[Pathfinder 2.0] Let's create D&D 5.PF2!

[Theodoxus]

With the PF2 playtest available, I've been reading through it, and there are some great ideas that could be yanked into 5E (or I guess, you could push some ideas from 5E into PF2).

Yes, there are a number of concepts that are incompatible (Proficiency bonus per level is probably #1), but on the other hand, there are also a number of concepts that would work (and a few that would take a lot of work to convert).

I really dig the character creation process, and I'm already planning on incorporating it into my homebrew rules. For those unfamiliar, your stats start at 10. Your race will boost two or three by 2 points (typically two will be fixed (Strength and Con, for instance) with a "free" third choice.) Humans just get 2 free choices, most other races also get a -2 "Flaw", like Str for Halflings or Con for Elves).

Your background will grant another two - usually one fixed (like Acolyte boosts Wisdom) and one free. Then you get four free boosts for whatever you want, and finally your class will boost two - a fixed based on the class's primary attribute (Str or Dex for Fighter, Str for Barbi, Cha for Bard, etc).

Anytime you get multiple free boosts at once (like the 4 free, or 2 for human) you can't spend more than 1 on any specific attribute. Also, at 1st level, no attribute can be raised above 18.


But that's less controversial.

I also really like the idea of 3 actions and a reaction every round. An action might be an attack roll, a movement, a spell cast. You can attack twice and move once; move twice and attack once; spells are broken down into their component parts: Material, Somatic and Verbal - each taking an action - so a spell that uses all three takes a "full round" to cast, without allowing you to move. What this does do, however, is allow Paizo to modify spells on the fly. A great example is the Heal spell (formerly PFs Cure Light Wounds, what we would call Cure Wounds).

For a single action, you can Somatically cast Heal, touching your patient and healing them 1d8+caster mod - as expected. But, you can also add in a Verbal component, upping the casting time to two actions, and add a 30 foot range to the spell. Lastly, if you add a Material component (your prayer book or holy symbol, for instance) you can now cast Heal as a 30 foot burst around you, but it only heals for your casting mod (so no 1d8).

And then, when you use a higher spell slot (in 5E parlance, magic is slightly different in PF2 - naturally) the touch and ranged version increase by 2d8 per level, while the AOE increases by 1d8.


Now, swapping to a 3 action economy vs the 5E action economy of free move, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction could be more problematic than it needs to be, and this might not be solving an actual problem at the table - but it's definitely something I think should be reviewed for incorporation rather than tossing out.

What's interesting to me, is while 5Es Bounded Accuracy is shattered by the PF2 style of Proficiency bonus and Skill mastery; some thought of "fairness" was kept by Paizo, as making multiple attacks a round are drastically hampered, reducing the 'to-hit' bonus by a cumulative 5 for each attack after the 1st. Running up and wildly swinging your sword a bunch will not do much. (It's keeping the combat flavor of 3.PF while making everyone essentially have a +1 BAB.)

Touch Armor Class and 3 Saving Throws are still a thing - and something I think 5E could embrace without too much difficultly. (I still ask for Will and Reflex saves from time to time, even after 4 years of playing 5E exclusively.)

Anyone else out there looking for ways to mash up the two rule sets into something better than the whole?

[Foxhound438]

I do like the action economy in PF2 but I don't think it's something that would be easy to splice into 5e. Things are balanced around being "actions" and "bonus actions", and I don't think there's a good way to divide those up without having like fractional amounts of an action for certain things.

[GlenSmash!]

I've thought of getting rid of bonus actions, and just giving 2 actions, and having everything that was a BA now just be an action. But that has some messiness with Extra Attacks, Cunning Action, and probably a lot of other stuff I am forgetting.

I'm not sure how I feel about making move an action again. With my players as examples I can see getting too many options as choices leads to decision paralysis for some players.

All in all I think it would be quite a lot of work now.

[Kane0]

Careful with the action economy, some things in PF2 arent quite the same.
For example in 5e you can move up to a door, open it as an interaction and use the rest of your movement to walk through wihout usong an action or bonus action but in PF2 thats three actions to do the same thing.

[Theodoxus]

That's very true. I was also thinking of the "move 15 feet, attack mob 1, move 10 feet, attack mob 2, move 5 feet, attack mob 3" that is fairly common in tier 3+ play.

I think the compromise between the two systems would be to allow an action to move still be split up until you've moved your maximum movement. If you need additional movement, as in 5E, you'd just use another action - it's just that if you had 3 actions, you'd still be able to strike at the end (or during) your second move. I'd also allow object manipulation during the move, ala 5E - though perhaps only 1 per action (so, if you're opening a door, and wanting to don a shield, you could only do one if you're only taking 1 action to move - one or the other would be a second action - or part of a second move action).

I'd also probably keep the 5E extra attack as part of a single attack action. I'm not sure if there should be a penalty applied to a second attack action... math folk would probably be better at figuring that out.

Basically, a martial attacker at first level could use an action to strike, then use a second action to strike (in PF2, this would suffer a -5 penalty to hit (baring special circumstances) - in 5E, this is simulated by TWF, using a bonus action to make a second attack.

At 5th level, a fighter would get extra attack, making two attacks on an action. Burning a second action to get two more attack? Seems kinda powerful... add in Action Surge, and you're getting another set of 4 attacks (or even more, if you're going to use your third action to strike as well).

I'm ok with Extra Attack stacking with the Strike Action - I'm less ok with getting it for free. But 5E discourages fiddly numbers (outside of power attacks like GWM and SS)... but I don't think simple disadvantage would be good either. This could quickly be a sticky wicket that no one wants to deal with, outside of the power gaming set... anyone wanna postulate a potential elegant solution?

PF2 handles the issue with feats - which I'm totally ok with - as my own games are feat heavy (though no where near as much as PF2) - this might be another area of compromise. Increasing feat gain (but not ASI) especially for martial types at a minimum, to allow for specialization into specific fighting styles.

[Kane0]

You could also tinker with the action costs as well, likehow PF2 does with spells.
For example to start with a 5e action might be equivalent to two PF2 actions, and a bonus action one.
Once a warrior gets extra attack at level 5 attacking becomes one action instead of two.

[DanyBallon]

The only thing I find interresting in PF2, is the minimum skill mastery for some skill checks. i.e. you might need to be a Legendery in a specific skill in order to make the roll in order to accomplish a given task. This prevent non-proficient character from besting procficient ones on a lucky roll.

While not really needed in 5e if the DM ask for roll only when there is consequence for failure, it could be done by giving disadvantage to characters without the right skill mastery (non-proficient, proficient, expertise)

[Daphne]

there are a number of concepts that are incompatible (Proficiency bonus per level is probably #1)

PF2 actually works well without the +level to everything, you could check Zman's thread on the playtest subforum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?565864-Bound-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition), he has worked on a "bounded" PF2.

The math is not that different and one could add more granularity to 5e with a proficiency modifier similar to the one from PF2:

Untrained +0
Proficient +2
Expert +3
Master +4
Grandmaster +5
Legendary +6

Same math from standard 5e but with more degrees of proficiency.

[Mith]

First thoughts: That makes spell casting sooo elegant to me at first glance.

How I would convert actions to 5e:

1st action (Greater): Everyone gets at least one. All Extra Weapon attacks are added to this, which can be traded for skill contest attacks (Shoves, Grapples, etc.)

2nd action (Lesser): This can be used for Skill contests or an offhand attacks.

These two are more or less reversible. You can set up an advantage with a Lesser action to follow through with your Greater action. Paladin cast Smite spell and strike, Champion/Rogue shoves prone, then attacks at Advantage, Barbarian Rages then Attacks, etc.

3rd action: Reserved for reaction attacks.

Using this methodology would mean that it would probably be best to fold a lot of martial feats into weapon mechanics, since this would make bonus action abilities gained by the feats redundant.

With this new system, I would plug for a speed factor initiative, but with the idea that moving between actions adds -1 to your initiative for every 5' for your next action. This allows for more complicated action to unfold over the course of a round, with faster, simpler actions going off around you.

As far as spell casting, perhaps all non Sorceror/Warlock full casters get Metamagic feats that allow them to spend metamagic points to cast a 3 action spell as a two action followed by a 1 action spell (likely a cantrip). With speed factor, a spell costs-1 to initiative plus an additional -1 to initiative per spell level (so cantrips are -1). Sacrificing actions subtracts from your initiative, but you gain a better spell effect.

Sorcerers get spell point variant alongside merging the two pools, allowing them much greater versatility, and to just commit to spell chains with the spells they have.

I like the idea of Warlocks just being Invocation based with no spell slots.

This does screw over Psion concept space, but that is probably better served by having a different subsystem entirely. Perhaps make this like the current Warlock, where you get a bunch of lesser abilities with a few big flashy things to throw out.

A bit rambly, but hopefully mostly coherent.

[Kane0]

Before getting too deep down this hole, it might be a good idea to set some principles and guidelines for yourself. Things like how you want things to play, what values you are going to prioritize, any reasoning you want to apply to design decisions, etc.
Otherwise you might end up just changing things for no real benefit.

[Theodoxus]

PF2 actually works well without the +level to everything, you could check Zman's thread on the playtest subforum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?565864-Bound-Pathfinder-2nd-Edition), he has worked on a "bounded" PF2.

Thank you Daphne! I'm a huge fan of Zman (having brazenly stolen a lot of his ideas and incorporated into my 5.5 rules). Glad to see he's also interested in this project.

@ Kane0 - my intention is to grab concepts that mesh well and build a better game than either do individually.

One can see the progression from d20s inception, with things like weapons (melee use strength, ranged use dex) morphing to PF feats that allow for the concept of Finesse, to Finesse being a weapon trait. Crits doubling modifiers, to doubling dice, to now doubling everything (PF2).

These are the kind of things I enjoy - seeing the homebrew work that I create and borrow from other amateur designers that eventually get incorporated into official rules.

PF2 has "Stabilize" - their version of Spare the Dying, which actually heals an unconscious person to 1 hit point. Their version of Death Saves are persistent, reducing by 1 every round you're conscious, so it's still risky to go right back into combat while you are "Dying", but the idea of StD healing instead of just stabilizing is one I've considered, but thought it was maybe a bit too OP. Seeing it in a rulebook makes me feel better about adopting it. [I also love the irony that Stabilize heals, and Spare the Dying stabilizes.]

I currently use Exhaustion when you go unconscious and are magically healed any hit points (though Grave Clerics alleviate the Exhaustion). I also allow players to burn a hit die to alleviate the Exhaustion as well.

I think the Dying condition might be a better way to handle it.

[Cynthaer]

With the PF2 playtest available, I've been reading through it, and there are some great ideas that could be yanked into 5E (or I guess, you could push some ideas from 5E into PF2).

At the outset, I think you're going to encounter some pushback here because of how sharply divergent the 5e and PF sensibilities are—mostly with regard to complexity.

Not saying anybody's personal preference is wrong, not saying you can't combine your favorite parts from both to make something great. Just setting the stage.


I really dig the character creation process, and I'm already planning on incorporating it into my homebrew rules. For those unfamiliar, your stats start at 10. Your race will boost two or three by 2 points (typically two will be fixed (Strength and Con, for instance) with a "free" third choice.) Humans just get 2 free choices, most other races also get a -2 "Flaw", like Str for Halflings or Con for Elves).

Your background will grant another two - usually one fixed (like Acolyte boosts Wisdom) and one free. Then you get four free boosts for whatever you want, and finally your class will boost two - a fixed based on the class's primary attribute (Str or Dex for Fighter, Str for Barbi, Cha for Bard, etc).

Anytime you get multiple free boosts at once (like the 4 free, or 2 for human) you can't spend more than 1 on any specific attribute. Also, at 1st level, no attribute can be raised above 18.

Let's break this down.

Halfling: +Dex, +Wis, -Str, +X
Background: +Fixed, +X
Rogue: +Dex
Free Boosts: +X, +X, +X, +X

To restructure this, we're dealing with a sort of laundered point-buy system. Basically you've got:

- 5e-style racial modifiers (except with racial drawbacks instead of choosing your own dump stat)
- a class-based primary stat that you would have put points in anyway
- an arbitrary stat tied to background
- seven-ish free +2s, with various restrictions on how they can stack

"Bad" races for a class can only hit 14 in the primary stat (I'm assuming you can't counter your own -2 with the free-floating racial +2?). Everyone else can hit 18 thanks to the floating racial stat choice.

So, what's the overall effect on stat distributions, if we assume people put free points into primary stats?

Well, it's similar to 5e point buy. The biggest differences are (A) compared to point buy, races are more strongly discouraged from using their bad stat (getting a -2 instead of a +2 is pretty harsh), and (B) there's a slightly stronger correlation between races and which non-primary stats are higher.

Overall, I see the aesthetic appeal of parceling stats out into "this stat comes from this aspect of the character", but I think I just prefer point buy. With point buy, at least there's just the one step where you can nudge things up and down to try out different point sets.

Here, if you're trying to play with it, there are a lot of steps to tweak. But, if you really like taking it one step at a time and seeing where your points end up, the PF2.0 approach could be fun. I suspect maybe a lot of more experienced PF players like having a bunch of steps because it makes the character-building "mini-game" more complex, but that does nothing for me.


I also really like the idea of 3 actions and a reaction every round. An action might be an attack roll, a movement, a spell cast. You can attack twice and move once; move twice and attack once; spells are broken down into their component parts: Material, Somatic and Verbal - each taking an action - so a spell that uses all three takes a "full round" to cast, without allowing you to move. What this does do, however, is allow Paizo to modify spells on the fly. A great example is the Heal spell (formerly PFs Cure Light Wounds, what we would call Cure Wounds).

For a single action, you can Somatically cast Heal, touching your patient and healing them 1d8+caster mod - as expected. But, you can also add in a Verbal component, upping the casting time to two actions, and add a 30 foot range to the spell. Lastly, if you add a Material component (your prayer book or holy symbol, for instance) you can now cast Heal as a 30 foot burst around you, but it only heals for your casting mod (so no 1d8).

And then, when you use a higher spell slot (in 5E parlance, magic is slightly different in PF2 - naturally) the touch and ranged version increase by 2d8 per level, while the AOE increases by 1d8.

Not gonna lie—I mostly hate this idea for 5e combat. One of 5e's biggest strengths is streamlining combat so turns don't get bogged down in precisely this kind of "reevaluate every single permutation of possible actions from scratch every single round" nonsense. I would never use this as a standard model for 5e combat.

That said, I see one avenue for this idea with great potential. I'm talking, of course, about the Sorcerer. Her entire deal, after all, is that she has fewer different spells (reducing complexity) in exchange for being able to do more things with those spells (increasing complexity). And that's been a rough spot in the 5e design, with players feeling compelled to use a mere handful of the most powerful Metamagic options (starting with Twinned) instead of actually feeling like they're able to manipulate their few known spells on the fly.

If I were implementing this in my own game, I'd create a custom progression of effects for each individual spell, but only do it for the spells my sorcerer players actually chose to avoid unnecessary work. I might do a simple 2-tier thing where you can spend a sorcery point for some effect specific to the spell, or maybe double the sorcery points given to the sorcerer and do 3 effects levels, where the smallest is inferior to the spell as written. Or you could just wing it—there's no consistency in the PF2 spells that I can see for which ones have optional boosts for using more actions.

Since you're no longer using normal metamagic, you could freely pillage those options for ideas if it's appropriate for a certain spell.

Examples:

Burning Hands
0 Sorcery Points: Affects all creatures in a 15 ft cone. (As written in the PHB.)
1 Sorcery Point: Affects all creatures in a 15 ft sphere.

Disguise Self
0 Sorcery Points: Lasts 1 hr. (As written in the PHB.)
2 Sorcery Point: Lasts 8 hrs. (Improved "Extended Spell" metamagic effect.)

Sleep
0 Sorcery Points: As written in the PHB.
1 Sorcery Point: Reroll dice up to your Cha mod. (Pseudo-"Empowered Spell" metamagic effect.)

Charm Person
0 Sorcery Points: As written in the PHB.
3 Sorcery Points: Target has disadvantage on the saving throw. ("Heightened Spell" metamagic effect.)


What's interesting to me, is while 5Es Bounded Accuracy is shattered by the PF2 style of Proficiency bonus and Skill mastery; some thought of "fairness" was kept by Paizo, as making multiple attacks a round are drastically hampered, reducing the 'to-hit' bonus by a cumulative 5 for each attack after the 1st. Running up and wildly swinging your sword a bunch will not do much. (It's keeping the combat flavor of 3.PF while making everyone essentially have a +1 BAB.)

Meh. One of the best design choices in 5e was to collapse nearly every combat modifier into Advantage/Disadvantage. I'm sure Paizo's approach does a fine job of balancing out the incentive to stand in melee and attack three times every round, but 5e's straightforward approach of "you have X attacks" just works better for 5e.

Of course, I strongly oppose bringing the 3-action system into 5e in the first place, as stated above. If you were to use that system, you'd presumably need to bring this rule along with it, or find some other way to avoid giving everyone Extra Attack (2) like they're an 11th-level Fighter.


Touch Armor Class and 3 Saving Throws are still a thing - and something I think 5E could embrace without too much difficultly. (I still ask for Will and Reflex saves from time to time, even after 4 years of playing 5E exclusively.)

Explicit named saving throws are fine, but I would argue unnecessary for 5e. We all know that the Fort/Ref/Will triad is secretly still there in 5e, with Str/Int/Cha saves being occasional cute exceptions. You can call them whatever you want out of habit or as a nod to the game's history, but I'd say just calling them "[stat] save" is probably best for bringing new people into the game because it's one less layer of "this thing is calculated based on this other thing with a different name".

Touch AC is...fine...I guess. (Insert long sighing noise here.) I'm at a point in my life where I look at a character sheet with two AC calculations and three saves and I just feel tired.

Realistically, we already have a defense that's based on dexterity alone, without any benefit from armor—it's called a Dex save. Is there any reason not to just use a Dex save instead and avoid the extra calculation?

Overall, I don't think you're wrong or bad for liking more granular calculations and detailed options in combat. If it makes you happy and your friends are the sort who can handle the 3-action economy and calculating +X/-X bonuses in mid-combat without bogging the game down, then more power to you. I just don't see much value in it myself (outside of the idea of individualizing "metamagic" effects for sorcerers, which I actually really like).

[Theodoxus]

i get your critiques, and concerns. Where you see an interesting path for a sorcerer rebuild, I see for other things.

But at the moment, this is just spitballing - to get reactions, such as yours to the overall idea of blending the systems. All in all, I'd probably keep it 80% 5E, because I do like the simplicity in general. I never liked the 13 different status effects that can add or subtract a point or two from your To-Hit in PF1. I'm not a fan of the few that remain in PF2. I agree that Ad/Disad is a cleaner, though certainly far less granular aesthetic, for resolving minor bonuses and penalties.

To be honest, I'd be very happy if there were more people like you who liked one aspect of PF2 and how it could apply to one aspect of 5E (like your sorc example).

Looking over Zman's "bounded Pathfinder" PDF, it's very obvious that simply importing the UTEML system onto skills in 5E would accomplish what I've done in my games - switching skill rolls to a 2d10 system, without having to remind my players to not roll a 20!

I appreciate the feedback. Knowing me, my enthusiasm for the system will wane quickly and I'll go back to tinkering with my homebrew.

[furby076]

@OP: Would you mind adding the word Pathfinder before adding PF to your original th read? Typical etiquette. I had to scroll on own, find the link to the other thread, before learning this was Pathfinder. Acronyms don't help everyone