I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

751 to 800 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

Uh... Wraithstrike, if the Bix Six still exist, in all likelihood players will still sell their s+!% off for it because it's amplifying the raw numbers behind their characters.

You get them to care about unique magic by eliminating magic items from the raw numbers game entirely.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

Uh... Wraithstrike, if the Bix Six still exist, in all likelihood players will still sell their s~*# off for it because it's amplifying the raw numbers behind their characters.

You get them to care about unique magic by eliminating magic items from the raw numbers game entirely.

Some will, but I dont see many people paying for something you get for free, unless the built in bonus is not as high as what you would get by paying for the item.

As an example you still get a combination of stat boosters equaling anything you can buy in the game, and natural armor along with the deflection bonus to AC might be at a +5. That way people will buy another amulet or another ring.
Now if you get a max +6 to all of your physical and mental stats, I can see someone buying the tomes and manuals.

As for my armor example I was assuming the player knew he was going to get equivalent of +5 armor enhancement anyway for free. That means the +1 armor bonus on the flying armor of disguise is not all that important. Actually I probably should have written that armor without the +1. But that does bring up another point. If the bonus is built into the character no weapons or armor would not longer need to be a +1 first. You can just make the armor magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
If the bonus is built into the character no weapons or armor would not longer need to be a +1 first. You can just make the armor magic.

Bingo.

It was the phrasing of the quote below...

Quote:
Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

...which threw me off. It implies that the Big Six are still in the game and still function, just somewhat devalued by having higher base statistics.

I prefer to simply eliminate the arms race entirely. Here's an armor of flying, have fun with it bro.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...this isn't the claim Bounded Accuracy made, or what it's for at all. Bounded Accuracy is not intended to change the odds vs. similarly leveled opponents much at all. It's intended to make 1st level foes capable of hitting 15th level characters. And, since a 15th level character might have AC 22 at the highest and a 1st level foe might easily have a +5 to hit...it succeeds at that.

Everything you say in this bit is true, but not one word of it is evidence at all for the statement 'Bounded Accuracy Is A Lie'. So...you shouldn't make that statement.

Sorry, I was talking about bounded accuracy as it's been presented in the thread. Here's an example.

adembroski wrote:

As Jester David pointed out in a very early post in this thread, the number progression of BAB/AC/To Hit numbers is not much more than number porn. The ONLY thing it accomplishes is locking you in with a limited number of monsters you can fight because their numbers are close enough to yours.

With bounded accuracy, a +1 to hit actually means a 5% better chance to hit.

That's not even really the purpose of my posting though... love or hate bounded accuracy, at least understand what it represents.

All it means is that certain numerical parameters are set and the game is kept within them.

Broski makes a number of mistakes here in this post, with the most noteworthy being that he doesn't understand "number porn" or the fact it represents things rather than just being bigger for the heck of it. Most of us roll our eyes at 5E and the bizarre and nonsensical numbers that are there, where the system fails at the very scope by the definition of its designers, we find it really jarring because nothing feels right.

But again, bounded accuracy has nothing to do with +1 to hit meaning a 5% better chance to hit. That's always been true and it will always be true as long as we're using a d20 for the RNG. Likewise, there are already certain numerical parameters that are set and the game kept within them. What are those parameters?

Well the high and lows the system allows for of course. The same thing it has always been and will ever be. For example, upper limits of AC in the game are probably around 70s or so for really niche corner cases (things like monk/druids w/ wild armor & shield), but anyone that looks at the meta for the game will notice that the practical limits are more like 50-60 for heroic characters including pretty much all buffs.

Similarly, most of the martial characters can pull an average of about BAB + an additional 10 points from class features and/or character specific buffs (Rage, Instant Enemy, Smites/Divine Power, etc). That's pretty much the average.

The biggest difference is the scale is smoother and you have more in the way of choices. You can definitely afford to tilt your character in lots of different directions if you want and prioritize different statistics to suit your individual style and preferences as well as what your team has got going on for them. There's also a lot of tactical considerations at endgame because adjusting your tactics to deal with your situations becomes far more of a thing.

When broski says:

Quote:
The ONLY thing it accomplishes is locking you in with a limited number of monsters you can fight because their numbers are close enough to yours.

Broski is demonstrating a massive misunderstanding of how this game works on a technical level. I use low level enemies frequently. Lots of them that die in one hit or have little power that they can leverage against the party themselves but they serve particular roles in encounters.

For example, in the example CR 20 Encounter I posted a while back and Tels recounts here, the party is intended to be CR 17+ for this encounter but the encounter features a number of CR 3-7 enemies, each with particular roles.

Mooks also serve another morale and narrative related purpose. Specifically, existing to be MOWED OVER LIKE GRASS. Yes...this is a purpose. This is an oft-overlooked yet incredibly valued position in the GM's toolbox. Having lots of enemies that are dirt-cheap in the XP value that can assist in a fight while also being trivial expenditures when they snuff it when the party sweeps the area with AoEs and/or cleaves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If the bonus is built into the character no weapons or armor would not longer need to be a +1 first. You can just make the armor magic.

Bingo.

It was the phrasing of the quote below...

Quote:
Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

...which threw me off. It implies that the Big Six are still in the game and still function, just somewhat devalued by having higher base statistics.

I prefer to simply eliminate the arms race entirely. Here's an armor of flying, have fun with it bro.

Something worth noting is the entirety of Big 6 items sans Resistance cloaks are doing nothing else except being placeholders for staple spell buffs.

(Greater) Magic Weapon (+5 enhancement weapon)
Magic Vestment (+5 enhancement armor/shield)
Shield of Faith (+5 deflection)
Barkskin (+5 natural armor)
Animal Aspects (+4 to a stat)
Resistance (+1 resistance)

With a competent party and lots of pearls of power, it's entirely possible for a team of PCs to completely dump the big 6 and instead funnel their cash into ability items which is massive in terms of success pushing, and even though resistance doesn't scale with caster level, it's a cheap enough enhancement to eat the 50% penalty and put it on powerful items like lesser cloaks of displacement or cloak of the mountebank which allow you to open up tactical options.

EDIT: The big challenge is ambushes. It's not practical to buff up in the middle of a fight, which is troublesome. If the staple spells had longer durations you'd never bother with the big 6 for very long, unless you were just looking for a sort of dispel-resistance.

However, I like the fact that you have to decide between greater numerical advantages versus special abilities that change the dynamics of how your character functions. For example, a Paladin or Barbarian have saves strong enough that they can afford to pick up a 20% concealment cloak. However a bard will have to decide if they dare risk it, though the constant concealment would look really sexy with their Stealth skill...

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Mooks also serve another morale and narrative related purpose. Specifically, existing to be MOWED OVER LIKE GRASS. Yes...this is a purpose. This is an oft-overlooked yet incredibly valued position in the GM's toolbox. Having lots of enemies that are dirt-cheap in the XP value that can assist in a fight while also being trivial expenditures when they snuff it when the party sweeps the area with AoEs and/or cleaves.

This is so true, and I wish more modules and scenarios took this to heart. Most of the mooks are just too few to matter however.


Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: The big challenge is ambushes. It's not practical to buff up in the middle of a fight, which is troublesome. If the staple spells had longer durations you'd never bother with the big 6 for very long, unless you were just looking for a sort of dispel-resistance.

Here we're running into a playstyle thing. I do primarily open-world campaigns rather than dungeon crawls, meaning PCs usually get no more than 2 fights out of 10 minute per level spells, 3 tops.

EDIT: incidentally, many of the spells that overlap with the big six are very seldom used for that very same reason. Not sure it would bother me if characters are blowing actions and spell slots/PP to put those effects into place...

[If you're looking for a Resistance spell for mid to high levels, pull out your trusty 3.5 Spell Compendium and look up Greater and Superior Resistance.]


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: The big challenge is ambushes. It's not practical to buff up in the middle of a fight, which is troublesome. If the staple spells had longer durations you'd never bother with the big 6 for very long, unless you were just looking for a sort of dispel-resistance.
Here we're running into a playstyle thing. I do primarily open-world campaigns rather than dungeon crawls, meaning PCs usually get no more than 2 fights out of 10 minute per level spells, 3 tops.

I do that too. It's not so much a playstyle thing as it is a situational/theme thing. It can vary from campaign to campaign or even session to session. It's one of the reasons I actually wish these spells were super-long duration because they have a massive overlap with common magic items and vice-versa, because it would make the Big 6 more for caster-lite parties but balanced parties would rely more on spell buffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: The big challenge is ambushes. It's not practical to buff up in the middle of a fight, which is troublesome. If the staple spells had longer durations you'd never bother with the big 6 for very long, unless you were just looking for a sort of dispel-resistance.

Here we're running into a playstyle thing. I do primarily open-world campaigns rather than dungeon crawls, meaning PCs usually get no more than 2 fights out of 10 minute per level spells, 3 tops.

EDIT: incidentally, many of the spells that overlap with the big six are very seldom used for that very same reason. Not sure it would bother me if characters are blowing actions and spell slots/PP to put those effects into place...

[If you're looking for a Resistance spell for mid to high levels, pull out your trusty 3.5 Spell Compendium and look up Greater and Superior Resistance.]

I think I'd rather have Resistance just scale with the level of the casters honestly. :P


kyrt-ryder wrote:

There are - IMHO - far better ways to accomplish that than with Bounded Accuracy Chengar.

Bounded Accuracy dramatically limits the gap between low level characters and high level ones, whereas a system which eliminates the big six but roughly keeps the present numbers leaves the game relatively unmolested.

Oh yes, I definitely agree that 5e took things too far. It's just that I see what they were trying to do with it, and the overall idea of encouraging more variety and cutting down on numbers inflation does have a certain appeal even if the implementation is lacking.


Ashiel wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
EDIT: The big challenge is ambushes. It's not practical to buff up in the middle of a fight, which is troublesome. If the staple spells had longer durations you'd never bother with the big 6 for very long, unless you were just looking for a sort of dispel-resistance.

Here we're running into a playstyle thing. I do primarily open-world campaigns rather than dungeon crawls, meaning PCs usually get no more than 2 fights out of 10 minute per level spells, 3 tops.

EDIT: incidentally, many of the spells that overlap with the big six are very seldom used for that very same reason. Not sure it would bother me if characters are blowing actions and spell slots/PP to put those effects into place...

[If you're looking for a Resistance spell for mid to high levels, pull out your trusty 3.5 Spell Compendium and look up Greater and Superior Resistance.]

I think I'd rather have Resistance just scale with the level of the casters honestly. :P

It's only a cantrip xD.

Though I suppose that crappy duration does help contain it somewhat... a scaling 1st level Resistance would be fine by me.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

Uh... Wraithstrike, if the Bix Six still exist, in all likelihood players will still sell their s*@$ off for it because it's amplifying the raw numbers behind their characters.

You get them to care about unique magic by eliminating magic items from the raw numbers game entirely.

Martial characters care about magical items. Spell-casters care about them too but often they can imitate their effects through spells.

Martial characters need magical items for without them the caster/martial divide just gets that much larger.

The whole Pathfinder magic item christmas tree syndrome is purely myth. Looking at a large amount of magic items through a narrative framework rather than adding narrative or historical or philosophical depth to magic items.

For example:

+1 bastard sword

Bloodreaver is a hand and a half sword, 4 feet in length with a triple fullered blade that is 3 feet long from steel cross-guard to sharply tapered tip. The blade is Garuskka steel, razor sharp, serrated along one edge, and is dark as the night’s sky.

There are faint red ripples in the black steel indicating it is spell-forged, a light and astonishingly durable blade tailor made to a fighting style that combines strength with speed.

Inscribed along the length of its blade are Aerdi runes, and the transcription reads: ‘I am Bloodreaver, a cruel sword; I will maim those I cannot destroy, and cause fear in the hearts I cannot maim.’ It is adorned with a grotesque half-gnoll, half-troll-head pommel made of granite stone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, see, you just added a ton of backstory and depth... to a f+$@ing +1 sword that's going to be dumped in a couple of levels unless your campaign makes liberal use of Magic Weapon Upgrading.

In a game that doesn't use the Big Six? Bloodreaver is this badass awesome Garusska Steel sword with a hell of a history and perhaps some strange powers yet to be discovered/awakened. Possibly some kind of maiming/wounding debuff type effect.

Best part? It has negligible monetary value and holding onto it doesn't cut into the player's 'wealth allotment' that he would have otherwise needed for the next step up the ladder.

EDIT: as for Christmas Tree syndrome being a myth, allow me to highlight the standard gear all my martials get.

Magic Weapon of +X
Magic Armor of +X [Bracers of Armor if I'm in a Masochistic Mood and playing a monk]
Amulet of Natural Armor +X
Ring of Deflection + X
Cloak of Resistance + X
Belt of Strength/Dex/Con + X
Headband of Wisdom [or Charisma in the case of a Paladin] +X

All of that crap. Without fail. Why? Because the system basically requires it to keep up with the numbers.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yeah, see, you just added a ton of backstory and depth... to a f~~%ing +1 sword that's going to be dumped in a couple of levels unless your campaign makes liberal use of Magic Weapon Upgrading.

In a game that doesn't use the Big Six? Bloodreaver is this badass awesome Garusska Steel sword with a hell of a history and perhaps some strange powers yet to be discovered/awakened. Possibly some kind of maiming/wounding debuff type effect.

Best part? It has negligible monetary value and holding onto it doesn't cut into the player's 'wealth allotment' that he would have otherwise needed for the next step up the ladder.

EDIT: as for Christmas Tree syndrome being a myth, allow me to highlight the standard gear all my martials get.

Magic Weapon of +X
Magic Armor of +X [Bracers of Armor if I'm in a Masochistic Mood and playing a monk]
Amulet of Natural Armor +X
Ring of Deflection + X
Cloak of Resistance + X
Belt of Strength/Dex/Con + X
Headband of Wisdom [or Charisma in the case of a Paladin] +X

All of that crap. Without fail. Why? Because the system basically requires it to keep up with the numbers.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do think how you treat magic items plays a big part in their importance.

Players have limited money and they can make a decision on how they want to upgrade or customise their character. Take that freedom of customisation away and everything becomes very sameish.

ROTRL: AE:
I had to fight the legendary Nualia (ROTRL, set in Greyhawk, she worships Erythnul) to get Bloodreaver so I'm definitely not going to throw it away. Yeah Wounding or the Cruel weapon special ability seems appropriate for Bloodreaver .

Having a GM that is willing to bend the rules so philosophical depth can be placed on magical items, even mundane magical items definitely helps.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I really miss the 3.x better versions of resistance that gave +3 and +6 bonuses. I'm surprised we don't have a PF greater resistance that gives +1/4 levels or somesuch for an hour/level as a level 3 or 4 spell.

If you really want to eliminate the reliance on the big 6 by using spells, you need scaling spells, that last 1 hour/level, that scale fast enough to be comparable to the items. Players need to feel the spells are a viable alternative to the items.

I also agree that it's important to occasionally let higher level PCs fight low level foes, if just to emphasize how strong they now are, and that they are not, in fact, on a treadmill. The PCs do indeed get stronger. I am very against the idea that every encounter must be exactly level appropriate.


The conversation has moved on the the HP debate thing, so I'm just going to let that drop. I will concede that in Pathfinder at least it seems pretty clear that hp is a very direct correlation to toughness; but stand by my belief that the game would be better off on the whole with a separation between health and wounds so that restoring HP is not restricted to magic only.

Morzadian wrote:


I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do think how you treat magic items plays a big part in their importance.

Players have limited money and they can make a decision on how they want to upgrade or customise their character. Take that freedom of customisation away and everything becomes very sameish.

** spoiler omitted **

One thing I am experimenting with right now with my group is cutting wealth down dramatically (in practice more limiting the purchasing of custom magic items, encouraging the players to work with what they find and invest extra money into non-magical stuff), but allowing the players to buy the effects of the "big 6" plus some assorted other more low-key effects with their experience.

So players still get choices in how to upgrade (rather than just automatically gaining passive bonuses to all of the major +X categories), just on a track that's separate from magic items. Most of the +X items just cease existing entirely (if they show up on a loot table or on an enemy in an AP, they become the equivalent amount of gold instead), and any remaining magic items tend to be of the more interesting utility variety.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I see that folks still don't fully get the point of bounded accuracy.

There are other ways to have bounded accuracy besides suggesting that if Pathfinder 2e included it that a fighter would get a +6 BAB at 20th level instead of a +20 BAB.

As I've mentioned before, bounded accuracy serves as a way to set bounds for the power level of a character.

In PFS, I've played with a number of barbarian/alchemists, who prior to entering a dungeon (one that will be completed in <1 hour of in-game time), will quaff their mutagen. They'll then proceed to rage as a free action in the first round of every combat. Sometimes they'll be paired with a buddy who is playing a bard who also uses heroism along with a lesser rod of extend.

Around 5th level, they are rocking:

+4 : BAB +4
+5 : 20 Str
+2 : Raging
+2 : Bull's Strength
+2 : Alchemist mutagen
+2 : Heroism
+2 : Bard inspire courage (5th level bard)
+1 : Weapon is +1
+1 : Weapon Focus
-0 : Power Attack (w/Furious Focus)
----
+21 to hit

There are more egregious 5th level characters than this as well.

Now if we pop open the Bestiary and look at CR6 monsters, which if you pit one of them against the above character, you'd hope it would be a challenge...

ankylosaurus AC22
babau AC19
bralani AC20
ettin AC18
girallon AC18
half-fiend minotaur
kyton AC17
lamia AC20
salamander AC18
shambling mound AC19

However, our 5th level character wading through a dungeon of CR6 monsters only needs to avoid rolling a natural 1 in order to connect with every swing.

Bounded accuracy can set bounds on characters so that they are built out to be more well-rounded versus obviating the hit/AC/damage/HP part of the game.

If you look through all the information on bounded accuracy, you can even see that from the beginning of the playtests to the actual release that how bounded accuracy was described changed!

Bounded Accuracy wrote:
First of all, when we talk about bounded accuracy, we really are talking about bounded target numbers (DCs for saving throws and checks, AC for attacks). This means not only having a finite range for our target numbers, but having those target numbers actually mean something in the context of the game world.

This is a good thing. The intention here is to make it so that whatever level you are playing, that the most important numbers you have for your character are within the range of bounded target numbers so that they actually mean something.

The above barbarian/alchemist's to-hit numbers no longer mean anything other than I hit anytime I roll the dice except when I roll a 1.

Pathfinder 2e can set up bounded target numbers. Hypothetically for a level 5 PC, your to hit bonus should lie somewhere between +0 and +15. You can still employ a system where a martial character gains a full +1 BAB per level and employ bounded accuracy.

I don't know if folks who argue against bounded accuracy are specifically influenced by believing that in order to implement it, you'd need to constrain BAB to going from say +3 at level 1 to +6 at level 20. You end up with a system of bounded accuracy by doing other things... for example, by implementing the mutagen Strength increase and the rage Strength increase as typed bonuses of the same type so they cannot be stacked. You could also implement a "no more than two" rule - that you cannot have more than 2 effects improving a single roll at a given time (and if you do, you simply take the two strongest).

Certainly, GMs can cope with some of the problems in 3.5/PF with how they design adventures and combat... but that's just an acknowledgement of the problem with the base rules. It doesn't resolve the fact that printed adventures aren't compatible with characters built by the rules with high degrees of system mastery. Or, the rules can built in such a way that at each level, there's a bounded range where character bonuses should lie (and perhaps even be confined) and character-building can instead look for other things to do once a character reaches their peak for their level. When you reach that ceiling, you no longer consider that 1 level dip in alchemist for a mutagen to further "break" the attack/damage math, but instead maybe take another level in barbarian and look for a fun thematic rage power.

1e/2e employed bounded accuracy (AC was fixed between +10 and -10, rogue skills were based on a percentage from 0% to 100%). We had fun back in those days with those bounds in place, so they weren't operating in a manner contradictory to having fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:


Martial characters care about magical items. Spell-casters care about them too but often they can imitate their effects through spells.

Martial characters need magical items for without them the caster/martial divide just gets that much larger.

The whole Pathfinder magic item christmas tree syndrome is purely myth. Looking at a large amount of magic items through a narrative framework rather than adding narrative or historical or philosophical depth to magic items.

For example:

+1 bastard sword

Bloodreaver is a hand and a half sword, 4 feet in length with a triple fullered blade that is 3 feet long from steel cross-guard to sharply tapered tip. The blade is Garuskka steel, razor sharp, serrated along one edge, and is dark as the night’s sky.

There are faint red ripples in the black steel indicating it is spell-forged, a light and astonishingly durable blade tailor made to a fighting style that combines strength with speed.

Inscribed along the length of its blade are Aerdi runes, and the transcription reads: ‘I am Bloodreaver, a cruel sword; I will maim those I cannot destroy, and cause fear in the hearts I cannot maim.’ It is adorned with a grotesque half-gnoll, half-troll-head pommel made of granite stone.

Your first two sentences kind of confuse me since they seem at odds with one another. You are correct that magic items are way more important to martials the casters, who can often replicate their effects and get the +X bonuses from spells. But martials needing to get those effects and +X bonuses from magic items is part of what the Christmas tree effect is talking about.

My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword. Let's take a look at some examples of what I mean by actually special items:

Maiming Shard - This thin grey stone is very unusually shaped, appearing identical to thin dagger with a larger than normal blade. This +1 keen stone dagger deals damage as though it were a shortsword made of iron. Any individual able to use either a dagger or a short sword with proficiency is proficient in the use of Maiming Shard. Likewise, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization in dagger and short sword apply equally, but the benefits of those feats do not stack. Whenever Maiming Shard scores a critical hit it deals an additional 1d4 STR damage.

Savage Cleaver - This +1 mighty cleaving Battleaxe has a single unusually shaped ax head whose blade nearly reaches the grip. Even when used in one hand, the Savage Cleaver is treated as being held in two hands for all purposes, including determining damage and Power Attack.

Fortune's Flask - This flask of baked clay contains sweet smelling water. If poured out it contains enough water for 4 people to drink. Anyone who drinks the water gains the effects of a Good Hope spell for 1 hour. Additionally, anyone who drinks the water can reroll one d20 roll made within 24 hours, after they know the results of the roll.

Misery Ring - This black stone ring wrapped in iron rings seems to radiate an unpleasant aura. Everyone around the wearer is also afflicted with an uneasy feeling. Every creature in a 10 ft. radius of the wearer, except the wearer suffer a -2 penalty to attacks, AC, saving throws and skill checks.

These items all have unique effects that cannot be replicated. Because of this my player's naturally treasure these items and make a point to investigate any rumors about such things. Each of these items would be worth writing a history about because they are truly are special.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
It's one of the reasons I actually wish these spells were super-long duration because they have a massive overlap with common magic items and vice-versa, because it would make the Big 6 more for caster-lite parties but balanced parties would rely more on spell buffs.

Psst. Constant Duration Magic Items...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Malwing wrote:

Who is really edition warring really? Its been a while since I checked up on this thread but the gist I'm getting is that 5th ed is good but some of it's mechanics can stay the hell away from Pathfinder because it's fine staying over in 5th ed.

Once you've got people bandying around terms like "lying" when what you really have is a different point of view, you've got edition warring. And we have had it in this thread both before and after your post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Around 5th level, they are rocking:

Spoiler:

+4 : BAB +4
+5 : 20 Str
+2 : Raging
+2 : Bull's Strength
+2 : Alchemist mutagen
+2 : Heroism
+2 : Bard inspire courage (5th level bard)
+1 : Weapon is +1
+1 : Weapon Focus
-0 : Power Attack (w/Furious Focus)
----
+22 to hit

There are more egregious 5th level characters than this as well.

Now if we pop open the Bestiary and look at CR6 monsters, which if you pit one of them against the above character, you'd hope it would be a challenge...

Spoiler:
ankylosaurus AC22
babau AC19
bralani AC20
ettin AC18
girallon AC18
half-fiend minotaur
kyton AC17
lamia AC20
salamander AC18
shambling mound AC19

However, our 5th level character wading through a dungeon of CR6 monsters only needs to avoid rolling a natural 1 in order to connect with every swing.

Added spoilers to the quote just to not super-stretch the page.

First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Mutagen lasts for 10 minutes, and takes an hour to brew up a new one. Rage use is also limited number of rounds (at this level with multiclassing you've got around 10 rounds. So about 2 encounters), as is the bardic music. Your 5th level bard has 2-3 2nd level spells, so that's about how many bull's strengths you are getting as well.

So yeah you can walk into a dungeon and for ~two encounters basically hit anything you want, once those resources are gone, your hit bonus tanks all the way down from a +19 to a +11. That is a fairly reasonable number, with a moderate miss chance against all of the CR appropriate foes you provided. And since you specified that the dungeon will take about an hour of in game time to complete, the character in question is spending about 2/3rds of the time in said dungeon without those buffs, which his whole character has been built around obtaining.

But that's really besides the point because:

Quote:

Pathfinder 2e can set up bounded target numbers. Hypothetically for a level 5 PC, your to hit bonus should lie somewhere between +0 and +15. You can still employ a system where a martial character gains a full +1 BAB per level and employ bounded accuracy.

Judging by this, it seems like we are in agreement. But the point that has been made many times in this thread is that if you have that +1 BAB per level and constrain everything else, it is not bounded accuracy. Because 5e's definition of bounded accuracy isn't constraining the RNG on a level by level basis (a goal I very much support), but constraining the RNG across the entirety of the game, so regardless of level everyone is on that same +0 to +15 RNG (a goal I detest and resent).

If you are okay with the idea that a 1st level character is going to be somewhere between +0 and +12, a 5th level character is somewhere between +3 and +15, while a 20th level character is between a +20 and +35, or something along those lines, then we are in complete agreement. The only real disagreement is over whether or not that is bounded accuracy as 5e defines it, or just intelligent application of constraining the RNG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Well, uh, one idea might look like this...

(Or, if you prefer, in the insomnia thread.)

I mentioned 18% WBL, by the way, but I wouldn't really run it that way myself (and even if I did, I'd take the caps off for 19th and 20th level, because you've already "paid" for what you're getting gold-value wise).

Basically, pull a wraithstrike, and do something like,

wraithstrike wrote:

Not really. If the power, as in +1's and 2's, are built into the character then it gets rid of the need for the magic items. That way things such as slippers of spider climbing, wind fans, wings of flying, or an instant fortress become items people will actually pay for, or keep if they find them.

Since the items won't be needed you can either reduce WBL by at something like 75% or get rid of it altogether since you won't have to worry about choosing the +5 armor to stop you from getting hit as much. Instead you can keep the +1 flying armor of disguise that is cooler thematically, but it wont help your frontliner live as long.

The other alternate option is, as Ashiel pointed out, spells combined with the idea of constant or continual durations. Some of these aren't cost effective, comparatively, while some are.

A lot of it comes down to playstyle - how would you handle it? And why? What are you looking to get out of it, and how your your players react?

kyrt's seem like they'd max that min all the harder. Probably not a good idea for him if they things stack.

One hidden "thing" about this is the fact that I've "secretly" removed or altered some bonus types from items. Instead of resistance bonuses, for example, the cloaks provide enhancement bonuses - just like what characters get automatically. I do this to prevent needless stacking or grasping, while still providing a niche for the items in the world at large (i.e. lower level characters would be stoked to get a powerful resistance cape, even as higher level characters have literally moved beyond it).

This could cause dissonance for those like Ashiel or kyrt (or their groups) or not! I don't know and am not presuming, but using as an example who have such a solid system mastery that someone going "hey, they're all, like, enhancement bonuses now" could well be really jarring and possibly balance-wrecking (because, 'dose spells, man).

But for me and my groups, it's been a kind of "perfect" situation. The extra spell bonuses are nice, but aren't the focus. Meanwhile, they items (and thus bonus) can be suppressed or destroyed, but it's not crippling to a character, who can, astonishingly enough, actually make enough money with craft and profession checks to get their lost or destroyed stuff back just as much as adventuring (because it's so much less expensive now to get those masterwork things - though it'll take longer).

Now valuable enchanted weapons are "heirlooms" - handed down to the next generation, or lower-level followers, who value and treasure the things, as the super-heroes the PCs are have just grown beyond the need for such (as any well-made sword will do).

So, different functionality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Malwing wrote:

Who is really edition warring really? Its been a while since I checked up on this thread but the gist I'm getting is that 5th ed is good but some of it's mechanics can stay the hell away from Pathfinder because it's fine staying over in 5th ed.

Once you've got people bandying around terms like "lying" when what you really have is a different point of view, you've got edition warring. And we have had it in this thread both before and after your post.

Or you know "number porn" or "endless treadmill" or whatever else you wanted to pull out before.

Incidentally, in the follow-up clarification, it was not the edition that was a lie (which was apologized for), but the edition as presented within arguments which is.

Specifically,

Quote:
Sorry, I was talking about bounded accuracy as it's been presented in the thread. Here's an example.

Warring's bad. Responding to false comments notsoemuch. Apologizing and clarifying for badly-made or poorly-explained comments is good, though. People should try it.

(Incidentally, I like 5E. Just to be open, here.)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:

First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Not arguing with your overall point necessarily, but to tape the hair back together that you split: the bard's Inspire Courage is a competence bonus to to attack/damage, so it stacks just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.

This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.

If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.

Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Seerow wrote:

First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Not arguing with your overall point necessarily, but to tape the hair back together that you split: the bard's Inspire Courage is a competence bonus to to attack/damage, so it stacks just fine.

You know, I even specifically went to the Bard in the pfsrd to double check and make sure that wasn't something that got changed on me when I wasn't looking, but stopped reading when I saw the morale bonus. Never would have guessed the bonus to saves and bonus to attacks/damage were different types. I stand corrected on that point.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Except inspire courage is a competence bonus, so they do stack. :)

Seerow wrote:
Mutagen lasts for 10 minutes, and takes an hour to brew up a new one.

I can link the last 20 dungeons I've run. They include things like Emerald Spire, Thornkeep, Refuge of Time, Rebel's Ransom, Overflow Archives, Paths We Choose, Rivalry's End. There's some others in there, but for the most part in recent dungeon-romping, 10 minutes was good for the entirety of the dungeon(s). In some cases, it was 10-mins-a-day of fighting with a clearly obvious point to quaff a mutagen (aka Paths We Choose).

I think a lot of those had combats that were resolved before the bad guys even got to their round 1 initiative to act... hence why I'm a fan of some form of bounded accuracy in a revised edition of Pathfinder.

Seerow wrote:
a 5th level character is somewhere between +3 and +15, while a 20th level character is between a +20 and +35, or something along those lines, then we are in complete agreement

Yeah, I wouldn't want to convert to the 5e range since it would invalidate running 3.x adventures without additional work.

I'm going off the intentions that the 5e designers laid out for bounded accuracy, and your examples are spot-on. For example, a PC would end up with a to-hit bonus with a ceiling of (10+character level) and an AC bonus of (20+character level).

Seerow wrote:
The only real disagreement is over whether or not that is bounded accuracy as 5e defines it, or just intelligent application of constraining the RNG.

I think we might be in total agreement. I like bounded accuracy as 5e desginers later re-defined it (in blogs, at the end of the playtest and post-launch, not their original definition as much). I'm not 100% on board with how it's implemented (again, my strongest argument is about backward compatibility with 3.x/PF adventures), but I like how they defined its goals in the final revision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rodney Thompson (WOTC designer) on bounded accuracy:

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels.

Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained.

Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

Bounded Accuracy was never about restraining the RNG. Simplified math, story over mechanics, and having a fixed challenge rating system.

In D&D 5e challenges are fixed, no more punching above your weight, because it's impossible to take on more powerful creatures outside your 'challenge rating'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:


Mutagen lasts for 10 minutes, and takes an hour to brew up a new one. Rage use is also limited number of rounds (at this level with multiclassing you've got around 10 rounds. So about 2 encounters), as is the bardic music. Your 5th level bard has 2-3 2nd level spells, so that's about how many bull's strengths you are getting as well.

Mutagen only lasts for 10 minutes at level 1. As a level 6 alchemist it lasts for an entire hour. You can clear an incredible number of encounters in a single hour. And since the Alchemist is unlikely to pop the mutagen until just before they investigate "potential combat site A134", they'll have a large amount of time to work through that site, then they can prep another mutagen before they head to "potential combat site A135"". Furthermore, if you try and force the alchemist to go from one location to another, they are just going to select the Infuse Mutagen Discovery so they can have 1-2 emergency mutagens.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.

This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.

If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.

Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.

So magical items have to be more powerful and have extra abilities to make them meaningful.

Using your hypothesis a +1 sword is meaningless but a +1 flaming burst sword is meaningful.

Meaningful and unique are two very different things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Seerow wrote:


Mutagen lasts for 10 minutes, and takes an hour to brew up a new one. Rage use is also limited number of rounds (at this level with multiclassing you've got around 10 rounds. So about 2 encounters), as is the bardic music. Your 5th level bard has 2-3 2nd level spells, so that's about how many bull's strengths you are getting as well.
Mutagen only lasts for 10 minutes at level 1. As a level 6 alchemist it lasts for an entire hour. You can clear an incredible number of encounters in a single hour. And since the Alchemist is unlikely to pop the mutagen until just before they investigate "potential combat site A134", they'll have a large amount of time to work through that site, then they can prep another mutagen before they head to "potential combat site A135"". Furthermore, if you try and force the alchemist to go from one location to another, they are just going to select the Infuse Mutagen Discovery so they can have 1-2 emergency mutagens.

Except the example was pretty clearly a multiclassed Alchemist/Barbarian, with it being heavily implied it's a 1 level dip into alchemist for a Barbarian. So you don't have a discovery, or extended duration.

I guess it's possible that you are doing Alchemist 4/Barb 1 instead, so you can have multiple 40 minute mutagens plus rage, but now you only have about 6 rounds of rage, which is a much harsher limitation, in exchange.

Either way the main point was it is taking a lot of resources and you are going to run out of one resource or another well before the one hour of time specified to clear out a dungeon. Keeping all of those bonuses running for the entire dungeon is not really feasible, it is a nova/burst tactic. (Though clever use of alternating between different bonuses as some fall off will probably be enough to keep your to-hit bonus in the high teens through the entire duration).

edit: Also, Infuse Mutagen requires 1000gp per extra mutagen you make. That's a pretty significant chunk of change to be blowing on a consumable, though if you're playing one-shot dungeons it probably is the best bang for your buck, in actual campaigns I generally don't see players investing 10-20% of their total wealth on combat consumables.


Quote:

Yeah, I wouldn't want to convert to the 5e range since it would invalidate running 3.x adventures without additional work.

I'm going off the intentions that the 5e designers laid out for bounded accuracy, and your examples are spot-on. For example, a PC would end up with a to-hit bonus with a ceiling of (10+character level) and an AC bonus of (20+character level).

Just going to requote the quote Morzadian provided on Bounded Accuracy:

Rodney Thomas wrote:

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels.

Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained.

Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

If there's a more recent article that claims Bounded Accuracy is something different, then sure, we can work with that. But this is a quote from a designer saying that what you and I agreed on as a needed improvement to the system is explicitly not bounded accuracy (since we are still making assumptions of these values increasing as the player levels). And the quote being referenced here does accurately describe the 5e bounded accuracy system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:

The conversation has moved on the the HP debate thing, so I'm just going to let that drop. I will concede that in Pathfinder at least it seems pretty clear that hp is a very direct correlation to toughness; but stand by my belief that the game would be better off on the whole with a separation between health and wounds so that restoring HP is not restricted to magic only.

Morzadian wrote:


I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I do think how you treat magic items plays a big part in their importance.

Players have limited money and they can make a decision on how they want to upgrade or customise their character. Take that freedom of customisation away and everything becomes very sameish.

** spoiler omitted **

One thing I am experimenting with right now with my group is cutting wealth down dramatically (in practice more limiting the purchasing of custom magic items, encouraging the players to work with what they find and invest extra money into non-magical stuff), but allowing the players to buy the effects of the "big 6" plus some assorted other more low-key effects with their experience.

So players still get choices in how to upgrade (rather than just automatically gaining passive bonuses to all of the major +X categories), just on a track that's separate from magic items. Most of the +X items just cease existing entirely (if they show up on a loot table or on an enemy in an AP, they become the equivalent amount of gold instead), and any remaining magic items tend to be of the more interesting utility variety.

From other posts I think it's becoming common for some experimentation with how and what kind of magical items are introduced into Pathfinder.

I'm currently playing in a campaign that has a ban on ability enhancement magical items. Not sure if that's a good thing, have to wait and see I guess (currently 6th level).

edit: hmm using what magical items they find, interesting. This means something


Morzadian wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.

This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.

If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.

Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.

So magical items have to be more powerful and have extra abilities to make them meaningful.

Using your hypothesis a +1 sword is meaningless but a +1 flaming burst sword is meaningful.

Meaningful and unique are two very different things.

Actually I wouldn't bother writing backstory for a +1 Flaming Burst Sword either. You can find those anywhere, or make them yourself. You cannot however, find Maiming Shard anywhere or make it yourself. "Special" magic items have to be both unique and useful to be meaningful. And by unique I mean it's abilities have to be unique and useful. A non-useful unique ability isn't something the player's are going to be concerned over and in fairness why should they be? Think of magic as technology today. Am I going to be excited when I run into a +1 Desktop? Of course not. There's lots of +1 Desktops and they aren't even the top end items.


Anzyr wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
My proposed solution in for people who want to make magic items "special" is that you make them... well actually special. There is nothing special about a +1 sword.

This. So many times this. A +1 sword is never going to feel unique or special no matter how much backstory you slap onto it, because there's nothing unique or special about it mechanically. It's just like the old nonmagical sword you had, but with slightly bigger numbers. And once something else with better numbers comes along, it'll replace that sword.

If you want players to get really invested in specific magic items, offer them something unique.

Seerow wrote:
First I just want to point out that Heroism is a Morale bonus and overlaps with Bardic Music, not stacks. That cuts 2 points off your to-hit bonus.

Inspire Courage is a competence bonus, not morale.

So magical items have to be more powerful and have extra abilities to make them meaningful.

Using your hypothesis a +1 sword is meaningless but a +1 flaming burst sword is meaningful.

Meaningful and unique are two very different things.

Actually I wouldn't bother writing backstory for a +1 Flaming Burst Sword either. You can find those anywhere, or make them yourself. You cannot however, find Maiming Shard anywhere or make it yourself. "Special" magic items have to be both unique and useful to be meaningful. And by unique I mean it's abilities have to be unique and useful. A non-useful unique ability isn't something the player's are going to be concerned over and in fairness why should they be? Think of magic as technology today. Am I going to be excited when I run into a +1 Desktop? Of course not. There's lots of +1 Desktops and they aren't even the top end items.

I don't disagree, I have used the identical concept as GM, creating unique magical items that had some kind of historical or philosophical significance as well as some unique mechanical difference. It's a good template, very effective.

However, I have seen players make the most mundane things interesting, be it a feat, magic item or spell. They really made good gaming sessions into great ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Morzadian: this player you mention, its pretty clear he took the roleplaying part of the game seriously, but how experienced was he at D&D/Pathfinder?

I find even the most serious roleplayers eventually lose any appreciation for +1 magic item number 2259. It simply becomes part and parcel of the game and nothing special.


Bonded accuracy is meant to state that whenever you roll the d20, randomness occurs. Your AC in 5th ed is not your defensive ability, it's a number used to calculate random miss chance. Your ability to parry, block, dodge, and shrug off blows is represented by hit points. As 5e character's proficiency bonus goes up, the randomness of their attacks decrease. Their skill at hitting does not increase. There is no such thing. All the rules are abstractions. Being a sword master means being able to attack twice or more each turn.

Could or should such ideas be placed unto second edition pathfinder? I don't know. I do like how 5e seems understand that more or less randomness is not a measure of strength or difficulty. No 5e DM should ever increase monster AC by 5 to make things more challenging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
No d20 DM should ever increase monster AC by 5 to make things more challenging.

To elaborate, if the GM feels he genuinely NEEDS higher AC, there are apps for that. Artificially inflating the number just robs the player of the attack bonus he's achieved.


ryric wrote:
I guess I'm not a fan of "I'm not going to give you actual magic items, instead you'll get innate bonuses that duplicate those items in every way just to make the math work." I'd rather fix the math.

Isn't that sort of a strawman? Skimming through this thread, I'm seeing 'I want magic items to be meaningful' and 'I like christmas trees' on either side of the aisle, and nowhere do I see 'I'm not going to give you actual magic items..'.

What I am seeing is a lot of commentary that magic items should be something unique or special or awesome and not Just Another Plus 1. That's a lot of things, but it's not special, and it's not awesome and it doesn't do much for your character's personal narrative when he feels like he's gotta give up SpleenSmasher The Magnificent in order to make room in his WBL to collect the orc chieftan's rather bland and unnamed plus-one-higher-generic-magical-spleensmasher.

What's wrong with 'You find a magical Brutal Spleensmasher', and because it's magical you automatically get +bab/4 to hit and damage, and hey, Brutal does YYY.

Or 'You find The Spleeninator, long lost spleensmasher of the Hill Dworks of OverThereThataway', and it is (insert game terms here).

Sure, you CAN do that today, but 3 rooms later when the miniboss drops a Plus-One-More-Than-Before! Bane Spleensmasher, you're just going to throw away that other one because this one is just much better. If it was just a choice between 'Bane' or 'Flaming' or 'Holy' or whatever, the decision becomes a little more organic and, maybe, meaningful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

I don't disagree, I have used the identical concept as GM, creating unique magical items that had some kind of historical or philosophical significance as well as some unique mechanical difference. It's a good template, very effective.

However, I have seen players make the most mundane things interesting, be it a feat, magic item or spell. They really made good gaming sessions into great ones.

I find that it often depends on your group. I have and have had groups that would marvel over the smallest magical item and treat it with wonder and respect, while others were more, shall we say, mechanically minded and just wanted the next plus, the next seemingly better thing.

To the first set, something with a back story should be passed on to others, or investigated to find out more about it. To the second group, it goes in the "sell" pile along with whatever else they get because it isn't better than the +X they already have.

I've found that altering the ability to just buy magic items at every Wal-Magic store in every town helps foster a sense that anything you find may be something of wonder. Adding in something like scaling items can also help tamp down on players discarding items in the hunt for the next plus -- you never know if Bloodreaver might manifest more abilities down the line.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Morzadian: this player you mention, its pretty clear he took the roleplaying part of the game seriously, but how experienced was he at D&D/Pathfinder?

I find even the most serious roleplayers eventually lose any appreciation for +1 magic item number 2259. It simply becomes part and parcel of the game and nothing special.

I use this roleplaying application with mundane items (or not so mundane) all the time. And I have been playing D&D/Pathfinder for such a long time.

I come from a visual arts background, and so context and description and history is important to me I guess, maybe its different to someone from a maths/accounting background, I don't know.

I agree, mechanical difference is important. But what you put into your character or his or her gear you usually get a better gaming session out of it.

i have a player in my group (played D&D for 3 decades), who needs my help to make his character for him, makes less of an effort as everyone else and it shows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zilvar2k11 wrote:
What's wrong with 'You find a magical Brutal Spleensmasher', and because it's magical you automatically get +bab/4 to hit and damage, and hey, Brutal does YYY.

Nothing exactly, but I'd much rather you automatically get +BAB/4 to hit and damage with anything/everything you wield [right down to your forehead if you attack with it], and finding the magical Brutal Spleensmasher means you can use it to do Brutal Spleensmashing with whatever special effects that is.


Rhedyn wrote:

Bonded accuracy is meant to state that whenever you roll the d20, randomness occurs. Your AC in 5th ed is not your defensive ability, it's a number used to calculate random miss chance. Your ability to parry, block, dodge, and shrug off blows is represented by hit points. As 5e character's proficiency bonus goes up, the randomness of their attacks decrease. Their skill at hitting does not increase. There is no such thing. All the rules are abstractions. Being a sword master means being able to attack twice or more each turn.

Could or should such ideas be placed unto second edition pathfinder? I don't know. I do like how 5e seems understand that more or less randomness is not a measure of strength or difficulty. No 5e DM should ever increase monster AC by 5 to make things more challenging.

Nothing in Pathfinder or D&D 5e is random because there are statistics involved.

The concept bounded accuracy is a radical departure from Pathfinder's 3.75 system, from story telling, customisation, variety of characters, challenge ratings of encounters etc. It was designed that way, never created to do something singular like lower the randomness in combat or with skill challenges.

Dark Archive

Gorbacz wrote:

The only thing that is being 'enforced' in PFS is the new Summoner which, truth to be told, was long overdue

I never saw what was broken about the Summoner. That said, I LOVE the new summoner rules! Being able to pick an actual theme like having an angel as your eidolon then getting actual angel specific abilities is much cooler than "Oh it's a generic outsider that can look like whatever you want as long as it's not specific" so uh... I can't have an astral deva cause that's too specific, or I can because it's still generic enough? New rules are so much more clear as to what you can make with your eidolon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


Once you've got people bandying around terms like "lying" when what you really have is a different point of view, you've got edition warring. And we have had it in this thread both before and after your post.

Or you know "number porn" or "endless treadmill" or whatever else you wanted to pull out before.

Incidentally, in the follow-up clarification, it was not the edition that was a lie (which was apologized for), but the edition as presented within arguments which is.

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.


Kalindlara wrote:

Ashiel's post puts me in mind of something else I always wondered. I haven't really hunkered down and thought it out, so the answers are probably pretty obvious. ^_^

A lot of people seem to want a system where magic items aren't calculated into PC power level. I always wondered, in a system like that, how can you drop fabulous treasures into the game? Wouldn't it make the PCs slightly and/or wildly overpowered?

Thank you in advance. (So sleepy - will follow up tomorrow)

Rather than dropping +4 swords and +5 cloaks of resistance, you can drop flying carpets, immovable rods, or various staves, etc.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Zilvar2k11 wrote:
What's wrong with 'You find a magical Brutal Spleensmasher', and because it's magical you automatically get +bab/4 to hit and damage, and hey, Brutal does YYY.
Nothing exactly, but I'd much rather you automatically get +BAB/4 to hit and damage with anything/everything you wield [right down to your forehead if you attack with it], and finding the magical Brutal Spleensmasher means you can use it to do Brutal Spleensmashing with whatever special effects that is.

That's a viable alternative, and usually thrown out as the first attempt at a solution. I was specifically addressing my idea toward ryric's desire for 'magic' to also mean 'more accurate/hits harder'.

If I wanted both things, where magical meant more, and fighters were just that awesome, I'd just extend weapon training to all weapons, so your average fighter gets to double dip.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."

You called?


Sgt. Ed Itionwarrior wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here. It's not taking shots at an edition of a game that's edition warring. Criticism goes on all the time, always has, always will whether you're talking about QWLF, murder hobos, treadmills, number porn, video-gamey, roll-playing, or less emotion-laden terms.

It's the taking shots at and misrepresenting the people and their motivations that's the real hallmark of edition warring.

That, and the latter being (poorly) disguised as the former:

"This game is clearly for ROLLPlayers..."
"Some of us enjoy a game aimed at more MATURE players."
"For those of us who can do math..."

You called?

Go home Sarge, the war's over already.

751 to 800 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition... All Messageboards