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
351 to 400 of 660 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

I don´t like what i´m seeing here...

I don´t like Starfinder KAK and TAK and all those stuffs...

I would rather piecemeal armor and AC as DR instead of all of the above options.

Sorry guys, you lost me here.

If AC as damage reduction is what made them lost you, then you were lost since Gary Gygax was mumbling about making a game.

It has been a long farewell tour that of yours, if it ended right now.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

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

Ioun Stones cost so much because in addition to being slotless, they also tend to be Passives aka Actionless/handless. Besides they really need to retool magic tattoo crafting anyway to make them worth it(Everytime I've asked if I get told it's pointless, hmm)

And we return to flavoring items differently. Unless you're expecting Pants of insert effect not found elsewhere here.

Oh and as someone that wears glasses, wearing a mask over them is cumbersome at best.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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... ;)

I'm ok with that. I just think that "common sense" is the only rule that will cover it. Slots wont. Because no matter how well you "slot" things, sometimes things will not make sense. You can wear a hood and a mask, no problem. You can wear a hood over a helmet too. You can wear a mask, and certain helmets (see samurais, for example). You can wear even a hood over a helmet that you wear with your mask. You could also even add goggles to all of that, if the mask is like Bane's, and cover your mouth only. All that makes sense, even if it is in the same slot. Yet wearing "bracers" and "Gauntlets" makes little sense, to be honest, even if "wrist" and "hands" are ok for things like gloves and bracelets.

This is the real reason why videogames follow the slot system: computers can't have common sense. Human GMs can. If you ask me if you can wear 2 bandoliers, I can make sense of that. If you ask me if you can wear two helmets, I'd rule no (unless you play an ettin, that's it)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

BTW, I'd be interested in some other armor traits, besides "noisy". We got a few of weapon examples. At least a couple more for armor would be helpful.
I also think it's a good idea. A chain shirt might make more noise than a Breastplate (with the rings of the chain sounding when they clank together), but being flexible, make it less cumbersome to do something like climbing for example. It allows more granularity than just Armor Check Penalty. Let's see how it unfolds.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

I'll be happy if your right: I'm not going to assume that's the case though until we get confirmation in some way.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

If you have to take things to ridiculous extremes to have a weak point it probably isn't worth doing in the first place. You can do this with any system ever made, and that will ever be made, until we get computers capable of modelling physical reality completely and correctly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:


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.

The thing is, Too Many Belts is a friggin' trope by now.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooManyBelts

It's a look a lot of serious characters in fiction have, and there's a very large audience that seems to appreciate them. A belt is also one of the easiest items to layer, practically speaking. You can put multiple around the waste, or strap them around a leg or what have you. Would that belt be serving any purpose if it wasn't magic? Nope. But that doesn't stop people.

You are already aware of the fact that this game is going for a broader audience than just your own table, though. So me saying all of the above might be pretty redundant.

I think your metric of "common sense" will probably apply as much as it did in the old system. Wearing multiple sets of magic glasses is pretty easy for a DM to veto. As far as the lore implications goes, I think Resonance makes a lot more sense then adding a third magic ring shut off one of your first too. If you body can only handle so much magic, an across the board total makes more sense than slots. Slots means each part of your body essentially has it's own Resonance.


MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

Like Boots of Haste instead of bracers of haste, you mean?

Fine.
Why can you attack more times per round if you have boots, tho?

Answer: because magic.

Then, why can't you run faster if you have bracers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

If you have to take things to ridiculous extremes to have a weak point it probably isn't worth doing in the first place. You can do this with any system ever made, and that will ever be made, until we get computers capable of modelling physical reality completely and correctly.

I don't think it's a ridiculous extreme. Or at least an uncommon extreme. I already know one guy that is looking to break it with Sorcerer. High INT and CHA along with a level into Alchemist for the extra Resonace. And I know of two others looking to take the system in their own ways.

So excuse me if I jump to extremes but I know of people who will, and they aren't as uncommon as we would like to believe.

Besides if you wear 5 rings on the same hand, my mind sees that as mini brass knuckles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If you ask me if you can wear two helmets, I'd rule no (unless you play an ettin, that's it)

I agree with you on everything else, but for this point, let me present you the cervelliere: https://youtu.be/cHRhtshjpHs?t=4m34s


gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

Like Boots of Haste instead of bracers of haste, you mean?

Fine.
Why can you attack more times per round if you have boots, tho?

Answer: because magic.

Then, why can't you run faster if you have bracers?

Hey don't blame me. Blame every game ever following the similar pattern for the most part.

You want Braces that give you haste for extra attacks(and movement speed but really who gets Haste to move fast?) fine. I'll find it werid if your boots give you Darkvision and your goggles let you ignore fall damage

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
I'll be happy if your right: I'm not going to assume that's the case though until we get confirmation in some way.

This is totally fair. I just can't imagine what mechanical obstacle there'd be to doing it that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Besides if you wear 5 rings on the same hand, my mind sees that as mini brass knuckles.

If nothing else, my backhand should get through DR/silver if I'm packing 5 silver rings. ;)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

If you have to take things to ridiculous extremes to have a weak point it probably isn't worth doing in the first place. You can do this with any system ever made, and that will ever be made, until we get computers capable of modelling physical reality completely and correctly.

I don't think it's a ridiculous extreme. Or at least an uncommon extreme. I already know one guy that is looking to break it with Sorcerer. High INT and CHA along with a level into Alchemist for the extra Resonace. And I know of two others looking to take the system in their own ways.

So excuse me if I jump to extremes but I know of people who will, and they aren't as uncommon as we would like to believe.

Besides if you wear 5 rings on the same hand, my mind sees that as mini brass knuckles.

I know people who will want to do things with the system the system wasn't designed to deal with as well. I don't really consider it a problem though, every system will have them.

So yeah there might not be a rule stating "If you wear more than x Bulk on your fingers you deal lethal damage" but you can totally rule that 5+ rings equals brass knuckles if you want. I mean they've bought 5 magic rings, I'm sure you can waive the 10 silver or whatever a brass knuckle will cost. Also note this issue exists with mundane rings, and PF1E didn't have an answer for that or any game that I know off. So not really a slight against the item system.

Sovereign Court

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

The whole "bracers on your legs" thing really makes me think of Driz'zt...


Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

If you have to take things to ridiculous extremes to have a weak point it probably isn't worth doing in the first place. You can do this with any system ever made, and that will ever be made, until we get computers capable of modelling physical reality completely and correctly.

I don't think it's a ridiculous extreme. Or at least an uncommon extreme. I already know one guy that is looking to break it with Sorcerer. High INT and CHA along with a level into Alchemist for the extra Resonace. And I know of two others looking to take the system in their own ways.

So excuse me if I jump to extremes but I know of people who will, and they aren't as uncommon as we would like to believe.

Besides if you wear 5 rings on the same hand, my mind sees that as mini brass knuckles.

I know people who will want to do things with the system the system wasn't designed to deal with as well. I don't really consider it a problem though, every system will have them.

So yeah there might not be a rule stating "If you wear more than x Bulk on your fingers you deal lethal damage" but you can totally rule that 5+ rings equals brass knuckles if you want. I mean they've bought 5 magic rings, I'm sure you can waive the 10 silver or whatever a brass knuckle will cost. Also note this issue exists with mundane rings, and PF1E didn't have an answer for that or any game that I know off. So not really a slight against the item system.

You also had no mechanical reason to wear more than two rings. Well you do now!

Congrats, no Christmas tree. It's just on their hands now and they can wear even more it they want. This is somehow better?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
but you can totally rule that 5+ rings equals brass knuckles if you want. I mean they've bought 5 magic rings

I mean, have you tried punching something while wearing a lot of rings? It's probably gonna hurt you more than it's gonna hurt them.


2Zak wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
but you can totally rule that 5+ rings equals brass knuckles if you want. I mean they've bought 5 magic rings
I mean, have you tried punching something while wearing a lot of rings? It's probably gonna hurt you more than it's gonna hurt them.

Paizo ate my post so I'll bum off you.

The rings to brass knuckles was more sarcastic or joke than realistic idea. 5 rings do make me think of mini brass knuckles was when worn on the same hand. 10 rings look even worse, but still viable. Same with 15, as there's no limit now though 3 rings per finger starts to push the image out.

Returning from my massive derailment;

Buckler is going to work how? Usually it gives AC and can be used without training. Will this continue and if so will Proficiency scale up its defense like other shields or is it forever at the bottom?

Are the Runes passive/active/split? If magic weapons don't take Resonace outside of their active powers, will armor be the same with there active effects? Do I have to worry about being empty if I suddenly need my armor active?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why wearing 20 belts is a problem. JRPG protagonists seem to have no trouble fitting multiple belts and buckles to every item of clothing they own, why can't we?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

You also had no mechanical reason to wear more than two rings. Well you do now!

Congrats, no Christmas tree. It's just on their hands now and they can wear even more it they want. This is somehow better?

Doesn't matter if you had a reason to do it. A player could have previously wore 5 jeweled rings and tried to claim extra damage. You would have had to make a ruling then as you did now. Nothing has changed in that regard. Like your many numerous examples in the bulk thread, these are problems that either already existed or are probably dealt with.

The Christmas Tree problem was about it being optimal to get at least something in every slot. Every branch was gilded. With things less restricted slot wise you are more free to wear what you want, with a more permissive resource to allow players to pick and choose what they like and make trade offs between ongoing benefits and active powers. While also avoiding all the arbitrary problems detailed upthread slots give that made less sense than wearing 10 rings. That is how it is better.

If I had to take a guess at Bucklers is that they will give you only one of the benefits of a light shield, either the AC or optional DR.


Well, honestly, I'll wait the magic item post. That, with these other 3 articles (weapons, gear and alchemy) will give me a global idea on how equipment will work. Right now I've some guesses about magic items, enchantments and runes, but I'll wait for it.
There are only two things I would rather ask for:
Mundane shields seem to be fine (they reduce damage), but I think magical shields should get their magic a buff up, so they can be more important to the character.
Special materials. I love these as much (if not more), than proper enchantments, but this possibly is something they'll leave to the playtest itself, not giving "spoilers", but I love about special metals, woods, herbs, arcane/alchemist reagents and all of that.


Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You also had no mechanical reason to wear more than two rings. Well you do now!

Congrats, no Christmas tree. It's just on their hands now and they can wear even more it they want. This is somehow better?

Doesn't matter if you had a reason to do it. A player could have previously wore 5 jeweled rings and tried to claim extra damage. You would have had to make a ruling then as you did now. Nothing has changed in that regard. Like your many numerous examples in the bulk thread, these are problems that either already existed or are probably dealt with.

The Christmas Tree problem was about it being optimal to get at least something in every slot. Every branch was gilded. With things less restricted slot wise you are more free to wear what you want, with a more permissive resource to allow players to pick and choose what they like and make trade offs between ongoing benefits and active powers. While also avoiding all the arbitrary problems detailed upthread slots give that made less sense than wearing 10 rings. That is how it is better.

If I had to take a guess at Bucklers is that they will give you only one of the benefits of a light shield, either the AC or optional DR.

Or you know you could, Not feel the need to get an item in every slot? What nonsense am I saying, that's not optimal! You were always free to wear what you wanted, I don't understand why you weren't unless you did it for the numbers but the community doesn't just keep going for the same numbers again and again right?

This community that doesn't go for the numbers is now expected to play nice with unlimited items but also a restricted usage system that will encourage people to pick what they want over what they need/biggest number?

Yeah I can't see any issues coming with this community! And how the heck is slots more confusing than unlimited items until the GM says no?


The Dandy Lion wrote:
I don't see why wearing 20 belts is a problem. JRPG protagonists seem to have no trouble fitting multiple belts and buckles to every item of clothing they own, why can't we?

Well, yeah. Honestly, I have a bigger problem with gauntlets and rings: How am I supposed to use a ring (something usually small) when I have a huge armor around my hand? I mean, I don't wear rings (yet) but I don't think this can be done without an over-sized ring. I'm not even sure about regular gloves, but gauntlets?


There's many things I'm on the fence about in this blog post.

Folding save-boosting and "flat numerical increase" magic items into armor enchantment/runes looks like it's just re-introducing a problem that I expected to be gone after the changes to magical items (which is: having to hunt down stuff just because of math. Math doesn't make for a good narrative focus) with the addition of making characters unable to wear armor have less access to those boosts, thus having to make up "universally usable" armor-like items such as "bracers of armor", basically moving the problem from "magic item slots" to "armor rune slots".
I mean, it does solve the problem of having to choose between cool magic items and number-enhancing magic items, but does so by adding a new layer of complexity for players to manage, track and optimize; and the reward isn't even exciting, it's just bigger numbers.
Maybe it's just me, but I already dislike having to adjust three pages worth of numbers whenever I increase an ability score. I'd rather not have to go around re-calculating, erasing and noting back down stuff more often. I like my number-crunching computer-assisted, thanks.
To be clear, it's not that I believe this kind of system can't have benefits, it's just that it seems just too cumbersome for my liking when we're talking about a TTRPG primarily designed to be played with pencil and paper.

Other things include having armor that increases your touch AC. I mean, the whole point of touch AC is that armor is ignored. The attack, for some reason (be it magic or armor-piercing properties), only needs to contact you or what you wear to affect you.
I don't mean that 1st ed. touch AC doesn't have any issues, but those are mostly because of its null scaling without heavy investment when it (and all AC, really) should scale as you level up pretty much the same way Saves do. Because one thing gaining combat experience does is make you better at avoiding projectiles and contact in battle (on the other hand I'm not that sure that it makes you more resistant to poison or being hypnotized, mind you). Making non-magic armor improve it makes it literally meaningless, just "AC but lower". Unless Touch AC represents another different thing in 2e, of course.

Igwilly wrote:
How am I supposed to use a ring (something usually small) when I have a huge armor around my hand? mean, I don't wear rings (yet) but I don't think this can be done without an over-sized ring.

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to wear your rings under your gauntlets (which could come with its own set of issues).

MerlinCross wrote:
Or you know you could, Not feel the need to get an item in every slot? What nonsense am I saying, that's not optimal! You were always free to wear what you wanted

I mean, you could also play your wizard and use only half of its spell slots, yet I doubt you'd call out anyone who used all of them for being part of "this community that always goes for the same numbers".


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).

Hennet doesn't see the problem.

Is Clinton Boomer still associated with Paizo? I bet they could ask him as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't see this "too many belts" problem. People wear lots of belts and you can justify putting a belt on pretty much anything. Leather/cloth wristbands are literally small belts. Chokers are belts. Wristwatches are belts attached to a mechanical contraption. Backpacks have usually at least two belts.

You can just take any loop of flexible material in anything you wear and substitute it for a belt.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
2Zak wrote:

I honestly don't see this "too many belts" problem. People wear lots of belts and you can justify putting a belt on pretty much anything. Leather/cloth wristbands are literally small belts. Chokers are belts. Wristwatches are belts attached to a mechanical contraption. Backpacks have usually at least two belts.

You can just take any loop of flexible material in anything you wear and substitute it for a belt.

Even cops wear a utility belt, which is attached to a waist belt with lots of tiny little belts! And then they have a belt to hold up their pants. :)


2Zak wrote:
I honestly don't see this "too many belts" problem.

It's not a problem, it's a trope ^^


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Oh, our old friend Bracers of Armor AKA forcing monks to forfeit and item slot to benefit from one of their class features, is back. Goody.
To reiterate, item slots no longer exist.

Okay, then they're going to have to use their Resonance for a Wondrous item. Unless I'm mistaken armors and weapons were called out as not using Resonance.

Paizo Employee Designer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.

It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Okay, then they're going to have to use their Resonance for a Wondrous item. Unless I'm mistaken armors and weapons were called out as not using Resonance.

Actually, just armor, not weapons. Weapons have been explicitly noted as not taking Resonance, actually.

As for the Monk having to invest one Resonance to get the same bonuses everyone else is getting for 1 Resonance from magical armor...yes, he has to pay the same amount of Resonance as everyone else for the same bonus. Which is as it should be.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Okay, then they're going to have to use their Resonance for a Wondrous item. Unless I'm mistaken armors and weapons were called out as not using Resonance.

Actually, just armor, not weapons. Weapons have been explicitly noted as not taking Resonance, actually.

As for the Monk having to invest one Resonance to get the same bonuses everyone else is getting for 1 Resonance from magical armor...yes, he has to pay the same amount of Resonance as everyone else for the same bonus. Which is as it should be.

Technically not taking Resonance. I'm assuming you get the extra damage but say you can shoot fire from the sword, that takes a point, or am I remembering old info.

Which will be interesting to see how Unarmed combatants keep up with lack of magic weapon but also lack of effects too.

Could just bake it into Monk as Core or Class Feats though. I really need to come up with a different word for "The class before getting into Class feats". Baseline?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Hmm. Silver standard sneaking in there at the end.

I REALLY hope this is the case. I doubt they'll do it, but I would love it if they would make gold valuable again and stop having me become obscenely wealthy by level 2 or 3.

Also, as others have stated, adjusting your grip should not cost an action, it's unnecessary and punitive.


Makeitstop wrote:
Voss wrote:
Hmm. Silver standard sneaking in there at the end.

I REALLY hope this is the case. I doubt they'll do it, but I would love it if they would make gold valuable again and stop having me become obscenely wealthy by level 2 or 3.

Also, as others have stated, adjusting your grip should not cost an action, it's unnecessary and punitive.

I'm actually optimistic about this. Many systems are doing that, and I remember someone saying things like "I could buy all my 1st level equipment with 15 GP" or something like this. That would change the metric to silver pieces.


I don't understand why Touch AC is even still in the game if everyone is adding their level to all of their attacks?

If Wizards are adding their level to their attacks, then why not just have them target regular AC?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I don't understand why Touch AC is even still in the game if everyone is adding their level to all of their attacks?

If Wizards are adding their level to their attacks, then why not just have them target regular AC?

I think it is mostly to allow more interesting strategic decisions between different types of attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.
It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.

For what it is worth, I like that the game has two different types of defense. It adds a level of depth and strategy to your attack selection in combat for casters and a level of depth to your armor selection decision. A fixed bonus for touch attacks kind of homogenizes the situation.

However, I can’t help but feel like the “touch attack” and “touch armor class” nomenclature is a bit of an issue. Armor applying to touch AC implies that the armor’s padding or whatever retards the magical energy of spells or stops the acid from getting to your skin even if the delivery divise makes contact with the creature, right? In that light, is there a reason that you did not want to use something like “elemental attack” and “elemental defense” instead?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I still maintain that it's very likely you can just have a Ring instead of Bracers or a Belt instead of Boots if you want, making the 'ridiculous' stuff just not an issue most of the time.

Get enough rings and why aren't your punches counts as lethal?

That and possible disconnect? Yeah it's magic but I just assume something that lets you move easier to be Boots not belt.

Like Boots of Haste instead of bracers of haste, you mean?

Fine.
Why can you attack more times per round if you have boots, tho?

Answer: because magic.

Then, why can't you run faster if you have bracers?

Hey don't blame me. Blame every game ever following the similar pattern for the most part.

By everygame you mean other than D&D, right? Because D&D had Bracers of Haste long before 3.0 was born, with a certain Chaotic Good drow ranger with a magic panther using those bracers as anklets.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
I don't see why wearing 20 belts is a problem. JRPG protagonists seem to have no trouble fitting multiple belts and buckles to every item of clothing they own, why can't we?
Well, yeah. Honestly, I have a bigger problem with gauntlets and rings: How am I supposed to use a ring (something usually small) when I have a huge armor around my hand? I mean, I don't wear rings (yet) but I don't think this can be done without an over-sized ring. I'm not even sure about regular gloves, but gauntlets?

A normal ring, would not be possible. A magic ring, that fits just fine in a young halfing or a huge-sized demigod? Why not?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of AC and Touch AC, why not Physical AC and Supernatural / Magic AC? Kind of like how Starfinder has Kinetic AC and Energy AC, but in way that would actually make a little more sense. All weapons, natural weapons, monster acid spit etc attacks, traps, and conjuration spells that manifest a physical thing to attack with go against Physical AC. All touch and ray spells, monster eye rays, cursed touches etc go against Supernatural / Magic AC.

Doing this mostly avoids any logical conundrums of AC vs Evasion. It gives a natural thematic separation when choosing which AC to attack for spells. Just come up with a reasonably consistent justification for why one armor of a given class (medium etc) has different SAC/MAC compared to another armor of the same class, something that is at least mildly flavorful and holds up to light scrutiny and encourages willing suspension of disbelief. It doesn't have to be a thesis.

It allows you to do stuff like say that thanks to well established lore about iron disrupting magic, heavier armor has higher SAC/MAC compared to light armor. It allows you to say that applying certain special materials or processes, say Silvering your armor, raises SAC/MAC by a point, whereas changing out the metal in your armor for darkwood maybe lowers SAC/MAC by a point. It allows you to say that Mageweave WoWcloth robes or whatever are a form of "armor" that has 0 PAC but 2 SAC/MAC and can then be further enhanced with runes.

And you can still say that electricity attacks like Shocking Grasp get a bonus to hit against someone wearing metal armor.

I think this is a flavorful way to solve the whole problem. :)

Shadow Lodge

Igwilly wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
I don't see why wearing 20 belts is a problem. JRPG protagonists seem to have no trouble fitting multiple belts and buckles to every item of clothing they own, why can't we?
Well, yeah. Honestly, I have a bigger problem with gauntlets and rings: How am I supposed to use a ring (something usually small) when I have a huge armor around my hand? I mean, I don't wear rings (yet) but I don't think this can be done without an over-sized ring. I'm not even sure about regular gloves, but gauntlets?

Put on ring, then put on gauntlet?


Logan Bonner wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.
It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.
I do feel "touch AC" is feeling a bit weird here. For example
blog wrote:
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."

So the heavier/noiser armour gives you a bonus to touch AC but the lighter armour does not? That feels weird and is a bit counterintuitive to me. Additionally, I kinda feel it doesn't really make sense that wearing more armour would make it more difficult to be "touched" compared to wearing no armour.

This can be handwaved in terms of magic armours, since, well, magic, but it's weird and I'm not sure how it can be explained for mundane armour.

I do think the getting rid of Touch AC similarly to flat-footed AC could be good, a "touch" attack giving a +2 bonus universally, for example, would be much easier to do, and keeping track of only a single AC value is easier.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I don't understand why Touch AC is even still in the game if everyone is adding their level to all of their attacks?

If Wizards are adding their level to their attacks, then why not just have them target regular AC?

Design space. It gives more options for both attacks and defenses.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess armor bonuses to TAC just represent armors that can disperse or reflect incoming energies, like a Faraday cage.


Captain Morgan wrote:

. Wearing multiple sets of magic glasses is pretty easy for a DM to veto.

And my point is: so long as there are limits on how many items of the same type can be worn: there are slots. Everyone saying there aren't any slots have either not thought it through, are more than happy to let silly situations occur like 50 eyepieces at once or are being disingenuous and simply trying to shut down people who are voicing genuine concerns.


Captain Morgan wrote:


I think your metric of "common sense" will probably apply as much as it did in the old system. Wearing multiple sets of magic glasses is pretty easy for a DM to veto. As far as the lore implications goes, I think Resonance makes a lot more sense then adding a third magic ring shut off one of your first too. If you body can only handle so much magic, an across the board total makes more sense than slots. Slots means each part of your body essentially has it's own Resonance.

Certainly. But I think you've left the context behind at this point. Needing some common sense to avoid taking the rules off the rails is one thing; needing to apply common sense to adjust RAW *onto* the rails is another. And I didn't say it would be that extreme, I'm saying sense we already have some ambiguity, moving further that way should be done with careful consideration.

And "belts" was a semi-random example. But even with that, the link you provided doesn't do anything to support the claim that "too many belts" is a signal of anything other than silliness.
Three or four rings, sure. Multiple glasses fairly obvious on the other end. (again, once you chomp down on WAAHOO Crazy and its fun, then wear 9 pairs of glasses. *I* won't be critical.)

But if the game leans that way and a lot of players will just play as is. And if that results in a grating experience for them, there are plenty of other games for them to play. I've seen people high five all around when they got what they personally wanted. And then those same people are gnashing teeth and saying how unfair it is when the market says "meh" and their game losses support.

And I'm *NOT* saying that this this topic at hand is going to crash and burn PF2. I think I made a very reasonable comment about being thoughtful and there seems to be a degree of "if thoughtful isn't supporting my personal preference then thoughtful is a mean word that needs rebuttal".


Excaliburproxy wrote:

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.

I'd be totally okay with this as a class feat, and it sounds fairly reasonable. It would definitely help enable battle clerics/mages a bit more. A cleric of Gorum with a Greatsword isn't going to be very effective otherwise...

351 to 400 of 660 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards