Changes to the Way We Make Changes

It's so strange to me that small/medium has no real effect on weapon damage or that all races now are in effect equal in stats...

Certainly not rules I'll be using. Very annoying that this is set as default options.

It's so strange to me that small/medium has no real effect on weapon damage or that all races now are in effect equal in stats...

Certainly not rules I'll be using. Very annoying that this is set as default options.

You only noticed the weapon size thing because I pointed it out; it's been like this for three years. This means, it never really was a problem for you because if it were something important, you'd notice and raise it sooner.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Both 8 and 10 are bad charisma in the practical sense of "I should not be making this check if I have a choice" so im still unclear on what roleplaying distinction you're getting from a 5% shift in a numerical abstraction of intangible personal magnetism.

Mechanically.

But roleplaying wise, it's the difference between an average Charisma and a flawed Charisma. So it's extremely strong for a difference.

Aren't those differences entirely on the side of interpretation by individual players rather than part of the system? I can't think of a way in which the system itself cares about how you portray your character at all regardless of your ability scores. It seems to only care about what actions you attempt. I guess in an indirect sense it also cares about whether you do things that your GM appreciates so he'll give you extra hero points (and appropriate roleplay might be part of that), but of course there are no rules about what your GM ought to appreciate.

I also don't care for the voluntary flaw change, but only because it reduces build options. Roleplay options were always completely free-form anyways as far as the system was concerned.

Uhm?

The flickmace nerf is not connected to the ancestry changes.

Both versions of ancestry stats are effectively equally balanced in different ways. Some people prefer the old way of balancing.

Just because PF2 is game-y doesn't mean every single preference people have in the rules is for the sake of balance. That's just silly.

I point out the flickmace nerf to demonstrate that they can and will nerf things for balance/meta reasons. The new version of ancestry stats is a direct nerf to humans and other 2boost/0flaw ancestries while fixing 3boost/1flaw ancestries that had their flaw in a save and also adding support for playing any ancestry as any class.

I don't particularly mind it because it's a mostly sensible change that breaks up human dominance (they were the mechanically best ancestry in almost 100% of cases).

If they didn't think 3free/2flaw was an issue, all they needed to do was not touch it. That they did, going as far as to remove the option from everyone, tells me that they wanted it gone and used this as a good opportunity.

Aren't those differences entirely on the side of interpretation by individual players rather than part of the system?

Even if the system doesn't care, the players do. I don't know of anyone who would play a character with a character sheet completely unaligned with the character.

I'm extremely unhappy with the changes to Optional Flaws.

The two-boosts rule is great, but the change to Optional Flaws is a huge, unnecessary nerf to MAD characters, especially ancestries that only have two boosts. It also hurts build expression and is generally less fun. Much more fun to get that extra boost to my kitsune at the cost of making her less strong and more derpy.

I'm extremely unhappy with the changes to Optional Flaws.

The two-boosts rule is great, but the change to Optional Flaws is a huge, unnecessary nerf to MAD characters...

This I don't get.

How does lowering two to raise one help MAD characters? Doesn't that make them worse?

Cyrad wrote:

I'm extremely unhappy with the changes to Optional Flaws.

The two-boosts rule is great, but the change to Optional Flaws is a huge, unnecessary nerf to MAD characters...

This I don't get.

How does lowering two to raise one help MAD characters? Doesn't that make them worse?

Only if your idea is a MAD character relied on all 6 stats.

I just have one question regarding the racial boosts: will new ancestries still have printed stats, or the Free, Free array Will completely replace that?

I'm finding that a surprising number of people apparently view me playing a character as

An ist
Or an ism

I am a optimizer. I'll latch onto an idea for a character and seek to optimize the idea. In less balanced systems, this lead to overpowered characters. Not always, as it depended on the theme.

2e has been my bastion. Because it's so balanced. I never broke anything. I'm free to master the system without others feeling hurt for any reason.

But apparently if a part of my optimization on a theme, lead to a fun build where my character is

Dumb
Mean
Rude

Or any other personality that someone, somewhere, might not like. Or maybe suffers from any kind of physical issue

Then I'm playing wrong.

I never look at a character and decide their personality until I'm looking at the stats. And I never viewed the act as any kind of ist or ism. Just role play .

Had a friend who played a blind character and got a form of echo location. They like the flavor of a blind samurai

Had a friend play a mute character because they were sick of being the voice of the party every game we play, it just gravitated that way I guess.

At no point did we look to our characters and decide to be insensitive to someone, anyone.

But now I'm seeing people argue that an 8 in a stat and role playing that 8, is a bad thing.

You can't make everyone happy. And being sensitive and communicative with those around you is important.

To my mind, this is addressed with session 0. And I'm not looking to role play as myself.

I bring this up because I've seen people, including me, who Express unhappiness at the loss of voluntary flaw system. Are going to start being openly accused of an ist or ism, people are already skirting it.

I do not feel I'm blowing this out of proportion either. People get funny when something becomes hard set in rules instead of being left to the table and having an expectation of someone being a decent person

I just have one question regarding the racial boosts: will new ancestries still have printed stats, or the Free, Free array Will completely replace that?

New races will have a static +2 and a free+2 with no flaw.

Or you can use the+2 free/+2 free option

Both are raw

I still don't see a valid reason for the former to be put to ink given the existence of the latter

That some people cam abuse the Voluntary Flaw system socially (either by being ableist or insensitive) is no reason to remove said system. However, I’m not sure that was implicitly stated as the reason, nor was biological essentialism made the entire reason implicitly.

The discussion on character creation is interesting to me coming from over four decades of rolling for ability scores. Sometimes the dice would roll low, and voila - low ability scores. That the best of use role-played well, many ignored (while ignoring much else in the role-sense) and the worst made a parody of disability. I guess. I haven’t actually seen much of any of this, but did my best to roleplay low-Int/Cha/Wis characters as complex individuals. Who interpreted the world around them as they saw it, and experienced it.

Point buy in PF1 made low scores less common, in fact many GMs forbade stats below 8, some below 10. It…made things more homogenously “heroic”, but not the kind of heroes who overcame their own innate deficiencies.

Stat arrays in PF2 moved the pendulum even further away. And to be honest, I probably wouldn’t choose:
A) a flaw for a boost because I don’t min/max and am content using the base stats or
B) a flaw for no benefit because unless I made the flaw, like a 6 or 7 or 4 it isn’t that meaningful. And the associated mechanical penalty, as folks have indicated, in PF2 could be punishing. Now I don’t take much stock of the “letting the side down” paradigm, but it seems there is a fair contingent of people who play PF like a teamsport, are incredibly invested in “succeeding at the roll-game” and will tell you about it. Luckily for me, with my characters interpreting the world ad they see it, I don’t play with those people.

As for Humans: there is only one reason why I play a human. Because I want to inhabit the story as a human. I have read, over the past 10 or so years on this forum people advising posters asking about certain classes to play and how to get the most out of them: “Play x race/ancestry” Why would you tell someone what race/ancestry to play a certain class as? I am completely flummoxed that outside of any knowledge of the campaign or person’s interest that someone would be helpful by telling me what race/ancestry to play. I understand the mechanics favour certain combinations, but when I choose a class, I choose a class based on the story I want to tell, and the same with the ancestry. I don’t pick a class and then shop biology to work out a good match and then attack the narrative so armed. I guess people do, and enjoy that approach, finding their way to the start almost like an adventure in itself. I’m too driven to have a reason first, or not play.

And, as I get older, I find humans…the least… ridiculous. Elves are, no elves are often still ridiculous, they suffer with dwarves, halflings and gnomes from some serious Western/Tolkien baggage (don’t get me started on the terrible surname conventions of the smallfolk) and the Golarion versions aren’t any different than human-culture rip-offs however much Golarionophiles might beg to differ . Half-orcs, tieflings, aasimar. But the leshys, the kitsune and conrasu, the lixardfolk and gnolls (and I love the gnoll, and the lizardfolk and really like the conrasu) begin to feel like humans-with-funny-heads, and it takes me a long time and much effort to want to portray them, or delve into their “fantastic” “societies” and “cultures”. As a kid I was all in on lizardmen, orcs, vegepygmies, dwarves, halflings, gnomes. Homebrewed races. Undead. Tweens and Shades. But now I want to play a human. Not because they are mechanically superior, or not mechanically superior. But because they are what I am currently really into playing. If people aren’t playing humans enough then I’m glad I’m not playing with them. The ridiculousness levels are rising - you don’t need a funny head to tell a meaningful story, just a head and heart in your player.

Which isn’t to say I won’t delve into something..ridiculous (ouch that is harsh, why always to terse OSW?) but I’ll be playing humans mostly, and not for the feats and stats but because that’s where I’m at.

that breaks up human dominance (they were the mechanically best ancestry in almost 100% of cases).

People keep saying this (or something like it) and it just isn't true.

Even if we totally ignore flavour and roleplaying and stick to mechanics then there are a WHOLE lot of builds where humans are NOT the best.

Any character that doesn't care much about Str (thief rogue, most casters, etc) is going to be mechanically best served by one of the Str dumping races with feats aligning to what you want.

Same for Intelligence or Charisma (the stat dumping races are quite viable).

Or I've seen lots of builds centered around a racial ability. Corgi riding sprites, flying Strix, etc etc

And there are lots of builds where the really cool human feats just don't matter all that much because the character has what they need from their class. A fighter or warpriest really doesn't gain all that much from being human, maybe they prefer the cool intimidation of a lizard folk or having darkvision.

Don't get me wrong. Humans are nearly ALWAYS a very decent choice for any concept that they can mechanically fit. But best nearly 100% of the time? Utter nonsense

I promise I am not some kind of monster who just thinks all the fun toys need to go away. I totally get the fun of having more levers to pull in the character creation machine game. People hate losing things, especially things that they saw largely as a power booster. I totally understand all of this.

Being encouraged to consider different character builds and how attributes can affect how you might play out your character can be a fun way to play the game. But if certain ways of enacting the voluntary flaw system are largely seen as impossible (like dropping 2 save stats to boost a tertiary skill stat) then in practical application, the voluntary flaw system becomes, lets encourage more players building characters with an 8 or two in one of STR, INT, or CHA. I think it is possible that over the course of many different tables, seeing a surplus of players acting out their interpretation of what an 8 INT or CHA or STR means for their character, it became a legitimate question to ask of the game: “is this making the game feel more inviting to a broad spectrum of players?”

Voluntary flaws is probably not a mechanic that most brand new players were jumping right into on their own anyway, and learning what stats are really going to hurt you to be 1 behind in takes time anyway. It is a slightly more complicated game lever that is most commonly used by experienced players to get an 3rd attribute to 14, or to over come an ancestry flaw. From the beginning it seemed like the primary intended use was the overcoming an ancestry flaw by moving it to a different attribute, and for that flexibility to cost you one of your other boosts. But it also just contributed to the meta-analysis that the strongest character builds were those that could concentration as much of their build juice into DEX, CON and WIS abilities while maybe relying on 1 of STR, INT or CHA for a key attribute, since you get 4 boosts 5 times in the process of developing a character from 1 to 20.

I can see why some players feel so strongly about keeping voluntary flaws, because it was really the only way to get 4 boosts out of the ancestry step, and really exploit what is seen as the mechanically strongest builds.

But it is undeniable that the consequence in play of that rule was a massive up surge in characters that are deliberately lowering 2 of the same three stats. I think it is quite possible that Paizo wants to encourage a friendly and social environment at tables and for players to not necessarily be incentivized to look at charisma and intelligence in particular as a “dump stat,” especially to the level of seeing those attributes as “flaws of the character” to the point that very much of the “making the character narrative match the mechanics” is making characters that players are actively imagining as unintelligent or anti-social.

Individually, the levers might not encourage behavior that developers didn’t want happening, but all together, there could be trends that the developers are seeing that they are trying to shift out of their game. I think the removal of a mechanical benefit could very easily be a part of this. I just wonder if a spoonful of sugar in the form of one extra free boost could have really helped this medicine go down smoother.

I'm finding that a surprising number of people apparently view me playing a character as

An ist
Or an ism

I am a optimizer. I'll latch onto an idea for a character and seek to optimize the idea. In less balanced systems, this lead to overpowered characters. Not always, as it depended on the theme.

2e has been my bastion. Because it's so balanced. I never broke anything. I'm free to master the system without others feeling hurt for any reason.

But apparently if a part of my optimization on a theme, lead to a fun build where my character is

Dumb
Mean
Rude

Or any other personality that someone, somewhere, might not like. Or maybe suffers from any kind of physical issue

Then I'm playing wrong.

I never look at a character and decide their personality until I'm looking at the stats. And I never viewed the act as any kind of ist or ism. Just role play .

Had a friend who played a blind character and got a form of echo location. They like the flavor of a blind samurai

Had a friend play a mute character because they were sick of being the voice of the party every game we play, it just gravitated that way I guess.

At no point did we look to our characters and decide to be insensitive to someone, anyone.

But now I'm seeing people argue that an 8 in a stat and role playing that 8, is a bad thing.

You can't make everyone happy. And being sensitive and communicative with those around you is important.

To my mind, this is addressed with session 0. And I'm not looking to role play as myself.

I bring this up because I've seen people, including me, who Express unhappiness at the loss of voluntary flaw system. Are going to start being openly accused of an ist or ism, people are already skirting it.

I do not feel I'm blowing this out of proportion either. People get funny when something becomes hard set in rules instead of being left to the table and having an expectation of someone being a decent person

Good news! Even with the changes to the Voluntary Flaw rule, by RAW a PC can still have an ability score flaw. So your PCs can not only be dumb, mean or rude, but also have that flaws be present on your character sheet.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those?

It's not a view I hold but I think I've spotted a difference.

Some people equate better and better. If you are mathematically stronger faster smarter wiser you are just better. This gets equated to better in an ultimate/moral sense...Which is what people really want to avoid

A +2 is just BETTER than a +0 which is just better than a -2. Bouncing vs. a venomous bite vs a feat are fundamentally incomparable. There isn't any implication of better and there really can't be.

Which honestly is weird because the only people who care about that are either the people who don't care about being reasonable in the first place, or people who care way too much about it being "poor representation". Everyone else could not care less if a character is slightly stronger in one stat than the other as long as it remains balanced. They have not really cared for 30+ years given how old this hobby is.

So why make balance changes based on the opinion of the extremes?

Because those extremes are ruling the court of public opinion these days just based on how loud they yell and the hell they can bring a company they don't agree with. Paizo doesn't really have a choice here, whether they internally really like the change in their game or not. Publicly they have done what they needed to do.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those?

It's not a view I hold but I think I've spotted a difference.

Some people equate better and better. If you are mathematically stronger faster smarter wiser you are just better. This gets equated to better in an ultimate/moral sense...Which is what people really want to avoid

A +2 is just BETTER than a +0 which is just better than a -2. Bouncing vs. a venomous bite vs a feat are fundamentally incomparable. There isn't any implication of better and there really can't be.

10 Hitpoints isn't better than 6? 30 speed isn't better than 25?

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

You don't know if I've ever had a problem with that. What a massive assumption.

TOZ wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.

Sounds like a lack of imagination.

Humans were already a minority at many gaming tables (at least at all the ones I frequent); this will make them all but extinct.

And it makes sense; why play a human when you can play any other race with more free abilities (such as darkvision or increased speed), and then poach the occasional human feat that you might have wanted anyways?

I can't speak for your table, but humans are still popular IME.

In fact, I had already implemented a house rule similar to alternative ability boosts for my Blood Lords campaign. Three of the five players still chose human for their ancestry. The others chose umbral dragon (3PP, no flaws) and skeleton (they did go with the 2 boost 0 flaw rule)

The point is, I think humans will remain popular in Pathfinder.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

You don't know if I've ever had a problem with that. What a massive assumption.

You've been around for at least 2 years and haven't raised it even once. So, yeah, I'm making an easy assumption that you never had a problem with that - likely because your actual problem is not WHAT changes are being made, but WHY are they being made. Game balance thing that results in Small and Medium weapons doing the same damage is fine with you because game balance doesn't trigger you; a change that comes from a societal thing sets you off. Predictable.

I can see why some players feel so strongly about keeping voluntary flaws, because it was really the only way to get 4 boosts out of the ancestry step, and really exploit what is seen as the mechanically strongest builds.

You can't get 4 boosts out of the Ancestry step with the Voluntary Flaws rule. It's max 3.

The choice of stat arrays at Ancestry level are:
3 boosts 1 penalty
2 boosts
2 boosts 1 penalty (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
3 boosts 2 penalties (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
1 boost (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
So the Voluntary Flaws rule was giving the worst stat arrays.

You should really stop considering voluntary flaws as a powergaming tool as it's really not. It was used for build diversity mostly.

If we're going to be equalizing all the ancestries stat choices to address biological essentialism, except for the handful that now has the advantage of three boosts over everyone else apparently, why are we also not equalizing their HP? So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

There ARE biological differences between real world species of the same size and weight. Some species are stronger than others, some are quicker, some are quieter. Corvids ARE more intelligent than lizards. It isn't discriminatory to recognize these things. Especially not in a fantasy game where a spider-person has a venomous bite, but humans don't. Or where goblins can bounce like a rubber ball, but a halfling would go splat. The game has so many heritages and feats based off the biology of different species of humanoid, but we aren't going to address those? Many heritages and feats based of heritages make them physically or mentally better than others at certain things. Is that not biological essentialism? That's not problematic? Why divide ancestry feats up by 'ancestry' at all?

How is it not any more problematic that some ancestries get Darkvision for free at level 1 while humans have to wait until level 5 and spend both of their ancestry feats to get it AND be from the Nidalese ethnicity (or equivalent in their respective campaign) AND be blocked from other ethnic feats? Why does the elf have the highest land speed potential?

So we're okay locking some things behind biology but not stats? I'll never be as fast as a dog, or as stealthy as a leopard or able to hold my breath as long as an otter.

It's such a weird decision to make to achieve their stated goal of addressing biological essentialism because have they really addressed it at all? More so, did it need to be addressed?

I'm not saying biological essentialism should be a factor in deciding the stat options ancestries have, but I am saying that avoiding biological essentialism shouldn't necessarily be a factor either, at...

I think for as long as ancestries are different from each other in terms of game mechanics - and that's good and I hope paizo never changes that - then biological essentialism will be part of the game, at least to some degree.

That said, I like that elves and dwarves and the rest are different from each other. It's not a problem. And I like that this new change makes it easy to break the mold and make a dwarf oracle or a goblin druid.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So now my sprite can be as strong as an orc but it can't have as many Hitpoints?

A 20cm tall Sprite is hitting with a Greataxe for exactly the same damage as 120cm tall Ratfolk, but you never had a problem with that.

You don't know if I've ever had a problem with that. What a massive assumption.

You've been around for at least 2 years and haven't raised it even once. So, yeah, I'm making an easy assumption that you never had a problem with that - likely because your actual problem is not WHAT changes are being made, but WHY are they being made. Game balance thing that results in Small and Medium weapons doing the same damage is fine with you because game balance doesn't trigger you; a change that comes from a societal thing sets you off. Predictable.

I've played since 3.0. I've railed against the changes to how small characters were handled after 3rd ed days. I've had those arguments, not here, but certainly in other places. Your entire response here seems to be trying to psychoanalyze me. Go talk to someone else and stop trolling me. I'm not here for that.

Unicore wrote:

I can see why some players feel so strongly about keeping voluntary flaws, because it was really the only way to get 4 boosts out of the ancestry step, and really exploit what is seen as the mechanically strongest builds.

You can't get 4 boosts out of the Ancestry step with the Voluntary Flaws rule. It's max 3.

And the Voluntary Flaws are not used for powergaming, quite the opposite as the best stat arrays were incompatible with the rule.

The choice of stat arrays at Ancestry level are:
3 boosts 1 penalty
2 boosts
2 boosts 1 penalty (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
3 boosts 2 penalties (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
1 boost (with the Voluntary Flaws rule)
So the Voluntary Flaws rule was giving the worst stat arrays.

You should really stop considering voluntary flaws as a powergaming tool as it's really not. It was used for build diversity mostly.

I have seen a lot of confusion in play about what stat arrays were possible with the voluntary flaw system. You are right that you can’t get to 4 because you can’t add a flaw to a flaw. I think it was primarily created to make 3 boost ancestries capable of going 2 boosts and a flaw instead.

But the current debate around it is primarily about just getting 3 boosts, especially with the addition of 2 free as a default model now.

I think it is not as much build diversity as being claimed when those 8s are always ending up in the 3 same stats, and that is what I think the new errata of it is trying to address

I have seen a lot of confusion in play about what stat arrays were possible with the voluntary flaw system. You are right that you can’t get to 4 because you can’t add a flaw to a flaw. I think it was primarily created to make 3 boost ancestries capable of going 2 boosts and a flaw instead.

But the current debate around it is primarily about just getting 3 boosts, especially with the addition of 2 free as a default model now.

I think it is not as much build diversity as being claimed when those 8s are always ending up in the 3 same stats, and that is what I think the new errata of it is trying to address

How +2 +2 +2 -2 -2 can be better than +2 +2 +2 -2?

As I tell you, Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

"Always" is a powerful contention.

"Better" and "worse" are subjective and defined by the build, player, and context of the table.

SuperBidi wrote:

Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

"Always" is a powerful contention.

"Better" and "worse" are subjective and defined by the build, player, and context of the table.

What I mean is that you can always find a race that gives you a penalty in one dump stats and 2 boosts that you want and you end up with a better stat array by using it instead of getting Human and using the Voluntary Flaws rule. It gives worse stat arrays.

It doesn't mean that the build is worse because you can mix and match more races. But overall, it's hardly an optimization tool when it definitely helps diversity.

Because a 10 in a perceived “dump stat” is mechanically meaningless for many players. Meanwhile a +1 in a save stat is always going to matter and be better than not having that +1.

All voluntary flaws really accomplished was encouraging players to lower their CHA, INT or STR as much as possible, not for narrative reasons but because they were choices that could be ignored. When those choices were not ignored narratively it meant that the same “character flaws” were seeing more and more use by players, flaws that can easily increase problematic representation, not necessarily on the individual character level (although also on that level) but across the game as a whole. Why are 3/4ths of the heroes on Golarion avoiding engaging in conversations?

As I tell you, Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

That is overstating things.

For quite a few characters
3 boosts, 2 penalties IS better than 2 boosts. It all depends on how much you value the third boost and how little you care about the penalty.

Claiming that the human stat array is worse than some racial stat array is
1) NOT always the case (there aren't enough racial stat arrays). For example, I believe it is currently impossible to get a bonus to all 3 physical stats without voluntary flaws.
2) Somewhat irrelevant because there is a lot more to a race than just its stats

Really the thing about "no reason to play humans" is that for like 20 years in this family of games a standard adventuring party was like 3 somewhat unusual to incredibly outré things and one human who needed the bonus feat for their build.

Like if you want medium armor proficiency ASAP or want proficiency in an advanced weapon that isn't associated with an ancestry, you're going to be human. Maybe you're just a level 1 monk who wants both a ki power and a stance at level 1.

If they didn't think 3free/2flaw was an issue, all they needed to do was not touch it. That they did, going as far as to remove the option from everyone, tells me that they wanted it gone and used this as a good opportunity.

I honestly wonder if the 3free/2flaw stat line was unintended from the start. From the way the voluntary flaw rules were written, it seems clear they were intended for ancestries which already had a flaw, and I could easily see the writer not considering what happened when it was applied to humans or the +Boost/+Free ancestries that didn't exist at the time.

My biggest worry about everyone having a 3free/2flaw stat line is that it seems like it'd become the one true option for most optimized characters. Outside of maybe Magus, most classes can afford to ignore at least two stats - and anyone who isn't an Int/Cha caster is near guaranteed to put their flaws there since those are the two weakest stats mechanically. As someone who plays at a table of (somewhat reformed) optimizers, I would not look forward to seeing most characters of every ancestry become less intelligent and less sociable as a result.

How +2 +2 +2 -2 -2 can be better than +2 +2 +2 -2?

Tell me.

As I tell you, Voluntary Flaws give worse stat arrays, always.

Because in exchange for one extra flaw, you have complete flexibility in choosing where each boost/flaw is applied, including putting all three boosts towards physical (Str, Dex, Con) or more rarely mental (Int, Wis, Cha) which is impossible with any of the fixed stat ancestries that guarantee at least one boost on each side.

On the subject of roleplaying flaws, you aren't obligated to roleplay them. Not everyone with a int flaw has to be a Forrest Gump. The stats are abstractions and while they represent your ability to do things, they don't mandate your personality or actions.

On the other hand, if you want to RP someone who is absolutely clueless or absurdly clumsy you are free to do so with a 10 in the relevant stats.

I'm 100% comfortable with having no PCs with stats under 10 ever.

So why make balance changes based on the opinion of the extremes?

One of the weirder things I've noticed from some segments is the idea that if

True thing---> Horrible argument---> bad thing

Is that instead of pointing out we shouldn't have the bad thing because horrible argument is horrible, instead try to declare the bad thing conclusion invalid by declaring the true thing false.

You only noticed the weapon size thing because I pointed it out; it's been like this for three years. This means, it never really was a problem for you because if it were something important, you'd notice and raise it sooner.

Or that you don't see a lot of pixie PCs ?

OPTIONAL: VOLUNTARY FLAWS

Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw regardless of your ancestry.
You can elect to take additional ability flaws when applying the ability boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry. This is purely for roleplaying a highly flawed character, and you should consult with the rest of your group if you plan to do this! You can’t apply more than one flaw to any single ability score.

What's stopping anyone from playing their flawed hero?

Seems the core issue here is players mad about losing a +1 to a secondary or tertiary stat.

As for bioessentialism, this is a game of fantasy designed around PCs being exceptional/heroic talents. Do note that the blog post says it's an ongoing conversation. These topics are challenging to confront but the needle can move in increments as discussions evolve. Those of you acting as if Paizo claimed to have solved the issue altogether are propping up a straw man.

If you don't like the new rule in your games, nothing is stopping you from keeping the old system. In fact, it's still going to be used in PFS IN TANDEM with the new ability array option, so there is semi-official precedent from Paizo that gives even more options than before.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

You only noticed the weapon size thing because I pointed it out; it's been like this for three years. This means, it never really was a problem for you because if it were something important, you'd notice and raise it sooner.

Or that you don't see a lot of pixie PCs ?

To add to this sentiment. What's to say a person doesn't have their own opinion and kept it private because it was not relevant? The idea that a person was okay with something because they didn't actively talk about it seems extremely weird.

*****************

One of the weirder things I've noticed from some segments is the idea that if

True thing---> Horrible argument---> bad thing

Is that instead of pointing out we shouldn't have the bad thing because horrible argument is horrible, instead try to declare the bad thing conclusion invalid by declaring the true thing false.

Yeah, I don't understand why people attack the true thing instead of just attacking the argument. The only reason I can think of is that it's a matter of the psychology of debating? The same reason why some people resort to various fallacies.

Martialmasters wrote:

I'm finding that a surprising number of people apparently view me playing a character as

An ist
Or an ism

I am a optimizer. I'll latch onto an idea for a character and seek to optimize the idea. In less balanced systems, this lead to overpowered characters. Not always, as it depended on the theme.

2e has been my bastion. Because it's so balanced. I never broke anything. I'm free to master the system without others feeling hurt for any reason.

But apparently if a part of my optimization on a theme, lead to a fun build where my character is

Dumb
Mean
Rude

Or any other personality that someone, somewhere, might not like. Or maybe suffers from any kind of physical issue

Then I'm playing wrong.

I never look at a character and decide their personality until I'm looking at the stats. And I never viewed the act as any kind of ist or ism. Just role play .

Had a friend who played a blind character and got a form of echo location. They like the flavor of a blind samurai

Had a friend play a mute character because they were sick of being the voice of the party every game we play, it just gravitated that way I guess.

At no point did we look to our characters and decide to be insensitive to someone, anyone.

But now I'm seeing people argue that an 8 in a stat and role playing that 8, is a bad thing.

You can't make everyone happy. And being sensitive and communicative with those around you is important.

To my mind, this is addressed with session 0. And I'm not looking to role play as myself.

I bring this up because I've seen people, including me, who Express unhappiness at the loss of voluntary flaw system. Are going to start being openly accused of an ist or ism, people are already skirting it.

I do not feel I'm blowing this out of proportion either. People get funny when something becomes hard set in rules instead of being left to the table and having an expectation of someone being a decent person

Good news! Even with...

Good news! My table is disinterested in removing the voluntary flaw system as it stands before this errata. They all looked confused when shown it and the general consensus was, that there was no reason to remove it.

CRB 4th printing, Page 26 wrote:

OPTIONAL: VOLUNTARY FLAWS

Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw regardless of your ancestry.
You can elect to take additional ability flaws when applying the ability boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry. This is purely for roleplaying a highly flawed character, and you should consult with the rest of your group if you plan to do this! You can’t apply more than one flaw to any single ability score.

What's stopping anyone from playing their flawed hero?

Seems the core issue here is losing a +1 to a secondary or tertiary stat via the deprecated system.

This is a game of fantasy designed around PCs being exceptional/heroic talents. As for bioessentialism, note that the blog post says its an ongoing conversation. The needle can move as discussions evolve and these things are challenging to discuss. Those of you acting like Paizo claims to have solved the issue are being totally disingenuous.

... Pathfinder 2e has one if not the strictest math I have ever seen to the point that it is an acknowledged fact that just getting 1 point less makes your character inferior. The new rule is literally telling people to go play not just "flawed heroes" but actively bad heroes just for the sake of playing something that is straight up worse.

If you are straight up bad at your job you are not a flawed hero. You are at best making the game harder for everyone else just because, and at worse you are a straight up liability because the game straight up does not support this type of character.

Also, they literally said they are "addressing the issue". This is literally their response to that, and the response was to remove fixed/free as a stat array and making voluntary flaws an outright punishment.

1) NOT always the case (there aren't enough racial stat arrays). For example, I believe it is currently impossible to get a bonus to all 3 physical stats without voluntary flaws.

You're right, I forgot the full physical and full mental stat arrays. So I remove what I said, there are a few stat arrays you can only do with Voluntary Flaws.

2) Somewhat irrelevant because there is a lot more to a race than just its stats

Feats can be grabbed through Adopted Ancestry. So there's no so much to the Human Ancestry.

Also, what I'm saying is that this change will hurt diversity a lot without hitting optimization much. Humans are left with 2 optimized stat arrays that 80% of their builds will use. That's a big hit to diversity to me. Way more than the very niche builds that will gain a bonus hardly visible under a microscope (because a +2 to a tertiary stat for -2 to your fifth and sixth stat is hardly a buff you'll notice over the course of your career).

... All voluntary flaws really accomplished was encouraging players to lower their CHA, INT or STR as much as possible, not for narrative reasons but because they were choices that could be ignored ...

"All" it encourages? That's a big assertion.

I just used voluntary flaws (before this errata) to convert Dwarf boosts in Con and Wis into a wash of the Cha flaw for a Warpriest. Mechanically, I wind up with only one free Ancestry Boost (Str). Con and Wis started at 10 instead of 12 and Cha at 10 instead of 8.

Optimal? Nah. But fun.

Is the 4th printing available or is it just being sent to the printer? I'd like to get the updated copy for my group.

Unicore wrote:

... All voluntary flaws really accomplished was encouraging players to lower their CHA, INT or STR as much as possible, not for narrative reasons but because they were choices that could be ignored ...

"All" it encourages? That's a big assertion.

I just used voluntary flaws (before this errata) to convert Dwarf boosts in Con and Wis into a wash of the Cha flaw for a Warpriest. Mechanically, I wind up with only one free Ancestry Boost (Str). Con and Wis started at 10 instead of 12 and Cha at 10 instead of 8.

Optimal? Nah. But fun.

Well, thankfully the new change would make that use of voluntary flaws unnecessary, which was the more practical use of the system before. The other use was more min max"y" but occasionally you would see concepts with flaws in the save stats for very specific builds. That's what we're missing out on. I'm alright with the loss of just maxing the hell out of your save stats.

Is the 4th printing available or is it just being sent to the printer? I'd like to get the updated copy for my group.

It should be available when the warehouse opens up on the 9th.

If you are straight up bad at your job you are not a flawed hero. You are at best making the game harder for everyone else just because, and at worse you are a straight up liability because the game straight up does not support this type of character.

Wow you're "straight up bad at your job" and "straight up a liability" as an adventurer if you have a 1 lower secondary/tertiary stat?

Please.

Also, they literally said they are "addressing the issue". This is literally their response to that, and the response was to remove fixed/free as a stat array and making voluntary flaws an outright punishment.

"Addressing the issue" does not necessarily mean "totally solve." It can mean directing attention to it or be a component (or potential component) of an ongoing goal. "We're addressing the flooding problem by placing sandbags where it'll be really bad to mitigate property damage"; "let's address this conflict at work with an open team discussion to learn more"; etc.

The blog points out that these are ongoing conversations. I fail to see how you are inferring that Paizo says this change solves the problem. Not only would that be a ludicrous claim but it isn't even what the words on the page mean. It is a response to the problem.

The irrational hyperbole in your post ("outright punishment"!) only serves to further undermine your point.

No one at Paizo is here to "punish" you or anyone else. They want to make a better game and sell books.

I personally don't play games where participation is a job.

*covers his Fate Grand Order screen with a blanket*

I personally don't play games where participation is a job.

*covers his Fate Grand Order screen with a blanket*

Did you put the cover on the PFS reports?

Nah, I don't do that anymore.

tstplsignr wrote:

It's not fair to say "Just don't use the alternative"

It's absolutely completely fair. If your complaint is that you do not like the alternative, you can just not use it. That is 100% a valid option.

Trying to take it away from people who do like it is just policing how other people build their characters, which is pretty s*$+ty.

No it isn't, because "ignoring" it still doesn't get you playing the old version.

And no one is trying to take anything away. Stop making s+#+ up. People just want voluntary flaws back in the game.

QuiZZer wrote:

It's so strange to me that small/medium has no real effect on weapon damage or that all races now are in effect equal in stats...

Certainly not rules I'll be using. Very annoying that this is set as default options.

You only noticed the weapon size thing because I pointed it out; it's been like this for three years. This means, it never really was a problem for you because if it were something important, you'd notice and raise it sooner.

No, it means I haven't played second edition yet since I've had 2 children since it came out and I've got all the 1st Edition books so switching never much tempted.

Now... I'll need to edit any game I start to avoid idiocy where 90cm tall halflings deal the same damage as a 2m tall orc with the same two-handed sword... Maybe I should just go back to GURPS...