| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the title.
As a bit of a social experiment, I was musing with, how the attribute allocations for character creation went with the release of the relevant character creation blog posts, how largely impossible it would be for someone to get a 20 in a given attribute for what is apparently so little gain, and also noted how several people who came from PF1 despised the "20 in an attribute" concept due to the MADness of certain classes and what those attributes did for them compared to every other attribute.
But let's say that the +2 flexible choice in your Ancestry could be applied to any attribute, even one you already have a +2 in (signifying a genetic evolution of the strengths regarding your Ancestry), combined with the proper class, background, and Level 1 allocations, allowing a 20 in a single attribute. How bad would that be in the current system as we know it?
After all, in PF1, a caster having a 20 versus an 18 in their casting stat meant they got an additional 1st level spell in addition to Save DCs and other certain benefits with certain spells that keyed off of your casting stat, the former of which being very important for spellcasters maintaining relevance in the lower levels due to their very limited resources. Now that the former is gone (due to the Spells blog revealing you don't get additional spells per day based off of your attribute), would having the drive to reach that 20 attribute be really that great for spellcasters? For a save/suck specialist, sure, if that's all you wanna do, though PF2 has marginalized their efforts significantly (though for the non-optimizer, it's still useful). For someone who just wants to cast buff and non-save spells, or be a battlecaster/gish? Maybe not so much, since Save DCs are largely irrelevant to their niche.
Granted, martials may still want that 20 Strength so they can hit better and deal more damage, but it's only a +1 to hit (which has increased in value for PF2, sure,) and +1 damage (we don't know if two-handed weapons still add 1.5x Strength in PF2, and we don't know if two-weapon fighting still follows the "unwritten rules" of PF1). It can make a difference, but they will still pay for it by having less Constitution (AKA HP and Fort Saves), less Dexterity (less AC and Reflex saves), less Intelligence (them skill points are all very nice), less Wisdom (Will saves are still going to be important in PF2, just as they are in PF1), or even less Charisma (Resonance is now a thing that players need to use to compensate for their magic items), which can allow players to be a "superhero" character that has a minor built-in flaw, something that PF1 players also appreciated with the Point Buy system (being able to create characters that excelled, but also had flaws that drew onlookers to the character).
Would players really despise the 20 starting attribute, considering the above concepts and counterpoints, especially when dumping doesn't really exist (for any mechanical gain, that is), and players may not have as much of a reason to do so?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the old days, 18 (on 3d6) was the highest stat you could have. Later, D&D broke the 18 barrier, and with rises from level and from stat-enhancing belts or heandbands, we started seeing STR or INT (or other stats) in the superhuman 18 to 30 range, sometimes even more.
Although I don't advocate returning to the "good" old days of 3d6, I still think stats above 18 should be rare and highly exceptional. It looks like you can't get above 18 with the playtest rules, but you can reach 20 at level 5, 22 at level 10 and so on. IMHO that is a good compromise, and shows the characters beginning to reach superhuman levels as they advance in level, even without stat-incresing items.
Our pals from Paizo have hinted that there will be additional character creation options in the final game, but that the playtest will be set at the currently known levels (10 for all, with a number of boosts from their ABCs). This is a good change, and if you introduce point buy or dice rolling for stats, you'll also have to reduce the bonuses for ABCs, or else astronomical stat values will become rampant.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bleh, gross. This gets rid of all the progress on making ancestries more versatile. It's no longer just save-or-suck that wants to max their primary stat. Blasters can get double damage on critically failed saves, and extra accuracy is what lets martial characters crit. There are fewer ways to boost your numbers, too, so that 18 vs. 20 is a much bigger deal in PF2.
Under common player mentality, I "can" play anything that gets a max stat. I "can't" play anything that has -2 compared to another option.
Now I "can't" play a Dwarf Wizard because I'm losing out on +2 Int… just like before. I "can't" play a Dwarf Rogue because I'm losing out on +2 Dex… just like before. I really "can't" play a Dwarf Bard, because I'm losing out on +4 Cha instead of just +2. Looks like my Dwarf is back to only being "usable" for Cleric and Druid again.
And, humans, half-elves, and half-orcs are either the best or the worst no. If you let two floating +2s stack, they "can" play any class. If you don't, they "can't" play any SAD class.
Players wouldn't despise the 20 starting attribute itself, but it would secretly be sucking fun out of the game by restricting what the good options are.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it wouldn’t likely break the game, it’s just an extra bonus that pushes SAD classes an extra notch above MAD classes, which is what the new system appears to be addressing.
There’s little reason why a Wizard WOULDN’T pick a 20 Intelligence for DCs over a 12 in Strength. It’s an pretty much a non-decision, which is also what the new design is trying to avoid.
My opinion on the matter is that I think people just like the “feel” of a 20 in their main stat, regardless of how important the bonus will actually be. The new design doesn’t accommodate that option (yet. I’m sure we’ll see +4 “stat” Monstrous Ancestries in Ultimate Ancestries, or even the 1st Beastiary), so people are fixated on having the 1 option taking away, instead of the 10 or so new options available to them.
Bleh, gross. This gets rid of all the progress on making ancestries more versatile. It's no longer just save-or-suck that wants to max their primary stat. Blasters can get double damage on critically failed saves, and extra accuracy is what lets martial characters crit. There are fewer ways to boost your numbers, too, so that 18 vs. 20 is a much bigger deal in PF2.
Under common player mentality, I "can" play anything that gets a max stat. I "can't" play anything that has -2 compared to another option.
Now I "can't" play a Dwarf Wizard because I'm losing out on +2 Int… just like before. I "can't" play a Dwarf Rogue because I'm losing out on +2 Dex… just like before. I really "can't" play a Dwarf Bard, because I'm losing out on +4 Cha instead of just +2. Looks like my Dwarf is back to only being "usable" for Cleric and Druid again.
And, humans, half-elves, and half-orcs are either the best or the worst no. If you let two floating +2s stack, they "can" play any class. If you don't, they "can't" play any SAD class.
Players wouldn't despise the 20 starting attribute itself, but it would secretly be sucking fun out of the game by restricting what the good options are.
I did forget about the whole blaster saving throws thing, but remember that it's still only just a +1 to the Save DC. The biggest contributor to the casting attribute was having that extra spellpower, and with Blasters utilizing the lower level spell slots more often, they were pretty constant in the upper levels, especially 15+, where Spell Perfection becomes a thing and truly utilizes the ability to make your spell slots way more flexible. On top of that, since Spell DCs scale with class instead of spell level, that +1 will not matter as much in the endgame, where blasters struggle the most with Save DCs, since their saves will be scaling better overall (meaning enemies are more likely to fail in the higher levels in comparison to PF1). In addition, with less overall spellpower, spellcasters are going to be a bit more spacious with their spell slots. A +1 to the Save DC is not much different than a +1 to your attack rolls on this front.
This also assumes that having a 20 in a starting attribute is the only way to play the class/character. Most people who despise the 20 in an attribute would tend to disagree, and similar to how it was in PF1, having a 20 in an attribute really gimped other aspects of your character, to the point that it created noticable flaws that enemies could exploit. Some classes, mostly martials, couldn't afford that, whereas most spellcaster classes didn't really need to focus on anything else, because focusing on anything else was really inoptimal for their niche. As I've said before, the mathematical difference is a +1 to certain attributes. Ironically, this was also precedented back in older editions of D&D, specifically 2ED AD&D with the "18/00" debacle for Strength, and was even more of a standard stipulation than the +1 to statistics we have here.
I just think that people really undervalue the "jack of all trades" aspect of characters, especially since they've consolidated skills even more, consolidated spells and abilities further, and there are virtually no such thing as dumpstats outside of Ancestry. This promotes diversity while cutting down on specialization. (Yes, it still exists, but there's no way to remove it without having an arbitrary limit, which is also demonstrated somewhat in the Proficiency tiers.)
Allowing 20 would make it impossible to have 2 good stats on the same character. Unfun.
Define "good stats." If you mean "identical" stats, that's also still wrong, since you can only ever have, at best, one 18, and one 16. If you mean "comparable," then it's still certainly possible (and in most cases, favored) with the 20 statistical limit.
Under common player mentality, I "can" play anything that gets a max stat. I "can't" play anything that has -2 compared to another option.
Actually, that's only true for races which have a -2 mod on their stat. You can compensate for the -2 by using one of your floating options, but you'll always be behind by 2.
Any stat that doesn't have a -2 to start with can reach 18, at least for all races that have a floating bonus option. Which includes all the races we've seen so far.
And FWIW, many of us reject the so-called "common player mentality". You don't have to be fully optimized to have a "playable" character. I know, some folks feel cheated if they can't maximize their primary stat... but IMHO they just need to get over it and play the game. <g>
The crit thresholds make +1 much more important for literally every roll in combat, and some out of combat. Keep in mind +1 is the bonus you get for raising a light shield, which literally costs you 1/3 of your turn every turn. This isn't going to be PF1, where you could take dodge or strap on a buckler for an easy, constant +1 AC, or Weapon Focus for an easy +1 to hit.
Under common player mentality, I "can" play anything that gets a max stat. I "can't" play anything that has -2 compared to another option.Actually, that's only true for races which have a -2 mod on their stat. You can compensate for the -2 by using one of your floating options, but you'll always be behind by 2.
Any stat that doesn't have a -2 to start with can reach 18, at least for all races that have a floating bonus option. Which includes all the races we've seen so far.
And FWIW, many of us reject the so-called "common player mentality". You don't have to be fully optimized to have a "playable" character. I know, some folks feel cheated if they can't maximize their primary stat... but IMHO they just need to get over it and play the game. <g>
I reckon QuidEst is aware of that. They weren't complaining about the current PF2 plan, but Darksol's proposed alternative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- There would be less variety in ancestry/class combinations.
- This would make the ability spread wider, favoring casters. (They pump one stat, while defenses rely on three stats.) The difference is made more significant by the four categories of success/failure, since each +1 carries the weight of a PF1's +2.
In my opinion, those outweigh the benefits that I can see:
- Being able to get a higher score.
- Being able to get the same max starting score as PF1.
That is my take on how broken and unfun it would be.
Baloney! How does increasing the highest stat make your second-highest stat more comparable?Allowing 20 would make it impossible to have 2 good stats on the same character. Unfun.Define "good stats." If you mean "identical" stats, that's also still wrong, since you can only ever have, at best, one 18, and one 16. If you mean "comparable," then it's still certainly possible (and in most cases, favored) with the 20 statistical limit.
For characters who want more broad competence, an 18/16 is probably more ideal than a 20/14 (which is what I was trying to say), meaning players who value the 18/16 paradigm shouldn't be meaningfully affected by someone who wishes to play a 20/14 character instead. Even then, all you're doing is changing +1's from one section and applying it to another, and increasing the maximum starting value by 1. Is it really that bad to have?
@ Tarik Blackhands: 18 in a starting stat is just as arbitrary, so is starting with 10s in attributes before applying ABCs. I fail to see the relevance of this argument because it's just as circular as my argument. "I want an 18 starting stat because I want an 18 starting stat" is equally ridiculous, and the opposite of "I want a 20 starting stat because I want a 20 starting stat" can just as equally be accounted for.
@ Hwalsh: Your reasoning is a non-sequitur. That's not an issue with having 20 in a starting attribute whatsoever. That issue is caused when people ignore Alignment rules for classes that were explicitly designed to have alignment rules, and have rules that allow X to Y conversions on major statistics in the game. A 20 attribute only exacerbates that issue further, but is not the sole cause. In fact, it's not even really a cause for that sort of shenanigans at all.
Unless we get Charisma-to-Everything options in PF2 (which I doubt will be the case), and/or we get people who houserule major aspects of the game to permit these shenanigans to occur in the first place, you're effectively arguing against an unheard of and very uncommon phenomenon.
@ QuidEst: There will still be less variety in classes simply because the game is designed so that some ancestry and class combinations will synergize better than others. If you really want to promote diversity, make it so that every race is just as good at every class as every other race. However, I suspect you will make the game much more boring and have much less meaningful choices if you do, so the ideal that promoting diversity may not be as prominent when taken to the ideal that races and class combinations shouldn't ultimately matter in making an effective character.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would make characters more homogeneous. A large percentage of people will always want the highest possible score in their main stat (and for good mechanical reasons on something like a caster), and if you leave the point total the same, that inevitably means that raising the cap to 20 means 2 less points in non-main stats.
It would make it really difficult to play an 'off Ancestry' character, like a Str-based Elf, since they would be behind from the get go. This is already true for Ancestries aiming for a focus on their stat penalty Ability, but expanding it from one stat per Ancestry to four (and making the stat penalty Ability character completely undoable) does not seem like a fun thing.
It makes SAD characters (who are already stronger than MAD ones) even stronger comparatively, which is not a very good idea.
In short, there are a number of downsides to this. So why would you do it? What would you be hoping to achieve by doing so?
@ QuidEst: There will still be less variety in classes simply because the game is designed so that some ancestry and class combinations will synergize better than others. If you really want to promote diversity, make it so that every race is just as good at every class as every other race. However, I suspect you will make the game much more boring and have much less meaningful choices if you do, so the ideal that promoting diversity may not be as prominent when taken to the ideal that races and class combinations shouldn't ultimately matter in making an effective character.
You say the game is designed that way, but you're the one suggesting the change to make ancestry and class more closely tied together. I only kind of want to promote ancestry/class diversity. It's a nice thing to have, but there are other more important things. Having interesting, reasonably distinct ancestries is another nice thing. But, if you're going to reduce of ancestry/class diversity, there should be something to balance it out. What do you feel your system adds that outweighs people being "able" to play most ancestry/class combinations?
Your argument that starting with a 20 is a tradeoff seems to apply to starting with 18 as well. To get an 18, you need to have a class that boosts it, an ancestry that doesn't penalize, and then you need to pick it for your ancestry boost, your background boost, and your presumed first-level boost. But, your ancestry can be chosen pretty freely. Getting 20 would change the ancestry restriction from "no penalty" to "must have a bonus"- and then everything remains roughly the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm liking the general approach as presented by the blog posts. I like that just about any ancestry can be any class without feeling like its making a weak character. I like that each step of the character creation uses the same rules for boosts (You have some number of boosts at each step, some might be constrained, some might be free, none can double up) That makes it a "simple" rule system that you don't need to worry about exceptions for different steps of the process.
I'll need to see what happens in practice, but I think the effect of lowering the "cap" will give more variety within builds, while still retaining the same power-level at their key things.
Desna's Broken Bolide is a problem, but the Scaled Fist dip works just fine with the usual Lawful-restricted Monks and Paladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's broken or unfun. But I think it's pointless. Abilities exist do define the characters. A character with a 18 in STR in a system where 18 is the best posible starting number, is a extremely strong character. A character with 20 is the same, if you allow starting with 20 at best. If you can start with 24, then 20 isn't that impresive.
So it's a bit of an inflation thing. You could easily allow 20, or 22, or 30. But then that becomes the new standard, and everybody rushes to get that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hated starting with 20 in PF1.
The higher the average starting stats, the more the numbers feel like a treadmill to keep up with. I already find it hard enough to start with an 18 for many of my characters, as I value shoring up saves and int bonuses, and don't like dropping stats below 8.
It does sound like stat dumping is going away, but if you can reach 20 at level 1, it makes starting with even a 16 in your primary stat sound really bad. Heaven forbid you want your cleric/bard to be able to contribute weapon damage as filler and start with a 14.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not like the idea of being able to start with more than an 18 in something. However, this is just a personal aesthetic preference.
Probably my favorite thing about the PF2 Character creation (where you have 4 steps that each add +2 to 3, 2, 1, and 4 abilities) means that being fulfill a character concept of a Swole Wizard or a Scholarly Paladin or a Charming Fighter has much lower opportunity cost than it did in PF1.
I think caps for players might be ok, but for monsters, it does limit creativity.
For example if you say STR 40 is the highest, and you give it to, say, a red Great Wyrm... what if you have a red Great Kaiju Wyrm? Or a space-traveling starship-sized great wyrm?
In a fantasy world, everything can have something else that is stronger, smarter, or wiser.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Arbitrary Opinion]I haven't been following the PF2 stuff very closely lately, but in PF1, high starting stats were the single most damaging factor in terms of game balance, and fun as well. Specifically, it harmed MAD classes (generally martial classes), and favored SAD classes (generally casters). Note: This is about dumping some stats and jacking up others, not high point buys affecting game balance.
The worst aspect of high starting stats is that it damages enjoyment of the game by making characters dominate one aspect of the game, while being unable to participate successfully in other aspects. For example, the barbarian who starts with a 20 STR can basically one-shot-kill any CR appropriate opponent, but is usually completely unfit for any social situation. Worse still is the god-wizard with a 20 starting Int. Martials generally can become devastating on one particular situation - (almost always dealing damage or CMB to a single opponent in combat) while casters become devastating in "magic" which is useful in almost every situation. The monk has no attribute that will make him dominate regardless of where he puts his 20.
Basically, you end up with characters who auto succeed on one aspect of the game, and thus players who are only going to have fun doing that one thing. The rest of the time, they are stacking dice or checking their phone. The key to a fun game is everyone at the table participating as often as possible. The more even stats are, the more likely characters are to achieve success in a wide variety of situations, and the more likely players are to enjoy the game.[/Arbitrary Opinion]
[Arbitrary Opinion]I haven't been following the PF2 stuff very closely lately, but in PF1, high starting stats were the single most damaging factor in terms of game balance, and fun as well. Specifically, it harmed MAD classes (generally martial classes), and favored SAD classes (generally casters). Note: This is about dumping some stats and jacking up others, not high point buys affecting game balance.
The worst aspect of high starting stats is that it damages enjoyment of the game by making characters dominate one aspect of the game, while being unable to participate successfully in other aspects. For example, the barbarian who starts with a 20 STR can basically one-shot-kill any CR appropriate opponent, but is usually completely unfit for any social situation. Worse still is the god-wizard with a 20 starting Int. Martials generally can become devastating on one particular situation - (almost always dealing damage or CMB to a single opponent in combat) while casters become devastating in "magic" which is useful in almost every situation. The monk has no attribute that will make him dominate regardless of where he puts his 20.
Basically, you end up with characters who auto succeed on one aspect of the game, and thus players who are only going to have fun doing that one thing. The rest of the time, they are stacking dice or checking their phone. The key to a fun game is everyone at the table participating as often as possible. The more even stats are, the more likely characters are to achieve success in a wide variety of situations, and the more likely players are to enjoy the game.[/Arbitrary Opinion]
While I don't feel as passionately about this as you, I share the sentiment.
Honestly, with stat damage gone, along with odd stats, I dont see the reason to even have a 20. Seriously, starting stats should be like 4-8. You could roll 1D6 or something.
Honestly, with stat damage gone, along with odd stats, I dont see the reason to even have a 20. Seriously, starting stats should be like 4-8. You could roll 1D6 or something.
You are right, in a vacuum. In reality it is good if the numbers resemble D&D and PF1 so it feels familiar to folks.
I think it is like a New Coke/Coke Classic thing.
|
|
Me too, and with the advancement rate, I would even prefer a cap of 16 to start, so by 10th-level you can get that 20, if you so desire. I wonder if there will be an ability score cap, or a soft cap of 26.
There's definitely a soft cap for PCs given the tight math presented. 26 seems most likely, though a 28 is possible given the revealed math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game can be played without a 20 in a starting attribute now and I'm confident it will be possible to play it without a 20 in starting attribute in PF2.
P.S.
In PF1 you can easily play a dwarf wizard with a starting int of 18 and 16 con.
I hated starting with 20 in PF1.
The higher the average starting stats, the more the numbers feel like a treadmill to keep up with. I already find it hard enough to start with an 18 for many of my characters, as I value shoring up saves and int bonuses, and don't like dropping stats below 8.
It does sound like stat dumping is going away, but if you can reach 20 at level 1, it makes starting with even a 16 in your primary stat sound really bad. Heaven forbid you want your cleric/bard to be able to contribute weapon damage as filler and start with a 14.
18 isn't really bad compared to 16. It's noticeable, but it's not so much better that whoever chose a 16 appears to be nonfunctional by comparison.
[Arbitrary Opinion]I haven't been following the PF2 stuff very closely lately, but in PF1, high starting stats were the single most damaging factor in terms of game balance, and fun as well. Specifically, it harmed MAD classes (generally martial classes), and favored SAD classes (generally casters). Note: This is about dumping some stats and jacking up others, not high point buys affecting game balance.
The worst aspect of high starting stats is that it damages enjoyment of the game by making characters dominate one aspect of the game, while being unable to participate successfully in other aspects. For example, the barbarian who starts with a 20 STR can basically one-shot-kill any CR appropriate opponent, but is usually completely unfit for any social situation. Worse still is the god-wizard with a 20 starting Int. Martials generally can become devastating on one particular situation - (almost always dealing damage or CMB to a single opponent in combat) while casters become devastating in "magic" which is useful in almost every situation. The monk has no attribute that will make him dominate regardless of where he puts his 20.
Basically, you end up with characters who auto succeed on one aspect of the game, and thus players who are only going to have fun doing that one thing. The rest of the time, they are stacking dice or checking their phone. The key to a fun game is everyone at the table participating as often as possible. The more even stats are, the more likely characters are to achieve success in a wide variety of situations, and the more likely players are to enjoy the game.[/Arbitrary Opinion]
That's not a stat problem. It's a build problem and a game design problem. I use the word "problem" loosely when it comes to gain design because of various taste on how much specializing can't separate characters.
|
|
Cool, that still seems rather high for a PC, I have never really dug PCs becoming as strong as giants without magic, but again, that's an aesthetic thing.
It could also be as low as 22, though I'd still bet on 26. Whatever cap exists is also at 20th level, bear in mind.
At 14th level or lower, assuming the 26 is the correct final cap, it caps at 22. Assuming Hill Giants (the smallest classic true giants) keep the same Str score in the new edition, they have a 25. You can only beat that at 20th, and only even come close at 15th.
That's high enough level that it seems pretty reasonable to me.
My preference would be to limit stats to 18 at level 1.
My reasons is that if you can get 20 in a stat, for a bunch of classes you are essentially forced to do so (if you are trying for the most powerful build). This limits options. I like options and more rounded characters. I think this is more fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference would be to limit stats to 18 at level 1.
My reasons is that if you can get 20 in a stat, for a bunch of classes you are essentially forced to do so (if you are trying for the most powerful build). This limits options. I like options and more rounded characters. I think this is more fun.
I like this option too.
However, I would also agree with another option, IF it's given by the team. like, if you want to play some character that is way above the rest of the heroes in a certain ability, you have to give up something. But not what you want (which is, invariably, the thing you don't need), but something that balance it out.
For example, you could balance a 20 INT wizard, with a penalty to CON, that puts him with CON 8. That's tough, and it's a trade off.
Similarly, you could balance a 20 STR character with, say, Dex 8. You want to be not just a strong hero, like, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger, but a huge guy, an enormous person like Andre the Giant. That's a possiblity, but comes with a trade off.
If paizo comes with a bunch of traits like these ("library rat", "Bruiser", etc), then I'm on board, assuming they playtest and check the balance for them.
Just allowing 20 int because you took STR 8 and will have a small penalty to encumbrance for 3 levels until you buy a handy haversack is not a balanced trade. It's a free bonus to your main stat, which means everybody do it, which ends in inflation.
even then, a mule is cheap, and often a wizard can live with a robe, a pair of wands and a case for scrolls, giving everything else to the fighter or leaving it in the horse. STR 8 is not a penalty that can balance out 20 int for a wizard, even with a restrictive GM that punishes encumbrance. Same with Charisma for a fighter unwilling to take part of social encounters, although PF2 might solve this, partially, with Resonance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the ability to have a 20. What real difference do ancestry bonuses do if anyone maxes out at 18 anyway? The only exception seems to be for the negative from ancestry capping the stat at 16 if they put their floating stat bonus into their negative, or 14 if they don't. So there are ancestries with an inferior stat, but none which are actually superior, anyone can put their floating bonus into the desired stat. This does help open up classes to different ancestries, but does run the risk of making them too 'samey.' Especially with the racial traits apparently being broken off and sold back as feats after first level.
"What real difference do ancestry bonuses do if anyone maxes out at 18?"
The differnce comes in the other stats -- And Elven Wizard and a Dwarven Wizard will/could both have an 18 Int. But the Elven might play more to the Dex end of things, while the Drawven one might be more hardy or more wise. So the ancestry bonuses can still lead to the different ancestries influencing the typical builds so that the classes feel like they "belong" to the ancestry.
The 18-16-14-12-10-8 array looks pretty good, 20 should really not be needed (same starting point for basically everyone)
I could also imagine going for 16-16-16 for example for monks, agile paladins, fighters and more versatile caster
the ability generation seems pretty solid and opens a lot of options while restricting min-maxing
The 18-16-14-12-10-8 array looks pretty good, 20 should really not be needed (same starting point for basically everyone)
I could also imagine going for 16-16-16 for example for monks, agile paladins, fighters and more versatile caster
the ability generation seems pretty solid and opens a lot of options while restricting min-maxing
I'm kind of hoping that Monks in particular get their class features rebalanced a little so they just aren't as MAD this time around. I think the crit system is going to make it hard not to take 18 in your offensive stat. Though, since it isn't costly to get an 18 instead of more 16s or whatever, I am cool with letting some people electing to not go above a 16 in anything.
EDIT: Also depends on if the monk class strictly adds to WIS like the cleric... if so, I kind of hope they get Wisdom to hit or something.
So nothing changes from the PF1 mentality?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey lets just start all attributes at 20 but you don't get a +1 modifier till 22 and then +2 at 24 etc. etc.
It really doesn't make a difference just like if attributes started at 0 then 2 would give you a plus one or we could simplify it more and a 4 str would give you +4. It really doesn't matter until you start balancing things around it.
so its almost the definition of arbitrary.