orestes08's page

Dr.s David Whetham and Paul Burke published a paper in 2013 that showed bows with draw weights as low as 150lbs (bows recovered from the Mary Rose had draw weights as high as 180lbs) could pierce plate mail at distances up to 50 meters. They conducted their tests at the British DoD against armor of period thickness and quality (which was quite different from modern steel as in the Youtube video). 2mm thick period armor was penetrated up to 16mm by a 150lbs long bow at the distances used in Pathfinder.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/174962607X177436

While you are correct that modern testing of arrows v plate armor shows that plate would have been largely effective in stopping arrows, remember that those tests are done for battlefield conditions in the Middle Ages. Most tests were simulating archers firing from 750 feet away. No weapon in pathfinder has a range of longer than 120 feet. So, while a longbow might not have pierced plate when fired at an arc to cover the length of the battle field, the results at close range would be vastly different.

The need to cast multiple spells to make your mid to high level spells work just exacerbates the limited spell slots in 2e though. Not only do you get fewer spell slots total, but you also no longer receive bonus spell slots for high ability scores. If I have to use up all 3 of my 1st level slots on True Strike so that my 6th-8th level spells actually have some effect, then that means I don't have Magic Missile to use on any encounters before the big encounter where I need my Disintegrate/Polar Ray, etc. So my Wizard/Sorcerer just gets to sit in the back and try not to get killed for the majority of our encounters so that he's still useful at all when we need him. On top of the pared down spell list that removed several lower level offensive spells (Scorching Ray comes immediately to mind), it just seems that they have completely failed to strike a good balance with spell casters. Yes, they were too powerful at high level in 1e, with so many spells that scaled too high with level, and while that balance is better in this game, it seems you never get past the point where a spell caster has to blow his load in one encounter. That has historically been the drawback of playing a Wizard all the way back to 1e AD&D. Early levels you can't do much, one or two Magic Missiles a day before you are reduced to an ineffective cross bowman. But as you rise in level, you can become truly destructive in a battle without becoming completely useless the rest of the day. Now, my 11th level Wizard has 17 total spell slots. But 6-8 of those are required to make the other spells work, so I've only got 9-11 slots for spells that do stuff. Then you've got your protections spells (Mage Armor, Stoneskin, Fireshield, Globe of Invulnerability, Mirror Image, etc.) that takes up 4ish slots. Now I'm left being able to do maybe 6 or so active things a day, which is once again 1 or 2 encounters at best. Now, if I had kept my 4 bonus spells for having 17-18 Int, I could probably stretch that to another encounter or 2 and feel like a useful member of the party. And while it's fun to lay waste and be the big hero of the boss fight, when that's all you've done for the past 2+ game sessions because to do anything before the big boss fight would either have been ineffective (because your spells don't stand on their own any more) or rendered you useless in the boss fight (because you blew all your True Stikes/Enervations already) it can get really boring.

PS to note that while I understand that I'm using video game terminology, I doubt my GMs are alone in having several smaller encounters occur in the dungeon/ruins/whatever we're exploring before having us come up against a more challenging final encounter to find the loot/rescue the princess/whatever our quest was. Boss fight seemed to be the best way to sum it up.

Plate was impenetrable, unless you aimed for a mail-covered articulation or smashed it with a heavy bludgeon.

Hmmm.... If you have actually studied Medieval Arms and Armor, then you know that this is flatly untrue. The English long bowmen at Crécy proved this rather decisively. Sometimes fun game play and fidelity to reality don't go hand in hand (you know, like the existence of magic). Unless of course you are in favor of Longbows and Heavy Crossbows ignoring AC entirely (which would do terrible things to melee combat and melee characters), in which case I think you are playing the wrong game.

As soon as you hit level 10, you can craft a Ring of Counterspells every 4 days of downtime. Hell, you can have multiple characters take the feat, since you don't have to actually cast any spells in the creation of the ring. And that was just the first example given in this post of a way to break the game with no magic item limits. Although I do have to apologize, my math was off. You can only buy 29.5 Ring of Counterspells for the cost of a +5 Armor Rune, not that this changes how utterly silly such a strategy would be. So your party would only be able to shut down the first 29 spells cast in an encounter, not the first 36. You know, for all those encounters that go past 30 rounds.

@Darksol, personally, I agree with you that the "Big 6" everyone seems to dislike so much was never an issue for me. Maybe because I've played with those rules for 20 years. But if designers discovered that changing that made the game better for more people, I can live with new rules. I am also not a fan of trinkets in the new game (although that's more for the fact that they seem to be almost universally not worth the cost). That said, of course you've never had anyone look through 3 pages of magical items to determine their action, you've never had a player who was allowed by the rules to wear 53 rings, 9 belts, 6 cloaks, 24 necklaces/amulets, 2 bracers, gauntlets, boots, and a pair of greaves before either, because the rules wouldn't allow it. And yes, an experienced DM could rule by fiat his way out of the mess this would cause, but I think the majority of players would agree it's more fun when you don't have to. Not to mention the newer DMs whom you know would have to deal with "that guy" arguing up a storm that "the rules allow it, you shouldn't stop me." Like I said, whatever the designers decide I'm open to giving it a try. However, if they actually go ahead with "have as many magic items as you want" I'm also going to be the guy who buys +4 armor and 36 rings of counterspell (and encourages my party mates to do the same) rather than +5 armor, because I don't care what @The DM of says, restricting an enemy spellcaster to %17 successful cast rate (if a party of 4 all does the rings of counterspell trick) is worth a hell of a lot more than spotting opponents a 5% chance to hit with physical attacks, and is in fact "gamebreaking".

You are a poster who attacks threads. Your post history bears this out.

Oh look, more lies!!! I don't have a post history. I know this, because I literally set up an account on this forum to make that post. You just keep moving those goalposts buddy! And to Darksol, while I understand that "houserule whatever" can cut both ways, I think this is clearly a case where it should be applied. The designers have to make the game that works the best for the most people. Especially including Pathfinder Society, the rules that are harder to min/max are the best. Will this lead min/max'ers to try and find the absolute best combination of X magical items to the exclusion of all others, of course it will!!! But at least those stuck playing with those kinds of players don't have to wait for them to wade through 3 pages of magical items every action to find the "best" one. When there is no one rule that will make everyone happy, you go with the one that will make the most people happy/fewest people unhappy in situations where they have to play by the letter of the law, and let everyone else do whatever. In the case of professional game designer v forum troll, the onus is in fact on the troll to prove that their way is better for more people. If you can't, then you trust that the people who have invested way more time than you, and have a lot more experience in making these decisions to make the right ones, and you run your home game how you want to.

What would be the point of restricting magic item use at all in this system?

Several points have been raised already in this thread. None of them are "game-breaking" (to your completely undefined specifications anyway), but we also don't have full item lists yet. But more importantly, that wasn't the question you asked. You asked in your original post as I quoted, if there was any point at all. The answer to that question is an easy yes. Now, you don't seem to think that these reasons would make your specific playgroups' games less enjoyable, but that's hardly the point. The Core Rules of the game aren't designed only for your group. Furthermore, the Paizo police aren't going to show up at your door and arrest you if you decide not to enforce an item limit in your game. If the designers feel that the best experience for the most people involves some sort of item limit (again, reasons for which have already been articulated), then they should make that part of the rules, which your playgroup is free to ignore if they so chose. I do have to commend you on your ability to move the goalposts though. Every time a valid point has come up, you just push those goalposts further out, and no one has seemed to notice. First it was any reason. At all. Ever. Then it was one that was economical (which was an even less compelling argument when it became clear you had no real grasp whatsoever on what the economics of the game actually were). Then it had to be "game-breaking!!!1!elventy!!" Then it was, "Well, even if they ever want to make something that would break the game in unlimited numbers, they can just make the text super clunky and add limiting errata to items that mess things up." You know, instead of just having a set limit of magical items you can use at any one time like every other game in existence, because it would make you happier.