|
Sure, but you could make the same statement about providing +1 to three abilities, or four abilities... this is the problem I see in a lot of places on this board "This change is tiny and doesn't really increase the power level that much"... but all of the changes rolled together do have a huge impact. The races already start out with one ability score 2 higher than in 3.5 core. How many little changes does it take to make a big one?
Wise words. I am fully behind you on this one. We should avoid pumping up the power level of the PFRPG. I'm fine with boosting some classes that need it, like the Fighter and Monk, but giving additional Ability Points to all classes just increases the power level across the board, which just serves to increase the power of PCs without a very compelling reason to do so.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is elite array? Psssh. That's the array that makes my players cry and me laugh with evil glee at their misery. What is the obsession with the mentality that someone simply *must* have a stat that gives them a penalty in order to properly role play a supposedly well rounded character? In my mind, in a game where the PCs are a cut above the rest then a 'low' stat is a nice average 10 or 11. When you're running members in a Paizo adventure like Age of Worms you need every edge you can get. Using the Paizo point buy method I'd consider 20 points to be the 'standard/average' set, but then again that's just me.
Besides. In my more recent experience (in my group and two others) the 'average' scores are anything but. This could be different for all I know, who knows, perhaps every other group of PC's in the world counts their blessings if their highest stat is 16 and I'm just used to a higher powered game on 'average'.
Though I think it would be interesting to hearken back to Grandfather Gamers day and do 3d6 six times and place the stats in order and go from there. Much evil cackling would commence as player characters die in droves!
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is elite array? Psssh. That's the array that makes my players cry and me laugh with evil glee at their misery.
This is the elite array because that's what wizard's called it in the DMG, it is less a description and more a title. It is also the 'elite array' for NPCs, not necessarily PCs. Edit: Link to SRD for Elite Array
In my mind, in a game where the PCs are a cut above the rest then a 'low' stat is a nice average 10 or 11. When you're running members in a Paizo adventure like Age of Worms you need every edge you can get. Using the Paizo point buy method I'd consider 20 points to be the 'standard/average' set, but then again that's just me.
This is why Paizo has multiple methods and multiple point buy options. We generally stick to a simple 4d6 arranged but sometimes I use variant systems. I like characters that have weak points.
|
I like the idea of +1 to two different stats every 4 levels, but *only* if it existed in a vacuum, or a specific campaign setting that forbade the existence of stat-enhancing items (which I kinda loathe, at this point).
Combined with the stat-enhancing items, I don't think it's really needed. At the lower levels, when the extra stat points are most vital, they aren't there. At the higher levels, when you can buy Gauntlets of Dexterity +4 off the rack with pocket change, an extra +1 to a stat isn't terribly important.
I'd rather just start with a 28 pt buy, and go with that.
Or, use the +1 to 2 stats option, *but* get rid of stat-enhancing items. (Girdle of Giant Strength, yeah, it adds a flat +X bonus to Str checks or whatever, but doesn't actually change your Str attribute.)
Or, use the +1 to 2 stats option, *but* get rid of stat-enhancing items. (Girdle of Giant Strength, yeah, it adds a flat +X bonus to Str checks or whatever, but doesn't actually change your Str attribute.)
Now this... this I can live with. Personally, I'm not a big fan of stat boosting items myself either. If they were ditched from the game I could agree with +1 to 2 stats... Although I would actually prefer +1 to 1 stat even in that situation but... *shrug* I've never seen what ever increasing ability scores really adds to game play anyways.
Edit: Of course at this point in time creatures are designed with the assumption that characters have certain stats at higher levels and thus now it's sort of written into the game.
Edit2: And the changes that stat boosters will be nuked from the game is slim to none so we're back to square 1.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is elite array? Psssh. That's the array that makes my players cry and me laugh with evil glee at their misery.This is the elite array because that's what wizard's called it in the DMG, it is less a description and more a title. It is also the 'elite array' for NPCs, not necessarily PCs. Edit: Link to SRD for Elite Array
In my mind, in a game where the PCs are a cut above the rest then a 'low' stat is a nice average 10 or 11. When you're running members in a Paizo adventure like Age of Worms you need every edge you can get. Using the Paizo point buy method I'd consider 20 points to be the 'standard/average' set, but then again that's just me.This is why Paizo has multiple methods and multiple point buy options. We generally stick to a simple 4d6 arranged but sometimes I use variant systems. I like characters that have weak points.
Heh, I understand, I was just poking fun at the phrasing 'Elite Array' for stats that strike me as anything but elite.
|
Or, use the +1 to 2 stats option, *but* get rid of stat-enhancing items. (Girdle of Giant Strength, yeah, it adds a flat +X bonus to Str checks or whatever, but doesn't actually change your Str attribute.)Now this... this I can live with. Personally, I'm not a big fan of stat boosting items myself either. If they were ditched from the game I could agree with +1 to 2 stats... Although I would actually prefer +1 to 1 stat even in that situation but... *shrug* I've never seen what ever increasing ability scores really adds to game play anyways.
I think the thing to remember is that as your PCs increase in ability, so too do their opponents. There is a disparity in the core 3rd edition stats that begins to skew the battles towards the creatures. The solution was the magical items system - but given the new Pathfinder rules for how items are allocated based on mental or physical traits (which I happen to like) - but while this does provide a much needed limit on what magical enhancement you can get - it also means that there is a continual lessening of ability.
While I have no problem with some people preferring a tougher game with a "gritty" feel - I get the impression that this is not the default Pathfinder tone. Certainly not from the art or other mechanical changes to the system.
Edit: Of course at this point in time creatures are designed with the assumption that characters have certain stats at higher levels and thus now it's sort of written into the game.
This is not entirely correct. For one thing, Pathfinder has very little in the way of creatures or properly tested altered monsters based on the Beta rules. So this argument doesn't have much grounding. Another thing to note is that this levelling issue has been a constant problem for the d20 system - hence so many different OGL systems trying alternate ways to deal with the problem.
That Pathfinder has changed the abilities of classes, but isn't actually providing the resources to properly utilise those abilities needs addressing. Creature design is somewhat lacking as an argument due to the current system being predominantly based on an old Dragon article from what I can see. It is new and needs testing. Which means it is not bound into the game system yet at all.
Edit2: And the changes that stat boosters will be nuked from the game is slim to none so we're back to square 1.
As I mentioned above, Pathfinder already has a system in place that lessens the effect of stat boosters. So this remains an issue that can't just be dismissed as "too late to change."
Conan
I think the thing to remember is that as your PCs increase in ability, so too do their opponents. There is a disparity in the core 3rd edition stats that begins to skew the battles towards the creatures. The solution was the magical items system - but given the new Pathfinder rules for how items are allocated based on mental or physical traits (which I happen to like) - but while this does provide a much needed limit on what magical enhancement you can get - it also means that there is a continual lessening of ability.
A continual lessening of ability? I don't follow.
This is not entirely correct. For one thing, Pathfinder has very little in the way of creatures or properly tested altered monsters based on the Beta rules. So this argument doesn't have much grounding.
The whole point is that it is intended to be compatible with the existing monster manual and adventures. Thus they are having us playtest it against existing material, not new material they design. Their monster manual isn't going to be release for a year after the core book, so until it's release the monster manual is the SRD. Most likely monsters will not be modified nearly as much as the core book is.
Some other stuff I'm to lazy to chase down because the reply mechanism didn't include it
I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.
In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.
So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.
|
|
I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.
In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.
So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.
That's an interesting approach - and I can see it working for some people. I'm sure my group would be very responsible with that.
But I don't think it is in spirit with what a number of gamers want - and it is for them that we need to work out how to have a decent set of guidelines that that DM can then say 'we're removing this element for my game' etc.
Conan
I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.
In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.
So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.
That's an interesting approach - and I can see it working for some people. I'm sure my group would be very responsible with that.
But I don't think it is in spirit with what a number of gamers want - and it is for them that we need to work out how to have a decent set of guidelines that that DM can then say 'we're removing this element for my game' etc.
Conan
I have yet to have a problem with a player having total control over their PC's attributes. Its the DM's who claim they "break their game", etc... Which I can see happening if they don't know how to adjust the creatures/NPC's to account for it.
Curiously, out of the dozens of players I have had over the years, they were actually uncomfortable with making their attributes too high. I only had one make all of his attributes "18", and he did it because he would likely never have a chance with another DM to find out what it was like. To add to the irony his character was the first to die in the campaign. Partly because he thought his higher attributes made it more likely he would survive. He was right, but the die rolls went against him and even his exceptional AC, HP, and to hit were not enough to save him, but it did make things much more survivable for the rest of the party.
As far as making this work foe "everyone", it can. Just learn how you, as the DM, need to adjust your encounters to account for the extra liklihood of hitting, missing, and greater HP. Then let the players create the characters they want, with the attributes they want.
|
I think perhaps my previous post (well 3 posts up anyhow) was a bit oblique.
The problem the OP speaks of is not an issue with ability scores, the real problem is with the classes themselves. Having some classes with Multiple Attribute Dependencies and others with only a single primary attribute is the real problem. This is something we should all raise a stink about when the discussion shifts to classes.
To make an effective XXXX you need (in order of value):
Bard: CHA, INT, DEX, STR
Paladin: STR, CHA, WIS, CON
Ranger: DEX, STR, WIS, CON
Wizard: INT... that's really IT
Cleric: WIS... again, nothing else
Druid: WIS... 'nuff said
Sorcerer: CHA..Sure the cleric and druid are even more effective if they have some other stats to help them in combat but really they can get by with just WIS.
Oops... another long winded post. Sorry folks.
I have been pondering this issue for days now. SAD and MAD. Seems to me the Abilities required for multipurpose classes should be organized in a similar nature that race ability modifiers were.
Focused classes should still be Single Ability Dependent. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Fighter should only have one high Ability score necessary to be good at what they do. These classes focuson a specific task and do that one thing well.
Classes like Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger have multiple focuses and should have Multiple Ability Dependencies. However, I would focus their Abilities to only two.
I cannot think of any class, off the top of my head that combine three or more focus areas (Martial, Skills, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic). In essence for each focus of the class have one Ability Score necessary.
Does this rambling make any sense? lol
I've gotta say I don't see the need. While my players opted for a dice roll start up, I look at the points buy rules and I see a number of separate options to offer every party a valid source for their needs. I see the problems they were talking about, but I have always thought that classes were designed with the idea of ability requirements in mind...if you want to play a martial hero, but you only have 1 or 2 good stats, then you won't want to play a ranger or pally...likewise, you can look at the rogue versus bard in the same way...it's a part of the game, and I for one don't like the idea of changing that aspect of the game!
Again I come down arguing for retaining rules based on the old way of doing things, so perhaps that is an issue we should discuss some where as well...
In SW Saga, I believe the stat boosts at every 4th level were +1 to a physical ability score and +1 to a mental ability score. (I remember reading the rule and recognizing that it was not possible to put both +1s into the same ability score.)
I thought this was a novel rule and given the increased frequency with which characters gain feats, I wouldn't be opposed to a similar revamp in PfRPG.
Personally, I would much rather the rate of ability score boosts be increased rather than front-loading the characters [even more] at level 1. It gives a greater sense of actual growth that further helps to differentiate experienced characters from rookies — even when in the midst of an anti-magic field.
Count me as definitely against multiple stat boosts beyond what is already present in the rules. Four more points in another ability by 20th level is a big deal, even if its to effectively get rid of any penalty the PC started out with.
I HATE standard pointbuy. Really.
I feel too restricted. Let dice decide my fate. Or do a straight up pointbuy. No 'costs 16pts. to get an 18' garbage. No one stat starts at 8 and the others at 10 either. The 4e pointbuy is congested and makes everyone's characters the same.
4d6 would work great. Maybe pick 2 stats that you need for your character's class and assign one die as an auto 6. Giving you a very good shot at high stats for those needed stats.
I used to do a 5d6- put em where you want em. Tried a pointbuy at dndog (online) where my players started at 6 for each stat, but got (was either 40 or 35) points to put where they wanted. Characters averaged 18, 16,14,10,10,8. Straight up pointbuy. Easy to keep track of. With poss. stats left low. 18,18,16,10,8,6 exc.
I, ofcourse, meant 4d6 (take highest 3 dice) or 5d6 (take highest 3).
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd propose a slightly different method of +1 to 2 stats every 4 levels. Leave one just as it is now, to any ability score the player wants, and the let the other be for one of the 3 lowest scores the player has. I think that if you let it be any two, then you simply wind up with characters that have 2 scores as high as they can get, instead of one score as high as it get get. Let the second increase be for covering a character's weaknesses.
I also don't know if I agree that some of the listed classes have 3 or 4 primary ability scores. IMO, the most any class has is 2, and the other scores are simply to make the character better. Almost all characters are helped by higher Dex, Con, and Wis, for boosts to saves, hp, AC, and perception, and that's equally true for fighters, bards, clerics, etc. Some of these are already primary scores for some classes, but these are the ability scores that help all classes out.
|
|
One tweaky issue I have with attributes is how many insanely high prerequisites there are.
Feats with 19+ Dex requirements are one example I'm not fond of (indeed, many Attribute requirements for Feats seem to assume a very generous point-buy system), but when a Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer or Wizard will never be able to use their highest-level spells without a Wis/Cha/Int of 19, I really don't care for that.
Is the solution higher attributes? Or lower prerequisites? Or some third thing I haven't considered?