| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attribute Boosts
An attribute boost normally increases an attribute modifier’s value by 1. However, if the attribute modifier to which you’re applying an attribute boost is already +4
or higher, instead mark “partial boost” on the character sheet for that attribute. If the attribute already has a partial boost invested in it, increase the modifier by 1
and uncheck the box. At 1st level, a character can never have any attribute modifier that’s higher than +4.When your character receives an attribute boost, the rules indicate whether it must be applied to a specific attribute modifier, to one of a limited list, or whether
it’s a “free” attribute boost that can be applied to any attribute modifier of your choice. Dwarves, for example, receive an attribute boost to their Constitution modifier and their Wisdom modifier, as well as one free attribute boost, which can be applied to any other attribute.When you gain multiple attribute boosts at the same time, you must apply each one to a different modifier. This means you can’t apply a partial boost to an attribute modifier and apply another boost simultaneously to increase it.
I was really hoping Paizo would take the opportunity of the new Core books to address the annoying problem of there being a five level stretch where players are expected to be down a boost in order to have a higher attack modifier later, a kind of exchange that the system overall tries to discourage. The "partial boosts" are also a bit less elegant than the original boost of 18 to 19 to 20 even if mechanically they're identical.
I would have much rather the math be changed up a tiny bit to avoid the need for having that awkward five level period. In practice all we really want is for players to need to spend 2 boosts instead of 1 past a +4 modifier, and to also limit how many attributes can be boosted in that way to force relatively well-rounded characters no matter what, the five level period feels more like a vestigal side effect of a clumsy attempt to accomplish that rather than something that Paizo intentionally believes is a necessary drawback to balance the power of a higher to-hit.
What I've been doing has just been allowing my players to just respec on level up regardless, including attribute scores, so it's not like there isn't a way to work around this, under the logic that if a player having four functional boosts isn't a problem from levels 5 through 9 and a player having a higher to hit isn't a problem at levels 10 through 14, then it shouldn't be a problem if a player goes through both scenarios. It's just mildly unsatisfying for the RAW method to still be so penalizing.
If odd-numbered ability scores no longer exist why even keep ability scores at all?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the dropping of ability scores the partial boost feels worse imo, at least before there was a number going up even if it didn't change anything mechanically now it's spend a boost to put a mark down, my preferred method that I'll be advocating to homerule anyway is all boosts are a full boost just can't hit +5 until 10 and +6 at 20, it ends up with people being stronger in their non-key attributes but I don't think that makes a big enough difference to be a real problem
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the dropping of ability scores the partial boost feels worse imo, at least before there was a number going up even if it didn't change anything mechanically now it's spend a boost to put a mark down, my preferred method that I'll be advocating to homerule anyway is all boosts are a full boost just can't hit +5 until 10 and +6 at 20, it ends up with people being stronger in their non-key attributes but I don't think that makes a big enough difference to be a real problem
Except this house rule allows classes to hit 20/+5 with a non-key stat at the same time as classes with that key stat. It's a great buff for thaumaturge attack accuracy, magus spell DC and int-to-damage spells, cleric font, and so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the dropping of ability scores the partial boost feels worse imo, at least before there was a number going up even if it didn't change anything mechanically now it's spend a boost to put a mark down, my preferred method that I'll be advocating to homerule anyway is all boosts are a full boost just can't hit +5 until 10 and +6 at 20, it ends up with people being stronger in their non-key attributes but I don't think that makes a big enough difference to be a real problemExcept this house rule allows classes to hit 20/+5 with a non-key stat at the same time as classes with that key stat. It's a great buff for thaumaturge attack accuracy, magus spell DC and int-to-damage spells, cleric font, and so on.
I understand this and as I ended my original post I don't think it's big enough overall to actually be a problem compared to how much better it would feel
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree, half boosts feel really janky, and it basically adds something you need to track that doesn't really have any meaning in the rest of the game which is one of the reasons they were removing ability scores in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the reason for not letting people go from 18 straight to 20 (and so on) was to begin with. Like I know that if we did that now some of the math would break, but if they had done that from the beginning they probably could have accounted for scores as high as 28.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the reason for not letting people go from 18 straight to 20 (and so on) was to begin with. Like I know that if we did that now some of the math would break, but if they had done that from the beginning they probably could have accounted for scores as high as 28.
I think part of the idea is it creates a soft catch up point. It takes the same number of boosts to go from 10 to 18 as 18 to 22. So it limits how much vertical scaling there is.
I feel like hard attribute caps at certain levels would have been better though, since it would provide the same result while also making it easier to diversify, which is something PF2 kind of struggles with.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also seems like it is completely a 'feels bad' type of problem rather than an actual 'is bad' problem.
What exactly does an ability score of 19 mean anyway other than a partial boost between 18 and 20? Writing it down differently on the sheet doesn't actually change anything. I'm not sure why it changes how it 'feels' either.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also seems like it is completely a 'feels bad' type of problem rather than an actual 'is bad' problem.
What exactly does an ability score of 19 mean anyway other than a partial boost between 18 and 20? Writing it down differently on the sheet doesn't actually change anything. I'm not sure why it changes how it 'feels' either.
I mean it's bad because it's unnecessary book keeping. It feels bad because "half a boost" has even less feedback than a 19, which was already something that felt and was bad.
Basically they took something that was a little bit janky about the system and made it slightly more janky when they could have made it better.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players have taken to writing "PB" on their character sheets, which has become something of a new table joke.
When we leveled up together earlier this week those that got a partial boost, shouted "Peanut Butter!" while those that got a full boost followed up with "and Jelly!" One guy yelled "and Chocolate!" before puttering out as he looked at everyone nervously, but we're not going to talk about that.
We're a weird lot. XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the reason for not letting people go from 18 straight to 20 (and so on) was to begin with. Like I know that if we did that now some of the math would break, but if they had done that from the beginning they probably could have accounted for scores as high as 28.I think part of the idea is it creates a soft catch up point. It takes the same number of boosts to go from 10 to 18 as 18 to 22. So it limits how much vertical scaling there is.
I feel like hard attribute caps at certain levels would have been better though, since it would provide the same result while also making it easier to diversify, which is something PF2 kind of struggles with.
This is my logic as well. The system generally wants to make reasonably well-rounded characters that can do things outside of their combat niche (ie, strength-based characters can Intimidate worth a s#&& because their 16/18 in CHA isn't unfathomably far behind the 20/22 in CHA a Sorceror might have, but if 28 was the cap then the difference between the two would be much more significant), so I *get* the diminishing returns, I just really dislike the mechanism by which they've been doing it.
I feel like it is an annoyance more people are aware of, but it's the kind of thing that you can sometimes get mocked for bringing up with how defensive the PF2e community is known to be at times. It feels bad, worse than "you're missing one out of your four boosts" may initially imply because it's more like you're missing a boost to your third least favorite stat, but it still feels too much like the marshmallow experiment where scientists gave children a marshmallow and promised to give them another one if they didn't eat it for ten minutes or whatever. You're stuck gauging on a meta level how likely it is for the campaign to actually reach a high enough level for your investment to matter, before either the campaign ends early due to in-game events or because of the inevitable churn of scheduling conflicts.
This also seems like it is completely a 'feels bad' type of problem rather than an actual 'is bad' problem.
What exactly does an ability score of 19 mean anyway other than a partial boost between 18 and 20? Writing it down differently on the sheet doesn't actually change anything. I'm not sure why it changes how it 'feels' either.
It's not that it feels bad because it changed, it's that what we had already was bad (or at least feels bad) and it's frustrating to see that not meaningfully changed but also packaged in a less elegant way. The 18 to 19 to 20 thing I don't think should have been how it ever worked and I was hoping the Paizo team would have agreed when they went to do the remaster.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe weird, but I like the partial boosts
And I like it for the reason a couple have illustrated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand this and as I ended my original post I don't think it's big enough overall to actually be a problem compared to how much better it would feelWith the dropping of ability scores the partial boost feels worse imo, at least before there was a number going up even if it didn't change anything mechanically now it's spend a boost to put a mark down, my preferred method that I'll be advocating to homerule anyway is all boosts are a full boost just can't hit +5 until 10 and +6 at 20, it ends up with people being stronger in their non-key attributes but I don't think that makes a big enough difference to be a real problemExcept this house rule allows classes to hit 20/+5 with a non-key stat at the same time as classes with that key stat. It's a great buff for thaumaturge attack accuracy, magus spell DC and int-to-damage spells, cleric font, and so on.
Agreed, which is why I'd do the same. It's much more elegant.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll wait until I actually play with it to make any final decisions, but if I turn out to find it more annoying than it's worth, then I will be houseruling 1-to-1 attribute boosts with a cap of +4 until 10th level, when you key attribute can go to +5, 15th level when any attribute can go to +5, and 20th level, when your key attribute can go to +6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Writing the partial boost on the character sheet is easy, you just put a * or a ' next to the number.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like the "cannot have any +5's until 10th level, and no +6's until 20th level plus boosting above +4 costs two" idea, though personally I'd add the extra note of "you cannot boost more than one score above +4 in a boosting" to prevent things like two +5's at level 10 or two +6's at level 20, or various other results like that which ends up with the opposite goal of the whole half boost rule & getting 4 boosts at the levels of helping push people to be better at worse stats instead of just going all in on your two most powerful.
Of course, whilst I'd love this as a system in a hypothetical PF3 & homegames, I can see why they wouldn't want to do something like this in the remaster: as well as making characters more powerful at certain levels in their less important stats, it'll also cause issues of whilst most characters would be the same or slightly buffed, there'll various edge cases of certain characters becoming now invalid under the new system (it'd be impossible to have 5 +5's at level 15 for example), and more obviously than with something like the removal of optional flaws did.
Considering that the option exists for taking a boost every level so somebody could easily have a +5 at level six, I can't see it breaking anything to be able to spend two of your boosts at once to go from 18 to 20 in one go.
Variant rules don't necessarily mean balanced rules
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the partial boosts. Feels bad. It felt bad as 18 to 19 as well. It's an unnecessary complication. Its like having to spend a class feat that does nothing until a few levels later when you can spend another class feat to make the first one do something.
It is bad design to give something that does nothing for 5 levels until you boost it again to make it mean something.
I am always surprised at people that will defend something because of who did rather than look at it at face value and ask if this is a good mechanic.
Have a character feature that you spend that does nothing for 5 levels is bad design, there is many alternative options that doesn't lead to a 5 level vaccuum.
1) Cap ability scores by character level (can't have more than +5 at 10, no more than +6 at 20), or
2) Allow a character to spend 2 boosts for a +1 at levels 10 and 20, or
3) Balance the game's math around a key attribute getting to + 8 (+9 with apex).
They did all this work to simplify things that were confusing or clunky like change spell levels to spell ranks and then they decide to keep what is a very odd design choice. A partial boost is something that does nothing for 5 levels that is objectively bad design especially in a game where it might end before the next boosts are given.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people might find themselves disappointed at how the remaster didn't change enough things from the original core rules. The partial boosts thing is inelegant, but it's also exactly the same as (specifically isomorophic to) the 18->19->20 taking two boosts rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like the "cannot have any +5's until 10th level, and no +6's until 20th level plus boosting above +4 costs two" idea, though personally I'd add the extra note of "you cannot boost more than one score above +4 in a boosting" to prevent things like two +5's at level 10 or two +6's at level 20, or various other results like that which ends up with the opposite goal of the whole half boost rule & getting 4 boosts at the levels of helping push people to be better at worse stats instead of just going all in on your two most powerful.
Right.
Because partial boosts is too complicated and hard to keep track of.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I envision this being a little checkbox next to the attribute modifier on the character sheet. Seems pretty simple to me. It won't even use up the real estate that not having ability scores frees up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people might find themselves disappointed at how the remaster didn't change enough things from the original core rules. The partial boosts thing is inelegant, but it's also exactly the same as (specifically isomorophic to) the 18->19->20 taking two boosts rule.
Which was also bad design and they had the chance to fix it.
Selecting something that will give no benefit for a full quarter of the game so that you can select it again in 5 levels to have it do something is bad design.
Imagine I can pick up martial weapon proficiency but I couldn't use martial weapons for 5 levels until I paid another feat for it to be able to use it? Would anyone think that was good design?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I envision this being a little checkbox next to the attribute modifier on the character sheet. Seems pretty simple to me. It won't even use up the real estate that not having ability scores frees up.
Its not about it being hard, its about poor design. Selecting something that provides no benefit by design for 5 levels until you spend a limited resource on it again to make it do something is bad design. 5 levels is a full quarter of a maximum level game of which most games do not reach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate partial boosts because it creates the possibility of “dead” boosts for 20th level builds, and you start building your character with higher levels in mind.
I’d rather have more rules about boosts than partial boosts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if three boosts instead of four at earlier levels would be a simple fix. Level 1 is already taken care of - you can't have a stat above +4. Three boosts at levels 5 and 15, before the cap can go up. Four boosts at levels 10 and 20, when it can. Can't boost an attribute to +5 until level 10. Can't boost an attribute to +6 until level 20. So you end up with the same net results (unless my math is screwed, I am a bit tired). Other than that, I don't really see an elegant fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people might find themselves disappointed at how the remaster didn't change enough things from the original core rules. The partial boosts thing is inelegant, but it's also exactly the same as (specifically isomorophic to) the 18->19->20 taking two boosts rule.Which was also bad design and they had the chance to fix it.
I'm pretty sure the reason they didn't change it is that it would make it significantly harder to "update" your character to the remaster rules in the middle of their career.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I agree with the notion of partial boosts being bad design. The way the system stands, it keeps players from being hosed if they don't absolutely min/max their scores from the get-go. That's especially beneficial to new players, which I appreciate.
There are pros and cons, but partial boosts solve some problems without requiring a whole lot of new words to explain the rules, and I don't see that they will be much of a problem moving forward.
Personally, I like the "cannot have any +5's until 10th level, and no +6's until 20th level plus boosting above +4 costs two" idea, though personally I'd add the extra note of "you cannot boost more than one score above +4 in a boosting" to prevent things like two +5's at level 10 or two +6's at level 20, or various other results like that which ends up with the opposite goal of the whole half boost rule & getting 4 boosts at the levels of helping push people to be better at worse stats instead of just going all in on your two most powerful.Right.
Because partial boosts is too complicated and hard to keep track of.
I am confused what you mean by this, nothing in my message brought up the complexity of either systems? If you mean it sarcastically like "why are you overcomplicating it", then if you compare what I suggested vs the very frequently sent suggestion that this was an expansion of (the just maxing what your bonus can by at any specific level), it would take a total of less than a sentence to add the rule in.
Inversely, if this was sarcastic to mean "Why are you oversimplifying it?", then I am unsure the meaning there either. Like I said in the original message it's just a modification on a popular suggestion to prevent situations of it allowing overly min-max'd stat spreads like +6/+6/+5/+1/+0/+0. Stating that this specific way is an oversimplification instead of critiquing the original seems odd (the original which I'd argue was roughly comparable to the current system in complexity).
In the event it is something else, please tell me. Also, if it wasn't intended to be sarcastic at all, I'm sorry, just terrible at tone and what it seemed most likely (not me purposefully trying to find the "worst interpretations", so to speak).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I envision this being a little checkbox next to the attribute modifier on the character sheet. Seems pretty simple to me. It won't even use up the real estate that not having ability scores frees up.Its not about it being hard, its about poor design. Selecting something that provides no benefit by design for 5 levels until you spend a limited resource on it again to make it do something is bad design. 5 levels is a full quarter of a maximum level game of which most games do not reach.
What's the trade off your'e offering then in return for characters having much higher stats than they do now then? Since that's what level locking rather than increasing the cost is what that'll do, arbitrary level locks are in the "doesn't fell good" school of design. No one likes having a roof like that.
Feel is just as important as implementation.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
arbitrary level locks are in the "doesn't fell good" school of design. No one likes having a roof like that.
Hard disagree. Especially when the status quo is still arbitrary level locks, but ones that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air.
And IDK, a fighter ending up with a slightly higher charisma or intellect or something doesn't really seem like the end of the world either. Plugging in slightly wider progression isn't really a bad thing here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused what you mean by this
No, you got the right of it. That is straight sarcasm.
Partial Boosts can be defined in one easy sentence, and can be tracked with a simple tick mark on a character sheet.
Trying to come up with a convoluted method of allowing an equivalent system that doesn't involve spending boosts with no visible change in numbers but also doesn't create a difference at any level just seems like a lot of extra work. Work that is not needed and is probably going to be incorrect in the end anyway. Someone will find a way to exploit the complicated rules in order to get a bump to an ability modifier that wouldn't be possible in the original Ability Score system or the Partial Boost system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
arbitrary level locks are in the "doesn't fell good" school of design. No one likes having a roof like that.Hard disagree. Especially when the status quo is still arbitrary level locks, but ones that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air.
And IDK, a fighter ending up with a slightly higher charisma or intellect or something doesn't really seem like the end of the world either. Plugging in slightly wider progression isn't really a bad thing here.
Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
" that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air."
I guess that just we interpret it differently, losing a boost vs said boost costing more since it's stronger.
And I would wager that "you can only increase your score to x" is less feels-good than "you can increase your score, higher ones cost more". Same end mechanical result, different feel and path on getting there, which is important (Reminded of when Untrained in the Playtest gave you a penalty on checks and the other levels were lower numbers)
I agree. I didn't like that we're basically forced to waste an ability boost in the first place. The only time the system had an odd ability score was between 18 and 20. I'm very disappointed that they're continuing that trend with the ".5" boost. Bad design imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
arbitrary level locks are in the "doesn't fell good" school of design. No one likes having a roof like that.Hard disagree. Especially when the status quo is still arbitrary level locks, but ones that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air.
And IDK, a fighter ending up with a slightly higher charisma or intellect or something doesn't really seem like the end of the world either. Plugging in slightly wider progression isn't really a bad thing here.
Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
" that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air."
I guess that just we interpret it differently, losing a boost vs said boost costing more since it's stronger.
And I would wager that "you can only increase your score to x" is less feels-good than "you can increase your score, higher ones cost more". Same end mechanical result, different feel and path on getting there, which is important (Reminded of when Untrained in the Playtest gave you a penalty on checks and the other levels were lower numbers)
I am willing to bet that a level cap on score increase feels less bad than you can increase it but you better be sure that your campaign is gonna keep going for the next five levels or your boost is completely wasted
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand getting disappointed about something not changing from how it has always worked.
Like if going from 18 to 19 to 20 in two boosts was a huge failure of design, I'm confused why we never saw people complaining about it before the remaster? Like suggesting house rules or something?
|
|
I am willing to bet that a level cap on score increase feels less bad than you can increase it but you better be sure that your campaign is gonna keep going for the next five levels or your boost is completely wastedarbitrary level locks are in the "doesn't fell good" school of design. No one likes having a roof like that.Hard disagree. Especially when the status quo is still arbitrary level locks, but ones that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air.
And IDK, a fighter ending up with a slightly higher charisma or intellect or something doesn't really seem like the end of the world either. Plugging in slightly wider progression isn't really a bad thing here.
Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
" that make some of your boosts vanish into thin air."
I guess that just we interpret it differently, losing a boost vs said boost costing more since it's stronger.
And I would wager that "you can only increase your score to x" is less feels-good than "you can increase your score, higher ones cost more". Same end mechanical result, different feel and path on getting there, which is important (Reminded of when Untrained in the Playtest gave you a penalty on checks and the other levels were lower numbers)
Yeah that boost is the only thing that would make me feel bad about a campaign ending early lol
This is why the GM sets up expectations about the level range of the campaign beforehand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
Not at all. If your fighter is doing Str/Dex/Con/Wis at 5, replacing partial boosts with a hard cap of 18 would mean that your PB in strength would instead be a boost in Int or Cha.
There's no way it would result in "Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS" because you can't double up boosts, plus you'll only ever have a most of 3 PBs over the course of your entire career.
For a level 5 fighter, the difference between the suggested hard cap and the traditional partial boost system is 12 INT vs 10 INT.
And I would wager that "you can only increase your score to x" is less feels-good than "you can increase your score, higher ones cost more". Same end mechanical result, different feel and path on getting there, which is important (Reminded of when Untrained in the Playtest gave you a penalty on checks and the other levels were lower numbers)
I just can't see that. It's "You can only increase to 20 at 10" or "You can only increase to 20 at 10, but you have to give up one of your boosts at 5 to get there."
There isn't really a game feel advantage here because the boost you spend at 5 doesn't do anything, and there's a hard cap on how high your stats can be at any given level regardless. I can see some arguments against this change, but a game feel one doesn't make sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand getting disappointed about something not changing from how it has always worked.
Like if going from 18 to 19 to 20 in two boosts was a huge failure of design, I'm confused why we never saw people complaining about it before the remaster? Like suggesting house rules or something?
I have been in discussions complaining about it since starting playing PF2e, just because it didn't happen on these forums (as far as I know, I only recently started reading here) doesn't mean it didn't happen and the answer for getting disappointed about it now has been answered before, because this remaster was the time for something like this to get changed, maybe I'll be lucky and something different will appear as a variant in GM core since as a player variant rules are easier to have GMs be on board with than me suggesting house rule stuff like this
What about "no ability over +4 until level 10", "no 2 abilties +4 until level 15" and "no ability over +5 until level 20"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been in discussions complaining about it since starting playing PF2e, just because it didn't happen on these forums (as far as I know, I only recently started reading here) doesn't mean it didn't happen and the answer for getting disappointed about it now has been answered before, because this remaster was the time for something like this to get changed, maybe I'll be lucky and something different will appear as a variant in GM core since as a player variant rules are easier to have GMs be on board with than me suggesting house rule stuff like thisI don't understand getting disappointed about something not changing from how it has always worked.
Like if going from 18 to 19 to 20 in two boosts was a huge failure of design, I'm confused why we never saw people complaining about it before the remaster? Like suggesting house rules or something?
And I've been arguing for Champions without patron deities since the playtest. Should I be disappointed when this doesn't happen in Player Core II?
|
|
"For a level 5 fighter, the difference between the suggested hard cap and the traditional partial boost system is 12 INT vs 10 INT."
My point was more about the power/math change, not a specific stat array.
"or "You can only increase to 20 at 10, but you have to give up one of your boosts at 5 to get there.""
Because that's not how it's worded or presented.
"I can see some arguments against this change, but a game feel one doesn't make sense to me."
You're locked on when you can advance and these stronger boosts cost more have two completely different feels to me, probably cause of my history with vidya gaming.
At least now we don't have to worry about odd scores, I hated that that got carried onto P2 originally. If there's a better metric for boosting I'm here for it but I don't see "just give more boosts so people have more/higher stats" is gonna be it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
Except pretty much everyone is doing key stat + save stats or is getting roflstomped by high level boss monsters. Spreading abilty scores like this means that the fighter is better at intimidating or recalling knowledge without sacrificing survivabilty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except pretty much everyone is doing key stat + save stats or is getting roflstomped by high level boss monsters. Spreading abilty scores like this means that the fighter is better at intimidating or recalling knowledge without sacrificing survivabilty.Higher STR, CON, DEX, and WIS, which would be a power and math changer that the rest of the game would have to take into account, for weal and woe, the math in P2 is very tight.
"I want a more elegant boost method" and "I want more boosts so characters have better numbers" are two very different things. The latter requires looking at the system math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I've been arguing for Champions without patron deities since the playtest. Should I be disappointed when this doesn't happen in Player Core II?I have been in discussions complaining about it since starting playing PF2e, just because it didn't happen on these forums (as far as I know, I only recently started reading here) doesn't mean it didn't happen and the answer for getting disappointed about it now has been answered before, because this remaster was the time for something like this to get changed, maybe I'll be lucky and something different will appear as a variant in GM core since as a player variant rules are easier to have GMs be on board with than me suggesting house rule stuff like thisI don't understand getting disappointed about something not changing from how it has always worked.
Like if going from 18 to 19 to 20 in two boosts was a huge failure of design, I'm confused why we never saw people complaining about it before the remaster? Like suggesting house rules or something?
Yes, the remaster is still a situation where such a thing is the perfect time for it to change especially since it's a CRB class coming in the second book indicating they're giving more time to it with what's changing, there is also something weird to me of the sideline here of the idea of policing someone else's expression of disappointment in what is the main place that such thing would be expressed
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that boost is the only thing that would make me feel bad about a campaign ending early lol
The only thing?
Me, I would be upset that the campaign was ending. lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m still trying to work out something pretty simple. If I get a partial boost, is it actually like I’m getting something? Or…not? Like I’m pretty sure it isn’t a boost to my attribute, and the partial thing seems like it is going to be checked in a box. But apart from that, what did I actually get? And why? Is it…chocolate flavored? That would be cool. If I have more than one partial, can I make it into a boost later? I can? In ten minutes, or…now?
I’m not sure about “bad design”, but it definitely feels like uninspired implementation, especially given the opportunity and remit of the Remaster. Sacred cows and all that.
It’s a silly “gift”. That literally does nothing. Until later. When it is a marshmellow.