So now that 'Brawling' is the worst armor enchant ever . . .


Advice

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:


Just. Use. Pathfinder. Unchained.

There are several options there to fix Big 6 items issue.
Paizo already created for you all rules that you can probably need, but no, I don't want to use them, I want to complain about Big 6 items again and again and again.

Play 4th edition i suppose then?

Here i want to play a D&D with decent options that is viable to more than single encounter you see at the end of a AP at lvl 17, or that other item that lets me succeed a check to see if i can indentify a apple from the other side of the planet.

So i have to say, automatic progression doesnt solve the problem, its just putting your fingers in your ears going "Lalala" while pretending to play D&D when you are technically playing a MMORPG on paper.

Paizo are NOT getting a free pass for what they themselves consider OPTIONAL rules, if they give up on their own system why would we care about it then?

The problem of the 99 items issue where the 99th is the only decent one is not a point of "lets make the only viable option useless" its to have a purge of the useless item pool which is a wasted ink on paper and bring in options that is worth a damn rather than hyper-niche stuff you will only use once every lifetime!

Bring that pool of 99 items down to 10 and make them all useful, instead of 1 useful item out of 98 useless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

If you have 99 items for a slot and among those items you suddenly realize that there is only 1 item that is so good that everybody uses it, then it's unwise to revise other 98 items or introduce new items.

It's much more easier to fix only one problematic item.

It might be harder to make 20 of the items worthwhile, but it's the better solution since it allows for more fun options.


Dracoknight wrote:
Play 4th edition i suppose then?

Actually you can, nobody forces you to play Pathfinder, D&D 4 ed, Dark Heresy or other game systems over there.

You keep complaining about Big 6 items - but Paizo already provided you all rules to fix this issue. You tell me now that those rules are not OK because they are optional.

Ok, what do you want exactly? 2nd edition of Pathfinder? Are you sure that there won't be haters that will complain about that evil Paizo forces them to re-buy all there Core Books?


HyperMissingno wrote:
It might be harder to make 20 of the items worthwhile, but it's the better solution since it allows for more fun options.

Do you understand that "bad item" and "good item" are not absolute but relative concepts?

If out of 100 items you have 1 item that is uber powerful, that one item automatically makes other 99 items bad. If you fix this one item, you automatically again make bad items good.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
It might be harder to make 20 of the items worthwhile, but it's the better solution since it allows for more fun options.

Do you understand that "bad item" and "good item" are not absolute but relative concepts?

If out of 100 items you have 1 item that is uber powerful, that one item automatically makes other 99 items bad. If you fix this one item, you automatically again make bad items good.

I'd argue this. Losing a best option doesn't make the other options better, it just makes them more necessary, and barely. Head/wrist slot aren't very popular slots for most players, which will probably just lead to more big 6 investment rather than people using items in those slots or shifting down to the next option (ioun stone/buffering cap/etc). It'll lead to the same kind of stagnation until we get items that players actually want to use in those slots, so at this point the ball is in Paizo's court to make items for those slots that are more intriguing. At this point, head/wrist are going to be relegated to "the GM gave us this item, let's use it" instead of "I'm saving up for this item", which isn't terrible, but does remove some player agency for good or ill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
Dracoknight wrote:
Play 4th edition i suppose then?

Actually you can, nobody forces you to play Pathfinder, D&D 4 ed, Dark Heresy or other game systems over there.

You keep complaining about Big 6 items - but Paizo already provided you all rules to fix this issue. You tell me now that those rules are not OK because they are optional.

Ok, what do you want exactly? 2nd edition of Pathfinder? Are you sure that there won't be haters that will complain about that evil Paizo forces them to re-buy all there Core Books?

Do you understand that "bad item" and "good item" are not absolute but relative concepts?

If out of 100 items you have 1 item that is uber powerful, that one item automatically makes other 99 items bad. If you fix this one item, you automatically again make bad items good.

First off, you do have a point and yet i cant due to time contraints and interest i keep returning to the system i have the most mastery in.

And i am not the one complaining about the big 6, i complain about the lack of proper options next to them.

For your 100 item argument i just repeat what Jolly said. Having that 1 uber item gone is ofcourse a balance step but that doesnt bring the viability of the other items up, rather it makes a item slot useless as there is nothing to put in that slot that is worth the money nor the flavor.

And i already told you what i want, i want a better average, a better standard of a item pool. The 1 uber item trumps them all is not even applicable as i could easily ignore it for my character and pick the next best... but the "next best" is a hyper expensive item that might be useful if i meet a frog under a tree at the 5th of june!

The Big 6 aint even the main issue, the main issue is that the thousand other items are never even considered as they are so bad, situational or expensive to even see proper play.

Problem is that even if i wanted to AVOID picking a "must pick" there is rarely even a option to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Brawling enhancement went from +1 to +3... without any change?

At this cost I would have given Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat PLUS damage equal to the monk's unarmed damage...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the main problem for Jingasa is the trait " Fate Favored", so why not modifying the trait, also, modifying magical lineage, magical knack, and ancestral weapon because they are better than feats...
Writing is an issue in Pathfinder, but Logic is the same, why nerfing a good item, when you can always modify the price accordingly with his power.


Yondu wrote:


So the main problem for Jingasa is the trait " Fate Favored", so why not modifying the trait,

Oh gods, I'm now having gen V weather war flashbacks. Why didn't you ban Politoad?! You banned so many Pokemon needlessly!

TLDR context:
Basically there were a lot of Pokemon that were broken when the rain weather was active and Politoad could make permanent rain for low risk. It wasn't banned while the rain users were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Yondu wrote:


So the main problem for Jingasa is the trait " Fate Favored", so why not modifying the trait,

Oh gods, I'm now having gen V weather war flashbacks. Why didn't you ban Politoad?! You banned so many Pokemon needlessly!

** spoiler omitted **

Do not know this Pokemon sorry ....

I was not saying of banning, I hate this way of managing mistakes, but trying to correct it is more mature for me, giving the luck bonus to one effect (save, attack, damage..) is more in accordance of the trait spirit... it's like nerfing Metamagic Feats because of magical Lineage...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

If you have 99 items for a slot and among those items you suddenly realize that there is only 1 item that is so good that everybody uses it, then it's unwise to revise other 98 items or introduce new items.

It's much more easier to fix only one problematic item.

HELL TO THE NO

1 slot, 1 item that everyone uses pretty much describes the big 6.

What you have without the jingasa is 99 items for that slot and no one buys one. Magic items outside of the big six are ridiculously overpriced for what they do so no one uses them. Whats the point of publishing entire books of equipment if the universal reaction is to sell it and buy something useful when you loot it or to skip it in the isle at magicmart?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is indeed lots of chaff. Like the Cowardly Crouching Cloak, you hunker down and pull the hood over your head to trigger a Sanctuary spell, but the catch is that you can't see through the hood.

So you are engaging in an expensive version of 'If I can't see them, they can't see me.'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But don't worry, nobody could ever make a DC 13 Will save, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rambling Wall-o'-Text Opinion:

When asked why they print "bad cards" for Magic, I've seen WotC use the excuse that they make some cards better than others to try and teach new players to compare cards in order to help them learn to tell bad cards from good.

You could make the same argument for RPG elements; without bad feats/items, we wouldn't appreciate the good ones. However, it doesn't help when errata/FAQs create a constant churn of what is and isn't good.

My argument to this, though, is that they they/we wouldn't have to differentiate between good and bad if the bad was never created in the first place.

Though a counter-point to THAT would be that a product line can't be around this long, while constantly putting out new stuff that doesn't currently exist, and not manage to print something that isn't up to snuff. Odds are, with the high demand for more new and interesting content, that trying to meet that demand will cause some things to be released that are either over- or under- whelming.

So, we end up with some stuff that is "overpowered" that everyone suggests taking. With all of the guides out there, we end up with what are essentially sorted lists of feats/items, from best to worst. Granted, there can be cases for some items to be higher on the lists than others, and that's good; items are more interesting when they are really good for some builds and not so much for others (like the Brawling enchantment). But when an item ends up at the top for everyone (Big 6 for example) it could indicate a problem.

My counter to that, though, would be: is it a problem? Do we want everything to be so perfectly balanced that everything would be rated black/green in a guide? Do we want game content that is so amazingly balanced to the point of mediocrity? Such that nothing stands out and there is nothing to get overly excited about?

I think this is where people differ. Some would say "yes, if I compare two options (be they feats, items, whatever) that require the same resource investment, I want to feel like both are equally desirable". Others would say "no, I like that there are stand-out options that are head and shoulders above their contenders."

The problem here is that, usually, in many game systems, options aren't as clear-cut as being better or worse; it should depend on the build (again, like the Brawling enchantment). Options should be interesting by being better than a generic option but for a smaller set of scenarios. That way, if you are trying for a specific niche-build, you have options that make you even better at that niche build.

The further problem is that, in Pathfinder, generic options are typically better (the Big 6 being the best example here). Everyone benefits from have better AC, everyone benefits from having a better attack bonus (melee, archer, touch attack spells), everyone benefits from having better saves. So there is no reason to get other interesting abilities, when the generic ones provided are so widely useful.

When something comes along that does give a more attractive, but niche, bonus/ability, it attracts attention because it's something different to do. This invariably leads to more builds popping up that use it. Which invariably leads to people trying to figure out ways to make that niche more generic, and therefore more usable. A good example of this would be Fates Fortune. Most people would consider that a niche option: "increase Luck bonuses? you hardly ever get those, only this one race and/or class could make use of that". But then, as more and more material is printed, those Luck bonuses become more prevalent. Now, what was a niche option, becomes much easier to use for any build. The niche has become generically usable, but because it was originally made better than the generic option (but for niche situations), it's better than the normal generic option. And so it's deemed nerf-worthy.

And it's a vicious cycle that affects pretty much every game that involves choosing a limited set of resources from a vast sea of options. A game starts out with a small set, where nothing is especially shinier than anything else. Demand for more content causes increase in options, which are tacked on, but this causes some options to stand out more than others until they get hammered back down to the same level as everything else, which becomes increasingly harder to do as more and more options, and therefore more and more interactions between options, become available. It gets to the point that the developer can't release content without it having a bad reaction with something (or causing discontent for someone, since you can't please everybody), and then we get a new version instead.

I honestly don't see why anyone is surprised, or having heartburn over this; I would have thought people would be used to it by now. Note: I DO get why people get upset when they think something is over/under-nerfed; I'm not saying I don't get that. What I'm saying is errata shouldn't be surprising, and the fact that some people are pleased with it and some people aren't also shouldn't be surprising. You can express which side you are on, but you shouldn't be surprised that there are people on the other side.

The only fix I could ever see for this is by including niche options that are somehow unable to be used generically, but even then, some future option, that the developers maybe didn't foresee printing when they made the original niche option, could still end up opening the niche option up for less niche builds. I suppose extremely restricted options could be the norm, like "this option can only be chosen by X". But prerequisites like that already exist. The problem there is that there is always demand for being able to mix and match, so restricting that becomes unpopular. And such restrictions end up getting circumvented by mixing and matching (1-level dips are good examples of this).

TLDR: As a fan of the Brawler, unarmed combat, and grapple checks, I'm saddened to hear their options have narrowed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
As for your question, I replaced the hat with my "preferred" item that I had to choose to skip because a "required" item was in that slot. For my current melee character who is diplomatic, that item is the Circlet of Persuasion.

So, are there any plans on nerfing the big six? What about Power Attack and Quicken Spell? Haste?

I don't think you can make the "required item" argument until some of the biggest offenders of item slot dominance is resolved.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

Felyndiira wrote:
James Risner wrote:
As for your question, I replaced the hat with my "preferred" item that I had to choose to skip because a "required" item was in that slot. For my current melee character who is diplomatic, that item is the Circlet of Persuasion.

So, are there any plans on nerfing the big six? What about Power Attack and Quicken Spell? Haste?

I don't think you can make the "required item" argument until some of the biggest offenders of item slot dominance is resolved.

The math of the CR system depends on the Big 6, so no plans to nerf.

It's also why any item that stacks with the Big 6 is a problem. The math is tenuous as it stands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mrakvampire wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


If this statement was true then yes. But on the other hand you have 98 items not worth wasting gold on and 1 item that is worth it for a slot but you always have 6 excellent choices that literally must exist because you can't maintain game balance without them. Nerfing the 1 worth while item will not result in people spending money on the 98 garbage ones, people will use that gold on a different item that is worth buying either from the 6 necessary items or the 1-3 items that are decent in any given slot which you were already planning on getting.

Just. Use. Pathfinder. Unchained.

There are several options there to fix Big 6 items issue.
Paizo already created for you all rules that you can probably need, but no, I don't want to use them, I want to complain about Big 6 items again and again and again.

Not all tables or GMs use or enforce the alternate rules about Pathfinder Unchained. Ever heard of Core Only tables? There's a lot more than you think, and it's evidenced by multiple threads on this messageboard that specifically state "Core Only" or "Core + APG," or some other similar subset of rules, of which Pathfinder Unchained probably does not fall under.

Also consider PFS, where this (as far as I know) is not an option, and consists of a very large amount of Paizo's player base.

Telling people to just use an alternate rules system when A. They aren't at liberty to, and B. Shouldn't have to if the first rules system is so great and a lot of the player base uses it over said alternate rules system, is no different than telling them to play a completely different game, like Shadowrun, or Star Wars: Imperial Assault.

That also doesn't solve the flaw that's presented in the original system either. In fact, I already expanded upon why that isn't really a solution to the actual problem presented, and to put it simply, it's because the alternative rules really only change what the players value the most. Experience Points are now significantly more valuable than Gold Pieces because a lot of the Gold Piece items, sans special material armor and weapons, and the occasional off-magic item that is actually worth its value, are not only as relevant (because there are less worthwhile magic items to purchase, and your WBL is cut in half), but because the other "items" that you would normally "purchase" with your acquired Gold Pieces are instead locked behind Levels, or Experience Points.

There is more incentive to players to just go out and kill stuff or RP every single situation possible for Experience Points to get the benefits that most nearly every PC needs, instead of going to find said stuff in treasure that they won't look as forward to now.

I'll go ahead and tell you that I am at a table using this very same alternate rules system, and while I might be satisfied about having a larger focus on combat, not every player will consider combat the most fun or important aspect of the game as I do, and the amount of loot and/or gold that we actually acquire, beyond it being cut by half per the rules, is almost irrelevant, because there are hardly any worthwhile magic items to buy that are cheap enough to purchase, and a lot of the high-end magic items are way too expensive to consider even acquiring through any means, drops or otherwise.

Seriously, we hit level 6 as a 5 player party (count it as 4 for this argument, since our Monk can't have loot), and the only magic item drops we acquired were a modified Ring of Spell Knowledge II (which I'm using to gain access to Shield as a Druid), a stat-less Headband of Shifting valued at 500 gold (which, to be honest, I have no spell to use it on; ironic isn't it?), a Pearl of Power II adjusted for our Alchemist to use (a tie between the Ring for the best loot drop thus far) and an Acid Scimitar (that our Magus uses which I question as to why he is, since he can't hit worth a damn, and the +1 to hit and damage would be way more valuable to him than 1D6 damage with an element that can be easily resisted or negated, as it has before).

That's about 12,500 gold worth of items, and we have spent maybe 1,000 gold on consumables across the entire party (primarily thanks to the Alchemist in our party, but still), so call it 13,500 gold. According to cutting WBL in half (and applying the Brew Potion benefits from the Alchemist), we are still SEVERELY under WBL, by A LOT, especially if each PC is supposed to have 8,000 gold worth of items (and our Alchemist should have 10,000 gold via his Brew Potion feat). So, we are at 13,500 gold out of the 34,000 gold that we should have across our 4 PCs; we are only ~40% of what our WBL actually should be.

And the worst part is? I don't think we really need any other items, especially with our given composition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If the problem is that every character is buying the same thing in the same slot, then make more than one thing that people want to put in that slot.

Which brings the spinning back around to the "big 6 items".

Which will lead to "use ABP"

Which will get interrupted by a rant.

The writing of this show is getting really predictable.

In a group we've been using an automatic bonus progression since 2012 or so, and still struggle to find good items, there are few that are worth their price.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

gnomersy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

The fundamental problem is "don't compare new items to old items that are themselves mispriced."

The AMF is still overpriced by a factor of at least 2 (arguably 4 because weapons are slotless and amulets aren't) for unarmed strikes.

Brawling armor's fair price is somewhere between 4k and 8k flat. As a bonus equivalent enchantment a +2 might have been excused, but a +3 is absolutely ridiculous. Even a +1 equivalent bonus becomes overpriced when you start enhancing your armor for the purpose of keeping you from getting killed.

In fairness the comparison for how much brawling should cost was probably measured against the gloves of dueling of course it does still ignore the fact that you need to buy armor upgrades afterwards if you intend to not die which makes it notably worse and as such pretty much unusable to anyone who has both of those as an option.

Fallacious. It stacks with the gloves, it's an untyped bonus. It's worth more then the gloves...no requirement on class or anything for a similar benefit. Just have to wear the armor. The Gloves would include the 30% discount for only working for people with Weapon Mastery, I'd think.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

I keep seeing people ask:

  • trying to balance
  • discourage people from taking popular options
  • nerfing for spite

Why can't it simply be "people are interpreting this doggedly than designed and we see how they got that impression. So let's align it to intent.

That has nothing to do with balance, spite, popularity or anything similar.

Because some (most, if not all) of these the intent was already plain and clear. They changed the intent because the original intent was no longer balanced with how they want their game to be. It has everything to do with balance and I honestly don't see how you can claim otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who plays casually and only started visiting these forums a few weeks ago...

I just learned about the Jingasa (I don't even know how to spell it, lol, that's how new the item is for me!) a few weeks ago. I was overjoyed to see another item worth buying besides the Big 6. So for a moment let's ignore the arguments about BALANCE, because balance isn't the only thing that matters. It sucks to have another option, specifically an option geared towards martials, removed from the game.

Now, some people were saying that they see Jingasas in every game. I myself have never seen them, but I don't game with people that are even aware of these forums. It's a big difference. For people like me and those that I game with, seeing an item like that and finding out that it's viable is a rare surprise. I'd rather a flavorful item be a must-buy than generic RING OF PROTECTION, RING OF NATURAL ARMOR, +3 ARMOR, CLOAK OF RESISTANCE, etc.

So even if it's imbalanced, which it probably was, I'm sad to see it nerfed.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed some baiting/personally abusive posts and locking, as this thread hasn't been trending in the direction that conversations in the Advice subforum need to be.

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So now that 'Brawling' is the worst armor enchant ever . . . All Messageboards