| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is this going to work leveling up past what is 18 now? Will there just be max levels that attribute modifiers can reach at different levels? Will it take 2 points worth of investment to boost past +4? It feels like this could change the way characters work a fair bit. Will all the ancestry changes port over cleanly?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
From things said on the Twitch livestream: the levels at which you can get an ability modifier above +4 will not change. It will still take 2 boosts to increase it beyond that point. There is also some idea that they have in mind for handling that, but I didn't see any details on what that is.
I'm not sure how this could affect ancestries or the recent ancestry changes. Ancestries just give boosts to abilities at level 1. That wouldn't change other than instead of giving a 2 point boost (or -2 flaw) to an ability score, they would give a +1 boost (or -1 flaw) to an ability modifier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
from my understanding they are keeping needing two boosts to get from +4 to +5 and beyond in some capacity. tbh that feels really bad and clunky, and is the one non-nostalgic/legacy argument for keeping ability scores that i think has merits.
That being said the alternative of just letting the numbers go higher also seems bad for the games math. I do in a theoretical pf3e, using just he modifiers/smaller score(whatever you wanna call it) they make the math in such a way where 1 boost = a +1 to that score/modifier all the way through.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would hope they just have you pay 2 points to boost to 5 and then to 6 when you can. It will change a little bit more of the typical spreads, and isn't how I would design things from the start, but would be more elegant than having half modifiers by far.
I think we have about reached a point in TTRPGs where attribute modifiers themselves really are not necessary anymore and that feats represent a much cooler way of differentiating between character, especially if attributes for top attack stat are almost always maxed, there could be much more interesting ways to split up skills and ways to get bonuses to different groups of them, although, all of that is far beyond the scope of 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to toot my own horn, but a system I made for stagger attribute progression makes it very easy to avoid breaking math.
Instead of making it illegal to "double up" on a stat, I just made it so you couldn't go past a certain number, but otherwise used the staggered attribute distribution levels (like for example, from levels 2-6, the max attribute level is 19, 7-11 is 20, etc). Theoretically, it would let players have more spiked stats, but generally speaking, this was actually worse than just making your stats more distributed unless you wanted something really janky, but tbh, I'm fine with allowing the jank, and it didn't harm anything since it never pushed the math past what the stagger attibute rules allowed
If they removed the needing two to go on to the next bracket, they can just put a similar cap (until level 10, you cant go above +5, and you cant hit +6 until level 20). Factoring in the lost advances for doubling up on an attribute, you could probably change it from 4 boost at 5, 10, 15, and 20 to three boosts and hit around the same numbers, but I haven't dont the numbers to find out
A simple solution to all this is diminish the atributes -10 making 10 = 0.
For example. A build 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 10 would be 8, 6, 4, 2, -2, 0.
This will prevent the atributes becomes equal to D&D at sametime allow the odd progression to stats to applied and an easy conversion between old and new versions.
Or -8 if you don't like negative numbers. This also makes clear that stats greater than 10 is that increases by 1 instead of by 2:
For example. A build 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 10 would be 10, 8, 6, 4, 0, 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.
That is a red line for me.
I was not a fan of moving away from the standard 3-18 range. But the number lose their distribution and become unreal if players are nomally getting number like 22. So at that point just ability modifiers make sense.
But if the Strength of your character is not relevant. Then that game has just become abstract nonsense and has lost me.
Stop trying to make every game have the same. I don't want that. I need the detail for the visualisation.
While mourning for the death of ability scores I realized that what I really didn't like was the number +0 as an "average" value, and an arbitrary -5 as the rock bottom, not 0.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.That is a red line for me.
I was not a fan of moving away from the standard 3-18 range. But the number lose their distribution and become unreal if players are nomally getting number like 22. So at that point just ability modifiers make sense.
But if the Strength of your character is not relevant. Then that game has just become abstract nonsense and has lost me.
Stop trying to make every game have the same. I don't want that. I need the detail for the visualisation.
I'm not much of a traditionalist but given the trend towards every character at the table starting with the same spread of stats with defined starting minimum and maximum values you could ditch the somewhat complex idea of stat generation and just go with:
Best Stat: +5 modifier
Second Best Stat: +4 modifier
.
.
.
Worst Stat: +0 modifier
You get a completely even spread with as much relation to the world at large as the current PF2 system but with fewer steps. This frees up ancestries to have nothing to do with stats, aside from making suggestions about the average spread for that ancestry, and leaves room for them to perhaps be even more interesting. Stat boosts at level-up would likely have to go but that could give way to more options that meaningfully change how your character plays.
It's radical and probably further than the team will ever go but it's in the same vein as current ideas and fits the trends.
TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.
The “Lots of Attributes” Theory
HârnMaster may have more attributes than seem necessary, but a character who lives long enough will use every possible attribute.
HârnMaster has at least sixteen attributes, seven of which (Strength, Endurance, Dexterity, Agility, Intelligence, Aura, and Will) are considered "key".
In this system, attribute modifiers are only used to modify the base attribute, and are dependent on species and sex. Human males are the baseline - they get no modifiers. Where modifiers exist, they range from ±1 to ±4 (usually), and not every attribute is modified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beginners box also didn’t have to deal with characters leveling up enough for attributes to change, so none of the level 1 to 20 groundwork for how to handle that was really done then.
For me, I think it would be cooler to have attribute feats than attribute scores. You start with 0 across the board, get one for ancestry, one for background, one for class and maybe one floater. I think it would be way more dynamic and interesting than just numbers that mostly are all in a very narrow range. They could fold in several skill feats to each one and give bonuses to enough checks to easily be as significant and varied as attribute modifiers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who often messes around and plays with non standard stat arrays I would absolutely hate set modifiers, same reason we hated standard array in 5e. its nice if people like something like that but we enjoy making characters that have unique stats and can still be effective.
I mean right now a con mod of +1 vs a con mod of +3 is total character differentiation of +2 hp per level and +2 to fort saves, and some nebulous stuff about holding your breath which really should have just been tied into fort saves.
An attribute feat chain system could fold one toughness/die hard chain that covers that +, but a seller are one could be tied to endurance and doing cool stuff with your inherent connection to the planes. Dex could have speed ones, sneaky ones, archery focused ones, etc.
It is too late for any of this to work for PF2, but maybe if players get into seeing their characters mostly as a collection of feats instead of attribute numbers it could be a system to explore in the future.
I mean right now a con mod of +1 vs a con mod of +3 is total character differentiation of +2 hp per level and +2 to fort saves, and some nebulous stuff about holding your breath which really should have just been tied into fort saves.
An attribute feat chain system could fold one toughness/die hard chain that covers that +, but a seller are one could be tied to endurance and doing cool stuff with your inherent connection to the planes. Dex could have speed ones, sneaky ones, archery focused ones, etc.
It is too late for any of this to work for PF2, but maybe if players get into seeing their characters mostly as a collection of feats instead of attribute numbers it could be a system to explore in the future.
If they do that I'd like to see a mainstream attempt to go classless with various values of feat that allow you to build out your character. A defining feat might cost 4 points, and a smaller add-on might cost 1 or 2, set starting points at enough to recreate iconic classes and make sample classes and icon characters to appease the class-based group. You could tie stat boost to these feat blocks, go statless, or with some other generation method.
TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.That is a red line for me.
I was not a fan of moving away from the standard 3-18 range. But the number lose their distribution and become unreal if players are nomally getting number like 22. So at that point just ability modifiers make sense.
But if the Strength of your character is not relevant. Then that game has just become abstract nonsense and has lost me.
Stop trying to make every game have the same. I don't want that. I need the detail for the visualisation.
I used to feel that way. Having every single L1 PC with an 18 in their key attribute just didn’t feel right - like every fighter can bench press the exact same amount?
I’ve moved away from that, though, and now I see the bonus as just a combination of natural talent and trained skill. So having a 22 Int doesn’t mean you have a 220 IQ, it just means you’ve trained your mind and are able to apply it to your Int-based skills.
I used to feel that way. Having every single L1 PC with an 18 in their key attribute just didn’t feel right - like every fighter can bench press the exact same amount?
I’ve moved away from that, though, and now I see the bonus as just a combination of natural talent and trained skill. So having a 22 Int doesn’t mean you have a 220 IQ, it just means you’ve trained your mind and are able to apply it to your Int-based skills.
My fighters don't. Some are DEX based then STR is all over the place.
But that is another problem. People are so obsessed with balance that every fighter has to start with 18 STR. I am happy to roll ability score then work out what my class should be. But I may as well say I like killing puppies. I know how unpopular that opinion is.
Ability scores and ability modifiers are the same to me. It doesn’t matter what form the number takes as long as it means something. My only issue with abilities in this system is how (as some have mentioned) the math is built with the assumption one takes the max to their class’ primary ability. The way the system is designed, the scores are just needed adjustments to modifiers, and have little to do with character itself.
|
I used to feel that way. Having every single L1 PC with an 18 in their key attribute just didn’t feel right - like every fighter can bench press the exact same amount?
I’ve moved away from that, though, and now I see the bonus as just a combination of natural talent and trained skill. So having a 22 Int doesn’t mean you have a 220 IQ, it just means you’ve trained your mind and are able to apply it to your Int-based skills.
My fighters don't. Some are DEX based then STR is all over the place.
But that is another problem. People are so obsessed with balance that every fighter has to start with 18 STR. I am happy to roll ability score then work out what my class should be. But I may as well say I like killing puppies. I know how unpopular that opinion is.
Once I started playing SF and PF2e I've never thought once about going back to rolling stats. But you have a good point, rolling stats can lead to playing classes you might not have otherwise tried. Another way to get a random class without rolling for stats would be to make a list of classes and roll to pick the class from the list.
The one thing I'm really glad we don't roll for anymore is HP
I used to feel that way. Having every single L1 PC with an 18 in their key attribute just didn’t feel right - like every fighter can bench press the exact same amount?
I’ve moved away from that, though, and now I see the bonus as just a combination of natural talent and trained skill. So having a 22 Int doesn’t mean you have a 220 IQ, it just means you’ve trained your mind and are able to apply it to your Int-based skills.
My fighters don't. Some are DEX based then STR is all over the place.
But that is another problem. People are so obsessed with balance that every fighter has to start with 18 STR. I am happy to roll ability score then work out what my class should be. But I may as well say I like killing puppies. I know how unpopular that opinion is.
It's not obsession it's actually game requirement you need to have either 16 or 18 in your main stat for most classes otherwise you will be in huge disadvantage
You have 9 to 10 boosts at character creation, so the average stat is 13. 16 in your main stat isn't high, it's 1.5 stat boost from the average. Considering it's your main stat, it's just stating that your character is good at what it does.
I'd personally ditch the save bonuses (or use 4e ones). I think it'd be a much bigger improvement to the system as far as variability in character builds is concerned.
I'd also be sad if the stats were removed (I'm fine in having just the bonuses). From a mechanical point of view, stats could be easily removed. But from an interpretation one, I find that really problematic as it would mean everyone would be average in everything. I like the play my slightly intelligent Barbarian, my slightly uncharismatic Psychic and my quite wise Alchemist. These values give information at how your character react and position themselves in different situations.
You have 9 to 10 boosts at character creation, so the average stat is 13. 16 in your main stat isn't high, it's 1.5 stat boost from the average. Considering it's your main stat, it's just stating that your character is good at what it does.
I'd personally ditch the save bonuses (or use 4e ones). I think it'd be a much bigger improvement to the system as far as variability in character builds is concerned.I'd also be sad if the stats were removed (I'm fine in having just the bonuses). From a mechanical point of view, stats could be easily removed. But from an interpretation one, I find that really problematic as it would mean everyone would be average in everything. I like the play my slightly intelligent Barbarian, my slightly uncharismatic Psychic and my quite wise Alchemist. These values give information at how your character react and position themselves in different situations.
If you simplify base stat generation from what it is now to something like 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 assigned freely you could well say the average is 2.5 with 3s and 2s being common, 4s and 1s being uncommon, and 5s and 0s being rare. PCs are the specialist savants of the world with their highly specialized stats suited to their exceptional role within the world.
You could, if you desired, change that curve from 5 to 0 to 3 to -2 if that feels better in terms of what the average is. It wouldn't change the math at all.
I'm not sure I understand your perspective. A Cha 8 (stat) Psychic and a Cha -1 (bonus) Psychic both interepret as "slightly below average charisma/uncharismatic" and either stat can give the player insight into how to have their character react and position themselves in different situations.
What gets lost is (1) some older-system usages of the direct stat (think lifting) which doesn't exist in PF2E, (2) a bell distribution if you roll them, which also doesn't exist in PF2E, and (2) half-steps used for experience progression, which can easily be represented via 4->4.5->5 or some other means, but which I agree might be a bit less intuitive than 18->19->20.
Clearly, but some are speaking of entirely removing statistics (and bonuses) and move them into feats. I was reacting to that.
If you simplify base stat generation from what it is now to something like 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 assigned freely you could well say the average is 2.5 with 3s and 2s being common, 4s and 1s being uncommon, and 5s and 0s being rare. PCs are the specialist savants of the world with their highly specialized stats suited to their exceptional role within the world.
You could, if you desired, change that curve from 5 to 0 to 3 to -2 if that feels better in terms of what the average is. It wouldn't change the math at all.
But why?
Current system is a bit complex considering the limited amount of different arrays you can get, still, there are much more arrays than one. I find a single array for every character to be limiting. Even if I agree that the current system is far too complex when you know the inner workings.
But why?
I'd aim to pull complexity out of assigning base stats and add it back in with more interesting skill uses, feats, equipment, etc. Remove mental overhead where you can and apply the savings to other systems where you can get greater returns.
It could also be possible that you make 3-arrays, something like:
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1
5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 0
I just wrote those quickly, but they should be roughly balanced.
...something like:
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1
5, 3, 3, 2, 2, 0I just wrote those quickly, but they should be roughly balanced.
Those provide significantly more boosts than current chargen (15 vs. 9), including a +5 where +4 is max now. I might worry they would not match up the same way with currently published adventuring material (monster stats, etc.). IOW, it's going to make the game all around easier.
But I agree with the notion that they could pull complexity out and it wouldn't hurt the game. Paizo made ancestry-limited stat boosts optional and it didn't really hurt anything...particularly since Human ancestry already had that. They could do the same with backgrounds and class and just go with "give 9 boosts, with +4 max and at least four stats having +1." Ancestry, background, and class then provide skill, feat, etc. type features.
Yes, but with my system stats wouldn't go up at later levels. So they should start slightly higher, make early levels feel a bit easier, and then tail off at higher levels when your feat choices should matter more than your stats.
I do hope it's something like:
At 5th level, you gain four +1 boosts to any attribute modifier, but they may not go higher than +4.
Starting at 10th level, you have the option to turn a single +4 into a +5, but you only get three attribute boosts if you do.
Starting at 20th level, you have the option to turn a single +5 into a +6, but you only get three attribute boosts if you do.
If it is, then it doesn't feel that bad to start off with a +3.
I think my main problem with ability modifiers is how it relates to key stats. I agree you're doing yourself a disservice if you have less than a 16 in your to hit stat, and an 18 is almost always preferably. But I see newer or less optimization focused players starting with 16s a lot, or putting 14 strength on a sorcerer and thinking melee is an option.
If we are going to keep Pathfinder math this tight (and I think we should) I'm not sure I like the opportunity to sabotage your character by having a lower stat. Just let your class determine which stat you get the 18 in and place your free boosts elsewhere.
It would require some rethinking around Inventors, Thaumaturge, Alchemists, and War Priests, but that's why it feels like a PF3 thing and not a Remastered thing. I also recognize it is a bridge too far for some people, who like the choice even if it is usually the illusion of one.
I agree. What I'd do is remove the stat boost from class, one free stat boost and the free stat boost from Background and give a 16 in key stat by default. So you easily put it to 18 without any need for shenanigans even if your Ancestry gives you a -2. And you can't have a 14 in your key stat outside of a mismatch with your Ancestry.
Yes, but with my system stats wouldn't go up at later levels.Ah. That sounds like a significant system change to me, not a 'remastered' or 'compatible with'. Granted neither one of our suggestions will make it in given that the thing is probably already written, but I was thinking about ways to make chargen less complex while achieving the same result; not trying to achieve a different result I think is better. If I were to go down that road...oh so many ideas spring to mind. :)
Yeah, I'm generally for slightly larger scope changes to PF2 because for me the system is just good, not great. It's a game people I enjoy gaming with play so I play it and generally have a good time.