Supercharing Magic: A House Rule for Recruiting PF1 Players

[Porridge]

Although I'm relatively content with where magic ended up in PF2, I know a lot of PF1 players are not. And it would be nice to have some house rules which:

• 1. Boost magic to a level that PF1 players would be more satisfied with,
• 2. Are simple and unified way (not a piecemeal list of changes to dozens of spells),
• 3. Don't allow magic to break the game.

After some discussion and playtesting, here's what what I've come up. Things have worked well so far with my group, but I'm curious to hear what other think. If you're one of the people who's generally unsatisfied with the power level of magic in PF2, does this house rule boost things to a level that would make you happy? Are there game-breaking consequences of this house rule that I've missed?

____________________

Supercharging Magic: Every time someone casts a spell, they can Supercharge it in one of these 5 ways:

1. Incapacitation Supercharge: Removes the Incapacitation trait from the spell, but grants creatures a bonus to their saves against the spell equal to [creature's level - (2*spell level)] (minimum 0).

EX: Casting a 4th level Charm spell with the Incapacitation Supercharge on an 11th level creature would give that creature an additional (11-8=)+3 bonus to their Will save.

Rationale:

The incapacitation trait is one of the biggest complaints I encountered about PF2 magic. This change allows casters to have a non-trivial chance of landing these effects against higher level targets, but I'm hoping the additional bonus to saves granted by such spells (combined with the overall strong saves for creatures in PF2) will still make it difficult for casters to trivialize boss encounters.

2. (De)buff Supercharge: Adds 1 to any bonus, penalty, or condition (except Slowed) that the spell incurs.

EX: Casting a Goblin Pox spell with the (De)buff Supercharge would have the following effects, given the target's Fortitude save:
Critical Success: Target unaffected.
Success: Target is sickened 2 [instead of sickened 1].
Failure: Target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 2 [instead of stage 1].
Critical Failure: Target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 3 [instead of stage 2].

Rationale:

With the Incapacitation Supercharge option, straight debuff options start to look strictly sub-optimal. This attempts to boost to debuff spells enough to keep the non-incapacitation options as viable competitors for spell slots.

3. Attack Supercharge: Adds an untyped +2 bonus to spell attack rolls with the spell.

Rationale:

Using the Gamemastery Guide rules for constructing NPCs, NPC spellcasters get a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls relative to PCs. So doing the same for PCs shouldn't break the math too much. This also makes attack roll cantrips more competitive with Electric Arc.

4. Damage Supercharge: Adds half the level of the spell slot used to the number of damage dice the spell inflicts (of the die size the spell normally employs). For non-area of effects spells with multiple targets, this extra damage is spread out however the caster desires.

EX: Casting a 3rd level Fireball spell with the Damage Supercharge would do 6d6+1d6=7d6 damage to everyone in the area.

EX: Casting a 1-action 3rd level Magic Missile spell with the Damage Supercharge would shoot two missiles that do 1d4+1 force damage each, and would add an additional 1d4 force damage to one of the targets of these missiles.

EX: Casting Electric Arc with the Damage Supercharge would do nothing, since the spell doesn't use a spell slot.

Rationale:

I don't think spell damage needs much of a boost, but during my playtests I heard complaints about non attack roll damage spells seeming lame when other spells receive a substantial boost. And this seems to be enough of a boost to make them feel better, but not a big enough boost to break encounters. (The expected damage increase from this boost is substantially less than that provided by the +2 bonus to attack rolls.)

5. Duration Supercharge: Doubles the duration of the spell and its effects.

EX: Casting a Slow spell with the Duration Supercharge would have the following effects, given the target's Will save:
Critical Success: Target unaffected,
Success: Target is slowed 1 for 2 rounds [instead of 1 round],
Failure: Target is slowed 1 for 2 minutes [instead of 1 minute],
Critical Failure: Target is slowed 2 for 2 minutes [instead of 1 minute].

EX: Casting a 4th level Fly spell with the Duration Supercharge would have a duration of 10 minutes [instead of 5 minutes].

Rationale:

This provides a generic boost to most spells not effected by the first four supercharges, and offers an interesting alternative way to boost buff/debuff spells.

[jdripley]

Interesting, and seems well thought out. And measured! So many houserules blow the doors right off, but you seem to be keen on not going tooooo too far with any of these options.

My opinion - messing with it too much. But if it's right for your table, I think you probably won't be critically damaging the game.

I mean, what the heck do I know about it though :P

[Porridge]

jdripley wrote:

Interesting, and seems well thought out. And measured! So many houserules blow the doors right off, but you seem to be keen on not going tooooo too far with any of these options.

Thanks!

jdripley wrote:

My opinion - messing with it too much.

I'm inclined to agree. As I noted above, I'm actually pretty happy with where magic is in PF2. (Though I've also had a good time playing with this house rule.)

But I'm not the one this house rule is aimed at -- it's aimed at people who are unhappy with the power level of magic in PF2. And what I'm looking for is a boost to magic that would make such people happy to play PF2.

Or perhaps I misunderstood your comment. Were you saying that *you* were one of the people unhappy with the power level of magic in PF2, but thought that this house rule boosted magic by even more than you wanted? If so, that's helpful to know!

[kayman]

What about a metamegic feat to deal with the incacitation trait problem?

[Porridge]

kayman wrote:

What about a metamegic feat to deal with the incacitation trait problem?

That's an interesting suggestion. And one that would be less revisionary than the "supercharging" suggestion.

Here are two potential drawbacks of just adding such a metamagic feat to consider.

Worry 1. A metamagic feat that reduces incapacitation (or perhaps just weakens it in the way the Incapacitation Supercharge does, replacing it with a bonus to saves) would be much better than most of the class feats spellcasters can take. So it seems like this might turn into a feat tax on the class, something they have to spend a class feat on "to keep up".

That would be a reason to favor a houserule that just changes how incapacitation works, instead of making players pay for it.

Worry 2. If one just weakens the incapacitation effect, but keeps everything else the same, then incapacitation spells become much better than most of the other debuff spells available to casters, making such options obselete.

This would be a (tentative) reason to pair such a change with something which boosts non-incapacitation spells in some way, so that they can remain attractive options.

(This was a big motivation for adding the (De)buff Supercharge option, above.)

__________

That said, my main motivation for sketching this was proposal was to try to find a way to make things more fun for PF1 players who are unhappy with the power level of magic in PF2.

If your players are only unhappy about the incapacitation trait, and wouldn't complain about having to play a class feat for a metamagic feat or about the other debuff spells being too weak, then go for it! (And let me know how it goes!)

[kayman]

thanks for the reply

[Henro]

Where are the supercharges coming from? Can a player supercharge any spell, anytime (that would be a massive buff)? Or does it cost a resource (hero points seem appropriate?)?

I think these changes could be fun and balanced at 2 hero points for a supercharge, maybe? Then again, I'm pretty happy with magic and I don't use hero points sooo....

[Porridge]

Henro wrote:

Where are the supercharges coming from? Can a player supercharge any spell, anytime (that would be a massive buff)? Or does it cost a resource (hero points seem appropriate?)?

I think these changes could be fun and balanced at 2 hero points for a supercharge, maybe? Then again, I'm pretty happy with magic and I don't use hero points sooo....

The idea behind the initial proposal was to help GM's convert PF1 players who were unhappy with the power level of magic in PF2. So on that proposal, Supercharges don't have a cost - though only one can be used at a time. (You need the "only one" restriction because some spells could benefit from several Supercharges, and you don't want those spells to be boosted much more than others.)

But if you were already happy with the power level of PF2 magic, or only wanted to give it a *slight* boost, then allowing people to Supercharge their spells but at the cost of some resource (focus points? hero points?) sounds like a fun option.

One could also adopt a mixed approach, making Supercharges free for cantrips, but making them cost a resource for focus/spell slot spells. This would keep power levels largely the same, while still allowing for a little rebalancing between cantrips.

E.g., the most powerful cantrip, Electric Arc, doesn't benefit from any Supercharges, so is unchanged. But the weaker attack roll cantrips all get a boost (since one can use the Attack Supercharge with them). And the much maligned Daze cantrip gets a boost (since it can benefit from either the (De)buff Supercharge or the Duration Supercharge).

[kayman]

What do you think about this small modification in the incapacitation trait rule?

"An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats a CRITICAL FAILURE check to prevent being incapacitated as a FAILURE. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits."

Spells with this characteristic would have a more powerful effect but without the possibility of eliminating a monster or PC permanently. This would somewhat mitigate the problem of damage spells by facilitating memorization at higher levels (although it is still distressing due to the small number of slots).

Do you think this interpretation is incorrect and the low level spells with the incapacitation trait would become to powerful?

[Porridge]

kayman wrote:

What do you think about this small modification in the incapacitation trait rule?

"An ability with this trait can take a character completely out of the fight or even kill them, and it’s harder to use on a more powerful character. If a spell has the incapacitation trait, any creature of more than twice the spell’s level treats a CRITICAL FAILURE check to prevent being incapacitated as a FAILURE. If any other effect has the incapacitation trait, a creature of higher level than the item, creature, or hazard generating the effect gains the same benefits."

Spells with this characteristic would have a more powerful effect but without the possibility of eliminating a monster or PC permanently. This would somewhat mitigate the problem of damage spells by facilitating memorization at higher levels (although it is still distressing due to the small number of slots).

Do you think this interpretation is incorrect and the low level spells with the incapacitation trait would become to powerful?

That's an interesting idea. I think this work well for some incapacitation spells, like Flesh to Stone, which are only really debilitating on a critical failure. But there are a number of other incapacitation spells which are still debilitating on failure result.

Consider, for example, Charm, Sleep, Calm Emotions, or Blindness, all cast at their lowest levels. With the suggested change, these spells can effectively remove an opponent from combat on a failed save, regardless of the opponent's level. This makes them extremely potent, far better than the other low level spells available. (Compare the effect of a failed save against a 1st level Fear spell, and a failed save against a 1st level Sleep spell.)

I think if you want to uniformly weaken the Incapacitation effect spells, the easiest way to do it (without creating too much spell imbalance) is to give creatures a scaling bonus to saves if the spell's level isn't high enough. This leaves them with a chance of still having an effect, but still makes them not too likely to work against high level opponents unless one casts them using high-level spell slots.

[Draco18s]

Keep in mind that (1) if an enemy is higher level than the caster, they've already got that level difference times (about) 1.4 as a bonus. Note that they tend to have between -3 and +3 as their base saving throw value over the caster's spellcasting attribute. Depending on the save and what the monster is good at. Monsters typically have 1 HIGH, 1 MODERATE, and 1 LOW save, but they're frequently have two HIGH and a LOW or all three at MODERATE.

The math:

Spoiler:

A monster with HIGH saves gets 9 + level + ((level - 1) / 5) + ((level + 1) / 5) as its saving throw value.
The base value of 9 becomes a 6 for a MODERATE save and a 3 for a LOW save.

A PC spellcaster will, until boosts, have at most a +4 to their spellcasting attribute, plus 2 for being Trained.

However if a monster has an EXTREME saving throw, the math is 10 + level + (level / 2)

Very very rarely will it ever be lower than that, but if it is, its around 1 + level + ((level - 1) / 3)
(Of the 120ish monsters I've looked at, 3 have a TERRIBLE or worse Fort save, 7 have a TERRIBLE or worse Reflex save, and 5 have a TERRIBLE or worse Will save. In comparison, 10 have EXTREME or better Fort, 4 have EXTREME or better Reflex, and 2 have EXTREME or better Will; Fort universally trends higher than Reflex, which trends higher than Will)

(Note, all division here is integer: discard all fractional values)

(2) That 1.4 stays constant, intended to match the rate at which PCs get boosts, but ignores the fact that boosts above 18 are applied at half-rate, so higher level enemies will out-pace.

And (3) even suffering a critically debilitating debuff, the PCs will still have trouble dealing damage before the condition wears off, again due to the level gap.

My personal suggestion would be that instead of boosting the result by a whole category (equivalent to a blanket +10), just give the enemy a bonus on their save equal to the level difference (so a level 3 player casting the spell on a level 5 enemy, the enemy rolls with a bonus +2). Possibly even double this value (a +4).

[Porridge]

Draco18s wrote:

Keep in mind that (1) if an enemy is higher level than the caster, they've already got that level difference times (about) 1.4 as a bonus. Note that they tend to have between -3 and +3 as their base saving throw value over the caster's spellcasting attribute. Depending on the save and what the monster is good at. Monsters typically have 1 HIGH, 1 MODERATE, and 1 LOW save, but they're frequently have two HIGH and a LOW or all three at MODERATE.

The math:
** spoiler omitted **

(2) That 1.4 stays constant, intended to match the rate at which PCs get boosts, but ignores the fact that boosts above 18 are applied at half-rate, so higher level enemies will out-pace.

And (3) even suffering a critically debilitating debuff, the PCs will still have trouble dealing damage before the condition wears off, again due to the level gap.

My personal suggestion would be that instead of boosting the result by a whole category (equivalent to a blanket +10), just give the enemy a bonus on their save equal to the level difference (so a level 3 player casting the spell on a level 5 enemy, the enemy rolls with a...

Yeah, this is a natural way of trying to weaken Incapacitation without removing it entirely.

My big worry for this approach - which calculates the target's save bonus by the comparing character levels - is that it makes the low level versions of these spells as powerful as the high level versions. E.g., why heighten your Blindness spell if your odds of success are the same regardless of what level you cast it at? (Likewise, it feels a little at odds with PF2's spell design, which now uses the spell's level, not the caster's level, to determine the effectiveness of spells.)

So if one's going to weaken Incapacitation, I'd be inclined to favor an approach which compares the spell's level to the target's level (not the caster's level to the target's level) in order to determine what the target's bonus to saves is.

[Draco18s]

Porridge wrote:

E.g., why heighten your Blindness spell if your odds of success are the same regardless of what level you cast it at? (Likewise, it feels a little at odds with PF2's spell design, which now uses the spell's level, not the caster's level, to determine the effectiveness of spells.)

So if one's going to weaken Incapacitation, I'd be inclined to favor an approach which compares the spell's level to the target's level (not the caster's level to the target's level) in order to determine what the target's bonus to saves is.

You could use doubled spell level in place of character level, then. (If the player is an odd level, subtract 1, representing the slight difference in being level 3 with 2nd level spells, and level 4 with second level spells; or do it the other way, add 1 if they're an even level)

[Porridge]

Draco18s wrote:

Porridge wrote:

E.g., why heighten your Blindness spell if your odds of success are the same regardless of what level you cast it at? (Likewise, it feels a little at odds with PF2's spell design, which now uses the spell's level, not the caster's level, to determine the effectiveness of spells.)

So if one's going to weaken Incapacitation, I'd be inclined to favor an approach which compares the spell's level to the target's level (not the caster's level to the target's level) in order to determine what the target's bonus to saves is.

You could use doubled spell level in place of character level, then.

Yeah, I think this is the most natural way to go. This is actually exactly what I proposed in my original post (above):

Porridge wrote:

1. Incapacitation Supercharge: Removes the Incapacitation trait from the spell, but grants creatures a bonus to their saves against the spell equal to [creature's level - (2*spell level)] (minimum 0).

EX: Casting a 4th level Charm spell with the Incapacitation Supercharge on an 11th level creature would give that creature an additional (11-8=)+3 bonus to their Will save.

So I think we're seeing eye-to-eye on this one!