| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what are the top 3 rules (+/-) which have come about from later versions of D20 / PF / D&D that stood out to you as "Why wasn't THAT in PF 1 from the beginning??"
A couple of the ones that have stood out to me was:
Non-combat spells cast as ritual magic (5th ed?)
Rolling with Advantage / Disadvantage (roll twice and take the best / worse roll)
What about you guys? What stood out to you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking of incorporating "succeed/fail by 10 = crit" from PF2e.
Just be aware that this effectively makes attack bonuses ~twice as powerful as they otherwise would be.
Heroism gives +2 to hit, which means there's a 10% chance your spell will affect the attack roll.
If you implement this +10/-10 rule then there's still a 10% chance that you'll take a roll from a miss to a hit, but there's also a 10% chance that you'll take a roll from a regular hit to a critical hit . Now your +2 to hit has a 20% chance to affect the roll.
It's a little more complicated than that, so it's not exactly double the chance but it's near enough.
Personally I like the idea of more scaling effects with rolls, but adding it into a pre-existing system will change the balance fairly dramatically. That's not inherently a problem, as long as you know what you're changing and why.
I like long\short rests to extend the adventuring day. I would also use item attunement to increase the challenge level and make magic more special. I was going to use these rules before my group converted fully to 5e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish goblins and kobolds had been more viable as PC races in PF1. They really came into their own in PF2! (And to a lesser extent in 5E.)
It's not really a stated rule at our tables, more something that we consistently overlook, but we don't often provoke AoO just for approaching an enemy. That's another one that we're still trying to iron out which way we're going to go.
Moving adjacent to an enemy only provokes an AoO if they have reach. That's usually only a problem with larger creatures or polearm-users, at least one of which becomes much more common as you advance in level. (For the Giantslayer AP, I deliberately built my ranger so he could move safely inside a giant's reach most of the time. It would have been pretty painful to do otherwise!)
I do appreciate that PF2 and 5E have simpler AoO rules. PF2's might be a little TOO simple at times (Nobody in your front rank has the AoO feat? I guess I can move right past you and whack the casters in the back!) but PF1's are admittedly rather complicated and full of "gotchas". Nobody I play with seems to be entirely happy with them, even the rules experts who master and exploit them as much as possible.
I like the Advantage/Disadvantage system from 5E, and pass/fail by 10 = crit from pf2E
I'm finding it interesting that there is not a lot more engagement with this one. It tells me that most of us didn't really find all that much that they really connected with from the other versions. Interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't played all that much 2E, just a couple of one-shots.
We're starting a campaign this Tuesday that'll meet monthly, so if I think of anything I'll post it.
Generally PF-2E feels more computer-game-y than PF-1E. That was the same problem I had with DnD-4E, and I wouldn't be surprised if others felt the same way. Given that PF-1E was basically created as a reaction to DND-4E's unpopularity it makes sense that a lot of PF-1E players don't like that kind of system as much.
There's a lot of speculation in there, but the basic premise of the 2 systems are very different. Mechanics that work well for one won't necessarily translate.
I would place the level 10 magic and the magic heightened of the spells that is applied in pf2e
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Don't expose them to sunlight.
2) Don't get them wet.
3) Never,ever feed them after midnight.
Oh, wait....
There are things I have occasionally stolen from GURPS, Fantasy AGE, D&D 3.5 and others. PF2, D&D 4e and 5e though are either too close (not different enough to have inspired really new ideas) or too far (too different to lift directly from without a lot of changes).
It doesn't help that D&D 4/5 have a lot of really bad ideas in them either.
Another thing that I would like to see applied in pf1e is the modern profession system as well as the dragonfall education system. It practically allows you to practice a profession and know how to express yourself to a certain social group
This would help create more unique characters
Oh and Dragonfall karma instead of experience points would make the calculation to level up, and the obtaining of attributes is simpler (although the system could be completely changed since The karma system eliminates the lv system)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that 2E spell Grim Tendrils
I think to convert it since it would way too strong to level up naturally so much:
Grim Tendrils
Class Wizard 2, Cleric 2, Spiritualist 1
Casting: Verbal, Somatic
Area 30 ft line, 5 ft wide
Save: Fort (half)
SR: Yes
Tendrils of darkness curl out from your fingertips and race through the air. You deal 1d4/2 lvs (Max 5d4) negative damage and 1 bleed damage to living creatures in the line. Each living creature in the line must attempt a Fortitude save to negate the bleed and half the negative damage.
The bleed damages increases by 1 every 5 lvs (2 at 5th, 3 at 10th, max 4 at 15th).
Also Shield Block, while 2E monsters deal way too much at higher for shields to survive, 1E monsters likely won't (a lot of monsters do multiple weak attacks than one big one).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a rule from a nond20 game I've been considering adapting. Basically, your character only dies when you are ready for your character to die. Most of the time 0 HPs means you have been defeated, now lets work out what happens next. Maybe you get captured, maybe a mystery person finds you and nurses you back to health, maybe your allies were able to save you, maybe you wake up hanging from a butcher shop as the ogre prepares to make you into pie. The point is you and the GM agree on a way that you aren't dead and your story can continue.
but in a dramatic scene you can say "You know what, this is my character's big moment" You get a morale bonus for the rest of the fight but if you hit 0 HPs that's it, you died a heroic death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an interesting one Greylurker. It makes character death more of a story moment than a failure.
We had a TPK on Carrion Crown, folkowed by my backup character dying in his first combat. This made us feel more vulnerable and stopped us from developing Overpowered PC Syndrome . This generslly made rhings more enjoyable for us, as we take death more seriously and actually roleplay danger and fear.
But if you approached the game from a different perspective and aren't trying to "Win" the game it can lead to a more roleplay-centric game as well.
I dunno if we'd use that, but it's interesting and I like it conceptually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us bear in mind that the issue of the resurrection may be something that is taken literally, however it is somewhat more complicated than it seems, perhaps if it resuscitates, but it may also be that the person does not want to resuscitate because they are in a better place, but I remember that there was an optional rule in d & d that stated That depending on the cleric who performs the resurrection, he may bring the spirit of another person or an outsider to take the place of the person he is resurrecting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat maneuvers don't provoke. It makes for a far more interesting combat when players don't get punished for trying actions without having invested in specific feats.
Trying to figure out how I want to integrate the ritual system of spell casting from PF2 into PF1. I know I want it, because there are a lot of great ideas for story there.
have you looked at the Incantation system from Kobold Press, in their Deep Magic book? It might be close to what you are looking for
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
have you looked at the Incantation system from Kobold Press, in their Deep Magic book? It might be close to what you are looking for
This sounds pretty interesting to me too. I've been looking for a Ritual Magic system which would be tied to specific magics like Teleport for better use in a low magic setting. Thus the spells remain in the campaign but effectively means they are not castable within combat and are more of a plot hook mechanic at that point.
Very cool. Thank you for sharing.
Backgrounds in 5e having that extra special use beyond just gaining proficiencies.
4E, knowing when enemies are bloodied. A lot of GMs I know use that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat maneuvers don't provoke.
The worst part isn't even the AoO, it's the penalty to the Maneuver if you take damage that makes them un-usable.
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
Removing that part might even be enough to see them used more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat maneuvers don't provoke.The worst part isn't even the AoO, it's the penalty to the Maneuver if you take damage that makes them un-usable.
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.Removing that part might even be enough to see them used more.
Ehhh, that part alone is really bad, but the free attack is still a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I actually do agree with you.
I just thought there might be people reading through these who think removing the AoO entirely might be too lenient on players. Keeping the AoO but removing the penalty might be a middle-ground for some people.
Or maybe you keep the penalty but deal no damage? Or you get to choose whether to deal damage or deal a penalty?
Just throwing ideas out there. Sorry they're not really taken from other editions, but "make combat maneuvers easier" as a general premise is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Elephant in the Room compromise is also not bad where Maneuvers are divided up into two categories so you only need to buy 1 or 2 feats to avoid AoOs.
Though frankly, removing the penalty and the AoO in the first place is healthier for in the moment play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Removing the AoO caused by combat maneuvers (except for grappling) has been FANTASTIC for my game! (Not from another edition, but others mentioned it)
2) "Bloodied" is a great way to describe approximately how much damaged an enemy has taken because the PCs would see that the enemy is getting worn down. (4th Ed)
3) "Minions" are good to occasionally use. (4th Ed)
Elephant in the Room feat tax (PF1)
Unchained Action Economy (PF1)
Fractional BAB/Saves (PF1)
Magic rules: Cantrips, 'heightened spells', metamagic (PF2)
Multiclassing spellcaster rules (5E)
I've kept 'swift' actions to a certain extent. Turned immediate actions into 'reactions' and now Combat Reflexes grants you additional reactions that can only be spent on attacks of opportunities. I've also used 'minion' rules and 'sustained spell' rules from PF2 to limit abuse of minion-mancy and to make some spells 'better' but not requiring a standard action to maintain.
I've been wanting to include Degrees of Success from Mutants and Masterminds with regards to skills.
Basically every 5 points you get above or below the DC of a Skill check is a Degree of Success of Failure. The more degrees the bigger the result. Natural 20 adds 2 degrees of Success and Natural 1 drops you 2 degrees.
Natural 1 or 20 aren't automatic Fail or Success but the drastic change in the level of success they cause can be fairly significant.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been wanting to include Degrees of Success from Mutants and Masterminds with regards to skills.
Basically every 5 points you get above or below the DC of a Skill check is a Degree of Success of Failure. The more degrees the bigger the result. Natural 20 adds 2 degrees of Success and Natural 1 drops you 2 degrees.
Natural 1 or 20 aren't automatic Fail or Success but the drastic change in the level of success they cause can be fairly significant.
I like that one especially as I already house rule that skills don't auto succeed/fail on a 1/20. I never liked the idea someone can for example fail to draw a sketch of an animal in their journal because they rolled a 1 even though their total is still 8 above the required DC because their adding 17 to the roll for a total of 18. Meanwhile someones succeeding at a check to paint a glorious masterpiece because they got a 20 for a total of 21 when they needed 30.
Hmmm I think I will adapt this as all you need to do is add degree's of success/failure to a normal check adding more versatility. For example . . .
You try to carve a wooden bird its DC 14.
4 = Abysmal Failure (You hacked up a block of wood)
9 = Failure (Well its . . . something people might guess is an animal . . . a frog maybe?)
14 = Success (Rough carving easily reocgnizable as a bird.)
19 = Good Success (Smooth little wooden statuette of a bird.)
24 = Amazing Success (Carving easily recognizeable as a specific bird).
29 = Legenary Success (People looking at it have to remind themselves its not a real bird that might fly away if startled).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that one especially as I already house rule that skills don't auto succeed/fail on a 1/20. I never liked the idea someone can for example fail to draw a sketch of an animal in their journal because they rolled a 1 even though their total is still 8 above the required DC because their adding 17 to the roll for a total of 18.
I have good news for you, that's not a houserule.
Nat-1's auto-failing and Nat-20's auto-succeeding is only a rule for Attack Rolls and Saving Throws.