So it has been said that it is possible to have a 18 in one stat stating at level one. So lets look at what we know.
All stats start at 10.
You first add stats from your race.
Then add from class.
Then from background.
So lets say you are playing as a human fighter with a blacksmith background.
Human(+2Str +2Con)
Class/Fighter(+2Str)
Blacksmith(+2Str +2Con)
So that gives me a 16Str and 14Con. So does anyone know what is the fourth step that gives you stat bonus(es)?
Do classes only give one stat bonus, two, or does it vary?
Do we know how many stat bonuses we get when leveling and at what levels do we get them?
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current best-guess understanding is that ability scores start at 10 and then are generated in 4 steps:
(1) Ancestry: 3 ability boosts (2 set, 1 free), 1 ability flaw
(2) Background: 2 ability boosts (1 set, 1 free)
(3) Class: 1 ability boost (set)
(4) Level: 4 ability boosts (free)
(Though we expect that humans, half-elves, and half-orcs will get 2 free ability boosts rather than 3 ability boosts and 1 flaw.)
This comes from the various blogs, the stats observed on a level-one playtest pregen, and the comment in the Leveling Up Blog that level-up ability boosts would be like Starfinder and level-one would get the same:
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months! There are, of course, a few tweaks, and we made all ability boosts work the same way instead of being different at 1st level. Learn it once, use it in perpetuity.
My understanding is that Starfinder gives 4 ability boosts every 5 levels, so we expect to have this round out first-level character creation. That would explain all the data we have so far.
***
So if I were creating, say, a completely standard Dwarf who was a Blacksmith and is now a Fighter, that might look like this:
Baseline (straight 10s):
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10
Ancestry: Dwarf (+Str, Con, Wis; -Cha):
Str 12 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8
Background: Blacksmith (+Str, Dex):
Str 14 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8
Class: Fighter (+Str):
Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8
Level One (+Str, Dex, Con, Wis):
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 8
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to add I think the only difference between SF stat ups and PF2E stat ups is they are always going to be +2, rather than Starfinders bizzare diminishing returns. I think generally odd ability scores will be a thing of the past (at which point we ask ourselves why have +2s instead of just +1s and make the modifier be stat-10)
Brand recognition. Really, ditching ability scores for modifiers would be the best design in a vacuum, as many of the 2d6 games do. But people who are used to any version of D&D (including 5e) will feel more at ease if the numbers are recognizable.
Even if the way you create stats varies, a 16 strength means the same thing to pretty much everyone regardless of if they played AD&D, 5e, PF1, or PF2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My own guess is that we will see diminishing-returns from the ability boosts, like in Starfinder. Two main reasons:
(1) Diminishing-return ability boosts would help keep the math bounded (max ability score of 22 v. 26 if each ability boost is +2). We've seen other features of the new system that go for more-bounded math so I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case here too.
(2) Diminishing-return ability boosts would interact a bit better with ability scores that start at odd numbers. This might not be a thing for the new standard generation method, but it's something to be expected in games that use alternative stat-generation methods such as rolling.
Maybe I'm wrong, of course. The major problem with this theory is that I have no good explanation for the "tweaks" to the Starfinder system mentioned in the leveling up blog. +2 every time is a pretty good guess for that! But I guess we'll see in August.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love it if there are no diminishing returns, I would love getting a stat to 25-30 without magic items. Maybe we will get blog before August to find out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My own guess is that we will see diminishing-returns from the ability boosts, like in Starfinder. Two main reasons:
(1) Diminishing-return ability boosts would help keep the math bounded (max ability score of 22 v. 26 if each ability boost is +2). We've seen other features of the new system that go for more-bounded math so I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case here too.
(2) Diminishing-return ability boosts would interact a bit better with ability scores that start at odd numbers. This might not be a thing for the new standard generation method, but it's something to be expected in games that use alternative stat-generation methods such as rolling.
Maybe I'm wrong, of course. The major problem with this theory is that I have no good explanation for the "tweaks" to the Starfinder system mentioned in the leveling up blog. +2 every time is a pretty good guess for that! But I guess we'll see in August.
I don't think odd ability scores will ever be a thing outside of unorthodox stat methods like rolling and point buys. Nor should they be.
Also, I think the number Mark mentioned for modifier differences was 18 of 19. If 5 of that is from Legendary vs untrained proficiency, and 5 is from an item, then the other 8 would need to come from ability scores. +8 would be the difference between a 10 and a 26 in a stat, with 26 being how high 4 ability boosts can get you on a starting 18.
So I don't think diminishing returns will be a thing.
|
|
Also, I think the number Mark mentioned for modifier differences was 18 of 19. If 5 of that is from Legendary vs untrained proficiency, and 5 is from an item, then the other 8 would need to come from ability scores. +8 would be the difference between a 10 and a 26 in a stat, with 26 being how high 4 ability boosts can get you on a starting 18.
What are you referring to here?
Also, I think the number Mark mentioned for modifier differences was 18 of 19. If 5 of that is from Legendary vs untrained proficiency, and 5 is from an item, then the other 8 would need to come from ability scores. +8 would be the difference between a 10 and a 26 in a stat, with 26 being how high 4 ability boosts can get you on a starting 18.What are you referring to here?
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both those arrays look right as long as Fighter and Paladin can both add Str. Which we know to be true of Fighter (Valeros has an 18 in one of the demo games), and seems likely but is unproven for a Paladin.
We may get diminishing returns in Pathfinder too.
We may, but it's unlikely. The statement that it's learned once and used forever is evidence against, and the math examples work out perfectly if people can hit an Ability of 26 by 20th level (which is what the +2 at 5th and every 5 levels thereafter winds up giving you).
Add in the lower magic item stuff and the implication that stat boost items may be mostly gone, and we probably just get +2 to 4 stats every 5 levels.
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.
He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.
That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.
I would be fine if stat boosting items were gone except for the "belt of giant strength" and "gauntlets of ogre power" but they should be minor artifacts and would grant other benefits.
Getting +2 to four stats at level one, at level 5, and every 5 levels after that would be cool.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine if stat boosting items were gone except for the "belt of giant strength" and "gauntlets of ogre power" but they should be minor artifacts and would grant other benefits.
Having items that give +2 to a stat and are only available at high levels is also possible. A cap of 28 would fall within the math, and only being +2 such items would be useful but precisely mandatory.
Getting +2 to four stats at level one, at level 5, and every 5 levels after that would be cool.
This seems very likely to be the case.
Wait, what?
That is how ability scores are arrived at? ABC + level? Um. Yuk?
I mean, anything that makes me yearn for my most detested method, point buy, must be really really yuk. *sigh* Welp, it's going to take some getting used to. At least there seem to be a couple of shapes for these cookies...
|
|
Wait, what?
That is how ability scores are arrived at? ABC + level? Um. Yuk?
I mean, anything that makes me yearn for my most detested method, point buy, must be really really yuk. *sigh* Welp, it's going to take some getting used to. At least there seem to be a couple of shapes for these cookies...
Yes, that is the new standard method. The Halflings & Gnomes blog does say, however:
(And if you want to roll your ability scores randomly, we have an option for that in the playtest so you can see how that might work, though we prefer for characters used in the playtest to be generated in the standard way.)
|
|
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.
That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.
I semi-remember those posts but can't find them at the moment. Really wish this website's function to search a user's posts worked. This is exactly the kind of thing it used to be great for.
If anyone does have a link to that post or posts from Mark I'd love to see it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.
Thanks, Mark! You're the best.
Diminishing returns would also go against their comment of "learn it once use it forever" as it would be different at character creation (no diminishing, we've seen 18 stat characters) and other levels.
Diminishing returns in SF also made your odd stat basically useless, as it takes the same amount of bumps to get to the end goal regardless. A serious bug in the system if you ask me.
The +1 boost does make some difference considering that a lot of feats have odd ability prerequisites. (Odd as in not even, rather than strange.) For instance, I have a soldier with the priest theme. I put two points into wisdom, and that gives me 13 to start. When I get him to level 5, I'll put another two points into wisdom, and I'll be able to take the feat that gives you limited mystic spellcasting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.I will say, this sometimes annoys me in PF1, and *really* annoys me in Starfinder.
(This is actually the reason I stopped playing SFS more or less.)
The Skill gap is ridiculous.
In PFS my 10th level Paladin has:
20 Charisma
10 Ranks in DiplomacyFor a +18 base
I was probably taking Deific Obedience Iomedae at 11, which when I rank it to 11 ranks will give me a +23...
Until I saw characters, at level 10 with +30's
A capped class skill, with a +5 ability score bonus, shouldn't be seeing anyone of equal level with a similar ability score having +12 higher of a bonus.
Starfinder, SFS it is even worse. To the point that there are entire star ship roles that unless you are an operative, with maxed stat, you will not be able to do.
So anything that closes the gap is something I approve of.
You could probably make a synthesist summoner in PF1 with more than +23 Diplomacy at first level with just Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Persuasive, a trait for class skill and +1 and the +8 from summoner (even higher with Silver Tongued racial trait from ARG). As a character builder, it's a fun exercise, but for the other person trying to be a diplomat, it's not very fun.
|
|
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.
That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.
I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it.
This might not confirm "all ability boosts are +2" over "ability boosts have diminishing returns." Here's an alternative breakdown:
+05 (legendary v. untrained proficiency)
+05 (legendary v. improvised item bonus)
+07 (ability of 22 [+6] v. ability of 8 [-1])
==============================
+17 difference
If ability boosts have diminishing returns like Starfinder, the max ability is 22 (start at 18, then +1 at levels 5/10/15/20). If ability boosts are always +2 the max ability is 26 (start at 18 and then +2x4).
The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").
The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".
(Again, I see all the reasons why that's probably true. I'm just stubbornly invested in this gut feeling that we'll get diminishing-return ability boosts. Honestly part of the reason is probably that opinion seems so universally to the other side. And I would hate to see a situation where everyone "knows" it's one way and then gets really mad if the playtest comes out and shows the other. So I want to keep the very disfavored minority-opinion possibility in folks' minds so they don't get expectations too bound up in the majority-opinion alternative! But, lol, hat's hopeless anyway since folks will be Extremely Mad Online about the playtest no matter what.)
Well, that's all fair I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that the power level of the game: low, standard, high, epic, may determine how many floating points you get at level 1.
So maybe you get 0 with low, 1 or 2 with standard, then 3 with high and 4 with epic.
|
|
The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").
This is possible. I feel like it's unlikely for a few reasons (no other odd stats anywhere, and many skills not requiring tools, while the example was said in a way that implied it applied to most if not all skills, leap to mind), but it's very possible.
The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".
It doesn't. I personally think the lack of diminishing returns is very likely, but there's absolutely no definitive evidence one way or the other.
I suspect that the power level of the game: low, standard, high, epic, may determine how many floating points you get at level 1.
So maybe you get 0 with low, 1 or 2 with standard, then 3 with high and 4 with epic.
The Demo Game characters clearly get 4 (the math from Kyra's stats make this almost a sure thing), so while the number might vary by power level (down to 2 for Low and up to 6 for High, for example), I'd be shocked if 4 wasn't the default.
|
|
The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").This is possible. I feel like it's unlikely for a few reasons (no other odd stats anywhere, and many skills not requiring tools, while the example was said in a way that implied it applied to most if not all skills, leap to mind), but it's very possible.
The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".It doesn't. I personally think the lack of diminishing returns is very likely, but there's absolutely no definitive evidence one way or the other.
Yeah. The other thing, of course, is that "it's possible to have a difference of +17 or +18" doesn't preclude from also being true that "it's possible to have a difference of +19 or +20" — which would make diminishing returns much less likely since my breakdown was stretching it already.
We'll see!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what?
That is how ability scores are arrived at? ABC + level? Um. Yuk?
I mean, anything that makes me yearn for my most detested method, point buy, must be really really yuk. *sigh* Welp, it's going to take some getting used to. At least there seem to be a couple of shapes for these cookies...
Yes, that is the new standard method. The Halflings & Gnomes blog does say, however:
(And if you want to roll your ability scores randomly, we have an option for that in the playtest so you can see how that might work, though we prefer for characters used in the playtest to be generated in the standard way.)
Hmm. "The standard way". So ABC + level will be the new standard.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the kind of approach to playing that Stephen Radney-McFarland cleaves to as outlined in his article at Raging Swan Press. It seems in RPG escapism, we need to play heroic characters, and that being able to auto-define them at character creation is the epitome of that. No more having to come to terms with and grow with an odd character, which, unfortunately, isn't akin to creating something "real". With flaws and strengths - random abilities.
You are not creating a “real” person. You are creating something you want to play. Letting the dice decide that for you can be an interesting exercise, but it’s a lazy mechanic.
Why are we even rolling dice? Maybe when we fight creatures, we could just consult an ABC + level vs Monster Rating chart, as qualified by our weapon or spell. No need to roll.
Heh. Just kidding. Though the chart could be handy...
Anyway, it's an interesting read and throws some light on the strengths and weaknesses (pun intended) of random vs. created characters.
Thanks for the article. I wish he hadn’t said “lazy” but it was interesting.
I really hope rolling remains an option (and that they put effort into keeping it “roughly the same” as whatever the default system ends up).
I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.I will say, this sometimes annoys me in PF1, and *really* annoys me in Starfinder.
(This is actually the reason I stopped playing SFS more or less.)
The Skill gap is ridiculous.
In PFS my 10th level Paladin has:
20 Charisma
10 Ranks in DiplomacyFor a +18 base
I was probably taking Deific Obedience Iomedae at 11, which when I rank it to 11 ranks will give me a +23...
Until I saw characters, at level 10 with +30's
A capped class skill, with a +5 ability score bonus, shouldn't be seeing anyone of equal level with a similar ability score having +12 higher of a bonus.
Starfinder, SFS it is even worse. To the point that there are entire star ship roles that unless you are an operative, with maxed stat, you will not be able to do.
So anything that closes the gap is something I approve of.
I fully agree with this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was never a fan of rolling stats so I like this way of getting stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am usually not so thrilled with PCs becoming as strong as giants without magic, but as PF2 seems to be going for seriously epic stuff at high levels, it makes sense (Beowulf ripping arms off and swimming for days. etc). As for giants, I am hoping in PF2 that all true giants are at least Huge.
This, for me, depends on the mood of the game. Sometimes is cool to play Game of Thrones, sometimes it's cool to play Beowulf. And it's difficult to have a system that is perfectly aligned with both. 5e is great to play Game of Thrones, so it's cool that PF2 becomes great to play Beowulf. That way we have 2 great systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could probably make a synthesist summoner in PF1 with more than +23 Diplomacy at first level with just Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Persuasive, a trait for class skill and +1 and the +8 from summoner (even higher with Silver Tongued racial trait from ARG). As a character builder, it's a fun exercise, but for the other person trying to be a diplomat, it's not very fun.I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.I will say, this sometimes annoys me in PF1, and *really* annoys me in Starfinder.
(This is actually the reason I stopped playing SFS more or less.)
The Skill gap is ridiculous.
In PFS my 10th level Paladin has:
20 Charisma
10 Ranks in DiplomacyFor a +18 base
I was probably taking Deific Obedience Iomedae at 11, which when I rank it to 11 ranks will give me a +23...
Until I saw characters, at level 10 with +30's
A capped class skill, with a +5 ability score bonus, shouldn't be seeing anyone of equal level with a similar ability score having +12 higher of a bonus.
Starfinder, SFS it is even worse. To the point that there are entire star ship roles that unless you are an operative, with maxed stat, you will not be able to do.
So anything that closes the gap is something I approve of.
I once GMed a extremely invested in diplomacy and bluff summoner in an evil campaign (Way of the Wicked). By level 20, he was able to convince angels to give up their duties, bluff the devil, and switch the entire LG nation alignment through speeches. I think I remember he had diplomacy in the 50s or more (would need to check).
While it was extemely fun in that particular campaign, and fit the mood of the adventure perfectly, it certainly meant the antipaladin with max bluff and high charisma had absolutely no reason to roll, ever. At higher levels, the gap between them was higher than 20, so anything the summoner couldn't do by rolling 1, the antipaladin wasn't even able to try.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, 5e isn't exactly Game of Thrones because GoT is VERY low magic. 5e is probably closer to Lord of the Rings, where magic exists and is common (Everybody in Hobbiton knows what a wizard is, for example), but it's not very high level stuff like, say, Beowulf is.
A better example of 5e might be The Witcher books and videogames. Magic is everywhere, everybody knows what a witch or sorcerer or druid is, and everybody knows there are monsters, and magic, and undead and curses. But average joe can't do a s**! about it, so they hire witchers and other adventurers to face them. Witchers are strong and capable, way beyond the average soldier, with unique "magic stuff", but they are still "human", in the sense that a fight vs a griffin is dangerous for them, giants and trolls are way stronger than they are, and a patrol of 5 soldiers can be a real problem for them if things go awry. For Beowulf, however, the mood is different. Beowulf, or the equivalent hero, could kill 5 normal soldiers with a single blow, can rip the arms off from a giant, and not only defeat monsters like a Sea Serpent, they do it by fighting them for a week underwater. Two different kind of stories, which need two different rulesets.
Yes, 5e isn't exactly Game of Thrones because GoT is VERY low magic. 5e is probably closer to Lord of the Rings, where magic exists and is common (Everybody in Hobbiton knows what a wizard is, for example), but it's not very high level stuff like, say, Beowulf is.Yeah, to capture that they would need to flesh out the Epic Boons system or some variant epic rules expansion. I never really delved into PF1 Mythic rules, are they good for that sort of thing?
I don't like the mechanic itself. I liked the idea, to create a different feel of mythic adventures from the get go, and not only at higher levels, but the mechanic itself I found a bit clunky. I use the simple mythic template sometimes for solo bosses (in particular, the one that allow them to act in 2 different initative moments, to help the Solo Boss Action Economy Problem) but the whole mechanic for PCs is not my cup of tea.
Legendary and Mythic work for different things, imho. Legendary, or epic, shows the effect of level. High level characters do epic stuff. Mythic could be used from lvl 1, and worked for giving the game a different feel. Like, "we are going to play in Diablo world. Every PC is a Nephilim, and has huge powers, and barbarians con do stuff like summoning a giant hammer and attack in a cone, from the begining of the campaign".
However, it's difficult to pull off. I think the new approach is better for most kind of games, and in particular it's better for Golarion, so I'm on board with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really liked the mythic system and think it'S actually sad that it got neglected so fast.
Of course they have to re-evaluate a lot of stuff if they are trying to pull of something similar for pf2, but it would actually make me really happy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the mythic idea. But the mechanics need a whole lot of refining it they want to put it again in PF2, imho
|
|
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.
That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.
I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it.This might not confirm "all ability boosts are +2" over "ability boosts have diminishing returns." Here's an alternative breakdown:
+05 (legendary v. untrained proficiency)
+05 (legendary v. improvised item bonus)
+07 (ability of 22 [+6] v. ability of 8 [-1])
==============================
+17 differenceIf ability boosts have diminishing returns like Starfinder, the max ability is 22 (start at 18, then +1 at levels 5/10/15/20). If ability boosts are always +2 the max ability is 26 (start at 18 and then +2x4).
The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").
The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".
(Again, I see all the reasons why that's probably true. I'm just stubbornly invested in this gut feeling that we'll get diminishing-return...
Nice work there. Note that I do not believe in diminishing returns though since they won't appear at 1st level, thus would make it different later on, and they also make things a bit complicated for a max difference of +2 to the bonus
I think the +18 comes into play for a character with an ancestry penalty, while the +17 is for a character with no ancestry penalty.
So, that would mean stats going to 24, which might be the case if all stat boosts are +2 and you do not have a stat boost at 20th
Seems like it would be problematic for Multiclassing dips. I'd rather they just figure out a better way to balance attribute dependency. It will at least be easier to scale multiple stats now.