18 on any stat at first level


General Discussion

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level.

Setting aside that none of this applies to NPCs, this isn't any more true in PF2 than PF1. You can absolutely build below an 18 at first level. It may not be advisable, but you can keep yourself from getting anything above a 14 if you determined enough.

PF1 characters tended to average an 18 in a stat at level 1, at least if they were at all SAD. You might have gotten a higher percentage of folks building below 18, but you also got lots of people min maxing and dump statting to get above 18.

This is a game of fantasy heroes. Let them be heroic.

Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
I wasn't trying to comment on the general rate of advancement, just what characters look like at level 1. Those are pretty separate things in my mind.
I generally like a cap of 17, after modifiers, for 1st-level characters. A 20 seems rather high for a 5th-level character. I know in previous editions you are able to start with a 20, depending on whether you roll or use point buy, I just prefer a slightly lower start. In AD&D, you really need higher scores (15+) to gain any benefit, but in the d20 system, a 12 Str is like a 17 Str.

Yeah, let's not go back to AD&D, that was really a terrible system for stats. I look back now and wonder how/why I stuck with it for so long! Most people I knew came up with a system to mitigate that (often one of the broken alt rolling systems) and it wasn't unusual to see characters with 3x 16-18 stats. Fighters never saw the light of day unless they had 18/XX.

Everyone is different, I like the ease of getting an 18 at 1st - I just wish the latter levels weren't quite so limited.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

See, none of that logic remotely explains how a 200 lb dead weight flopping around is Bulk 8. Indeed, most of that logic directly argues it should be more than that by quite a bit.

Hence my confusion.

ACcording to bulk, 1 longsword is the same difficulty to carry as 10 shortswords. Bulk doesn't make any sense if you analyze it, think about it, or even look at it.

It's just a completely arbitrary number not related to anything. I don't think it's even fixable, since the scale has so little precision that you simply can't make representative numbers for most things. It's an attempt at simplification that doesn't simplify, but instead divorces things so far from the real world counterparts and basic sense that it makes it harder to understand.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:

ACcording to bulk, 1 longsword is the same difficulty to carry as 10 shortswords. Bulk doesn't make any sense if you analyze it, think about it, or even look at it.

It's just a completely arbitrary number not related to anything.

That's my general problem with Bulk in its current form, yes.

It's not inherent in having a system like Bulk, but it's part of the current version.


KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:

As the OP, I see that many of you understand what I was saying. A firefighter with training in how to carry a wounded person down a flight of stairs, CAN only do that upon demand and is winded after a few minutes. But any PC fighter with a strength greater than 13, can carry a wounded person for HOURS. This is my point.

A PC with a charisma of 15 can pretty much intimidate anyone with just a small help from the dice - that is totally unrealistic.

And I realize that Fantasy Role Playing Games are just that Fantasy. BUT, it should not be so EASY to max out at first level.

That was my point of the original post.

Yes, I understand this. But you have been able to get a starting 18 since 3.0 fairly reliably. It's kind of a staple at this point. It's also not really "maxing out", as 18 hasn't really meant anything special in at least a decade. It's just a number that says you're well above average.

A lot of this other stuff is game mechanics trumping reality, because it's not fun to say that you can't carry your unconscious friend back to get help. Especially not for the person playing said other character.

What I find weird about 2e is they give you so many boosts as you level and encourage you to spread them around such that you can get 18s all over the place. Forget about one thing, you can be a well rounded superstar with no real weakness, ability wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Really? In mine it's completely punishing. If you aren't maxed out in every way you can be (sometimes including items and spells), you shouldn't even bother trying.

I have zero issue with 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 or 16, 16, 14, 14, 10, 8 or 16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10.

I also have no issue with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 or 18, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8. Nor any of the other possible combinations (even though everybody has to look exactly the same and all players will have the same stats :roll eyes:).

I would always want at least one 16 personally though. 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 10 seems unappealing.

You do not need an 18. There is nothing wrong with having an 18.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tridus wrote:

ACcording to bulk, 1 longsword is the same difficulty to carry as 10 shortswords. Bulk doesn't make any sense if you analyze it, think about it, or even look at it.

It's just a completely arbitrary number not related to anything.

That's my general problem with Bulk in its current form, yes.

It's not inherent in having a system like Bulk, but it's part of the current version.

I tend to think it's inherent to any system with as little precision as bulk has. The way it works right now, it simply can't measure most of the sizes we are dealing with accurately.

Bulk right now is akin to having a distance measuring system where the base unit is Brownies (where 1 Brownie ~ 1km) and we haven't invented decimal numbers yet but we do have Cookies where we think ten of them is 1 Brownie. If you're measuring travel distances between cities, that will work reasonably well. If you're measuring to build a new room onto your house, it will be a total fiasco.

That it's divorced from real life measurements of things so you can't use comparisons to estimate a size for oddball cases that come up in game, and it's just unfixable. We already had this problem solved with weight.


graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
Myself, I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max. For me, seeing 14's and 16's for max makes the character feel more mundane and 'normal'.

Right on, but I never said a max of 14 or 16 (14 was never mentioned at all). I was talking about starting scores; getting an 18 - 20 eventually in your main score (or two) is great, but I was saying I don't think all of one's score need to be 16+ to be heroic.


The way I interpret it, 10 is human average in any stat.

A stat of 5, generally means you're handicapped. A person with Int 4-6 has some sort of learning disability or maybe brain damage. Str would mean you're physically disabled. Perhaps you need help walking or moving easily.

15ish is highly skilled, trained, or in some way exceptional. Int 14-16 is a Mensa member or anyone who could reasonably have a PhD. Someone with Str in that range is a weightlifter or otherwise incredible althlete, well above the average.

0 means you're dead from lack of that stat. 0 Int has no brain activity. 0 Str means you are collapsed under your own weight and are crushing yourself.

20 is the maximum that a human could ever reach without magic. 20 Int is Albert Einstein or Ramanujen. Captain America has 20 in all physicals (or, is supposed to, but the comics frequently put him above that).

Does that make sense? Well, sure sometimes a PC can do things that a human of the same "stats" couldn't, but that is okay I think. Perfect realism isn't always something to shoot for. Sure a Fighter with 16 Str can carry more, consistently, than a highly trained solder or fireman, but when you are up against Dragons and Orc warbands and an occasional Litch, that's sort of needed. The Fighter needs to feel as awesome and meaningful as the Wizard, at least at the things he is supposed to be good at, and so some allowances are made.

Scarab Sages

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:

The other day my wife said to me "I have a 16 wisdom". I believe that she honestly believed this because she is a librarian with two masters degrees, one from NYU.

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level. This is just insane.

The strongest man on earth cannot lift 3x his weight or drag 5x his weight.

Wrong. Long Qingquan is 56kg and lifted 307kg. That is nearly 6 times is Weight.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


The most beautiful actress/model barely rates a 15 in charisma.

Subjective. We have no idea since Charisma is abstract. Futhermore Charisma is not just physical beauty. Hitler may have been 18 considering how so much people followed him. (Godwin point achieved)

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


No one with a wisdom above 14 would ever enter the political arena because s/he would be wise enough to see the pitfalls.

You can have Wisdom and be Evil or use Wisdom to counter your opponent.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


The smartest rocket-scientest at MIT probably has a 16 intelligence.

We have no idea. There is no clear statement that link Intelligence point and IQ.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


I don't see the need for such exaggerated scores.

Why do we make the rules so that only the GODLIKE can survive?

The rules are a bit hard for the suboptimal yeah.

But whatever solution that they could use the people with better stat Will be better and that is ... normal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I view it as 10 is average and each +1 represents a standard deviation above average. Considering that there are professional athletes who are 3 standard deviations better athletes (per SPARQ scores) than other professional athletes (for NFL players Calvin Johnson, J.J. Watt, Evan Mathis, Byron Jones, and Lane Johnson have this distinction), having someone be 4 standard deviations above an average person isn't that hard for me to accept.

Heck, eventually hitting a 22 at level 20 makes you six standard deviations above average which isn't absurd as "the best possible person".

Scarab Sages

Tridus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

See, none of that logic remotely explains how a 200 lb dead weight flopping around is Bulk 8. Indeed, most of that logic directly argues it should be more than that by quite a bit.

Hence my confusion.

ACcording to bulk, 1 longsword is the same difficulty to carry as 10 shortswords. Bulk doesn't make any sense if you analyze it, think about it, or even look at it.

It's just a completely arbitrary number not related to anything. I don't think it's even fixable, since the scale has so little precision that you simply can't make representative numbers for most things. It's an attempt at simplification that doesn't simplify, but instead divorces things so far from the real world counterparts and basic sense that it makes it harder to understand.

I once had to carry 1 Katana and 5 short katana (don't remember the name) when I was in Japan.

The Katana was a pain in the ass because it is very long.
It doesn't fit in the bag, and if you put it anyway it prevents you from putting a lot of other things inside it.
The short katana could just be put altogether inside and no problem.

Bulk works for encombrement (not always) but it works very weirdly for the weight part though.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I view it as 10 is average and each +1 represents a standard deviation above average. Considering that there are professional athletes who are 3 standard deviations better athletes (per SPARQ scores) than other professional athletes (for NFL players Calvin Johnson, J.J. Watt, Evan Mathis, Byron Jones, and Lane Johnson have this distinction), having someone be 4 standard deviations above an average person isn't that hard for me to accept.

Heck, eventually hitting a 22 at level 20 makes you six standard deviations above average which isn't absurd.

That is super close to how I view it too. We used to have a hard and fast rule about int too where you pretty well just add a 0 at the end to get a rough estimate of IQ so 10 int is 100. 18 would be 180. STr was always easiest to measure. How much can you bench bro? Chr is for sure the most abstract of them. AND ITS NOT GOOD LOOKS PEOPLE THAT WAS COMELINESS or at least its not good looks alone anyways.

(Oh and short katanna = wakisashi.)


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Captain America has 20 in all physicals (or, is supposed to, but the comics frequently put him above that).

Yeah, as Cap is a bit better than the best Olympic athletes, almost superhuman, I would put him at 22 in the physical scores, well, 24 in the Playtest.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I view it as 10 is average and each +1 represents a standard deviation above average. Considering that there are professional athletes who are 3 standard deviations better athletes (per SPARQ scores) than other professional athletes (for NFL players Calvin Johnson, J.J. Watt, Evan Mathis, Byron Jones, and Lane Johnson have this distinction), having someone be 4 standard deviations above an average person isn't that hard for me to accept.

Heck, eventually hitting a 22 at level 20 makes you six standard deviations above average which isn't absurd.

That is super close to how I view it too. We used to have a hard and fast rule about int too where you pretty well just add a 0 at the end to get a rough estimate of IQ so 10 int is 100. 18 would be 180.

Yes, this was even mentioned by one of the WotC staff members as a rough guideline in Dragon or Sage Advice or something in the 2000s. Not sure if it was Skip Williams.


Back in ancient Dungeons and Dragons, you rolled 3d6 for stats. That meant that in each stat, one person in 216 had an 18. My highschool had 2000 students and i consider them a fairly good random sample of the population. That means that there were 10 people there who had (or at least had the potential to have as adults) an 18 in each stat. Remembering those people, I don't find it strange at all that anyone who is elite at anything have an 18 in the required stat.

That said, I dislike how strongly you are incentivized to have an 18 in your class ability, and I mourn the ability to sacrifice your highest ability score to have an array that is more spread out. Some classes are more MAD (multi-attribute dependent) than others, and some concepts don't actually use your main ability score much at all - like all spellcasters who are going to cast spells exclusively on friendlies.

Its kind of a sorry state of affairs when goblin is among the best classes to play as a buffing cleric - you have a penalty in your dump stat, Wisdom, and a bonus in Charisma which is what you really want. :)


Starfox wrote:
Back in ancient Dungeons and Dragons, you rolled 3d6 for stats. That meant that in each stat, one person in 216 had an 18. My highschool had 2000 students and i consider them a fairly good random sample of the population. That means that there were 10 people there who had (or at least had the potential to have as adults) an 18 in each stat. Remembering those people, I don't find it strange at all that anyone who is elite at anything have an 18 in the required stat.

I always took that for heroes, not the general population. There are also very generous ability score generation methods in the 1st Ed AD&D DMG, for PCs, and of course the human method in UA.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I view it as 10 is average and each +1 represents a standard deviation above average. Considering that there are professional athletes who are 3 standard deviations better athletes (per SPARQ scores) than other professional athletes (for NFL players Calvin Johnson, J.J. Watt, Evan Mathis, Byron Jones, and Lane Johnson have this distinction), having someone be 4 standard deviations above an average person isn't that hard for me to accept.

Heck, eventually hitting a 22 at level 20 makes you six standard deviations above average which isn't absurd as "the best possible person".

I have a really hard time with the idea of 10 as average in a system where you won't see numbers less than 10 and where the average of any level 1 character is miles above 10.

That may have made sense as a guideline in the rolling for stats days since you would see numbers below the average occasionally. Now, either a level 1 character is already miles above average, or we're not dealing in averages anymore.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

The average human of Golarion =/= a player character.

Suppose unnamed NPC have Ancestry and Background but no other bonuses, you get the occasional 8, a number of 10s and 12s, and a rare 14 here and there.


Starfox wrote:
That said, I dislike how strongly you are incentivized to have an 18 in your class ability, and I mourn the ability to sacrifice your highest ability score to have an array that is more spread out. Some classes are more MAD (multi-attribute dependent) than others, and some concepts don't actually use your main ability score much at all - like all spellcasters who are going to cast spells exclusively on friendlies.

I like that the game guides players to make their main stat high, new players should have that lead. I do not see a need to mourn, as there is really no reason you can’t have it as a 16 or 14 even, especially if you choose a concept that doesn’t use that stat much. 16, 16, 14, 14, 10, 8 is a great array, in my experience.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
Myself, I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max. For me, seeing 14's and 16's for max makes the character feel more mundane and 'normal'.
Right on, but I never said a max of 14 or 16 (14 was never mentioned at all). I was talking about starting scores; getting an 18 - 20 eventually in your main score (or two) is great, but I was saying I don't think all of one's score need to be 16+ to be heroic.

I was talking starting scores too: "I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max". While I didn't put the word 'starting' in front of 'max' in the second sentence, I'd illustrated which 'max' I was referring to in the first: starting.

14's: as you mentioned everything shouldn't be a 16+, that means you expect to see 14 and lower stats and still be seen as heroic, hence my adding 14.

As to all stats: I'd prefer a more staggered method that let you boost more often to less stats. I'd rather see your best stats hit the max then you turn to secondary or tertiary stats max than stats you've never used raising just because the whole floor got raised.

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

The Katana was a pain in the ass because it is very long.

It doesn't fit in the bag, and if you put it anyway it prevents you from putting a lot of other things inside it.
The short katana could just be put altogether inside and no problem.

But right there you proves why it DOESN'T work for encumbrance: with bulk it DOESN'T matter if the short swords are in the bag OR held in your hands without a container: they have the same bulk.

So the correct question is which was easier to carry around WITHOUT the bag? If the answer was the katana, then bulk isn't working as it should. Only if the answer was the 5 individual swords would that be the case.

The key here to remember that in the bulk system, containers actually do 100% NOTHING, other than add the containers own bulk to the total: really, they don't. You have to view the system as if everything is held in your hands to see if it makes sense as bulk doesn't CARE if how well or even if an object is carefully stowed/balanced. A carefully packed and balanced backpack and a loose pile of equipment on the floor have the exact same bulk.


graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
graystone wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
Myself, I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max. For me, seeing 14's and 16's for max makes the character feel more mundane and 'normal'.
Right on, but I never said a max of 14 or 16 (14 was never mentioned at all). I was talking about starting scores; getting an 18 - 20 eventually in your main score (or two) is great, but I was saying I don't think all of one's score need to be 16+ to be heroic.

I was talking starting scores too: "I'm happy with pathfinder classic's 20 starting max". While I didn't put the word 'starting' in front of 'max' in the second sentence, I'd illustrated which 'max' I was referring to in the first: starting.

14's: as you mentioned everything shouldn't be a 16+, that means you expect to see 14 and lower stats and still be seen as heroic, hence my adding 14.

None of that really jives, but it's okay, I know what you desire in ability scores, now, so it's cool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
I have a really hard time with the idea of 10 as average in a system where you won't see numbers less than 10

I feel like the assumption of a game like this is that the player characters, though they may have come from humble stock are nonetheless exceptional people in many regards.

Much like how it was possible to play a game in PF1 with NPC classes and very low point buy to represent "average commoners" if you want to run a PF2 game about really average people, you would just use a different stat generation method.


as the OP, I think that many people are now missing the boat. The point is not that there are exceptional people out there. ALL OF THEM are not FIRST level. The athletes you mention, the political persons, and the scientists ALL are way above 1st level professionals.

Take a look at a standard build ( Human Cleric ):
Str 14. Dex 10, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 14

In PF1 that is a point build of 29 -- That is 9 points above High Fantasy which is used by organized play.

And after your first ability jump (4 x 2) you get:
Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 16

or you could sacrifice one upgrade to make Wis 19

These are astronomical numbers compared to PF1 especially at 5th level.

Forget about real world comparisons. This just does not feel right. And of course all of the monsters are jacked as well.

Does anyone see what I am trying to point out?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:
Does anyone see what I am trying to point out?

I think I see.

You created this thread to announce that you have noticed that PF2 runs on different mechanics than PF1.

I see we have been completely on the same page about that right from the first post, but I don't think we agree on if or why that is a problem.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Those two yardsticks aren't meant to be compared.

PF1 had a host of items that increase your ability scores wildly, the Playtest does have potent items, but they only increase one ability to a maximum of +2.

The power level of class features in the playtest seems to be (much?) lower than the power levels in PF1 (see the "nerfing of magic in general"), and those now higher ability scores in the playtest don't have that huge an impact compared to PF1.

I think a number of people on this board complained about how weak characters seem compared to Pathfinder.

All in all, don't compare the numbers. The Playtest rule system is quite different from Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:
Does anyone see what I am trying to point out?

I see it, I just don't agree with it though.

On the Human Cleric, it's a 22 point buy [humans get a +2 so only has to buy a 16 wisdom].

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:
astronomical numbers compared to PF1

To be quite honest, the very last thing I'm worried about being different than PF1 is stat totals. If all of those "astronomical numbers" actually MEANT anything that would be one thing, but when they are unlikely to get you all the way up to a coin flip chance of making a roll, it seems like a non-issue.


KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:

The other day my wife said to me "I have a 16 wisdom". I believe that she honestly believed this because she is a librarian with two masters degrees, one from NYU.

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level. This is just insane.

The strongest man on earth cannot lift 3x his weight or drag 5x his weight. The most beautiful actress/model barely rates a 15 in charisma. No one with a wisdom above 14 would ever enter the political arena because s/he would be wise enough to see the pitfalls. The smartest rocket-scientest at MIT probably has a 16 intelligence.

I don't see the need for such exaggerated scores.

Why do we make the rules so that only the GODLIKE can survive?

I've always had intelligence equate to a IQ test score divided by 10

so a 14 means IQ 140, an 8 is an IQ of 80, barely above mentally disabled
the highest achievable by a human is around 21-23for n IQ of 210-230

I treat the other stats with the same view.

take the strongest current and you get your answers on what the caps should be for humanoids of standard stats.

for strength Hafthor aka the mountain set a world record of 1041lbs lift, in 3e dnd that would equate to STR 27.

so considering that I would say stat maximums are fine, but what I have a problem with is how high they start at, one fix could be to add a step to generating ability scores.
make step 6 become step 7 and insert one of these 2 new step 6's

option 1
step 6, choose 4 ability score reduce them by 1 point each.

option 2 (my favourite)
each stat gets a number, STR 1, Dex 2, Con 3, Int 4, Wis 5, Cha 6
roll 4 d6, reduce the abilities that are rolled by 1 each time they appear on 1 of the 4 dice.

this could 1 time out of 1296 mean that 18 turns into a 14 if they roll very bad, but most times this will result in the unique character that this system lacks

Liberty's Edge

You get 9 stat boosts to start, you can be 14 across the board with a 12 in one stat. I would argue it is more efficient to have a couple of 16s and a couple of 14s rather than an 18,16,14,10,10,10, but it is a matter of preference.

On the point of real world equivalents, remember this is a game in a fantasy setting loosely based on medieval Europe. If the average peasant has stats of 10 across the board, today's average office worker would have stats of Str 8, Con 7, Dex 10, Int 16, Wis 12, Cha 14. Physical stats are low due to reduced need for physical labour to survive, mental stats are boosted due to much better and broader education, communication skills, personal hygiene and grooming.

In PF2 my game experience has been that CON is the primary stat for all classes, with DEX being secondary for unarmoured and light armour classes. Class stat gets whatever is left over. Stats are really just to provide game advantage with real world analogies only to help with immersion in the setting.


Hakon007 wrote:

I've always had intelligence equate to a IQ test score divided by 10

In the new system of ability score generation, that's probably not the best metric to tell you what an ability score means.

Completely adjusting ability score generation just to match the old yardstick of IQ/10 seems a bit silly.


Franz Lunzer wrote:

Those two yardsticks aren't meant to be compared.

PF1 had a host of items that increase your ability scores wildly, the Playtest does have potent items, but they only increase one ability to a maximum of +2.

The power level of class features in the playtest seems to be (much?) lower than the power levels in PF1 (see the "nerfing of magic in general"), and those now higher ability scores in the playtest don't have that huge an impact compared to PF1.

I think a number of people on this board complained about how weak characters seem compared to Pathfinder.

All in all, don't compare the numbers. The Playtest rule system is quite different from Pathfinder.

Thank you. I'm satisfied with this response. I will look into the "nerfing" issue.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
Hakon007 wrote:

I've always had intelligence equate to a IQ test score divided by 10

In the new system of ability score generation, that's probably not the best metric to tell you what an ability score means.

Completely adjusting ability score generation just to match the old yardstick of IQ/10 seems a bit silly.

Even in PF1 this was probably a bad metric, especially on the low end. I've always thought every +1 bonus being about one standard deviation from the norm (about 15 points on an IQ test) was much closer to correct (this makes an Int 12 = IQ 115, and Int 20 = IQ 175).

Either way, the simple fact is that people on Earth certainly never get to 10th level, so the scale works decently either way, IMO. IQ scores above 160 tend to all look the same to those lower on the scale anyway, which makes it close enough for a gaming approximation.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Fantasy RPGs mean Fantasical Feats of Prowess.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / 18 on any stat at first level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion