| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello all! I've been considering restarting a campaign of mine using Automatic Bonus Progression from Pathfinder Unchained, but I'd like to hear some thoughts about how to progress with regards to weapon/armor special abilities (Like flaming, or vorpal)
For example, if a character with a +3 enhancement bonus from weapon attunement wields a keen scimitar, she subtracts 1 point of her enhancement bonus (for the cost of keen), leaving her with a +2 keen scimitar.
My main issue centers around the cost of special abilities. In a system that appears to be designed around letting the players use interesting and flavourful options rather than basic "+1"s, it feels strange that players who want special abilities will still have to pay for them, from their reduced supply of gold.
For example: A player who wants a flaming burst sword and has an attunement bonus of +2 will pay 8000gp and end up with a basic Flaming burs, spending about 34% of a level 9 character's wealth.
In comparison, a player who pays nothing has a 2 sword, which can be considered to have equivalent power to the flaming burst sword.
I know that the cost is reduced from the core system, but basic enhancement bonuses were often better than most special abilities anyway because they were always relevant, where the special abilities often didn't have much of an impact. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to be paying gold for a special ability on an item, when you would be getting the enhancement bonus for free anyway.
I've seen a few possible ways to deal with this issue, such as halving the cost for special abilities, allowing users to attune their weapons to a special ability at the start of the day, or the strange Capacity system that was originally designed for Unchained. But I'm curious what other players and DMs think about the system. What have you implemented or played with, how did it work?
Thanks!
I have not tried it yet, but I am thinking allowing the special abilities priced as equivalent to enhancements (Priced as +1, +2, etc.) to be automatically active provided they don't exceed the attunement the character can apply.
So, if the PC has +2 attunement, a +2 blade with up to +2 "worth" of additional powers would be ok, but if the weapon had two +2 or a +1 and +2, the character would need to pick one until his/her attunement available was sufficient.
That's particularly easier than managing paying the costs, especially if the party wants to pass the weapons around among the characters.
That's interesting, I like it. So basically if they usually would have a +2 attunement, they now have +2 enhancement as well as a +2 budget (Or Capacity) to "spend" on magical abilities that are already present on the item before drawing from the attunement bonus.
However, this is nearly the same as removing the section about special abilities subtracting from the attunement bonus, and I'm hesitant to do that considering that it might be a bit unbalanced to allow players to be carrying around +2 keen spell-storing longsword for merely an 8k gold investment.
A possible middle ground would be to grant half the attunement bonus as the Capacity budget. Meaning that at the +2 enhancement, they have a +1 Capacity to spend on special abilities on wielded weapons before the bonus begins to subtract from the enhancement bonus. So, with a +2 attunement bonus:
Level 10 character picks up a keen(+1) longsword and attuned to it. It becomes a +2 keen longsword.
Level 10 character picks up a keen(+1) spell-storing(+1) longsword and attunes to it. It becomes a +1 keen spell-storing longsword.
Thoughts?
The capacity system allows you to keep the gp price for the special abilities the same as it was before (taking into account that you have the enhancements already but also half gold). It's not necessarily easy to implement (I thought the chart was pretty intuitive at first, but it was my baby), but it covers you exactly. As you have surmised, pretty much every house rule (including Urath's) will generate a significant "effective gp"/power boost in weapons over a character who was at wealth-by-level standards in the CRB system.
|
I *highly* recommend the ABP rules, and the Capacity add-on. Speaking for myself, I found the blog write-up of the capacity rules to be unhelpfully difficult (sorry, Mark, love your work but), so I provided my players with a <revised writeup> that, at least to me and my players, makes much more sense than as presented on the blog.
The capacity system allows you to keep the gp price for the special abilities the same as it was before (taking into account that you have the enhancements already but also half gold). It's not necessarily easy to implement (I thought the chart was pretty intuitive at first, but it was my baby), but it covers you exactly. As you have surmised, pretty much every house rule (including Urath's) will generate a significant "effective gp"/power boost in weapons over a character who was at wealth-by-level standards in the CRB system.
I think I'm starting to understand that system. One problem with the description is that it never actually describes how it interacts with characters once they attune to it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but capacity works by letting players spend money to allow special abilities to be used WITHOUT subtracting from the enhancement bonus granted from attunement. Thus:
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +0 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +1 flaming sword because +1 is subtracted from the character's attunement
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +1 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +2 flaming sword because the capacity is used "first"
Correct?
EDIT: I see your writeup Joe, that makes a lot of sense and means that I didn't quite interpret it correctly. Thanks for that! I think it does make sense to implement. Have you had any issues with power disparity?. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how the blazes a Druid fits into all this. Can they attune to an Amulet of Mighty Fists? How much bonus does their companion get, if any?
I have some rulings already set for all of this, it's just a bit maddening when you see something like ABP being right on the cusp of being excellent, but it doesn't account for many of the edge cases and strange interactions
Joe M, I'd like to ask about your writeup and your experiences with the system. After some more thought, it seems to have the same problem that I initially had with the system which almost punishes players for using special abilities. More examples!:
Player 1 (+3 attunement) ignores the system and happily swings his +3 attuned greataxe without any money spent
Player 2 (+3 attunement) wants to use a flaming greataxe, but has to keep shelling out money whenever his attunement goes up to be able to use his full bonus, ending with a +3 flaming greataxe that cost him 14,000gp just to be able to use the flaming enchantment. I know this adheres better to the original rules in the CRB, but it penalizes those who want interesting abilities on their items rather than just enhancement bonuses.
The capacity system allows you to keep the gp price for the special abilities the same as it was before (taking into account that you have the enhancements already but also half gold). It's not necessarily easy to implement (I thought the chart was pretty intuitive at first, but it was my baby), but it covers you exactly. As you have surmised, pretty much every house rule (including Urath's) will generate a significant "effective gp"/power boost in weapons over a character who was at wealth-by-level standards in the CRB system.I think I'm starting to understand that system. One problem with the description is that it never actually describes how it interacts with characters once they attune to it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but capacity works by letting players spend money to allow special abilities to be used WITHOUT subtracting from the enhancement bonus granted from attunement. Thus:
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +0 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +1 flaming sword because +1 is subtracted from the character's attunement
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +1 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +2 flaming sword because the capacity is used "first"
Correct?
EDIT: I see your writeup Joe, that makes a lot of sense and means that I didn't quite interpret it correctly. Thanks for that! I think it does make sense to implement. Have you had any issues with power disparity?. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how the blazes a Druid fits into all this. Can they attune to an Amulet of Mighty Fists? How much bonus does their companion get, if any?
I have some rulings already set for all of this, it's just a bit maddening when you see something like ABP being right on the cusp of being excellent, but it doesn't account for many of the edge cases and strange interactions
Yeah, amulet of mighty fists works just like a weapon would, but double, although given the way attunement works (one weapon or two), you could potentially make a cheaper version of AoMF that costs the same as a weapon instead of double and only applies to one weapon. That's particularly useful for monks.
As for edge cases and strange interactions, there's just not enough space for all of those. Unchained is the toolbox book for modding your game. When doing modding, there will always be a time, like right here in this thread, when you have to adjudicate those corner cases.
Joe M, I'd like to ask about your writeup and your experiences with the system. After some more thought, it seems to have the same problem that I initially had with the system which almost punishes players for using special abilities. More examples!:
Player 1 (+3 attunement) ignores the system and happily swings his +3 attuned greataxe without any money spent
Player 2 (+3 attunement) wants to use a flaming greataxe, but has to keep shelling out money whenever his attunement goes up to be able to use his full bonus, ending with a +3 flaming greataxe that cost him 14,000gp just to be able to use the flaming enchantment. I know this adheres better to the original rules in the CRB, but it penalizes those who want interesting abilities on their items rather than just enhancement bonuses.
The quadratic scaling for items that get better and better is actually one of the cleverer pieces of math in the 3.X chassis. It's not "penalizing" so much as realizing that adding more and more benefits to the same item becomes nonlinearly better. After all, in the base system, do players with a +5 weapon stop there and refuse to pay the extra money to make it holy or whatever other enhancement they choose?
It's why no flat cost can accurately gauge the value of weapon enhancements that continue to add to the weapon's offense (though they work fine for weird utility abilities that don't relate to using it as a weapon), and it's also why every time an item comes out that gives a weird stackable bonus on, say, attack rolls or AC, the math starts to break a little bit more (since those are flat costs that bypass all this).
The quadratic scaling for items that get better and better is actually one of the cleverer pieces of math in the 3.X chassis. It's not "penalizing" so much as realizing that adding more and more benefits to the same item becomes nonlinearly better. It's why no flat cost can accurately gauge the value of weapon enhancements that continue to add to the weapon's offense (though they work fine for weird utility abilities that don't relate to using it as a weapon), and it's also why every time an item comes out that gives a weird stackable bonus on, say, attack rolls or AC, the math starts to break a little bit more (since those are flat costs that bypass all this).
I definitely agree that the quadratic scaling is a good system, it prevents one-track upgrading and only being good at one thing while allowing for a broader array of skills, talents, and upgrades.
However, I'm surprised there was no rule or exception that reduced the costs of adding on special abilities once attunements become higher. As it stands, I can't really see any characters justifying the cost of any special abilities at +3 attunement or higher, pushing everybody back into simply having their +3 battleaxe or pair of +2 daggers because the special abilities are simply too expensive when compared to spending nothing and still having a powerful item.
Forgive me if I'm appearing dense, perhaps there simply isn't a nice solution that can keep special abilities cost-effective even at higher attunements.
The quadratic scaling for items that get better and better is actually one of the cleverer pieces of math in the 3.X chassis. It's not "penalizing" so much as realizing that adding more and more benefits to the same item becomes nonlinearly better. It's why no flat cost can accurately gauge the value of weapon enhancements that continue to add to the weapon's offense (though they work fine for weird utility abilities that don't relate to using it as a weapon), and it's also why every time an item comes out that gives a weird stackable bonus on, say, attack rolls or AC, the math starts to break a little bit more (since those are flat costs that bypass all this).
I definitely agree that the quadratic scaling is a good system, it prevents one-track upgrading and only being good at one thing while allowing for a broader array of skills, talents, and upgrades.
However, I'm surprised there was no rule or exception that reduced the costs of adding on special abilities once attunements become higher. As it stands, I can't really see any characters justifying the cost of any special abilities at +3 attunement or higher, pushing everybody back into simply having their +3 battleaxe or pair of +2 daggers because the special abilities are simply too expensive when compared to spending nothing and still having a powerful item.
Forgive me if I'm appearing dense, perhaps there simply isn't a nice solution that can keep special abilities cost-effective even at higher attunements.
Math is hard, especially when we pull out the guts of a system that tries to hide some of those wheels to make it easier in play; you're not being dense at all!
It's my explanation that needs improvement. I'll explain better.
Normal system: I am a fighter with a +3 battleaxe that cost me 18,000. I want flaming. I must pay 14,000.
Attunement with capacity: I am a fighter with attunement +3. This cost me nothing (but the secret math of ABP works out that it took out about 18,000 in fact). I want flaming with my whole attunement. I must pay 14,000.
Math is hard, especially when we pull out the guts of a system that tries to hide some of those wheels to make it easier in play; you're not being dense at all!
It's my explanation that needs improvement. I'll explain better.
Normal system: I am a fighter with a +3 battleaxe that cost me 18,000. I want flaming. I must pay 14,000.
Attunement with capacity: I am a fighter with attunement +3. This cost me nothing (but the secret math of ABP works out that it took...
I can see how the math works out. I guess at this point I'm basically asking why we don't rewrite even the core rules to accommodate the special abilities, which is rather extreme!
My last little problem with the core ABP system (as if) is when a player wants to have a special ability instead of a +1, it feels like they're "paying double": once in gold, and once in losing the +1 on their weapon.
Nicely, with the capacity system, that is dealt with by allowing them to put that "lost" +1 into another weapon. Lots to think about
Thank you for your explanations. I'm sure ABP will fit in nicely in our group.
Math is hard, especially when we pull out the guts of a system that tries to hide some of those wheels to make it easier in play; you're not being dense at all!
It's my explanation that needs improvement. I'll explain better.
Normal system: I am a fighter with a +3 battleaxe that cost me 18,000. I want flaming. I must pay 14,000.
Attunement with capacity: I am a fighter with attunement +3. This cost me nothing (but the secret math of ABP works out that it took...
I can see how the math works out. I guess at this point I'm basically asking why we don't rewrite even the core rules to accommodate the special abilities, which is rather extreme!
My last little problem with the core ABP system (as if) is when a player wants to have a special ability instead of a +1, it feels like they're "paying double": once in gold, and once in losing the +1 on their weapon.
Nicely, with the capacity system, that is dealt with by allowing them to put that "lost" +1 into another weapon. Lots to think about
Thank you for your explanations. I'm sure ABP will fit in nicely in our group.
Oh gotcha. The reason why the core system doesn't give a discount for special abilities is because the ones that give a +equivalent are directly improving the weapon's attacks in a similar way to the +s, so it's appropriate for them to scale quadratically. The ones that just do something else that doesn't affect the weapon's weapon-ness do get flat costs, usually anyway. So for instance, something like holy or bane that add damage conditionally appropriately need to cost quadratically more like a + because they enhance the weapon's abilities like a + (and in bane's case, it actually adds +2), but if there was a power to shoot a lightning bolt from your sword as a standard action, then that doesn't synergize with the other stuff, so it should be a flat cost.
Another way to look at it is "Does it matter that this ability is on a +1 sword vs a +5 sword?" For the lightning bolt, it doesn't. For holy or bane, it does (since the +5 is more likely to hit and deal that extra damage). If it matters, it should cost quadratically more to apply more and more stuff.
Does that make more sense out of it?
Anyway, really glad you like ABP, and super happy to discuss deep-level design ideas with you and others who use Unchained to mod your games; actually, that sort of analysis and tinkering is kind of the point of Unchained :)
Another way to look at it is "Does it matter that this ability is on a +1 sword vs a +5 sword?" For the lightning bolt, it doesn't. For holy or bane, it does (since the +5 is more likely to hit and deal that extra damage). If it matters, it should cost quadratically more to apply more and more stuff.
Does that make more sense out of it?
That does make a lot of sense, thank you for that. It especially makes more sense once you see how the wealth by level scales in basically the same way, exponentially, allowing the players to keep investing in these abilities.
It's always interesting to work with the endless struggle: Balancing rules and roleplay. As it stands, I'll likely allow my players to have a "free" +1 special ability on each item that still costs gold but doesn't subtract from the attunement bonus. Naturally, the approximate ~2000gp (Actual value highly variable) extra wealth gained will be accounted for. In this way, the net wealth gain/loss should be about zero but the players feel that they have the ability to make their items more interesting.