Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

What happened to magic items? Are they useless?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
Taunting? Snide? How so? It's a classic, if amusing, example of a title not matching the person that's from a recognizable movie. If any post was "taunting", it was Raltus' "really people want it to be ALL about the math" after a page full of people saying it's "about math backing up the roleplay". If someone gets upset about people pointing out that pathfinder has both mathematical and roleplaying aspects and the two are connected, then they are both thin skinned AND misguided about the game.

I was not attempting to be snide or Taunting anyone, I was merely stating my view on things. ABP changes the way the game plays and it changes the way the math is done in the game was well. I fully understand the game has math and have been playing this since 2000, I know I have not played as long as others and my view is probably a lot different.

Regardless continue along,


Razcar wrote:

EDIT: On a second read, this time with my brain a little more properly inserted into its slot, I think you misunderstood me, since I can't see how Stamina and Combat Tricks would save time, nor money.

I meant that Stamina and Combat Tricks got 25 pages, while the undoubtedly more popular, and in my view much more needed, ABP system only got two. It seems you think I meant that you do not use ABP. I've seen ABP used a lot. Stamina not so much.

Seems I did misread the placement of the ,. Though, I have also used combat stamina, first time was with playtesting of a fighter fix I made. Seemed way too much work for such little returns, I mainly just used it for the boost to attack rolls.


Magic items useless..... since when?!?


Raltus wrote:
I was not attempting to be snide or Taunting anyone

Oh, I never thought you where. I know I wasn't, I just thought the movie quote was amusing and fit the argument/debate.

You where painting with a very wide stroke that could be read that way if someone wished to, much like someone could be offended my post if they really went out of there way to do so.

Raltus wrote:
I fully understand the game has math and have been playing this since 2000

This didn't come out well in your previous posts I guess. You came off as "roleplay and don't worry about the numbers'. If it's just a debate over which area, math or roleplay, should get more of a focus then I think everyone would agree that is a matter of taste.

Grand Lodge

True, rereading some of my posts I got a bit ranty.

So I haven't played with ABP but have people who have noticed big changes? I wonder if people don't like it have a hard time with using it is because it is meant to be different.

As to Stamina I have never found a GM who would allow it. I like the idea of it but never played with it.


Raltus wrote:

True, rereading some of my posts I got a bit ranty.

So I haven't played with ABP but have people who have noticed big changes? I wonder if people don't like it have a hard time with using it is because it is meant to be different.

As to Stamina I have never found a GM who would allow it. I like the idea of it but never played with it.

We used it for a campaign (involving a Monk of Poverty, ironically enough), and for the most part, we enjoyed it. The nice thing with ABP is that you're less worried about the loot that drops (we practically only got like one or two magic items, rest was just money we held on to and never really spent on anything), and more worried about facing encounters, especially when your WBL is cut in half in an attempt to accommodate the Big Six without it taking gold.

Basically, it locks the Big Six behind an Experience threshold instead of a Gold threshold. The way you acquire Big Six is no longer based on creating a monopoly of Gold, or nagging the GM until he gives you that +5 Weapon to drop, but instead from facing encounters, whether it's Combat or Out-of-Combat, and gaining levels, which in turn give you the powers in question.

And when players get stronger and receive the Big Six benefits regardless of what weapons or armor they use, it allows more customization. The big downside is that you're only limited to a +5 worth of weapons (and any special properties have to be crafted onto a given weapon), but a Blog Post by Mark Seifter (I can't seem to find it) actually allows +10 Weapons, but the system for acquiring them seemed a little complicated (and took too much space) to hit the printed copies.

Stamina, on the other hand, is like Mythic Rules, except much more lame. It overly complicates things, and there's little to no gains that are worthwhile that aren't similar to the Big Six in relation to other items (want to use Cleave without adjacent enemies? Costs 5 Stamina Points. Want that +2 to hit? Costs 2 Stamina Points).

In truth, it should've been something that, for example, an Unchained Fighter should have had, to make them more dynamic and not simply involve "I hit things," and on top of that, should've involved more unique options.

Originally, I used Stamina as a Fighter-specific Resource for a theoretical Unchained Fighter, and granted unique and powerful options in the form of Combat Arts that said Stamina points could be used to perform/utilize, but realizing that it'd cause confusion between the general option and the Fighter-specific option, I had to change it to Tenacity; which is still cool. The only downside to the version I currently have is that, compared to multiple archetypes, the base class is vastly superior, and it also bakes a lot of the Fighter-only feats into Class Features.


Would like to find that blog post, if you could. ABP seems to be on the right path, but rather incomplete or anemic. I would have to twiddle with it I think.

Edit: was it this?


I don't think that this is canon at all, but I saw a table implemnt ABP, plus the standard stat gain, and just gave one stat point gained per level. They had some rule about how many points you could add to a single stat for any given level (I think it was 1 per 4 levels. They seemed happy with it.

EDIT, I think there was something with armor, resists and whatever too, but it didn't stick in my memory.


That actually seems pretty reasonable, though it would front load bonuses compared to the normal WBL acquisition.


Is this the design blog post you're referring to?


That is the blog post, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure that really helps all that much. Just adds complexity onto a mechanism that probably isn't all that necessary: attunement.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Not sure that really helps all that much. Just adds complexity onto a mechanism that probably isn't all that necessary: attunement.

It is more complex, but it also means you shouldn't have to wait until 19th-20th level just to get +10 Weapons. It adds a balance of both Wealth and Experience serving as thresholds for access to better equipment, instead of it simply being an Experience barrier.

I think it's a fair compromise, for those who want the Big Six to not be so demanding, but for those who absolutely value the Big Six more than typical items, it can still give them the edge that they're looking for, without it being overly consuming. On top of that, players who value their weapon or armor as part of their roleplay has more of a spotlight for their character (though, this is a double-edged sword).


_Ozy_ wrote:
Not sure that really helps all that much. Just adds complexity onto a mechanism that probably isn't all that necessary: attunement.

I think one of the main things they're trying to avoid is people running around with ten different Bane +1 weapons for different enemies.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It is more complex

That's part of it but the table is read counterintuitively too. It left me scratching my head even after mark explained how it worked. It's not something I'd give to players and expect them all to figure it out correctly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I think it's a fair compromise

Once you figure out what's what, it fills in some of the missing pieces from the one in the book, but it does so by making it more difficult to use. I'd have preferred a simple method removing attunement all together, even if it would be a less fair compromise. For it's be something like this: Remove attunement. weapon enchant bonuses move to player as do armor ones, and wielding a shield doubles the armor enchant bonus

Balkoth wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Not sure that really helps all that much. Just adds complexity onto a mechanism that probably isn't all that necessary: attunement.
I think one of the main things they're trying to avoid is people running around with ten different Bane +1 weapons for different enemies.

Nothing stops them from having ten different Bane weapons and using them though. you just can't get the +1, which isn't really a big deal if you're going for bane everything cheese now is it? Heck they made using a golfbag of bane easier as each weapon is only 2000gp. Even with 1/2 wealth, you'd pay 8000gp so you getting it for the equivalent of 1/2 price so you can buy twice as many as you could without ABP.


graystone wrote:
Nothing stops them from having ten different Bane weapons and using them though.

You can only attune to one weapon per day, so you can only use one Bane weapon per day in effect (unless you want to sacrifice a large enhancement bonus at higher level).

On another note, I should have said "Bane" rather than "Bane +1." As you pointed out, it's even cheaper than I was thinking since I forgot you wouldn't have to pay for the +1 (since it doesn't exist).

In an ideal situation people wouldn't try to abuse a system like this but...


graystone wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Tbh I think it'd be fine if they had taken the opportunity to add a separate material quality system for bonuses up to +2~3... they finally could have made non-magical crafts worth something by making another 2 levels above masterwork(either leaving masterwork as it is or making it +1/1 instead of just +1 accuracy)then players looking for early boosts could find them, but they wouldn't be game breaking or magic dependent.
That's just shifting magic items to 'magic' items though. At best it's a lateral move, if there is no difference between a magic weapon or a mastercraft one other than what you call it.

For the most part, but not quite, as before you needed anything beyond MW to be magic, which added all sorts of complications including casters getting item creation shortcuts using spellcraft. This process would merely allow a far more minor upgrade, that players can then continue to choose, while the rest of ABP's changes are what really update the character.


Snowblind wrote:
Rysky wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I loved the magic items in 1e and 2e. MANY had no combat buffs or things like that, but were just cool and fun. I miss having those.
Mouse carriage!

[sarcasm]

But Pathfinder has plenty of fun items.

If you are looking for a cheap buy...how about this. Roughly cuts in half the chance of getting affected by gaze attacks, and gives a bonus on saves against visual attacks. Really cheap at only 9 000gp, or the cost of 6 suits of fullplate.

What about this wonderful amulet. It lets you sense things around you...if they are on the ground...and that ground is earth or stone...and you stand around picking your nose while you sense stuff. Only 27 000 gp

Check out this baby. Do the Obi-wan thing, and even live to tell the tale. A real bargain at 48 000 gp.
[/sarcasm]
Ok, yeah, PF has problems with items. Almost everything is bland, hilariously overpriced and totally non-competitive with the big 6. There are exceptions, but you really need to dumpster dive to find them.

Yea, so many items are just vender trash after a certain point or even outright useless. The Cowardly Crouching Cloak lets you play 'If I can't see them, they can't see me'. Along with +1 versions of weapons that no one uses like Awl Pike and Iron Fan.

I have never played 4e, but I think I heard that it has 'Treasure packages'. Rather than specific coins,jewelry and items, you instead get a sum that can be divvied up and used as the players wishes. "Ok, 5000 gp treasure cache, use it as you wish." Much more practical.


MannyGoblin wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Rysky wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I loved the magic items in 1e and 2e. MANY had no combat buffs or things like that, but were just cool and fun. I miss having those.
Mouse carriage!

[sarcasm]

But Pathfinder has plenty of fun items.

If you are looking for a cheap buy...how about this. Roughly cuts in half the chance of getting affected by gaze attacks, and gives a bonus on saves against visual attacks. Really cheap at only 9 000gp, or the cost of 6 suits of fullplate.

What about this wonderful amulet. It lets you sense things around you...if they are on the ground...and that ground is earth or stone...and you stand around picking your nose while you sense stuff. Only 27 000 gp

Check out this baby. Do the Obi-wan thing, and even live to tell the tale. A real bargain at 48 000 gp.
[/sarcasm]
Ok, yeah, PF has problems with items. Almost everything is bland, hilariously overpriced and totally non-competitive with the big 6. There are exceptions, but you really need to dumpster dive to find them.

Yea, so many items are just vender trash after a certain point or even outright useless. The Cowardly Crouching Cloak lets you play 'If I can't see them, they can't see me'. Along with +1 versions of weapons that no one uses like Awl Pike and Iron Fan.

I have never played 4e, but I think I heard that it has 'Treasure packages'. Rather than specific coins,jewelry and items, you instead get a sum that can be divvied up and used as the players wishes. "Ok, 5000 gp treasure cache, use it as you wish." Much more practical.

Then the problem is with the item design, as well as the cost in relation to said item design. People complaining about spending on money besides the Big Six appears most likely because anything outside the Big Six is usually crap.

And they're right.

Even the Specific Armor/Weapons are mostly crap, with the exception of maybe a handful of the options, which are wickedly overpriced compared to simply having a +5 Armor/Weapon, for properties that are just "meh" at best. And those are technically part of the Big Six.

And you know what any Role Player is gonna tell you about those "Treasure Packages"?

"Wow, what do you think this is, a Video Game? Monsters just having a random 5,000 gold instead of [useless overpriced roleplay item goes here]? That's so stupid, if I wanted a box of gold, I'd play WoW, you stupid @$$#%!&. You're never GMing for me again."

And any Roll Player is just gonna take that money and put it toward his +5 Armor/Weapon/AoNA/RoP/CoR, or +6 Headband/Belt.

While I can understand the practicality of it (because I am both a Role and Roll Player), it's not much different than simply giving people money for Christmas or their Birthday. For Role Players, it's not thoughtful, and for Roll Players, it only adds to the problem of "Big Six is King."

At best, you can use it as a means of supplementing an existing reward.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It is more complex

That's part of it but the table is read counterintuitively too. It left me scratching my head even after mark explained how it worked. It's not something I'd give to players and expect them all to figure it out correctly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I think it's a fair compromise
Once you figure out what's what, it fills in some of the missing pieces from the one in the book, but it does so by making it more difficult to use. I'd have preferred a simple method removing attunement all together, even if it would be a less fair compromise. For it's be something like this: Remove attunement. weapon enchant bonuses move to player as do armor ones, and wielding a shield doubles the armor enchant bonus

And I agree with that assessment.

I just think the reason they made it complicated is so players don't make Kasathas and wield 4 +10 Weapons, or to reduce/nullify any potential abuse players may pull out of their hat. For example, that +1 Flaming Greatsword just became a +1 Keen Greatsword for Free because Metagaming.


Balkoth wrote:
graystone wrote:
Nothing stops them from having ten different Bane weapons and using them though.

You can only attune to one weapon per day, so you can only use one Bane weapon per day in effect (unless you want to sacrifice a large enhancement bonus at higher level).

On another note, I should have said "Bane" rather than "Bane +1." As you pointed out, it's even cheaper than I was thinking since I forgot you wouldn't have to pay for the +1 (since it doesn't exist).

In an ideal situation people wouldn't try to abuse a system like this but...

You can use a bane weapon and get the bane without attunement. All attunement gets you is the enchant bonus. So at most you lose out on is +2 hit and +3 damage vs a +5 weapon, a bane itself gives +2 and mastercraft gives a +1 hit. Dropping a few plusses for a dozen backup weapons isn't a bad deal.

And recall the parameters YOU set up. "they're trying to avoid is people running around with ten different Bane +1 weapons for different enemies." LITERALY the only thing between an attuned +1 bane weapon and one not attuned is +1 enchantment bonus to damage. You're moving the goal post QUITE a lot by bringing in "(unless you want to sacrifice a large enhancement bonus at higher level)."

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I just think the reason they made it complicated is so players don't make Kasathas and wield 4 +10 Weapons

Well to be fair, if the alow Kasathas you've already come to terms with them doing double what other martials can do so why worry now?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
or to reduce/nullify any potential abuse players may pull out of their hat. For example, that +1 Flaming Greatsword just became a +1 Keen Greatsword for Free because Metagaming.

I'm not understanding your meaning here. What do you mean by matagaming a weapon change? Do you mean there backup weapons would have the full bonus if the situation changes? Honestly that seems like a pro and not a con, though I'm not seeing the metagaming.


Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.

I did. How do you get metagaming from that situation? I'd do the same with or without attunement so I'm quite confused. Against a fire breathing lizard, a keen sword is better than a +1 sword [ignoring flaming as it does nothing] same as I'd pick a +1 keen sword over a +1 [ignoring flaming] sword. And in either case you paid the same amount of cash for both. So I'm going to need a roadmap to find that metagaming.


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.
I did. How do you get metagaming from that situation? I'd do the same with or without attunement so I'm quite confused. Against a fire breathing lizard, a keen sword is better than a +1 sword [ignoring flaming as it does nothing] same as I'd pick a +1 keen sword over a +1 [ignoring flaming] sword. And in either case you paid the same amount of cash for both. So I'm going to need a roadmap to find that metagaming.

It's quite clear that Attunement isn't supposed to let you adjust magic properties on the fly, meaning if I normally have a +1 Flaming Greatsword, and then come across a Red Dragon, I shouldn't be able to adjust it to a +1 Keen Greatsword through ABP; the Attunement rules never allowed that in the first place, the new table doesn't change that factor.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Take that Greatsword example, and put it against a Red Dragon.
I did. How do you get metagaming from that situation? I'd do the same with or without attunement so I'm quite confused. Against a fire breathing lizard, a keen sword is better than a +1 sword [ignoring flaming as it does nothing] same as I'd pick a +1 keen sword over a +1 [ignoring flaming] sword. And in either case you paid the same amount of cash for both. So I'm going to need a roadmap to find that metagaming.
It's quite clear that Attunement isn't supposed to let you adjust magic properties on the fly, meaning if I normally have a +1 Flaming Greatsword, and then come across a Red Dragon, I shouldn't be able to adjust it to a +1 Keen Greatsword through ABP; the Attunement rules never allowed that in the first place, the new table doesn't change that factor.

Seems like an extra fiddly bit that's unneeded. You know all those things that let the wizard pick the right spells like Scry? That same information lets you do the same with weapons. also, at now levels, there is almost NO difference between those two swords. It's an options between between a +1 Flaming Greatsword, and a Keen greatsword with a +1 enchant bonus to hit. So is attunement for those few mid-levels between the two situations [assuming they don't use mundane ways of finding out about a dragon]?

Really it's a solution looking for a problem that forces out playing styles. Worse, the playing styles are martial ones that are the ones that least need restrictions. What is gained by taking away someone's bonus because of a disarm or destroyed weapon and deny them the ability to pull out a spare weapon or have a backup ranged weapon? None that I can see.

So IMO you SHOULD be able to adjust weapons, hence my disliking attunement. Still not understanding the metagaming comment though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't get the metagaming aspect either. What attunement does is prevent martials from being able to use a selection of encounter-specific weaponry at full effectiveness. Like banes, elementals, ghost-touch, brilliant energy, and so on. They can still use the weapons, but they won't be able to apply their ABP enhancement bonus, and will be stuck with the +1 masterwork to hit bonus.

Furthermore, according to the base ABP rules, the weapon abilities 'use up' your attunement bonus anyways, so let's say you have a +1 weapon bonus from ABP. If you 'attune' a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword. If you don't attune a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword.

I suppose at 17th level, the difference is between a +4 bane sword, and a +0 bane sword, but I'm not sure that extra +3 to hit/+4 damage is really necessary to police at 17th level.

Is this restriction necessary to maintain game balance? I have no idea, and I doubt it's been play-tested enough to say for sure.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Yeah, I don't get the metagaming aspect either. What attunement does is prevent martials from being able to use a selection of encounter-specific weaponry at full effectiveness. Like banes, elementals, ghost-touch, brilliant energy, and so on. They can still use the weapons, but they won't be able to apply their ABP enhancement bonus, and will be stuck with the +1 masterwork to hit bonus.

Furthermore, according to the base ABP rules, the weapon abilities 'use up' your attunement bonus anyways, so let's say you have a +1 weapon bonus from ABP. If you 'attune' a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword. If you don't attune a bane sword, you have a +0 bane sword.

I suppose at 17th level, the difference is between a +4 bane sword, and a +0 bane sword, but I'm not sure that extra +3 to hit/+4 damage is really necessary to police at 17th level.

Is this restriction necessary to maintain game balance? I have no idea, and I doubt it's been play-tested enough to say for sure.

Bolded part best explains why I call it metagaming. Players being able to transform their weapon properties into whatever the hell they want at the time they want it is clearly not intended by the rules, and as such shouldn't be endorsed.

Maybe I'm using the wrong term...perhaps Cheese would be more appropriate, since I think it's cheap for players to be able to custom-alter their weaponry to do certain effects, especially when there are class features that do those very same things.

@ Graystone: Scry and Fry and Spontaneous Attunement being an appropriate comparison is just plain silly, especially when Scry and Fry is mostly a GM tactic until endgame (in which case the game becomes boring and +X weapons don't mean anything unless you're just a lame Martial character), and quite frankly Scry and Fry is overkill when a simple Knowledge check will get the job done (determining X is immune to Y).


Yeah, metagaming means using knowledge the player would have but the character would not. A character would be fully capable of deciding which weapon would work best against a particular creature.

So, did you read the actual impact of doing so? With a +1 attunement bonus, there is 0 difference between attuning a weapon with a special ability and not doing so. You end up with a +0 weapon of <X>.

With a +2 attunement bonus, there is a +1 damage bonus for attunement for +1 weapon abilities, but only +1 weapon abilities, and only if you spend your entire attunement on it. All others there is once again, no difference.

Now, with a +3 attunement bonus, you can start to see a bit more of an effect. For attuned weapons with a +1 equivalent abilities, you'll rack up a massive extra +1 to hit, and +2 to damage...truly game breaking. For weapons with +2 abilities, like 'holy', you get a truly massive extra +1 damage.

And so it goes until you max out with a +5 attunement bonus at level 17. Once you attune a +1 weapon at this level, you do get a pretty substantial extra +3 to hit and +4 damage. Maybe those numbers make a difference at level 17, I dunno, I've never played up that high...

So again, unless people actually have experience that demonstrates the balance issues, this looks an awful lot like a solution in search of a problem.


Or, to put it another way (and using the chart from the blog)

would you rather have a bane weapon that you can attune up to +3 (14k), or would you rather have 7 bane weapons (2k ea.) that are -2 to hit, -3 damage relative to the single attuned weapon?


I had some thoughts, but did not spend the time to read all the post in this thread. Apologies if I'm repeating anyone, but I'm headed in a different direction, I think.

Are you letting them rest too much? How often are your players exhausting all their spells per day, or other No.-per-Day powers? They may be more inclined to use up magic items when their personal resources are running low. Are your Mooks and Sargents not doing their job?

There might be a way to role play the purchase of magic items, such that getting a custom item, or just the item you want, is a little more special. Maybe a percent chance that any given item is available in the current city? Or if you really want to annoy players, all purchased magic items have some small quirk when used.

Or maybe some small reward for using a magic item creatively. "Your opponent was completely unprepared for such an unorthodox onslaught. You seem to do a little more damage than you estimated." Or some such.

Good luck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bolded part best explains why I call it metagaming.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Maybe I'm using the wrong term...perhaps Cheese would be more appropriate

Well it's not metagaming for sure, and cheese? Not by a LONGshot IMO. If anything I find it unacceptable cheese that it takes a day to get a replacement for a destroyed/lost weapon when I can do so now by just pulling one out a spare I bought before. It's not like your to hit goes down now because you pull out a new normal longsword if you don't have the normal longsword you usually use. Why should the new system then do that as neither weapon is granting my any enchant bonus, the player is. After all, an attuned weapon picked up by someone else doesn't have an enchant bonus does it?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
its cheap for players to be able to custom-alter their weaponry to do certain effects, especially when there are class features that do those very same things

Is it? You're paying for those "custom" changes just like you do now; by buying weapons that have those properties. The only change is buying the enchant bonus or granting it to the weapons.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Graystone: Scry and Fry and Spontaneous Attunement being an appropriate comparison is just plain silly, especially when Scry and Fry is mostly a GM tactic until endgame (in which case the game becomes boring and +X weapons don't mean anything unless you're just a lame Martial character), and quite frankly Scry and Fry is overkill when a simple Knowledge check will get the job done (determining X is immune to Y).

Scry is at the upper end but mundane scounting + Augury, Commune, Commune with Birds, Commune with Nature, Jungle Mind, Tectonic Communion, ect can get you information and you can start using some of them from 1st.

_Ozy_ wrote:
So again, unless people actually have experience that demonstrates the balance issues, this looks an awful lot like a solution in search of a problem.

Yep.


graystone wrote:
So at most you lose out on is +2 hit and +3 damage vs a +5 weapon, a bane itself gives +2 and mastercraft gives a +1 hit.

Don't forget bypassing damage reduction.

graystone wrote:
And recall the parameters YOU set up. "they're trying to avoid is people running around with ten different Bane +1 weapons for different enemies." LITERALY the only thing between an attuned +1 bane weapon and one not attuned is +1 enchantment bonus to damage. You're moving the goal post QUITE a lot by bringing in "(unless you want to sacrifice a large enhancement bonus at higher level)."

Did you just decide to ignore the part where I said

"On another note, I should have said "Bane" rather than "Bane +1." As you pointed out, it's even cheaper than I was thinking since I forgot you wouldn't have to pay for the +1 (since it doesn't exist)."

or something?

I only said "Bane +1" because without ABP that's the minimum to get Bane on a weapon and I forgot that changed in ABP. I made a mistake, I didn't move the goalposts.

graystone wrote:
If anything I find it unacceptable cheese that it takes a day to get a replacement for a destroyed/lost weapon when I can do so now by just pulling one out a spare I bought before.

Let me put it this way: you don't see anything cheesy about being able to buy 20 mundane longswords and have them all act as +5 weapons when the previous longsword gets Disarmed or Sundered? Most people don't have twenty spare weapons of equal power.


Balkoth wrote:
graystone wrote:
So at most you lose out on is +2 hit and +3 damage vs a +5 weapon, a bane itself gives +2 and mastercraft gives a +1 hit.
Don't forget bypassing damage reduction.

With all the money you're saving, you get a bane with the appropriate special material: cold-iron fey-bane, get both a silver and a cold-iron evil outsider bane, adamantine construct-bane, and so on.

If you're worried about alignment DR, either stick with your single-attuned +5 weapon, or overcome the DR using spells and/or abilities.


Balkoth wrote:


Let me put it this way: you don't see anything cheesy about being able to buy 20 mundane longswords and have them all act as +5 weapons when the previous longsword gets Disarmed or Sundered? Most people don't have twenty spare weapons of equal power.

Given that literally the entire point of the subsystem is to get away from magic item reliance, no. Why would I?

Actually if anything the GM spamming Sunder on one player's gear is the one who comes across as sketchy.


yeah i'm gonna have to agree with squiggit on that one. That is a pretty crappy thing to do. My first DM targeted gear and we all hated it.


Balkoth wrote:
Don't forget bypassing damage reduction

I didn't. If you're going golfbag of weapons, use blanche. It's a drop in the bucket compared to +5 weapons.

Balkoth wrote:
Did you just decide to ignore the part where I said

I missed it but it didn't really change what I'd have said much.

Balkoth wrote:
Let me put it this way: you don't see anything cheesy about being able to buy 20 mundane longswords and have them all act as +5 weapons when the previous longsword gets Disarmed or Sundered? Most people don't have twenty spare weapons of equal power.

Nope. Much the same way I'm not worried people switching out amulets, belts, cloaks, head bands and rings and armor for the other bonuses that that the automatic rule gives. I'm MORE worried my natural weapon character can't enchant all it's weapons. I'm MORE worried I can't have two weapons of the same enchantment bonus.

Or to look at it your way, if it's cheesy to 20 mundane longswords and have them all act as +5 then you don't like the system as is because you can do JUST that: it's just once per day. SO is you know you'll fight a red dragon, you just go out, buy a bane weapon for it and pay 2000gp.

In the end I find it completely cheesy for a character that wants multiple weapons with enchantment bonuses to be unable to have them. Nope, only one ever at full or two degraded EVER in a day. I'd be less upset if they didn't lose the entire bonus for using an un-attuned weapon, but an all or nothing is really unworkable. While you say "Most people don't have twenty spare weapons of equal power", it's NOT uncommon to have a backup weapon or ranged/melee opposite there normal attack method at a lesser bonus. The system offers NO option to have a +5 main melee, a +3 ranged and a backup +2 melee which is completely viable now and very unlikely to have someone point and yell "cheesy".

Squiggit wrote:
Balkoth wrote:


Let me put it this way: you don't see anything cheesy about being able to buy 20 mundane longswords and have them all act as +5 weapons when the previous longsword gets Disarmed or Sundered? Most people don't have twenty spare weapons of equal power.

Given that literally the entire point of the subsystem is to get away from magic item reliance, no. Why would I?

Actually if anything the GM spamming Sunder on one player's gear is the one who comes across as sketchy.

It doesn't have to be an everyday thing though. The system has NO recourse for things that can happen like sunder and disarm: It's an all or nothing for 1 day. Really now that I think of it, if you can ONLY EVER have that 1 (or two) weapons with enchantment bonuses a day, it would only make sense for monsters to focus on sunders! Once you break the main weapons, it's easy pickings: you may need a few kamikaze minions to do it but once it breaks, they give you up to a -5 hit/damage de-buff the players have NO way of doing anything about until the next day.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Then the problem is with the item design, as well as the cost in relation to said...

Getting a treasure package can help if access to shops is limited and can help with book keeping. I know it wouldn't take that long, but having to go down the list and half the price of all the gear for sale can be a pain, then there can be this.

Treasurekeeper:Ok here is the list of things we found, make choices on what you want
(Some choices are made, list is changed but stuff gets unchoosen)
TK:Anyone? Anyone? Buller? Ok, selling everything else
PC:Hold on! I want that thing.

Grand Lodge

Graystone: You don't like ABP because it changes the way you want to play? If I am reading correctly.

Balkoth: You like ABP because it limits the PCs ability to have the right thing on the fly for problem a head of them?

I can see what is being said about the changing of items on the fly but don't you have to attune your weapon at the start of the day? If your PCs did their research the day prior to the big Red Dragon Fight I would say sure you can change your flaming out for keen. Limit what they can change maybe?


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bolded part best explains why I call it metagaming.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Maybe I'm using the wrong term...perhaps Cheese would be more appropriate

Well it's not metagaming for sure, and cheese? Not by a LONGshot IMO. If anything I find it unacceptable cheese that it takes a day to get a replacement for a destroyed/lost weapon when I can do so now by just pulling one out a spare I bought before. It's not like your to hit goes down now because you pull out a new normal longsword if you don't have the normal longsword you usually use. Why should the new system then do that as neither weapon is granting my any enchant bonus, the player is. After all, an attuned weapon picked up by someone else doesn't have an enchant bonus does it?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
its cheap for players to be able to custom-alter their weaponry to do certain effects, especially when there are class features that do those very same things

Is it? You're paying for those "custom" changes just like you do now; by buying weapons that have those properties. The only change is buying the enchant bonus or granting it to the weapons.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Graystone: Scry and Fry and Spontaneous Attunement being an appropriate comparison is just plain silly, especially when Scry and Fry is mostly a GM tactic until endgame (in which case the game becomes boring and +X weapons don't mean anything unless you're just a lame Martial character), and quite frankly Scry and Fry is overkill when a simple Knowledge check will get the job done (determining X is immune to Y).

Scry is at the upper end but mundane scounting + Augury, Commune, Commune with Birds, Commune with Nature, Jungle Mind, Tectonic Communion, ect can get you information and you can start using some of them from 1st.

_Ozy_ wrote:
So again, unless people actually have experience that demonstrates the balance issues, this looks an awful lot like a solution in search of a
...

Nah, being able to only change attunement 1/day isn't cheese, it's bulls#!^, and that's subjective bulls#!^ to boot. Quite frankly, only being able to change it 1/day just means that the "golfbag of weapons" trick isn't viable, and is probably how they intended the rules to function (since multiple weapon attunement only ever applies to two weapons at a given time).

Point is, players changing weapon properties when they, as characters, wouldn't know to do it without information telling them otherwise, is metagaming. A character who faces a Red Dragon without the proper Knowledge check (or prior experience of facing a Red Dragon) wouldn't know to exchange that Flaming property on his sword (which is baked into the weapon, I might add) to something that actually works against the enemy until after he hits and realizes the fire does no damage to it. And again, as others have pointed out, the Bane cheese/metagaming is real, something that only an Inquisitor should have access to.

When you pay for those enhancements, they're permanent, and can't be changed, ever. They could be possibly upgraded, but changed? No way.

Attunement throws that level of sticking power out the door, which as I've demonstrated above, leads to unfair gameplay. Granted, the GM could use those same tactics, but all that demonstrates is that the unfair gameplay results in a two-way street, and needless to say, the GM can very much be the one causing the cheese/metagaming as much as the PCs can/are.

Mundane Scouting doesn't cut it past ~7th level, where a lot of good Save/Die spells are starting to become available. That scout is probably gonna have a bad Will Save, be subject to a Polymorph or something equally horrible, and then screwed and cut off from the rest of the party, left to die. I don't remember the last time any players actually used Augury or Commune. The Animal Communion spells are basically Druids only, and even that's not exactly helpful, since Druids are (ironically) rarely played. I never even heard of spells like Jungle Mind or Tectonic Communion, so I have no idea what the hell they even do. (Are they Occult spells?)


Raltus wrote:
Balkoth: You like ABP because it limits the PCs ability to have the right thing on the fly for problem a head of them?

No, I don't like ABP.

And I agree with Greystone that the inability to have a back-up weapon or two of lesser power is a serious flaw. Hell, in my games, I let people have back-up or ranged weapons that don't count against their WBL.

But at the same time, I don't want getting Disarmed to be completely meaningless if you have Quick Draw because you have 20 basic longswords that all become +5 when drawn. And I don't want to make it massively easier to have a golfcart of Bane weapons of every type (Bane against anything is an Inquisitor shtick).


Balkoth wrote:
And I agree with Greystone that the inability to have a back-up weapon or two of lesser power is a serious flaw. Hell, in my games, I let people have back-up or ranged weapons that don't count against their WBL.

You actually can. You just use the Weapon Attunement scaling with the two separate pluses.


Sure Flaming does nothing against a Red Dragon, but you can probably live without the 1d6 extra damage.
It is not a serious concern.


Envall wrote:

Sure Flaming does nothing against a Red Dragon, but you can probably live without the 1d6 extra damage.

It is not a serious concern.

It's merely an example. The scale itself might be miniscule, but I imagine there will be cases where it matters.


Balkoth wrote:

No, I don't like ABP.

And I agree with Greystone that the inability to have a back-up weapon or two of lesser power is a serious flaw. Hell, in my games, I let people have back-up or ranged weapons that don't count against their WBL.

But at the same time, I don't want getting Disarmed to be completely meaningless if you have Quick Draw because you have 20 basic longswords that all become +5 when drawn. And I don't want to make it massively easier to have a golfcart of Bane weapons of every type (Bane against anything is an Inquisitor shtick).

Attunement makes it impossible to have a backup weapon with a + on it, unless your opponent is chivalrous enough to let you exit combat and recommence same time, same place, but tomorrow. Not so likely.

But removing attunement makes sunder less of a threat since the character can be decked out with 20 swords which gets the same enhancement bonus. Which wouldn't be possible without ABP or attunement. Or that the same player, without attunement, has their character fill their handy haversack to the brim with bane weapons for every opportunity, all who gets the full enhancement bonus as soon as they're out of the bag.

Well, how about this, for all the sunder-happy GMs and bane-shopping players out there. The attunement takes a day to get fully active, but your inherent enhancement bonus is not "all on" or "all off" either. It takes a full day to attune fully to another weapon, after losing the one you are "most familiar with", and if you pick up a second the same day, your bonus goes down one point from your max until you can fully attune. (And goes down yet another point for the third weapon in a day and so on until your bonus "runs out".)

Example: Brav the Brave, 14th lvl, gets his trusty longsword broken (it was at his bonus of +3). Instead he draws his backup shortsword. This now works as a +2 weapon. But gets disarmed and falls into a river, so as a last resort, Brav picks up a dead opponents mace. He attacks with a +1 bonus on that mace. If Brav survives the combat, he finds out that his new mace isn't all bad after all after a day of getting used to it, so the next day he can apply his full +3 enhancement bonus to the mace.


Raltus wrote:
Graystone: You don't like ABP because it changes the way you want to play? If I am reading correctly.

That's just a small part though. I don't like it because it drastically alters the way the game plays. Several builds vanish, several methods of play vanish [like having backup weapons] and sunder becomes THE thing to do. It wrecks more that it could hope to 'fix'.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Balkoth wrote:
And I agree with Greystone that the inability to have a back-up weapon or two of lesser power is a serious flaw. Hell, in my games, I let people have back-up or ranged weapons that don't count against their WBL.
You actually can. You just use the Weapon Attunement scaling with the two separate pluses.

Nope. You can't have your 'full' strength main and a backup and you can't have "a back-up weapon or two", just a single back-up by degrading your primary performance.

"cheese/metagaming/sticking/Scouting": Lets just say, I disagree as I find your view as full of those same things.

"Mundane Scouting doesn't cut it past ~7th level": Yep, that's a good level to start casting some spells.

"I don't remember the last time any players actually used Augury or Commune."/"The Animal Communion spells are basically Druids only, and even that's not exactly helpful, since Druids are (ironically) rarely played.": This might be why your perception is skewed a bit as those spells WOULD let you know that red dragon was there and pick up where mundane scouting becomes harder. Of course, magic can be added to the mundane scouter to extend how easily they can do it. Really, the only time a party is forced to walk into a situation with no information is because of time constraints or they didn't bother to look. Just walking into town and casting Ears of the City gives you info on the general area and arcanist 1, bard 1, cleric/oracle 1, inquisitor 1, shaman 1, skald 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, warpriest 1 and witch 1 can use it. A simple day of downtime and a caster that can pick spells can go a LONG way to understanding what you're up against.

Razcar: I'd feel better about the option if it allowed partial bonuses for 'quick' or secondary attunement. Or another option is just allowing partial bonuses to in-attuned weapons and skipping the quick attunement. Of course, it doesn't fix all the issues, such as natural attack characters.

Grand Lodge

I am only linking for reference

At 17th level you can have a +4 hit/dmg weapon and a +3 hit/dmg back up weapon. But if you add stuff to the weapon it loses a + hit/dmg bases on the bonus it cost.

I have read that a few things and I think I got that right, I see how that is poorly worded. Really you should just be able to add abilities to the weapon when you are of the equivalent level of attunement bonus. It is a system that just didn't have the right tweaking.


I wonder how bad it would be if instead of just spreading the bonus around, the ability to attune your weapon was changed such that you can only add +1 per day to any weapon, provided you spend time using/maintaining the weapon during the previous day, but you can only have one weapon at the maximum bonus(after the final maximum, you can add unlocks for more primary's at full bonus), & 2 at the max bonus -1, & 3 at the max bonus -2... etc.

In addition, you can Alternatively choose to forsake your entire bonus on a weapon(instead of adding a +1) to move the bonus to another weapon.

Then the golf bag approach could rather easily be worked towards, but isn't entirely superior, while twf isn't excessively penalized(as you get 3 weapons near your max bonus), and Sundering is still really bad(as you cannot exchange attunements for a day, but you can have 2 backups at -1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing, though:

Pathfinder Unchained is, itself, a bunch of houserules (heck, even PF itself is a heavily houseruled 3.5).

If you're using something from Unchained in one of your home games, you're patching in a house rule.

So... if you don't like the house rule as written, but you like the concept, why not just get together as a gaming group and figure out how you'd like to fix it?

I guess I don't understand the resistance to fixing something you like so that it works better at your table?

I know there are some who will make some argument about wanting Paizo to make it right or whatnot, but, well - *whispers* - this may surprise some of you, but not everything Paizo has written ends up working well in practice.

Mythic rules are really cool in principle, but if you're planning on running Wrath of the Righteous, you're going to *have* to do at least some small amount of house-ruling, and you may end up wanting to do a lot of it.

As I mentioned before, I'm currently running Jade Regent. The caravan rules? They simply don't work as-written. Fundamentally broken and unusable. Paizo's official response was to acknowledge that they screwed up, they recognized that the caravan system is broken, and their solution? *Shrug* "Sorry, we're too busy, you'll have to figure it out yourself."

If you like the idea of ABP, but your group doesn't like the implementation, then fix it for your group. It's a houserule anyway.

201 to 248 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What happened to magic items? Are they useless? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.