Pathfinder 2E PF2 house-rules / variant rules

[dave2008]

You might want to try the system anyway if you're going to work with it to 'develop' something new out of it, to better understand what you're altering.

Very good point - particularly because the books have been sitting on my digital shelf for a few years!

 

[kenada]

Ability Scores - Gradual Boosts​

This variant from the Gamemaster’s Guide giving boosts earlier but more slowly is used.

I really liked this one when using Proficiency without Level because it provides a sense of progression even though your proficiency is no longer going up every level anymore.

 

[BigZebra]

On Reddit I read about a very interesting house rule that some had great success with:

All 2-action spells was now a 1-action spell with Flourish. All 3-action spells was now a 2-action spell with Flourish. All 1-action spell stayed as is.

Because of Flourish you wouldn't be able to spam spells, but you would open up more tactically options for casters.
Comments?

 

[Philip Benz]

BigZ, it already seems frustrating when you have the actions required to do something, but can't do it. For example, a hasted character cannot throw two (2-action) spells, or do a sudden charge and then a power attack. So I can't help thinking that this house rule, dropping the action cost for spells across the board, wouldn't end up giving spellcasters a huge boost.

Just think about the action economy of summoning. Normally it's 3 actions to summon, then one action every round to sustain it. With this rule, you'd be able to pump out 2 summons, no problem, maybe three with the help of a special feat or hex.

IMHO, casters already have tactical options. The wizard player in my group often casts Fleet Step (to get more movement out of that spare action) or Fly, he makes heavy use of the few one-action spells he has (like force bolt) and has multiple options between buffing (haste on his pals), blasting and battlefield control. He may not be quite as mobile as the fighter or rogue in our group, but he's no statue.

 

[BigZebra]

Thanks for the reply Philp. I can see how it could be frustrating. Perhaps I will try it out, and see how it goes.

 

[kenada]

I always assumed that having spells (typically) require two actions was meant to make casters less mobile/flexible than martials. They’re already capable of changing reality on a whim. Do casters really need a boost?

 

[payn]

I always assumed that having spells (typically) require two actions was meant to make casters less mobile/flexible than martials. They’re already capable of changing reality on a whim. Do casters really need a boost?

For me debuffs seemed very weak, as in they rarely are successful (against anything but wimpy mooks of course). I wouldn't mind seeing a defense debuff at bloodied that might make spells more effective against severe/extreme enemies. I mean, bloodied was awesome and i'd like to see it make a return.

 

[Philip Benz]

Payn, I'm assuming that you're refering to significant combat penalties inflicted on combattants once their hit points fall below a given threshold.

Dangerous stuff, that. Unless your plan is for the penalty not to apply to PCs. Because additional numerical handicaps to PCs because their hitpoints are low will lead to far more frequent deaths and TPK events. I can recall many fights where the entire party (except perhaps the wizard) down in single-digit hit points when they finally managed to eliminate their adversaries.

RPGs, regardless of the game system, have a high degree of abstraction concerning the accumulation of wounds leading to unconsciousness or death. IMHO, it's best not to question such things too closely. A 1st-level character suffering 30 hit points of damage is going to be down and out, but for a 12th-level character, it's hardly a scratch.

If you really want fights to be deadly, I can recommend the ICE/Rolemaster/MERP/Arms Lore books from the early 80s. Pages & pages of super detailed (and super-debilitating) critical hit tables. Not as much fun as some might think.

 

[payn]

Payn, I'm assuming that you're refering to significant combat penalties inflicted on combattants once their hit points fall below a given threshold.

Dangerous stuff, that. Unless your plan is for the penalty not to apply to PCs. Because additional numerical handicaps to PCs because their hitpoints are low will lead to far more frequent deaths and TPK events. I can recall many fights where the entire party (except perhaps the wizard) down in single-digit hit points when they finally managed to eliminate their adversaries.

RPGs, regardless of the game system, have a high degree of abstraction concerning the accumulation of wounds leading to unconsciousness or death. IMHO, it's best not to question such things too closely. A 1st-level character suffering 30 hit points of damage is going to be down and out, but for a 12th-level character, it's hardly a scratch.

If you really want fights to be deadly, I can recommend the ICE/Rolemaster/MERP/Arms Lore books from the early 80s. Pages & pages of super detailed (and super-debilitating) critical hit tables. Not as much fun as some might think.

Not looking for fights to be more deadly, im looking for players' (particularly large parts of their skill and spell options) to be effective against tough enemies. Currently, most of them are a waste of time which is a huge bummer to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's something to be said for a mechanic that allows badly injured opponents to be vulnerable to things they previously weren't; I've seen similar things in other games (13th Age comes to mind), and it has some virtues, since it allows certain operating procedures to be functional while still avoiding the old "spam takeout spells until it works" thing.