| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of threads on here for individual overhauls so I thought I might start a thread for cataloging more minor tweaks you all have applied to your games.
Starting in no particular order:
1 Fear gravity: cliffs are scary and falling off one should be impressive but in pf its kinda.... not, a level 10 barbarian can fall about 600 feet and have a slightly better than coin flip odds of living, and anything below 300 cannot kill them from full.
House rule: fall damage raises exponentially dealing d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen squared, so 10 feet Is 1d6, 50 feet is 25d6, 100 feet is 100d6 ect.
2 sturdyness runes: not an original idea I know but turning the sturdy shield into an upgrade path makes shields as a whole make way more sense. Each sturdy rune changes the hp and hardness to the equivalent sturdy shield
3 Versatile comands: simple and easy patch, a lot of summonable mobs dont work super well on a two action minion economy, the solution is allow command a minion to use 1 or 2 actions, and if it is used with two it simply transfers that action over giving the minion a full 3 actions.
4 Sunder: another easy one. Things that can target creatures can also target objects (some exceptions) an unattended object has basically no ac while an attended object has the same ac as its holder. Exceptions: a ton of immunity I can think to list out atm
5 obligatory alchemist mod throw everything: scrap quick bomber, at level one alchemists get the following:
An alchemist keeps careful track of her equipment so everything is ready at a moments notice. Items with a bulk of Light can be drawn without an action when you interact with the object to activate it or throw it. All such objects have a throwing range of 20 feet and if they lack weapon damage deal 1d4 bludgeoning on a hit. If thrown at an ally they can use a reaction to catch the object with a free hand in which case an attack roll is not needed.
Hero Points gained in the last hour of a session carry over to the next one.
|
Shields stop an amount of damage equal to their Hardness, and the excess damage is split equally between the shield and the person being protected. So on a hit of 9 damage to a steel shield, the Hardness stops 5 points, and the remaining 4 damage is split into 2 points against the shield's health, and 2 to the bearer's health.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use Hero Points pretty differently, I prefer to keep them entirely diegetic. So I’m generally going to introduce them a bit into a campaign as an artifact or fate or something that the heroes have to attain before they can use, and tend to tie it to something in-game rather than per session.
I decided that drawing two weapons ought to be done as a single action. This makes intuitive sense, and since I tend to run a fair bit of combat encounters in locations and situations where the PCs don’t have their weapons drawn I didn’t want to punish the 2weapon ranger for this GM style.
Deafness interacts with spells with verbal components as though they had the auditory trait. I don’t know if this is a houserule or me following RAI, but it’s what I do at my table.
Off the top of my head, that’s all.
I use Hero Points pretty differently, I prefer to keep them entirely diegetic. So I’m generally going to introduce them a bit into a campaign as an artifact or fate or something that the heroes have to attain before they can use, and tend to tie it to something in-game rather than per session.
I decided that drawing two weapons ought to be done as a single action. This makes intuitive sense, and since I tend to run a fair bit of combat encounters in locations and situations where the PCs don’t have their weapons drawn I didn’t want to punish the 2weapon ranger for this GM style.
Deafness interacts with spells with verbal components as though they had the auditory trait. I don’t know if this is a houserule or me following RAI, but it’s what I do at my table.
Off the top of my head, that’s all.
I actually thought verbal components DID have the auditory traight... huh.... RAW does that mean deafness basically only hurts bards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually thought verbal components DID have the auditory traight... huh.... RAW does that mean deafness basically only hurts bards?I use Hero Points pretty differently, I prefer to keep them entirely diegetic. So I’m generally going to introduce them a bit into a campaign as an artifact or fate or something that the heroes have to attain before they can use, and tend to tie it to something in-game rather than per session.
I decided that drawing two weapons ought to be done as a single action. This makes intuitive sense, and since I tend to run a fair bit of combat encounters in locations and situations where the PCs don’t have their weapons drawn I didn’t want to punish the 2weapon ranger for this GM style.
Deafness interacts with spells with verbal components as though they had the auditory trait. I don’t know if this is a houserule or me following RAI, but it’s what I do at my table.
Off the top of my head, that’s all.
I don't think it affects bards particularly either, the only composition I'm aware of being explicitly auditory is Counter Performance.
The end result is that the effect of deafness is pitifully limited. It affects demoralise attempts and a very limited selection of spells (spells that rely on the target being able to hear them, which is just bizarre). Due to the sidebar on page 488 calling out permanently deaf characters as being able to cast verbal spells without issue (compared to temporarily deaf characters) I believe the RAI to be that deaf affects verbal components.
Running Deafened RAW also makes 0 sense and makes the deafened condition entirely useless as a tool for players to use, so I follow what I believe to be both RAI and better gameplay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Conditions like frightened decrease at the start of the initiative tick on which they were applied.
Since I use Fantasy Grounds this is easy to track. I mainly switched to doing this because the party rogue has Deadly Striker and three other party members like to throw frightened around; we were wasting table time with people delaying to shuffle their initiatives so that the creature would still be frightened when the rogue's turn came up.
*Potions/flasks/scrolls carried on a bandolier or clipped to your belt can be drawn as part of the action to use them, like tool kits. A character can't usefully wear more than two bandoliers, otherwise they lose this benefit as they waste time trying to remember where that particular potion is. :P
*If something normally requires a feat to do but could logically be attempted without it, you can attempt it without the feat at a -4 penalty.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is a thread about "minor tweaks", I won't get into Alchemist changes or options from the Gamemastery Guide. But here are some minor house rules we've implemented:
--Simple Changes:
- 1. The Lore skill gained from one's Background advances at the same rate as Lore skills purchased using a skill feat.
- 2. Spontaneous casters can chose to use higher level slots to cast lower level spells in their repertoire (without the benefits of heightening), even if they're not signature spells.
- 3. The following manipulate actions don't provoke reactions or attacks of opportunity: Parry.
--Snare Viability Changes:
- 4. At level 1, the Ranger gets the Powerful Snares feat as a bonus feat.
- 5. The level of all Ranger snare feats is halved. (So Snare Specialist is available at level 2, Quick Snare is available at level 3, Powerful Snares is available at level 4 (for those multiclassing into Ranger), Lightning Snares is available at level 6, and Ubiquitos Snares is available at level 8.)
--Minor Class Balance Changes:
"The Lore skill gained from one's Background advances at the same rate as Lore skills purchased using a skill feat."
As much as I like this, I think it is intentionally set up so you aren't missing out if you choose the wrong background. Like, how often will you ever roll mining lore? Or circus lore?
Though, that is more a problem with useless lores than anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spontaneous casters can chose to use higher level slots to cast lower level spells in their repertoire (without the benefits of heightening), even if they're not signature spells
I was just about to post this one. It's definitely one of my favorites. It's a lot more intuitive too, imo to be able to 'waste' energy by upcasting without heightening than the RAW where you can lose the ability to cast first level spells but still can cast a ton of second level and third level ones.
Snare Viability Changes:
My first fix here was to just get rid of the Snare Crafting feat. It feels like kind of a needless tax.
Dropping snare crafting to 2 and reducing the proficiency requirement to trained sounds nice too, might try that. I have a feeling it's a level 4 feat specifically to keep it out of the hands of multiclassers but if a Fighter wants to drop a bunch of feats to craft snares idk it doesn't seem that bad to let them do it before level 8.
Like, how often will you ever roll mining lore? Or circus lore?
You might not, and I agree that can be an issue.
But it's really frustrating if you pick a background you envision being a big part of your character's identity and are stuck with a Lore skill that's so much more relatively expensive to advance than any other Lore skill.
And I think, ultimately, being stuck with a less than stellar Lore you have to figure out how to use effectively is a better problem than encouraging players to pick backgrounds that aren't their backgrounds so they don't become trained in a lore skill they want to advance, because doing that is a bad thing.
If your initiative score is ten higher than an opponent's, that opponent is flat-footed to you until their turn on round one.
Critical damage is only rolled once, then this result is added to the maximum amount possible (as if all rolled dice came up with the highest number), ensuring criticals always do more damage than a normal hit.
I use Plot Twist cards (from first edition) as Hero Points.
Everybody starts a session with 2 hero points. I often fail to remember to hand out hero points until well after the moment they are appropriate, so this way everybody gets a bit of free stuff. It also imitates the feel of a free reroll houserule from 1e, as you can get a reroll without giving up the don't die button. I still hand them out when I can remember to (or get reminded to), but I have that little failsafe in place just in case.
Champions can select a cause that does not match their own alignment, as long as their patron deity allows followers of both the champion and their chosen cause's alignment. You must still obey the anathema, though I'll hear arguments on how it can be interpreted through your own viewpoint. The paladin code to "never take advantage of others" might look different from a LE perspective than LG, for example.
1 Fear gravity: cliffs are scary and falling off one should be impressive but in pf its kinda.... not, a level 10 barbarian can fall about 600 feet and have a slightly better than coin flip odds of living, and anything below 300 cannot kill them from full.
House rule: fall damage raises exponentially dealing d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen squared, so 10 feet Is 1d6, 50 feet is 25d6, 100 feet is 100d6 ect.
Does this make the feats and heritages that reduce fall damage worth more in practice?
Hero Points gained in the last hour of a session carry over to the next one.
Close. I do "you gain 1 hero point at the start of a session (max 3). You lose 1 hero point at the end of the session (min 0). As soon as you get a new level, your Hero Point total is 1."
Champions can select a cause that does not match their own alignment, as long as their patron deity allows followers of both the champion and their chosen cause's alignment. You must still obey the anathema, though I'll hear arguments on how it can be interpreted through your own viewpoint. The paladin code to "never take advantage of others" might look different from a LE perspective than LG, for example.
1 Fear gravity: cliffs are scary and falling off one should be impressive but in pf its kinda.... not, a level 10 barbarian can fall about 600 feet and have a slightly better than coin flip odds of living, and anything below 300 cannot kill them from full.
House rule: fall damage raises exponentially dealing d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen squared, so 10 feet Is 1d6, 50 feet is 25d6, 100 feet is 100d6 ect.
Does this make the feats and heritages that reduce fall damage worth more in practice?
yeah because before things that reduce your "effective fall distance" by 10 or 20 feet where saving 2d6 damage very occasionally. Whereas now they buffer out a lot more damage and can open up areas of movement to some that are not availible to others.
Does this make the feats and heritages that reduce fall damage worth more in practice?yeah because before things that reduce your "effective fall distance" by 10 or 20 feet where saving 2d6 damage very occasionally. Whereas now they buffer out a lot more damage and can open up areas of movement to some that are not availible to others.
Point of order - you are remembering 1st edition. Falling damage is no longer 1d6 per 10 feet, it is instead half the distance fallen. So a 20 foot fall deals a flat 10 damage.
Like, how often will you ever roll mining lore? Or circus lore?You might not, and I agree that can be an issue.
But it's really frustrating if you pick a background you envision being a big part of your character's identity and are stuck with a Lore skill that's so much more relatively expensive to advance than any other Lore skill.
And I think, ultimately, being stuck with a less than stellar Lore you have to figure out how to use effectively is a better problem than encouraging players to pick backgrounds that aren't their backgrounds so they don't become trained in a lore skill they want to advance, because doing that is a bad thing.
My fix for this was simply "You can take Additional Lore for your Background lore. If you do, pick another Lore to be Trained in."
My fix for this was simply "You can take Additional Lore for your Background lore. If you do, pick another Lore to be Trained in."
I'm partial to changing the wording to:
...At 3rd, 7th, and 15th levels, you gain an additional skill increase you can apply only to a Lore subcategory. This increase can not be applied to Bardic Lore or other special Lore subcategories.
You don't need to be put in an exception - Bardic Lore explicitly cannot be raised by any means except the one stated.
But I do kinda like allowing it to apply to any Lore.
Point of order - you are remembering 1st edition. Falling damage is no longer 1d6 per 10 feet, it is instead half the distance fallen. So a 20 foot fall deals a flat 10 damage.Does this make the feats and heritages that reduce fall damage worth more in practice?yeah because before things that reduce your "effective fall distance" by 10 or 20 feet where saving 2d6 damage very occasionally. Whereas now they buffer out a lot more damage and can open up areas of movement to some that are not availible to others.
Ahh my bad, though that doesnt change the math much. It goes from an average of 3.5ish damage per 10 foot to a guarentee of 5 damage, neither really represent much of a threat.
True.
Just make sure you keep an eye on hazards if you are running published adventures - a 40 foot pit trap is a very different danger with your rule than the book would assume. :P
We use only one Lore skill where all Lore abilities use this specifik skill. This because the Lore abilities has few uses and its just never worth having a specifik skill in all of them.
Its not really logical but made for playbalance and makes lore a bit more intresting. That said people very seldom buy it anyway.
We use the combined Strength and Constitution /2 rounded up for forced march tests.
This seem more logical in that it makes the physical classes more able to force march.
We allow intimidation being used by Strength instead of Charisma if the player so like. This seem more logical in that it makes the physical classes more able to intimidate.
ex a barbarian should be good at intimidation. Now he can be.
We have taken away the accuraccy skill feat.
Instead the profficience expert, master and legendary can take a ten instead of a roll in those skills. They do not have the DC before hand but they might have a good opinion.
This to make the easy skill checks more easily managable by the experts+. This seem logical that experts more seldom fail easy tasks.
I allow for free character rebuilds at levels 2 and 3 (or, if we start higher than 1, the first two level ups). Since people are playing new characters and might not wind up liking what they're playing I just allow people to change without altering the narrative (we treat it as if they were always like that). Similarly, I allow a free rebuild after a major content release, the first time I will allow it being the APG.
|
Social Initiative is something I've run for a long time with PF1 and I use it just as much with PF2.
Essentially in situations where there are multiple PCs and NPCs all jockeying for attention in a social encounter to "say their piece" then you have each Character choose one social Skill or their Cha Modifier and roll to see who gets to speak first. This only applies during encounters where you might have multiple people trying different and/or opposing things such as a Barbarian who wants to intimidate the Guard, the Rogue who wants to Lie to them, and the Champion who wants to approach it with Diplomacy and all three are chomping at the bit to make their check first.
It isn't SUPER common but I've used it in pretty much every campaign I've ever run a handful of times to great effect.
1 Fear gravity: cliffs are scary and falling off one should be impressive but in pf its kinda.... not, a level 10 barbarian can fall about 600 feet and have a slightly better than coin flip odds of living, and anything below 300 cannot kill them from full.
House rule: fall damage raises exponentially dealing d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen squared, so 10 feet Is 1d6, 50 feet is 25d6, 100 feet is 100d6 ect.
If you would implement this in regard to reason of realism then you would need to do the same for all damage.
A 2-H sword that hit a person at full swing currently in game do 1d12+attribute bonus and maybe some small bonus.In real life you would problary chop the body in two.
As I see it the damage in game based on combat and hazard is supposed to be viewed in a heroic manner, where the target work with the force and dodge or lessen the damage by any means it can.
Ex by falling the target manage to slow the decend by then and again brake the fall towards the cliff and end up at the last moment getting hold of a branch of tree or bush or similar to just not outright die, or they fall in the water. A 100 feet drop would then still give them 50hp and they would be at the bottom of the fall.
I would suggest you consider less realism into the gaming and more as heroic scenes between heroes and villains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shields have bonus AC as normal rules when raised and stop an amount of damage equal to their Hardness when blocking as normal.
All types of Shield have a fixed breakvalue.
On a normal hit and the total damage of the attack before reductions equals the BREAKVALUE of the shield the shield gets one structure damage. (if the shield was used blocking, not otherwise)
On a critical hit and the total damage of the attack before reductions equals the HARDNESS value of the shield the shield gets one structure damage. (if the shield was used blocking, not otherwise)
OBS: Precision damage and/or non physical damage like poison damage & non leathal damage is NOT counted for structure damage purposes.
When a Shield has structure damage it is damaged but can be used normally. It can be repaired by crafting as normal.
If the shields structure becomes 0 the shield is destroyed and can not longer be used nor repaired.
Buckler +1AC, 3 Hardness, 6 Breakvalue, 2 Structure.
Wooden shield +2AC, 3 Hardness, 12 Breakvalue, 3 Structure.
Steel shield +2AC, 5 Hardness, 20 Breakvalue, 3 Structure.
Tower shield +2AC, 5 Hardness, 20 Breakvalue, 3 Structure.
(+4Accover action)
Hardness and Breakvalue for magic shields & special material equal their normal hardness and uses their hp for breakvalue.
Repair
ExplorationManipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 243
Requirements You have a repair kit.
You spend 10 minutes attempting to fix a damaged item, placing the item on a stable surface and using the repair kit with both hands.
You can repair one structure damage each 10 minutes. The GM sets the DC, but it’s usually about the same DC to Repair a given item as it is to Craft it in the first place.
You can’t Repair a destroyed item.
1 Fear gravity: cliffs are scary and falling off one should be impressive but in pf its kinda.... not, a level 10 barbarian can fall about 600 feet and have a slightly better than coin flip odds of living, and anything below 300 cannot kill them from full.
House rule: fall damage raises exponentially dealing d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen squared, so 10 feet Is 1d6, 50 feet is 25d6, 100 feet is 100d6 ect.If you would implement this in regard to reason of realism then you would need to do the same for all damage.
A 2-H sword that hit a person at full swing currently in game do 1d12+attribute bonus and maybe some small bonus.
In real life you would problary chop the body in two.As I see it the damage in game based on combat and hazard is supposed to be viewed in a heroic manner, where the target work with the force and dodge or lessen the damage by any means it can.
Ex by falling the target manage to slow the decend by then and again brake the fall towards the cliff and end up at the last moment getting hold of a branch of tree or bush or similar to just not outright die, or they fall in the water. A 100 feet drop would then still give them 50hp and they would be at the bottom of the fall.I would suggest you consider less realism into the gaming and more as heroic scenes between heroes and villains.
it's not necessarily a realism thing so much as it is that, as written fall damage just doesnt matter, by midgame players can jump off cliffs and ramparts with ease and barely get a scratch for it, and jumping off cliffs and castles just isnt an aesthetic I want. As mentioned earlier it also makes spacing into those things more valuable and the people who CAN just hop off a 50 foot fall more special by extension.
it's not necessarily a realism thing so much as it is that, as written fall damage just doesnt matter, by midgame players can jump off cliffs and ramparts with ease and barely get a scratch for it, and jumping off cliffs and castles just isnt an aesthetic I want. As mentioned earlier it also makes spacing into those things more valuable and the people who CAN just hop off a 50 foot fall more special by extension.I am not trying to persuade you think otherwise in regard to fall and damage.
I just dont see why just fall damage should be more realistic vs other in game damages?If it comes to damage as written weapon damage dont matter much either, nor a fireball. I mean in real life if you where in a room where someone used a flame thrower on you, you would be a black crisp. In the game your cloth doesnt even get destroyed and you barerly get a dent by the fireball. Realistic not so much.
Same goes for traps, in real life if you got a deadly poison you would surely die but in game you get some lousy d6 damage.So why is it that you find those types of damage ok but fall damage must be realistic? Thats what I really dont get.
Its all about game balance and having fun, where you need to see the heroes barerly avoid the brunt of the hits and damage they take to be able to survive and fight on.
If you put realism in it, most "heroes" would die in a couple of turns after some encounters.
This game system is just not about realism in regard any damage they take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again realism isnt really a factor the factor is making a threat matter and making the ability to bypass that threat valuable, weapon attacks and traps and more tailor made environmental threats scale such that players cannot just ignore it, sure they can survive the damage but it puts them in a bad spot so dealing with the obstical is always prefered,
Compare that to fall damage, where rules as written a dwarf fighter can, at level one survive a 40 foot fall from full and each level can make a 20 foot higher fall. To make fall damage relevent in the midgame you have to involve preposterous heights. Obsticals and threats ought to matter, and cause players to consider options and .ake decisions, if a threat or problem is "free" there was no reason for it to be there in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have homebrew crafting rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We use only one Lore skill where all Lore abilities use this specifik skill. This because the Lore abilities has few uses and its just never worth having a specifik skill in all of them.
Its not really logical but made for playbalance and makes lore a bit more intresting. That said people very seldom buy it anyway.
My approach to this is to instead make Lore more valuable by giving lower DCs for Lore checks than for other knowledge rolls. For example, knowing about a certain dragon might be a DC 25 Arcana roll, or a DC 20 Dragon Lore roll.
There's actually a lot of precedent for this in the published adventures. One that recently comes to mind is a check that is called out as DC 28 Society, but is only DC 15 (!) if you have the appropriate Lore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We use only one Lore skill where all Lore abilities use this specifik skill. This because the Lore abilities has few uses and its just never worth having a specifik skill in all of them.
Its not really logical but made for playbalance and makes lore a bit more intresting. That said people very seldom buy it anyway.My approach to this is to instead make Lore more valuable by giving lower DCs for Lore checks than for other knowledge rolls. For example, knowing about a certain dragon might be a DC 25 Arcana roll, or a DC 20 Dragon Lore roll.
There's actually a lot of precedent for this in the published adventures. One that recently comes to mind is a check that is called out as DC 28 Society, but is only DC 15 (!) if you have the appropriate Lore.
The Core Rules actually call this out!
You might use different DCs for a task based on the particular skill or statistic used for the check. Let’s say your PCs encounter a magical tome about aberrant creatures. The tome is 4th-level and has the occult trait, so you set the DC of an Occultism check to Identify the Magic to 19, based on Table 10–5. As noted in Identify Magic, other magic-related skills can typically be used at a higher DC, so you might decide the check is very hard for a character using Arcana and set the DC at 24 for characters using that skill. If a character in your group had Aberration Lore, you might determine that it would be easy or very easy to use that skill and adjust the DC to 17 or 14. These adjustments aren’t taking the place of characters’ bonuses, modifiers, and penalties—they are due to the applicability of the skills being used.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh right, I also implemented NAT20 on initiative = everyone is flat-footed to you until they take their actions. One of my players was a little bummed about "wasting" nat20s on initiative so it seemed like an easy fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*If something normally requires a feat to do but could logically be attempted without it, you can attempt it without the feat at a -4 penalty.
I really like this house rule. I did get a little worried about how this works with high level skill feats (e.g., allowing someone who's only trained in a skill to do something that requires a legendary feat with only a -4 penalty). But here's a slightly tweaked version of this house rule I've adopted:
__________
So suppose you want to make a disguise in 1 minute, and you don't have the Quick Disguise feat:
Quick Disguise Feat 2
Prerequisites expert in DeceptionYou can set up a disguise in half the usual time (generally 5 minutes). If you’re a master, it takes one-tenth the usual time (usually 1 minute). If you’re legendary, you can create a full disguise and Impersonate as a 3-action activity.
Then your penalty for doing so would be:
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you critically fail 3 times before getting a critical success, you get a hero point. Other creatures critically succeeding on a save you cause counts as a critical failure for these purposes, and other creatures critically failing on a save you cause counts as a critical success for these purposes.
It's meant to replicate the trope that the hero is getting pummeled by the villain, and then pulls out some special technique/ability/power of friendship to help them succeed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you critically fail 3 times before getting a critical success, you get a hero point. Other creatures critically succeeding on a save you cause counts as a critical failure for these purposes, and other creatures critically failing on a save you cause counts as a critical success for these purposes.
It's meant to replicate the trope that the hero is getting pummeled by the villain, and then pulls out some special technique/ability/power of friendship to help them succeed.
That's a really adorable house rule!