|
@Elder Basilisk—I don't think you're understanding the full scope of my suggestion. I'm not talking about just moving the "pluses" over from items to PCs and leaving the rest of the magic item structure intact. I'm talking about completely removing magic items as a central mechanic of the system and replacing it with character abilities.
So you don't have a +1 fighter wielding a flaming scimitar (for example), you have a +1 flaming fighter wielding any old weapon he pleases (scimitar or otherwise). Maybe it's ancestral, maybe it's what he first bought upon graduating fighter college, maybe his old sword got rust monster'd and he grabbed this one off a downed enemy. It doesn't matter, because gear isn't really a thing anymore.
As a result, the Sword of Awesomeness could have ANY ability, because the very fact that it's any different from any other weapon of its type AT ALL makes it inherently unique and special.
When the only difference between longsword A and longsword B is the power of the fighters wielding them, suddenly it becomes really easy to design That One Special Sword That's Actually Different.
Does that address your concerns?
It does make more sense, but I'm not sure I see how it becomes really easy to design the "one special sword." It seems like it makes it harder by removing a lot of the design space for such a weapon. As a player, I'm going to wonder, "what's so special about it?" If it turns out that the "special" is something lame like "+1 vs combat manuever X" or easily duplicated by abilities I or the party has had for ten levels (such as a +2 deflection bonus to AC vs evil foes), then it's special because "PLOT! (TM)" If it's special because it has a cool but situational ability (such as it will teleport to your hand from any distance as a free action once it is attuned to a wielder), that's kinda nifty, but unless that ability is specifically why we needed it (in order to assassinate a king or something), it's somewhat underwhelming.
Maybe it's lack of imagination on my part, but it seems that there's a very narrow space where the sword of awesomeness can be special/impressive for a reason other than "because the DM said so" and not be overpowering when all of the normal magic weapon abilities are off the table.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's definitely some degree of limitation due to the sheer volume of things that already exist in print. However, remember a few things:
1) Our starting point was "It can't be special at all", so we can't help but improve.
2) Since it's a unique item and not something that could be manufactured elsewhere, you don't have to balance its abilities around the possibility of every PC taking that ability or putting it on some oddball weapon that gets published later. Publishers have to guard against that, but you don't.
3) Since it's a unique item, you can (and probably should) tailor it to your campaign. After all, why would you seek it in the first place? Maybe the campaign centers around Troll-king ImmuneToFire's army and this is the Sword of YouDon'tRegenerate. Maybe the campaign centers around outsiders and this is the Sword of InfernalsHaveNoDR or the Sword of SickensDemonsOnContact. Maybe attacks with it get to reroll 1s. Maybe it has some kind of HP-drain effect. Maybe it's just so friggin' legendary that it has a fear aura when wielded. Maybe its damage dice increase whenever you're low on HP. I could keep going all day. The possibilities are plentiful.
Jiggy, I had a couple of questions about your method I was hoping you could answer as it intrigues me the more I consider it.
1. Do you allow magical weapon/armor enhancements to function with all types of weapons and armor? For instance if I was a +1 Flaming fighter at the cost of 4,000 arbitrarily named points, would that apply to all melee weapons, unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and bows or would I need to purchase a different set of abilities for each type of distinct weapons? If I bought armor enhancement would it apply to all suits of armor or even while I was unarmored as per Bracers of Armor?
2. The cost for magic weapons escalates rather quickly so sometimes it's preferable to get an odd situational weapon enchantment on an off weapon; is that a thing with your system or do you handle it differently? For instance if I wanted a Phaselocking weapon but was too poor to raise my +1 Flaming Fighter to a +1 Phaselocking Fighter, would I just have the option of just buying the second enhancement set and then declaring which I am using with each individual weapon strike?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose the question would be two-fold:
1. How many options are there for the Sword of Uberness to be truly Uber when the standard numerical +X options (and presumably DR penetration as a function of that +X) are off the table?
Presumably at least some of the other party members are going to want some nifty weapons throughout the course of the campaign. And the sword swinger probably would like one too--"I'm the paladin, so I don't get any special weapon until 75% of the way through when I find the holy avenger" doesn't sound like a terribly attractive option. But if the rogue has a +0 keen rapier, the cleric has a +0 axiomatic mace, and the paladin was wielding a +0 flaming sword in the interim, what do you have to give to the sword of Uberness in order for it to seem Uber? The normal holy avenger is +5 in the hands of the paladin, sheds a magic circle against evil, and grants dispel magic at will. That serves to distinguish it from the +1 axiomatic mace that the cleric has, but the big difference is the +5. The magic circle and dispel magic are relatively minor abilities since they are easily duplicated by abilities that the party has possessed for seven to ten levels. So in order for the +0 holy avenger to not be underwhelming compared to the other options, it seems like it will need more special powers than it normally has in order to be uber.
In my game at least, the keen rapier or the holy mace IS the sword of awesomeness. The bulk of awesome comes from the character themselves, and the simple abilities on a weapon would be the unique thing in the world. Aquiring every magic item in my game is a plot point, or a significant event in a characters story. It is also unlikely for everyone in the party to have a magic weapon, unless i had 4 fighter types. Generally I include items tailored to the character. As an example, in my rise of the runelords, after the first adventure, the fighter had a keen rapier (he was a duelist type), the inquisitor exorcist had a rod which aided in the exicing of possed peoples, the rogue had a robe that produced an infinite supply of small throwing weapons. And the alchemist had a special beaker that allowed him to combine two alchemical weapons into one.
Each had a name, artwork, and a history. I created item cards for each. It was a long time before they encountered any other permanent magical items.
The other alternative has traditionally been to rely on the numerical plus in order to represent Uberness. The sword of Kas, for example, was +6. Since you normally can't get there, it represented uberness even if it was not really that big a deal. But that option would seem to be completely closed off in the no numerical plusses system.
The mechanical +x was necessary to represent uberness because the default was already magical items. If mundane items are the default, lesser magical items befome the uber item.
2. If you do significantly expand the powers, is there enough design space to be Uber without being overpowered?
Well yes there is. If for instance there was a holy mace, that also added 1 to your level with cure spells, and allowed to cast augury once per day, then its not really adding lots of power in any one place. It does a lot, but it isnt overpowered because each thing affects a different aspect of the game.
When dealing with a sword of uberness, those two factors are ordinarily rather challenging (witness the abject failure of at least two legacy weapon design systems--I lost track and stopped paying attention after that). Do you think you have an answer with the reduced design space you have created?
Yes, see above.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Do you allow magical weapon/armor enhancements to function with all types of weapons and armor? For instance if I was a +1 Flaming fighter at the cost of 4,000 arbitrarily named points, would that apply to all melee weapons, unarmed strikes, natural attacks, and bows or would I need to purchase a different set of abilities for each type of distinct weapons? If I bought armor enhancement would it apply to all suits of armor or even while I was unarmored as per Bracers of Armor?
For weapons, my inclination is to be as broad as possible. This is largely because part of the problem with martials in Pathfinder is being married to a single weapon. Changing that to being married to a single type of weapon is a step in the right direction, but not far enough, IMO. Also, a fighter who can sheathe his longsword in flame ought to be able to sheathe his mace or fists in flame just as easily. There might be certain abilities that don't make sense on all weapons, but those can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
As for armor... I think as long as you preserve the "slots" of armor/shield/natural/deflection/etc so as to not have to do a bunch of re-engineering of the math, then it doesn't make much difference whether you tie it to when you're actually wearing armor or not. It doesn't even make a difference for the "attacked in your sleep" scenario, considering fighters usually have chain shirt jammies anyway.
2. The cost for magic weapons escalates rather quickly so sometimes it's preferable to get an odd situational weapon enchantment on an off weapon; is that a thing with your system or do you handle it differently? For instance if I wanted a Phaselocking weapon but was too poor to raise my +1 Flaming Fighter to a +1 Phaselocking Fighter, would I just have the option of just buying the second enhancement set and then declaring which I am using with each individual weapon strike?
(Aside: Not "too poor," but "too inexperienced".) ;)
For things like that, I'd probably just re-price the ability to be a flat cost so the martials can afford to be a little more versatile. But that's a case-by-case thing as well.