Strength Downgrade

[BrokenShade]

Hi everyone.

One thing I noticed is that Strength is no longer as valuable in terms of a racial bonus. As per the DMG race creation rules, a bonus of +2 Strength needed to be paid for with TWO penalties of -2 on other stats. This is no longer the case in Pathfinder.

This significantly increases the power of Humans, Half Elves and Half Orcs (who also effectively gained a +2 stat bonus due to this). To the point where players might actually start playing humans and half elves at last ... all with a +2 Strength bonus for race, of course. ^_^

[MisterSlanky]

I was never a huge fan of this system simply because it was based on the concept that characters only fight, and strength by extension of this concept is THE most important statistic. Unfortunately, in the real world, a high caster-specific stat (Int, Cha, or Wis) could be equally as important (in combat again) for a caster.

If anything, I see this paradigm shift as a good thing, and something that lets players know that strength (and by default) combat is not the end-all-be-all. Besides, how often do you hear about "overpowered fighters and their too-high strength" at the higher levels vs. "overpowered wizards and their too-high intelligence" at higher levels.

[BrokenShade]

I guess it makes sense in that the only stats which ever got a boost in the old books were Strength, Dexterity and Constitution.
In that Context, Strength was more powerful. Now there are boosts to mental and social stats in Pathfinder ... which are clearly as powerful as a Strength boost.

Previously, the most effective fighters were half orcs - which few people seemed to play because of the drawbacks. So effectively, all races were viable as fighters.
Now, Humans and half elves (and the now more viable half orcs) will be the prime fighters in most groups.

Also previously, any race could be any type of spellcaster. The playing field was wide open, with no race having Int or Cha or Wis bonuses. It's not quite so wide open anymore, though humans and half elves will now not only appear in games but can be any class when they do. ^_^

[IconoclasticScream]

MisterSlanky wrote:

I was never a huge fan of this system simply because it was based on the concept that characters only fight, and strength by extension of this concept is THE most important statistic.

You beat me to saying it. It was a subtle nod that in a role-playing game, to some (most?) players (or maybe more apparently designers) there's nothing more important than those To Hit and Damage rolls.

[BrokenShade]

IconoclasticScream wrote:

MisterSlanky wrote:

I was never a huge fan of this system simply because it was based on the concept that characters only fight, and strength by extension of this concept is THE most important statistic.

You beat me to saying it. It was a subtle nod that in a role-playing game, to some (most?) players (or maybe more apparently designers) there's nothing more important than those To Hit and Damage rolls.

I actually have to disagree. ^_^

In the 3E PHB, the hierarchy was
Most powerful: +2 Int, +2 Wis, +2 Cha (these bonuses were never granted)
Less powerful: +2 Str (only the half orc, and he paid big for it)
Much less powerful: +2 Dex, +2 Con

The power of +2 Str was double the bonus for +2 Dex or +2 Con ... and that is what is gone now.

I suspect the effect will be more to
(1) move Thieves from playing Halflngs and Elves to playing Humans and Half Elves instead
(2) move Fighters from playing Dwarves and Elves to playing Half Elves - humans and half orcs were and still are a good option
(3) move Wizards to playing Elves (never saw any wizards anyway)
(4) move Sorcerors to playing gnomes (halflings always were a great option)
(5) move Clerics from playing anything else to playing Dwarves

I'm not unhappy with the changes. I just feel that they are more significant than they appear on the surface.

[CrackedOzy]

I'm confused, you seem to say two seperate things here:

BrokenShade wrote:

One thing I noticed is that Strength is no longer as valuable in terms of a racial bonus. As per the DMG race creation rules, a bonus of +2 Strength needed to be paid for with TWO penalties of -2 on other stats. This is no longer the case in Pathfinder.

= Strength is no longer better than other Ability Scores.

BrokenShade wrote:

This significantly increases the power of Humans, Half Elves and Half Orcs (who also effectively gained a +2 stat bonus due to this). To the point where players might actually start playing humans and half elves at last ... all with a +2 Strength bonus for race, of course. ^_^

= Races with a Strength bonus are now better.

Do you see my confusion here??

[Montalve]

i for one love the move
i always saw that putting to much Focus in Strengh and making it so important was to focus to much in combat (melee in particular) and taking steps back from roleplaying and smart solutions.

the game should reward those players who want to plan out of the box and execute smart plans to outsmart or defeat enemies and odds... making it all a strenght oriented game (or combat oriented game) only pushed the game in one direction.

so i welcome the equilibrium of stats, its good and fair.

and about fighters don't forget the Dwarf, his favored class is fighter, ok they got bonus to constitution, but if they can survive longer than a human or half-orc they mighet be able to kill them faster with the diference in strenght.

Strenght was important (and is important) not for the +1extra base attack in melee or the damage... but because COMBAT in generalis made to work around strenght... there are even bows who use it for ddamage, you have more strenght you can carry better armor and weapons, so a +2 in strenght is indeed important

but literaly downgrading the feeling of all other attributes saying (because strenght is SO important, we need to take -4 attributes to you to compensate) was what made me so bitter about the old system.

[BrokenShade]

CrackedOzy wrote:

I'm confused, you seem to say two seperate things here:

Yes, I do see your confusion. ^_^

I'm stating two points
(1) The stat bonus mechanism for race no longer emphasises Strength as a physical stat, and
(2) Strength is still by far the most powerful physical stat

So ...

(3) Races which gain Strength bonuses have now gained significantly in power.

Hopefully that clears up the confusion? ^_^
As has been pointed out, and I had not fully combined into my thinking

(4) Races which gained Int, Wis and Cha bonuses also gained significant power in a different way.

So the net effect seems to be to shift class race combinations in interesting ways. Not bad ways necessarily. Just interesting ways. ^_^

[BrokenShade]

Montalve wrote:

i always saw that putting to much Focus in Strengh and making it so important was to focus to much in combat (melee in particular) and taking steps back from roleplaying and smart solutions.

The focus on Strength compared to other physical statistics is in the game design, in that it gives bonuses to both attack and damage. This emphasises it relative to other physical stats - it never made combat the best option.

As is commonly known, fighter types were underpowered in 3E, and I never played them. It never stopped me from role playing or coming up with smart solutions either. :D

Changing which races gain which bonuses unfortunately does not change the innate imbalance between Strength, Dexterity and Constitution either. It just changes the races certain optimising players will choose.

Montalve wrote:

and about fighters don't forget the Dwarf, his favored class is fighter, ok they got bonus to constitution, but if they can survive longer than a human or half-orc they mighet be able to kill them faster with the diference in strenght.

The Dwarf really is an exceptionally weak fighter, neither having Strength or the second best physical ability, Dexterity (in Pathfinder it works better for fighter types, and AC always worked out better than a few extra hp).

Montalve wrote:

Strenght was important (and is important) not for the +1extra base attack in melee or the damage... but because COMBAT in generalis made to work around strenght... there are even bows who use it for ddamage, you have more strenght you can carry better armor and weapons, so a +2 in strenght is indeed important

So you are saying Strength is valuable for many reasons? I agree. By combat, I assume you mean armed combat as opposed to spell combat.

Montalve wrote:

but literaly downgrading the feeling of all other attributes saying (because strenght is SO important, we need to take -4 attributes to you to compensate) was what made me so bitter about the old system.

I'm sad you felt that way. To me, because Strength really was overpowered compared to other physical stats it made sense. But paizo looks like they have a valid alternative to the old system. ^_^

[Majuba]

BrokenShade wrote:

I guess it makes sense in that the only stats which ever got a boost in the old books were Strength, Dexterity and Constitution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the old books", but 1st edition had Tomes for Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

[BrokenShade]

Majuba wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "the old books", but 1st edition had Tomes for Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

This is in context of Abilitiy bonuses for Race. By the old books, I meant 3E. In other words, no 3e race in the PHB gave a bonus to Int, Wis or Cha. ^_^

[Montalve]

i hate i hate when the forums just eat my posts!!!!!!!

ok... long post made short

BrokenShade, you might be right but i have seen otherwise, but by watching my players as DM and fellow players as player (and by example recently). Many of them would take fighting classes and maximise strenght just for the sake ofthe combat orientation of 3.x (one of my players actually took a Half-Orc barbarian just for the bonus in strenght, but he grew tolove his character),

while magical and ranged combat is important, magical combat is limited in scope in low levels, and ranged combat needs the enemy to stay away and your melee oriented friends away from combat (until precise Shot is had)

and having more AC than HP is not always as successful as you put...

2 sesions ago my cleric had 18 AC (scale mail + shield + shield of faith) and 10hp (+1 for con and 1 for favored class, she is half-elf)

she fell in 2 lucky hits (the sesion before that she was hit again 2 times but with minimal damage) 4 and 7 for damage coming from the goblin commando and his ride in certain Adventure Path, beforeshe fell shehit with goblin commando for maximum damage (longsowrd 1d8 +1 for strenght) and he did not fell, but the sorcerer brought him down with a magic missile.

if she have had 14 in strenght and +2 in the damage bonus she would have brought down the goblin and the missile could have gone to his ride, and she might have finished the combat standing instead of in the ground bleeding.

Strenght is already important, ok its not the end of all things, but a few mechanics andmanyrules in 3.x made it so. speciallyw hile creating new races or classes.

would i want to change any of my other attributes to have higher strenght? no, i would first put the point in charisma than in strenght, my cleric's concept is to be "eclesiatic investigator for the chuch of Iomedae", looking for injustices to rigth and evil to defeat. Her conceptmakes her more practical than academic, more person's people than clue seaker, sheask the people around her and get enought facts to begin to investigate, when she foudns the problems she and the paladin would jump into the problem weapons and faith ready... but i digresss... again