I'm just curious, why do they see the current non-human races as being more playable? In terms of mechanics humans are even stronger now. That +2 to any stat is far better than +2 to a fixed stat any day.
Having +2 to 2 stats which benefit your race and -2 to a tertiary stat is much better than a single +2. For example a Half Orc Druid is an excellent mix. The +2 to strength isn't great but for a martial druid it's quite good. Dwarf Cleric, Elf Rogue, Halfling Bard, Gnome Sorcerer... all of these have bonuses to primary and secondary class stats and a minus to a tertiary stat. The difference is particularly noticeable if you use the point buy method of rolling characters.
Assuming people are even going to bother shooting for a 20 in a stat when using the new, more punitive point buy system. I'm seeing a lot of arguments about everyone needing even higher bonuses because classes now use more different stats. To which I say: that's a feature, not a bug. Unlike straight 3.5, Pathfinder actually makes maxing out one stat a trade-off. You often lose out on some abilities if you optimize only one stat, so eeking out a 20 is now one option among many, not a foregone conclusion.
Again, unless the rules are going to change to eliminate the other methods of generating characters you can't just set those methods aside as if they aren't an issue. Balancing the races based on the assumption that players are always going to use point buy means that the game is balances for less than 1/4 of the total methods listed on the generation page. Worse, you are assuming that they will use a specific value in the point buy system and many people aren't using that. The game system doesn't even list a preferred method of generation and point buy is the last method listed.
I'm almost inclined to say drop the -2 and just give half elves and Humans an additional feat/ability/skill/benefit. Of course that moves closer to the 4e approach, which may not appeal to some pathfinder fans.
You -have- looked at the 4th edition races right? Humans and half-elves have +2 to any stat. Dwarves gain +2 to con and wisdom, elves gain +2 to dex and wisdom etc. It strikes me that paizo was going for the 4th edition approach anyway.
Having +2 to 2 stats which benefit your race and -2 to a tertiary stat is much better than a single +2. For example a Half Orc Druid is an excellent mix. The +2 to strength isn't great but for a martial druid it's quite good. Dwarf Cleric, Elf Rogue, Halfling Bard, Gnome Sorcerer... all of these have bonuses to primary and secondary class stats and a minus to a tertiary stat. The difference is particularly noticeable if you use the point buy method of rolling characters.
Only better if you use a class which takes the benifits of both. In other words, the races are being pushed to play certani classes more. What makes a better wizard now, dwarves or humans? Not all of us like to play races into just a certain role.
The game system doesn't even list a preferred method of generation...Hmm. Now that you've called my attention to that, I'd have to say that no argument about PRPG stat modifiers versus 3.5 stat modifiers is valid. Without a clearly defined default method of character generation, there's no way to say whether or not an extra +2 is power creep. We can't even say for sure what the average ability scores of a PRPG character are supposed to be before applying racial modifiers.
You can if using point buy. Also a little point, if a race gets +2 to an ability score, it means if you roll randomly (say....4D6 drop the lowest) it means the bare minimum that race can get in that score is 5 rather than 3, and the maximum they can gain is 20 rather than 18.
Oh, and just an FYI, the "average" score is 10. Non-heroes generally have 10 in every stat.
Only thing I gravely dislike, is giving the humans a +2.
I mean since I started playing 3.0 at launch, Easily 2 out of 3 of my players have played humans (If I discount Tieflings being played it'd be closer to 5 out of 6)... the skill points and the feat make it far far more viable. And most of the non-humans being played (Once more, discounting the Tieflings) have been of the Fighter variety, ya know.. where you get a feat every time you sneeze... So, that one feat from being a human wasn't as big of an advantage.
IMO, something needed and should be done to make the Non-humans more viable, and I like the extra +2 for them, it also makes converting older +1 level adjustments simpler.. ie, Okay, done... (for the most part)
But, if you're game is doomed or broken by a +1 DC save to a spell, or +1 damage.... Learn to DM... I agree, I don't want people with all six uber stats, which was why I loved that 3.0 made +1 bonus'occur at 12 instead of 13-15=+1, 16,17=+2 and 18=+3 in Dnd and needing a 16 or better for most useful bonus'in ADnD.
But you ALWAYS, at least in the instance of Primary caster, put your max points or otherwise in that caster stat.... if you're a non-standard race that seems to favor spellcasting to some extent, more than likely it's a 20 anyways, or (if using the point buy) an 18 with some extra points to boost up weak spots.
I've played with all types of players (Through every edition except 4th) Mostly in DnD, some in other genre's of games. Some are munchkins, twinks and people who should have been steralized before they had a chance to breed, some have aspects of those other three, some are solidly good players who have quirks, issues, or whatnot.
Thankfully, mine that I currently have only have a few minor problems, and only one whose viewed a larger problem.
Soooooo, now that I've gone way off topic in my rant :P... I don't think the bonus' to Demi-humans was overpowering, or even ill advised, in fact, I think it's necessary for them to be desireable choices.. cause in my experience, ever since 3.0, I've had a fantasy group of humans more or less, cause the feat alone, was worth more than that +2 the vast majority of the time... (excluding the Tiefling phenomenem of course)
Weave
|
Firstly, I mean 3.5 Core. PFRPG is even more powerful.So you're saying that the non-core classes are horribly underpowered compared to the core (is that 3.5 core or PFRPG core?) classes? Would that not justify the attribute adjustments for race and the core class changes?
I agree with this. Claiming that the power boosts are to keep them level with non-core material doesn't seem like such a good argument to me. For one thing, most non-core classes are actually horrible underpowered. I would also say this applies to the new feat system as well, since I honestly don't see why it needed to be changed.
Actually, PFRPG greatly decreases the average power of the core classes - mainly because it nerfs wizards, druids, and clerics both directly and indirectly (through spell changes).
I find it absolutely ludicrous that people harp on how they only allow "Core Rules" because everything else is overpowered munchkinism... when the core rules wizard, cleric, and druid are far and away the most powerful classes in the game. FAR and away. Even the Archivist and Artificer can't hold a candle to a core Druid.
"Core Rules" isn't some sacrosanct Holy Grail of perfect gameplay. It's pretty piss-poor, actually. To pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over your own eyes.
But, if you're game is doomed or broken by a +1 DC save to a spell, or +1 damage.... Learn to DM
This is so silly it barely merits a reply. DCs are already too high, particularly at higher levels. Giving casters which are already the more powerful classes in the game an additional +1 on DCs of all their spells is just unnecessary largess.
Actually, PFRPG greatly decreases the average power of the core classes - mainly because it nerfs wizards, druids, and clerics both directly and indirectly (through spell changes).
I'm not so sure I see huge and sweeping reductions in power of casters that you do. There has certainly been some nerfage of some of the most blatant spells but overall it's just been elimination of the corner uber broken stuff rather than a systematic reduction in total power. I haven't scoured the spell lists in the Beta comparing spell by spell and I have definitely seen some power reductions but not enough that I would say to have "Greatly" reduced the power of any class.
"Core Rules" isn't some sacrosanct Holy Grail of perfect gameplay. It's pretty piss-poor, actually. To pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over your own eyes.
I wouldn't say it's "piss-poor", considering millions of people have been using it for years and having a blast doing so it has done a decent job. It is unquestionably filled with bugs and holes many of which are well known. For example the fact that casters are the most powerful classes in the game is pretty commonly accepted (there are a few holdouts). What I'm trying to figure out is how a change that primarily benefits the most powerful classes in core is is going to help us solve those issues.
Actually, PFRPG greatly decreases the average power of the core classes - mainly because it nerfs wizards, druids, and clerics both directly and indirectly (through spell changes).
Are you sure about that? Wizards havn't actually lost much, in fact a generalist wizard now has even more abilities. The druid, while not as powerful as before is still pretty damm strong. CoDzilla was only a factor if the cleric used most of his/her buffing spells on him/herself instead of healing, and with the PRGP cleric using turn attempts to heal most clerics look like they'll be heading this way.
I'll also use the same argument so many here are happy to use.
You think Paizo have nerfed these classes? Have you actually playtested these classes and attempted to see just how powerful they can get under the new rules?
Oh, and for the record, I love non-core classes, underpowered yes, but fun. However I dislike that paizo have increased the gap.
|
Actually, PFRPG greatly decreases the average power of the core classes - mainly because it nerfs wizards, druids, and clerics both directly and indirectly (through spell changes).
Are you sure about that? Wizards havn't actually lost much, in fact a generalist wizard now has even more abilities. The druid, while not as powerful as before is still pretty damm strong. CoDzilla was only a factor if the cleric used most of his/her buffing spells on him/herself instead of healing, and with the PRGP cleric using turn attempts to heal most clerics look like they'll be heading this way.
I'll also use the same argument so many here are happy to use.
You think Paizo have nerfed these classes? Have you actually playtested these classes and attempted to see just how powerful they can get under the new rules?
Oh, and for the record, I love non-core classes, underpowered yes, but fun. However I dislike that paizo have increased the gap.
Erm would this be a bad time to mention that in our games we have been using the old versions of the spells?
Are you sure about that? Wizards havn't actually lost much, in fact a generalist wizard now has even more abilities.
Actually, PFRPG greatly decreases the average power of the core classes - mainly because it nerfs wizards, druids, and clerics both directly and indirectly (through spell changes).
More abilities yes, but he was talking about the spells themselves. I'm not sure I agree with him but you are talking about different things.
Erm would this be a bad time to mention that in our games we have been using the old versions of the spells?
Personally, I don't think the difference in spells is that big where you would even notice a difference unless you had munckins that deliberately broke stuff.
|
Assuming people are even going to bother shooting for a 20 in a stat when using the new, more punitive point buy system. I'm seeing a lot of arguments about everyone needing even higher bonuses because classes now use more different stats. To which I say: that's a feature, not a bug. Unlike straight 3.5, Pathfinder actually makes maxing out one stat a trade-off. You often lose out on some abilities if you optimize only one stat, so eeking out a 20 is now one option among many, not a foregone conclusion.
jajaja
this actually happened to a friend, the DM is open to epics so he allowed us to make a lot of rolls (but since we are playing online... we can't change the dice), one of the player thought that his point buy was better than his rolls so he stick up to point buy... i was slightly benefited (for an elven bard i had 11 in str, 16 in dex and 16 in cha, and ended with 9 in str, 17 index, 17 in cha, all the other attributes were the same, 10 in con, 16 int, 12 wis; i think the trade off was in my benefit), butthe 3rd player got abysmal rolls... so he went for point buy with an elven rogue (str 11, dex 20, con 8, 12 int, 15 wis, cha 10)"strangely" he is not happy with the system (also he expected the minimum stat would be 13... but...d etails aside)
i myself can find a lot of opportunities with a character like that... but he already saws it as a "doomed" character... there is no way to reason with him...
IMO, I found the +2/+2/-2 quite a boost until we started using the point buy system. As noted above, that makes things more even.
It is not too tightening either. You can play a non-human and go "against race average" by using your race bonuses to average some low stats (through cheap point buy) and thus putting more points into a stat which is relevant for your anti-topic class. One of my players built a nice Dwarven Rogue with PF point buy.
Also, I don't think having seen it mentioned, aren't stat-boosting items more hard to accumulate now? (as belts only affecting physical stats and headbands affecting mental ones). If you cannot wear 6 stat-boosting items, the highest starting stats will eventually even out as the party reaches mid-levels, where the stat-boosting item craze becomes a factor.
|
|
Soooooo, now that I've gone way off topic in my rant :P... I don't think the bonus' to Demi-humans was overpowering, or even ill advised, in fact, I think it's necessary for them to be desireable choices.. cause in my experience, ever since 3.0, I've had a fantasy group of humans more or less, cause the feat alone, was worth more than that +2 the vast majority of the time... (excluding the Tiefling phenomenem of course)
i am with him in that its is necesary to make all races more interesting
but at least in my experience the bonus feat is not always what turns a players head toward a raze... me for example i have never played anything differentthan human, half-elf or elf... why? i don't feel well with the idea of dwarfs or gnomes (but i will think about them in warcraft i like the inventions and the firearms), i dislike the halflings... and the half-orc was pretty meh in 3.x, now in part for the habilities and the flavor i found all races more appealing (except the halfing i still dsilike them)
ok depending the party and the group i have played, its either quite inclined to human or to demi-human
right now i play with 2 groups, one is pretty human oriented (5 humans (paladin, necromancer, bard, rogue, sorcerer), 1 half-elf cleric (me), an elven rogue, and a gnome druid), the other is all elven crew (conjurer, bard, rogue)...
to let the DM of the 1st table play we had opened another game, so one day we play the original, the 2nd onewe play the new one... there are only 4 characters created 2 humans (rogue, monk)... 2 demi humans (halfling bard, elven ranger (me))
and considering the generic Fantasy World is human dominated... i feel that weare ok with this.
the 3 gropus above aredone with pathfinder rules already
IMO, I found the +2/+2/-2 quite a boost until we started using the point buy system. As noted above, that makes things more even.
Also, I don't think having seen it mentioned, aren't stat-boosting items more hard to accumulate now? (as belts only affecting physical stats and headbands affecting mental ones). If you cannot wear 6 stat-boosting items, the highest starting stats will eventually even out as the party reaches mid-levels, where the stat-boosting item craze becomes a factor.
i agree but we almost always do point buy, either 20 or 25 points
and yes, i loved thatpart... asa player i will suffer itwith dignity, as a DMi would relish thepart in which they arenot as common... it was an abuse when you player was from head to toe "dressed fopr success" and if you cast a "detect magic" you will be blinded, ebcause everyone is shining in a multicolored light:S
I don't know... maybe my players like to roleplay so much that I don't find the power creep, maybe we don't try to bend the rules to our will... maybe.
Really, in my games, while this stat bonuses come in handy, they don't increase the power level that much to make me worry about it...
|
|
Without a default set of rules for ability score generation, there is a slight issue with that small boost if you're not using point buy. Personally, point buy is mandatory in my games. It really takes away a lot of my headaches as a GM.
As to whether or not this represents a power creep, I'm not 100% convinced it is. The power creep issues are a not a function of how ability scores are generated or boosted, but in how the modifiers from them affect play at different levels. Power creep comes into play from feats, spells, and items (mundane and magical).
At the beginning of a character's career, the extra +2 boost is extremely useful. At higher levels, the effectiveness of it wears down a bit. It only remains a consistent boost for melee and ranged combatants for a physical score (Str or Dex). This is not a bad thing as the gap between them and spellcasters only gets wider and wider over time. For Con, it's extremely useful for anyone as that extra hit point really can make a difference.
Spellcasters, however, will always benefit from a mental boost in their spellcasting ability score. However, it will be either four or eight full levels (and another eight levels after that) before you see another +1 DC change in spells. It's not as big a deal as it appears at first glance. It's not bad at the beginning for hero spellcasters to have spells that their enemies will have a hard time defeating, and it's in the beginning that spellcasters have the hardest time surviving.
Even with dealing with bonus spells, the problem is only going to make a difference in higher level play, and that's an area I'm having a really hard time seeing how Pathfinder is fixing that. I have ideas for fixing parts of it, but I'm saving them for when the focus changes to that issue. None of my fixes pertain to ability scores or races, however.
I don't have an issue with this staying as is. It simply allows +1 LA races to stop being +1 LA when that +1 is coming from a strictly unbalanced ability score perspective. This way we can see more variety in races as time goes on that don't eventually start to lag behind. It's not necessarily a global -1 to LA, though. It will take a slight bit of adjusting for using some materials, but it isn't something so drastic that it will take hours to adjust a race, monster, or encounter.
Arovyn
As to whether or not this represents a power creep, I'm not 100% convinced it is. The power creep issues are a not a function of how ability scores are generated or boosted, but in how the modifiers from them affect play at different levels. Power creep comes into play from feats, spells, and items (mundane and magical).
Power creep is the subtle but ubiquitous increase in power throughout the game. Saying this one thing is not power creep is easy. Power creep means the characters as a whole will be significantly nastier than previously due to a culmination of little changes.
- Increased attributes
- +1HP or Skill Point/ level Favored Class
- More powerful classes
- More hitpoints at first level
- More hitpoints for certain classes
- Arcane Bond versus familiar
- Sorcerer SLAs
- Universalist bonus spells and Sus
- Fighter armor and weapon bonuses
- Paladin, monk, rogue, and barbarian class features
- The list goes on...
I'm not suggesting that all of these things are bad, but there is a definite and noticeable increase in the average parties power level. I don't mind addition of class features or small power bumps in order to bring the classes or races more into balance, I just don't like across the board power bumps with little overall benefit.
Actually, I do see one significant benefit of this change and that is that it will make players much more likely to choose PC races as opposed to monster races. It just bothers me quite a bit that this benefits the casters so much more than the other classes.
Well my big concern about +2 to mental stats is that while it benefits all characters it benefits spellcasters disproportionally. As mentioned, +1 to all spell DCs, plus 1-2 bonus spells usually of higher levels... this bump more than makes up for the cleric's 'loss' of spells.
Someone suggested the point buy system is more strict and if the system were to switch to straight point buy then it might be ok but as it stands for most groups it's just a straight bump for casters.
I've been pushing for an APL formula that accounts for Abilities. This would make Rolling vs. Point buy a non-issue, and it would make the power-up to casters a non issue.
The system would basically rate the value of your Abilities to a character of your class, and modify your CR accordingly. A fighter with 20 Str, Dex, and Con due to magic items should count as higher than his actual level for purposes of generating an appropriate challenge. Likewise, a wizard with INT 24 is just "more wizard" than one of the same level with an 18. Why do we accept this blind spot in the encounter balancing guidlelines?
|
|
we don't like the APL formula :P
also... point buy or howthe dice is rolled is a decision for every master and every table
the game is balanced as well as it should...
if yourgame master gives you ((4d6 - lowest) * 6)*3 and chose the best line, you have gerat posibilities of having above standars attributes
so if in a table for the way they make the rolls is imbalanced... well THAT is howthey work and like it...
from 4 tables, in 3 we use point buy, it works well everyone happy, butthat is how it works for us
so the +2/+2/-2 is not reallyan issue but an small bonus we all like (and the table is still dominated 5 to 3 by humans... and one of the 3 is a half-elf) so no, its not unbalanced
(...) It just bothers me quite a bit that this benefits the casters so much more than the other classes.
I tend to share your point Dennis. However, I'm still not convinced that the +2 to a mental stat is the source of the problem. To me, it seems that the problem originates from the fact that spellcasting relies so much on one single key ability. While it takes more than just Strength to make a good fighter, it doesn't take much more than Intelligence to make a good wizard.
I am not too sure how to approach the issue, and if something can easily be done without divorcing too much from 3.5. As a matter of fact, I have more issues with INT, WIS, and CHA boosting spells and magic items than with the initial +2 to a mental stat.
The main reason most level adjustment races are underpowered, as near as I can tell... is the level adjustment. At low levels in particular, the +1 can be brutal.
Let's look at Planetouched: Two good ability scores, mild energy resistances and a spell-like ability once per day seem pretty fancy and cool, but when it comes at the cost of having one hit die when everyone has two, survivability takes a hit. Heck, the average gnome has 4 spell like abilities once per day, plus a lot of bonuses to things. The Teifling has a bonus to two skills, one of which only serves to offset the charisma penalty.
Hobgoblins: When was the last time anyone talked about their Hobgoblin player character? I'd love to play one myself, a jaded goblin-elf war vetran or a gruff mercenary or the like. They're organized, tough, dextrous, and have a solid martial tradition. They make good villains. Just look at the Red Hand of Doom. But because behind the math of the world, experience points work different for bad guys than they do for good guys (ie, bad guys don't need them,) NPC hobgoblins don't get shot in the foot by game physics the way PCs ones would... if there ever were any PC hobgoblins. The depressing thing is, if you roll the character, and don't roll so hot, that +1 level adjustment's definetly not balancing very well with what you got on your character sheet.
... and, honestly, Hobgoblins aren't hot enough that I think opening them up as a PC race will go all Drizzt on us. Well... okay... I found that hobgoblin thunder-bard lady rather sexy in Red Hand of Doom.
----
So... yeah. I think that the +2 to two abilities and -2 to one for core racesis a nice new balance that... hopefully, can do something about this +1 level adjustment albatross some non-standard races perversely possess.
|
|
we don't like the APL formula :P
also... point buy or howthe dice is rolled is a decision for every master and every table
the game is balanced as well as it should...
if yourgame master gives you ((4d6 - lowest) * 6)*3 and chose the best line, you have gerat posibilities of having above standars attributes
so if in a table for the way they make the rolls is imbalanced... well THAT is howthey work and like it...
from 4 tables, in 3 we use point buy, it works well everyone happy, butthat is how it works for us
so the +2/+2/-2 is not reallyan issue but an small bonus we all like (and the table is still dominated 5 to 3 by humans... and one of the 3 is a half-elf) so no, its not unbalanced
ok... it posted itself after a while :P
this is what was missing
so the +2/+2/-2 is not reallyan issue but an small bonus we all like (and the table is still dominated 5 to 3 by humans... and one of the 3 is a half-elf) so no, its not unbalanced, nor does thsi imbalance attrack more players to such races
and the attributs just say who is better, not who is more mage or more fighter... i have learned never to underestimate players for having a "low key attribute" they can give you some nasty surprises for cleevr using of resources
|
|
So... yeah. I think that the +2 to two abilities and -2 to one for core racesis a nice new balance that... hopefully, can do something about this +1 level adjustment albatross some non-standard races perversely possess.
for what inhave understood
now that the normal races are abit more powerful all +1 LA races would count as normal... meaning they all begin in level 1
(...) It just bothers me quite a bit that this benefits the casters so much more than the other classes.I tend to share your point Dennis. However, I'm still not convinced that the +2 to a mental stat is the source of the problem. To me, it seems that the problem originates from the fact that spellcasting relies so much on one single key ability. While it takes more than just Strength to make a good fighter, it doesn't take much more than Intelligence to make a good wizard.
I am not too sure how to approach the issue, and if something can easily be done without divorcing too much from 3.5. As a matter of fact, I have more issues with INT, WIS, and CHA boosting spells and magic items than with the initial +2 to a mental stat.
Yes, I agree. However absent a change in the classes which would make wizards more multi attribute dependent I don't see rules that bump the wizards intelligence as positive developments. I suggested above simple reducing DCs to 9+primary attribute+Spell Level, that would make Human and Elf wizards DCs static while other races DCs would drop. Doesn't really help with bonus spells but I could deal with that.
for what inhave understood
now that the normal races are abit more powerful all +1 LA races would count as normal... meaning they all begin in level 1
Right, which I consider a good thing! :)
|
|
As to whether or not this represents a power creep, I'm not 100% convinced it is. The power creep issues are a not a function of how ability scores are generated or boosted, but in how the modifiers from them affect play at different levels. Power creep comes into play from feats, spells, and items (mundane and magical).
I too find very little power creep with the extra +2 - especially with point buy system that seems to work itself out.
I will admit it does make casters more potent than they were before with the right class/race combos, but not so much in the long run.
One point to make in support of my perception: PF has put restrictions on the magic item (enhancment boosts) to the ability scores - it's not as easy as it was previously to have a lot of ability score enhancing items anymore.
This definitely help balance out the additonal +2 at the onset of the character.
Robert
|
|
The whole argument that the net +2 attributes are to make the core options competitive with later materials simply doesn't hold water for me. It would only affect choice of race and frankly the WotC noncore PC races aren't that unbalanced once you factor level adjustments. The few exceptions are esoteric enough to just ban.
Actually the thing is that with the new system, races like Cat-Folk and tieflings can be added as +0 LA races.
One point to make in support of my perception: PF has put restrictions on the magic item (enhancment boosts) to the ability scores - it's not as easy as it was previously to have a lot of ability score enhancing items anymore.
It's not as easy to have multiple ability scores enhanced of the same type (mental or physical) boosting a single mental attribute is just as easy and the same cost. I suppose this limits to some degree wizards with magically boosted wisdom but it certainly will not limit the wizards magically boosted Intelligence.
(...) I suppose this limits to some degree wizards with magically boosted wisdom but it certainly will not limit the wizards magically boosted Intelligence.
True...
Also, I have a problem envisioning the roleplay of a 26 INT character. While I can relate with being stronger, quicker and healthier than the perfect human, I have a harder time relating with attributes above 18 in the mental department.
As a player with an average INT, WIS and CHA (or hopefully slightly above average...), how should I play my character with an intelligence of 24? or a Charisma of 22? or a Wisdom of 26?
I know I'm reading too much into this, but it still bugs me. Having the "18 is the best you can imagine, and 19 is above human understanding" was a good guideline. As far as the mental stats is concerned, I wish it remained that way, yet I can understand why it can't.
meah, I guess this is all off-topic. Sorry about that.
'findel
|
|
One point to make in support of my perception: PF has put restrictions on the magic item (enhancment boosts) to the ability scores - it's not as easy as it was previously to have a lot of ability score enhancing items anymore.It's not as easy to have multiple ability scores enhanced of the same type (mental or physical) boosting a single mental attribute is just as easy and the same cost. I suppose this limits to some degree wizards with magically boosted wisdom but it certainly will not limit the wizards magically boosted Intelligence.
Yes, it can. BUT - most players tend to think of more big-picture scenarios with characters - especiallyin long-term campaigns.
Such wizard, having less access to stat-enhancing items (and other characters) cannot simply assume as they had before "Oh I'll max out my INT - so what if my CON and DEX are a little on the short side....I'll have a +2 item for each other those soon enough...by 7th level I guess.
Now, such big picture planning may require a players to skimp slightly on the INT, or risk having a far more feeble character down the line that isnt' as easily overcome with simple inexpensive magic items.
Robert
One point to make in support of my perception: PF has put restrictions on the magic item (enhancment boosts) to the ability scores - it's not as easy as it was previously to have a lot of ability score enhancing items anymore.It's not as easy to have multiple ability scores enhanced of the same type (mental or physical) boosting a single mental attribute is just as easy and the same cost. I suppose this limits to some degree wizards with magically boosted wisdom but it certainly will not limit the wizards magically boosted Intelligence.Yes, it can. BUT - most players tend to think of more big-picture scenarios with characters - especiallyin long-term campaigns.
Such wizard, having less access to stat-enhancing items (and other characters) cannot simply assume as they had before "Oh I'll max out my INT - so what if my CON and DEX are a little on the short side....I'll have a +2 item for each other those soon enough...by 7th level I guess.
Now, such big picture planning may require a players to skimp slightly on the INT, or risk having a far more feeble character down the line that isnt' as easily overcome with simple inexpensive magic items.
Robert
Won't really be the case. That just means that high level spellcasters will actually use their lower level spells to increase their stats. Such spells don't stack with ability increasing items so all the items really did for spellcasters was free up a few extra slots.
|
|
Won't really be the case. That just means that high level spellcasters will actually use their lower level spells to increase their stats. Such spells don't stack with ability increasing items so all the items really did for spellcasters was free up a few extra slots.
Robert
You are forgetting that those low level stat bumpers only lasts minutes, requiring you to take multiple feats in order to have them last long enough to cast them but costing you high level spell slots then. Also if not going to make stat bumpers last all day , you spend 4 rounds bumping yourself in a fight for the fight.
Yes, it can. BUT - most players tend to think of more big-picture scenarios with characters - especiallyin long-term campaigns.
Such wizard, having less access to stat-enhancing items (and other characters) cannot simply assume as they had before "Oh I'll max out my INT - so what if my CON and DEX are a little on the short side....I'll have a +2 item for each other those soon enough...by 7th level I guess.
Now, such big picture planning may require a players to skimp slightly on the INT, or risk having a far more feeble character down the line that isnt' as easily overcome with simple inexpensive magic items
What exactly about the new stat boosting items makes you think they will be less available? The only change I've seen is they are now rolled into 2 packages, mental versus physical. Why would a wizard ever skimp on INT boosting items? The physical items you are talking about are a completely different issue and don't conflict with mental boosters at all.
To boost INT by +4 it still only costs 16,000GP, +6 is still 36,000, +8, etc...
In other words the only change is if the caster feels having a high WIS or CHA is important. Items that boost 2 stats (INT and CHA) cost 25% more now than previously (10,000GP versus 8,000GP) and take fewer slots which is an advantage. Items which boost all three mental stats cost 33% more, not a huge deal, and again save slots for other uses. Stat boosting items promise to be every bit as common in Pathfinder as in the Core SRD.
You are forgetting that those low level stat bumpers only lasts minutes, requiring you to take multiple feats in order to have them last long enough to cast them but costing you high level spell slots then. Also if not going to make stat bumpers last all day , you spend 4 rounds bumping yourself in a fight for the fight.
It will mean that casters will either spend the extra money on an item to boost 2-3 stats or just forgo having high tertiary stats. How many wizards buy charisma stat boosters under 3.5?
What exactly about the new stat boosting items makes you think they will be less available?
I was also commenting on that issue above. Wizard is not the best case, but it definitely becomes an issue with Cleric: Wisdom-based spellcasting and Charisma-based Channeling. He cannot combine Pearls of Wisdom and Cloaks of Charisma anymore. He can choose to increase one "native" stat through advancement and another one with items. Apply also to Paladin (with even more Cha-depending benefits).
Even Wizards are somehow affected. Stat-boosting items are quite desirable for increasing saves. An Int-boosting wizard must forfeit extra Wis punch for his Will saves; also, he has to choose between boosting Con (for Fortitude) or Dex (for Reflex), which are bad saves for the class.With this additional limitation, which can be felt at mid-high levels (when many monster effect save DCs get insanely high), the small boost at character creation makes a certain sense: have more exceptional characters, but ones who cannot acquire several preternatural abilities as a matter of items (and cash).
Man, I can't understand. I see that spellcasters get a nice bonus that will last to their carrers, as any melee guy who gets a bonus to con, and the list goes on...
But I've been Dming for some long time now, and I too have met many kinds of players. While I still want to discuss things because I want PF to be a good RPG for EVERYONE, not just for my table, and I won't state my point with "it works for me, so it's not broken", I give myself to think how could this REALLY become power creep.
To this end, this week I did something I don't do normally: I began another game with other players, a one-shot (from my point of view) adventure, in wich I presented a great story to the players, and yes, made a fake promise of an ongoing campaign (c'mon, don't try to judge me because I manipulated the guys. I will ask for forgiveness, eventually, when next week I cancel the game. I don't have time at all for a second gaming group...), and the players came with great concepts and liked the changes of pathfinder (no9t many people here in Brazil use this message board, and from the State where I live I REALLY doubt there are more than two -counting me-). They were all happy and liked tha changes, and bought the idea of PF being the place to be if you like 3rd edition.
Enough talk. We made characters (3rd level) and played the whole week. By yesterday they were at 9th level (Yeah, "the whole week"), with a female Paladin with a cohort, a female sorcerer, a dwarf cleric and a female tiefling rogue (I hate tieflings, but hell..it was a really Hot character).
The +2 bonuses came in handy to the sorcerer, letting her have a bigger attribute than she could otherwise. Coupled with a feat I don't remember the name, that your ability score is treated as 2 higher for your spellcasting ability (one of those regional feats of forgotten realms that you can only get at first level), her dcs were bigger. Now, the paladin also had her charisma increased, wich left some points to buy a better than abyssal dexterity. A player that left was really happy to put +2 str to his fighter from the beggining.
But then, by level 9, this was it. The sorcerer still had +1 to her save dcs, one more spell, the paladin still had a +1 to her saving trows and some abilities, but in the end, my folks, it was no big deal. And those were not the kind of good roleplayer I'm used to DM to -the girl who played the sorcerer REALLY knew what she was doing in her ability to maximize her character-, but rather random players...
So, in my test this one didn't strike as bad as some other things of pf... AND so, I still can't see a problem with the extra +2...
To me: It is not power creep.
A little note: I use pf modified to suit my tastes. While I defend the +2, in my official group, I don't give this extra +2...this is the way life is.
|
I'm seeing a lot of people talking about the lower point-buy, punitive point-buy, and so on, but it seems to me like the PF point-buy system is actually more buff than that used in 3.5. Of course, I've only seen the Beta version, so I don't know what it was like in the Alpha version. But just for curiosity's sake, I rolled up up the stats for a character using the highest point-buy option in both versions (32-point in 3.5, and 25-point in Pathfinder), and here's one example I came up with:
Using 3.5 32-point buy system:
STR 14
DEX 13
CON 10
INT 13
WIS 10
CHA 12
Using Pathfinder 25-point buy system:
STR 14
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 13
WIS 16
CHA 12
Now, maybe I added something up wrong (quite possible, as math was never my strong suit), but if I did that right, then the Pathfinder point-buy system is actually more buff than 3.5's. That's because 3.5 uses a Base-8 approach, and Pathfinder uses a Base-10 approach (less points to spend, but you're starting out two points higher on each stat).
|
|
Actually the 20 pt stat buy listed in the Pathfinder RPG is an exact match for the 32 pt buy from 3.5 D&D.
So a 25 pt buy would be like a 37 pt buy from 3.5 D&D.
Their relative levels of Low, Standard, High and Epic are pretty clear descriptions that can help you match the point buy level with your campaign.
By comparison, IIRC, the nationally run Living Greyhawk campaign had either a 28 or 30 pt buy for stats, and Living Kalamar was at 32 pts.
Just a couple of thoughts... :D
|
|
Yes, it can. BUT - most players tend to think of more big-picture scenarios with characters - especiallyin long-term campaigns.
Such wizard, having less access to stat-enhancing items (and other characters) cannot simply assume as they had before "Oh I'll max out my INT - so what if my CON and DEX are a little on the short side....I'll have a +2 item for each other those soon enough...by 7th level I guess.
Now, such big picture planning may require a players to skimp slightly on the INT, or risk having a far more feeble character down the line that isnt' as easily overcome with simple inexpensive magic items
What exactly about the new stat boosting items makes you think they will be less available? The only change I've seen is they are now rolled into 2 packages, mental versus physical. Why would a wizard ever skimp on INT boosting items? The physical items you are talking about are a completely different issue and don't conflict with mental boosters at all.
To boost INT by +4 it still only costs 16,000GP, +6 is still 36,000, +8, etc...
In other words the only change is if the caster feels having a high WIS or CHA is important. Items that boost 2 stats (INT and CHA) cost 25% more now than previously (10,000GP versus 8,000GP) and take fewer slots which is an advantage. Items which boost all three mental stats cost 33% more, not a huge deal, and again save slots for other uses. Stat boosting items promise to be every bit as common in Pathfinder as in the Core SRD.
Because typically, FINDING such an item that perfectly blends the two (or three) boosts to stats that fits your need will be more difficult - IF items that do buff multiple stats are found in an any kind of frequency. And even crafting them are more costly. So instead of easily having a +2 con belt and a +2 dex gloves, both usually helpful to wizards, he may be forced to choose just one or the other stat to be boosted if he can't afford the extra cost of combining them; or if he does pay the extra cost, it'll take away some of his other treasure needs - such as cloak or resist, natural armor, ring of prot, wands, scrolls, etc.
My point is - that there are balancing factors in play.
Robert
|
|
Balancing the system for point buy and rolling really isnt possible. Basically I dont see how you can balance for rolling as it is random by nature. What may be balanced for the guy that rolled 18, 18, 17, 15, 15, 14 sure isnt balanced for the unlucky guy that rolled 13, 12, 11, 11, 10, 9. Random rolling will create more imbalances than an addition +2.
The problem is that convincing the old school grognards, like a lot of my players are, to switch over to a point buy system is going to be tough. My group already vetoed participating in the Pathfinder Society because it would require them to use point buy. It smacks of WoW and other video games according to them.
|
|
The problem is that convincing the old school grognards, like a lot of my players are, to switch over to a point buy system is going to be tough. My group already vetoed participating in the Pathfinder Society because it would require them to use point buy. It smacks of WoW and other video games according to them.
Hogwash! Point-buy has been a staplepoint of league-play D&D for a generation now! Most of the "living" societies used point buys. These were around long before WoW and other MMOs.
And computer/video games that didn't use point buy allowed you to simply roll over and over and over again anyway until you got a set of scores that defied odds.
Robert
