Some of the problems with the current system:
It makes build that require multiple scores very hard at low levels, but easy at high levels. Making what style of character is viable dependent on what level you play.
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.
It forces odd ability scores, which don't do anything. This makes it so a character built to be a specific level won't use those ability scores boosts to make an odd stat as not to waste them, but if you want to increase them in the future you are forced to waste that boost for now.
Look at the level 5 pregens, none of them have a 19 in their ability score. But if they had level 10 pregens would they not have a 20 in their main ability score, especially when the games math assumes that.
Point buy has the problem of allowing characters to boost their main stats at the expense of stats they don't care about.
I think a system that resulted in these ability score arrays would be more fun:
20 14 14 12 10 10 total bonus = +10
18 18 14 12 10 10 total bonus = +11
18 18 12 12 12 10 total bonus = +11
18 16 16 12 12 10 total bonus = +12
18 16 14 14 12 10 total bonus = +12
18 16 14 12 12 12 total bonus = +12
16 16 16 16 12 10 total bonus = +13
16 16 16 14 12 12 total bonus = +13
16 16 14 14 14 12 total bonus = +13
16 14 14 14 14 14 total bonus = +13
What system could generate these arrays, other than just selecting arrays?:
Your Ancestry gives you two fixed boosts, two free boosts and one flaw, or three free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your background give two fixed boosts, and two free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your class gives a choice of one boost.
This gives a total bonus of +8, with a max of only one stat being 16, and ensures at least four stats have a bonus.
Then you can use five boosts, but it costs two boosts to increase a stat from 16 to 18, or three boosts to increase a stat from 18 to 20.
This system results in the ability score arrays listed above. It has the benefit of any class or race being able to get an 18 in the stat they most care about, but limits a score of 20 to only a class that boosts it and a race without that ability as a flaw. Having a score of 20 also comes with large drawbacks: you cannot have a secondary score of 18 or 16, and your total bonus is lower.
*Terminology: a boost is a +2 bonus to an ability score, a flaw is a -2 penalty
With this system there is no need to have ability scores increase as you level up, they already cover a large swath of different concepts, versatility enough to make meaningful build differences.
For this to be balanced and not encourage everyone to take a 20 all classes need to have uses for multiple ability scores. The fighter and cleric already have this, but rogues and wizards need class features that use other ability scores.
Wizards currently have use for Dex, adding to ranged touch attack spells and AC. They should also gain a use for the other mental ability scores, charisma and wisdom. Something like channel energy, the druids wild shape pool, or the psychic disciplines from pf1. This could be tied to their specialization, like a summon power based on charisma, or giving attack bonuses to others based on wisdom, or another feature they can get for free or with a class feat. I think the developers have seen that wizards just go int then dex from their survey data.
Rogues aren't as straight forward, but if they removed dex to damage and put more into feinting they could have a choice between more strength for more damage, more charisma for better feinting, or going fully focused on dexterity for higher AC and attack bonus. They should also have a use for intelligence and wisdom through class features/class feats.
Increasing ability scores by different values changes the conception of a character, I like having the concept of the character you want to make not changing, so a character who starts strong will not become strong and agile just because you have extra bonuses to use. Characters already get better as they level up, that's what the level bonus to all statistics represents. There's no need to increase ability scores also.
Ability score increases and item bonuses are not necessary to make the math work. So it's safe to remove them and keep balance:
The math is supposed to make a character/creature that is 2 levels higher be twice as powerful, judging from the XP values in the monster manual. If things are equal level the chance to hit is 55% for an expected damage of 60%. Bonuses increase by about 1.5 per level. Two levels higher gives a +3 bonus for 70% chance to hit, so expected damage of 90%. Two levels lower is -3, so 40% chance to hit, for 45% expected damage. You do 50% more damage and take 25% less with a two level difference, for a relative contribution of (90 /60)/(45/60) = (90/45) = 2
So over 20 levels you have a bonus of 20 from level, 5 from item bonus, and the rest from ability score increases and proficiency increases to get about 1.5 per level.
But they don't need to do this, they could remove item bonuses and ability score increase, and have proficiency increases as actually increasing your effectiveness. This would make make bonuses increase by 1 per level, so doubling in power every three levels instead of every two, but still at a consistent rate.
That's the good thing about ability scores not increasing too much in previous editions, the character you start with at level 1 is the same type, like strong and charismatic vs quick and smart, as the character you end up with at level 20. I don't see the need for ability increases, but if they were there I'd prefer they'd help everything equally, or barring that just increase what a character already is focused on. Increasing some weaknesses, not all, more than your strengths just feels wrong to me.
Does no one else have a problem with this?
Mildly.
I do feel like characters feel a bit too "pushed" towards a handful of scores and some more round-outness would be good, with less stat increase being a necessary consequence, but I do like the ABC generation approach.
Perhaps one could obtain your stat array by inserting some - but not as many - capped boosts along the levels.
Also I am sort of thinking of moving this to flat modifier over numerical stat, which I think is something Paizo has tucked away as a variant, with boosts turning into "increase four stats of your choice by +1, to a maximum of (4, 5, 5, 6)".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like ability scores improving as you gain experience as it is possible for a person to become stronger, faster, wiser, tougher, etc by working at it. I think PF2's standard for personal improvement is preferable to the belt/headband (plus manuals, tomes, and wishes) model in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like ability scores improving as you gain experience as it is possible for a person to become stronger, faster, wiser, tougher, etc by working at it. I think PF2's standard for personal improvement is preferable to the belt/headband (plus manuals, tomes, and wishes) model in PF1.
Yeah, the reliance on items for that was not so fun, I'm glad that's gone.
I guess I don't see the need for ability scores rather representing getting faster/wiser vs your proficiency bonus that already goes up each level. What else does that represent than getting stronger/faster/better when is applies to everything?
Mildly.
I do feel like characters feel a bit too "pushed" towards a handful of scores and some more round-outness would be good, with less stat increase being a necessary consequence, but I do like the ABC generation approach.
Perhaps one could obtain your stat array by inserting some - but not as many - capped boosts along the levels.
Also I am sort of thinking of moving this to flat modifier over numerical stat, which I think is something Paizo has tucked away as a variant, with boosts turning into "increase four stats of your choice by +1, to a maximum of (4, 5, 5, 6)".
What I proposed still has the ABC generation:
"Your Ancestry gives you two fixed boosts, two free boosts and one flaw, or three free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your background give two fixed boosts, and two free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your class gives a choice of one boost."
You think combining it with using more boosts to increase a stat to 18 or 20/something like point buy is too complicated?
To show some of the issues with the current system of ability score generation, here are example characters with a variety of builds with their ability scores from level 1 to 20 (Potent items are included in most important score)
Example characters， Current system:
Fighter:
1: Str 18 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10
5: Str 19 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 12
10: Str 20 Dex 18 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 14
15: Str 23 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 16 Cha 16
20: Str 24 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 14 Wis 18 Cha 18
Balanced Fighter, has to avoid boosting Wisdom at level 16 so it doesn't waste a boost.
1: Str 18 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10
5: Str 19 Dex 14 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 10
10: Str 20 Dex 14 Con 19 Int 12 Wis 16 Cha 10
15: Str 23 Dex 14 Con 20 Int 14 Wis 18 Cha 10
20: Str 24 Dex 16 Con 20 Int 16 Wis 18 Cha 12
High Con Fighter, had no choice but to boost Cha or waste a boost at 20.
1: Str 14 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 10
5: Str 16 Dex 19 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 10
10: Str 18 Dex 20 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 10
15: Str 18 Dex 23 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 12
20: Str 18 Dex 24 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 20 Cha 14
Archer, ended up boosting Int and Cha because other boosts would have been wasted.
1: Str 18 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 10 Cha 10
5: Str 19 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
10: Str 20 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 19 Wis 12 Cha 10
15: Str 23 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 14 Cha 10
20: Str 24 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10
Caster MC (switch Int with Wis or Cha), had to limit boosts to Dex and Con in order to not waste lvl 20 boosts.
Rogue:
1: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 14
5: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 10 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha 16
10: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 16 Cha 18
15: Str 10 Dex 23 Con 10 Int 19 Wis 18 Cha 19
20: Str 10 Dex 24 Con 12 Int 20 Wis 18 Cha 20
Skill Rogue, tries to be good at all skills.
1: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 12
5: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 14
10: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 16
15: Str 10 Dex 23 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 18
20: Str 12 Dex 24 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 21 Cha 18
Wisdom Rogue, better with wisdom skills, wasted boosts at level 20.
1: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 16
5: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 18
10: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 19
15: Str 10 Dex 23 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 20
20: Str 12 Dex 24 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 18 Cha 21
Cha Rogue, better with charisma skills, wasted boosts at level 20.
1: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 12 Cha 10
5: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 10
10: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 16 Int 19 Wis 16 Cha 10
15: Str 10 Dex 23 Con 18 Int 20 Wis 18 Cha 10
20: Str 12 Dex 24 Con 18 Int 21 Wis 18 Cha 12
Int Rogue, better with intelligence skills, wasted boosts at level 20.
1: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 12
5: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 14
10: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 16
15: Str 10 Dex 23 Con 19 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 18
20: Str 10 Dex 24 Con 20 Int 12 Wis 20 Cha 18
Combat rogue, focused on combat relevant ability scores.
Cleric:
1: Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 14
5: Str 10 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 16
10: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 18
15: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 23 Cha 19
20: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 24 Cha 20
Balanced Casting Cleric.
1: Str 16 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 12
5: Str 18 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 14
10: Str 19 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 16
15: Str 22 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 21 Cha 18
20: Str 22 Dex 14 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 22 Cha 18
Melee Cleric, Potent item included in Str score.
1: Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 12
5: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 14
10: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 16
15: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 23 Cha 18
20: Str 12 Dex 21 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 24 Cha 18
Ranged Cleric, wasted boost.
1: Str 10 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 16
5: Str 10 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 19 Cha 18
10: Str 10 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 19
15: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 23 Cha 20
20: Str 12 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 24 Cha 21
Healing Cleric, wasted boost
Wizard:
1: Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10
5: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10
10: Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10
15: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 23 Wis 18 Cha 10
20: Str 12 Dex 21 Con 18 Int 24 Wis 18 Cha 12
Standard Wizard, wasted boost.
1: Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10
5: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 10
10: Str 10 Dex 18 Con 18 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10
15: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 22 Wis 18 Cha 12
20: Str 10 Dex 20 Con 20 Int 24 Wis 18 Cha 12
Wizard with re-specing ability scores
They are all affected by having to plan ahead for the next set of boosts, and troublesome 19s.
All characters in the end have one high score, maybe a 20, and a bunch of other scores that all get boosted as to not waste boosts at the end.
At the start the have 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 or 18, 14, 14, 12. Because there's no trade off like in point by, there are no interesting choices in building a character. Just put as many bonuses as you can in the ability scores in order of their importance to that character.
All characters should start with an 18 in their primary stat, unless they're unfortunate to have that ability as a flaw (where they spend half their levels with a very heavy penalty, and half just fine).
Example characters, New system:
Fighter:
A lot of different ways to build a fighter, it would still be good if fighters had class features that used the other ability scores, like commanders using Charisma, Tacticians/Maneuver users using Intelligence, and powers involving perception/senses/accuracy using Wisdom.
Str 20 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10
Completely focused on strength at the expense of other stats, not as defensive or versatile.
Str 18 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10
Very good at melee or ranged.
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 18 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 10
High endurance.
Str 18 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 10
Well balanced, can switch Dex/Don with Wis and multiclass with a Wis based caster.
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
Arcane knight, switch Int with Wis or Cha for other casting traditions.
Str 14 Dex 20 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 10
Focused archer
Str 14 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
Arcane archer, switch Int with Wis or Cha for other casting traditions.
Rogue:
Rogues currently have too little reliance on ability scores other than Dextarity. It would be good to have a way for Str to help, and for cool abilities using Int, Cha, and Wis (other than multiclassing with a spellcaster).
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 12
Pure Rogue, very focused on Dex, not too good at other things.
Str 16 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 16
Ninja, if Str involved in damage. Also swap Cha and Wis depending on focus.
Str 18 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 10
Thug, Str based build.
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 10
Traditional, skills and traps rogue. Also could go arcane trickster.
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 18 Cha 10
Scout, could pick up cool perception/wisdom using abilities.
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 18
Social Rogue, feinting in combat and great with social skills.
Cleric:
Currently have a good reliance on a lot of ability scores, but it would be nice if there were options for studious casting focused clerics that used Int.
Str 16 Dex Con Int Wis 18 Cha 16
Balanced Cleric, can cast well enough and is okay with channeling and melee.
Str 16 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 16
Extra balanced Cleric, can do everything okay.
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 20 Cha 14
Pure caster.
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 18
Channeling focused Cleric.
Str 18 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 10
Melee Cleric, melee and casting.
Str 18 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 14
Warpriest, focused on melee with heavy armor.
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 18 Cha 14
High accuracy Cleric, good with bows and ranged touch spells.
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 18 Cha 14
Studious Cleric, currently no features to support this, but could MC Wizard.
Wizard:
Wizards currently just need Int and Dex, but some reliance on other mental stats to improve their casting would be good for build variety. Something like a Psychics disciplines, or an Arcanists arcane pool.
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 16 Cha 10
Balanced caster.
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 20 Wis 14 Cha 10
Pure caster.
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 14 Cha 10
High Accuracy caster, good with bows and ranged touch spells. Also has better AC.
Str 18 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
Melee Wizard, MC into a martial class and fight with weapons and armor.
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 16 Wis 10 Cha 10
Focused Melee, sacrifice some casting ability for better physical ability scores.
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 18 Cha 10
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 18
Cha/Wis using caster. Needs class features using those ability scores.
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha 14
Str 10 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 16 Cha 16
Support caster.
Quite a lot of different ways to build each class, all having various benefits and drawbacks, but being comparable to one another. Not having disruptive ability boosts keeps this balance. They could increase all ability scores by an equal amount, that would also keep this balance.
This would make make bonuses increase by 1 per level, so doubling in power every three levels instead of every two, but still at a consistent rate.That is one thing (+Level) we house-rule out, in home-games.
I agree that Item bonuses need to go, and your damage output for weapons mostly coming from your +X weapon.
As for Ability Score increases, I think some are okay (started in 1st Ed AD&D), but the amount in the Playtest, is vulgar, to me.
Agree 100%
I would like that they went with Pillars of eternity way.
You get your abilities at 1st level, and except magic items they DO NOT CHANGE over leveling.
I wish we would get extra set of 4 increses at 1st level and that is it.
That would give 20 in one stat(races with penalty would have "only" 18) and good to go.
Ancestry: 2 fixed boosts, 1 free, 1 penalty
Background: 1 fixed boost, 1 free
Class: 1 fixed or limited free boost,
Bonus 1: 4 boosts,
Bonus 2 4 boosts,
That could end with; 20,18,16,14,10,8
I do not want a 20 or 22, out the gate. I want starting scores to be limited to 18, at 1st-level, so you can get that 22, at 20th-level. I just find the ability score increases, overall, is too much.This would make make bonuses increase by 1 per level, so doubling in power every three levels instead of every two, but still at a consistent rate.That is one thing (+Level) we house-rule out, in home-games.
I agree that Item bonuses need to go, and your damage output for weapons mostly coming from your +X weapon.
As for Ability Score increases, I think some are okay (started in 1st Ed AD&D), but the amount in the Playtest, is vulgar, to me.
Agree 100%
I would like that they went with Pillars of eternity way.
You get your abilities at 1st level, and except magic items they DO NOT CHANGE over leveling.
I wish we would get extra set of 4 increses at 1st level and that is it.
That would give 20 in one stat(races with penalty would have "only" 18) and good to go.
Ancestry: 2 fixed boosts, 1 free, 1 penalty
Background: 1 fixed boost, 1 free
Class: 1 fixed or limited free boost,
Bonus 1: 4 boosts,
Bonus 2 4 boosts,That could end with; 20,18,16,14,10,8
Well, to each his own. I prefer initial ability scores without boosting unless magic or other extraordinary method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this issue is caused by two thinghs: too many increments, both at character creation and as you level it up, and a not perfect balance in what ability scores do for all characters, and not just for the abilities of the specific class of a character.
It's far too easy to boost many stats to 18 or more, even with the cap at character creation (which in my opinion doesn't make any sense, but I hate caps anyway) especially if you roll dice, since, for some unfathomable reason, they left the old "4d6, drop lowest" method, which has an average around 13, even if the starting average for all characters is 10. Turning back to a more balanced "roll 3d6" or switching to an even better "roll 2d6+3" would have been better.
Balancing ability scores is more difficult, since you have Str and Dex which have many different uses (attack rolls, bulk points, damage rolls, AC, ranged/finess attacks, Reflex ST, etc.) and really poor scores such as Cha, which is used only for some skills and resonance.
It was a good thing to swap initiative from Dex to Wis (I did it myself in my P1 games), but Cha...
In P1 I also swapped Will saves to Cha, since that's the right ability for that (it represent how strong your personality is, so it's also a representation of your self-confidence) and I added something more nasty than resonance to Cha and the limit on how many range increments a ranged weapon used by that character could reach to Wis (basically it was 5 plus Wis modifier), with the actual max number based on the relevant ability for the weapon used (Str for bows and thrown weapons, Dex for slings, Cos for blowguns, crossbows and firearms had built-in Str and Cos scores respectively, spells used the main casting ability score), so that basically every ability score was involved in ranged combat.
I also had separate ability scores for casting spells and learning them, so even casters had at least two important ability scores to care for.
Some similar tweaking could help in averaging the usefulness of all the six scores and remove the concept of "dump stats" from the game.
Odd scores are the easiest thing to fix: since they are basically useless now and even scores only serve to give you your ability modifier, then why have ability scores at all? Just generate the modifiers as scores, which also would reduce bookkeeping by removing one thing to put on the sheet and several calculations to do.
For example, all scores start as +0 and you add 1 or subtract 1 with each ability boost or flaw respectively. If you want to roll them, you could just roll 2d4-5 six times and then assign to abilities (no need for caps or ignoring class and free boosts, since the average roll is +0).
And if you reduce the number of boosts from class while leveling up, that would help a lot, even if it's hard to determine how many boosts is too much. In this case, one possible solution could be to give a few more feats and put the "free boost to an ability score" among the feats themselves, so that the player would be forced to choose between gaining some new things or just boosting his favored score (a self-balancing rule). Also, reducing the boosts would give more importance to proficiency, that at the moment is really the less important modifier among the basic ones (too little difference between the various steps, just five points between a total sucker and a demigodly legend).
What do people think of minimum scores to be a class? Currently you need 16 Wis to multi class as a cleric, but what if you needed 16 Wis to have cleric as your main class?
With this ability score system it is super easy to get 16 in your key stat and no reason not to. Also it seems nice from a flavor perspective, and stops characters that are too underpowered.
So, with the three arguments for keeping ability scores over just using the bonus being:
1) Feel, backwards compatibility, etc
2) Dice rolling
3) Uneven scores (such as 19) being more awkward
I don't care for the first two reasons, so am looking for a nice way to solve the third. One solution I'm toying with is:
* Modifier instead of score
* 3 boosts at 5/10/15/20 instead of 4.
* Max of 4/5/5/6 modifier
With existing rules, aiming at maximizing specific stats, the modifier array looks like this:
1: +4/+3/+2/+1/0/-1
5: +4/+4/+3/+2/0/-1
10: +5/+4/+4/+3/0/-1
15: +5/+5/+4/+4/0/-1
20: +6/+5/+5/+4/+1/-1
With the modifier-only rules, they look like:
1: +4/+3/+2/+1/0/-1
5: +4/+4/+3/+2/0/-1
10: +5/+5/+4/+2/0/-1
15: +5/+5/+5/+3/+1/-1
20: +6/+6/+6/+3/+1/-1
It gives pretty similar results overall. A total of +1 more at 15 and 20, same total bonus at 1/5/10/15. It gives less benefit to a jack-of-all-trades going for a bunch of +4s, but since character strengths are interesting I'm okay with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm ok with the current ability generation method, I miss that it does not reward having an even ability spread. I feel 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14 should be a possible array.
It forces odd ability scores, which don't do anything. This makes it so a character built to be a specific level won't use those ability scores boosts to make an odd stat as not to waste them, but if you want to increase them in the future you are forced to waste that boost for now.
Look at the level 5 pregens, none of them have a 19 in their ability score. But if they had level 10 pregens would they not have a 20 in their main ability score, especially when the games math assumes that.
This makes me think you can retrain ability increases, at least the ones taken after level 1.
What do people think of minimum scores to be a class? Currently you need 16 Wis to multi class as a cleric, but what if you needed 16 Wis to have cleric as your main class?
With this ability score system it is super easy to get 16 in your key stat and no reason not to. Also it seems nice from a flavor perspective, and stops characters that are too underpowered.
I don't like the ability score requirements for multiclassing, and even less so for classing in the first place. The multiclassing requirements creates oddities, like low-wisdom clerics multiclassing to fighters while fighters, who depend more on their prime stat, cannot multiclass to clerics.
Something I think would be an interesting take on armor:
Give everyone armor proficiency except Monks, Sorcerers and Wizards. Fighters and Paladins start as expert.
Heavy armors have a "Strength Rating", if characters strength is lower than that, they decrease max Dex bonus by 1.
Armor name Armor Bonus Max Dex Strength Rating Speed Penalty
Unarmored, +0, -, -
Light/Leather, +1, +4, -
Hide, +2, +3, -, -5 ft
Breastplate, +3, +2, -, -5 ft
Halfplate, +4, +1, -, -5 ft
Plate, +4, +2, 16, -10 ft
Heavy Plate, +5, +1, 18, -10 ft
Mage armor gives +1 Armor Bonus
Have a feat for high con characters, like barbarians and some monks, to make them not need armor
Iron Hide Feat 1
Requirements: 18 Con
Your hide is as tough as iron, you have an Armor bonus of +4 and a Max Dex Bonus of +1
Monks can have high Dexterity, or high Con and take that feat, or have high Wis and take something like Mystic Defense.
Can have high Dex and Wis and be more focused on defense than offense.
Mystic Defense
Requirements: 16 or 18 Wis and you have one hand free
Trigger: An enemy succeeds or critically succeeds against you with a melee Strike
You gain a +2 Circumstance bonus to AC until the Start of your next turn
Might be too much, based on reactive shield.
Skill feats to help out very focused characters narrative capability, while not improving their combat ability
Strength Paragon
Requirements: 20 Strength
You can lift really have things and ....
Wisdom Paragon
Requirements: 20 Wisdom
You are really wise and can ask the GM ....
Sorcerer
Give a reason for Sorcerers to have secondary ability scores other than Dex. The following options should make Dex, Con, Wis, and Int secondary Sorcerers interesting options.
Arcane and Occult should get something for investing in Intelligence, same for Divine and Primal with Wisdom. Also give a Feat that makes Con more important.
Arcane Evolution
Occult Evolution
Divine Evolution
Primal Evolution
Gain a pool of uses equal to you Int/Wis modifier, you can use this to ....
Also could be separate for each bloodline instead of each casting tradition.
It would be much better to give Sorcerers access to something like this which doesn't scale in amount rather than 4 spell slots a spell level, which is too weak at low levels and possibly too strong at high levels.
Change dangerous sorcery to be better for Con based builds.
Dangerous Sorcery
When you cast a spell you can put extra power into it, with a risk. You can add a Material Casting action to gain a ... bonus to ... If you add this action make a DC X flat check. If the check fails you gain the Drained Condition, or increase your Drained value by 1 if you are already Drained.
Change Spell points to Power points:
To give interesting powers that are limited in uses, but not spells. Use the same pool as current spell points to prevent a character getting too much.
Fighter Wisdom - Sensate
Gets a power point pool equal to its Wisdom modifier. Can use that pool for powers like a Strike with the effects of True Strike, or something like Sense all invisible creatures in a 60 ft aura.
Fighter Charisma - Commander
Gets a power point pool equal to its Charisma modifier. Can use that pool for powers like a Strike that grants temp hp to someone near after strike, or a Strike that lets an ally Stride without provoking reactions.
Fighter Intelligence - Skilled
Gets a power point pool equal to its Charisma modifier. Can use that pool for powers that involve things like Trip, Feint, and Disarm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.
While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.
It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.
At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.
Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It forces odd ability scores, which don't do anything.I hadn't even thought of that...
Odd ability scores served a purpose in AD&D, because they had individualized tables for each stat. In 3.PF, they still existed, but were mostly only used for prereqs. But now they aren't even used for that. And with default ability score generation being in increments of +2, the only purpose they serve is slowing down ability score advancement after 18.
They can just adjust the clause to "If an ability score is at a +4 or higher, increasing it further only improves it by +0.5." And still get the same exact result. They can also adjust the attribute boosting magic items to "The item improves your ability score to +4, or improves it by +1 if it is already at +4 or higher." It's such an easy (even if tedious) solution that I don't understand why they aren't doing it.
Optional rules of generating attributes (which is "Roll 3D6 in order") and "tradition" (which is mostly broken at this point) is literally the only reason to keep around "18 Strength" entries. They are otherwise clunky, pointless, and serve as further means of confusing new players. Even monster stat blocks don't have "18 Strength" in their entries anymore!
Down with ability scores, long live ability modifiers! Cut out the middleman and really have a name for yourself!
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.
It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.
At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.
Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.
It's not much different than how it was in PF1 in terms of stat allocations past 1st level. The only difference is that there were less stats being boosted, they were much more limiting (only a +1 every 4 levels to one attribute ever?), and there were a lot more outside stimuli (besides leveling) to improve attributes. Spells, magic items (which are more impactful), and class abilities all did this.
Notice how, except for the minor boost from a level 14 magic item, attribute improvements are strictly from level? And that, since leveling rules are universal, everyone has the same kind of leveling? If we ran PF1 like that, wouldn't you likewise see the same exact parallel concept of people just boosting their primary attribute to the atmosphere?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.
It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.
At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.
Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.
It's not much different than how it was in PF1 in terms of stat allocations past 1st level. The only difference is that there were less stats being boosted, they were much more limiting (only a +1 every 4 levels to one attribute ever?), and there were a lot more outside stimuli (besides leveling) to improve attributes. Spells, magic items (which are more impactful), and class abilities all did this.
Notice how, except for the minor boost from a level 14 magic item, attribute improvements are strictly from level? And that, since leveling rules are universal, everyone has the same kind of leveling? If we ran PF1 like that, wouldn't you likewise see the same exact parallel concept of people just boosting their primary attribute to the atmosphere?
Hopefully they get rid of magic items boosting ability scores, it's much easier to have consistent armor class by character class and armor used if the Dex mod doesn't change over levels.
And I think Jason S wasn't saying he minded characters boosting their primary attribute, but that he minded everyone has pretty much every stat high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.
It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.
At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.
Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.
It's not much different than how it was in PF1 in terms of stat allocations past 1st level. The only difference is that there were less stats being boosted, they were much more limiting (only a +1 every 4 levels to one attribute ever?), and there were a lot more outside stimuli (besides leveling) to improve attributes. Spells, magic items (which are more impactful), and class abilities all did this.
Notice how, except for the minor boost from a level 14 magic item, attribute improvements are strictly from level? And that, since leveling rules are universal, everyone has the same kind of leveling? If we ran PF1 like that, wouldn't you likewise see the same exact parallel concept of people just boosting their primary attribute to the atmosphere?
Hopefully they get rid of magic items boosting ability scores, it's much easier to have consistent armor class by character class and armor used if the Dex mod doesn't change over levels.
And I think Jason S wasn't saying he minded characters boosting their primary attribute, but that he minded everyone has pretty much every stat high.
Well, yes and no. On one hand, it might make player choice more consistent and valuable. On the other hand, it removes a variable players may want to consider, and it also removes a common fantasy trope. Gauntlets that make you strong as an ogre, a headband that makes you as smart as a dragon, anklets making you more agile than a cheetah, items like these have a place in fantasy as well, and removing those really hurts having those kinds of fantasy tropes in place.
I still don't see a problem, because it's similar to what I've stated above. Characters that become higher level generally will have better (and more) stats than lower level characters, and this isn't different from PF1 except in terms of scale. If they don't like the scale, then whatever. If they don't like the way it's acquired, then that's not something that everyone having high stats is at odds with.
Well, yes and no. On one hand, it might make player choice more consistent and valuable. On the other hand, it removes a variable players may want to consider, and it also removes a common fantasy trope. Gauntlets that make you strong as an ogre, a headband that makes you as smart as a dragon, anklets making you more agile than a cheetah, items like these have a place in fantasy as well, and removing those really hurts having those kinds of fantasy tropes in place.
I see your point, do you think their are acceptable ways to implement those items without changing your ability scores?
What about setting you ability score to a set number and having other abilities? Like :
Gauntlets of Ogre Power could set your Strength to 18 and your attack bonus to +18 if its below those numbers, if you Strength/Attack bonus is above those numbers you can use the following abilities at will. They also could allow you to make an unarmed Strike for X damage and Grab, and use an action to make a Strength Check with a +4 Conditional bonus.
Headband of Dragon Intelligence/Anklets of the Cheetah could have similar effects.
I'm curious, what would it feel like if it was "gets a +2 to four scores. Can't increase it above 18 before level 10, and can't increase it above 20 before level 20." It would have the same power cap, but it would do less to discourage increases when you were already at 18.
Part of the problem I see with this alternate version is that it would likely not work at all on monsters, and there's a very vocal group that wants similar rules for monsters/PCs.
I'm curious, what would it feel like if it was "gets a +2 to four scores. Can't increase it above 18 before level 10, and can't increase it above 20 before level 20." It would have the same power cap, but it would do less to discourage increases when you were already at 18.
Part of the problem I see with this alternate version is that it would likely not work at all on monsters, and there's a very vocal group that wants similar rules for monsters/PCs.
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't work for Monsters in a way pf1 would, care to explain?
For heroic NPCs there's no problem at all using this method.
A personal note about how ability scores and modifiers are used in this version of the game, inspired by what I read in the other posts in this thread.
There is an evident intention to follow the choices that were made in D&D 5th edition, but there are heavy flaws in the way those choices were implemented in the final Wizard of the Coast's product.
The first flaw is having really high starting ability scores in a game with only 3-4 modifiers for all rolls and DCs, so basically every character starts already well above average in many aspects of the game.
This also contrasts with the really low ability score cap at 20, which in some cases can be almost reached even at first level.
The intention was to replicate the low number of modifiers present in old edition of the Basic D&D games, but in those games, even if there were caps to ability scores, there were only average score generation systems and no way to rise scores, if not through super-risky magic or divine intervention.
The other main flaw is the really high number of boosts from leveling up, even without magical objects or magic to add even more, which allows for multiple maxed-out scores pretty soon in a character's career. This basically trashes the usefulness of having average or low scores in the game, since there is virtually no chance to ever see them used, unless the character is heavily cursed, ability damaged/drained, or so.
If you add that proficiency bonuses are mostly lower than those provided by high scores and their acquisition is predefined, boosting important ability scores is mandatory for any player, since it's the only thing they have real control over, both while they create the character and when they assign level-based boosts. The advantage/disadvantage mechanic worked in this direction too.
If Paizo really wants to follow the same path (something I personally tend to discourage, since there are many more different and better ways to solve the problems of P1), then they should limit the boosts at character creation (or make the starting scores lower) and remove them entirely or almost entirely from character progression. Also, score boosting from magic should be rare, extremely powerful, and possibly really, really dangerous for the character.
And finally, as I tried to state in my previous post, it is really, really important to make every ability score count for at least one or two key aspect(s) of the general game, not just for class features, so to discourage players from going all-in in just a couple class-important ability scores really soon and leave the rest for the remaining boosts.
If leaving a score too low would leave you open to some dire consequences, you'll think twice before considering it for a "dump stat".
I'm curious, what would it feel like if it was "gets a +2 to four scores. Can't increase it above 18 before level 10, and can't increase it above 20 before level 20." It would have the same power cap, but it would do less to discourage increases when you were already at 18.
Part of the problem I see with this alternate version is that it would likely not work at all on monsters, and there's a very vocal group that wants similar rules for monsters/PCs.
I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't work for Monsters in a way pf1 would, care to explain?
For heroic NPCs there's no problem at all using this method.
The method works if you're assuming standard scores go from 10-18. However, what happens if we pick, say, a succubus? Going off their mods, they have Str 14, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 14, Cha 24. Let's say we make them a bard, and then every 5th level we do a free ability boost.
Making them a bard would give them 26 Cha, and then they can only shore up other scores. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (given they're stronger by default), but what about other examples? A nalfeshnee, or boar demon, has scores of Str 26, Dex 14, Con 24, Int 22, Wis 22, Cha 20. Going by my previous sample, when they level they can only pick a bonus to Dex.
It's not that hard to figure out a solution that works solely for monsters, but then we end up with disparate generation methods. Is it an acceptable sacrifice? I'd say so, personally, but again, very vocal group.
For humanoid NPCs it'd work fine, however.
Personally, I like ability scores improving as you gain experience as it is possible for a person to become stronger, faster, wiser, tougher, etc by working at it. I think PF2's standard for personal improvement is preferable to the belt/headband (plus manuals, tomes, and wishes) model in PF1.
I half agree with you. I like having bonuses come from both leveling and new equipment. Passives are my favorite abilities.
The first flaw is having really high starting ability scores in a game with only 3-4 modifiers for all rolls and DCs, so basically every character starts already well above average in many aspects of the game.
This also contrasts with the really low ability score cap at 20, which in some cases can be almost reached even at first level.
The intention was to replicate the low number of modifiers present in old edition of the Basic D&D games, but in those games, even if there were caps to ability scores, there were only average score generation systems and no way to rise scores, if not through super-risky magic or divine intervention.
I want to say that it's necessary to have high scores in order to differentiate characters.
Negative scores are limited, they feel bad to have such a weakness, as a hero it doesn't make sense to make such flaw required. You could reduce each score I listed by 2 and get the same balance, but I think it feels better to have a normal spread of +0 to +4 (exceptionally -1 to +5) than -1 to +3 (exceptionally -2 to +4).
If you get negatives limited and do something like cap the max to 16 (+3) than you really limit how different characters can be. I like the nuance you can show with the arrays I listed, they feel very different to me. Obviously if you increase ability scores even more they will allow even more differentiation with diminishing gains, at the expense of more complexity and a proportionally higher effect in relation to d20 rolls.
I feel like to arrays I listed are the sweet spot for that. Obviously other people may feel higher or lower values are more appropriate, but I feel something like this type of system I described to generate them is best.
Truthfully in game high scores aren't that meaningful. Every +2 points is just a +1 to a d20 roll, which already has a spread of 20. The notions of something like an 18 being that high are inherited from previous editions, where things like carry weight scaled exceptionally with each point, and I think not having any bonus from ability scores was normal for most characters. Pathfinder to me seems like a very different game, with higher character power, where characters are seen as significant and not disposable.
The simplest way to reconcile these changes in meaning of ability scores for people who don't like seeing starting 18s and 20s is to change ability score modifier to be Score - 10. That way the starting arrays I listed would go from 10 to 15 instead of 10 to 20, but keep the modifier spread of +0 to +5.
I want to say that it's necessary to have high scores in order to differentiate characters.
Negative scores are limited, they feel bad to have such a weakness, as a hero it doesn't make sense to make such flaw required. You could reduce each score I listed by 2 and get the same balance, but I think it feels better to have a normal spread of +0 to +4 (exceptionally -1 to +5) than -1 to +3 (exceptionally -2 to +4).
...
I don't agree with this, for I know the reason why "heroic" scores skyrocketed since 3.0: Before that, when the top game was AD&D 2nd Edition, characters started to get bonuses not around 12, but around 15, if not more, and each +1 really counted, since the center of the mechanic was to have the lowest possible target number for the flat d20 roll, not reaching a DC with a complex check and tons of modifiers.
Since the d20 System was based on averages, due to the fact that it switched to an "open end" mechanic, having high starting scores was not mandatory or even necessary, but the players, many of which came from AD&D, still maintained the feel that "really high" was good and "heroic", having forgotten the times when a hero wizard may only be able to cast up to 5th level spells or a fighter could be built with a 9 Str score.
PF2 is going back to a very limited range of scores for abilities (20 points, even less than the 25 of AD&D), so it should also go back to more "average" heroes, to have those scores really matter.
If every character in the world always has top scores in everything, you do not get the "I'm an hero" or "I'm special" feel that you get when, among lots of averagely scored adventurers of your class, you have that single, high score in a relevant ability that very few have.
And flaws make you special too. I still remember with a smile the character one of my players was able to play in an AD&D 2e campaign: the cavalier Brian Stormrider. This chap had maxed-out physical scores, all rolled, an almost impossible thing to achieve in that system, and that's the heroic part. He also had 8 Int, 6 Wis and a below-average Cha, scores that the player wanted to keep and that he made really count in the life of his character, giving us some memorable hilarious moments.
The flaws were what made us remember that character, which otherwise would only have been the same old He-Man-in-heavy-armor that is pretty much the standard cavalier/paladin/fighter in the latest modern games.
PF2 is going back to a very limited range of scores for abilities (20 points, even less than the 25 of AD&D), so it should also go back to more "average" heroes, to have those scores really matter.
If every character in the world always has top scores in everything, you do not get the "I'm an hero" or "I'm special" feel that you get when, among lots of averagely scored adventurers of your class, you have that single, high score in a relevant ability that very few have.
I'm unsure what you mean by this. Do you want most people who play a fighter have something like 12 strength, while some people get lucky and have a fighter with a 16 strength?
If you want that than you'll have to divorce ability scores from important d20 rolls like attack rolls and saves to have a balanced game (I believe a balanced game where all characters can contribute similar amounts is a design goal). That'd certainly work, you could have those things just based on proficiency, and use ability scores for other things. I really like that idea, but it is quite a big change.
What I mean is that if you choose to limit the range of possible scores for a game, there is no need to center the game on the top gamma values.
Your entire math should be based on the average, center score, with heroes going up or down from that in each ability score.
The base of PF2 is 10, but from that, at character creation, you can only go up. The only part of the creation process that takes away something may be race, which can give you a flaw, unless you choose to flaw yourself to gain an extra boost somewere else.
Every "layer" in character creation should give both boosts and flaws: for example, a class gives you one boost to his primary ability score, but should also give a flaw to one that is particularly useless for or not really trained by that specific class.
Going always up in scores makes sense only in games with unlimited advancement like D&D 3.5 or PF1, not in game with a limited range of possible values.
The reason is that unlimited advancement represent evolution in time, while the limited range represent natural potential. And potential rarely changes.
And this reasoning has made me think that probably using the standard checks from PF1 with this new ability system may not have been the smartest of ideas, but I was not thinking about removing ability scores from checks. I was thinking the exact opposite: removing level and ability modifiers, while at the same time completely changing what "proficiency" means.
A check should be an ability check: a flat d20 roll with which you try to roll your ability score or less, much like the old proficiency checks from AD&D. Proficiency could function as follows (just an example):
Untrained: roll twice, keep the worse result.
Trained: roll once normally.
Expert: roll twice, combine the results into a possibly better result.
Master: as Expert but roll three times.
Legendary: as Expert but roll four times.
When you roll more dice, you fail only if all your roll fail.
If you roll both fails and successes, you succeed, but you keep your worst success and each failure drops the score by 1.
If you roll all successes, you keep your best roll and add 1 for each additional success to the score.
You can't go below 1 or above your score with this modifiers.
Rolling high is good, rolling low is not that good, rolling 1 is a minor success, rolling exactly your score is a greater success, rolling above your score is a failure, and rolling a 20 is a major failure (unless you have a 20 ability score, in which case is a major failure only if you roll two 20 among all the failures).
Level in this case serves only the purpose to give the character access to better proficiencies, feats, talents and powers. But level itself could be a score, much like it was in PF1 in some cases, since it too can go from 1 to 20, like ability scores.
Your entire math should be based on the average, center score, with heroes going up or down from that in each ability score.
The base of PF2 is 10, but from that, at character creation, you can only go up. The only part of the creation process that takes away something may be race, which can give you a flaw, unless you choose to flaw yourself to gain an extra boost somewere else.
Every "layer" in character creation should give both boosts and flaws: for example, a class gives you one boost to his primary ability score, but should also give a flaw to one that is particularly useless for or not really trained by that specific class.
The math can be considered based on the average. The average is 14, not 10, they're heros, not ordinary. You can consider anything below 14 a flaw.
The math can be considered based on the average. The average is 14, not 10, they're heros, not ordinary. You can consider anything below 14 a flaw.I would really rather not, 14 is a reasonably high score, to me (the game should be playable with 14s, and 12s).
Would you like it if the standard range of ability scores was 6 to 14 instead of 10 to 18, and things like spell points and damage bonuses were 2 + ability score modifier instead of ability score modifier?
For me I feel have a range and tradeoffs in choices is most important, not the numbers themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes and no. On one hand, it might make player choice more consistent and valuable. On the other hand, it removes a variable players may want to consider, and it also removes a common fantasy trope. Gauntlets that make you strong as an ogre, a headband that makes you as smart as a dragon, anklets making you more agile than a cheetah, items like these have a place in fantasy as well, and removing those really hurts having those kinds of fantasy tropes in place.I see your point, do you think their are acceptable ways to implement those items without changing your ability scores?
What about setting you ability score to a set number and having other abilities? Like :
Gauntlets of Ogre Power could set your Strength to 18 and your attack bonus to +18 if its below those numbers, if you Strength/Attack bonus is above those numbers you can use the following abilities at will. They also could allow you to make an unarmed Strike for X damage and Grab, and use an action to make a Strength Check with a +4 Conditional bonus.
Headband of Dragon Intelligence/Anklets of the Cheetah could have similar effects.
Well, here's what they should be changed to:
Gauntlets of the Ogre: Allows a character to wield weapons one size larger than them, incurring Sluggish 1 when they do so upon investment. For 1 RP, They can also pick up and throw rocks of their size or smaller as a projectile weapon as a Strike action, similar to an Ogre, as well as Grab enemies with any unarmed strikes if they are of equal size or smaller for the same cost, applied as a free action.
Headband of the Sage: This headband, upon investment, lets you use Recall Knowledge on a target even if it isn't of the appropriate skill type (such as using Religion on a Giant). For 1 RP (and a Focus Action), you can activate a magic item (such as a wand or scroll) without failure (this is in addition to any RP costs you might have to pay), and you can spend 1 RP to gain one piece of useful information about a type of creature by using a Focus Action, even after you have used Recall Knowledge. A given creature type (such as a Dragon) is bolstered against this option upon use.
Anklets of the Cheetah: These anklets, upon investment, make you Accelerated 5. For 1 RP, you may move through both ally and enemy squares unhindered, not triggering reactions until the end of your next turn, and you may pay 1 RP to ignore all difficult terrain you travel through for 1 minute.
The math can be considered based on the average. The average is 14, not 10, they're heros, not ordinary. You can consider anything below 14 a flaw.I would really rather not, 14 is a reasonably high score, to me (the game should be playable with 14s, and 12s).Would you like it if the standard range of ability scores was 6 to 14 instead of 10 to 18, and things like spell points and damage bonuses were 2 + ability score modifier instead of ability score modifier?
For me I feel have a range and tradeoffs in choices is most important, not the numbers themselves.
I would like to see that there is some trade off for picking high scores from the start.
Like having increases more expensive sooner, at 14 not on 18
I.E.
14,14,14,14,14,14
16,14,14,14,12,12
18,12,12,12,12,12
The math can be considered based on the average. The average is 14, not 10, they're heros, not ordinary. You can consider anything below 14 a flaw.I would really rather not, 14 is a reasonably high score, to me (the game should be playable with 14s, and 12s).Would you like it if the standard range of ability scores was 6 to 14 instead of 10 to 18, and things like spell points and damage bonuses were 2 + ability score modifier instead of ability score modifier?
For me I feel have a range and tradeoffs in choices is most important, not the numbers themselves.
I would like to see that there is some trade off for picking high scores from the start.
Like having increases more expensive sooner, at 14 not on 18
I.E.
14,14,14,14,14,14
16,14,14,14,12,12
18,12,12,12,12,12
Yeah, that works out to the same as the system I listed, but starting at 14 instead of 16. I'd like that if the expected minimum of an ability score was 8 instead of 10.
If you have these costs than most characters will end up with a 16 as their highest score vs 10 as their lowest, a +3 difference. If 8 was the normal minimum score you'd have a normal difference between highest and lowest scores of +4 (you still can go +1 higher or lower for all out investment or a racial flaw, but those aren't normal/shouldn't be expected/assumed).
I feel like having a +4 expected difference gives you a lot more to work with and makes for more interesting differences. If you increase the costs like you have at 14, then you need to start at 8 instead 10 to get that.
The math can be considered based on the average. The average is 14, not 10, they're heros, not ordinary. You can consider anything below 14 a flaw.I would really rather not, 14 is a reasonably high score, to me (the game should be playable with 14s, and 12s).Would you like it if the standard range of ability scores was 6 to 14 instead of 10 to 18, and things like spell points and damage bonuses were 2 + ability score modifier instead of ability score modifier?
For me I feel have a range and tradeoffs in choices is most important, not the numbers themselves.
I would like to see that there is some trade off for picking high scores from the start.
Like having increases more expensive sooner, at 14 not on 18
I.E.
14,14,14,14,14,14
16,14,14,14,12,12
18,12,12,12,12,12
Yeah, that works out to the same as the system I listed, but starting at 14 instead of 16. I'd like that if the expected minimum of an ability score was 8 instead of 10.
If you have these costs than most characters will end up with a 16 as their highest score vs 10 as their lowest, a +3 difference. If 8 was the normal minimum score you'd have a normal difference between highest and lowest scores of +4 (you still can go +1 higher or lower for all out investment or a racial flaw, but those aren't normal/shouldn't be expected/assumed).
I feel like having a +4 expected difference gives you a lot more to work with and makes for more interesting differences. If you increase the costs like you have at 14, then you need to start at 8 instead 10 to get that.
I would not start at 8, PCs are unusal. heroes. I would leave 8 for racial flaw.
a character with 18,18,18,8,8,8 would probably see himself killed well before 5th level.
Thing is, I see 8 as a real obstacle to survive many varied encounters that are presented to an adventurer while he gets 10 higher level.
6 is a disability, in whatever ability you put it. Maybe you could get away with 6 charisma as an secluded druid/barbarian/ranger, but any social encounter may bring you more harm than good.
I would not start at 8, PCs are unusal. heroes. I would leave 8 for racial flaw.
a character with 18,18,18,8,8,8 would probably see himself killed well before 5th level.
Yeah, I'd prefer to have 10 be the base too, and leave 8 for extreme cases like racial flaws.
But I feel that if you have your system of boost to 14 = 1, 16 = 2, 18 = 3 it's too expensive to make a character with an 18, meaning the expected difference between the highest and lowest stat is +3.
The system I proposed wouldn't allow things like 18,18,18,8,8,8
Your Ancestry gives you two fixed boosts, two free boosts and one flaw, or three free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your background give two fixed boosts, and two free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your class gives a choice of one boost.This gives a total bonus of +8, with a max of only one stat being 16, and ensures at least four stats have a bonus.
Then you can use five boosts, but it costs two boosts to increase a stat from 16 to 18, or three boosts to increase a stat from 18 to 20.
The normal max stat you'll have is 18, because boosting a stat to 20 takes all of you free boosts so it's too expensive for most builds.
That gives you a normal spread of 18 as the highest stat and 10 as the lowest, for a difference of +4.