Pathfinder 2E PF2 house-rules / variant rules

[Philip Benz]

Yeah, Dave, that seems pretty far out of the PF2 wheelhouse. It sounds to me like you want a low-level game, but with small increments of advancement. Let's look at your list.

• Low magic: this is easy to achieve by simply stating that magic shops don't exist, that formulae for crafting are exceedingly rare and hard to find (thus limiting crafting to mundane items, until such time as the DM drops a formula as loot).
• Lower bonuses: This sounds a lot like the Proficiency Without Level variant rule, so there are already provisions for that. However, I remain convinced that such a system will require a large amount of work on the part of the DM to rebuild the rest of the game to align with PWL standards.
• Magic items don't give a bonus to hit: This sounds a lot like the Automatic Bonus Progression variant rules. Hit bonuses and additional damage dice are built in to level progression. But that would conflict (at least conceptually) with the previous point.

Another way to approach it, would simply be to have different powers for the very rare magic items that the DM gives out. If there are no magic items (or very, very few magic items) then you don't really need to worry about whether or not they give a bonus to hit.
- Max PC ability score of 18: This is already true for 1st level PCs. You could simply declare that there are no stat bonuses at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and your dream would come true.

What's left?

• You would still have a very robust skill, feat and class system. Huge quantities of material for character customization there.
• Since all your modifications take stuff away from martial characters (and take some but far less away from spellcasting characters), spellcasters would be comparatively far more powerful. Spellcasters are far less gear-dependent than martials are, and their spell progression currently stacks up against the expected gear that martials get in standard PF2. Unless you also did something to radically nerf spellcasters, they'd become far more attractive.

It would be a very different game.

Is there some reason you're dissatisfied with a heavily homebrewed version of DD5? You'd want to have some feeling for what the "value added" factor of this heavily homebrewed version of PF2 would be compared to what you're already doing with DD5.

Not having played D&D since DD3.5, I can't really judge. I suspect the big difference would be the skill, feat and class options which are far more extensive (and balanced) in PF2 than in DD5, at least from what I have been able to surmise from similar discussions.

Is this the kind of game you're talking about, Dave?

 

[dave2008]

I think they'd be fine,

Good to hear.

- You're looking at 1/2 proficiency to level (which would be +10 at level 20).

I guess I was think no proficiency with level and just giving bonus for level of training. Perhaps I am mistaken.

- Automatic Bonus Progression, to cover the item math so they have their essential bonuses.

I don't want essential bonuses. I literally mean all bonus over 20 levels add up to +10 or +12. Does that make sense?

The only one that doesn't work is the first one (the need for ability scores beyond 18 is baked into monster DC tables), I wouldn't even try that one. As for ease of use, I believe that you can use this browser extension to do half level to proficiency for monsters through nethys assuming the extension still works, and your players can either track half prof manually, or if they use Pathbuilder, can turn level to prof off, and give themselves half level instead. Character Generators have ABP built in, or your players can track it manually using the directions in the GMG. Then you can just give whatever amount of treasure you want, and it won't matter.

I would plan on using all custom, or highly modified, monsters. I realize my plan doesn't work with the current monster math. So, if I can't figure out and easy math conversion (which I think I could), then I would make custom monsters. I already have 400+ for 5e, so I could just convert them to PF2!

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for the detail response.

Yeah, Dave, that seems pretty far out of the PF2 wheelhouse. It sounds to me like you want a low-level game, but with small increments of advancement. Let's look at your list.

• Low magic: this is easy to achieve by simply stating that magic shops don't exist, that formulae for crafting are exceedingly rare and hard to find (thus limiting crafting to mundane items, until such time as the DM drops a formula as loot).

Yes that is the easiest to handle!

• Lower bonuses: This sounds a lot like the Proficiency Without Level variant rule, so there are already provisions for that. However, I remain convinced that such a system will require a large amount of work on the part of the DM to rebuild the rest of the game to align with PWL standards.

Yes, and I realize it would likely require other changes.

• Magic items don't give a bonus to hit: This sounds a lot like the Automatic Bonus Progression variant rules. Hit bonuses and additional damage dice are built in to level progression. But that would conflict (at least conceptually) with the previous point.

Not quite, I don't want to have auto progression either. The lower bonuses as you point out. I am aware that it would take at least revising all monsters and DCs to make this work.

Another way to approach it, would simply be to have different powers for the very rare magic items that the DM gives out. If there are no magic items (or very, very few magic items) then you don't really need to worry about whether or not they give a bonus to hit.
- Max PC ability score of 18: This is already true for 1st level PCs. You could simply declare that there are no stat bonuses at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and your dream would come true.

I would probably make 16 the max a PC generation. I want to allow for a little ability growth.

What's left?

• You would still have a very robust skill, feat and class system. Huge quantities of material for character customization there.

That is what I was thinking too. Why I might be interested in giving it a try.

• Since all your modifications take stuff away from martial characters (and take some but far less away from spellcasting characters), spellcasters would be comparatively far more powerful. Spellcasters are far less gear-dependent than martials are, and their spell progression currently stacks up against the expected gear that martials get in standard PF2. Unless you also did something to radically nerf spellcasters, they'd become far more attractive.

I was thinking of giving martials the equivalent of striking rune damage at certain levels. Would they need anything more than that to keep up with casters?

It would be a very different game.

Yes it would.

Is there some reason you're dissatisfied with a heavily homebrewed version of DD5? You'd want to have some feeling for what the "value added" factor of this heavily homebrewed version of PF2 would be compared to what you're already doing with DD5.

No, we have a very lightly homebrewed version of 5e that achieves these goals and my players love it. As a DM however, I am always tinkering and wanting to adjust things. I also really like some things in 4e that got lost in the transition to 5e. Then when PF2 came out a thought it was the closest thing to my ideal version of D&D I had seen. However, I have really fallen in love with certain aspects of 5e (non reliance on magic items & bounded accuracy are big ones for me now). I also still miss some things from 4e that PF2 doesn't have (healing surges, elite and solo monsters). So I am trying to think of how to combine the best of all three. Since there are some structural similarities with 4e and PF2 I was thinkin of starting with PF2 as the base and boring bits form 4e and 5e.

Not having played D&D since DD3.5, I can't really judge. I suspect the big difference would be the skill, feat and class options which are far more extensive (and balanced) in PF2 than in DD5, at least from what I have been able to surmise from similar discussions.

Is this the kind of game you're talking about, Dave?

I personally care less about the skill, feat, and class options since I don't normally play a PC. However, I do want them for my players. I want a system that makes sense to me both as a game and a world building exercise. I like the clear math of PF2, the 3+1 action economy, the crit system, and the strength of monsters. Unfortunately, I am worried the math and balance of the game might be too severely affected by my desire for a more bounded math. Maybe I need to think of it as 2 different games 1-10 (human bounds) & 11-20 (superhuman bounds).

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Good to hear.

I guess I was think no proficiency with level and just giving bonus for level of training. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I don't want essential bonuses. I literally mean all bonus over 20 levels add up to +10 or +12. Does that make sense?

I would plan on using all custom, or highly modified, monsters. I realize my plan doesn't work with the current monster math. So, if I can't figure out and easy math conversion (which I think I could), then I would make custom monsters. I already have 400+ for 5e, so I could just convert them to PF2!

So, Ability Modifier + PWL Trained/Expert/Master/ Legendary, should total out, at the highest level on highest proficiency, to about a bonus of... 14? The Normal Apex bonus should make it 15, that normally comes from an item, but if they aren't getting the item you'd either be making a modification to the core math or giving it to them through Automatic Bonus Progression, unless you screw with their need for it by altering monster stats.

Obviously, enough game design chops and you can do anything you want, but that's a very big project, I'd strongly recommend trying the game with PWL and Automatic Bonus progression, or even completely core before embarking on this, especially since in practice most of this will have very little impact on the game if you do it 'right.'

The net impact of all that work will be that your players don't pick ability scores to increase every few levels, and won't put down a few extra +1s at certain levels.

 

[Philip Benz]

Unfortunately, I am worried the math and balance of the game might be too severely affected by my desire for a more bounded math.

This is the tricky bit. It all depends on what critters you choose to face them, and how you adapt their statblocks to jibe with the PCs' abilities. With PWL, all you have to do is subtract the critter's level from all hit bonuses, AC, saves and skills (if relevant). You'll also have to adjust their damage output, to compensate for the lack of striking runes and property runes.

Or, altenatively, you simply use less dangerous foes. It'll be a crapshoot as far as balancing is concerned, but the way you, as DM, run the adversaries, that's what will make the difference. Do you have the adversaries use every last action to mess with the PCs? Or do you have them occasionally spend actions to gloat, roar, hesitate or even move away to regroup or withdraw, depending on factors like self-preservation or dominance over other associates.

I have a feeling that your approach could lead to an exciting, challenging campaign, where the PCs never know if they can come out on top, or if they have to cut their losses and run. It'll require you players to adapt to the style of the campaign.

The real question will come when you try to decide how or if you will adapt spell power from spellcasters. If you simply ban spellcasting classes, you could have a gritty, tough-to-survive campaign. If you allow all spellcaster choices, spells like Magic Weapon will become go-to choices, since they'll have little access to runes that, in a standard PF2 campaign, are commonplace to the point of being expected.

Let us know how it turns out. And, if you play on a VTT, I would certainly be interested in trying to join your group, if only to see how it runs.

 

[dave2008]

So, Ability Modifier + PWL Trained/Expert/Master/ Legendary, should total out, at the highest level on highest proficiency, to about a bonus of... 14? The Normal Apex bonus should make it 15, that normally comes from an item, but if they aren't getting the item you'd either be making a modification to the core math or giving it to them through Automatic Bonus Progression, unless you screw with their need for it by altering monster stats.

Obviously, enough game design chops and you can do anything you want, but that's a very big project, I'd strongly recommend trying the game with PWL and Automatic Bonus progression, or even completely core before embarking on this, especially since in practice most of this will have very little impact on the game if you do it 'right.'

The net impact of all that work will be that your players don't pick ability scores to increase every few levels, and won't put down a few extra +1s at certain levels.

That is a good point. If I want to play PF2 I should play PF2. However, now that I think about it more, I don't think that is what I want. I think what I want is to make my own game. A mash-up of 4e, 5e, and PF2. Just not sure if PF2 is the best starting point for that or not, but I think it might be.

 

[dave2008]

This is the tricky bit. It all depends on what critters you choose to face them, and how you adapt their statblocks to jibe with the PCs' abilities. With PWL, all you have to do is subtract the critter's level from all hit bonuses, AC, saves and skills (if relevant). You'll also have to adjust their damage output, to compensate for the lack of striking runes and property runes.

Or, altenatively, you simply use less dangerous foes. It'll be a crapshoot as far as balancing is concerned, but the way you, as DM, run the adversaries, that's what will make the difference. Do you have the adversaries use every last action to mess with the PCs? Or do you have them occasionally spend actions to gloat, roar, hesitate or even move away to regroup or withdraw, depending on factors like self-preservation or dominance over other associates.

I have a feeling that your approach could lead to an exciting, challenging campaign, where the PCs never know if they can come out on top, or if they have to cut their losses and run. It'll require you players to adapt to the style of the campaign.

The real question will come when you try to decide how or if you will adapt spell power from spellcasters. If you simply ban spellcasting classes, you could have a gritty, tough-to-survive campaign. If you allow all spellcaster choices, spells like Magic Weapon will become go-to choices, since they'll have little access to runes that, in a standard PF2 campaign, are commonplace to the point of being expected.

Let us know how it turns out. And, if you play on a VTT, I would certainly be interested in trying to join your group, if only to see how it runs.

Thanks for the encouragement. I have to finish up my 5e Immortals rules first, but I will let you know if I have get this cobbled together!

 

[payn]

That is a good point. If I want to play PF2 I should play PF2. However, now that I think about it more, I don't think that is what I want. I think what I want is to make my own game. A mash-up of 4e, 5e, and PF2. Just not sure if PF2 is the best starting point for that or not, but I think it might be.

House ruling is a time honored tradition and you shouldn't let anyone tell you not to.

 

[dave2008]

House ruling is a time honored tradition and you shouldn't let anyone tell you not to.

We always have house rules, but I think what I really want is stretching the definition of house rules. However, this would be a long term project and right now I just want to think about what should be the foundation for my PF2/4e/5e mash-up, aka: "Tiamat & Treasures"

 

[Thomas Shey]

House ruling is a time honored tradition and you shouldn't let anyone tell you not to.

Absolutely true, but its always a good idea to be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and with a game that is tightly designed that becomes more and more likely. So you need to look at every change you make, see what places it impacts the system, and what that will be. And that becomes even more true when you're going as far as to try to hybridize three different (albeit related) game systems together. Both 4e and PF2e were/are relatively tightly designed; changes are liable to have ripple effects and you have to watch for those.

Which doesn't mean not to do it, it just means you need to be aware what you're biting off.