[PaizoCon] "The Future of Pathfinder"


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
I only worry about a high level item's price insofar as calculating treasure drop values. I don't care about it being "affordable" because I don't let my players shop out of the magic chapter of the core rulebook. There are tinkerers and the occasional entrepreneur who has located a few items of power. But there is no Magic Walmart. They can't go in and put a cloak of the montebank on layaway.

Treasure drop is easy as pie. I've been converting War for the Crown for a while and I just dropped all attempt at loot conversion because it's way simpler to just do treasure from the ground up in P2.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:
Items that boost attributes are too iconic to not do, but each of them also does something extra.
This reminds me of AD&D's girdle of giant strength which, in addition to giving you superhuman Strength, allowed you to hurl rocks just like a giant of the appropriate type.

That was same example that sprung to my mind. Something more unique than a +1 to rolls.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:
Items that boost attributes are too iconic to not do, but each of them also does something extra.
This reminds me of AD&D's girdle of giant strength which, in addition to giving you superhuman Strength, allowed you to hurl rocks just like a giant of the appropriate type.
That was same example that sprung to my mind. Something more unique than a +1 to rolls.

The version of the Belt of Giant Strength in the playtest gave you Rock Catching, so more or less the same idea, slightly different implementation. Others did super neat stuff, with the Anklets of Alacrity granting you enhanced speed and the ability to run on water as well as a Dex bonus, the Con Item granting Regeneration 10 for one minute once per day, and so on.

Really, everything about the stat boosters in the playtest was actually super well done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for summarizing, I was bad at taking notes during this.

When I asked the question about class paths I was a little disappointed to hear that the monk (and by extension the fighter) would not be getting path expansion options I was a bit disappointed, but I do have hope that there will be interesting options available for certain paths.

I think ultimately the future of pathfinder is bright, I really liked all that I've seen from the panels and what I got to play at the con. What's coming in the future has me very hopeful for what's to come.


CobaltCrusader wrote:

Thanks for summarizing, I was bad at taking notes during this.

When I asked the question about class paths I was a little disappointed to hear that the monk (and by extension the fighter) would not be getting path expansion options I was a bit disappointed, but I do have hope that there will be interesting options available for certain paths.

I think ultimately the future of pathfinder is bright, I really liked all that I've seen from the panels and what I got to play at the con. What's coming in the future has me very hopeful for what's to come.

Well they do have good option specially the monk with ki powers, stances, special strikes and even grappling


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I felt the same as CobaltCrusader at first, but as I think about it the idea of Fighter and Monk as "build your own path" classes has grown on me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I felt the same as CobaltCrusader at first, but as I think about it the idea of Fighter and Monk as "build your own path" classes has grown on me.

My big concern is that class paths appear to give you something, potentially something very good. Like that Wizard thesis which is basically quick preparation is as strong as a very good feat. If monks and fighters don't get something like that, what are we giving them at level 1 to make up for it?

Like in the playtest spellcasters didn't get level 1 feats, which might still be the case, but rogues and barbarians have rackets and instincts on top of level 1 feats. In the playtest I always felt low level monks were a feat short of where they needed to be (which evened out in the mid-levels) so I was hoping for something like "choose a school, and that gives you a form" and also a level 1 feat.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That's a good point. In the case of Fighters, the answer could simply be "+2 accuracy", but we'll have to see.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

BTW, I don't know where to ask this, and don't feel like starting a thread :-)

...Is CHA getting anything 'extra' with Resonance gone?

This question has come up a lot since the playtest. Well, we finally have a definitive answer from Mark Seifter in last night's very interesting Twitch stream recapping PaizoCon. See here:

Ediwir (in Twitch chat) wrote:
So you guys have said repeatedly you wanted all ability scores to be valuable. now that Focus isn't Charisma based, is there something else propping its value up outside socials?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Well, no. Remember where I said earlier in this stream that we did not succeed in making all the ability scores equally valuable? We didn't. That is a thing. It would've been interesting if focus was Charisma-based, but what we did with focus is even cooler ... [talks about the Refocus ability].


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.


I'm curious if they did anything to help out Intelligence, since with Charisma being tied to resonance in the playtest we had a bunch of people realizing that it was safe (for non-wizards and alchemists) to pretty much ignore intelligence.

I guess rituals might be a big deal and you would want that Occultism or Arcana modifier as high as possible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm curious if they did anything to help out Intelligence, since with Charisma being tied to resonance in the playtest we had a bunch of people realizing that it was safe (for non-wizards and alchemists) to pretty much ignore intelligence.

I guess rituals might be a big deal and you would want that Occultism or Arcana modifier as high as possible.

I think the big boost to Intelligence is dropping +lvl from Untrained skills. So having +Int skills trained at level 1 becomes a lot more valuable.

You also get additional languages equal to your Int mod at character creation now (the Goblin ancestry shown at the banquet), while in the playtest it was "if you have Int 14 or higher you get one additional language"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I felt the same as CobaltCrusader at first, but as I think about it the idea of Fighter and Monk as "build your own path" classes has grown on me.

My big concern is that class paths appear to give you something, potentially something very good. Like that Wizard thesis which is basically quick preparation is as strong as a very good feat. If monks and fighters don't get something like that, what are we giving them at level 1 to make up for it?

Like in the playtest spellcasters didn't get level 1 feats, which might still be the case, but rogues and barbarians have rackets and instincts on top of level 1 feats. In the playtest I always felt low level monks were a feat short of where they needed to be (which evened out in the mid-levels) so I was hoping for something like "choose a school, and that gives you a form" and also a level 1 feat.

Monks and Fighters could just get even more class feats at the levels the other classes are getting their rackets and whatnot (so they'd get two class feats instead of one at first level). I really like the idea of Fighters and Monks being hyper-modular even beyond the norm since they are both classes intended to cover such a wide variety of concepts that Fighter Schools or whatever would leave a ton of perfectly valid character concepts out to dry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
That's a good point. In the case of Fighters, the answer could simply be "+2 accuracy", but we'll have to see.

Yeah, i am actually worried about the lack of a class path, partly because of the playtest. I put together an animal totem barbarian with monk multi-classing and it was really rather good. Trying to do the same character as a monk with barbarian multiclassing was an abject failure.

The monk version had to burn way too many feats to recreate the barbarian's basic chassis- rage and totem abilities, while the barbarian could just pick and choose the relevant monk feats as they became available with level. (Specifically unarmored defense and bonus speed)

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm disappointed Charisma didn't get anything, but it does leave me free to just continue using my 'Pick Wisdom or Charisma, apply whichever you like to Will Saves. You may change this choice when you level up, and only then.' House Rule.

So that's convenient, I suppose. I recommend this House Rule to others, it's pretty solid in PF1, and seems very likely to be in PF2 as well.

MaxAstro wrote:
That's a good point. In the case of Fighters, the answer could simply be "+2 accuracy", but we'll have to see.

Yeah, Fighters getting +2 Accuracy is worth, well, frankly that's worth a lot more than a Feat.

I hope Monks get something similarly cool...though Expert Unarmed Defense and Expert in all Saves (both features they seem very likely to have retained) might actually be enough given the vastly increased value of those given how Proficiency now works. I mean that's +2 to a Save and much more comparable AC with everyone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters getting +2 Accuracy would not be an appropriate replacement for the themed features of other classes; +2 Accuracy is a raw DPR gain that gives no flavor and no versatility. The purposes of Muses, Rackets, etc. is to help you solidify the style of your specific Bard or Rogue, whatever Fighters and Monks get instead needs to also assist in that avenue. The easiest thing to do would be for Fighters and Monks to get even more class feats than other full martials get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, to echo Arachnofiend the thing about racket, instinct, theses, muses etc. is that they give you abilities that aren't just efficiency enhancers. In the playtest a number of them added new rules you could apply to your characters in a way that is likely more interesting than "you get bigger numbers."

Like having a fae bloodline, belonging to the storm order, having the giant totem, etc. tell you something about the character right from the gate that "knows tiger style" or "can sudden charge" does not.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the point of not having a Path is to not have 'baked in' flavor of the sort people are talking about here. The only inherent flavor a Fighter has is being good at fighting...the rest of their flavor is left entirely as an exercise to the player.

That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to have for some Classes.


It feels that it's important for those classes which don't have an inherent flavor due to a path to be able to choose abilities that are just as evocative as the path abilities other people get.


Well yes, that is why I am advocating for Fighters and Monks just getting bonus class feats. It doesn't do the Fighter any good if the "anything is possible with this chassis" versatility that comes with being a Fighter only means you get fewer Cool Things than other classes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
tqomins wrote:
Quandary wrote:

BTW, I don't know where to ask this, and don't feel like starting a thread :-)

...Is CHA getting anything 'extra' with Resonance gone?

This question has come up a lot since the playtest. Well, we finally have a definitive answer from Mark Seifter in last night's very interesting Twitch stream recapping PaizoCon. See here:

Ediwir (in Twitch chat) wrote:
So you guys have said repeatedly you wanted all ability scores to be valuable. now that Focus isn't Charisma based, is there something else propping its value up outside socials?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Well, no. Remember where I said earlier in this stream that we did not succeed in making all the ability scores equally valuable? We didn't. That is a thing. It would've been interesting if focus was Charisma-based, but what we did with focus is even cooler ... [talks about the Refocus ability].

Ouch. Disappointing to have a clear and lingering flaw of PF1 ported through into both SF and PF2, despite dev awareness of the issue.

Especially disappointing since in both cases there seemed to be natural options on hand — for example, having Cha bonus yield extra Resolve (in SF), or having Charisma yield extra Hero Points (in PF2).

Oh well. Maybe something like this will appear as an option in the Gamemastery guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Fighters getting +2 Accuracy would not be an appropriate replacement for the themed features of other classes; +2 Accuracy is a raw DPR gain that gives no flavor and no versatility. The purposes of Muses, Rackets, etc. is to help you solidify the style of your specific Bard or Rogue, whatever Fighters and Monks get instead needs to also assist in that avenue. The easiest thing to do would be for Fighters and Monks to get even more class feats than other full martials get.

To clarify, I am not advocating that Fighters get +2 raw accuracy in exchange for having a path, I am pointing out that Fighters do in fact get +2 raw accuracy over every other class, and that may have come at the cost of having a path.


One possible way to increase the value of some stats is to tie them to saves.

E.g. either STR and CON may be used for Fort saves
Either DEX or INT may be used for Reflex saves
Either WIS or CHA may be used for Will saves

This does have the downside of not boosting INT’s value by much, since DEX is also tied to AC and initiative, and INT classes generally want to boost DEX a fair amount anyway

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pramxnim wrote:
This does have the downside of not boosting INT’s value by much, since DEX is also tied to AC and initiative, and INT classes generally want to boost DEX a fair amount anyway

I don't think Intelligence needs the boost at all. Additional Skills are actually really good in PF2. Also, initiative is not tied to Dex in PF2, which is worth noting.

Strength we'll just have to see, though it counteracting the movement penalty on heavier armors goes a fair ways.

Charisma I'm in agreement on this being useful, as noted above.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not too worried about charisma. I mean, they're human beings, they didn't manage to do everything they set out to do. I'm fine with it.

Also, charisma is, imvho, less useless than what people make it out to be. All social interactions have to go through it, and unless you're doing the straightest, most combat-heavy dungeon crawl possible, you will have social interactions, and then you'll regret your 10 (or 8!) Cha.

And even if you're just fighting, demoralize is a potent debuff/CC... you just need to succeed on an Intimidation check. And you could do it on your 3rd action when an attack would usually be too inaccurate. So, yeah, charisma isn't on par with the other stats, but still.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:

I'm not too worried about charisma. I mean, they're human beings, they didn't manage to do everything they set out to do. I'm fine with it.

Also, charisma is, imvho, less useless than what people make it out to be. All social interactions have to go through it, and unless you're doing the straightest, most combat-heavy dungeon crawl possible, you will have social interactions, and then you'll regret your 10 (or 8!) Cha.

And even if you're just fighting, demoralize is a potent debuff/CC... you just need to succeed on an Intimidation check. And you could do it on your 3rd action when an attack would usually be too inaccurate. So, yeah, charisma isn't on par with the other stats, but still.

I agree. It's not the end of the world if not every character has an in-combat use for every stat. I can see why that would be cool, but I'm fine with where Charisma is at for my games at the very least.

In homebrew and open world games, the narrative power of a high charisma character is bonkers, and comes for free to classes who already care about charisma. Sure, intelligence is technically better for getting you to the starting line for those skills, but you need the charisma to truly excel and start doing things like obviating whole combats.

I would be open to some new mechanics that make it useful for other types of games, though. Certainly no one should be holding it against the devs for not managing to find a satisfying mechanic for everyone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.

I'm actually quite pleased something wasn't shoehorned into cha to force it to be more relevant. IMO, Roswynn has it right: cha skills are very valuable in and out of combat.

I'm fine with stat's having different importance to different people and characters.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.

There were a few potential topics, like this and some item-related ones, that we didn't "do the thing" because the cure was worse than the disease. That is to say, you guys told us you didn't like any of the solutions, so we just resolved to deal with their effects on the game. Items were the main one in people's minds. That said, the excerpt from my stream was about Charisma, but thanks to all of you and your great ideas on the surveys and the messageboards, I do think we were able to give at least some assistance to the other ability score that needed help, Strength. Like Waterslethe, I am interested to finding brand new things for Charisma to do (I would have been fine with Charisma to Will, since Wisdom gets the ever-useful-including-initiative Perception and to me it makes more sense now that we have rebranded Charisma as force of personality rather than "You sure are pretty," but it wasn't popular), but I'm hoping we can keep away from publishing official options that start nabbing things back and forth to different ability scores. That's the slippery slope that led to Charisma losing even its few skills to Intelligence in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
tqomins wrote:
Quandary wrote:

BTW, I don't know where to ask this, and don't feel like starting a thread :-)

...Is CHA getting anything 'extra' with Resonance gone?

This question has come up a lot since the playtest. Well, we finally have a definitive answer from Mark Seifter in last night's very interesting Twitch stream recapping PaizoCon. See here:

Ediwir (in Twitch chat) wrote:
So you guys have said repeatedly you wanted all ability scores to be valuable. now that Focus isn't Charisma based, is there something else propping its value up outside socials?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Well, no. Remember where I said earlier in this stream that we did not succeed in making all the ability scores equally valuable? We didn't. That is a thing. It would've been interesting if focus was Charisma-based, but what we did with focus is even cooler ... [talks about the Refocus ability].

Since this has generated some interest, let me also share a link to the earlier discussion of ability scores that Mark referenced here. It's quite interesting. Start here.

Mark Seifter wrote:
There were a few potential topics, like this and some item-related ones, that we didn't "do the thing" because the cure was worse than the disease. That is to say, you guys told us you didn't like any of the solutions, so we just resolved to deal with their effects on the game. Items were the main one in people's minds. That said, the excerpt from my stream was about Charisma, but thanks to all of you and your great ideas on the surveys and the messageboards, I do think we were able to give at least some assistance to the other ability score that needed help, Strength. Like Waterslethe, I am interested to finding brand new things for Charisma to do (I would have been fine with Charisma to Will, since Wisdom gets the ever-useful-including-initiative Perception and to me it makes more sense now that we have rebranded Charisma as force of personality rather than "You sure are pretty," but it wasn't popular), but I'm hoping we can keep away from publishing official options that start nabbing things back and forth to different ability scores. That's the slippery slope that led to Charisma losing even its few skills to Intelligence in PF1.

Thanks, Mark! Always enjoy getting to hear the designer perspective. And I definitely share your hope in the last statement I've bolded. The ability switcheroos were some of the worst parts of PF1, imo, just in terms of what they did to players' incentives in crafting builds and to game balance.


Too bad the playtest didn't try to do something like use Perception as the 7th attribute since it was being removed as a traditional skill, anyway. I wonder what that would have looked like and how it would have affected the balance of the other attributes in the game. It would certainly affect the influence of Wisdom. I'm sure there would have been a lot of repercussions, but I would have been curious to see how it would have played out.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

I'm not too worried about charisma. I mean, they're human beings, they didn't manage to do everything they set out to do. I'm fine with it.

Also, charisma is, imvho, less useless than what people make it out to be. All social interactions have to go through it, and unless you're doing the straightest, most combat-heavy dungeon crawl possible, you will have social interactions, and then you'll regret your 10 (or 8!) Cha.

And even if you're just fighting, demoralize is a potent debuff/CC... you just need to succeed on an Intimidation check. And you could do it on your 3rd action when an attack would usually be too inaccurate. So, yeah, charisma isn't on par with the other stats, but still.

The thing that sets Charisma apart from the other stats isn't that it is useless. If you build for charisma, you can leverage it very well indeed. The issue is more that it doesn't provide you anything if you aren't specifically building for it. And quite frequently only one party member can really attempt any given diplomacy or bluff check anyway, so there isn't really the same level of benefit to doubling up on it.

Meanwhile, the other stats tend to provide you with a benefit even if you don't utilize them for their skills or have it tied to class abilities.

Strength gives you bulk and lets you ignore armor speed penalties.
Dexterity improves reflex saves and AC.
Constitution improves fortitude and HP.
Intelligence gets you bonus skills and languages.
Wisdom gets you will saves and perception.

Charisma is the odd duck out. (Well, you can technically build a character who doesn't wear armor and has light equipment needs, but lacking bulk seems like it will bite you eventually.) Now, not everyone seems to think this is a problem, which is fine I guess. But it is a pretty significant difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, having a high enough charisma /diplomacy/bluff roll can end encounters, so having less rely on it works for me. And who knows, .maybe there will be a general feat that gives more items for high charisma


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:
I'm not too worried about charisma. I mean, they're human beings, they didn't manage to do everything they set out to do. I'm fine with it.

Just to be clear, I know the devs had an enormous amount to do after the playtest. And I understand not having time to find a satisfactory solution to this particular problem, especially if (as Mark reported above) the suggestions they had time to poll weren't popular.

But, of course, having an ability score which is mechanically of little use to most builds has a number of demerits:

  • (1) It serves to make Charisma-based classes weaker, since their main ability score has little else to make it desirable (which is why, for example, the sorcerer archetype in PF1 which replaced Charisma with Intelligence as its main ability score was so popular),
  • (2) It generally makes ability score allocation and ability score boosting choices less interesting, since for many builds there are fewer real choices to make, since one of the attributes can be effectively ignored,
  • (3) It punishes people who want to pursue character concepts involving Charismatic characters belonging to classes which have little use for Charisma, since for many builds putting points into Charisma is mechanically of little value.
And so while not having time to fix this is understandable, it doesn't prevent me (and, I'm sure, the devs themselves!) from wishing they'd been able to find a way to fix this issue.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Presumably, skills being better in PF2 means that charisma will naturally be better. Intimidate could be an absolutely brutal roll if you built for it in PF1, and it'll be stronger in the new edition with no ways to get a different ability to it. Hell, we already know that one of the Rogue rackets is built around feinting and so those guys will naturally have a lot of uses for charisma.

For me, it seems like the issue is less "charisma doesn't have anything valuable" and more "charisma doesn't actively punish you for not having it". Which... honestly yeah, I like that. I'm more worried about how every character has to be at least this wise if they don't want to turn around and kill their friends every once and a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
tqomins wrote:
Since this has generated some interest, let me also share a link to the earlier discussion of ability scores that Mark referenced here. It's quite interesting. Start here.

Thanks for the link tqomins. And now that I've listened to it, I really appreciate Mark having pushed to try to balance ability scores like Charisma, even if it didn't pan out in the end. Thanks Mark!

Your next task: find a way to include some of your suggestions as optional rules in the Gamemastery book! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pramxnim wrote:

One possible way to increase the value of some stats is to tie them to saves.

E.g. either STR and CON may be used for Fort saves
Either DEX or INT may be used for Reflex saves
Either WIS or CHA may be used for Will saves

This does have the downside of not boosting INT’s value by much, since DEX is also tied to AC and initiative, and INT classes generally want to boost DEX a fair amount anyway

That dual stat to saves has been done before. In the game system that did it, unarmored wizards could and did dump dexterity. Int was an alternative stat for Dex for AC, leaving Dex only for ranged weapon attacks, initiative, and certain skills.

I am not sure hot the Paizo folks would feel about reviving a game mechanic from one of WotC's discarded game systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Love the new wand rules. Easy to manage, much more interesting conceptually, and the risk/reward approach to overcharge adds a touch of excitement, not to mention another good reason to have a good repairman in the party.

Seems like a solid way to handle them. Most casters are going to want a few wands for some common stuff you probably will use during combat at least once per day to help bulk up your spells per day without just being a book keeping nightmare. The resonance stuff in the playtest + charges was pretty wtf that was the opposite of helping book keeping issues.

Now it would be super easy to just have a few playing cards and flip them when your wands are used.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The problem with Charisma is that unless you invest in it heavily, putting your 12 into intelligence to get the extra social skill trained rather than 12 in Cha to get the plus 1 makes a bigger difference (+3 to start, gets better every level.) I will still be picking up Charisma for concepts on my characters, but mechanically unless you are going whole hog on it, its a lame duck attribute.

Going to reiterate my first house rule here (as DMW gave his.)

Hero Points are now earned from getting hit by Crits or Critically Failing Saves. They represent your ability to bounce back from adversity. Your maximum stored Hero Points is Cha +1.

When spending for a reroll you may use your Cha modifier instead of the usual stat modifier for the roll, representing your heroic flourish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

The thing that sets Charisma apart from the other stats isn't that it is useless. If you build for charisma, you can leverage it very well indeed. The issue is more that it doesn't provide you anything if you aren't specifically building for it. And quite frequently only one party member can really attempt any given diplomacy or bluff check anyway, so there isn't really the same level of benefit to doubling up on it. Meanwhile, the other stats tend to provide you with a benefit even if you don't utilize them for their skills or have it tied to class abilities.

Strength gives you bulk and lets you ignore armor speed penalties. Dexterity improves reflex saves and AC.
Constitution improves fortitude and HP. Intelligence gets you bonus skills and languages. Wisdom gets you will saves and perception.

Right, and to clarify something you didn't overtly state, the flip-side to "getting benefit from it even without deeply investing in it" is "having noticeable penalty for tanking the stat" (compared to zero or minor bonus also with no investment, not vs high stat/investments). Malk_Content is spot-on in noting how merely one skill proficiency makes prioritizing INT over CHA (when determining last 2 stats) not a real contest at all.

INT penalizing your # of skill proficiencies is certainly noticeable with no Level to Untrained... Compounded by penalizing Recall Knowledge checks, and misleading Crit Fails for even basic/untrained knowledge. "Smart Party member" negates the latter when party confronts Recall Knowledge check together, but trivial knowledge checks can certainly be relevant when only one character perceives potential info.
E.g. Making VERY bad assessment of structural integrity of wooden floor or bridge might be example of single character making check.
Or making disastrous confusion between Abyssal and Osirioni when only one character can discern details of whispers behind door.

I don't think anybody here was strongly attached to the SPECIFIC benefit of CHA re: Resonance, it just happened that Resonance conveniently presented a context where CHA could be more consistently important even for non-specialists. I don't think anybody here has demanded that CHA's benefit necessarily be "in combat". I would be thrilled at non-combat usages for it that can be relevant even without skill investments and that make choice meaninful between -1 and 0 or +1 modifier.

Off the top of my head, some ways to give CHA semblance of importance for everybody regardless of investment, could include:
Using CHA modifier for Wand "Overcharge" check. Direct outcome of disabling item doesn't change, but not permanently destroying item makes high CHA characters more confident to try this, and low CHA characters even less.
CHA seems plausible to affect number of languages, with "personal magnetism" enabling nonformal language learning. Maybe add INT and CHA mods to determine languages known, so tanking CHA hurts even high INT character while boosting CHA while tanking INT could let you still know bonus languages.

I think those would help maintain some consistent value for CHA and make decisions of 5th vs 6th stat tougher (or at least strengthen wider build diversity), while not disrupting over all balance and assumptions of game system (which IMHO, CHA->Will Save does, despite being fine if it were integrated into system). Really they don't threaten the status of DEX, CON, WIS as strongest "universal" Stats (impactful irrespective of class/build focus), but IMHO they help achieve the goal of a CHA penalty Ancestry feeling and playing differently than a CHA bonus Ancestry even when neither gives any focus to CHA areas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No one is denying that there is missing parity between stats. But the doom and gloom about it is overstated.

First, intelligence doesn't do jack if you're already trained in the social skill of your choice, whether from background or because you've already locked it in as one of your only good options. There are also skill feats for getting trained.

Second, the tight math in PF2 means every +1 matters a lot more, so getting charisma bonus to social skills is going to matter from 1 to 20.

Third, only campaigns where people can get away without rolling any social skills is it truly a dead bonus, and in other games like mine where everyone has to speak at some point a negative value very much is a penalty.

Yes, it's lacking mechanical value for some groups. No, I don't want a half-butt bandaid to "fix" it without a lot of testing and feedback.


I'm fine with there being options available to let people use Charisma, even if it isn't built in to be rewarded for a high score.
I like the house rule about using Cha for Will.
If there are feats or items that reward people for having a high Charisma, while the rules don't punish someone for having a low one, that works fine for me.


MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.

Well, to players who enjoy being the party face, sure I can see it being disappointing. Personally I despise playing charismatic characters. I prefer high Int or Wis characters, so it works out great for me. Everyone likes different things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.
Well, to players who enjoy being the party face, sure I can see it being disappointing. Personally I despise playing charismatic characters. I prefer high Int or Wis characters, so it works out great for me. Everyone likes different things.

Well that's a really petty attitude. 'I have my nice things so I'm glad you didn't get yours'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
That is unfortunate but also unsurprising.
Well, to players who enjoy being the party face, sure I can see it being disappointing. Personally I despise playing charismatic characters. I prefer high Int or Wis characters, so it works out great for me. Everyone likes different things.
Well that's a really petty attitude. 'I have my nice things so I'm glad you didn't get yours'

That's not even remotely what I said or what I meant. Having your ability to use magic items tied to your Charisma score is inherently unfair. It penalizes characters that depend on other ability scores, or players who don't want to play social characters.

Frankly, it also penalizes players who want to play high Charisma characters. Since everyone was forced to invest in Charisma, suddenly their character wasn't very special anymore. Resonance was a bad rule for multiple reasons, I'm glad it's gone.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Having your number of skills tied to your Intelligence score is inherently unfair. It penalizes characters that depend on other ability scores, or players who don't want to play bookworm characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't want to start the Resonance debate again, but basically "what Arachnofiend said, but more politely".

Currently Charisma is the only stat that lacks a penalty for dumping it other than skill bonuses. That said, I do think the original implementation of Resonance made Charisma too important, where it hurt more than it should to dump it. I feel like dumping Charisma should be a drawback in the same way that dumping Dex or dumping Con is a drawback - you notice the drawback, it changes the way you play, but it doesn't cripple your character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm just going to throw Charisma behind will saves and call it a day.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thinking about it - since Wisdom has Perception and (most of the time) Initiative, I may do the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I still like Will Saves being your choice of Wis or Cha. It doesn't make Wis characters who have to deal with your House Rules feel bad, for one thing. And encourages raising one, but usually not both, of those stats...which, to be honest, is pretty accurate to a lot of fiction (common sense and charm aren't mutually exclusive...but having large amounts of both is unusual in fiction).

IME, having used this House Rule, despite Perception's general awesomeness, it actually results in more characters having high Cha than Wis...though perhaps that's just my player group.

Another possibility would be tying the number of attuned items to Charisma...maybe 7 or 8 + Charisma Mod. That reclaims some of the Resonance use of Charisma without the annoyance, though it's admittedly a niche use.

The Hero Point thing also has potential, though I'd start at a base of 2 Hero Points rather than 1 for various reasons.

51 to 100 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / [PaizoCon] "The Future of Pathfinder" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.