18 in primary stat: design choice?


Playing the Game

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Anybody who just read the character creation rules can understand how to get 18 in their primary stat.

I was wondering if this was a design choice? Because I think it's a poor choice overall.

You have to wait 10 whole levels before stats boost does something relevant and even then, it gives you a measly +1 bonus. You don't have a sense of progression that you get everywhere else on your character.

18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

Nowadays, every fighter and their uncle have 18 in strenght. 18 is the the new normal?

I'm wondering if it's really what we want for the game.

I suggest that 18 should be something to strive for. If you want 18 at the get-go it should cost you. I'm thinking it should cost you a general feat or an ancestry feat. The time it took you to develop those muscles (or brain or charm) in your youth is the time that you didn't spend on something else like weapon training or train your keen eyes.

And if you don't have 18? Well, stats boost will give you a direct benefit until you reach 18. You have 5 level tops where you are 1 point behind the better a humanoid can achieve. Best of all, it gives you a sense of advancement.

Am I the only one who think that 18 is too easily achievable?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

You're 20 years late on this one, I think. At least. You wanna roll for stats? Do that in your home game. The rules are there, have at it.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Getting to a top end of 22 (24 with Magic Items) by the time you're 20 seems completely reasonable. You can spend your attribute points to raise a core stat beyond 18 if you want to focus on a particular ability or you can round out your stats increasing the others by 2 per boost.

You get a total of four now so it's no longer a huge roadblock like it used to be since you're always going to be improving in some way.

Just doing some basic math.. you can start at level 1 as a Human Fighter with:

18 Strength
12 Dexterity
18 Constitution
10 Intelligence
12 Wisdom
10 Charisma

Eventually pushing it to the following at level 20:

22 Strength
18 Dexterity
22 Constitution
12 Intelligence
18 Wisdom
12 Charisma

Alternatively you can aim for a more even stat distribution and get something with more 16's and 18's across the board just by dropping one of the 22's to another 18. All in all it seems like things are in a very good spot with this.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gloom wrote:

Just doing some basic math.. you can start at level 1 as a Human Fighter with:

18 Strength
12 Dexterity
18 Constitution
10 Intelligence
12 Wisdom
10 Charisma

No you can't. You can only get one 18 because your class only gives you one boost (in STR or DEX for a Fighter, not both). The highest your second best stat can be is a 16.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe it was done this way to give an easy starting point for the developers. All (most) characters start with +5 (+4 from stat and +1 from Level) to start in their primary attack stat.

Having a very narrow window for bonuses makes the math easier to balance for the developers.

It does have a bit of a negative in that 18 isn't special anymore (I guess it hasn't been for a long time) and every character starts with very similar starting stats.

In the end, it is basically a stat array with a bit of variation.

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This edition is pushing you to have a better stat spread. And not just focus on primary stat. It has lessened the impact of a 18, or a 22 but made it worth a whole lot more to branch out and have multiple 18's. I would rather 18 18 18 14 10 8 then 22 16 14 12 10 8.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

definitely a design choice; the entire design of p2 seems to center around having minimal variation between different characters of the same level. Not just attack rolls, but also stuff like defenses, ac, skill rolls, there's very very few ways to modify them, and they're all tightly regulated. No more stuff like skill focus to get a +3 to one skill.
So the expected values for say, a lvl 10 rogue, will be very similar no matter how they're built.

It also makes me wonder though: where's the 11? with the default rules you can't get 11 in a stat. The numbers are chosen for purely legacy reasons; but odd numbers below 18 basically don't exist in the new stats system. Seems odd to use numbers like this but then ignore half of them. For us long-term users we know it exists for legacy reasons/compatibility; but for a new player, one might wonder why the intervening numbers can't exist.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Perreault wrote:


18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

As someone who actually played a fair bit of 4th Ed., I need to call out this hyperbole. Gamers tend to exaggerate the effect of character building decisions, but there were many character builds that involved unique race/class combinations that didn't have perfect offensive attributes (the old Eladrin Barbarian Fey Charger comes to mind). Being at a -1 on everything was an annoyance, but in 4e what mattered most was your feat/power/gear choices, not your initial attributes, as long as you were playing to win (i.e., not building a 10 Str. Fighter).

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing something similar. Want an optimal offensive attribute? Here. It's easy. Want to be more well-rounded? Also easy. We're seeing, with all the math tightening, that level, item, power, and circumstance bonuses matter more than having an optimized offensive stat array, which is a good thing. Time will tell if that +1 really matters at high levels, but IF the difference between having an 18 and a 16 (or a 22 and a 20) at high levels is the difference between a playable and unplayable character, then PF2 would really be a failed system.

While I'm on the subject, that specific Eladrin Fey Charger build was a perfect example of what character customization should feel like. You took a race/class combination that didn't seem effective, along with an under-utilized weapon set, and gave them all combined a really cool synergy that played to their unique strengths in a way that produced a viable character that actually seemed like a unique entity. I wish we could see more elements of that kind of design in PF2.

The Exchange

Davor wrote:
Philippe Perreault wrote:


18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

As someone who actually played a fair bit of 4th Ed., I need to call out this hyperbole. Gamers tend to exaggerate the effect of character building decisions, but there were many character builds that involved unique race/class combinations that didn't have perfect offensive attributes (the old Eladrin Barbarian Fey Charger comes to mind). Being at a -1 on everything was an annoyance, but in 4e what mattered most was your feat/power/gear choices, not your initial attributes, as long as you were playing to win (i.e., not building a 10 Str. Fighter).

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing something similar. Want an optimal offensive attribute? Here. It's easy. Want to be more well-rounded? Also easy. We're seeing, with all the math tightening, that level, item, power, and circumstance bonuses matter more than having an optimized offensive stat array, which is a good thing. Time will tell if that +1 really matters at high levels, but IF the difference between having an 18 and a 16 (or a 22 and a 20) at high levels is the difference between a playable and unplayable character, then PF2 would really be a failed system.

While I'm on the subject, that specific Eladrin Fey Charger build was a perfect example of what character customization should feel like. You took a race/class combination that didn't seem effective, along with an under-utilized weapon set, and gave them all combined a really cool synergy that played to their unique strengths in a way that produced a viable character that actually seemed like a unique entity. I wish we could see more elements of that kind of design in PF2.

I didn't play a lot of 4E and I was going by what I was told so i'm going to take your word for it.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
rooneg wrote:
Gloom wrote:

Just doing some basic math.. you can start at level 1 as a Human Fighter with:

18 Strength
12 Dexterity
18 Constitution
10 Intelligence
12 Wisdom
10 Charisma

No you can't. You can only get one 18 because your class only gives you one boost (in STR or DEX for a Fighter, not both). The highest your second best stat can be is a 16.

My bad, you right. Still, doesn't change too much in terms of what you're capable of doing. Just ends up increasing one of the off-stats and reducing the cap for your secondary stat to 20 instead of 22. Not really a hindrance.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Still leaves you with the following possible options.

22 Strength
18 Dexterity
20 Constitution
12 Intelligence
18 Wisdom
12 Charisma

22 Strength
18 Dexterity
18 Constitution
14 Intelligence
18 Wisdom
14 Charisma

Means that if you wanted to, you could either use the +2 Strength item.. or you 'could' end up changing your stat block to increase the Charisma or Intelligence slightly.. lowering the total to 10 on another lower stat.. and then boosting it to 18 with a magic item. Effectively gaining some extra stats.

If you REALLY wanted to optimize things, you could always make use of a racial disadvantage and a magic item to squeeze out an extra 2 points.

Dwarven Fighter for example.. you could start with:

18 Strength
12 Dexterity
16 Constitution
10 Intelligence
14 Wisdom
8 Charisma

And then by 20 you could end up getting to:

22 Strength
18 Dexterity
18 Constitution
16 Intelligence
18 Wisdom
8 Charisma (18 Charisma with Boost Item)


Philippe Perreault wrote:

Anybody who just read the character creation rules can understand how to get 18 in their primary stat.

I was wondering if this was a design choice? Because I think it's a poor choice overall.

You have to wait 10 whole levels before stats boost does something relevant and even then, it gives you a measly +1 bonus. You don't have a sense of progression that you get everywhere else on your character.

18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

Nowadays, every fighter and their uncle have 18 in strenght. 18 is the the new normal?

I'm wondering if it's really what we want for the game.

I suggest that 18 should be something to strive for. If you want 18 at the get-go it should cost you. I'm thinking it should cost you a general feat or an ancestry feat. The time it took you to develop those muscles (or brain or charm) in your youth is the time that you didn't spend on something else like weapon training or train your keen eyes.

And if you don't have 18? Well, stats boost will give you a direct benefit until you reach 18. You have 5 level tops where you are 1 point behind the better a humanoid can achieve. Best of all, it gives you a sense of advancement.

Am I the only one who think that 18 is too easily achievable?

I really like the design stat rules in PF2. To be clear I am an old school gamer that has been playing D&D and RPGS for 25+ years. I think the design that PF2 and many new RPGs are embracing that players even if they are fledging adventurers are not just average people but are larger-than-life heroes-the stuff that legends will be woven from is the correct approach. I think this philosophy especially holds true for a fantasy game because the genre owes just as much to the likes of Robert E. Howard's Conan and Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and The Gray Mouser characters as it does Tolkien's more mundane protagonist.

I think this need to have everything be as difficult as possible on PCs and PCs have to actually roll stats and be stuck with subpar scores, etcetera is steeped in the OSR school of gaming, which to be clear I am not belittling or edition warring, but I think the changes that have taken place in design philosophy over the years is good. PF2 is just adopting what most games have embraced: heroes are not just average joes they are truly heroic in abilities if not in reputation (yet).

The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.


The example ability arrays in the playtest rulebook aren't that different form the expected array for 4d6 drop lowest: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Having a series of boosts is a nice middle ground that avoids points but keeps it controlled and locks the abilities to values have meaningful consequences (multiples of 2). It ain't bad at all.

Stormbinder wrote:
The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.

This could be implemented with a short mention in the GMing section about adjusting the overall power level by adjusting the base ability block before any boosts. Like if you want everyone to start out "normal" the abilities all start at 8 instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sort of got the same impression when I first listened to a playtest video with Jason Bulmahn when he described the pregens to the players and each had an 18 in their primary stat. I've since pulled away from that impression mostly because I realized I'm going to have to recalibrate my expectations about nearly everything because I have so little working knowledge of how the game's math works.

The number 18 in and of itself is meaningless without context. It's possible the context that you (OP) are working off of is the old paradigm of 18 being a big-dog stat level which has been the case since old school D&D up through 3.x and 5e (I've never read the 4e rules so I can't comment). I am reserving judgment until I've read the playtest material more thoroughly and have played a game or two before I judge whether that '18' really feels like or is as meaningful as the old '18.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A thing I'm really glad to see gone from PF1 is "certain characters starting with 20 in their main stat", personally.


Finally no more discussions about having 5 in CHA and being a mute and super ackward in social situations.
I can have my 18 in STR, or 16, and still be completely useful. Also game will consider a starting 18 as base stat, so it won't be "super powerful".

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I appreciate the majority opinion may have changed over the last few decades, so that high stats are seen as merely 'adequate', I would prefer that the baseline play be set at 'normal people' (with the option to allow higher stats), than at 'offspring of the gods' (with the option to play with lower stats).

It's always been a lot easier for a GM to relax a requirement, than to tighten one.
If the printed baseline is grim and dangerous, the GM appears generous when they allow better stats.
If the baseline is 'godlike', the players react to lower stats, as if the GM is taking something away from them.
And with some players, this can cause tension before a campaign even begins.

Neither play style is 'better' than the other; it just makes it easier to propose a change of pace, if it's taken as a glass twice as full, than a glass half empty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Perreault wrote:

Anybody who just read the character creation rules can understand how to get 18 in their primary stat.

I was wondering if this was a design choice? Because I think it's a poor choice overall.

You have to wait 10 whole levels before stats boost does something relevant and even then, it gives you a measly +1 bonus. You don't have a sense of progression that you get everywhere else on your character.

In another thread, someone pointed out that this game gives too many ability score boosts. If you start the game as a gentle but strong paladin with Str 14, by 10th level you end up with an 18 Strength, which is typically depicted as being rippling with muscles.

I mean, the game increases all sorts of other stats to represent skill improving. You shouldn't need to increase your ability scores in order to get a more powerful character. If your ability scores were flat for the whole length of your adventuring career, that'd be fine to me. You could still depict character growth through skills and proficiencies.

Honestly, a 14 in your key stat vs an 18 in your key stat will noticeably lower your power, but in a well-designed system that trade-off would be worth it due to greater versatility.

Lower strength, but higher Int should give a fighter more options for what he does with his strength. Lower dexterity but higher wisdom for a rogue should help you get out of scrapes, even if you're less imminently deadly.

The game should have ways to 'win encounters' that don't care simply about to-hit percentages and damage-per-round. Spellcasters already have a ton of options; martial characters should get some too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the new stat system.

Historically, an average score for a stat was 10-11. PF1 characters had a 12 average to represent them being a cut above the average joe. Now characters have an average starting stat of 13. It feels like power creep for the sake of marketing.

A lot of people want to be able to play characters that are good at everything, but that's not interesting from a story standpoint. Characters should have strengths and weaknesses.

I liked that if you wanted an 18 (or even a 20) at level 1, you had to sacrifice other stats. It made 18 not entirely practical for some characters (and unfortunately highly practical for casters).

The way to fix SAD characters is to make ALL attributes matter for all characters. If you STILL want an 18, then you have to make a meaningful sacrifice.

The biggest issue I have with the game is that the trope of being exceptional at one stat while crippled in another is not playable. If you want an 18, you can have one with almost zero consequences for doing so and you can't get any higher at level 1, which means most characters are going to have an 18 at level 1, which means it isn't special.

Then, on the other side, a stat lower than 8 can only be achieved by voluntarily dumping your stats with zero benefit. Unless you are playing in a group where everyone does this, you are going to be weaker than everyone else in the party. This isn't fun for anyone, as your character becomes a liability for the party and they give no meaningful benefit in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think one of the issues that people are running into when thinking about old numbers, is that an attribute at 18 is no longer considered 'Offspring of the Gods'.

Having an attribute at a 12-14 means that you are above average.
Having an attribute at a 16-18 means that you are well above average.
Having an attribute at a 20-22 means that you are the peak of your capabilities without magic.

In contrast to that I view an attribute of 10 as someone who is deadpan average. Someone who doesn't perform a day of physical labor in their lives would likely have something around a 10 Strength or Constitution.

Below that, an 8 means that you're at a disadvantage and considered below the average of what a human is capable of. This can be due to a forced disadvantage due to race or it could be due to an optional disadvantage that you took as a player. Either way, you're below human average.

Starting with an 18 means that you are well above average in an attribute, putting you at very solid starting position for your class. You are capable of starting lower in the 14-16 range if you want to spread your points out more but it is in no means mandatory.

When you pick up your adventuring career you aren't simply starting out as a random farmboy that picked up a sword. You trained to do whatever your class does. That's what picking up the class represents. If you have a background and ancestry that supports your primary class attribute, you're likely going to be starting at a 16-18 for that attribute.

You can choose to select a background that doesn't support your class or a race that isn't ideal for your class and end up starting at a 12-14 if that better fits your story.


Davor wrote:
Philippe Perreault wrote:


18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

As someone who actually played a fair bit of 4th Ed., I need to call out this hyperbole. Gamers tend to exaggerate the effect of character building decisions, but there were many character builds that involved unique race/class combinations that didn't have perfect offensive attributes (the old Eladrin Barbarian Fey Charger comes to mind). Being at a -1 on everything was an annoyance, but in 4e what mattered most was your feat/power/gear choices, not your initial attributes, as long as you were playing to win (i.e., not building a 10 Str. Fighter).

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing something similar. Want an optimal offensive attribute? Here. It's easy. Want to be more well-rounded? Also easy. We're seeing, with all the math tightening, that level, item, power, and circumstance bonuses matter more than having an optimized offensive stat array, which is a good thing. Time will tell if that +1 really matters at high levels, but IF the difference between having an 18 and a 16 (or a 22 and a 20) at high levels is the difference between a playable and unplayable character, then PF2 would really be a failed system.

While I'm on the subject, that specific Eladrin Fey Charger build was a perfect example of what character customization should feel like. You took a race/class combination that didn't seem effective, along with an under-utilized weapon set, and gave them all combined a really cool synergy that played to their unique strengths in a way that produced a viable character that actually seemed like a unique entity. I wish we could see more elements of that kind of design in PF2.

Well if you roll your stats as in method 2 then you could have a whole bunch of 11's if you rolled poorly. Actually the roll your stat method should give you a better starting set of numbers than straight 10's, and all you loose for starting out better is not getting 2 of the free boosts.


Ahlmzhad wrote:


Well if you roll your stats as in method 2 then you could have a whole bunch of 11's if you rolled poorly. Actually the roll your stat method should give you a better starting set of numbers than straight 10's, and all you loose for starting out better is not getting 2 of the free boosts.

This is incorrect. You lose the free boost from ancestry, the free boost from background, the 4 free boosts and the boost from your class. So you are looking at a total of 7 ability boosts lost by rolling your stats.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:
In another thread, someone pointed out that this game gives too many ability score boosts. If you start the game as a gentle but strong paladin with Str 14, by 10th level you end up with an 18 Strength, which is typically depicted as being rippling with muscles.

This was pointed out by our group as well as somewhere PF2e fell flat against other systems.

Specifically, you have a decent number of female gamers who want to play a female warrior but don't necessarily want to play one that's starting with an 18 Strength.

Sure you could always say "pretend that she looks like she's still lithe even though she behaves as she has this strength" but ultimately your subconscious makes you feel that if someone has an 18 Strength (the peak of Human potential at 1st level), there should be visible signs that they are that strong.

At any rate, you have this idea for a heroine warrioress who isn't giving off an Amazonian vibe...

"I know, I'll make a paladin archer..."

*looks at rules*

"Nevermind..."

Paladin was a nice class because you didn't need to overload Strength to be effective. The same is true for archery.

(I know the optimizers will always say the best choice was to max that Strength for both paladins and archery, which is correct - but the point here is you could be competitive without doing that).

Now it feels a little more like an MMO where your stat array doesn't really matter - it's like playing Warcraft where you don't really pay attention that your Strength is 932 (or whatever it is these days) and just accept because you picked X as your class, your stats will roughly always look like Y.


Gloom wrote:
I think one of the issues that people are running into when thinking about old numbers, is that an attribute at 18 is no longer considered 'Offspring of the Gods'.

It wasn't in PF1 either.

Quote:

"Having an attribute at a 12-14 means that you are above average.

Having an attribute at a 16-18 means that you are well above average.
Having an attribute at a 20-22 means that you are the peak of your capabilities without magic."

There is a LOT of narrative space between "well above average" and "peak of your capabilities without magic" for the modifier difference being 1.

Quote:
In contrast to that I view an attribute of 10 as someone who is deadpan average. Someone who doesn't perform a day of physical labor in their lives would likely have something around a 10 Strength or Constitution.

Below that, an 8 means that you're at a disadvantage and considered below the average of what a human is capable of. This can be due to a forced disadvantage due to race or it could be due to an optional disadvantage that you took as a player. Either way, you're below human average.

Starting with an 18 means that you are well above average in an attribute, putting you at very solid starting position for your class. You are capable of starting lower in the 14-16 range if you want to spread your points out more but it is in no means mandatory.

When you pick up your adventuring career you aren't simply starting out as a random farmboy that picked up a sword. You trained to do whatever your class does. That's what picking up the class represents. If you have a background and ancestry that supports your primary class attribute, you're likely going to be starting at a 16-18 for that attribute.

A "farmboy" picking up a sword in PF1 would have a 13 in STR. (Using the NPC array). The average strong fighter in PF1 would have had a 15 in STR (using the elite array).

Quote:
You can choose to select a background that doesn't support your class or a race that isn't ideal for your class and end up starting at a 12-14 if that better fits your story.

This isn't the problem. The problem is that the absent minded, yet highly intelligent character trope doesn't exist. The super strong, yet mentally stunted trope doesn't exist either. Average starting attributes for your core attribute are going to be 16 or 18, and there is nothing above that, until you have gained some levels.

Let's say I want to play a strong dumb guy trope and my friend wants to play an average strength based fighter.

I max out my STR and take a penalty to INT so I can have an 18 STR and a 6 INT. This maximizes my potential to play the character I want to play.

My friend wants to build an effective strength based fighter, so he puts his free stat bumps into STR because that's the stat that most benefits his character concept. He also gets an 18, but he doesn't dump INT.

My friend has now built an entirely better character than me without even attempting to do so.

My character concept is ruined because my friend wanted to play an optimal character, and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, besides beg the GM to let me break the rules, or convince my friend that he can't have an 18 STR because I wanted to play the strong dumb guy trope, and his character makes my character just a dumb guy.

In PF1, given the same situation, my friend probably stops at a 16 to have room for other decent stats, while I am free to have an 18 (or even a 20) in pursuit of my character concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Digging this thread :) stat arrays and the mechanical implications has always been important to me in RPGs - I feel like so much can be said about a character from stats alone, and it can create cool role-playing incentives when done right.

Personally, I fall into the grittier camp. In PF2, there seems to be a standard array of 18 16 12 12 10 10 [human] that most builds will choose - while not overpowered per se, it sets the baseline pretty high. I echo the sentiment that it is easier for a GM to up the power-level for players than to diminish it for a different style of game, and moreover if the math is built around that expectation right off the bat it makes it harder to use a generous array or point buy to neutralize reliance on magic items if you did want to play something grittier - other issues about weapon damage being tied to magic enhancements notwithstanding.

Not to mention that it feels pretty boring and/or flat to "roll" up a few characters and be essentially building off the same array every time - all the floating bonuses make it pretty easy to get what you want from the ABC system to the point where it basically doesn't matter what you choose.

It also feels weird to me to have stats increase so dramatically over the course of a character's career - personally I would like them to be more static - but it's not a deal breaker for me in any way, and it's a cool thing to look forward to getting more powerful as time goes on. Again it has been something that I keep in my back pocket for balancing out dependency on magic items ala PF1 automatic bonus progression, and now that it's strictly integrated it makes it hard to do that in PF2

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WillicarTheWizard wrote:

The example ability arrays in the playtest rulebook aren't that different form the expected array for 4d6 drop lowest: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Having a series of boosts is a nice middle ground that avoids points but keeps it controlled and locks the abilities to values have meaningful consequences (multiples of 2). It ain't bad at all.

Stormbinder wrote:
The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.
This could be implemented with a short mention in the GMing section about adjusting the overall power level by adjusting the base ability block before any boosts. Like if you want everyone to start out "normal" the abilities all start at 8 instead.

This sounds like a great idea to me. Have a starting number of 8 in all stats for Gritty fantasy; a starting number in all stats of 10 for Heroic fantasy; and a starting number in all stats of 12 for Legendary Fantasy. When creating NPCs you could use the tier 1 down from that used for PCs. Then you add the ancestry/background/class adjustments to the base array.

Grand Lodge

zlefin wrote:

definitely a design choice; the entire design of p2 seems to center around having minimal variation between different characters of the same level. Not just attack rolls, but also stuff like defenses, ac, skill rolls, there's very very few ways to modify them, and they're all tightly regulated. No more stuff like skill focus to get a +3 to one skill.

So the expected values for say, a lvl 10 rogue, will be very similar no matter how they're built.

It also makes me wonder though: where's the 11? with the default rules you can't get 11 in a stat. The numbers are chosen for purely legacy reasons; but odd numbers below 18 basically don't exist in the new stats system. Seems odd to use numbers like this but then ignore half of them. For us long-term users we know it exists for legacy reasons/compatibility; but for a new player, one might wonder why the intervening numbers can't exist.

They said in a panel at GenCon that the 18 point abilities were one of the legacy things that they could have easily dumped in favor of just tracking the bonuses... I forget why they said they kept it... I think because people seemed to prefer it how it's always been or something (and when you're jumping a single point at 18+ it matters... also matters a little if you're rolling I think, a person starting with an odd will get to 20 one stat boost earlier.)


I would also like that if you take -2 penalty to an ability.

Like start with 8 in an ability of 6 if you have racial penalty.

Some thing like +2 to ability. This ability cannot be 1st or 2nd highest.
I.E. at array of 18,16,14,12,10,8 you could reduce one ability by -2 and raise 14,12,10 or 8 by 2 points.

Or get one bonus general feat at 1st level.


Also, as there is no odd scores in the game ATM, why dont we get rid of 3-18 spread and make average 10 with 11 being +1 bonus, 12 being +2 bonus etc...


Igor Horvat wrote:
Also, as there is no odd scores in the game ATM, why dont we get rid of 3-18 spread and make average 10 with 11 being +1 bonus, 12 being +2 bonus etc...

An extension of that logic might be to completely discard the stat number system and replace it simply with bonuses. IE something like:

Str +3 (the old equivalent of a 16)
Dex -1 (the old equivalent of a 8)
Con +1 (the old equivalent of a 12)

Honestly I kinda like that :P It really keeps things tidy.


Zedth wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Also, as there is no odd scores in the game ATM, why dont we get rid of 3-18 spread and make average 10 with 11 being +1 bonus, 12 being +2 bonus etc...

An extension of that logic might be to completely discard the stat number system and replace it simply with bonuses. IE something like:

Str +3 (the old equivalent of a 16)
Dex -1 (the old equivalent of a 8)
Con +1 (the old equivalent of a 12)

Honestly I kinda like that :P It really keeps things tidy.

That is Dragon age RPG style which I also like. And using only d6 as dice. Dragon die mechanics are a bit mess.

I said 10 as a base because of d20 system and 10 is average on it.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / 18 in primary stat: design choice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game