• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

PF2 PF2e House Rules:

zztong

Explorer
Yes, there's certainly wisdom behind trying a rule before deciding to change it. It is good general advice. But I would point out we've been playing this system for most of a year now. Yes, there's been a lot of tweaks, but not everything changed from the playtest.

I'd love to hear folks talk about house rules and modifications. Your board is a friendlier place than than Reddit or the Paizo boards to talk about this stuff.

What's the harm?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Well, a peasant would be Untrained in a lot, so that would be +0, but going with + 1/2 level, or +1/4 level, or even +2 x level all work (I've tried them all in the last year) as well.
I am not sure how easily you get training in PF2e (still reviewing the rules), but training already goes up to +8 in PF2e so in theory you would already exceed 5e by removing +level completely. You just have:

Untrained = 0
Trained = +2
Expert = +4
Master = +6
Legendary = +8

So an untrained commoner is +0, while a legendary PC would +8 (training) +6 (ability mod) +5 (item mod) = +19. That is quite a difference! If I wanted more than that I would probably just make it 1/4 level or add more levels of training.

However, I think the real questions is how do to modify monsters and DCs to accommodate the lack of or reduction of +level increases. I would rather wait for the official solution than try to determine that myself.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
However, I think the real questions is how do to modify monsters and DCs to accommodate the lack of or reduction of +level increases. I would rather wait for the official solution than try to determine that myself.
That part is easy, just remove level from everything that it applies to for characters and monsters, and that's it. It also helps to figure out (deconstruct) what proficiency (Trained, Master, etc) a monster has in a given area (weapon attack, fort save, etc).
 

dave2008

Adventurer
That part is easy, just remove level from everything that it applies to for characters and monsters, and that's it. It also helps to figure out (deconstruct) what proficiency (Trained, Master, etc) a monster has in a given area (weapon attack, fort save, etc).
Yes that part is easy, but the SRD doesn't have the monster actions up yet (or it didn't yesterday) so that is hard to determine. Fortunately it looks like monster level is equivalent to PC level for this purpose? Anyway, I assume it applies to:
  • AC
  • Attacks
  • Defenses
  • Skills
  • Perception

Anything else? Still a bit of work for each monster as that is 8+ modifications per monster.

However, going from memory, the DC by level table is not a simple level add to the DC by difficulty table. So I am more interested in how to adjust these tables by removing +level. Theses appear to be less straightforward.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
Yes that part is easy, but the SRD doesn't have the monster actions up yet (or it didn't yesterday) so that is hard to determine. Fortunately it looks like monster level is equivalent to PC level for this purpose? Anyway, I assume it applies to:
  • AC
  • Attacks
  • Defenses
  • Skills
  • Perception

Anything else?
DCs for monster abilities/spells.

Yeah, the actions for monster are not up yet, but check out the playtest bestiary, and play around with removing level from all that applies (it's fun), though 1st level monsters are totally out of whack (attacks, skills, etc).
 

Mycroft

Explorer
However, going from memory, the DC by level table is not a simple level add to the DC by difficulty table. So I am more interested in how to adjust these tables by removing +level. Theses appear to be less straightforward.
Yes, they had a pretty odd general DC table in the playtest, I have not had a chance to delve into that yet, but I believe they cleaned it up, big time.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I have numbered the house rules for easier reference, added a critical hit house rule, and updated my hit points houserule
 

Mycroft

Explorer
That is the general idea (though I haven't played d20 Star Wars and I don't remember the 3.5e version).
Vitality point are just like hit points, but you also have Wound points, which are equal to your Con score.
Damage starts applying to your Wound points when you are out of Vitality points, or take a critical hit.
 

zztong

Explorer
Vitality point are just like hit points, but you also have Wound points, which are equal to your Con score.
Damage starts applying to your Wound points when you are out of Vitality points, or take a critical hit.
Oh how interesting. I associated the HP/CON separation with the old Dragon Quest game by SPI (later TSR). You took damage on Fatigue (fast to recover) and then on Stamina (real health).

That system also had critical hits go directly to Stamina skipping Fatigue, but that won't work with PF2 (outside of the first couple of levels). The relationship between damage and CON isn't prime for that in PF2.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
Oh how interesting. I associated the HP/CON separation with the old Dragon Quest game by SPI (later TSR). You took damage on Fatigue (fast to recover) and then on Stamina (real health).
Wow, I had no idea that was where it started (Starfinder also uses Stamina), thanks for that.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Vitality point are just like hit points, but you also have Wound points, which are equal to your Con score.
Damage starts applying to your Wound points when you are out of Vitality points, or take a critical hit.
OK very similar except we base ours on size instead of Con.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
That system also had critical hits go directly to Stamina skipping Fatigue, but that won't work with PF2 (outside of the first couple of levels). The relationship between damage and CON isn't prime for that in PF2.
Yes, that is why I made critical damage go to BHP (stamina) except it only does 1 weapon damage.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
OK very similar except we base ours on size instead of Con.
Yeah, I like the size-based hit points. I also like the extra hit points at 1st level from race in PF2; I was thinking of a 5th Ed variant where you start off with extra hit points at 1st level based on size (Small: 6, Medium: 8) or race.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Yeah, I like the size-based hit points. I also like the extra hit points at 1st level from race in PF2; I was thinking of a 5th Ed variant where you start off with extra hit points at 1st level based on size (Small: 6, Medium: 8) or race.
That is almost exactly what we do in 5e, except it is:

Tiny: 1d4 (2 avg) + Str mod
Small: 1d6 (3 avg) + Str mod
Medium: 1d8 ( 4 avg) + Str mod
Large: 2d8 (9 avg) + Str mod
Huge: 2d12 (13 avg) + Str mod
Gargantuan: 2d20+ (21 avg) + Str mod
 

Mycroft

Explorer
That is almost exactly what we do in 5e, except it is:

Tiny: 1d4 (2 avg) + Str mod
Small: 1d6 (3 avg) + Str mod
Medium: 1d8 ( 4 avg) + Str mod
Large: 2d8 (9 avg) + Str mod
Huge: 2d12 (13 avg) + Str mod
Gargantuan: 2d20+ (21 avg) + Str mod
I really like the use of Str mod. Str needs a bit of help in 5th Ed, IME, we have made adjustments for that.

Why do you start using 2 dice at Large+, instead of sticking with 1d10, 1d12, 1d20? Or just give them max for size?

Tiny: 4
Small: 6
Medium: 8
Large: 10
...etc
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I really like the use of Str mod. Str needs a bit of help in 5th Ed, IME, we have made adjustments for that.

Why do you start using 2 dice at Large+, instead of sticking with 1d10, 1d12, 1d20?
Large creatures are basically 2x the size and 8x the mass of a Medium creature. I wanted to reflect that so the BHP of a Large creature are a little over 2x those of a Medium creature. Similarly, a Gargantuan creature is basically 2x the size and 8x the mass of a Large creature, so it is a little over 2x the BHP of a Large creature.

Or just give them max for size?

Tiny: 4
Small: 6
Medium: 8
Large: 10
...etc
Not all Medium creatures are the same size so we like the variability. I would let players choose a a number within the range based on a concept, but generally we roll the size and when coupled with the Str score it tells us something about the Character. For example: If I rolled a 6 (above average) for size but only 10 for Strength (average), I know my character is a little portly ;)
 

Advertisement

Top