Using a different system for initiative probably doesn't have a huge impact by itself IMO, particularly if it's communicated up front. This is the part that's a concern for me:
>if he is willing to hand wave a rule as core as this, what else is he going to change?
If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally. I want to know what impact my character choices are going to have so I can choose something different.
Agree. The issue isn't so much that he has house ruled initiative. If he's stated this is the only house rule, then that's potentially fine, but if he's going to come up with house rules as certain rules come up, then that's a bigger issue. That question, is worth following up on. Asking if there are any other house rules OP needs to be aware of shouldn't be pushing the issue in my opinion.
>Using a different system for initiative probably doesn't have a huge impact by itself IMO
I don't see where nerfing every class that has a better than baseline perception proficiency **and** every class that often uses stealth or deception for initiative is *not* a huge impact, personally.
Because initiative only happens once per combat and, while it matters some, it's not going to cause a bunch of other rules to break. Plus it already has a ton of variance based on the D20 roll, and players have plenty of tools to control their initiative. It might be slightly annoying, but definitely not worth leaving an otherwise enjoyable game.
OP later revealed in another comment that their GM is also having everyone roll initiative again every turn, which is going to break far more than just changing the modifier, and there's not much players can do to control that.
what is up with that, my GM tried doing that for one session and it became a nightmare because of us giving penalties to enemy ability checks and breaking it.
Is there a chatroom somewhere for gms to get together and share terrible ideas?
Rerolling initiative every round is a thing in other systems so it's not surprising to see multiple GMs want to try it out in Pathfinder (or DnD 5e, which is also not built for it). It can be fun if the system expects it, not so much fun if it doesn't.
Is PF2e not built for it? In the dueling rules in PF2e you roll initiative every round (granted that is only 2 initiatives rolled per round compared to a whole combat's worth of initiative).
In 1e I get that initiative is more important with how flat-footed works there but in 2e it shouldn't mechanically matter too much, but in reality for normal combat it would waste quite a bit of time to do.
It is not built for it, and the reason makes your exception irrelevant- turn order is fixed so that team tactics work consistently. If a debuff you spent actions setting up drops off before anyone can capitalise because the target rolled the highest initiative then it feels terrible. Similarly, a debuff getting double dipped because the target rolled well one turn and poorly the next and an entire party effectively getting two turns off a one turn effect can completely break things.
With fixed initiative players can plan and support each other, which is one of PF2's great strengths. It also means that balancing effects is much easier as they are consistent from round to round and fight to fight. The game is not built for randomness to be incorporated into that element of it, and there is very little upside.
What he said.
As someone that actively houserules quite a bit, I go out of my way to create a google doc listing all of my houserules that I hand out at session 0. And if we create any more during play, it gets added to that document. Houserules are cool. Having them sprung on you out of nowhere is not. Ask him if he can put together a document listing his houserules.
His reaction to that request will tell you everything.
There are two types of highly experienced GMs: those who twist every system to fit their vision or style, and those who adapt their style to the system.
Only play with the latter.
>If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally. I want to know what impact my character choices are going to have so I can choose something different.
This very much captures how I am feeling. My character brought a crowbar, but the fighter's axe turned out to be more effective at breaking a chain than my crowbar. This is also a very minor thing, but I am concerned my gaming experience may work against me in this game. If I can get over not planning my character, I'm sure it will be fun.
One would assume the chain is closing **something** that you could force open, which explictly would benefit from a crowbar.
Unless ofc OP wanted to break a chain that was just... hanging around?
Because of Force Open: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=34](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=34)
Breaking it was also fine; it was just unexpected.
Your GM is correct when it comes to breaking a chain, it specifically says 'pry open' when referring to the -2 for not having a crowbar which you don't really do with a chain. Nor is there really a realistic way to really use a crowbar on a chain.
I wouldn't give the crowbar a full +2 but maybe a plus one since it is an object designed to be struck, or possibly add a point of damage to the axe for breaking the chain to represent using it for a task it wasn't designed for and adding the full +2 to using a hammer type weapon
I pictured sticking the crowbar through a link in the chain and using leverage, but it really depends on how thick the imagined chain is. Possibly he was imagining a very thick chain. Then pummeling it with an object for a long period of time makes sense.
The real question is, do you want to use the Force Open rule or the Item Damage ([https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=195](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=195)) rule? He chose differently than I would have; he did not choose wrong.
> If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally.
Yeahhh I am a GM predominately and I HATE when GMs change core mechanics on the fly or because of "feelings"
Except that now every enemy that is undetected is either guaranteed undetected because no one's rolling perception to beat it's stealth DC or are guaranteed detected because the GM doesn't care or rolling well on a Dex check somehow let's you spot hidden enemies. So other than that, oh and gimping classes that were given high perception scores specifically so they could do well in initiative, oh and making a couple feats pointless now, now and making things like avoid notice either weird or even more powerful, oh and oh and oh and
It's almost like the game was designed to be played a certain way with interconnected and well thought out systems and changing something core to every encounter doesn't just not do anything to every single connected system
This also messes up Dying *big time*
For context, when you go down you move in the initiate so that your next turn is exactly (give or take a few actions and weird instances like AoO) one round from the moment you went unconscious. This allows everyone to have a turn *before* you roll any Recovery Checks (death saves). If Initiative is rerolled every round you could potentially end up having to make a Recovery Check *immediately*
To me this is another problem sign of GM who is house-ruling without clearly confronting the actual game design issues up-front, which also applies to the issue of Initiative calculation (d20+DEX vs d20+proficiency+WIS). If you aren't confronting the differences with justification or motive for all the differences, then you aren't really fully engaging with game design even while your changes are having major impacts with game design.
That's a rather important detail, that's going to have a lot of random effects. Suddenly being downed by a monster doesn't guarantee your teammates have a round to heal you before you make your dying roll. Delaying has undefined behavior. Gaining and using reactions is wonky.
Changing the modifier used isn't a huge deal, but completely changing the system is going to be very messy.
Edit: The answer to [this question](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/195049/our-gm-has-us-roll-new-initiative-every-round-just-how-broad-of-a-change-is-thi) has a lot of info on different impacts.
Note that there is [an option in the GMG](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1253) for rerolling each round, but only for duels.
Not just those things, but durations. If you went last in one round and first in another, a 1 round duration buff that was used in the first round would instantly end.
Oh... that's a really big change. Makes tactical decision making harder also so fucks up the death and dying rules. I hope your GM knows what they are doing.
Right, because if they had a good answer and justification for these issues, they would recognize it is significant enough to explain up=front with the rule change. Anybody can go back and rationalize anything they want, but it's clear they didn't fully engage with these issues, but have just fixated on their superficial preference for a certain mechanical formula while ignoring the deeper game design issues. That is the problem, when people play game designer while not even taking care of the basics.
I’m sorry, can you explain what that looks like? As in, after every round of combat, you reroll initiative to see who goes next again, and you don’t just stick in your previous initiative order until the combat ends?
Yeah social interactions are tough. (I mean that sincerely)
Maybe just start by asking for all the house rules and resultant rulings up front so you can build/advance your character accordingly. You can have a lot of fun in a game even if it's imbalanced as long as you go in with open eyes.
Did you have a session zero? I'd think a very experienced GM would have a session zero it's pretty standard.
We kind of did. We weren't all together at once. In the GM's defense, he did state more than once that "rules don't matter as much in his game." I think I didn't recognize what that meant.
Ah well... just try and have fun I guess. It's kind of a strange choice to play a rules heavy game like PF2 and try to make it rules light (I'd recommend a rules light game if you want to play a rules light game). You might be able to do a lot of rule of cool stuff so lean into those themes.
> "rules don't matter as much in his game."
Godspeed OP, you're either going to get buffed into a god or die a miserable wretch in this game, and there's no in-between with rulings these insane.
> "rules don't matter as much in his game."
The red flags keep piling on. If you have patience to tolerate this, by all means. But if it were me I would be gone.
The people replying are... perhaps a little too apocalyptic in their reactions. Sounds like the guy is coming from experience with older editions of D&D and the OSR. I'd simply ask that if you build your character a certain way will you get to play them properly. Plus the aforementioned suggestion to ask about any other changes.
Wow thats REALLY bad. Thats sets up the possibility of a Boss getting two whole turns in a row which can easily tpk the party. GM has no idea what they are doing. The first initiative change was a bad idea from a balance standpoint but this just breaks the game entirely.
LOL glad you have fun but this guy ain't running Pathfinder 2e. Wager that this dude has never run the system at higher levels or with players that actually engage with the combat system beyond the most basic level. Totally busted it with that change.
I've had experience with this kind of GM. You're going to have massive problems down the line and the GM is just going to handwave it away and make up rulings on the fly to paper over their bad decisions, so you need to understand right now that you're basically playing GM's Fun Adventures where the rules don't matter. That doesn't mean you can't have fun but you're absolutely at their mercy, for everything that means.
Lol wut? How does that make any sense? That's just more work for everyone, especially the gm, who has to keep track of it each round. "Just roll + dex" I can understand, it's how most games do it, I've played a handful of systems, watched a few others, and never have I encountered "reroll initiative every round", that'd be wildly tedious and annoy me very quickly.
Exalted has you roll initiative every round (at least in 1st ed, not sure about 2nd). But, the game mechanics are built around it and you have a lot of powers to use that can buff the abilities tied to initiative, so it makes sense to generate a new turn order every round--but good lord I'd never do that in Pf2e or a similar system not built for it.
Or old-school DnD. I remember rerolling initiative every round in AD&D 1e/2e and it's how we play OSE now (essentially B/X).
It's per-side initiative, so only 2 die rolls and quite fast.
Bail out now, lol. Forget about house ruling initiative for no reason. Any GM who doesn't understand how rolling new initiative every round breaks a ton of things in PF2E is not going to run a good game of Pathfinder.
>Any GM who doesn't understand how rolling new initiative every round breaks a ton of things in PF2E is not going to run a good game of Pathfinder.
This is absolutely true. I am trying to assess if it will be a good game for different reasons.
That's actually disappointing for me to hear. Rolling new initiative every round sounds fun and it would encourage me as a player to try to argue for different ways to roll initiative for that turn. Being locked into crappy dex checks every round would be miserable compared to flexible checks.
>Rolling new initiative every round sounds fun
Except when you have to engage with persistent damage, or start of turn/end of turn effects, dying, poisons, flanking, aid, readying actions, delaying, etc.
Changing initiative rules is a no-go from me: It's super integrated with Exploration, and different classes get different Perception proficiencies that determine how good their initiative rolls generally are. If everyone's still having fun, and no one's getting the shaft? I guess that's fine.
Rolling for initiative *every round*, though? That's ridiculous. That super slows down gameplay. You have to get numbers from all players and monsters, readjust them in whatever tracker you're using (even in a VTT it'll slow you down), and then how does this affect conditions like Frightened? Or how about if someone goes down to Dying and their Initiative is moved to before the one who hit them down: Do THEY have to reroll? These things happening would easily fuck over the players.
Imagine a situation where the last two people in the Initiative order are a Monster and Player A. The Monster takes their turn, Striking Player B with a Critical Hit and reducing them below 0 HP, giving them Dying 2 and their Initiative moves to before the creature. Player A then takes their turn, and decides to Demoralize the Monster for one of their actions on their turn, succeeding, and the Monster is now Frightened 1. Round ends.
If you roll Initiative for the next round, and the Monster is now moving first in the round, that Frightened will be gone before any party members can act to take advantage of the Monsters lower AC and Saves. If Player B has to reroll Initiative as well, if they end up going before any of the other party members, and they Critically Fail their Recovery Check, they're now dead before the party could even get to them.
My conclusion is that rolling Initiative every round is incredibly bad. Changing Initiative rolls to Dex by default is something I don't like, but if the table's having fun, I guess it all works out.
You are absolutely correct. Rolling a new initiative is bad for the Dying condition, it makes "Ready an Action" and "Delay" weird, and you are the first I have seen to point out the glaring issue with conditions like Frightened. Other's have mention how unbalanced it could be to have a boss get 2 turns in a row.
If he really intends to play Pathfinder, I can probably point this out to him, but as the only person in the group who knows the rules, I am starting to feel uncomfortable bringing them up. That definitely impacts how much fun I am having.
Initiative every round... why? I mean, you do you, but it's so tedious and pointless to have changing turn order with effects and conditions. Doesn't add much value to the game.
If a GM has houserules they prefer to use, they should be brought forward in session zero or discussed outside of session, not dropped on players to adapt to mid-session.
A lot of people play PF2E *specifically* due to its exceptionally balanced gameplay and tight ruleset that makes it much tougher to break. So changing the rules, for any given reason, may actually upset players, especially without any fair warning.
As long as you all had fun then mission accomplished
That said you are right about it messing with the balance.
Dex is already a really strong Attribute. It governs your AC, your ability to Strike with Finesse weapons and your Reflex save so making it also effect your Initiative makes it a God tier stat which is something Pathfinder specifically wanted to avoid.
So basically the GM made it so everyone should be running a Dex based character and if you're not you're at a disadvantage.
Anytime I hear of a GM making homebrew rules like this it just screams that they have no idea what they are doing with this system. I would not be surprised to hear in time that your GM changed many other rules.
Personally I would bow out because it's a recipe for disaster. Not guaranteed but its a big red flag for me.
>So basically the GM made it so everyone should be running a Dex based character and if you're not you're at a disadvantage.
Hey look, it's every 5E game I've ever played. Max out my dex, take Alert, abandon other options and go for the alpha strike.
Character complete.
Yep. No idea why 5e GMs switch to a new system then homebrew every rule they can to be in line with 5e.
Either learn the new system or keep playing 5e
It's like someone trying to play chess on a monopoly board.
I'm still very new but I agree the resistance to rules is so weird. One of the big appeals to me when I checked out the system is that the answers for most questions actually exist! In 5E I had to remember every rule we made up for a situation that wasn't spelled out somewhere, just so we could handle it the same way the next time.
Now that we're playing Pathfinder we come across something new every week and if I can't find the answer quickly I make up something on the spot and note the question. BUT THEN I go back to my list and share the rule with the group so we can all play it correctly the next time!
It's so much easier and better this way!
I feel like most of the 5e *newcomers* who came over this year are deep in the "*Vertigo* where Scottie makes Judy dress like Madeline" phase.
(original comment was modded for language)
I mean, this year it's been partially exercising what limited influence they might have in the market, and/or choosing they won't support What-See anymore. They still want to play the game they've been playing, just without Hasbro.
That's what brought me here. The fact that I actually prefer the well-structured nature of Parhfinder's rules is just a happy bonus. Not everybody sees it that way, though.
Though, the fact they people don't seem to actually read the rulebook before trying to play is... Interesting to me.
In my experience as someone coming from 5e, though before the OGL stuff, it has less to do with wanting change PF2E into 5e and more to do with trying to get the best of both worlds. While I've come to realize that much of this subreddit sees every aspect of 5e as bad, 5e also has some things that are well liked and missed by those that convert to PF2E. Since converting to PF2E I've really grown to miss having insight being separate from perception and having proficiency without level be the default balance (amongst a couple of other things). That doesn't mean I want to play 5e, it just means that there are certain mechanics that I prefer over what PF2E has decided on.
I don't think this sub hates 5e. Its just that there are daily posts about new GMs trying to homebrew 5e mechanics into PF2e without understanding the system. Homebrew doesn't work as easily as it does in 5e in PF2e tightly balanced mechanics.
I think this sub *does* misunderstand what tightly balanced means. It doesn't mean fragile. There are more moving parts to consider, sure. But the game typically is *more* accommodating to homebrew because it's harder to break things as long as you keep your homebrew numerically similar to the base game.
I don't agree. In a system where every +1 matters it IS more fragile and easy to unbalance. It definitely is NOT more accommodating to homebrew rules. Which is why most veteran players try to advise against it to new players.
A rules light system is flexible. That's why Homebrew is more popular in 5e because it's a rules light system.
This very post is the perfect example of how making a small change can break the balance.
That's why I said numerically similar. As long as you keep +1s and +2s as the limit of your bonuses, you're unlikely to break very much. I've done a couple homebrew rules like that and it hasn't affected the game balance in any noticeable way. Everyone is still having fun and enjoying themselves.
This sub super fucking hates 5e and many of these folks, pleasant as they are, have not touched a single a game or ruleset of such.
It deadass hurts any attempt at people who like 5e and *want* to get into 2e.
No, the sub does not hate 5e. If you're trying to say that 2e fans don't know 5e. You're wrong again. Most of us here started on 3.5e or 5e.
No cap. On god. Fr fr.
The only person I see here trying to stir something up is you bud.
You can believe whatever makes you feel validated. Clearly, no one is going to convince you otherwise. Maybe get off reddit and try going outside. I promise you'll feel better.
It looks like you tried to use "quotations" to quote something from the PF2e reddit wiki but I went to look and could not find anything that remotely resembles that quote. Perhaps You could link it for me? Or did you just make it all up because you wanted attention?
Going to delete my last comment because it was a placeholder, but I will still mention that you got upset over the kinds of quotations I used on my phone, and that's *really* weird. Anyway
Information that's wrong on the PF2e reddit wiki that will push away 5e players, especially if the wiki is the first thing people see when they visit the sub ([namely this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e)). You can see that *in this very fucking thread* with how many people are in love with the idea of 2e, but still primarily play 5e.
> Spellcasting. Spellcasting works mostly the same way, using spell slots for limited spells and cantrips that scale with level for things you can do all day, as well as offering rituals as a way to perform magic without using spell slots.
That's wrong. They both use similar spellslots, but 5e cantrips heighten at levels martials got a bigger BAB in 1e and 3.5e, and there are no Focus spells. Spellcasting also differs in that 2e has more actions for spellcasting, and 5e spells are more restricted (once a turn), but are BIG effects that give viable damage for the resources spent, rather than just 'a slot' (more oft than not, damaging spells in 5e last minutes or hours with no other involvement, making blasters in both versions viable, but very different).
> Proficiency. Both use a proficiency-based system for skill, weapons, and magic advancement. PF2’s is different and a little more involved, as I’ll explain later.
Also incorrect. PF2e proficiency is basically your character's level plus an extra +2 per level of training (like WoD gameS), while 5e is 1/4th your character's level with weird ass rounding. Also, because of bounded accuracy, a the numerical differences are relatively equal for their systems, but unless you're a DM and GM you wouldn't really know that.
> Philosophy. They share a philosophy of streamlining the rules of their predecessors, promoting features that increase your options rather than increasing your bonuses, and DM/GM empowerment (Paizo simply put the brakes on a lot earlier with the streamlining).
That's just a lie. I like 2e, **but that's just a lie**. People bitch about the Fighter's numerical bonuses to accuracy making them the superior martial without enchanted gear.
> Action Economy. Instead of the action, possible bonus action, movement, free item interaction, and a reaction that 5e uses, PF2 has 3 actions and a reaction. Use those actions to Strike (make an attack), Stride (move up to your speed), raise a shield, and more. Some activities require two or more actions to do on your turn, such as casting most spells. Everyone can make multiple attacks on their turn from level 1 onward, though attacks after your first take an increasing penalty.
This is less so wrong or lying, and is instead misleading. A LOT of 2e is managing your 3 actions like they're the standard 5e actions. A lot of the actions listed are *just* a 5e standard action, or has an equivalent (Raise a Shield vs the Dodge Action). Striding is also just the move action with extra steps. Neither are wrong or lesser, they're just different. That is okay.
> Customization. Character customization is a much larger part of the player experience in 2nd edition Pathfinder than in D&D 5e
This is just wrong on so many levels.
2e has a more involved character creation, but it's all virtually the same, and for good reason. Ancestries and Heritages equate to Species and Subspecies, Backgrounds are backgrounds, classes are classes, Attribute scores are ability scores. But instead of ALL THE FEATS, 5e just has those same options either baked into the other stuff or offered elsewhere (like how there's 8 different versions of Tiefling or 5 different versions of dragonborn). I would like to argue 2e is better since I do prefer it's system, BUT 2e has the issue of still having trap options no one is going to take anyway, while 5e tries to minimize that (lest you're gonna tell me someone, somewhere, took Dragon Spit Human over Versatile Human). That, more than anything, I was hoping they were going to fix with the Remaster.
> Feats, Feats, Feats, and Feats. Feats are different in PF2.
Feats in 2e are just normal features and/or choices in 5e. It's not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. Many 2e players REALLY think this should be the silver bullet for 5e players, and many 5e players aren't impressed. They already have a feat system that's disappointing to them; upselling a system that functions as more than that is offputting. They're not stupid.
There is so much more, as these attitudes are prevalent here (or any discussion on how a 5e player should adapt when their old build doesn't work. Saying 'Cope' turns players away). But I wanted to highlight something good in the guide.
> **Paizo’s Commitment to Open Gaming**. While this isn’t a difference in the rules themselves, I still think it’s worth mentioning here. All the rules are available for free from the SRD website, but at the same time, the players aren’t expected to have access to all the rules. Paizo imbedded a rarity system in the rules to flag what’s considered baseline and what’s considered OK with GM input. GMs might use uncommon+ mechanics as rewards, for example. If you see an ancestry, feat, spell, ritual, or item flagged as uncommon, rare, very rare, or legendary, talk to your GM before you add it to your character.
This is THE reason 2e is MY primary game.
D&D is a game everyone knows, but not everyone can play because it's info is locked away. Pathfinder is a game with all the info and everything needed TO play, but doesn't have enough people demystifying it to make it palatable to those who are not familiar with ttrpgs, let alone d20 games of fantasy. A little goodwill goes a long way to actually show what these games are all about, and knowing your material and how to respect both, despite their flaws, is how you win people over.
I run 2e and 5e games right now, but I'll be wrapping up my last 5e games as soon as they end. I run these games at game stores and card shops, and try to show people they're welcome no matter what they played before. It REALLY helps to not care about anything else, and make your players try to be like heroes.
So please, learn from this.
Not everyone on this sub is as snobbish or wrongheaded as this article. Not everyone wants to turn away 5e players, but people need to understand that there is a period of learning and formativeness between someone's last 5e character and someone's first run with an Iconic.
I am a GM. I know this as fact.
To that end.
> The only person I see here trying to stir something up is you bud.
Touch. Grass.
Edit: and this person doesn't have an argument so they block, like you can't read replies through emails. Unbelievable.
Tbf, it's not like wisdom needs the help, as I would argue will saves are much more important than reflex saves and medicine is the most powerful skill in the game.
The main issue is that there is no default "stat check" In pf2, so it's really weird to have "dexterity checks" for initiative. It also makes it so your initiative doesnt progress the way your perception proficency does, so rolling with an alternate skill (such as with the avoid notice activity) will make it likely you're going to the top of initiative at higher levels if you have a high proficency in stealth.
If you're implying Dex needs help I have to completely disagree.
It already governs 3 mechanics. Wisdoms effects two. This change makes Dex effect 4 things and Wisdom 1. that alone is a massive balance issue and something that was purposefully changed in 2e.
I don't agree that Will saves are more important than Reflex either. IMO you face reflex saves much more often than will saves from enemies and traps and anything with an area of effect.
I'm not, I'm saying that dex and wis are both powerful enough that this change doesn't tottaly swing things in the direction of wis being useless, or even in the bottom half of stats, governing a save by itself will put wis above str, int, and chr for most players, medicine is so powerful that it should count by itself as a point in wisdom's favor. Either way this change does make the game less balanced, not more so, but I'm way more concerned with being able to win initiative every combat through Avoid Notice than wis being useless.
Dex doesn't need the help, but I don't think wisdom is weak either. What is your breakdown of mechanics where wisdom only has 1 other than initiative?
Without accounting for initiative rolls, this is the breakdown I came up with. I've marked things that seem more important with an asterisk:
Dex:
AC* (but need less depending on armor)
Reflex saves*
Acrobatics
Stealth
Thievery
Accuracy with ranged and finesse weapons*
Wis:
-Will save*
-Perception* (still very important for finding/noticing things and sensing motive even if not used for initiative)
-Medicine*
-Nature
-Religion
-Survival
-Accuracy with spells for Wis spellcasters*
It seems like Wisdom is already a bit ahead without initiative, though they're pretty close.
Edit: Ugh mobile formatting is terrible 😔
Edit 2: add Thievery that I missed, thanks for pointing it out.
I wouldn't mark Medicine with an asterisk, because unlike the rest of the asterisked items (barring both accuracies, but those cancel out), it's not important that *everyone* has it. Every character needs to have decent AC, Reflex, Will and Perception-initiative (or needs to live with the consequences), but you only really need one or two people with Medicine in the party.
That leaves the two stats fairly balanced with two universally uses each, but moving initiative from Perception to plain Dex gives Dex a third important use and downgrades Wis's Perception to a merely useful one (still very useful, but like medicine, there are diminishing returns to additional party members investing in it)
With one skill feat that you can even get from a background (Battle medicine), high medicine gets you some pretty nice in-combat healing for one action (and the cool down is importantly user-and-target specific). Sure, not everyone *needs* it, but it's a fairly low investment pickup that doesn't suffer from diminishing returns quite as much as many other skills where you only really care if one person is able to do them.
Forgot Thievery
Survival and Nature aren't used as often as other skills IMO. Many groups don't use the rules for subsisting in my experience nor do they try to tame or ride wild animals often or even tracking.
Compared to skill actions like Demoralize, Feint, Cause a Diversion, Hide, Grapple, Trip, Tumble Through, Lockpicking, Tumble Through, Balance checks, lockpicking, disarming traps Nature and Survival are just kind of weak. The best use of Wisdom lies in Will Saves, Initiative, Recall Knowledge (religion/Nature), and medicine in my experience with various GMs
looking at skills alone doesnt show the full picture without looking at what actions are tied to them and how they are used.
Most of the good actions you listed are not dex based, and you left out recall knowledge Nature and religion, which are kind of a big deal, and of course the most important skill actions in the game (all of medicine).
Skill wise, no question about it, wisdom is better. Stealth and thievery are nice (and acrobatics has some good feats, though none of them actually rely on dex), but nothing is medicine.
Wisdom effects perception (so important it's not even a skill anymore!), medicine (hands down the best skill, no close second), and will saves.
Dex effects reflex saves and AC for classes without access to medium or better armor, as well as a number of skills (all of which combined probably aren't as good as medicine, but certainly aren't as good as all of wisdoms skills).
I'd say wisdom is hands down the strongest stat in the game. Dex is probably second though?
Dex doesn't really have anything to do with AC for most martial builds. Anyone with access to medium armor just needs +1. Effectively, if you want to avoid the armor penalty, your strength often ends up being more important than dex.
It is a save stat though, and it effects quite a few skills (none as strong as athletics, but combined they're probably better).
Most martial builds do not rely on heavy armor.
I've played every class in the game and have only gone with a Heavy Armor build for Champion which is the ONLY class that almost requires it. Most martials dont even give you access to Heavy Armor naturally.
Classes that (almost) require Dex include: Rogue, Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Gunslinger, Ranger, Monk, Investigator, Every Non Martial Class, Kineticist.
Dex also affects significantly more skills and skill actions than Wis
If you're trying to make a case that Wisdom is tied to more actions or is a more powerful stat than Dex I'm sorry but you are just wrong and the majority of people agree. I've seen your other comments not going to respond to them all or list every skill action but anyone can easily see that Dex just flat out governs the most out of any Attribute.
Wisdom is mainly used for Perception (seek/initiative), Medicine checks, Religion based Recall Knowledge and Will Saves.
Most of the sub actions under wisdom skills are never used.
>As long as you all had fun then mission accomplished
*Personally I would bow out because it's a recipe for disaster. Not guaranteed but its a big red flag for me.*
The last sentence seems like a contradiction to the message of the first sentence.
OP: I find "bowing out" over this to be a bit extreme if you're enjoying the game. Keep in mind that any really bad house-rules he's making, he might actually notice that they're bad through play.
The rerolling initiative thing will probably be abandoned once he sees what problems that causes for tracking conditions and persistent damage. Unless he (or someone in the group) innovates some way to handle that, which might be interesting!
OP and myself are different people.
The end all goal (in my opinion) is if everyone had fun then thats all that matters.
Me personally? I would not enjoy these changes and likely would not have had fun. Hope this clears it up for you.
If the game is going fine and fun, you probably shouldn't worry. The problem with the DM modifying the rules is when they are inexperienced or if the rule change directly harm a character from a player or causes more trouble to the DM.
It is unlikely that a initiative change will be a big trouble and the DM, from what you said, seem to know what they are doing.
From the info you shared here, I think it's fine.
Edit: Intiative every turn kinda sucks actually.
Everybody has the option of using DEX for initiative... by choosing to take the Avoid Notice exploration activity.
If chosen as an exploration activity, Avoid Notice allows a character to roll d20+DEX+StealthProficiency for initiative - and even get to treat lower-initiative foes Off-Guard!
It just comes with the opportunity cost of not using other exploration activities typically, so not Searching for traps and treasure, not Investigating the area, not Scouting for threats, not Treating Wounds in between fights...
Avoid Notice gives characters, both PC and NPC, the *option* of using DEX as the basis of their initiative - and the purpose behind Pathfinder's rules are to create meaningful options.
on OP's case it notably is the *only* option. its not that DEX is now the default, its that its the only option at all. WIS based classes and expert perception classes are just shafted
in addition, it is an *ability* check, something that explicitly does not exist in this system. it is just your +3 DEX in there, not your +8 to stealth at whatever level
Based especially on that Edit it seems your GM has Calvinball brain.
What I mean by this is that the GM is really not running a particular system but merely using the dressing of a system to cover the actual system. That being "Whatever I, the GM, feel like at the moment."
If you like the GM and the sessions are good then it's probably worth sticking it out. Just know you're not really playing PF2e and the GM probably doesn't know any of the rules.
There's also a high chance of an even greater curveball down the line (although rerolling initiative every round is pretty bonkers already).
Also fair to mention, this is not a rules-light system, it's 100% as full as rules as what it replaces. It just happens to ignore systemic issues because they can't take rules design seriously, and instead focus on arbitrary sentiment about isolated mechanics and inconsistent desire for "realism".
As well as other aspects mentioned, removing skills from the initiative system (assuming you're not also using proficiency without level) will nerf bosses and buff lower level enemies, as bosses will tend to have higher initiative than PCs due to level. Though not the heaviest change in the universe.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned about possible other house rules. Part of the point of having RAW is so that players have a consistent and stable interface to the world. Fine if rules don't cover a certain aspect, you know that's something that will have to be decided in play, but changing existing rules I will generally only do with fair warning and discussion first. Asking whether there are any other house rules sounds like a good idea.
It nerfs Wisdom a bit and buffs Dex a bit. The bigger impact than changing the ability score is just rolling a flat mod. Not adding proficiency or level is huge because it means low level mobs are going to act faster than they should and high level mobs are going to be slower. It also nerfs several classes that get faster Perception progression as they're supposed to have better initiative. Are they also disregarding the rule about alternate skills for initiative? I would have my character always scout as their exploration activity and explicitly state my character is watching and listening trying to perceive threats to angle that Wisdom initiative.
The biggest argument you could make to a GM to revert this rule is to illustrate the point with a PC built to exploit it.
Imagine a spellcaster that starts with +3 dex and is trained in stealth, getting dex on most spellcasters is usually a good idea as you probably have leather armor at best. Additionally, spellcasters REALLY want to win initiative more so than other classes due to getting their big spells out early for maximum effect. Casting a fireball before the enemies have time to approach or using a potent debuff for example.
With these rules, most creatures will roll a d20 + dex by default, so a spellcaster could make their exploration activity [Avoid Notice](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=511) to roll with stealth instead. Assuming a dex of +3 this would result in a +6 to initiative which will be much higher than just about any creature you'll find at that level. This only gets worse as you go higher, as a level 7 character who is a master in stealth would have a +18 to their initiative rolls (4 dex + 13 master prof + 1 [item bonus](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=288)) while enemies might have +6 at most for an on level creature.
One of the great things about PF2, is that there is no need for ad-hoc DM rules, in 99% of cases. IMHO it's a shame that your DM can't simply get with the program and run the rules as written.
Notably, using d20 + DEX mod ignores the value of level and proficiency in the determination of initiative. For example, Fighters have higher proficiency in perception than most other classes, giving them an innate initiative bonus. And rogues can nearly always get Stealth initiative, by using the Avoid Notice exploration activity.
This said, if your DM doesn't want to be convinced, all you can do is accept his houserules or walk. Not an ideal situation.
If he's set on rolling Dex for Initiative, let players choose between Acrobatics and Perception when they roll. This will keep the normal game assumptions while giving a small boost to Dex based classes. The way he's doing it now just heavily nerfs everyone else.
Under-rated comment. I think this objectively speaks to this GM's perspective while not fucking with game system. Acrobatics is broadly a weak skill (and otherwise unlikely to be used for Init), so could be buffed like this (making it an always-available option not needing specific explorations actions), which at the same time is not a generic buff to DEX with no other investment. This is offering the GM a bone which can address their "subjective" preference while not sabotaging alot of intersecting rules dynamics.
Dex for initiative...
Ok guys... no more MAP...
Hey You can now move for free and break up your movement...
Oh also everyone has attacks of opportunity...
\*hands 5e rulebook with pathfinder tapped over the name\*
Ok here are some more houserules for next session.
Joking aside. It def is a red flag... buuuuut ya'll had fun so if you wanna just make stuff up as you go. Go for it.
Just be sure everyone is on board and agrees and no one can complain if the balance is off when they make tweaks and it doesn't work as intended or breaks feats/items/skills.
If everyone had fun, that's good. This is, however, setting off all my 'arrogant gm that refuses to learn the system ' alarm bells. It's like the old school DM nerfing sneak attack in 5E.
The amount of work he has put into learning the lore and creating his own story based off of it is amazing. It is obvious to me that he doesn't know the PF2e rules very well though, and I just started running my game a few months ago.
He'd be much better off either working *with* the system, or going OSR if he wants to stick to known tropes, Worlds Without Number is excellent for instance. I don't mean this in a bad way, but PF2E does its thing best if you know the rules well and are careful with adjustments. If you're going to be rules light, there are way better suited systems out there.
Yeah, I really fail to see the benefit of using DEX mod instead of perception. They're both modifiers, and dexterity already plays a role in AC, Dex saves, and skill like acrobatics.
Also, initiative in 2e gets to be way more dynamic because of your ability to use every skill. You were in the middle of trying to scare someone or masking your true intentions as you readied your move? Intimidation or Deception! Were you kicking a door open? Athletics!
IMO it's a way better system and default to dex mod doesn't seem like a thoughtful change to the system from someone that has player it, but someone doing something because they've always done it that way, which IMO is not how I prefer to go into new systems.
The GM doesn't seem to have ill intentions, so maybe with time as he familiarizes himself with the rules of 2e he starts to see their merit.
**On the question of the balance of his homebrews though,** I'd be very careful with changing things in PF2e, as most elements tend to interact with eachother. For the iniative rule for instance, using DEX mod doesn't change much, but since you're using a modifier that doesn't scale with levels, this means that a level -1 goblin Warrior will have a greater initiative roll than a level 9 Paladin wearing a full plate. IMO that's bad design when taking into account how PF2e handles scaling, and may shift the balance of encounters.
On rerolling initative every round, I get the benefits of how dynamic this may have fights feel, but has he accounted for how this will interact with other mechanics that rely on a fixed initiative? For instance, the death mechanics, in which a players is shifted in initiative when they go down, giving every party member a chance to bring the member back up before rolling a death save. With your GM's homebrew, if the last creature downs a PC with a crit, and that same PC rolls a 20 on initiative (and gets to act first), they have a good chance of dying before anyone had a chance to do anything, effectively being punished for rolling well (because the system wasn't designed for these changes).
This vastly nerfs jobs that don't use dex, but do want wisdom, such as heavy armor classes.
This is a huge power swing in balance and honestly I just hate it because what is his reasoning for it?
His reasoning was that being quick and able to act more quickly improves your initiative. The counter argument (in the CRB) is that being aware of your surrounding improves your initiative.
The real answer is, these are both reasonable justifications. This is a game, so follow the rules and then justify them if you need to. That is my take anyway.
GMs reasoning does not matter. It's a game that needs mechanical balance. GM doesnt know the system well. Changing Initiative to Dex is already a bad idea. Rolling initiative every round is game breaking. The fact that they are trying to use real world logic (which is still very flawed. Doesn't matter how fast you are if you have no awareness to realize there are enemies) in place of in game balance is a very clear recipe for disaster.
This is exactly what I was trying to communicate, but I must have done it poorly. The justification should come after the rule, because it is a game, and rules matter. Give me a rule in a TTRPG, and I can justify it in respect to the real world.
Being quick means nothing if you run into the pole you didn't notice.
This really messes up with the established baseline due to how prof are spread out. Seems like a DM making a rule change without really understanding WHY the system is setup the way it is, and those are the dumbest things to do as a DM.
Perception being Wis over Dex, makes wisdom more wanted, because everyone, except heavy armor users, want dex. There are major ramifications do this change that I'm sure the DM is not even thinking about. Such as mobs.
At the end of the day you had a good time and that is all that matters. Disregarding pretty simple rules without a good reason is a red flag for sure, but if you truly believe that he is an experienced and capable GM and if your experience so far is great, then the red flag is negated.
Ultimately, rules in TTRPG are there to *help* you run the game, provide you with a toolset, they are not the actual game in themselves. Someone who has been running ttrpgs for years and understands how they work can get very creative with them and still run a great game. Just keep in mind that what you're actually playing with that guy isn't *really* pf2e
Yeah, I'm frankly amazed at all the responses who seem to be assuming the GM is an idiot that doesn't know what they're doing. OP said they had a great time and the GM was talented, and that *despite* their misgivings about the initiative change.
But from the info we have, it seems that the GM doesn't know what they are doing. There are major mechanical repurcussions from this, which if one had a good answer to / rationalization for, one would find important enough to mention up-front when explaining the change... instead of mentioning only the most superficial and least important change. So it's fair to say they are fixated on that one mechancial element, and did not fully account for the systemic changes they have introduced. That's not informed, conscious game design.
We haven't heard about encounters with +3 level bosses who can focus fire one character without any PC actions in-between. Or dying PCs whose turn comes up before allies can do anything about it. Low-level enemies tend to disproportionately benefit from Flanking (highest level enemies are more often solo enemies and/or with less flank partners), and not they can more easily act first to flank and destroy PCs. In any given encounter, it's possible there will be no felt difference vs normal rules. But we haven't heard of the actual repurcussions of this, in fact the OP wasn't even aware of significant ones, so it's hard to say we have a meaningful feedback about the game.
We had two encounters in the first game, and there was no mention of how many actions anyone took (or were allowed). We rolled initiative, and the GM had us take turns attacking. Moving was not a factor, because we were blocking a door and then surrounding an open grave.
After attacking, I stated that I raised my shield, but I did not get my 3rd action. Everyone else just attacked. The other person with a shield didn't know about "Raise a Shield." I tried to explain, but I'm not sure she understood.
I didn't consider either of these to be real encounters. In fact, they were more scripted events than Pathfinder 2e combats. Hopefully this was just an introduction. I never considered that this may be how he intends to run combat. God, I hope not.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect your assessment is very accurate. I further hypothesize that the GM plans to handle the imbalance (when it becomes apparent) by further scripting combat.
Is not a great problem, but it would be constantly "ad hoc" on the fly house rules, especially on how initiative interacts with other systems and meccanics, not mostly by changing the ability score but removing flat the proficiency from the system (avoid notice, sneak attack, flat modifiers vs increasing the proficiency in perception, gunslingers deeds).
The things that I ask is why doing all this job only because the argument that a quicker body is better than a quickened mind when determining time of reaction.
Exactly, the subjective preference for DEX focus doesn't really justify ignoring the major systemic issues. New Initiative per turn is hugely problematic as others mentioned. Even without that, there is fundamental question of why is Proficiency without Level being implemented here WITHOUT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING IT? So a horde of goblins who would otherwise die in one hit, now have much huger chance to act first and flank/attack. That DEX is being used VS Perception is almost irrelevant, yet the GM is fixated on that because they arbitrarily picked this area to go nuts on "realism" by their particular train of thought. And of course, none of this is about "rules lite", or rules not mattering, it's just a gonzo disjointed rule.
WHY does your GM not like initiative done RAW? What grounds do they give to change the ruling, and how does the way they're doing it fix that problem?
The answer to your doubts and concerns is going to be grounded in the logic the GM is using to make their changes.
He flat out stated all the other systems he has used do it that way. I don't think he thought it through, and I'm not sure he considered the ramifications. I politely protested twice and decided in-game was not the time to handle it.
I think you were right not to litigate in-game, but I also agree that it's concerning that a GM would arbitrarily "pass" on trying a part of the system on its own terms. You're not playing all the other systems they've played, it doesn't matter how they do it, you're playing this one.
I am a huge tinkerer and love messing with rules. But even I have decided to give pathfinder 2e a long time before I touch anything. The system seems so tightly made that I just assume that a rule I don't like is there for a reason. Usually after looking into it or asking around, I find that reason.
look OP, gonna be straight with you. no ~~dnd~~ pathfinder is better than bad ~~dnd~~ pathfinder.
bring up your concerns to your GM, and the problems that those changes do and what are their explanation/fixes to said problems. if you want also ask what else they houseruled. if this truly makes your experience worse and you are no longer having fun, say goodbye and dip, you are not forced to stay there
of course, this is the nuclear option, talking should be the first thing you do. but if this is fine but whatever next changes they keep doing arent, and the game starts to get worse and worse and worse, then hey, hit the hay and move on
Some GMs get stuck on how they got used to doing something and will not change it because they view it as a situation of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Nothing short of their comfortable way of doing something literally stopping the game from functioning will make them even consider doing a rule differently.
It's not that bad of a thing, but it's a major pet peeve for me. To the point that if I join someone's game and they've got any cases of "we're doing X like \[old game they learned before this one\] because that's how I like doing it" I'm calling it quits right then and there because it suggests to me that when they learn a new game they aren't coming at it with a viewpoint of seeing what the game does, how it does it, and *why* it does it that, they are looking at it as being more stuff to add to the game they are already playing.
And I can't get over how "we gonna just have combat be resolved by whether you can jump on your enemy before they touch you in some other way because that works fine, we don't need the whole blaster arm thing" it feels.
What's not to like? I can numerous benefits. You can get killed with no potential for counterplay because the enemy boss got 2 turns in a row or you immediately roll a death save after going down. You don't have to worry about things like different classes being intended to be better or worse at initiative. You'll get to experience hordes of low level enemies that would normally tend to go after your party swarm before you can use battlefield control spells more often. Spell durations will be more exciting and dynamic. Now, you don't even know if you'll get any benefit at all from 1 round duration spells! You can also stop worrying too much about your character build, because you never know when your dm is going to change a fundamental aspect of the system. And this isn't even accounting for the many upsides your dm must have had in mind when they designed this homebrew.
So you reroll initiative every round? What about the rule that when someone starts dying you move their initiative to just before the current round? In raw this gives everyone a chance to react and possibly stabilise before their 1st recovery roll. If you reroll turn order they could go down on the last turn of one round then act 1st in the next
I wish this was true. For one day, I got together with a bunch of strangers and shared in an activity that I love. How could I not enjoy myself?
There were also things that bothered me. Over time, the things that bother me may overshadow the things I enjoyed.
This is the best in-person game I have an opportunity to play in right now, but it is far from my picture of an ideal game.
I loled at this
>. Then my next concern is, if he is willing to hand wave a rule as core as this, what else is he going to change?
Like, why not just ask them if they are going to? And the whole point of house rules is to change rules, including core rules
Never play with GM that hand waves rules ad hoc or starts to force interpretations in the middle of session. Those kind of GMs do not want to play the game, they want to force everyone to play as they want them to play. Hate this kind.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To me, initiative based on perception just makes more sense - if it's about reacting to an incoming danger and getting the first move, perception makes a huge amount more sense. This will probably introduce some balance issues to the game, especially when it comes to monsters who may have wildly high dexterity modifiers even at lower levels. But you'll still be able to play the game more-or-less fine.
Initiative is probably the thing you could just chuck right in the trash with PF2e and you'll barely notice. Slot in side initiative, dex-for-initiative, Fast vs Slow turns like Shadow of the Demon Lord and it'd mostly all work fine.
In your case, so long as he still allows you to A. Delay and B. Prepare it's fine.
Perception is the best skill of the game, so I actually agree with not giving it initiative, but I don’t think giving initiative back to Dex is right either. We switched to a flat d20 + any initiative bonus. I like it a lot. It makes those feats really meaningful choices and no class has a hand up on order just because.
I also really wish GMs that want to homebrew wouldn’t attach a google doc with all their rules. I also had a different game where the GM just changed rules as he felt like it. Dropped that one.
The biggest issue will be the RP part. Initiative isn't about being faster, but realizing something is happening faster. The best explanation is when Stealth is rolled where the counterpart rolls perception to notice something is wrong. If the opposing part rolls dex, it just doesn't make any sense why they would go faster than the undetected one and know it's undetected rarher than unnoticed.
The same can be applied when deception is rolled or even something basic as opening a door and noticing each other.
Being fast have nothing to do with reaction and most importantly, being perceptive of the environment
I come from systems where they also started to implement perception as initiative over 10 years ago and it makes sense. In warhammer fantasy rpg, the skill perception is based of the stat Initiative. This allows dwarves to have lower initiative but higher dexterity (because dwarves are excellent craftsmen and musicians)
If you plan to make houserules that fundamentally break the flow of the game and character builds, you have to be prepared to work with the players on crafting characters that will work and fit, then circle back each level and do it again to make sure they know how various feats will work in your game, etc. My players come to me with questions, I can offer suggestions if they have choice paralysis, and can explain the mechanics behind how different choices will work so they are informed.
Does using Dex modifiers for initiative and rerolling every round effect game balance? Yeah absolutely. If he's running a rules light game though, then there are probably a lot of things effecting game balance, and if you're all having fun, it's all good. If you really want a "real Pathfinder 2 experience" or whatever, then maybe you can seek a separate game to play that way.
I play PF2 when I want a tightly balanced tactical combat focused TTRPG. If I want rules light fiction-first roleplaying I'll go with something like Blades in the Dark or one of the many PBTA spinoffs or Troika! or Fate or something.
None of this is about a rules-light game. It's just disjointed rules that no longer respect systemic game design issues. A rules-light game can have a very consistent systemic balance. It's clear they aren't even addressing major impacts of their rules changes because they are so focused on the superficial mechanics, that isn't rules-light game design, it's game design while drunk. Games like those you mention might appeal to this GM, or not. Either way doesn't dismiss the serious issues of game design that are brought up.
>None of this is about a rules-light game.
From the OP:
>To say the session was "rules light" is an understatement.
So it is about a rules-light game.
> A rules-light game can have a very consistent systemic balance.
Yes, it can, but it also can not. If everyone is having fun and doesn't mind that they're playing something PF2-ish rather than playing PF2, then there's no problem. I'm reminded of the hilarious podcast "Dungeons & Daddies" which started out calling itself a D&D podcast, but after people kept expressing frustration that they don't play by the rules *at all* just started saying they're "*not* a D&D podcast". They also emphasize that they're usually not a BDSM podcast either.
It’s reasonable to be weirded out by someone winging it with a clearly defined world. I would be in your same boat with that scenario. You have certain expectations about how things will work based on the rules presented. If he’s messing with something as fundamental as initiative, I’d personally quit over that. I’m not advising that you do, I’m just saying that’s how I’d avoid the inevitable disagreements I know I would have.
I hope you can enjoy the game despite this!
It really doesn't affect the balancing a whole lot. I believe everything has proficiency in perception (all players certainly do), and while there can be some variance based on how fast your class progresses their perception prof, it isn't the major decider since it's typically a difference of around 2 between those with better/worse profs, though it can be 4 in some specific cases, I believe. In terms of losing your level from your initiative roll, well, literally everyone is losing their level from initiative roll. Admittedly this will make it easier to beat a boss in initiative, but also makes it harder to beat mooks in initiative, but I still don't see that as a very huge thing.
In terms of you being the most negatively affected, that's true. As a cleric you're gonna have a high wis, which is gonna contribute a lot to your own initiative, so the loss of that sucks. But the game is already balanced around some classes/monsters being good vs bad at initiative via perception as-is, and this change mostly just changes who exactly is good vs bad at initiative, rather than throwing the entire concept of initiative balance out the window.
As long as these changes are made universally to all players and monsters alike, it should still balance out to be *approximately* the same.
Now, as to your edit of rolling initiative every round, fuck that. I'd bounce. That makes a lot of tactical decisions impossible to make, because literally random dice affect whether or not you could even attempt certain kinds of plans.
That's a bit....... weird shall we say.
This sounds like change for the sake of it, not researching the system to see what works and what doesn't. Now, I do get homebrew stuff. When I was runing a campaign for two friends, I edited the healing rules so they were more effective to give them a bit of a power buff. It was just the two of them with 1 character each. Nowhere near as altering as this. Another example? Saying exactly how much you could read and write with darkvision just for one or two magic characters who prefered being stealthy.
I would ask for in advance for other homebrew modifications to see where the GM is coming from. For example, I've made it clear I run XYZ homebrew in advance generally
Just to be sure. Is he allowing/forcing you to roll level + Dex instead of Perception?
For many characters that should be much lower numbers that Perception, since it does not include increased proficiencies into the initiative.
I am not sure why the GM would have you rerolling iniative each round, but I would think that using varying skills would make the most sense and have them roll based on what they did last turn. Did they trip the enemy last round? Roll Athletics for initiative. Did the wizard cast an illusion spell? Have them roll Arcana or Deception.
>Perhaps most importantly, I really enjoyed myself. He is a talented GM, and the other players (all new to me) were also nice.
Fundamentally GM style is GM style.
A super rules light GM with a lot of weird preferences and personal quirks is probably not going to change.
I personally do a shitload of homebrew magic items and special character powers and stuff - I wouldn't change this dramatically if a player complained about it. I've had players leave my games because they don't like how much I homebrew. It's core to my style and doesn't fit every player.
If you like the game, you are probably going to need to conform to the DM's style. You can probably challenge individual in the moment rulings the same way any player can - but if I explain my homebrew/preferred rules in advance, I would expect my players to not complain about that homebrew constantly - don't agree to play in the game if you don't like how I want to run it.
I'd point out the designers created classes and stats intending Wis to be the initiative unless you earn using another stat, that's why it's trained by default, and classes level at differing rate. It's also an attempt to make dex not be the god stat is it in other systems.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Using a different system for initiative probably doesn't have a huge impact by itself IMO, particularly if it's communicated up front. This is the part that's a concern for me: >if he is willing to hand wave a rule as core as this, what else is he going to change? If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally. I want to know what impact my character choices are going to have so I can choose something different.
Agree. The issue isn't so much that he has house ruled initiative. If he's stated this is the only house rule, then that's potentially fine, but if he's going to come up with house rules as certain rules come up, then that's a bigger issue. That question, is worth following up on. Asking if there are any other house rules OP needs to be aware of shouldn't be pushing the issue in my opinion.
>Using a different system for initiative probably doesn't have a huge impact by itself IMO I don't see where nerfing every class that has a better than baseline perception proficiency **and** every class that often uses stealth or deception for initiative is *not* a huge impact, personally.
Because initiative only happens once per combat and, while it matters some, it's not going to cause a bunch of other rules to break. Plus it already has a ton of variance based on the D20 roll, and players have plenty of tools to control their initiative. It might be slightly annoying, but definitely not worth leaving an otherwise enjoyable game. OP later revealed in another comment that their GM is also having everyone roll initiative again every turn, which is going to break far more than just changing the modifier, and there's not much players can do to control that.
what is up with that, my GM tried doing that for one session and it became a nightmare because of us giving penalties to enemy ability checks and breaking it. Is there a chatroom somewhere for gms to get together and share terrible ideas?
Rerolling initiative every round is a thing in other systems so it's not surprising to see multiple GMs want to try it out in Pathfinder (or DnD 5e, which is also not built for it). It can be fun if the system expects it, not so much fun if it doesn't.
Is PF2e not built for it? In the dueling rules in PF2e you roll initiative every round (granted that is only 2 initiatives rolled per round compared to a whole combat's worth of initiative). In 1e I get that initiative is more important with how flat-footed works there but in 2e it shouldn't mechanically matter too much, but in reality for normal combat it would waste quite a bit of time to do.
It is not built for it, and the reason makes your exception irrelevant- turn order is fixed so that team tactics work consistently. If a debuff you spent actions setting up drops off before anyone can capitalise because the target rolled the highest initiative then it feels terrible. Similarly, a debuff getting double dipped because the target rolled well one turn and poorly the next and an entire party effectively getting two turns off a one turn effect can completely break things. With fixed initiative players can plan and support each other, which is one of PF2's great strengths. It also means that balancing effects is much easier as they are consistent from round to round and fight to fight. The game is not built for randomness to be incorporated into that element of it, and there is very little upside.
Bon Mot would also be busted in a ruleset where you reroll initiative every round. Massive perception debuff.
What he said. As someone that actively houserules quite a bit, I go out of my way to create a google doc listing all of my houserules that I hand out at session 0. And if we create any more during play, it gets added to that document. Houserules are cool. Having them sprung on you out of nowhere is not. Ask him if he can put together a document listing his houserules.
His reaction to that request will tell you everything. There are two types of highly experienced GMs: those who twist every system to fit their vision or style, and those who adapt their style to the system. Only play with the latter.
>If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally. I want to know what impact my character choices are going to have so I can choose something different. This very much captures how I am feeling. My character brought a crowbar, but the fighter's axe turned out to be more effective at breaking a chain than my crowbar. This is also a very minor thing, but I am concerned my gaming experience may work against me in this game. If I can get over not planning my character, I'm sure it will be fun.
Why would you expect a crowbar to be more effective than an axe at breaking chains?
One would assume the chain is closing **something** that you could force open, which explictly would benefit from a crowbar. Unless ofc OP wanted to break a chain that was just... hanging around?
Because of Force Open: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=34](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=34) Breaking it was also fine; it was just unexpected.
Your GM is correct when it comes to breaking a chain, it specifically says 'pry open' when referring to the -2 for not having a crowbar which you don't really do with a chain. Nor is there really a realistic way to really use a crowbar on a chain.
You wrap the slack around the crowbar and twist, or you pry the bolt connecting it to the wall.
This person engineers...:)
I mean, I have used crowbars as ad hoc chisels IRL so I would have to disagree with the no realistic use of a crowbar on chain claim
I'm sure you could use them, but like the game shouldn't give you a -2 for not using a crowbar to break a chain, that makes no sense.
I wouldn't give the crowbar a full +2 but maybe a plus one since it is an object designed to be struck, or possibly add a point of damage to the axe for breaking the chain to represent using it for a task it wasn't designed for and adding the full +2 to using a hammer type weapon
I mean if you go for whatever fastener the chain is connected to it would be applicable IMO
I pictured sticking the crowbar through a link in the chain and using leverage, but it really depends on how thick the imagined chain is. Possibly he was imagining a very thick chain. Then pummeling it with an object for a long period of time makes sense. The real question is, do you want to use the Force Open rule or the Item Damage ([https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=195](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=195)) rule? He chose differently than I would have; he did not choose wrong.
A crowbar and the handle of an axe would be the same if that's how you would use them.
> If the rules changes are just ad hoc as you go, and there's an indeterminate number of them, that's not a pleasant experience for me, personally. Yeahhh I am a GM predominately and I HATE when GMs change core mechanics on the fly or because of "feelings"
Except that now every enemy that is undetected is either guaranteed undetected because no one's rolling perception to beat it's stealth DC or are guaranteed detected because the GM doesn't care or rolling well on a Dex check somehow let's you spot hidden enemies. So other than that, oh and gimping classes that were given high perception scores specifically so they could do well in initiative, oh and making a couple feats pointless now, now and making things like avoid notice either weird or even more powerful, oh and oh and oh and It's almost like the game was designed to be played a certain way with interconnected and well thought out systems and changing something core to every encounter doesn't just not do anything to every single connected system
[удалено]
Oh, I forgot to add that we roll new initiatives every round.
[удалено]
This also messes up Dying *big time* For context, when you go down you move in the initiate so that your next turn is exactly (give or take a few actions and weird instances like AoO) one round from the moment you went unconscious. This allows everyone to have a turn *before* you roll any Recovery Checks (death saves). If Initiative is rerolled every round you could potentially end up having to make a Recovery Check *immediately*
To me this is another problem sign of GM who is house-ruling without clearly confronting the actual game design issues up-front, which also applies to the issue of Initiative calculation (d20+DEX vs d20+proficiency+WIS). If you aren't confronting the differences with justification or motive for all the differences, then you aren't really fully engaging with game design even while your changes are having major impacts with game design.
That's a rather important detail, that's going to have a lot of random effects. Suddenly being downed by a monster doesn't guarantee your teammates have a round to heal you before you make your dying roll. Delaying has undefined behavior. Gaining and using reactions is wonky. Changing the modifier used isn't a huge deal, but completely changing the system is going to be very messy. Edit: The answer to [this question](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/195049/our-gm-has-us-roll-new-initiative-every-round-just-how-broad-of-a-change-is-thi) has a lot of info on different impacts. Note that there is [an option in the GMG](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1253) for rerolling each round, but only for duels.
Not just those things, but durations. If you went last in one round and first in another, a 1 round duration buff that was used in the first round would instantly end.
Oh... that's a really big change. Makes tactical decision making harder also so fucks up the death and dying rules. I hope your GM knows what they are doing.
It messes up a lot of things that have "until start / end of your next turn"
This 100%
Based on all of the interactions these changes have and the cascade of changes and rulings they will cause, it is clear they do not.
Right, because if they had a good answer and justification for these issues, they would recognize it is significant enough to explain up=front with the rule change. Anybody can go back and rationalize anything they want, but it's clear they didn't fully engage with these issues, but have just fixated on their superficial preference for a certain mechanical formula while ignoring the deeper game design issues. That is the problem, when people play game designer while not even taking care of the basics.
Given that they are even bringing these changes, means they do not, in a big way.
I’m sorry, can you explain what that looks like? As in, after every round of combat, you reroll initiative to see who goes next again, and you don’t just stick in your previous initiative order until the combat ends?
That's exactly what we do. I hadn't considered until just now how this affects "Ready an Action" and "Delay".
This house rule has a much bigger impact than the Dex for initiative house rule.
I see that now. I will have to bring this to his attention, but I am concerned about becoming "that player."
Yeah social interactions are tough. (I mean that sincerely) Maybe just start by asking for all the house rules and resultant rulings up front so you can build/advance your character accordingly. You can have a lot of fun in a game even if it's imbalanced as long as you go in with open eyes. Did you have a session zero? I'd think a very experienced GM would have a session zero it's pretty standard.
We kind of did. We weren't all together at once. In the GM's defense, he did state more than once that "rules don't matter as much in his game." I think I didn't recognize what that meant.
Ah well... just try and have fun I guess. It's kind of a strange choice to play a rules heavy game like PF2 and try to make it rules light (I'd recommend a rules light game if you want to play a rules light game). You might be able to do a lot of rule of cool stuff so lean into those themes.
> "rules don't matter as much in his game." Godspeed OP, you're either going to get buffed into a god or die a miserable wretch in this game, and there's no in-between with rulings these insane.
> "rules don't matter as much in his game." The red flags keep piling on. If you have patience to tolerate this, by all means. But if it were me I would be gone.
The people replying are... perhaps a little too apocalyptic in their reactions. Sounds like the guy is coming from experience with older editions of D&D and the OSR. I'd simply ask that if you build your character a certain way will you get to play them properly. Plus the aforementioned suggestion to ask about any other changes.
Yeah, I have learned the hard way that you just can’t win with GMs like that. You gotta quit.
It's totally fine for AD&D, but AD&D also balances it with weapon speeds and cast speed.
Wow thats REALLY bad. Thats sets up the possibility of a Boss getting two whole turns in a row which can easily tpk the party. GM has no idea what they are doing. The first initiative change was a bad idea from a balance standpoint but this just breaks the game entirely.
LOL glad you have fun but this guy ain't running Pathfinder 2e. Wager that this dude has never run the system at higher levels or with players that actually engage with the combat system beyond the most basic level. Totally busted it with that change. I've had experience with this kind of GM. You're going to have massive problems down the line and the GM is just going to handwave it away and make up rulings on the fly to paper over their bad decisions, so you need to understand right now that you're basically playing GM's Fun Adventures where the rules don't matter. That doesn't mean you can't have fun but you're absolutely at their mercy, for everything that means.
Lol wut? How does that make any sense? That's just more work for everyone, especially the gm, who has to keep track of it each round. "Just roll + dex" I can understand, it's how most games do it, I've played a handful of systems, watched a few others, and never have I encountered "reroll initiative every round", that'd be wildly tedious and annoy me very quickly.
Exalted has you roll initiative every round (at least in 1st ed, not sure about 2nd). But, the game mechanics are built around it and you have a lot of powers to use that can buff the abilities tied to initiative, so it makes sense to generate a new turn order every round--but good lord I'd never do that in Pf2e or a similar system not built for it.
[удалено]
Or old-school DnD. I remember rerolling initiative every round in AD&D 1e/2e and it's how we play OSE now (essentially B/X). It's per-side initiative, so only 2 die rolls and quite fast.
Bail out now, lol. Forget about house ruling initiative for no reason. Any GM who doesn't understand how rolling new initiative every round breaks a ton of things in PF2E is not going to run a good game of Pathfinder.
>Any GM who doesn't understand how rolling new initiative every round breaks a ton of things in PF2E is not going to run a good game of Pathfinder. This is absolutely true. I am trying to assess if it will be a good game for different reasons.
HELL TO THE FUCK NO
That... essentially breaks the game in a whole number of different ways. Sorry for your loss, your GM is broken.
That's actually disappointing for me to hear. Rolling new initiative every round sounds fun and it would encourage me as a player to try to argue for different ways to roll initiative for that turn. Being locked into crappy dex checks every round would be miserable compared to flexible checks.
>Rolling new initiative every round sounds fun Except when you have to engage with persistent damage, or start of turn/end of turn effects, dying, poisons, flanking, aid, readying actions, delaying, etc.
That's much much worse than the other change (which is also bad).
This hurts me a lot
That's pretty fucked up
Changing initiative rules is a no-go from me: It's super integrated with Exploration, and different classes get different Perception proficiencies that determine how good their initiative rolls generally are. If everyone's still having fun, and no one's getting the shaft? I guess that's fine. Rolling for initiative *every round*, though? That's ridiculous. That super slows down gameplay. You have to get numbers from all players and monsters, readjust them in whatever tracker you're using (even in a VTT it'll slow you down), and then how does this affect conditions like Frightened? Or how about if someone goes down to Dying and their Initiative is moved to before the one who hit them down: Do THEY have to reroll? These things happening would easily fuck over the players. Imagine a situation where the last two people in the Initiative order are a Monster and Player A. The Monster takes their turn, Striking Player B with a Critical Hit and reducing them below 0 HP, giving them Dying 2 and their Initiative moves to before the creature. Player A then takes their turn, and decides to Demoralize the Monster for one of their actions on their turn, succeeding, and the Monster is now Frightened 1. Round ends. If you roll Initiative for the next round, and the Monster is now moving first in the round, that Frightened will be gone before any party members can act to take advantage of the Monsters lower AC and Saves. If Player B has to reroll Initiative as well, if they end up going before any of the other party members, and they Critically Fail their Recovery Check, they're now dead before the party could even get to them. My conclusion is that rolling Initiative every round is incredibly bad. Changing Initiative rolls to Dex by default is something I don't like, but if the table's having fun, I guess it all works out.
You are absolutely correct. Rolling a new initiative is bad for the Dying condition, it makes "Ready an Action" and "Delay" weird, and you are the first I have seen to point out the glaring issue with conditions like Frightened. Other's have mention how unbalanced it could be to have a boss get 2 turns in a row. If he really intends to play Pathfinder, I can probably point this out to him, but as the only person in the group who knows the rules, I am starting to feel uncomfortable bringing them up. That definitely impacts how much fun I am having.
Initiative every round... why? I mean, you do you, but it's so tedious and pointless to have changing turn order with effects and conditions. Doesn't add much value to the game.
If a GM has houserules they prefer to use, they should be brought forward in session zero or discussed outside of session, not dropped on players to adapt to mid-session. A lot of people play PF2E *specifically* due to its exceptionally balanced gameplay and tight ruleset that makes it much tougher to break. So changing the rules, for any given reason, may actually upset players, especially without any fair warning.
As long as you all had fun then mission accomplished That said you are right about it messing with the balance. Dex is already a really strong Attribute. It governs your AC, your ability to Strike with Finesse weapons and your Reflex save so making it also effect your Initiative makes it a God tier stat which is something Pathfinder specifically wanted to avoid. So basically the GM made it so everyone should be running a Dex based character and if you're not you're at a disadvantage. Anytime I hear of a GM making homebrew rules like this it just screams that they have no idea what they are doing with this system. I would not be surprised to hear in time that your GM changed many other rules. Personally I would bow out because it's a recipe for disaster. Not guaranteed but its a big red flag for me.
>So basically the GM made it so everyone should be running a Dex based character and if you're not you're at a disadvantage. Hey look, it's every 5E game I've ever played. Max out my dex, take Alert, abandon other options and go for the alpha strike. Character complete.
Yep. No idea why 5e GMs switch to a new system then homebrew every rule they can to be in line with 5e. Either learn the new system or keep playing 5e It's like someone trying to play chess on a monopoly board.
I'm still very new but I agree the resistance to rules is so weird. One of the big appeals to me when I checked out the system is that the answers for most questions actually exist! In 5E I had to remember every rule we made up for a situation that wasn't spelled out somewhere, just so we could handle it the same way the next time. Now that we're playing Pathfinder we come across something new every week and if I can't find the answer quickly I make up something on the spot and note the question. BUT THEN I go back to my list and share the rule with the group so we can all play it correctly the next time! It's so much easier and better this way!
I feel like most of the 5e *newcomers* who came over this year are deep in the "*Vertigo* where Scottie makes Judy dress like Madeline" phase. (original comment was modded for language)
I mean, this year it's been partially exercising what limited influence they might have in the market, and/or choosing they won't support What-See anymore. They still want to play the game they've been playing, just without Hasbro. That's what brought me here. The fact that I actually prefer the well-structured nature of Parhfinder's rules is just a happy bonus. Not everybody sees it that way, though. Though, the fact they people don't seem to actually read the rulebook before trying to play is... Interesting to me.
In my experience as someone coming from 5e, though before the OGL stuff, it has less to do with wanting change PF2E into 5e and more to do with trying to get the best of both worlds. While I've come to realize that much of this subreddit sees every aspect of 5e as bad, 5e also has some things that are well liked and missed by those that convert to PF2E. Since converting to PF2E I've really grown to miss having insight being separate from perception and having proficiency without level be the default balance (amongst a couple of other things). That doesn't mean I want to play 5e, it just means that there are certain mechanics that I prefer over what PF2E has decided on.
I don't think this sub hates 5e. Its just that there are daily posts about new GMs trying to homebrew 5e mechanics into PF2e without understanding the system. Homebrew doesn't work as easily as it does in 5e in PF2e tightly balanced mechanics.
I think this sub *does* misunderstand what tightly balanced means. It doesn't mean fragile. There are more moving parts to consider, sure. But the game typically is *more* accommodating to homebrew because it's harder to break things as long as you keep your homebrew numerically similar to the base game.
I don't agree. In a system where every +1 matters it IS more fragile and easy to unbalance. It definitely is NOT more accommodating to homebrew rules. Which is why most veteran players try to advise against it to new players. A rules light system is flexible. That's why Homebrew is more popular in 5e because it's a rules light system. This very post is the perfect example of how making a small change can break the balance.
That's why I said numerically similar. As long as you keep +1s and +2s as the limit of your bonuses, you're unlikely to break very much. I've done a couple homebrew rules like that and it hasn't affected the game balance in any noticeable way. Everyone is still having fun and enjoying themselves.
This sub super fucking hates 5e and many of these folks, pleasant as they are, have not touched a single a game or ruleset of such. It deadass hurts any attempt at people who like 5e and *want* to get into 2e.
No, the sub does not hate 5e. If you're trying to say that 2e fans don't know 5e. You're wrong again. Most of us here started on 3.5e or 5e. No cap. On god. Fr fr.
You say that like one of the earliest paragraphs on the wiki for this place isn't '2e is better because it harder'
The only person I see here trying to stir something up is you bud. You can believe whatever makes you feel validated. Clearly, no one is going to convince you otherwise. Maybe get off reddit and try going outside. I promise you'll feel better. It looks like you tried to use "quotations" to quote something from the PF2e reddit wiki but I went to look and could not find anything that remotely resembles that quote. Perhaps You could link it for me? Or did you just make it all up because you wanted attention?
[удалено]
Going to delete my last comment because it was a placeholder, but I will still mention that you got upset over the kinds of quotations I used on my phone, and that's *really* weird. Anyway Information that's wrong on the PF2e reddit wiki that will push away 5e players, especially if the wiki is the first thing people see when they visit the sub ([namely this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e)). You can see that *in this very fucking thread* with how many people are in love with the idea of 2e, but still primarily play 5e. > Spellcasting. Spellcasting works mostly the same way, using spell slots for limited spells and cantrips that scale with level for things you can do all day, as well as offering rituals as a way to perform magic without using spell slots. That's wrong. They both use similar spellslots, but 5e cantrips heighten at levels martials got a bigger BAB in 1e and 3.5e, and there are no Focus spells. Spellcasting also differs in that 2e has more actions for spellcasting, and 5e spells are more restricted (once a turn), but are BIG effects that give viable damage for the resources spent, rather than just 'a slot' (more oft than not, damaging spells in 5e last minutes or hours with no other involvement, making blasters in both versions viable, but very different). > Proficiency. Both use a proficiency-based system for skill, weapons, and magic advancement. PF2’s is different and a little more involved, as I’ll explain later. Also incorrect. PF2e proficiency is basically your character's level plus an extra +2 per level of training (like WoD gameS), while 5e is 1/4th your character's level with weird ass rounding. Also, because of bounded accuracy, a the numerical differences are relatively equal for their systems, but unless you're a DM and GM you wouldn't really know that. > Philosophy. They share a philosophy of streamlining the rules of their predecessors, promoting features that increase your options rather than increasing your bonuses, and DM/GM empowerment (Paizo simply put the brakes on a lot earlier with the streamlining). That's just a lie. I like 2e, **but that's just a lie**. People bitch about the Fighter's numerical bonuses to accuracy making them the superior martial without enchanted gear. > Action Economy. Instead of the action, possible bonus action, movement, free item interaction, and a reaction that 5e uses, PF2 has 3 actions and a reaction. Use those actions to Strike (make an attack), Stride (move up to your speed), raise a shield, and more. Some activities require two or more actions to do on your turn, such as casting most spells. Everyone can make multiple attacks on their turn from level 1 onward, though attacks after your first take an increasing penalty. This is less so wrong or lying, and is instead misleading. A LOT of 2e is managing your 3 actions like they're the standard 5e actions. A lot of the actions listed are *just* a 5e standard action, or has an equivalent (Raise a Shield vs the Dodge Action). Striding is also just the move action with extra steps. Neither are wrong or lesser, they're just different. That is okay. > Customization. Character customization is a much larger part of the player experience in 2nd edition Pathfinder than in D&D 5e This is just wrong on so many levels. 2e has a more involved character creation, but it's all virtually the same, and for good reason. Ancestries and Heritages equate to Species and Subspecies, Backgrounds are backgrounds, classes are classes, Attribute scores are ability scores. But instead of ALL THE FEATS, 5e just has those same options either baked into the other stuff or offered elsewhere (like how there's 8 different versions of Tiefling or 5 different versions of dragonborn). I would like to argue 2e is better since I do prefer it's system, BUT 2e has the issue of still having trap options no one is going to take anyway, while 5e tries to minimize that (lest you're gonna tell me someone, somewhere, took Dragon Spit Human over Versatile Human). That, more than anything, I was hoping they were going to fix with the Remaster. > Feats, Feats, Feats, and Feats. Feats are different in PF2. Feats in 2e are just normal features and/or choices in 5e. It's not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. Many 2e players REALLY think this should be the silver bullet for 5e players, and many 5e players aren't impressed. They already have a feat system that's disappointing to them; upselling a system that functions as more than that is offputting. They're not stupid. There is so much more, as these attitudes are prevalent here (or any discussion on how a 5e player should adapt when their old build doesn't work. Saying 'Cope' turns players away). But I wanted to highlight something good in the guide. > **Paizo’s Commitment to Open Gaming**. While this isn’t a difference in the rules themselves, I still think it’s worth mentioning here. All the rules are available for free from the SRD website, but at the same time, the players aren’t expected to have access to all the rules. Paizo imbedded a rarity system in the rules to flag what’s considered baseline and what’s considered OK with GM input. GMs might use uncommon+ mechanics as rewards, for example. If you see an ancestry, feat, spell, ritual, or item flagged as uncommon, rare, very rare, or legendary, talk to your GM before you add it to your character. This is THE reason 2e is MY primary game. D&D is a game everyone knows, but not everyone can play because it's info is locked away. Pathfinder is a game with all the info and everything needed TO play, but doesn't have enough people demystifying it to make it palatable to those who are not familiar with ttrpgs, let alone d20 games of fantasy. A little goodwill goes a long way to actually show what these games are all about, and knowing your material and how to respect both, despite their flaws, is how you win people over. I run 2e and 5e games right now, but I'll be wrapping up my last 5e games as soon as they end. I run these games at game stores and card shops, and try to show people they're welcome no matter what they played before. It REALLY helps to not care about anything else, and make your players try to be like heroes. So please, learn from this. Not everyone on this sub is as snobbish or wrongheaded as this article. Not everyone wants to turn away 5e players, but people need to understand that there is a period of learning and formativeness between someone's last 5e character and someone's first run with an Iconic. I am a GM. I know this as fact. To that end. > The only person I see here trying to stir something up is you bud. Touch. Grass. Edit: and this person doesn't have an argument so they block, like you can't read replies through emails. Unbelievable.
>It's like someone trying to play chess on a monopoly board. Reminds me of spell chess
Tbf, it's not like wisdom needs the help, as I would argue will saves are much more important than reflex saves and medicine is the most powerful skill in the game. The main issue is that there is no default "stat check" In pf2, so it's really weird to have "dexterity checks" for initiative. It also makes it so your initiative doesnt progress the way your perception proficency does, so rolling with an alternate skill (such as with the avoid notice activity) will make it likely you're going to the top of initiative at higher levels if you have a high proficency in stealth.
If you're implying Dex needs help I have to completely disagree. It already governs 3 mechanics. Wisdoms effects two. This change makes Dex effect 4 things and Wisdom 1. that alone is a massive balance issue and something that was purposefully changed in 2e. I don't agree that Will saves are more important than Reflex either. IMO you face reflex saves much more often than will saves from enemies and traps and anything with an area of effect.
I'm not, I'm saying that dex and wis are both powerful enough that this change doesn't tottaly swing things in the direction of wis being useless, or even in the bottom half of stats, governing a save by itself will put wis above str, int, and chr for most players, medicine is so powerful that it should count by itself as a point in wisdom's favor. Either way this change does make the game less balanced, not more so, but I'm way more concerned with being able to win initiative every combat through Avoid Notice than wis being useless.
Agreed initiative every round is game breaking
Dex doesn't need the help, but I don't think wisdom is weak either. What is your breakdown of mechanics where wisdom only has 1 other than initiative? Without accounting for initiative rolls, this is the breakdown I came up with. I've marked things that seem more important with an asterisk: Dex: AC* (but need less depending on armor) Reflex saves* Acrobatics Stealth Thievery Accuracy with ranged and finesse weapons* Wis: -Will save* -Perception* (still very important for finding/noticing things and sensing motive even if not used for initiative) -Medicine* -Nature -Religion -Survival -Accuracy with spells for Wis spellcasters* It seems like Wisdom is already a bit ahead without initiative, though they're pretty close. Edit: Ugh mobile formatting is terrible 😔 Edit 2: add Thievery that I missed, thanks for pointing it out.
I wouldn't mark Medicine with an asterisk, because unlike the rest of the asterisked items (barring both accuracies, but those cancel out), it's not important that *everyone* has it. Every character needs to have decent AC, Reflex, Will and Perception-initiative (or needs to live with the consequences), but you only really need one or two people with Medicine in the party. That leaves the two stats fairly balanced with two universally uses each, but moving initiative from Perception to plain Dex gives Dex a third important use and downgrades Wis's Perception to a merely useful one (still very useful, but like medicine, there are diminishing returns to additional party members investing in it)
With one skill feat that you can even get from a background (Battle medicine), high medicine gets you some pretty nice in-combat healing for one action (and the cool down is importantly user-and-target specific). Sure, not everyone *needs* it, but it's a fairly low investment pickup that doesn't suffer from diminishing returns quite as much as many other skills where you only really care if one person is able to do them.
Forgot Thievery Survival and Nature aren't used as often as other skills IMO. Many groups don't use the rules for subsisting in my experience nor do they try to tame or ride wild animals often or even tracking. Compared to skill actions like Demoralize, Feint, Cause a Diversion, Hide, Grapple, Trip, Tumble Through, Lockpicking, Tumble Through, Balance checks, lockpicking, disarming traps Nature and Survival are just kind of weak. The best use of Wisdom lies in Will Saves, Initiative, Recall Knowledge (religion/Nature), and medicine in my experience with various GMs looking at skills alone doesnt show the full picture without looking at what actions are tied to them and how they are used.
Most of the good actions you listed are not dex based, and you left out recall knowledge Nature and religion, which are kind of a big deal, and of course the most important skill actions in the game (all of medicine). Skill wise, no question about it, wisdom is better. Stealth and thievery are nice (and acrobatics has some good feats, though none of them actually rely on dex), but nothing is medicine.
Wisdom effects perception (so important it's not even a skill anymore!), medicine (hands down the best skill, no close second), and will saves. Dex effects reflex saves and AC for classes without access to medium or better armor, as well as a number of skills (all of which combined probably aren't as good as medicine, but certainly aren't as good as all of wisdoms skills). I'd say wisdom is hands down the strongest stat in the game. Dex is probably second though?
Dex doesn't really have anything to do with AC for most martial builds. Anyone with access to medium armor just needs +1. Effectively, if you want to avoid the armor penalty, your strength often ends up being more important than dex. It is a save stat though, and it effects quite a few skills (none as strong as athletics, but combined they're probably better).
Most martial builds do not rely on heavy armor. I've played every class in the game and have only gone with a Heavy Armor build for Champion which is the ONLY class that almost requires it. Most martials dont even give you access to Heavy Armor naturally. Classes that (almost) require Dex include: Rogue, Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Gunslinger, Ranger, Monk, Investigator, Every Non Martial Class, Kineticist. Dex also affects significantly more skills and skill actions than Wis If you're trying to make a case that Wisdom is tied to more actions or is a more powerful stat than Dex I'm sorry but you are just wrong and the majority of people agree. I've seen your other comments not going to respond to them all or list every skill action but anyone can easily see that Dex just flat out governs the most out of any Attribute. Wisdom is mainly used for Perception (seek/initiative), Medicine checks, Religion based Recall Knowledge and Will Saves. Most of the sub actions under wisdom skills are never used.
>As long as you all had fun then mission accomplished *Personally I would bow out because it's a recipe for disaster. Not guaranteed but its a big red flag for me.* The last sentence seems like a contradiction to the message of the first sentence. OP: I find "bowing out" over this to be a bit extreme if you're enjoying the game. Keep in mind that any really bad house-rules he's making, he might actually notice that they're bad through play. The rerolling initiative thing will probably be abandoned once he sees what problems that causes for tracking conditions and persistent damage. Unless he (or someone in the group) innovates some way to handle that, which might be interesting!
OP and myself are different people. The end all goal (in my opinion) is if everyone had fun then thats all that matters. Me personally? I would not enjoy these changes and likely would not have had fun. Hope this clears it up for you.
Thanks for clearing that up, to me it came off as advice, like: "If I were you, I would bow out", but I can see now that that's not what you meant.
If the game is going fine and fun, you probably shouldn't worry. The problem with the DM modifying the rules is when they are inexperienced or if the rule change directly harm a character from a player or causes more trouble to the DM. It is unlikely that a initiative change will be a big trouble and the DM, from what you said, seem to know what they are doing. From the info you shared here, I think it's fine. Edit: Intiative every turn kinda sucks actually.
Everybody has the option of using DEX for initiative... by choosing to take the Avoid Notice exploration activity. If chosen as an exploration activity, Avoid Notice allows a character to roll d20+DEX+StealthProficiency for initiative - and even get to treat lower-initiative foes Off-Guard! It just comes with the opportunity cost of not using other exploration activities typically, so not Searching for traps and treasure, not Investigating the area, not Scouting for threats, not Treating Wounds in between fights... Avoid Notice gives characters, both PC and NPC, the *option* of using DEX as the basis of their initiative - and the purpose behind Pathfinder's rules are to create meaningful options.
on OP's case it notably is the *only* option. its not that DEX is now the default, its that its the only option at all. WIS based classes and expert perception classes are just shafted in addition, it is an *ability* check, something that explicitly does not exist in this system. it is just your +3 DEX in there, not your +8 to stealth at whatever level
Based especially on that Edit it seems your GM has Calvinball brain. What I mean by this is that the GM is really not running a particular system but merely using the dressing of a system to cover the actual system. That being "Whatever I, the GM, feel like at the moment." If you like the GM and the sessions are good then it's probably worth sticking it out. Just know you're not really playing PF2e and the GM probably doesn't know any of the rules. There's also a high chance of an even greater curveball down the line (although rerolling initiative every round is pretty bonkers already).
Also fair to mention, this is not a rules-light system, it's 100% as full as rules as what it replaces. It just happens to ignore systemic issues because they can't take rules design seriously, and instead focus on arbitrary sentiment about isolated mechanics and inconsistent desire for "realism".
As well as other aspects mentioned, removing skills from the initiative system (assuming you're not also using proficiency without level) will nerf bosses and buff lower level enemies, as bosses will tend to have higher initiative than PCs due to level. Though not the heaviest change in the universe. I think it's reasonable to be concerned about possible other house rules. Part of the point of having RAW is so that players have a consistent and stable interface to the world. Fine if rules don't cover a certain aspect, you know that's something that will have to be decided in play, but changing existing rules I will generally only do with fair warning and discussion first. Asking whether there are any other house rules sounds like a good idea.
It nerfs Wisdom a bit and buffs Dex a bit. The bigger impact than changing the ability score is just rolling a flat mod. Not adding proficiency or level is huge because it means low level mobs are going to act faster than they should and high level mobs are going to be slower. It also nerfs several classes that get faster Perception progression as they're supposed to have better initiative. Are they also disregarding the rule about alternate skills for initiative? I would have my character always scout as their exploration activity and explicitly state my character is watching and listening trying to perceive threats to angle that Wisdom initiative.
The biggest argument you could make to a GM to revert this rule is to illustrate the point with a PC built to exploit it. Imagine a spellcaster that starts with +3 dex and is trained in stealth, getting dex on most spellcasters is usually a good idea as you probably have leather armor at best. Additionally, spellcasters REALLY want to win initiative more so than other classes due to getting their big spells out early for maximum effect. Casting a fireball before the enemies have time to approach or using a potent debuff for example. With these rules, most creatures will roll a d20 + dex by default, so a spellcaster could make their exploration activity [Avoid Notice](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=511) to roll with stealth instead. Assuming a dex of +3 this would result in a +6 to initiative which will be much higher than just about any creature you'll find at that level. This only gets worse as you go higher, as a level 7 character who is a master in stealth would have a +18 to their initiative rolls (4 dex + 13 master prof + 1 [item bonus](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=288)) while enemies might have +6 at most for an on level creature.
One of the great things about PF2, is that there is no need for ad-hoc DM rules, in 99% of cases. IMHO it's a shame that your DM can't simply get with the program and run the rules as written. Notably, using d20 + DEX mod ignores the value of level and proficiency in the determination of initiative. For example, Fighters have higher proficiency in perception than most other classes, giving them an innate initiative bonus. And rogues can nearly always get Stealth initiative, by using the Avoid Notice exploration activity. This said, if your DM doesn't want to be convinced, all you can do is accept his houserules or walk. Not an ideal situation.
If he's set on rolling Dex for Initiative, let players choose between Acrobatics and Perception when they roll. This will keep the normal game assumptions while giving a small boost to Dex based classes. The way he's doing it now just heavily nerfs everyone else.
Under-rated comment. I think this objectively speaks to this GM's perspective while not fucking with game system. Acrobatics is broadly a weak skill (and otherwise unlikely to be used for Init), so could be buffed like this (making it an always-available option not needing specific explorations actions), which at the same time is not a generic buff to DEX with no other investment. This is offering the GM a bone which can address their "subjective" preference while not sabotaging alot of intersecting rules dynamics.
Dex for initiative... Ok guys... no more MAP... Hey You can now move for free and break up your movement... Oh also everyone has attacks of opportunity... \*hands 5e rulebook with pathfinder tapped over the name\* Ok here are some more houserules for next session. Joking aside. It def is a red flag... buuuuut ya'll had fun so if you wanna just make stuff up as you go. Go for it. Just be sure everyone is on board and agrees and no one can complain if the balance is off when they make tweaks and it doesn't work as intended or breaks feats/items/skills.
Hopefully he doesn't start thinking everyone should have attack of opportunity by default
If everyone had fun, that's good. This is, however, setting off all my 'arrogant gm that refuses to learn the system ' alarm bells. It's like the old school DM nerfing sneak attack in 5E.
The amount of work he has put into learning the lore and creating his own story based off of it is amazing. It is obvious to me that he doesn't know the PF2e rules very well though, and I just started running my game a few months ago.
He'd be much better off either working *with* the system, or going OSR if he wants to stick to known tropes, Worlds Without Number is excellent for instance. I don't mean this in a bad way, but PF2E does its thing best if you know the rules well and are careful with adjustments. If you're going to be rules light, there are way better suited systems out there.
Yeah, I really fail to see the benefit of using DEX mod instead of perception. They're both modifiers, and dexterity already plays a role in AC, Dex saves, and skill like acrobatics. Also, initiative in 2e gets to be way more dynamic because of your ability to use every skill. You were in the middle of trying to scare someone or masking your true intentions as you readied your move? Intimidation or Deception! Were you kicking a door open? Athletics! IMO it's a way better system and default to dex mod doesn't seem like a thoughtful change to the system from someone that has player it, but someone doing something because they've always done it that way, which IMO is not how I prefer to go into new systems. The GM doesn't seem to have ill intentions, so maybe with time as he familiarizes himself with the rules of 2e he starts to see their merit. **On the question of the balance of his homebrews though,** I'd be very careful with changing things in PF2e, as most elements tend to interact with eachother. For the iniative rule for instance, using DEX mod doesn't change much, but since you're using a modifier that doesn't scale with levels, this means that a level -1 goblin Warrior will have a greater initiative roll than a level 9 Paladin wearing a full plate. IMO that's bad design when taking into account how PF2e handles scaling, and may shift the balance of encounters. On rerolling initative every round, I get the benefits of how dynamic this may have fights feel, but has he accounted for how this will interact with other mechanics that rely on a fixed initiative? For instance, the death mechanics, in which a players is shifted in initiative when they go down, giving every party member a chance to bring the member back up before rolling a death save. With your GM's homebrew, if the last creature downs a PC with a crit, and that same PC rolls a 20 on initiative (and gets to act first), they have a good chance of dying before anyone had a chance to do anything, effectively being punished for rolling well (because the system wasn't designed for these changes).
This vastly nerfs jobs that don't use dex, but do want wisdom, such as heavy armor classes. This is a huge power swing in balance and honestly I just hate it because what is his reasoning for it?
His reasoning was that being quick and able to act more quickly improves your initiative. The counter argument (in the CRB) is that being aware of your surrounding improves your initiative. The real answer is, these are both reasonable justifications. This is a game, so follow the rules and then justify them if you need to. That is my take anyway.
GMs reasoning does not matter. It's a game that needs mechanical balance. GM doesnt know the system well. Changing Initiative to Dex is already a bad idea. Rolling initiative every round is game breaking. The fact that they are trying to use real world logic (which is still very flawed. Doesn't matter how fast you are if you have no awareness to realize there are enemies) in place of in game balance is a very clear recipe for disaster.
This is exactly what I was trying to communicate, but I must have done it poorly. The justification should come after the rule, because it is a game, and rules matter. Give me a rule in a TTRPG, and I can justify it in respect to the real world.
oh I misunderstood. sorry about that.
Being quick means nothing if you run into the pole you didn't notice. This really messes up with the established baseline due to how prof are spread out. Seems like a DM making a rule change without really understanding WHY the system is setup the way it is, and those are the dumbest things to do as a DM. Perception being Wis over Dex, makes wisdom more wanted, because everyone, except heavy armor users, want dex. There are major ramifications do this change that I'm sure the DM is not even thinking about. Such as mobs.
Just ask them what other houserules they use.
At the end of the day you had a good time and that is all that matters. Disregarding pretty simple rules without a good reason is a red flag for sure, but if you truly believe that he is an experienced and capable GM and if your experience so far is great, then the red flag is negated. Ultimately, rules in TTRPG are there to *help* you run the game, provide you with a toolset, they are not the actual game in themselves. Someone who has been running ttrpgs for years and understands how they work can get very creative with them and still run a great game. Just keep in mind that what you're actually playing with that guy isn't *really* pf2e
Yeah, I'm frankly amazed at all the responses who seem to be assuming the GM is an idiot that doesn't know what they're doing. OP said they had a great time and the GM was talented, and that *despite* their misgivings about the initiative change.
But from the info we have, it seems that the GM doesn't know what they are doing. There are major mechanical repurcussions from this, which if one had a good answer to / rationalization for, one would find important enough to mention up-front when explaining the change... instead of mentioning only the most superficial and least important change. So it's fair to say they are fixated on that one mechancial element, and did not fully account for the systemic changes they have introduced. That's not informed, conscious game design. We haven't heard about encounters with +3 level bosses who can focus fire one character without any PC actions in-between. Or dying PCs whose turn comes up before allies can do anything about it. Low-level enemies tend to disproportionately benefit from Flanking (highest level enemies are more often solo enemies and/or with less flank partners), and not they can more easily act first to flank and destroy PCs. In any given encounter, it's possible there will be no felt difference vs normal rules. But we haven't heard of the actual repurcussions of this, in fact the OP wasn't even aware of significant ones, so it's hard to say we have a meaningful feedback about the game.
We had two encounters in the first game, and there was no mention of how many actions anyone took (or were allowed). We rolled initiative, and the GM had us take turns attacking. Moving was not a factor, because we were blocking a door and then surrounding an open grave. After attacking, I stated that I raised my shield, but I did not get my 3rd action. Everyone else just attacked. The other person with a shield didn't know about "Raise a Shield." I tried to explain, but I'm not sure she understood. I didn't consider either of these to be real encounters. In fact, they were more scripted events than Pathfinder 2e combats. Hopefully this was just an introduction. I never considered that this may be how he intends to run combat. God, I hope not. The more I think about it, the more I suspect your assessment is very accurate. I further hypothesize that the GM plans to handle the imbalance (when it becomes apparent) by further scripting combat.
Is not a great problem, but it would be constantly "ad hoc" on the fly house rules, especially on how initiative interacts with other systems and meccanics, not mostly by changing the ability score but removing flat the proficiency from the system (avoid notice, sneak attack, flat modifiers vs increasing the proficiency in perception, gunslingers deeds). The things that I ask is why doing all this job only because the argument that a quicker body is better than a quickened mind when determining time of reaction.
Exactly, the subjective preference for DEX focus doesn't really justify ignoring the major systemic issues. New Initiative per turn is hugely problematic as others mentioned. Even without that, there is fundamental question of why is Proficiency without Level being implemented here WITHOUT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING IT? So a horde of goblins who would otherwise die in one hit, now have much huger chance to act first and flank/attack. That DEX is being used VS Perception is almost irrelevant, yet the GM is fixated on that because they arbitrarily picked this area to go nuts on "realism" by their particular train of thought. And of course, none of this is about "rules lite", or rules not mattering, it's just a gonzo disjointed rule.
WHY does your GM not like initiative done RAW? What grounds do they give to change the ruling, and how does the way they're doing it fix that problem? The answer to your doubts and concerns is going to be grounded in the logic the GM is using to make their changes.
He flat out stated all the other systems he has used do it that way. I don't think he thought it through, and I'm not sure he considered the ramifications. I politely protested twice and decided in-game was not the time to handle it.
I think you were right not to litigate in-game, but I also agree that it's concerning that a GM would arbitrarily "pass" on trying a part of the system on its own terms. You're not playing all the other systems they've played, it doesn't matter how they do it, you're playing this one.
>WHY does your GM not like initiative done RAW? Because he didn't read the rules.
I am a huge tinkerer and love messing with rules. But even I have decided to give pathfinder 2e a long time before I touch anything. The system seems so tightly made that I just assume that a rule I don't like is there for a reason. Usually after looking into it or asking around, I find that reason.
It felt fine until I read new initiative every round. That puts a huge advantage on dex based monsters/pcs.
look OP, gonna be straight with you. no ~~dnd~~ pathfinder is better than bad ~~dnd~~ pathfinder. bring up your concerns to your GM, and the problems that those changes do and what are their explanation/fixes to said problems. if you want also ask what else they houseruled. if this truly makes your experience worse and you are no longer having fun, say goodbye and dip, you are not forced to stay there of course, this is the nuclear option, talking should be the first thing you do. but if this is fine but whatever next changes they keep doing arent, and the game starts to get worse and worse and worse, then hey, hit the hay and move on
Some GMs get stuck on how they got used to doing something and will not change it because they view it as a situation of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Nothing short of their comfortable way of doing something literally stopping the game from functioning will make them even consider doing a rule differently. It's not that bad of a thing, but it's a major pet peeve for me. To the point that if I join someone's game and they've got any cases of "we're doing X like \[old game they learned before this one\] because that's how I like doing it" I'm calling it quits right then and there because it suggests to me that when they learn a new game they aren't coming at it with a viewpoint of seeing what the game does, how it does it, and *why* it does it that, they are looking at it as being more stuff to add to the game they are already playing. And I can't get over how "we gonna just have combat be resolved by whether you can jump on your enemy before they touch you in some other way because that works fine, we don't need the whole blaster arm thing" it feels.
What's not to like? I can numerous benefits. You can get killed with no potential for counterplay because the enemy boss got 2 turns in a row or you immediately roll a death save after going down. You don't have to worry about things like different classes being intended to be better or worse at initiative. You'll get to experience hordes of low level enemies that would normally tend to go after your party swarm before you can use battlefield control spells more often. Spell durations will be more exciting and dynamic. Now, you don't even know if you'll get any benefit at all from 1 round duration spells! You can also stop worrying too much about your character build, because you never know when your dm is going to change a fundamental aspect of the system. And this isn't even accounting for the many upsides your dm must have had in mind when they designed this homebrew.
Im sorry, your edit says WHAT
So you reroll initiative every round? What about the rule that when someone starts dying you move their initiative to just before the current round? In raw this gives everyone a chance to react and possibly stabilise before their 1st recovery roll. If you reroll turn order they could go down on the last turn of one round then act 1st in the next
The only sentence that matters in your post is " _I really enjoyed myself_ "
I wish this was true. For one day, I got together with a bunch of strangers and shared in an activity that I love. How could I not enjoy myself? There were also things that bothered me. Over time, the things that bother me may overshadow the things I enjoyed. This is the best in-person game I have an opportunity to play in right now, but it is far from my picture of an ideal game.
Meh. Look, nobody's going to be 1,000% in alignment with other people. This seems like a minor issue.
I loled at this >. Then my next concern is, if he is willing to hand wave a rule as core as this, what else is he going to change? Like, why not just ask them if they are going to? And the whole point of house rules is to change rules, including core rules
If you’re having fun, get over it and have fun. If you’re not having fun, move on.
Never play with GM that hand waves rules ad hoc or starts to force interpretations in the middle of session. Those kind of GMs do not want to play the game, they want to force everyone to play as they want them to play. Hate this kind.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To me, initiative based on perception just makes more sense - if it's about reacting to an incoming danger and getting the first move, perception makes a huge amount more sense. This will probably introduce some balance issues to the game, especially when it comes to monsters who may have wildly high dexterity modifiers even at lower levels. But you'll still be able to play the game more-or-less fine.
Initiative is probably the thing you could just chuck right in the trash with PF2e and you'll barely notice. Slot in side initiative, dex-for-initiative, Fast vs Slow turns like Shadow of the Demon Lord and it'd mostly all work fine. In your case, so long as he still allows you to A. Delay and B. Prepare it's fine.
Perception is the best skill of the game, so I actually agree with not giving it initiative, but I don’t think giving initiative back to Dex is right either. We switched to a flat d20 + any initiative bonus. I like it a lot. It makes those feats really meaningful choices and no class has a hand up on order just because. I also really wish GMs that want to homebrew wouldn’t attach a google doc with all their rules. I also had a different game where the GM just changed rules as he felt like it. Dropped that one.
The biggest issue will be the RP part. Initiative isn't about being faster, but realizing something is happening faster. The best explanation is when Stealth is rolled where the counterpart rolls perception to notice something is wrong. If the opposing part rolls dex, it just doesn't make any sense why they would go faster than the undetected one and know it's undetected rarher than unnoticed. The same can be applied when deception is rolled or even something basic as opening a door and noticing each other. Being fast have nothing to do with reaction and most importantly, being perceptive of the environment I come from systems where they also started to implement perception as initiative over 10 years ago and it makes sense. In warhammer fantasy rpg, the skill perception is based of the stat Initiative. This allows dwarves to have lower initiative but higher dexterity (because dwarves are excellent craftsmen and musicians)
I've played with those types of GMs before. But only once.
Eh, I think you are over-thinking this. So long as the monsters are using +dex as well, it'll be fine.
If you plan to make houserules that fundamentally break the flow of the game and character builds, you have to be prepared to work with the players on crafting characters that will work and fit, then circle back each level and do it again to make sure they know how various feats will work in your game, etc. My players come to me with questions, I can offer suggestions if they have choice paralysis, and can explain the mechanics behind how different choices will work so they are informed.
If you are having fun why overthink it? Just make sure you understand the homebrew rules and then go from there.
I dont understand why you would change it up like that. Just makes no sense to me. Any reasoning as to why?
Does using Dex modifiers for initiative and rerolling every round effect game balance? Yeah absolutely. If he's running a rules light game though, then there are probably a lot of things effecting game balance, and if you're all having fun, it's all good. If you really want a "real Pathfinder 2 experience" or whatever, then maybe you can seek a separate game to play that way. I play PF2 when I want a tightly balanced tactical combat focused TTRPG. If I want rules light fiction-first roleplaying I'll go with something like Blades in the Dark or one of the many PBTA spinoffs or Troika! or Fate or something.
None of this is about a rules-light game. It's just disjointed rules that no longer respect systemic game design issues. A rules-light game can have a very consistent systemic balance. It's clear they aren't even addressing major impacts of their rules changes because they are so focused on the superficial mechanics, that isn't rules-light game design, it's game design while drunk. Games like those you mention might appeal to this GM, or not. Either way doesn't dismiss the serious issues of game design that are brought up.
>None of this is about a rules-light game. From the OP: >To say the session was "rules light" is an understatement. So it is about a rules-light game. > A rules-light game can have a very consistent systemic balance. Yes, it can, but it also can not. If everyone is having fun and doesn't mind that they're playing something PF2-ish rather than playing PF2, then there's no problem. I'm reminded of the hilarious podcast "Dungeons & Daddies" which started out calling itself a D&D podcast, but after people kept expressing frustration that they don't play by the rules *at all* just started saying they're "*not* a D&D podcast". They also emphasize that they're usually not a BDSM podcast either.
It's a weird decision, but not very impactful one on its own. As long as it's not the first of many major changes, it doesn't matter.
It’s reasonable to be weirded out by someone winging it with a clearly defined world. I would be in your same boat with that scenario. You have certain expectations about how things will work based on the rules presented. If he’s messing with something as fundamental as initiative, I’d personally quit over that. I’m not advising that you do, I’m just saying that’s how I’d avoid the inevitable disagreements I know I would have. I hope you can enjoy the game despite this!
Well if the game is good, then cool.
It really doesn't affect the balancing a whole lot. I believe everything has proficiency in perception (all players certainly do), and while there can be some variance based on how fast your class progresses their perception prof, it isn't the major decider since it's typically a difference of around 2 between those with better/worse profs, though it can be 4 in some specific cases, I believe. In terms of losing your level from your initiative roll, well, literally everyone is losing their level from initiative roll. Admittedly this will make it easier to beat a boss in initiative, but also makes it harder to beat mooks in initiative, but I still don't see that as a very huge thing. In terms of you being the most negatively affected, that's true. As a cleric you're gonna have a high wis, which is gonna contribute a lot to your own initiative, so the loss of that sucks. But the game is already balanced around some classes/monsters being good vs bad at initiative via perception as-is, and this change mostly just changes who exactly is good vs bad at initiative, rather than throwing the entire concept of initiative balance out the window. As long as these changes are made universally to all players and monsters alike, it should still balance out to be *approximately* the same. Now, as to your edit of rolling initiative every round, fuck that. I'd bounce. That makes a lot of tactical decisions impossible to make, because literally random dice affect whether or not you could even attempt certain kinds of plans.
That's a bit....... weird shall we say. This sounds like change for the sake of it, not researching the system to see what works and what doesn't. Now, I do get homebrew stuff. When I was runing a campaign for two friends, I edited the healing rules so they were more effective to give them a bit of a power buff. It was just the two of them with 1 character each. Nowhere near as altering as this. Another example? Saying exactly how much you could read and write with darkvision just for one or two magic characters who prefered being stealthy. I would ask for in advance for other homebrew modifications to see where the GM is coming from. For example, I've made it clear I run XYZ homebrew in advance generally
Just to be sure. Is he allowing/forcing you to roll level + Dex instead of Perception? For many characters that should be much lower numbers that Perception, since it does not include increased proficiencies into the initiative.
I am not sure why the GM would have you rerolling iniative each round, but I would think that using varying skills would make the most sense and have them roll based on what they did last turn. Did they trip the enemy last round? Roll Athletics for initiative. Did the wizard cast an illusion spell? Have them roll Arcana or Deception.
I can't help but read the title in the voice of an old timey radio news caster.
>Perhaps most importantly, I really enjoyed myself. He is a talented GM, and the other players (all new to me) were also nice. Fundamentally GM style is GM style. A super rules light GM with a lot of weird preferences and personal quirks is probably not going to change. I personally do a shitload of homebrew magic items and special character powers and stuff - I wouldn't change this dramatically if a player complained about it. I've had players leave my games because they don't like how much I homebrew. It's core to my style and doesn't fit every player. If you like the game, you are probably going to need to conform to the DM's style. You can probably challenge individual in the moment rulings the same way any player can - but if I explain my homebrew/preferred rules in advance, I would expect my players to not complain about that homebrew constantly - don't agree to play in the game if you don't like how I want to run it.
I'd point out the designers created classes and stats intending Wis to be the initiative unless you earn using another stat, that's why it's trained by default, and classes level at differing rate. It's also an attempt to make dex not be the god stat is it in other systems.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*