Pathfinder 2E PF2e House Rules:

[Aldarc]

The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.

 

[zztong]

The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.

He got the inspiration for doing it from 5e. He liked how that part played.

I can see how it might be considered an incentive to stand and attack. That's pretty how folks are playing anyways.

I can see how healing might not be able to keep up.

 

[zztong]

In my 10-hour effort to make a PF2 character for last night (lots of what-if'ing on a character concept), I came to realize I'm not happy with starting languages.

Everyone gets Common. Non-Humans get a racial, err ancestral, language. Humans just get access to a regional language but still need a higher INT (12+) to actually take it.

I think Humans should get a free regional language. To me, common isn't a language so much as a default trade tongue.

I'd also think that the Non-Humans should get a choice between a racial, err ancestral, language and a regional language.

 

[Aldarc]

He got the inspiration for doing it from 5e. He liked how that part played.

I can see how it might be considered an incentive to stand and attack. That's pretty how folks are playing anyways.

I can see how healing might not be able to keep up.

The big difference is that in 5e, you can still get movement before and after those iterative attacks. However, in PF2 your attacks and movement are all tied together into this singular action economy.

Changing the whole penalty system also whacks out of balance (or even raison d'être) a LOT of class feat, abilities, and weapon traits in PF2 that key into that iterative attack penalty. AND this also means that monsters and players will be critically hitting far more.

So this seems like a potential houserule made where the GM is not thinking deeply about the potential consequences and ramifications throughout the entire system.

 

[dave2008]

The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.

Good point, maybe a reduced penalty for fighters? Or perhaps a free move action(s)? This isn't a problem in 5e because movement is free. Maybe for pF2e:

• a feat gives fighters a free move if they hit with an attack?
• a feat (or houserule) if you hit an opponent with an attack, the next attack on the same opponent is without (or reduced) penalty?

 

[dave2008]

Changing the whole penalty system also whacks out of balance (or even raison d'être) a LOT of class feat, abilities, and weapon traits in PF2 that key into that iterative attack penalty.

Good to know. I haven't gotten through all of the feats yet and that seems like a reasonable way to handle it. I would probably prefer it as a class feature. But feats and weapon properties could work.

 

[Mycroft]

Good point, maybe a reduced penalty for fighters? Or perhaps a free move action(s)? This isn't a problem in 5e because movement is free. Maybe for pF2e:

• a feat gives fighters a free move if they hit with an attack?
• a feat (or houserule) if you hit an opponent with an attack, the next attack on the same opponent is without (or reduced) penalty?

No, no, please; you were onto a good thing before the horrendous input.

 

[CapnZapp]

One thing he's considering doing is dropping the iterative attack penalties. He views that as slowing down the game.

Just as long as you realize that massively increases the cost of doing just about anything else than just standing still and whacking the enemy until dead.

I would far more prefer a solution that reduces the number of Strikes you're allowed (but then all at full strength).

Assuming the idea is to cut down on "pointless" dice rolling, that is.

However, I would definitely first wait and see. Maybe it's just newcomers that can't see past "you mean I can attack AGAIN?". Maybe as players wisen up they start doing better things with their second and especially third action...?


Edit: ninjaed by Aldarc

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I've thought about doing that as well, or at least doing it for fighters.

Isn't a lot of mechanics dependent on the multiattcak penalty, as in if there's no penalty you'll be multiattacking constantly? And critting repeatedly?

Edit: I too got ninja'ed by Aldarc.

 

[Aldarc]

My work here is done. ::Naruto runs away::