| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my earliest critiques of D&D I can remember was the lack of ability to improve your stats. Why can't I work out and increase my physicals? Why can't I study or interact to improve my mentals? That kind of sucks, especially when my stats were "randomly" rolled anyway (oh come on, you know you all re-rolled a bunch and fudged a few things here and there, but still...).
When PF1 introduced a +1 point mechanic every 4 levels I was stunned. Whoa, this is really revolutionary! Well, let's dial that back a bit. This feels right. This is a good mechanic. Yes! Let's provide a way for a little bit of growth in stats just like we provide growth in Level, BAB, Spells, Feats, and the rest. Nice.
Now we are on PF2 and stats have evolved yet again. Well, for those of you who have not yet done the math, a human starts with nine stat improvements of +2 each. That's 18 points to distribute on top of six stats of ten base each. Now, it's not that simple with backgrounds, races, classes, and choices influencing distribution, but it does boil down to eighteen points.
With eight points added every five levels, here is PF2's math:
60 + 18 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 110 / 6 = 18.333...
Now, I love great stats as much as the next player, but having greater than all eighteens at level twenty feels like the realm of the absurd. The dynamic of immovable stats in the original versions has been completely inverted. For further investigation, here are the rest of the stat averages by level:
1: 60 + 18 = 78 / 6 = 13
5: 60 + 18 + 8 = 86 / 6 = 14.333...
10: 60 + 18 + 8 + 8 = 94 / 6 = 15.666...
15: 60 + 18 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 102 / 6 = 17
What does all this mean? Where is PF2 in relation to previous versions of the game? The glaring truth is... I'm not that good at statistics to tell you more than a 6 x 3d6 distribution = an average of 10.5. The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3. (Statistician please help, but) I think that's a tad less than an average of 13. PF1 with a 20 point buy as human gives you an average of 13.5. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that PF2 at level one is dialing stat averages back a tad. However, since the point buy system made high stats more expensive, PF2 is actually making having some high starting scores like eighteen much more feasible (and apparently necessary given the optimization assumptions).
Where is PF2 when you factor in progression? By level five, you are above the averages of past versions, even PF1's 25 point buy. By level fifteen, you are a perfectly well-rounded and powerful being, and by level twenty, you are above mentally and physically perfect beyond any human dream.
What does this mean for the game? I'll insert my opinion here. Verisimilitude for me is completely broken. With the tight math of the version, being expected to have an eighteen at level one is already stretching my roleplaying focus to be more game-y. Personally, I can get by that. I do love a big stat, an eighteen. I can live with being a bit greedy there. Getting eight more points to spread at level five though is pretty wild. I feel a little guilty about this. I'm not bad at anything. I'm super human now. Ok, I want to be super, so I can still live with this. By level ten, I can't overlook the level of growth. I can't explain it away. My stats no longer define my character and who they are. I'm just loaded with +'s. I'm a powerhouse at every stat and every skill, and so is everyone else at the table. There are still sixteen points of increases left.
Stat increases should be dialed back. This isn't just a numbers game. It's a roleplaying game. I don't want to make a blanket statement on why people play, crunchers vs. roleplayers, so I'll just point out the name of the genre - "RPG" - and assume the basic intent to some degree is to live or play out a fantasy role. What's the fantasy in having eighteens or above in every single stat? I won't deny there are a handful of people right now drooling at the concept, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think most people come to the table to have success on every roll guaranteed, one shot dragons, and rule the world. I personally need to face more challenge to enjoy any of that success, and I think the rest of you do, too.
What do you think of that stat situation in PF2?
Back when 4E was first starting, I was put off a good bit by the Swordmage class. It was the gish combo warrior/mage class, and its attack stat was Intelligence. The math of the game basically required you to advance your main stat at all opportunities, yet my vision of a combo warrior/mage doesn't lend itself towards having the warrior/mage be precisely as intelligent as a full-fledged mage. What to do?
It bothered me until I just let the character-defining importance of stats go. They define what you can do in relation to specific tasks asked by the game, but they only define your vision of your character if you let them. Ergo, a high-level Swordmage's numbers get higher and remain level-appropriate, but do not signify his IQ getting higher.
It's similar to the conceptual issues that crop up when you lump swimming and climbing under a single skill. How do you define an expert climber from a desert environment who has never before seen more than two gallons of water at a time, let alone swam before? Easy. Just say your character's attempt to swim involves holding his arms as rigid as a board and deliberately exhaling all the air out of his lungs. No, it does not, in fact, matter that your character has a +19 to Athletics and that technically governs your ability to swim; you're not staying afloat with that methodology.
So if you don't want your character to be unrealistically superhuman, then just put the numbers where they need to be for the sake of the game math and ignore whatever impact doesn't fit your vision of the character.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF2 stat boosts (and lvl 1 stat assignments) go a fair way toward mitigating MAD worries for certain classes.
PF2’s initial stat assignments also make character construction more “new player proof”, by making it harder to accidentally choose an untenable stat line.
And the different way races contribute to stats in PF2 makes things like, say, a Halfling Barbarian or a Dwarven Sorceror viable (unlike PF1).
So, on the whole, I think it’s a much better system than PF1’s.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, verisimiltude breaking was the fact that no matter how many times you swung your sword, you never got any stronger; no matter how much danger you jump out of the way of, you never got any more dextrous; no matter how many physical ordeals you endure, you never got any tougher; no matter what you learn in the course of your adventures, you never got any smarter or wiser; et cetera.
Letting people increase one attribute as they level was a start, but it never made sense to me when characters grew in exactly one way regardless of what they experienced.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think of that stat situation in PF2?
I personally like it. First of all, some of those numbers you list for average stats is a bit bloated, given that above 18, stat boosts only give +1 instead of +2. So assuming you have an 18 in a stat and a 16 in another, and you want to improve both, it's more like
1: 18/16/14/12/10/8 or whatever, for an average of 13
5: 19/18/14/14/10/10, for 14.1667
10: 20/19/16/14/12/10, for 15.1667
15: 21/20/18/14/14/10 for 16.1667, or if you assume a +2 item, 16.5
20: 22/20/18/16/16/12 for 17.3333, or 17.6667 if you assume a +2 item.
But I suspect this is just dancing around the point you're trying to make, which I think comes down to a difference in what the numbers signify, and what level signifies. To me, the numbers are less tied to their position on a dice distribution curve, since I haven't rolled for stats in ages, and more what the numbers, especially modifiers, represent. To me, a +4 represents true natural talent. Great thinkers, great athletes, ect would fit in here, as would people who are just savants in a given discipline. For most adventurers, it makes some degree of sense that you're in this category, as they're the heroes. Adventurers are not a very representative sample of the population (especially PCs, as adventurers also include the folks who never wind up slaying a dragon or stopping a demon incursion or what not), and the fact that you're never in this catagory in multiple areas until you've proven yourself as an adventurer is a nice touch. +5 to me is peak human(oid) skill, at which point you'll find your smartest, strongest, most agile people in the world. The fact that you can't reach this until after you're in "master" tier (i.e. where you find most of the boosts that get you to master proficiency in a thing), fits well for me. Then +6 goes beyond Human, and either by magic or just being a level 20 character (who is effectively closer to demigodhood), you can't reach this peak until you are a legend (i.e. you're in "legendary" tier). And lastly +7 you can't achieve without both magic and being effectively a demigod.
To me, that's absolutely fine. And the fact that it's not just your primary ability score that increases, but some of your others as well, is absolutely fine with me. It groks with my idea that a legendary warrior might also be more smart or charming than an average person (although, if you want, you can also not have that, if you just want to leave your Cha and Int at 10 and never boost them). But I suspect that this also comes down to what level means. To me, I think the Tiered way paizo is doing things works pretty well for what I want to see, though maybe a tier between master and legendary would fit better for me, pushing master down a little, and legendary up a little, but at the peak of the level system, you're beyond the level of most mortals and are approaching demigodhood (or at the very least, the stories told at the table, aren't the absolute record of events, but the versions sung of by bards after the fact). Sometimes this means, if I want a certain feel, I scale back leveling or use E6 or E8 to keep the campaign within a certain maximum power level. And that's fine with me. But if your conceptualization differs, I guess I can see the issue, but I don't think this is a major shift, in terms of PF1e to PF2e, but the fact that most games didn't really go to high levels, in part because some of the math of the system didn't work as well at those levels, or a variety of other factors. The point being I don't see this as something new to pathfinder.
Also, I'm a bit incredulous about your last paragraph:
Stat increases should be dialed back. This isn't just a numbers game. It's a roleplaying game. I don't want to make a blanket statement on why people play, crunchers vs. roleplayers, so I'll just point out the name of the genre - "RPG" - and assume the basic intent to some degree is to live or play out a fantasy role. What's the fantasy in having eighteens or above in every single stat? I won't deny there are a handful of people right now drooling at the concept, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think most people come to the table to have success on every roll guaranteed, one shot dragons, and rule the world. I personally need to face more challenge to enjoy any of that success, and I think the rest of you do, too.
(Emphasis Mine)
I don't see this as more true in PF2e than PF1e. In fact I see the reverse. Success on (pretty much) every roll by high level was something you could do in 1e, if you specialized, and I can guarantee that you can't one shot dragons even at level 20 (ok maybe a young one, but that's just wanton bullying), whereas Rocket Tag was certainly a thing in 1e, past a certain point.
Also the part about it not being "just a numbers game"? Rolling 4d6 rerolling 1s, and picking the highest, in a system that assumed 3d6 (I can't remember if 2E, assuming based on the 80s bit, officially dropped the "in order" thing, yet or not), and admitting that people still rerolled or fudged their numbers anyway, really make me confused about this statement.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.
Minor nitpick, but I think it was still Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha back then, if my memory serves right.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor nitpick, but I think it was still Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha back then, if my memory serves right.The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.
You forgot comeliness!
Yeah, also, by 1985, Unearthed Arcana was out, with an obscene human ability score generation method, by class.The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.By the '80s, pure "3d6 in order" was a sign of a hard-core 'tough guy' player. IME the norm was 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as desired.
The DMG, (1979), admits 3d6 in order is probably a bad idea and recommends one of these four:
1: 6 X 4d6 dropping lowest, arrange.
2: 12 X 3d6, take best 6 results, arrange
3: 6 X 3d6, take best result, for each ability in order.
4: 6 X 3d6, in order, do 12 times and select preferred set.1: To be honest, it was really designed for how the Lake Geneva crowd played. Players having multiple characters was the norm plus characters were often unavailable for that day's game, (Bigby's still doing spell research and Elmo's busy supervising the building of his watchtower so I'll roll someone new up²).
2: As a rule of thumb, if you ran into a "retired adventurer" in a '70s/early '80s TSR adventure it was probably someone's character from the games Gary Gygax was involved in who really had retired to command a militia/run an inn/rule somewhere/etc.).
Your talking about the one that was like 9 dice for most important and slowly scaling down losing a die each time right?
That was the only way we ever did it. Our DM liked us to be tough so he could attack us with ridiculous things.
I understand the OP, with 4 stats to choose at a stat increase level, it feels more like you choose 2 stats that you don't want to increase.
I like being able to raise more than one stat. 4 however will take some getting used to.
I understand the OP, with 4 stats to choose at a stat increase level, it feels more like you choose 2 stats that you don't want to increase.
I like being able to raise more than one stat. 4 however will take some getting used to.
I myself will probably do it to just constantly shore up weaknesses and then some of the choices will be for role-play. one character I may never touch Int then another might have all of his stats get a turn depending on how im playing them.
Yes, I implemented it once in a campaign (Dragonlance/Taladas), everyone chose human, and I have not used it since.Yeah, also, by 1985, Unearthed Arcana was out, with an obscene human ability score generation method, by class.The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.By the '80s, pure "3d6 in order" was a sign of a hard-core 'tough guy' player. IME the norm was 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as desired.
The DMG, (1979), admits 3d6 in order is probably a bad idea and recommends one of these four:
1: 6 X 4d6 dropping lowest, arrange.
2: 12 X 3d6, take best 6 results, arrange
3: 6 X 3d6, take best result, for each ability in order.
4: 6 X 3d6, in order, do 12 times and select preferred set.1: To be honest, it was really designed for how the Lake Geneva crowd played. Players having multiple characters was the norm plus characters were often unavailable for that day's game, (Bigby's still doing spell research and Elmo's busy supervising the building of his watchtower so I'll roll someone new up²).
2: As a rule of thumb, if you ran into a "retired adventurer" in a '70s/early '80s TSR adventure it was probably someone's character from the games Gary Gygax was involved in who really had retired to command a militia/run an inn/rule somewhere/etc.).
Your talking about the one that was like 9 dice for most important and slowly scaling down losing a die each time right?
That was the only way we ever did it. Our DM liked us to be tough so he could attack us with ridiculous things.
It was the only way we ever played 1st edition. that dm had a lot of peculiarities. for one he hated modules any pre-planned campaigns really. Wouldn't play in them either. Also wouldn't allow the monk (but to be fair it was borderline unplayable in 1st.) Oh and you pretty much had to have an 18 for your main stat if you somehow didn't roll 18 with your 9 dice you'd make a whole new character. I asked why not just go ahead and give them an 18 since that's what it amounted too but I never did get a solid answer.
It was the only way we ever played 1st edition. that dm had a lot of peculiarities. for one he hated modules any pre-planned campaigns really. Wouldn't play in them either. Also wouldn't allow the monk (but to be fair it was borderline unplayable in 1st.) Oh and you pretty much had to have an 18 for your main stat if you somehow didn't roll 18 with your 9 dice you'd make a whole new character. I asked why not just go ahead and give them an 18 since that's what it amounted too but I never did get a solid answer.Yes, AD&D certainly can differ wildly, from table to table. I tend not to run modules, but I love the Monk, my buddy played one and got along fine. It's important to know about the clarification that the Monk attacks on the Cleric table.
Well the biggest problem I think was with the way we rolled stats any combat class tended to have a high stat (str mostly) so it was expected. however for some reason it specified the 1st edition monk did not recieve a str or dex bonus at all. so 2 things you started out doing a flat d4 (my memories foggy it could have been less)and your ac started out at 10 with no way to improve it except leveling. It was hard to survive the first levels. I don't know why he didn't house rule away that restriction. It made no sense.
You really can't compare 3rd and later editions to 2nd (before tomes) stat wise, because the former are a lot more boardgamey and a lot less narrative.Yeah, that too, and ability scores usually need to be at 15+ before you get a bonus in AD&D. The ability score bonuses in Basic start earlier. The 3rd Ed/d20 ability score bonus system debuted in 4th Ed Gamma World, and suddenly a 12 is good.
I always loved the logic oh a 15 thats not so bad.. then why does it give me the exact same bonus as a 10? Go gamma world! I think I still have one of those books hanging out in one of my book cases somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By level ten, I can't overlook the level of growth. I can't explain it away. My stats no longer define my character and who they are.
Think of any time in the past when you've described a level 10 character to someone. At what point do you start describing the stats? Sure, they come up occasionally, but usually only if they deviate from the norm.
For example, I had a Dwarven druid in a Kingmaker campaign. He had a bear animal companion, and was one of the few characters to survive the whole campaign to the end. For a while, my bear even served as the king's executioner.
Now, I haven't given a deep explanation of the character there, but you're starting to get an idea of who he is... and I have yet to tell you a single stat that he had.
Stats (in this game) are actually a really poor definition of who characters are. Race, class, alignment, and events that happen in the game go much further to explain who the character is. Yes, stats influence many of those things, but they don't define those things. My Wisdom score might influence whether I make a vital perception check, but if it's a vital check, I probably only made it because I had max ranks, and perhaps some bonuses from other sources as well. My Wisdom is a factor, but it's one of many factors.
Your character isn't your Strength score. Your character is your Race, Class, Background, and Alignment combination.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, Ability scores matter quite a lot, with a high Int character being a very different person than a low Int one on any number of levels.
That said, high level PCs getting omnicompetent in the style of pulp heroes seems to me eminently appropriate for Pathfinder's genre and Golarion's milieu.
For example, creating Conan, as per the books, in PF1 involved NPC options like the Advanced Simple Template. I'm quite pleased you can just make him in PF2 without worrying about that. I mean, Conan is somewhere between 5th and 9th level in all likelihood, that means you can give him the following stats:
Str 18, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14.
That's much more appropriate to him than any set you could've arranged via PC options in PF1. I'm fully on board with it.
My Wisdom score might influence whether I make a vital perception check, but if it's a vital check, I probably only made it because I had max ranks, and perhaps some bonuses from other sources as well. My Wisdom is a factor, but it's one of many factors.
Your character isn't your Strength score. Your character is your Race, Class, Background, and Alignment combination.
This is not as true in PF2e in a lot of cases. Against static checks, at higher levels, yes, this is still correct, level matters more than stat. The new Untrained value also means that getting that first level of proficiency is a big deal (thank you Paizo, great change).
However, once Trained, against a lot of near even level tasks, your stat will make up a significant portion of your chance of success. Using your perception example, at level 10, against an even level critter who is an expert in Stealth with an 18 dex a Wisdom 12 Druid would need to roll a 14 or higher. A wisdom 20 Druid would need a 10. That is better than 1.5 times as effective. Your wisdom counts for 5 of the 11 numbers that succeed vs 1 of 7 for the lower stat character.
Are you telling me there's going to be a lot of druids running around with a 12 Wisdom, at the same level that they could have a 20 Wisdom? In other words, in PF2, are you telling me that this is a normal range of Wisdom scores for druids of the same level?
Not only are you using inaccurate numbers, you're choosing your statistics in a way to accentuate that difference.
Interesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this system should be a bit more granular. The huge power spikes at these multiple of 5 levels + the power spikes from levels where characters get potency runes and the fact that monsters and challenges immediately account for all of these really makes off-level challenges either too easy or too hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adnd we played we 3d6 in order for like a year before switching to 3d6 (min 6) but picking where to put what.
But Adnd was a ton more narrative than anything 3rd and later editions managed to pull.
You really can't compare 3rd and later editions to 2nd (before tomes) stat wise, because the former are a lot more boardgamey and a lot less narrative.
My 2nd edition experience was very different than yours. 3rd as well, apparently.
3rd, in general, had a significant increase in narrative.
1st and 2nd largely centered on
'behind the door is a corridor'
traps/monsters/treasure
next door
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adnd we played we 3d6 in order for like a year before switching to 3d6 (min 6) but picking where to put what.
But Adnd was a ton more narrative than anything 3rd and later editions managed to pull.
You really can't compare 3rd and later editions to 2nd (before tomes) stat wise, because the former are a lot more boardgamey and a lot less narrative.
My 2nd edition experience was very different than yours. 3rd as well, apparently.
3rd, in general, had a significant increase in narrative.
1st and 2nd largely centered on
'behind the door is a corridor'
traps/monsters/treasure
next door
My 2nd edition players only managed a game every three months at most and couldn't be bothered to remember character sheets or storyline, so while I came up with narratives, each game session always turned into a loot quest one shot. It's not an issue with the system, only the players I had back then. By the time I got reliable players I had also moved to World of Darkness games, so 2nd never got a chance at redemption.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
<Snip> Now we are on PF2 and stats have evolved yet again. Well, for those of you who have not yet done the math, a human starts with nine stat improvements of +2 each. That's 18 points to distribute on top of six stats of ten base each. Now, it's not that simple with backgrounds, races, classes, and choices influencing distribution, but it does boil down to eighteen points.
With eight points added every five levels, here is PF2's math:
60 + 18 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 110 / 6 = 18.333...
Now, I love great stats as much as the next player, but having greater than all eighteens at level twenty feels like the realm of the absurd. The dynamic of immovable stats in the original versions has been completely inverted. For further investigation, here are the rest of the stat averages by level:
1: 60 + 18 = 78 / 6 = 13
5: 60 + 18 + 8 = 86 / 6 = 14.333...
10: 60 + 18 + 8 + 8 = 94 / 6 = 15.666...
15: 60 + 18 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 102 / 6 = 17What does all this mean? Where is PF2 in relation to previous versions of the game? <snip>
I don't think you're actually looking at the entire picture here.
In Pathfinder 1 (and 3rd edition), the +1 per 4 levels was a relatively minor portion of your ability score advancement, as most of it came from magic items. By 20th, you don't have 5 x +1 adjustments, you have 5 x +1 adjustments, a belt of at least +6/+4/+2, a headband of +6/+4/+2 (or at least +6 Wis), and then up to a +5 inherent bonus to stats via wish or tome/manuals, depending entirely on your wealth and access to magic item creation/markets.
And if you look at what people improved, it was usually unidimensional: Fighters got stronger, wizards got smarter, rogues got more dextrous, clerics got wiser. At every opportunity. Raising other stats largely occured due to the exponential magic item scaling meaning that when one simply couldn't afford to raise their primary stat, putting some chump change into a making a secondary stat better was worthwhile.
For Pathfinder 1 (20pt gen + Automatic Bonus Progression):
1st: 60+16+2 = 78/6 = 13
5th: 60+16+2+1 = 79/6 = 13.17
10th: 60+16+2+2+2+2 = 84/6 = 14
15th: 60+16+2+3+6+2+4+2 = 95/6 = 15.83
20th: 60+16+2+5+6+6+6+6+6+6+7 = 126/6 = 21
One of Pathfinder 1's issues was that the effectiveness of a character varied wildly even within the same level, and a major contributor of that was how magic items worked - they contributed an enormous amount to the effectiveness of a character, but they were essentially a "point generation" component of a level based system. The ABP primarily served to curb the power variation somewhat by attaching the Big 6 directly to character level, rather than gold pieces.
Pathfinder 2 took this a step further - ironically, the same step I did in my house rules - and rolled the ability score advancements one would typically see from magic items over 20 levels directly into the level based ability bumps.
That being said, there is an issue with the math: I've assumed characters with 20pt gen would take a 14/14/14/14/10/10 array and let their racial +2 (average) boost one to 16. You've assumed that players would always apply a stat boost to an ability score that is under 18, which is a very big assumption and typically wrong. Many, if not most, characters will attempt to get one or two stats to at least 20, if not 22, reducing the effective increase by 20th by 4 to 6 points. I.e. By 20th level the average would be closer to 17.33 to 17.67, rather than 18.33.
The issue I have with PF2 ability scores is the inflexibility of the system: If you want to hit 22 in a stat, ever, you must start play with an 18, which you can only have in your class's key ability. Additionally, as raising stats over 18 basically means getting no benefit from an ability bump for another 5 levels (as it becomes a mere +1), it pushes for characters to focus on one ability score to take over 18, and then to try to raise as many as possible up to 18. Which makes for somewhat more homogeneous character stat-lines than is to my taste.
1st) Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
5th) Str 19, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 10
10th) Str 20, Dex 18, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 10
15th) Str 21, Dex 18, Con 19, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 12
20th) Str 22, Dex 18, Con 20, Int 12, Wis 18, Cha 14
Human blacksmith turned paladin:
1st) Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 14
5th) Str 19, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16
10th) Str 20, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 18
15th) Str 21, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 19
20th) Str 22, Dex 18, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 20
Human blacksmith turned cleric*:
1st) Str 16, Dex 12, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 14
5th) Str 18, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 16
10th) Str 18, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 19, Cha 18
15th) Str 19, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 19
20th) Str 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 20, Cha 20
Human blacksmith turned rogue:
1st) Str 10, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
5th) Str 10, Dex 19, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 14
10th) Str 10, Dex 20, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 16
15th) Str 10, Dex 21, Con 18, Int 16, Wis 18, Cha 16
20th) Str 12, Dex 22, Con 18, Int 18, Wis 18, Cha 18
If given the choice, players will usually try to focus on raising their main stat (whichever they feel is the most important) above any other. This can cause issues with silly numbers if unrestricted, but I feel that Pathfinder 2 goes too far in restricting the maximum attainable ability score (18 at 1st to 22 at 20th). It also is far too spikey for my taste, being a huge jump every 5 levels, rather than small iterations.
Suggested Alternatives:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does this mean for the game? I'll insert my opinion here. Verisimilitude for me is completely broken. With the tight math of the version, being expected to have an eighteen at level one is already stretching my roleplaying focus to be more game-y. Personally, I can get by that. I do love a big stat, an eighteen. I can live with being a bit greedy there. Getting eight more points to spread at level five though is pretty wild. I feel a little guilty about this. I'm not bad at anything. I'm super human now. Ok, I want to be super, so I can still live with this. By level ten, I can't overlook the level of growth. I can't explain it away. My stats no longer define my character and who they are. I'm just loaded with +'s. I'm a powerhouse at every stat and every skill, and so is everyone else at the table. There are still sixteen points of increases left.
Stat increases should be dialed back. This isn't just a numbers game. It's a roleplaying game. I don't want to make a blanket statement on why people play, crunchers vs. roleplayers, so I'll just point out the name of the genre - "RPG" - and assume the basic intent to some degree is to live or play out a fantasy role. What's the fantasy in having eighteens or above in every single stat?
I agree, I'd be much happier going back to more frequent stat boosts (every 4 levels) and have them be +1 only.
At level 10 your PC is no longer defined by their stats, they are just an amorphous blob that is good at everything. Level 15 and 20, everything is 18 and 20. I don't like it at all.
I just bolded your statements that I particularly agree with. Thanks for posting this, if we had more frequent but smaller increases, it would address all of my concerns.
For example, creating Conan, as per the books, in PF1 involved NPC options like the Advanced Simple Template. I'm quite pleased you can just make him in PF2 without worrying about that. I mean, Conan is somewhere between 5th and 9th level in all likelihood, that means you can give him the following stats:
Str 18, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14.
Yes, but he didn't achieve that by huge personal growth after his initial training. It's not like he was level 9 and became a genius, or he was clumsy before, or he wasn't healthy or strong before. He had those stats already, his adventures just gave him skills.
I agree, I'd be much happier going back to more frequent stat boosts (every 4 levels) and have them be +1 only.Me too, the +2 increase in 5th Ed is too much for me - with array/point buy, guaranteed that 20 by 4th, 6th, or 8th level.
Question: Is that advancement (+1 per 4 levels) including the removal of all magic items that boost ability scores? Or do you prefer ability score improvement via magic items over ability score improvement via character growth/experience?
Are you telling me there's going to be a lot of druids running around with a 12 Wisdom, at the same level that they could have a 20 Wisdom? In other words, in PF2, are you telling me that this is a normal range of Wisdom scores for druids of the same level?
Not only are you using inaccurate numbers, you're choosing your statistics in a way to accentuate that difference.
Stats are a poor definition of a character, so why should two different Druids not have a 12 and 20 Wisdom?
Actually, you told me I should use a 12 wisdom vs a 20 wisdom in my comparison, since you said:
Where did I tell you to compare a 12 and 20? I've double checked my post, and I don't think I did. I don't see those numbers anywhere in my post. Also, in PF2's system, I don't think that that is a reasonable range to compare for two characters of the same race, class, and background combination. Do you think that two druid characters of the same race, class, and background combination could end up with a 12 and 20 Wisdom?
+1 per 4 levels; any magic item that boosts should not be assumed (a rare bonus). I would prefer magic items not be essential to character growth.So you desire lower total growth, and especially want to keep the scores that start lower more onerous to improve to a higher value.I would like less total growth (though, +1 to four scores is a lot, to me), and not multiples 20s, It would be nice to keep your max stat at 16 and be fine (if you want a more rounded character). I have never really liked arrays like 20, 18, 18, 12, 10, 8.
PF2 is digging on big numbers, overall, it would seem.
Perhaps it is simply because I am more accustomed to 3.X and Pathfinder 1, but having the maximum ability score attainable being 22 by 20th level is... not a big number. I am accustomed to a system where 20th level enlarged raging barbarians charging into combat with a Strength of 40 or more, and that is without doing anything particularly obscure.
By comparison, Pathfinder 2 seems to be pushing for much lower numbers on both ability scores and damage overall. Which is fair, given that I've been in too many games where it turns into complete rocket tag... only it is pouncing barbarians, animal companions or mounted charging paladins/cavaliers flying through the air. Same effect though.
You seem to be more accustomed to the 5th Edition paradigm of ability score modifiers?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but he didn't achieve that by huge personal growth after his initial training. It's not like he was level 9 and became a genius, or he was clumsy before, or he wasn't healthy or strong before. He had those stats already, his adventures just gave him skills.For example, creating Conan, as per the books, in PF1 involved NPC options like the Advanced Simple Template. I'm quite pleased you can just make him in PF2 without worrying about that. I mean, Conan is somewhere between 5th and 9th level in all likelihood, that means you can give him the following stats:
Str 18, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14.
I can easily see Conan having, say, Str 16, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 12 in his first chronological story. Him growing and improving into the stats I listed is highly plausible and fits the stories pretty decently, as he achieves his full growth (he's still a teenager in the earliest few stories) and becomes more experienced with people and the world.
Now, he has the stat layout I proposed originally (or something much like it) for most of his career, but that has to do with most of his career being between 5th and 9th level.
+2 to four stats is impressive, but doesn't make for actually superhuman stats until you hit at least 10th level, and by that point most characters are overtly superhuman in various other ways as well.