I’m looking at running a new campaign, and for reasons involving the campaign concept, I’m looking heavily at including a large number of variant rules. I’d appreciate if anyone has some thoughts on the use of these and how they’ll act together. Also interested in any other thoughts people may have.
The concept is an Isekai type game. The players would play themselves transported to Golarion. With visible game aspects, so they would know they’re level x and and so would the rest of the world. That said I want to limit how much the game aspect of things intrudes on them. Said players will also be new to the system in fact so I plan to take it a bit slow. I’m also fine with giving them a bit more power than normal within certain lines.
Rules I’m intending to use and why.
Alternative attributes: I would prefer this more balanced Option since this way when people distribute their boost in a way that feels right and natural to them they Don’t end up mechanically in the pits because they feel charisma and con are their best stats, but want to play a ranger. Won’t solve it completely but it’s a fairly significant balance.
Moral intentions: I expect it to be harder on me to rework things as appropriate but this system feels more natural and less limiting for people trying to play people instead of caricatures.
Level 0: instead of people trying to choose a class that they think applies to them right off I’m planning to have them at 0, and when they hit 1 give a few options based on how they approached things during play.
As an addition to level 0 I plan to give them each 1 or 2 free extra abilities based on things they want or try(knowing ahead of time that this is an option). This would be them Wanting to hurl fire, and getting a produce flame cantrip, or wanting to fight better with a sword and getting a proficiency. I feel confident I can keep the abilities balanced to the level of a feat, and I can’t think of a good way otherwise to give them a chance to approach things like a spell caster without a way to use some spells.
No level to proficiency: as part of my attempt to reduce the visibility of game parts Id much rather flatten the world like this. It will also make leveling easier.
Automatic bonus progression: this way neither I nor they have to remember the “essential” items. I still plan to add in magic equipment using the property runes.
Any thoughts? It seems like a lot of modifications to use at once but I think I can handle the adjustments. And I like the presumed end result I get from this combination.
I'd recommend looking at the Relics system for an idea of balance for the custom abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No level to proficiency - you should probably look in to things a bit more and seriously consider if you want to use it. It breaks a lot of the math and expectations in the system - even beyond the most visible changes that are accounted for - and makes solo encounters nearly impossible to run.
|
I suggest you ditch the idea of running No Level to Prof, adding this one rule will require you to change about 80% of the numbers on EVERY Creature Statblock to fix it so they're in line with what the game will need, it's just way too much fiddling around with for every creature and vital statistic (Not to mention you need to similarly adjust every opposed DC in the game and also even the sample DCs for Skill Challenges) in the system, especially if you're using a published adventure module. You're creating a TON of extra work for yourself in exchange for... well, very little payoff if any.
Level 0 is cool I highly suggest this for a new group to help them get a feel of the adventure before putting their PCs in danger of having them make any concrete decisions on what Class they want to play.
ABP isn't something I have experience with but if you do this you will need to keep in mind that you'll have to adjust the Treasure Rewards by nerfing them by something like 50% minimum because they will no longer have the most important Coin-Sink in the game in the form of improving their Weapons and Armor.
I'd always consider running with fewer changes to baseline for your initial outing, so you have an idea of how the baseline system runs.
You've picked several significant changes, which are going to mess a lot with some of the underlying assumptions of the game which could break things in unexpected ways - and not knowing how its supposed to work, you may not be able to easily correct for it.
I suppose I should mention I’m a fairly experienced GM and have been running PF2 off and on since it came out. This isn’t my first try out of the gate. I specifically limit my groups to the book as written when We’re all starting on a new System though.
As for the custom abilities my plan was to keep them around The rank of a low level feat, a cantrip to use, or a proficiency. That sort of thing. But I also hadn’t thought of the relic system. I think I’ll go reread that, it could be a good fit for this. Thank you
I am familiar with the kind of changes that the No level to proficiency Will entail. I’m not worried about the work on my end, it’s not really anything I can’t do. Please take my word for that.
There were good points to keep in mind about the summon spells though. Same with single creature fights, though I’m not a big fan of big single creatures anyway, particularly against new players. Fights can get too swingy.
I considered the skill point system but ended up dismissing it as it felt like an extra level of complexity without a real payoff in the way of difference, at least until higher levels. Did your group find a real difference in the low-mid levels on what level or how many skills you had vs the core rule?
Also, thank you all for your replies thus far.
I suggest you ditch the idea of running No Level to Prof, adding this one rule will require you to change about 80% of the numbers on EVERY Creature Statblock to fix it so they're in line with what the game will need, it's just way too much fiddling around with for every creature and vital statistic (Not to mention you need to similarly adjust every opposed DC in the game and also even the sample DCs for Skill Challenges) in the system, especially if you're using a published adventure module. You're creating a TON of extra work for yourself in exchange for... well, very little payoff if any.
I think it will create a different feel. If you want it go for it. I prefer flatter numbers myself and would have been confortable with a much much flatter level power curve. By and large PF2 is good and the system works very well, but I do find it ridiculously steep. It is nice that a horde of low level monsters can be a challenge again to creatures of higher level with this option.
I'm often working with a default creature and adding say 20 to their hitpoints and +7 to all their numbers - just to rescale them for a level apporpriate for the players. I just do it on the fly. Because I want the PCs to encounter a few Ogres and the Ogre in the book is a bit weak for them at their level. If you are comfortable with the maths then its pretty easy. I just translate on the fly - even across game systems. For some people simple maths is automatic and zero effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ABP isn't something I have experience with but if you do this you will need to keep in mind that you'll have to adjust the Treasure Rewards by nerfing them by something like 50% minimum because they will no longer have the most important Coin-Sink in the game in the form of improving their Weapons and Armor.
On this point specifically, I haven't actually found much need to adjust for the most part. Since ABP removes +x, striking, and resilient from weapons and armor, a huge amount of that extra gold just doesn't exist anymore since they don't have as many expensive magical items to sell off.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you using PF2 as your system for this? While I personally greatly prefer PF2 to 5th edition D&D it really does sound to me that 5th edition might be a better fit for this campaign. The simpler underlying system and bounded accuracy seems to fit your goals quite well.
Not saying this can't be done in PF2, of course. And you quite likely have good reasons for using PF2. But you asked for opinions and I think that decision should be at least re examined to see if it IS the best fit
Probably because even without level to proficiency, PF2 is different enough from 5e to warrant using.
To the OP, I think your goals conflict somewhat. You want to run an isekai game where meta constructs like character level are common knowledge, but you're also trying to hide those constructs and make them matter less, which seems to me like a misuse of proficiency without level in particular. These two ideas undermine one another, and proficiency without level is going to make you do a lot of extra work. Are you sure that's what you want?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may see if the table wants to switch to the skill point system down the road, when it might make a difference and they have the knowledge to choose. But I think it’ll be extra complexity They don’t need at the start. I don’t mind handling extra complexity on my end but at trying to limit it on theirs. Thank you for the point though, I hadn’t really considered it.
As to 5E? This is a personal opinion but I find the system dull and overly static. You can’t make enough personalization choices, and gaining levels doesn’t feel rewarding since nothing changed but your HP. I’ve played it and can run it, but I don’t want to try running a game in a system I know I dislike because then GMing is nothing but work.
As to the conflicting goals, it’s just a personal choice to reduce those effects. Finding the balance that to me feels right for the game I want to run. I could see doing it with all those aspects right up front but it’s just not what I’m planning to run.
I tried out the no level to proficiency change for a campaign I was building and I quickly found that it made characters feel really flat. Class feats and Skill feats are cool, but getting one of each leaves a character feeling very much like nothing really happened when they hit level 2, except they got more hit points. Not getting any boosts to skills at all except when you boost their proficiency makes you feel like you character can only possibly get better at a very narrow range of things when they level up.
I'd love to hear about your experiences if you are committed to trying it out, but when I actually tried to put it in play, it really felt like it took the wind out of the sails of the game.
I’ve mentioned this in other threads and it hasn’t been popular but here is my suggestion. I subtract the PCs level from everything. This makes the PCs effectively have no level but it retains the entire PF expectations regarding math, crit expectations and skill check DCs. A higher or lower level creature still works the way it should. We are level 15 in the Age of Ashes AP and it has worked very well and anyone who claims this doesn’t work is flat out wrong. The only downside is a bit more mental math for the DM in figuring out the attack rolls and such which I do purely on the fly with no extra prep.
The one thing that IS kind of weird with this is that creatures that are fought over multiple levels see their AC get lower which is odd at first. But accuracy is shifted from being added to the attack roll to lowering the AC.
Again, there will be a lot of naysayers about this but it works 100 percent maintaining the integrity of the PF2 system.
Good luck!
I tried out the no level to proficiency change for a campaign I was building and I quickly found that it made characters feel really flat. Class feats and Skill feats are cool, but getting one of each leaves a character feeling very much like nothing really happened when they hit level 2, except they got more hit points. Not getting any boosts to skills at all except when you boost their proficiency makes you feel like you character can only possibly get better at a very narrow range of things when they level up.
I'd love to hear about your experiences if you are committed to trying it out, but when I actually tried to put it in play, it really felt like it took the wind out of the sails of the game.
Unicore,
See my post above regarding how I do things in my games but from our groups perspective, leveling is faster and the game retains the exact same feeling. When the players realize that in most cases at level one you hit on an 18 or 19 AC and that on level 15 you need a 33 or 34 which is more or less the same number you needed 15 levels earlier you realize that the numbers just inflate and don’t really do much for the game. There ARE some very minor changes to the system but not enough to really care about IMO.
Just thought I would let you know my experiences.
I'd recommend looking at the Relics system for an idea of balance for the custom abilities.
Relics might be an easy way to give your characters potential magical abilities as they come into the universe. Something that can be tied to them and how they came into the universe potentially.
It could be something similar to an ancient cartoon, or even seen as something like the items given to the humans in the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
If you don't like the idea of it being tied to an item, you could say that in effect each of the characters becomes a relic, in and of themselves, granting them an ability as if they are the relic themselves.
Actually, in retrospect, I think that last bit was what Salamileg was suggesting. Anyway, I think that is a good idea.
@Duskreign I don’t see any reason why the math on that wouldn’t work fine in general. You’re just moving the leveling effect from a positive bonus to a negative, should be a fine way to keep numbers low with just a bit of math as the cost. But unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re doing it won’t give me the flattening effect on the world I’m looking for. A group of level 5 characters would still need to roll At least 4 higher To hit a level 9 monster, while they could roll 4 lower and still hit a level 1 monster than they would have at level 1.
@Unicore I will if the game gets off the ground any. Based on the players previous experience that I’ve been told of I think the normal gains of feats and features will be plenty. If not then I’ll certainly pipe up with a warning.
@Loreguard & Salamileg after rereading the relic section I think that’s definitely the way to go. And yes, I’ll probably have them actually be relics due to how they were brought here. Very few of the abilities will really cause issues used like that and since I’ll be handing out the powers at appropriate times I can control for that. A double thanks for the idea.
@Duskreign I don’t see any reason why the math on that wouldn’t work fine in general. You’re just moving the leveling effect from a positive bonus to a negative, should be a fine way to keep numbers low with just a bit of math as the cost. But unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re doing it won’t give me the flattening effect on the world I’m looking for. A group of level 5 characters would still need to roll At least 4 higher To hit a level 9 monster, while they could roll 4 lower and still hit a level 1 monster than they would have at level .
You are right on all accounts. I didn’t connect that that was your goal. I thought the flatter math of level gains was your goal. Not sure what else to suggest for you.
Instead of removing +level entirely, you could just halve it. You get +1 at level 2, +2 at level 4, etc etc. It would flatten out the curve quite a bit, while not completely wrecking the balance of the game. Has anybody tried doing that?
I think this might be a lot of variants to keep track of, but individually they're all fine.
I personally just patched charisma by making it their source of hero points.
I think this might be a lot of variants to keep track of, but individually they're all fine.
I personally just patched charisma by making it their source of hero points.
What exactly did you do with charisma? In the start of every session, each character earns Hero Points equals than their Cha Mod?