Pathfinder 2E PF2e House Rules:

[zztong]

I did point out to him that there are a number of class feats that address iterative attack penalties that would all become useless. They might even turn into a feat tax if those feats acted as a gate to some other still-useful feat.

I hadn't thought about weapon traits, so it didn't occur to me to mention that to him. That should be a factor to him since he largely likes to play games and use rules as written, but house rules for iterative attacks were something he did change in PF1 and there was a significant speed-up in play among the less-rules savvy and less-mathematically inclined players because of it.

 

[dave2008]

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

What is your suggestion then? If the multi-action penalty is already baked into weapon use and feats (as ways of overcoming) and it is a method to increase movement / limit static combat, what do you suggest to replace it?

Personally I think it is not the best design to create a problem (multi-action penalty) to solve another problem (static combat). But at this point how do we fix it and why would we fix it? I actually don't mind it as a general rule if there are easy ways for fighting adventurer's to overcoming it. What if the number of actions was tied to training, like (just thinking about melee for now):

Untrained: 2 actions to make an attack
Trained: 1 action each with standard penalties for additioanl actions (-5/-10)
Expert: 1 action with reduced penalties for additional actions (-2/-5)
Master: 1 action with no penalties for additional actions

 

[zztong]

Personally I think it is not the best design to create a problem (multi-action penalty) to solve another problem (static combat). But at this point how do we fix it and why would we fix it?

I'm not entirely sure why static combat is bad. Certain kinds of combat are realistically static. But on the assumption that it is bad and that more movement is desired, I'll play along...

I think the heart of the issue is that character (PC, NPC) actions are not more interleaved. Movement is largely adjustment in position to gain an advantage or alleviate a disadvantage. So, wouldn't it make sense for characters to _do less_ per action so that there was more of an opportunity to adjust your position compared to the number of attacks they face? (I'm spit-balling here. Shoot this full of wholes.)

If you only had two actions, there would be more opportunity to make positional adjustments in relation to the number of attacks being conducted. There would be more opportunities to move out of a disadvantage compared to the number of attacks received and then you might see melee better represent a duel or small action where mobility is more prominent.

My observation of the three-action system has been that Rogues become more mobile in pursuit of a flank without having to resort to immersion-breaking acrobatics because there are few AoO's. But once the rogue is in position, they fall into static patterns like everyone else. None of the other classes appear to be played any different than before with the possible exception of Fighters/Rangers no longer needing to have Spring Attack to quickly close with a very large creature, again because there are few AoO's.

Basically I'm positing that if you want more mobility in your game, you want fewer attacks per action, allowing those on the defense to adjust more frequently, which in-turn will lead to more adjustments by those on the offense.

But recognize that terrain makes for better places to defend. Expect defenders to use terrain and that will also make combat more static. You're going to defend a doorway, for instance to limit the number of attackers that will reach you.

Anyways, that's a theory, half-baked as it may be.

 

[dave2008]

Other than completely replacing all of the core races for my homebrew setting, I’ll be tweaking how XP is rewarded. In my 5e game, we pick from a set of goals to complete each session and also write down individual goals. At the end, the players decide by consensus whether and which goals they completed, gaining XP accordingly. In PF2, I’ll be making all group goals always available, and the group will use them to decide their accomplishments (including size) for the session. The except is the goal for “Defeat a notorious monster”, which I will handle as the average of all combat XP from the session because I don’t want combat to reward more than accomplishments.

Really, the big change is how XP is determined. As a GM, I don’t like deciding whether someone should get XP for an accomplishment. I’ve played in my share of games where I thought I completed my goal or obsession, but the GM/ST did not, and that sucks a lot of fun out of things.

That might be something I look at too. To be honest I haven't completely wrapped my head around the PF2e XP system yet. Do we even need it? Currently in my 5e game we don't use XP at all (well sometimes I use it to check my encounter difficulty).

 

[CapnZapp]

I did point out to him that there are a number of class feats that address iterative attack penalties that would all become useless.

I think the blunt but honest reply is "don't do it". Don't houserule it, don't do workarounds. Just accept it's an integral feature to the core of the system.

 

[tomBitonti]

Is the slow-down that occurs from iterative attacks the result of players pausing between attacks to decide what to do next? I can imagine having the extra decision points could cause a considerable slow-down. (And, the decision time is stacked on top of any steps to result a successful or fumbled attack.)

Thx!
TomB

 

[dave2008]

Is the slow-down that occurs from iterative attacks the result of players pausing between attacks to decide what to do next? I can imagine having the extra decision points could cause a considerable slow-down. (And, the decision time is stacked on top of any steps to result a successful or fumbled attack.)

Thx!
TomB

From a previous comment I think the slow down comes from the fact that you have to recalculate your to hit modifier with each attack. The 2nd attack has a -5 penalty and the third attack has a -10 penalty.

 

[CapnZapp]

And my guess would be the notion that rolling a lot of dice with a poor chance of success is considered a waste of time.

That said, I remain convinced the DM in question needs to look closer at the system before making such a deep-reaching house-rule.

For example, a Ranger can lower these penalties to -2 and -4 already at *first level*.

So there's a considerable chance the DM is trying to solve a problem that simply isn't there. The characters that face a hopeless -10 penalty to their third attack are exactly those that have better things to do with that third action.

I *really* think this sub-discussion is *way* premature.

 

[kenada]

That might be something I look at too. To be honest I haven't completely wrapped my head around the PF2e XP system yet. Do we even need it? Currently in my 5e game we don't use XP at all (well sometimes I use it to check my encounter difficulty).

My players like XP for the sense of progression. I like it for its ability to provide feedback loops and a canary for the campaign. But we tend to do sandbox games. How necessary it is will depend on what you’re running and what your group wants, though I think the idea of rewarding accomplishments (systematizing quest rewards, bonus XP, etc) is a move in the right direction.

 

[dave2008]

For example, a Ranger can lower these penalties to -2 and -4 already at *first level*.

However, the lower chance of hitting wasn't the reason they removed it, it was the fact that not doing the math sped up play (if a I am recalling a previous comment correctly). So the feats and weapons that reduce the penalty don't solve the issue for them. Only ones that get rid of it all together would