Pathfinder 2E PF2 house-rules / variant rules

[payn]

At 5th, I think my main "spam" debuff was fear. I can't recall if I had gotten slow yet, but it's really good against individually powerful monsters. Giving up two of my actions for slow that will cost the enemy one of their actions is a good trade, considering I have about three allies who also get three actions each per round. Level 5-6 is also rough for casters, because you're really feeling your proficiency lagging (martials get weapon proficiency increase at 5th and casters get casting proficiency increase at level 7).

This is, however, one area where spontaneous casting is better than prepared casting. If the situation calls for it, I can cast slow round after round, but if I were a wizard I'd probably only prep one. And if we're fighting mooks, well, that's when the fireballs start flying (well, waterballs in my case. And now at higher levels, cones of cold.).

Another meta thing I've noticed is that when you're fighting "bosses", it's fairly common that they're fiends. Fiends often have magic resistance, giving them +2 or so to their already beefy saves, so even spells with decent effects on a successful save often fizzle. But do you know what's good against fiends and undead? Holy water. While holy water only deals 1d6 damage, it also triggers weaknesses against Good damage in fiends which can be substantial. And even a miss deals splash damage.

I think that's the issue. After finding out most spells sucked against tough foes, we just started prepping a bunch of slows or whatever spells had the rider. It feels like most of the spell book is invalidated and boils options down to a few tricks. That doesn't feel very spellcaster to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that's the issue. After finding out most spells sucked against tough foes, we just started prepping a bunch of slows or whatever spells had the rider. It feels like most of the spell book is invalidated and boils options down to a few tricks. That doesn't feel very spellcaster to me.

That doesn't seem entirely fair from my point of view; I ran a bard/champion hybrid, and plenty of his spells were worth throwing. They weren't always a better choice than other things I had to do, but we also had two other spellcasters in the group.

The spell list doesn't begin and end with debuffs after all.

 

[payn]

That doesn't seem entirely fair from my point of view; I ran a bard/champion hybrid, and plenty of his spells were worth throwing. They weren't always a better choice than other things I had to do, but we also had two other spellcasters in the group.

The spell list doesn't begin and end with debuffs after all.

I dont think its fair either, but it was entirely my experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I dont think its fair either, but it was entirely my experience.

Please don't take this wrong if you were one of the people involved, but this seems like people carrying over the expectation that debuffs and takeout spells are the primary thing arcanists are there for. People being stuck in a prior version of a game isn't a problem limited only to designers.

(Frankly, I came up through the hobby when being group damage doers was a big part of wizard's gig, so the fact that can be true again seems pretty naturalistic to me).

 

[payn]

Please don't take this wrong if you were one of the people involved, but this seems like people carrying over the expectation that debuffs and takeout spells are the primary thing arcanists are there for. People being stuck in a prior version of a game isn't a problem limited only to designers.

(Frankly, I came up through the hobby when being group damage doers was a big part of wizard's gig, so the fact that can be true again seems pretty naturalistic to me).

The damage spells didnt work for me either. The enemies defense just made most spells moot. Cantrips actually had a fair chance against AC. Though, I think its largely the encounters we faced and it isn't, or shouldn't, be the usual experience.

 

[Staffan]

One of the issues with PF2 is that casters generally feel pretty weak against bosses, because there are a number of things that conspire against them:

• Bosses will have a very good chance of saving against any spells cast, which means that your most likely scenario is a successful save or even a crit. So if you're going for a debuff, you're getting the weak version of it. And forget about using anything with the Incapacitation trait.
• AOE damage spells feel like a waste against single creatures. They can also be problematic to use if your allies are trying to exploit numerical advantage in order to flank.
• Single-target attack spells will likely miss, because monster AC is calibrated against martial attack bonuses, and for most of their careers casters are 2-4 points behind those (on account of proficiency lagging and no item bonuses).
• There are very few single-target save spells. I think Secrets of Magic added some, but they're still pretty rare.

That doesn't mean they're useless, but it's not where they feel strong. Which is a bit of a shame, because by their nature boss fights tend to be climactic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The damage spells didnt work for me either. The enemies defense just made most spells moot. Cantrips actually had a fair chance against AC. Though, I think its largely the encounters we faced and it isn't, or shouldn't, be the usual experience.

Then that's a distinctly "everything is a small number of uphill opponents" problem; I've watched our sorcerer cook up any number of opponents with her lightning bolt, doing as much net damage in one round as I did in the whole fight--and LB isn't the most efficient spell at doing that. But you do have to have enough opponents around for it to be useful, as there's only a limited number of spells that are good single target damage causers, and if you're only fighting things that are going to critical save most of the time, you won't even see those.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the issues with PF2 is that casters generally feel pretty weak against bosses, because there are a number of things that conspire against them:

• Bosses will have a very good chance of saving against any spells cast, which means that your most likely scenario is a successful save or even a crit. So if you're going for a debuff, you're getting the weak version of it. And forget about using anything with the Incapacitation trait.

Yup.

• AOE damage spells feel like a waste against single creatures. They can also be problematic to use if your allies are trying to exploit numerical advantage in order to flank.

Well, honestly, we've just agreed to take the hit; if she ends up making the opponents go away a round earlier that's less damage I'm likely to take than the spell will probably do to me, and if one of the people out there is a rogue or someone else with Evasion, that's even more true.

• Single-target attack spells will likely miss, because monster AC is calibrated against martial attack bonuses, and for most of their careers casters are 2-4 points behind those (on account of proficiency lagging and no item bonuses).

Well, there's a few save-based single target ones, but I'm more familiar with the Occult list than the Arcane list, so I wouldn't want to say how many there are.

• There are very few single-target save spells. I think Secrets of Magic added some, but they're still pretty rare.

I'd look at the Occult list again. Some of the sexier ones are upper level, but they're not nonexistant.

That doesn't mean they're useless, but it's not where they feel strong. Which is a bit of a shame, because by their nature boss fights tend to be climactic.

Yeah, in those its honestly often more useful for the magi to augment the other types in various ways. I'm not sure how good the Arcane list is at that, though.

 

[MaskedGuy]

...Did Capp Zapn return and immediately start with "And nobody has any genuinely criticism of my criticism besides 'do not touch my system'"? Seriously?

Why does anyone even bother debating anymore if that is their take away :'D

(that is the point where I stopped reading thread again and you'll probably see me next time few months later )

 

[Staffan]

I'd look at the Occult list again. Some of the sexier ones are upper level, but they're not nonexistant.

Could be. I remember actively looking for single-target damage spells with saves and not finding any other than the Uncommon sudden bolt (from The Show Must Go On/Extinction Curse 1), but I was looking specifically at the Primal list at the time, and I was likely limiting myself to level 4-5 or below.

Yeah, in those its honestly often more useful for the magi to augment the other types in various ways. I'm not sure how good the Arcane list is at that, though.

It's certainly not a strength of the Primal list. Primal's buffs tend to be battle forms, which are generally mostly useful for elevating a bad warrior to a good warrior, but won't turn a good warrior into a better one. There are some others who add capabilities (e.g. fly), but you don't get things like heroism.

 

[Philip Benz]

In my homebrew campaign, the spellcasters are having a blast.

We have a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, a druid and a cleric. So we have three traditions covered. When they need to buff someone, we have Stoneskin, Heroism, Haste, Fly and a few others. They've gotten a lot of mileage out of Invisibility, and oddly enough Negate Aroma, to mask their scents from critters that use scent. Lots of sneaking around and avoiding sentries while they get up close and personal with their adversaries.

Also, since I very rarely use adversaries more than 2 levels above theirs, and they often face lower-level adversaries in greater numbers, they have gotten a lot of mileage out of a variety of blasting spells, from the old classics like fireball, lightning bolt and chain lightning, to cool spells like disinitegrate and spirit blast. Since they've been facing more and more fiends, they have even gotten good use from Banishment (it feels so cool when they can remove an adversary from the picture with a single spell). They also frequently use cantrips and lower-level spells like hydraulic push, if only to conserve on their higher-level spells, since they tend to face multiple fights in a given adventuring day.

Now, if they were constantly facing level+3 or +4 enemies, I'm sure their experience would be different. This all goes to show that adventure design plays a huge role in how players perceive the game system. You don't have to fall back on constant slows and hideous laughters if you're facing foes that are vulnerable to a wider swath of magic spells.

 

[Staffan]

Now, if they were constantly facing level+3 or +4 enemies, I'm sure their experience would be different. This all goes to show that adventure design plays a huge role in how players perceive the game system. You don't have to fall back on constant slows and hideous laughters if you're facing foes that are vulnerable to a wider swath of magic spells.

Right. My list of "grievances" above are primarily boss-related. When fighting mooks, AOE blasts and cackling madly are where it's at.

 

[dave2008]

Right. My list of "grievances" above are primarily boss-related. When fighting mooks, AOE blasts and cackling madly are where it's at.

PWL would help with that as it would take +6-+8 monsters to be equally resistant

 

[MaskedGuy]

Eeeh. Yeah I regret this, now back to my enworld break.

 

[payn]

I got depressed so I came back. If I get depressed here again, I go away again. Also why do all pathfinder 2e threads derail to be about mechanic debates?

Mechanics are very important to how a game plays. Especially now since there are many editions and history with fantasy TTRPGs. I find them to matter more in PF2 than any previous experience. Also, this is a house rules discussion, mechanics will be prominent which is good because folks want to know how their desired changes will impact the system.

Anyway, I can give my take on that as someone who has run my party to level 6 without them having had any trouble in level 5 really.

I'm going to assume your wizard and druid calculated DCs correctly, so I instead ask what saves their spells targeted. Second thing I ask is what was druid's charisma modifier. (I have fighter with bard dedication in party who intimidates enemies consistently) Third, did you go to laboratory while you were level 5?

Sorry if it sounds like I'm asking for homework, but everytime someone convinces me with evidence on math being harsh, I end up noticing its not actually that bad when checking up numbers.

(AV has heavy use of low and moderate solo enemies since tiny dungeon rooms for most parts, with couple severe sprinkled in. So basically AV is heavy on minibosses.)

I assure you, we used a VTT all numbers were public. Spells and skills regularly had 10-20% chance of success against the target regardless of save. After much discussion here and elsewhere, I believe the answer is fighting boss level solos on a regular basis that has lead to this impression. A better balance of encounters would likely improve the experience. I still think its a little tight for my taste, so just chewing the fat about house rules here with my fellow EN worlders.

 

[dave2008]

I got depressed so I came back. If I get depressed here again, I go away again. Also why do all pathfinder 2e threads derail to be about mechanic debates?

That is not a PF2 issue. Most D&D and D&D adjacent threads go this way.

Bigger question: why does discussion and debate depress you? There is not one way to play the game and people will have different experiences. Embrace that, don't run from it. At least that is my 2 cents.

 

[dave2008]

...Did Capp Zapn return and immediately start with "And nobody has any genuinely criticism of my criticism besides 'do not touch my system'"? Seriously?

Why does anyone even bother debating anymore if that is their take away :'D

(that is the point where I stopped reading thread again and you'll probably see me next time few months later )

Why are you so fixated on Capn? There are a lot of other voices here. In the spirit of the thread, why not share your favorite house-rule?

 

[payn]

Also why do all pathfinder 2e threads derail to be about mechanic debates?

Id say all the threads here are about mechanics. "RAW vs RAI" "New healing paradigm" "house rules" etc..

One of the reasons I'm so stubborn about making PF2 work for me, is how much I love Paizo adventures. I think if you start a thread about setting and or adventures you can get some different conversation going.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Id say all the threads here are about mechanics. "RAW vs RAI" "New healing paradigm" "house rules" etc..

One of the reasons I'm so stubborn about making PF2 work for me, is how much I love Paizo adventures. I think if you start a thread about setting and or adventures you can get some different conversation going.

Never seen 2e lore conversation live long though. Could try that I suppose

 

[Thomas Shey]

Could be. I remember actively looking for single-target damage spells with saves and not finding any other than the Uncommon sudden bolt (from The Show Must Go On/Extinction Curse 1), but I was looking specifically at the Primal list at the time, and I was likely limiting myself to level 4-5 or below.

Yeah, I've been looking at the Primal list since I may be playing a druid down the line, and as I recall most of theirs are nuke-the-neighborhood spells.

It's certainly not a strength of the Primal list. Primal's buffs tend to be battle forms, which are generally mostly useful for elevating a bad warrior to a good warrior, but won't turn a good warrior into a better one. There are some others who add capabilities (e.g. fly), but you don't get things like heroism.

Well, far as I can tell, the buffs on the Primal list are really intended for yourself, unlike the ones on the Occult list (which overlap with the Arcane one a fair bit in that area I noticed). I think actually Primal has the worst list of buffs for others of the four.