Deadmanwalking's PF2 House Rules


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

19 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I've decided to put up a House Rules document. It's fairly slim at the moment aside from Alchemist fixes (of which there are a number.) Commentary and critique are appreciated.

Here it is.


I really like some stuff here, but dislike others.

I think 4 items per batch would be way too many at higher levels. I think just finding a way to increase the number of reagents at low levels is a better solution (I saw level plus 2 x Int mod which I really like).

I like what you've done with the research fields, but I think it's a bit odd Chiurgeons don't get to pick their formulas. I would just let them pick three non-mutagen elixirs. I'm wary about Intelligence to AC, but I'm not intrinsically against it. I think giving medium armor would be a better way to reduce dex dependency.

I'm not a fan of the Field Discovery features. Increasing the item bonus for bombers and mutagenists feels like too much considering you also give them master in weapons later. And the chiurgeon's just feels a bit clunky. Particularly since elixirs that give a bonus against conditions already last so long (for example, antiplague already lasts 24 hours). It's also just a lot to keep track of in general. I would just scrap the ability for something else, possibly something that allows them to administer elixirs at range. If you want to include a use for Intelligence, maybe add Int to healing done as well as increased duration of non-mutagen elixirs that's a number of hours equal to your Int mod.

Speaking of master in weapons, you don't need to call out that unarmed increases due to the erratta that made unarmed scale with simple.

Overall I like the rest of your changes though. Though if you reduce the number of items per batch, Alchemical Alacrity would also need to change because you can't have Quick Alchemy give more than Advanced Alchemy.

Liberty's Edge

Salamileg wrote:
I really like some stuff here, but dislike others.

Fair enough.

Salamileg wrote:
I think 4 items per batch would be way too many at higher levels. I think just finding a way to increase the number of reagents at low levels is a better solution (I saw level plus 2 x Int mod which I really like).

Eh. Honestly I'm a bit back and forth on this one myself, but felt like the simplicity of just making it 4 per usage was nice. The actual number is certainly pretty high at high levels, but I don't think it'll be actually unwieldy since I'll bet a lot of it'll get used for Quick Alchemy at high levels. Still, I remain ambivalent.

Salamileg wrote:
I like what you've done with the research fields, but I think it's a bit odd Chiurgeons don't get to pick their formulas. I would just let them pick three non-mutagen elixirs.

I think giving Chirugeons a strong healing focus is good for them thematically and am inclined to stick with it.

Salamileg wrote:
I'm wary about Intelligence to AC, but I'm not intrinsically against it. I think giving medium armor would be a better way to reduce dex dependency.

I like the fact that this version increases the Class's Int-focus, which I think is a good thing. Having them wear light armor is also on-point thematically.

Salamileg wrote:
I'm not a fan of the Field Discovery features. Increasing the item bonus for bombers and mutagenists feels like too much considering you also give them master in weapons later.

I don't think so. Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians, and Fighters all have advantages over the base of Master in attacks, and this is the Alchemist's. And they pay for it both with lower attack stats (since Int is their key stat) and with delayed Weapon Specialization.

It also really encourages the Mutagenist in particular to use their Mutagens themselves rather than passing them out to other people, which I think is an all-around better situation. It doesn't even actually increase the bomber's accuracy, just make them not need Quicksilver Mutagen.

Salamileg wrote:
And the chiurgeon's just feels a bit clunky. Particularly since elixirs that give a bonus against conditions already last so long (for example, antiplague already lasts 24 hours). It's also just a lot to keep track of in general. I would just scrap the ability for something else, possibly something that allows them to administer elixirs at range. If you want to include a use for Intelligence, maybe add Int to healing done as well as increased duration of non-mutagen elixirs that's a number of hours equal to your Int mod.

Having played with these kinds of abilities, I actually really like how they work in play. I also think that it's a lot less silly-looking than throwing healing potions at people is, which is a nice side-benefit.

Salamileg wrote:
Speaking of master in weapons, you don't need to call out that unarmed increases due to the erratta that made unarmed scale with simple.

I literally just copied the Barbarian text, since that seemed simpler than writing my own, but this is probably technically true. I lack a word count limit, though, so I'm not super motivated to change it.

Salamileg wrote:
Overall I like the rest of your changes though.

Thanks. :)

Salamileg wrote:
Though if you reduce the number of items per batch, Alchemical Alacrity would also need to change because you can't have Quick Alchemy give more than Advanced Alchemy.

This is certainly true. I'm not at all sure whether I'm doing that, honestly. I might, or I might drop it to three instead of four (splitting the difference, as it were) which would make the Quick Alchemy change less necessary.

Dataphiles

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would be very careful about increasing their proficiency to master if sticky bomb is left as is. The damage on it scales very well with the alchemist's hit chance, given just how much it does (and therefore how much extra is added on a crit).

Under these rules, a Mutagenist also becomes a better bomber than the bomber, because giving a +1 to Quicksilver mutagen will give them effectively fighter proficiency with bombs. What the bomber gets in return (a couple of feats that the mutagenist can take anyway and agile bombs, which gives the same benefit as the +1 the mutagenist has over the bomber for the second attack) does not make up for that.

I'm curious why Powerful Alchemy is a 7th level feature instead of a 1st level feature.

Also no Poison Weapon?

Liberty's Edge

Exocist wrote:
I would be very careful about increasing their proficiency to master if sticky bomb is left as is. The damage on it scales very well with the alchemist's hit chance, given just how much it does (and therefore how much extra is added on a crit).

I discuss this a bit in the other thread. The short version amounts to the fact that I don't think persistent damage is worth as much as you do. It's good, but not nearly as good as immediate damage (ie: 8 Persistent damage is 24 damage over three rounds...but 24 damage is better than that).

Exocist wrote:
Under these rules, a Mutagenist also becomes a better bomber than the bomber, because giving a +1 to Quicksilver mutagen will give them effectively fighter proficiency with bombs. What the bomber gets in return (a couple of feats that the mutagenist can take anyway and agile bombs, which gives the same benefit as the +1 the mutagenist has over the bomber for the second attack) does not make up for that.

That's definitely a fair worry. I'm not gonna remove the Mutagenist advantage, which I quite like and think is good for them, but I may need to consider some more role protection for the bomber. Making Calculated Splash bomber-only would be interesting, as one possibility...

Exocist wrote:
I'm curious why Powerful Alchemy is a 7th level feature instead of a 1st level feature.

I may well lower it. At the moment I'm just making it a Class Feature rather than a Feat rather than level shifting it too much. I may change that but I'll need to think on it.

Exocist wrote:
Also no Poison Weapon?

The APG is out in a while and will have poison options for Alchemists. I may add this anyway to tide them over, but Poisoner does seem worth having as a full Research Field.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm still of the opinion that 4 is the right size for a batch. Conditional elixirs is a very strong ability. I like it a lot, though I don't know if it feels Chirugeon specific enough?

Being able to draw and drink an elixir in one action is extremely strong. Setting aside whether this is too powerful (of which I'm not sure) I have three main concerns.

1) If a player can do this with an elixir, why not a potion? I'd expect this to come up.
2) This is an autopick feat, which can also be considered a feat tax. It also really punishes anyone wants a different 1st level feat and cuts off fun design space for other 1st level feats in the future.
3) It is very easy to grab through multiclassing.

For these reasons, I'd make this a feature and not a feat. Heck, I did that to Quick Bomber in my house rules, and I didn't buff it nearly this much. Even the official version is already kind of an autopick, at least with our current feats.

Also, why I think all the buffs you gave elixirs are warranted, I do worry it isn't worth the complexity. These are the sort of changes that require a lot of page flipping and make looking things up in the pf2.easytool not work.

But all in all, I really like it, which isn't surprising given how close my own rules are. ;) Glad to see you also like Int to AC. That was one of the more controversial bits I was weighing.

Liberty's Edge

In furtherance of making Bombers the best bombers Calculated Splash has been made Bomber exclusive. I think that's fine, though we'll see. Also moved Powerful Alchemy to 1st level, which does seem reasonable.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that 4 is the right size for a batch. Conditional elixirs is a very strong ability. I like it a lot, though I don't know if it feels Chirugeon specific enough?

The Chirugeon focusing on non-mutagen buffing and reactive healing seems very on-theme to me, and they need something really good mechanically, and ideally something Int-based. This fits the bill, IMO.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Being able to draw and drink an elixir in one action is extremely strong. Setting aside whether this is too powerful (of which I'm not sure) I have three main concerns.

1) If a player can do this with an elixir, why not a potion? I'd expect this to come up.
2) This is an autopick feat, which can also be considered a feat tax. It also really punishes anyone wants a different 1st level feat and cuts off fun design space for other 1st level feats in the future.
3) It is very easy to grab through multiclassing.

For these reasons, I'd make this a feature and not a feat. Heck, I did that to Quick Bomber in my house rules, and I didn't buff it nearly this much. Even the official version is already kind of an autopick, at least with our current feats.

I think you may be right here. I was going back and forth a bit on this one, but you do make a good case with the Feat Tax argument. I may well change it for that reason, though I'll need to think on it.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Also, why I think all the buffs you gave elixirs are warranted, I do worry it isn't worth the complexity. These are the sort of changes that require a lot of page flipping and make looking things up in the pf2.easytool not work.

Eh. Most of them are actually pretty small. And I mostly use pen and paper anyway, or Archives of Nethys, so making reference tools a tad less useful isn't a super high priority for me. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ignore if you rely on such tools, though.

Captain Morgan wrote:
But all in all, I really like it, which isn't surprising given how close my own rules are. ;)

Yeah, the four items per Reagent and choice of what Perpetual Infusions you get I must admit I just stole those from you outright. :)

Captain Morgan wrote:
Glad to see you also like Int to AC. That was one of the more controversial bits I was weighing.

It's not actually much different mechanically from just giving them Medium Armor, but I prefer this version, yeah.

Liberty's Edge

Upon reflection, I turned Quick Bomber turned into a Class Feature and added the Poison feats from Rogue. Both seem reasonable, the latter as an interim measure pre-APG.

So that's a thing.

Liberty's Edge

In terms of number of reagents available, what do people think of keeping batch size at 4, but reducing number of reagents to 1/2 level (rounded up) plus Int Mod? That's be a big bonus in number of items at low levels but an increasingly small one as you level up, eventually evening out...ish (68 items max at 20th vs. the 54 you get from the official rules...okay, it's more than that due to the official version of Field Discovery, but an extra 14 with field Discovery seems plausible).

It would devalue Quick Alchemy, except that my existing rules make it do so a lot less. It would also make niche items harder to invest in, something I'd need to consider as a definite down side, but it seems worth thinking about.


That sounds reasonable. The main difference being that, at level 20, you'd get 17 possible unique items with half your level plus Int while with the official rules you get 27 possible unique items. So you'll have to decide which is better, more items or more opportunities for different items.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think what I'm appreciating more while working on the Alchemist myself is that there's a distinct see-saw in the class' design between advanced alchemy and quick alchemy. Advanced alchemy is the more supportive, group oriented side, but also the one that feels the most replaceable with just spending your silver (You produce a lot of items ahead of time and can distribute them to your allies at your leisure. The items are no better than stuff you could buy). Quick alchemy is the more selfish, combat and trouble-shooting oriented side, by allowing you good action economy, enhancing items to be better than their store-bought counterparts, but leaving you unable to share those items with your allies due to the time constraints of the ability.

If you increase batch sizes for advanced alchemy, you end up buffing that end of the see-saw. This incentivizes supportive play, and in my opinion, is a good fit for the chirurgeon thematically but not the other two research fields.

---

Unrelated to the above: Have you considered adjusting the bestial mutagen to not scale up its die sizes at higher levels of mutagen? Start it at a d10 bite, for example, and leave it as a d10 bite for the highest level mutagen? This would help the mutagenist's low level wimpiness a lot.

Liberty's Edge

Salamileg wrote:
That sounds reasonable. The main difference being that, at level 20, you'd get 17 possible unique items with half your level plus Int while with the official rules you get 27 possible unique items. So you'll have to decide which is better, more items or more opportunities for different items.

Yeah, the reduction in different items is definitely my major concern, along with fewer opportunities to use Quick Alchemy. I'll think about it.

Cellion wrote:
If you increase batch sizes for advanced alchemy, you end up buffing that end of the see-saw. This incentivizes supportive play, and in my opinion, is a good fit for the chirurgeon thematically but not the other two research fields.

The intent is for my modified versions of Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity to ameliorate this quite a bit, and the current high number of reagents makes it overkill to use them all on Advanced Alchemy, IMO, which definitely also helps. In short, I'm not sure it's actually an issue with the current version (and I like the simplicity of batches always being 4 items, which is borne out by every rule except Advanced Alchemy in the official rules).

It would become a lot more of one if I actually decreased the number of reagents per day, and that's one of the big reasons I haven't done that yet.

One potential solution is an entirely separate pool for Quick Alchemy, but I don't like that idea in terms of complications and would prefer to avoid it.

Cellion wrote:
Unrelated to the above: Have you considered adjusting the bestial mutagen to not scale up its die sizes at higher levels of mutagen? Start it at a d10 bite, for example, and leave it as a d10 bite for the highest level mutagen? This would help the mutagenist's low level wimpiness a lot.

I think I prefer my current version. At the moment, it provides a d8 attack with standard martial to-hit and no AC penalty at low levels. A d10 would peg their offense at almost the same level as an Animal Instinct Barbarian and I think Alchemist has enough more utility than a Barbarian that this would be an issue. It's d10 by 3rd level in my version, which seems reasonable to me.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I don't see what the problem with having a lot of reagents is. Alchemical items aren't top level spell slots, and they shouldn't be rationed like as though they are. Having extra items to spare also means you can be generous with kitting out your buds, which will collectively make them appreciate you more. And having more reagents for quick alchemy makes you able to better emulate the Batman thing, which is where the class should Excel.

Edit: oh, also, you've changed the name of the new Quick Bomber into Quick Alchemy, which seems like an oversight given that is already the name of a first level feature.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Personally, I don't see what the problem with having a lot of reagents is. Alchemical items aren't top level spell slots, and they shouldn't be rationed like as though they are. Having extra items to spare also means you can be generous with kitting out your buds, which will collectively make them appreciate you more. And having more reagents for quick alchemy makes you able to better emulate the Batman thing, which is where the class should Excel.

On one level, I agree, on another level 108 items (which is what you can have at most with the current version) is quite a lot more than the total of 40 spells a caster can have of all levels combined. And 17th level Alchemical items at 20th really are probably better than many lower level spells, after all.

It's also a tad unwieldy at that level, though they probably won't usually grab an Int item which drops it down to only 88 or 92 even as late as 17th or 18th level, and a lot probably do get saved for Quick Alchemy....

Captain Morgan wrote:
Edit: oh, also, you've changed the name of the new Quick Bomber into Quick Alchemy, which seems like an oversight given that is already the name of a first level feature.

Arghh. Fixed.


You gave chirurgeons Battle Medicine or another medicine skill feat for free at level 1, but if I'm not mistaken Battle Medicine is the only level 1 medicine skill feat.

Liberty's Edge

Paradozen wrote:
You gave chirurgeons Battle Medicine or another medicine skill feat for free at level 1, but if I'm not mistaken Battle Medicine is the only level 1 medicine skill feat.

Ah, you're right. I was misremembering Ward Medic as also level 1. I'll fix it to just be any other Skill Feat.

Liberty's Edge

Mathematical analysis has convinced me that adding Agile to bombs is a bridge too far on top of increasing Proficiency, so I'm ditching it.

I think that's fine for bombers, I'll need to think about whether a mutagenist might be overtuned when using bombs and how to fix it if so.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thank you for sharing DMW!

Liberty's Edge

Pursuant to a discussion in another thread, I've added some Venomous Mutagen Feats allowing someone using Bestial Mutagen to gain a venomous bite.

I'm sort of debating whether they should be able to apply additional poisons to their teeth, or whether that's just too good. I'm leaning towards the latter, but still considering it.

Liberty's Edge

Non-alchemist related addition: Creatures who cannot speak a language now get Intimidating Glare for free. Minor change, but relevant.

Sovereign Court

If you are trying to add focus on toxins and poisons for the Alchemist class, you might consider creating a new Research Field for them, as I did: The Toxicologist. Like the other fields, they can use all of the Alchemist's formulas, they just specialize in creating and using poisons (and curing them too).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
If you are trying to add focus on toxins and poisons for the Alchemist class, you might consider creating a new Research Field for them, as I did: The Toxicologist. Like the other fields, they can use all of the Alchemist's formulas, they just specialize in creating and using poisons (and curing them too).

My current Alchemist poison rules are basically an interim measure until the APG comes out.

We'll see if there's anything official then, and if not I'll consider something more extensive, but right now I'm not even running a PF2 game, so I'm not in a rush, and would like to see how and whether I need to modify any official rules on the subject before putting too much work in.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Non-alchemist related addition: Creatures who cannot speak a language now get Intimidating Glare for free. Minor change, but relevant.

I feel like this damages the value on Intimidating Glare.

Don't get me wrong, there are some creatures I do think should get the ability to not take penalties to Intimidate.

What creatures were you experiencing this with that made you feel it was a necessary addition out of curiosity?


Midnightoker wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Non-alchemist related addition: Creatures who cannot speak a language now get Intimidating Glare for free. Minor change, but relevant.
I feel like this damages the value on Intimidating Glare.

I don't see how that can be true when there are currently no PC ancestries that can't speak a language, and aren't likely to be any time soon - if a player doesn't want the penalty then they still need to pay for it, it's mostly just things that aren't humanoid (and don't technically have feats to begin with) that are potentially given a boost from this.

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Non-alchemist related addition: Creatures who cannot speak a language now get Intimidating Glare for free. Minor change, but relevant.
I feel like this damages the value on Intimidating Glare.

How? It's specific to creatures that do not have the ability to speak a language, so there's no way for PCs to get it except turning into a bear or something...in which case, I'm fine with a Druid not taking an Intimidate penalty from turning into a bear. Really, the fact that they technically would by the RAW is silly and I'm happy to eliminate it.

Technically, if you're trying to intimidate something without a language in common with you, have the ability to take animal form, and don't have Intimidating Glare it grants you a bonus (specifically, it lets you duplicate that level 1 Skill Feat). But that's a very niche situation and I'm okay with the tiny buff this gives to Wild Shape Druids (especially given their disincentives to taking Charisma), and the 'costs a spell' nature of this bonus makes it even tinier for any other caster.

Midnightoker wrote:

Don't get me wrong, there are some creatures I do think should get the ability to not take penalties to Intimidate.

What creatures were you experiencing this with that made you feel it was a necessary addition out of curiosity?

Nothing in particular, a thread came up noting that this was a thing and that it often made no sense. I agreed, and have a House Rules document, so it was added. Frankly, I think it'll barely come up, if ever, but it makes me happy to plug holes in world logic like this.


My argument would be Lizardfolk specifically gets an Ancestry that has a similar effect, so you've effectively given every creature an Ancestry/Skill feat that a Player had to pay to get.

Also what's to prevent a player from opting to "not speak a language" or communicate explicitly with Sign Language just to avoid having to pay a Skill Feat cost?

I could see players at my tables arguing they deserve the same kind of leeway, but easily shut down I suppose but just because it doesn't affect PCs explicitly doesn't mean it doesn't devalue their investment, even if it's minor.

It probably doesn't matter that much, but IMO if a creature isn't smart enough to speak a language nor does it have any investment into the skill Intimidate, they shouldn't get what amounts to free access to Demoralize.

All this does is give creatures that probably shouldn't be intimidating an alternative 3rd action.

Overall, it probably matters very little was just curious if there was a specific moment at the table that inspired this rule, as I've yet to find one myself where I felt it was inappropriate.

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
My argument would be Lizardfolk specifically gets an Ancestry that has a similar effect, so you've effectively given every creature an Ancestry/Skill feat that a Player had to pay to get.

Frilled Lizardfolk is vastly better than Intimidating Glare alone, with the action available granting Frightened 2 on a mere success. That's awesome, and I highly doubt anyone who took it is gonna object to people having to spend resources to shapeshift only to get something worse.

And lots of things monsters get PCs have to pay for, that's always made up for by the stuff they just don't get (which is, frankly, a lot of stuff).

Midnightoker wrote:
Also what's to prevent a player from opting to "not speak a language" or communicate explicitly with Sign Language just to avoid having to pay a Skill Feat cost?

Because there are no rules for that and I'd have to be an idiot to allow it? These are House Rules, for that very reason they don't have to worry about idiotic corner cases like this, as I the GM can just say 'No.' if you try to abuse them.

But really, even in a published book 'not speaking a language' is not something PCs can do by the rules, and has enough downsides that even if it did grant this, it probably wouldn't be unbalanced. I wouldn't allow it because it's dumb, not because of any real mechanical problem with the idea.

Midnightoker wrote:
I could see players at my tables arguing they deserve the same kind of leeway, but easily shut down I suppose but just because it doesn't affect PCs explicitly doesn't mean it doesn't devalue their investment, even if it's minor.

Your PCs object to you changing monster stats? That's...unusual. I rather thought that was a fundamental aspect of GMing.

Midnightoker wrote:
It probably doesn't matter that much, but IMO if a creature isn't smart enough to speak a language nor does it have any investment into the skill Intimidate, they shouldn't get what amounts to free access to Demoralize.

If they don't have investment, they will likely never make the check, and would likely fail even if they did...so this basically doesn't come up.

Midnightoker wrote:
All this does is give creatures that probably shouldn't be intimidating an alternative 3rd action.

It really doesn't. It's not a third action worth taking for most of them, and I'd probably never have them take it. It just plugs a hole in the world logic and doesn't result in people who turn into a bear suddenly becoming less intimidating.

It also makes the Bear Animal Companion's Intimidate skill actually useful, which seems intended, just not well done.

Midnightoker wrote:
Overall, it probably matters very little was just curious if there was a specific moment at the table that inspired this rule, as I've yet to find one myself where I felt it was inappropriate.

There wasn't a specific moment, but thinking about it, becoming less intimidating by turning into a T-Rex in front of someone definitely hits all my 'Nope, that makes no sense' buttons.

Liberty's Edge

What if the bear gains the ability to speak a language?

Liberty's Edge

The Raven Black wrote:
What if the bear gains the ability to speak a language?

Then, by the rules I have outlined, it needs to speak the same language as the target to avoid the -4.

That's slightly odd, but I think the confusion of having a bear talk at you makes it make enough sense to me, and it's even more of a corner case than the rest of the rules so I'm not too worried about it.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Added a Run Activity to minions allowing them to move three times as two actions. This eliminates a lot of verisimilitude problems with Minion Trait creatures without powering them up too much, IMO.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Added a Run Activity to minions allowing them to move three times as two actions. This eliminates a lot of verisimilitude problems with Minion Trait creatures without powering them up too much, IMO.

Would not be surprised if APG included several new actions for minions/familiars, and I could see this being up there.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Would not be surprised if APG included several new actions for minions/familiars, and I could see this being up there.

Totally possible, but it popped into my head as a really elegant solution, so I'm probably using it regardless. Maybe I'll adjust or remove it based on APG stuff, but I can only really imagine removing it from the House Rules if it's become an official rule (which is, as stated, possible).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I just gave everyone Companion's Cry. At least in the playtest, I thought that was how the rules worked anyway.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Added a Run Activity to minions allowing them to move three times as two actions. This eliminates a lot of verisimilitude problems with Minion Trait creatures without powering them up too much, IMO.

Huh, I really like that. Yoink!


What verisimilitude problems does this deal with?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
What verisimilitude problems does this deal with?

I think the primary complaints I've seen here is that as soon as a creature becomes a minion, they lose the ability to do a lot of things their base form could do. For example, a non-minion horse that is able to use all 3 actions to Stride will move faster than a minion horse that relies on only two actions - even with Gallop, it'll still be slower.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arcaian wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
What verisimilitude problems does this deal with?
I think the primary complaints I've seen here is that as soon as a creature becomes a minion, they lose the ability to do a lot of things their base form could do. For example, a non-minion horse that is able to use all 3 actions to Stride will move faster than a minion horse that relies on only two actions - even with Gallop, it'll still be slower.

Pretty much this. If you buy a mount with gold, you will always and without exception win a race with anyone who has a similar mount as an animal companion. Indeed, an unarmored human can outrun a Bear Animal Companion (or most other animal companions, for that matter) despite every non-Companion example of that animal outrunning a human with ease.

Which is weird and doesn't make a lot of sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Funny, I fixed this problem the opposite way - namely I ruled that any creature being used as a mount is treated as a minion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Funny, I fixed this problem the opposite way - namely I ruled that any creature being used as a mount is treated as a minion.

I honestly feel like that's probably intended, if only for the fact that carrying another creature should inhibit your actions.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Funny, I fixed this problem the opposite way - namely I ruled that any creature being used as a mount is treated as a minion.

The issue with this is that it doesn't solve the problem of your Wolf Animal Companion not being able to run down a deer. Ever. Or similar issues with un-ridden animal companions.


I like the minion stride option.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
I like the minion stride option.

Thanks. :)

For the record, I've adjusted my Alchemist House Rules slightly to eliminate the ability to take elixir of life with Perpetual Infusion, since unlimited healing seems a bit much.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Funny, I fixed this problem the opposite way - namely I ruled that any creature being used as a mount is treated as a minion.
The issue with this is that it doesn't solve the problem of your Wolf Animal Companion not being able to run down a deer. Ever. Or similar issues with un-ridden animal companions.

To be fair, neither does your solution - the wolf can stride three times, but not strike, and without being able to stride twice and strike, never actually manages to take it down.

Really, though, having your companion run down a deer is such a niche case as far as it being mechanically important that I'd be far more likely to handle it via GM fiat situationally.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
To be fair, neither does your solution - the wolf can stride three times, but not strike, and without being able to stride twice and strike, never actually manages to take it down.

That doesn't work for Bestiary wolves either, the deer spends three actions running and they can keep up only by spending three of their own. But wolves are endurance-based pack hunters, so that makes sense. They run a deer until it's tried and stops moving/collapses then attack, or herd it into their fellows.

Neither of those work for the Animal Companion wolf, while both work fine for the Bestiary version (assuming around equal movement rates anyway...weirdly, we have no stat block for deer).

MaxAstro wrote:
Really, though, having your companion run down a deer is such a niche case as far as it being mechanically important that I'd be far more likely to handle it via GM fiat situationally.

Running down fleeing enemies is not a niche situation and much the same mechanically, though. And this solution solves it without, IMO, meaningfully powering up animal companions, which was my goal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I would probably just move Will over to Charisma. Perception already has significant defensive value.

On a conceptual level I just like Paladins/Champions and Sorcerers being more stubborn/intractable than Druids.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Campbell wrote:

Honestly I would probably just move Will over to Charisma. Perception already has significant defensive value.

On a conceptual level I just like Paladins/Champions and Sorcerers being more stubborn/intractable than Druids.

This feels punitive to players. My solution has the benefit of never making a player feel bad or like my House Rules punish them, it is only ever an addition, a bonus, a reward.

That's no small advantage in a House Rule.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.


I am intrigued by the wisdom / charisma choice on will saves.

I remember it in your 1E houserules (incidentally many of which got wrapped into the 2E main rules)

What is the reason for doing it this way? If charisma is perceived as not doing enough then why not houserule charisma instead of will?

Is it supposed to give certain martial characters a legitimate dilemma over dumping charisma as they can now build the social skills + at the expense of perception rather than perception and a key save?

How about the impact on boards and sorcerers who then get strong will and their highest stat? This once again leaves alchemists and wizards floundering behind (and we are well aware that those two classes come up first on any topics discussing weaker classes)

Incidentally I note you have no proposed house rules for wizards. Those are always long threads but are you in the “they are fine” camp? But does that stay the case if they end up with a lower “best save” than every other full caster? (Until witch comes out)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
I am intrigued by the wisdom / charisma choice on will saves.

Sure, I'm happy to discuss it. :)

Lanathar wrote:
I remember it in your 1E houserules (incidentally many of which got wrapped into the 2E main rules)

Yep, I found that very convenient, I must admit.

Lanathar wrote:
What is the reason for doing it this way? If charisma is perceived as not doing enough then why not houserule charisma instead of will?

I discuss this somewhat above. There are several things going on there, really.

The first is that House Rules that power something up are seldom objectionable to people, those that power something down are a much tougher sell, and House Rules are always a matter of salesmanship to some degree. If the players don't like them they have less fun and are less inclined to play games with those House Rules again.

The second, related to but distinct from the first, is that I don't think Druids and Clerics need a power down, and particularly for a Druid that's what this would be. Nor do, say, Fighters need to become more MAD (as they do benefit heavily from both Perception and Will Saves).

The third is more thematic, and really has to do with what stat should increase Will Saves, and I legitimately think that either Wisdom or Charisma makes sense, and this version enables more character concepts due to allowing either.

Lanathar wrote:
Is it supposed to give certain martial characters a legitimate dilemma over dumping charisma as they can now build the social skills + at the expense of perception rather than perception and a key save?

It's not so much a dilemma as a choice, you can do the high Wis version just like you always could at no penalty...or you could go high Cha and not lose out on Saves. I like playing talk-y characters and I'm not alone, but that's just not mechanically well incentivized for most martials as compared to boosting Wis for Will Save and Perception, so this is a good option for people who want to play a high Cha/low Wis martial (or Wizard, or really anything but Druid).

Lanathar wrote:
How about the impact on boards and sorcerers who then get strong will and their highest stat? This once again leaves alchemists and wizards floundering behind (and we are well aware that those two classes come up first on any topics discussing weaker classes)

It does indeed boost Will on Bards, Sorcerers, and Champions. I consider that perfectly acceptable. Bards are the only ones I'd even consider it to be a big deal on and, well, see above regarding House Rules not powering things down.

Lanathar wrote:
Incidentally I note you have no proposed house rules for wizards. Those are always long threads but are you in the “they are fine” camp? But does that stay the case if they end up with a lower “best save” than every other full caster? (Until witch comes out)

Wizards have been more or less fine as far as I can see. They're a tad boring, but not really underpowered. The lower Saves are a bit of an issue with this rule, I'll admit, but I think Int on its own is a lot better than many people do and value the additional Skills it provides more highly than many seem to, which makes me less inclined to think it necessary.

If I see a Wizard have long term trouble in one of my games, I may give them additional goodies. Or maybe the APG will do it for me.

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Deadmanwalking's PF2 House Rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.