Str is for anyone that ever wants to swing a weapon that has a relevant damage die. Which is probably > 50% of characters.
Athletics(STR) is also the GOAT skill for surviving combat. Trip and Grab are insane.
And Combat Grab, plus all the other Feats/Features that keys off Athletics are just wild.
Str is for anyone that ever wants to swing a weapon that has a relevant damage die. Which is probably > 50% of characters.Well. Sort of.
Casters don't care one jot, and that's 50% of your party right there. And not all martials care either. Archers? Don't really care (propulsive gives you +2 to damage max for the price of a +4 Str modifier, not exactly critical). Thief rogue? Doesn't care at all. Monks? It's nice, of course, but it's not mandatory.
It's far from irrelevant, I agree, but it's all but meaningless for casters and some martials (and many kineticists, too). In a way that the other attributes really aren't.
Dex, Con, and Wis are required for saves, and also hit points, AC, and Perception respectively. If you want to talk to people, you need Cha. Int is fairly low-priority, but there are FAR too many modules that will punish you mercilessly for not having Society or Arcana.
For the record, I don't think you can do without ANY of the six attributes and in practice, most parties will probably have someone Str based simply because a big chunk of the martials are Str-based. But Strength has the best case for "we can totally work around not having it as a team, and it's not mandatory to have as a PC".
I think you are underselling that a significant degree.
There are plenty of Feats & Features that provide flat +2 ish damage to Strikes. Weapon Specialization, Crossbow Ace, ect.
A +2 dmg for every hit is not insignificant, it's equivalent in power to a full Class Feat.
?
There is 0 bonus for using two stats that provide the same benefit.
STR is also a defensive stat, via armor.
There is never any reason to need Acrobatics for grab escapes if you prioritize Athletics, and that kind of skill overlap is counterproductive. I have never seen an escape that was conditionally higher DC for one or the other, and I'd be surprised if it exists. While debuffs, Clumsy, ect, matter, it's just which of your numbers is higher.
----------------------------
I can say that by L8 in Amb Vlts, regular Grab (and Trip as an option select) is still amazing, even in single-enemy +LvL encounters. I don't know the numbers, but I do think it's safe to say that most pf2e play is below L 10.
It seems that Grab & Trip were balanced so that they would be competitive options for Strike martials like Fighter and Monk.
Meanwhile those who are not Strike based and still want STR, like our Liberator Champion, going for Grabs/Trips is way better than making a Strike.
Anyone with heavy armor is primed to discover the absurdity of Trip/Grab.
----------------------------
And I'd not undersell the value of carry weight either.
My Alchemist was super pumped that when we detoured to Absalom for a Resurrection, they were able to swap out the 1-Blk Shortbow for a L-Blk Gakgung.
I hit my carry limit every daily preparations, and stash and retrieve portions of my items in my BoH each day to get by. (I already have Hefty Hauler)
With items like the Collar of the Shifting Spider existing, carry weight not only enables small weapon choice upgrades, STR outright can be traded for actions every single combat.
I am genuinely surprised it's not considered on par with DEX. Even if it doesn't pump reflex saves, tripping that Reflex-invoking caster, plus the worn gear, is at least as valuable, IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained. And the game assumes that all relevant skills will be boosted to Legendary if you want any modicum of success for them. Given that Trained to Legendary is a whopping 6 point differential, it's basically a Nat 20 fisher, which you already are doing anyway (in which case, why bother with the training if it doesn't change much). Even if the argument is "Well, you get access to more Trained skill activities," this still falls under the previous statement's problem, which is that in the higher levels, it falls off really fast, meaning having the capacity to do that skill activity is really, really worthless. By 10th level, Trained skills lose a lot of relevance, since the game is assuming you're running around with Master (or at the very least, Expert) skills.
I don't think this logic holds water in a lot of games. The vast majority of games I've played stay in the single levels, maybe capping out in the early teens. And even if the game goes to 20th level, something that stays relevant for half that time is still pretty significant.
I stumble on a lot of theorycrafting arguments because they so often look toward the end of that 1-20 scale. I really like that 2nd edition stays fun and balanced at high levels, but even so I don't think many games really reach that point.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely consider every time this conversation comes up if we had the choice to use:
Dex or Int for Reflex Saves
Con or Str for Fort Saves
Wis or Cha for Will Saves
If it would be a problem and whether or not it would allow more mileage for some character concepts without creating problems.
snip
It feels like you're ignoring the actual points I'm making, and just gesturing at the contents of my words.
As for carrying capacity...well. Bags of holding do exist. And are pretty cheap.
The whole point was of equipment bulk. For a while, I couldn't afford to WEAR the Collar because it's 1 whole bulk. The BoH is explicitly where all the stuff I can't carry for combat is stored.
We recently liquidated all non-essentials, but magic items are carried Spells/Feats/ect.
And a lot of them are balanced by their Bulk. For our party, the Horn of Fog comes to mind as a 1-bulk item that was good to have/use to split the enemy group, but it was too heavy for my Alch to wear.
---------------
DEX and STR are set up in a way to favor someone who selects one over the other, and greatly discourages one from pumping both.
Yes, the DEX cap 1 of most armor means that it's a good idea to dedicate a single stat allocation to DEX, no argument there. The benefit of more DEX beyond that to the example Liberator is very, VERY low.
At that point, increasing DEX boosts Reflex save, and relevant skills. Due to the combat overlap with Athletics, and the niche uses of the Stealth, ect group of skills, it's a horrible choice for said Liberator. Oddly enough, in some cases, the Trained bonus of INT would be a better way to improve said DEX skills.
----------------
IMO, as soon as that Collar was added, STR was significantly buffed. The natural bulk limits are pretty tight, and there's a great, affordable L3 mutagen for just about everyone. The action cost is typically why magic items don't see more combat use, and being able to save an action every fight is about as good as it gets.
My problem with INT is that all the best INT caster builds also pretty much need to do some to a lot of CHA at the same time. This isn't really a problem for me as a player, because I have no problem only increasing 2 of the 3 save stats and having a glaring defensive weakness that will probably eventually get my character killed, but I think it gets any "increase INT and CHA" build thrown in the trash pile by many players because it seems like a trap. I mean, I have even done Martial characters with STR, INT, CHA Builds that only increase CON and WIS every other time and they have been very fun characters, but martials usually have a lot of saving throw support to help balance things out.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to emphasize three points that were definitely mentioned above but that I think sort of got lost in the volume.
1) The tradeoffs between stats is quite different at different levels. If you're playing a 1-10 campaign then INT giving you all sorts of trained skills is better than if you're playing a 11-20 campaign.
2) Character creation is usually NOT done in isolation. You're not (PFS excepted) just building a character, you're building one member of a team.
While WIS might be "better" than INT in some senses, the group is going to be better if somebody has maxed out (or nearly done so) INT as opposed to everybody deciding that WIS is the best stat.
3) Its not all about optimization. If your fantasy is a smart character, go for it. Not everything has to be all about the best numbers.
Dex or Int for Reflex Saves
Str or Con for Fortitude Saves
Wis or Cha for Will Saves
IMO this would only work in an hyphothetic PF3e, because if you wanted to implement this in the current system it would break a lot of things. Not only because X class would become way stronger than inteded, but also because a lot of weird interactions would appear from that.
If I had to be honest, I would probably like for PF3e to take the 5e saves approach and directly use the stats as saving throws, though hopefull it wouldn't suck as an in practice just use Dex / Con / Wis for everything leaving Str / Int / Cha just for a few things. Spells could probably list two stats that could allow you to make the save, something like Str or Dex for slow as you are either strong enough to resist the effect or agile enough that you aren't impeded by it.
The actual important stats are Fortitude, Reflex, Will, and Perception, so we should get rid of all these other ones and just use those for everything in their place. :b
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is theoretically a balance where DEX/WIS/CON are generically good while STR/CHA/INT are great if you invest in them... this generally holds true for strength and charisma, while not every character is required to have them the reward for making that investment is huge.
I think it'd be fixed if they just changed the per point bonus from +trained skill to +Additional Lore. Giving auto-advancing normal skills is obviously way too much, but if you give the 18 Int character a bunch of lores then they can have Lore: Undead, Lore: Beast, etc. and be the dedicated knowledge character without being undercut by the wisdom skills.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not all about optimization. If your fantasy is a smart character, go for it. Not everything has to be all about the best numbers.
While this is true, I think it's also fair to say that it can kind of feel bad that you're even having that conversation at all.
Like, yeah, it's okay to build a suboptimal character if you want to be smart it's not the end of the world if your saves are a bit lower or whatever. It really isn't.
But the person who wants to be Wise instead never has to make the choice between optimal and flavorful in the first place.
That was my argument though, dunno where you got the "zero investment" from. You DON'T need to invest to having 3 legendary profiencies. Having 3 legendary skills means you have invested to be super good in 3 skills(or perhaps its for your dumb stat, but you still want to keep rolling the skill for roleplaying reasons. Or perhaps you just wanted skill's legendary skill feats even if you never roll it) and not that good in any other skill, while game math wise its not too bad to spread them around to be like legendary in 1, and master in 4 or legendary in 1 and expert in 8.
Sidenote, Age of Ashes isn't really best example of "standard experience"
I disagree. Plenty of things in this game requires a minimum proficiency to attempt things related to skills, and when you have 4 players in a party, that is 12 Legendary skills (if not more with a Rogue/Investigator in the party). When the cost of Expert skills is the denial of Legendary skills, it's extremely hard to justify those costs when the hardest content demands Legendary skills.
If a published official Paizo AP does not count as a standard experience then any relevance of standards likewise can be dismissed, including your "standard DCs." Really, the only reason that AP didn't end in TPK right there was specifically because of the non-standard effects we had; I am willing to admit that without the added "buffs" the AP provided, it would probably TPK any party.
You can obtain quite a few Expert or Master skills by taking the high quality Rogue Archetype with Multiple Skill Mastery feats. Rogue feats are good for casters. For a wizard I usually take Mobility, then focus on Skill Mastery feats for boosting up skills given the Wizard has a lot of boring or borderline useless feats. So lots of room for taking Skill Mastery feats.
That being said it would be nice if the Paizo designers put in the game a general feat you could buy with a Class or Skill feat to boost up skills. Some people would gladly spend class feats on boosting skills without having to take the Rogue Archetype. It should be an option.
IMO the six PF2 attributes are divided in 3 main quality bands when aren't KaS:
Super Attributes: Dex, Wis
Mid Attributes: Con, Cha
Sub Attributes: Str, Int
Dex and Wis are super attributes because they boost a bunch of useful skills in and outside combat at same time that also improves 2 of the 3 current saves of the game. Dex also is a base attribute to improve your defenses agains the most common damage sources that usually are AC and Reflexes. Heavy armors and Bulwark helps to diminish its dependency but the skill linked to Dex and the fact that non-magical attack need dex to hit make it useful and important even for many heavy armored characters. Dex is also useful to non-martial characters like spellcasters to Escape. Wis is essential to perception and not only affects your initiative but also helps to notice hidden things. Also not only some RK skill use it as basis but some non-rk exclusive skills like Medicine and Survival also is basis to Will save.
Con and Cha I consider as mid attributes because they are useful but not so wide as Dex and Wis. Cha is not only useful for many role play interactions but due the existence of actions like Demoralize and Bon Mot it becomes an attribute useful in combat too. Con is also an important attribute, it increases your survivability giving some extra HP but also improves your fortitude save protecting specially against diseases, poisons and some debuff spells; Some people may not like this stat but its more about it being a boring passive stat than a subpar stats.
Str and Int I consider as subpar attributes because without KaS they become pretty weak and situational. Str is usually useful only if you want to fight in melee if its not the case its basically useless. Even Athletics being a very good skill most of its maneuvers requires that you are in melee range and its debuff effects can be easily emulated by many debuff spells. IMO its the weakest attribute even weaker than Int but it still very valued because many classes uses it as KaS or fight in melee but if its not the case is basically useless. Int are in a bed position too. With exception of Craft most of its skills are basically RK only, also about 1/3 of non-lore RK skills requires Wis instead. Also the extra skills get using Int not progressing makes its usage even less efficient.
--
All that said mechanically its usually is not a great problem at all. Because the PF2 attributes distribution basically forces you to ignore 2 attributes during the progression that's usually are Str + other mid/sub or Int + other mid/sub. The main problem that this attribute unbalance makes IMO is more roleplay related. Like for example making a very intelligent fighter usually will only create a weakest character instead of make an interesting char basically punishing trials to make non-ortodox characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree on Str being a subpar attribute. It has the best combat in the skill, it's the only skill that naturally allows you to add it to weapon damage, and it (kinda) allows you to drop Dex if you wear heavy armor with bulwark, more so if you took Mighty Bulwark.
In YuriP's table I would switch Cha and Str around since if you aren't planing to be a face Cha isn't really useful for you.
I'd put Int alone in the Sub Attributes using that table. Str is good or at least mid. Adds to damage, to hit with non-finesse weapons, Athletics skill for use with maneuvers like trip, carrying capacity, and such.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I totally disagree on Str being a subpar attribute. It has the best combat in the skill, it's the only skill that naturally allows you to add it to weapon damage, and it (kinda) allows you to drop Dex if you wear heavy armor with bulwark, more so if you took Mighty Bulwark.
In YuriP's table I would switch Cha and Str around since if you aren't planing to be a face Cha isn't really useful for you.
Strength is in a sort of interesting place, because if you're building a melee character who isn't forced to use finesse weapons, it's a monster of a stat that points you to the best damage output and gives you options (though possibly requiring feats) to replace a lot of what makes Dex important, while also buffing Athletics which is generally just a very versatile skill.
Especially at low levels, the damage gap between Str and Dex without modifying factors is huge, which makes Strength really enticing.
But if you aren't doing that, the stat becomes very easy to avoid. You might want a little to hit a certain athletics or carry weight benchmark, but it's not something a lot of builds need to worry about.
That's not entirely different than the problems Int and Cha have, it's just that Strength is more prevalent in general and there's nothing like Bulwark or Plate Armor to improve perception or will for high int/low wis characters.
IMO that only really works in a game whose classes are more heavily siloed than PF2E's. Making the fighter good at leveraging strength de-incentivizes fighters from going Dex. I'm not saying it doesn't work, games do work that way, but that it'd probably necessitate larger changes to PF2E than swapping saves around would.
I mean, isn't that kind of how PF2 already works? Outside archery builds (which are somewhat separate by design) you don't really see Dex-focused fighters much. People just aren't picking short swords over mauls very often.
The same is true in reverse, sneak attack silos rogues into finesse weapons, so you don't see non-finesse rogues... except for the one racket designed to shift their silo around
3) Its not all about optimization. If your fantasy is a smart character, go for it. Not everything has to be all about the best numbers.
Thanks for the repeat. And to those who say that having a Wise character isn’t such a suboptimal “choice”, that’s fair enough. My main point is rather that I see a lot of people with low Wis, Int or Cha characters who…don’t play that way. I know it’s hard to play a character who doesn’t make the best decisions, or is tactically a banana, or is socially awkward/inept but that’s life*. I see plenty of metagaming by tactical players making meta decisions for their…not so gifted…characters and I wonder if the “team based game” concept drives a certain mindset about “winning” that dismisses the social/emotional/mental realities of lower scores.
(I’ve also had low Int/high Wis and low Wis/high Int characters and the difference between knowledgable and clever but poor decision maker and patient and intuitive but not smart is a lot of fun to play. Either coupled with low or high Charisma makes for a complex approach to “intelligence”. Enlightenment can come from the humblest of places and all that…)
I know this thread is about mechanic/values of stats, but I see a lot of roll-playing at the cost of roleplaying, and thought I’d make a call for the “value” of the role of the stats. And, for what it’s worth I mostly play martials so a high Int is definitely about the personality for me…though I find PF2/R’s stat array doesn’t leave a lot of room for discretionary spending as it were….
* Then again, it’s likely just as hard to roleplay a genius or wise guru if you…aren’t one.
In multiple threads I have looked over since the Remastered PDFs and Books began to be shipped it seemed like there was an overall theme in the background. Simple theme in MAD classes or those that use INT as their KAS (Key Ability Score) are just inherently bad since INt is a "BAD" stat to have. Why? Why, is it bad is the question.
Do people not see the value of Recall Knowledge for any casters to determine "Weakest Save"? Since the Remastered I feel as if this was a theme handed out by Paizo, that 1 action Recall knowledge attempts were a good use for 1 of your 3 actions in any given round so you may figure out rather to use Fireball or Vampiric Feast (Vampiric Touch) or perhaps a different spell to maximize damage and spell slo.
A recent thread on Investigator highlighted INT as a bad stat but i can never figure it out. They get bonus skills, languages, RK checks and their class gimmick uses INT to attack and trigger their version of sneak attack. I do not see how this is a bad thing.
Perhaps I am stuck in my own little world when it comes to building characters in this system. I tend to focus on defensive stats before STR, INT & CHA. Which if one of those are my KAS then it automatically get's focused. Which is why to me Kineticist feels almost like the ultimate balanced character. I had only needed 14 str, 14 dex, to maximize my Metal Carapace Impulse which freeded up so many more options. I had 14 str, 18 con, 14 dex, 10 int, 12 wis, 14 cha by the time that campaign ended.
Which I guess that is why Thief Racket Rogue > Investigator since y ou need only DEX which is a double dipper stat, both offensive and defensive while INT doesn't give you survivaility and that might be the issue. Three of the stats of Pathfinder are not defensive in nature. Str, Int, Cha. They are rather offensive stats in nature being able to RK or add bonus damage to melee or Demoralize/feint.
When would you ever use Int outside of of your main class gimmick in combat. Knowing all the information is...
First off, nothing in the recall knowledge action dictates that a GM will just straight up tell you the lowest save. So doing a recall knowledge for that reason isn't certain. However, knowing what a creature is resistant, weak, or special abilities is always useful. Now with the new question method in remaster asking the question related to saves is easier to do, but not certain.
Second, in relation to that people also forget that once you fail a recall knowledge that is it, no further chances until you've had the chance to gain further potential knowledge. Also it's a secret check and may land you the result of the strongest save if you critically fail. So all in all it's a piss poor argument to base magic casters around.
In relation to INT as a stat. Yes it does give you more skill training, it also gives you more languages. However, it does not change the amount of proficiency increases you get. So on a fighter for example it's less useful then a rogue. INT doesn't impact any save, same as CHA and both of them only impact beyond that skill feats.
That all said there are no real 'dump' stats in 2E. First because you have to take two flaws ancestral flaws to get another boost and you can't apply a boost to counter either picked flaw. (Not sure what that's a rule as it would be self defeating anyway). Secondly you only need enough DEX to maximize your AC for the armor you will wear and you have to be strategic with your boosts otherwise you'd end up with partial boosts at level 20 that do nothing. So it's very hard to end up with a character that will only have 10 (8 for an ancestry flaw) in more then one stat by level 20 (If they make it that far)
So you can't keep spending an action to continue using Recall Knowledge?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's RAW in both premaster and remaster
Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject.
Remaster does explicitly make asking for things like lowest save something you should be able to do though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised about how easily are extra trained skills underrated. You get:
1) It is better to be trained than untrained. A co-op check, if you are alone (so improves individual survivability). It is better if you can succeed with a 16 than only with a 20.
2) Saves you skill points. Use extra trained skills as starting then improve. I.e. you could be a Wizard but be interested to be able to cast Resurrect ritual, use Int to get trained in Religion then just use 1 skill point to get expert, instead using 2 SP.
3) Also, take advantage of it to get trained in skills that usually you wouldn't, i.e. get Athletics even if you are a caster to compensate your probably low Str.
Certainly I can only see advantages.
What if every character can decide to allocate three of their stats, each to a different save? That would contributte to making every PC unique.
For example, a smart Wizard could be used to employ their superior reasoning and logic to anticipate the perils of the battlefield (improving their Reflex saves), or to make sense of what's going on and maintain clarity (applying to Will saves); it may be a little harder to justify applying Int to Fortitude saves, but I think many players can find a good way to describe how it happens for their character.
While a hulking Barbarian may have trained themselves to rely on their muscles as a source of confidence (+Will), as a way to power through debilitating attacks (+Fortitude), or as an unbreakable layer of defense (+Reflex).
This probably leads to higher saves on average, since every character will pick their best three stats to use, but I find it cool.
Also the 2nd point doesn't really make sense because if you wanted to get expert in religion you could just spend your standard trained skill into religion instead of a skill you only planned to have trained.
?? So you are saying that losing something planned is not a concern?
As mentioned, I got surprised, about what is qualified as important and with so many assumptions, like if when adventuring you would only face the predefined A, B or C and that's all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's RAW in both premaster and remaster
Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject.Remaster does explicitly make asking for things like lowest save something you should be able to do though.
The problem with the quoted rule is the boundaries of the recall knowledge check. It is not really clear.
If the question is what do I know about this enemy - and the roll is failed then the rule is clear.
But what if the question is not made more specific but instead changed. Say you ask what is the lowest save of this enemy. If the roll is failed does that does me from asking another question about something else like does this creature have a swim speed?
I don't think the rules cover this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I let the characters keep rolling if they fail. I don't see why they can't keep spending an action to keep trying to remember some detail. It's not like they gain some immense advantage from it that someone isn't already taking care of.
For example, martials often obviate the need for Recall Knowledge by taking weapon runes they know are likely to activate weaknesses, bypass weaknesses, or at least not have much resistance to.
And the martials often coordinate to take different runes to handle different weaknesses or resistance.
My particular group always has someone take at least one fire rune weapon, a sonic, and someone gets holy. This handles evil outsiders, lots of regeneration, and has at least one rune that creatures aren't particular resistant to.
So I don't like to limit any caster or class from using Recall Knowledge to give them a cool moment if they make the roll at some point and there is weakness they can exploit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think the same, just a starting bad roll is not enough reason to no get any info at all, it just means that more time is required. Remember that on critical failure you get false info.
Can set a limit from which if you fail then cannot try more, but not the 1st one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who mentioned that PF2 should have been more flexible with for example using int with a Religion check to recall knowledge about undead, this is already in the rules: "If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC." (Source)
For some reason it just never happens in practice, I haven't seen any PF2 GM make use of this rule and as a GM I never use it myself. Maybe I should, but then I think players will expect to always be able to swap their ability modifiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what if the question is not made more specific but instead changed. Say you ask what is the lowest save of this enemy. If the roll is failed does that does me from asking another question about something else like does this creature have a swim speed?
I don't think the rules cover this.
Unfortunately, asking for the lowest save is still a Recall Knowledge check. Bad rule or not, you fail and you're out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the six PF2 attributes are divided in 3 main quality bands when aren't KaS:
Super Attributes: Dex, Wis
Mid Attributes: Con, Cha
Sub Attributes: Str, Int
It's funny, because my classification would be very different:
Super attributes: Wis, Int, ChaMid attribute: Dex
Sub Attributes: Str, Con
I think there's an extreme focus on defensive abilities (Saves and Hit points) and passive abilities. But when you step outside combat neither Con nor Str are much useful (Strength a bit at low level before being trivialized by magic) and Dexterity is mildly useful (Thievery asks for proficiency before bonus as you can very often retry, Acrobatics is quickly trivialized by magic and Stealth serves only sometimes).
On the other hand, Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom will be central to out of combat challenges. And for me, being a spectator during half of the adventure is just unconceivable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the RAW are not good in this case.
In fact, most probably GMs can improvise a rule better.
I.e. increase difficulty only on failure, and require some kind of refocus to reset the modifier. I see no reason why if I am in the correct path of recalling the difficulty must increase.
This can even be applied to many skill checks, like lock picking and more. I.e. you want to push a rock with your Athletics, if you fail, increase difficulty, as your muscles are more tense and you can get some tired, then require a refocus (AKA some resting) for reset the modifier. In the case of RN, could require to get some kind of info, like documentation.
In my experience, general rules work better, are easier to remember so to apply. Just get your skill bonus, the DC, and then some global rules to apply no matter the skill, then there can be some exceptions, but the lesser the better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with INT particularly as an attribute is that there is nothing your character can really do with it that you as a player don’t have to do with it first, beyond m possibly having it represent a database in your character’s mind.
There are classes that let you do more, but there is no generic option for letting a character try to critically think their way out of a situation. You can talk or fight or sneak, but thinking your way out always falls back on the player, not the character.
Trying to mechanize critical thinking will always be tricky, which is why it tends to get class locked with features like devise a stratagem , the mastermind racket, and prepared casting. PF2 has raised the bar on how much the player has to critically think to have a character who is good at critical thinking. I think this has lead to a fair bit of player frustration. Especially because players can critically think for characters who cannot with relative ease.
I don't think there's a bad stat at all.
For all the talk of optimizing and 'being sub-optimal for flavor' - I've never really seen any of that be true.
I've had players who wanted to play a martial class and have had a higher Int or Wis or whatever than their KAS and did just fine, because I always design my encounters and challenges around every single choice my players make.
Their choices of what they want to do inform my choices as a GM. I also think it's difficult to really have these conversations a lot because what can be perceived as 'bad' or 'good' is entirely dependent on rolls or party makeup or what a player sees as being fun.
Like, most of my players 'optimize' for roleplaying and the character concept - to them, picking only for the numbers or mechanical considerations is the sub-optimal thing.
Mechanically speaking.
Int could use additional benefits. when you pump up a stat for its own mechanical benefits and not just as a key stat you want to feel like your good at something because of it. Int allows you to me mediocre at a lot of skills and gives you languages. So if the campaign isnt set up to require checks from many different skills from that int character or isn't asking players to speak or read non common languages the rest of the party has covered its not going to feel like your good at anything.
(Technically in mechanics but requires good roleplay)Outside of mechanics int is actually very good, it lets you play a character that knows way more than they should about any topic they have the skill for and it will grind on the gms nerves(or be delighted) because smart players will want to know or deduce things that you may want to have held from the players but decided their rolls earned.
Str has obvious benefits in melee hit and damage and a wider array of weaponry at their disposal than dex based melee and wearing heavy armor.
Con kinda leans into some extra stuff if you gm it like tests of endurance and holding your liquor.
One point though about having 2 stats to choose for each save, that kinda makes everyone the same, they may have different stats but they get the same result. I think the fact that some stats are useless for a character because they will never use its benefits is a good thing, that to me means not everyone will end up with the same character. But if the reason no one wants a stat is because it is useless to everyone that screams for a buff in some way Key stat bias aside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with INT particularly as an attribute is that there is nothing your character can really do with it that you as a player don’t have to do with it first, beyond m possibly having it represent a database in your character’s mind.
There are classes that let you do more, but there is no generic option for letting a character try to critically think their way out of a situation. You can talk or fight or sneak, but thinking your way out always falls back on the player, not the character.
Trying to mechanize critical thinking will always be tricky, which is why it tends to get class locked with features like devise a stratagem , the mastermind racket, and prepared casting. PF2 has raised the bar on how much the player has to critically think to have a character who is good at critical thinking. I think this has lead to a fair bit of player frustration. Especially because players can critically think for characters who cannot with relative ease.
There are other things, like deciphering, or maths. This last one is a good example, as probably the players uses their own maths instead the character's, or even worse get a calculator (any GM allows that?). That is totally wrong, we all are at least trained in maths (by school), and in modern society the Int value can be high on average compared to a fantasy RPG character. So if a character wants to approximate the numbers of an army, must check with its Lore War or Society skills using Int, but I am almost sure that some GMs gives that info to the player if it asks without requiring any check, as they could see it something normal.
So remember to require a check as the characters are not the players, who have learned in academics opposed to their characters, with Int and its associated skills the ones showing who went to academics.
The player can have the ideas, but is its character who executes it. So the player could guide ahead the correct direction, but is the character who have to make the check when required, that is not always of course, but if some kind of skill is required, just when your character want to climb, that don't uses its player skill.