There should also be a commensurate loss of a few item slots to compensate as well.
Yea, I was thinking about something like that in to make up for the fact players would be getting the bonus' of 4-5 items by default. Maybe a hard limit on the number of item slots that could be 'filled' at any given time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Star Wars Saga got it right. Equipment was just the icing on the cake, only giving a slight edge. It was the characters themselves that were the meat, that made the real difference.
Look into the mechanics. You'll see what I mean.
Star Wars Saga got it right. Equipment was just the icing on the cake, only giving a slight edge. It was the characters themselves that were the meat, that made the real difference.
Look into the mechanics. You'll see what I mean.
Hmmm, yea, Saga Edition did that, didn't it. I guess they did get something right there.
Personally though, I'd like to aim for a balance between 'it is the characters who are powerful' and 'the items make the character'. There are a lot of legends and stories involving heroes who wield mighty weapons and such.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, sometimes you say things so smart I just want to hug you and never let you go. In a totally non-creepy kind of way.
The system really does give you all the tools to hang whatever hat you want on your magic items though. If you limit yourself to the defaults listed in the Core Rulebook, your item selection probably will be fairly mundane, but magic items (outside of PFS which is a strange unworldly beast unto itself) are exactly as beneficial and unique as the time you're willing to put into them, and the system gives you all the guidelines for tweaking and bolting just about anything onto whatever.
Way back in the 80s I made up my own RPG rules. I "fixed" a lot of things that were not done the way I liked them in D&D or Gamma World (the two main systems I played back then). Magic items were one thing I tried to "fix".
My system was a mana based system too, and many magic items tapped into the user's mana pool, they didn't have unlimited power. If the item was used without any mana, it would do temporary constitution damage. A staff, for example, gave wizards new abilities, but not more power. Weapons and armor were just about the only "always on" items, but even some of them used up mana or constitution. If the weapon had a property, such as "returning" it just worked. But if it had a power that did additional damage, like flaming, it would require mana or constitution sacrifice.
There was a way to give martial characters temporary mana pools.
Anyway, it's been a long time and I don't remember it all, but the whole point was to keep the power of the character dependent on the CHARACTER, and really super powerful magic items couldn't even be used by low level characters because it might kill them right out by sucking their constitution dry.
The whole system had too much bookkeeping so we eventually abandoned it, but I really liked the magic item implementation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WBL is a challenge metric, not a welfare program.
This is probably the simplest and easiest description I've ever read.
Way back in the 80s I made up my own RPG rules. I "fixed" a lot of things that were not done the way I liked them in D&D or Gamma World (the two main systems I played back then). Magic items were one thing I tried to "fix".
My system was a mana based system too, and many magic items tapped into the user's mana pool, they didn't have unlimited power. If the item was used without any mana, it would do temporary constitution damage. A staff, for example, gave wizards new abilities, but not more power. Weapons and armor were just about the only "always on" items, but even some of them used up mana or constitution. If the weapon had a property, such as "returning" it just worked. But if it had a power that did additional damage, like flaming, it would require mana or constitution sacrifice.
There was a way to give martial characters temporary mana pools.
Anyway, it's been a long time and I don't remember it all, but the whole point was to keep the power of the character dependent on the CHARACTER, and really super powerful magic items couldn't even be used by low level characters because it might kill them right out by sucking their constitution dry.
The whole system had too much bookkeeping so we eventually abandoned it, but I really liked the magic item implementation.
LOL, in my many edits of this post I accidentally deleted the main point. My magic weapons and armor did not provide generic "+X" bonuses. They provided specific benefits, such as "trollbane" or "flaming". In most fights a typical martial character would do the same damage with their magic weapon as they would with any old random weapon they found. It was only when the weapon's special abilities were utilized that they became powerful.
Those six aren't required at all. The most I've ever had at once is four of them, and that was at 18th level. In the game I'm in now, I'm almost 6th level and only have one.
Those six aren't required at all. The most I've ever had at once is four of them, and that was at 18th level. In the game I'm in now, I'm almost 6th level and only have one.
You're at 6th level and you don't at least have both a magic weapon and armor? Your gm must play low magic campaigns with reduced monster power or something. Assuming you're playing a martial class of course.
I have a third level witch who has no magic armor, weapon or really anything else.
My eighth level druid has a +1 RoP, +1 buckler and +1 amulet of natural armor. She also has a +1 shocking bow. So at level 8 she's got four of the big six. I'd guess she's pretty average in that regard.
The big 6 only matter for:
1. Inter-party balance, if one front line fighter gets a big enough boost over another such that it is difficult to challenge one without killing the other then that is a problem. This is less of a problem if party members take different roles in combat and the DM plays along.
2. Encounter balance, if the encounter level is designed with the expectation that the party is significantly stronger than it is then that is a problem. This is less of a problem for experienced DM's who can just adjust the encounter on the fly.
*****
As someone pointed out earlier, most of the Big 6 are providing AC bonuses. AC is very important for front line fighters, and much less so for the guys in back. Likewise, if you don't use a weapon then it obviously is not so important to have a magical weapon.
I expect that casters only really "need" the item of primary stat and maybe a cloak of resistance. Front line fighters, on the other hand, are more likely to need the Big 6 to stay competitive with other front line fighters and monsters.
You're at 6th level and you don't at least have both a magic weapon and armor? Your gm must play low magic campaigns with reduced monster power or something. Assuming you're playing a martial class of course.
You called it. Half orc barbarian just like the avatar. I have a magic rapier and the highest ac in the party, which is tough without magic armor. We're playing kingmaker and the dm tends to run modules pretty faithfully.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem that I see with the WBL/CR is that it limits what the GM can do. IN PF IMO the Module AP is not designed properly it is base on a 15 point stat buy and low monatary reward for the risk that the PC's are put u againist. This is how the PF design team wanted their game to
be run. I have no problem with their design concept. Its jus not how I want to run my game.
I like to reward my players for the risk they take. If I wnat to give my players items that are far out side of the WBL guidlines I can balace the encounters to reflect this. Most of the Item loot I give my players comes from their PC's killing baddies that have the gear they find.
In PF I have found the Big 6 items are over priced if you can' craft te item in PFS all items for characters el 8 an above are grossly over priced. You will find that EL 8 and above martial characters are limited to +2 arms and armor Unless you are a Paladin or Magus that has class abilities that boost you items.
One glaring roblem that I see in PF is that the game designers failed to fix the biggest glaring hole in 3.X is the magic item creation rules
Why should a caster have to burn a feat and be of a certain level to create a magic item. Arcane casters should know how to create RSW's
and know the basics of enchanting Arms and armor and woundrous items when they leave their magic traing school. The limiting factor in item creation should be the level of magic they can cast and the resources that they have not a factor like CL and Feats. Some of the funest game that I have played in are when the party goes out to find certain things used in the creation of magic items. An aspect completly missing from pathfinder.
You called it. Half orc barbarian just like the avatar. I have a magic rapier and the highest ac in the party, which is tough without magic armor. We're playing kingmaker and the dm tends to run modules pretty faithfully.
You're at 6th level and you don't at least have both a magic weapon and armor? Your gm must play low magic campaigns with reduced monster power or something. Assuming you're playing a martial class of course.
Right, so if you are following wealth by level the AC boosts don't really start until 6th level and then you get about +1AC per level after that. By level 15 you get about +9 to AC, which is a lot compared to the guy that is not going after the Big 6. Up to level 5 it is cheaper to just get better mundane armor.
@ Lou Diamond
Power is relative, if you give your PC's much greater than WBL then you may find that encounters become too easy for them. IMO if you want the party to have more stuff, give them more XP as well then at least you can determine the actual APL easier.
Also, Martials are not confined to +2 arms and armor, they will get to +3 arms and armor at level 11 or so following the WBL guidelines. You claim that the Big 6 are over priced, do you have an example of a better value item for that level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before, most of my characters aren't generally pressed for cash. Of course, I don't try to get magic items too early either. I mean, a +1 weapon at 3rd level? Screw that man. That's like a minimum of 2,300 gp. I'll take a 50 gp oil, or cast a spell if I really need to penetrate DR/Magic.
AC? Well, AC is easy to pad at low levels. I mean, you can easily pull AC 18 with no shield at 1st level, or AC 20 with a shield with your starting funds. If you're a Fighter or Paladin, 19-21 easily enough if you're allowing non-core material (armor kilts are fairly priced).
I might have no static items by 3rd level, but might have a collection of potions, oils, and x/day effect items (plus mundane stuff like alchemist fire, tanglefoot bags, and a golf bag of weapons). And then, when I do get such items, it will typically prioritize defense before offense, because defense is cheaper (for the price of a single +1 weapon, which only gives +1 damage over a mwk weapon, you can get +1 on both an armor and a shield, or +1 resistance to saves).
I'm a big fan of consumables as well. Anyone here besides my group use items like elixirs? They're wondrous items that cost 250 gp. Their effects? +10 competence bonus to a specific skill (depending on the elixir) for 1 hour. 1 hour. How many situations do you have that you'd just like to crush a skill for about an hour? Infiltration mission? Quaff an elixir of hiding for +10 Stealth for the session. Want to avoid getting ambushed or notice more secret doors and stuff? Quaff an elixir of vision for +10 Perception. Want to rock Jumping, Balancing, and Tumbling? There's a +10 Acrobatics elixir; and nothing is stopping you from making other elixirs for other skills.
I've seen entire combats turned or even steamrolled because of clever usage of an elemental gem. They can be so deciding in early battles that I've seen entire parties chip in to get an elemental gem as a secret weapon. I mean, let's face it, pooping out a CR 5 large fire elemental with 60 HP, DR 5/-, 10 ft. reach, 2 slams at +12 each (dealing 1d8+2 plus 1d8 fire damage on each hit and setting enemies on fire for 1d8 fire damage for 1d4 rounds), 50 ft. speed, immunity to fire, and so forth is a pretty major deal. Especially since the critter sticks around for 1.1 minutes (11 rounds).
One of my players loves tree feather tokens, and crafts them regularly. What do they do? Sprout a 60 ft. tall 5 ft. wide tree out of nowhere. The stuff this dude does with these tokens is amusing. Blocks passages, creates total cover, blocks line of effect, climb them, and one of the most amusing uses I saw them used for was during an encounter when they gave a bag of them to the wizard's familiar, who scattered them across a very big battle; allowing the party's ranger to use tree stride to keep teleporting around the battlefield while using Stealth to confound enemies.
This stuff is broke as hell, and a great investment at higher levels. You get 2d6 rounds of greater invisibility that cannot be pierced via magical means. No true seeing, no invisibility purge, no see invisibility, nothing. If it's magic, it doesn't matter, you still can't see them. 2d6 rounds of unadulterated ass-kicking with little that your opponent can do beyond dispelling or marking you with something (like faerie fire, but when was the last time a pesky true-seeing monster also sported faerie fire, eh?).
That being said, one of the things I like the most about the 3.x system is it encourages players to be proactive. It's not just about finding some magic item that somebody else made, it encourages you to be the guy who is making mystical items. Most of my caster PCs (including Rangers and Paladins) will usually pick up an item creation feat or two (Craft Wondrous is the no-brainer, but my arcanists will assuredly have Craft Magic Arms & Armor, as well as Craft Construct, because constructs are cool; and Craft Rod isn't bad for those who like metamagic, like Druids). I like having something to do during the off-screen time or during downtime. I like that when the party takes off a week from active adventuring, my character can be doing something productive for their next outing, or working on that next big peak in his craft. The idea of a tinkerer who's constantly improving her stuff, or having pockets full of weird baubles for seemingly random occasions, appeals to me.
Ciaran Barnes is correct as well. I was having a conversation about this conversation with a friend of mine from our group. He thought the idea of a big six was pretty stupid, because in his opinion easily the majority of those items were not must haves at all, or were entirely negligible. He felt the most useless of them was the magic weapon, and the most realistic of them as being needed was resistance items, and ability score boosters; but even then he felt like those were really cheap for their effects. Given further thinking on it, I agree with him. In most games, ability score boosters don't go higher than +6 (36,000 gp) and +5 for resistance items (25,000 gp). Even if you're not crafting items (and somebody should be, because you can only purchase up to +4 items reliably in core), that means 3 +6 items and a +5 cloak of resistance are only 133,000 gp, leaving 747,000 gp left for the rest of your gear at 20th. Even better if your party has been crafting them as you advanced in level (upgrading each time for the difference in cost).
IMHO, a +5 weapon is about as far as you might need to go with your weapons, and even then you can totally do just fine with multiple weaker weapons. But I'm kind of a cheapskate, so that might just be me. Probably comes from the fact I'm merciless, and don't believe in putting all my eggs in one basket. I mean, why spend 200,000 gp on a really awesome +10 equivalent sword, when it can be so trivially destroyed by any arcanist worth their salt?
the big 6 are must haves. but one shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket as Ashiel puts it. an elemental gem is a useful trump card until about level 10 or so. but you can do fine with consumables until level 6, maybe 8. and you don't need a 26 in your primary attack stat at level 10. A 20-22 works just fine. i had a level 15 Suli Oracle that was still winning fights with a 20 STR and a +3 greatsword. she had the lowest AC amongst the front line combatants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem that I see with the WBL/CR is that it limits what the GM can do. IN PF IMO the Module AP is not designed properly it is base on a 15 point stat buy and low monatary reward for the risk that the PC's are put u againist. This is how the PF design team wanted their game to
be run. I have no problem with their design concept. Its jus not how I want to run my game.
I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.
In 4e my level 23 ranger uses +1 and +2 weapons to great effect. He obviously doesn't hit as much as he does with a +4 weapon, but he usually still has a much better than 50% chance to hit even with the lower bonus. (Why would he use +1 and +2 weapons? Because in 4e magic weapons have special effects that apply on a hit, and the effect doesn't care what the weapon bonus was, it just works if you hit. So hitting a level 30 monster with a +1 weapon that dazes it still dazes it. And there are LOTS of really great effects that you can get with magic weapons in 4e. And most of all, they are cheap, cheap, cheap.)
Anyway... the point is that Ashiel is correct about players typically over-estimating the need for every possible bonus to be successful. Especially since you can replicate the effect of an enhancement bonus with spells and elixirs anyway. Spells and elixirs that become pointless once you get a +5 weapon.
I am almost of the opinion that armor class is pointless in many boss fights. The boss is gonna hit you if you get close. In our last big fight the big boss missed his target exactly one time in a fight that lasted about ten rounds. And that was against high ACs buffed to be even higher AC. Heck, the boss hit my character when he had a -4 penalty to his attack and my character's AC was buffed by 4 above his normal level appropriate AC. You just gotta expect you're gonna get hit.
I am one of those who purchases and uses consumables a lot. Potions, wands, elixirs, wondrous items... I love that stuff. My level 8 druid has a +1 bow, but that doesn't really matter since our buffer cleric typically tags it with "greater magic weapon" anyway.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, on the Armor Class topic...
What's a pretty standard AC progression for a frontliner? For a sometimes-frontliner, like a cleric or eldritch knight?
What's a good AC at 5th level?
7th?
10th?
Where's the threshold Ashiel mentioned where it's low enough that you may as well not bother?
Thanks.
I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.
Can you link to this or otherwise tell me where to find it? My GM has been stressing over the amount of wealth in Kingmaker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, on the Armor Class topic...
What's a pretty standard AC progression for a frontliner? For a sometimes-frontliner, like a cleric or eldritch knight?
What's a good AC at 5th level?
7th?
10th?
Where's the threshold Ashiel mentioned where it's low enough that you may as well not bother?
Thanks.
It really depends, Jiggy. What is good AC and what is only mediocre AC really depends on what your planning to be facing. Depending on the types of enemies that you encounter, your AC will need to be more or less. As a good rule of thumb, I would consider testing your AC against what you would consider a pretty good build on a melee Fighter or similar martial class of an equal level. If you expect a 6th level Fighter to have a +14 to hit, then you might try to keep your evasion % at least around 45-55% evasion against his main attack; resting well knowing that enemies with a lesser to-hit will miss significantly more often.
For example, I mentioned ACs at 1st level in my previous post. Let's pretend we're trying to optimize our AC against heavy hitting opponents. At 1st level, a +6 to hit would be quite high (+1 BAB, +4 key stat, +1 feat or mwk item), and most enemies between CR 1/3 - CR 3 won't hit much better than that (in fact, most CR 3 enemies cap out around +7 to hit), so we can feel pretty comfortable at 1st level that if we can reasonably evade a +6, then we are good tanks for general adventuring.
So let's compare for a moment. At 1st level, we can easily afford a suit of chainmail, a heavy wooden shield, possibly an armored kilt, and still have enough money to pick up some cheap weapons (possibly a club since it's free). With a +2 Dex, we have AC 18 without our shield, AC 20 with our shield, and AC 21 counting the kilt (for fighters who can wear heavy at 1st level). So we want to see how AC 18 holds up against a +6.
Well, we know that the roll is 1d20+6, so we take 18-7 (6 plus minimum roll of 1 on a d20) and get 11. 11 * 5% = 55%. We have a 55% of evading a hit a +6. For every +1 AC we have, our evasion raises by 5%. For every -1 to hit they have, our evasion raises by 5%. The reverse is true as well (every +1 to hit, or -1 to AC adjusts by 5% in the attacker's favor). So we can see that if we were tanking lots of low CR enemies with only a +2 to hit, then our evasion would actually be 75% versus those enemies. Donning a shield would bring us to 85%. Fighting defensively brings us to 95%. Now we've hit our cap. Adding further AC would do nothing against a +2 to hit, but our evasion against a +6 has now only reached 75%. A fighter wearing the same armor, same shield, fighting defensively, plus an armored kilt would have 80% evasion vs the +6, but would gain no further evasion against the +2, but would now also be evade-capped for +3 attackers as well.
Now to-hit bonuses are pretty easy to come by. By default, martial characters gain a +1 to hit every level, which means against the same AC they get +5% to hit every level. So you need to raise your AC further to compensate. At low levels, this is somewhat difficult to do quickly. You'll want the best armor you can get (mwk breastplate is good for most martials, though plate mail with a kilt is ideal for fighters and paladins) at first. As you become AC-capped from armor (there's a point where you simply cannot upgrade your mundane armor further), you will need to begin adding magical bonuses.
The best way to add magic bonuses is by stacking lots of little ones and then upgrading each slowly. It's much more effective to have a +1 armor (+1,000 gp), +1 shield (+1,000 gp), +1 deflection (2,000 gp), +1 natural (2,000 gp), instead of having a single +2 deflection (8,000 gp). Your net AC increase is +4, and you've only spent 6,000 gp in resources on magic. That would set our hero's AC to a whopping 24 before situational modifiers. That brings you to 85% evasion vs that same +6 earlier, which means that you now have a 55% evasion against a +12. So you are now capable of tanking a +12 attack roll as effectively as you tanked a +6 attack roll at 1st (for the record, that's pretty good for tanking most CR 5-6 creatures).
That's also before figuring situational modifiers of course. Getting a bit of cover adds a +20% to your evasion, but you're still evade-% capped at 95% (they can always hit you on a nat-20). Most non-martials will take advantage of these situational modifiers to AC. Merely standing behind your front-liners will give a +20% evasion vs ranged attacks. Going prone grants another +20% evasion vs ranged attacks (but a -20% evasion vs melee attacks). Dropping a smokestick gives an additional 20-50% evasion vs incoming attacks, and is checked in addition to your AC (giving 2 layers of defense, since they must beat AC and miss %). When you begin figuring extra defenses that cause opponents to outright miss (such as with bards using displacement) you can end up with fairly complex but effective methods of defense.
So it really depends on what you want to tank. I personally look for stuff that I might reasonably be expected to fight (anything within my level+3 CR range) and try to get at least decent evade-% against those levels of attacks. If I can sport at least a 55% evasion against enemies that are a bit stronger than myself, then I know that I should be able to survive long enough to put down a single strong enemy, or sufficiently tank multiple weak foes without severe risk.
That's why I used a pit fiend as an example before. It's a CR 20 creature that is an outsider (perfect BAB, nice ability scores, etc). A wizard could sport a 45% evasion vs the pit fiends attacks, and a fighter could sport a 95% evasion vs the same pit fiend. That leads us to believe tht the wizard would be capable of surviving an unlucky encounter with the pit fiend's melee, while a fighter would more or less laugh at the pit fiend's melee offense (which is good, he's a freakin' fighter, he's supposed to rock the fiend's socks in melee).
AC also changes its value depending on your foe. If the game is sporting a wide variety of spellcasters, then AC takes a back seat to saving throw bonuses, energy resistances, and spell-counters (such as death ward or freedom of movement). Likewise, if you are regularly facing large hordes of weak enemies, such as is popular in games where the PCs are heroes among otherwise mundane individuals (such as where Aragorn wades into about 10+ orcs in the Fellowship like a boss), then your AC won't need to be quite as high (because it only needs to be high enough to get a 95% evasion vs the weak enemies). Because of this, most low-fantasy/magic campaigns won't need lots of magic items because you are generally less likely to encounter enemies who have high to-hit modifiers, and your AC buffs can easily come from your party's spellcaster when dealing with something stronger than the norm.
AC is a funny thing. Both it and attack modifiers need be only as high as you need them. How high you need them depends on your level and the level of your enemies, and what they can bring to bare. There's no hard and fast rule. However, a good guideline for having a maxed AC might be 18 + level * 2. That's a pretty good benchmark for having a sexy AC that is difficult to hit at all levels, but you probably won't be able to meet those demands at most levels with most classes. Less AC is fine (this would just be the benchmark for avoiding even the most harrowing of full-attacks, such as from high-level Fighters).
I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.Can you link to this or otherwise tell me where to find it? My GM has been stressing over the amount of wealth in Kingmaker.
Found it. James Jacob said that he sees more complaints about too little treasure than about too much treasure, but from what I've seen on the forums, it feels like the other way around. (But I'd trust his suggestions over mine.)
Found it. James Jacob said that he sees more complaints about too little treasure than about too much treasure, but from what I've seen on the forums, it feels like the other way around. (But I'd trust his suggestions over mine.)I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.Can you link to this or otherwise tell me where to find it? My GM has been stressing over the amount of wealth in Kingmaker.
Please tell your GM who is "stressing" that it is much easier to cut wealth out of the adventure than to generate treasure to close a WBL gap. I think APs should overshoot on wealth for precisely this reason.
I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.The problem that I see with the WBL/CR is that it limits what the GM can do. IN PF IMO the Module AP is not designed properly it is base on a 15 point stat buy and low monatary reward for the risk that the PC's are put u againist. This is how the PF design team wanted their game to
be run. I have no problem with their design concept. Its jus not how I want to run my game.
I feel a need to point out that Lou Diamond's original post was about Pathfinder Society (PFS) scenarios, not Adventure Paths. PFS plays under more "locked down" requirements than the APs or home games, and a lot of the comments about APs and home games vs. PFS are "apples and oranges" comparisons.
I feel a need to point out that Lou Diamond's original post was about Pathfinder Society (PFS) scenarios, not Adventure Paths. PFS plays under more "locked down" requirements than the APs or home games, and a lot of the comments about APs and home games vs. PFS are "apples and oranges" comparisons.I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.The problem that I see with the WBL/CR is that it limits what the GM can do. IN PF IMO the Module AP is not designed properly it is base on a 15 point stat buy and low monatary reward for the risk that the PC's are put u againist. This is how the PF design team wanted their game to
be run. I have no problem with their design concept. Its jus not how I want to run my game.
I haven't played PFS, so I can't comment on how they do things, but Lou's post didn't mention it but did mention APs and home games. I may have just misinterpreted though.
I haven't played PFS, so I can't comment on how they do things, but Lou's post didn't mention it but did mention APs and home games. I may have just misinterpreted though.I feel a need to point out that Lou Diamond's original post was about Pathfinder Society (PFS) scenarios, not Adventure Paths. PFS plays under more "locked down" requirements than the APs or home games, and a lot of the comments about APs and home games vs. PFS are "apples and oranges" comparisons.I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.The problem that I see with the WBL/CR is that it limits what the GM can do. IN PF IMO the Module AP is not designed properly it is base on a 15 point stat buy and low monatary reward for the risk that the PC's are put u againist. This is how the PF design team wanted their game to
be run. I have no problem with their design concept. Its jus not how I want to run my game.
And it would appear on re-reading that I was completely off-base.
Move along, please.. nothing to see here ...
Wait a minute...
I keep hearing people say that by the time you hid mid-to-high levels, armor class stops mattering. So why are one-third of the Big Six just AC-boosters?
Power Attack, Expertise, secondary attacks, etc.
If you dump your AC, they can dump their attacks.
If you don't dump your AC, they can't normally afford to dump points into those abilities.
But even then, AC only stops 2nd attacks not 1st in a full attack usually.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope that in Pathfinder 2E, they can build the flat bonus stuff into the characters, and make room for more magical items to be INTERESTING. In fact, if no edition of Pathfinder ever again offered items that gave a +X to anything, I'd consider that to be a good thing.
I can see his point. The game is built around the idea you have certain items boosting certain things. Its an unfortunate flaw in Items. As a DM I try and throw out extra fun items that most players wouldn't usually purchase.
...What's a good AC?...
Ashiel provided a great answer, but I still want to shamelessly plug an old post of mine:
10th level fighter equipmentI would also just point out that things ramp up in price very quickly. An additional "+1" on each of your big six items is going to be something like 4X as much GP. Therefor, as long as you have a few of the big six items, you won't be that much different then someone who has the best big six items that they can afford. At the same time, this is a game where 1-2 points is often the difference between success and failure.
I should also note that you don't need 95% evasion to be a strong defender against incoming attacks. I think that as long as the monsters need to roll at least a 15 to hit, you can be a very effective front line fighter.
I would also just point out that things ramp up in price very quickly. An additional "+1" on each of your big six items is going to be something like 4X as much GP. Therefor, as long as you have a few of the big six items, you won't be that much different then someone who has the best big six items that they can afford. At the same time, this is a game where 1-2 points is often the difference between success and failure.
I should also note that you don't need 95% evasion to be a strong defender against incoming attacks. I think that as long as the monsters need to roll at least a 15 to hit, you can be a very effective front line fighter.
Agreed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my low magic games, players don't get all of the big six. There are also odd and usual items they might want to use instead, for quirky or very specific bonuses (think some of the stuff from old AD&D).
No magic crafting, because it slows down games while the spellcaster fills their body slots and encourages lazy crafting gameplay. Also diminishes the worth of what I place in dungones because the powergamer crafter can just make something better *fumes inwardly, the anger at the wroughty cheese growing evermore*.
Then it is not a problem. This is how you get away from the six being a problem. You say, that is nice, I know you know how to make the strongest of characters. The world does not allow all your slots (sickening) to be filled in the manner that you wish. You will find some of them, and you will craft none of them.
Bingo! Done. Go home and drink some ale.
The problem with not sticking to WBL and Big Six bonuses (however the party manages to get them) is that you have to throw out the CR system, which unlike 3.5 is actually very balanced and useful - One of the things I like most about Pathfinder is how they did CR. Also, you start to mess with the balance between classes. Example: Fighter 6 with masterwork sword and masterwork armor vs. Cleric 6 with Divine Favor, Bull's Strength, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon, Shield of Faith, etc. Sadly, I think the interconnections are far too complicated to be fixed with a simple -1 here and there.
Personally, I don't like what Big Six magic items do to the flavor of the game when it comes to magic treasure. Basically, everything is either a Big Six you want, or junk to be converted into a Big Six you want. As a player, I'm as guilty as the next guy of participating in this behavior.
In my next game, I'm going to try something different and hand out 75% of the WBL as points that can be used to "purchase" Big Six bonuses at level up. The characters will still conform to the WBL/Big Six/CR system, but the magic treasure will hopefully be more meaningful. Oh, and the chain of Adventurer's Magic Marts(TM) in every hamlet, thorp, and strip mall will suddenly face severe economic headwinds and be forced to go out of business.
Mmm all possible. Yep. I ran a game in Isger, which is nowhere mentioned as having a burgeoning magic item economy since it is half goblin infested wasteland, and I had fun running an ultra low magic game.
It depends what you want, and what you are going to give your players. You can take out the magic item shops, you can give more bonuses by level. You can keep it low, watch the cr and tone down DR. There are plenty of ways to address the issue of the six, the stacking of the six and the quest to fill the six. lol.
Good gaming to you man! Look forward to hearing what you did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope that in Pathfinder 2E, they can build the flat bonus stuff into the characters, and make room for more magical items to be INTERESTING. In fact, if no edition of Pathfinder ever again offered items that gave a +X to anything, I'd consider that to be a good thing.
It's funny, but there's not a lot of reason the system can't be designed with no magic as a baseline, instead of the baseline we've got. In fact, in systems that did that, but still supported adding magic up to high magic using more or less the same tools we've got now, magic would sure as hell feel a lot more magical, wouldn't it?
There are some sacred cows we'll never see slaughtered, I suppose. But imagine how much less work it would be to manage NPC gear if these bonuses were in the background?
Im not a number cruncher but is there some way that we can limit monsters as the CR raises to negate the Big 6 in low magic games?
For example
CR 1-4 all monsters as in the book
CR 4-8 monsters get a -1 to attack, damage, ac and spell DC's
CR 9-12 monsters get a -2 to attack, damage, ac and spell DC's
etc
PC's need the pluses to attack to over come monsters increased AC's but if we lower those stats shown in book periodically wont it all work out in the end somehow?
This is what I did in 4E. Just 'unbaked' the bonuses out of the monsters. That way, I could still give out +1 items and they felt special, a bonus you couldn't get any other way.
Haven't done it in PF yet, or even seen if it's possible. But I'd expect it is, reverse-engineering the WBL rules.
It's funny, but there's not a lot of reason the system can't be designed with no magic as a baseline, instead of the baseline we've got. In fact, in systems that did that, but still supported adding magic up to high magic using more or less the same tools we've got now, magic would sure as hell feel a lot more magical, wouldn't it?
There are some sacred cows we'll never see slaughtered, I suppose. But imagine how much less work it would be to manage NPC gear if these bonuses were in the background?
This, x 100
As I understand it, this is how the new D&D game is being built. No magic is baseline, handing out gear makes things easier to beat the opponents.
Crucially, it takes the choice of items away from the PCs, with all these 'buy it at half price' creation feats. In 4E, items were just extentions of the character, and were in the Player's handbook.
Oh, and the chain of Adventurer's Magic Marts(TM) in every hamlet, thorp, and strip mall will suddenly face severe economic headwinds and be forced to go out of business.
4E was worse.
As 4E characters are completely disconnected from every part of their world and NPCs, it suggested you had Magical Merchants (on dinosaurs!) show up at every nameless hamlet or thorp in the middle of the night.
Who needs immersion anyway? This ain't your parent's D&D...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem has always been two-fold...
The first is the presumption on all sides that you have to drape yourself in ever-escalating layers of magic to even participate in the game effectively... and the second is that magic is so rare and wonderous that it can be bought, sold and traded like baseball cards.
Personally I'd rather see characters created and developed where magic items are - at best - enhancements to them rather than the definition of them. Its almost as if players simply become platforms for magic items rained down on them by the Gods (or purchased en masse from ye Olde Magic Mart on the corner) and its the items themselves that are victorious in encounters rather than those privileged enough to wield them.
In our campaigns my characters have far fewer magic items (generic items above the level of trinkets are unheard of) though their items do tend to be more powerful than most... if I have to scale back the encounters or customize them a bit so be it, at least they are free from the yoke of Big Six dependence and can take more enjoyment in what they actually accomplished than in what they simply collected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd rather see characters created and developed where magic items are - at best - enhancements to them rather than the definition of them. Its almost as if players simply become platforms for magic items rained down on them by the Gods (or purchased en masse from ye Olde Magic Mart on the corner) and its the items themselves that are victorious in encounters rather than those privileged enough to wield them.
That's like saying my father sucks at carpentry because he uses power tools instead of his bare hands. (o_o)
Magic items do not succeed on adventures. They aid at the success of adventures. High level play assumes that magic and such is in play, and if it wasn't assumed then everyone would complain about how magic items are way to OP, because having that cloak of elvenkind means enemies will never notice you ever. We'd have another problem.
I'm half tempted to make a hot kitchen comment, because that's what this sort of complaint reminds me of.
My problem has always been two-fold...
The first is the presumption on all sides that you have to drape yourself in ever-escalating layers of magic to even participate in the game effectively... and the second is that magic is so rare and wonderous that it can be bought, sold and traded like baseball cards.
Personally I'd rather see characters created and developed where magic items are - at best - enhancements to them rather than the definition of them. Its almost as if players simply become platforms for magic items rained down on them by the Gods (or purchased en masse from ye Olde Magic Mart on the corner) and its the items themselves that are victorious in encounters rather than those privileged enough to wield them.
Agree.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a PF thing, but I have seen versions of D&D where the magic items are the heroes and the characters just ciphers to carry them around.
NOT saying this is the case in PF, but I've seen it elsewhere.
|
|
Crucially, it takes the choice of items away from the PCs, with all these 'buy it at half price' creation feats.
Item creation feats can be a lot more interesting than "buy it at half price."
For example, in one campaign we celebrated the holiday of Yule, including a gift exchange. One character used his Craft Construct feat to make the party Alchemist a construct assistant to stir potions and such. The assistant was promptly dubbed "Clippy" and became a running joke in the campaign.
Another character who has sworn off swords crafted, with DM permission, a set of gauntlets that functioned as a Sun Blade.
Another character spent two weeks making the party's ranger a Belt of Dex +4, and teased him about how good he'd look in a tigerskin belt (but opted for a more subtle panther-skin so as not to tick him off).
Another character became sentimentally attached to a set of Druid's Vestments crafted for her, and now refuses to take them off under almost any circumstances.
Note that only two of the above four items are "Big Six." As Ashiel mentioned earlier, having item crafting gives you enough of a wealth boost that you can actually use it on interesting and relatively non-optimal stuff such as Clippy, rather than just piling everything into the biggest sword you can find, or the highest numbers on your Big Six. Characters with crafting can also use the item combining rules to add interesting abilities to the Big Six - like one character's Cloak of Evasion and Resistance. The result: people have more fun with their magic items. I'm sure some groups would use it differently, but if the players and the DM are on the same page about what crafting ought to do and use it well, item creation feats are great. If you find the PCs are abusing item crafting, you can always limit downtime.
Oh, and the chain of Adventurer's Magic Marts(TM) in every hamlet, thorp, and strip mall will suddenly face severe economic headwinds and be forced to go out of business.4E was worse.
As 4E characters are completely disconnected from every part of their world and NPCs, it suggested you had Magical Merchants (on dinosaurs!) show up at every nameless hamlet or thorp in the middle of the night.
Who needs immersion anyway? This ain't your parent's D&D...
You are describing a setting that you don't like, I assure that the 4e ruleset does not require the existence of magical dinosaur riding merchants anymore than PF does. They both assume that the party gets certain item bonuses for their respective encounter systems, and either can be run as "low magic" with some tweaking to the encounter system or the description of said items. In fact, I would say that 4e has the advantage in the magical item department since it is at least clear what item bonuses are expected at each level to use their encounter system.
It seems odd that you have to take a feat to make the item system in PF interesting, and doubly odd that you would have almost no way of knowing that from the rulebook...
|
|
Star Wars Saga got it right. Equipment was just the icing on the cake, only giving a slight edge. It was the characters themselves that were the meat, that made the real difference.
Look into the mechanics. You'll see what I mean.
The difference your seeing is the fundamental difference between the star wars universe (as it exists outside of the games rules) versus the legacy D&D/Pathfinder universe (as they existed in previous editions, scared cows, and +5 weapons and whatnot). Also, there were enough things SWSE got wrong that I wouldn't want pathfinder to look too closely at it.
-Skeld
4th edition had it's own must haves. which were more extreme than the 3.5 ones because a lot of them couldn't be changed (like race).
Is the issue the COST or simply the placement? I can see an easy house rule that will allow for more interesting characters.
What we have here is slot management. People are giving up a ring slot for a ring of protection, giving up a shoulders for a cloak of resistance, and giving up a neck slot for an amulet of natural armor.
What about a house rule that allows you to use another slotted item if it has JUST one of those bonuses?
Example.
My fighter has
a ring of protection,
ring of the ram,
and ring of feather fall.
All 3 work because he has at least 3 fingers and one of them is a ring of protection. However, if he tried to put on a ring of jumping in place of the ring of protection, it wouldn't work. (Protective magic only works with that specific ring finger?)
Same could be said of a cloak of resistance. Maybe now you could use a brace of resistance as well as a bracelet (as the bracer is for protective magic only)
It isn't like those bonuses stack anyways. The only issue is about balancing it. Since it costs 50% more to "add" something like that... perhaps you could say that a ring of protection made for the protective finger costs 50% more than usual. Same with anything that is specifically Deflection, Natural Armor, Ability Buff, or Save Buff.
Logically, you could wear a glove inside a gauntlet, a shirt inside a vest, a belt and a girdle, or a necklace and a periapt or even bracelets and bracers at the same time! The only thing the rules say about it, is that the magic of one item will stop working if you have another magic item in that same slot. Just override that by saying that a pure buff item doesn't count for that same limit. Wouldn't that solve the issue (other than cost specifically)?