Class Related Stat Bonuses


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.

Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.

Particulary since said Paladin is an actual character whose nearsightedness, absentmindedness, and complete lack of reliable intuition were deliberate characterizations leading to her low wisdom, not the other way around.


thflame wrote:
The point is that PF2, as advertised, will give us MORE customization which, in my book, means I should be able to build any character I had in PF1 along with characters I couldn't build in PF1. (And these extra options should be playable and not junk filler.)

I think it's an unreasonable expectation that you be able to build any character the same way as you had in PF1. You'll be able to have a Fighter with maxed strength, and probably be able to dump a stat if you'd like, but wanting that maxed strength to be the result of dumping a stat limits other people's customization. More customization means more meaningful options- not necessarily all the old ones plus some new ones. They're probably going to try including as many old ones as they can, though.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:

Why? So long as you pay for it with other stats being lower, what's the problem? When you put the cap that low, having a capped stat isn't special.

It's not like I am asking for a 30 at level 1. I just want to play a low level character that is extremely gifted in one area, at the cost of being sub par in others.

Cuz min maxing isn't really a great design space to have, frankly. Makes players feel too obligated to just dump stats that do less fun for them so they can optimize their combat stats. I'm a little sick of 5-7 charisma martials and 5-7 strength wizards.

Min/maxing isn't really a design space. Even if they impose a minimum stat of 12 and a max of 16 there will still be min/maxing and an optimal array. There is not a lot you can do to alter that other than making everything exactly the same or discouraging it at the table if it bothers you that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would be happy if PF2 makes it completely impossible to start at a 20 in a stat.

How would you feel if during the Ability Score Increase Step (at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th Level) we had the option to either increase four stats by +2, or to increase one stat by +4?

That way, we can have a 20 Str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha Dwarf Fighter at first level, and you may voluntarily reduce Int, Wis, and Cha as far as you’d like after that to fit with your character concept?

You’re effectively losing out on 4 stat points, but make up for it being more specialized in the stat you wanted to prioritize.

What with bonus spells from high casting stat being gone and the new degrees of success requiring someone to Critically Fail to “Save or Lose” but only being unaffected if they Critically Succeed, I’d think that 20 Int Wizards at 1st level will be less desired in PF2 than they were in PF1.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ElSilverWind wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would be happy if PF2 makes it completely impossible to start at a 20 in a stat.
How would you feel if during the Ability Score Increase Step (at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th Level) we had the option to either increase four stats by +2, or to increase one stat by +4?

I feel like it's a trap and please don't. All stats are actually valuable in PF2 and so characters who do this will be objectively less effective than those who don't.

And trap options are bad.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Given 2E's sensitivity to individual +1 bonuses, allowing the key abilities to diverge like that would be catastrophic for game balance, and would make the +4 choice pretty much mandatory from the optimizer's perspective. And what for? You're just moving the goal posts for «expected performance» and allowing interesting characters to fall short of the singleminded ones, thus giving people the choice of being belittled or being boring. I'm glad they're moving away from this sort of philosophy. I'm afraid your character is going to be interesting, whether you like it or not. :)

Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.
Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.

This is a crucial step towards boosting the narrative options for martial characters, as unfortunately, the option to cut down on your narrative options to get more and better combat stats leads to a strong pressure to do just that.


Catharsis wrote:
Given 2E's sensitivity to individual +1 bonuses, allowing the key abilities to diverge like that would be catastrophic for game balance, and would make the +4 choice pretty much mandatory from the optimizer's perspective. And what for? You're just moving the goal posts for «expected performance» and allowing interesting characters to fall short of the singleminded ones, thus giving people the choice of being belittled or being boring. I'm glad they're moving away from this sort of philosophy. I'm afraid your character is going to be interesting, whether you like it or not. :)

Depends on how you define interesting. Cramming all stats into a smaller range does not fit my definition of such.

Also depends on in what way you mean interesting, because IME an array has little to do with whether a character will be interesting or not - whether it's balanced or hyper specialised interesting will depend on the pilot.


ElSilverWind wrote:


How would you feel if during the Ability Score Increase Step (at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th Level) we had the option to either increase four stats by +2, or to increase one stat by +4?

That way, we can have a 20 Str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha Dwarf Fighter at first level, and you may voluntarily reduce Int, Wis, and Cha as far as you’d like after that to fit with your character concept?

You’re effectively losing out on 4 stat points, but make up for it being more specialized in the stat you wanted to prioritize.

What with bonus spells from high casting stat being gone and the new degrees of success requiring someone to Critically Fail to “Save or Lose” but only being unaffected if they Critically Succeed, I’d think that 20 Int Wizards at 1st level will be less desired in PF2 than they were in PF1.

It's the crit system that would make this unbalanced. Save-or-suck casters would take the +4 option, since each +1 to DC counts double. Since there are three save stats to protect, nobody can keep up. The casters are squishier and causing crit fails more often, pushing the game further and further towards rocket tag at high levels.


Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.
Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.
This is a crucial step towards boosting the narrative options for martial characters, as unfortunately, the option to cut down on your narrative options to get more and better combat stats leads to a strong pressure to do just that.

Isn't that a choice that should be up to the player and their group rather than the system?

This kind of has a feel of being forced to move in a certain direction.

Now, I get the argument that there was pressure to optimise stats to an extent, but that still gives players a choice - a choice you appear to be removing.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Isn't that a choice that should be up to the player and their group rather than the system?

This kind of has a feel of being forced to move in a certain direction.

All games force you to move in a certain direction. Kinda by definition. That's what rules are.

And this particular direction has been one of the single most requested changes I've seen in regards to PF1, so it's likely to be a popular change as well.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Now, I get the argument that there was pressure to optimise stats to an extent, but that still gives players a choice - a choice you appear to be removing.

The chance to optimize stats can definitionally never be removed. If 18 is now the maximum available, well, then 18 is the max and anyone who has it is optimized in that stat.

What's been removed is the ability (and thus incentive) to cripple your character in other ways to achieve that maximum.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Is such a wildly imbalanced choice really a valuable choice?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:

Why? So long as you pay for it with other stats being lower, what's the problem? When you put the cap that low, having a capped stat isn't special.

It's not like I am asking for a 30 at level 1. I just want to play a low level character that is extremely gifted in one area, at the cost of being sub par in others.

Cuz min maxing isn't really a great design space to have, frankly. Makes players feel too obligated to just dump stats that do less fun for them so they can optimize their combat stats. I'm a little sick of 5-7 charisma martials and 5-7 strength wizards.

Min/maxing isn't really a design space. Even if they impose a minimum stat of 12 and a max of 16 there will still be min/maxing and an optimal array. There is not a lot you can do to alter that other than making everything exactly the same or discouraging it at the table if it bothers you that much.

I mean, the stat array looks like a great way to limit the impact of min maxing. Removing dump stats encourage characters to be more well rounded. Even if there is still an optimal array for a given class, it won't come at the cost of tanking the stats you don't "need." And without point buys it will be easier to deviate from the "optimal" without feeling like you are shooting yourself in the foot. If my Wisdom stays 18 without pulling from my tertiary stats, a cleric can more easily afford 14 Intelligence, for example.


I mean, right now it seems like you could end up with 2 18s 2 12s and 2 10s for character creation, which compared to {14,14,14,14,12,12} is pretty min-maxed.

Like a cleric with a wisdom and charisma of 18 appears to be possible to make into one heck of a healer/spellcaster, but is kind of hopeless at skills or weapon-based combat.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:


Depends on how you define interesting. Cramming all stats into a smaller range does not fit my definition of such.

Giving an 18 Str Fighter a 14 Int can make her educated, curious, tactically schooled, or even nerdy. Giving her a 14 Cha can make her chivalrous, soft-spoken, commanding, heroic, diplomatic, sly, or even terrifying. Giving her a 14 Wis can make her observant, unshakable, devoted, sensitive, or even sagely.

Meanwhile, giving a Fighter 20 Str adds nothing to her other than to make the 18 Str Fighter look bad in comparison.

Quote:
Also depends on in what way you mean interesting, because IME an array has little to do with whether a character will be interesting or not - whether it's balanced or hyper specialised interesting will depend on the pilot.

Sure, it's possible to fail to realize a character's potential in roleplay through inaction, but on the other hand it's pretty hard to try to make a character interesting through roleplay when their stats forbid it.


QuidEst wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:


How would you feel if during the Ability Score Increase Step (at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th Level) we had the option to either increase four stats by +2, or to increase one stat by +4?

That way, we can have a 20 Str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha Dwarf Fighter at first level, and you may voluntarily reduce Int, Wis, and Cha as far as you’d like after that to fit with your character concept?

You’re effectively losing out on 4 stat points, but make up for it being more specialized in the stat you wanted to prioritize.

What with bonus spells from high casting stat being gone and the new degrees of success requiring someone to Critically Fail to “Save or Lose” but only being unaffected if they Critically Succeed, I’d think that 20 Int Wizards at 1st level will be less desired in PF2 than they were in PF1.

It's the crit system that would make this unbalanced. Save-or-suck casters would take the +4 option, since each +1 to DC counts double. Since there are three save stats to protect, nobody can keep up. The casters are squishier and causing crit fails more often, pushing the game further and further towards rocket tag at high levels.

Hmm . . . That is a fair point. If an individual +1 is going to hold that much more weight in PF2, then I suppose we’ll just need to accept that the maximum limitations of our stats will need to be (slightly) culled in order to accommodate the game balance needed to make our decisions more meaningful.

Liberty's Edge

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, right now it seems like you could end up with 2 18s 2 12s and 2 10s for character creation, which compared to {14,14,14,14,12,12} is pretty min-maxed.

Like a cleric with a wisdom and charisma of 18 appears to be possible to make into one heck of a healer/spellcaster, but is kind of hopeless at skills or weapon-based combat.

I don't think that first combo is quite possible because I think you only get one 18 (since I think Classes only get one bonus) and am prety much positive you only get 18 points but yeah, that seems true in principle.

An 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is a lot more min-maxed than a 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 12.


For every mentally-deficient Lucky 7's (7 in all mentals) Fighter we're losing with the transition, 3+ decent builds are becoming available.

Now the INT, WIS or CHA fighters are not nearly as subobptimal anymore! It is opening up more things.

And 18 is the "ceiling" because that's kinda how it was before 3rd edition.. So tradition, which is fine. The difference betwen starting with a 18 and starting with a 20 is a staggering 7 point-buy points (10 vs 17). That +1 mod was the difference between a real person and those optimized caricatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
That +1 mod was the difference between a real person and those optimized caricatures.

I lol'd

Stats do not make a character, and balanced stats do not make a created character more real. You can create a caricature/cliche with perfectly balanced stats.

catharsis wrote:
Giving her a 14 Cha can make her chivalrous, soft-spoken, commanding, heroic, diplomatic, sly, or even terrifying. Giving her a 14 Wis can make her observant, unshakable, devoted, sensitive, or even sagely.

and a 7 wisdom can be reckless, easily distracted, or careless. a 7 charisma can be shy, insensitive, brassy or easily led. Your point?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:


and a 7 wisdom can be reckless, easily distracted, or careless. a 7 charisma can be shy, insensitive, brassy or easily led. Your point?

You can play a Cha 8 or Wis 8 character in PF2. The point is you no longer have to.


Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.
Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.
This is a crucial step towards boosting the narrative options for martial characters, as unfortunately, the option to cut down on your narrative options to get more and better combat stats leads to a strong pressure to do just that.

What about my narrative option to be a big dumb lummox? You can have narrative impact without having 18-14 in half your stats. It's called roleplaying.

If your intention is to "force" players to roleplay via making them have decent RP stats, then you are missing the point. Players who want to roleplay will roleplay even with sub-optimal stats. Players who don't want to roleplay are NOT going to roleplay.

We should have the option to play character with really strong strengths and really weak weaknesses. Not everyone wants to play a "well rounded" character. In my opinion, what separates "good" characters from "great" ones is having weaknesses.

This change to give everyone "well rounded" stats is just going to make everyone the same. When everyone is the same, nobody is special.

What these new rules are doing is keeping people from playing a weak, clumsy, frail, dumb, foolish, or dull character. (Sure, I can get an 8, but that requires me to play a particular race to do so, which might clash with my character concept.)

Granted, this is your (Paizo's) game and you are allowed to make whatever you want, but one of the core features of a good RPG is character customization.


thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.
Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.
This is a crucial step towards boosting the narrative options for martial characters, as unfortunately, the option to cut down on your narrative options to get more and better combat stats leads to a strong pressure to do just that.

What about my narrative option to be a big dumb lummox? You can have narrative impact without having 18-14 in half your stats. It's called roleplaying.

If your intention is to "force" players to roleplay via making them have decent RP stats, then you are missing the point. Players who want to roleplay will roleplay even with sub-optimal stats. Players who don't want to roleplay are NOT going to roleplay.

We should have the option to play character with really strong strengths and really weak weaknesses. Not everyone wants to play a "well rounded" character. In my opinion, what separates "good" characters from "great" ones is having weaknesses.

This change to give everyone "well rounded" stats is just going to make everyone the same. When everyone is the same, nobody is special.

What these new rules are doing is keeping people from playing a weak, clumsy, frail, dumb, foolish, or dull character. (Sure, I can get an 8, but that requires me to play a particular race to do so, which might clash with my character concept.)

Granted, this is your (Paizo's) game and you are allowed to make...

I believe he's talking about non-combat utility, as in, by using skills. Which they wouldn't have from mental dumps. Not roleplaying.

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Good point. I would much rather roleplay with Fighters with Int 14 or Cha 14 or Wis 14 than those with Int 7 and Cha 7. I'm glad the new system will make that possible without undue sacrifice.
Indeed, my biggest issue with how stats were generated by default in PF1 was the opportunity cost involved in playing a charming fighter or an erudite paladin, since those were points that could have gone into strength or a defensive stat. Particularly when "scholarly and pensive" might reflect my idea for my Paladin much more than the difference between a 16 Str and an 18.
This is a crucial step towards boosting the narrative options for martial characters, as unfortunately, the option to cut down on your narrative options to get more and better combat stats leads to a strong pressure to do just that.

What about my narrative option to be a big dumb lummox? You can have narrative impact without having 18-14 in half your stats. It's called roleplaying.

If your intention is to "force" players to roleplay via making them have decent RP stats, then you are missing the point. Players who want to roleplay will roleplay even with sub-optimal stats. Players who don't want to roleplay are NOT going to roleplay.

We should have the option to play character with really strong strengths and really weak weaknesses. Not everyone wants to play a "well rounded" character. In my opinion, what separates "good" characters from "great" ones is having weaknesses.

This change to give everyone "well rounded" stats is just going to make everyone the same. When everyone is the same, nobody is special.

What these new rules are doing is keeping people from playing a weak, clumsy, frail, dumb, foolish, or dull character. (Sure, I can get an 8, but that requires me to play a particular race to do so, which might clash with my character concept.)

Granted, this is your (Paizo's) game and you are allowed to make...

You can absolutely play with an even deeper flaw in an inconsequential ability score for your character (or even an important one I guess) if you want to do that. You just aren't going to also be a more powerful character than the other characters if you choose to do that, which you would be if you received reciprocal advantages in your most important ability score. Will that have a potential to create social pressure among optimization-focused groups to not make that choice? Oh it sure will. But in the alternative scenario, the social pressure is going to force you to dump the unimportant stats to maximize the important ones. There is no way to not have social pressure from an optimization-focused group, so it's better to have the pressure not be pressure that pushes you away from being able to boost up a lower stat to fit your character concept because you would be hobbling yourself in your main shtick if you didn't dump them.


Catharsis wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


and a 7 wisdom can be reckless, easily distracted, or careless. a 7 charisma can be shy, insensitive, brassy or easily led. Your point?
You can play a Cha 8 or Wis 8 character in PF2. The point is you no longer have to.

You don't have to anyway, you just can't have really high stats without having a few negatives. After racial mods, I built a 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10 stat array. I'd be hard pressed to find a class that couldn't make that work.

The problem is, you CAN'T play a character with 2 8s or a 6 (let alone 3 6s), while you COULD in PF1.

Our PCs don't have to be super heroes at level 1 to be playable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to remove point buy to avoid dump stats. Just give players a starting array (with 0 or 1 stats at 8), don't let buy downs and cap the maximum score you can get to 16 (18 with racial bonus).

I'm sure they'll allow point buys. Just like they will allow rolling 4d6. They might not want it in the playtest due to them wanting to concentrate on the default option, but they will still definitely allow it.


thflame wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


and a 7 wisdom can be reckless, easily distracted, or careless. a 7 charisma can be shy, insensitive, brassy or easily led. Your point?
You can play a Cha 8 or Wis 8 character in PF2. The point is you no longer have to.

You don't have to anyway, you just can't have really high stats without having a few negatives. After racial mods, I built a 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10 stat array. I'd be hard pressed to find a class that couldn't make that work.

The problem is, you CAN'T play a character with 2 8s or a 6 (let alone 3 6s), while you COULD in PF1.

Our PCs don't have to be super heroes at level 1 to be playable.

Pretty sure Mark said you CAN have those low stats, but it doesn't translate into higher STR. So yeah, the option is still open.

Grand Lodge

I love having my background inform my stats, and I do that informally now.

However, I hope they allow for flexibility in 2E. For example, I could see a background like this (simplified and in summary):

Quote:
Seafaring: As a child you were rocked to sleep by the ocean and you grew up with a rope in your hand and the wind in your face. You have a +2 bonus to constitution and +2 to another stat of your choice. You have +2 to Profession Sailor and +4 to knowledge geography in salt water environments. Etc Etc...

But what if my character operated a ferry across a narrow straight, so his success was mostly about marketing himself to potential customers and dealing with surly folk at the dock. Could I put the stats in Cha and Wis instead since it would make more sense for this character? Maybe his knowledge bonus should be local (urban) instead of geography because he spends more time at the docks than at sea?

I would like to have a system that allows for flexibility while providing parameters to prevent abuse. Maybe those two are at odds and I'll just have to ask my GM to allow me to customize my characters' backgrounds, but if there is such a viable system then I hope Paizo builds it that way.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hurká wrote:

I love having my background inform my stats, and I do that informally now.

However, I hope they allow for flexibility in 2E. For example, I could see a background like this (simplified and in summary):

Quote:
Seafaring: As a child you were rocked to sleep by the ocean and you grew up with a rope in your hand and the wind in your face. You have a +2 bonus to constitution and +2 to another stat of your choice. You have +2 to Profession Sailor and +4 to knowledge geography in salt water environments. Etc Etc...

But what if my character operated a ferry across a narrow straight, so his success was mostly about marketing himself to potential customers and dealing with surly folk at the dock. Could I put the stats in Cha and Wis instead since it would make more sense for this character? Maybe his knowledge bonus should be local (urban) instead of geography because he spends more time at the docks than at sea?

I would like to have a system that allows for flexibility while providing parameters to prevent abuse. Maybe those two are at odds and I'll just have to ask my GM to allow me to customize my characters' backgrounds, but if there is such a viable system then I hope Paizo builds it that way.

I like this idea, and would be surprised if a DM turned you down. DMs could also create custom backgrounds to better fit their own campaigns.


I'm a little concerned that the cleric gives wisdom as it's stat boost and not a choice of wisdom strength or charisma depending on if you want to focus on casting, channeling or on being a battle cleric. Also that the few set upper level features for the cleric are raising spell DCs which is also specific to a caster cleric when battle clerics seem to also be one of the main cleric playstyles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a mite concerned for all fighters ending up with the same Background, and so on, and so forth.

This has me kinda concerned. XD


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hurká wrote:

I love having my background inform my stats, and I do that informally now.

However, I hope they allow for flexibility in 2E. For example, I could see a background like this (simplified and in summary):

Quote:
Seafaring: As a child you were rocked to sleep by the ocean and you grew up with a rope in your hand and the wind in your face. You have a +2 bonus to constitution and +2 to another stat of your choice. You have +2 to Profession Sailor and +4 to knowledge geography in salt water environments. Etc Etc...

But what if my character operated a ferry across a narrow straight, so his success was mostly about marketing himself to potential customers and dealing with surly folk at the dock. Could I put the stats in Cha and Wis instead since it would make more sense for this character? Maybe his knowledge bonus should be local (urban) instead of geography because he spends more time at the docks than at sea?

I would like to have a system that allows for flexibility while providing parameters to prevent abuse. Maybe those two are at odds and I'll just have to ask my GM to allow me to customize my characters' backgrounds, but if there is such a viable system then I hope Paizo builds it that way.

I’d personally suggest that “Seafaring” in that context would not accurately represent your character’s backstory and the abilities they honed from it, and would instead suggest something along the lines of “Merchant” that would give you a +2 Charisma Bonus and a +2 Floating Bonus that you could put into Wisdom. And then simply flavor the ship part, since evidently living on a boat did not impact your life enough to warrant the bonus to Constitution as described in the text.

Or if you really just like the name, then keep the Con Boost and spend the +2 floating bonus on Charisma to represent the marketing and businessman aspects of your character. I don’t understand why growing up on a boat and making yourself presentable to people needs to translate to a bonus to Wisdom.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Pretty sure Mark said you CAN have those low stats, but it doesn't translate into higher STR. So yeah, the option is still open.

Do you mean that you can just write down a 3 in any stat you want and not get anything in return for it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MuddyVolcano wrote:

I'm a mite concerned for all fighters ending up with the same Background, and so on, and so forth.

This has me kinda concerned. XD

I’m not sure why.

Let’s say that there 24 backgrounds to choose from and each Ability Score has 4 different backgrounds that give it a bonus to it. You still have a floating +2 to put into another stat.

So if you really wanted to have a bonus to Strength and either Dex or Constitution, you have 12 options to pick from that will result in the same Ability Scores. The +2 Strength Backgrounds, the +2 Dex Backgrounds, and the +2 Con Backgrounds and filling the other stat with the floating +2 Bonus.

The real optimization will likely come from any skill proficiencies or bonuses that may come with certain backgrounds. Such as Farmhands gaining a bonus toHandle Animal or Criminals gaining a bonus to Thievery as possible examples.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElSilverWind wrote:
Hurká wrote:

I love having my background inform my stats, and I do that informally now.

However, I hope they allow for flexibility in 2E. For example, I could see a background like this (simplified and in summary):

Quote:
Seafaring: As a child you were rocked to sleep by the ocean and you grew up with a rope in your hand and the wind in your face. You have a +2 bonus to constitution and +2 to another stat of your choice. You have +2 to Profession Sailor and +4 to knowledge geography in salt water environments. Etc Etc...

But what if my character operated a ferry across a narrow straight, so his success was mostly about marketing himself to potential customers and dealing with surly folk at the dock. Could I put the stats in Cha and Wis instead since it would make more sense for this character? Maybe his knowledge bonus should be local (urban) instead of geography because he spends more time at the docks than at sea?

I would like to have a system that allows for flexibility while providing parameters to prevent abuse. Maybe those two are at odds and I'll just have to ask my GM to allow me to customize my characters' backgrounds, but if there is such a viable system then I hope Paizo builds it that way.

I’d personally suggest that “Seafaring” in that context would not accurately represent your character’s backstory and the abilities they honed from it, and would instead suggest something along the lines of “Merchant” that would give you a +2 Charisma Bonus and a +2 Floating Bonus that you could put into Wisdom. And then simply flavor the ship part, since evidently living on a boat did not impact your life enough to warrant the bonus to Constitution as described in the text.

Or if you really just like the name, then keep the Con Boost and spend the +2 floating bonus on Charisma to represent the marketing and businessman aspects of your character. I don’t understand why growing up on a boat and making yourself presentable to people needs to translate to a bonus to Wisdom.

Yes there might be a background that is more fitting for this character. I just pulled something out of my portable hole. I wasn't thinking too hard about the specifics :P

Maybe I should have said that my character is an inter-dimensional ferry runner and so it makes sense to get +2 to knowledge (planes). Maybe they run a ferry courier service between two hostile nations so it makes sense for them to have +2 Diplomacy instead. And on and on and on... It's easy to come up with backgrounds that don't fit a generic mold at all.

My example was to illustrate a general problem: No matter how extensive the list of stories and benefits to match, if those stories and their associated benefits are inflexibly attached to each other then there will always be large gaps in the stories people want to tell about their characters and the mechanic that underlies those stories.

Liberty's Edge

MuddyVolcano wrote:

I'm a mite concerned for all fighters ending up with the same Background, and so on, and so forth.

This has me kinda concerned. XD

Eh. It seems that they're gonna have at least a couple dozen backgrounds and floating scores as well as set ones, so I doubt this will be a huge problem. The Str bonus Backgrounds will be more common among fighters, certainly, but I wouldn't expect a Fighter with an Entertainer background to have any real problems.


Hurká wrote:

Yes there might be a background that is more fitting for this character. I just pulled something out of my portable hole. I wasn't thinking too hard about the specifics :P

Maybe I should have said that my character is an inter-dimensional ferry runner and so it makes sense to get +2 to knowledge (planes). Maybe they run a ferry courier service between two hostile nations so it makes sense for them to have +2 Diplomacy instead. And on and on and on... It's easy to come up with backgrounds that don't fit a generic mold at all.

My example was to illustrate a general problem: No matter how extensive the list of stories and benefits to match, if those stories and their associated benefits are inflexibly attached to each other then there will always be large gaps in the stories people want to tell about their characters and the mechanic that underlies those stories.

Yeah, this is actually a good point. Hopefully every background will include some floating stuff, with some thematic suggestions for how they could be applied.

So maybe the Merchant has +2 Cha +2 float, and grants Diplomacy and a floating skill. Then has some suggestions for how those choices can be flavored as examples, such a suggestion that maybe picking Medicine as your Merchant's floating skill might mean you have a background as an apothecary, or picking Society might mean they are a courier or supply the masquerade craze among the Nobility of (insert city here).

I think providing examples like that in the book is useful, and can help get players' minds and imaginations going. As long as they are clear at the start of the Backgrounds chapter that the suggestions are just that - suggestions. :)


There is a reason why the point buy systems of almost every game system include graduated point buy. I think it would be wise to keep that in mind. Now everyone will be optimized with no tradeoff. It sounds great from one perspective ("Yaaay! I don't have to try to min-max anymore"), but it's really just an overreaction to people who aren't very good at math not liking that the grass seems greener on somebody else's lawn.

Min-maxing was due to racial ability modifiers, not point buy. Everybody seemed to start with an 18 before and everybody will start with an 18 now. You just won't be able to bump it to 20. I'm not impressed by that.

The old most highly min-maxed array (before you could dump to 7) was 18/16/12/10/8/8 (or, in theory, 18/17/10/9/8/8, but many players preferred to mellow out the secondary attribute for a few more pips in the tertiaries). You seem to be able to do an 18/18/14/10/10/10 with the new rules. More min-maxed; no trade-off. That's more interesting? If you go for a high 16 build, the most min-maxed you could do with the old point buy was 16/16/16/9/8/8 (and I think many players preferred to go for fewer 16s), but with the new you get 16/16/16/12/10/10. Equivalent min-maxed (on the max side); no trade-off. If you go for a high 14 with point buy you get 14/14/14/14/14/10, but with the new you get 14/14/14/14/14/10. Same. The only difference is that, if you had a tendency to min-max before, now min-maxing is a no-brainer.

I think the ABCs sound reasonably interesting in theory, but in practice it is going to seem lame. At some point, there will be enough rules that you can min-max with the ABCs you want and not be forced to take the fluff you want with the attribute modifiers you don't. Characters will all be min-maxed with no below-average abilities, except you will only be able to use racial modifiers to go below average, not above. Yay?


If you have the ability to trade your four floating +2 bonuses for a floating +4 just at level 1 I think it would be balanced in that you have to sacrifice your secondary stats, not dump stats that you don't care about. Limiting it to level 1 would also prevent too much divergence in expected stats while allowing the concept of hyper focused characters.

Losing +2 to three stats makes it a though trade but definitely viable. A cleric trading +2 to cha Dex and con for +2 to Wis seems like a nice trade that won't force you or allow you to dump str and int.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:
You seem to be able to do an 18/18/14/10/10/10 with the new rules. More min-maxed; no trade-off. That's more interesting? If you go for a high 16 build, the most min-maxed you could do with the old point buy was 16/16/16/9/8/8 (and I think many players preferred to go for fewer 16s), but with the new you get 16/16/16/12/10/10. Equivalent min-maxed (on the max side); no trade-off. If you go for a high 14 with point buy you get 14/14/14/14/14/10, but with the new you get 14/14/14/14/14/10. Same. The only difference is that, if you had a tendency to min-max before, now min-maxing is a no-brainer.

Almost all these numbers are pretty seriously wrong if the current theory on stat generation is correct (and it very likely is). Indeed, with Kyra only having 18 total points in stats, they're all definitely wrong by at least those two points.

By the current theory you get the following:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific scores, -2 to one specific score, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s instead for humans)
Background: +2 to one specific score, one floating +2
Class: +2 to one specific score
First Ability Up: Four floating +2s

That makes the 'maxed out' stat line 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 or 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 on a human (or 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10).

The 'tops at 16' line would thus be 16, 16, 16, 12, 10, 8 (dropping one 16 to 14 and raising the 8 to 10 if human).

The 'as many 14s as possible' stat line is 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 (dour 14s, a 12 and a 10 for a Human).
.
.
.
So, specific numbers aside, yes this makes optimization easier. Y'know what I say to that? Good. The problem with optimization has never been that it's a bad thing in and of itself, the problem is that it resulted in one note characters hyper focused on a single thing, and that if the party was at different levels of optimization some felt overshadowed by others.

Everyone being equally optimized but also forced to at least dabble in 4 stats? That fixes both of those problems and makes everyone's life so much better.

Now, inevitably, everyone won't actually be equally optimized, but the easier it is to do so the closer people will come, and that is unambiguously a good thing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
totoro wrote:
You seem to be able to do an 18/18/14/10/10/10 with the new rules. More min-maxed; no trade-off. That's more interesting? If you go for a high 16 build, the most min-maxed you could do with the old point buy was 16/16/16/9/8/8 (and I think many players preferred to go for fewer 16s), but with the new you get 16/16/16/12/10/10. Equivalent min-maxed (on the max side); no trade-off. If you go for a high 14 with point buy you get 14/14/14/14/14/10, but with the new you get 14/14/14/14/14/10. Same. The only difference is that, if you had a tendency to min-max before, now min-maxing is a no-brainer.

Almost all these numbers are pretty seriously wrong if the current theory on stat generation is correct (and it very likely is). Indeed, with Kyra only having 18 total points in stats, they're all definitely wrong by at least those two points.

By the current theory you get the following:

Ancestry: +2 to two specific scores, -2 to one specific score, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s instead for humans)
Background: +2 to one specific score, one floating +2
Class: +2 to one specific score
First Ability Up: Four floating +2s

That makes the 'maxed out' stat line 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 or 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 on a human (or 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10).

The 'tops at 16' line would thus be 16, 16, 16, 12, 10, 8 (dropping one 16 to 14 and raising the 8 to 10 if human).

The 'as many 14s as possible' stat line is 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 8 (dour 14s, a 12 and a 10 for a Human).
.
.
.
So, specific numbers aside, yes this makes optimization easier. Y'know what I say to that? Good. The problem with optimization has never been that it's a bad thing in and of itself, the problem is that it resulted in one note characters hyper focused on a single thing, and that if the party was at different levels of optimization some felt overshadowed by others.

Everyone being equally optimized but also forced to at least dabble in 4 stats? That fixes both of those problems and makes...

You're probably right. I feel like I'm eating a meal and I'm like "there's too much salt," but everyone else thinks it's perfect. I should probably just fade away and let y'all enjoy the game. I'm spending too much time on here and not preparing my campaign anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I don't see how "two characters have the same stats" means they are the same. It's easy to imagine two characters of different classes with the exact same stat array who are completely different, and even like "the fighter with a fairly high charisma" could be played as scary AF or genuinely likable, which are hardly indistinguishable.

Liberty's Edge

So, my question to those who think that there won't be a point buy system, has this been mentioned somewhere? I know it was mentioned that they won't be using the point buy system used in Starfinder for ability score generation, but I don't see why they couldn't use one that's very similar. The announcement page seems to indicate that ancestry, background and class all modify ability scores, and even though that could be misinterpreting the statement due to grouping all 3 together, we already know that ancestry and class provide bonuses from blog previews, so it really seems like background will include a bonus as well. But could that not simply be a set +2 to an ability score. Then along with those bonuses you could have an unweighted point buy with 10 points to increase stats, with a hard cap of 18 in any one stat. You could still end up with Kyra's ability scores in such a system, and it's technically not starfinders point buy, even if it's remarkably similar.

I'm not saying this is the system I'm hoping for or anything, but I'm seeing a lot of assumptions with ability score generation, and I just don't know where it's coming from.

Liberty's Edge

They've said they won't be using point buy (not just Starfinder point buy, but point buy at all) and that they're aiming for something more organically tied to the rest of character creation.

The details are all speculation, but the core idea that there are gonna be bonuses at four stages that work by ability ups? All the current evidence points to that.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
They've said they won't be using point buy (not just Starfinder point buy, but point buy at all) and that they're aiming for something more organically tied to the rest of character creation.

Where was this? Cause I thought I was pretty up to date on most of the previews/podcasts/spoilers coming out, but I haven't heard that.

EDIT - Nevermind. I was forgetting that in the leveling up blog they mentioned that 5th/10th/15th/20th level ability boosts were going to work the same way they did at level one. Doesn't really leave any room for points buy if that's the case.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Where was this? Cause I thought I was pretty up to date on most of the previews/podcasts/spoilers coming out, but I haven't heard that.

Looking back at it, it's not quite as clear cut as I was thinking...but they are very, very careful to never call their 'ability generation' method any kind of point buy, and the 'more organically' thing is stated very specifically by Mark Seifter here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
You can absolutely play with an even deeper flaw in an inconsequential ability score for your character (or even an important one I guess) if you want to do that. You just aren't going to also be a more powerful character than the other characters if you choose to do that, which you would be if you received reciprocal advantages in your most important ability score.

Then other stats need to be more important to all characters. My dumb fighter in PF1 has issues with skill points and Will Saves. The CHA hit wouldn't have been terrible, except that I made it a point to RP my lack of Charisma when I talked to NPCs.

Given the addition of Resonance, my dumb fighter would also have zero Resonance until level 3 and likely less Resonance that the rest of the party.

Furthermore, the difference between a 20 and an 18 is a +1. I don't see how this is going to break the game. My full orc fighter starts with a 22, and he is easily less optimized than a more well rounded character. Yes, when he hits, he hits hard, but not so much harder that other characters feel inadequate. I don't see how the game could have changed THAT much to make the difference between a 20 (or a 22) and an 18 would break the game.

Quote:
Will that have a potential to create social pressure among optimization-focused groups to not make that choice? Oh it sure will. But in the alternative scenario, the social pressure is going to force you to dump the unimportant stats to maximize the important ones. There is no way to not have social pressure from an optimization-focused group, so it's better to have the pressure not be pressure that pushes you away from being able to boost up a lower stat to fit your character concept because you would be hobbling yourself in your main shtick if you didn't dump them.

I don't cave to social pressure and I don't allow players to bully other players into changing character choices at my games either. If I get that much flak for trying to play a fighter with 6 CON, I'll find another group.

I find it ironic that your solution to stop bullying players from forcing character options onto other players is to have the rules do it instead.

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:
You can absolutely play with an even deeper flaw in an inconsequential ability score for your character (or even an important one I guess) if you want to do that. You just aren't going to also be a more powerful character than the other characters if you choose to do that, which you would be if you received reciprocal advantages in your most important ability score.

Wait, does that mean there is a built-in mechanic to accept a flaw in an ability score? Maybe you can take a –2 to one stat for a +2 in another stat during the last stage of character creation? (Maybe with a provision that you can't raise a stat above 14 with this rule?)

Or does it just say you can opt to forego some of your ability bonuses if you want to play an underpowered character...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
You can absolutely play with an even deeper flaw in an inconsequential ability score for your character (or even an important one I guess) if you want to do that. You just aren't going to also be a more powerful character than the other characters if you choose to do that, which you would be if you received reciprocal advantages in your most important ability score.

Wait, does that mean there is a built-in mechanic to accept a flaw in an ability score? Maybe you can take a –2 to one stat for a +2 in another stat during the last stage of character creation? (Maybe with a provision that you can't raise a stat above 14 with this rule?)

Or does it just say you can opt to forego some of your ability bonuses if you want to play an underpowered character...?

It means you can penalize a stat or stats if you want. You don’t get something in return.


When it comes down to it, if you want to play with a bunch of stat penalties, Paizo aren't going to come round to your house and demand that you play properly. You just have to make sure that you compensate for your penalties in-game so that your fellow adventurers don't lynch you when something goes wrong.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest advantage of the new stat generation system that I see is that it changes the narrative of character creation and makes it easier for new players to get going right away.

Ability scores, while remaining central to the system, become less central to development of the character concept. It's not, "I need to raise my Wisdom so I can be a decent cleric," but instead, "I'm playing a cleric, so I get a boost to Wisdom."

Similarly, having ability scores increase based on choice puts more emphasis on who your character is. If your ancestry/background/class is dwarf/soldier/cleric, you're tougher, stronger, and wiser than most people because of the story you chose to tell for your character. While it's subtle, it allows players, especially new players, to get immersed in telling their character's tale before the adventure even begins.

51 to 100 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Class Related Stat Bonuses All Messageboards