At my table, me(GM) and my players are going to allow bonuses and penalties that currently do not stack to begin stacking and I am looking for advice from anyone who has maybe done something like that already for certain outliers and some things that might suprise me when doing so.
For background information on the reason we are doing so. My players have decades of experience with tabletop games and are very mathmatical in their approach to tabletop games.
They don't minmax to break the games we play. They don't suprise me with numbers I can't plan for and warn me of things like that when they theory craft.
We have taken a great liking to 2e for it's action economy, the crit on a + or - 10 system and also because it's been very refreshing.
However my players as I've said are very mathmatical in their approach, they will just for the fun of it go through statistical analysis of whatever random effect or thing they wish to inflict upon an enemy in their theory crafting to see if it's possible to do on average.
Because of 2e's tight math and their habit of this. Without meta gaming they will very quickly in any encounter figure out the success chance of any attack they do.
The tight math has made some fights... predictable for them. They don't need to know what a Balor is, what it's level is or anything about it because they understand that if they are level 16 and there is a single big enemy that it will probably be an APL+4 severe encounter. And they will in their heads calculate the success chance for what numbers it's good saves, average saves and bad saves are on average. From there a recall knowledge check to figure those out will mean their entire combat strategy is already planned out.
Now while I understand this style of play is not for everyone, we all enjoy this style of play and since we have no desire to leave 2e, we would rather make changes like this.
I am considering allowing status penalties like Frightened and Clumsy or Drained to stack while also letting a short list of status bonuses (mainly to damaging effects) stack with eachother to make them reconsider what they want to do even if they know the statistical success rate they have by making the rate of a crit happening now be something they are more willing to add into their decision making
While I will be altering several spells and effects to not be too quick to end an encounter. I'll also be giving certain types of encounters a slight increase in their numbers before they are being debuffed as well as giving enemies the same benefits to stack debuffs on the players.
The goal being to give them more room to consider strategies to make attempts even at whatever the creatures highest save because their chances will be good with enough debuffs, as well as allow for enemies to feel the effects of getting crit or crit failure more often, something I and my players currently feel might as well only be a standard 5% right now.
We will do this no matter what but I hope that some advice here will make our experience as good as it can be.
I don't have specific advice since you're set on doing this, but I think the game isn't going to improve in the way you want. Allowing things to stack just means you're players are going to add that level of analysis to their calculations. And it's generally going to favor the players making things easier for them and harder for you (because enemies will have less opportunities to apply these buffs or debuffs that would stack).
If bigger numbers are what you're player are ultimately after (and personally it's something I have wanted with PF2 to be the default) adding 1 to 2 levels to the PCs and leaving enemies unchanged can simulate the effect without having to alter the rules and make a lot of corner cases about what does and doesn't stack.
Alternatively you could also change written combats and break enemies up. Instead of 1 enemy that the party predicts is 4 levels above them, supply two enemies with the weak template (or multiple instances of weak template to make the CR work out). That way it's less predictable because enemies wont match exactly what's in the books.
One, this might be better in the Homebrew subforum. Here in Advice you are likely to get a lot of pushback against changing the rules this drastically.
------------
Two, you can certainly try it out and see how it changes things. Revert the game back if you find that it doesn't behave how you want or expect.
With that in mind, make sure that this change applies to both sides of the GM screen. Enemies should be taking advantage of this too - and they normally don't as-written. Individual monsters don't typically have abilities that don't stack.
If you are instead wanting to make the game easier for the players so that your enemies get crit more often, you could just use something like the Weak template - making that Balor into a Weak Balor will change the dynamics of the battle quite drastically.
-------------
Three, Frightened, Clumsy, and Drained do stack. There are some overlap status penalties that won't stack - but there are other components of those conditions that do still all have effect.
-------------
Four, make sure that you are varying up your encounters a bit. Otherwise yes, the battles will feel very repetitive no matter what the math is like. Use terrain and environment. Have encounters with victory conditions other than 'kill all enemies'. Use multi-stage battles where enemies get added mid-fight. Have enemies that behave intelligently and do things like retreating combat, hit and run, focus fire, or healing.
Allowing things to stack just means you're players are going to add that level of analysis to their calculations.
We are not concerned over this, the goal is not to make them not do calculations in there head.
And it's generally going to favor the players making things easier for them and harder for you (because enemies will have less opportunities to apply these buffs or debuffs that would stack).
I can't imagine having an issue with making this a bit more work for myself.
If bigger numbers are what you're player are ultimately after (and personally it's something I have wanted with PF2 to be the default) adding 1 to 2 levels to the PCs and leaving enemies unchanged can simulate the effect without having to alter the rules and make a lot of corner cases about what does and doesn't stack.
The goal is not bigger numbers. The goal is swingier combat with a bit more suprise and seeing more crits, as well as allowing players a bit more control over the numbers in exchange for that. The fact that a lot of crits result in more damage is not a goal but simply a side result.
Alternatively you could also change written combats and break enemies up. Instead of 1 enemy that the party predicts is 4 levels above them, supply two enemies with the weak template (or multiple instances of weak template to make the CR work out). That way it's less predictable because enemies wont match exactly what's in the books.
They understand what an encounter design is. I have no desire to throw weaker creatures at them. Me throwing two enemies with a template as a replacement severe encounter boss fight will not throw their math off at all.
I appriciate the suggestions as well as warnings but your concerns in this regard are not things I haven't thought off prior to this decision.
I'd recommend, instead of changing the entire system, maybe for every encounter, have a table with random templates you can apply to each creature to change its base stats. This will throw off your players' calculations in the same way as changing how buffs and debuffs work.You could have positive templates and negative templates, as well as templates that have a give and take.
It would not throw them off for long if at all. They recognize the CR of a fight not because of whatever creature they see, but because they see how many enemies there are and are able to figure out from the context of where we are (middle of a dungeon in say the food storage isn't going to be the a severe encounter with 4 enemies in it).
From there they make very good estimates of what the creatures in the fight CR will be.
Though I do get where you're coming from with the comparison on how that might mean the debuff change would throw them off either. Though that has other goals as well.
One, this might be better in the Homebrew subforum.
Thank you, I wasn't entirely sure where it should be posted. Advice at the time seemed best.
Here in Advice you are likely to get a lot of pushback against changing the rules this drastically.
I am somewhat suprised by that but that is good to know.
Two, you can certainly try it out and see how it changes things. Revert the game back if you find that it doesn't behave how you want or expect.
We are no strangers to going back to the drawing board haha. If it doesn't work out then it doesn't work out but anything is worth trying atleast once.
With that in mind, make sure that this change applies to both sides of the GM screen. Enemies should be taking advantage of this too - and they normally don't as-written. Individual monsters don't typically have abilities that don't stack.
As I've said they certainly will make use of it. I am not against altering a monster's ability or reworking something to make use of a new rule.
If you are instead wanting to make the game easier for the players so that your enemies get crit more often, you could just use something like the Weak template - making that Balor into a Weak Balor will change the dynamics of the battle quite drastically.
The goal is not to make it easier for them. If they crit more enemies might have extra resistances or just a bit more raw health. If a spell's crit fail leads to them loosing too many actions some may be quickened already or perhaps it will take all their actions as to get a remotely good chance of them crit failing that save must've taken multiple turns of debuffing. I have some experience already with monster design so at worst it will be a challenge to help me get better incase I end up having to make my own monster for some reason or whatever.
I don't really want to use templates unless I see a narratively driven reason to send a weak-template Pit fiend, Balor or whatever enemy at a party.
Three, Frightened, Clumsy, and Drained do stack. There are some overlap status penalties that won't stack - but there are other components of those conditions that do still all have effect.
Yes the effects can "stack" in the sense that they can be under the effect of both. But Frightened 3 and Clumsy 4 doesn't mean you have a -7 to reflex saves. It's still a -4. That is the specific change I am talking about here.
Four, make sure that you are varying up your encounters a bit.
I do do this. Hazards, terrain, barriers, high ground. I put a lot of effort into encounter designs. I personally loathe using a single monster more then once, twice at most. But the party will always make decisions based on the math. They make take into account terrain in the sense of how they can get to the location in which the math will be executed but they will always make the decision based on the math all the same.
I don't fault them for this, I like this aspect of them and even if I didn't I couldn't make them not do it any more then I could make them not think. So altering the game becomes the easier solution.
-----
I appriciate all the suggestions and I will be sure to keep them in mind. I'd like to thank you all for your time.
Ultimately maybe no plan will survive in the execution of said plan but I think even if it crashes and burns and I TPK them or they waltz over my encounters that we will have a laugh. And it can just as well work out for the better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like your goal is to make combat swingier and less predictable, correct?
I would still eschew your idea because it doesn't take away predictability, it just complicates doing the math and predictions by adding additional layers to compensate for in the form of stacking.
My alternative suggestion then is to make conditions, buffs and debuffs variable.
Perhaps if a spell or condition would apply a +1 bonus it could instead provide +1d2, a +2 could provide +1d4, and a +3 could provide +1d6. And penalties would do the same. Each turn you roll to see the magnitude of the buff/debuff.
Definitely will add more randomness to the game without having to completely overhaul large swathes of the system.
We will do this no matter what but I hope that some advice here will make our experience as good as it can be.
I don't think there's much to say. In my opinion, it will have a negligible effect on the game. Monsters' abilities tend to stack, so it shouldn't change much things on the players.
Players can try to stack more things. But I feel it won't be as good as it sounds as stacking tons of buffs and debuffs is hard.So, have fun with it, and don't hesitate to make a feedback after having used it. Sometimes, weird changes to the system have nice effects on the game flow.
The only comment I have to make is a question really, do you find that critical results are not currently happening that often? And is this only effecting the PCs, or generally do you feel like you want more like 25% of attacks to be critical hits and right now it is down around 5-10%?
My biggest concern/comment to be aware of is that PCs tend to end up having to deal with longer term debuffs longer than NPCs, who usually only get into 1 encounter in their lifetime on the stage of your game, and I think you might find that PCs getting drained and then frightened in an encounter are in very dangerous territory for making Fort saves, or other similar issues, especially at higher levels. Unless your party is really only facing one encounter a day, or is getting several hours to take care of issues between fights.
Here in Advice you are likely to get a lot of pushback against changing the rules this drastically.I am somewhat suprised by that but that is good to know.
At least you didn't post it in the Rules forum. ;)
I would still eschew your idea because it doesn't take away predictability, it just complicates doing the math and predictions by adding additional layers to compensate for in the form of stacking.
Yeah, that is a good point too.
Changing the bonus/penalty values doesn't make the d20 any more unpredictable or give it a wider range. The players will still calculate out their exact odds of success. It will just be at a different success rate than before.
Perhaps All4Games, you might look at the Proficiency Without Level variant. That makes the d20 have more effect on the final outcome and lets you use a wider level range of enemies against the players as a bonus.
Here in Advice you are likely to get a lot of pushback against changing the rules this drastically.I am somewhat suprised by that but that is good to know.At least you didn't post it in the Rules forum. ;)
I would still eschew your idea because it doesn't take away predictability, it just complicates doing the math and predictions by adding additional layers to compensate for in the form of stacking.Yeah, that is a good point too.
Changing the bonus/penalty values doesn't make the d20 any more unpredictable or give it a wider range. The players will still calculate out their exact odds of success. It will just be at a different success rate than before.
Perhaps All4Games, you might look at the Proficiency Without Level variant. That makes the d20 have more effect on the final outcome and lets you use a wider level range of enemies against the players as a bonus.
I forgot about proficiency without level variant, that's probably a great think to implement for more randomness in game because all numerical values will be substantially lower, and therefore the impact of the the d20 is much larger. This is probably exactly what the OP should do.
I did something similar once when running. I ran ABP but kept potency runes and other magic items with item bonuses. I removed striking and resilient runes and replaced them with weapon and armor quality: standard- 0, expert- striking or resilient , master greater striking or greater resilient, legendary major striking or major resilient. I also allowed the ABP bonuses to apply towards spell attack rolls.
This allowed me to use the standard enemy as equal level and have a few more encounter with higher level enemies as well without much worry of TPK (at least so I thought). Turns out after running it like this levels 1-9, monsters still were very dangerous and some fights required a little GM fudging.
I’m not adverse to attempting it again, but it would need some more consideration.