Does the game 'expect' an 18 in primary ability score?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought about putting this question in the thread on ability score importance, but that seems to focus solely on Strength and Bulk now.

What I was wondering today: Will the game expect an 18 in primary stat for every PC? As far as I can tell from the playtest and spoilers so far, it's never spelled out that a character should have an 18 in its primary ability. However, every sample character I've seen has it, and the ABC method makes it very attainable for everyone.

With how tight the math of PF2 is, and the importance of a +1 to your most frequent roll, will we see many PC's with a 16 or lower in their primary stat? Do we have any idea how much this will impact their in-game performance?

Some background on the question: I usually play 'well-rounded' characters. With the increased point cost for high ability scores in point but for PF1, I felt that was quite a good trade-off: For your fighter leave STR at 16 or 17 (after racial modifiers), so that you had more points to distribute over less-important stats. In PF2, you seem to have every incentive to boost your primary stat to 18, at the expense of others.


It is expected.

Fortunately they went out of there way to make sure every ancestry/class combination can get an 18 in there primary score without issue.

But that's really all that is expected, as long as you have 18 in your primary score you're very close to optimal. You can select anything with your feats and you'll be fine.


I asked something similar to this somewhere as I had a similar concern

I think the idea is very similar to the idea of removing perception as a skill. (Almost) everyone took it and maxed it so why even make it a choice

I know you still choose your stats but since a majority wanted an 18 one way or another , to the point of certain race and class combos being considered unviable, they have just made it so everyone can do it

I hope the maths isn’t tight enough to force it though.

I think part of the answer I got is that by level 5 everyone will get a +4 in their key stat and those who took 18 would still be on the same modifier ...


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, for one thing, starting with a 16 only actually puts you behind starting with an 18 half the time if you're boosting that stat as you level up - when you boost your stats at level 5, the 16 becomes an 18 while the 18 only becomes a 19, and so both give you +4. At level 10 the 18 pulls ahead again, then the 16 catches up at level 15, then the 18 pulls ahead again one last time at level 20.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes. And if you don't start out with it, there isn't any way to catch up. You're simply behind the system's expectations of what you can accomplish, and unlike 1e there aren't a lot of buffs and bonuses out there to compensate for it (let alone overcompensate, which was previously easy)

To make it worse, many (if not most) classes want a minimum 16 Dex as well, so most of your stat assignments are predefined when you pick a class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

No actually. It does expect a 16.

Without an 18 you will be 5% less likely to do the thing that you do, for exactly half your career, at levels 1-4, 10-14, and 20.

So, if the thing that you do is the only thing that you do, get an 18, if you have two things that you do, a 16 in each would be better.

I believe the issue that crops up later is stat boosting items, which you may only get one of.


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

Buff focused casters don't need an 18 in their "primary" stat. They don't even need higher than 10.

A multiclassed character may find that a 16 in their chief stat enables them to qualify for prerequisites better, and may find the tradeoff more than worth it.

A 16 only puts you behind half of the time, so it's possible that you won't really feel it.

But yes, an 18 in your main attack stat is desirable, like it was in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Iff,
Feel like your question more like:

"Can I get away with a 16 and 14 in primary and secondary character functions (respectively) and not feel like I've made an egregious error?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given that most buffs have been obliterated from the game, I don't think that's even a role anymore.


The game makes it easy to have a 18 but I would say it expects a 16 in your main stat.
18 means you can do your main schtick very good, 16 means you are more well rounded. So specialist vs. generalist.
With a 14 in your classes main stat you should maybe consider taking another class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Iff,

Feel like your question more like:

"Can I get away with a 16 and 14 in primary and secondary character functions (respectively) and not feel like I've made an egregious error?"

You are right, mostly. However, when phrased like that it'll depend a lot on group dynamics. And I didn't quite want to go that way.

Still, what people are saying here (especially with the equalizing effect of boosts) has eased my worries. Indeed, for a multi-role (multiclass) character 16 and 14 seems to be enough, giving you a couple more points to round out the character. I don't mind hard choices in that regard: Dex for AC vs Con for survivability vs Int for skills, for instance. Indeed, that'll be what makes stat choices interesting. As long as four of your boosts aren't automatically implied by the needs of the math/system.


I think a 16 should be fine (behind by +1 for lvls 1-4, 10-14, 20),

and a 14 will be stretching it but probably workable tbh (behind by +2 lvls 1-4 and by +1 thereafter)


14 in your main stat (in 1E) is stepping away from making a well rounded character into one that is just really good at what it needs to be

The only time that would have come up is when flaws in class design (too MAD) or race (gnome or halfling melee characters) made it very difficult to get higher than 14. That has rightly been pinpointed as a flaw in the old system and removed in the form of floating bonuses , class boosts and seemingly less MAD classes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Given that most buffs have been obliterated from the game, I don't think that's even a role anymore.

Is this actually true?

Or is this referring to how there are fewer bonus types so it is not as easy to stack lots of different types

“Most buffs have been obliterated from the game” seems like hyperbole on the face of it. But I don’t have the book to check. I preordered through amazon so must accept an actual date release in exchange for no shipping costs from the US


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:
Given that most buffs have been obliterated from the game, I don't think that's even a role anymore.

Is this actually true?

Or is this referring to how there are fewer bonus types so it is not as easy to stack lots of different types

“Most buffs have been obliterated from the game” seems like hyperbole on the face of it. But I don’t have the book to check. I preordered through amazon so must accept an actual date release in exchange for no shipping costs from the US

I just assumed it was hyperbole and moved on. I'll be able to see the final list of spells soon, at which point I can go "Yep, I can still make caster focused on buffs."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought you needed 20 in PF1 as your starting primary... Was such a thought extreme?


The GM should be able to tailor the game to how their players want to play their characters within reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2 of my 5 players in one campaign started with a 16. One is a cleric/rogue, and considering her lack of offensive spells it makes sense to increase her dexterity or charisma for attacking or channels. The other is a two handed fighter who is still on even footing for accuracy with most of the party (and in fact will be ahead when we switch to PF2) and still does the most damage despite only having +3 from strength. It helps that the first expert weapon drop was a maul, so he's been on even footing with the archer fighter. I expect even if the archer pulls ahead for accuracy, the melee fighter will still be the leading damage dealer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Voss wrote:
Given that most buffs have been obliterated from the game, I don't think that's even a role anymore.

Is this actually true?

Or is this referring to how there are fewer bonus types so it is not as easy to stack lots of different types

“Most buffs have been obliterated from the game” seems like hyperbole on the face of it. But I don’t have the book to check. I preordered through amazon so must accept an actual date release in exchange for no shipping costs from the US

Yes. Though also the second. No hyperbole.

Prayer, heroism, bulls strength,cats grace (and etc) and most spells like those are gone.

Bless, magic weapon/fang, inspire courage and haste are pretty much the only survivors, and the latter doesn't give bonuses. Bless and inspire don't stack and magic weapon/fang don't stack with items and don't have greater versions.

Plus class features that grant personal bonuses are also gone (or attached to classes that don't exist yet). But given the paladin and ranger (smite gives no hit bonus, favored enemy is gone), don't expect those to come back either.

Defensive spells make up most of the surviving buffs, and they're mostly counters for various effects or damage types.

---
Not saying this is a bad change, but this isn't the spellcaster role it used to be. You might help people survive, but you won't be a 3x force multiplier in any way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A 16 is obviously fine. While an extra +1 is good it isn't vital. Only Alchemists use their main stat as "amount of times you can do your class thing" per day so for most classes it is about your expected skills and your class DC. Given that the game doesn't know whether or not you have a Bard in the group, it's safe to say the maths won't expect you to eek out every single +1 to be effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't get 18 WIS on Warpriest Clerics or Wild Shape Druid. Specially not on PF1, but still applies.
Spellcasters that focus on physical combat dont need their casting stat that much and gotta focus on STR/CON, or DEX if you're an archer style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Prayer, heroism, bulls strength,cats grace (and etc) and most spells like those are gone.

Heroism is still there, although it's true that buff stacking isn't really a thing anymore. I kinda see this as a feature, not a bug though, and I say that as my party's resident bard (when I'm not DMing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
A 16 is obviously fine. While an extra +1 is good it isn't vital. Only Alchemists use their main stat as "amount of times you can do your class thing" per day so for most classes it is about your expected skills and your class DC. Given that the game doesn't know whether or not you have a Bard in the group, it's safe to say the maths won't expect you to eek out every single +1 to be effective.

Except that is explicitly the opposite of what we were told during the play test- that every +1 matters. And it certainly doesn't hold up with the DC chart.

With fewer bonuses to scavenge from, you certainly do want to eek out every one that actually exists.

@Bardic Dave -Ah, you are correct, I was looking in the wrong level. But since it doesn't stack with bless or inspire (both also bard things), it matters less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, to be clear, I don't think of a buff focused caster as someone who only buffs. More of someone who uses buffs and then does something else, like Warpriest Clerics, or Archer Druids, or Spellsword Wizards.

Those people will often have a 16 in their main attack stat.


Either way, they'll be doing less buffing and more attacking. Which IMO makes them not buff focused at all. To the point that it might be better to multi as a caster and have the 18 in the attack stat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
A 16 is obviously fine. While an extra +1 is good it isn't vital. Only Alchemists use their main stat as "amount of times you can do your class thing" per day so for most classes it is about your expected skills and your class DC. Given that the game doesn't know whether or not you have a Bard in the group, it's safe to say the maths won't expect you to eek out every single +1 to be effective.

Except that is explicitly the opposite of what we were told during the play test- that every +1 matters. And it certainly doesn't hold up with the DC chart.

With fewer bonuses to scavenge from, you certainly do want to eek out every one that actually exists.

@Bardic Dave -Ah, you are correct, I was looking in the wrong level. But since it doesn't stack with bless or inspire (both also bard things), it matters less.

Well, it "stacks" with bless and inspire courage in a few important ways:

1) it gives a bonus to more kinds of checks.
2) it lasts significantly longer.
3) it doesn't require a concentrate action every turn
4) it can be heightened for a larger bonus.

So although you're unlikely to want to spam all three effects at once, each spell very much has its use in the right circumstances. There's actually some thought involved in selecting when to use which spell.

More impactful choices to make=more interesting gameplay. That's why I see this as a net positive for the game. And that's why I disagree with your assertion that Heroism "matters less".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
A 16 is obviously fine. While an extra +1 is good it isn't vital. Only Alchemists use their main stat as "amount of times you can do your class thing" per day so for most classes it is about your expected skills and your class DC. Given that the game doesn't know whether or not you have a Bard in the group, it's safe to say the maths won't expect you to eek out every single +1 to be effective.

Except that is explicitly the opposite of what we were told during the play test- that every +1 matters. And it certainly doesn't hold up with the DC chart.

With fewer bonuses to scavenge from, you certainly do want to eek out every one that actually exists.

@Bardic Dave -Ah, you are correct, I was looking in the wrong level. But since it doesn't stack with bless or inspire (both also bard things), it matters less.

Every +1 matters is not the same as every +1 is required. I mean it must be fundamentally true otherwise not having the best proficiency would disqualify you from participation in those rolls, which is patently false. A Ranger isn't unviable by having less to hit than a fighter.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's see some numbers... this is with information that we already have from Paizocon.

Glabrezu is one of the most armored monsters for its level, he have 34AC at lvl 13.

A fighter in the same level that started with 18 STR (will have 20 at lvl 13) have +28 to hit, making that it only needs a 6 (4 if flanking) to do damage in a Glabrezu in the first hit.

The fighter2 that started with 16 STR (19 in lvl 13) will have +27 to hit so it needs a 7 (5 if flanking) to do damage.

It looks fine for me, the fighter that invested in the main stat all the way have a better number but the fighter2 still have great chance to hit and will have a stat that is better than the first fighter, maybe CON for more hp or an extra skill from int.


Lets look at other numbers

starting with 16 vs starting with 18 and putting attribute increases on it

on lvl 5 you are 18 vs 19 (you are basically equal)
on lvl 10 you are 19 vs 20 (lead again)
on lvl 15 you are 20 vs 21 (equal again)
on lvl 20 you stay 20 and get +2 or +1 in another attribute vs 22

your chance in skill success is 5% lower compared to a character with equal prophiciencies, class and feats

5% is not much, of course a lucky dice roll can make a difference

but if the math works in general, it is after all a 0-5% chance
So it should besically be fine


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:


It looks fine for me, the fighter that invested in the main stat all the way have a better number but the fighter2 still have great chance to hit and will have a stat that is better than the first fighter, maybe CON for more hp or an extra skill from int.

I think this sums of the thread. You're not going to be so cripplingly behind the curve you just can't even if you start with a 16. And, starting with a 16 doesn't mean you're just a wholesale weaker character, it means you're more rounded.

And I'd argue if that difference was something that bumped your int up, allowing you to get more skills, and thus more trained skills, that would be a larger bonus than a +1 to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, every +1 matters. But it's not so as the 1 bonus when going from 18 to 16 is lost. You just have a better bonus somewhere else.

As to buff spells: There are fewer, especially those that give a numerical bonus. But that's the theme with PF2. There are still some buff spells.
Enlarge (gives numerical bonus), Invisibility, Stone Skin and utility buffs like Spider Climb and Water Walk are also there in the early levels


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

Let's also take into account saves.

If the +1 from Str goes to Wis, and you resist a spell that would have taken you out of the fight, or worse caused you to hurt your allies, how much is that in DPR?

If the +1 from Str goes to Con, and you survive an extra round, or resist a poison that reduces your strength, how much DPR does that account for?

Keeping in mind that you're only behind 18 half the time.

In short, it can be easily argued that 16 and 18 are both highly viable starting values.

A 14 is getting to the point where your reduced effectiveness in your main thing will start being noticeable, and hard to offset psychologically, even if your other bonuses are technically making up the difference.


Voss wrote:


Yes. Though also the second. No hyperbole.
Prayer, heroism, bulls strength,cats grace (and etc) and most spells like those are gone.

Bless, magic weapon/fang, inspire courage and haste are pretty much the only survivors, and the latter doesn't give bonuses. Bless and inspire don't stack and magic weapon/fang don't stack with items and don't have greater versions.

Can you share some photos of the spell lists?

Obviously it wouldn't give the whole picture but i figure paizo would be grumpy if you shared every spell with us.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Voss wrote:


Yes. Though also the second. No hyperbole.
Prayer, heroism, bulls strength,cats grace (and etc) and most spells like those are gone.

Bless, magic weapon/fang, inspire courage and haste are pretty much the only survivors, and the latter doesn't give bonuses. Bless and inspire don't stack and magic weapon/fang don't stack with items and don't have greater versions.

Can you share some photos of the spell lists?

Obviously it wouldn't give the whole picture but i figure paizo would be grumpy if you shared every spell with us.

Wait, you're assuming Voss has the actual final book? I wouldn't.


WatersLethe wrote:

Let's also take into account saves.

.

Saves don't compare well. In any given fight, you can easily throw 10+ attacks.

But in any given fight, you might make one or two saves of one or more different types.

A bonus to attacks has a lot more value because it simply comes up an order of magnitude more often. The only thing that really compares is Dex, for the AC bonus. (Which you can build around with the right class or feat(s), but even medium armor classes want 16 dex minimum.

With druid wanting 18, especially if they want to Gish it up, and they sort out their weapon problems.

And this applies to heroism vs bless as well- burning a first level slot is a lot more efficient than a third for what matters most of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Yes. And if you don't start out with it, there isn't any way to catch up. You're simply behind the system's expectations of what you can accomplish, and unlike 1e there aren't a lot of buffs and bonuses out there to compensate for it (let alone overcompensate, which was previously easy)

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Yeah, there were more stat buffs in PF1, but you'd still always be behind someone who started with a hugher stat and got the same buffs (because why wouldn't they?) with no way to catch up.

Like, let's say you're a monk that started with 14 STR, and your friendly fighter got 20 with their racial bonus. If both of you put every stat boost in STR, and got a +5 inherent bonus and +6 enhancement bonus, the end result would be 30 vs 36.

In PF2, if you started with 14 vs a fighter with 18 (can't start with a 20 anymore), and every stat up was put into STR, the end result would be 20 str vs 22 str, which is significantly closer. On top of that, the monk wouldn't need to give up stat boosts in wisdom in order to focus on the STR boosts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1 there were so many bonuses that you could get to the point that you surpass the random number generator (the d20). If the average AC at your CR is 20, it doesn't matter if you have +19 to hit, +25 to hit or +30 to hit. You hit.

Yes, that's a slight exaggeration, but you can tilt the average really far in your favor, to the point that ability scores were just a small part of the math- you can Voltron together a +10 or 11 to hit on a 3rd level inquisitor with a strength of 16 and a BAB of +2.

That isn't doable at all in PF2, mostly for the better. But it does mean that your primary stat matters a lot more.

Yes, a 5% difference on any given roll isn't a major deal. But it isn't that alone. Its a 5% difference on hundreds of rolls, maybe thousands, depending on the length of the campaign. That matters.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Let's also take into account saves.

.

Saves don't compare well. In any given fight, you can easily throw 10+ attacks.

But in any given fight, you might make one or two saves of one or more different types.

A bonus to attacks has a lot more value because it simply comes up an order of magnitude more often. The only thing that really compares is Dex, for the AC bonus. (Which you can build around with the right class or feat(s), but even medium armor classes want 16 dex minimum.

With druid wanting 18, especially if they want to Gish it up, and they sort out their weapon problems.

And this applies to heroism vs bless as well- burning a first level slot is a lot more efficient than a third for what matters most of the time.

It really seems like you’ve got a bit of tunnel vision going on. I mean, you make some good points, but your arguments are also easily countered with their inverse. For instance, you could argue correctly that saves are more important because the consequences of failing one are usually an order of magnitude more severe than the consequences of missing an attack roll. Or you could argue that heroism is much better than bless because being forced to spend an action every turn to concentrate heavily restricts your effectiveness in combat.

The key to untangling this gordian knot is that both sides of the argument are true, situationally. It doesn’t really do you much good to only acknowledge one set of assumptions when other equally valid assumptions are possible. Nobody’s talking about ridiculous fringe scenarios here. We’re talking about things that are exceedingly likely to come up in actual play, considerations that are impactful and meaningful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes? Do you want to suggest you aren't going to make hundreds of attack rolls in a campaign?

You have a point about situational importance, but it is undercut by the fact that saves are not only relatively rare (and impossible to max them all), but the effects are relatively minor. Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

It really doesn't look like a gordion knot. It looks like a solvable efficiency problem. And maxing the stat you make the most rolls on is the most impactful and meaningful solution .

If the crux of the matter is 5% difference won't make that much difference, then surely 5% difference on something you roll less is even less important? Because that's the difference- dropping 18 to 16 is just changing a 14 to a 16. (Or 12 to 14).

I can see builds were 18 doesn't matter, particularly on alchemists, bards and clerics. But the primary reason to do it is to get strength or dex (their actual attack stat) as high as possible. So the same principle applies.


And remember, that guy who has higher AC/saves/hit points/skills instead of to hit, will maintain that advantage at levels 5-9 & regain that advantage at 15-19, while the 18 in primary stat guy loses his advantage for those levels. Though, depending on the actual stats boosted, the higher to hit guy may be doing better overall for levels 10-14.

I see reasons to make an 18 primary stat character. Fighters and critting come to mind.

I don't see a 16 primary stat character being any worse overall than the 18.


Voss wrote:
Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

Is this 100%? I don't have my books yet, and I wasn't too heavily into the Playtest, But weren't people saying spells like Sleep, grease, etc. . .were good now because they scaled to level 20?

We also for sure don't have a strong grasp on what Monsters can do and how saves tie into those. Maybe players don't have save or suck spells, but Monsters might.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing ever since every single preview put an 18 in the primary stat, and then actually running the playtest and seeing the razor's edge of balance there, which has allegedly been fixed (haven't seen it, can't comment).

The playtest buff list was gutted though. To get any decent effects out of the half the buff list you have to bring a level 1 or 2 spell up to 4 or 5. Duplicating the effect of PF1's Resist Energy, Communal was a spell level 8 effect, I think. Competing for your top level's worth of spells of which you have less means that unless the playtest changed dramatically, buffing to the extent of PF1 (something I considered a system plus) isn't worth the effort.


Voss wrote:

Yes? Do you want to suggest you aren't going to make hundreds of attack rolls in a campaign?

You have a point about situational importance, but it is undercut by the fact that saves are not only relatively rare (and impossible to max them all), but the effects are relatively minor. Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

It really doesn't look like a gordion knot. It looks like a solvable efficiency problem. And maxing the stat you make the most rolls on is the most impactful and meaningful solution .

If the crux of the matter is 5% difference won't make that much difference, then surely 5% difference on something you roll less is even less important? Because that's the difference- dropping 18 to 16 is just changing a 14 to a 16. (Or 12 to 14).

I can see builds were 18 doesn't matter, particularly on alchemists, bards and clerics. But the primary reason to do it is to get strength or dex (their actual attack stat) as high as possible. So the same principle applies.

I’d say rolling 6 attack rolls for every 1 saving throw is a reasonable assumption, depending on character class. Is failing a save 6 times worse than missing an attack roll? In many cases it’s vastly worse than that, in others it’s not that bad. We can quibble over the numbers, but your assumptions about the relative importance of these two values does come across as heavily skewed, which was my point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MongrelHorde wrote:
Voss wrote:
Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

Is this 100%? I don't have my books yet, and I wasn't too heavily into the Playtest, But weren't people saying spells like Sleep, grease, etc. . .were good now because they scaled to level 20?

We also for sure don't have a strong grasp on what Monsters can do and how saves tie into those. Maybe players don't have save or suck spells, but Monsters might.

It’s not. They’re being hyperbolic, as is their wont.


MongrelHorde wrote:
Voss wrote:
Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

Is this 100%? I don't have my books yet, and I wasn't too heavily into the Playtest, But weren't people saying spells like Sleep, grease, etc. . .were good now because they scaled to level 20?

We also for sure don't have a strong grasp on what Monsters can do and how saves tie into those. Maybe players don't have save or suck spells, but Monsters might.

The actual save or die is (afaik) gone, you have 4 degrees of success and lets say you save from a very lethal spell its

you crit succeed - nothing happens
you succeed - you gain half damage
you fail - you gain full damage
you crit fail - you gain double damage

thats the average formula and there barely shouldn't be any spells left that outright kill you

of course there are enough bad things that can happend if you fail


Voss wrote:


It looks like a solvable efficiency problem. And maxing the stat you make the most rolls on is the most impactful and meaningful solution .

That's only half the equation. The other half is comparing the relative impact of success/failure for both categories of roll. Now to be clear, I'm not saying that if you were to do this you'd discover that maxing saves is the run-away winner, but I am suggesting that you're mostly overlooking this question. You've been making some fairly stark claims that verge on hyperbole, and which do not give a full and impartial picture of the whole issue. If you want to insist that they do, then it's not really possible for me to have a productive discussion about this subject with you.


1 person 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
Seisho wrote:


The actual save or die is (afaik) gone, you have 4 degrees of success and lets say you save from a very lethal spell its
you crit succeed - nothing happens
you succeed - you gain half damage
you fail - you gain full damage
you crit fail - you gain double damage

thats the average formula and there barely shouldn't be any spells left that outright kill you

That's how the standard save for a damaging spell like Fireball works. I think that the new paradigm for the old save or suck will be:

Crit Succeed: Nothing Happens
Succeed: Mild inconvenience
Fail: Moderate to severe inconvenience
Crit Fail: A status that takes you out of the fight, temporarily or permanently. I'm guessing if roll this vs a Disintigrate, you are a pile of ash.

Liberty's Edge

A 16 should be sufficient. Less impressive than an 18, but by no means cripplingly so. A 14 in your main stat (not necessarily your Class's main stat, but the one you use for your primary offense) is a bit more troublesome, especially at levels 1-4.

Bardic Dave wrote:
MongrelHorde wrote:
Voss wrote:
Save or die is gone. Save or suck is now mostly save or minor penalties for very short durations.

Is this 100%? I don't have my books yet, and I wasn't too heavily into the Playtest, But weren't people saying spells like Sleep, grease, etc. . .were good now because they scaled to level 20?

We also for sure don't have a strong grasp on what Monsters can do and how saves tie into those. Maybe players don't have save or suck spells, but Monsters might.

It’s not. They’re being hyperbolic, as is their wont.

Voss does not have a copy of the final book, so even if what they were saying wasn't hyperbole, it refers to the playtest rather than the final game.

And actually, the playtest had a true SoD (by the normal definition used for those) in the form of Baleful Polymorph, which had scaling successes...but turned you into a newt for an hour on a simple failure (a crit failure did it more permanently and effected your mind as well).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Actually, the playtest had a true SoD (by the normal definition used for those) in the form of Baleful Polymorph, which had scaling successes...but turned you into a newt for an hour on a simple failure (a crit failure did it more permanently and effected your mind as well).

Good point. There were also numerous monsters with save or suck/die effects, which is perhaps even more relevant for the discussion at hand.

Silver Crusade

Bardic Dave wrote:


I’d say rolling 6 attack rolls for every 1 saving throw is a reasonable assumption, depending on character class. Is failing a save 6 times worse than missing an attack roll? In many cases it’s vastly worse than that, in others it’s not that bad.

And in quite a few cases missing that attack roll is far worse than missing the save.

We've all been in the situation where we HAVE to get the bad guy down before his next turn. Perhaps he is going to run away, or he is going to suicide with a maximized fireball, or he is going to kill the hostage, or he is just going to kill one or 2 PCs.

I have no clue whether a +1 to hit is worth a -1 to saves in the long run. I'm pretty sure none of you do either. You'd have to gather a LOT of data across a LOT of situations.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Does the game 'expect' an 18 in primary ability score? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.