| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone, after using the last week to read every single post about the devs that had any information about the mechanics of the game, just the mechanics, i think i can analyse it with enought reliability.
Whats know(about gameplay mechanics, not class abilities, just the part of the system that is universal to everything):
- You keep all PF1 six stats.
- You start with -1 to +4 in each stats(max +4 in ONE stat and -1 in ONE stat)
- You add your level to every D20 roll of the system (skill, attack, saves)
- You add your level to every D20 DC of the system (Basicly, ability DC you generate)
- Every D20 roll has a related proficiency, ranging from -2 to +3
- If you succeed by 10, you crit the roll, if you fail by 10, you fumble.
- If you do more than one attack, the second one is at -5 and the third at -10, on a D20 roll.
- Static HP, usually the PF1 full HD, plus con modifier, every single level.
- Every 5 levels, 4 stats modifiers of your choice goes up by 1 if it is less than +4, or by 0.5 if it is +4 or more.
- Weapon damage is around the same it was in PF1 (D4 for dagger, D12 for big weapons)
- You got 3 action points and 1 reaction per round. There is no distinction beteween theese actions, and some actions may cost 2 or 3 action points.
- Your armor still dont mitigate damage and only make you harder to hit.
- Armor still have a max deterity, with very heavy armors only allowing +1 or even +0 to AC from dex modifier.
- Some armor now increases touch ac.
- Armor skill applies both to normal and touch ac.
I will try to analyse all of those informations at the same time, i though about doing it in parts (like armor analises, stats, but to really try to preview the impact of a mechanic in a game, specially the most fundamental mechanics of the came, you have to analyse the whrole thing together).
The first part will not include ANY personal taste, like or dislike, just a cold translation of what a mechanic actually do.
First: The plus level and the new skill system.
At first, +1 in a D20 roll may sound like a 5% increase on the odds of doing something. In fact, +1 is ALWAYS more than 5% increase. If you roll without bonuses against an AC 11, you really have 50% chance of acomplishing your task. There is 10 numers (11-20) that make you successful. If you add 1 to the roll, there are 11 numbers now that make you succeed(10-20), thats EXACTLY 10% increase in the odds, or on a damage chart, an 10% damage increase over an infinite long fight (not including crits). If you hit on a 6-20, the next +1 will only mean 6,6% increase on your chance of sucess, or your damage over a long fight. So, your to hit suffers dimishing returns as it increases. Since your damage mitigation is exactly to opposite, your damage mitigation suffers increasing returns. Every +1AC means more than the previews poinst.
This means that the most important thing to your survivability is your level. Your defense increases in an exponential way, since your damage mitigation rises and your HP also rises. On an offensive view, your level serves better to mitigate the increasing defense of the opponent, than to increase your overall offensiveness. Of course your offensiveness, ie base damage increase, will be covered by class abilites.
Armor factor: Since your armor, specially heavy armor, is denying your dexterity bonus, but giving you a bigger bonus to AC, you can look at armor as an extra dex bonus. If you can use heavy armor, dump your dex and get the bonus from armor, leaving your stat bonuses to another stats. Since there is a previewed armor at +7AC +0 Dex, that means your armor can take place of 24 dex.
To figure out how hard or easy will be to pass or hit, its better just to analyse the level difference: Everyone is adding their level, so a level 10 vs level 10 would mean the same as a level 1 vs level 1 by bonuses alone, with the level difference increasing or decreasing the chance of success.
You hit with you Str, or dex, plus skill, against the oponent skill plus dex or armor. Considering this system makes almost mandatory to everybody to max out their attacking stats, by the same level, you will be seeing that what matters in the end is the skill difference. If someone has +1 skill and the other has +3 skill, the one with +3 has a clear advantage, but in the end the die roll will determine the outcome, but the one with +3 will win 60% of the time. That said, its clear that anything more than 1 level of difference, will make VERY hard for the lower level to even have a chance, even more so if the difference cross the level 5, 10, 15 or 20, where stat increase can sharpen the gulf even more. By 3 levels, if the higher level character or monster in defense oriented, someone who has like an AC 2 points higher than the average for their level will be almost impossible to damage, and fumbles will be more common than hits. Depending on how critical is to fumble, the best choice could be not fight at all and go home... and thats just a 3 level difference. It really soulds a lot of difference when youre investigating a lv2 vs a lv 5... but should be so great of a difference when youre analysing a lv 12 vs a lv 15? The numeric difference is the same.
Lets view some popular informations released about a level 3 specialized lawyer, against a level 15 dumb barbarian but who got basic "trained" at "law":
The lawyer somewhat used all his feat, options, enhancments, bla bla bla, to get 18 int(+4) and legendary law by level 3.
The barbarian has 8(+1) int but is trained in law.
The total "law" roll of the lawyer is +10
The total "law" roll of the barbarian is +14
On opposed rolls the barbarian will win 70% of the time... being dumb, having just basic training, against the best possible (and maybe legendary isnt even possible at level 3) lawyer in the world(why a lawyer would be level 10, i cant imagine).
Of course the devs said that you will have a LOT of abilites based on your skill level to compensate... but unless there is an ability saying "your have +4 or more on all your opposed rolls", he will lose. And the barbarian had to invest nothing, just a basic level skill, at 15 levels, to attain this, i image that if it is possible to attain legendary in one skill at level 3, it will take all your resources and choices by that level, that dont leave too many room to buy abilites to work from the skill.
Lets say both are at a trial, and the law is just one of the many rolls... diplomacy, deception, perform, are all rolls that you can make to enhance your audience opinion of your case. Well, you burned everything at law, even untrained the barbarian will massacre you at all other rolls.
It may look a biased judment of my part, but its only math. Thats the consequence of level bonuses being much higher than everything else. Skills and character choices matter, but only if youre even leveled, anything more than 2 levels appart, be low or high level, start to deviate to much, and that is not including the fact that at higher levels you will have much more opportunities to get higher level skills.
Now i will add my opnion(of course biased):
- As a system, it will work, but i really think that every character will be defined by class and always "be the same" on the character sheet, only looking different on roleplaying. Every rogue will have Dex 18, every fighter 18 Str, after the third adventure everybody will know by memory the character sheet of the other person just by knowing the class, with some fluffies here and there (i have +4 athletics and +3 oratory in this instead of +4 oratory and +3 athletics)
- Everyone is too much SAD. The above observation is a consequence of this.
- The action system appear to be ok and a good move. 3 is a good number, could be more, but 3 works, 4 or more would be problematic both for time consuming and evaluating the true action cost of each action.
- The proficiency system is very lackluster. Again level trumphs everything. I dont foresee having fun trying to do a very good blacksmith in a system where total level matter more than choices.
- I dont know why the devs chose to not take this opportunity to finally make armor work like armor? As true damage mitigation. The way it works, they have to create rules just to trie to not make the system break itself (like capping the dex bonus so armor dont make you unhittable)
- All that said, i like most thing about the new system, but the problems above IMO will really break the system. Level up loses a lot of flavor when it is just cosmetic, since everybody have to be exactly the same level to the system even work in first place.
Suggestion i would like to be playtested at some point:
- Your level bonus is half your level(+0 to +10), you skill bonus is Untrained: -4 Trained: 0 Expert: +2 Master: +4 Legendary: +6 or +8
- Skill in armor adds to AC, as usual, as the level bonus, there is no distinction beteween ac and touch ac.
- Your armor gives your a mitigation die, increasing the heavier the armor. When you take damage, you roll the mitigation die and subtract from the damage total. Critical hits and reduce the armor mitigation (so dagger will have a hard time damaging a full plate user, but a master in dagger can do that. And that will be very consistent with some historical reports of plate knights are walking tanks on the battlefield, and also aleviate a lot of the problems with bounded accuracy since most peasant could not damage a dragon even if they hit). If desired, the mitigation die can be different for some damage types, making armor less or more effective against different attacks.
- If mitigation die slows down the game too much, armor could just give resistance and thats it. Since crits probably will already have a way to reduce resistances.
- Everybody is MAD (this section is VERY IMPORTANT):
All stats will do the same to everyclass:
- Strength increases carry, lessen armor penalties, melee, throw and bow damage. Physical related DC.
- Dexterity increases hit and AC and reflex save. Finesse related DC.
- Constitution increases fortitude and hitpoints
- Intigence increase number os abilites/spells you learn/memorize and number of skills. Hit rolls with spell attacks, spell DCs against reflex.
- Wisdom increases will and all mental related defenses and perception. Spell DCs against will.
- Charisma incrases extra spell points/slots and resonance. Spell DCs against fortitude.
Fighters will want more strength than charisma, caster will want more charisma than strength, everyone want everything.
Maybe even giving fighters some effects that have its duration increased by inteligence, wisdom or charisma. For example a taunt with DC based in charisma and duration based on inteligence.
The complain a lot of people do about 4ed being "everyone is equal" occurs exactly because of everyone being SAD, to the point of every attack repeating the same roll with another attribute for each class. If every class do something with each of the attributes you create a reason for six attributes to exist, or your could just crease one attribute called "class power" and everyone start with it at 18.
As promised, i kept all my analyses to the core of the system, that was already revealed, and left what is still unknow (like the abiliteis or detail of each class untouched).
I would love to read what people around here think of my proposal.
PS.: Keep in my that i am not a native english speaker so probably there will be a LOT of gramatical mistakes.
At first, +1 in a D20 roll may sound like a 5% increase on the odds of doing something. In fact, +1 is ALWAYS more than 5% increase. If you roll without bonuses against an AC 11, you really have 50% chance of acomplishing your task. There is 10 numers (11-20) that make you successful. If you add 1 to the roll, there are 11 numbers now that make you succeed(10-20), thats EXACTLY 10% increase in the odds, or on a damage chart, an 10% damage increase over an infinite long fight (not including crits). If you hit on a 6-20, the next +1 will only mean 6,6% increase on your chance of sucess, or your damage over a long fight. So, your to hit suffers dimishing returns as it increases. Since your damage mitigation is exactly to opposite, your damage mitigation suffers increasing returns. Every +1AC means more than the previews poinst.
This seems like a really dumb hill to die on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's break this down.
The barbarian gets +14 in law, the lawyer +10
But, the lawyer gets to turn a success into a crit and a failure into a success.
So, against a dc 24 case the barbarian crit fails on a 1, fails on a 2-9, succeeds on a 10-19 and crit succeeds on a 20.
The lawyer crit. fails on a 1-4, succeeds on a 5-14 and crit. Succeeds on a 15-20. He may drop more cases, but he also roflstomps a load more.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ‘plus level’ breaks a lot of things. I really wish they hadn’t decided to go that direction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let's break this down.
The barbarian gets +14 in law, the lawyer +10
But, the lawyer gets to turn a success into a crit and a failure into a success.
So, against a dc 24 case the barbarian crit fails on a 1, fails on a 2-9, succeeds on a 10-19 and crit succeeds on a 20.
The lawyer crit. fails on a 1-4, succeeds on a 5-14 and crit. Succeeds on a 15-20. He may drop more cases, but he also roflstomps a load more.
.
Close, but the Later doesn't drop more cases. He is better in every way despite the lower number. I think that a lot of people need to realize that the number isn't the most important thing anymore, the proficiency is. It let's you do the real stuff with the skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont foresee having fun trying to do a very good blacksmith in a system where total level matter more than choices.
Fortunately, PF2 aims to not be that kind of system. A 15th level untrained (or even trained) character simply cannot achieve the same quality or complexity of items that a 3rd level expert blacksmith could achieve. The higher number means very little if you don't have the training to go with it.
I really hope youre right about what can and cannot be acomplished.
Because in the end, if you cant pass the DC, no matter how much fluff goes with your success roll, you failed.
Off course there are MANY ways to handle this and thats why i said the system can work.
And to be honest my main concern is with the everyone SAD approach. They took many great ideas from Pillars of Eternity (the crit is exact that and the ability to change success around to crit, o lessen the effect of a fairule), they coult also had taken the Pillars of Eternity approach on stats making them change something from the system, not the class itself.
All DCs based on a single attribute, be it for spell or abilities dcs, will make everyone max it and play the exact same character over and over.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Hi! It's nice to run into long breakdown posts, but there are a couple of things I disagree with pretty heavily. Sorry about the wall of text.
I dont foresee having fun trying to do a very good blacksmith in a system where total level matter more than choices.
While I'd rather not get into another argument about the +level system, the situation with crafting has been addressed:
In the Playtest, items have levels. You can craft items of your level or lower, and you must be skilled enough at crafting, reflected in your proficiency rank, to craft an item of that quality (trained for standard items, and expert, master, or legendary for higher-quality ones). Crafting an item requires you to spend half its Price in crafting materials. You might find or acquire these sorts of materials, and most of them you can buy directly with currency, if you need to.
You have to spend at least 4 days crafting an item of your level, and you can reduce this if your level is higher than the item's. Once that time is up, you have two options if you succeed at your check: complete the item right away by supplying the rest of its Price in materials (a great option if you have the money for the item but can't find one on the market), or spend more time on your crafting to reduce the Price through your superior skill. You can stop crafting at any time and complete the item by providing the remaining amount of its Price. If you got a critical success on your skill check, the discount is better!
placed in bold appropriately. I've left the other stuff in because level does matter, but proficiency gates the actual quality of work.
- As a system, it will work, but i really think that every character will be defined by class and always "be the same" on the character sheet, only looking different on roleplaying. Every rogue will have Dex 18, every fighter 18 Str, after the third adventure everybody will know by memory the character sheet of the other person just by knowing the class, with some fluffies here and there (i have +4 athletics and +3 oratory in this instead of +4 oratory and +3 athletics)
At level one you have:
- A minmaxed stat array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. If you're human that will read 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10.
- 6-10 ancestry hit points.
- One ancestry feat. If you're human you seem to be able to sub in a general feat or a class feat.
- One skill feat, two if you're a rogue.
- A bonus lore skill.
- X+int mod trained skills.
- A class feat. some casters like cleric seem to be missing this. It is implied that non-universalist wizards lack this starting feat, but that universalists have one.
- A "subclass" if you are playing a class with one. This includes the domain (and deity) of a cleric, the school of a wizard, the bloodline of a sorcerer, the rage totem of a barbarian. Monks choose whether to base class features of strength or dexterity.
This seems like a fair bit of modularity at level one, so while I can see some rough build patterns being common, I'd be surprised if everyone had the same build 90% of the time. We also know that weapons have distinctive playstyles, as you can see in the links above. You can even use your ancestry feats on nabbing access to weaponry that your class wouldn't permit competence with. If you're a martial like a fighter, you're going to play differently depending on what weapon (this has been noted and given examples by the devs but I can't remember where the comment is).
We also have some information about the gnome ancestry and the druid thanks to QuidEst. From what we know about gnomes:
Gnomes get the following choices of ancestry feats available at level 1:
Animal Accomplice (a familiar), Animal Speaker, Discerning Smell, Fey Fellowship, First World Magic (cantrips), Illusion Sense, Obsessive (extra lore skill), Weapon Familiarity (Gnome)
So, for example. Let's take three gnome rogues. They all probably have high dexterity, but one might have a familiar and a skill feat for assurance in stealth checks, making them a good scout. Perhaps they also have a background as an urchin for the pickpocketing feat. The second might take weapon familiarity and catfall so they can jump off roofs and ambush people with their kukris. Maybe they have a background as a criminal, so they can smuggle their assortment of pointy objects past observers. The third one is a bit of a nerd and wannabe spellcaster. So they take first world magic for a cantrip, the scholar background (IIRC it gives assurance in nature, religion, arcana, or occultism. I can't recall where I saw the comment though), and the additional lore skill feat, which gives a bonus lore skill. While all three will be recognisable as rogues, they each have their own strengths, and might prize different statistics (the second for instance will probably be minmaxed for combat and want high dex, followed by con. The third will likely prize their mental stats much more relative, and probably consider con less important).
I think this situation will be exaggerated with human sorcerers, as sorcerer bloodlines are different enough to almost be different classes, and humans can pull in bonus class and general feats instead of ancestry feats.I will concede that it will likely be possible to guess the highest stat of a character based on class, but some classes (e.g. monk as mentioned and fighter depending on what you want for your melee/ranged split) will have variable dominant stats. From what we've seen I think Sorcerers seem the most SAD, but they get explicitly different spell lists depending on bloodline.
- Everyone is too much SAD. The above observation is a consequence of this.
From my breakdown given above for minmaxed stat arrays (and the fact that stat increases boost four stats at once) I think at minimum classes are going to have 2-3 good stats, and they're likely to have 1-2 decent or acceptable ones beyond that. All three physical stats are useful to fighters, and depending on what you choose for your monk all stats have varying levels of usefulness bar int (which affects starting skills) and cha (which affects resonance to a (later on minor) degree). Clerics need at minimum wisdom and charisma for a full casting benefit (and str/dex and con to be sufficient in melee combat), and we know that certain spells in general seem to use dexterity in order to aim. At minimum alchemists are probably going to want some dex to throw their bombs, and some strength to help them carry everything.
To be honest I get the impression that PF2 classes are less going to be SAD, and more "pick 1-3 stats to dump". Alchemists can ditch charisma, wizards strength, monks and clerics intelligence, and so on. I think the most common comment people are giving for the PF2 stats system is "MAD, but more functional than being MAD in PF1".- All that said, i like most thing about the new system, but the problems above IMO will really break the system. Level up loses a lot of flavor when it is just cosmetic, since everybody have to be exactly the same level to the system even work in first place.
It's not just cosmetic though. You slot in the modules you want as you go up in levels and you become more versatile over time. Certain classes (e.g. fighter, monk) also slowly become more efficient at using the action economy, while others (e.g. wizard, cleric) get the ability to use actions and resources to change how their weaker features work. Because level adds to resonance, even the small fact of that number getting bigger means that alchemists can give out more party buffs, more flexibly.
Suggestion i would like to be playtested at some point:
Righto, I'll quickly chip in on these.
- Your level bonus is half your level(+0 to +10), you skill bonus is Untrained: -4 Trained: 0 Expert: +2 Master: +4 Legendary: +6 or +8
Changing the level bonus, as noted many times by DeadManWalking works fine as long as applied universally. I'm unsure on how changing the skill bonus would work, but your example numbers, to me at least, feel fairly swingy. While I'd rather not say much there without seeing more of the system, they feel like they'd make a wider gulf of crit fails vs crit successes. Unless handled carefully that could feel comical IMO.
- Skill in armor adds to AC, as usual, as the level bonus, there is no distinction beteween ac and touch ac.
Might require reworking a lot of spells and bombs.
- Your armor gives your a mitigation die, increasing the heavier the armor. When you take damage, you roll the mitigation die and subtract from the damage total. Critical hits and reduce the armor mitigation (so dagger will have a hard time damaging a full plate user, but a master in dagger can do that. And that will be very consistent with some historical reports of plate knights are walking tanks on the battlefield, and also aleviate a lot of the problems with bounded accuracy since most peasant could not damage a dragon even if they hit). If desired, the mitigation die can be different for some damage types, making armor less or more effective against different attacks.
I like the idea, but this seems like a non-negligible balance rewrite.
- If mitigation die slows down the game too much, armor could just give resistance and thats it. Since crits probably will already have a way to reduce resistances.
Again, this would require some very careful rebalancing. It also risks making players comically resistant to weak hordes. Crits as current do not (AFAIK) mitigate resistance, they just hit harder, which is in turn more likely to get past resistances.
- Everybody is MAD (this section is VERY IMPORTANT):
All stats will do the same to everyclass:
- Strength increases carry, lessen armor penalties, melee, throw and bow damage. Physical related DC.
- Dexterity increases hit and AC and reflex save. Finesse related DC.
- Constitution increases fortitude and hitpoints
- Intigence increase number os abilites/spells you learn/memorize and number of skills. Hit rolls with spell attacks, spell DCs against reflex.
- Wisdom increases will and all mental related defenses and perception. Spell DCs against will.
- Charisma incrases extra spell points/slots and resonance. Spell DCs against fortitude.
A lot of this is already in place, but some of it doesn't feel like a great idea IMO. Stat affecting specific spell DC types seems like it will just encourage wizards to use explosions, clerics to use mind control, and sorcerers to make people ill at the expense of more varied tactics. Going back to int to hit with spell attacks means wizards can skimp on dex. Using charisma for spell points could cause more dabbling in it sure, but I think that would cause a lot of sore feelings as suddenly wizards can't use their learned school powers without charisma. Int to spell count and cha to slot count seems like a step away from the standardisation they're going for.
Ok, let's break this down.
The barbarian gets +14 in law, the lawyer +10
But, the lawyer gets to turn a success into a crit and a failure into a success.
So, against a dc 24 case the barbarian crit fails on a 1, fails on a 2-9, succeeds on a 10-19 and crit succeeds on a 20.
The lawyer crit. fails on a 1-4, succeeds on a 5-14 and crit. Succeeds on a 15-20. He may drop more cases, but he also roflstomps a load more.
Can there even be a legendary skilled anything at level 3? Or will NPCs follow different rules? There is something odd if skill expertise is gated by level. Or do they have to level 13 like PCs?
I do agree with the OPs basic point that adding level to skills creates wonky situations.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with the OPs basic point that adding level to skills creates wonky situations.
Only in a system like P1e where the total rolled on the dice is the only determinant of success or failure.
In P2e, you have to look at your level of expertise in a given skill before you're even allowed to roll the dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, PF2 aims to not be that kind of system. A 15th level untrained (or even trained) character simply cannot achieve the same quality or complexity of items that a 3rd level expert blacksmith could achieve. The higher number means very little if you don't have the training to go with it.
This. ^^^
A level 20 PC untrained in Religion might have +18 in Religion, but still cannot do what a level 1 cleric that is an expert in Religion can do. Sure, the level 20 guy can easily identify a skeleton (better than the level 1, he has more field experience), but he has no chance at reciting a line out of a holy text, which the level 1 can do.
In PF2, a high skill check may mean you can do mundane things really well, but it's the proficiency that tell you if you have the training to even attempt something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now instead of BECMI we have UTEML?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will take some getting used to, sure. But at least we can finally have low level enemies provide genuine threats on skill contests.
I kind of like the granularity UTEML allows. It's a compromise between PF1's skill ranks and systems like 5E, in which you are just trained or untrained. Tossing one rank into a skill now provides a genuine menu of options, rather than just being flavor after a while. And if you want more options, you can put more skill-ups into it and pick up some feats that open them up even more (although there's a danger here). How far you can go is ultimately determined by your class and background, which is also interesting.
The danger I mention is we can go TOO far with skill feats, and that the pressure to put skill feats into print will eventually make what should be a skill roll anyone can attempt locked behind a feat and a proficiency bonus, potentially after years of playing it the more lenient way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will take some getting used to, sure. But at least we can finally have low level enemies provide genuine threats on skill contests.
I kind of like the granularity UTEML allows. It's a compromise between PF1's skill ranks and systems like 5E, in which you are just trained or untrained. Tossing one rank into a skill now provides a genuine menu of options, rather than just being flavor after a while. And if you want more options, you can put more skill-ups into it and pick up some feats that open them up even more (although there's a danger here). How far you can go is ultimately determined by your class and background, which is also interesting.
The danger I mention is we can go TOO far with skill feats, and that the pressure to put skill feats into print will eventually make what should be a skill roll anyone can attempt locked behind a feat and a proficiency bonus, potentially after years of playing it the more lenient way.
I think the only thing I'm really worried about rn is it being hard to nab signature skills, as I'd sort of hate feeling like I'm pressganged into going a particular route.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The danger I mention is we can go TOO far with skill feats, and that the pressure to put skill feats into print will eventually make what should be a skill roll anyone can attempt locked behind a feat and a proficiency bonus, potentially after years of playing it the more lenient way.
Unless the Paizo design team makes it a core design principle to protect large swaths of skill areas from feats, this will happen. It'll take a couple years for it to really start happening, but it will happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont have much time now to answer all the posts, by i am reading and really proud of the community putting such a good debate instead of troll bashing that i am used in some beta forums from games.
I will later analyse the informations all of you gave, specially Elleth, and how, IMO, it will impact gameplay.
Just a quick review: My proposition of MAD for everybody have not to follow the exact suggestion i gave, the idea was just to put uses to all attributes to all classes so you can have a smart fighter and a strong fighter. No problem with the strong fighter doing more damage, since it is kind of the "strength thing", but maybe the fighter could be better at applying debuffs, or debuff durations, or buff himself better with stances...
If the game is made just a LITTLE more "mad to everybody" and armor gives some sort of direct damage mitigation (that monster could have an equivalent from natural armor) and monks could mimic as a reaction from a Ki ability, for example, and i will be doing summersaults of excitement from this new system :P
The level X skill bonus is just a "fine tune" thing in my book, and to be honest, can be very easily houseruled if i find numbers that appeal more to my taste :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MAD for everyone doesn't mean you have a diversity of characters necessarily. It can result in every character needing the same scores in every stat.
If you HAVE to have a 14 Intelligence, then every character gets a 14 Int.
If you HAVE to have a 12 Wisdom, every character gets a 12 Wisdom.
Look back on your career of characters you've played and seen played. How many of the same race/class combo have moderately similar stats, and how much has that similarity really mattered?
When looking at the theorycraft of how characters are made, people get hung up on the ability scores waaaaaayyyyy to much. Race and class combo is way more impactful than whether your Intelligence is 9 or 12. In fact, I bet if we recorded video of a bunch of players playing Fighters at conventions, without being told each characters Intelligence score, you'd be hard pressed to guess what the exact Int is of each Fighter (outside of obvious outliers, like a 6 vs a 16),
MAD for everyone doesn't mean you have a diversity of characters necessarily. It can result in every character needing the same scores in every stat.
I don't think this is the case, but it's true.
Race and class combo is way more impactful than whether your Intelligence is 9 or 12. In fact, I bet if we recorded video of a bunch of players playing Fighters at conventions, without being told each characters Intelligence score, you'd be hard pressed to guess what the exact Int is of each Fighter (outside of obvious outliers, like a 6 vs a 16),
Yeah, I think this is the case. There are enough building blocks around that precise stats don't actually mean the characters are the same buildwise.
I agree with the post above. As far as roleplaying goes, the outlier stats of 8 and 18 are far more memorable (if roleplayed) than a mix of moderate stats. I think MAD characters are less distinctive, not more so. I think that systems closer to single stat, like 4e and 5e not only help enforce tropes more, but also makes it far more memorable when those tropes are subverted.
MAD for everyone doesn't mean you have a diversity of characters necessarily. It can result in every character needing the same scores in every stat.I don't think this is the case, but it's true.
Race and class combo is way more impactful than whether your Intelligence is 9 or 12. In fact, I bet if we recorded video of a bunch of players playing Fighters at conventions, without being told each characters Intelligence score, you'd be hard pressed to guess what the exact Int is of each Fighter (outside of obvious outliers, like a 6 vs a 16),Yeah, I think this is the case. There are enough building blocks around that precise stats don't actually mean the characters are the same buildwise.
Probably i should drop the "D" from SAD and MAD cause i think it confused a little what i meant.
"Dependency" is a strong word. I probably mean "utility". I will try to explain:
if we take 3.X PF1 Monk, the term "MAD" come to mind, but what i want by "everybody MAD" is a very differnt approach. In 3.X you NEED to have hight numbers in 3 stats just to perform as everyone else with 1 or 2.
That really describes the word "dependancy" and is not what i mean.
I mean that if stats do different things that are normalized across classes, like for example INT bonus increase duration of lingering effects like buffs, certain classes for sure could make more use of it than others, but as long as every class has at least one use, you can do a viable character with that stat as a high value.
The SAD part i am talking in the presented system is how things are being handled by the previewed character sheet. You class literary have an atribute to set in stone all your DCs. That mean that strength is no longer strength for a fighter... its you "fighter score", and all your other stats are "cosmetic with some bonuses"
Thats mean, the measure of how good of a fighter you are is your strength... and almost every single fighter will have strength 18 cause it return more then the sum of all the other 5 stats together.
A class having a stat more important is very fine to me, i prefer not hard setted like this, but is fine. When its value is greater than all other value in the game, i think it is a little overdone.
And it goes back to what everyone is saying that they DONT want, like the 4ed approach that every attack is the same with a different stat based on class.
If DCs were based on what the ability do, with the stat used varying by effect, i think a lot more options and build would sprout inside the same character class.
I can be completely wrong and missinterpreted all the current information that was released, but i dont really think so.
Well, you're missing that e Spellcasters are very reliant on Dex rather than their casting ability, because their attack spells are ranged touch, rather than based off their 'spell roll.' Though conversely, they can also ignore their primary stat if they aren't using DCs much, a buff caster doesn't need a high stat for much of anything.
I think the problem PF2 is going to have is actually the same problem 3.X consistently has. Strength only matters if you're on the line, Dex is super important, if you're a caster your primary stat matters. charisma is up in the air to me, it's either vital or still trash depending on how abusable resonance actually is. Con actually is far less important in terms of HP as the HP bloat means that a PF2 elf fighter with 8 Con actually has more HP (on average) than a PF1 fighter with 14 Con.
But Con and Wis still matter a bit for saves, which leaves Str, Int and Chr (maybe) dependent entirely on if the class needs them. But the way character creation and later stat ups work, grabbing a bit of everything is easy. You really don't have to sacrifice at any point, unless you're obsessed with very high numbers in multiple stats.
Well, you're missing that e Spellcasters are very reliant on Dex rather than their casting ability, because their attack spells are ranged touch, rather than based off their 'spell roll.' Though conversely, they can also ignore their primary stat if they aren't using DCs much, a buff caster doesn't need a high stat for much of anything.
I think the problem PF2 is going to have is actually the same problem 3.X consistently has. Strength only matters if you're on the line, Dex is super important, if you're a caster your primary stat matters. charisma is up in the air to me, it's either vital or still trash depending on how abusable resonance actually is. Con actually is far less important in terms of HP as the HP bloat means that a PF2 elf fighter with 8 Con actually has more HP (on average) than a PF1 fighter with 14 Con.
But Con and Wis still matter a bit for saves, which leaves Str, Int and Chr (maybe) dependent entirely on if the class needs them. But the way character creation and later stat ups work, grabbing a bit of everything is easy. You really don't have to sacrifice at any point, unless you're obsessed with very high numbers in multiple stats.
Yeah, this is all fair.
I do think that Strength is going to be a good stat for Alchemists though, given encumbrance limits and all that.
The SAD part i am talking in the presented system is how things are being handled by the previewed character sheet. You class literary have an atribute to set in stone all your DCs. That mean that strength is no longer strength for a fighter... its you "fighter score", and all your other stats are "cosmetic with some bonuses"
I think you're making a mistake here, by overestimating the importance of a character's mode of attack over other aspects. If you do dump everything in favor of attack stats, you run the risk of building a glass cannon: Your character will do lots of damage, but on a real battlefield he/she will be disabled or killed quickly.
It is correct that the game design focuses on a single attack attribute, with exceptions (see the remark from Voss about the need for Dex when using ranged touch spells). This attack attribute can be Str or Dex for martials, Int, Wis or Cha for casters.
However, you still need to pay attention to your defenses, and these require 3 attributes, Con, Dex and Wis. Especially with the new critical success/failure mechanic, a +1 from any defensive attribute is going to be very important: A critical failure on a poison, disease, spell, etc is going to hurt a lot, as will a critical hit from the enemy.
Overall, I think we'll be able to completely dump at most one attribute, either Str or Int, or possibly two if it turns out Resonance isn't a critical limitation.
I think you're making a mistake here, by overestimating the importance of a character's mode of attack over other aspects. If you do dump everything in favor of attack stats, you run the risk of building a glass cannon: Your character will do lots of damage, but on a real battlefield he/she will be disabled or killed quickly.It is correct that the game design focuses on a single attack attribute, with exceptions (see the remark from Voss about the need for Dex when using ranged touch spells). This attack attribute can be Str or Dex for martials, Int, Wis or Cha for casters.
However, you still need to pay attention to your defenses, and these require 3 attributes, Con, Dex and Wis. Especially with the new critical success/failure mechanic, a +1 from any defensive attribute is going to be very important: A critical failure on a poison, disease, spell, etc is going to hurt a lot, as will a critical hit from the enemy.
Overall, I think we'll be able to completely dump at most one attribute, either Str or Int, or possibly two if it turns out Resonance isn't a critical limitation.
I really hope its my mistake. I said i could be completely wrong. But after seeing all the premades you see that all have 18 and "forget about the rest". I am ok with premades done that way cause it simplifies to new players.
I love the "raise four atributes every 5 levels" change. Really really loved and probably is my favored change beteween 1st and 2nd editions. I always tried to house rule something like that in my games.
I hope the system is easy enough to change some parts as it seems easy enough to change others (for example, +Lv is very easy to change to +1/2 level or any other number since it is a consistent across the rules, other things like armor as DR instead of AC would be a LOT more work to change)
I really hope its my mistake. I said i could be completely wrong. But after seeing all the premades you see that all have 18 and "forget about the rest". I am ok with premades done that way cause it simplifies to new players.
I love the "raise four atributes every 5 levels" change. Really really loved and probably is my favored change beteween 1st and 2nd editions. I always tried to house rule something like that in my games.
I hope the system is easy enough to change some parts as it seems easy enough to change others (for example, +Lv is very easy to change to +1/2 level or any other number since it is a consistent across the rules, other things like armor as DR instead of AC would be a LOT more work to change)
I don't think one can afford to "forget about the rest" and I don't think the pregen characters are built that way. Anyway, the attribute generation doesn't let you dump attributes as completely as you could with point buy in PF1 - a very good thing, imo.
On the matter of +lvl to everything, sure it is simple to change but I don't think you can do that and keep the game balanced at high levels, unless you make other, deeper changes, like armor, static DC for skill checks, and magic items.
The new stat generation method basically enables all 1st levels to have an 18 in their primary stat. There can be a few exceptions:
1) Playing a race with a stat penalty (i.e. a goblin STR based fighter)
2) Attempting a melee caster (may go with max attack stat and have spell casting as a secondary stat).
3) Switch hitter or jack of all trades character (i.e. someone with two 16's). e.g. a monk with 16 ST and DX or a ranger that uses a bow and a two handed weapon.
4) Some weird experimental of flavor based builds.
I would guess that over 80% (using the 80/20 rule, i have no stats to back me up) of the 1st level characters would have an 18 though in their primary. Especially if all the comments about a +1 bonus being super important. You may need an 18 in your primary stat or be declared sub optimal! This would lead to a lot of similar looking characters.
EDIT: I am assuming you can get 16/16 instead of 18/14 but I haven't actually looked into the various previews to see if that is possible. Just from my memory of them.
Well, forget about the rest isn't actually happening with the half of the premades we've seen. For one, one doesn't have an 18 at all, and 14s and 12s are very prevalent and upgrade easily at 5th.
Now, the stat distribution is a bit overly similar, but that has a lot to do with the way bonuses are distributed at 1st level. There is a fairly decent argument to be made about building to 19/14/14/14/14/10 at 5th level, and its easily done.
The new stat generation method basically enables all 1st levels to have an 18 in their primary stat. There can be a few exceptions:
1) Playing a race with a stat penalty (i.e. a goblin STR based fighter)
2) Attempting a melee caster (may go with max attack stat and have spell casting as a secondary stat).
3) Switch hitter or jack of all trades character (i.e. someone with two 16's). e.g. a monk with 16 ST and DX or a ranger that uses a bow and a two handed weapon.
4) Some weird experimental of flavor based builds.
I would guess that over 80% (using the 80/20 rule, i have no stats to back me up) of the 1st level characters would have an 18 though in their primary. Especially if all the comments about a +1 bonus being super important. You may need an 18 in your primary stat or be declared sub optimal! This would lead to a lot of similar looking characters.
EDIT: I am assuming you can get 16/16 instead of 18/14 but I haven't actually looked into the various previews to see if that is possible. Just from my memory of them.
Minor note: gobbos are -2 wis, not -2 str. Gobbos can mash thy head in muchily.
Also, at a glance. 16/16/16/10/10/10 or 16/16/16/12/10/8 sound just as possible as 18/16/14/12/10/8 etc.Also, ditto on Voss. The pregens didn't look minmaxed to me at all, though Fumbus' layout was alright IIRC.
The new stat generation method basically enables all 1st levels to have an 18 in their primary stat. There can be a few exceptions:
1) Playing a race with a stat penalty (i.e. a goblin STR based fighter)
2) Attempting a melee caster (may go with max attack stat and have spell casting as a secondary stat).
3) Switch hitter or jack of all trades character (i.e. someone with two 16's). e.g. a monk with 16 ST and DX or a ranger that uses a bow and a two handed weapon.
4) Some weird experimental of flavor based builds.
I would guess that over 80% (using the 80/20 rule, i have no stats to back me up) of the 1st level characters would have an 18 though in their primary. Especially if all the comments about a +1 bonus being super important. You may need an 18 in your primary stat or be declared sub optimal! This would lead to a lot of similar looking characters.
EDIT: I am assuming you can get 16/16 instead of 18/14 but I haven't actually looked into the various previews to see if that is possible. Just from my memory of them.
Minor note: gobbos are -2 wis, not -2 str. Gobbos can mash thy head in muchily.
Also, at a glance. 16/16/16/10/10/10 or 16/16/16/12/10/8 sound just as possible as 18/16/14/12/10/8 etc.Also, ditto on Voss. The pregens didn't look minmaxed to me at all, though Fumbus' layout was alright IIRC.
My mistake about the goblin as an example. If WS is thier penalty, then Cleric should have been the class I used.
All the pregens have 18's in their primary score, which was the main point. You must have an 18 to start (not true but I bet it will be commonly thought).
I am not sure how possible it is to get three 16's, i think it would require a very set combination of race/class/background that would leave you with few options (perhaps only one, maybe more in the full core book). But if it is doable, people may do it (screw my background).
My mistake about the goblin as an example. If WS is thier penalty, then Cleric should have been the class I used.
All the pregens have 18's in their primary score, which was the main point. You must have an 18 to start (not true but I bet it will be commonly thought).
I am not sure how possible it is to get three 16's, i think it would require a very set combination of race/class/background that would leave you with few options (perhaps only one, maybe more in the full core book). But if it is doable, people may do it (screw my background).
Yeah. I was more mentioning it in case people wanted to start planning Gobbo Barbs or fighters, not to be pedantic.
In character creation you get the following:
I think we can probably do an example from what we know. Let's go with an elf urchin wizard.
Edit: To clarify, the main thing is that you have to play an ancestry with +2/+2/+2/-2, which basically means don't play a human.
The new stat generation method basically enables all 1st levels to have an 18 in their primary stat. There can be a few exceptions:
1) Playing a race with a stat penalty (i.e. a goblin STR based fighter)
2) Attempting a melee caster (may go with max attack stat and have spell casting as a secondary stat).
3) Switch hitter or jack of all trades character (i.e. someone with two 16's). e.g. a monk with 16 ST and DX or a ranger that uses a bow and a two handed weapon.
4) Some weird experimental of flavor based builds.
I would guess that over 80% (using the 80/20 rule, i have no stats to back me up) of the 1st level characters would have an 18 though in their primary. Especially if all the comments about a +1 bonus being super important. You may need an 18 in your primary stat or be declared sub optimal! This would lead to a lot of similar looking characters.
EDIT: I am assuming you can get 16/16 instead of 18/14 but I haven't actually looked into the various previews to see if that is possible. Just from my memory of them.
Minor note: gobbos are -2 wis, not -2 str. Gobbos can mash thy head in muchily.
Also, at a glance. 16/16/16/10/10/10 or 16/16/16/12/10/8 sound just as possible as 18/16/14/12/10/8 etc.Also, ditto on Voss. The pregens didn't look minmaxed to me at all, though Fumbus' layout was alright IIRC.
My mistake about the goblin as an example. If WS is thier penalty, then Cleric should have been the class I used.
All the pregens have 18's in their primary score, which was the main point. You must have an 18 to start (not true but I bet it will be commonly thought).
I am not sure how possible it is to get three 16's, i think it would require a very set combination of race/class/background that would leave you with few options (perhaps only one, maybe more in the full core book). But if it is doable, people may do it (screw my background).
Three 16s is pretty easily doable, but it requires that you're a +2/+2/+2/-2 race without it, you can't do it.
Race: + (1 stat)/+ (1 stat)/+ (floating)/- (1 stat)
Background: + (1 of 2 stats)/+ (floating)
Class: + (1 stat)
1st Level: +/+/+/+ (all floating)
So if all starts at 10, you can get one of your 16s just by stacking floaters, then the other 16 from Race+Background+(Class or 1st level) and the other 16 from Race+Background+(Class or 1st level; whichever you didn't pick). There's other combinations as well, but that's the easiest I could think of. You can also get a 16 from Background/Class/1st level or Race/Class/1st level, for example.
Theoretical human:
Race: +/+ (all floating)
Background: + (1 of 2 stats)/+ (floating)
Class: + (1 stat)
1st Level: +/+/+/+ (all floating)
In this case three 16s is impossible. You can stack all the floaters for a 16 and then do Race+BG+Class; or BG+Class+1st Level; or Race+Class+1st Level; but then that's it because you're always using up either your Race, Class or BG bonus to reach that 16, using up one of your remaining avenues. The non-humans still have one of their racial bonuses left, making up the deficit.
So a non-human can get 16/16/16/12/10/08; and a Human can get 16/16/14/12/10/10.
Not sure what you mean there. Backgrounds give a set stat and free choice upgrade, so you can choose anything.
Though backgrounds seem a little vague to me. Sure Seelah is an urchin, but she also could have been taken in her teens as a ward by Wruce Bayne, and taught the ways of court and paladinhood, giving her Ezran's background. Street orphan made good is pretty classic storytelling.
Backgrounds don't have to be a straightjacket to 'screw' or be cheesed to min/max. Especially given they're your characters and not restricted to a set origin.
The new stat generation method basically enables all 1st levels to have an 18 in their primary stat. There can be a few exceptions:
1) Playing a race with a stat penalty (i.e. a goblin STR based fighter)
2) Attempting a melee caster (may go with max attack stat and have spell casting as a secondary stat).
3) Switch hitter or jack of all trades character (i.e. someone with two 16's). e.g. a monk with 16 ST and DX or a ranger that uses a bow and a two handed weapon.
4) Some weird experimental of flavor based builds.
I would guess that over 80% (using the 80/20 rule, i have no stats to back me up) of the 1st level characters would have an 18 though in their primary. Especially if all the comments about a +1 bonus being super important. You may need an 18 in your primary stat or be declared sub optimal! This would lead to a lot of similar looking characters.
EDIT: I am assuming you can get 16/16 instead of 18/14 but I haven't actually looked into the various previews to see if that is possible. Just from my memory of them.
Minor note: gobbos are -2 wis, not -2 str. Gobbos can mash thy head in muchily.
Also, at a glance. 16/16/16/10/10/10 or 16/16/16/12/10/8 sound just as possible as 18/16/14/12/10/8 etc.Also, ditto on Voss. The pregens didn't look minmaxed to me at all, though Fumbus' layout was alright IIRC.
My mistake about the goblin as an example. If WS is thier penalty, then Cleric should have been the class I used.
All the pregens have 18's in their primary score, which was the main point. You must have an 18 to start (not true but I bet it will be commonly thought).
I am not sure how possible it is to get three 16's, i think it would require a very set combination of race/class/background that would leave you with few options (perhaps only one, maybe more in the full core book). But if it is doable, people may do it (screw my background).
Getting 3 16s isn't possible for a human, as they only 2 racial boosts, whereas any other race can manage it, so long as 2 of the three 16's are the default race scores, one of them is the class primary ability, and the background has one of the other two abilities as its choice. Which means it's not hard to get 3 16s, just restricted in what three you can have,a dwarf can have 16 Con, Wis+ any ability of choice (other than charisma), and any non cleric/druid requires a background with either wisdom or con as an option, which isn't all but covers a fair number.
In character creation you get the following:
+2/+2/+2/-2 or likely +2/+2 (ancestries)
+2/+2 (backgrounds)
+2 (class)
+2/+2/+2/+2 (level 1 stat advancement) ...To clarify, the main thing is that you have to play an ancestry with +2/+2/+2/-2, which basically means don't play a human.
Indeed, using Human-like (or any other race shoring up their flaw) you end up with a spread of:
Ancestry (Human-Like):
12, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10.
Background:
14, 12, 12, 10, 10, 10.
Class:
14, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10.
Destiny:
16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that if stats do different things that are normalized across classes, like for example INT bonus increase duration of lingering effects like buffs, certain classes for sure could make more use of it than others, but as long as every class has at least one use, you can do a viable character with that stat as a high value.
I've played games that have abilities that cross reference multiple stats. It's not as interesting as you think (IMO). For one, it means that increasing any stat has broad implications, so usually that means that the game gets stingy with character improvement, because a +1 to any stat adds a +1 to a LOT of things. And it also means that getting a +1 only improves one aspect of an ability, and not the ability entirely.
Focusing on 1-2 ability scores per character is much more efficient from a DESIGN perspective, because now you can much better control how characters improve, meaning you make it easier for game masters to predict how strong their players will be, which makes adventure design much easier.
From the design perspectives you talk about, I get the sense that you maybe haven't stepped out of the D&D/Pathfinder set of games very far. I would recommend playing a wide variety of games. What you're suggesting does exist in quite a few games, but they tend to be much more mechanically complex than D&D/PF.
I've played games that have abilities that cross reference multiple stats. It's not as interesting as you think (IMO). For one, it means that increasing any stat has broad implications, so usually that means that the game gets stingy with character improvement, because a +1 to any stat adds a +1 to a LOT of things. And it also means that getting a +1 only improves one aspect of an ability, and not the ability entirely.Focusing on 1-2 ability scores per character is much more efficient from a DESIGN perspective, because now you can much better control how characters improve, meaning you make it easier for game masters to predict how strong their players will be, which makes adventure design much easier.
From the design perspectives you talk about, I get the sense that you maybe haven't stepped out of the D&D/Pathfinder set of games very far. I would recommend playing a wide variety of games. What you're suggesting does exist in quite a few games, but they tend to be much more mechanically complex than D&D/PF.
My gaming experience is exactly the oposite: In games were one stat is a clear winner against the other i have people min/maxing dominating the game, cause they were much better than everyone else, sometimes in everything, cause too much weight is given to a single stat. In games where your stats gives broader bonus across different things, sometimes 2 characters of the same specialization (class, archetype, whatever the system calls it) were complete different on paper and with everyone having fun in their own way.
I dont expect that everyone will agree with me, cause game experiences varies a lot, but i just expect that this game comes close enough that i can adjust it to my specific liking with less effort than scrapping and redoing the system all over.
You seem to have a giant mess of ideas going in just a few words there. Are you worried about min/maxing, or how game mechanics influences roleplaying decisions? Because these are not the same issue, even though people often jumble them together.
I am worrying that the games doenst encourage stat diversity. In short i think its the main concern.
If all fighters need 18 str to be effective, and most specific, if challenges are built around the assumption that all fighters will have 18 in their strength or dexterity at level 1, that will not be fine.
One of the biggest problem i have with monster since 3.0 is the design from AC and stats not always being "what makes sense", but "level+15" cause it was the expected difficulty. This breaks my immersion the most.
By encouraging stat diversity, you mean like how fighter initiative in PF2 is most often going to be driven off Wisdom, thier ability to take punishment (HP) is driven off con, and their ability to use resonance is driven off CHA? As well as all the skills they might be trained in?
And also how you hit sharp diminishing returns on increasing attribute scores after a certain point, and you can get overall higher scores by spreading things around?
By encouraging stat diversity, you mean like how fighter initiative in PF2 is most often going to be driven off Wisdom, thier ability to take punishment (HP) is driven off con, and their ability to use resonance is driven off CHA? As well as all the skills they might be trained in?
And also how you hit sharp diminishing returns on increasing attribute scores after a certain point, and you can get overall higher scores by spreading things around?
Nope.
The only thing truly encouraring diversity is the diminishing returns on higher stats by level increases, thats i said already some times its the feature i am most pleased. All the other things are exactly what i said some post above: The sum of all other 5 atributes doing less than 1 single attribute.
So, in part one good thing is being done by giving your a chance to raise non primary stats and make them cartch up. In other part wont matter much cause about 75% of your "character effectiveness" is dictated by 1 attribute, with the 5 others giving some fluffy things here and there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am worrying that the games doenst encourage stat diversity. In short i think its the main concern.
If all fighters need 18 str to be effective, and most specific, if challenges are built around the assumption that all fighters will have 18 in their strength or dexterity at level 1, that will not be fine.
One of the biggest problem i have with monster since 3.0 is the design from AC and stats not always being "what makes sense", but "level+15" cause it was the expected difficulty. This breaks my immersion the most.
It does encourage stat diversity, it does so through CLASSES.
Pathfinder isn't termed a "stat based game", it is considered a "class based game". The core differences between characters are built into the class that they choose.
If a group of players chooses to play all Fighter's that's their choice, but it's a choice to choose the game systems most diverse character choice (class) and all choose the same one.
Exactly, all fighters are the same, all rogues are the same, all wizards are the same, rogues are different from fighter that are different from wizards.
Lets all play iconics and thats it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The developers have emphasized several times that they've played internally a variety of character builds within each class, including a variety of ability scores. I think your stated worry is a little misplaced.
Pathfinder is a class based game. Not a character stat based game. The central vehicle of expressing what kind of character your character is is done through the choice of class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen a few similar comments before, to the effect that stat choices are going to be uniform. I view this in the same way that I see opposition to the universal +level mechanic: Both are issues stemming from over-estimating the importance of numbers in the context of diversity in character builds and play styles.
In fact, there is a lot more to a character than their stats and bonuses. Two fighters with the exact same stats can have a different feel, just based on their weapon choices: PF2 is making the weapons much more different from each other than they were in PF1. Using a shield is now a much more attractive, different fighting style. Even among two-weapon wielders, there are more diverse options. Using actions to attack, move, or defend is going to be very different from character to character; contrast with PF1, where 5-ft step and full attack is the optimal tactic 90% of the time.
Then we can talk about other classes: The 4 druid orders are pretty different. The sorcerer's bloodline changes the whole spell list. The cleric domains and deities are much more contrasted than in PF1. You can play a purely physical monk, or one with supernatural powers. Etc, etc. The design offer a much wider range of options for each class, and the stats play only a moderate role in this increased diversity.
Now, this is just analysis on paper, based on the blogs so far. I hope that the playtest will bear it out.