Gearing Up!

Friday, May 4, 2018

In Monday's blog, we talked about weapons and all the plentiful options you have when you're picking those. So let's stay in the Equipment chapter for the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and take a look at armor, other gear, and everything else having to do with items!

Don Your Armor!

Armor's job is to protect you from your enemies' attacks. Your character can have proficiency in light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor (or, in some cases, none of the above). Most classes are only trained in their armor at first, though some martial classes gain better proficiency at higher levels. In Pathfinder First Edition, many types of armor were effectively obsolete because you could just buy a better type, but for Pathfinder Second Edition, we've made a few new adjustments to make each type a little different.

A suit of armor has many of the same statistics as in Pathfinder First Edition, but now each one also gives a bonus to your TAC (Touch Armor Class). For instance, studded leather gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +0 to TAC, whereas a chain shirt gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +1 to TAC, but it is heavier and noisier. That last bit comes from the noisy trait, one of a small number of traits some armors have to reflect their construction and effect on the wearer. Armor also has a Dexterity modifier cap (which limits how much of your Dexterity modifier can apply to your AC); a check penalty that applies to most of your Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks; a penalty to your Speed; and a Bulk value. You'll balance these variables to pick the armor that's best for you.

As you adventure, you'll find or craft magic armor. Weapons and suits of armor alike can be enhanced with magical potency runes. For weapons, a potency rune gives an item bonus on attack rolls and increases the number of damage dice you roll on attacks with the weapon. For armor, the potency rune increases the armor's item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws! For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus. You can even upgrade the potency of specific armor (and weapons) so you can hold on to your celestial armor at higher levels. If you don't wear armor, not to worry! Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box. They might not protect you quite as well, but maybe that trade-off is worth it to your wizard or monk!

Illustrations by Wayne Reynolds

Shield Yourself!

You've probably seen mention of shields in previous blogs, announcements, and broadcast play sessions. To gain the benefits of a shield, you have to spend an action to raise it, which then gives you a bonus to AC and TAC (+1 for a light shield or +2 for a heavy shield) for 1 round. Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Shields don't have potency runes. Instead, you might pick up a shield made of a durable material like adamantine or craft a magic shield that catches arrows, reflects a spell back at its caster, or bites your enemies!

Fill Your Backpack!

The Equipment chapter also includes all sorts of other gear you might want on adventures, from rope to tents to musical instruments to religious symbols. Many of these items are required to perform certain tasks, like thieves' tools. The new system of item quality makes it pretty straightforward to figure out how tools work. For example, you need thieves' tools to pick a lock or disable many traps. Normal thieves' tools let you do this normally, expert-quality tools give you a +1 item bonus on your check, and master-quality tools give you a +2 item bonus on your check. Now what if you get stuck without your tools and need to improvise? Well, if you can scrabble something together, you've created a poor-quality set of tools, which gives you a -2 item penalty (much like the penalty for having an proficiency rank of untrained in a task). The same thing might happen if you had to turn vines into improvised rope or use an empty chest as a drum for an improvised musical instrument!

Take a Load Off!

Not everything you can purchase is adventuring gear. Cinco de Cuatro wouldn't be complete without some luxuries like a bottle of fine wine or renting an extravagant suite! You might even rent an animal to ride about town. Of course, an extravagant lifestyle can have a high cost, and the chapter includes costs of living per week, month, or year so you can accurately budget your lifestyle decisions.

Switch It Up!

One of the squidgy parts of Pathfinder First Edition we wanted to clear up with the redesign is how holding, wielding, and stowing items work, particularly switching how many hands you're using for an item. Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action. We've codified the rules for many of the basic things you do with items so the other rules interface with them cleanly. That [[A]] code you see there indicates this is an action, and will be a lovely icon in the final rulebook!

[[A]] Interact

Manipulate

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or do some similar action. You may have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

The equipment chapter also covers the full rules on item quality and on Bulk, plus a section on how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.

Now you have a basic rundown of the gear in this book. We'll dive deep into magic items at a later date. Looking at what you see here, what sort of useful, peculiar, or silly things do you think your character will spend their silver pieces on?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
151 to 200 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Is there anyway we can have an armor-filler type of outfit? Something that armor-based magic effects can be applied to but otherwise doesn't provide an armor benefit at all?

Yes please! A set of magic clothes is what I want much more than bracers of armor.

Malthraz wrote:
Serum wrote:
No....this was your chance to ditch studded leather.

Thank you.

Down with studded leather!!

This just makes me want to have studded leather in the game MORE. Count me in for always having studded leather in pathfinder. ;)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I just realized that mundane weapons that don't have potency runes can be described as impotent. You might need to interact with that staff with both hands in order to counteract its impotance.

This has caused many immature giggles on my end of the line. I'm so sorry.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I did like a previous suggestion that raising a shield took an action, but the benefit lasted until you were hit, or you spent a (free?) action to lower it again.

Then, when your shield is raised, you lose your free hand.

graystone wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Is there anyway we can have an armor-filler type of outfit? Something that armor-based magic effects can be applied to but otherwise doesn't provide an armor benefit at all?
Yes please! A set of magic clothes is what I want much more than bracers of armor.

This makes me happy.

graystone wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
Serum wrote:
No....this was your chance to ditch studded leather.

Thank you.

Down with studded leather!!

This just makes me want to have studded leather in the game MORE. Count me in for always having studded leather in pathfinder. ;)

This makes me sad.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Some random thoughts:

-No magical shield enhancement bonus seems to mean less AC overall.

-Slightly better touch AC will help lessen the impact of some save or suck spells (eradication...).

-Interact seems like a fine mechanic on paper but I fear it will risk slowing the game down, especially in combat. We'll see.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3

Scarab Sages

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hope Clerics and Paladins will have an option to perform somatic components with their shields and/or favored weapons to allow for weapons and magic to be used in combination without prohibitive action cost. Same thing for Wizards and staves. The three-action system per se seems very amenable to gishing; it would be sad to lose that to unnecessarily restrictive administration.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?
We actually don't know yet that it goes the other way. The blog says "Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed,..." so it's possible that only increasing your handedness requires an action while releasing your grip could be a free action.
Yeah, we can probably tighten up the language on that to make it clearer. If, as in the example upthread, you were releasing your weapon to open a door, releasing your grip should be part of that first Interact action and returning and rebalancing your grip on the weapon would be a second action. You shouldn't need three.
Okay, I actually kind of like taking an action to properly grip your weapon.

Seconded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Let me be possibly the first in this blog to echo the sentiment from the weapons blog. I can live with bastard swords and long swords technically being misnamed arming swords and the like... but I have a strong antipathy toward 'leather armour'.

Give me a gambeson, it looks cooler, is way more effective than people assume, requires fewer dead cows to explain, and--unlike leather armour--has substantial evidence that it actually existed. If a distinction between cloth/padded armour is needed, padded armour can be the thinner padded jacket that's usually worn under chain mail or heavier armours and 'leather'/gambeson can be more padded.

And if this is too much to accept, that leather armour isn't really better than a good gambeson or that it's more interesting and plausible... then at least do us all a solid and stop calling the brigandine 'studded leather', and make sure to include the description of the metal plates inside the jacket which the studs are supporting.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Thanks for pointing me to stumble upon the Gambeson, which (from the Wikipedia article just linked) appears to correspond to Pathfinder 1st Edition Quilted Cloth Armor. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, this light armor has the special property of giving you DR 3 vs ranged piercing weapons (which the Wikipedia article just linked even seems to corroborate), which -- combined with its high Maximum Dexterity Bonus and lack of Armor Check Penalty -- makes it especially suitable for some situations so that a chain shirt is not always the best light armor for someone who has a really good but not totally insane Dexterity bonus. Specifically:

Second Darkness spoiler & metagaming:
The Drow often use hand crossbows, which do only 1d4 before any bonuses, but are really annoying for often having poison on them (and even before you meet the Drow, you are reasonably likely to take a few hits from other ranged piercing weapons), so DR 3 vs ranged piercing weapons negates up to 75% of their effectiveness.

That said, Pathfinder 1st Edition had only quite uncommon special benefits of certain armors/shields. Unfortunately, even though this blog post says "In Pathfinder First Edition, many types of armor were effectively obsolete because you could just buy a better type, but for Pathfinder Second Edition, we’ve made a few new adjustments to make each type a little different", unlike the Weapons blog, it doesn't give much indication of what it actually does for different types of armor and shield.

* * * * * * * *

I noticed that this blog says no Potency Runes for shields. Seems you would need to have 2 Potency Rune options -- defensive, and offensive (in case you are going to do Shield Bashes or the Captain America schtick).

* * * * * * * *

_ wrote:

Regarding armor class, we now know that magic armor doesn't do anything funky like using DR. The only cool thing about magic armor is that it automatically adds to your touch AC, and it gives you a cloak of protection saving throw bonus to all your saves. Why it would help you with fortitude or will saves, I don't know, but hey, it's magic!

{. . .}

The tinfoil hat effect. Wait, that should work instead with metal armor, regardless of whether it's magic . . . .

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not too sure I like the «runes» part; I preferred magic to be an inherent aspect of a weapon rather than something attached to it like a label. It does remind me a lot of the gem sockets in Diablo. I suppose the terminology would make a bit more sense if the runes were transferable... otherwise, why not just keep saying «+1 armor»?

At least they removed the confusion over the double meaning of «enchantment».


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And do these weapons and armor suits with Potency runes still require Resonance? How does that work? Are there +x items that AREN'T magical?

The Exchange

I am fine with save bonuses from armor for fort saves and reflex saves. Not sure how they justify it for will saves. Ok with touch ac for shields. Think it is dumb to add it in for Touch AC for armor unless it is really low. They don't go into magic armor when describing touch AC which is also confusing. Does magic studded leather grant a bonus to touch AC when normal studded leather does not? If the magical bonus applies to touch AC then how much of the total plus is added since it only applies half of a chain shirts regular ac bonus to touch attacks


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Leyren wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


I don't think it is currently possible in the playtest rules for a character who is at least trained in both armor and shields to have a worse proficiency from shields because abilities that give you really good proficiencies with armor tend to always raise your proficiency with shields. Now, conceivably we could have shields just not be a proficiency at all and just everyone can use them, and it would help simplify that bit of the rules too. I suppose we might ask you guys about that later in the surveys!

I assumed it would be possible to upgrade proficiencies with feats if a character doesn't get these from its class. So specializing in either one would be possible.

I like the shield proficiency, speculating that higher proficiency levels allows characters to do more interesting actions with them (without additional feat investment).

I believe the people who did a mock math run of a two-hander vs a shield-user (shield-user had a clear edge in the 1-on-1, but they made a lot of assumptions to do the best they could) were not aware of any of the additional shield feats we have in the game, so that would be just the basics without investing.

So we're getting ninjas? Because they are my favorite class <3

The PF1 ones always felt really jank, like some third party. Never supported.


Just because magical armor now adds bonuses to saves and AC, plus touch AC, does not mean that there isn't still rings of protections for wizards, or cloaks of resistance either. I think there will be options to be able to customize your character with different configurations of items to meet your item needs. However there may still be the restrictions of can't being able to combine like bonuses. The nice thing is that is gives armor wearers a free cloak and ring slot to use instead of worrying about rings of prot and cloaks of resistance. What I'd like to see is the possibility of enchanting any item (perhaps at a higher cost than the standard item) with any enchantment you want. So, a helm of resistance, a ring of true seeing, a cloak of water walking, or boots of protection +3. Mind you, it is nice being able to assume the general uses of a particular item via their slot (movement for boots, etc). We'll see what they do. They'll make changes, but will also want to keep things as familiar to PF1E as possible so its not a total relearn of everything.

Dark Archive

Joe M. wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
I also don't like that only the lower proficiency applies... why? Because it is more balanced that way? The math requires it? But I thought armor already gave a smaller bonus anyway, such as "mere" +2 for chain shirt?

Since it looks like your level is folded into proficiency, you wouldn't want to apply it twice.

As to why the lower and not the higher one applies . . . a character completely untrained in armor but really good with shields (captain america brawler type) puts on full plate. This character shouldn't be able to use the full plate as if she were trained to the level she is with shields—don't want a great proficiency to "smuggle in" untrained items via a mechanical loophole. So just apply the lower proficiency.

I get that, but it makes me question the whole idea behind two separate proficiencies (shield prof. and armor prof.) affecting AC, because it doesn't make sense if your legendary proficiency level in armor would suddenly disappear as soon as you pick a shield, right? Assuming, of course, that your shield prof. is dramatically lower, which might very well be a realistic scenario in PF2 if I understood correctly.

I'd say that it'd be best to get rid of touch AC and two AC-related proficiencies; wouldn't "defense proficiency" or simply "armor and shield proficiency" be enough and apply versus all attack rolls? Another option would be to go the 4E route with three defenses that are derived from your saves (i.e. 10 + save mod.) so that touch attacks would target your Ref defense. But that's another thing altogether, and I know it'd likely infuriate a lot of PF1 fans.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also not thrilled with the shield preview as it tells us nothing about how much a light or heavy shield will absorb in damage, how much damage they can absorb before being ruined and how various materials increase both the durability and absorbing effects of shields. This is very disappointing as I was looking forward to a renaissance based paladin in full plate and shield or a roman legionnaire.
I also do not like that shields do not get rune bumps to their AC, so a shield is just a +1 or +2 throughout your career. This smacks HEAVILY of 4E where magical shields did not affect your armor class and instead granted encounter or daily powers. The reason to be a sword & board is to have a very good AC and now I feel like I am being gimped and I don't like it, especially because I know they will come up with a two weapon feat will grant an ac bump and the bo staff is already seeming to mimic the shield ability with the parry option. Do not make shields subpar! People have carried them for millennia because they work!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
Just because magical armor now adds bonuses to saves and AC, plus touch AC, does not mean that there isn't still rings of protections for wizards, or cloaks of resistance either. I think there will be options to be able to customize your character with different configurations of items to meet your item needs. However there may still be the restrictions of can't being able to combine like bonuses. The nice thing is that is gives armor wearers a free cloak and ring slot to use instead of worrying about rings of prot and cloaks of resistance. What I'd like to see is the possibility of enchanting any item (perhaps at a higher cost than the standard item) with any enchantment you want. So, a helm of resistance, a ring of true seeing, a cloak of water walking, or boots of protection +3. Mind you, it is nice being able to assume the general uses of a particular item via their slot (movement for boots, etc). We'll see what they do. They'll make changes, but will also want to keep things as familiar to PF1E as possible so its not a total relearn of everything.

Sorry but they stated they are removing rings & cloaks of protection. Bracers of Armor are still in the game but this is a huge drop off the cliff unless they make the chance of bracers show up around the same time you get low grade magical armor. This was never the case in 3.0/3.5 or pathfinder. Bracers of armor were ridiculously expensive for what they did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be fine with armor and shield Proficiency being rolled together. Light armor Proficiency lets you use bucklers and light shields, medium armor proficiency lets you use heavy shields, and heavy armor proficiency lets you use tower shields. It seems fitting, it's less bloat, and you don't have the weird shifting math with which proficiency bonus to use.


lordrichter wrote:

The natives of Bezodan, a jungle island chain, wear no armor and minimal jewelry. They carry spears and shields which they now threaten you with. Bracers would flavor wise be out of place for these islanders, though mechanically they provide exactly what I want for the chiefs bodyguards.

Wooden arm bracers and plates as well as grass or cloth wrappings and decorations about the wrists and ankles are seen in Aztec and Mayan depictions of warriors, and are used by several African tribes. So they could easily have bracers of armor and enchanted legwear as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3

Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)

Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
I also do not like that shields do not get rune bumps to their AC, so a shield is just a +1 or +2 throughout your career.

A +2 bonus to AC is a big deal in PF2 math and remains that way throughout the game.


24 people marked this as a favorite.

I love almost everything I've read about. I have one concern however. You keep mentioning all these icons that will be appearing in the text to denote types of actions, etc. Being blind, icons like this are a real pain. I can’t read them with my software. This makes it impossible for me to even create a character without help. Please find a way in which people like me can enjoy your products without having to resort to outside assistance. Thanks for listening.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:

Okay, so Bracers of Armor will presumably be covering the magical enhancement bonus for the Monk that potency runes are applying to conventional armors. Presumably, the Monk will have a class feat/feature allowing him to protect himself unarmored to the same-ish extent that regular armor provides. So how will he be getting the potency rune equivalents for his unarmed attacks? Provided by items like prayer beads or hand wraps? An innate class feature?

Also, one thing I really didn't like was how certain magical effects were consigned to armor. For example, Glamored is a really nifty little enchantment just for the sake of being able to easily illustrate how you want your character to look. Unless you're a Monk. With the exception of a very obscure non-armor magic item hidden away in an Eberron book, there was no way to achieve this same level of aesthetic customization for a Monk character.

Is there anyway we can have an armor-filler type of outfit? Something that armor-based magic effects can be applied to but otherwise doesn't provide an armor benefit at all?

Hat of disguise?

"You make yourself—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—look different. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype). Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person or gender."

For 1,800 gp you can slightly change your appearance (add a mole to your calf, as an example) and completely redo your dress.


Planpanther wrote:
Markus Hyytinen wrote:
Applying an armor's enchantment bonus to saving throws is brilliant. Bravo!
IDK, its a flat bonus to everybody attached to WBL. Why not bake it into leveling and leave it off equipment?

Because of the universal proficiency system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

Property runes? So there's other types besides potency? Like for other enchantments? THIS IS AWESOME BAAAAAAAM!!!!

Also gives a reason o have higher quality equipment that can have more enchants! ALL HAIL! You can keep your exotic weapon relevant through entire campaign without finding Azlanti Aldori Swords? YEAH!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Urg. I am not excited about seeing +X bonuses on weapons and armor. These always struck me as the worst combination of being both boring and essential for characters. While it does seem nice that the new armor will replace multiple entries of the old Big 6, that just makes it even more essential to have and will require lots of gold to stay competent. When I spend gold with my characters, I like getting new options/stuff rather than just making numbers on my old stuff relevant again.

Really want to know more about the "small number of traits" on armors. Making more types of armor relevant is a great goal, but we don't seem to have any details to support that happening yet.

Shields... look underwhelming so far. I really hope that there is something to make shields more useful, because using up an action to get 1-2 AC doesn't feel that impactful, especially when they can't be enchanted like armor. Shields should be impressive, after all shield use in real life was popular because it was more than kinda good.


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant potency not property...

Can you fill us in on how the item bonus to attack rolls from higher-quality weapons interacts with the item bonus to attack rolls from potency runes? If like bonuses don't stack, then something is becoming redundant/obsolete here...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

I'm going to go ahead and assume you meant potency not property...

Can you fill us in on how the item bonus to attack rolls from higher-quality weapons interacts with the item bonus to attack rolls from potency runes? If like bonuses don't stack, then something is becoming redundant/obsolete here...

Higher quality then becomes about the slots instead of about the bonus. Still desirable to have that Master Sword with more stuff! compared to +3 rusty sword, assuming trash quality can even be enchanted at all.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There are both potency and property runes.

Both are limited by the item quality of the weapon or armor. You need at least Expert to enhance at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So while the +X item bonus to attack rolls from a potency rune does effectively "override" the item bonus to attack rolls from item quality, item quality is still important as it is a requirement for higher level enchanting?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So your base AC scales too, right? Even Unarmored AC? Like they must, as everyone's attack bonus scales, so for compensation basic AC should catch up...


Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

<3


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and this is more of a weapon question than armor question, but Logan DID mention it above... I see magic weapons still apply a bonus to hit on top of the bonus damage dice. Can we not? ^^;

You guys have made a big deal about the weapon quality actually providing the attack bonus; i.e., a Legendary-quality, perfectly balanced ultimate longsword getting a +3 bonus to hit. This is great, I love that. Letting the magic bonus be the extra damage is also great, it gives them distinct design space from each other and keeps it simple.

Having both provide a bonus to hit, except they have the same name and so you have to remember / remind players that they don't stack... I thought that was the sort of thing we were trying to get away from here. Not to mention that magic weapons getting a bonus to hit just immediately deprecates the importance and coolness of having a better-crafted weapon.

I'd love to go back to what everyone thought it was, the weapon craft quality being the hit bonus and the magic potency bonus being the damage bonus. It's totally okay for you to express a weapon as a +3 Master Longsword. Really <3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

*Two thumbs up* This makes me happy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Oh, and this is more of a weapon question than armor question, but Logan DID mention it above... I see magic weapons still apply a bonus to hit on top of the bonus damage dice. Can we not? ^^;

You guys have made a big deal about the weapon quality actually providing the attack bonus; i.e., a Legendary-quality, perfectly balanced ultimate longsword getting a +3 bonus to hit. This is great, I love that. Letting the magic bonus be the extra damage is also great, it gives them distinct design space from each other and keeps it simple.

Having both provide a bonus to hit, except they have the same name and so you have to remember / remind players that they don't stack... I thought that was the sort of thing we were trying to get away from here. Not to mention that magic weapons getting a bonus to hit just immediately deprecates the importance and coolness of having a better-crafted weapon.

I'd love to go back to what everyone thought it was, the weapon craft quality being the hit bonus and the magic potency bonus being the damage bonus. It's totally okay for you to express a weapon as a +3 Master Longsword. Really <3

Indeed, I liked it when that seemed to be the case. I think it's also pretty intuitive that a finely crafted, well-balanced sword is easier to hit with and more capable of retaining magic power, but the enchanted sword cuts deeper and does more damage. Let the quality and enchantments share the kids, but please make them stay divorced!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Initial thoughts:

Mechanical differences for armor beyond simple bonuses? Yes, please.
Magic is encoded via runes like in many fantasy stories, the Witcher & Dragon Age games? Hell yes, please!

We're going for flatter math and people are decrying that bonuses won't go as high as in PF1?

Shields can absorb damage at times and provide an AC bonus vs. just a flat AC bonus in PF1 and some people think shields are being nerfed?!?

PF2 provides the opportunity to clean up the action economy and codify actions more consistently and suddenly we need free actions so that a character can avoid having to make 1 attack at a one-handed disadvantage?

The power curve can't always go upwards, folks. I for one, relish the idea of tactical, character, and gear variety that PF2 seems to be aiming to achieve.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

I don't understand the design goal here. I've never had a problem with too many enchantments being put onto items. The cost of magical equipment always handled that just fine. Unless you are abolishing WBL, but if you are you're going to do that then your world is going to be surrounded with "in zone 1 you can only find craftsman who can build expert quality weapons. To get better quality weapons you need to go to zone 2 where all of the master craftsman are hiding. Then zone 3 is where you'll find the legendary craftsman". That would of course be stupid, so I'm assuming that's not why we're getting this rule. I'd definitely like to understand why we are.

As it currently stands, my group would see the potency rune slot system as "different for the sake of being different" and dislike it as such.


Had me when reflecting spells was mentioned.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
The cost of magical equipment always handled that just fine. Unless you are abolishing WBL, but if you are you're going to do that then your world is going to be surrounded with "in zone 1 you can only find craftsman who can build expert quality weapons. To get better quality weapons you need to go to zone 2 where all of the master craftsman are hiding. Then zone 3 is where you'll find the legendary craftsman". That would of course be stupid, so I'm assuming that's not why we're getting this rule. I'd definitely like to understand why we are.

Why is this stupid? Sandpoint is less likely to have craftspeople as good as you'll find in Magnimar, and you may need to travel to Absalom to find the best weaponsmiths. That seems like proper world design to me, though I suppose if you force the pejorative wording you did you can make any idea sound bad, because everyone knows the best way to scare people off is imply anything works like in an MMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

I really like what I am hearing here.

Maybe each rune could have its own name.

Maybe these runes can have some of the following effects:

El - + hit or AC.
Eld - +damage to undead
Tir - Restore a spell point when defeating a foe
Nef - Adds knockback
Eth - Penetrates DR
Ith - +damage
Tal - +poison damage
Ral - +fire damage
Ort - +lightening damage
Thul - +cold damage

Sound familiar?!?!?

Jokes aside, I do really like this idea. A lot.

It would to be good to hear more about special materials mithral, cold iron, adamantine etc. as well.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'd love to go back to what everyone thought it was, the weapon craft quality being the hit bonus and the magic potency bonus being the damage bonus. It's totally okay for you to express a weapon as a +3 Master Longsword. Really <3

I agree with this. Or perhaps there could be a different word for the different levels of potency, although this may get confusing. Example:

+1 - Infused
+2 - Enchanted
+3 - Divine
+4 - Celestial
+5 - Godly

Anyway. What I am hearing about itemisation is somewhat similar to some of the house rules I made. So, very happy.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So, shields don't get magical upgrades, armor works more like it does in Starfinder, and also gives save buffs? The latter feels like something that just leads to more algorithm creep than we previously had since offensive powers are likely to just buff themselves up to match the new defense curve. Also, does raising a shield as an action mean that to use a shield each round I have to have less actions per round? If so, how does this encourage the use of shields more than we already have and not just reinforce the paradigm of ditching them in favor of an open hand or two-handed weapon use?


Evilgm wrote:
Why is this stupid?

Because I don't want to feel like I'm playing World of Warcraft?

Evilgm wrote:
Sandpoint is less likely to have craftspeople as good as you'll find in Magnimar

Sure. I mean, it doesn't have to be true, but it can be based on a smaller population meaning there's less chance of having people who comprise a small percentage of the overall population (just like you will be more likely to find a Wayang in Absalom then you would in Sandpoint).

Evilgm wrote:
and you may need to travel to Absalom to find the best weaponsmiths.

Makes sense.

Evilgm wrote:
That seems like proper world design to me, though I suppose if you force the pejorative wording you did you can make any idea sound bad, because everyone knows the best way to scare people off is imply anything works like in an MMO.

Now here's how World of Warcraft differs from tabletop RPGs (at least the ones I play in, maybe you do keep a strict WoW-esque design to your campaigns). Level 1 characters are just as likely to start a campaign in Sandpoint as they are in Magnimar as they are in Absalom. If we're removing WBL to gate off high level equipment and instead relying on geographical restrictions, it means your level 1 characters can't start out the game in Absalom. They ALWAYS have to start at Sandpoint (or Sandpoint level regions). Once they get to Paragon tier they won't be able to travel to Absalom, they'll first have to go to Magnimar. And then only once they hit epic tier will they be able to get to Absalom.

If that's how your games work then you'll not have any problem. That's now how my games work though.

I don't like WBL. I would love to see it removed. But having a separation of certain quality items into discrete zones is a worse solution. So that is why I trust Paizo won't be doing it.

Wheldrake wrote:
Regarding armor class, we now know that magic armor doesn't do anything funky like using DR. The only cool thing about magic armor is that it automatically adds to your touch AC, and it gives you a cloak of protection saving throw bonus to all your saves. Why it would help you with fortitude or will saves, I don't know, but hey, it's magic!

In my games pure arcane casters will often let their AC decline. There's a 50/50 chance they'll bother boosting cloaks, but they typically rely on mage armor and such to keep their AC high. Merging bracers of defense and cloaks of resistance means that they'll almost always buy bracers.

So it's a good way to get a money sink into spellcasters, just like martials, but I think there was a better way to do it (especially given the significantly reduced spell slots we now have).


doc the grey wrote:
So, shields don't get magical upgrades

Having AC vary between +0 and +9 (depending on whether you use a shield or not) makes it really hard to balance between characters. Given they're removing 3/4 BAB because they need to make the game's math tighter (and 3/4 BAB only has a difference of +5 at 20th level which is substantially less than +9 which can be achieved as early as 14th level), I'm not surprised to see the removal of enhancement bonuses on shields. My group doesn't actually use shields very often so I doubt they'll have a strong reaction to this.

However the only way I can see the math working for +2 to be a meaningful difference between two-handing and shield use is if two-handing has a substantially reduced effect on the game. That will cause 2 handed and 1 handed weapons to deal roughly the same damage which will mean they're making the two fighting styles more balanced against each other, but only by removing the thing that makes the fighting styles different. I expect that will go down less well in my group.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So lumbering around in a chain suit makes you harder to touch? That's weird, wrong and crazy - but probably works better in the game! Maybe a half way house would only having proficiency and magic bonuses count against touch AC?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Now here's how World of Warcraft differs from tabletop RPGs (at least the ones I play in, maybe you do keep a strict WoW-esque design to your campaigns). Level 1 characters are just as likely to start a campaign in Sandpoint as they are in Magnimar as they are in Absalom. If we're removing WBL to gate off high level equipment and instead relying on geographical restrictions, it means your level 1 characters can't start out the game in Absalom. They ALWAYS have to start at Sandpoint (or Sandpoint level regions). Once they get to Paragon tier they won't be able to travel to Absalom, they'll first have to go to Magnimar. And then only once they hit epic tier will they be able to get to Absalom.

If that's how your games work then you'll not have any problem. That's now how my games work though.

I don't like WBL. I would love to see it removed. But having a separation of certain quality items into discrete zones is a worse solution. So that is why I trust Paizo won't be doing it.

So much this. Geografical restriction tied to power level contraints so much space design for TTRPG that is unviable.

I will like to see that instead of WBL being a limit it indicated Level Adjustments, so you can have all the wealth that like but from this treshold onward you gain a +1 LA for each X amount of gear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Why is this stupid?

Because I don't want to feel like I'm playing World of Warcraft?

Evilgm wrote:
Sandpoint is less likely to have craftspeople as good as you'll find in Magnimar

Sure. I mean, it doesn't have to be true, but it can be based on a smaller population meaning there's less chance of having people who comprise a small percentage of the overall population (just like you will be more likely to find a Wayang in Absalom then you would in Sandpoint).

Evilgm wrote:
and you may need to travel to Absalom to find the best weaponsmiths.

Makes sense.

Evilgm wrote:
That seems like proper world design to me, though I suppose if you force the pejorative wording you did you can make any idea sound bad, because everyone knows the best way to scare people off is imply anything works like in an MMO.

Now here's how World of Warcraft differs from tabletop RPGs (at least the ones I play in, maybe you do keep a strict WoW-esque design to your campaigns). Level 1 characters are just as likely to start a campaign in Sandpoint as they are in Magnimar as they are in Absalom. If we're removing WBL to gate off high level equipment and instead relying on geographical restrictions, it means your level 1 characters can't start out the game in Absalom. They ALWAYS have to start at Sandpoint (or Sandpoint level regions). Once they get to Paragon tier they won't be able to travel to Absalom, they'll first have to go to Magnimar. And then only once they hit epic tier will they be able to get to Absalom.

If that's how your games work then you'll not have any problem. That's now how my games work though.

I don't like WBL. I would love to see it removed. But having a separation of certain quality items into discrete zones is a worse solution. So that is why I trust Paizo won't be doing it.

Yeah, I don't see them doing anything like that. Absalom may scale higher and have more expensive, higher quality gear available, but that won't be the ONLY gear there - it's not some weird planar city comprised entirely of high level rich people. The high end stuff would just be on top of the regular stuff, because it's the kind of place with the size, economy and importance to be able to attract that level of craftsfolk.

So you should be able to start anywhere in the world just fine.


OK this potency runes and slots based in item quality are totally FFVII

Overall I like the inclusion of Cloak of Resistance in Armor, free item slots are always welcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sad to hear magic weapons add an item bonus to hit; I thought having the weapon quality be the to hit factor and the magic enhancement do damage was really interesting. And I'm a little concerned about the grip changing actions myself. That could be OK though; it just means one handed weapons are a lot more appealing than they used to be.

Otherwise, I'm still pretty hyped.

Charon Onozuka wrote:
While it does seem nice that the new armor will replace multiple entries of the old Big 6, that just makes it even more essential to have and will require lots of gold to stay competent.

You know, people keep saying this, but I'm not so sure it is true. The blog says: As you adventure, you’ll find or craft magic armor. It does not say you can buy magic armor. Given we know magical crafting can be taken by any class with a feat, and that we have good reason to assume downtime will be a bigger part of the game this edition... What if you can't buy magic armor anymore, and instead are expected to craft your own when you reach a certain level of proficiency? (And we don't know if crafting will just use 1/2 gold costs this time, either.) One skill feat per party is a pretty low cost if you haven't found competitive magic armor yet.

I was already wondering if maybe magic weapons might be cooler if they didn't interact with the economy as they do now. If selling them wasn't as much of a thing, but perhaps you could find someone to trade +1 weapons with you on a one to one basis.

Granted, I could be reading too much into that sentence, and it could mean: As you adventure, you’ll find or (hire someone to) craft magic armor. And if crafting magical items isn't especially difficult, one would think a market would develop for them... Still, I would really dig it if WBL (if it even exists) didn't go towards weapons and armor. In fact, the only section that talks about things having costs is the Downtime section for cost of living. There's a lot of text there hyping up the extravagant life style if living like a pauper means you wind up with a more powerful character.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Im not sure i now understand TAC, i wouldve thought lighter armour would add more? TAC bonuses higher on lighter armour, a medium with equivilent bonuses, heavy armours with lower TAC bonuses. Clearly im not understaning what the TAC represents. Can anyone elaborate for me.


So do Potency Runes stack with Weapon/Armor Quality? Are we going to want Quality Weapons or Magic weapons?

151 to 200 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards