoning, which is one reason I gave it to them.
The Transmutation needs more because the rest are currently roughly equivalent of feats with some limitations and the transmutation one isn’t . Can’t think of anything myself for now
Yeah, I'm not super pleased with that, but I couldn't think of a Skill Feat power level option to add on to the higher Fortitude Save, and it solves the problem with Transmutation Cantrips. At some point I'll definitely change that one.
The transmutation cantrip is a thing though. Hard not to notice it is mentioned by a very vocal forum member fairly often
Yeah, it's a real issue, though. And a weird lack to have, honestly.
But it more seems like one or two new ones need making (harder design point I know). I am struggling to remember what the transmutation cantrips were in 1E
In PF1, Mage Hand, Mending, and Message were Transmutation, as were the rather obscure Jolt, Chameleon Skin, Root, and Scrivener's Chant.
In PF2, Open/Close has ceased to exist (which is fair enough, it was seldom taken and honestly should probably just be allowed with Mage Hand), the obscure ones don't exist yet, and Mage Hand and Message have both changed schools (to Evocation and Illusion, respectively...which is fair, they make more sense there), while Mending (the one that indisputably should be Transmutation) has kept its school, but risen from a cantrip to a level 1 spell.
And adding good Transmutation cantrips would solve the need for that specific benefit, but not what additional benefit I should give to Transmuters. If I can figure that out, maybe I'll add one.
Is Dangerous sorcerer as big a deal as implied by you granting it to certain wizards? I haven’t looked into it in detail. Seems very small at low levels . But is it that there are so few static damage boosts in general ?
It's not a huge buff, but it's a straight math buff equivalent to 14% additional damage or thereabouts on most spells with Fireball level damage. Certainly over 10% on almost all spells. Given how rare direct math buffs are in PF2, that's a pretty big deal in absolute terms. It's a lot like if there were a Feat to give +1 to attacks...sure, the bonus is small but any bonus at all like that from a Feat is very unusual.
In short, it's good enough that taking it is the way you optimize damage on literally any caster. A dedicated Evoker should not need to multiclass Sorcerer in order to be optimal in terms of damage. I've also just added an equivalent option for Druids for the same reason, though in that case I just made it a Class Feat (since not all Druids will care and I don't think they need even a slight buff).
How do you square these extras in terms of wizards compared to sorcerers. I guess the logic is that bloodlines are more useful due to:
- generally better focus spells
- skills granted
- blood magic effect
Pretty much. Also, in my games at least, Chr is probably a better stat than Int, since it can be used for Will Saves. So Sorcerers, Oracles, and Bards have already received a notable buff in my House Rules, though not a very flashy one.
Perhaps there is something in blood magic that can be applied to transmutation as lots of them add “riders” to spells that boost those who cast them or have them cast on them
I'm not reluctant to poach low level Class Feats, since those are easily enough acquired via Multiclassing, but I'm much more leery of poaching unique Class Abilities since that diminishes the uniqueness of the Class significantly.
Incidentally when I one day run Rise in 2E I am going to keep the transmutation lists how they used to be - “Thassilonian transmutation” if you will
This sounds like a huge amount of work. Doing it with a handful of spells I can see, but going through all of them sounds effort intensive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Versatile Patron (1st Level): Your patron is more versatile than can be entirely encompassed in a single theme. You receive the Hex Cantrip of one Patron Theme other than your own. This does not change your spellcasting tradition and you cast that cantrip as a spell of your normal tradition.
It seems like a possibly unintended consequence of the wording here is that, while a multiclass Witch can get a hex cantrip as you said was intended, they can't actually get the hex cantrip associated with their own patron, only a different one.