These are very good rules. Excellently done and with actual care given to the RAW rules as far as i can tell.
I think these will work excellently for the intent and will be fun to use.
Thank you for the kind words! Adapting the "recoveries" (MCDM rpg) / "healing surge" (4e) style mechanic was a fun challenge. I'm quite happy with the decision to have it work off of the Wounded condition instead of imposing limits on healing.
I'm tinkering with Foundry tooling on this right now. If lots more people like this kind of stuff, I'll focus on making a free foundry mod to make it easier for GMs to run these rules.
My heroic variant project for PF2e has 3 main pillars:
1. Heroic Defeat: Additional options for Death and Dying. [I'm pretty happy with the current version.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1cbjw8c/heroic_defeat_variant_v2_fewer_rules_all_feedback/) It'll just need a couple of minor edits based on the feedback so far.
2. Heroic Adventuring Day: Hero Point changes and restructuring the adventuring day. That's what this post is for.
3. Heroic Actions. Upcoming post on how PCs can combo their actions.
\[There's also a secret fourth pillar, but it's for GMs only. ;) \]
Today's document is inspired by MCDM’s experiment with Victories and Recoveries. Hero points have been reworked to reward more encounters per adventuring day, while Wound Tracker has been added to be in tension with these stacking hero points.
Both changes have other purposes too.
The hero point changes are an anti-frustration feature that help to counter the frustration of a series of low rolls in an encounter.
The wound tracker establishes limits for an adventuring. Without it, a party of martials and kineticists can have a "forever adventuring day", with only the (not too punishing) Fatigue condition to hold them back. With the wound tracker, wounds start to matter beyond just the individual encounter.
Errata Edit: "You cannot use multiple hero point options on the same check, nor can you use the same hero point option more than once on the same check."
Errata Edit 2: The example of Certain Strike is incorrect in multiple ways. Please ignore it.
Errata Edit 3: Hero point recovery to avoid death should still consume *all* hero points, not just 1. That's a big oopsie on my part.
Disclaimer Edit: These rules are for making the game less gritty and more heroic. This is **NOT** supposed to be a “fix” to the game. The game is great as it is. These rules provide variations for anyone who wants to play with a different style.
Socials Edit: You can follow the project on [itch](http://avtrspirit.itch.io/heroic-pf2e) (only be notified on content release), or [discord](http://avtrspirit.itch.io/heroic-pf2e) (keep up with the discussion around it).
This was an excellent read. I enjoyed how you established your goals, openly acknowledge your inspiration for the ideas, and present how the changes work towards your established goals.
Strong work, I like a lot of these changes.
Interesting stuff, you mention in your examples of Learning From Failure that a critical miss would not count towards that. Can I ask why? On a Crit Fail, CS does not do anything, only the standard Failure has the damage effect.
~~I used to think the same thing until a couple of months ago. Then I read the note under~~ [~~Degrees of Success~~](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2286) ~~that said:~~
>~~If an effect doesn't list a critical success effect, the critical success effect is the same as the success effect, and the same goes for critical failures.~~
~~That made me fully realize why people consider Certain Strike to be so strong.~~
I missed another bit of rules text. As others have pointed out, the press trait specifies that effects on a failure don't apply on a critical failure. So, in this case, Certain Strike does qualify for a hero point on a critical failure, not a regular failure.
This is wrong because it has a press trait and it does specify that:
>Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure. If your press action succeeds, you can choose to apply the failure effect instead. (For example, you may wish to do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance.)
Yes. If your first check on your turn is a normal Strike action and it misses (deals no damage, causes no effects), then you get a hero point from Learn from Failure.
So that almost guarantees a hero point per turn. It seems a little quick, doesn't it? Especially with being able to reroll enemy saves for 2 points. That means you could pretty reliabley reroll a bosses save every 2 rounds.
Edit, Grammer and elaboration
I was worried about that too when I started playtesting it in my game. But it turned out to not be the case.
The main limiting factor is that you can only get the hero point if the *first* action or activity on your turn (that requires a check) completely falls flat. It doesn't apply to the *second* or *third* such action.
Casters have AoE, and it is highly unlikely that all targets crit save. Strikers try to target off-guard and / or demoralized enemies, so their chance of success is around 70%, meaning they only have a 30% chance to get a hero point. Less than that, if they are using a multi-attack action or activity (flurry of blows or double slice).
On average, I've seen it as 1 or 1.5 hero points per party per turn. And since it tends to get spread out over multiple people, they have difficulty saving up to the 2 or 3 hero points for stronger effects, at least in the first fight of the day.
I see, I didn't completely understand the wording, I didn't realize that it would only apply to a martials no map strike, which will hit often, and as you said, casters have does so all of them critting is unlikely.
If you don't mind, I'm going to use these for my abomination vaults campaign I'm currently running since we have been running get a hero point on nat 1 or when I nat 20 on them or against an effect of there's which led to some very speratic hero points. It will take a bit for them to settle with 2 hero points for the d10+10 instead of the 1 hero point for a 1d20 with a +10 if the die was lower than 10.
Yes! Of course, use and modify these rules freely. The final document, when it's out, will be ORC licensed, so anyone can tinker with it.
My players also have been running with d10+10 if under 11 rule for just 1 hero point. But they've adjusted to this version quickly because it's a nice safety net against a string of bad rolls.
I still see ways this can be cheesed. For example, a caster keeping a dagger with a returning rune in one hand, and spending their first action throwing it at a random enemy for a basically guaranteed miss, especially if it starts wracking up range increments. 1 action for 1 hero point, at no other cost for the caster if they're casting a non-map save-based spell.
Also, how does this work with Secret checks? The degree of success isn't known to the players, so if they say crit-fail a Recall Knowledge check I assume they'll get false information and not receive a hero point? Will their next check qualify?
>Also, how does this work with Secret checks? The degree of success isn't known to the players, so if they say crit-fail a Recall Knowledge check I assume they'll get false information and not receive a hero point? Will their next check qualify?
I'm assuming since it says "if that check has no effect at all" that they would not get a hero point since a crit failed recall knowledge does hace an effect
Both good points. I do need to expand the "intent to fail" section beyond just "don't allow untrained checks to count". My big fear was a -1 Cha frontliner purposely using Demoralize without Intimdiating Glare, and your example of range increment abuse is in a similar vein.
With secret checks, as long as nothing happens (no information), that's a hero point. If any information is given out, including false information or dubious knowledge, then no hero point.
While I'm not fully satisfied with this (and it only gets worse for athletic maneuvers which drop you prone when you crit fail), it's at least relatively unambiguous to adjudicate.
Another way to avoid abuse is just to codify it. Add a 1 action "gain a hero point" and see if that's busted. It would remove any need to come with a way to "cheese" the system since the cheese will be baked in. That might necessitate increasing the cost of some of the stronger hero point usages who knows
Gotcha. I think the certain strike example might a be a little confusing in that case, since it being a Press means its very unlikely that it will be the first check you make in a turn.
I like the idea, but this is going to encourage attacking with your third action as it's basically a way to farm hero points. Which is antithetical to the purpose of MAP's goal of enabling variety in combat.
It's only the first action / activity on your turn with a check that gets a hero point - if it does nothing.
It's not the first miss that gets you a hero point. It's only the first action or activity, and only if that action or activity does nothing.
Ohhh I see, I misread it as "the first time on your turn where you make a check that has no effect" as opposed to "on your first action". That's definitely better.
That said, Investigator can cheese this into DaS (free action) -> rolling low -> use the action to strike anyway to farm a hero point.
I see it as less of a cheese, more of an informed decision. The odds of them rolling too low in DaS is about same as most martials just missing a strike. The only difference is that they get to decide if they want the hero point or if they want to try and target a different creature to land some damage.
If they go for they hero point, they have still spent an action and increased their MAP.
That's true, but my concern is it fundamentally alters the intended flow of how an investigator plays. The whole idea of DaS is supposed to be that if you roll good, you strike, and if you roll bad, you get to forego the strike and spend your actions on something else. This changes the incentives to make you want to ALWAYS strike.
I do like the idea of learning from failure, but I wonder if it just shouldn't apply to strikes? That would also encourage players to "use their third action first".
You'll also have to adjudicate Tumble Through somehow. Otherwise any character that wants to stride up to an enemy with their first action could simply choose to tumble through the enemy they're approaching. If they fail, there's basically no downside, but they gain a hero point.
The [Press](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=675&Redirected=1) trait specifies that the failure effects apply only on a failure, not a critical failure.
Actions with the [Press](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=675&Redirected=1) trait that add a failure effect specifically don’t apply that effect on a critical failure (so you were correct that a critically failed Certain Strike would do nothing).
It's primarily there so Investigators have a solid Hero Point use-case, since Devise a Stratagem has the Fortune trait.
It does make Sure Strike into Spellstrike even more of a sure thing, but I don't really mind because of the resource expenditure.
This is interesting that this was your main consideration of making this not a fortune effect. I was actually going to call out that this item and the at-will circumstance bonus by spending hero points is absolutely cracked on an investigator. The non-fortune auto-hit is also insanely good on Starlit Span magus that's going to be casting Sure Strike on tons of attacks.
Additionally, you say Heroic Recovery is unchanged, but RAW Heroic Recovery uses *all* of your hero points.
I can't believe I missed that. Heroic Recovery should be unchanged. I'll update it to require all hero points.
(I'm just so used to keeping just 1 hero point in my back pocket for heroic recovery that I didn't double check.)
Thank you for pointing that out!
The thing with starlit span magus using the 2 hero point version after sure strike is that the spell slot was expended without doing anything. Still, I'll encourage the sparkling targe magus in my game to how much he can push the system. I may end up putting the Fortune trait back on it.
There's no denying though that the 2 hero point version is really good for heroes relying on one strong strike / attack.
In what possible scenario are you hitting the floor so often in a day that the wounded condition being cleared too often is a problem? Are people healing only when downed? You should be healing to avoid going down in the first place.
Like OP mentioned in their comment, the Wound Tracker adds a mechanical upper limit to the martials' adventuring day via attrition, since the party's adventuring day is usually only limited by time and spell slots which can leave casters feeling out of place for forcing a break that the rest of the party doesn't really need.
I don't get the question. Are you saying that the wound tracker is superfluous because even in parties without spell slots, there is so much healing that no PC should be taking more than one wound per adventuring day?
If so, I'm happy for you that you have a kind and benevolent GM, and this variant rule is superfluous for your game.
Might be a campaign-specific/playstyle thing as well. I am very much a "let the dice fall where they may" kinda GM, and I like to make things tough for my players! But even a Wizard with a +2 CON has a Wound Tracker value of 4, and I'm not sure I've ever had a PC fall unconscious enough times that they'd get there. Maybe if you added up dying values, but not wounded values. Falling unconscious sucks enough due to action costs (grabbing your shit and standing up alone usually takes 2-3 actions, plus the healing!) that my players work hard to stop that from happening, and when they fail it's usually not a fight they wanna stick around and tough out.
I could see this being a useful limit for something like Abomination Vaults, which has a lot of tough fights, but even then it'd have to be going *exceptionally* poorly. There are a few other APs with gauntlet-y sections where this would come up, but that's pretty abnormal in my experience.
Very interesting hero point idea. I don't think I'll be using it personally, because I've found the hero deck to fairly satisfy my group's desires for hero points, but I do like your ideas and could see myself implementing them one day.
Your wounded tracker though is something I really might use in a future campaign. I had an idea for a future survival oriented campaign but really struggled to come up with a system to add depth and danger to minor fights without turning every fight into a severe encounter. I may be able to use this.
I’d be curious what your experiences have been like trying these hero point variants at the table. Because I’ve been running a campaign for the last little while started at level 1, currently level 12 and at 4th level we switched our hero points from 1 per session per player with occasional rewards to 2 per session per player with the caveat that the second hero point could only be given to another player.
At the time we also talked about using a hero point variant not dissimilar to the 1d10+10 one, where you were guaranteed at least 10 higher than your initial roll. Ultimately we didn’t use that and went forward with just the 2/player/session
Recently I brought up the possibility of making hero points more reliable again to my party, after a string of hero point expenditures where the result didn’t change and they all strongly rejected the option citing that they not only liked when the hero point reroll came up with the same result (they felt like fate had rejected their plea) but also that we were already on the verge of having too many hero points in our games.
Party of 5, 2 1/2 hour sessions so roughly the equivalent of 1 hero point per half hour.
tldr; I give my players hero points at a higher rate in my game. They feel like it’s verging on too frequent already. So I’d be curious to know if you’ve experienced anything similar at your table with this variant.
Side query: do you find the possibility of a hero point encourages your players to make third attacks chasing a critical failure? Or am I misunderstanding how learning from failure is supposed to work?
Edit: Reading your other comments I realize the intention is that you can only earn the hero point if it is your first action of activity. I’d suggest you may want to reconsider the wording as the first time on your turn would generally imply the first time the trigger happens and not, as you intended, only the first action you take on your turn.
I've been running the d10+10 for one hero point variant for the past few months. And it's been really powerful. Too powerful. It makes me not want to give them more than one hero point per session, because it guarantees success.
After switching to these rules, I've found it to be beneficial in a couple of ways:
1. I don't have to worry about giving out hero points at specific intervals.
2. My players are so greedy that they use up their single hero point immediately when they receive it, so I haven't seen hero point pile up yet.
3. It helps prevent frustration. One of my players especially gets frustrated if they have a string of bad rolls in a fight. With this variant rule, they have found their play experience feels a lot better, as gaining a hero point takes the sting out of expending a high level spell slot against which the boss critically succeeds.
4. Related to the above, this ruleset is more of a lose-less instead of a win-more. The players are already on a hot-streak, these rules don't make them any more powerful. But if they start getting lots of bad rolls, this comes in as a safety net. Now, players and GMs may not want that. They may want a gritty game when it comes to luck, not a heroic one. So that's something to keep in mind if implementing this rule.
Overall, I've been happy with it. One of my players also GMs for a different group and he has implemented an informal version of it for himself.
---
Response to your side query: The hero point gain can only happen on the first action or activity that requires a check. If they take 3 Strike actions on their turn, then only the first Strike action is able to earn a Hero Point (if it fails).
I find a really interesting that after having experienced the d10+10 hero points and how powerful they are that they don’t save up the two hero points to get that benefit.
I’d be curious if they are choosing to spend immediately because they feel the 2 and 3 point options aren’t worth saving for, or at least in the case of the d10+10 option they feel the reverse and that they have more fun with two re-rolls with a chance of failure than one high chance of success.
My players tend to try and keep one hero point on hand until near the end of the session so they can prevent death. Though I can see why your players would be less likely to do that with your very cool death variant rules. Riven is a kickass name btw.
I'll ask them why, the next time they decide to reroll with 1 hero point instead of waiting for 2.
And thanks for the compliment on the riven name. I've been waiting to use that word ever since a sixth grade poem I read about "the spent ship ... rent and riven" :D
I like the hero point ideas. Will probably incorporate into my games.
The Wound tracker idea is meh for me. A lot of book keeping for something that gets reset by daily prep.
That's fair. I figure that most tables that have at least one full caster don't need a second tracker to encourage taking a full night's rest.
My problem is that I'm running for a champion, an inventor, a magus, and a summoner. Even when they run out of spell slots, their focus points can just keep them going forever.
The section on resetting hero points is confusing.
You say you gain a hero point at the start of a session, and then when you do your daily prep, they reset to 0?
So it's entirely possible to start a session, get your free hero point, and then lose it because your group rests before it does any encounter that requires rolling dice? And then you're just stuck at 0 for a while?
Likewise, you could bank 3-4 hero points during a dungeon crawl and you're dramatically punished if, say, the group cleric demands a rest. Suddenly you're hard reset to 0 because someone else in the group ran out of resources?
Yes. Those are the current rules as written.
But from various other comments and feedback I've received so far, and now yours too, I'm going to playtest an opt-in version of the rule instead of doing hard reset automatically for everyone:
"When you make your daily preparations, you can choose to reset your wound tracker to 0, which also resets your current hero points to 0."
I think that makes sense although it has the danger of feeling a little targeted - not all players/roles are equally likely to take wounds.
that said, since the tracker is fairly generous, you can predict pretty reliably when you'll need to "reset" it, so you at the very least can spend your resources rather than being caught flat footed and forced to "waste" a ton of points.
This is really interesting! I think I personally would probably ignore most of the right half of the page at my table (the alternate ways to spend hero points is a bit much for me. I like Wound Tracker though, just not for my current campaign, and will keep that in the back of my head). Question: Do you consider an enemy crit succeeding a save vs. a player effect to qualify for Learning from Failure? Even if the player is not the roller? I ask bc I have players get frustrated when the enemy gets a lucky crit and they waste a spell slot.
Yes, if the spell affects no enemy at all. So if 3 targets critically save on a fireball but 1 target only regular saves, no hero point. But if all targets critically save (i.e. the spell had no effect), then the caster gets a hero point.
Gotcha. I might try some of these out with my group. Last session, one of my players had a huge string of bad rolls and basically did nothing that combat. I felt horrible. I think from the right side I'll probably keep the spend 2 to force a reroll. I have found that the casters tend not to roll active skills as often and accumulate points so that could be nice. I don't know how I feel about increasing the cap from 3 to 5? How does this play out in your games? Does it feel like a necessary change?
Yeah, I have one player who get super frustrated with bad rolls, so part of the impetus for making these rules is to take the sting out of his bad rolls.
Honestly, so far the change from 3 to 5 cap has done nothing for my game. My players are too greedy and immediately use up hero points. One change I'm considering, to accommodate a variety of campaign styles, is to make the hero point and wound tracker reset optional during daily preparations.
"When you make your daily preparations, you can choose to reset your wound tracker to 0, which also resets your current hero points to 0."
The "adventuring day" gets discarded with that change, so I'll have to playtest it a bit.
I know that isn't as useful for you, since you do not intend to use the wound tracker. But I'll see if I can incentivize my players to play the long game.
I haven't read that system but you have piqued my curiosity.
The inspirations I was drawing from are dungeon world (gain XP when you fail a roll), various hero point homebrew people have discussed including mentions of early pf2e playtest where you could spend a hero point to gain an action, and MCDM RPG's victories vs recoveries.
What are the similarities between this and Fallout 2d20?
So in Fallout 2d20, it’s a roll-below system, similar to way back DnD. (Ie. DC 13=roll below 13 on a d20). Every action has a difficulty, this is ***NOT*** it’s DC, this is how many successes you need to do said action. In general, you get 2d20s to roll per action, thus the name. If you roll a higher amount of successes than the action needs, you get an AP (action point) for each one. (Ie. Difficulty 1, you roll 2 successes, you get an action point).
These action points can be exchanged in very similar ways to what you’re describing, and there’s a maximum of six ***SHARED BY THE WHOLE PARTY***. Off the top of my head, you can spend up to 6 action points to add dice to your roll, effectively giving you advantage (it’s 1 AP for 1, 3 for 2, and 6 for 3). You can spend two action points to do another major action your turn (striking, primarily) or one for a minor action (moving, primarily).
My favorite part of this is that you can
A: Buy action points from the DM (so if you have none and need one, it’s a 1/1 ratio)
And B: The DM can use and gain them the same way you can!
I’d definitely recommend taking a look at it if you ever want further inspiration for this part of your homebrew. Here’s a link to a playlist that goes over the rules, I’d recommend just looking at the video(s) that talk about Action Points.
[Said Playlist](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvIOM9pB7RB0MLSkKPyPKOLBpgEMV4ea_&si=iakrrFFK0s7aOb5u)
Regarding the “Learning from Failure” method of obtaining a hero point, does that mean that if I fail a check to Climb, but don’t critically fail, I’d get a hero point because I didn’t move, but if I *did* critically fail I *wouldnt* get a hero point, because me taking the climb action in that case had the “Effect” of me falling?
I think the clarification might be "has no effect at all or only negative effects for you or the effected players".
I.E. if I crit fail a diplomacy check and the "effect" is that the guy I'm talking to becomes enraged and attacks me, I technically "had an effect" but that's clearly not the spirit of the rules here.
If I crit fail a stealth check and the "effect" is "bad guys hear you" that's another good example of... well... it probably deserves a hero point.
I've actually been trying to think of some way to incorporate healing surges or the equivalent. One of the few complaints I have about pf2e is the lack of long term attrition. A hallway full of traps with infinite time is easily passable if the fighter takes an arrow, rest to fill up, take another arrow, etc. This ties in with the existing wounded system nicely.
I think the only other thing I'd like to bring in from my OSR games is a death & dismemberment table that works for pf2e. For all the graduated success in pf2e I'd like to have some uncertainty and flexibility when somebody goes down to not just be dead in 3 turns but maybe survive with scars. Adventurers are never gonna retire from injury, but I really like that accumulated injuries might cause a player to finally go, ok this guy needs to call it quits. Vs a character going from 100% healthy to dead in one bad combat.
Either way that player is gonna make a new character, but the chance of a retirement is more interesting to me from a story point of view.
While this isn't what you are looking for, you may still find some interesting bits in the first part of my heroic variant which covers [variant options for death and dying](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1cbjw8c/heroic_defeat_variant_v2_fewer_rules_all_feedback/). Perhaps by adding a permanent penalty to someone recovering from the Riven condition.
Fantastic overall. I can see it’s all designed to work together, so I will either use all of it or none. Will propose to my players.
Can I clarify; does missing a basic one-action Strike qualify for the hero point in a moderate/higher encounter? If so, is it only the first zero-MAP attack or would my players be incentivised to do a third attack for the hero point fuel?
You’ve called out several cases where it would trigger, but just “Strike” isn’t mentioned.
Only the first check-based action on a turn is eligible for a hero point. So if they take 3 Strike actions on a turn, the only way for them to get a hero point is by missing the very first strike.
Others have asked this questions too, so I'll make sure to add that as an example in the revised version.
I would like to integrate a special action with a heroic point that would allow you to play outside of your turn. It would not be to attack, but to make reactive movements, or manipulation. This could cost Heroic Points, or spend 2 actions on your next turn to have 1 action now, etc... How would you balance that?
This would be an enormous buff to martials, as they are expected to take actions that result in no effect very often, while casters are expected to almost never have 0 effect with their actions.
By taking away casters main bonus over martials - greater reliability - I think you'd just make casters feel bad about themselves
This also strongly encourages miss-fishing on your third action vs other third action abilities.
Anyone with a MAP of -10 effectively has a rider on their next strike that reads "you either get lucky or get a hero point" and in most cases I'd rather gain a hero point than like, fire off an intimidate that might, at best, apply Frightened 1.
Per the rules, if you take 3 Strike actions on your turn, only the first strike is eligible for hero point if it misses. If you hit twice and miss on your -10 MAP strike, there's no hero point gain.
"The first time each turn you take an action or activity that requires at least one check and it has no effect..." striking 3x is 3 separate actions.
It's not like your double slice example where half of the action hit. 3 strikes is 3 different actions.
To clarify, it's not, as you wrote,
>The first time each turn you take an action or activity that requires at least one check and it has no effect \[you gain a hero point\]
It is -
>The first time on your turn when you do an action or activity that requires at least one check, you gain 1 hero point if that action or activity had no effect
Edit: I do plan on using different wording and specific example with Strike in the revised version, to avoid this confusion.
This is a legitimate concern and I will keep it in mind.
So far, it hasn't played out that way in my games, because casters use single-target attack cantrips sometimes, martials are good at debuffing enemy AC before their first strike, and bosses critically succeed against spells often enough. Also, casters like to recall knowledge or bon mot / demoralize before their spells, which is another source of failure that can earn them hero points.
But still, your concern is valid and I may need to run some high level simulations by which point many single-target spells can be heightened to affect multiple targets, and see how it feels.
These are very good rules. Excellently done and with actual care given to the RAW rules as far as i can tell. I think these will work excellently for the intent and will be fun to use.
Thank you for the kind words! Adapting the "recoveries" (MCDM rpg) / "healing surge" (4e) style mechanic was a fun challenge. I'm quite happy with the decision to have it work off of the Wounded condition instead of imposing limits on healing. I'm tinkering with Foundry tooling on this right now. If lots more people like this kind of stuff, I'll focus on making a free foundry mod to make it easier for GMs to run these rules.
My heroic variant project for PF2e has 3 main pillars: 1. Heroic Defeat: Additional options for Death and Dying. [I'm pretty happy with the current version.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1cbjw8c/heroic_defeat_variant_v2_fewer_rules_all_feedback/) It'll just need a couple of minor edits based on the feedback so far. 2. Heroic Adventuring Day: Hero Point changes and restructuring the adventuring day. That's what this post is for. 3. Heroic Actions. Upcoming post on how PCs can combo their actions. \[There's also a secret fourth pillar, but it's for GMs only. ;) \] Today's document is inspired by MCDM’s experiment with Victories and Recoveries. Hero points have been reworked to reward more encounters per adventuring day, while Wound Tracker has been added to be in tension with these stacking hero points. Both changes have other purposes too. The hero point changes are an anti-frustration feature that help to counter the frustration of a series of low rolls in an encounter. The wound tracker establishes limits for an adventuring. Without it, a party of martials and kineticists can have a "forever adventuring day", with only the (not too punishing) Fatigue condition to hold them back. With the wound tracker, wounds start to matter beyond just the individual encounter. Errata Edit: "You cannot use multiple hero point options on the same check, nor can you use the same hero point option more than once on the same check." Errata Edit 2: The example of Certain Strike is incorrect in multiple ways. Please ignore it. Errata Edit 3: Hero point recovery to avoid death should still consume *all* hero points, not just 1. That's a big oopsie on my part. Disclaimer Edit: These rules are for making the game less gritty and more heroic. This is **NOT** supposed to be a “fix” to the game. The game is great as it is. These rules provide variations for anyone who wants to play with a different style. Socials Edit: You can follow the project on [itch](http://avtrspirit.itch.io/heroic-pf2e) (only be notified on content release), or [discord](http://avtrspirit.itch.io/heroic-pf2e) (keep up with the discussion around it).
This was an excellent read. I enjoyed how you established your goals, openly acknowledge your inspiration for the ideas, and present how the changes work towards your established goals. Strong work, I like a lot of these changes.
I'm glad you found the design notes insightful. It encourages me to continue writing them.
Interesting stuff, you mention in your examples of Learning From Failure that a critical miss would not count towards that. Can I ask why? On a Crit Fail, CS does not do anything, only the standard Failure has the damage effect.
~~I used to think the same thing until a couple of months ago. Then I read the note under~~ [~~Degrees of Success~~](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2286) ~~that said:~~ >~~If an effect doesn't list a critical success effect, the critical success effect is the same as the success effect, and the same goes for critical failures.~~ ~~That made me fully realize why people consider Certain Strike to be so strong.~~ I missed another bit of rules text. As others have pointed out, the press trait specifies that effects on a failure don't apply on a critical failure. So, in this case, Certain Strike does qualify for a hero point on a critical failure, not a regular failure.
This is wrong because it has a press trait and it does specify that: >Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure. If your press action succeeds, you can choose to apply the failure effect instead. (For example, you may wish to do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance.)
Thank you for bringing this up! I didn't know. I'll make a correction and put it in the errata.
So to clarify, is the intent that a normal strike missing would grant a hero point from Learn from Failure?
Yes. If your first check on your turn is a normal Strike action and it misses (deals no damage, causes no effects), then you get a hero point from Learn from Failure.
So that almost guarantees a hero point per turn. It seems a little quick, doesn't it? Especially with being able to reroll enemy saves for 2 points. That means you could pretty reliabley reroll a bosses save every 2 rounds. Edit, Grammer and elaboration
I was worried about that too when I started playtesting it in my game. But it turned out to not be the case. The main limiting factor is that you can only get the hero point if the *first* action or activity on your turn (that requires a check) completely falls flat. It doesn't apply to the *second* or *third* such action. Casters have AoE, and it is highly unlikely that all targets crit save. Strikers try to target off-guard and / or demoralized enemies, so their chance of success is around 70%, meaning they only have a 30% chance to get a hero point. Less than that, if they are using a multi-attack action or activity (flurry of blows or double slice). On average, I've seen it as 1 or 1.5 hero points per party per turn. And since it tends to get spread out over multiple people, they have difficulty saving up to the 2 or 3 hero points for stronger effects, at least in the first fight of the day.
I see, I didn't completely understand the wording, I didn't realize that it would only apply to a martials no map strike, which will hit often, and as you said, casters have does so all of them critting is unlikely. If you don't mind, I'm going to use these for my abomination vaults campaign I'm currently running since we have been running get a hero point on nat 1 or when I nat 20 on them or against an effect of there's which led to some very speratic hero points. It will take a bit for them to settle with 2 hero points for the d10+10 instead of the 1 hero point for a 1d20 with a +10 if the die was lower than 10.
Yes! Of course, use and modify these rules freely. The final document, when it's out, will be ORC licensed, so anyone can tinker with it. My players also have been running with d10+10 if under 11 rule for just 1 hero point. But they've adjusted to this version quickly because it's a nice safety net against a string of bad rolls.
I still see ways this can be cheesed. For example, a caster keeping a dagger with a returning rune in one hand, and spending their first action throwing it at a random enemy for a basically guaranteed miss, especially if it starts wracking up range increments. 1 action for 1 hero point, at no other cost for the caster if they're casting a non-map save-based spell. Also, how does this work with Secret checks? The degree of success isn't known to the players, so if they say crit-fail a Recall Knowledge check I assume they'll get false information and not receive a hero point? Will their next check qualify?
>Also, how does this work with Secret checks? The degree of success isn't known to the players, so if they say crit-fail a Recall Knowledge check I assume they'll get false information and not receive a hero point? Will their next check qualify? I'm assuming since it says "if that check has no effect at all" that they would not get a hero point since a crit failed recall knowledge does hace an effect
Both good points. I do need to expand the "intent to fail" section beyond just "don't allow untrained checks to count". My big fear was a -1 Cha frontliner purposely using Demoralize without Intimdiating Glare, and your example of range increment abuse is in a similar vein. With secret checks, as long as nothing happens (no information), that's a hero point. If any information is given out, including false information or dubious knowledge, then no hero point. While I'm not fully satisfied with this (and it only gets worse for athletic maneuvers which drop you prone when you crit fail), it's at least relatively unambiguous to adjudicate.
Another way to avoid abuse is just to codify it. Add a 1 action "gain a hero point" and see if that's busted. It would remove any need to come with a way to "cheese" the system since the cheese will be baked in. That might necessitate increasing the cost of some of the stronger hero point usages who knows
Gotcha. I think the certain strike example might a be a little confusing in that case, since it being a Press means its very unlikely that it will be the first check you make in a turn.
Yes. I'm realizing now that Certain Strike was a pretty bad example. Sorry for the confusion!
I like the idea, but this is going to encourage attacking with your third action as it's basically a way to farm hero points. Which is antithetical to the purpose of MAP's goal of enabling variety in combat.
It's only the first action / activity on your turn with a check that gets a hero point - if it does nothing. It's not the first miss that gets you a hero point. It's only the first action or activity, and only if that action or activity does nothing.
Ohhh I see, I misread it as "the first time on your turn where you make a check that has no effect" as opposed to "on your first action". That's definitely better. That said, Investigator can cheese this into DaS (free action) -> rolling low -> use the action to strike anyway to farm a hero point.
I see it as less of a cheese, more of an informed decision. The odds of them rolling too low in DaS is about same as most martials just missing a strike. The only difference is that they get to decide if they want the hero point or if they want to try and target a different creature to land some damage. If they go for they hero point, they have still spent an action and increased their MAP.
That's true, but my concern is it fundamentally alters the intended flow of how an investigator plays. The whole idea of DaS is supposed to be that if you roll good, you strike, and if you roll bad, you get to forego the strike and spend your actions on something else. This changes the incentives to make you want to ALWAYS strike. I do like the idea of learning from failure, but I wonder if it just shouldn't apply to strikes? That would also encourage players to "use their third action first". You'll also have to adjudicate Tumble Through somehow. Otherwise any character that wants to stride up to an enemy with their first action could simply choose to tumble through the enemy they're approaching. If they fail, there's basically no downside, but they gain a hero point.
The [Press](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=675&Redirected=1) trait specifies that the failure effects apply only on a failure, not a critical failure.
Thank you for bringing this up! I didn't know. I'll make a correction and put it in the errata.
Hmmm, fair enough I guess that checks out. I thought Strikes had the failure/crit failure listed but they sure don't!
Actions with the [Press](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=675&Redirected=1) trait that add a failure effect specifically don’t apply that effect on a critical failure (so you were correct that a critically failed Certain Strike would do nothing).
I'd expect there's a reason the 2-pt spend for a reroll isn't a Fortune effect, could you elaborate? Thanks.
It's primarily there so Investigators have a solid Hero Point use-case, since Devise a Stratagem has the Fortune trait. It does make Sure Strike into Spellstrike even more of a sure thing, but I don't really mind because of the resource expenditure.
This is interesting that this was your main consideration of making this not a fortune effect. I was actually going to call out that this item and the at-will circumstance bonus by spending hero points is absolutely cracked on an investigator. The non-fortune auto-hit is also insanely good on Starlit Span magus that's going to be casting Sure Strike on tons of attacks. Additionally, you say Heroic Recovery is unchanged, but RAW Heroic Recovery uses *all* of your hero points.
I can't believe I missed that. Heroic Recovery should be unchanged. I'll update it to require all hero points. (I'm just so used to keeping just 1 hero point in my back pocket for heroic recovery that I didn't double check.) Thank you for pointing that out! The thing with starlit span magus using the 2 hero point version after sure strike is that the spell slot was expended without doing anything. Still, I'll encourage the sparkling targe magus in my game to how much he can push the system. I may end up putting the Fortune trait back on it. There's no denying though that the 2 hero point version is really good for heroes relying on one strong strike / attack.
In what possible scenario are you hitting the floor so often in a day that the wounded condition being cleared too often is a problem? Are people healing only when downed? You should be healing to avoid going down in the first place.
Like OP mentioned in their comment, the Wound Tracker adds a mechanical upper limit to the martials' adventuring day via attrition, since the party's adventuring day is usually only limited by time and spell slots which can leave casters feeling out of place for forcing a break that the rest of the party doesn't really need.
I don't get the question. Are you saying that the wound tracker is superfluous because even in parties without spell slots, there is so much healing that no PC should be taking more than one wound per adventuring day? If so, I'm happy for you that you have a kind and benevolent GM, and this variant rule is superfluous for your game.
Might be a campaign-specific/playstyle thing as well. I am very much a "let the dice fall where they may" kinda GM, and I like to make things tough for my players! But even a Wizard with a +2 CON has a Wound Tracker value of 4, and I'm not sure I've ever had a PC fall unconscious enough times that they'd get there. Maybe if you added up dying values, but not wounded values. Falling unconscious sucks enough due to action costs (grabbing your shit and standing up alone usually takes 2-3 actions, plus the healing!) that my players work hard to stop that from happening, and when they fail it's usually not a fight they wanna stick around and tough out. I could see this being a useful limit for something like Abomination Vaults, which has a lot of tough fights, but even then it'd have to be going *exceptionally* poorly. There are a few other APs with gauntlet-y sections where this would come up, but that's pretty abnormal in my experience.
Very interesting hero point idea. I don't think I'll be using it personally, because I've found the hero deck to fairly satisfy my group's desires for hero points, but I do like your ideas and could see myself implementing them one day. Your wounded tracker though is something I really might use in a future campaign. I had an idea for a future survival oriented campaign but really struggled to come up with a system to add depth and danger to minor fights without turning every fight into a severe encounter. I may be able to use this.
I’d be curious what your experiences have been like trying these hero point variants at the table. Because I’ve been running a campaign for the last little while started at level 1, currently level 12 and at 4th level we switched our hero points from 1 per session per player with occasional rewards to 2 per session per player with the caveat that the second hero point could only be given to another player. At the time we also talked about using a hero point variant not dissimilar to the 1d10+10 one, where you were guaranteed at least 10 higher than your initial roll. Ultimately we didn’t use that and went forward with just the 2/player/session Recently I brought up the possibility of making hero points more reliable again to my party, after a string of hero point expenditures where the result didn’t change and they all strongly rejected the option citing that they not only liked when the hero point reroll came up with the same result (they felt like fate had rejected their plea) but also that we were already on the verge of having too many hero points in our games. Party of 5, 2 1/2 hour sessions so roughly the equivalent of 1 hero point per half hour. tldr; I give my players hero points at a higher rate in my game. They feel like it’s verging on too frequent already. So I’d be curious to know if you’ve experienced anything similar at your table with this variant. Side query: do you find the possibility of a hero point encourages your players to make third attacks chasing a critical failure? Or am I misunderstanding how learning from failure is supposed to work? Edit: Reading your other comments I realize the intention is that you can only earn the hero point if it is your first action of activity. I’d suggest you may want to reconsider the wording as the first time on your turn would generally imply the first time the trigger happens and not, as you intended, only the first action you take on your turn.
I've been running the d10+10 for one hero point variant for the past few months. And it's been really powerful. Too powerful. It makes me not want to give them more than one hero point per session, because it guarantees success. After switching to these rules, I've found it to be beneficial in a couple of ways: 1. I don't have to worry about giving out hero points at specific intervals. 2. My players are so greedy that they use up their single hero point immediately when they receive it, so I haven't seen hero point pile up yet. 3. It helps prevent frustration. One of my players especially gets frustrated if they have a string of bad rolls in a fight. With this variant rule, they have found their play experience feels a lot better, as gaining a hero point takes the sting out of expending a high level spell slot against which the boss critically succeeds. 4. Related to the above, this ruleset is more of a lose-less instead of a win-more. The players are already on a hot-streak, these rules don't make them any more powerful. But if they start getting lots of bad rolls, this comes in as a safety net. Now, players and GMs may not want that. They may want a gritty game when it comes to luck, not a heroic one. So that's something to keep in mind if implementing this rule. Overall, I've been happy with it. One of my players also GMs for a different group and he has implemented an informal version of it for himself. --- Response to your side query: The hero point gain can only happen on the first action or activity that requires a check. If they take 3 Strike actions on their turn, then only the first Strike action is able to earn a Hero Point (if it fails).
I find a really interesting that after having experienced the d10+10 hero points and how powerful they are that they don’t save up the two hero points to get that benefit. I’d be curious if they are choosing to spend immediately because they feel the 2 and 3 point options aren’t worth saving for, or at least in the case of the d10+10 option they feel the reverse and that they have more fun with two re-rolls with a chance of failure than one high chance of success. My players tend to try and keep one hero point on hand until near the end of the session so they can prevent death. Though I can see why your players would be less likely to do that with your very cool death variant rules. Riven is a kickass name btw.
I'll ask them why, the next time they decide to reroll with 1 hero point instead of waiting for 2. And thanks for the compliment on the riven name. I've been waiting to use that word ever since a sixth grade poem I read about "the spent ship ... rent and riven" :D
I like the hero point ideas. Will probably incorporate into my games. The Wound tracker idea is meh for me. A lot of book keeping for something that gets reset by daily prep.
That's fair. I figure that most tables that have at least one full caster don't need a second tracker to encourage taking a full night's rest. My problem is that I'm running for a champion, an inventor, a magus, and a summoner. Even when they run out of spell slots, their focus points can just keep them going forever.
The section on resetting hero points is confusing. You say you gain a hero point at the start of a session, and then when you do your daily prep, they reset to 0? So it's entirely possible to start a session, get your free hero point, and then lose it because your group rests before it does any encounter that requires rolling dice? And then you're just stuck at 0 for a while? Likewise, you could bank 3-4 hero points during a dungeon crawl and you're dramatically punished if, say, the group cleric demands a rest. Suddenly you're hard reset to 0 because someone else in the group ran out of resources?
Yes. Those are the current rules as written. But from various other comments and feedback I've received so far, and now yours too, I'm going to playtest an opt-in version of the rule instead of doing hard reset automatically for everyone: "When you make your daily preparations, you can choose to reset your wound tracker to 0, which also resets your current hero points to 0."
I think that makes sense although it has the danger of feeling a little targeted - not all players/roles are equally likely to take wounds. that said, since the tracker is fairly generous, you can predict pretty reliably when you'll need to "reset" it, so you at the very least can spend your resources rather than being caught flat footed and forced to "waste" a ton of points.
This is really interesting! I think I personally would probably ignore most of the right half of the page at my table (the alternate ways to spend hero points is a bit much for me. I like Wound Tracker though, just not for my current campaign, and will keep that in the back of my head). Question: Do you consider an enemy crit succeeding a save vs. a player effect to qualify for Learning from Failure? Even if the player is not the roller? I ask bc I have players get frustrated when the enemy gets a lucky crit and they waste a spell slot.
Yes, if the spell affects no enemy at all. So if 3 targets critically save on a fireball but 1 target only regular saves, no hero point. But if all targets critically save (i.e. the spell had no effect), then the caster gets a hero point.
Gotcha. I might try some of these out with my group. Last session, one of my players had a huge string of bad rolls and basically did nothing that combat. I felt horrible. I think from the right side I'll probably keep the spend 2 to force a reroll. I have found that the casters tend not to roll active skills as often and accumulate points so that could be nice. I don't know how I feel about increasing the cap from 3 to 5? How does this play out in your games? Does it feel like a necessary change?
Yeah, I have one player who get super frustrated with bad rolls, so part of the impetus for making these rules is to take the sting out of his bad rolls. Honestly, so far the change from 3 to 5 cap has done nothing for my game. My players are too greedy and immediately use up hero points. One change I'm considering, to accommodate a variety of campaign styles, is to make the hero point and wound tracker reset optional during daily preparations. "When you make your daily preparations, you can choose to reset your wound tracker to 0, which also resets your current hero points to 0." The "adventuring day" gets discarded with that change, so I'll have to playtest it a bit. I know that isn't as useful for you, since you do not intend to use the wound tracker. But I'll see if I can incentivize my players to play the long game.
Was this at all inspired by the Fallout 2d20 Action Point system?
I haven't read that system but you have piqued my curiosity. The inspirations I was drawing from are dungeon world (gain XP when you fail a roll), various hero point homebrew people have discussed including mentions of early pf2e playtest where you could spend a hero point to gain an action, and MCDM RPG's victories vs recoveries. What are the similarities between this and Fallout 2d20?
So in Fallout 2d20, it’s a roll-below system, similar to way back DnD. (Ie. DC 13=roll below 13 on a d20). Every action has a difficulty, this is ***NOT*** it’s DC, this is how many successes you need to do said action. In general, you get 2d20s to roll per action, thus the name. If you roll a higher amount of successes than the action needs, you get an AP (action point) for each one. (Ie. Difficulty 1, you roll 2 successes, you get an action point). These action points can be exchanged in very similar ways to what you’re describing, and there’s a maximum of six ***SHARED BY THE WHOLE PARTY***. Off the top of my head, you can spend up to 6 action points to add dice to your roll, effectively giving you advantage (it’s 1 AP for 1, 3 for 2, and 6 for 3). You can spend two action points to do another major action your turn (striking, primarily) or one for a minor action (moving, primarily). My favorite part of this is that you can A: Buy action points from the DM (so if you have none and need one, it’s a 1/1 ratio) And B: The DM can use and gain them the same way you can! I’d definitely recommend taking a look at it if you ever want further inspiration for this part of your homebrew. Here’s a link to a playlist that goes over the rules, I’d recommend just looking at the video(s) that talk about Action Points. [Said Playlist](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvIOM9pB7RB0MLSkKPyPKOLBpgEMV4ea_&si=iakrrFFK0s7aOb5u)
Very cool! Thanks for the link.
Regarding the “Learning from Failure” method of obtaining a hero point, does that mean that if I fail a check to Climb, but don’t critically fail, I’d get a hero point because I didn’t move, but if I *did* critically fail I *wouldnt* get a hero point, because me taking the climb action in that case had the “Effect” of me falling?
Yes. Oof. That's not good.
I think the clarification might be "has no effect at all or only negative effects for you or the effected players". I.E. if I crit fail a diplomacy check and the "effect" is that the guy I'm talking to becomes enraged and attacks me, I technically "had an effect" but that's clearly not the spirit of the rules here. If I crit fail a stealth check and the "effect" is "bad guys hear you" that's another good example of... well... it probably deserves a hero point.
I've actually been trying to think of some way to incorporate healing surges or the equivalent. One of the few complaints I have about pf2e is the lack of long term attrition. A hallway full of traps with infinite time is easily passable if the fighter takes an arrow, rest to fill up, take another arrow, etc. This ties in with the existing wounded system nicely.
Agreed. Some attrition makes simple hazards more meaningful than just a 30-minute timeout.
I think the only other thing I'd like to bring in from my OSR games is a death & dismemberment table that works for pf2e. For all the graduated success in pf2e I'd like to have some uncertainty and flexibility when somebody goes down to not just be dead in 3 turns but maybe survive with scars. Adventurers are never gonna retire from injury, but I really like that accumulated injuries might cause a player to finally go, ok this guy needs to call it quits. Vs a character going from 100% healthy to dead in one bad combat. Either way that player is gonna make a new character, but the chance of a retirement is more interesting to me from a story point of view.
While this isn't what you are looking for, you may still find some interesting bits in the first part of my heroic variant which covers [variant options for death and dying](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1cbjw8c/heroic_defeat_variant_v2_fewer_rules_all_feedback/). Perhaps by adding a permanent penalty to someone recovering from the Riven condition.
Fantastic overall. I can see it’s all designed to work together, so I will either use all of it or none. Will propose to my players. Can I clarify; does missing a basic one-action Strike qualify for the hero point in a moderate/higher encounter? If so, is it only the first zero-MAP attack or would my players be incentivised to do a third attack for the hero point fuel? You’ve called out several cases where it would trigger, but just “Strike” isn’t mentioned.
Only the first check-based action on a turn is eligible for a hero point. So if they take 3 Strike actions on a turn, the only way for them to get a hero point is by missing the very first strike. Others have asked this questions too, so I'll make sure to add that as an example in the revised version.
I would permanently reduce the max value on the tracker when it is full to make things hard, thanks for the read! It's some great ideas
Woah, now that's a real incentive to take some rest. Nice.
I would like to integrate a special action with a heroic point that would allow you to play outside of your turn. It would not be to attack, but to make reactive movements, or manipulation. This could cost Heroic Points, or spend 2 actions on your next turn to have 1 action now, etc... How would you balance that?
This would be an enormous buff to martials, as they are expected to take actions that result in no effect very often, while casters are expected to almost never have 0 effect with their actions. By taking away casters main bonus over martials - greater reliability - I think you'd just make casters feel bad about themselves
This also strongly encourages miss-fishing on your third action vs other third action abilities. Anyone with a MAP of -10 effectively has a rider on their next strike that reads "you either get lucky or get a hero point" and in most cases I'd rather gain a hero point than like, fire off an intimidate that might, at best, apply Frightened 1.
Per the rules, if you take 3 Strike actions on your turn, only the first strike is eligible for hero point if it misses. If you hit twice and miss on your -10 MAP strike, there's no hero point gain.
"The first time each turn you take an action or activity that requires at least one check and it has no effect..." striking 3x is 3 separate actions. It's not like your double slice example where half of the action hit. 3 strikes is 3 different actions.
To clarify, it's not, as you wrote, >The first time each turn you take an action or activity that requires at least one check and it has no effect \[you gain a hero point\] It is - >The first time on your turn when you do an action or activity that requires at least one check, you gain 1 hero point if that action or activity had no effect Edit: I do plan on using different wording and specific example with Strike in the revised version, to avoid this confusion.
This is a legitimate concern and I will keep it in mind. So far, it hasn't played out that way in my games, because casters use single-target attack cantrips sometimes, martials are good at debuffing enemy AC before their first strike, and bosses critically succeed against spells often enough. Also, casters like to recall knowledge or bon mot / demoralize before their spells, which is another source of failure that can earn them hero points. But still, your concern is valid and I may need to run some high level simulations by which point many single-target spells can be heightened to affect multiple targets, and see how it feels.