Mmmmm... yes, and no. A fighter by this method is, what, one damage die ahead of the other martials?
Meh.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real issue is that magic items shouldn't give static bonuses to things, and instead should do interesting things.
Retool the basic math of the game so that they aren't needed, or fold them into character progression if they're expected, but don't make them something that can be bought. And don't make "optional" ones either.
Make magic items do interesting things, rather than number increases.
Er, is anyone who doesn't like resonance advocating for sticking with body slots?Since there has been mention of "characters have 3 primary magic items.." in one of the blogs, why not simplify resonance and reduce "item slots" to three? i.e., every character gets 3 "item slots" for items that "are", whatever they have access to and choose to use/wear. Armor, weapons, bracers, robes, shields, Rings of Phenomenal Cosmic Power, what ever. They get three, end of story, no exceptions.Because that reduces to three 'Must Haves' and anything with interesting effects might as well not exist.
Personally a better solution in that direction is to fold the effects of the '3 primary items' (which is to say weapons, with bonus to hit and lots more dice of damage, armor which gives bonuses to AC and saves and... whatever the third one is) into proficiencies as skills. I'd rather see accuracy and damage a function of character skill rather than a product of (or limited to) whatever they happen to pick up. Then all magic items can be interesting rather than math fixes.
I've been advocating for this as well. Players aren't making a choice with these upgrades, so may as well make them automatic.
The thing is that making all the mayor items an automatic bonus makes it less meaningful. Normally a fighter would have to choose, "do I want more damage or an ability?". With automatic bonuses its just, "what abiliy will I get" which to me is kind of dull.
We already have this with weapon special abilities being runes. You upgrade your weapon from +1 to +2 and move your old runes over to the new weapon. The dull part is already in, we're just removing the part where you need to go to shop to replace your sword with an almost identical sword.
I'm talking about the special ability cost no longer being in competition with the enhancement bonus. You go to the shop and +1 your weapon without any real decision making. Since there isn't any decision making, there isn't any real play happening, so it's best to just bake it into class advancement.
We already have this with weapon special abilities being runes. You upgrade your weapon from +1 to +2 and move your old runes over to the new weapon. The dull part is already in, we're just removing the part where you need to go to shop to replace your sword with an almost identical sword.If we are talking about making upgrading easier, then you must be forgetting (or maybe it was ruled out for you) that in PF1, weapons can definetly be upgraded without needing to trade it.
What PF2 did was make it so that you didn't need to exchange the weapon to get a replace ir remove an enchantment. Ex: exchanging the +2 for +1 flaming or just a +1.
PF2 also got rid of the quadratic price scale.
AFAIK, you can only put in a certain number of runes/potency/properties if your weapon isn't well-made enough; otherwise, you will have to get rid of the ancestral family blade that you started the game with and therefore is only so-so in terms of quality. Has there been any word on reforging (or alchemically treating or Masterwork Transformation spelling) an existing blade into a better quality weapon? I've been looking but haven't seen anything yet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was taught from a young age to hate the phrase used in this title.
My dad kept an abacus, a slide-rule, and 3-4 generations of calculators just to pull out when some other engineer resisted change for the sake of resisting change. Each can be used to make calculations and were used in the past to perform great accomplishments. We put a man in orbit with a slide-rule.
However, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it's not out of date or in need of an update.
(and I have a slide-rule just to pull out when someone makes the comment that I probably wouldn't even know what a slide-rule was... surprised the heck out of my college prof when I pulled it out of my backpack at that statement)
AFAIK, you can only put in a certain number of runes/potency/properties if your weapon isn't well-made enough; otherwise, you will have to get rid of the ancestral family blade that you started the game with and therefore is only so-so in terms of quality. Has there been any word on reforging (or alchemically treating or Masterwork Transformation spelling) an existing blade into a better quality weapon? I've been looking but haven't seen anything yet.We already have this with weapon special abilities being runes. You upgrade your weapon from +1 to +2 and move your old runes over to the new weapon. The dull part is already in, we're just removing the part where you need to go to shop to replace your sword with an almost identical sword.If we are talking about making upgrading easier, then you must be forgetting (or maybe it was ruled out for you) that in PF1, weapons can definetly be upgraded without needing to trade it.
What PF2 did was make it so that you didn't need to exchange the weapon to get a replace ir remove an enchantment. Ex: exchanging the +2 for +1 flaming or just a +1.
PF2 also got rid of the quadratic price scale.
Shouldn't be that hard to figure out so long as there is something in the way of a price difference to work from. Pay the cost difference, make the pertinent Craft and Lore checks, spend the downtime, voila, you've made your ancestral blade all that it can be at that time. This concept is identical to the process of improving magic items in PF1.
My dad kept an abacus, a slide-rule, and 3-4 generations of calculators just to pull out when some other engineer resisted change for the sake of resisting change.
LOL Wouldn't work with me, I can use them all. [or in my head for that matter] :)
How often DO you use them?
Quite honestly, for 95% of things I don't use anything: my brain takes care of it. If it's truly complicated... I still don't use any of them: I have a computer for that, though it's not that the functions have changed meaningfully but it's a space issue. I don't have to dig around in a drawer to find my computer.
I will point out that an abacus or slide-rule are vastly superior to more modern devices if you are without power/batteries...
...does that actually happen? Obviously field work would be a good time to have those around, but certainly not in an office setting.
I wouldn't know: don't work in an office. Where I live is rural enough that any strong storm that comes through may cause a power interruption. In fact, it's been less than a week since we've had power cut out. As far as batteries... It's like something eats those things. a 20 pack just vanishes. Let's not even talk about areas of the world less developed than here.
So to answer your question, yes it happens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been innovative calculators which failed terribly because they didn't do what the market wanted.
If PF2 is better, it will succeed and no amount of calling it fixing something broken by the detractors will change that.
If PF2 doesn't deliver for the market, it will suffer and no amount of calling the dislike a resistance to change will help it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I live in South Africa.
Our government has been so lax about keeping our power infrastructure in shape and scaled for the population that we went through a 2 year period where the government was having to cause scheduled blackouts to stop the whole grid from being overloaded.
I know that my house was without power for 8 hours a day, during peak hours, every day, for at least 6 months.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My dad kept an abacus, a slide-rule, and 3-4 generations of calculators just to pull out when some other engineer resisted change for the sake of resisting change. Each can be used to make calculations and were used in the past to perform great accomplishments. We put a man in orbit with a slide-rule.
However, just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it's not out of date or in need of an update.
Yes, but in the case of the items you mentioned, you can objectively state that we have superior options now, just as modern computers can trounce my old Commodore 128 (which I still have), or modern cars are faster and more convenient than the horse and buggy.
The delicate balancing act of gameplay mechanics, flavor, realism, class balance and so much else that goes into a game like Pathfinder is going to prevent you from being able to say if something is objectively an improvement or just something that people like better. When you cannot demonstrably show that something is an improvement over something else, it is change for the sake of change. That can be necessary to avoid stagnation, but let's not conflate it with definitive improvement.
PF2 is definitely being taken in a direction diametrically opposed to my own tastes and preferences so far as RPGs go so, I have little faith in the playtest itself resulting in anything we'd ever want to play as it would effectively require a complete 180 in terms of design priorities.
Still, it might be possible to either remove large tracks of the rule-set or that Paizo will one day create Beginner Box type product devoid of the sort of tactical rules that seem to infest the previews so it's far too early to give up hope just yet.
I swear I remember you mentioning that your game essentially played without feats, spells, and magic items...
|
I swear I remember you mentioning that your game essentially played without feats, spells, and magic items...PF2 is definitely being taken in a direction diametrically opposed to my own tastes and preferences so far as RPGs go so, I have little faith in the playtest itself resulting in anything we'd ever want to play as it would effectively require a complete 180 in terms of design priorities.
Still, it might be possible to either remove large tracks of the rule-set or that Paizo will one day create Beginner Box type product devoid of the sort of tactical rules that seem to infest the previews so it's far too early to give up hope just yet.
You're misremembering - They exist, but are limited so as to keep the rules as simple and homogeneous as possible so, for example, Toughness or Lightning Reflexes would be OK, but something like Rapid Shot or Power Attack wouldn't. Spells are similarly restricted while Magic Items are also made far rarer than the core assumes.
The basic point does stand that I was very much hoping that PF2 would be more streamlined and user friendly than its predecessor - in my defence, Paizo did cite these as design considerations for the new edition at one time.
Do you limit to only straight numeric bonuses? Or is your metric more nuanced?
I'm pretty sure New Power Attack is included in the 'Everything' you'd scrap, but I'm curious if you consider it simpler to use than Old Power Attack.