| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the fact that a +2 is a massive, great class feature is really an argument that dumping +4 to +3 is comparable to throwing away half the benefit you’d expect from class features.
A quarter. The difference between +3 and +4 is 1 only during half of your career.
And the +2 to hit is not really what makes the Fighter problematic. It's that + Heavy Armor Proficiency + Armor Specialization + 2 extra feats + Master Perception, etc...
The Fighter +2 to hit is balanced. The issue is that the class has too many other things on the side. Also, the fact that many class features (Rage, Flurry of Blows) are poachable while the Fighter bonus to hit isn't, so a Fighter with Barbarian Dedication will be better than a Barbarian with Fighter Dedication.
Wait do you get the higher rage bonuses by entering the barbarian's archetype? I thought you got a reduced bonus, and didn't account for instincts.
Bonus damage coupled with higher accuracy, higher AC from plate. If you want to all-in on hyper agression the fighter does it better with certain strike to do some flat damage on a miss. Add in the usual fighter feats. Pick an instinct like giant or dragon to scale the damage a bit when you grab the instinct ability feat.
I don't think the fighter is imbalanced. It's very narrowly focused.
I have started to notice rogues are pretty nutty as they level up. They scale very well and combine with almost any archetype or class. They are good in every aspect of the game.
For classes as you get high level, the class and options that are borderline outside the PF2 math balance are few and far between. The main one is the Starlit Span magus. They are way stronger than any other archer. Once you add in Imaginary Weapon, they get even sicker. They make every other archer and many martials or even casters look sad for damage. When they crit, it's more ridiculous than a Giant Instinct Barbarian with a pick crit. I imagine they will see some kind of nerf in the Remaster.
It's like +4 damage for two feats and -1 to AC. Plus no concentrate actions. That's fine. But it's not worth stealing usually.Wait do you get the higher rage bonuses by entering the barbarian's archetype? I thought you got a reduced bonus, and didn't account for instincts.Bonus damage coupled with higher accuracy, higher AC from plate. If you want to all-in on hyper agression the fighter does it better with certain strike to do some flat damage on a miss. Add in the usual fighter feats. Pick an instinct like giant or dragon to scale the damage a bit when you grab the instinct ability feat.
Because it isn't, compared to other fighter builds. Just like a barbarian typically isn't worth it.
Those questions really were to put it out there that all martials play with less to hit than what you can get if you just played a Fighter. If you feel like playing non fighter martial is not fun because you have 2 less to hit then you probably wouldn't want to start with a 16 as a non fighter at all but if you don't have less fun playing other martials because you like getting other things instead of just to hit bonuses than you might also have fun starting with a 16 in KAS because you are doing it to make something else better and are having fun because that other thing is better.
I don't like doing barbarian with fighter. Barbarian doesn't combine well with other classes. Rage is too limiting. Once you rage, you are heavily committed to the fighter. You can't stop raging until all your enemies are crushed. You can't even act in an intelligent manner. You are just a rage machine looking to crush every enemy in sight.
It can be fun to play on occasion, but not too often. The rage requirements are worse than the champion anathemas.
This is silly to say.
We all know the math behind this not optional. Assuming it wasn't a mislabeled KAS like INT for Alchs, you had the exact same 5% diff for the relevant attacks/saves. You can't disprove math with a "it was fine for me" personal anecdote.
It's a good thing nobody is trying to disprove math, then. At best they're trying to disprove that you need to feel terrible if you haven't maximized your CAS. Like, you yourself even keep bringing up the multiple posts of players who've had +3s and "felt bad:; people here are explaining ways to mitigate those bad feelings through build diversity and using their personal experiences as evidence.
Or are you trying to claim people here don't understand that +3 is less than +4?
Quite right!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that while 18s clearly aren't necessary, the trade off can feel a little unrewarding sometimes.
In PF1 going from an 18 to a 16 net you 7 extra points you could distribute to your other stats. Having it just be a single +1 in PF2 makes maxing out your highest priority stats a lot more compelling and dilettante characters slightly worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that while 18s clearly aren't necessary, the trade off can feel a little unrewarding sometimes.
This is true, and some classes feel it more than others. But no suddenly loses total viability simply due to a 1 point difference for half their career.
In return, such characters are often made far more versatile (though I admit this is certainly more true if you put even a little thought into what you're doing). They more easily qualify for multiclass archetypes, for example.
I've been playing an ancient elf champion in Agents of Edgewatch (a campaign in which you play law enforcement officers) for a couple years now. Though champions are not generally considered a traditional spellcasters, I took Sorcerer Dedication and Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting early on. I'm now 16-level and I cannot recount all the times I've got tremendous use out of my three low-rank spells and two cantrips.
The ability of spellcasters to manipulate the narrative reality of the world in their favor is SO powerful (even in 2nd Edition where they are widely acknowledged to have been rebalanced) that I simply cannot understand people who decry spellcasters as being weak. They might be weaker than previous editions, sure, but they are not weak by any stretch of the imagination! But I digress...
At 1st level my champion had bullhorn (for managing crowds and announcing ourselves as law enforcement) and message (for more discreet communication among fellow officers).
At 4th-level I picked up fleet step for pursuing and tackling fleeing suspects (so far none have ever escaped). It's also good for escaping when I'm in over my head. I've got a LOT of mileage out of just these three spells.
At 6th-level I also picked up invisibility. This one spell has allowed me to infiltrate venues and sneak up on or eaves drop on criminal suspects time and time again, often allowing the party to gather valuable intel we otherwise never would have had a chance to get. I've even been able to steal and conceal valuable pieces of evidence right under the criminal gangs' noses with this spell! Like fleet step, invisibility is also invaluable for escaping a scene should our plans go sideways.
At 8th-level I picked up my final spell (by choice), the 3rd rank illusory disguise. Though it may not seem like it, this proved to be our ultimate control spell. With it, we would go into a criminal stronghold where I would take on the appearance of a specific mid-level gang lieutenant, then either boss around the low level thugs (ordering them to go home early for the day, to stash the evidence in a safe place known to us before a pending raid, or some other directive beneficial to us) or lure higher level thugs into prepared areas from which we could more readily spring our trap upon them. ("Boss! We've captured a nosy busybody. We have him tied up in the basement ripe and ready to spill the beans to ya'.") We even got access to a dangerous guardian monster once (what would have been an otherwise extremely difficult encounter for us), and ended up turning it against its masters in this way.
It was totally crazy. We picked off whole dungeons a few controlled enemies at a time in this manner, learned all sorts of valuable information long before we should have, and generally just owned the criminal street gangs with a single low level spell and some good Deception rolls.
With just two feats and some specific skills, I've infiltrated criminal gangs; laid down tons of misinformation to confuse and misdirect otherwise organized crime; posed as a witness we were trying to protect, leading those who would do him harm on a wild goose chase far away from their real target; protected my own identity when enacting our cloak and dagger schemes; repurposed enemy resources to aid our own endeavors; and generally run (hilariously fun) circles around the adventure path's expectations.
I am now 16th-level with 18 Charisma, Mastery in Deception, Ageless Patience, a ring of lies, and a demilich eye gem (with mind blank). It is now unbelievably easy to get away with all the above, and more!
And that's only with a handful of lower level spells, a bit of clever thinking, and a couple supporting item and abilities.
TLDR - My champion dedicated sorcerer is absolutely tearing it up in Agents of Edgewatch with fleet step, invisibility, and illusory disguise (3rd).
I would not have been able to do all that with 18 Strength at 1st-level. Delaying the ability acquisition by four levels would have made most of the above impossible at the times they would have been most worthwhile during the adventure.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the fighter is imbalanced. It's very narrowly focused.
I sort of agree but only if that narrow focus would be described as "literally the best at using, hitting, critting, and dealing damage with any sort of weapon" but, then again, I don't really think that's exactly narrow if we are qualifying breadth of a role/focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian doesn't combine well with other classes.
Barbarian with the multiclass rogue archetype works pretty well, actually. Raging Intimidation, Rogue Dedication, Basic Trickery (Tumble Behind), and (at 8th+ level) Advanced Trickery (Dread Striker) combine fairly well; especially if you can pick up (such as via Natural Ambition as a human ancestry or with Adopted Heritage [Human]) Sudden Charge early on, as well.
And that doesn't include the extra skill feat and trained skills from the dedication feat itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that PF2 emphasizes over 3.x/PF1: It is usually less effective to focus on just doing only one thing; you want to do your "primary" thing, plus have at least a couple other things to spend a single action on to give your team members a bonus on their thing instead of eating excessive MAP.
I sort of agree but only if that narrow focus would be described as "literally the best at using, hitting, critting, and dealing damage with any sort of weapon" but, then again, I don't really think that's exactly narrow if we are qualifying breadth of a role/focus.I don't think the fighter is imbalanced. It's very narrowly focused.
It's not really any sort of weapon until very high level. It's a specific subset of weapons for a lot of levels, 19 I believe. So you have to pick melee or ranged. Are they the best ranged damage dealers? Nope. Starlit Span is the best ranged damage dealer. Ranger holds its own in archery.
To me the fighter is the best at two-handed weapons. They hit and crit the most often doing the best aggregate damage with two-handed weapons.
With finesse and agile weapons I'd put the rogue higher up.
With two-weapon fighting, flurry ranger is very, very good.
Casters do far better AoE damage at higher level and druids in particular can do absolutely amazing aggregate damage. My druid often beats the fighter for damage in multitarget fights and does pretty well in single target too.
Barbarians can hammer pretty hard, are great at Athletics, and have a ton of hit points. I never feel second fiddle with a well built giant or dragon instinct barbarian.
To me the clear two-handed weapon classes are the fighter and barb. It's their niche. You can build other stuff with them, but they shine the brightest with a big, two-handed weapon bringing the hammer.
I wouldn't make a fighter to be a top archer or a top two-weapon fighter or using smaller finesse and agile weapons. Fighter Eldritch Archer is pretty good. Fighter archer without the Eldritch Archer is competitive, but not the top dog.
I consider the fighter fairly narrow in what they excel at. I don't think it is hitting, critting, and doing damage with all weapons. I think most of their career is focusing on a small weapon group. Their best damage is with 2-handed weapons. They're just ok using other weapons.
Barbarian doesn't combine well with other classes.Barbarian with the multiclass rogue archetype works pretty well, actually. Raging Intimidation, Rogue Dedication, Basic Trickery (Tumble Behind), and (at 8th+ level) Advanced Trickery (Dread Striker) combine fairly well; especially if you can pick up (such as via Natural Ambition as a human ancestry or with Adopted Heritage [Human]) Sudden Charge early on, as well.
And that doesn't include the extra skill feat and trained skills from the dedication feat itself.
I like the skills of Rogue Archetype. Rogue archetype is the best in the game for every class. I take it a lot.
Maybe I would take Mobility as barb. When I make a Giant Barbarian, I'm mostly smashing stuff. Might be nice to close in on a target without AoO.
I like the champion for sword and board with the Legendary Armor proficiency. I also like the monk for using a shield with Legendary Unarmored defense.
Monk with Champion Archetype is pretty nice.
Fighter with Champion Archetype is nice too, but I like it better with a big weapon you can use for either AoO or Champion's Reaction.
Fighter with shield I don't consider any better than a ranger with a shield.
Sword and board fighter suffers from the same problem any other class has with weapons: they will always be 1 or 2 points behind the top guys in AC.
See, I've tried sword and board champions and I've been disappointed. They just burn too many actions before level 20 on raising the accursed thing. And paladins desperately want both reach and a large weapon.I like the champion for sword and board with the Legendary Armor proficiency. I also like the monk for using a shield with Legendary Unarmored defense.
Monk with Champion Archetype is pretty nice.
Fighter with Champion Archetype is nice too, but I like it better with a big weapon you can use for either AoO or Champion's Reaction.
Fighter with shield I don't consider any better than a ranger with a shield.
Sword and board fighter suffers from the same problem any other class has with weapons: they will always be 1 or 2 points behind the top guys in AC.
The champions I've run with in our group play using the champion as the primary defender. They stay in range and make sure to work to activate the reaction. They get multiple reactions by level 14 to use shield block or champion's reaction which makes them flexible defenders.
The fighter with the Champion's Reaction loves a big weapon. Defend by doing massive damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 going from an 18 to a 16 net you 7 extra points you could distribute to your other stats. Having it just be a single +1 in PF2 makes maxing out your highest priority stats a lot more compelling and dilettante characters slightly worse.
It's not a single +1 in PF2. For example, if you use the +1 to increase a stat from +1 to +2, this stat will be increased at level 1-14 and 20 for a total of 15 levels while your main attack stat will be reduced only half of the time. So it's a 2 for 3 proportion.
And if you consider the single digit levels to be more important than the double digit ones (as low level play is much more common than high level play), you are at 1 for 2.25 at these levels, which is equivalent to PF1 proportion.Of course, you still need a good reason to raise this second stat, but it is not always a subpar choice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: KAS at +3 instead of +4, the issue I find is more that new players feel pressured to take a +3 because of brainworms around "powergaming" they're bringing in from 5e or older editions. There's the Stormwind Fallacy that has a lot of players thinking that if they max out an attribute that's bad roleplaying, and so they will misinterpret discussions about how a +3 is viable as meaning they should sandbag.
So I think people should be clear what they mean by "+3 is perfectly viable" so as to not confuse players who find these discussion through Google or whatever. It is true that for 95% of builds, you should be putting a +4 in your KAS. If you're not putting a +4 in your KAS, it should be because you're playing a build that doesn't make as much use of your KAS like a Warpriest or somesuch. There are builds that do make good use of a +3.
However, you should probably not put a +3 in your KAS for "roleplaying" reasons, as 2e generally does expect a +4. "You're only behind by -1 for half your career" isn't quite accurate, the "half" is the first half and campaigns generally don't end right at level 10 or 20 on the dot - the toughest levels and your introduction to the game are the ones where you'd be behind. It is not bad roleplaying to be effective at the things your class is supposed to do, numbers are not a substitute for roleplaying and 2e is not a game where maxing out an attribute means actually being a one trick pony.
People sometimes are bringing in expectation that an 18/+4 means you're not "well rounded" because they're used to point buy where having an 18 actually does mean all your other attributes are bad, but in 2e all you get by sacrificing a +1 to your attack stat is a +1 to something else. +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 is already a typical 2e array that has a reasonable spread of high, medium, and low attributes, so all sacrificing that +4 is doing is letting you have +3 +3 +3 +1 0 -1. It's not that great a benefit for the tradeoff unless you're using a particularly MAD build, and it's even worse if that boost goes towards removing that -1 from an ancestry when you could've done that by simply using the variant boost rules.
+3 is not literally unplayable if you have no build justification for it, but Courageous Anthem remains extremely powerful because it gives you a +1 - you are absolutely making the game harder for yourself (and by extension all the other players at the table) in a way that isn't the easiest to account for as a GM. It is better to let go of expectations you have from other systems and to embrace that 2e expects you to "minmax" and that it doesn't preclude you from having a well rounded character.
Which all just further cements in my mind that I'd rather just not have attributes to begin with and avoid this stumbling block altogether. If the system expects particular arrays anyways and deviating from it almost always works against you, then it's basically not all that different from having trap feats - the illusion of adding flavor while mostly just mechanically stunting a character. I agree with the earlier post that Lancer does a better job by decoupling attack bonuses from attributes, even if many frames still want to dump particular stats and boost others there's still much more of a justification to have one array or another (ie the person saying to dump AGI on a barbie is just wrong, +1 speed on a frame with only 2 speed is a 50% speed increase and is often heavily felt), but for a fantasy game there's also the baggage of bioessentialism, the weirdness of trying to roleplay when your class demands you dump ephemeral personality and cogntiive traits, and so on. I'd rather lean more into skills and feats to take their place.
i can see what you are saying. An 18 means you will be the best you can be at the thing your class relies on but is being 1 point worse at it not viable?
Does the system expect an 18 in KAS? how comfortable are you with a 55% to hit instead of a 60% or a 60% instead of a 65% is that difference enough to say you cant do it to gain 5% at a other skills or maybe towards a spell DC? Is improving something unrelated to class combat features not valid in your opinion?
In my opinion rollplaying a character you find interesting is a valid reason to choose any arrangement of stats classes backgrounds and ancestries. Otherwise your saying another's reason to spend their time playing a role playing game is not valid.
I feel like there is some value in the design space of classes like the Investigator and Inventor whose KAS is not the one they roll the most (you're an INT class but you attack with STR/DEX). You're going to be 1 point behind a regular martial for half your levels, but you could compensate for that with other things.
I'm wondering if in a hypothetical PF3 if we couldn't merge attributes and skills (in the opposite way that Fallout 4 did it)- specifically your "attributes" are things like "stealth" and "medium armor" and "arcana" and "[some class of weapons]", so now there are 20 or more of them. You'd roll how many points you invested in the skill/stat plus your proficiency mod.
The system probably wants there to be something like "Giants hit hard because they are very strong" but it doesn't necessarily need to exist on the PC level.
The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained.
Ok, I admit I didn't have time to read the whole four pages of this thread, but I'm not sure that I get this complaint.
When you get a skill increase, "You can use these increases to become trained in new skills or increase your proficiency rank in skills you’re trained in (from trained to expert at any level, expert to master at 7th level or higher, and master to legendary at 15th level or higher)". I don't see anything that excludes the bonus skills from your Intelligence, it seems pretty clear that any skill you have a rank in can be increase if you meet the level prereq.
What am I missing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bonus skills from Intelligence never go beyond Trained.Ok, I admit I didn't have time to read the whole four pages of this thread, but I'm not sure that I get this complaint.
When you get a skill increase, "You can use these increases to become trained in new skills or increase your proficiency rank in skills you’re trained in (from trained to expert at any level, expert to master at 7th level or higher, and master to legendary at 15th level or higher)". I don't see anything that excludes the bonus skills from your Intelligence, it seems pretty clear that any skill you have a rank in can be increase if you meet the level prereq.
What am I missing?
If an ability boost increases your character’s Intelligence modifier, they become trained in an additional skill and language.
"become trained" is a different concept from gaining a skill increase. Everywhere in the rules where you "become trained", it strictly refers to gaining the Trained proficiency, not gaining an additional skill increase.
Skill Increase -> become trained OR increase further than trained
Intelligence increase -> become trained
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Int actually provided a skill increase it would be really good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they probably didn't want Int to give you a skill increase when you increase it because, ironically, it would be worse for Int-based characters.
If you start with a +4 in Int, you'll only get those skill increases at 10th, 17th (due to apex), and 20th level, while someone that starts with a +0 in Int but wants to keep increasing it with their ability boosts will have skill increases at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level. I guess the trade off would be that characters that start smart would have more trained skills, though having an extra expert and legendary skill is IMO way better.
I guess they could limit it somehow, kinda like a trained skill if you increase your Int mod to +1 or +4, get a trained skill or increase one skill in which you are already trained to expert if you increase it to +5, one trained skill or increase one skill to expert or master if you increase it to +6, or one trained skill or increase one skill to expert, master, or legendary if you increase it to +7. The only problem I see with this method is that the only classes that will benefit from this are pretty much are going to be Int casters, and I don't know if Paizo wants high level casters to feel like off-hand skill monkeys.
Wouldnt you be able to start the game with skills at expert by doing that part of character creation after picking skills from class if int provided skill increases?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through this thread as a whole, I have to ask another question. What about having your KAS starting at 16/+3 instead of 18 when you make a character? Would any of you consider such a bold move in the end? Is there any benefit to not having a 18/+4 in your KAS?For most characters, starting with a KA mod of +3 instead of +4 effectively means taking a -1 penalty to all of my most important rolls and DCs, a penalty that can stack with all of the other status and circumstance penalties that may occur. Unless I'm playing an extremely funky and MAD build like a Mutagenist Alchemist, which doesn't rely as much on their key attribute so much as others, I would consider lowering my key attribute to be really suboptimal in a game where every +1/-1 matters.
The “every +1 matters” is because the all-or-nothing system. After playing some of them, definitely have a problem with all that maths stuff and the obsession it generates.
We need intermediate results. A table or formula for applying different damages once you have made the attack - defense and get the result, maybe with fixed damages then adding damage dice depending the the result.
Also the stats should start lower, and give more relevance to proficiency, developing both stats and skills getting the final bonus. And the level itself should be lowered a lot (if any), something like level/3 or /4.
The PWL is far superior to the core in the realism but is a half-way solution. It is good but training (defined in previous lines) should matter more.
There is no sense that if you want to push the same rock at level 1 and level 10 the DC would be much different because hey you have to use the expected DC for the characters level. A rock with X weight must have a fixed DC and is your proficiency and Str what you use to push it, the level has nothing to do but maybe some if it is class associated.
Wouldnt you be able to start the game with skills at expert by doing that part of character creation after picking skills from class if int provided skill increases?no, that would make Int worthwhile. Class and Int only make you trained and you select them at the same time.
“Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 2 plus your Intelligence modifier” etc
I realize that what int actually does. I was saying if it provided a skill increase instead of just giving trained you could start with expert in skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which all just further cements in my mind that I'd rather just not have attributes to begin with and avoid this stumbling block altogether.
Reducing the level of customizability by that level of magnitude would make the game a super shallow reflection of its former glory. I prefer the depth it has now.
Not every fighter should be forced to have the equivalent of 18 Strength or rogue the equivalent of 18 Dexterity. If I want a studious barbarian, or a charismatic dwarf, that should be an option.
Let us play the concepts we want, rather than forcing a bunch of cookie cutter templates based on ancestry and class.
#longliveattributes
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what is the “Baddest” attribute?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DC increasing by level just is removing the Proficiency gains by level.
If a level 1 PC and a level 20 PC attempted a rock pushing contest youd want the difference in str and skill to matter but not level itself.
But if the same PCs attempted a troll killing contest the difference do want the difference in level to matter.
Rocks get to keep their difficulty no matter the level of the PC trolls don't. Rock trolls on the other hand might be an exception. Attempted humor warning.
But what is the “Baddest” attribute?
HP. If you have none, you don't exist. What can be badder than that?
The DC increasing by level just is removing the Proficiency gains by level.
If a level 1 PC and a level 20 PC attempted a rock pushing contest youd want the difference in str and skill to matter but not level itself.
But if the same PCs attempted a troll killing contest the difference do want the difference in level to matter.
Rocks get to keep their difficulty no matter the level of the PC trolls don't. Rock trolls on the other hand might be an exception. Attempted humor warning.
Neither for creatures. It pushes too much stress to all the maths stuff because that all-or-nothing system.
It also heads to stupid situations which you can literally make a picnic in the battlefield if you are X levels greater than foes as they cannot literally touch you.So remove level and make others matter more. Remember that level also puts HP difference and other abilities.
And could be interesting some for advanced players, a system like the GMG skill points variant but for all skills, including combat, spell-casting, perception, and those attached to class level, allowing to specializing earlier paying the cost or bypassing. It could be good for small parties as some character could get Perception expertise with no need to be Ranger or Rogue, or a caster could decide not getting weapons beyond trained only to focus on spells.
With intermediate results there would be not so much penalty for not specializing, but at the same time reward at long-term for those who do.
I realize that what int actually does. I was saying if it provided a skill increase instead of just giving trained you could start with expert in skills.Wouldnt you be able to start the game with skills at expert by doing that part of character creation after picking skills from class if int provided skill increases?no, that would make Int worthwhile. Class and Int only make you trained and you select them at the same time.
“Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 2 plus your Intelligence modifier” etc
I doubt Paizo would want characters to start with expert skills. The fact that rogues and investigators have expert skills 1 level early than most classes is kinda of a big deal and not even classes with auto-scaling skills have that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt Paizo would want characters to start with expert skills. The fact that rogues and investigators have expert skills 1 level early than most classes is kinda of a big deal and not even classes with auto-scaling skills have that.I realize that what int actually does. I was saying if it provided a skill increase instead of just giving trained you could start with expert in skills.Wouldnt you be able to start the game with skills at expert by doing that part of character creation after picking skills from class if int provided skill increases?no, that would make Int worthwhile. Class and Int only make you trained and you select them at the same time.
“Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 2 plus your Intelligence modifier” etc
In many ways the best thing about the Dandy archetype is that it allows you to get 2 skills to Expert at level 2. (Deception & Society)
But what is the “Baddest” attribute?
You know what?
this depends on what we mean by Baddest.Attributes as a KAS and what they do aside from KAS are separate discussions in my mind. Like you can compare the number of classes that use an attribute as KAS and how depended they are on the attribute and how many playable options that provides. But I think this discussion is about why any character would get more of an attribute when its not KAS right?
As attributes stand they are a product of legacy and the attempt to make improvements to that legacy with each version of the game.
Cha used to do nothing mechanically in older games. Aside from skills it powers innate spell casting and thats it in this game. Yet the skills that use it do really good things both in and out of combat. being better at those skills is why people increase Cha when its not their
KAS. With Bard, Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner, Thaumaturge, Psychic, and sometimes Rogue as classes using it as KAS it gives a lot of character options to play as.
Con is the complete opposite of this and yet still valued highly. No skills tied to it but HP and Fort do so much for a character they literally cant live without it (undead don't count lol). Its the worst KAS attribute if your going by how many classes are available that use it as KAS. But im not sure that means much given how important it is outside of KAS.
Int actually does give stuff you get languages and you get trained in more skills. This is horizontal improvement. And that's what hurts its image. languages cant be helped but trained instead of skill increase is the problem. If classes got less skills innately the trained benefit would have seemed much better. There is a saturation point for horizontal here and I think every class gets to it without int. We have seen whole forums just talking about RK from int and if its good or bad. Personally I see its roleplay and finding solutions contribution far exceed its combat contributions. As KAS you have Wizard, Witch, Investigator, Alchemist, Psychic, Inventor, and sometimes Rogue. So there are options that play very different here.
I'm getting lazy so ill stop there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I am inclined to say that speed is the baddest attribute. It is a tricky one, because it can be shut down environmentally, but when a character is able to exploit a speed advantage, it can be the most overpowered attribute by far. Especially as there are pretty hard set limits on the math for almost everything else, but a character or creature can be running around an encounter with 60+ speed even from level 1.
Very outside the box
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what is the “Baddest” attribute?
That's easy.
It's the one you don't use!