| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, welcome to my Ted talk.
So Int seems like it's become a niche attribute in the playtest. In 1e it was the skill point and Knowledge attribute which made it pretty decently powerful.
With skill points going away in 1e and a lot of 'knowledge' recall actions being folded into Wisdom based skills instead Int's really taken a hit.
But I think it makes a lot of sense to ADD Int bonus to EVERY skill roll.
Yes every skill roll. In addition to any existing attribute it's based on as well of course.
For example
Thievery becomes Dex + Int rather than just Dex
Survival becomes Wis + Int rather than just Wis
Crafting on the other hand remains just Int.
Make the Int bonus a minimum of 0 to keep from penalizing low Int concepts but it will instantly make Int an attribute that you are rewarded for not ignoring.
And honestly it makes a decent amount of sense.
Things like Medicine, Thievery, Nature etc. are easy to see how high Intelligence makes a lot of sense to enhance.
But even the charisma face skills of Diplo, Intimidateion, Deception can be and SHOULD be enhanced by a character smart enough to know what incentives people can have and what buttons are best to push or not push. Fantasy is replete with 'mastermind' type characters who rely on their intelligence to be very good at exactly those things. It's why the Investigator was such a great class for fulfilling some character niches in 1e.
Even in Physical skills this make sense as all sports have elite atheletes who are the best at their sport because they're whip smart students of their game (LeBron James, Tom Brady, Messi etc.)
Of course you can make the same case for Wisdom, but in terms of game balance, Wisdom is plenty good already and this is a way of raising up Int and making it THE skill attribute again..
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This makes INT absolutely mandatory for anyone who intends to use skills a significant amount of the time, to the point that it's more important than the other stats the skills are keyed off. If adding more DEX boosts a couple of skills and INT boosts all of them, which one are you boosting?
It's wildly overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If adding more DEX boosts a couple of skills and INT boosts all of them, which one are you boosting?
Dex boosts a couple skills and Int would boost all of them yes. But I have a few other questions for you in this situation:
Are you functional while never, ever making a ranged attack roll?
Do you wear heavy armor?
Can you tank a critical failure on every Reflex-based effect in the game?
If the answer to any of these is no, you still need Dex. Wisdom and Charisma similarly have their own important other things. So really, the only thing this might slightly devalue is Strength, since now a high-Strength, low-Int barbarian and a high-Int, low-Strength Wizard would be approximately on par on Athletics. Not that Strength has a lot of value to decrease.
EDIT: Also, I don't think I'd include the (minimum 0) on the Int bonus if this did happen. Nothing else has a minimum for the stat bonus (maybe on the total, but not the bonus), so why should Int be special there? Not that an Int penalty is really a thing yet anyways, unless you use that optional 'gimp your character just because' rule. And even if/when future ancestries do have Int penalties, it's never going to be more than a -1, which is small in the grand scheme of things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, intelligent people are less adept at intellectual activity than they are at jumping over chasms and breaking out of grapples? Nah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Tridus It IS powerful but ONLY in the matter of skills, which kind of should be Int's thing in the first place.
Dex does a whole whack of other things that Int does not do in addition to boosting skills as Shinigami02 points out. Same for all the other attributes.
If skills are important to a character concept then this forces a good choice onto players I think.
If you want to be the best sneak attacking rogue around then you should get 18 DEX for sure at character creation, but if you want to be a trap disarming legend then maybe you should think about going 16 DEX, 16 INT instead.
Even for the low Str , high Int Wizard Athletics situation, the Wizard still has to invest in becoming trained in Athletics and at that point it makes thematic sense for the sharp mind to kick in. The Wizard kicks at the weak point of the door to knock it open for example rather than barreling through it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If adding more DEX boosts a couple of skills and INT boosts all of them, which one are you boosting?Dex boosts a couple skills and Int would boost all of them yes. But I have a few other questions for you in this situation:
Are you functional while never, ever making a ranged attack roll?
Do you wear heavy armor?
Can you tank a critical failure on every Reflex-based effect in the game?If the answer to any of these is no, you still need Dex. Wisdom and Charisma similarly have their own important other things. So really, the only thing this might slightly devalue is Strength, since now a high-Strength, low-Int barbarian and a high-Int, low-Strength Wizard would be approximately on par on Athletics. Not that Strength has a lot of value to decrease.
Good thing I get four boosts instead of one and can pretty easily get the ones I need, then. INT just becomes mandatory in this scheme because someone with 18 INT will have +4 on every skill, all the time, vs someone who has 10 INT, even if their key ability is the same. In this system, that's huge. It's by far the strongest stat in the game.
... and that's on top of the +4 on a skill INT boosts already give you by letting you train another skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, +2 Int would, by level 20, give you an extra 20 skill points to spend on whatever you wanted, on top of giving you +1 to all knowledge skills, linguistics, and spellcraft. That made it by far the strongest stat for skills.
But people still dumped Int, because they wanted to be good at fighting more than they wanted to be good at skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tridus It IS powerful but ONLY in the matter of skills, which kind of should be Int's thing in the first place.
Skills are kind of important now, since skill feats use them and those can have combat implications far beyond what we had in 1e. INT in this scheme makes you better at every combat maneuver (and avoiding them), every social situation, things like demoralize, swimming, high jumping, moving quietly in the woods...
When the game already has multiple stats to denote different types of intelligence (INT/WIS/CHA), singling out one of them and saying "that one applies absolutely everything you do that isn't swinging a sword", it's way out of line with the others.
If skills are important to a character concept then this forces a good choice onto players I think.
If skills are important to a character concept, this creates no choice whatsoever. You must max INT to be good at skills. Period.
Because when someone can suddenly have an extra +4 to everything, you know what happens elsewhere in the game? Anything that's intended to be a difficult challenge has to factor in that you might have that +4.
If you want to be the best sneak attacking rogue around then you should get 18 DEX for sure at character creation, but if you want to be a trap disarming legend then maybe you should think about going 16 DEX, 16 INT instead.
One of them will go 18 DEX and 16 INT, the other will go 16 DEX and 18 INT. Then they can boost the 16 up to an 18 at level 5. Of course, you really need both of those stats, since sneak attacking is easier if you can sneak (which is a skill and thus now benefits from INT), and disarming things requires DEX.
Even for the low Str , high Int Wizard Athletics situation, the Wizard still has to invest in becoming trained in Athletics and at that point it makes thematic sense for the sharp mind to kick in. The Wizard kicks at the weak point of the door to knock it open for example rather than barreling through it.
See, this is just conceptually wrong. Generic intelligence doesn't necessarily grant you specialized knowledge like knowing where the weak point of a door is. In real life, doctors are extremely smart at medicine and don't know anything more about plumbing than any other random person with no training in plumbing. They're not better at everything. In fact the number of doctors terrible at finance is remarkable.
Computer scientists happen to be extremely smart people, but I wouldn't ask one to do my plumbing OR fix my broken leg. Book smarts does not make you better at everything. It makes you better at learning, and the extra skill training INT gives already represents that.
In PF1, +2 Int would, by level 20, give you an extra 20 skill points to spend on whatever you wanted, on top of giving you +1 to all knowledge skills, linguistics, and spellcraft. That made it by far the strongest stat for skills.
Only if you needed the skills in question. If your build focused on other skills and you didn't care about knowledges or spellcraft (which was pretty common), all INT gave you was more skill points. A human in a lot of classes already had enough skill points for the stuff you'd want anyway, at which point INT is doing little to nothing for your skills.
That is not even close to it giving a bonus in every single skill in the game, all the time. And that was before critical failure and critical success were a thing on skills.
But people still dumped Int, because they wanted to be good at fighting more than they wanted to be good at skills.
They also got a +1 to an ability score every 4 levels, and had to be choosey. Now you get +2 to four ability scores every 5 levels and can pretty easily take a secondary ability score along for the ride. This will be absolutely mandatory if you intend to seriously use skills at all under that system.
Hello, welcome to my Ted talk.
So Int seems like it's become a niche attribute in the playtest. In 1e it was the skill point and Knowledge attribute which made it pretty decently powerful.
With skill points going away in 1e and a lot of 'knowledge' recall actions being folded into Wisdom based skills instead Int's really taken a hit.
But I think it makes a lot of sense to ADD Int bonus to EVERY skill roll.
Yes every skill roll. In addition to any existing attribute it's based on as well of course.
For example
Thievery becomes Dex + Int rather than just Dex
Survival becomes Wis + Int rather than just Wis
Crafting on the other hand remains just Int.Make the Int bonus a minimum of 0 to keep from penalizing low Int concepts but it will instantly make Int an attribute that you are rewarded for not ignoring.
And honestly it makes a decent amount of sense.
Things like Medicine, Thievery, Nature etc. are easy to see how high Intelligence makes a lot of sense to enhance.
But even the charisma face skills of Diplo, Intimidateion, Deception can be and SHOULD be enhanced by a character smart enough to know what incentives people can have and what buttons are best to push or not push. Fantasy is replete with 'mastermind' type characters who rely on their intelligence to be very good at exactly those things. It's why the Investigator was such a great class for fulfilling some character niches in 1e.
Even in Physical skills this make sense as all sports have elite atheletes who are the best at their sport because they're whip smart students of their game (LeBron James, Tom Brady, Messi etc.)
Of course you can make the same case for Wisdom, but in terms of game balance, Wisdom is plenty good already and this is a way of raising up Int and making it THE skill attribute again..
Too much power, MADness reinforcement, plus doubledip attributes being a thing are all good reasons why this isn't a smart idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm strongly opposed to this, as it would mean anyone who isn't intelligence-invested would automatically be bad at all skills. This would almost certainly require all DC's to increase substantially (demoralize in particular would be completely broken for an Int/Cha invested character) which would put them out of reach completely for characters who are not Int-invested.
It's okay for attributes to not be that powerful.
Now that they've redone resonance, Dex is really the only "powerful" stats. Everything else depends on your build/class. And, they've done a lot to make dex not as important as it used to be.
It's fine for int to not be particularly important, though it might be nice if they retooled the rules so that it could do more than just give you additional trained skills.
Perhaps some sort of system where you get a total number of bonus proficiency increases based on your int modifier. So +2 modifier could get you 2 trained skills, or one expert skill (though you wouldn't get the bonus to expert until you reach the correct level). A +4 int could get you an additional legendary skill.
This gives you a reward, without being amazing.
Adding two attributes to the same roll breaks the math in PF2. I could see options to substitute Int for a different attribute (like various traits in PF1), possibly skill feats are where you can fit in something like "key deception off of intelligence".
I haven't really dug into the math of this all that much, but I do like the idea of Int being tied more closely to skills.
Perhaps, as a matter of balance, there could be a feat which allows characters to use Int as the attribute for any of their skills instead of their normal ability scores.
This has two advantages that make it (hopefully) slightly less overpowering:
- It costs a feat to the user, which means resources drawn from elsewhere to use this conversion
- Intelligence is used instead of the normal ability, not in addition to it.
Maybe it could give you more skill feats in some way? I'm not sure. Int definitely needs something big to bring it up to the power of the other Abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int becoming a dump stat for most classes is a real problem, imo. When one choice becomes nearly mandatory, then there's a balance issue.
But, adding 2 stat modifiers on top of each other to any one roll is taking this too far. PF1 did this with Intimidating Prowess, and we can see how PF2 toned this down.
Allowing a feat to swap some ability away and use Int instead would make sense, but it doesn't solve the problem of Int's weakness.
Others have suggested that high Int would provide more skill increases at higher levels, for me this is a better way to go.
But, adding 2 stat modifiers on top of each other to any one roll is taking this too far. PF1 did this with Intimidating Prowess, and we can see how PF2 toned this down.
I agree with gwynfrid. The game is not designed to handle a double bonus to a single skill roll.
In Pathfinder 1st Edition, an Intelligence bonus of +4 means that I can keep 4 more skills at maximum skill ranks. The equivalent of maximum skill ranks in Pathfinder 2nd Edition is training the skill at 1st level, upgrading it to expert at 3rd level, upgrading it to master at 7th level, and upgrading it to legendary at 15th level. How about Intelligence doing that instead of an all-around bonus?
Intelligent Boost
At 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter, if your Intelligence is 12 or higher, you gain skill increases equal in number to your Intelligence bonus in addition to the skill increases given by your class. You can use a skill increase to either become trained in one skill you’re untrained in, or to become an expert in one skill in which you’re already trained. If you are at least 7th level, you can use a skill increase to become a master in a skill in which you’re
already an expert. If you are at least 15th level, you can use a skill increase to become legendary in a skill in which you’re already a master. You cannot increase a skill proficiency twice in a single level-up.
That is more in line with the bonus trained skills from Intelligence at 1st level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Snip-Seems a bit too much still. The stat boost item could take you from 10 to 18 int, giving you 20 extra skill ranks at level 15.
One thing to note, a character can only ever benefit from 1 Potent item at a time, so it is more likely that a character would use the one that corresponds with their primary stat over bumping a stat from 10 to 18.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post is a paid advertisement by the Wizards council.
"Wizards, we win at everything!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty extreme idea, I can't put any support behind it. If you wanted to make Intelligence more powerful there is a very short list of what you would need to do.
1. Allow any 'Recall Knowledge' tests to be made with Intelligence, or with another attribute that would normally be appropriate to the skill. An example for this would be Religion allowing you to use the higher of your INT or WIS.
2. Allow additional languages. In Pathfinder First Edition characters would gain a bonus language for every two points of Intelligence and could train up an additional language during their downtime. Pathfinder Second Edition has trimmed this down significantly to a single bonus language if you have 14 or higher intelligence at character creation, with additional languages requiring feat investments.
Outside of this Intelligence is already a pretty powerful attribute and is something that I would usually raise unless I'm playing a character that has a theme of being brutish like the Barbarian and Druid characters that I've been writing up.
What do you guys think of granting bonus feats with bonus intelligence to boost it.
Is it overpowered?
What if we grant only bonus skill and general feats? Or only skill feats?
One of the big problems is how you are going to get it to scale appropriately by character level and by intelligence score. Even a single bonus feat is a big deal at 1st level, but that feat will be almost completely irrelevant by 20th. And remember, whatever rules you come up with need to be simple and straightforward to apply. There's a huge gulf between the idea and a workable implementation.
This is way too much IMO, but I do like the idea that a higher Int character will be better at skills. But it shouldn't be equivalent to the primary attribute.
Maybe you could add half your Int Modifier, rounded down, to your skills. This way, the majority of players are only adding +2 to their skills, which wouldn't require nearly as much (possibly not any) rewriting if the skill check DCs and would make Int attractive, but not the be all and end all.
It could even be a feat if that is still too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Initially I found the idea compelling, but on a second thought I'd prefer the INT stat to remain untouched as it is. Mainly because I'd love to see future archetypes/prestige classes that can benefit from it, like the 'old' Duelist from PF1.
I'm amazed how low people's regard for skills are. By applying a single ability score to all skills, that ability would be king at my table. In PF1, I've seen fighters with 18 Int - to get more skill points. Skills are the most important in our games, and the primary agency players use to affect the world.
I'm not saying to do different is badwrongfun, I am just amazed by how different different tables can be.
I'm amazed how low people's regard for skills are. By applying a single ability score to all skills, that ability would be king at my table. In PF1, I've seen fighters with 18 Int - to get more skill points. Skills are the most important in our games, and the primary agency players use to affect the world.
I'm not saying to do different is badwrongfun, I am just amazed by how different different tables can be.
Skills are often king at my table as well, but there's a couple of important differences in PF2:
1. Int only grants more trained skills at character creation, not as you advance in level (making it infinitely less valuable, since it only pays off once)
2. The differences between a skilled character and an unskilled one are greatly less in PF2, since level proficiency contributes far more than your skill ranks in it.
I'm amazed how low people's regard for skills are. By applying a single ability score to all skills, that ability would be king at my table. In PF1, I've seen fighters with 18 Int - to get more skill points. Skills are the most important in our games, and the primary agency players use to affect the world.
I'm not saying to do different is badwrongfun, I am just amazed by how different different tables can be.
Skills are often king at my table as well, but there's a couple of important differences in PF2:
1. Int only grants more trained skills at character creation, not as you advance in level (making it infinitely less valuable, since it only pays off once)
2. The differences between a skilled character and an unskilled one are greatly less in PF2, since level proficiency contributes far more than your skill ranks in it.
Depends on the level of the threat. If it's a threat of your level the difference is insane, if it is a threat of lower level the penalty is not as bad.
But i would like to get instead of a extra trained skill a skill bumb when the int mod would go up, and maybe an extra skill feat at some point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone remember when having a high Int gave you bonus exp?