That was the jokeYeah that boost is the only thing that would make me feel bad about a campaign ending early lolThe only thing?
Me, I would be upset that the campaign was ending. lol.
*Slides hand over head*
Wiff
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused what you mean by thisNo, 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.
The reason for the suggested change is because it wouldn't be the same at all levels, thus the reason for the discussion. The current system has an issue of causing "feels bad" where you have to effectively lose a boost you'd otherwise get with nothing in return for 5 levels, what goes against the design ethos of several other parts of the system. The system was pretty much designed to prevent that whilst still not messing with the current system too much (as I quite like the two elements of it where A) It lets you boost your less important ability scores, and B) whilst it lets you keep boosting your top score, it pushes you against it).
For the "create modifer spreads that wouldn't be possible under the OG system" point, yeah, there notably is one main case of that in being able to get a non-KAS score to 20 at level 10, which would have some balance changes. I mostly didn't bring it up as it was acknowledged by others here (plus, like I said, I already said I feel that the system isn't really viable for anything bar homegames or a PF3 anyway for other reasons).
Finally, for the complexity one, whilst my description definitely made it seem complicated, it isn't really especially so. Funnily enough, just trying to make a quick one minute idea on how it'd work via swapping out the section on the current ASI feature dealing with increasing beyond 18 (also swapping out all mention of scores for modifiers, though that doesn't change word count), I actually ended up with something only 3 words longer than the current form. Now, will admit, I'm not 100% a fan of my current wording as it does have some ambiguity (and its also just clearly slightly amateur), but it was made very quickly, and it's not like adding 5 extra words to make it more clear would be the end of the world:
At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, you boost four different ability modifier by +1. At level 10 onwards you, you can increase a single ability modifier from +4 to +5 using two boosts. At level 20, you may instead increase an ability modifier from +5 to +6 this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's not every level. It's a spread-out method of the same boosting and you can't apply more than one boost to one attribute in each four-level bracket.
It works like this. You get, normally, four boosts at 5, 10, 15, and 20.
In the variant rules you get 1 boost at 2, 3, 4, and 5 that have to go to different attributes, the same as getting them all at 5.
You get nothing at 6, then 1 boost at 7, 8, 9, and 10. Same four boots for the 6 to 10 range, and again, no more than one boost to a given attribute in that range.
This continues from 11 to 15 and 16-20, with nothing at 11 and 16, and then four boots in a row.
The variant gives you the exact same amount of boosts. It just changes when you get them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While this lack of better solution is disappointing, and I agree it somehow feels (very slightly) worse than going from 18 to 19, it mechanically is the same.
So while I'm disappointed no one figured out a better solution, I'm also not really upset about it either.
| 6 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?
What? There have been many complaints about ability scores in PF2.
It's one of those things that do not make sense unless you've been playing TTRPGs since the 1970s, just like Vancian casting and spell levels. Actually, spell levels and ability scores suffer from exactly the same issue: an arbitrary linear formula that you need to remember, instead of just using level and modifier for everything.
Spell level = [Character Level]/2 rounded up
Ability score = 10+2*[Ability Modifier]
The remaster would have been an excellent opportunity to tidy this all up. Actually, the switch from PF1 to PF2 would have been too, but roleplay veterans have a larger voice than new players unfortunately.
|
| 3 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.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.
Aren't higher skill proficiencies level-locked ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how they'll handle the Ability Points variant rule, since "score" is going away, buying 14 -> 15 isn't a thing to keep track of.
Also, I am 100% for the "no +5 until 10th, no +6 until 20th" because it would work just like skill increases which is an already fine system in the game engine. So what if its leaning against the tight math? It isn't that big a deal if my players have +1 more than their current will save/perception if it means yeeting jank math that just looks bad all around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the partial boost mechanic quite a bit. It makes spreading out ability boosts feel a whole lot less punishing. I'd be totally against removing partial boosts without something to replace it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with removing the "partial boosts" rule, it just feels awkward given that the system is attempting to do away with ability scores (to avoid OGL lawsuits), but is still attempting to utilize mechanics that rely on ability scores. I'm probably going to houserule this even before the Remaster, simply because the whole concept of "partial boosts" felt stupid to me, and is basically there to punish min-maxers with no alternatives, when there are other, better ways to limit the min-maxing while promoting diverse build strategies.
Really, using the "partial boosts" only hurts those who are MAD or those who want to be able to dabble around without limiting their primary attribute(s), as the SAD characters aren't really otherwise using those attribute boosts for anything, but may instead be more inclined to use them since they won't be so low as to ignore them. It increases build viabilities without going against the top end, and would be awesome for games that utilize Free Archetype or Dual Class, of which the former is done quite popularly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At that point, I'd rather settle for a miniature donkey.
|
I suppose they could just let you have a modifier of 4.5 which would be entirely irrelevant for anything but initiative where it should let you win ties.
But they could have half attribute bonuses like count your attribute as one higher for the purpose of skills.
I was thinking along those same lines.
What minor benefit could a partial attribute boost get to make it mean something.I like "Tie Breakers".
Maybe when the attribute is involved in any kind of "rounding" you'd round up instead of down. *Just spitballin'*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the following rule the thread has come up with:
level 1-9 max modifier is +4
Level 10-19 max modifier is +5 and costs 2 boosts to go from +4 to +5.
Level 20 max modifier is +6 costing 2 boosts to go from +5 to +6.
It gets rid of the useless Partial stat tracking and keeps the same math balance for total stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was the jokeYeah that boost is the only thing that would make me feel bad about a campaign ending early lolThe only thing?
Me, I would be upset that the campaign was ending. lol.
*Slides hand over head*
Wiff
See. That's why you need a different character for saying such things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played in a couple different systems where raising your core stats took significantly more investment the higher you went. So it doesn't seem all that weird/bad to me on a game design level; I think there's an implicit understanding that because blanket boosts are so powerful, you need to be willing to give up more immediate, specific perks to pursue them.
I do agree with the marshmallow problem comparison, though. Campaigns have a way of ending prematurely, so you may be writing yourself a check you never get to cash. However, checking a box is pretty quick and simple, so actually following through on the decision is really easy. The ease of tracking the choice helps make up for the feelsbad of an uncertain investment.
As for what I will do personally, I don't think it's necessary to putz around with stat caps. Instead, I think I'll just go with being more generous and handwavey with retraining. I'm already pretty lenient with that, as I don't want my players to feel stuck with a build that isn't working. It's also easier for me, as I'm softening existing rules rather than trying to keep track of a new one.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game math assumes maximum modifier for clads Key Ability score so why not just set to +4 at levels 1 to 9, +5 at 10 and +6 at 20 then give 3 boosts rather than 4 and adjust character creation accordingly.
If the math is so tight that giving an extra +1 ruins balance than its so tight that having 1 less also ruins it. The fallacy that yoour modifier can be 1 lower that the expected and it isn't an issue but if it is 1 higher than expect it does is not logical. If every +1 matters and the game is designed around reducing the ability to make ineffective (math wise) characters why present the illusion of choice and punish people for choosing the wrong one?
|
Aren't higher skill proficiencies level-locked ?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.
Different instances of “level locking”, rather that’s level requirements, than locking.
Semantics, but presentation.
| 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'm not sure that it actually is difficult to understand, but it does require undoing a couple assumptions about why people are disappointed and then wondering why people have such imagined silly motivations for disliking it.
People here aren't *suddenly* disappointed that partial boosts are going to be a thing, for the most part we were always disappointed that's how the system worked and were really hopeful that this would have been touched up as part of the remaster alongside many of the more dramatic changes - changes that certainly are more of an issue for converting characters than any alternative boosting system would be, especially those that simply give you an effective extra boost to work with to one of your two lowest stats.
The discourse over the "it's just a box you check" thing is also similarly misunderstanding the issue. It is inelegant as I posted before, but a bit of inelegance in the name of balance is something I imagine most 2e players are OK with. It's an assumption that this is about character sheet space concerns, responding as though that's silly since it's just a checkbox, and then acting surprised when people are still saying they dislike the partial boosts even though I don't think anyone's actually making this out to be a layout preference.
What my and other comments keep pointing out is the dead levels problem, being asked to pay for a thing but not get the thing until much, much later (potentially months!) for a payoff that might not actually come to fruition, which is exacerbated by the system RAW not permitting you to retrain attributes (which itself is very weird, as it makes more sense to neglect weightlifting to study books than to forget specific information on how to do a technique in a feat). That doesn't actually do anything to balance having a higher to-hit stat with having a more MAD array, like the benefits a MAD array needs to justify itself over boosting your key attribute don't include temporarily having a higher 4th stat, and it's clearly not the only way to accomplish having the dimishing returns or even the specific pacing of increases we see in 2e. It's just... seems more like it was made to work this way to maybe justify having 12's and 16's and 18's instead of modifiers, or some other arcane reason that I don't think anyone at Paizo's really explained other than "we didn't think of anything else."
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?
...yeah. It's completely fine to be disappointed that something that would be a good option, that probably should have been an option from the start, isn't coming. I think that's a really important in general for player characters to have the option to opt out of religious stuff due to many players having IRL traumas from that, and I think it's worth bringing that up so Paizo's aware that's still a thing people want - even if that's easier to houserule, having it in the print means it has to be negotiated every time a player wants to opt out of that, which isn't something a player would always feel comfortable doing. Why frame this in terms of whether people should or shouldn't feel something, rather than the actual merits of the rules?
This is why the GM sets up expectations about the level range of the campaign beforehand.
If campaigns went as expected, there wouldn't be an entire little cottage industry for GM advice and conflict resolution. People don't even finish single player video games a lot of the time and the only point of failure is yourself, barring genuine gamebreaking technical issues.
This amounts to little more than telling GM"s to "git gud" over an extremely common experience I'm sure you've dealt with yourself. Pretending that campaigns don't often end before planned isn't a very convincing argument that people shouldn't be frustrated that they feel they have to *plan* around their group falling apart to get their reward, it's just moralizing it as though only bad players and bad GM's would have any complaints. Campaigns can take years, and in those years things beyond anyone's control can happen, or it might be healthier for a game to end than to see it through to the planned ending. You already know that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put into perspective, the idea of negating partial boosts is that it improves secondary/tertiary attributes while not increasing the primary boost ceiling, meaning those who don't have a class boost to an attribute they would want to optimize instead, they can. And all it does for the optimizers is make them have more flexible options that rely on secondary/tertiary attributes; they won't be any stronger at those listed intervals for boosting their primary attributes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If campaigns went as expected,
I did acknowledge them ending prematurely in the post you quoted from. That said ending prematurely is kinda moot point, since that throws any and all prep and plotting off the rails. Cause it’s over.
Pretending that campaigns don't often end before planned isn't a very convincing argument that people shouldn't be frustrated that they feel they have to *plan* around their group falling apart
I have no idea what kickstarted this to put you on a moral soapbox but it isn’t remotely close to anything I said.
Of course campaigns fall apart, my point is a GM should set expectations about the campaign. Are you running a one-shot, are you doing a single adventure, are you running an AP, try to plan and coordinate as best you can.
My point in this if a campaign falls apart me not getting to spend that other Attribute point is very low on the list of fomo.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main dislike of the Partial Boosts is that it introduces a unique mechanic--marking a partial boost--for a minor issue when existing mechanics--level-based limits on improvements--could create the same limits.
Yet I am posting because I have a real example of Helmic and Rysky's discussion.
This is why the GM sets up expectations about the level range of the campaign beforehand.
If campaigns went as expected, there wouldn't be an entire little cottage industry for GM advice and conflict resolution. People don't even finish single player video games a lot of the time and the only point of failure is yourself, barring genuine gamebreaking technical issues.
This amounts to little more than telling GM"s to "git gud" over an extremely common experience I'm sure you've dealt with yourself. Pretending that campaigns don't often end before planned isn't a very convincing argument that people shouldn't be frustrated that they feel they have to *plan* around their group falling apart to get their reward, it's just moralizing it as though only bad players and bad GM's would have any complaints. Campaigns can take years, and in those years things beyond anyone's control can happen, or it might be healthier for a game to end than to see it through to the planned ending. You already know that.
I did acknowledge them ending prematurely in the post you quoted from. That said ending prematurely is kinda moot point, since that throws any and all prep and plotting off the rails. Cause it’s over.
My PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign went long. The adventure path was designed for 1st to 17th level, with the 1st module covering 4 levels, but the 5th and 6th modules covering only 2 levels each. That is how PF1 works, with low-level encounters easier to write and conduct than high-level encounters. But my players ended up a level above expectations due to self-created side quests, so I decided to expand the adventure path to a full 20 levels. High-level encounters are easier to handle in PF2 than in PF1.
The players knew this at 15th level, but they knew that 20th level would be short. Adding two full levels of XP to an existing plot is difficult. So the ranger's player did not invest a partial boost into the Dexterity ability score at 15th level. Then at 20th level, the player stated her disappointment aloud that she regretted that decision. 20th level will be short, but it is the current adventure.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hardly think it is a big deal, and don't think it would change very much in play one way or another really...
...but I do generally think that making choices that have no immediate use or benefit are somewhat questionable design choices for a modern role-playing game. In addition to the strange meta of "what level will this top out at?" defining whether certain choices have any relevance or not, there is just something unnecessary about rewarding all the good little players who could put an attribute boost in the bank to redeem 5 levels later. Like even making it level locked and requiring 2 boosts to increase past +4, but allowing a character to spend those 2 boosts at once at levels 10 and 20, as long as it only boosts any attribute bonus by 1, would be more interesting and would let players not to have to try to guess if they are using x attribute enough to really want to sit on 1 (or often 2) boosts at 10th or 15th level to boost 5s to 6s or 4s to 5s. This would keep the numbers exactly the same but just not require speculative thinking about the campaign.
It is all too late now, and I am guessing that means this system carries over into the Star finder playtest too, but maybe if folks talk about it enough there it could be a retro-active errata when Starfinder 2 is published.
If campaigns went as expected,I did acknowledge them ending prematurely in the post you quoted from. That said ending prematurely is kinda moot point, since that throws any and all prep and plotting off the rails. Cause it’s over.
Pretending that campaigns don't often end before planned isn't a very convincing argument that people shouldn't be frustrated that they feel they have to *plan* around their group falling apartI have no idea what kickstarted this to put you on a moral soapbox but it isn’t remotely close to anything I said.
Of course campaigns fall apart, my point is a GM should set expectations about the campaign. Are you running a one-shot, are you doing a single adventure, are you running an AP, try to plan and coordinate as best you can.
My point in this if a campaign falls apart me not getting to spend that other Attribute point is very low on the list of fomo.
A game ending early could still mean you played for 3 levels having gained nothing from a boost. It isn't a huge deal but it is the kind of annoyance good game design seeks to avoid.
Just have primary attribute auto boost at level 10 and 20 and then only give 3 boosts at 5, 10. 15 and 20.
The game assumes main stat is always max. The math is too unforgiving otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just have primary attribute auto boost at level 10 and 20 and then only give 3 boosts at 5, 10. 15 and 20.
The game assumes main stat is always max. The math is too unforgiving otherwise.
Why have stats at all if the math so heavily expects that you will boost your core stat + saves? Just bake the correct numbers into each class from the start and have subclasses that can be taken to shift around these stat spreads. Multiclassing could also modify core stats instead of having stat requirements.
With math as tight as PF2 has don't allow players to make a mistake by removing the worst choices.
Just have primary attribute auto boost at level 10 and 20 and then only give 3 boosts at 5, 10. 15 and 20.
The game assumes main stat is always max. The math is too unforgiving otherwise.
Why have stats at all if the math so heavily expects that you will boost your core stat + saves? Just bake the correct numbers into each class from the start and have subclasses that can be taken to shift around these stat spreads. Multiclassing could also modify core stats instead of having stat requirements.
With math as tight as PF2 has don't allow players to make a mistake by removing the worst choices.
Correct.
But this is not what I want.
Just have primary attribute auto boost at level 10 and 20 and then only give 3 boosts at 5, 10. 15 and 20.
The game assumes main stat is always max. The math is too unforgiving otherwise.
Why have stats at all if the math so heavily expects that you will boost your core stat + saves? Just bake the correct numbers into each class from the start and have subclasses that can be taken to shift around these stat spreads. Multiclassing could also modify core stats instead of having stat requirements.
With math as tight as PF2 has don't allow players to make a mistake by removing the worst choices.
Correct.
But this is not what I want.
You can have balance or you can have freedom. PF2 is already incredibly restrictive in the hope of generating a desired level of balance. PF3 is unlikely to be less balanced - and thus unlikely to be less restrictive - unless Paizo really messes up the remaster and sees a reason to pivot in a more freeform direction for PF3.
Just accept that PF2 isn't the kind of TTRPG that wants to allow players to experiment with stat spreads and embrace an ever tighter level of balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can have balance or you can have freedom. PF2 is already incredibly restrictive in the hope of generating a desired level of balance. PF3 is unlikely to be less balanced - and thus unlikely to be less restrictive - unless Paizo really messes up the remaster and sees a reason to pivot in a more freeform direction for PF3.
Just accept that PF2 isn't the kind of TTRPG that wants to allow players to experiment with stat spreads and embrace an ever tighter level of balance.
The problem is reality and how far we a prepared to go in the name of balance but retain some realistic flavour. There are many simple story based games that are perfectly balanced but without the detail of PF2. It is this detail that gives it the flavour of a real enough world for us to be imersed in it.
Tools matter, some gear is better that other gear. Getting the right equipment is important to stories. We have a real world expectation that being stronger or smarter is better. Ability does matter, despite political statements to the contrary.
The problem is reality and how far we a prepared to go in the name of balance but retain some realistic flavour.
I already think PF2 has gone too far that way with things like raising a shield, changing how many hands are on a weapon, commanding a minion, and entering a stance all taking actions to accomplish. If Paizo wants to keep gamifying their system I think I would actually like it better if they left the uncanny valley of pretending to be like D&D 5e but crunchier and fully embraced being *the* premier crunch-focused tactical RPG.
Tools matter, some gear is better that other gear. Getting the right equipment is important to stories. We have a real world expectation that being stronger or smarter is better. Ability does matter, despite political statements to the contrary.
Tools have already been abstracted to kits with charges. Weapons are, theoretically, meant to be of equal value with everything else in their tier or else have niche utility for characters that otherwise would entirely lack an option. Stats aren't rolled for, HP isn't rolled for, and there are no odd values.
It's time for Paizo to stop pretending you're in charge of your stat distribution and instead, focus on how to make each class and style of play feel equally rewarding within their tight mathematical balance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree. Half my characters start with a 16 key attribute and have been a blast to play. I have str cha monks and all kinds of variance in characters. I’d rather no stats at all with special attribute feats than set stats based purely on class selection.
Hard disagree. Half my characters start with a 16 key attribute and have been a blast to play. I have str cha monks and all kinds of variance in characters. I’d rather no stats at all with special attribute feats than set stats based purely on class selection.
It seems like that's the way the game is going though, does it not? They've already completely divorced starting stats from ancestry and we know they wanted to implement ABP and the alternative stat split. It isn't a large leap from where PF2 is now to just assigning the correct numbers to each class and carrying on from there.
You could still offer players customization by allowing players to designate skill categories (social, exploration, physical, etc.) for their character to be particularly good at. So you could still have a social monk as easily as before but now not every wizard needs to suck at athletics even if they choose to pick those skills.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard disagree. Half my characters start with a 16 key attribute and have been a blast to play. I have str cha monks and all kinds of variance in characters. I’d rather no stats at all with special attribute feats than set stats based purely on class selection.
If having 1 lower in a stat isn't balance breaking then allowing people to go 1 higher in a stat won't be either.
Give 4 boosts like now, just put a cap on +5 at level 10 - 19 and +6 at 20. An extra +1 to 2 secondary or tertiary stats won't break the game and will stop the 5 dead levels bad design problem.
Or allow Primary stat to go to +7 even +1 or -1 doesn't affect the balance.
Tools have already been abstracted to kits with charges.
I had read about the name change of tools becoming "toolkits" so as to avoid confusion and make it clear what's what, but this is the first I've heard anything about any sort of "charges" mechanic. What's that about? What's your source?
Hard disagree. Half my characters start with a 16 key attribute and have been a blast to play. I have str cha monks and all kinds of variance in characters. I’d rather no stats at all with special attribute feats than set stats based purely on class selection.It seems like that's the way the game is going though, does it not? They've already completely divorced starting stats from ancestry and we know they wanted to implement ABP and the alternative stat split. It isn't a large leap from where PF2 is now to just assigning the correct numbers to each class and carrying on from there.
You could still offer players customization by allowing players to designate skill categories (social, exploration, physical, etc.) for their character to be particularly good at. So you could still have a social monk as easily as before but now not every wizard needs to suck at athletics even if they choose to pick those skills.
That sounds less like a roleplaying game and closer to certain board games; akin to Shadows of Brimstone, where all the characters are practically ready made, you just need to choose one that fits your desired play style.
You normally may not boost any attribute above +4.
At level 10 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +4 to +5.
At level 15 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost any attribute from +4 to +5. You may only ever have up to three attributes at +5 or higher.
At level 20, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +5 to +6.
If you ever cannot boost four different attributes due to these maximum limits, instead of spending two boosts to boost an attribute to +5 or +6, you may instead spend two boosts to boost one attribute from +2 to +4, +1 to +3, +0 to +2, or -1 to +1.
---
A breakdown of how this compares to various RAW strategies. An asterisk (*) denotes the baseline standard optimization plan for a level 20 character that wants a +6 in their key attribute. Bold compares the "best" arrays at each level, assuming you want the highest key attribute. Italics compares arrays going for 3 +5's at level 15, a more all-round array that's probably the best option for any characters playing from 15-19. Please point out any errors, I rechecked everything but I may have made a typo somewhere.
Level 1
A typical minmaxed array with a 3 boost / 1 penalty ancestry: 4 3 2 1 0 -1
An array arranged for 3 +5's at level 15, RAW: 3 3 3 1 0 -1
Level 5
My system, going for maximum maxed out attributes: 4 4 3 2 1 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 4* 4 3 2 0 -1
RAW, maximum overall boosts (optimal spread): 4 4 3 2 1 -1
RAW, going for 3 +5's at level 15: 4 4 4 2 0 -1
My system, recreating the above by starting with the same array: 4 4 4 2 0 -1
Level 10
My system: 5 4 4 3 1 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 5 4* 4 3 0 -1
RAW, maximum overall boosts: 4 4 4 3 2 0
My system, maximum overall boosts: 4 4 4 3 2 0
RAW, boosting to 5 and then no longer using partial boosts (optimal spread): 5 4 4 3 1 -1
RAW, going for 3 +5's at level 15: 4* 4* 4* 3 0 -1
My system, recreating the above by starting with the same array: 5 4 4 3 1 -1
Level 15
My system: 5 5 5 3 1 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 5* 5 4* 3 0 -1
RAW, maximum overall boosts: 4* 4 4 4 3 1
My system, maximum overall boosts: 4 4 4 4 4 1 or 4 4 4 4 3 2
RAW, no longer using partial boosts: 5 5 4 4 1 0
My system, attempting to recreate the above array: 5 5 4 4 1 0 or 5 5 4 4 2 -1
RAW, going for 3 +5's: 5 5 5 4 0 -1 (not exactly the same)
My system, recreating the above by starting with the same array: 5 5 5 3 1 -1
Level 20
My system: 6 5 5 4 3 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 6 5 5 4 1 -1
My system, but eschewing a +6: 5 5 5 4 4 0 or 5 5 5 4 3 1
RAW, maximum overall boosts: 5 4* 4 4 4 2
My system, maximum overall boosts: 5 4 4 4 4 3
---
So you can see that these arrays are very close to RAW, able to use the best option from RAW at each level, no dead levels. Where the arrays differ the most is when going for an extreme all-rounder - my system is able to spread its attributes more evenly and doesn't ever get stuck putting a useless "partial boost" into something at level 20 when you have no possibility of turning it into a "full boost." I'd argue none of this introduces any more power than is already possible in the system, even on the same character if the GM is permitting respecs.
The exception is when going for 3 +5's at level 15. 5 5 5 3 1 -1 is very slightly worse than 5 5 5 4 0 -1, lots of classes will make use of four different attributes. Granted, my system is able to reach those 3 +5's without permanently sacrificing the ability to ever get a +6, but it's still annoying to have a slightly lower save or whatever to accomplish that, and this whole thread is about avoiding that sort of exchange.
I'm trying to think of a simple rule that would make it possible to get that exact same array without overcomplicating it, so if anyone's got an idea lemme know. Of course, if this was made RAW then 5 5 5 3 1 -1 would be the minmax at that level and 5 5 5 4 0 -1 wouldn't exist and I don't think that'd be bad per se (whole point of PF2e's attribute system is to force some diversification after all), but I imagine someone would take issue with losing that specific array.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You normally may not boost any attribute above +4.
At level 10 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +4 to +5.
At level 15 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost any attribute from +4 to +5. You may only ever have up to three attributes at +5 or higher.
At level 20, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +5 to +6.
If you ever cannot boost four different attributes due to these maximum limits, instead of spending two boosts to boost an attribute to +5 or +6, you may instead spend two boosts to boost one attribute from +2 to +4, +1 to +3, +0 to +2, or -1 to +1.
---
A breakdown of how this compares to various RAW strategies. An asterisk (*) denotes the baseline standard optimization plan for a level 20 character that wants a +6 in their key attribute. Bold compares the "best" arrays at each level, assuming you want the highest key attribute. Italics compares arrays going for 3 +5's at level 15, a more all-round array that's probably the best option for any characters playing from 15-19. Please point out any errors, I rechecked everything but I may have made a typo somewhere.
Level 1
A typical minmaxed array with a 3 boost / 1 penalty ancestry: 4 3 2 1 0 -1
An array arranged for 3 +5's at level 15, RAW: 3 3 3 1 0 -1Level 5
My system, going for maximum maxed out attributes: 4 4 3 2 1 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 4* 4 3 2 0 -1
RAW, maximum overall boosts (optimal spread): 4 4 3 2 1 -1
RAW, going for 3 +5's at level 15: 4 4 4 2 0 -1
My system, recreating the above by starting with the same array: 4 4 4 2 0 -1Level 10
My system: 5 4 4 3 1 -1
* RAW, going for as many maxed out attributes as possible: 5 4* 4 3 0 -1
RAW, maximum overall boosts: 4 4 4 3 2 0
My system, maximum overall boosts: 4 4 4 3 2 0
RAW, boosting to 5 and then no longer using partial boosts (optimal spread): 5 4...
And what is the gain from using this far more complicated system?
Aside from being a completely new system and not a Remaster of the existing system, a lot of these proposed alternatives are... really complicated. And don't get any benefit out of that complication.
You normally may not boost any attribute above +4.
At level 10 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +4 to +5.
At level 15 and any level thereafter, you may spend two boosts to boost any attribute from +4 to +5. You may only ever have up to three attributes at +5 or higher.
At level 20, you may spend two boosts to boost your class's key attribute from +5 to +6.
If you ever cannot boost four different attributes due to these maximum limits, instead of spending two boosts to boost an attribute to +5 or +6, you may instead spend two boosts to boost one attribute from +2 to +4, +1 to +3, +0 to +2, or -1 to +1.
And what is the gain from using this far more complicated system?
Aside from being a completely new system and not a Remaster of the existing system, a lot of these proposed alternatives are... really complicated. And don't get any benefit out of that complication.
It's not far more complicated. It's the same as has been discussed, except boosting to +5 and +6 still costs two boosts, there's a cap on how many +5's and +6's you can have based on level (matching the current system), and there's an option to double boost a lower attribute. Only the quoted bit here is the actual rules, the rest of it is simply a side by side comparison to show that it gets (almost) the exact same results as RAW but without any dead levels, so it's not doing anything the system cannot currently handle in terms of balance. It's about as simple as the skill rules while eliminating the need to track anything like partial boosts between level ups.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They tell me I should pick my battles. If I was going to pick something to battle about in changing the rules, it wouldn't be this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know, I guess?