|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yeah, that seems a tad extreme to me, I would prefer +2 to two scores, three at most.
Well, bear in mind that this bonus almost certainly replaces stat boosting items entirely. That's sort of a big deal and does a lot to ameliorate and stat inflation issues.
Also, by making it 4 stats, they really help out MAD characters as compared to SAD ones, which is absolutely something worth doing, as well as encourage a certain amount of stat diversification, which is also something worth doing.
well for PF1 If you count the +6 to stats from head band and belt I feel like a lot of characters past a certain level were probably all rocking 16-18 stats across the board bare minimum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all makes sense, I just still don't think characters should need multiple 16s and 18s to function.Ah, yeah, that seems a tad extreme to me, I would prefer +2 to two scores, three at most.Well, bear in mind that this bonus almost certainly replaces stat boosting items entirely. That's sort of a big deal and does a lot to ameliorate and stat inflation issues.
Also, by making it 4 stats, they really help out MAD characters as compared to SAD ones, which is absolutely something worth doing, as well as encourage a certain amount of stat diversification, which is also something worth doing.
The problem is that some of them just kind of . . . do. Monks for example need to have good Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, AND Wisdom just to function properly. As opposed to the Wizard who only needs high Intelligence, and maybe a decent Dexterity or Constitution.
This was a pretty noticeable problem in PF1 where classes dependent on multiple stats couldn’t afford to push them high enough without dumping their other stats, and fell behind the classes who only needed to invest in improving one stat. It’s a big reason why people were so desperate to find ways to get Dex-To-Damage.So if it means that the Monks, Rogues, and Magus can be more viable without needing a high level of system mastery, I think the Wizard can live with having more points to spend on bumping Constitution or Charisma.
Oh yeah but with inheret bonuses (wished and books) those bare minimum were 21-23.
but I think the thing is that at 1-5 level mosts stats aren't going to be that high its kind of the lowly adventure levels (which im sure you know this) Then really the stats being all 16-18 or better probably won't really hit till level 10 which by that point the characters are probably meant to be a bit super powered. What is it exactly about having good stats across the board that you don't like?
i'm with you on that one I don't want to see dex to damage.
I would just like it toned down a notch, so instead of 20, 18, 18, 16, 14, 14, you could rock with 16, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12.Oh yeah but with inheret bonuses (wished and books) those bare minimum were 21-23.
but I think the thing is that at 1-5 level mosts stats aren't going to be that high its kind of the lowly adventure levels (which im sure you know this) Then really the stats being all 16-18 or better probably won't really hit till level 10 which by that point the characters are probably meant to be a bit super powered. What is it exactly about having good stats across the board that you don't like?
Like throughout the entirety of their play 1-20 or like starting out?
They really want to make higher level play feel distinct from lower level play though, and part of that is having your character get a lot more powerful across the board.
Edit: *checks BAB thread* Ah, right, you know that, you just don't like that as a justification for swelling numbers.
i'm with you on that one I don't want to see dex to damage.
Myself, I WANT dex to damage in core as a starting option.
I would just like it toned down a notch, so instead of 20, 18, 18, 16, 14, 14, you could rock with 16, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12.Oh yeah but with inheret bonuses (wished and books) those bare minimum were 21-23.
but I think the thing is that at 1-5 level mosts stats aren't going to be that high its kind of the lowly adventure levels (which im sure you know this) Then really the stats being all 16-18 or better probably won't really hit till level 10 which by that point the characters are probably meant to be a bit super powered. What is it exactly about having good stats across the board that you don't like?
I'm good with 18, 18, 14, 10, 10, 8 starting. I wouldn't enjoy a game where I ended at 20th with a high stat of 16... :P
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Put me in the camp of those saying we should be able to dump stats and get something. Just saying "you can play with lower stats if you want" is basically the Stormwind Fallacy in reverse - you can't be a good roleplayer if your character is optimized.
Personally, I build characters around a concept, trying to make the best version of that concept I can within the rules. Often that concept involves a flaw in an ability score - rarely a 7, but often an 8 or 9. I had great fun in Carrion Crown playing a fighter with an 8 Wisdom and 13 Int - so not really hyper-optimized by any means.
I understand the desire not to let plyers pump their best scores by dumping their least important ones - but the system proposed above where you could take a -2 to your worst score to add a +2 to your second lowest seems fair. Or maybe gain proficiency in one additional skill for a -2. Or some other relatively innocuous thing that would have minimal "optimization" pressure.
|
If people really want a stat penalty for a benefit, make it a level 1 Ancestry/Background feat. "You take a -X penalty to stat, but gain Y benefit" which could be a roleplaying perk or unique ability. The whole +2/-2 just encourages optimization for optimization's sake; it isn't necessarily an interesting decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I cringe every time someone tells me about their 20/20/20/7/7/7 character. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the player usually overcompensates in role play to make up for the low scores. Its often unbelievably grating on everyone at the table. All my instincts tell me that this not being allowed is simply a good thing.
Though when I read some passionate posts about folks wanting these characters, it reminds me of the elements I like on the chopping block, and how id like to keep them. So I'd love if an optional point buy allows these travesties to exist for the tables that want them.
Given what little we know so far, it is pretty speculative to postulate a 20/20/20/7/7/7 character. The basic starting array could be 10/10/10/10/10/10. Looking at an elf wizard.
Int 10
Elf +2 to int, +2 to dex, -2 to con and a floating +2
Background +2 to int and a floating +2
Wizard + 2 to int and a floating +2
Final starting int is a 16, which is not a death sentence as a wizard. My guess is all attribute starting at a 10 and being modified by ancestry, background and class is a possibility.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You’ve heard of Minimum Stat Prerequisites. Now get ready for . . . Maximum Stat Prerequisites!
Forgettable
“You’ve had troubles leaving an impression on others your whole life, and people have had little reason to be kind to you. You’ve learned to take advantage of this.”
Category: General Feat
Prerequisite: 8 or less Charisma.
Effect: You gain a +1 Bonus to Stealth and Sense Motive Skill Checks.
Feeble
“You’ve been physically weak your whole life, and have needed to rely upon the help of others to survive. You have learned to take advantage of this.”
Category: General Feat.
Prerequisite: 8 or less Strength.
Effect: You gain a +1 Bonus to Diplomacy and Medicine Skill Checks.
Unintelligent
“You’ve had more difficulties learning what seemed to come easily to others, and as a result, were reliant on your brawn to survive. You’ve learned to take advantage of this.”
Category: General Feat.
Prerequisite: 8 or less Intelligence.
Effect: You gain a +1 Bonus to Athletics and Survival Skill Checks.
As some examples. You don’t gain any bonus feats, but you do at least qualify for something that could potentially help you specialize further into another area. These would obviously be subject to change depending onexactly how powerful General Feats are going to be.
^ I like the cut of your jib.
Given what little we know so far, it is pretty speculative to postulate a 20/20/20/7/7/7 character. The basic starting array could be 10/10/10/10/10/10. Looking at an elf wizard.
Int 10
Elf +2 to int, +2 to dex, -2 to con and a floating +2
Background +2 to int and a floating +2
Wizard + 2 to int and a floating +2Final starting int is a 16, which is not a death sentence as a wizard. My guess is all attribute starting at a 10 and being modified by ancestry, background and class is a possibility.
Due to some new information, I believe that the Class Step will not have a floating +2. And instead, the final step where you add in Ability Score Increases will be adding +2 to four stats, instead of three. That would be most consistent with the information we’ve had revealed so far. So you can still bump your Int to an 18.
Due to some new information, I believe that the Class Step will not have a floating +2. And instead, the final step where you add in Ability Score Increases will be adding +2 to four stats, instead of three. That would be most consistent with the information we’ve had revealed so far. So you can still bump your Int to an 18.Given what little we know so far, it is pretty speculative to postulate a 20/20/20/7/7/7 character. The basic starting array could be 10/10/10/10/10/10. Looking at an elf wizard.
Int 10
Elf +2 to int, +2 to dex, -2 to con and a floating +2
Background +2 to int and a floating +2
Wizard + 2 to int and a floating +2Final starting int is a 16, which is not a death sentence as a wizard. My guess is all attribute starting at a 10 and being modified by ancestry, background and class is a possibility.
If you are correct and I don't doubt it, that makes me think that we will be starting with 10s in all attributes. I like it.
^I think that it was confirmed in one of the Ancestry Blogs that, yes, everyone is using 10s across the board before A,B,C, and 1st level Ability Score Increases.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, I have found that players who play characters who are decidedly bad at a thing (for optimization or RP reasons) generally do not engage in that thing.
So like even though my half-blind inattentive Paladin is up all night every night, we just rely on the "Reinforce Campsite" ritual from Ultimate Wilderness in lieu of relying on her to keep watch ineffectively.
Plus there's no reason one can't RP a flaw that causes them problems which is not reflected (or could not be reflected) in one's stats. I've had characters who were terrified of water, always assumed the best of everyone, were incorrigibly elitist, elected to pull pranks even when it was probably not wise, paranoid to the point of occasional catatonia around strangers etc. none of which needed to be reflected in attributes. I just didn't expect that I should get better at other stuff because I wanted to have a serious character flaw.
The best systems at handling "flaws" are not the ones that give you additional stats for it, but the ones that reward you for RPing them instead of ignoring them.
I don't remember what RPG it was, it might have been Mistborn or DC Superheroes or something, but you could add a buncha flaws to your character with no benefit at character creation. However, whenever you used any of your flaws to cause a disadvantage or suboptimal decision or an NPC used it against you, you would get a re-roll or something like that which gave you narrative control.
Granted, that is a narrative-driven RPG, very unlike Pathfinder, but it clearly explained that "flaws that I can ignore for boosts to my important things" was very poor design compared to more dynamic approach of using them in play.
I hope Hero points or whatever it is that was said to be in PF2 behaves like this.
I love how the new WoD does it (and the 2nd edition, CofD), the flaws give you nothing at creation, but each time they enter play, they give you a bit of XP (in CofD it's 1/5 XP, but they are usually less severe). For those that don't know, you don't gain levels, you use the XP to buy new abilities and boost already bought ones in that system. Those having more crippling flaws tend to grow faster that the others, but they are also usually more often in danger (and to gain the XP, you really need to be in danger, you don't gain XP if you miss the ice cream truck because you have trouble walking because of your lame leg, but you DO get one if you're the only one of the party that got slashed by the werewolf during the chase, as that experience was much more meaningful to you).
I'm not saying it would be okay for Pathfinder... but yeah, for a class-less system it's great and fit an interesting narrative.
If it would give hero point, the flaws would need to be dangerous IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like it toned down a notch, so instead of 20, 18, 18, 16, 14, 14, you could rock with 16, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12.Oh yeah but with inheret bonuses (wished and books) those bare minimum were 21-23.
but I think the thing is that at 1-5 level mosts stats aren't going to be that high its kind of the lowly adventure levels (which im sure you know this) Then really the stats being all 16-18 or better probably won't really hit till level 10 which by that point the characters are probably meant to be a bit super powered. What is it exactly about having good stats across the board that you don't like?
I think this is, by itself, a good rule of thumb. Inflation, in general, is not a good thing.
However, this also ties into the kind of stories you want to tell. The Devs have said they are not interested to "fight" for the design space already occupied by 5e. They want PF to be a tad more "epic", if you will. Mark explained it with an example from a passage from a book, in which the high level martial there was affraid to fight a bunch of brigands because fighting 1 vs 5 or so was dangerous. This is the kind of stories you tell in 5e. Devs want PF to tell stories more like Beowulf, or Cu Chulain, or Achiles.
If so, then the characters are expected to be above average in almost everything. Ulysses does not have a single 10.
I'm glad PF2 will be better for different kind of stories, while 5e will be better for other kind of stories. Sometimes I want to play "game of thrones", sometimes I want to play "he-man and the masters of the Universe". Having 2 good systems for 2 different goals is nice. And a great marketing plan for Paizo in my opinion.
Once upon a time, Paizo aimed for their RPGs to allow people to play all the stories
When?
|
|
Check the previews that were given for Starfinder or for such products as Mythic, Horror or the Vigilante, or the Strange Aeons AP
The ability to tell all manner of stories using the same ruleset was constantly a source of pride for Paizo and deservedly so
To have many different people playing with their game in many different ways
Have you played Strange Aeons, for example?
It is, indeed, part of a wide kind of stories you can tell with pathfinder. But it is distinctively pathfinder, not, say, Call of Cthulhu the RPG. At the end of Strange Aeons my players kicked the ass of a Bhole in a single round, were flying above Carcosa like the Avengers in a movie, had the ability to go toe-to-toe with the Herald of Hastur, and could raise people from the dead.
That's a very different playing experience than the one we had 25 years ago when we played Chaosioum's The Secret of Castronegro.
If you don’t want to have characters improve in stats throughout the game, have you considered doing campaigns that reduce/remove exp and only go through 2-3 levels total?
I mean, if it is really that big of an issue that characters have a 16 instead of a 12, then couldn’t you just houserule the +2 Bonuses into +1s during Character Creation, Ability Score Increases, and from Magic Items? And then mentally reduce the results of rolls of CR appropriate enemies by 2, and then another 1 every 5 levels?
Because you’re not fundamentally changing anything about the math. It sounds like smaller numbers just “feel” better to you.
It’s sort of an odd complaint that the numbers are too high when they’re smalller at higher levels on average than PF1, just spread out more evenly. Were you playing using a 15 point buy and not allowing Magic Items?
Will it still be possible to play a character with several low scores at high level or will high level PCs of a certain class all look mostly the same as far as stats are concerned ?
It seems like stats are going to be very standard. Two maybe three arrays at the most. Makes a pretty easy game to design I suppose.
I don't think anything they are doing changes the sorts of stories they can tell. High level characters in pathfinder are already bonkers stupid crazy powerful. A high level barbarian can survive a fall from orbit. Casters build their own demiplanes. A rogue can hide in an empty room. A fighter can wade through a gang of lower level people almost like they aren't even there. A monk can grapple a dragon.
If you don't want stories like that, there are the lower levels. The only change now is the characters get physically and mentally better from their own training, not from magic items.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we have a standard baseline we really want to playtest for this playtest document, there's certainly nothing preventing us from providing variants in the final CRB, kind of like how the PF1 CRB has rules for various point buys for different difficulties/feels. In fact, one of the goals is to make it much easier to mod the game to give you the style of game you are looking for. As such, I'm really looking forward to when we can put out some kind of PF2 Gamemastery Guide type book, as I anticipate that it could contain all sorts of delightful variants and game mod advice for all styles of games (like an absolutely no magic items style as a big one).
|
|
Myself, I WANT dex to damage in core as a starting option.
Well, the Rogue has it in the demo games (or at least that's the most logical inference of someone with Dex 18 and a rapier doing 1d6+4 damage per attack). So it's at least an option.
I'm good with 18, 18, 14, 10, 10, 8 starting. I wouldn't enjoy a game where I ended at 20th with a high stat of 16... :P
I'll repeat that it's actually much more likely to be 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.
You choose to buy magic items or not. You cannot choose to avoid stat boosts
You actually couldn't avoid stat boosters without messing up the game's math. Getting rid of Ability ups isn't actually much harder.
Will it still be possible to play a character with several low scores at high level or will high level PCs of a certain class all look mostly the same as far as stats are concerned ?It seems like stats are going to be very standard. Two maybe three arrays at the most. Makes a pretty easy game to design I suppose.
A level 1 Dwarf would have a total of 17 different possible arrays to choose from (not taking into consideration where each stat in that array is placed).
Then, factor in however many different combinations of 4 stats from 6 that you can choose at 5 level to boost, and then again at 10 for every combination produced from the level 1 stat array plus the level 5 stat bump being modified by the level 10 boost , and then AGAIN at level 15 and 20 and you get a total number of different possible stat combinations of . . . *crumbles paper and eats it. A LOT.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will it still be possible to play a character with several low scores at high level or will high level PCs of a certain class all look mostly the same as far as stats are concerned ?It seems like stats are going to be very standard. Two maybe three arrays at the most. Makes a pretty easy game to design I suppose.A level 1 Dwarf would have a total of 17 different possible arrays to choose from (not taking into consideration where each stat in that array is placed).
Then, factor in however many different combinations of 4 stats from 6 that you can choose at 5 level to boost, and then again at 10 for every combination produced from the level 1 stat array plus the level 5 stat bump being modified by the level 10 boost , and then AGAIN at level 15 and 20 and you get a total number of different possible stat combinations of . . . *crumbles paper and eats it. A LOT.
It's 15x15x15x15 for the leveling options (since there are 15 possible combinations at each level), though that does count not raising Dex and Cha at 5th and not raising Int and Wis at 10th as a dufferent option than doing it in the reverse order. x17 for the 1st level ones and you get 860,625 total combinations by 20th level.
Now, in practice, it's a lot less since some of those are nonsensical (it drops to 170,000 if you just assume they raise their high score every level after 1st), but it's more than enough for some serious variation between characters.
Will it still be possible to play a character with several low scores at high level or will high level PCs of a certain class all look mostly the same as far as stats are concerned ?It seems like stats are going to be very standard. Two maybe three arrays at the most. Makes a pretty easy game to design I suppose.A level 1 Dwarf would have a total of 17 different possible arrays to choose from (not taking into consideration where each stat in that array is placed).
Then, factor in however many different combinations of 4 stats from 6 that you can choose at 5 level to boost, and then again at 10 for every combination produced from the level 1 stat array plus the level 5 stat bump being modified by the level 10 boost , and then AGAIN at level 15 and 20 and you get a total number of different possible stat combinations of . . . *crumbles paper and eats it. A LOT.
It's 15x15x15x15 for the leveling options (since there are 15 possible combinations at each level), though that does count not raising Dex and Cha at 5th and not raising Int and Wis at 10th as a dufferent option than doing it in the reverse order. x17 for the 1st level ones and you get 860,625 total combinations by 20th level.
Now, in practice, it's a lot less since some of those are nonsensical (it drops to 10,625 if you just assume they raise their high score every level after 1st), but it's more than enough for some serious variation between characters.
Thank you! My inner Goblin has been spared the horror of doing math! :’D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will it still be possible to play a character with several low scores at high level or will high level PCs of a certain class all look mostly the same as far as stats are concerned ?It seems like stats are going to be very standard. Two maybe three arrays at the most. Makes a pretty easy game to design I suppose.A level 1 Dwarf would have a total of 17 different possible arrays to choose from (not taking into consideration where each stat in that array is placed).
Then, factor in however many different combinations of 4 stats from 6 that you can choose at 5 level to boost, and then again at 10 for every combination produced from the level 1 stat array plus the level 5 stat bump being modified by the level 10 boost , and then AGAIN at level 15 and 20 and you get a total number of different possible stat combinations of . . . *crumbles paper and eats it. A LOT.
It's 15x15x15x15 for the leveling options (since there are 15 possible combinations at each level), though that does count not raising Dex and Cha at 5th and not raising Int and Wis at 10th as a dufferent option than doing it in the reverse order. x17 for the 1st level ones and you get 860,625 total combinations by 20th level.
Now, in practice, it's a lot less since some of those are nonsensical (it drops to 170,000 if you just assume they raise their high score every level after 1st), but it's more than enough for some serious variation between characters.
Compared to how many possibilities in PF1 with a 20-point buy ?
What matters is not the wealth of possible options but how wide a range of different characters most people actually play. This is where the feeling of "all the same" gets its basis
Boosting your strongest abilities with all available means including stat boosts was greatly rewarded, even required, by the previous ruleset. I hope PF2 will not reward overspecialization so heavily
That IMO is the true key to having many viable options for your character's build
i'm with you on that one I don't want to see dex to damage.Myself, I WANT dex to damage in core as a starting option.
Why do you want dex to damage?
I think that just further deflates strength as a Stat. So if I want to play say a str based rogue that build is down right stupid because you can just ignore str on a rogue and put it all into dex and get better results.
Ideally they could work with those scores throughout play, but if some or all get higher, I don't think it needs to be to the degree of multiple 16s and 18s, that's all.Like throughout the entirety of their play 1-20 or like starting out?I would just like it toned down a notch, so instead of 20, 18, 18, 16, 14, 14, you could rock with 16, 15, 14, 14, 13, 12.Oh yeah but with inheret bonuses (wished and books) those bare minimum were 21-23.
but I think the thing is that at 1-5 level mosts stats aren't going to be that high its kind of the lowly adventure levels (which im sure you know this) Then really the stats being all 16-18 or better probably won't really hit till level 10 which by that point the characters are probably meant to be a bit super powered. What is it exactly about having good stats across the board that you don't like?
So basically its kind of the theory of reducing your bonuses from attributes kind of like how Paizo is pulling back on other bonuses as well? Less variation from one character to the next? or is it more of a you specifically want to see some characters with lower scores so that they have like the bad save or not as much skill points etc. As a way to further seperate the differences from one character to the next?
Edit: I guess that question is kind of moot now feel free to ignore.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you want dex to damage?
I think that just further deflates strength as a Stat. So if I want to play say a str based rogue that build is down right stupid because you can just ignore str on a rogue and put it all into dex and get better results.
Well, it's possible it's a Rogue Class Feat to get Dex to damage. If that's true, you get an extra Class Feat out of not investing like that, which seems like a decent break point. Especially if you can invest a Class Feat and gain better Armor Proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you want dex to damage?
Because I don't think every character that ever picks up a weapons should be required to look like a weight lifter with bulging muscles.
I think that just further deflates strength as a Stat.
I honestly couldn't care. If it works like pathfinder classic, strength deals more damage and requires NO investment. If we now have the light/lower die weapons usable with dex and heavy/bigger die weapons use str, str STILL has plenty of use as the dice get multiplied for pluses.
So if I want to play say a str based rogue that build is down right stupid because you can just ignore str on a rogue and put it all into dex and get better results.
As above, it bigger die damage. While I'm doing 3d6 with a shortsword, you might be doing 3d10 with a longsword. That doesn't sound dumb to me...
Well, it's possible it's a Rogue Class Feat to get Dex to damage. If that's true, you get an extra Class Feat out of not investing like that, which seems like a decent break point. Especially if you can invest a Class Feat and gain better Armor Proficiency.Why do you want dex to damage?
I think that just further deflates strength as a Stat. So if I want to play say a str based rogue that build is down right stupid because you can just ignore str on a rogue and put it all into dex and get better results.
That does sound a little better but still seems less then ideal. 1 more feat but I feel I would still be investing so much more into Str that it would still make it still pretty terrible. I'd be OK if it was only slightly worse but it seems it would be a huge drop. I suppose I'll need to see how good the rogue feats are to really tell.
My thing is why not just make the rogues do enough damage without dex to damage? We are redoing the system anyways and their already gonna be effectively full BAB as well.
Why do you want dex to damage?Because I don't think every character that ever picks up a weapons should be required to look like a weight lifter with bulging muscles.
I think that just further deflates strength as a Stat.I honestly couldn't care. If it works like pathfinder classic, strength deals more damage and requires NO investment. If we now have the light/lower die weapons usable with dex and heavy/bigger die weapons use str, str STILL has plenty of use as the dice get multiplied for pluses.
So if I want to play say a str based rogue that build is down right stupid because you can just ignore str on a rogue and put it all into dex and get better results.As above, it bigger die damage. While I'm doing 3d6 with a shortsword, you might be doing 3d10 with a longsword. That doesn't sound dumb to me...
Right you want the Fencer build which i'm fine with, but why does it take specifically Dex to damage to make that work? It turns str into a dump stat for rogues. Also IT doesn't have to be bulging muscles but those Fencer have a lot of strong LEAN muscle.
Strength does require a investment you have to put points that you could otherwise put elsewhere into str. Thats an investment. 1 feat is a pretty minor investment compared to putting 1/4 of your attrbute selections into the stat.
Ok now you lost me on this one are you saying that the weapons that are finesse-able are going to be noticeably lower on damage (which i suspose is kind of true but really the rapiers crit ranges more then makes up for it.) I haven't seen to much of what the PF2 weapons are going to look like yet. What do we know about those so far?