| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the tight math, it would be a trap option since every little +1 matters so much to hit and crit.
Yea the math as I see it REALLY wants you to have the 18 in your Attack or Casting Stat.
And DEX. ;P
Shouldn't paladin be Str or CHA, not Con?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you only give classes a choice at chargen if it makes sense that either option will set their class DC. I'm not sure I see a way how most classes could have "how difficult it is to resist my stuff" based on "how tough you are" except for the Kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Byron
I feel like the Barbarian's key should be STR or CON
and the Paladin should be STR or CHA
it would give them an option other then being attack focused.
I don't see a reason for it not to be an option.
I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.
The bonuses to hp and fort save aren't worth it. Barbarians already have good fort saves, and dex is more important for enhancing both reflex saves and AC.
At character creation a barbarian should focus on str>dex>wis>con, with int and cha not really mattering. At level up bonuses increase everything but int and charisma.
Dex is far more valuable to the character than extra con is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.
That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it.
I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.
Guess a good number of class feats shouldn’t be included either then? (Looking at you power attack)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to chime in only slightly off topic as everyone is talking about strength and con or strength and charisma that all martial classes (and probably some non martial classes) should have dexterity as a possible key score too.
The first character I made for the playtest was a dex based fencer paladin. I see no reason you couldn't have a small knife willing feral barbarian that rage leaps on people's heads, definitely also dex based.
I really don't like the class key ability score in general. It seams overly limiting when you look at characters like a battle bard or cleric that can't start with an eighteen in strength. Or something like the eighteen con dwarven drunken master monk I had in pf1. Or a sensei style monk who starts with an 18 wisdom.
The whole thing is rather pigeon holed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference would honestly be to set the math in such a way that a 16 in a stat at level 1 is just fine.
Since you can start with any stat you want at 16 unless you have an ancestry flaw in it, and having your class put you at a 12 in your "primary stat which you were otherwise going to dump isn't the worst thing in the world.
Like a 16 Dex 12 Str for that dex barbarian shouldn't be the worst thing. I don't like the feeling that I need to start with an 18 in something to be good at it.
My preference would honestly be to set the math in such a way that a 16 in a stat at level 1 is just fine.
Since you can start with any stat you want at 16 unless you have an ancestry flaw in it, and having your class put you at a 12 in your "primary stat which you were otherwise going to dump isn't the worst thing in the world.
Like a 16 Dex 12 Str for that dex barbarian shouldn't be the worst thing. I don't like the feeling that I need to start with an 18 in something to be good at it.
They only way you could have that and be balanced is if the important stats like to hit bonus and save DC were based on class instead of ability score.
That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it.
I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.
If you applied that logic 60-70% of material Paizo has published would need to be removed, because once there is a better option the first "becomes a trap" and shouldn't be available.
If you applied that logic 60-70% of material Paizo has published would need to be removed, because once there is a better option the first "becomes a trap" and shouldn't be available.That's exactly the reason it shouldn't be an option. (Or at least, the argument against it.) If an option is terrible and will serve as a trap, don't bother including it.
I mean, it's a terrible idea but no reason it can't be an option.
Yes, and? One of the biggest boons of rebooting the editions is getting rid of trap options like that. And really, there's a difference between the new invalidating the old and including old options that are junk from day 1.
Numerous options in the playtest rulebook probably need to be examined through this lens already. Let's not deliberately include more of them. One of the stated design goals of PF1 is to protect newbies from easily making bad characters. If you recognize an option is bad, don't include it.
My preference would honestly be to set the math in such a way that a 16 in a stat at level 1 is just fine.
Since you can start with any stat you want at 16 unless you have an ancestry flaw in it, and having your class put you at a 12 in your "primary stat which you were otherwise going to dump isn't the worst thing in the world.
Like a 16 Dex 12 Str for that dex barbarian shouldn't be the worst thing. I don't like the feeling that I need to start with an 18 in something to be good at it.
Now this is a reasonable position, but I feel like it is entirely a separate matter from giving CON as a key ability score "just so people have the option." You'd need to do the former before you could even think of doing the latter, and still doesn't seem like a GOOD idea.