| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that Cha as a dump stat is really only an issue for power gamers. Also, I don't really know if it's a problem? P2 the worst you can have in Cha is 8, and that's only if your Ancestry has a Cha penalty. Most PCs will have at least a 10, so what's the complaint? Especially being trained in Diplomacy will be much more important after about 3rd level than you Cha bonus anyways.
The handling of bonus languages in the Playtest opened up a way to handle things where you want a stat to have some but not too much influence. There, you got a bonus language if you have an intelligence of 14+ -- and no more. Using this as a precedent, we could, for example, add +1 to something if a character has a charisma of 14+.
In the playtest, did anybody find "you get trained in more skills, get a bonus language" to actually be sufficient incentive for non-Int classes to invest in Int?
In my experience Intelligence was probably the most common stat which had nothing invested in it in the playtest.
Better than 5E Int which is practically useless, though not by a lot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the playtest, did anybody find "you get trained in more skills, get a bonus language" to actually be sufficient incentive for non-Int classes to invest in Int?
In my experience Intelligence was probably the most common stat which had nothing invested in it in the playtest.
Int was pretty weak in the playtest but removing level from untrained proficiency makes that untrained vs trained gap a lot bigger than it was in the playtest. Perhaps that alone is enough of a buff to Int to make it worth it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the playtest, did anybody find "you get trained in more skills, get a bonus language" to actually be sufficient incentive for non-Int classes to invest in Int?
In my experience Intelligence was probably the most common stat which had nothing invested in it in the playtest.
Yes, actually. It was far from the most invested in, but extra Skills were good even in the playtest, and have gotten much better in the final version given the vastly increased gulf between Untrained and Trained Skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought some classes got way too many skills already. A Rogue with 14 INT felt like it has 90% of all skills trained specially since they were compressed a lot. Pumping INT was not required at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought some classes got way too many skills already. A Rogue with 14 INT felt like it has 90% of all skills trained specially since they were compressed a lot. Pumping INT was not required at all.
This is fairly true for a Rogue (unless you want all the skills, of course), and somewhat true for the Bard. It's a lot less true for, well, everyone else.
I really like that! Gaining Hero Points when you get messed up is a cool idea. I might make the max number of hero points you can stock based on Charisma, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought some classes got way too many skills already. A Rogue with 14 INT felt like it has 90% of all skills trained specially since they were compressed a lot. Pumping INT was not required at all.This is fairly true for a Rogue (unless you want all the skills, of course), and somewhat true for the Bard. It's a lot less true for, well, everyone else.
Speaking as a player who LOVES skills and almost always spends more resources on them than they're "worth" one rapidly hits the point of diminishing returns in PF1. A reasonably small set of thematically linked skills will generally satisfy most characters need for skills (satisfy the character concept, give you some areas to shine, give the group actual out of combat utility).
And in a game geared to groups you arguably WANT skills to be somewhat restricted for niche protection. Its hard to shine in A if EVERYBODY can do A.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for making Charisma a dead stat, I'm still amazed that other people run games where only one person ever makes social checks. Also, if it's fine for wizards to leave Strength at 10 it should be fine for other people to leave Charisma at 10 too.
I think more or less this is why I want Charisma to function as something other than a social skill check obstacle, because I like you am a heavy skill checks DM/GM.
Social checks are heavily player dependent, some players have what I like to call "table charisma", where the words and ways they lay things out makes the check seem "check-less". However, as a heavy skill check GM, I don't just give them things without checks most of the time because it devalues those that do invest in the rolls.
Also, this sort of funnels everything through one person (frequently called the "face" of the party) which is certainly a fine dynamic, but it's also pretty exclusive for a group based game.
It would be nice if Charisma had some other merit to it's selection, so my optimized martial players could actually prioritize Charisma or at the very least not dump it extensively.
Also in the first scenario, Charisma mostly serves as a punishment to players without it instead of an incentive to invest. It just seems like the GM (often me) is picking on them because they do have low charisma, but if I don't put them in those positions then I am allowing the players who did invest to feel empty in their investment.
It's kind of a lose lose.
At least Charisma won't be alone now, Intelligence is equally as useless now that there is no Skill relation outside your initial selection.
Part of me wishes they would just alter Will Saves to use your highest mental stat as the base stat. Then it brings all the mental stats on the same level and makes it a matter of preference (Wisdom still gets perception, but a lot less active in the Skill territory than the other two).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, "it's fine for Wizards to leave Strength at 10" is a false dichotomy. No one is saying it's not fine for characters to have a Charisma of 10; rather they are saying there should be more of a consequence for doing so.
A wizard who chooses to have a Strength of 10 has crap melee accuracy and damage compared to a wizard who chooses to invest in Strength. Most of the time that won't come up, but when both are trapped in an anti-magic field the high Strength wizard is going to have options that the low-Strength wizard does not.
That's really all anyone is asking for with Charisma, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard who chooses to have a Strength of 10 has crap melee accuracy and damage than a wizard who chooses to invest in Strength. Most of the time that won't come up, but when both are trapped in an anti-magic field the high Strength wizard is going to have options that the low-Strength wizard does not.
STR also governs Bulk.
Con governs HP (and fort)
Dex governs AC (and reflex)
Wis governs Will (and Perception)
Cha/Int ??? some languages, a few trained skills, and a little bit of silver on the tongue for certain checks. Nothing directly that affects all character Classes.
I mean. Int is a big deal now. Suppose you hit level 10, and you’re considering stats to boost. Int gives you +12 to a skill, and +1 to several others. Cha gives you +1 to several skills; more useful ones, sure, but that’s a big difference to make up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the Playtest I felt the biggest asymmetry I think is that classes whose primary stat is one of the 3 save relevant ones (Dex,Wis,Con) have an "extra stat boost" after covering all their saves and their mainstat which can go to strength, intelligence, or charisma.
So Clerics are free to be Charismatic, Rogues are free to be intelligent, dex Monks are free to be strong.
But the Str Fighter? If you are going heavy armor I guess you can stop increasing dex when you hit the cap for your armor and then put one of the other two. Barbarians are even harder up since they are discouraged from wearing heavy armor.
Since I play homebrew campaigns, I give Charisma based skills a lot more power than linear, premade games get. Charisma based characters with the right skills can sweet talk entire sections of the game into and out of existence. The amount of narrative control these characters have over the game makes a huge difference on the relative value of each stat.
Example: The end boss of my campaign was a neutral evil witch dragon that had been tricked into using magic that progressively weakened the seal on Rovagug's prison. My charismatic players were able to beat the high DCs to get the boss to talk to them, then beat the high DCs to convince her that neither the party or she wanted to end the world. They beat the campaign that way.
Granted, not all games play out like this, and ranks in those skills mattered more than the charisma bonus.
If intelligence gives you more training and beats charisma investment, wouldn't it be nice if charisma could give you training in cha based skills?
I don't think that is true. At level 5 I'll definately consider putting my 4th upgrade into Int. Thats +5 to a Skill of my choosing, that scales as I level up even further. Thats a pretty big advantage.
While it's not nothing, the impact of Int in PF1 is much more in regards to Skills.
If it allowed you to apply an Skill Increase in general I'd agree, but bumping to Trained is pretty much only going to have a lot of value at level 5.
At level 10, while your Skill does get an effective +12, you're still massively behind the curve of any of the difficult checks at that point (even more so for 15 and 20).
And even in the above cases, I think it's going to be rather difficult to justify not upping one of the "All inclusive 4" that is Con, Dex, Str, and Wis. A +5 to a Skill is only really valuable if you want that Skill and you really need to be trained to operate.
A +1 to Saves, Perception, better Bulk, better AC, or better HP are all good on just about anyone.
It's not as worse off as Charisma, but it's certainly not at the big boys table.
I don't think that is true. At level 5 I'll definately consider putting my 4th upgrade into Int. Thats +5 to a Skill of my choosing, that scales as I level up even further. Thats a pretty big advantage.While it's not nothing, the impact of Int in PF1 is much more in regards to Skills.
If it allowed you to apply an Skill Increase in general I'd agree, but bumping to Trained is pretty much only going to have a lot of value at level 5.
At level 10, while your Skill does get an effective +12, you're still massively behind the curve of any of the difficult checks at that point (even more so for 15 and 20).
And even in the above cases, I think it's going to be rather difficult to justify not upping one of the "All inclusive 4" that is Con, Dex, Str, and Wis. A +5 to a Skill is only really valuable if you want that Skill and you really need to be trained to operate.
A +1 to Saves, Perception, better Bulk, better AC, or better HP are all good on just about anyone.
It's not as worse off as Charisma, but it's certainly not at the big boys table.
In the playtest, sure, but they’ve lowered the DCs on skills so that trained in a skill is relevant. An extra skill is going to be much better than bulk, unless you’re relying on melee attacks. I’d put Int below the the save stats, but solidly above Cha and Str.
But the Str Fighter? If you are going heavy armor I guess you can stop increasing dex when you hit the cap for your armor and then put one of the other two. Barbarians are even harder up since they are discouraged from wearing heavy armor.
This is another point to bring up, the people who can realistically spend the bonus on INT is actually kinda small.
Alchemist - Already has INT as primary
Barbarian - Pretty much gonna need Con, Dex, and Str. Wis is good for saves Cha is nice for Intimidate. Int is in distant last
Cleric - Con, Dex, Str all good selections. Wis is primary. If you sacrifice STR you can grab Cha. Int still distant last.
Druid - Wis primary. Str, Dex, Con all good again. Str sacrifice, you can probably grab Cha to be better with animals, but it's a tighter race between Int and Cha here.
Fighter - Str need. Dex need. Con need. Wis comes out ahead again for saves and Perception. Int and Charisma fight for last place.
Monk - Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Sacrifice Str or Dex or Wis to grab one of the other two, but Dex and Wis both increase saves and ac/perception respectively. TOUGH to justify others.
Paladin - Cha, Str, Dex, Con. Wis beats Int for Perception and Saves.
Ranger - Str, Dex, Con. Wis still kinda edges the other two, but I guess you could pick Int here if you really wanted a Skill.
Rogue - Doesn't care about getting trained skills at all, they get 10 + Int at level 1 which is nearly 2/3 if they have 12 Int. Even then Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and even Cha kinda beat Int here.
Sorcerer - Cha primary. Con and Dex come next. After that I'd prolly go Wis for Perception and Saves, but hey Str/Int can duke it out.
Wizard - Int is primary.
So of the break down, those that can realistically take Int without kinda shooting themselves in the foot are the Primary Int classes and then those that wish to gain a particular Skill over Perception, Saves, AC, etc.
It's just got not a lot going for it right now.
An extra skill is going to be much better than bulk, unless you’re relying on melee attacks. I’d put Int below the the save stats, but solidly above Cha and Str.
While I don't disagree, see above. Those that have STR/INT primary make that kinda untrue.
Druid is free to take Int if they aren’t a wild-shape order.
Fighter doesn’t get much from Con. With each “hit die” step now worth +4 Con instead of +2 Con, and with good Fort saves, there’s not much use. Dex stops mattering as much once you hit armor cap.
Monk can pick strong will save progression instead of grabbing Wis.
Paladins are heavily penalized at later levels for being out of heavy armor, so Dex is only fully useful up to the armor cap.
Sorcerer gets just about zilch from strength. Int is very easy to take over it.
Another point is that once all your save stats hit 18 the lower stats become much more attractive. Obviously PCs will keep boosting their main stats but taking Con from 18 to 20 needs to compete with raising Cha or Int from 10 to 14.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One figures that "by the time we have increase our save relevant stats to 18" most characters would be level 10 or something. Since the identity of the character is probably established in the first 10 levels, "I am now more intelligent/strong/charismatic" on the backend probably means less.
But "having a good will save" doesn't make wisdom less attractive. I would still want 18 Wis so I can critically succeed more often even with legendary will.
One figures that "by the time we have increase our save relevant stats to 18" most characters would be level 10 or something. Since the identity of the character is probably established in the first 10 levels, "I am now more intelligent/strong/charismatic" on the backend probably means less.
Less for sure but not nothing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a player who LOVES skills and almost always spends more resources on them than they're "worth" one rapidly hits the point of diminishing returns in PF1. A reasonably small set of thematically linked skills will generally satisfy most characters need for skills (satisfy the character concept, give you some areas to shine, give the group actual out of combat utility).
Sure. In PF1. We're talking PF2 here, which is a somewhat divergent situation. Wanting 7 or 8 Skills was common for the players in my playtest game, and is certainly true of me looking at the options.
And in a game geared to groups you arguably WANT skills to be somewhat restricted for niche protection. Its hard to shine in A if EVERYBODY can do A.
Redundancy is good, particularly on certain skills. Others have to be used individually a lot of the time. I certainly wouldn't expect complete overlap to be a good idea, but ensuring all the knowledge stuff is covered is very relevant, for example, and everyone having, say, Stealth has serious advantages.
The group who mostly don't take Int higher than 10 will certainly do fine, but the group who mostly raise it will have real advantages as well.
If it allowed you to apply an Skill Increase in general I'd agree, but bumping to Trained is pretty much only going to have a lot of value at level 5.
I strongly disagree and am confused why you think this would be true.
At level 10, while your Skill does get an effective +12, you're still massively behind the curve of any of the difficult checks at that point (even more so for 15 and 20).
Uh...they've specifically said they've redesigned the DCs so that someone at Trained will maintain the same odds of success at 10th level as at 1st, with increases adding to those odds (ie: if you have a 60% chance at 1st with Trained, you'll have 80% at 10th with Master). So this is just factually untrue. Trained Skills are just as useful whatever level you pick them up at, and that's frankly quite useful indeed, since you know what kind of campaign you're in and can pick skills appropriately.
And even in the above cases, I think it's going to be rather difficult to justify not upping one of the "All inclusive 4" that is Con, Dex, Str, and Wis. A +5 to a Skill is only really valuable if you want that Skill and you really need to be trained to operate.
A +1 to Saves, Perception, better Bulk, better AC, or better HP are all good on just about anyone.
It's not as worse off as Charisma, but it's certainly not at the big boys table.
Int is certainly behind Dex, Con, and Wis, but I'd actually put it right on par with Str. The extra skills are way better than Strength's non-attack benefits, so it's a matter of whether you're doing Str-based combat which is better.
And even raising the Save stats is probably way less essential in the final version given the math changes they've hinted at. They'll remain more optimal, but be way less necessary, and even in the playtest, the caster Cleric of Abadar who raised Int instead of Con and just about every opportunity did fine.
Charisma needs definite help to be in the same ballpark, though.
Druid is free to take Int if they aren’t a wild-shape order.
Druid and Cleric are the ones it looks most appetizing for, and with Clerics getting a boost to channel with Cha, Druid I can see.
That said, what Skills are you really wanting as a Druid that you aren't going to already have training in? Not saying there's not one, but it's certainly not like an "obvious" choice.
Fighter doesn’t get much from Con. With each “hit die” step now worth +4 Con instead of +2 Con, and with good Fort saves, there’s not much use.
I mean it's retroactive. So just with the argument of +X to Skill, you get +X to HP. And boosting Con makes Critical Successes and Critical Failures more/less likely respectively.
In a system where +1's are now hard to get, they matter especially. I do not find your conclusions on CON for a Fighter even remotely true.
Dex stops mattering as much once you hit armor cap.
Which is not an easy cap to reach now that Dex belts are gone, Mithril is still a thing, and you left out the part about the ever valuable Reflex Save, which is relevant to anyone.
Monk can pick strong will save progression instead of grabbing Wis.
And sacrifice, Ki, Perception, and once again a better chance at Critical Success and distance from Critical Failure.
Paladins are heavily penalized at later levels for being out of heavy armor, so Dex is only fully useful up to the armor cap.
Dex also still matters in the case of Ranged attacks, which Paladins were not opposed to, but once again Reflex saves matter.
That said, even if you throw out Dex entirely, Cha, Con, Str, and Wis all are pretty appetizing over Int. It's at least not terrible to select though, I'll admit, but certainly not an "easy" choice.
Sorcerer gets just about zilch from strength. Int is very easy to take over it.
They still need Dex (A LOT), Con, and Wis (for saves and perception).
Sure they don't need Str, unless they're going battle sorcerer trasmorph or whatever, but it's again not an easy choice.
Uh...they've specifically said they've redesigned the DCs so that someone at Trained will maintain the same odds of success at 10th level as at 1st, with increases adding to those odds (ie: if you have a 60% chance at 1st with Trained, you'll have 80% at 10th with Master). So this is just factually untrue. Trained...
With all due respect, you can't call something "factually untrue" unless there are actual facts I can look at. Someone telling me the "rolls are now more balanced" is not the same as showing me the new DCs.
If they have reduced them to the point where a Trained person can compete realistically with all aspects related to that with a 50%+ chance, then it indeed serves a purpose. I'll wait for the actual numbers, but even considering this I don't think it makes INT "a great pick" even in that scenario for a lot of reasons.
The value of that Skill needs to outweigh benefits when you were doing fine without for 5/10/15/20 levels before it was trained (which is unlikely outside of a Skill that was an inconvenience).
I.E. if we start a campaign, and I don't take Athletics, but the I find it becomes Seafaring, I can see the value for Swim.
However, that requires a niche scenario to come up where I find "man I really could use this given the context of the campaign and not my original concept for this character".
While the above does happen, to say that it happens often enough to put INT anywhere near the Str/Con/Dex/Wis is a stretch.
And Str might not govern a lot, but Str governs nearly every class that isn't a Caster, and Casters use mental stats, which means INT has to compete with the other Mental Primary (or is already a priority).
And we can't forget, STR now also matters for Armor as higher STR is beneficial for speed, which gives it even further advantage.
There's a lot of overlap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I hope Trained is less than a 50% chance for meaningful DCs at higher levels, if only because I think there should be granularity between "I have a 0% chance to succeed" and "I have a 50+% chance to succeed".
Not saying there's not one, but it's certainly not like an "obvious" choice.
...
It's at least not terrible to select though, I'll admit, but certainly not an "easy" choice.
...
but it's again not an easy choice.
If its so often not an easy choice doesn't that mean that the secondary stats are balanced against each other?
Is your point that all non-primary, non-save stats are equally useless?
Not saying there's not one, but it's certainly not like an "obvious" choice.
...
It's at least not terrible to select though, I'll admit, but certainly not an "easy" choice.
...
but it's again not an easy choice.
If its so often not an easy choice doesn't that mean that the secondary stats are balanced against each other?
Is your point that all non-primary, non-save stats are equally useless?
My point is that even on the Classes that realistically can afford the expense, it's still got heavy competition. One, personally, I would find myself almost never choosing without the scenario I mentioned in my response to DMW in regards to needing a Skill contextually for the campaign.
Also when I originally responded, I had forgotten how STR has now gained the "You move faster in heavier armor" addition that the Dev announced recently.
This furthers the "stats that govern neutral territory" issue.
Personally, I think if INT increases after 1st level allowed you to just blatantly increase a Skill to a new tier, that would solve the issue for me (now that's a choice, even for the Rogue).
Charisma is of course the worst off, but it's also extremely good on those that want to use it (Intimidate is quite good for instance). So it's more of a "feast or famine" issue here.
INT is just an empty choice in a lot of cases. IMO of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I hope Trained is less than a 50% chance for meaningful DCs at higher levels, if only because I think there should be granularity between "I have a 0% chance to succeed" and "I have a 50+% chance to succeed".
It feels difficult to calibrate this because of the aforementioned stat issue, since a 10 wis character who is a master of perception and an 18 wis character who is trained in perception are going to have the same modifier.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, you can't call something "factually untrue" unless there are actual facts I can look at. Someone telling me the "rolls are now more balanced" is not the same as showing me the new DCs.
Frankly, I'd consider the designers' word that doing what I just described was their specific design goal to be factual evidence. If you disagree, I certainly can't stop you, but it's certainly at least a high probability.
If they have reduced them to the point where a Trained person can compete realistically with all aspects related to that with a 50%+ chance, then it indeed serves a purpose. I'll wait for the actual numbers, but even considering this I don't think it makes INT "a great pick" even in that scenario for a lot of reasons.
Well, I didn't say it was a 'great pick'. I specifically noted the Save stats as better, and said Str was better if you used it to attack with.
The value of that Skill needs to outweigh benefits when you were doing fine without for 5/10/15/20 levels before it was trained (which is unlikely outside of a Skill that was an inconvenience).
I.E. if we start a campaign, and I don't take Athletics, but the I find it becomes Seafaring, I can see the value for Swim.
That's one area they could be useful, yes. But it's not the only one, and we're not just talking about Int's value post chargen either. Int has pretty good value to expand starting skills at 1st level as well.
However, that requires a niche scenario to come up where I find "man I really could use this given the context of the campaign and not my original concept for this character".
The 'niche scenario' you list (a Skill coming up as potentially useful fairly often) is pretty common, IME. But it's also not the only scenario where this is a good idea. Picking up a skill when you know that it will be useful going forward is also very possible (say you know your next adventure will be underwater, even if Athletics hasn't come up yet, it's sure gonna), as is just filling in a hole you knew would be useful from the beginning and just couldn't quite fit in for whatever reason.
Really, there are several scenarios where this is useful. It isn't necessary but then neither is much else.
While the above does happen, to say that it happens often enough to put INT anywhere near the Str/Con/Dex/Wis is a stretch.
I would never include Str in a list with those others in terms of absolute quality. Str is verging on utterly useless to a large subset of characters (Dex-Rogues, many Alchemists, and most offensive casters), and of dubious utility to others (most ranged characters). It's better if you use it to attack, but acting like that's universal is simply untrue.
And I've specifically said repeatedly that the Save stats were better.
And Str might not govern a lot, but Str governs nearly every class that isn't a Caster, and Casters use mental stats, which means INT has to compete with the other Mental Primary (or is already a priority).
That's really not true. There 7 non-caster Classes, of which two often don't need Str at all (Alchemist and Rogue...and Alchemist requires Int) and three others often have it as a secondary stat at best (Fighter, Ranger, and Monk). Only Barbarian and Paladin reliably use Str all the time (and even Paladin hopefully gets an archer build).
And as for casters, non-melee Druids and some Clerics can afford Int, and as noted Wizards obviously max it. Bards and Sorcerers have to make some more tradeoffs if they want it, admittedly.
So...that's two Classes that needs it, about half the members of 6 more who can easily afford it, and four who don't need it.
Str, meanwhile, is necessary for two Classes, and needed for about half the builds of 8 more or so, and two Classes who almost never need it. That's slightly more generally applicable, but only slightly.
And we can't forget, STR now also matters for Armor as higher STR is beneficial for speed, which gives it even further advantage.
This is true. It's also, however, only true for those who wear heavier armor, which is a small group of Classes in absolute terms, especially at high levels as Dex goes up.
Str is good, and I don't deny that, but it's not universally good. Not everyone wants it by any means.
There's a lot of overlap.
Sure, but that doesn't make Int not good.
Personally I hope Trained is less than a 50% chance for meaningful DCs at higher levels, if only because I think there should be granularity between "I have a 0% chance to succeed" and "I have a 50+% chance to succeed".
That almost certainly depends on stat. They've said you can get to a 90% or 95% on things you really specialize in at high levels, but that presumably includes a +6 or +7 stat-mod as well as being Legendary, and possibly an item of some sort (though they've said that'll be less necessary). So getting Skills you've got an Ability of 10 or 12 to support at Trained is probably the 'less than 50%' area (and were so even at 1st level), while ones with high Ability support do better.
But the number I picked was basically an arbitrary example rather than anything based on knowledge of specific numbers.
Frankly, I'd consider the designers' word that doing what I just described was their specific design goal to be factual evidence. If you disagree, I certainly can't stop you, but it's certainly at least a high probability.
Sure, what they perceive to be in line with that goal might not be what I consider to be that though. I would avoid adding arbitrary percentages for success then if this what you meant though, since there is no way to know where those percentages lie as of now.
Str was better if you used it to attack with.
Or if you use Medium+ armor, Mighty Composite Bows, or Thrown Weapons.
All of those cases it also matters.
Int has pretty good value to expand starting skills at 1st level as well.
Which means it matters less than it did in PF1, and in PF1 it was dumped all the time on non-essential Classes. It was second most dumped only to Charisma.
That's really not true. There 7 non-caster Classes, of which two often don't need Str at all (Alchemist and Rogue...and Alchemist requires Int)
The Rogue starts with 10 skills + Int. That's nearly 2/3 the skills. While other Skills is never bad, to say it still holds as much intrinsic value is a stretch.
And I specifically am not speaking about Primary INT Classes, because they are going to increase INT regardless, but okay.
three others often have it as a secondary stat at best (Fighter, Ranger, and Monk).
LOL wut. Secondary sure, but necessary. On all three it affects melee damage. On two it affects Armor. Even if the first two are entirely Ranged, it still matters for Thrown Weapons and Might Composite Bows and Armor still.
It's also nice to be able to switch hit, which most Rangers in PF1 did.
Only Barbarian and Paladin reliably use Str all the time (and even Paladin hopefully gets an archer build).
Even in the case of the Archer build, armor dictates the need for STR alone on the Paladin as the primary Heavy Armor user.
non-melee Druids and some Clerics can afford Int, and as noted Wizards obviously max it.
I said Druids are the ones who find it most affordable, but how valuable a Skill is in comparison to the other offerings is debatable. Clerics can afford it, but I fail to see how it outweighs CHA, CON, DEX, WIS (and STR with Armor or for Warpriest).
Wizards, again, I wasn't speaking Primaries, because they are going to max it regardless.
Bards and Sorcerers have to make some more tradeoffs if they want it, admittedly.
Hey, at least you'll acknowledge that.
So...that's two Classes that needs it, about half the members of 6 more who can easily afford it, and four who don't need it.
Not by my count, but it's clear we hold different values over what value a Trained Skill holds vs say an extra 5-10 feet of movement during your Strides/Sudden Charge/etc or damage on your throw weapons/MC Bows.
Str, meanwhile, is necessary for two Classes, and needed for about half the builds of 8 more or so, and two Classes who almost never need it. That's slightly more generally applicable, but only slightly.
Even with your counts, it still comes out ahead, and by my counts, it's not much of a contest.
Then you get into the weird posistion that if you want more Expert/Master/Legendary even skills your better off being dumber for longer. Like if my "build" has space for two int improvements you've made it alot better to take that at 15 (and get an additional master skill) and then at 20 (to get an additional Legendary skill) while the person who started with that Int doesn't get that chance.
It was more of a hypothetical than an actual suggestion in terms of value of the increase.
Though one way to curb the "wonky" behavior you describe is to simply grant two increases for increases after 18 (effectively the same cost) or an increase on any increment after 18 (so 19 +skill increase).
That said, you still run into "Wizards/Alchemists get too many skills", which you could always simply reduce their starting Skill count to adjust for that.
More or less, I'd rather see something like "Use your highest Mental stat as your Will Save" than I would the INT = Skill Increase solution.
PS Given we are officially super off topic, I'm gonna drop this. Feel free to retort but it's my last go on this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, you can't call something "factually untrue" unless there are actual facts I can look at. Someone telling me the "rolls are now more balanced" is not the same as showing me the new DCs.Frankly, I'd consider the designers' word that doing what I just described was their specific design goal to be factual evidence. If you disagree, I certainly can't stop you, but it's certainly at least a high probability.
Unfortunately, history has shown there are quite a few times where many people think that Paizo failed when they state that they succeeded at their specific design goals.
The most recent example that leaps to mind is the shifter class. Many people (most certainly including me) think its original incarnation was a flat out failure to satisfy its design goals.
I agree that the designers statements raise the probability but I have to agree with Midnightoker that it doesn't raise the probability to even close to "factually true"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, history has shown there are quite a few times where many people think that Paizo failed when they state that they succeeded at their specific design goals.
This is true, but almost never on something that's a pure math thing. Which this is.
The most recent example that leaps to mind is the shifter class. Many people (most certainly including me) think its original incarnation was a flat out failure to satisfy its design goals.
Which ones? I despised the base Shifter, but I did a few different mathematical analyses proving it was roughly on par with a Fighter in DPR (largely due to Pounce), and slightly better in Saves and HP, just rather boring and without much to do aside from damage.
So...the part of its design goals that were pure math was actually fine. It was everything else that was less than ideal.
I agree that the designers statements raise the probability but I have to agree with Midnightoker that it doesn't raise the probability to even close to "factually true"
It sorta depends on the kinda thing we're talking about. I wouldn't ever say 'Skill Feats are as powerful as people want' as a factual thing based on the designers words, since it's subjective and complicated, but something that's a pure math thing in a game with as clear math as PF2? I don't see how they can be wrong on that without lacking skills that they clearly have.
|
|
I agree that the designers statements raise the probability but I have to agree with Midnightoker that it doesn't raise the probability to even close to "factually true"It sorta depends on the kinda thing we're talking about. I wouldn't ever say 'Skill Feats are as powerful as people want' as a factual thing based on the designers words, since it's subjective and complicated, but something that's a pure math thing in a game with as clear math as PF2? I don't see how they can be wrong on that without lacking skills that they clearly have.
Uh, they were wrong on "pure math things" in
Starfinder space combatPF2 playtest 2 math
Where here I'll define wrong as "they changed it due to player backlash"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the designers statements raise the probability but I have to agree with Midnightoker that it doesn't raise the probability to even close to "factually true"It sorta depends on the kinda thing we're talking about. I wouldn't ever say 'Skill Feats are as powerful as people want' as a factual thing based on the designers words, since it's subjective and complicated, but something that's a pure math thing in a game with as clear math as PF2? I don't see how they can be wrong on that without lacking skills that they clearly have.Uh, they were wrong on "pure math things" in
Starfinder space combat
PF2 playtest 2 mathWhere here I'll define wrong as "they changed it due to player backlash"
The playtest idea doesn't really hold up when you take into account its policy of "make the extreme change rather than the safe one because we can always walk it back."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, they were wrong on "pure math things" in
Starfinder space combat
PF2 playtest 2 mathWhere here I'll define wrong as "they changed it due to player backlash"
Issues with both those certainly exist, but seem basically due to being rushed. Nor did they look at them and then say things about them that weren't true. Nobody's perfect and the folks at Paizo can certainly miss things, but missing something and looking right at it, saying 'It's this way.' and being wrong are very different things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest idea doesn't really hold up when you take into account its policy of "make the extreme change rather than the safe one because we can always walk it back."
Uh, no. They publicly admitted that they got the published numbers for monsters wrong and that we were playtesting the wrong numbers.
It wasn't deliberate. It was a mistake.
Note, ALL that I'm saying is that they make mistakes, including on math (I'm not dumping on them. They're not perfect. Nobody is).
Given that they DO make mistakes (including on math) I think having a 100% expectation that the math will be perfect is unreasonable.
So I stand by my assertion that Midnightoker is correct. Paizo getting the math right is not "factually true"
Was it ever stated that Resonance for items would allow Charisma to add to the base number? Or whether that number was at all tied to character level?
Or are we getting the bare minimum replacement for the Christmas tree issue? I'm not sure what's been stated is the likely final outcome as far as resonance other than wands are not spells in a stick and it's a cap on magic items worn.
Perhaps we can organize what's currently likely or definite for Resonance/Magic Items.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's no limit on consumables (at least other than ones imposed by the item or its class itself), but you only can equip 10 permanent magic items (but there are no slots.)
I think there's no limit on consumables (at least other than ones imposed by the item or its class itself), but you only can equip 10 permanent magic items (but there are no slots.)
Given magic items are supposed to move away from stat sticks and more into nebulous power territory, I'm curious how WBL will work out.
It's often difficult to put a price tag on something like that, especially due to some creative antics that can lead to weird outcomes (tree tokens come to mind).
I also wonder if a more refined version of Resonance doesn't return as an alternate mechanic in a later book.
|
|
The playtest idea doesn't really hold up when you take into account its policy of "make the extreme change rather than the safe one because we can always walk it back."
Uh, no. They publicly admitted that they got the published numbers for monsters wrong and that we were playtesting the wrong numbers.
It wasn't deliberate. It was a mistake.
Note, ALL that I'm saying is that they make mistakes, including on math (I'm not dumping on them. They're not perfect. Nobody is).
Given that they DO make mistakes (including on math) I think having a 100% expectation that the math will be perfect is unreasonable.
So I stand by my assertion that Midnightoker is correct. Paizo getting the math right is not "factually true"
IIRC the mistake hinged on monsters being created based on an older version of the playtest and not brought up to date with the rest of the system.
Which would make it an editing mistake rather than a math mistake.
And I am 100% sure that the CRB and Bestiary will be free of such editing mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest idea doesn't really hold up when you take into account its policy of "make the extreme change rather than the safe one because we can always walk it back."
Uh, no. They publicly admitted that they got the published numbers for monsters wrong and that we were playtesting the wrong numbers.
It wasn't deliberate. It was a mistake.
Note, ALL that I'm saying is that they make mistakes, including on math (I'm not dumping on them. They're not perfect. Nobody is).
Given that they DO make mistakes (including on math) I think having a 100% expectation that the math will be perfect is unreasonable.
So I stand by my assertion that Midnightoker is correct. Paizo getting the math right is not "factually true"
IIRC the mistake hinged on monsters being created based on an older version of the playtest and not brought up to date with the rest of the system.
Which would make it an editing mistake rather than a math mistake.
And I am 100% sure that the CRB and Bestiary will be free of such editing mistakes.
Much as I love paizo, they certainly are capable of editing mistakes and publishing numbers that dont work in the official book, Starfinder being the easiest example, from impossible math in Starship Combat at high levels being the main math "mistake" to the Icon theme actually making it harder to be good at what you're supposed to be good at as an editing one, as well as how dying works in that system, as it's written differently in two different chapters. They deliver great product! but when each page has a high word count and you have 600 some odd pages (1000+ between both books) I highly doubt there will be no editing errors, and its possible one of them may become as noteworthy as thetwo above.
Was it ever stated that Resonance for items would allow Charisma to add to the base number? Or whether that number was at all tied to character level?
Or are we getting the bare minimum replacement for the Christmas tree issue? I'm not sure what's been stated is the likely final outcome as far as resonance other than wands are not spells in a stick and it's a cap on magic items worn.
Perhaps we can organize what's currently likely or definite for Resonance/Magic Items.
Last I heard it was just 10 items, Charisma added to it was something some of us were suggesting in the hopes of making Charisma more relevant. I personally love the idea, and hope that certain, extra powerful items take up multiples of those slots, so that the characters who presently have Charisma as an important stat (Sorcerers, Bards, Paladins) get a little something extra. Bards having a small cache of more knicknacks than anyone else is on-point for them, and a sorcerer would want extra items for versatility, as they'd be low on that due to locked in spells, and lets say a Holy Avenger takes 3 resonance to use, having that Charisma on the Paladin makes him more likely to be able to wield it without having to give up as much as say, maybe a fighter. And sure, the Fighter may be able to wield its mighty power, but it may be a lot to handle, making him less likely to want to wield it, saving it for that Holy Champion. .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I am 100% sure that the CRB and Bestiary will be free of such editing mistakes.
I am not. Not even remotely. Since just about EVERY book Paizo has EVER published has errors in it I admit to seeing your 100% certainty as rather bizarre.
Again, NOT slagging Paizo here. They make mistakes. Everybody does. But I DO think expecting NO mistakes is rather, uh, optimistic.