Ability Point Disparity

[Andrew Christian]

Just on first blush, I noticed something that didn't seem right.

I know Pathfinder is not D&D 3.x, so using some of the "rules" they used in creation doesn't always fit.

However, one of the things that I agreed with, was how combat skills were more heavily weighted than non-combat skills.

By and large, we see that combat ability scores are the ones that can more easily "break" the game than non-combat ability scores.

Each ability should have a weight, and so the RP for enhancing or weaking said ability should we weighted similarly.

Strength is used for Melee To Hit, Thrown Weapon Damage, Damage, Encumbrance, CMB, & CMD, Several skills like Climb and Swim which have ancillary importance to combat. These are several pretty important aspects of combat and the game in general.

Dexterity is used for CMD, Ranged to Hit, Reflex Save, AC, Initiative, Several skills like Acrobatics and Ride which have direct importance to combat.

Constitution is used for Hit Points, Fortitude Save, holding your breath, death threshold. Quite important, but not nearly so as Strength and Dexterity.

Intelligence is used for spellcasting, skill point bonus per level, languages, several skills, none of which have much combat importance except for perhaps monster knowledge checks.

Wisdom is used for spellcasting, will saves, perception, sense motive, and several other skills.

Charisma is used for spellcasting, social skills, and that's it.

So granting a +2 bonus to Charisma should not be the same cost as granting a +2 to Strength. It just doesn't make sense and causes a bit of a bleed in comparing races to one another, in that the bonuses don't seem to match up well.

My opinion is that Strength and Dex should be weighted equally, while Wisdom and Constitution should also be weighted equally. Intelligence should be the baseline, while Charisma should be weighted either equal to or slightly less than Intelligence. I'd lean to equal.

So:
4 RP for STR & DEX
3 RP for CON & WIS
2 RP for INT & CHA

[stringburka]

No. Just no.

While this is true if you ignore class features, the case is that the characters get what's best for their character, usually - if the party finds a belt of strength, it goes to the fighter, a headband of int, it goes to the wizard. Thus, what matters in terms of balance is what it does for the class which it does most for - what do strength do for fighters/barbarians, what does int do for witches/wizards and so on.

When you look at it that way, it's easy to see that Int is every bit as important for the wizard as strength is for the fighter. Actually, wizards are considered more dependant on just that single attribute (called SAD) while fighters are dependant on multiple attributes (strength, dex, con, and wis), or MAD.

As it is now, casting classes are considered by many to have the upper hand in the mid-to late game, while few consider martials to have the upper hand (though there are those that think it's balanced between them). So if there is one group that shouldn't get a large boost right off, it's the casters. Halving the costs for those stats are going to mean wizards and witches will have DC's far higher, and more spells per day, while fighters are stuck in the same situation as before.

If you want to avoid people using dump stats as much, consider this instead:
As it is now, characters get +1 ability score every 4 levels.
In point buy, increasing a stat 17-18 costs 4 points.

A possible house rule: Instead of the +1/four levels, grant a single point every level that has to be used at the point buy costs.

So someone wanting to increase his Str from 17 to 18 has to wait 4 levels, while someone wanting to increase his Cha from 8 to 10 can do that in two.

[Kais86]

I agree with Stringburka. With the later classes, the other stats are combat stats, you can get Cha, and Int to damage with some classes. I've yet to see Wis and Con add to damage, but they probably do, Wis is probably an inquisitor thing, and Con might be a monk thing.

[stringburka]

Kais86 wrote:

I agree with Stringburka. With the later classes, the other stats are combat stats, you can get Cha, and Int to damage with some classes. I've yet to see Wis and Con add to damage, but they probably do, Wis is probably an inquisitor thing, and Con might be a monk thing.

Well, "added to damage" depends on what you mean. High Wis means the cleric can cast Prayer more, increasing damage. High Con means a barbarian can rage for longer, increasing damage.

[Kais86]

stringburka wrote:

Kais86 wrote:

I agree with Stringburka. With the later classes, the other stats are combat stats, you can get Cha, and Int to damage with some classes. I've yet to see Wis and Con add to damage, but they probably do, Wis is probably an inquisitor thing, and Con might be a monk thing.

Well, "added to damage" depends on what you mean. High Wis means the cleric can cast Prayer more, increasing damage. High Con means a barbarian can rage for longer, increasing damage.

I was thinking in more direct terms, like "you get to add your Con/Wis to damage", and the like.

[default]

a wizards mileage comes from more spells, not from the ability itself.

+2 str is another +1 atk/damage each swing.

+2 int is a +1 save DC roughly 3*your level per day (More or less, depends on how many of your spells prepped need saves, how many you have, etc.) while their damage is just about capped at 1d6/caster level per spell.

Id probably cost it

5 STR and DEX
4 CON and WIS
3 INT and CHA

[Ion Raven]

default wrote:

a wizards mileage comes from more spells, not from the ability itself.

+2 str is another +1 atk/damage each swing.

+2 int is a +1 save DC roughly 3*your level per day (More or less, depends on how many of your spells prepped need saves, how many you have, etc.) while their damage is just about capped at 1d6/caster level per spell.

Id probably cost it

5 STR and DEX
4 CON and WIS
3 INT and CHA

And wizards get more spells, higher DCs, more skills, higher concentration checks, and more uses of wizard abilities with higher Int.

Different classes make different uses of different attributes. Your cost system plays favorites to casters which are more SAD and hurts everyone else who is MAD. Also saying that different attributes are worth more makes the attribute on leveling up, point-buy, and human inheritance where one can choose +2 on any stat an utter joke.

So my response is NO. This is the worst idea ever without reworking the entire system.

[El Bruce]

"By and large, we see that combat ability scores are the ones that can more easily "break" the game than non-combat ability scores."

This is something that every DM should deal with once it rears its ugly dhead. If the entire party is designed as nothing more than a death-dealing machine, then place them in a fancy-dress ballroom where they have to figure out who the murderer is, using only their charm, guile and wit.

If they didn't take points in those sorts of things, then spank them accordingly.

PC's should always be aware that their DM might pull an "Agatha Christie" sequence (if not campaign) on them at any moment, and pull back on their min/max character imbalance instincts as appropriate.

[Mortuum]

I'm pretty sure there are monk archetypes that ad wis to damage.

I think this is a bad idea. There are no "combat" scores and "non-combat" scores. There is a reason that the core rulebook makes all ability scores cost the same to raise.

There are options in this game that can make any of your scores the most important in combat. If you make a so-called non-combat score cheaper to raise, abilities that make it more useful will become better than abilities depending on more expensive scores.

Besides, the most powerful classes in the game all focus heavily on those "non-combat" scores. This can only reduce balance.

[Thalin]

1) Do NOT put the barbarian in a ball room; we're still apologizing to Count Demescus for the last time we tried that.

2) On paper, Str looks good and Cha looks awful. But when you change classes to Bards, Oracles, Summoners, and Pallies, Cha is the preferred and Str the "dump". So a race with a Cha bonus is a "must". In this regard, because magic tends to be more scary than melee, points should be kept the same.

I do worry about Str-based races showing up; the +Str +Wis -Cha character wouldn't even need racial powers for most fighters to want it. But then again, right now most fighties end up human just because it is the only Str-based option in vote (halfies generally not having powers worthy of giving up the extra feat). So more non-humans may make it fun.

[Mok]

I fully endorse having differing values for ability scores.

The foundation of the game is combat and in general, having a higher strength or dexterity is more important than a high charisma. A few classes can exploit a high charisma with their class abilities, but it isn't the baseline that the game runs off of.

Just because the Sorcerer or Bard wants a 20 Charisma doesn't mean it has the same overall value in the system compared to the physical attributes.

[Thomas Writeworth]

I'm going to have to disagree here...

While true- Strength does go into a LOT more things than say Charisma...

Charisma in the hands of a 'viscus' Caster (or Roleplayer for that matter) can be a campaign killer... EASY.

I know I've had more campaigns ruined due to Charisma then I have from High Strength..

[Thalin]

But it does mean if you undervalue those stats / improving those stats, you overpower those classes. If I could "Exceptional attribute" Cha for 2 points, I just made summoners and oracles even more silly.

Really Con / Dex are the universal stats, few dump them and most value them as 2nd and 3rd attributes. Str/Int/Cha/Wis are often used as dumps for assorted classes, Str being dumped far more often than Wis.

[Evil Lincoln]

El Bruce wrote:

If they didn't take points in those sorts of things, then spank them accordingly.

PC's should always be aware that their DM might pull an "Agatha Christie" sequence (if not campaign) on them at any moment, and pull back on their min/max character imbalance instincts as appropriate.

Or the GM could take the design of the PCs as the strongest indication of player style preference, then do their job and respond to that.

I get what you're saying, good GMs mix it up a bit. But putting a troupe of battle-hardened killing machines in a ballroom with a murder mystery is not good GMing. I wonder what tortured logic one would have to employ to put those PCs in such an incongruous (and probably involuntary) setting.

Putting them on a battlefield where it becomes important to find the traitor among their own allies and time is running out... that's good GMing... maybe... if you don't pull the same stunt out for every game. If the players made killing machines they want to play killing machines. Why spurn that?

If I am a chef and someone tells me that they despise mushrooms, I don't immediately start cooking mushrooms to serve them. I may subtly introduce mushrooms to their palate if they are not allergic, and part of GMing definitely is tough love. But this kind of "opposite day" prescription for adventure design (from the above quote) will not turn out well.

[Xum]

Charisma is not a very good stat, unfortunatelly, and it should do more.
But that's not a reason to diminish it's costs.

If Strength was so overpowered as it's said a character shouldn't be able to get to strength 72. And he can. Although no other ability score can get that high.

[KaeYoss]

Andrew Christian wrote:

4 RP for STR & DEX
3 RP for CON & WIS
2 RP for INT & CHA

4 RP for Str? Why? All it does is improve attacks and damage. What are those good for? A spellcaster will simply go and disable the enemy.

Only 2 for Int and Cha? Woohoo! Arcanists are close to totally dominating the game, but they're not totally there. This is what they needed!

[Gorbacz]

Lilithsthrall is gonna love this thread.

[Umbral Reaver]

Oh god. D:

LilithsThrall is Hastur, except invoked by a thread including the word 'Charisma' in three posts in succession.

[Ravingdork]

By all means, make Charisma cheap. My sorcerer/paladin/eldritch knight will thank you before he destroys another GM's campaign.

[Kais86]

Ravingdork wrote:

By all means, make Charisma cheap. My sorcerer/paladin/eldritch knight will thank you before he destroys another GM's campaign.

He should take a few levels of ninja, just to really rub it in.

[Drejk]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Oh god. D:

LilithsThrall is Hastur, except invoked by a thread including the word 'Charisma' in three posts in succession.

Lets see...

Charisma!

[Bwang]

Charisma!

[Ion Raven]

Charisma!

O___O:

Will LilithsThrall appear below!? I feel like a little girl calling 'bloody mary' into the mirror...

[A Man In Black]

If we're done being stupid.

I was thinking about this, too, but pondering the difference between the value of a bonus and the value of a penalty. For example, a charisma bonus is worth as much or more to a sorcerer or bard than a strength bonus is to a martial class, but a charisma penalty is easily borne by anyone but a sorcerer, bard, or paladin.

I dunno, probably deserves its own thread.

[Kais86]

A Man In Black wrote:

If we're done being stupid.

I was thinking about this, too, but pondering the difference between the value of a bonus and the value of a penalty. For example, a charisma bonus is worth as much or more to a sorcerer or bard than a strength bonus is to a martial class, but a charisma penalty is easily borne by anyone but a sorcerer, bard, or paladin.

I dunno, probably deserves its own thread.

Out of the core maybe, but Summoners, Ninjas, Mysterious stranger archetype Gunslingers, and whatever other classes/archetype I missed, all run on Charisma.

[Golden-Esque]

Kais86 wrote:

I agree with Stringburka. With the later classes, the other stats are combat stats, you can get Cha, and Int to damage with some classes. I've yet to see Wis and Con add to damage, but they probably do, Wis is probably an inquisitor thing, and Con might be a monk thing.

For Inquisitors, Wisdom = rounds of Bane each day, which is the primary source of their DPR. No class in the game has anything that adds Con to damage, but then again, Con determines your hit points, and no one wants to die a painful death, so it will always be somewhat desirable.

[CharlieIV]

Andrew Christian wrote:

...

So:
4 RP for STR & DEX
3 RP for CON & WIS
2 RP for INT & CHA

I agree that pricing all ability score increases at 4 RP per +2 seems incorrect.

All ability scores are not equal: If I were to concede any stat as being more powerful than the rest, it would be STR (and mostly only at low levels, before casters explode in power level). Consider that none of the core races grant a fixed bonus to STR and the only way to get a +2 STR with core races is to use the human modifiers, which are currently more expensive per +2.

But really, it's not that physical stats are better than mental ones or vice versa, it's that each class tends to have a 'primary' stat, so increasing the ability score bonus which is highest should cost more than boosting one that is lower. Consider the point difference between 'Standard' ability scores and 'Flexible' ones: this suggests it is worth a mere 2 RP to eliminate a -2 penalty. Conversely, I've seen enough posts about broken races that it seems clear that stacking multiple boosts to the same ability score should be more expensive than 4 RP each.

One possible pricing alternative:
Let's use 4 RP for one +2 to an ability score as a baseline. This base should be a minimum of 4 RP for the following reason: one bonus feat is worth 4 RP; +2 DEX grants +1 AC (which is on par with a feat) and sometimes +1 to hit, depending on your weapon of choice and other feat selection; +2 STR grants +1 to hit (on par with a feat) and also +1 damage (on par with half a feat), but as I said above, STR is pretty powerful. Thus +2 ability bonuses are at least as powerful as a feat.

1. Offer a discount of 1 RP to raise a race's 3rd and 4th highest scores, or 2 RP to raise one of a race's lowest two ability score modifiers. Most characters with point-buy ability scores cannot afford more than a few high stats, so bonuses to additional stats aren't worth as much [in terms of character creation point-buy differences] as they are with the first stat. These discounts would make eliminating the initial -2 penalty to go from 'standard' to 'flexible' still be worth 2 RP since it is increasing the lowest score.

2. Stacking ability score bonuses to create modifiers larger than +2 should become progressively more expensive. I suggest that for the highest two stats (btw I keep saying 2 because enough builds--clerics, magus,etc--want at least two stats high), stacking extra +2 bonuses should cost an extra +2RP for each purchase beyond 12: i.e. 4 RP to raise to +2, 6 RP [net 10 RP] to raise to +4, 8 RP [net 18 RP] to raise to +6, etc. For the rest, only increase the price by +1RP per additional increase and also apply the discount described in (1). More high stats are still good, they just don't have as significant an impact as the highest bonus did in terms of the overall power level of an optimally-classed member of the race.

Ability Score Traits:
This being said, I would re-price the ability score traits to be consistent with the ability score bonus pricing. Sure, the human +2 to anything could still be worth more due to flexibility. Let's say it's still worth 6 RP, with all ability bonus traits costing the difference. 'Standard' is worth 4+4-2=6RP, so it still costs 0 RP beyond the human baseline. 'Flexible' is worth 4+4=8 so still 2 RP more than the human baseline.

3. Penalties: With regard to price adjustments for ability score penalties, -2 penalties are worth 2 RP back, per the above pricing, but when considering overall power level, there needs to be diminishing returns to prevent 'broken' races.

I think the 'weakness' modifiers (+2, +2, -4) could still be worth -1 RP (as compared to the human baseline) based on diminishing returns--the -4 in a dump stat isn't really that bad; it just means you can't dump that stat quite as much without giving the character an Achilles heel. Similarly, the current pricing for 'mixed weakness' and 'greater weakness' could be consistent with diminishing returns.

When pricing choices like 'paragon' and 'greater paragon' that grant +4 bonuses, consider what it would cost to obtain that +4 by choosing an alternative trait with +2 and then buying 'advanced[ability]' later on. The best you could hope for is -3 [by picking greater weakness] +6 [to raise the +2 to a 4] = 3 RP total. This is the cheapest anything with a +4 should cost.

[Xum]

Golden-Esque wrote:

Kais86 wrote:

I agree with Stringburka. With the later classes, the other stats are combat stats, you can get Cha, and Int to damage with some classes. I've yet to see Wis and Con add to damage, but they probably do, Wis is probably an inquisitor thing, and Con might be a monk thing.

For Inquisitors, Wisdom = rounds of Bane each day, which is the primary source of their DPR. No class in the game has anything that adds Con to damage, but then again, Con determines your hit points, and no one wants to die a painful death, so it will always be somewhat desirable.

Barbarians do. Raging Brutality, and it is indeed, brutal.

[BigNorseWolf]

I get what you're saying, good GMs mix it up a bit. But putting a troupe of battle-hardened killing machines in a ballroom with a murder mystery is not good GMing. I wonder what tortured logic one would have to employ to put those PCs in such an incongruous (and probably involuntary) setting.

I love that kind of juxtaposition. Its like tossing dry ice and hot water together in a soda bottle and watching what happens

.. from a safe distance.

-The PC's are there receiving an award for their previous act of killing machinery (they killed the right people as far as the party goers are concerned)

-The PC's need some information and one of the people at the party has it. (he's unavailable/hard to locate at other times)

-An NPC wants to hire the party but doesn't want to be killed. He thinks they'll be a little more behaved with the kings guards standing there, so instead of hiring security to meet the PC's he uses the "you and X number of guests" invitation to invite the PC's.

-The PC's want to dig under the castle but security at the perimeter is too tight.

-The PC's suspect one of the party members is secretly the Dark Necromancer Ulric.

-One of the PC's mothers is dragging them by the ear to meet some nice girl she's picked out, and the PC would rather face a dragon alone than mom.