Change in ability score importance


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone think there has been a change in the importance of certain ability scores compared to 1E?

Strength - seems less dumpable as bulk seems easier to track and less likely to be hand waived than current carrying capacity

Also there are not many ways to get other stats to melee damage

No longer a pre req for a mandatory maths fixing feat for melee characters

*

Dex - still seems very strong as AC is important to avoid critical hits. Better save scaling might reduce its impact on reflex

But perhaps not as all powerful

Fewer options for Dex to damage restricts its usefulness for non rogues. But i father more people can get Dex to hit

No longer tied to initiative in most cases

No longer a ore req for things like two weapon fighting

*

Con - unless I have misunderstood the rules this has taken the biggest fall in usefulness. Max HP effectively compared to 1E and ancestry HP reduced to proportional impact of Con on HP

It doesn’t seem con has any impact on anti dying saving throws or your final threshold before dying

*

Intelligence - fewer skills arguably means intelligence is slightly less useful

No longer a feat pre req except for multiclass

*

Wisdom - perhaps slightly more important as perception for initiative seems the most common

Incidentally what has happened to sense motive? Where has that rolled in?

*

Charisma - there is a whole thread on how this is still the dump stat when it is not a key stat so there isn’t much need to bring all that back up here

That position is largely unchanged from 1E

*

Are any of my points well off base?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say that Intelligence is more powerful since we're having fewer skills.

Sense Motive was rolled into Perception, so it's under Wisdom.

Strength is still dumpable if you don't use it, but bulk and reported reduction of speed penalties for heavy armor make it useful.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fewer skills make Int more valuable, not less, for precisely the same reason more HP makes Con less valuable. It makes each Skill you gain from it a larger percentage of the total skills in the game, and thus more useful.

Other than that, I mostly agree that Str is a bit more necessary and Dex and Con a bit less so, though Dex and Con are still both Save stats, which is very relevant. I'd say Int has slightly upped in value, as has Wis (due to Perception).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’d say it a pretty good summary (given both playtest and what as been revealed.) The one slight caveat I would add is to Int. I totally agree with the less skills, but getting ‘trained’ in a skill is a bit more difficult in PF2 then PF1, due to how the skill system as changed in PF2, and can be seen as slightly more important because that’s what’s adds you level (along with some additional activités you can use the skill for) to the skill. Now I actually think (unknowledgeable as I am) that because of lesser amount skills, the more skilled class may not put as much emphasis on Int, as they already got a good compliment of skills from the class, while the less skilled class class may put a little bit more on Int, because of the importance of getting that ‘Trained’ in a somewhat used skill. EDIT= got ninja’d by two others while typing this. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, if I'm level 5 and there's a skill I want, putting a boost into Int to get that skill trained automatically seems like it would be pretty tempting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like for the most part these are all good things. The less bulk without str investment means you equipment and consumables are actually a resource instead of just having 2 of everything in the equipment chapter just because you can like in 1e.

I wish people other than rogues could get dex to damage but I suppose there is still opportunity that class archetypes will add more dex based builds in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
The less bulk without str investment means you equipment and consumables are actually a resource instead of just having 2 of everything in the equipment chapter just because you can like in 1e.

I felt the opposite myself. I found myself with no bulk after the very barest of basics, like armor, weapon and tools needed for skills. IMO there is a difference in not 'dumping' vs being forced to invest in a stat just to use the basics.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
I feel like for the most part these are all good things. The less bulk without str investment means you equipment and consumables are actually a resource instead of just having 2 of everything in the equipment chapter just because you can like in 1e.

You can't do that in 1e. Your carry capacity there is very strength-dependent.

If you're talking about people not tracking carry capacity on the other hand, I suspect that tables that didn't track encumbrance before still won't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
I feel like for the most part these are all good things. The less bulk without str investment means you equipment and consumables are actually a resource instead of just having 2 of everything in the equipment chapter just because you can like in 1e.

You can't do that in 1e. Your carry capacity there is very strength-dependent.

If you're talking about people not tracking carry capacity on the other hand, I suspect that tables that didn't track encumbrance before still won't.

It depends on whether not tracking was due to not liking the idea or the difficulty of tracking it without herolab

But you are probably largely right about people handwaiving it - but a few more will probably track it under the new system as it seems much easier (I know you aren’t a fan of the bulk system but it is what it is)

Strength still gets the added function of reducing ACP but most people who dumped it didn’t wear armour anyway except for perhaps swashbuckler types


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I never bothered to track encumbrance, but I will definitely be tracking Bulk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My planned build is an 8 STR druid with an animal companion. I just need to be able to carry my armor and weapons; I can get a backpack or saddlebags or something so my AC can carry the adventuring gear. :P


MaxAstro wrote:
I never bothered to track encumbrance, but I will definitely be tracking Bulk.

I can serve as another tangible example. I have looooong since been completely over the "track every bit of weight, from .1 to 60.0!" jam.

I'll take tracking instances of specific .1, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I actually recently started on a conversion to such a system not long before the Playtest was announced. Paizo saved me some work, for sure.

Now, whether Bulk and its relation to encumbrance is in the right spot is another discussion -- I will probably be slightly more lenient than the rules suggest, because I believe Graystone's assessment is fair.

But as far as tracking is concerned, Bulk is the new standard for me. Just a matter of finding the right spot for its encumbrance tolerance.


If the PF2e's rules about poisons and diseases are going to be like Starfinder (which probably will since they were alternative rules from PF1), then CON is way more valuable than before.

You guys also shouldn't dismiss the impact on HP. As far as I recall, there were a lot of complaints here in this forum about deadly critical hits, the prevalence of them against higher CR monsters (more likely to crit). Also, why it's less valuable for no reason? Are we assuming monsters are dealing less damage now?

I think CON is more useful now than before just because diseases and poisons will be actually threatening. Not to mention all usual benefits.


I believe there are still some feats to boost carrying capacity so for those who want to dump str I think there are still options to increase what they can cart around. Still as with PF1 I would imagine those who want to dump str other than maybe alchemists don't really tote around a lot of heavy equipment anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I suspect Ant Haul is going to be a spell that gets prepared a lot more often in 2e, also. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lunatic Barghest wrote:

I can serve as another tangible example. I have looooong since been completely over the "track every bit of weight, from .1 to 60.0!" jam.

I'll take tracking instances of specific .1, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. I actually recently started on a conversion to such a system not long before the Playtest was announced. Paizo saved me some work, for sure.

I'm the opposite: I never had an issue with counting the actual weights... Bulk, not so much: I'd rather ignore/handwave encumbrance than use bulk. I can't estimate 'bulkiness' of unlisted items, bulk of people was wonky and 10 L items quite often seem logically much more bulky than a single 1 bulk one, and I can go on.

As far as the OP, IMO this for me makes str less important as I'll be looking for games that don't use bulk. We'll see that no bulk options there are in the gamemastery guide: maybe they'll have something that involve str and encumbrance without bulk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
who want to dump str other than maybe alchemists don't really tote around a lot of heavy equipment anyway.

My alchemist was the one that ran out of bulk: 1 bulk for leather armor, 1 bulk for a crossbow, 2 for alchemy tools one for a healers tools: My Chirurgeon maxed out the 5 bulk a 10 str gets you and still isn't carrying ammo: She needs a 12 str to carry 10 bolts and still has no adventuring gear. IMO it seems wrong to have to start with a 14 str just to carry food and water with your base starting gear...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
You guys also shouldn't dismiss the impact on HP. As far as I recall, there were a lot of complaints here in this forum about deadly critical hits, the prevalence of them against higher CR monsters (more likely to crit). Also, why it's less valuable for no reason? Are we assuming monsters are dealing less damage now?

Since you always get mad health rather than rolling your Hit Die for health in PF2, an increase to Con will always increase your HP total by a smaller percentage.

Looking at it this way, a level 10 Barbarian in PF2 with a Con of 10 will have 120 HP. That same Barbarian in PF1 will have an average of 65 HP (slightly more because of the max hit die at level 1, but then I also didn't add in Ancestry HP for PF2).

With a Con of 20, either Barbarian adds 50 HP to either total. Adding 50 to 120 is an increase of 41.7% in PF2, while adding 50 to 65 is an increase of 77% in PF1.

The difference is even crazier for lower HP classes. The wizard has 60 HP at level 10, while in PF1 he had 35. The 20 Con wizard increases his HP total by 83% in PF2 but a whopping 143% in PF1.

So while HP itself is just as valuable, proportionally Con contributes a lesser part of that HP total.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
kaid wrote:
who want to dump str other than maybe alchemists don't really tote around a lot of heavy equipment anyway.
My alchemist was the one that ran out of bulk: 1 bulk for leather armor, 1 bulk for a crossbow, 2 for alchemy tools one for a healers tools: My Chirurgeon maxed out the 5 bulk a 10 str gets you and still isn't carrying ammo: She needs a 12 str to carry 10 bolts and still has no adventuring gear. IMO it seems wrong to have to start with a 14 str just to carry food and water with your base starting gear...

The real kicker is the 2 bulk alchemist tools that really cuts into your capacity. I am really interested to see how if at all the default alchemist burden level has been adjusted. But I believe there are feats to just boost carrying capacity so it is still doable but I suspect alchemists will want to do some small str investment just to have some breathing room.

Most classes that are STR dump type classes though everything is really light so its generally a non issue. Also for alchemists I wound up going halfling with slings. And as you level you can pick up a staff sling and do similar damage to an Xbow with ammo you can basically just pick up off the ground in a pinch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because of how the ability score increase happens it will change the way that people will prioritize the initial stats as well.

Starting with lower constitution to have higher intelligence is a valid strategy per example, this way you can have more skills in the low levels and use the ASI to increase the lower constitution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
Most classes that are STR dump type classes though everything is really light so its generally a non issue.

Well that's really then putting LESS importance on str if it can be avoided AND putting a feat tax on classes that don't have a need for str. Neither sounds very good IMO.

kaid wrote:
Also for alchemists I wound up going halfling with slings.

You're still looking at a 12 str to do that and that's 2 str boosts to get to that point. [str flaw and 5 bulk + L with sling and 10 ammo]

kaid wrote:
And as you level you can pick up a staff sling and do similar damage to an Xbow with ammo you can basically just pick up off the ground in a pinch.

We're getting into needing THREE boosts to pull this of with a halfling.

As a side note, there were no rules for using normal stones in a sling or slingstaff in the playtest. AT best it'd be an improvised weapon [-2 hit and DM fiat damage].


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What is the penalty for carrying bulk between half your strength and your full strength? Maybe some characters are expected to be encumbered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

What is the penalty for carrying bulk between half your strength and your full strength? Maybe some characters are expected to be encumbered.

"Bulk Limit

You can carry an amount of Bulk equal to 5 plus your Strength modifier without penalty; if you carry more, you gain the encumbered condition. You can’t hold or carry more Bulk than 10 plus your Strength modifier."

and

"If you’re encumbered, decrease your Speed by 10 feet, to a minimum of 5 feet. This applies to every movement type you have. You also increase your armor’s check penalty by 2, or take a –2 check penalty if you’re unarmored."

I can't see a -10 move and -2 any physical check as the norm.

EDIT: this is of course playtest rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
I suspect Ant Haul is going to be a spell that gets prepared a lot more often in 2e, also. :)

Might be a good candidate for a spell on a wand, if you cast it every day as a matter of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I suspect Ant Haul is going to be a spell that gets prepared a lot more often in 2e, also. :)
Might be a good candidate for a spell on a wand, if you cast it every day as a matter of course.

Not a bad option for a level 2 item [assuming levels say the same PF2] but it might pay off in the long run to buy a bag of holding. The bag might be the single thing that could let me play with bulk. 25 bulk extra solve a lot of issue and if I don't have to think about it by just tossing items in the bag it might work.


Remember touch attacks are reflex saves now. In PF1 you weren't dodging a touch attack unless you were a Monk, dex-based class or not; losing your chain shirt made you easy to hit regardless. In PF2 a dex-based ranger will be very difficult to hit with these abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're acting like the Bulk for Str 10 characters is so much less than the Encumbrance for Str 10 characters in PF1, but that's not really true.

At Str 10, your Light Load minimum was 33lbs. Leather Armor was 15, a Healers Kit, Alchemist Crafter Kit, and Antidote Kit (you need both the crafters kit and Antidote Kit to do what the Alchemist's Tools in the playtest did) is 9,and your Light Crossbow and 10 bolts is 5. For a total of 29, you're only 4 lbs away from being encumbered.

Now, it is absolutely true that high Strength doesn't exponentially skyrocket your encumbrance like it did in PF1 (assuming PF2 is the same as the playtest), but I'm actually quite glad it doesn't as I've seen a Barbarian player carry around things casually on their person that Conan would struggle to drag. Not to mention this makes items like the Bag of Holding much more valuable, while having high Strength is still extremely valuable for someone so that they can have things in their person rather than having to retrieve them from the Bag of Holding.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:

You're acting like the Bulk for Str 10 characters is so much less than the Encumbrance for Str 10 characters in PF1, but that's not really true.

At Str 10, your Light Load minimum was 33lbs. Leather Armor was 15, a Healers Kit, Alchemist Crafter Kit, and Antidote Kit (you need both the crafters kit and Antidote Kit to do what the Alchemist's Tools in the playtest did) is 9,and your Light Crossbow and 10 bolts is 5. For a total of 29, you're only 4 lbs away from being encumbered.

That PF1 characters can actually carry that base equipment and had 4 pounds to take random equipment or some food and water. And for a super minor 1 stat point to str 11, you get 9 lbs to play with: to get an upgrade in PF2 instead of a 1/10th-1/25th of your stat allotment, you must send 1/4th your your discretionary boosts to do so. It's a much higher investment JUST to be able to carry some basic necessities like food and water.

So in the end, I see your post more helping prove my point that proving I'm wrong.


graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:

You're acting like the Bulk for Str 10 characters is so much less than the Encumbrance for Str 10 characters in PF1, but that's not really true.

At Str 10, your Light Load minimum was 33lbs. Leather Armor was 15, a Healers Kit, Alchemist Crafter Kit, and Antidote Kit (you need both the crafters kit and Antidote Kit to do what the Alchemist's Tools in the playtest did) is 9,and your Light Crossbow and 10 bolts is 5. For a total of 29, you're only 4 lbs away from being encumbered.

That PF1 characters can actually carry that base equipment and had 4 pounds to take random equipment or some food and water. And for a super minor 1 stat point to str 11, you get 9 lbs to play with: to get an upgrade in PF2 instead of a 1/10th-1/25th of your stat allotment, you must send 1/4th your your discretionary boosts to do so. It's a much higher investment JUST to be able to carry some basic necessities like food and water.

So in the end, I see your post more helping prove my point that proving I'm wrong.

I gotta say this sort of sucks if this made it into the release as is. Encumbrance was annoying to track but it was at least relatively realistic and fair at starting level. I’d never had problems getting what I felt was a “good” starting set of items.

Now maybe this is just because alchemists have the bulk 2 issue for the kit, but given Wizards books probably aren’t as high I’d call that a bit of a tax..

Hope bulk is at least forgiving enough that it’s a good system to include for avoiding unrealistic scenarios of parties hauling off whole stone statues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it still bulk 2?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I gotta say this sort of sucks if this made it into the release as is. Encumbrance was annoying to track but it was at least relatively realistic and fair at starting level. I’d never had problems getting what I felt was a “good” starting set of items.

Now maybe this is just because alchemists have the bulk 2 issue for the kit, but given Wizards books probably aren’t as high I’d call that a bit of a tax..

Hope bulk is at least forgiving enough that it’s a good system to include for avoiding unrealistic scenarios of parties hauling off whole stone statues.

We don't actually know anything about specific Bulk numbers in the final game. Evidence suggests many have changed from the playtest. I had pretty big problems with the specific playtest numbers, but I think we need to see the final ones before we're disappointed in what they result in.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
We don't actually know anything about specific Bulk numbers in the final game. Evidence suggests many have changed from the playtest. I had pretty big problems with the specific playtest numbers, but I think we need to see the final ones before we're disappointed in what they result in.

Even if alchemy tools drop to 1 bulk, it's still filling your bulk limit with ammo, let alone if you're a small folk like a halfling or gnome... So while bulk reductions for some of the worst offenders is great but if it's just that, the base bulk you can carry still seems too tight IMO.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
/snip

That PF1 characters can actually carry that base equipment and had 4 pounds to take random equipment or some food and water. And for a super minor 1 stat point to str 11, you get 9 lbs to play with: to get an upgrade in PF2 instead of a 1/10th-1/25th of your stat allotment, you must send 1/4th your your discretionary boosts to do so. It's a much higher investment JUST to be able to carry some basic necessities like food and water.

So in the end, I see your post more helping prove my point that proving I'm wrong.

And if you want to upgrade to Studded Leather, it doesn't cost you anything in PF2 as far as Bulk but in PF1 it's 5 more pounds...1 more than the 4 you have left.

But wait, you consider it more of an investment at first level to upgrade stats in PF1?

I don't. I find it MUCH less of an investment to increase my Str to 12 in PF2. First off, you don't get 4 floating bonuses, you get 6. 7 for human. One from your Ancestry can go anywhere you don't already have a bonus from Ancestry. One from your Background which can go anywhere the Background doesn't already increase. And 4 which can go anywhere as long as they don't overlap.

And THAT'S the crux of the matter. No overlapping from the same source. In PF1, if you're using a point buy, it's always better to focus as many of those points into your relevant abilities as possible. This is because all stats are always directly competing with each other. For an Alchemist this is Int, followed by Dex and Con, with Wis being number 4. Str and Cha are for dumping and dumping hard.

But in PF2? Well since you're requires to spread the points around, it's extremely easy to make sure you get at least 1 of those +2s into Str. Sure, it might mean the difference of having a Wis or Con of 14 instead of 16, but that isn't the hugest difference and you were going to have to take a hit to your important stats if you wanted that 11 Str in PF1 anyways.

Plus, that's all just at level 1. As we continue forward PF2 comes out WAY ahead. 4 sets of 4 floating ability score increases which again can't overlap? In PF1 I think you get 5 +1s total? And you pretty much always had to throw them into your primary stat. Maybe your secondary if it was an odd number.

Sure, a Halfling is going struggle with that penalty, but that was also true in PF1.

Now don't get me wrong. I think there need to be more options for alleviating these struggles. IMO a basic backpack should reduce the total bulk of everything that is inside the pack by 1, since it's easier to carry in the backpack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never used encumbrance but I plan on giving bulk a try, with the house rule of base bulk being either 1 or 2 higher than default.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
We don't actually know anything about specific Bulk numbers in the final game. Evidence suggests many have changed from the playtest. I had pretty big problems with the specific playtest numbers, but I think we need to see the final ones before we're disappointed in what they result in.
Even if alchemy tools drop to 1 bulk, it's still filling your bulk limit with ammo, let alone if you're a small folk like a halfling or gnome... So while bulk reductions for some of the worst offenders is great but if it's just that, the base bulk you can carry still seems too tight IMO.

Who says that's the only reduction, though? For all we know, a Healer's Kit is L now as well. If that's true and an Alchemy Kit is 1, that's only 3.1 Bulk for the lot, which seems reasonable enough.

Is any of that true? We don't know. We'll need to take a look at comparative Bulk scores of various things in the final book to see.


Mark talked about the bulk increasing skill feat during the KnowDirection interview yesterday. If I recall correctly it requires training in athletics and gives you the additional carrying capacity as if you where 4 strength higher. So if you had 8 str with this feat you could carry as much as someone with 12 str.


I am pretty sure that even in the playtest the bulk for 10 arrows was only 1L...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
But wait, you consider it more of an investment at first level to upgrade stats in PF1?

Yes, yes I do.

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I don't. I find it MUCH less of an investment to increase my Str to 12 in PF2.

It's forcing me to invest not one point but 2 point in the stat and it's a valuable step that allows you to stack with other steps so it ends up not really being 4 options if you want to rise primary and secondary stats. Your other steps have even smaller floating number and IMO aren't really going to be used for this kind of thing as you're looking to stack when you can. Why use a background floating bonus on str when it's stack yo get you a 14 in something else? SO we're at the last floating stat stage for this kind of thing.

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Plus, that's all just at level 1. As we continue forward PF2 comes out WAY ahead. 4 sets of 4 floating ability score increases which again can't overlap? In PF1 I think you get 5 +1s total? And you pretty much always had to throw them into your primary stat. Maybe your secondary if it was an odd number.

I could truly care less about total pluses. In this case a -1 on strength and a +3 are both equally useless if I'm not using a weapon that cares about them: same with my cha. SO total pluses IMO is meaningless.

EDIT: On future raises, I'm thinking that I'd rather buy a bag of holding and get +25 bulk carry than using one of those on str to get +1 bulk.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Who says that's the only reduction, though? For all we know, a Healer's Kit is L now as well. If that's true and an Alchemy Kit is 1, that's only 3.1 Bulk for the lot, which seems reasonable enough.

Is any of that true? We don't know. We'll need to take a look at comparative Bulk scores of various things in the final book to see.

I'm being conservative with what I'm expecting to see reduced. There are clear offenders 8 bulk artisan tool and snare kits and that what jump to mind when they say 'some' items were adjusted: they were just silly wrong. Next are the items that were closer, like the longbow that was bulkier than a 10' pole.

Once we get down to healers tools that might look reasonable in a vacuum, I have a LOT less hope for a change. As I said I'm only expecting "bulk reductions for some of the worst offenders" so if they do a total makeover and make more items viable without working out I'll adjust my thought on the matter then.


Rek Rollington wrote:
Mark talked about the bulk increasing skill feat during the KnowDirection interview yesterday. If I recall correctly it requires training in athletics and gives you the additional carrying capacity as if you where 4 strength higher. So if you had 8 str with this feat you could carry as much as someone with 12 str.

Well nifty, but: you need to train a skill you know you have a very low stat in, you're spending an addition feat to do so and I wouldn't be surprised there is a str requirement attached to it. :P

Kyrone wrote:
I am pretty sure that even in the playtest the bulk for 10 arrows was only 1L...

Maybe? If so, that gives at last food and water to carry along with the ammo if you take a 12 str.


I mean, you are calling it meaningless... yet giving a good reason not to dump it?

It isn't necessary to take, but if you do take that amount of junk around with you you will either need to invest in magic to help you, mules or increase str

The idea is that stats have a better distribution of value, bulk is absolutely a good place for str.

And given that stats under 18 go up in groups of 2 it is essentially one point investment at level 1, an investment that doesn't impact your primary two stats at all.

Don't get me wrong, wanna roleplay a frail character, feel free... Just carry less or compensate for it in some way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Well nifty, but: you need to train a skill you know you have a very low stat in, you're spending an addition feat to do so and I wouldn't be surprised there is a str requirement attached to it. :P

So, my first character will have Athletics trained because he will be an Animal Order druid, so no choice there. And since the feat most benefits low STR builds, I really hope it doesn't have a STR requirement...


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
necromental wrote:

I would say that Intelligence is more powerful since we're having fewer skills.

Sense Motive was rolled into Perception, so it's under Wisdom.

Strength is still dumpable if you don't use it, but bulk and reported reduction of speed penalties for heavy armor make it useful.

INT is more important because there are less skills to choose from as you start.

However that importance shrinks as you level since your INT affects your starting skills, but not your progression. After your starting allocation, INT no longer gives you additional bonuses. Granted, if you choose to increase your INT, I believe you get the extra skill allocation as if you'd had it to begin with. So INT progression helps, and I suppose those with high INT to begin with will likely continue to increase it, getting additional bonuses as they level up.

It is just an interesting dynamic of both, more important at the start, eventually growing to be less important with respect to key/top skills at higher levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I mean, you are calling it meaningless... yet giving a good reason not to dump it?

The amount of the plus is meaningless, not the bulk improvement: you only need to care about the plus if you plan to make a roll that adds it.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
It isn't necessary to take, but if you do take that amount of junk around with you you will either need to invest in magic to help you, mules or increase

That "junk" is the bare bones of what's needed IMO to work: I'm not asking to carry 200' of rope, a 10' ladder and and a tent... :P

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
The idea is that stats have a better distribution of value, bulk is absolutely a good place for str.

I don't mind IF it's used for the ability to carry extra stuff past the basics: when the items you need to perform your class abilities make you take strength is an issue when it's not one of your primary, secondary or even ternary stats.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
And given that stats under 18 go up in groups of 2 it is essentially one point investment at level 1, an investment that doesn't impact your primary two stats at all.

It should be my choice what stat to raise, not a requirement if it's not one of those stats.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Don't get me wrong, wanna roleplay a frail character, feel free... Just carry less or compensate for it in some way.

10 shouldn't be frail by any means: IMO it's average: I shouldn't need to be above average to carry what I NEED to make the class work


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that Alchemists have at least ONE reason to invest in STR is a positive, not a negative. Every stat should be desirable and there should be a difference between the different builds that isn't just about being "more optimal".

Getting STR as the wrong class in PF1 was just bad, you'd get 0 benefits. Now there can be some stronger alchemists carrying more stuff, but weaker ones that maybe have better aim or initiative. There's opportunity cost to every decision instead of a lot of "false choice" in PF1: you could suck or optimize.

You're not "forced" to get STR to be viable, but whether you do it or not will have both upsides or downsides regardless.

Now if only Wizards could gain something from STR or anyone from CHA, that'd be good stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
The fact that Alchemists have at least ONE reason to invest in STR is a positive, not a negative. Every stat should be desirable and there should be a difference between the different builds that isn't just about being "more optimal".

A mutagenist has a good reason to up str: The average one? Sure if they WANT to carry extra stuff. My issue it's not a want but a need.

ChibiNyan wrote:
You're not "forced" to get STR to be viable, but whether you do it or not will have both upsides or downsides regardless.

I disagree 1000% You have to be able to carry the equipment that your class requires: the Chirurgeon can't make elixirs and use medicine without tools and they need armor and weapons for combat. I'd agree with you if we were talking about cook ware, 10' poles or a hammer.

ChibiNyan wrote:
Now if only Wizards could gain something from STR or anyone from CHA, that'd be good stuff.

They can: they can get to carry more stuff JUST like everyone else: the difference is they get a choice. Same for cha: if they wish, they could invest in Cha and Cha skills JUST like everyone else: It's a choice not a requirement and that's what I want out of non-primary/secondary stats. The playtest version of Demoralize was a good action for any class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
It's forcing me to invest not one point but 2 point in the stat and it's a valuable step that allows you to stack with other steps so it ends up not really being 4 options if you want to rise primary and secondary stats. Your other steps have even smaller floating number and IMO aren't really going to be used for this kind of thing as you're looking to stack when you can. Why use a background floating bonus on str when it's stack yo get you a 14 in something else? SO we're at the last floating stat stage for this kind of thing.

But any of those stats can be placed anywhere and that's the point. If you've already upped your Alchemist's Dex to 14 and Con to 12 via all the other stat ups, then that makes it a lot more acceptable to use one of those 4 remaining boosts on Str rather than one of those (probably Wis).

Just for the sake of everything, let's make an Alchemist. We'll go for the purely best abilities possible.

So +Int for Alchemist

+Int, +Dex, for Elf, using the free score to remove the -Con

Chose any Background that ups either Int or Dex and use the free one to up the other.

Then for the floating 4, chose Int, Dex, Con, and Str.

Now you have 18 Int, 16 Dex, 12 Con, and 12 Str. For an Elf, that's pretty decent.

A Dwarf could get a more well rounded
18 Int, 14 Dex (or 16/16), Con 14, and Str 12 with a penalty to Cha.

Yes, in both of these cases you are sacrificing a potential 12 in Wis, but I don't consider that to be a huge failure considering that you can quickly start raising your Wis when you get your ASIs.

And when the inevitable +Int, +Dex (Or Con), -Cha Ancestry comes out, we'll have something even better.

graystone wrote:

I could truly care less about total pluses. In this case a -1 on strength and a +3 are both equally useless if I'm not using a weapon that cares about them: same with my cha. SO total pluses IMO is meaningless.

EDIT: On future raises, I'm thinking that I'd rather buy a bag of holding and get +25 bulk carry than using one of those on str to get +1 bulk.

Yeah, I didn't explain why I put value on this, but I very much do. The reason is because having the promise of so many more stat UPS down the road makes it much more comfortable to place one of those early ASIs into Str instead of, say Wis or Con. You can start with a 10 in any ability and still hit 18 (and yes, I realize that games don't often get to level 20 but the point still stands that you can be more liberal with your early bonuses and not have it be a hit to your character in the long run). That Wisdom might end up being a lot more valuable down the road, but if you're worried about encumbrance, Str might be more desired early on.

Or maybe not. But that's up to the player to decide and there should be value to both IMO.

And again, I am not saying I don't agree that things needed a bit more fine tuning in the playtest and often things seemed annoyingly just out of reach. But most of them really only need a small amount of tweaking.

To address some of your other points, most of them seem either self inflicted or not something that is actually going to be a problem. You mention that 4 pounds you still have in PF1 is for food and rations and stuff. But your Alchemist in PF2 also still has 9 Light to carry stuff like that. Remember that Light gear counts as 0 until you get 10 of them. So 1 from Leather, 2 from Alchemist kit, 1 from Crossbow, I from Healer's Kit, and 10 bolts is 1 Light. That's 5 and 1 Light. 9 Light left.

If you switch to Padded armor, which has the exact same armor bonus, then that's 1 Bulk, 9 Light left of carrying capacity.

Plus I don't know if your parties are used to having everyone carrying their own rations, but even in older editions I never did and I think PF2 is assuming a paradigm where the party assists each other in such things. Your Alchemist may not have the Bulk to carry rations, but the Barbarian/Fighter/Champion probably does.

And if not, a pack mule is a very cheap early level version of a bag of holding. And it'll probably carry those Alchemist tools and Healer's Kit too. That means you're only carrying 2 Bulk, 1 Light on you. WAY better off.

And all that is assuming you only have a Str of 10.


The wizard can't even use weapons and armor and is unlikely to need alchemical items. Increasing their carry capacity would be extremely situational. Scrolls and wands they may wanna load up on, but they are pretty negligible. So yeah, it is unfair that Wizard has this advantage, but it shouldn't be the norm. Sorc probably on this boat too...

Rogue is more like the Alchemist, someone who would be 8STR in PF1 since people ignored encumbrance, but will now have to watch out now if they wanna carry their stuff. Bards and Clerics will benefit from some even for the casti-er builds too. Almost everyone suffers from dumping STR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Mark talked about the bulk increasing skill feat during the KnowDirection interview yesterday. If I recall correctly it requires training in athletics and gives you the additional carrying capacity as if you where 4 strength higher. So if you had 8 str with this feat you could carry as much as someone with 12 str.

Well nifty, but: you need to train a skill you know you have a very low stat in, you're spending an addition feat to do so and I wouldn't be surprised there is a str requirement attached to it. :P

Mark was recommending this for a character with 8 STR which is already the lowest you can go. So doesn't appear to be.

Also, yes you "spend a feat" but it's a skill feat. It's not a general or class feat. It's the consequence of tanking a stat. Tanking any stat needs a consequence.


I'll just say that I don't see a str 10 'dumping the stat. I don't see the wizard with a 'bonus' because he can ignore encumbrance, he has a bonus because he can actually carry some discretionary adventuring gear. He actually gets MORE out of a str bump than an alchemist because it's adding to the bonus and not just to cover the basics... :P

I think i've said what I want to say about bulk here since it's not the main thrust of the thread. I'd be more than happy to pick this up again once we see the final product. I'm out [as far as bulk is concerned].


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:

Mark was recommending this for a character with 8 STR which is already the lowest you can go. So doesn't appear to be.

Also, yes you "spend a feat" but it's a skill feat. It's not a general or class feat.

I'm a bit surprised as Hefty Hauler "Increase[s] your maximum and encumbered Bulk limits by 2" which seems perfect for a low str character then requires a 12 str.

And it still requires a trained skill and a feat... For me that's still a tough pill to take.

PS: on "but it's a skill feat", that's competing for a space with battle medic, arcane sense and other pretty good options. I don't see it as "just".

1 to 50 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Change in ability score importance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.