Well, we've seen what they new character sheets look like, and each Attribute has a little tick box for partial boost under them, which is the most straightforward approach in formatting they could take. I don't like it, and hope there's some alt rule in the GMC for +5 at 10th, +6 at 20th that most of us have seen/mentioned, but it seems like its here to stay now, so cest la vie.
Well, we've seen what they new character sheets look like, and each Attribute has a little tick box for partial boost under them, which is the most straightforward approach in formatting they could take. I don't like it, and hope there's some alt rule in the GMC for +5 at 10th, +6 at 20th that most of us have seen/mentioned, but it seems like its here to stay now, so cest la vie.
Unfortunately I think if it was going to be anywhere it'd probably be the variant rules section which was shown at gencon and is cut down from the GMG as it is with only four rules there
|
I think Partial Boosts are fine, but I also understand the frustration around "dead boosts" which don't provide any mechanical benefit in play.
What if a partial boost provided a little perk like: "Once per day you can push a 'partially boosted' stat to provide an additional +1 to a related roll.
So it gives you a little something as a treat while you wait for the full boost?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Partial Boosts are fine, but I also understand the frustration around "dead boosts" which don't provide any mechanical benefit in play.
What if a partial boost provided a little perk like: "Once per day you can push a 'partially boosted' stat to provide an additional +1 to a related roll.
So it gives you a little something as a treat while you wait for the full boost?
While it sounds good on paper, I think having something specific for those levels and temporary losing it would feel Bad too
I like the double-boosting idea, but it was pointed out to me that taking the double-boost at 10 means you can only boost 3 attributes. If you are reasonably MAD that you care about 4 attributes, or have two dump stats, then this system would force you to boost the 5th stat you don't care about.
Consider a heavy-armor champion that decides they have no need for DEX or INT. Starting with a 4-2-2-1-0-0 array, they can boost STR/CON/CHA/WIS, then STR/CON/CHA/WIS again at 10 for a 5-4-4-3-0-0 array at level 10.
With double-boosting, they're forced to take a dump stat as they can't invest in STR. So their boosts look like CON/CHA/WIS/INT and STR/STR/CON/CHA for a 5-4-4-2-1-0 array at 10th.
While they get the extra 5th stat from levels 5-9, it's not something this example cares much for, so they end up with a weaker array at 10-14, losing out on their 4th priority stat.
If we dropped the "can't boost four different attributes" requirement and just let you do that at any level, would that fix that? With the cap for double boosting being +4, I don't think this would let you get any array that isn't already legal, so maybe that was an overly cautious restriction to begin with. Maybe restrict it to doing it only once per increase if it's otherwise possible to get four +4's early.
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
The ease at which your players trash their enemies at high level play would get even easier.
MAD classes would feel even worse when compared to SAD classes.
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
Into a fiery conflagration? No.
But your PCs will be stronger than the game would normally expect because they'll be able to reach much higher values in their main stats.
And I think it hurts variability between builds. Once you reach 18 in a stat you have to do some serious consideration if it's useful to continue increasing. If you're level 10 and just reached 18 in a stat (common occurrence) then you could spend two more ability increases to get it to 20, but would it even be worth it. Will you even get to level 20?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
Yes. Your rulebook will spontaneously combust.
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
I'm assuming you're referring to ability scores like 14 or 16, not the new modifier only system. It results in some odd behavior as characters can get a higher attack stat earlier if there are no level requirements, and if it isn't capped at all it definitely breaks the existing system with absurd crit ranges, it will likely increase player HP considerably as players have a lot of extra boosts that they can pump into attributed they wouldn't normally prioritize. Medium armor basically loses a decent chunk of its niche as it becomes much harder to avoid levelling DEX, heavy armor still has the +1 AC and Bulwark to justify itself. Certain claases and builds that do not have their key attribute as their attack stat like Alchemist and Ki Monk get a considerable buff to their accuracy. MAD classes in general get a big buff.
Not unworkable, fine as a house rule if you understand the effects or otherwise feel the things it buffs (and by extension relatively nerfs) need the buffs. Free attribute respecs om level ups are a similarly simple to write out houserule that won't disrupt the balance beyond what is possible RAW.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the question: Will by game explode into a fiery conflagration if I just say all stat boosts are +2, period.
Let's take a look at the math.
Both in pre-Remastered PF2 and with Remastered partial boosts, a player's ability modifiers, ignoring Apex items, could follow the pattern:
1st level +4, +3, +1, +1, +0, +0
5th level +4+, +4, +2, +2, +0, +0
10th level +5, +4, +3, +3, +1, +0
15th level +5+, +4+, +4, +4, +1, +0
20th level +6, +5, +4, +4, +2, +1
Three ability boosts were devoted to partial boosts.
If no partial boosts were required, then we could have:
1st level +4, +3, +1, +1, +0, +0
5th level +5, +4, +2, +2, +0, +0
10th level +6, +5, +3, +3, +0, +0
15th level +7, +6, +4, +4, +0, +0
20th level +8, +7, +5, +5, +0, +0
The cost of a partial boost encourages spreading the boosts to ability modifiers that don't require a partial boost, so without partial boosts, the less-favored abilities are ignored. In addition the three boosts spend on partial boost become full boosts, so the sum of ability modifiers is higher.
A +8 rather than a +6 in the key ability modifier is around a 28% improvement to each use of the modifier. A +7 instead of a +5 is a similar improvement. But no ability or pair of abilities are used in every action, so I claim that the character is 25% stronger starting at 15th level. That would throw off the balance against existing monsters.
For comparison, each level-up is supposed to make a character 41% or 73% stronger, depending on the definition of stronger.
My own preference is for caps by level: no +5s until 10th level, and no +6 until 20th level.
1st level +4, +3, +1, +1, +0, +0
5th level +4, +4, +2, +2, +1, +0
10th level +5, +5, +3, +3, +1, +0
15th level +5, +5, +4, +4, +2, +1
20th level +6, +6, +5, +5, +2, +1
The key ability modifier is not higher, so this favors multiple-ability-dependent characters. We still have three additional full boosts, so three ability modifiers are higher.
A +1 to a key ability modifier is usually a 14% improvement to each use of the modifier. However, no modifier is used every action, for example, a fighter might Intimidate, Strike, Strike, so I claim a +1 in a key ability modifier is a 12% improvement. A +1 in a less-favored ability modifier would have less impact, such as only a 8% or 4% improvement, so the character would be around 8% stronger starting at 15th level. The balance would shift in the character's favor, but not enough to require rewriting existing monsters.
To prevent higher scores, we could reduce the number of ability boosts given at some levels down to three instead of four. But that will drain the additional boosts from the less-favored abilities rather than from the most-favored abilities and still leave the character 8% stronger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maffs
Another factor in that as the gap between a character's attack modifier and non-attack modifiers and MAP increases, the more value a character will likely see in spending all three actions on attacking. This would likely reduce the tactical complexity of the game, with fighters and gunslingers in particular getting absolutely absurd crit ranges that make not attacking even more punishing.
With more spread out boosts capped at +5 at 10 and +6 at 20, characters would have stronger defensive stats, namely HP, that would probably still be problematic, just not in the sense that monsters are getting critted into oblivion but rather that they'll struggle much more targeting the no-longer-weak saves of players and needing to deal a chunk more damage to boot to deal with the increased player HP. Not as dramatic an issue, but like maybe monsters would need to be a level higher than normal, at least once you get past level 10 and the extra attribute boosts come into effect.
I like the double-boosting idea, but it was pointed out to me that taking the double-boost at 10 means you can only boost 3 attributes. If you are reasonably MAD that you care about 4 attributes, or have two dump stats, then this system would force you to boost the 5th stat you don't care about.
Consider a heavy-armor champion that decides they have no need for DEX or INT. Starting with a 4-2-2-1-0-0 array, they can boost STR/CON/CHA/WIS, then STR/CON/CHA/WIS again at 10 for a 5-4-4-3-0-0 array at level 10.
With double-boosting, they're forced to take a dump stat as they can't invest in STR. So their boosts look like CON/CHA/WIS/INT and STR/STR/CON/CHA for a 5-4-4-2-1-0 array at 10th.
While they get the extra 5th stat from levels 5-9, it's not something this example cares much for, so they end up with a weaker array at 10-14, losing out on their 4th priority stat.
You normally may not increase an attribute above +4.
Beginning at level 5, you may spend two boosts to boost any one attribute twice, up to a maximum of +4. You may only do this once per level up.
Beginning at level 10, you may spend two boosts to boost your key attribute from +4 to +5.
Beginning at level 15, you may spend two boosts to boost up to a maximum of three attributes from +4 to +5.
Beginning at level 20, you may spend two boosts to boost your key attribute from +4 to +5.
---
So to show my work:
Level 1
Base starting array: 4 2 2 1 0 0
Level 5
My system: 4 4 3 2 0 0 (legal RAW array, just start with 3 3 2 1 0 0)
RAW: 4* 3 3 2 0 0
Level 10
My system: 5 4 4 3 0 0
RAW: 5 4 4 3 0 0
Level 15
My system: 5 5 5 3 0 0
My system, alternate: 5 5 4 4 1 0
RAW: 5* 4* 4* 4 0 0
Level 20
My system: 6 5 5 4 1 0
RAW: 6 5 5 4 1 0
---
Now it should be one-to-one With RAW. The restriction on doing it once per level up is necessary to avoid it being possible to have a 4 4 4 1 0 0 array at level 5 with a two free boost ancestry, which RAW isn't possible (and that's one of the things I like about RAW, forcing you to have a reasonable spread of values for attributes). My older restriction that it only be available if you can't otherwise boost four different attributes was more complicated and ultimately unnecessary.
Partial Ability boosts should really never have been introduced. Instead, just cap ability scores at certain levels. Maxiumum 18 till Level 9, Maximum 20 till level 19, and 22 only on Level 20. Sure, that means we possibly have two a few more ability to spend, but frankly, that is a minor issue.
Such caps would prevent things like adventure/campaign-based bonuses and possibly make things like mythic expansion more difficult. In short, the opposite of future proofing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Partial Ability boosts should really never have been introduced. Instead, just cap ability scores at certain levels. Maxiumum 18 till Level 9, Maximum 20 till level 19, and 22 only on Level 20. Sure, that means we possibly have two a few more ability to spend, but frankly, that is a minor issue.Such caps would prevent things like adventure/campaign-based bonuses and possibly make things like mythic expansion more difficult. In short, the opposite of future proofing.
Or, you can make those things be an exception to the norm, which they already are to begin with, so making them an exception isn't difficult.
As for Mythic expansion, who knows what that will entail. Given how tight the math is, I imagine Mythic won't change the math too much, else we're back to PF1 levels of brokenness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a lot of complaining that essentially adds up to "There's a bubble on my character sheet I don't like" because the game is balanced not to go over 22. Sure could hard cap it like the skill proficiencies but then we'd have to keep track of when we can go up again. Kind of a waste of time and energy complaining when this is such a small thing that isn't a real change from the game before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such caps would prevent things like adventure/campaign-based bonuses and possibly make things like mythic expansion more difficult. In short, the opposite of future proofing.
That doesn't really make sense, because the cap already exists. Exceptions would remain exceptions, by definition they exist outside the normal rules.
|
I just like the whole "after certain point you have to invest more to get growth" type of mechanical dealio tbh.
Like I wouldn't like the "until this level you can't increase stat to x" because it means instead of investing into stat, you just spread them to lower stats until you can get the higher bonus on your main stats.
(plus the level scaling method allows you to have multiple stats at +6 so its kinda just optimizer's dream more or less)
I just like the whole "after certain point you have to invest more to get growth" type of mechanical dealio tbh.
Like I wouldn't like the "until this level you can't increase stat to x" because it means instead of investing into stat, you just spread them to lower stats until you can get the higher bonus on your main stats.
(plus the level scaling method allows you to have multiple stats at +6 so its kinda just optimizer's dream more or less)
You could do that, and still require a double investment to go up past +4. The advantage would be not 'wasting' the bonus 5 level earlier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those cases where, much as I can agree with the problem, I also really don't think we can blame the remaster for not tackling it. One of the limits Paizo had set for the remaster is that they very explicitly said they weren't going to touch the game's core math, and attribute modifier progression is unfortunately part of that core math. I personally dislike attributes/ability scores and would rather see them disappear entirely, but changing the way they work would have affected all of our modifiers in such a way that the math on other challenges, including monsters, would've had to be retouched as well, which would've harmed backwards compatibility and made for a lot more work.
This is one of the reasons I like Gradual Ability Boosts. I can take the half boost at level five or whatever and then the other half two levels later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why they just didn't remove apex items and made it so ability boosts compensated for that loss at higher levels. Yeah, the numbers would get bigger at higher levels but it is really a problem for a 17th level character to have a +7 in their KAS and +6 somewhere else?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why they just didn't remove apex items and made it so ability boosts compensated for that loss at higher levels. Yeah, the numbers would get bigger at higher levels but it is really a problem for a 17th level character to have a +7 in their KAS and +6 somewhere else?
IMO, probably not a balance problem. I'm guessing they were more worried about backwards compatibility though. It's a pretty significant change to convert a high level character to the remaster rules at that point, when the math, WBL, and ability boosts pretty much work the same as is. Ability modifiers are simpler than they have even been now and people still mess it up sometimes.
If I were Paizo, I'd ditch partial boosts for PF3 and do something like you describe.
I honestly don't know why they just didn't remove apex items and made it so ability boosts compensated for that loss at higher levels. Yeah, the numbers would get bigger at higher levels but it is really a problem for a 17th level character to have a +7 in their KAS and +6 somewhere else?
IMO, probably not a balance problem. I'm guessing they were more worried about backwards compatibility though. It's a pretty significant change to convert a high level character to the remaster rules at that point, when the math, WBL, and ability boosts pretty much work the same as is. Ability modifiers are simpler than they have even been now and people still mess it up sometimes.
If I were Paizo, I'd ditch partial boosts for PF3 and do something like you describe.
I guess you are right, but still, they could have added a line saying "you can't increase your modifiers to +5 or above until 10th level, +6 until 15th level, or +7 until 20th level." but I guess this would still change the math since your lower scores would be bigger now.