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
301 to 350 of 660 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Cat-thulhu wrote:
Worldnt that +1 be their proficiency bonus with light armour? That is expert training in light armour perhaps?

As a 1st level Rogue? I'd be very surprised. They aren't exactly the 'awesome at armor from 1st level' class thematically.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

We know that weapons go up to +5, so it makes sense to have to-hit bonuses built in even if they don't stack.

Exactly how that works remains a mystery.

Is that +5 to hit? If so, then perhaps my suggestion that Master Quality = 3 Slots and Legendary Quality = 5 Slots may hold some weight?

Legendary Quality Longsword would be +3 to-hit Item Bonus, and have 5 slots. Then affixed with 5 Potency Runes, that would be +5 to-hit Item Bonus and overtake the Item Bonus from Quality.

Resulting in a Legendary Longsword of Potency (5) that has a +5 Item Bonus to-hit and deals 5d8 Damage.

Man, all of this talk of weapon slots and armor slots really makes me want to play Monster Hunter.


ElSilverWind wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

We know that weapons go up to +5, so it makes sense to have to-hit bonuses built in even if they don't stack.

Exactly how that works remains a mystery.

Is that +5 to hit? If so, then perhaps my suggestion that Master Quality = 3 Slots and Legendary Quality = 5 Slots may hold some weight?

Legendary Quality Longsword would be +3 to-hit Item Bonus, and have 5 slots. Then affixed with 5 Potency Runes, that would be +5 to-hit Item Bonus and overtake the Item Bonus from Quality.

Resulting in a Legendary Longsword of Potency (5) that has a +5 Item Bonus to-hit and deals 5d8 Damage.

Man, all of this talk of weapon slots and armor slots really makes me want to play Monster Hunter.

Shouldn't that be 6d8?

We don't know that potency runes each equal a single +1, do we? It could be the runes themselves have a quality. So a Legendary Potency Rune would add +3. And runes might well be limited to items of equal or higher quality. So to get a +5 weapon it might have a legendary base weapon with both a legendary and a Master potency rune installed. Then any other slots it may have might have things like Bane or Holy runes installed.

Hrm, if magic weapons already add extra dice for each +1, than what will things like Holy and Bane do? Assuming they still exist that is. Maybe add 2 dice when they trigger instead of the standard 1 for potency? Seems a bit underwhelming. 3? Regardless, I can see using buckets of damage dice pretty quickly. Which could be kind of fun. It was all the excuse I needed to get another two sets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mhm... with the action required to to change the grip on a weapon I'd assume so far that two-handed caster/warrior builds are forced to either use one handed weapons or natural weapons and no shields.

The somatic action requires a free hand (claw, tentacle) and in the case of clerics presenting your holy symbol also requires one hand. I mean with the cleric it could be easily fixed by making the holy symbol available as an addon, modification (sorry my english isn't that firm) to other gear a mask of nethys for a helmet, a shield with the holy symbol or a big pin on your chest maybe even a semi hidden inlay on a dagger for norgorber.

But many of the other kinds of caster/warriors are kinda in trouble right now. Dragon Disciple / Eldritch Knight builds who relied on two-handers. Eldritch Archer will be impossible, since you cannot not use bow or crossbow.

Of course you can still use scimitar builds. I would kindly ask if there are already options planned to play around this rule? And if there are options to plans in which cases thse this rule still be relevant?

Most martial characters will probably have some form of quick draw.


There probably will be (class) feats improving action economy. I hope?


MerlinCross wrote:
Really in practice only Slot restriction removed was Rings.

Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.

I’d certainly like Bracers of Armor available as a coat or shirt too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Okay, question for you. Just listened to the Twitch feed and they mentioned how to compute AC. Let's compare this to how we compute attacks:

* AC is 10 + Proficiency + Stat + Armor Bonus + (Item Quality/Magic)
* Attack is 1d20 + Proficiency + Stat + (Item Quality/Magic)

I can't see how this doesn't lead to some huge issues. Assuming two characters of the same level, one of whom is progressing offensively, the other defensively, at the same rate, the discrepancy of *Armor Bonus* in defense essentially means that the *FIRST* attack by the offensive guy has a <50% chance to hit the defensive guy, and no chance of +10 critical. After that, it gets worse...

Is there some part of this equation I'm missing here... This seems fundamentally broken. I was assuming that AC might be 5 + Armor + ... to account for the extra addition here, but if it's not, I can't see how this works out.

Are you sure both attack and AC include the addition of your level? I got the impression AC used the armour bonus instead of level.

Of course this may also problematic since it means heavy armours are awesome until level 9 or so, then after this point your attack bonus will exceed the static armour bonus and continue to exceed by an even greater margin as you level up.

Yes, we are sure your level factors into your AC. For one, your proficiency bonus scales with your level, that's explicit. People have been saying "level + proficiency + ..." but they really mean "proficiency + ..." where proficiency includes your level as a base. Secondly it was stated that your AC is "10 + your level + ..." in the twitch feed as well.

EDIT: Given the number of people referring to this incorrectly, if this is kept as-is through the playtest (proficiency bonuses do not become some fraction of your level), then I propose having the modifier itself separated, so proficiency bonus *is* only -2, 0, +1, +2, +3, and then explicitly adding your level to everything. I understand not doing that upfront, as I'd think linear scaling isn't a given.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Yes, but if the spell can conduct through the plate armor to them (Shocking Grasp being the most obvious example), then it actually isn't harder. Spells like this should be vs Touch AC. Spells that don't conduct through armor should be against Normal AC.

I don’t care for Shocking Grasp as an example much. It’s not representative of touch spells (just popular because of Magus), it contains its own conductivity rules (bonus attack vs. metal armor), and if it were actual conductivity, plate armor would provide immunity to the spell by conducting it to ground harmlessly and providing a Faraday cage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Also, oof man, casters that want to use a two-handed weapon just got a *huge* nerf. Need to spend two actions, one to let go of your greatsword, so you can cast a spell, use whatever actions you need to cast, then another action to grab your greatsword again?

Greatsword?

This nerfs quarterstaffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

how many wizards are fighting hard with their staff? It seems like the rule is intended where you could drop a hand from the staff to cast, it would only take an interact action to grab it again. If there are feats that let you do that faster I would be happy


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I see a lot of people comparing potency/property runes with things like materia and diablo. It seems like they are replacing the this flaming property is a +1 equivalent effect with it just being a rune that can be inscribed on an item. I don't know how many times I had to say that a weapon isn't actually a +2 weapon it just has an enchantment cost the same as a +2. Also runes in the setting have traditionally been symbols rather than physical objects

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ElSilverWind wrote:
Legendary Quality Longsword would be +3 to-hit Item Bonus, and have 5 slots. Then affixed with 5 Potency Runes, that would be +5 to-hit Item Bonus and overtake the Item Bonus from Quality.

Actually, per the stream, a +5 Rune is a single rune, just a better quality one than a +1 Rune, and does not take up additional 'slots'.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Greatsword?

This nerfs quarterstaffs.

Per the Friday stream, they've made the standard staff a one-handed weapon (that does more damage if wielded in two). So you're fine if willing to attack one-handed.

This also makes me much happier with bo staff as its own thing (assuming it's just a longer staff you cannot wield one handed).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
ElSilverWind wrote:
Legendary Quality Longsword would be +3 to-hit Item Bonus, and have 5 slots. Then affixed with 5 Potency Runes, that would be +5 to-hit Item Bonus and overtake the Item Bonus from Quality.

Actually, per the stream, a +5 Rune is a single rune, just a better quality one than a +1 Rune, and does not take up additional 'slots'.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Greatsword?

This nerfs quarterstaffs.

Per the Friday stream, they've made the standard staff a one-handed weapon (that does more damage if wielded in two). So you're fine if willing to attack one-handed.

This also makes me much happier with bo staff as its own thing (assuming it's just a longer staff you cannot wield one handed).

I do not want the club (escrima sticks, etc) folded into the quarterstaff, both are entirely different weapons. It seems like they made the quarterstaff a versatile weapon in 5th Ed due to the film version of Gandalf, sort of like the double-weapon Darth Maul fiasco of 3rd Ed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
I do not want the club (escrima sticks, etc) folded into the quarterstaff, both are entirely different weapons. It seems like they made the quarterstaff a versatile weapon in 5th Ed due to the film version of Gandalf, sort of like the double-weapon Darth Maul fiasco of 3rd Ed.

Club is probably still a completely different weapon, IMO. And the 'staff' is one handed but there are also two-handed staffs available if you want one (the 'bo staff' and possibly even the 'quarter staff').

So I'm not too concerned. One handed staffs as a thing are a reasonable enough option as long as two handed staffs and clubs also exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Greatsword?

This nerfs quarterstaffs.

Per the Friday stream, they've made the standard staff a one-handed weapon (that does more damage if wielded in two). So you're fine if willing to attack one-handed.

This also makes me much happier with bo staff as its own thing (assuming it's just a longer staff you cannot wield one handed).

But this rule in the end will only make magic staffs (for their spells and maybe defensive abilities) usable. A character wielding a weapon with the intent of wanting to attack with his weapon will surely find a plethora of weapons with more interesting properties in this regard (which I am already excited about). Also in the end the staff remains a one-handed weapon.

So beyond that there is no difference regarding other two-handed weapons which could be still dragged around with only one hand.

Also besides a few thrust and parries is there an example of wielding a staff one handed while the other hand remains free? Gandalf fighting style in the movies (if memory serves right) was based one using the staff in harmony with his sword. Striking/parrying with both at once, creating opportunities for slashes with staff parries. But consistently fighting only with a staff one handed... Mhm.

Also I would like to know if someone has a situation in mind in which a character would have a meaningful decision to make about this besides caster/warriors? Martial usually have quick draw and leatherwriststring things to get a hand free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.

So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

Liberty's Edge

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

[Mr T]I pity the fool who thinks there’s any limit to the amount of amulets or rings you can wear at one time.[/Mr T]


John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

I just have one belt, but I enchanted it with every ability I could muster. Blew all my resonance on this one belt. But you should see how it sparkles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

I say that if you have enough resonance to attune 50 different belts, have the bulk to wear 50 different belts, has the Silver Pieces for 50 different magic belts, and can find 50 different magic belts with effects that don’t overlap to make the others redundant, then go for it.

Yeah you may look silly, but who cares? You’re clearly proven yourself to be powerful enough to disregard the opinions of mere 1-belters.

This is is how my Rogue who walked around with some 15+ Ioun Stones hovering around his head at all times felt about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

28 or so and then I run out of Resonance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Ryan 783 wrote:

So, I will need to wait and see, but I hope they got rid of the biggest issue with pathfinder 1e armor which is that there were really only three options end of day.

Chain Shirt.
Mithral Breastplate
Full Plate.
(I guess no armor)

Hopefully this is different now.

After Ultimate Equipment, there were also:

Haramaki
Mithral Kikko (+1 better Armor Bonus than a Mithral Chain Shirt, same Max. Dex, ACP, and Arcane Failure)
O-yoroi (-1 worse AC than Full Plate, +1 better Max. Dex)
Tatami-do (-2 worse AC than Full Plate, +2 better Max. Dex)

Having more than 2-3 "best choices" in each category will be a nice change.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

Okay. That still solves the problem for those former slots, though. So long as you can wear more than people actually want, it doesn’t matter what the actual “slot” limit is.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malthraz wrote:
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 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

Keeping potency runes as their own thing, if you're going to tie effects to specific property runes, then use actual (Norse) runes:

Fe - enhance the effect of a critical hit (weapon)
Ur - add a bonus against fear effects (armor), add a die to weapon damage (weapon), enhance the DR granted by a shield (shield)
Thurs - add +1 to the bonus on saving throws (armor), enhance the effect of a barbarian's rage or grant a limited version of a barbarian's rage to non-barbarians (weapon)
Ass - allow a use of an ability of the next higher proficiency (armor, shield, weapon)
Reith - as the current called enhancement (weapon), reduce the penalty to skill checks (armor)
Kaun - add fire damage (weapon), add fire resistance (armor)
Gipt - as the current benevolent enhancement (shield), as the current calming enhancement (armor), as the current merciful enhancement (weapon)

and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
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 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

Keeping potency runes as their own thing, if you're going to tie effects to specific property runes, then use actual (Norse) runes:

Fe - enhance the effect of a critical hit (weapon)
Ur - add a bonus against fear effects (armor), add a die to weapon damage (weapon), enhance the DR granted by a shield (shield)
Thurs - add +1 to the bonus on saving throws (armor), enhance the effect of a barbarian's rage or grant a limited version of a barbarian's rage to non-barbarians (weapon)
Ass - allow a use of an ability of the next higher proficiency (armor, shield, weapon)
Reith - as the current called enhancement (weapon), reduce the penalty to skill checks (armor)
Kaun - add fire damage (weapon), add fire resistance (armor)
Gipt - as the current benevolent enhancement (shield), as the current calming enhancement (armor), as the current merciful enhancement (weapon)

and so on.

I think someone completely missed an Elder Scrolls reference...

and yes, I think this system compares to what elder scrolls does. Given the economy of selling back your weapon in order to upgrade it (which was handwaved in PFS previously), having runes for weapons/armor makes sense. I'd assume these could be detatched and placed on another weapon/armor if you later want to upgrade.

That being said, I'll agree that this system does reek of one intended to expose the game mechanics. Stuff like this, while it's not a strong functional change, makes the world *feel* different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Really in practice only Slot restriction removed was Rings.

Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.

I’d certainly like Bracers of Armor available as a coat or shirt too.

Rings I can see a limit of 10 unless you start wearing toe rings. Amulets well that's a lot of string around your neck. Can't see belts. I concede the body/chest slot though of the top of my head, Body slot items seem to be worn under other items anyway.

Also for those saying Resonace is the new limiting factor, I can still see people having enough for 6-8 items anyway so what's the point?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

The description for the Hat of Disguise also says essentially that the hat can be changed into another something worn on the head as part of the disguise. I never read that as "including no headwear of any kind", and that's the kind of aesthetic freedom I'm looking for. Glamored assumes the end result is still something
...

Yes, the spell covers clothing, but I always read the hat of disguise's specific mention of how it affected its own self as being a "specific trumps general" modification to the typical rules for the spell. The spell covers all clothing. The hat of disguise has a special description of what happens to the hat that does not include "no headwear at all"; the spell as specifically enacted by this hat does not include "no headwear at all". If it was meant to, then why would the hat even make a special mention of what happened to itself?

Hence why it didn't come to mind.


ElSilverWind wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

I say that if you have enough resonance to attune 50 different belts, have the bulk to wear 50 different belts, has the Silver Pieces for 50 different magic belts, and can find 50 different magic belts with effects that don’t overlap to make the others redundant, then go for it.

Yeah you may look silly, but who cares? You’re clearly proven yourself to be powerful enough to disregard the opinions of mere 1-belters.

This is is how my Rogue who walked around with some 15+ Ioun Stones hovering around his head at all times felt about it.

I think ultimately I'm on your side.

BUT...
I really don't want the game to actively (intentionally or not) support narrative discord.
A guy walking around with 50 belts strapped around him (or 6 belts strapped around him) screams "this is a stupid game". Now, to be clear, I'm not saying "stupid game" in this context means "bad game". I can totally get someone embracing absurdity as a glorious feature. And, frankly, PF isn't hard to nudge into that territory. But I don't want to go there myself. I prefer to soften those aspects of PF and drive toward a more "rational(ish) world that has gnomes and wish spells".

So I think the point of this rambling is, I can get behind your position, but we should tread lightly and be thoughtful about keeping the game readily adaptable to a wide range of styles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't feel resonance allows so much as two of the same type of item (except jewelry and ioun stones), but it does mean "slotless" items like ioun stones and magic tattoos don't have to cost extra anymore. It also gives more flexibility for having two items in a given "place" or "Chakra" if they are sufficiently different.

So you can have pants now in addition to boots. You can have epaulettes over your cloak or cape. You can have a necklace over a choker. You can have a robe over a shirt and under your breastplate. You can wear glasses under a mask. You can wear both a belt and a sash. Etc


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A quick Google search shows there apparently is a fashion involving multiple belts, and multiple bracelets. Also, overshoes designed to be worn over shoes.

So, while some may think it is silly (I don't terribly care for the belt thing myself) I'm gonna go ahead and doubt claims that wearing a bunch of belt-slot and wrist-slot items is too unrealistic if brought up, at least at my table.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.
So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis).

Valeros and Sajan look to be wearing at least three or four belt-ish things, and even Seoni has two.

Heck, I once wore three watches (with a Units outfit and a side ponytail!) because I was stupid and it was the '80s.

Silver Crusade

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

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Liberty's Edge

So I have questions, I don't think they've all been answered but it's possible;

1- What's the thought process behind the proficiency mish-mash between armor and shields? Why does AC change if one's lower, why not just add both?

2- Is AC 10+armor/proficiency or is it level+armor/proficiency?

3- Are potency runes the SOLE way to enchant items now, or do we still have the ability to craft magic items, and if we can still craft them then what's the difference?

4- Why do runes or magic give a bonus to hit, still, and does that stack with the weapon quality and your proficiency with the weapon? I thought we were going away from some of the base dependencies on magic items, but then a cloak of resistance is now part of your armor, so that seems odd...


But we never got magical wrist watches let alone regular ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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?

Flexibility.

I'm a fan of automatic bonus progress from Unchained. But, as a player, I'm also a fan of defensive bonuses. The problem with Unchained is that I cannot make the choice of buying better armor and saving throw items at the cost of being below the curve in, say, magic weapons. For example, for many of my characters, when given the option, I'd rather have +1 sword and +3 armor/shield, than +2 sword and +2 armor/shield.

The solution they give us reduces the amount of mandatory items, while still giving us the option to customize which part we favor more, which side of the attack/defense balance we prefer to prioritize.

I'm not fond of numeric bonus to hit from potency runes for weapons tho. It looks like it's a double dip with item quality. Let's see the final version, but it doesn't sound too well for me right now. I think I'd rather have potency adding only damage for weapons, with item quality adding to hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
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 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

Keeping potency runes as their own thing, if you're going to tie effects to specific property runes, then use actual (Norse) runes:

Fe - enhance the effect of a critical hit (weapon)
Ur - add a bonus against fear effects (armor), add a die to weapon damage (weapon), enhance the DR granted by a shield (shield)
Thurs - add +1 to the bonus on saving throws (armor), enhance the effect of a barbarian's rage or grant a limited version of a barbarian's rage to non-barbarians (weapon)
Ass - allow a use of an ability of the next higher proficiency (armor, shield, weapon)
Reith - as the current called enhancement (weapon), reduce the penalty to skill checks (armor)
Kaun - add fire damage (weapon), add fire resistance (armor)
Gipt - as the current benevolent enhancement (shield), as the current calming enhancement (armor), as the current merciful enhancement (weapon)

and so on.

I think someone completely missed an Elder Scrolls reference...

I thought it was a Diablo 2 reference.


Paradozen wrote:

A quick Google search shows there apparently is a fashion involving multiple belts, and multiple bracelets. Also, overshoes designed to be worn over shoes.

So, while some may think it is silly (I don't terribly care for the belt thing myself) I'm gonna go ahead and doubt claims that wearing a bunch of belt-slot and wrist-slot items is too unrealistic if brought up, at least at my table.

I'm not sure the word "realistic" is applicable either way.

But I won't concede that finding on google that somebody somewhere actually did something makes that something any less absurd,

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
kaineblade83 wrote:

1- What's the thought process behind the proficiency mish-mash between armor and shields? Why does AC change if one's lower, why not just add both?

2- Is AC 10+armor/proficiency or is it level+armor/proficiency?

Proficiency for armor works like proficiency for everything else. It does include level. See, e.g., my notes on Friday's chat with Logan.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

About the controversy surrounding the slots, and some people wearing 2 bracers for example, I would like to point that currently in PF you can wear both a Gauntlet (that covers everything from the tip of your fingers, to half of your arm) and Bracers of archery, because they are "hands" and "wrist" slots. But you cannot wear two pairs of bracelets , something women have been doing since the ancient ages. You cannot also wear handwraps below your gloves , but you can totally wear a Circlet and a Helmet, but not a Circlet and a Headband, because Reasons. You can also wear Full plate, and a Vest of Surgery over it, but not a Full plate over a Padded Armor (something that historically was evenr required), because both are armor slot. You can also wear a Tunic and a Robe, because Tunics are Chest Slot and Robes are Body Slot, but you cannot wear a pair of bandoliers, because they are both Chest Slot. You can wear spectacles over your Mask, because Masks are "head" slot and spectacles are "eye", but you cannot wear a Mask with a Hood, because Masks and hoods are both Head Slots.

So, if you think slotless can lend itself to a game with stupidity and nonsense, that's ok. But if you think slots make that impossible, or that with slots, things make sense, then think again. You are wrong.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As for too many belts, I can’t help thinking of the 3.5 iconic Sorcerer. Ugh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wearing too many belts is actually pretty common in fiction. Lots of Japanese video game characters qualify, and 90s comic book heroes. I'm not saying it's a good look, but it is a look. And the current system is both nonsensical as Gustavo points out, and looks pretty dumb too. How often do we actually picture all these items hanging off our character, or how often does the art depict it? Heck, most of the time the iconic aren't even drawn with cloaks. How many characters were wearing jingasas before that item got nerfed?

Unless you invest in glamor gear, fashion finder PF1 ain't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Yeah, real sorceress' carry around plushies! :P

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
ChaiGuy wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Yeah, real sorceress' carry around plushies! :P

...mine does... >_>


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Wearing too many belts is actually pretty common in fiction. Lots of Japanese video game characters qualify, and 90s comic book heroes. I'm not saying it's a good look, but it is a look. And the current system is both nonsensical as Gustavo points out, and looks pretty dumb too. How often do we actually picture all these items hanging off our character, or how often does the art depict it? Heck, most of the time the iconic aren't even drawn with cloaks. How many characters were wearing jingasas before that item got nerfed?

Unless you invest in glamor gear, fashion finder PF1 ain't.

I wonder how many people make their mental image of their barbarian as this before realizing their character, in fact, wears a headband, a brooch, a golden full chain mail of celestial armor, a fancy cloak, slippers, silk gloves and a tunic. He wears the items because of the magic bonuses, but then he "fade out" those of his mental image of his rugged barbarian wearing only a loincloth.


I am really hoping that there are options for casters to do their somatic components while holding items and weapons. Like: the wizard staff thing isn’t a problem if wizards get a bonded item class feature or whatever and the same can be said for of a cleric can affix his holy symbol to his shield or mace and then wave it around for sick magicks.

Hell, maybe there will be a rune or some other kind of enchantment that will allow you to do somatic components with your sword.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
So, if you think slotless can lend itself to a game with stupidity and nonsense, that's ok. But if you think slots make that impossible, or that with slots, things make sense, then think again. You are wrong.

I know, for myself at least, I wasn't arguing about slots vs no slots. I was just disagreeing that a certain combination of items was plausible. 16 rings, bracelets, belts, earrings, ect... have a party. Even some odd ones are possible if you build them to fit, like an overboot + boot. Some though just don't work logistically speaking IMO.

Too many belts: If anyone wants to know what studded leather was, that's it. WAY too many leather belts with metal buckles... ;)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I really hope there are more magic pants this time around. It always felt weird to be walking around with a magic hat, magic cape, magic shirt, magic belt, magic boots, and totally mundane trousers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if in the playtest the shield/armor proficiency will always be the same, the "lower proficiency applies" exists only because you can't add your level twice to your AC to keep the game balanced?

Can't you just find another better way to write it? Looks a lot confusing the way it is. Think about a character that bought armor proficiency feats, reached master at armor proficiency, and then raise a shield being untrained. His AC bonus will drop by 2 (+2 from master will be -2 from untrained, then adds +2 from the shield). The way it look is: I'm good with my armor, but when I grab a shield, I can he hitted easier. Just makes NO sense.

Maybe giving characters a standard "defense proficiency" regardless of armor and shield being used and then applying the item bonuses would be easier. (And also would help spellcasters without armors and shields to be less hitable.) Of course there are some problems in that idea, like everyone being able to wear an armor and hold a shield, but can he helpful somewhat.

Or maybe just saying your armor and shield proficiency both gives you a defense bonus that do not stack and only the better applies (as in the standard bonuses rules), and locking new abilities under armor/shield proficiency ranks? This way, someone trained in armor but not in shields would benefits from the defense proficiency bonus from his armor training and still able to raise a shield (a common action that doesn't need any training) being untrained. He would still benefits from the armor proficiency ranks without being hampered by using a shield, would benefits from the shield item bonus, but would not be able to use specially/advanced shield actions/abilities because he isn't trained in shields.

Something like that.

Also, I'm TOTALLY disappointed that shields bonuses can't be upgraded. Unless they give abilities that are always improving and giving some combat useful tactics that can be used ALL the time, this will make shield users dissapear from the game...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I really hope there are more magic pants this time around. It always felt weird to be walking around with a magic hat, magic cape, magic shirt, magic belt, magic boots, and totally mundane trousers.

Yep. Magic pants [or skirts], magic magic knickers, magic socks, magic bracelets, earrings, anklets, sweaters, ect... I want the whole 9 yards.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Add me to the "disappointed about weapon craftsmanship and magical enhancement quality being redundant"/"disappointed about weapon craftsmanship being just another prerequisite for magic enhancement" list. I was really looking forward to the difference between a nonmagical legendary longsword and a +3 longsword of average quality.

I understand that, with the "four degrees of success" paradigm, stacking attack bonuses will be more relevant than ever. I trust the minds behind the game to surmount these obstacles, figure out the math, and make a well-balanced final system. And I really hope that final system can find room for craftsmanship and potency to both contribute to a weapon's quality.

Other than that, I'm really liking what I see so far. Especially "armor traits" making armoring decisions more complex than the existing system. The shield system will take some getting used to, but I look forward to the more dynamic system we've been promised.

Looking forward to my preordered playtest books. ^_^


gustavo iglesias wrote:
So, if you think slotless can lend itself to a game with stupidity and nonsense, that's ok. But if you think slots make that impossible, or that with slots, things make sense, then think again. You are wrong.

Not assuming you are only reply to me, but the stupidity and nonsense reference fits. so...

I've always said there are a lot of things about 3.X/PF that are completely lacking in training wheels. There are a ton of ways that the rules simply presume that the people at the table will use reasonable judgement and not do dumb things. This slots issues is really a long way down that list.

I've further been on record before that I consider this a feature of the system because any rule system that tries to account for every possibility within something as complex as TTRPGs is doomed to fail. Further, as is demonstrated here, tastes vary, so trying to "solve" everything is going to exclude people and then still be doomed on top of that.

In 3.X/PF, I have never once had a situation in which absurdity with regard to worn equipment happened. (It has been the topic of over the table jokes, for sure). This is not to dispute your point that the rules permit it. But, to me, it is obvious that there is an intent within the rules framework and common sense applies. Moving away from that clear intent should be done thoughtfully and carefully.

If a group of people invited em tho their game after telling me the group had been going for 10 years, I'd be eager to try. If upon arrival I was greeted by a PC wearing 8 magic belts, I would quickly assume that this is a non-serious comedy heavy game. I would *not* assume it wasn't a great game because they have been enjoying it for years. The two points are perfectly compatible.

If I sit down in front of a fantasy movie and a guy is wearing 8 magic belts, I will know it is a tongue in cheek comedy. It might be a good one. But it won't be the gritty fantasy I prefer.

Bottom line, the point is not "this was perfect and now they might ruin it". The point is that this is a change and it could bring significant consequences. It may be that for one group those significant consequences are for the better. If you are looking at the ruleset purely from the perspective of your own table, then you are almost certainly not guiding the game toward the largest audience possible.

God knows a game optimized for me would be a major flop.

301 to 350 of 660 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards