Shortlist of urgently needed rules variants


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dear Paizo,

Please prioritize developing rules variants for the following issues.

Not only does it improve the game for a sizeable portion of your customer base, it acknowledges that these are real issues for many gamers. Just by addressing the issues, you stop the current situation where these issues are silently ignored, as if they aren't a big concern. Thank you.

1) Incapacitation
A rules variant that does away with the incapacitation trait. For some gamers, Incapacitation is fine. For others, it's effectively a hard ban on all spells with the incapacitation trait. Please help this latter category.

Obviously, something needs to be implemented in its place, but that's your job. (And if us gamers discuss it should happen in the Homebrew forum!)

2) Cantrips
Currently, Electric Arc is so much better than the spell attack cantrips it isn't even funny. Please supply a rules variant in an offical published book that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic. (The problem is that in order for variety to happen, the options need to be roughly equal)

3) Shields
Some gamers are fine with your current implementation, but others can't stand the notion you would even want to block an attack with your face to save your precious shield. Please supply an rules variant, again in an official published supplement, that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic.

4) Talismans
Again, not a problem for everyone. However, to some of us, talismans (especially low-level items) are a cruel joke. Being asked by the rules devs to spend all that brain power choosing talismans, constantly deciding to use or not use it, remembering which talisman is affixed where... and all for what? the game's smallest, stingiest and most fleeting of bonuses!

The option to consider every talisman vendor trash just to be sold for cash is a real quality-of-life improvement for many of your customers, and it would be real nice indeed if you would supply an official rules variant where talismans weren't such a (pardon the french) pain in the ass.

---

Yes these issues could be considered small. Yes, they are niggles, not show stoppers. Still, they collectively present a black stain on an otherwise excellent rules system for many gamers.

Frankly speaking, they should be fairly quick to solve (=offer variants for). A single dev and maybe an allotment of half a dozen pages, and boom, done. There really is no reason to keep us waiting for years before you come around to fixing them. Please do this, and do it in the next major rules supplement, and you will have significantly upgraded the way your game is considered for some (but not all) of your customers.

Thank you

Silver Crusade

29 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For how many gamers is this an issue? What's a "sizable proportion of customer base"? Do you have any numbers, or are you just appealing to a plurality to make your argument look stronger?

Also, you can house rule these "issues" yourself, as many have already done. Paizo won't rewrite the core rules just to satisfy one person and likely won't publish an alternate rules volume anytime soon.

Especially if you're calling their work a "cruel joke" the chances of anybody taking you seriously are falling off the cliff in a burning wreck.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Other than the Electric Arc issue, these are all easily fixed by houserules -

Ignore Incapacitation.

Pretend Shields can't be destroyed by incoming damage.

Don't use Talismans and pretend they're just more money loot, like gems or art.

You may break encounter balance as characters become instantly more powerful, but encounter balance is exactly the reason these things exist.

It would be rude to walk into someone else's house, intentionally break their stuff, and then demand they fix it. Why is that your solution here?

I encourage you to make a Good Faith attempt to try all this and make it work. Holding to self-imposed positions such as "Blocking for your shield with your face" indicates to me you have not made the attempt to frame the situation in a way which does not cause problems - instead of framing it in a way which does.

My experience says these items (other than electric arc) all work when you play them as intended, with consideration of why the exist and with consideration of the problems they exist to solve.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm wondering, too, what metrics this "sizable proportion of your customer base" claim is based on...

ad 1) Well that rules variant is easy. Just do away with the rule and you're done. I don't know why you would need an official rules variant for that, as rule variants are exactly that, official or not.

ad 2) I agree. Electric arc is too good, compared to other cantrips. But it's not a rules variant that is needed here (because that would be irrelevant), but a rebalancing update of the actual game.

I don't care about your points 3 and 4, though; there's nothing I see as problematic.

Nothing here seems "urgent" to me, thb.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And if you need "official house rules" from Paizo for whatever reasons, that's not how house rules work.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

A thought people seem to not have nearly as often as I do:

How does it seems reasonable to think that a group of authors working together that put forth their absolute best effort and you think they didn't hit the mark are somehow going to "get it right" if they listen to you and try just one more time?

Seems clear to me that whatever you want the rules to be/do is outside their opinion of what the rules should be/do, so even though "Frankly speaking, they should be fairly quick to solve (=offer variants for). A single dev and maybe an allotment of half a dozen pages, and boom, done." it's unlikely that the results will actually please you any better than the current situation. And also that's a massive overstatement of the ease of designing quality rules content.

And there is this: "There really is no reason to keep us waiting for years before you come around to fixing them." This statement is absolutely correct. You should not wait for Paizo to come "fix" these things, because they are not in need of a fix - you (the general you) don't like them, but that's a you problem, not a the game problem.

And let's combine those together: You know better than Paizo does how you want these specific non-broken elements to be "fixed" and you don't want to wait for them - so you go fix them for yourself.

TL;DR: Dear Paizo, completely disregard OP's (rude and dismissive) request.


Quick cantrip fix:

Increase die size of all cantrips by one step except for electric arc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:

Other than the Electric Arc issue, these are all easily fixed by houserules -

Ignore Incapacitation.

I'm personally OK with incapacitation, but if I had to change it I'd remove the one step improvement in saves and have it only turn a critical fail into a fail.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
TL;DR: Dear Paizo, completely disregard OP's (rude and dismissive) request.

Seconded by a sizeable portion of your customer base.


While I do also have some issues with the current implementation of Incapacitation (how binary it is instead of having degrees based on the level difference) and Shields (how Sturdy is the only single option block-centered characters have; discussed in more detail in the shield thread), I agree with the general sentiment here: officially changing some of those things, especially the specific changes you're asking for, would be a huge headache and/or ignore a big part of how the game is designed. Asking for some shields to be buffed, for example, is one thing, and there's a long going discussion about if that would be a good thing or not, but wanting an official rule that ignores durability as a balancing factor, which is a core aspect of the shield mechanic, sounds like asking for too much.


The Electric Arc issue is really the only one of these that I've ever seen someone outside of these forums complain about.


Salamileg wrote:
The Electric Arc issue is really the only one of these that I've ever seen someone outside of these forums complain about.

Plus, its really only a problem relative to other cantrips. There comes a point during character growth where spell slots and non-spell actions become abundant enough that cantrips truly are just filler actions, and Electric Arc is not so broken as to change that.

Its hardly gamebreaking.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Salamileg wrote:
The Electric Arc issue is really the only one of these that I've ever seen someone outside of these forums complain about.

Plus, its really only a problem relative to other cantrips. There comes a point during character growth where spell slots and non-spell actions become abundant enough that cantrips truly are just filler actions, and Electric Arc is not so broken as to change that.

Its hardly gamebreaking.

This is one of those things that interests me from a people-watching perspective:

Tons of complaints that folks have made about PF2 rules elements are some form of "only works its best against weaker enemies" - whether that's incapacitation spells, area "blaster" casters, or the like.

But then electric arc gets declared "overpowered" even though it also only performs its best against weaker enemies, since that's when it's most able to actually target 2 creatures which is the only time it can be construed as out-performing other cantrips.

So the zeitgeist appears confused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


1) Incapacitation

Yes I agree it is an overly harsh and arbitrary rule. I know it is a game with a lot of them but we don't need more. I think Incapacitation needs to be watered down. There are simpler ways of achieving this effect with out totally hosing so many spells.

Zapp wrote:


2) Cantrips

I disagree with you here. Electric Arc may seem like the best but the others have their place. Telekinetic Projectile does more damage to a single target - which is often the correct tactic. Ray of Frost has 4 times the range. What I would errata is Acid Splash to clarify the splash damage.

Zapp wrote:


3) Shields

The concepts are really good and an excellent design.

But they fiddled with the numbers late in the process and clearly the outcome is not reasonable. Some of the biggest threads are arguing over shields.

Zapp wrote:


4) Talismans

Honestly I ignore these totally. Paizo has historically made far too many fiddly and insigificant little bonuses that I always forget when they are relevant anyway. I thought one of the goals of PF2 was to remove the thousands of little modifiers that occur in PF1.


Zapp wrote:


1) Incapacitation

I commented in the homebrew thread. Yeah, I've got some annoyances with this, but I had some annoyances with ghouls being scary to a level 10 character.

Zapp wrote:


2) Cantrips

This shouldn't be a variant. Either they feel they need to rebalance the cantrips for everyone, or it belongs entirely in homebrew. An official variant would be… weird. I don't want to have to ask the GM, "Which cantrip rules are we using?"

Zapp wrote:


3) Shields

This seems more like a healing issue to me. If you don't like protecting your shield with your face, it's not a matter of the shield, it's a matter of the face. Alternatively… use your reaction for something else, and use shields for AC like in PF1.

Zapp wrote:


4) Talismans

This is being addressed in a fashion. They're making an archetype focused on them to, I believe, provide free daily talismans. But, I think you already have your solution: they can be treated as stuff to sell. Consumables in general are good candidates, and consumables that you find annoying to keep track of should definitely be sold.


I love the incapacitation rule. But as a GM I can say it has rarely come up, and usually in the PC’s favor (ghouls probably the most common scenario). If you have issue with this from a PC perspective, I would think the issue might be you’re facing overturned encounters (to whit, a moderate encounter is an equal number of creatures as PCs at CR-2). You should not often face CR+1’s or higher, and if you do should feel imposing enough that auto winning the encounter with a single spell should be a very very low probability, especially if it’s not built-up through debuffs and the like.

Also keep in mind it’s more than twice spell level, so typically on odd levels the monster has to be CR+2. 5th PC casting 3rd level spell, incapacitation trait comes into effect for CR7, not CR +1.

You should not be seeing a lot of CR+2’s - if you are, the game difficulty is likely overturned which creates much worse problems than just incapacitation.


Gorbacz wrote:
For how many gamers is this an issue? What's a "sizable proportion of customer base"?

I hope you don't expect *me* to answer. I'm basically writing an open letter to Paizo. Not to you.

KrispyXIV wrote:
Other than the Electric Arc issue, these are all easily fixed by houserules

Maybe you didn't catch that but I prefer official variants. If you'd like to discuss how to houserule this let's meet up over in the Homebrew forum!

Thx


Dilvias wrote:

Quick cantrip fix:

Increase die size of all cantrips by one step except for electric arc.

Yes, let us hope this, or some other equally significant solution, becomes official errata.


dmerceless wrote:
Asking for some shields to be buffed, for example, is one thing, and there's a long going discussion about if that would be a good thing or not, but wanting an official rule that ignores durability as a balancing factor, which is a core aspect of the shield mechanic, sounds like asking for too much.

Then you will be happy to note I did not tell Paizo how to fix the issue. (In other words, I do not belong to this group of hypothetical people "wanting an official rule that ignores durability".)


Liegence wrote:
But as a GM I can say it has rarely come up

In our case the rule does not come into play simply because players avoid incapacitation spells like the plague.

And because those monsters that do cast Incapacitation spells are nearly always at least the same level as the heroes.

That does not mean I consider the issue settled, hence my post.

Liegence wrote:

You should not often face CR+1’s or higher

You should not be seeing a lot of CR+2’s - if you are, the game difficulty is likely overturned which creates much worse problems than just incapacitation.

Tell that to Paizo. We run their official AP where you see L+1's and L+2's all the time.

Thank you for responding!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


Maybe you didn't catch that but I prefer official variants.

I did catch that, actually. Your preference is noted, but its unlikely to provide helpful results for you in the long or short terms.

Houseruling these items is more likely to address your particular needs, faster, than waiting for the developers to fix items working as they intended.

Theres no need for these items to be official, unless you're hoping that such a label might help influence others to adopt such changes or something similar.

While you may see minor changes to these items (or development paths like those seen with shields, with new content already showing a trend for blocking shields with stats relevant for their level but below those of a sturdy shield), its highly unlikely any significant rewrites of fundamental mechanics like Incapacitation or Talismans will happen... and its questionable as to whether they should even be considered, as they do exactly what theyre intended to, inconvenience to some players and playstyles being an intended side effect to reign certain things in.

Silver Crusade

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
For how many gamers is this an issue? What's a "sizable proportion of customer base"?

I hope you don't expect *me* to answer. I'm basically writing an open letter to Paizo. Not to you.

Thx

Of course I'm expecting you to answer. You're making claims as to speaking for a substantial part of customer base, please back it up. The burden of proof is on you and you alone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
these issues are silently ignored, as if they aren't a big concern.

What response would you like to see if Paizo actually believes they aren't a big concern?


Zapp wrote:
Liegence wrote:
But as a GM I can say it has rarely come up

In our case the rule does not come into play simply because players avoid incapacitation spells like the plague.

And because those monsters that do cast Incapacitation spells are nearly always at least the same level as the heroes.

That does not mean I consider the issue settled, hence my post.

Liegence wrote:

You should not often face CR+1’s or higher

You should not be seeing a lot of CR+2’s - if you are, the game difficulty is likely overturned which creates much worse problems than just incapacitation.

Tell that to Paizo. We run their official AP where you see L+1's and L+2's all the time.

Thank you for responding!

Specifics? In the last two sessions of Extinction Curse I ran exactly zero creatures faced interacted with Incapacitation. And looking at all of Spites Cradle for Fall of Plaguestone only one encounter has all creatures immune to incapacitation and that was the end boss; there are some other creatures that have incapacitation but there are plenty of targets vulnerable in those encounters


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
I hope you don't expect *me* to answer. I'm basically writing an open letter to Paizo. Not to you.

Yes we are absolutely expecting *you* to answer. Your *open letter* references a sizable proportion of the customer base upon whose behalf you are speaking. As the duly appointed speaker for this group, you should know how many players are in your constituent base. Unless of course you just brought up a group of people that may or may not exist to give your argument more weight.

Zapp wrote:
Maybe you didn't catch that but I prefer official variants.

Maybe you didn’t catch it, but Paizo just put out the book with official variant rules and none of them were patching issues as trivial as this. Official variant rules are necessary when making broad changes to the game and how it plays - you are discussing minor house rules that you *can* implement all on your own. None of these are, as you claim, urgent; nor should Paizo should “prioritize the creation of variant rules“ based solely on your preference.


Salamileg wrote:
The Electric Arc issue is really the only one of these that I've ever seen someone outside of these forums complain about.

To be honest in this case my experience differs a lot. I've had one or two players frustrated about shields, but Incapacitation as it stands has been *very* unpopular in my games, and my players aren't exactly the forum dweller type. Quite the opposite. Most of them didn't even play 1e so it's not because of this comparison either. Incap is frustrating to some (maybe a lot of?) people. Though I resisted making significant changes to it because I know why it's there.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'd also point out that "Players avoid Incapacitating spells like the plague" is not exactly a universal truth. I've had players use a handful of incapacitating effects (definitely not their whole list) in games that I've run, and they've come in handy. I've used a few myself, playing a sorcerer, and haven't felt terrible about the results of having one or two in my repertoire (though I obviously wouldn't load up on them, especially not in low level non-signature slots).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The most unfortunate part of incapacitation is how penalizing it feels at low levels when you are not encountering very many creatures that are your level or lower. This results in players learning to avoid the spells that have the trait early on, and then never testing the waters with them at higher levels when they can be incredibly useful in taking out creatures that are maybe a level or two lower than you, but have particular abilities that your party is not well set up to handle, a situation that becomes increasingly common at higher levels of play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I concur with Unicore on the higher level thing - early on, it generally feels like a creature has to be at least PL+1 to be a real threat. By the early midgame, creatures of the party level or lower can be a substantial adversary as minions of a stronger foe, which is where taking them out with an incap spell can really turn a battle around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I also dislike about incap spells apart of all the mechanical early-on issues is the meta-gaming aspect of those spells, aka remembering or knowing "all" creatures levels will immensely help you landing those spells, especially if they are not unique.

"Do you remember that TPK enemy we fought as a boss earlier? Yeah, I do, why? Those creatures are level 7 so you can incap those in front of us now. Great news, thanks for reminding me buddy!"


7 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Zapp wrote:
these issues are silently ignored, as if they aren't a big concern.
What response would you like to see if Paizo actually believes they aren't a big concern?

"Moved from Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion to Pathfinder Second Edition Homebrew and House Rules"

Guess that answers the question


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

What I also dislike about incap spells apart of all the mechanical early-on issues is the meta-gaming aspect of those spells, aka remembering or knowing "all" creatures levels will immensely help you landing those spells, especially if they are not unique.

"Do you remember that TPK enemy we fought as a boss earlier? Yeah, I do, why? Those creatures are level 7 so you can incap those in front of us now. Great news, thanks for reminding me buddy!"

There are a lot of aspects of 2E that work best when the players are assumed to be informed of the "game" aspects of the situation before them - and the GM holding back that information seems to lead to some difficulties reported.

I can see not liking the metagame aspect of this... but, I think its an adjustment most people can roll with if they try, and the result is the best playing variant of DnD I've been able to run or play in.


I am mostly ok with all 4 points:

Incapacitation
To me works fine the way it is.
In adjunct it is nice for DM who prefer to face their players without using a DM screen ( fair protection rule for bosses ).

Cantrips
Electric Arc is good when there are two enemies, but it is not always the best choice. I was among those who thought at first that it was too good, but the more I play the more I see that while it is good, it's not way too good ( in some situations you will be likely to use different cantrips ).

Shields
Balance is definitely good. What I'd like to see is some more shields ( we are getting some extra from Premade Adventures, but in terms of utility, the more the merrier ).

Talismans
They are good, but some players ( and I fit in this category too ) simply have hard time "consuming" something which could be worth golds.
The solution here would giving them as extra reward often, and also remove any chance to sell them ( educate the players instead ).


HumbleGamer wrote:


Talismans
The solution here would giving them as extra reward often, and also remove any chance to sell them ( educate the players instead ).

I'm seriously considering doing something to this effect in my next campaign, possibly also giving the players the gold as well as an incentive to try and get them to use Talismans more.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I kinda like the design of talismans where they have extra effects, that boost characters that have specific skills and feats, but are pretty much just good for selling for other characters. The important part there is that the party needs the opportunity to sell the ones that don't boost the things they are already good at, or else you as a GM, need to substitute out the ones that don't help them for ones that do. Then you also need to be sure that the kinds of encounters that these one time boost items can help with actually happen in game and have significant consequences for not succeeding through.

As a GM, if you make the environment of encounters worth interacting with, you will find your players much more willing to invest in resources, and using resources to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:

What I also dislike about incap spells apart of all the mechanical early-on issues is the meta-gaming aspect of those spells, aka remembering or knowing "all" creatures levels will immensely help you landing those spells, especially if they are not unique.

"Do you remember that TPK enemy we fought as a boss earlier? Yeah, I do, why? Those creatures are level 7 so you can incap those in front of us now. Great news, thanks for reminding me buddy!"

There are a lot of aspects of 2E that work best when the players are assumed to be informed of the "game" aspects of the situation before them - and the GM holding back that information seems to lead to some difficulties reported.

I can see not liking the metagame aspect of this... but, I think its an adjustment most people can roll with if they try, and the result is the best playing variant of DnD I've been able to run or play in.

In a lot of ways, it's not even a metagame aspect - it's just a game aspect. Or it may be more accurate to phrase it as just a meta aspect.

Just like how one player says "I'm a fighter" and another says "I'm a wizard" and that not-entirely-in-game term communicates game-play relevant information about the characters between the players - which translates into in-character knowledge like "has studied arcane magic" and "is well trained in weaponry and combat techniques", knowing the level of the enemies you are facing is giving the player information that their character should have gained just by being near the other creature.

That communication being done with game terms which the player understands clearly like "this monster is higher level than your character is" rather than expecting the player to correctly interpret less clear terms like "the hulking beast's vicious demeanor leaves a sinking feeling in your gut" is not changing whether or not their decisions are happening in the meta of the game or not - it's just changing whether the GM is an unreliable narrator or not.

And that's especially useful because all of the player's character's abilities are phrased in game terms to the player - so why shouldn't the other side of the "how does this work, and when should I use it?" equation be? Otherwise you are basically giving the player an equation that says 8(2x + 4) - 12 = ????????? and expecting them to somehow accurately solve for X.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Dear Paizo,

Please prioritize developing rules variants for the following issues.

No. I don't know what they're currently working on but it's almost certainly more beneficial than these changes.

Zapp wrote:
Not only does it improve the game for a sizeable portion of your customer base, it acknowledges that these are real issues for many gamers.

What proportion exactly? How do you know these numbers? Also, why do these changes NEED to be official? Is it because you want to join a game where the GM won't implement your rules unless they're official or you want to GM but the players don't like your houserules?

Zapp wrote:

1) Incapacitation

A rules variant that does away with the incapacitation trait. For some gamers, Incapacitation is fine. For others, it's effectively a hard ban on all spells with the incapacitation trait. Please help this latter category.

Obviously, something needs to be implemented in its place, but that's your job. (And if us gamers discuss it should happen in the Homebrew forum!)

I'll start off by saying that I find it hilarious that you were in such a rush to get this list here that you linked to your post before any replies and now it's just full of people disagreeing with this idea (as is this one actually). I'll also say that you trying to silence any dissent in that topic (which apparently isn't the first time you've done it) doesn't help your case of it being a popular idea.

To the actual point...what's the problem? You don't address why incapacitation effects are a problem here or in the other thread, just that it's bad and needs to go. To that end I can't really help you here although I can say your solutions from the other thread are pretty bad. Reducing the DC by using a lower level spell badly hurts spellcasters in general (outside of focus casters), especially considering you only get 2-3 spell slots at the highest level (outside of class features/feats). After those 2-3 casts, you have a 5% lower chance of succeeding on any kind of debuff spell making them kind of worthless (ironic considering your next point complains about about a lack of variety).

For legendary saves, this isn't DnD. While I haven't played 5E, friends who have don't seem to have an issue with them though I'm not entirely convinced myself. However, 5E was made with those in mind, Pathfinder wasn't, so the balance of encounters will be thrown off pretty badly just because you don't like Incapacitation.

Zapp wrote:

2) Cantrips

Currently, Electric Arc is so much better than the spell attack cantrips it isn't even funny. Please supply a rules variant in an offical published book that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic. (The problem is that in order for variety to happen, the options need to be roughly equal)

Maybe it's because I haven't played a caster yet but it doesn't seem to be that much stronger, if at all. Against 1 enemy, Electric Arc has the lowest potential damage output of the 7 potential damaging Cantrips (those being Electric Arc, Chill Touch, Telekinetic Projectile, Ray of Frost, Produce Flame, Acid Splash and Disrupt Undead). It's secondary effect is essentially saving a turn of doing another spell to hit a different target which assumes there is a second target and assumes that amount of damage will have a huge impact which only really happens from them critically failing and you rolling well on the damage. The only other benefit I can see it having is that you're guaranteed to hit (Chill Touch and Disrupt Undead do as well but they are more specific in use so I'll ignore those) but the other spells don't give the opponent the opportunity to half the damage and I find that increasing your own rolls is a lot easier generally than reducing your opponent's.

Besides that, Cantrips are your weakest spell option and after the first few levels, mainly serve as flavor (IE. "I'm a fire Wizard so I have nothing but fore spells like the first one I learned, Produce Flame") or as a cleanup option so you don't have to waste a spell slot or wait for your fighter to finish off a severely weakened enemy

I should also note that I'm mentioning 7 because I don't know if you're issue is with the Wizard, the Druid or both.

Zapp wrote:

3) Shields

Some gamers are fine with your current implementation, but others can't stand the notion you would even want to block an attack with your face to save your precious shield. Please supply an rules variant, again in an official published supplement, that fixes this for those of us that find this problematic.

Once again, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Why would you do this and what circumstance is this a problem? Maybe I'm misunderstanding Shields but the main time you would need to worry about your shield breaking is if you used the Raise a Shield reaction to block some damage, otherwise the shield is either safe or you wouldn't have been able to protect it in the first place. Then, if it does break, you buy a new one. You really want a rules change for such a specific scenario? What would it even be changed to? What is even the problem here?

Zapp wrote:

4) Talismans

Again, not a problem for everyone. However, to some of us, talismans (especially low-level items) are a cruel joke. Being asked by the rules devs to spend all that brain power choosing talismans, constantly deciding to use or not use it, remembering which talisman is affixed where... and all for what? the game's smallest, stingiest and most fleeting of bonuses!

The option to consider every talisman vendor trash just to be sold for cash is a real quality-of-life improvement for many of your...

So...just consider them vendor trash and sell them? In my campaign, we don't even use talismans and there hasn't been any issues. Either write everything down to keep track of things, sell them or don't even bother using them in the campaign, what's the problem here?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
1) Incapacitation...

That's gonna be a hard no from me dawg. Incap is fine as printed, the only people crying about it are using unrealistic white-room scenarios where for SOME REASON they're always fighting singular creatures that are above their level that are going to melt like butter anyhow due to action economy. When you ARE faced with a singular creature that is above your level the Incap Trait prevents the battle from turning into just spamming spells that will trivialize the encounter instantly. I don't mean to be rude or anything but I've yet to see someone actually present an argument in good-faith that there is a problem with it at an actual game. If this were just simply removed it would cause 10x as many problems by destroying encounter balance from level 1-20 in that it would become functionally impossible to really challenge a group with a Boss should they have a Spellcaster without drastically raising their level and by extension how instantly deadly they are in their own right.

Zapp wrote:
2) Cantrips...

I think a slight nerf is indeed in order but the scope of the problem really isn't that big of a deal.

Zapp wrote:
3) Shields...

I'll sign on of this one for sure, Shields could use work. I'd rather NOT see it take the form of alternate rules but rather a full Errata but either would be good with me.

Zapp wrote:
4) Talismans...

Do people spend money on Talismans? I was under the impression that they are mainly used by GMs as stocking stuffers in order to complete a treasure budget and give neat little boosts that can be tailored specifically to the group.


I think it's pretty telling that this thread got moved to Homebrew and House Rules.

I'm not sure why this ever seemed like a reasonable request, or why it needs to be official.

#1) You are the GM. Just change things you hate. There are fairly small fixes to most of these problems, and I'm sure you can convince your players, seeing as you want more options to seem good.

#2) You are a player who wants to use some stuff you find clunky. Try to talk to your GM. If they like the game RAW, then I'm afraid you'll have to adjust or if it kills you (which it doesn't sound like it does) accept the flaws you see as part of the game.

#3) You play in PFS. That's rough, but listen, it's not going to change. I'll repeat: I'm afraid you'll have to adjust or if it kills you (which it doesn't sound like it does) accept the flaws you see as part of the game.


Themetricsystem wrote:


Do people spend money on Talismans? I was under the impression that they are mainly used by GMs as stocking stuffers in order to complete a treasure budget and give neat little boosts that can be tailored specifically to the group.

There are a number that are very good once they become cheap enough for a character to buy them in bulk.

Swift Block Cabochons on Sturdy Shields or Iron Medallions to provide bad roll insurance for Masters on Will saves are some of my favorites.


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


Do people spend money on Talismans? I was under the impression that they are mainly used by GMs as stocking stuffers in order to complete a treasure budget and give neat little boosts that can be tailored specifically to the group.

There are a number that are very good once they become cheap enough for a character to buy them in bulk.

Swift Block Cabochons on Sturdy Shields or Iron Medallions to provide bad roll insurance for Masters on Will saves are some of my favorites.

The jade one that lets you avoid a critical failure on medicine checks seems handy to have in your "back pocket" also, and pretty cheap at higher levels--affordable enough to be a "must have" at lower levels IMO.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Effervescent Ampoule is not a bad rainy day trinket either, it gives you a 2nd level spell for 1 round, or almost half the cost. If you move 3 times, you can get pretty far.


Unicore wrote:
Effervescent Ampoule is not a bad rainy day trinket either, it gives you a 2nd level spell for 1 round, or almost half the cost. If you move 3 times, you can get pretty far.

Expert is Acrobatics is rough, but that is a great example of one that's dirt cheap at mid levels with a potentially extremely powerful effect.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I have to say I am really disappointed with the response to this post. Zapp can come off as somewhat antagonizing from what I have seen in some threads, and yes, is definitely opinionated. While the first isn't normally conducive to good discourse, but the second is hardly in my opinion a bad thing.

However, the post was actually relatively concise, and to the point, expressing what Paizo could hopefully do covering several items. Each of the items are things that I believe I've seen some significant threads on, so they aren't things that aren't without some controversy, and block of people interested in alternatives. So I really feel the post was rather well crafted, and not rude at all.

While I really only strongly feel like the shields need work, I will grant that all of the topics he listed are something the Dev's 'could' legitimately come up with an alternate rules to potentially address concerns people have expressed, if the Dev's decide it is worthwhile.

And for those who basically have discounted the post saying that Alternate Rules are pointless, you in my perspective are being extremely rude to the 'Developers' as they committed a significant page count to a book which already covered a broad spectrum of items the Developers knew were potential conflicts simply coming out of the playtest, so I found the responses to be rude when I read them. A book I have, and like. (even though some of those alternates, I'm very unlikely to ever use)

I'll confess, that I'm not certain how soon after the Gamemastery guide came out, would be a great opportunity to introduce more Alternate rules systems. So I'm not certain that unless they put out a Web resource/blog potentially for free, I'll admit that I'm not seeing it likely it will get top priority. But telling another player they can't ask the Dev's to prioritize the thing that would mean the most to them seems like at least as rude as you are accusing Zapp of being.

The most likely opportunity for such an alternate rule would probably be in an AP, as those can certainly introduce new rules elements that aren't part of a core game. Unfortunately, none of them, save perhaps the Talismans seem like something I could imagine being introduced into an AP. The only reason why I say that one is that if the AP was going to feature lots of new Talismans, but the players aren't interested in them, having some way of turning them into something more useful might be something viable from a rule standpoint. Kind of like Kingmaker saying you can eliminate the kingdom building aspects and hand-wave it and have yourself just helping the new ruler, or removing law enforcement aspects of the upcoming AP.

Cantrips, I could see them writing more powerful ones, more competitive within an AP potentially. But that assumes they don't intend things to be the way they are. If Electric Arc is really the stand-out, and problem, it might be easier to place stronger limitations on it, than try to improve everything else. Again, balancing cantrips seems more likely handled by errata on the Electric Arc, or potential publishing of more cantrips via AP or Books. (Actually, what if Electric Arc could only be cast once per minute, or could not be cast again until at least one full round had past, meaning 1 casting per 2 rounds; Sorry my attention is digressing)

Shield rules seem to specific to be something that would include a variant rule in an AP. Incapacitation likewise seems to broad of an impact to hit and AP as it might make included encounters far more swingy, which isn't likely on their desires for their AP marketing.

So, Zapp, while I support your desire to get these answers, and get them quickly. Even if I likely wouldn't use a variant incapacitating the Incapacitation trait variant, I see the value in it. I'd love to see an official version of shield rules that makes destroyed higher level shields very uncommon, if it isn't addressed in the rules proper. Cantrips and Talismans, any options on those might be interesting. I don't know when they would have a good time to make such a publication profitable however, so I have trouble thinking we'll necessarily see it any time soon however.

Perhaps, honestly the best path might be to look towards some of Paizo's current third party publishers, and perhaps one of them with a significant name can look at putting out a compendium of variant rules for players. If they do this, it might even become possible that Paizo, or at least the Developers individually, might actually endorse some of them at some point down the line, if some of them become known as popular variants.

Edit:
Otherwise, you might get some sort of variant published if it was something that ended up being important for Pathfinder Society Play, if you can convince those in charge that something doesn't work in that setting. They for instance have variant rules relating to getting free consumable magic items in exchange for a small portion of their income rolls from downtime, with their Schools benefits.

I'm not sure any of them really cover that, other than pathfinder society, you just get treasure value (and ability to buy specific items you encountered) rather than getting a specific talisman. You get the value of your treasure, and get to 'buy' your portion of the things found back, or cash out the rest, is sort of an official variant rule for second edition already. (if using chronicle sheets for treasure)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
And for those who basically have discounted the post saying that Alternate Rules are pointless

...who in this thread did that? Because if anyone did, they must have done it in white text or something because I sure didn't see it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Loreguard wrote:
I'll confess, that I'm not certain how soon after the Gamemastery guide came out, would be a great opportunity to introduce more Alternate rules systems. So I'm not certain that unless they put out a Web resource/blog potentially for free, I'll admit that I'm not seeing it likely it will get top priority. But telling another player they can't ask the Dev's to prioritize the thing that would mean the most to them seems like at least as rude as you are accusing Zapp of being.

So, asking the devs to prioritize creating unique alternate rule systems for things that do not rise to the level of needing whole cloth new rules and then dismissing alternate opinions is not rude, but having alternate opinions is rude to both Zapp and to the devs?

I’m not sure that’s a logic train that makes sense to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
I'll confess, that I'm not certain how soon after the Gamemastery guide came out, would be a great opportunity to introduce more Alternate rules systems. So I'm not certain that unless they put out a Web resource/blog potentially for free, I'll admit that I'm not seeing it likely it will get top priority. But telling another player they can't ask the Dev's to prioritize the thing that would mean the most to them seems like at least as rude as you are accusing Zapp of being.

So, asking the devs to prioritize creating unique alternate rule systems for things that do not rise to the level of needing whole cloth new rules and then dismissing alternate opinions is not rude, but having alternate opinions is rude to both Zapp and to the devs?

I’m not sure that’s a logic train that makes sense to me.

You got a little inaccurate.

'Dear Paizo, fix your game and do it now because I shouldn't have to wait' isn't rude, but 'How about not making demands of the devs like you just did, and fix this stuff with your own house-rules since the issues aren't universal and you're in a hurry?' is rude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
And for those who basically have discounted the post saying that Alternate Rules are pointless
...who in this thread did that? Because if anyone did, they must have done it in white text or something because I sure didn't see it.

Ok, I reread the early posts, I will grant that I believe I miss read one or more, or a later post colored my take of the first few posts, which is not fair to those first few posters, so I will apologize to them.

I interpreted their immediate discussion of just house-rule it to be entirely addressing Zapps concerns. I believe I read Gorbacz's post first time through as they won't publish alternate rules. But looking back 'publish an alternate rules volume anytime soon.' certainly could be pointing out that they did do one recently, and so may not again anytime soon.

Here, if it must be said what I believe really made me feel the responses were rude. It was the call, not to disagree with the OP, but to tell the developers to disregard (meaning to give negative regard) to the OP's perspective. I am pretty sure, in reviewing it, that was what did it for me.

I can disagree with Zapp on the Incapacitation topic, but I will never tell the Devs to ignore him. I can disagree with you about something, but I won't tell anyone to ignore your concerns.

thenobledrake wrote:


....
TL;DR: Dear Paizo, completely disregard OP's (rude and dismissive) request.

It got followed up shortly by:

Gorbacz wrote:
And if you need "official house rules" from Paizo for whatever reasons, that's not how house rules work.

I think that combined with the prior discounting of his request as being nothing but house rules added up to the 'House rules = Alternate Rules and Paizo doesn't do them'

I apologize for I implied they were dismissive of the developers hard work at writing the existing 'alternate rules' that have been published, as I don't think in retrospect that it was merited. But I do think that TheNobleDrake, that yours did clearly fall in the rude standpoint. I imagine, you felt his was rude, honestly. Hey, but I suppose my response was Rude because I read into others specifics into their posts which where not specifically in there.

Anyway, I think his hopes have merit, and would wish people could read them without immediately having to dismiss the concerns. It was not asking for the rule to be changed, it was asking for an official variant. While I don't think it is that likely Zapp will get what was asked for any time soon, I didn't think the 'just house rule it' was actually a constructive add to the conversation. One way to find out the number people asked him was to see some people sounding off for one rule or another, which some others did do in the thread.

For me that was the value of the thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Loreguard wrote:
I can disagree with Zapp on the Incapacitation topic, but I will never tell the Devs to ignore him. I can disagree with you about something, but I won't tell anyone to ignore your concerns.

When he added "...for a sizeable portion of your customer base" and "...these are real issues for many gamers..." to his list of demand, claiming false authority as the speaker for some implied large number of people, he effectively told the devs to ignore everyone else that has said these issues aren't as big of an issue as he has stated them to be.

And I'd note that my admittedly flippant response was not "ignore his concerns." It was "ignore this request." I was not saying to not ever change any of these rules or provide variants tot hem at some point - I was saying don't let some rando rude fan crack a whip and get you working on this specific thing immediately.

Yes, I likely crossed into rude territory myself while replying to Zapp. I've been reading their posts on this forum and at least one other for years, and constantly been rubbed the wrong way by common traits of those posts that I'd list out now if not for the fact that doing so - even sans judgement - could likely be construed as a personal attack. I do my best to temper my lack of patience for their antics, but I am not perfect.


Liegence wrote:
Specifics? In the last two sessions of Extinction Curse I ran exactly zero creatures faced interacted with Incapacitation.

Not sure what you mean.

My players never take any Incapacitation spells (to learn/prepare/etc).

Saying this means they never fall foul of the limitation kinda misses the point...

If you're simply saying you ran two sessions without a single creature leveled higher than the party, that's nice, but hardly relevant. Let's just say the EC AP features LOADS of monsters who, were the player to cast an Incapacitation spell against them, it would just bounce right off.

And before you ask what I mean by that: at least a couple every level. (Not sure why we're arguing about something that's trivial to look up, though...)

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Shortlist of urgently needed rules variants All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.