| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings!
I've been working on a houserule doc for the last few months which attempts to balance the different classes and options of the game, with a high priority on getting the most "bang for your buck" in terms of changes.
This means I mostly did not go into changing various class feats, but tried focusing on the most core aspects of the different classes.
Keep in mind that this document is written from a perspective of an optimizer, but is also meant to make the classes more fun to play.
I've also included my rationale for most of the changes so you could understand where I'm coming from.
Lastly, this document is a work in progress and likely to change and have things added to it.
Feedback is welcome, though I would highly prefer feedback on the changes themselves, and not whether they necessary or not, since the point of this thread is not to argue class balance :)
Without further adieu, the document:
Pathfinder 2.5e
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings!
I've been working on a houserule doc for the last few months which attempts to balance the different classes and options of the game,
...
Feedback is welcome, though I would highly prefer feedback on the changes themselves, and not whether they necessary or not, since the point of this thread is not to argue class balance :)
This seems totally contradictory to me. The goal is to balance the classes but you don't want to argue about class balance?
You're powering up everybody but powering up some classes and archetypes a lot more than others. Which only makes sense if the original classes are significantly unbalanced.
Given that I think the existing classes are fairly well balanced I think your efforts are pretty much all making things worse.
And you need to do more work. For example, warpriest vs cloistered cleric. Warpriests are now very clearly far superior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greetings!
I've been working on a houserule doc for the last few months which attempts to balance the different classes and options of the game,
...
Feedback is welcome, though I would highly prefer feedback on the changes themselves, and not whether they necessary or not, since the point of this thread is not to argue class balance :)This seems totally contradictory to me. The goal is to balance the classes but you don't want to argue about class balance?
You're powering up everybody but powering up some classes and archetypes a lot more than others. Which only makes sense if the original classes are significantly unbalanced.
Given that I think the existing classes are fairly well balanced I think your efforts are pretty much all making things worse.
And you need to do more work. For example, warpriest vs cloistered cleric. Warpriests are now very clearly far superior.
I don't see what is contradictory here. I don't want to debate whether the changes are necessary or not, I want feedback on whether they do what they're supposed to do well (buff the classes in both fun and meaningful ways).
If you don't agree the classes that got buffs need those buffs in the first place - that is just not something I'm personally interested in debating about. If, for example, you think the buffs that they got went too far, or that they are uninteresting, that would be a welcome feedback.
Given that you think the classes are fairly well balanced as-is, it seems like this document isn't really aimed at you, which is completely fine :)
And I definitely don't agree that Warpriest is "far superior" to Cloistered, but thanks for the suggestions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are missing one of the design principles of the game. That Attack of Opportunity is supposed to be uncommon so you don't need to take the manipulate trait off everything. If it is too common then the solution is to take it off more monsters.
Removing Natural Ambition seems pointless. Just giving everyone an extra level 1 class feat like you did is enough. Natural ambition is now worth less. Personally I like that human is a strong ancestry pick. I don't want to devalue them.
If I was going to change the proficiency system I would make it smoother not more generic.
At the moment it is untrained is 0, trained gives 2+level, the other all give +2. I'd change it to untrained was level-2 , trained was level +0, and the other proficiency increases add +1. Plus there would be more ranks. But then I really am reworking the game.
But the different places it goes up and down for different characters is part of the charm of the game. The system is not generic by choice, and you are trying to make it so.
To rebalance casters in general I'd just allow a +1 rune to focus items to get +1 to their spell DC or attack. Maybe +1 as a level 5, +2 at level 13. Anyway clearly Paizo have declined to do such a thing. If they thought it was needed they have had plenty of oppourtunity to do it.
Your absolute worst idea is to make Electric Arc universal. I mean, I get your point. But just give the classes some other options. Scatter Scree is close enough. It would be good if they make a good cantrip with a fortitude save. Puff of Poison is not it. I find it amusing as a GM sitting there with a monster that has a Reflex Dc 7 higher than its Fortitude and 5 higher than its Will DC and the casters are using Electric Arc.
Rather than changing the Key Ability score of the Swashbuckler I would suggest a new optional rule: Allow the player to choose the Key Ability score of there class. Its is simple enough that Paizo might even officially adopt to as an optional rule anyway.
I don't feel qualified to comment on the Inventor or Alchemist issues.
Yes I agree that the martial feats that give you extra reactions are compulsory. But not everyone does. So I guess I'm happy with that.
I think you are missing one of the design principles of the game. That Attack of Opportunity is supposed to be uncommon so you don't need to take the manipulate trait off everything. If it is too common then the solution is to take it off more monsters.
Removing Natural Ambition seems pointless. Just giving everyone an extra level 1 class feat like you did is enough. Natural ambition is now worth less. Personally I like that human is a strong ancestry pick. I don't want to devalue them.
If I was going to change the proficiency system I would make it smoother not more generic.
At the moment it is untrained is 0, trained gives 2+level, the other all give +2. I'd change it to untrained was level-2 , trained was level +0, and the other proficiency increases add +1. Plus there would be more ranks. But then I really am reworking the game.
But the different places it goes up and down for different characters is part of the charm of the game. The system is not generic by choice, and you are trying to make it so.
To rebalance casters in general I'd just allow a +1 rune to focus items to get +1 to their spell DC or attack. Maybe +1 as a level 5, +2 at level 13. Anyway clearly Paizo have declined to do such a thing. If they thought it was needed they have had plenty of oppourtunity to do it.
Your absolute worst idea is to make Electric Arc universal. I mean, I get your point. But just give the classes some other options. Scatter Scree is close enough. It would be good if they make a good cantrip with a fortitude save. Puff of Poison is not it. I find it amusing as a GM sitting there with a monster that has a Reflex Dc 7 higher than its Fortitude and 5 higher than its Will DC and the casters are using Electric Arc.
Rather than changing the Key Ability score of the Swashbuckler I would suggest a new optional rule: Allow the player to choose the Key Ability score of there class. Its is simple enough that Paizo might even officially adopt to as an optional rule anyway.
I don't feel qualified to...
Thanks for the feedback!
The issue with AoO is that it is both highly GM/Campaign dependent, and that later on 30% of monsters have it. It isn't as uncommon as you might think. In addition, since this document focuses on simple fixes, I prefer removing Manipulate from certain options rather than go monster by monster and remove their Attack of Opportunity.
Regarding Natural Ambition - fair commentary. I will consider it. It's one of the changes I'm least sold on right now, actually, and am looking for a better fix.
On the proficiency changes, like I said, I prefer simpler solutions to complex ones. Also, I actually like making it more generic. I don't think that the current solution of balancing classes using different progression rates and proficiencies, and thus creating level gaps where there are stark differences in proficiency that get resolves a couple of levels later is a good thing. It seems that you like this, so I suppose it's a matter of taste and we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I don't think Casters as a whole need rebalancing, actually, other than making sure they all have a cantrip as good as Electric Arc, because as-is non-Arcane/Primal casters are kind of forced to take an Ancestry which will let them get it (if you're optimizing).
Why give other classes Scatter Scree and not Electric Arc? What is the difference?
I actually agree on the optional rule that lets players choose their KAS. I might do that, but for now decided to steer clear of more extreme changes where possible to avoid.
Good to have some free house-rulinged PF2.5e stuff out there for PF2e, BendKing. ;)
I think you are missing one of the design principles of the game. That Attack of Opportunity is supposed to be uncommon so you don't need to take the manipulate trait off everything. If it is too common then the solution is to take it off more monsters.Tricky to redo the whole bestiary hah.
It was very much a core assumption of the game. Paizo have not been as diciplined at keeping it as uncommon as they should have.
In practice the issue I think is manipulate being on a lot of things that are DESIGNED to be used in melee. Spellstrike, some inventor abilities, etc, and they are all part of the regular damage routine.
So many classes do have in built weakensses
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giant Barbarians are stopped cold by low ceilings.
Dragon Barbarians are hurt significantly by damage reduction.
Most Barbarians and many Monks have a very hard time dealing with ranged opponents.
Rogues have to try for some of their control options, but at least sneak attack itself is still moderately OK to get.
Swashbucklers (other than Gymnast) are serverely hurt if preciscion damage is out.
Most casters are stuck if trapped at melee range by something they can't escape from. But really a well played/built caster of any type will have options from mid level.
Archers do really badly against things with resistance to piercing damage. Their other options are pretty bad, and most people don't have a back up.
Inherent issues with a class are not uncommon.
Inherent issues with a class are not uncommon.
They are an issue when they can trivially be solved by going ranged and giving up almost nothing to do so (which is true in the case of Inventor, Magus & Inventor), thus all but invalidating a melee playstyle.
Not sure they improve fun. Depends on the players. Test it with your players and yourself as DM. If you can handle it and want to remember all your house rules as well as all the other rules, then go for it.
I'm trying to minimize house rules in this edition.
Not sure they improve fun. Depends on the players. Test it with your players and yourself as DM. If you can handle it and want to remember all your house rules as well as all the other rules, then go for it.
I'm trying to minimize house rules in this edition.
The ones that are in play so far are working well (I still hadn't got the chance to test every class change).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Barbarians, they don't lose their entire main ability or are punished for it, and generally, ceilings that are low enough to prevent Giant Barbarians from using their abilities are not a consideration.
This is just wrong. If your GM insists that a dungeon has normal height ceilings - very common in games where they are trying for a more realistic medieval feel. Then after a certain level a Giant Barbarians are just done. Then do not have an option to rage and not grow. Giants statue, Titans statue are thematically core to Giant Barbarians will make them large then huge. Lets not forget that is a huge creature with a weapon that is oversized for a huge creature. Barbarians are also fond of big two handed weapons and polearms. Think about how big that should be. Roleplaying wise a barbarian is always going to rage.
Yes published modules all tend to unrealistically have 10ft high or higher ceilings. Most GMs are generally reasonable people who won't make a module where one character is just forced to sit out. But that is just the universe being kind to the giant barbarian. It should be a crippling disadvantage in a lot of actual settings.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any argument that involves "realistic medieval feel" and Pathfinder together is hilariously invalid.
Heroic Fantasy is literally about taking mundane elements and making them fantastic and grand.
Your comment is invalid. Everyone is playing their own game. Everyone has a different level of fantasy. Not everyone wants to play a game where the major villain is a stuffed toy. That something Pathfinder encourages not restricts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is just wrong. If your GM insists that a dungeon has normal height ceilings - very common in games where they are trying for a more realistic medieval feel. Then after a certain level a Giant Barbarians are just done. Then do not have an option to rage and not grow.
Uh... growing larger is completely optional ability. It's a pair of feats some players don't even take and even then both growing to large and the option for huge are things you choose to activate independent of your damage boost.
It's a wildly different beast than a magus without a reach weapon getting smacked by AoOs or a rogue fighting an ooze.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha Ha Ha ha. Thanks, that is just so preposterous.
Casters should become more powerful. For example, the number of spells per day and spells per level should be... let's say, tripled, so that sorcerers learn 12 spells per each level and cast 12 spells per level everyday. Under this change, monsters would learn and cast more spells as well, so the PCs will not terribly overpowered.
And the spell duration should be increased too. I really wish to see the spells be maintained at least one hour, or maybe several hours.
I have always wished my PC learn more ancestry feats. How about make the ancestry paragon rule as a default, so that every PC starts with two ancestry feats and gains another at every odd level thereafter?
Last but not least, class feats should be gained every level, so that at 20th level every PCs would learn 20 class feats.
To support this, I've GM'd for a Giant Barbarian who has plenty of room for Giant's Stature and very rarely uses it. He thought the feat looked cooler than the other 6th level feats after getting AoO from free archetype, but wasn't tied to growing big as part of the class fantasy or aesthetic, just thought getting an extra large reach would be useful from time to time. I regularly put the party in locations where there is plenty of room, but he only uses it every few sessions when the party fights creatures that are extra mobile or get in a position where he can block a chokepoint. The actual aesthetic he preferred was he anime oversized weapon look, which he felt was diminished by actually being large sized instead of small. Regularly opts not to take the extra action to grow big unless there's a big incentive to do so. Doesn't seem to mind being in locations with low ceilings (which I don't push them towards, they spend a lot of time outside or in 12-15' tall ceiling areas where Giant Stature is fine). No idea why this idea is, as Gortle puts it,This is just wrong. If your GM insists that a dungeon has normal height ceilings - very common in games where they are trying for a more realistic medieval feel. Then after a certain level a Giant Barbarians are just done. Then do not have an option to rage and not grow.Uh... growing larger is completely optional ability. It's a pair of feats some players don't even take and even then both growing to large and the option for huge are things you choose to activate independent of your damage boost.
It's a wildly different beast than a magus without a reach weapon getting smacked by AoOs or a rogue fighting an ooze.
Ha Ha Ha ha. Thanks, that is just so preposterous.
It's just how my table plays the game.