So, Hard Caps on numbers....


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

...Yeah.

I die a little inside every time I read 'you may never have more than X' or 'you cannot have a value greater than X'.

The whole reason I like PF is that it allows me to scour a ton of options, trying squeeze out the last bonus, and this system just... does away with that completely.
I understand why it's done. It's to future-proof the game, I know, to avoid something unexpected coming up and breaking the game. But just make it so that something is impossible on your Big List of Design Rules hanging on the Paizo HQ wall, don't tell it to the players if you have to do that.

Even better, don't put hard limits on anything, just make it exponentially harder to make something higher and higher as you go on. Because as it stands, if there's no way for me to ever improve my skill as a player when making a character, if I can't come up with new and exciting ways to push the limits of the game further and further without hitting a brick wall if I go an inch past normal, and what any new player could make day 1, why would I ever want to keep playing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the default system is designed to take you from all 10s to much higher stats. If you started with nearly equivalent stats, it would almost always be better to roll. The 18restriction is for the same reason. Any somewhat sad character should roll since statistically, you will usually get one score higher than 14 and be able to get a higher stat than intended. This edition has tighter math and this is a playtest. It’s hard to get feedback if everyone is rolling random stats because it’s nearly always a significant improvement.


RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

Silver Crusade

Dαedαlus wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

What other numbers are hard capped?

Scarab Sages

How would you get above an 18 in an ability score. It’s a playtest trying to extort lain the rules simply. It’s literally impossible to do it without optional rolling.Why does it matter if it’s trying to make sure everyone is on the same page. And it would make rolling too good if it good bypass the normal math and make super characters. Which is a worse paly experience for many as they feel compelled to take a gamble to keep up worth the arms race.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

What in the playtest is the mechanic reason you need start with a stat higher than an 18? Just curious....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dαedαlus wrote:

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Are there any hard caps other than ability scores?

I personally don't have a huge issue with it. Being able to massively stack bonuses caused some major issues in my PF1 games. Against CR equivalent enemies it wasn't unheard of to have the encounters end in one or two rounds from a group of optimized PCs. It also allows me to pursue more fun options without having to spend every single increase on maximizing attack rolls, or damage rolls, or spell DC, or whatever.

Sulako wrote:
There is NO reason to restrict a 1st Level character to stats of 18. I understand not wanting to promote power gaming but at the same time, I like being able to roll my stats. Why? Because I generally roll really well.

In PF1, one could just have easily have claimed that was NO reason to restrict a 1st level character to stats of 20. Why not have +4 bonuses from races, or allow point buy to get you a 20 to start with, then go to 22 from racial bonuses?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue with hard caps is that PCs currently appear to have a hard cap on ability scores of 24 (+7).

A quick skim through the playtest bestiary reveals an apparent systemic hard cap of 30 (+10).

So long as it is possible, however unlikely, for player characters to obtain a 30 in one or more ability scores, I am fine with a systemic ability score cap.

Rare and Unique "stuff" being required for this to happen is fair so long as it is possible.


Mechalibur wrote:
In PF1, one could just have easily have claimed that was NO reason to restrict a 1st level character to stats of 20. Why not have +4 bonuses from races, or allow point buy to get you a 20 to start with, then go to 22 from racial bonuses?

There is no limit on ability scores in OG Pathfinder. If there is, would you please cite a page number?


Sulako wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
In PF1, one could just have easily have claimed that was NO reason to restrict a 1st level character to stats of 20. Why not have +4 bonuses from races, or allow point buy to get you a 20 to start with, then go to 22 from racial bonuses?
There is no limit on ability scores in OG Pathfinder. If there is, would you please cite a page number?

THis is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They limit it because it was the design decision to make the game overall a less high-powered game. Characters are more even as heroes in relation to each other, which they should be.

That's pretty much it. It's a design decision and some will like it, some won't. They did the same thing with Starfinder, and you can still get above an 18... just not at 1st level.

I don't really see that as an issue. If you care a lot about optimizing, just optimize with what you have. New systems require new methods.


KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.

If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.


How does it destroy the game? How precisely does it destroy the game? With examples?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.
If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.

I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?


KuniUjito wrote:
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

If that is what was agreed to ... yes.

The downside to being so much above the rest of the pack is that it has a really nasty habit of drawing unwanted attention from the opposition.

If nothing else, Darwinian survival will eventually result in characters largely at parity to each other.

OR

You assign the "uber ability scores" to the player with the least system mastery - many tables have at least one - whilst the more seasoned players take on the slightly-above-average folk as a challenge to be overcome.


KuniUjito wrote:
Sulako wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.
If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

In various groups I've played with, safeguards against this have included each person rolling three columns of ability scores & picking the best one, and giving anyone who didn't roll an 18 naturally a free 18 - whether that meant turning your lowest roll into an 18 or your highest was a judgment call based on over all rolls. Further, one protection was that rolls of 1's & 2's counted as 3's, meaning the lowest anyone started with would be a 9. And all of this was before racial ability modifiers were put into effect.


The Mad Comrade wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

If that is what was agreed to ... yes.

The downside to being so much above the rest of the pack is that it has a really nasty habit of drawing unwanted attention from the opposition.

If nothing else, Darwinian survival will eventually result in characters largely at parity to each other.

OR

You assign the "uber ability scores" to the player with the least system mastery - many tables have at least one - whilst the more seasoned players take on the slightly-above-average folk as a challenge to be overcome.

Yes I agree, that's what a good Gm would do to help balance play. Kind of like a good game system will try to balance play among character creation so that everybody starts off on the same footing. To be fair I have only ever used point buy for character creation so I am baised in this.


KuniUjito wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

If that is what was agreed to ... yes.

The downside to being so much above the rest of the pack is that it has a really nasty habit of drawing unwanted attention from the opposition.

If nothing else, Darwinian survival will eventually result in characters largely at parity to each other.

OR

You assign the "uber ability scores" to the player with the least system mastery - many tables have at least one - whilst the more seasoned players take on the slightly-above-average folk as a challenge to be overcome.

Yes I agree, that's what a good Gm would do to help balance play. Kind of like a good game system will try to balance play among character creation so that everybody starts off on the same footing. To be fair I have only ever used point buy for character creation so I am baised in this.

I've played numerous systems including the generations of D&D and 3e/Pathfinder and a dabbling in Starfinder, often making use of random ability score generation.

No small part (for me) of getting a feel for a character's backstory and personality comes from randomly generated ability scores. This is the one thing that is left on the cutting floor so-to-speak with point-buy systems that do not have some method of taking behavioral limiters - in Nouveau Pathfinder they're being called anathema - in trade for something positive in return.

I dunno, maybe I'll roll a set of scores to "get a feel" for the character then use the standard chargen methods to match as close as possibly permitted systemically. Might work better. Otherwise, being accustomed to other systems that reward characters mechanically for accepting behavioral limitations, most of my PCs gravitate towards fairly simple personalities with as little as possible in the way of behavioral inhibitors as a matter of best-chance-to-survive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:

They limit it because it was the design decision to make the game overall a less high-powered game. Characters are more even as heroes in relation to each other, which they should be.

Character balance is a good objective, but sometimes in this system it feels like it's coming at the cost of character differentiation. I definitely like the "past 18 a boost = +1" rule, but it would be nice to have some variance between stat maxes between character type. But these are hardly the worst examples of bonus deflation. I mean, at this point it seems like the best way to improve your character's capabilities is to level up and buy good equipment. An 8th level fighter with a normal sword and an 18 strength has got a +14 to hit, which is dead even with an 8th level Rogue with a 18 dexterity and a +2 shortsword. Maybe that's progress but it feels kind of samey to me.


Access to only one book and not a full book at that for a playtest can make a lot things feel kinda of samey.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KuniUjito wrote:
Access to only one book and not a full book at that for a playtest can make a lot things feel kinda of samey.

Presuming that the PF Beta is anything to go on, a lot of what we are seeing will not change over the coming year.

Maybe another page or two per class for 12 classes, probably a bunch more spells (although I don't see much of a need for more) and of course more magic items. All in all there seems to be a good chance that the Nouveau Pathfinder CRB won't greatly exceed 400 pages, perhaps even coming in just under that page count.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My concern is that the developers are not really going to listen to the play testers and are going to do what they are going to do. I wonder if this is so much a play test or more of a preview of things to come.


Pathfinder 1.0 Core rulebook is 575 pages, you don't think they make something of similar size for the new edition?


We won't really know for 3 or so weeks I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now, while I'm generally in favor of making all races at least capable of being competent at any given role, I do think there are issues where the hard cap at level 1 is going to conflict with story.

For example, for half orcs it's mentioned that half orcs are generally weaker than full blooded orcs, but by the rules, the strongest natural orc & the strongest natural half-orc are equals at 18. The difference between 20 & 22 in 1e may have been marginal, but at least it was real.

More over, the strongest orc or half-orc is only as strong as the strongest elf or gnome - though at least the gnome had to spend their free boost to cancel out their penalty which implies they at least had to put some extra work into it.

I like giving races options that mean they won't be strictly pigeon holed and one be deficient in certain roles where others may excel, but I also can see Beast's point about things getting a bit samey.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my experience with 1e, whenever character started with 20 in stat at level 1, they were really overpowered early on(and if they were caster, the dcs became so high at late game everyone fails them most of the time) <_< So no, I don't think caps on stats on level 1 is bad thing, heck I have as result used that as houserule in 1e ever since my first campaign


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
In my experience with 1e, whenever character started with 20 in stat at level 1, they were really overpowered early on(and if they were caster, the dcs became so high at late game everyone fails them most of the time) <_< So no, I don't think caps on stats on level 1 is bad thing, heck I have as result used that as houserule in 1e ever since my first campaign

What you see as the bug, sir, I see as the feature.

Dark Archive

You see unbalanced gameplay mechanics as a feature? O_o

Liberty's Edge

Sulako wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is...it was arbitrary. They did it because...they wanted to. Not for any kind of hard game-play reasons. Not because it would DESTROY the game in its entirety. They did it because 'We're the game developers and you have to do what we say.'

That's kinda why I have a problem with it. They give no valid, in-game, mechanical reason why you can't. If they did, I wouldn't be complaining. I'd be unhappy but at least they'd have a reason for it.

The whole 'to make the game lower-powered' is the biggest bullsh!t cop-out reason I've ever heard. It's not up to the GAME to lower the power levels. It's up to the DM. Any DM worth their salt would agree with me on that.

Roleplaying games are what they are PRECISELY to cater to fantasies. Some people just want the fun and intrigue to go along with a fantasy setting and don't mind being just slightly above average. That's fine. More power to them. But some want to be a conqueror that wrecks shop at 1st level and have generated the stats through rolling and bonuses to do that. It shouldn't be up to the game - ANY game - to limit that. That's the DM's job. And if any DM is HAPPY with a game that does that for them, so they don't have to, then, in my opinion, they don't deserve to sit behind the screen and run a game.

Have you even played a session yet to see if your complaints have any actual merit, or are you just complaining to complain?

You are whining about there being ability caps at level one, but not considering the context of all of the other rules for which those caps are put in place. Will your character really be so completely weak as you are want to imply? You don’t know. You haven’t played.

Furthermore, this is a play test. The developers need a baseline, and therefore put boundaries in place to help them collect data. Dial it back a bit.


KuniUjito wrote:
Access to only one book and not a full book at that for a playtest can make a lot things feel kinda of samey.

Oh whatever, I'm not on that ridiculous rant about there being "Not enough options". My point is that I see very few peaks and valleys between the character types' relative strengths and weaknesses. It's clearly a design choice to limit the differences between character mechanical bonuses in regards to Proficiency level and attributes. That's obvious from about two pages worth of material. It's a choice resident in the base mechanic and no additional material or lack thereof is going to change that, the only thing that might is the decisions made by the Pathfinder team in response to the playtest.

And really? Not a full book? The things' a monster. 400+ Back in the day you'd have to pay $100+ for this much material spread out among a dozen books. I've got some issues with the current choices but there's a lot of great interesting hard work in here and really, it's amazing that they put out something this size for free and then solicited customer opinion on it. Even if I never end up agreeing with the direction of the thing or deciding to run it I'm probably going to end up buying the eventual product.


KuniUjito wrote:
Sulako wrote:
KuniUjito wrote:
This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.
If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

What I've ALWAYS done at my table and encourage other DM's I play with to do, is allow everyone to roll and, if a certain player rolls incredibly well, then all players at the table have an option of using THOSE rolls. If they CHOOSE not to then that's on them. They're choosing to hamper themselves for some sort of perceived 'challenge'. I personally don't like every single fight being a deadly slobber-knocker, and I don't like every task I attempt being tantamount to performing brain surgery blindfolded.


LOL such anger!

Look, the developers have taken steps so that it's harder to create characters that are unbalanced against each other, which is usually a bad thing at any table.
If your group wants that, just agree to roll your stats and apply whatever bonus you find fitting. Paizo's police won't come to get you.

Also, the fact that you have been lucky when rolling stats so far doesn't mean that you are more likely to roll higher than average in the future. Unless you cheat, of course.
This is a fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Sulako wrote:

So, essentially, what you're saying is...it was arbitrary. They did it because...they wanted to. Not for any kind of hard game-play reasons. Not because it would DESTROY the game in its entirety. They did it because 'We're the game developers and you have to do what we say.'

That's kinda why I have a problem with it. They give no valid, in-game, mechanical reason why you can't. If they did, I wouldn't be complaining. I'd be unhappy but at least they'd have a reason for it.

The whole 'to make the game lower-powered' is the biggest bullsh!t cop-out reason I've ever heard. It's not up to the GAME to lower the power levels. It's up to the DM. Any DM worth their salt would agree with me on that.

Roleplaying games are what they are PRECISELY to cater to fantasies. Some people just want the fun and intrigue to go along with a fantasy setting and don't mind being just slightly above average. That's fine. More power to them. But some want to be a conqueror that wrecks shop at 1st level and have generated the stats through rolling and bonuses to do that. It shouldn't be up to the game - ANY game - to limit that. That's the DM's job. And if any DM is HAPPY with a game that does that for them, so they don't have to, then, in my opinion, they don't deserve to sit behind the screen and run a game.

Have you even played a session yet to see if your complaints have any actual merit, or are you just complaining to complain?

You are whining about there being ability caps at level one, but not considering the context of all of the other rules for which those caps are put in place. Will your character really be so completely weak as you are want to imply? You don’t know. You haven’t played.

Furthermore, this is a playtest. The developers need a baseline, and therefore put boundaries in place to help them collect data. Dial it back a bit.

Yes. Our group did, in fact, TRY to play a session of this. We made it through about an hour and said 'bag it' and continued our previous Rise of the Runelords campaign because it was, you know, not broken all to hell.

And it isn't about my character 'being weak'. It's about the GAME telling me 'NO!' Like an angry parent, then not giving a reason as to why. I don't mind the cap. THAT isn't my issue. It's that there's no reason - adequate or otherwise - given for the cap. It's a limitation without reasoning. THAT is what I have a problem with. And no, 'character balance' isn't a good reason, because if I can achieve those stats, then so can someone else. Them choosing not to doesn't make the game imbalanced. Their choices are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

LOL such anger!

Look, the developers have taken steps so that it's harder to create characters that are unbalanced against each other, which is usually a bad thing at any table.
If your group wants that, just agree to roll your stats and apply whatever bonus you find fitting. Paizo's police won't come to get you.

Also, the fact that you have been lucky when rolling stats so far doesn't mean that you are more likely to roll higher than average in the future. Unless you cheat, of course.
This is a fact.

It's about the OPTION to do so. I want to be able to get my stats that high. Not saying I will. Not saying I won't. But when I go to make the choice and see, out of the gate, that some of my options are limited for NO reason, it's a red flag. It's starting out on a bad foot.

And FYI, when I rolled the block they suggested, I ended up with 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16. Naturally, I wanted to put my highest number into my strength, because I wanted to be a fighter. But the GAME said 'NO!' for no G*~~!%n reason.

Now yes, it says I could have put the numbers somewhere else, but that should be a choice I get to make. The game should not foist that choice on me. Games that do this are fundamentally broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.

A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level. Given the size penalty and their -2 to Strength as to where Ogres in 3rd Edition received a +10 to their Strength score. So, unless your Ogre rolled absolute GARBAGE and your halfling rolled killer, it isn't an issue.

But, if such a thing did occur, while it would be an incredible outlier, it should be allowed because that's the way the dice fall.

See? This just proves what I'm saying. Roleplaying games are about the fantastic and mindboggling OPTIONS for things like this. But when you put the limitations on it, you remove a part of the majesty of the game.

That doesn't sit well with me. That goes against literally EVERYTHING a tabletop RPG is supposed to be.

Dark Archive

Umm, but that is really arbitrary point to make.

Like, why aren't you instead angry that game doesn't allow you to start with ability score of 30? Well that is because 1e didn't allow it either. You are angry that first edition allowed you to start with 20(or higher) ability score while 2nd edition doesn't. But you might as well be angry that rangers and paladins don't have spells anymore or that action economy works differently, you are being angry that change exists rather than about why it exists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sulako wrote:
Megistone wrote:

LOL such anger!

Look, the developers have taken steps so that it's harder to create characters that are unbalanced against each other, which is usually a bad thing at any table.
If your group wants that, just agree to roll your stats and apply whatever bonus you find fitting. Paizo's police won't come to get you.

Also, the fact that you have been lucky when rolling stats so far doesn't mean that you are more likely to roll higher than average in the future. Unless you cheat, of course.
This is a fact.

It's about the OPTION to do so. I want to be able to get my stats that high. Not saying I will. Not saying I won't. But when I go to make the choice and see, out of the gate, that some of my options are limited for NO reason, it's a red flag. It's starting out on a bad foot.

And FYI, when I rolled the block they suggested, I ended up with 18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16. Naturally, I wanted to put my highest number into my strength, because I wanted to be a fighter. But the GAME said 'NO!' for no G%~$~#n reason.

Now yes, it says I could have put the numbers somewhere else, but that should be a choice I get to make. The game should not foist that choice on me. Games that do this are fundamentally broken.

May I send you my lottery tickets so you can fill them out?

:D

Seriously, if I were your DM that character would never see the light of day in my campaign.
Your stats are almost as good as 20th level in this playtest.

And you would play this beside someone with 18,16,14,12,10,8?

We gave up on rolling for stats in 2003 :p


Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.

I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Sulako wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I actually like capped numbers (ability scores, AC), I never liked that 3rd Ed did away with that. I would prefer characters to be capped at 18 for ability scores, the idea of a halfling as strong as an ogre, bothers me.
A halfling, according to the rules as written in 3rd Edition CAN'T be as strong as an ogre at first level.
I am not talking about 1st-level, with ability score increases they can become as strong as an ogre.

Then we are having two different conversations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Umm, but that is really arbitrary point to make.

Like, why aren't you instead angry that game doesn't allow you to start with ability score of 30? Well that is because 1e didn't allow it either. You are angry that first edition allowed you to start with 20(or higher) ability score while 2nd edition doesn't. But you might as well be angry that rangers and paladins don't have spells anymore or that action economy works differently, you are being angry that change exists rather than about why it exists.

OG Pathfinder didn't put any limits on stats whatsoever. What you get is what you get. No compromise. I like that. I don't like arbitrary limits with no reasoning.

Dark Archive

But there is reason. Reason is that 2e doesn't want to have as many ways to increase stats as 1e did because its harder to balance game that way. The way 1e handled stats became easily unbalanced. Reason why 18 is cap with stat increase is because it being max cap without magic items or something makes it easier to balance game than if game was balanced with assumption that you put all bonus into one stat. If you balance game with that assumption then everyone who doesn't do that can't win making there only one right way of doing so. And if you balance it otherwise, people who do min maxing automatically win meaning game is unbalanced.

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / So, Hard Caps on numbers.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.