NOTE: This is not intended to be a negative post. I am genuinely impressed with what the Pathfinder 2e team have done here. I also fully acknowledge any similarities may be coincidental.
So it looks like PF2e has inherited the basic math behind D&D 4th ed's ability score generation. How it worked in 4th ed was all characters start with the following initial array: 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. You then got a certain number of points to buy higher scores with (no buy downs were allowed). In addition, all races (except human) give characters a +2 bonus to two static ability scores. For example halflings gave +2 Dex and +2 Charisma.
Based on today's blog post this basic premise is what we are effectively getting, but with a Pathfinder veneer thrown on top.
In PF 2e all characters start with an array of 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. All races then get to add 2 to two static ability scores (in the case of halflings it is +2 Dex and +2 Charisma). Then there is an optional rule to allow a -2 points to one score for an additional +2 to another score (much like 4th ed had the default of one score at 8 that could then be increased to 10). This is the key component to making it feel like Pathfinder. Because in 4th ed no-one got penalties, in Pathfinder all races get penalties (except humans and half-humans). So by introducing a penalty and then providing players with the ability to remove the penalty you effectively get the same as not having a penalty and simply having one score that starts at 8.
Now I don't actually have a problem with this setup (my group might, but I don't). I've often considered running Pathfinder with a starting array of 8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and allowing no buy downs. But I found the similarities striking and the way they've cleverly tweaked it to feel more like Pathfinder very interesting.
Overall I'll be interested to see how the forums (and my group) react to the current setup for generating ability scores. I personally have no strong opinion on it but did find the similarities quite interesting.
NOTE: I acknowledge all similarities between the two systems may be coincidental.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, notes! ♫♪
Overall I like how they're doing ability scores. But I don't think I saw where you could actually choose to take an optional -2? Looking at the blog, it just mentions the racial flaw, eg -Str for halflings. I think that might be the only ability penalty that you can get in PF2.
The "optional -2" thing is just another way of interpreting the +2 that can go anywhere except for the two that have already been boosted.
So you can assume the penalty is compulsory and you'll begin with 8 10 10 10 12 12 and then apply the third bonus in two ways:
it can cancel out the -2 giving you 10 10 10 10 12 12 or it can go wherever you like giving 8 10 10 12 12 12.
That's mathematically the same as "take 10 10 10 10 12 12 and you can optionally take a -2 here for a +2 on any of the other three 10s".
I don't think I saw where you could actually choose to take an optional -2? Looking at the blog, it just mentions the racial flaw, eg -Str for halflings.
Halflings get a choice: -2 STR for +2 to another score, or no penalty at all. This makes the -2 penalty to STR for halflings optional.
I do not like 4e, so I sincerely hope you are not onto something. I saw this pop up in another thread and it is making me worried, despite the fact I don't think I agree with the premise.
Another disturbing similarity: They seem to be homogenising the races so they're all basically the same. One ancestry feat/racial power, speed, HP, any special vision, languages and ability score modifiers.
They're all using the exact same formula with only minor differences + a single big difference (racial power/ancestry feat). Hell, even D&D 4th ed races have more differences.
I'm really hoping that backgrounds will do the heavy lifting that races use to do. But based on the descriptions of various ancestry feats it seems the cultural aspects are still being associated with the ancestry. Which means we just get less diverse characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is how I like to do it. The race themselves have very minimal impact, but they're a foundation on which to spend character resources to further develop the individual character.
Only problem is all of the cultural aspects still seem tied to ancestry and are being locked behind ancestry feats.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another disturbing similarity is that in Pathfinder First Edition you started at 10 10 10 10 10 10 and had a buy up/down feature.
Also, most races would get two scores at +2 and another at -2. This essentially made it 8 10 10 10 12 12. Now, with the buy up mechanic you could cancel out the -2.
I think this shows that Pathfinder First Edition was way too much like 4th edition.
Another disturbing similarity is that in Pathfinder First Edition you started at 10 10 10 10 10 10 and had a buy up/down feature.
Also, most races would get two scores at +2 and another at -2. This essentially made it 8 10 10 10 12 12. Now, with the buy up mechanic you could cancel out the -2.
I think this shows that Pathfinder First Edition was way too much like 4th edition.
Indeed! It's almost like both games share the same ancestry....
Indeed! It's almost like both games share the same ancestry....Another disturbing similarity is that in Pathfinder First Edition you started at 10 10 10 10 10 10 and had a buy up/down feature.
Also, most races would get two scores at +2 and another at -2. This essentially made it 8 10 10 10 12 12. Now, with the buy up mechanic you could cancel out the -2.
I think this shows that Pathfinder First Edition was way too much like 4th edition.
It's nice when snark is easy and wrong, as opposed to when it is difficult, but right.
It's nice when snark is easy and wrong, as opposed to when it is difficult, but right.Indeed! It's almost like both games share the same ancestry....Another disturbing similarity is that in Pathfinder First Edition you started at 10 10 10 10 10 10 and had a buy up/down feature.
Also, most races would get two scores at +2 and another at -2. This essentially made it 8 10 10 10 12 12. Now, with the buy up mechanic you could cancel out the -2.
I think this shows that Pathfinder First Edition was way too much like 4th edition.
When you have an actual point, I'll be happy to engage it. Until then, I invite you to disprove that the games do, in fact, have a similar ancestry. It was perfect for a humorous remark, but also a statement of fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarities: your ability scores are a set of six positive integers generally between 3 and 20, which you can generate however your group thinks is most fun.
Like "how you generate stats" is perhaps the most superficial part of a game system like this.
Like "how you generate stats" is perhaps the most superficial part of a game system like this.
Sure. You might have noticed I had nothing negative to say about this. In fact, I believe I may have even made positive comments and said I'd thought about using the rule myself in Pathfinder.
If someone thinks there is no connection between 4e's generation of stats and PF2e's generation of stats, that's cool. They're more than welcome to post about how they don't see any similarity. If they want to do so in a snarky or sarcastic manner they're also welcome to go right ahead and do that as well (assuming the mods don't disapprove). I may not respond though. But there's nothing (other than the mods) stopping them from making whatever post they so feel like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similarities: your ability scores are a set of six positive integers generally between 3 and 20, which you can generate however your group thinks is most fun.
Like "how you generate stats" is perhaps the most superficial part of a game system like this.
How you generate your stats is extremely important, though. The game will be designed to handle a certain range. If the game can tolerate only minor fluctuations, or expects everyone to have an 18 in the primary stat to be in the Goldilocks zone, then pretty much all of those dice rolling techniques from the 2e Unearthed Arcana should not be used. (Not that anyone really used some of the more ridiculous ones.) In a sense, it is the variation of the default point buy system that indicates the comfort the game designers feel for deviating from a baseline array.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How you generate your stats is extremely important, though. The game will be designed to handle a certain range. If the game can tolerate only minor fluctuations, or expects everyone to have an 18 in the primary stat to be in the Goldilocks zone, then pretty much all of those dice rolling techniques from the 2e Unearthed Arcana should not be used. (Not that anyone really used some of the more ridiculous ones.) In a sense, it is the variation of the default point buy system that indicates the comfort the game designers feel for deviating from a baseline array.
Honestly, I disagree. I feel like the range is always going to be large since it's much more difficult to account for a range of system's knowledge, optimization acumen, and powerful options that postdate the existence of a given book than it is to account for "it's a +2 instead of a +4".
So official material is always going to assume players do not have access to every sourcebook and are super savvy players, since the number of those people is vanishingly small compared to your audience.
Like we've played Paizo APs with "Write down anything you want" as a method of generating stats (as well "write down what the person to your left says your stats are") and it was fine, we had a good time.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see a lot of similarity here between 4e ability scores and what we've seen of the PF2e system. 4e was still fundamentally point buy, while PF2e seems like "pick a race, class, and background and stack all their modifiers together." Customization is handled by a few floating +2s at each step and there you go.
It actually seems very new for a mainstream D&D derivative system, although I have seen other systems which use a similar approach.
Yeah 4E point buy was "pump x and y and forget the rest" I dont see that going on for PF2.
Yes, 4e had the Weapon Training problem (the one where the Rogue can dump STR and use DEX for attack mod and damage mod) for every attribute. PF2 has a similar problem, but it is not the same. PF2's problem is you have 5 attribute settings (10-18) and your primary is expected to be 18 and will be because each +2 is worth the same, regardless of whether you increase 10 to 12 or 16 to 18. (If you play Kingmaker crpg, you will be tempted to put a 16 in your primary in many cases due to the increasingly high cost of increasing attributes.) That leaves 5 attributes with a smaller number of customization options because you already (duh) put the +8 in your primary attribute.
There may be a lot of cool customization options in PF2, but the attributes themselves have been (by design, I believe) simplified to the point where there is no optimization mini-game; there is only an optimization pattern. In that sense only, it is like 4e, where optimization was not a mini-game because you just pump your primary attribute (or at most a couple attributes) and make the others irrelevant.
Yeah 4E point buy was "pump x and y and forget the rest" I dont see that going on for PF2.
I think that might be more the result of the default array in the Character Builder than the point buy itself, as the point buy for D&D 4E is not that far off from the ones used in D&D 3E and Pathfinder. But there definitely was a change in terms of feat prerequisites going from the original 4E Player's Handbook to later rulebooks -- generally, no book after the Player's Handbook assumed a score greater than 10 in any ability score other than the "primary" and "secondary" scores for your class.
What remains to be seen for PF2 is to what degree a player will feel compelled to go for synergy in ability score bonuses from whatever sources they come from.