|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues now have the option to grab sneak attack with simple weapons instead of getting dexterity to damage, creating the possibility for a strength-based rogue. Unfortunately, without the ability to increase Strength instead of Dexterity, it's a strictly suboptimal choice. Can rogues be added to the list of classes that can key their ability off either Strength or Dexterity?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to be an oversight.
Rogues were not originally meant to be able to deviate from the DEX route and thus their primary boost worked just fine.
Paizo probably did not think they would add more paths later on and thus did not realize that other primary boosts might be required once these changes were rolled out.
However, allowing Rogues to choose from 3 different boots would really put them at odds with all of the other classes, who either have a single boost or can choose between two at best.
I think Rogues should be able to do fine with a choice of STR or DEX.
Yes, high Charisma is required for feinting but your primary combat attribute is still going to be STR or DEX in the end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be okay with all classes losing the mandatory ability bonus and adding that bonus to more background options. Backgrounds are depressingly hollow right now, boiling down to selecting whatever gives the right ability bonus and then taking whichever doesn't outright clash with your character concept.
I'm hoping they build out Backgrounds to let you choose starting armor and weapon proficiencies as well, but that's another topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice, but really a 18STR Rough is starting to sound more like a Fighter that multiclassed into Rogue. That class is still DEX main for most of their skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should abandon the "single primary stat for a class" paradigm. It makes it really hard to create non-traditional builds, and given they've already had to cave on Ranger, and likely also will on Rogue, why not just have that class boost be a floating one? Let players choose what ability scores they want to focus in. Maybe your Cleric wants to focus on Channel, so they take more Charisma than Wisdom, or your Wizard wants to be good at ranged touch attacks...
This isn't to say classes shouldn't have a "spellcasting" stat, or that there can't be a suggested stat boost (Wizards get a boost to Intelligence, or may take a floating boost if they prefer), but come on, pigeon-holing all the classes as they've done feels bad.
I'm 100% with you on this.
Unfortunately, I don't see it happening at all.The point for Paizo with the single primary attribute for each class is that it removes uncertainty as to how people will have built their characters and makes the game "safer" when it comes to balancing classes and encounters - in their view.
You see, the intent here is that:
1) New players can't get it wrong.
They will have to boost the stat that is intended to be most important for them and won't be given an option to try something else and "fail".
Why do I say fail? Because the game assumes that your character will have invested in specific attributes and specific items to be relevant at all levels.
If you don't do that, you fall behind. Give a new player the ability to build their character however they like and they might feel underpowered.
Paizo doesn't want that.
It doesn't matter that new players have been doing this for years already and learned from their experiments.
Paizo is going to hold your hand through the character creation process. Don't you dare deviate from that!
Incidentally, the devs also don't care much that the most exciting part of a TTRPG is coming up with unique character concepts. This is true for hardcore roleplayers and min-maxers alike.
Both are looking for something different in the game but they want the same thing in the end: to be unique.
This ability has been carefully removed because...
2) It makes it easier for developers and AP writers to build encounters and offer new content that is "balanced" across all builds.
No, it probably won't improve your enjoyment of the game.
However, Paizo staff wants the game to, first and foremost, be "safe".
Everything is streamlined so that specific builds can't have an opportunity to shine more than what they have decided is the new cookie-cutter for each class.
This game is being designed by game designers, for game designers.
Not for players.
Let's take a quick look at the most recent errata and skills, for example.
Signature skills have been removed, true.
That could happen because their removal was inconsequential, in terms of game design and "balance".
Sure, everyone can now become Legendary in Medicine if they so desire.
However, the levels at which they can achieve the next proficiency tier are still hard coded and you can't change that: it's level 3, level 7, level 15.
There's no way for you to focus on a single skill if you want to.
Instead, the game forces your hand in being good, but not exceptional, at a select few.
This way, it's very easy when designing an AP to determine the highest possible bonus a PC could have in one skill, at a given level.
TLDR:
The game is streamlined for the sake of "balance" (I really hate this word).
Non cookie-cutter builds are not an option and, for this reason, Paizo is never doing away completely with the primary class attributes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly what they should do is that the class step gives two ability boosts, one fixed and one floating. Then the last step of four floating ability boosts is reduced to three.
You keep the same number of ability boosts, but it makes different class builds more viable, and it opens the possibility of getting two 18s at the expense of other stats. It also means that new players can still see which stat is most important for each class, so are less likely to screw it up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice, but really a 18STR Rough is starting to sound more like a Fighter that multiclassed into Rogue. That class is still DEX main for most of their skills.
A class is more than its ability scores, and I would expect a high-strength rogue to behave very differently from a high-strength fighter. Right now, a rogue that takes the brute path is going to be worse at offensive actions for their entire career compared with a dexterity-focused rogue. Whether more rogues are likely to pick dexterity or not, that's not a balanced option right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but as I've said elsewhere, assuming players are stupid and won't do "the right thing", particularly when it's suggested to them, is a totally unnecessary path to go down.
Yes, if it was only a floating boost, with no other guidance, I *might* be able to see a player choosing the wrong thing, but if presented as "you get a floating ability boost, which is normally put into intelligence" or "you get an intelligence ability boost, but may choose to take a floating one instead" will work just fine.
Heck, even 5e doesn't pigeon-hole like this. You can create whatever stat array you want, and you know what, with guidance in the text, most people generally choose something that makes sense. There's no *need* for this level of hand-holding.
I know and I agree. I don't think we can change the devs' mentality when it comes to this though.
The surveys never even gave me the opportunity to say that the problem is not with X class getting Y for their abililty boost but with the fact that it's restricted to one specific attribute - or two- in the first place.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it should be okay to start out with a 16 in a stat keyed to a thing you want to do well. If it isn't, this is a consequence of "too much emphasis on each +1".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You get a boost to two ability scores of your choice, one of which is usually X or Y" would work fine, yeah.
Sorry, but as I've said elsewhere, assuming players are stupid and won't do "the right thing", particularly when it's suggested to them, is a totally unnecessary path to go down.
I disagree. PF2 has extremely tight math and even small numerical changes make outsized impacts.
The game assumes players come in with a large amount of system mastery that they will min/max with it. This is evident in the overly punitive DCs that essentially penalize PCs for not investing in stats and skills with single minded focus (failure to do so leads to success rates under 50%).
Unfortunately, not all players want to min/max. Failure to do so is also not a sign of stupidity. Its just a sign of wanting to realize a concept and using the game's imperfect descriptors to do it.
I have seen a player who just wanted "to be a cleric who happens to have ok intelligence that can also swing a mace ok." In the end, that poor bastard sucked at everything. The player did not have unrealistic desires for his character but the games tight math made the PCs suckage a certainty.
Taking off the training wheels and letting players put points wherever would only be ok if Paizo were much more clear on what players should do with their stats/skills to ensure they arent useless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but as I've said elsewhere, assuming players are stupid and won't do "the right thing", particularly when it's suggested to them, is a totally unnecessary path to go down.I disagree. PF2 has extremely tight math and even small numerical changes make outsized impacts.
(failure to do so leads to success rates under 50%).
In the end, that poor bastard sucked at everything.
Hell, min/maxing and TRYING to be good at something (and still missing half the time) leads to the same "poor bastard" end result.
The math is SO tight that its already shattered under its own tensile stress.
I feel like it should be okay to start out with a 16 in a stat keyed to a thing you want to do well. If it isn't, this is a consequence of "too much emphasis on each +1".There is... If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth looking at this:
Hit Rates by ClassIt essentially shows that your chances of hitting on your first attack with an optimized score for anything but fighter fall to under 50% by level 4. There's a big problem with the underlying math in PF2e, and I hope they address that before the final version.
Again, take these numbers in context - that is your accuracy with just your level, ability score, weapon quality/rune, and stat-boosting item factored in. Actual accuracy fluctuates based on the circumstances of combat - buffs, debuffs, positioning, etc all factor in.
And for the record, while I'm still working on adding the Brute Rogue stats to my spreadsheet, the higher accuracy of the DEX build and the higher damage of the STR build roughly cancel each other out. Normally the STR build is behind, but since the Brute can use Sneak Attack with any Simple weapon that advantage is lost. My bet is that, when compared, the DEX build has a slight edge in damage with Sneak Attack and the STR build has a slight edge without it, rather than STR builds simply being subpar like they were before Brute Rogue was an option. We really need more variety in the Simple Weapons though, since Longspear and Staff are currently the only Simple Weapons that can deal d8s to keep up with the DEX builds.
It's a shame the race weapon feats only treat those weapons as simple for the sake of proficiency and not everything else.
Spear's a good choice though.