|
I get the why of what was done combining the physical enhancement items into belts, and the mental into head slots. Personally I prefer it the other way just because I like to occasionally mix and match.
There is however, a much bigger problem. These ability enhancement items, seriously decrease the value of EVERY OTHER waist and head slot item. Ability enhancement is pretty necessary by the higher end of the game and forcing someone to choose between a neat item and ANY physical enhancement is a cruel decision. It's one thing for the fighter to find a nifty gladiatorial championship belt or something and give up his belt of giant's strength. After all it's not taking away his ability to get an amulet of health. Now though it takes away 3 essential items to him instead of one.
Bring it back to the old way!
I get the why of what was done combining the physical enhancement items into belts, and the mental into head slots. Personally I prefer it the other way just because I like to occasionally mix and match.
There is however, a much bigger problem. These ability enhancement items, seriously decrease the value of EVERY OTHER waist and head slot item. Ability enhancement is pretty necessary by the higher end of the game and forcing someone to choose between a neat item and ANY physical enhancement is a cruel decision. It's one thing for the fighter to find a nifty gladiatorial championship belt or something and give up his belt of giant's strength. After all it's not taking away his ability to get an amulet of health. Now though it takes away 3 essential items to him instead of one.
Bring it back to the old way!
As far as I can tell, there's no cost penalty for putting enchantments in the wrong slot anymore. At least you can craft items for specific spots.
You do have a point though, so I'd like to see the physical ability items be available in gloves, vest, and belt slots and the mental ability items in head, neck, and robe slots.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Only if you're entirely ignorant of WoW :)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.Only if you're entirely ignorant of WoW :)
It has been quite a while since I've been on WoW (several years, in fact), so this may not be the case anymore.
However, I stand by my analogy in that it seems more like a MMORPG rule than a Pen and Paper game rule.
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
Well, the "magic item slot affinity" rules have been around since 3.0, which predates World of Warcraft. Maybe you're just noticing them now.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Well, the "magic item slot affinity" rules have been around since 3.0, which predates World of Warcraft. Maybe you're just noticing them now.I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
Oh, I'm aware of the slots, but the Pathfinder Beta is the first forum where we have the input to possibly change this standard.
I'm not against the existence of the slots, per se, but I am against limiting the type of enhancement you can place into each slot.
If I want to create a belt buckle that increases my Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma, I should be able to do so. I shouldn't be restricted by an arbitrary rule that says Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma enhancers have to take an upper torso slot.
|
I like the idea of having magical items be more unique and having random treasure drops not instantly tell PC's what an item is, or even what options it could be. "Ok, it's a magical cloak, it could be of Resistance, of Cha, or. . .. It is not Elven in design, doesn't look like a bat, or have feather, or manta ray/sea symbols, so that rules out most others."
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Well, the "magic item slot affinity" rules have been around since 3.0, which predates World of Warcraft. Maybe you're just noticing them now.I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
Oh, I'm aware of the slots, but the Pathfinder Beta is the first forum where we have the input to possibly change this standard.
I'm not against the existence of the slots, per se, but I am against limiting the type of enhancement you can place into each slot.
If I want to create a belt buckle that increases my Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma, I should be able to do so. I shouldn't be restricted by an arbitrary rule that says Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma enhancers have to take an upper torso slot.
This isn't just some random gaming artifact. Traditional theories of magic suggest that the correlation of magical properties is tied to the relationship of the physical components used to create that magic. If the head is believed to be the source of mental ability, then magic items that enhance or affect mental abilities would have to be located on the head. I'm far from an expert on the theory, but I believe this is called the Law of Sympathy, or Sympathetic Magic. It's most commonly discussed with things like voodoo dolls - if you cut the doll's arm, the victim's arm will be harmed, etc.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
This isn't just some random gaming artifact. Traditional theories of magic suggest that the correlation of magical properties is tied to the relationship of the physical components used to create that magic. If the head is believed to be the source of mental ability, then magic items that enhance or affect mental abilities would have to be located on the head. I'm far from an expert on the theory, but I believe this is called the Law of Sympathy, or Sympathetic Magic. It's most commonly discussed with things like voodoo dolls - if you cut the doll's arm, the victim's arm will be harmed, etc.Well, the "magic item slot affinity" rules have been around since 3.0, which predates World of Warcraft. Maybe you're just noticing them now.I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
Oh, I'm aware of the slots, but the Pathfinder Beta is the first forum where we have the input to possibly change this standard.
I'm not against the existence of the slots, per se, but I am against limiting the type of enhancement you can place into each slot.
If I want to create a belt buckle that increases my Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma, I should be able to do so. I shouldn't be restricted by an arbitrary rule that says Wisdom/Intelligence/Charisma enhancers have to take an upper torso slot.
But that's just one interpretation. It's magic, after all, which implies anything should be possible.
|
|
Sympathetic Magical theory is completely different than body slots. I don't think the idea that certain types of items should be related to certain slots, but rather than those items be more open to more than one or two slots. This helps to make items a bit more unique, while opening up the possibility that a PC can have a lot more combinations, (even if this can be super broken if abussed).
I agree with the OP, players are going to get stat booster items. Other headband type items are essentially worthless to casters so we might as well eliminate head slot items that are targeted at casters, either that or make those items give a stat boost and other effects.
Similarly with belts, and martial characters. Many characters will have both a belt and a headband.
I don't agree with the idea of eliminating slots entirely... but it's kind of pointless to have a bunch of items targeted at slots that compete with what are considered 'must have' items.
I think a goal of Pathfinder should be to cut down on the need for house rules to define things to the DMs liking.
This may be impossible.
But the enhancement items rules seem to be asking for a plethora of house rulings. I think a more freeform magic items rules that allow greater customization would be better.
I can see why you can't benefit from two headbands. But why not a headband and a hat? Or a set of funky magical earrings?
I agree with the OP, players are going to get stat booster items. Other headband type items are essentially worthless to casters so we might as well eliminate head slot items that are targeted at casters, either that or make those items give a stat boost and other effects.
Similarly with belts, and martial characters. Many characters will have both a belt and a headband.
I don't agree with the idea of eliminating slots entirely... but it's kind of pointless to have a bunch of items targeted at slots that compete with what are considered 'must have' items.
I think it depends on what your character wants. Caster's don't always want an extra spell or an increased DC [Buffers spring to mind]. Some will want it for sure, but some of us aren't that focused on just casting and want our Cleric's/Wizards/Druids to have a broader set of options. I think Pathfinder gives us that, generally speaking.
The other thing here is that if you want the multi-swap-ability that 3.5 [and MIC] gave then just use those rules.
The more I read on these "development threads" the more I see that the majority of 3.5 players [that'll be the vast bulk of Pathfinder supporter] will end up using a mis-match of rules from both 3.5 and PF.
I actually like the new system. While it does put the traditional belts and helmets in a tight spot, it helps all the cloaks, gloves, amulets, and bracers.
The new system means bards, sorcerers and paladins can now get resistance items, that clerics and druids can now get natural armour items, that rogues can now get gloves of storing, and so on.
The fact that the items were all over the place actually hindered lots of magic items that were more cool than super-powerful.
And there is nothing saying you can't decide to make a mismatched item for a different slot. If the DM wants to he can hand them out for the old slots still if he wants a different type of magic item to see use.
Just becuase the new "Normal" slot for an ability enhancement item is going to be belt or headband, doesn't mean every single such item must be of those slots.
RotRl spoiler:
We got a staff of mithral might in rise of the runelords that gave a + 2 enhancement bonus to intelligence. So the pathfinder folks are not afraid to make such alterations themselves!
|
|
I actually like the new system. While it does put the traditional belts and helmets in a tight spot, it helps all the cloaks, gloves, amulets, and bracers.
The new system means bards, sorcerers and paladins can now get resistance items, that clerics and druids can now get natural armour items, that rogues can now get gloves of storing, and so on.
The fact that the items were all over the place actually hindered lots of magic items that were more cool than super-powerful.
While this is somewhat true, it also works in revers. A Cleric can not have a headband and a Phylactery of Turning, or Circlet of Persuasion. Clerics, Druids, and Paladins can not have a Helm of ______ with the Headband of social/perceptual/mental awesomeness. Dwarven Royalty can't wear the Belt of Physical stats and their Belt of Dwarvenkind. All in all, so far I think it hurts more than it helps, but I haven't really gotten into it far enough to form an educated opinion yet.
They could still build it into the pre-existing item, or again instead of having a belt of physical might and belt of dwarvenkind you could instead have a belt of physical might and a crown of dwarvenkind.
There is nothing in the rules that state you can't stack items into each other, or change what "item slot" they require.
|
|
I agree with ABE. This is a non issue. if you can make an enchanted item in any slot, then it doesn't matter. it just means that you will have to eithre forge, or commission a unique item. If player's are not imaginative enough to figure this out, the we should not have to write rules to hold there hands. just add in that the wonderous items section is a list of examples and that enchanting different items wil require the appropriate craft. This may actually get players to take more craft feets, barring that PC's are given more skill points.
|
|
Hey, I allow it. That is not what I am saying. 3.0+ has traditionally been very against this though. The rules as shown made it possible, but very expensive. Depending on how you are going about it, you are looking from anywhere between x1.5 and x3 the normal cost to make such an item, which can be very high. What I am suggesting, is that all items that are one of these, Belt, Boots, Gloves, and some Helms, could be, and commonly are made as all of the above, at no extra cost. So one could easily find a belt of Con +4, Monk's Gloves, or Boots of Str +6. Likewise, Other slots, like Vest, Robe, Helm/Headband/Hat, and Cloak are also interchangable. Necklaces, Rings, Rea Rings, and Goggles, perhaps? I don't know, Rings might be to strong.
The only thing I really object to is the fact that a bard can't wear a headband of alluring charisma and a circlet of persuasion at the same time. (On the other hand, I'm glad that a bard can finally wear a cloak of resistance.) Since those two items are a natural combination, it would make sense to create a headband of charismatic persuasion that combined the abilities of the two.
Oh, and don't forget that an item can be crafted that doesn't take up a slot at twice the price. For minor items such as a hat of disguise, this isn't a big deal.
I don't think a circlet of persuasion was really meant to enhance turning checks, even though the RAW said it did. It should only affect skill checks, not magical abilities (although I have no problem with it enhancing your Charisma check to persuade a charmed person to do something.) I think that if you want to enhance Cha-based magical abilities, that falls under the category of the actual headband.
Threadjack to tie a loose end.
Regardless of past versions, magical gear in WoW can receive any ability boost. Cloth, leather, mail, or plate, all can have stamina, intelligence, agility, spirit, or strength with equal chances.
Certain combinations are rather worthless, like strength on cloth, or intellect on plate. But they do occur; however, they get disenchanted or sold quickly.
End threadjack.
I need to reread the item creation rules for Pathfinder before I comment further. If there is no longer an extra cost to craft items in other "slots", then why even list headband and belts as the "primary location"? Why not just list the powers and how much they cost, and put in a small table for the DM to roll to see what item it ends up on when generating treasure?
Going to go read so I'm not talking out my rear again.
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
One codpiece of stamina, please! ;)
TS
Wait, how long does that enchantment last after I take it off...?
|
I agree with Eric. I'm not a big fan of restricting an enchantment type to a specific body area. It SCREAMS WoW.
Why can't I have boots of Dexterity, or a Robe of Charisma? Seems to me if I can enchant a belt with the proper spells to boost a physical trait, I could apply the same process to a pair of boots, a sash, a hat, codpiece, etc.
One codpiece of stamina, please! ;)
TS
Wait, how long does that enchantment last after I take it off...?
If it lasts more than 4 hours then see a doctor immediately...
While thinking things over...why exactly can't a sword or a breastplate have an enhancement bonus to Strength? Why can't a helmet grant an enhancement to Wisdom?
If the answer is "that's just the ways it's always been"...that's just not a good enough reason.
i had no idea you could pay double the cost and have an un sloted item... how many can you have?
There's no limit really except what is practical for actual space on your body and carrying capacity. Also, Ion stones are unlimited unslotted items.
Threadjack to tie a loose end.
Regardless of past versions, magical gear in WoW can receive any ability boost. Cloth, leather, mail, or plate, all can have stamina, intelligence, agility, spirit, or strength with equal chances.
Certain combinations are rather worthless, like strength on cloth, or intellect on plate. But they do occur; however, they get disenchanted or sold quickly.
End threadjack.
I need to reread the item creation rules for Pathfinder before I comment further. If there is no longer an extra cost to craft items in other "slots", then why even list headband and belts as the "primary location"? Why not just list the powers and how much they cost, and put in a small table for the DM to roll to see what item it ends up on when generating treasure?
Going to go read so I'm not talking out my rear again.
Addendum to that loose end. The original comment was/is accurate. For the Enchanting profession you get enchants on a per body slot basis. Want a plus intelligence enchant? You can have that on your bracers, chest and/or a 2 handed weapon. Only. Magic items have their own item budget, but i believe the original comment was referring to the act of actually 'getting enchants put on your gear' whether the baseline gear was magic or mundane to begin with (and i believe what the other two were referring to) was not an accurate relevance.
Ah, true, if that was the origional comments intention, than it was accurate and I misinterpreted. Although that also throws it into dubious light as to relevance, since D&D doesn't exactly have a separation between PC enchants and randomly generated gear enchants, at least mechanically. The belt found is a +2 belt, and operates exactly the same as the +2 whatever made by PCs. That is not the case in WoW.
Threadjack end.
there is however one big reson why the rules look liket they do now.
Game balance!.
when that is said, this is a fantasy game and there is a reason for the so cales sympathetic magic(metal ehancments going near the head eg.)
have anyoen of u ever read a fantasy novel where magic was not bound by rules, magic actually feels less magical if it is unbound by guidelines, the same goes for spells, thats partly why the divine magic deals with life enegy and arcane with the elements and so on.
the resaon why u cant wear multible headband,helmets,hats(at least in the pfrpg universe) is because the body only have certian points where it connects to the magical enegies of the world, think they are called chakras.
thats not saying it cant be changed but making it to random makes for a messy and posibly gamebreaking element where the dm constantly have to monitor players with the itemcreation feats, turning out tons of unslotted items and strange combinations of abbilities.
Combining the mental and physical attribute enhancers into one slot, respectively, is a terrible idea.
Why? Because it hugely favors the caster classes over the non-casters. Casters need one good stat for their mental attributes ( outside of poorly constructed classes like the Divine Soul and Spirit Shaman ) and, at the maximum, two good physical stats. They can do with one good physical stat without too many problems.
Non-casters need three good physical stats, together with whatever mental stat they might still need.
As non-casters already have a problem competing with casters, shouldn´t a further nerf to their abilities be avoided?
I´d replace the ability enhancers completely with enhancements gained at certain levels by the character, but that´s a topic for another thread.
::gives the above odd looks::
Yeah, becuase you know, the fighter with the belt is just like the wizard with the spells, or the druid with the wildshaping...
Actually it turns the ability boosters into a side issue. The fewer slots they take the more slots open for the fighter to have something else. But hey, we all know the fighter couldn't have an use for extra slots.
|
|
::gives the above odd looks::
Yeah, becuase you know, the fighter with the belt is just like the wizard with the spells, or the druid with the wildshaping...
Actually it turns the ability boosters into a side issue. The fewer slots they take the more slots open for the fighter to have something else. But hey, we all know the fighter couldn't have an use for extra slots.
I agree.
Also, not all classes are created equally. Clerics (spellcasters), need more than one good and two ok stats, for example, while it is completely possible that a Wizard can get away with high Int and Dex, and 8's in all else, if they have to. Not only that, but they can be a very good Wizard. Try that with a Paladin, High Wis and Con, for example, and all 8's. I would say Cha, but that's actually a lot worse.
Point buy is not actually all that balanced. And for some classes to be able to do what they should be able to and, (especially at higher levels), need to, +2, +4, +6's to many stats are very needed.
Yeah, what Beckett says.
While multi-stat boosters are available, their heightened cost makes them quite more difficult to obtain.
Anyway, as I said before, I much favour a solution which gets completely rid of the ability boosters.
I believe Hugo Solis had an interesting house-rule, where he basically halved the gold/treasure granted to the party, and basic +X weapon/armor/stat enhancements were NOT available thru items, but were gained 'automatically' as characters levelled... But only 'special qualities' were available thru item enhancements (the +1 minimum for weapons/armor was waived, since it didn't exist anymore) Players could choose what kind of 'basic enhancement' they wanted (+stat, +att/dmg, +AC, etc) whenever they levelled up and their 'enhancement quota' raised in 'value'.
Definitely not going into Pathfinder as a Core rule, but a very interesting solution for sure.
So what you are saying is becuase you want your players to have "cool" magic items you are giving them a LOT of extra money in the form of unconnected bonuses to everything.
So you boosted the power level and gave your PC's free wealth... how did this help the 'problem' again? Other than adding another layer of exploitable rules?
And how is this better than just letting magic items being stacked onto the same base item as you can now (such as building a circlet of persuasion into a headband of charisma)?
So what you are saying is becuase you want your players to have "cool" magic items you are giving them a LOT of extra money in the form of unconnected bonuses to everything.
So you boosted the power level and gave your PC's free wealth... how did this help the 'problem' again? Other than adding another layer of exploitable rules?
And how is this better than just letting magic items being stacked onto the same base item as you can now (such as building a circlet of persuasion into a headband of charisma)?
I can´t speak for him, but simply giving out less money overall should reduce that problem you are talking about.
Personally, I´d leave magic arms and armor out of what he is doing, just give stat bonuses, resistance bonuses and some sort of AC bonus, which replace the ability enhancers, resistance cloaks, deflection rings and natural armor amulets.
Magic arms and armor are iconic, IMO. The next thing which gets iconic status for all the other stuff is a belt of giant strength... and that cow is not sacred enough for me to spare it.
What about NPCs? Does a fifth level commoner get these enhancements too? If not we suddenly have two tiers of people: Adventurers and everyone else, it creates a rift in the continuity of the game... if so then I'm still not really impressed.
Lessening the gold would mean less gold to buy the "interesting" items with which means less interesting items in play.
In the end he doesn't get rid of the christmas tree effect he has simply changed its clothing.
If he keeps the arms and armor what happens when a character dies? Does the sword suddenly become unmagical (and easier to break)?
Overall it's still just buying something with something else.
Adventurers are already a league apart from "everybody else", due to from their stats and abilities. Otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.
That's entirely different. That's a handicap, to speak in sports terms. Having adventurers arbitrarily get stat bonuses is applying two entirely different sets of rules. One of the beautiful things about 3.5/PRPG is that everything uses the same set of rules. Monsters, players, and Joe the Pig Farmer are all built exactly the same way. Changing that for arbitrariness's sake isn't exactly a hot idea, IMO.
But it's already different. NPCs and adversaries don't usually get adventurers equipment last I checked. They also have fairly generic stats unless otherwise noted.Adventurers are already a league apart from "everybody else", due to from their stats and abilities. Otherwise they wouldn't be adventurers.That's entirely different. That's a handicap, to speak in sports terms. Having adventurers arbitrarily get stat bonuses is applying two entirely different sets of rules. One of the beautiful things about 3.5/PRPG is that everything uses the same set of rules. Monsters, players, and Joe the Pig Farmer are all built exactly the same way. Changing that for arbitrariness's sake isn't exactly a hot idea, IMO.
It's not quite the same as saying you get an enhancment bonus to X and they don't becuase they aren't adventurers.
One of the kind of "core" ideas to D&D is that an apprentice Pig Farmer can get a sword and go off on an adventure to find out who he is, (or just plain save the world). That changes some when you have "special" people that get bonuses just for becoming better at what they do that no one else gets.
And if people get the same amount of gold as they would have, and get these bonuses then you've raised the "power level" of the game.
One of the kind of "core" ideas to D&D is that an apprentice Pig Farmer can get a sword and go off on an adventure to find out who he is, (or just plain save the world). That changes some when you have "special" people that get bonuses just for becoming better at what they do that no one else gets.
That apprentice pig farmer then starts as a first level character, who, upon gaining levels as an adventurer, gains levels in adventurer classes.
The Star Wars Saga system handles this quite well, with non-heroic characters and then the ones who gain heroic levels, i.e. the adventurers.