• 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:

Mycroft

Explorer
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 ;)
Ah, that's very interesting, more randomness in character creation.
 

zztong

Explorer
Wow, I had no idea that was where it started (Starfinder also uses Stamina), thanks for that.
DragonQuest (1980) was the first system I encountered that had two health indicators. (I don't know that it was the first ever.) Champions followed it a year later (1981). I still have a special place in my heart for DragonQuest in that I liked its melee combat, weapons, and armor systems and that it was a class-less system. Sadly, its magic system blew chunks. Nobody would ever run it today because of the magic system, though I've thought of using it for historical games.

Its skill system was insightful at the time, mostly because it was one of the first games to have a skill system. You could maybe claim to see a glimmer of it in PF2's goal of making higher proficiency levels act as a gate-keeper for certain abilities. PF2 is more modern. DQ I think had better gates.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
DragonQuest (1980) was the first system I encountered that had two health indicators. (I don't know that it was the first ever.) Champions followed it a year later (1981). I still have a special place in my heart for DragonQuest in that I liked its melee combat, weapons, and armor systems and that it was a class-less system. Sadly, its magic system blew chunks. Nobody would ever run it today because of the magic system, though I've thought of using it for historical games.

Its skill system was insightful at the time, mostly because it was one of the first games to have a skill system. You could maybe claim to see a glimmer of it in PF2's goal of making higher proficiency levels act as a gate-keeper for certain abilities. PF2 is more modern. DQ I think had better gates.
Okay, I am going to have to get a hold of this, sounds very cool and interesting, also sounds important for my collection.
 

zztong

Explorer
Okay, I am going to have to get a hold of this, sounds very cool and interesting, also sounds important for my collection.
Its essentially a collector's item these days, but you might find a PDF somewhere illegal. Honestly, I'm sure the original developer would just love that somebody was even just looking at the rules. Hmm, could it be old enough to be in the public domain? No idea.

There are 3 versions, IIRC.

1st edition was a boxed set by SPI.
2nd edition was a white hard-cover book by SPI.
3rd edition was a bluish soft-cover book by TSR.

The difference between 1st and 2nd was they simplified the action system and ditched a system where you spent action points.

The difference between 2nd and 3rd was that TSR couldn't bear to have a College of Black Magic and a College of Greater Summoning in a game they produced. Devil worship? TSR? Uh, no. They replaced them with two other colleges of magic.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
As long as you don't end up cursing me because you spent $80 on a 40-year old game that I fondly remember. Browsing a PDF might eliminate the "that guy is nuts" result.
Ha, not a chance, I have always wanted a copy, check it out, just never have.
 

zztong

Explorer
We played PF2 last night with stock rules. The GM was just back from GenCon where he played a mix of PF2 and 5e. (We've not played a lot of 5e, and he was checking out organized play for both games.)

One thing he's considering doing is dropping the iterative attack penalties. He views that as slowing down the game.

He also enjoyed a PF2 game (organized play) where Hero Points were handed out rather liberally. I think he said "once an hour" plus any time somebody did something moderately notable. I gather players in that game went through 6-8 Hero Points in a 4-hour session. Apparently they were even able to spend their Hero Points on behalf of other players and NPCs. We'll see how that goes. I don't personally care for Hero Point systems.
 

kenada

Explorer
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.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.
 

zztong

Explorer
The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.
He got the inspiration for doing it from 5e. He liked how that part played.

I can see how it might be considered an incentive to stand and attack. That's pretty how folks are playing anyways.

I can see how healing might not be able to keep up.
 

zztong

Explorer
In my 10-hour effort to make a PF2 character for last night (lots of what-if'ing on a character concept), I came to realize I'm not happy with starting languages.

Everyone gets Common. Non-Humans get a racial, err ancestral, language. Humans just get access to a regional language but still need a higher INT (12+) to actually take it.

I think Humans should get a free regional language. To me, common isn't a language so much as a default trade tongue.

I'd also think that the Non-Humans should get a choice between a racial, err ancestral, language and a regional language.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
He got the inspiration for doing it from 5e. He liked how that part played.

I can see how it might be considered an incentive to stand and attack. That's pretty how folks are playing anyways.

I can see how healing might not be able to keep up.
The big difference is that in 5e, you can still get movement before and after those iterative attacks. However, in PF2 your attacks and movement are all tied together into this singular action economy.

Changing the whole penalty system also whacks out of balance (or even raison d'être) a LOT of class feat, abilities, and weapon traits in PF2 that key into that iterative attack penalty. AND this also means that monsters and players will be critically hitting far more.

So this seems like a potential houserule made where the GM is not thinking deeply about the potential consequences and ramifications throughout the entire system.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
The problem with removing the iterative attack penalty is it that incentivizes what PF2 and 5e are both designed to avoid: static WoW-type fights where two opponents stand in place and whale on each other. If you have the option of delivering three attacks without any penalty, then your optimal action in most cases will likely be to attack with all three attacks.
Good point, maybe a reduced penalty for fighters? Or perhaps a free move action(s)? This isn't a problem in 5e because movement is free. Maybe for pF2e:

  • a feat gives fighters a free move if they hit with an attack?
  • a feat (or houserule) if you hit an opponent with an attack, the next attack on the same opponent is without (or reduced) penalty?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Changing the whole penalty system also whacks out of balance (or even raison d'être) a LOT of class feat, abilities, and weapon traits in PF2 that key into that iterative attack penalty.
Good to know. I haven't gotten through all of the feats yet and that seems like a reasonable way to handle it. I would probably prefer it as a class feature. But feats and weapon properties could work.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
Good point, maybe a reduced penalty for fighters? Or perhaps a free move action(s)? This isn't a problem in 5e because movement is free. Maybe for pF2e:

  • a feat gives fighters a free move if they hit with an attack?
  • a feat (or houserule) if you hit an opponent with an attack, the next attack on the same opponent is without (or reduced) penalty?
No, no, please; you were onto a good thing before the horrendous input.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
One thing he's considering doing is dropping the iterative attack penalties. He views that as slowing down the game.
Just as long as you realize that massively increases the cost of doing just about anything else than just standing still and whacking the enemy until dead.

I would far more prefer a solution that reduces the number of Strikes you're allowed (but then all at full strength).

Assuming the idea is to cut down on "pointless" dice rolling, that is.

However, I would definitely first wait and see. Maybe it's just newcomers that can't see past "you mean I can attack AGAIN?". Maybe as players wisen up they start doing better things with their second and especially third action...?


Edit: ninjaed by Aldarc
 

Matrix Sorcica

Explorer
I've thought about doing that as well, or at least doing it for fighters.
Isn't a lot of mechanics dependent on the multiattcak penalty, as in if there's no penalty you'll be multiattacking constantly? And critting repeatedly?

Edit: I too got ninja'ed by Aldarc.
 

Advertisement

Top