Having an optional rule to bring back PF1 options in PF2

[SuperBidi]

Hi everyone,

It's funny because I really like PF2 balance and I'm not at all a great fan of PF1 options, but reading at the boards it looks like an important proportion of players miss them.
PF2 balance is extremely strong and it's nice for those like me who love balance. But I don't think everyone asks for the exact same level of balance inside a game. I think it would be quite easy to create an optional rule (like Free Archetypes, with a feat every other levels) bringing much of the PF1 options that people miss. I'm even pretty sure the balance of the game would not fall to pieces (besides the obvious increase in character power).

If I decompose PF1 options, I think they fall into a few categories:
- Specialization options: Weapon Focus, Spell Focus, Skill Focus. Certainly the easiests to bring back.
- Stat replacements: Zen Archery, Dex to attack or damage, Charisma to AC. Once again, these options are easy to implement.
- X times per day options: Smite Evil, Arcane Pool, rounds of Rage or Bardic Music. A bit harder to get back, but it could be great to have these kind of options for martials and casters.
- Metamagic feats: Maximized, Quicken, etc... The magic system has greatly changed, so I don't think it would be fine to take them back as is. But we could have more power oriented Metamagic feats.
- Number increases: Power attack, Dodge, Iron Will, etc... Once again, very easy to implement. But these ones feel like tax feats, so I'm not sure people really want them back.
- A lot of specialized crazy options: Sacred Geometry and other similar abilities. Well, there's obviously a big category of feats that have to be handled one by one. These ones are the hardest to get back but I'm not sure they are the most interesting.
- Stat improvements: Belt of Giant Strength, Tome of Intelligence, etc... This category is less of a character option and more of an item one. But it may also be interesting to have a system like Starfinder where you can buy stat improving items with limited scope.

I've posted this in the general discussion because I think it goes beyond homebrew. In my opinion, it's something Paizo should think about in an Unchained book of some kind. If you want, I can make a homebrew draft version of it to show you how I think it can be done (I know PF2 quite well, so I think I can make rules that respect the game logic and balance but I'll certainly need a bit of your help as I don't know PF1 as much as I know PF2).

Give me your opinion on the matter!

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

If I wanted to play a game where my system mastery would directly relate to the amount of fun I have, I'd play PF1.

[SuperBidi]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

If I wanted to play a game where my system mastery would directly relate to the amount of fun I have, I'd play PF1.

Why immediately assuming the worst?

PF1 had balance issues, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are good things in PF1 that people miss, and it's not necessarily linked to powergaming.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

I'm assuming the worst because you list all those no-brainer-for-optimising feats/items that exactly contributed to the situation where my PF1 PCs would outshine characters run by casual players whose ideas of feat selection for a cRogue included Toughness and a feat that gives +2 to hit while standing in running water but not above your knees.

Powergaming is what PF1 is about, it's a game that rewards system mastery and punishes you for the lack of it.

[SuperBidi]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

I'm assuming the worst because you list all those no-brainer-for-optimising feats/items that exactly contributed to the situation where my PF1 PCs would outshine characters run by casual players whose ideas of feat selection for a cRogue included Toughness and a feat that gives +2 to hit while standing in running water but not above your knees.

Powergaming is what PF1 is about, it's a game that rewards system mastery and punishes you for the lack of it.

I vastly disagree.

From my experience, the biggest sources of powergaming were:
- Multiclassing
- Spells
Some feats were causing issues, but the vast majority were ok. There was also the issue that a lot of feats were really bad, so it was more a case of trap options than powergaming ones.

[QuidEst]

I think this does belong in homebrew.

PF1 had a certain messiness to it. A lot of expected numbers weren't planned out in advance, and a lot of numbers diverged between categories of classes. One result was a character focused on something to a greater-than-expected degree could do it very reliably.

Things also interacted more. Using Power Attack didn't lock you out of using a feat that added a status effect rider to your attack.

Tacking on a "bigger numbers options" expansion pack doesn't get you back the parts that made it enjoyable for a lot of people.

Taking a "number go up" feat felt bad almost every time. The fun thing was grabbing a class option or archetype that did something interesting while boosting that skill or ability. I only cared about a high profession(cook) bonus because my warlock vigilante was doubling the speed of his cooking, quadrupling the income, and granting half his total modifier to every Unseen Servant he created while also allowing them to wear uniforms.

This optional add-on wouldn't change how APs are designed, or remove the faster-than-level scaling to expected skill DCs, or introduce interesting combinations. It would instead encourage trading out customization resources for bigger numbers- the least satisfying aspect of PF1's looser balance.

---

Personally, I think that the issues are better addressed through more targeted homebrew. If players dislike never feeling truly competent at a specialty skill, maybe let everyone pick a thematic skill to auto-succeed at once a day. Or, for that skill, DCs outside of boss situations are capped at a standard level-appropriate DC for them.

[Ravingdork]

I'd welcome back such imbalances in the form of epic or mythic add-on rules.

But it better not leak into vanilla Pathfinder 2e. I imagine that would not bode well for the future of the product line.

In fact, that might be a good way to appease both balance seekers and power hungry glory seekers.

Want to ROFL-stomp everything while feeling nigh unstoppable? Then play in an epc/mythic campaign with tons of new options tailored for you.

[SuperBidi]

Ravingdork wrote:

Want to ROFL-stomp everything while feeling nigh unstoppable? Then play in an epc/mythic campaign with tons of new options tailored for you.

That's how I think it should be added, through an epic optional rule that would get closer to PF1 feeling (but would also affect balance, obviously).

[WWHsmackdown]

I'd love mythic to to be a free archetype track that let's pcs punch way above their weight class, scratching that pf1 ich for players. On the GM side, I'd like notes on said mythic track that let you know what CR you need for effective boss encounters. I think it could work.....released alongside a 2e conversion of wrath of the righteous or 2e equivalent mythic AP....(inhales another dose of hopium)

[Sanityfaerie]

I have seen at least one 3rd party product in the works that does essentially that.

[WatersLethe]

*gasp* More knee-jerk hostility toward SuperBidi earnestly proposing something? I'm so shocked!

I'll be frank: I don't much care for the PF1 balance nightmare stuff, but I know there are people who liked being able to optimize and solve in-game problems during character gen, and I want them to have fun too.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect PF2's design is robust enough to accept a bolt-on package that allows for hyper specialization and balance-shattering options without losing a lot of what makes PF2 cool. If such a system could be designed, and there was a big enough market of PF1 diehards to sell it to, I don't see what harm it brings to discuss it.

For my 2 cents:

For such a system, I would strongly consider adding a new silo of feats that give numerical bonuses. Since this kind of optimization is pretty orthogonal to the PF2's design, you could likely get pretty close by just granting new feat selection options with a pure math focus at certain levels. Call them Superlative Feats or something.

I don't know what the market would be for it, and it should definitely not replace Mythic options, but I would guess that it would be a better fit for a 3rd party offering.

[SuperBidi]

Salamileg wrote:

Reread the first paragraph of SuperBidi's post. He likes PF2's balance. He's just noting that a lot of people don't, and is proposing the idea of an optional rule to cater to those people.

I for one, also like PF2's balance, but think it's an interesting topic to bring up.

Exactly. I've always been a fierce defender of PF2 over PF1. But I also think at some point it's better to build bridges and in my opinion there may be an option to do it that could satisfy, at least a bit, PF1 fans.

QuidEst wrote:

Taking a "number go up" feat felt bad almost every time. The fun thing was grabbing a class option or archetype that did something interesting while boosting that skill or ability. I only cared about a high profession(cook) bonus because my warlock vigilante was doubling the speed of his cooking, quadrupling the income, and granting half his total modifier to every Unseen Servant he created while also allowing them to wear uniforms.

I'm not 100% sure that the combo effects are really what people miss. The one you describe is funny, but many were gamebreaking and considered negatively.

The main complaint I read is that PF2 ceiling feels too low, and that there's no way you can break through it, even a little bit. Characters don't feel competent because they can never do something that is just slightly outside the norm.
I also read that there are too many limitations, that some abilities are restricted because of the 1% of players who will exploit them, with the result that the other 99% of players just can't get them (Familiars are an example of such limitations).

[SuperBidi]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I have seen at least one 3rd party product in the works that does essentially that.

Which one?

[Losonti]

I'm not against things that let you switch around stats or give you new stuff to do, but feats like Weapon Focus and Spell Focus, where it's just "+1 to X," suck. They're boring but also more or less mandatory in PF1. Tons of feats use them as prerequisites, too.

PF2 very specifically wants to avoid having any feats that seem like "must haves" and something that is just a flat increase to your attack rolls or DCs is one of them.

Edit: One thing I do think there's plenty of room for would be more class archetypes or subclasses that change your key ability stat. Rogue has several. Some of my favorite PF1 archetypes were things like the Living Grimoire Inquisitor or Feyspeaker Druid.

[Sanityfaerie]

SuperBidi wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I have seen at least one 3rd party product in the works that does essentially that.

Which one?

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43lv0?Second-edition-of-Mythic-Rules-coming-so on

and

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43max?Mythic-Powers-released-on-Pathfinder-Inf inite

With these two links you know everything I do.

I have no idea why it keeps insisting on adding a space in the middle of the "Infinite" of the second one of those, but I cannot get it to stop.

[SuperBidi]

I already got this issue of extra space, but that's fine, I've found both discussions. The second is really about high level, but the first one is closer to what I'm speaking about even if I think the angle is very different. I'd be interested to read it.

[Sanityfaerie]

SuperBidi wrote:

I already got this issue of extra space, but that's fine, I've found both discussions. The second is really about high level, but the first one is closer to what I'm speaking about even if I think the angle is very different. I'd be interested to read it.

I'm pretty sure they're both talking about the same product. It's the same guy producing it, and I'm pretty sure he didn't put out two. It's just that the bits that you're looking for are the mythic archetypes bits, rather than the epic leveling bits.

[aobst128]

I like that power gaming isn't as relevant to this system where everything is kept in a tight power structure for your class. I think dual class might just be what you need for the extra freedom to make some potent concepts. Generally, multiclassing and archetyping won't give you too much extra power but gives more versatility. Any additional options that could be added I would want to fit into the latter. Would you say that's what you're asking for?

[dmerceless]

How on Earth does an optional rule drag something down? Even if something like this did release, you can just... not use it. There's no need to attack the dude like a ravenous Barghest just for making a suggestion, jeez.

I don't even like Bidi's suggestion in this case but it's hard not to sympathize when the other side of the discussion treats any suggestion that deviates from the core game's path as a deadly sin that should be punished with hellfire.

[Cori Marie]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'd love mythic to to be a free archetype track that let's pcs punch way above their weight class, scratching that pf1 ich for players. On the GM side, I'd like notes on said mythic track that let you know what CR you need for effective boss encounters. I think it could work.....released alongside a 2e conversion of wrath of the righteous or 2e equivalent mythic AP....(inhales another dose of hopium)

Literally working on just that for Pathfinder Infinite. Both the Mythic rules and the WotR conversion lol

[WatersLethe]

dmerceless wrote:

How on Earth does an optional rule drag something down? Even if something like this did release, you can just... not use it. There's no need to attack the dude like a ravenous Barghest just for making a suggestion, jeez.

I don't even like Bidi's suggestion in this case but it's hard not to sympathize when the other side of the discussion treats any suggestion that deviates from the core game's path as a deadly sin that should be punished with hellfire.

Exactly! It's blowing my mind how vitriolic and borderline unhinged the response is.

The proposal is an optional ruleset to help bring PF1 diehards into the fold of the superior PF2 chassis. What's so nefarious about potentially meeting a niche demand?

[Temperans]

Considering the amount of people who think the issue with PF1 was feat taxes and OP spells, not the 1 feat/item from a splat book that enabled some ability. I am a bit surprised at how many people imidiately jumped to the "you just want power gaming" argument. But not really with all the "PF1 is just about power gaming" that gets thrown out by people in PF2 and 5e who only care about the DPS chart in pathfinder but are happy to ignore it in their own game.

Having said that yes an optional rule that makes PF2 somewhat backwards compatible would do a lot to make the game more enjoyable to people who like making interesting characters by mix and matching abilities.

An example of a change: Proficiency general feats give proficiency, but if you are already have proficiency it gives you +1 to that ability. This is taken pretty much from the CRPG background system giving +1 if you are already proficient in your background weapon/skill/armor. Does a +1 to one ability at the cost of a general feat break anything? No. Does it limit what people can pick? No. Does it enable people who want to be slightly strong at that option? Very much so.

Stat replacement is slightly more difficult since Paizo is clear that they do not want just anyone to get it.

Metamagic feats honestly are pretty easy to port given how things have been changed. Make them all cost an action since prepared metamagic is gone. Because metamagic stacking is gone a lot of the broken tricks are gone. All that needs to be checked is that things like Maximized, intensified, empowered, etc. just need to be made 1/day like Quickened spell is. With those changes metamagic should be hardly a problem.

X per day options are weird because people keep saying "oh those are bad look PF2 doesn't have them". But then if you actually look there are a ton of X per day abilities from metamagic to items to even some class abilities. Most X per day abilities how not cause any issue and Paizo might even port them thenselves eventually to fit PF2 wording.

Other number boosters I will agree is very diffult because 50% are all about just that. But there are some that are very much about flavor, like the story and achievement feats.

Finally the "crazy options", I feel like this is the reason so many people enjoy PF1. Because there are quite a lot of abilities that change how a character plays. But the important part is the way abilities on PF1 are allowed to stack with each other, which is a rare case in PF2. Honestly, I don't know this one is very complicated.

**************************

Regarding magic items what PF2 needs is not more stat boosters. Its a lot more magic items that let you change the way you play the game without having to jump through hoops. Also things that cannot be gained in any form outside of magic items.

A good example is the property runes, those are so limitied with the fundamental being mandatory when one of the very neat features of PF1 is that you could have a +1 weapon with 9 different special abilities. But PF2 requires that its a great striking and limits the amount of properties. Finding a way to bring back more magic weapon/armor/shield properties would be great.

[Deriven Firelion]

I wouldn't worry about it too much myself. Both games exist. If you want to play something like PF1, you go play it. If you like PF2, you play that.

Hopefully Paizo can stay in business on on PF2 and it's other products even if some of their base wants to stick with the old game or go back to it on occasion.

I've heard of people that still play 2nd edition D&D and even older sets. To each their own.

Game companies like to produce new material and move on. Sometimes players are happy with what they had.

[thewastedwalrus]

Bringing back the options of PF1 with the balance of PF2 would be great, though things like numerical boosts run into direct conflict with keeping things balanced.

Stat replacements in particular tend to devalue whatever's being replaced and encourage more lopsided ability scores as one is dumped, so I'd be wary about making these adjustments.

Big fan of picking up old specific abilities that were actually interesting rather than just powerful, like how a spellslinger could get benefits for firing a fireball through their gun or how a siege mage could fire and eventually reload a Hotchkiss 6-pounder at range and by themselves using their magic.

Many of the old options do exist in some form now with broader archetypes, skill feats, etc., but they're occasionally more limited to stay within the design of the new edition and avoid invalidating other character's niches.

[Malk_Content]

WatersLethe wrote:

dmerceless wrote:

How on Earth does an optional rule drag something down? Even if something like this did release, you can just... not use it. There's no need to attack the dude like a ravenous Barghest just for making a suggestion, jeez.

I don't even like Bidi's suggestion in this case but it's hard not to sympathize when the other side of the discussion treats any suggestion that deviates from the core game's path as a deadly sin that should be punished with hellfire.

Exactly! It's blowing my mind how vitriolic and borderline unhinged the response is.

The proposal is an optional ruleset to help bring PF1 diehards into the fold of the superior PF2 chassis. What's so nefarious about potentially meeting a niche demand?

It isn't a downside that will happen often but having an officially printed set of options that you think will drastically reduce the quality of the game only changes your chance from someone in your group wanting to use these from 0% to some higher number. For some (particularly those who either play in a group who has at least 1 player they know will ask for this or don't have the luxury of a longstanding group) this risk might be enough to spark distaste at the entire idea.

From my pov there isn't anything good about most of the +X options. I think the few we have in the game are bad enough (I think the Fighter specializing into certain weapon types reduces play-style differences rather than improves it for example.)

EDIT: And the usual that any option printed by necessity takes resources away from something you might prefer. Okay for things you are neutral on, less okay for something you believe would be actively detrimental to PF2.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Moved to Homebrew. If the conversation continues to derail this thread will be locked for moderation.

[Artificial 20]

SuperBidi wrote:

Hi everyone,

It's funny because I really like PF2 balance and I'm not at all a great fan of PF1 options, but reading at the boards it looks like an important proportion of players miss them.
PF2 balance is extremely strong and it's nice for those like me who love balance. But I don't think everyone asks for the exact same level of balance inside a game. I think it would be quite easy to create an optional rule (like Free Archetypes, with a feat every other levels) bringing much of the PF1 options that people miss. I'm even pretty sure the balance of the game would not fall to pieces (besides the obvious increase in character power).

If I decompose PF1 options, I think they fall into a few categories:
- Specialization options: Weapon Focus, Spell Focus, Skill Focus. Certainly the easiests to bring back.
- Stat replacements: Zen Archery, Dex to attack or damage, Charisma to AC. Once again, these options are easy to implement.
- X times per day options: Smite Evil, Arcane Pool, rounds of Rage or Bardic Music. A bit harder to get back, but it could be great to have these kind of options for martials and casters.
- Metamagic feats: Maximized, Quicken, etc... The magic system has greatly changed, so I don't think it would be fine to take them back as is. But we could have more power oriented Metamagic feats.
- Number increases: Power attack, Dodge, Iron Will, etc... Once again, very easy to implement. But these ones feel like tax feats, so I'm not sure people really want them back.
- A lot of specialized crazy options: Sacred Geometry and other similar abilities. Well, there's obviously a big category of feats that have to be handled one by one. These ones are the hardest to get back but I'm not sure they are the most interesting.
- Stat improvements: Belt of Giant Strength, Tome of Intelligence, etc... This category is less of a character option and more of an item one. But it may also be interesting to have a system like Starfinder where you can buy stat improving items with limited scope.

I've...

I've no problem with your premise, but the solution may be overdesigned.

PF2E has a power-rating system for its options, which is feat levels and proficiencies. Characters could be given access to stronger choices by simply treating their character and proficiency levels as higher when qualifying for feats, e.g. +4 character levels and +1 proficiency level for anything trained and higher. This would let them pick strong options earlier on, and have more strong options at level 20. Increasing player "budgets" with methods like this or free archetypes is probably worth trying first, as it increases power while maintaining relative balance.

[Squiggit]

Lycar wrote:

Stat improvements... Okay, that one I can see with a caveat: Can't be used to improve a stat beyond what normal increases would allow and price should not scale with the improvement, but what stat value someone is trying to achieve. Shoring up a glaring weakness? Affordable. Trying to push a secondary stat to the same level as your primary? Not so much...

I think an item to try to push up a secondary/tertiary stat could actually be kinda cool. PF2's attribute system encourages you to kinda silo your stats to some extent, so some way to say... throw some extra investment in some other attribute that might provide some extra benefit could be a neat way to let... I dunno, an Inventor slightly improve their Charisma so they can feel less bad about investing in Diplomacy.

Maybe a tiered magic item that gives you a bonus but has a cap, +2 to X but no higher than say, 14... with a greater version that lets you go to 16.

[Kasoh]

Squiggit wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Stat improvements... Okay, that one I can see with a caveat: Can't be used to improve a stat beyond what normal increases would allow and price should not scale with the improvement, but what stat value someone is trying to achieve. Shoring up a glaring weakness? Affordable. Trying to push a secondary stat to the same level as your primary? Not so much...

I think an item to try to push up a secondary/tertiary stat could actually be kinda cool. PF2's attribute system encourages you to kinda silo your stats to some extent, so some way to say... throw some extra investment in some other attribute that might provide some extra benefit could be a neat way to let... I dunno, an Inventor slightly improve their Charisma so they can feel less bad about investing in Diplomacy.

Maybe a tiered magic item that gives you a bonus but has a cap, +2 to X but no higher than say, 14... with a greater version that lets you go to 16.

Like the old Gauntlets of Ogre power that set your ability score to 18 unless it was over that. Something that sets the ability score to 16 or so. Valuable for people looking for a boost to a tertiary stat but if its one they're investing in, probably useless.

[Perpdepog]

Kasoh wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Stat improvements... Okay, that one I can see with a caveat: Can't be used to improve a stat beyond what normal increases would allow and price should not scale with the improvement, but what stat value someone is trying to achieve. Shoring up a glaring weakness? Affordable. Trying to push a secondary stat to the same level as your primary? Not so much...

I think an item to try to push up a secondary/tertiary stat could actually be kinda cool. PF2's attribute system encourages you to kinda silo your stats to some extent, so some way to say... throw some extra investment in some other attribute that might provide some extra benefit could be a neat way to let... I dunno, an Inventor slightly improve their Charisma so they can feel less bad about investing in Diplomacy.

Maybe a tiered magic item that gives you a bonus but has a cap, +2 to X but no higher than say, 14... with a greater version that lets you go to 16.

Like the old Gauntlets of Ogre power that set your ability score to 18 unless it was over that. Something that sets the ability score to 16 or so. Valuable for people looking for a boost to a tertiary stat but if its one they're investing in, probably useless.

A niche for lower-level apex items, perhaps?

[Cyouni]

The problem is that it just creates a new normal, where everyone who actually understands the game picks these numerical options and rolls over everything in their path, and those who don't know the game as well don't.
We already have a similar problem with elemental damage runes being considered optimal due to being one of the few ways to increase damage, and with Thief having the only source existing for Dex-to-damage (which I consider to have been a mistake in the first place), why would you want to make it worse, for god's sake?
Hyperspecialization options are the worst part, and is just antithetical to what PF2 stands for. The whole idea of stacking bonuses to effectively "win the game at creation" would just ruin PF2 if implemented.

More metamagic would definitely be nice, though.

[Temperans]

I wouldn't call spending a general feat for +1 to one thing "hyper specialization".

[Lycar]

Perpdepog wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

Like the old Gauntlets of Ogre power that set your ability score to 18 unless it was over that. Something that sets the ability score to 16 or so. Valuable for people looking for a boost to a tertiary stat but if its one they're investing in, probably useless.

A niche for lower-level apex items, perhaps?

Apex items as they exist now either up a score by +2 or set it to 18. But you can only have one of those.

Possibly there is a niche for something less potent. Only becoming available at high(er) levels still, people would eventually be able to shore up their tertiary stats, but they would have to live through the lower levels first.

That way, those who make sacrifices at the start reap the benefits right from the beginning, those who endure with low tertiaries can eventually get them up. For a price, as that still is gold not spent on other options. That way, it would not make it a no-brainer option.

Lucas Yew wrote:

While I agree wih most of your points, do remember that this quote is from a twisted, eliticist villain.

BTW such toxic mentality from caster supremacists (or as I call them, "Magocrats") eventually won over my love with PF1's more elaborate "simulationism" and urged me to jump ship...

Because in 3.x/PF1 only casters got to be super. One can argue that PF2 hit them with the nerf hammer too hard, but the gist is, casters favour their mental stats, martials the physical ones. That also means, casters will favour skills that require mental stats, martials will go for skills that play to their strengths. And as magic can no longer replace skills, casters can no longer form 1-man-parties. Which is of course the point.

Nobody gets to be Angel-Summoner, and nobody is stuck being BMX-Bandit.

Stat replacement would only mean that having to favour one set of stats over the other would lose its meaning. Curiously enough, it would be a martial class, Rogue (and Investigator maybe), that would benefit the most. But that would make Rogues so superior at skills that having a Rogue in the party would be all but mandatory. Not good.

[SuperBidi]

From the answers, it looks like this proposition was not really a good one. Sorry about that.

[Lycar]

SuperBidi wrote:

From the answers, it looks like this proposition was not really a good one. Sorry about that.

Sorry about being so harsh, but you did ask about opinions. And yeah, I do happen to have pretty strong ones about that (sore) subject.

But why not go the other way around? PF2 has some good things that can improve PF1 play, even for the 'optimisation enthusiasts'. Mostly things that shore up martial's ability to not-suck in the face of spells doing unkind things to their ability to still be relevant.

My gut-feeling would be, give martials abilities that help casters land their spells and make casters need them. Which is, of course, one of the main gripes with PF2.

[YuriP]

About stats item due restriction in APEX I was thinking in a different approach. To avoid have another "obligatory" item this could be done trough a rare mutagems of a stats change.

Something like this mutagem can be limited to not improve a stat more than 18 and as drawback diminish other. To avoid obligatory usage they drawback are over same kind of stat. For example a mutagem of bull strengh could give +4 to STR but diminish -2 in DEX and CON as consequence. As a mutagem also has polymorth trait to avoid stronger combinations.

Until now the PF2 avoided such kind of mutagem that acts directly over a stats probably due it's high flexibility to prevent them to eclipse other mutagem but being honest 90% (specially those that are in CRB) are already subpar or too situational to be used without Quick Alchemy or Prescient Consumable. Such kind of mutagem won't worse this situation even more, also could help the Alchemists and some MCD to compensate their MAD.

[Ascalaphus]

SuperBidi wrote:

From the answers, it looks like this proposition was not really a good one. Sorry about that.

I had a hard time understanding what you were originally proposing. It felt a bit like a bunch of solutions looking for problems.

To really fulfill the things people are missing from PF1 I think it's useful to dig a bit deeper into what they're missing and why they're missing them, before moving towards possible solutions.

For example: I think not many people miss long feat chains from PF1, and not many people miss feats that were so obvious to take that you might as well make them permanent class features and cross out a free feat slot there. So what exactly are people missing when they're asking for +1 feats? What kind of game style or experience are they looking for?

I think one thing that a lot of people are looking for is the ability to choose "this particular thing I'm exceptionally good at". And you could say, you do that in PF2 by becoming expert+ in those skills. But the skill DCs tend to rise at a pace that it's actually the stuff you're not getting expert+ in, that you're falling behind in. You're not becoming exceptional in a thing, you're choosing a thing that you stay competitive in.

PF2 is balanced, but that doesn't mean the particular balance point of PF2 is the only possible balance point. It could be balanced at a different equilibrium point.

People say that monsters in PF2 hit so very hard and have such high numbers, but in the end, PCs do tend to win the fight. You have to make a lot of attacks to get some through. Meanwhile, PF2 PCs can actually take a lot more punishment than PF1 PCs. If you didn't win initiative in PF1 or didn't drop an enemy in 1-2 turns, chances were the enemy would kill you. PF2 PCs get hurt more but they're also more resilient.

But while the "make lots of attacks looking for a die roll of 16+" balance point works, a lot of people don't enjoy it. They'd rather have the DC be lower (so they hit more and harder) but then perhaps also make the monsters hit more and harder, or have less HP themselves or such. A bit like Starfinder, where both PCs and monsters have a lot of to-hit compared to somewhat low AC.

In both games the odds in total are stacked to let the PCs win, but in PF2 you also tend to see more misses before you get enough hits to win. So while it's balanced, you still feel like you're failing a lot and that's what is unpleasant.

So to circle back, I don't think the solution to that is +1 feats, I think the solution is reducing monster DCs, to the point where people whose proficiency doesn't change much during levels don't fall behind, while people whose proficiency increases really start succeeding more.

[Gortle]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think one thing that a lot of people are looking for is the ability to choose "this particular thing I'm exceptionally good at". And you could say, you do that in PF2 by becoming expert+ in those skills. But the skill DCs tend to rise at a pace that it's actually the stuff you're not getting expert+ in, that you're falling behind in. You're not becoming exceptional in a thing, you're choosing a thing that you stay competitive in.

PF2 is balanced, but that doesn't mean the particular balance point of PF2 is the only possible balance point. It could be balanced at a different equilibrium point.

People want to be able to shine in a fantasy game, not to be mediocre. Which means the balance point is important. Putting lots of effort into something to only be OK at it is not really the fealing they are after. But to be good at PF2 you have to have a couple of options and know when to use what. Or you have to have some combined plays with the help of your allies.

Its a tougher game and more of a challenge, and not everyone wants that.

On the otherside my last D&D5 game died, because the players were crushing the Demon Lords that were supposed to be impossible plot point challenges for the party. So the GM gave up in frustration as he couldn't get the threads to hang togather anymore.

[Temperans]

Gortle wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think one thing that a lot of people are looking for is the ability to choose "this particular thing I'm exceptionally good at". And you could say, you do that in PF2 by becoming expert+ in those skills. But the skill DCs tend to rise at a pace that it's actually the stuff you're not getting expert+ in, that you're falling behind in. You're not becoming exceptional in a thing, you're choosing a thing that you stay competitive in.

PF2 is balanced, but that doesn't mean the particular balance point of PF2 is the only possible balance point. It could be balanced at a different equilibrium point.

People want to be able to shine in a fantasy game, not to be mediocre. Which means the balance point is important. Putting lots of effort into something to only be OK at it is not really the fealing they are after. But to be good at PF2 you have to have a couple of options and know when to use what. Or you have to have some combined plays with the help of your allies.

Its a tougher game and more of a challenge, and not everyone wants that.

On the otherside my last D&D5 game died, because the players were crushing the Demon Lords that were supposed to be impossible plot point challenges for the party. So the GM gave up in frustration as he couldn't get the threads to hang togather anymore.

Regarding first half, exactly. The whole issue is wanting the game to feel like a "fantasy" where you aren't just keeping up with enemies.

Regarding the 2nd half, that is why you don't give stats to deities and/or make their stats so BS that a regular party can't do anything about it. Too many people forget that the GM can come up with any BS they want as long as their is a good reason. There is no better reason for "as you cut the head of the enemy you see it disappear in a shadowy mist. As you start to feel relax you hear the laughter of the enemy you though you had killed..."

[Artificial 20]

Squiggit wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Stat improvements... Okay, that one I can see with a caveat: Can't be used to improve a stat beyond what normal increases would allow and price should not scale with the improvement, but what stat value someone is trying to achieve. Shoring up a glaring weakness? Affordable. Trying to push a secondary stat to the same level as your primary? Not so much...

I think an item to try to push up a secondary/tertiary stat could actually be kinda cool. PF2's attribute system encourages you to kinda silo your stats to some extent, so some way to say... throw some extra investment in some other attribute that might provide some extra benefit could be a neat way to let... I dunno, an Inventor slightly improve their Charisma so they can feel less bad about investing in Diplomacy.

Maybe a tiered magic item that gives you a bonus but has a cap, +2 to X but no higher than say, 14... with a greater version that lets you go to 16.

Building off of this, some players do feel that PF2E's general feats are a little underwhelming, and that's a resource every character has access to.

What about something like this, a sort of Canny Acumen for ability scores:

Diverse Training (Feat 11)

Choose one ability score. You gain +4 to this ability, to a maximum of 16.

[WWHsmackdown]

Artificial 20 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Lycar wrote:

Stat improvements... Okay, that one I can see with a caveat: Can't be used to improve a stat beyond what normal increases would allow and price should not scale with the improvement, but what stat value someone is trying to achieve. Shoring up a glaring weakness? Affordable. Trying to push a secondary stat to the same level as your primary? Not so much...

I think an item to try to push up a secondary/tertiary stat could actually be kinda cool. PF2's attribute system encourages you to kinda silo your stats to some extent, so some way to say... throw some extra investment in some other attribute that might provide some extra benefit could be a neat way to let... I dunno, an Inventor slightly improve their Charisma so they can feel less bad about investing in Diplomacy.

Maybe a tiered magic item that gives you a bonus but has a cap, +2 to X but no higher than say, 14... with a greater version that lets you go to 16.

Building off of this, some players do feel that PF2E's general feats are a little underwhelming, and that's a resource every character has access to.

What about something like this, a sort of Canny Acumen for ability scores:

Diverse Training (Feat 11)

Choose one ability score. You gain +4 to this ability, to a maximum of 16.

If I could get +4 to an ability as a feat I'd get it on every character, every build (even if they didn't need it). At that point it would feel more like a tax than a feat.

[Perpdepog]

Honestly it'd still feel fairly required even if it were a magic item. It's not super common to expend all of your investiture, so it'd be a relative no-brainer to select that item all the time, regardless of whether it's required or not. It'd effectively be a +1 or +2 to at least a handful of skills, which is more than other items do.

Personally I'd just hand out a few extra ability boosts at a few different levels and call it a day. If the purpose is to shore up secondary or tertiary stats then grant them with the caveat that the ability boosts can only be spent on a score that is 14 or lower, or whatever number seems appropriate. The end result would be the same, but since it's baked in to progression it's not a no-brainer choice.

[Squiggit]

Extra ability boosts that could only be spent on low-investment abilities could be cool.

One thing I kind of miss from PF1's chargen is that the numbers were set up in such a way that many characters didn't max out their primary stat, because the extra points you got to put other places were really helpful for rounding out your character, but I don't really see that anymore in PF2 because the returns are so much worse and maxing out your main stat so much more important.

It makes characters, especially dual stat characters end up with much more min-maxed ability scores. It'd be cool to see some options to provide more texture to characters.

[Perpdepog]

Squiggit wrote:

Extra ability boosts that could only be spent on low-investment abilities could be cool.

One thing I kind of miss from PF1's chargen is that the numbers were set up in such a way that many characters didn't max out their primary stat, because the extra points you got to put other places were really helpful for rounding out your character, but I don't really see that anymore in PF2 because the returns are so much worse and maxing out your main stat so much more important.

It makes characters, especially dual stat characters end up with much more min-maxed ability scores. It'd be cool to see some options to provide more texture to characters.

Interesting, because I've seen the opposite, personally. In all my 3.5/PF1E games I'd see characters with all their important scores maxed, and then the non-important ones dumped as low as they'd go. Casters were the obvious examples, but I also remember a barbarian who dumped all his mentals to 7 in order to max out possible points.

Those same people can't, or won't, do that in PF2E, and their characters are more rounded out and diverse as a result. We've got two casters who were comfortable starting their scores at 16 rather than 18, for example, whereas casters would do everything in their power in PF1E to start at 20.