Turning Pathfinder into a low magic setting?

[Slyme]

Is it just me, or is it looking like they are trying to turn Golarion into a low magic setting?

Limited magic items and usage from resonance, etc? Charisma based pool to be able to turn on magic items for the day?

Why the sudden fundamental change in the way magic items work? Suddenly all those people out there with magic rings, amulets, belts, cloaks, boots, etc can only turn on a couple of those on any given day?

Filling up all your item slots has been a fundamental part of RPGs since...well the beginning.

[Vidmaster7]

One thing to consider Is I think creating magic items will be easier. I don't think they have quite previewed enough about resonance to know just how limited our magic items will be but it does seem like they might be pulling back a bit with them. I don't know that it makes it a low-magic setting however at least not by my definition. maybe a slightly less magical setting?

[Slyme]

Honestly, I could care less about item creation...I want to build adventurers, not craftsmen...

I could understand the resonance system for expendable/consumable magic like wands...but for things like magic rings? boots?

Just seems like they are trying to strip away yet another layer of character customization.

[Wheldrake]

Slyme wrote:

Suddenly all those people out there with magic rings, amulets, belts, cloaks, boots, etc can only turn on a couple of those on any given day?

It's a combination of things. Items like headbands and belts of stat bonus, amulets of natural armor and cloaks of resistance (all the so-called "big six", really) are supposed to be unnecessary and maybe even nonexistent now. So PCs will have less need for the christmas-tree surfeit of magic items.

Plus, the resonance system is intended (amongst other things) to replace the old clunky magic item slot system. It looks to me like it's also replacing WBL considerations.

Ask yourself this: assuming the need for the big six has disappeared, how many magic items no you *need* at 3rd level? At 6th level? At 10th level and so on? Is it really more than (lvl + CHA bonus) in magic items?

Also remember that some things won't require resonance at all, like a magic sword. But other things will, like wands and potions. One of my personal missions during the playtest is to give feedback on how the resonance mechanic can be finessed and improved.

This said, PF2.0 could easily be used for a low-magic setting, far more easily than PF1.0 could. But I don't think the default Golarion setting will be anything close to what we would call "low magic".

[Deadmanwalking]

Resonance only costs one point per magic item worn (in terms of ongoing effects).

When was the last time your 5th level character had 5 magic items worn on their person? Or your 15th level one 15 of them? And that's assuming Cha 10. It's also not counting weapons since they don't cost Resonance. Really, most parties already abide by this better than 90% of the time.

Frankly, my current Reign of Winter group are well into 7th level, have a PC with Craft Wondrous Item, and all would have some spare Resonance by the PF2 rules with the exception of the Cha 6 Dwarf Monk, and even he wouldn't be over, just at 0 Resonance.

They'd have even more Resonance free if you got rid of their Cloaks of Resistance, Rings of Protection, and Amulets of Natural Armor, all of which have been said to not be around any more in PF2 (since they're trying to avoid items that merely provide a mathematically necessary numerical bonus as much as possible).

So...no, the game isn't becoming low magic. It's just getting rid of the 'christmas tree effect'/'big 6' where you need certain items to make the math work (well, they do say you still need something like 2, but they're cutting the number way down). You can still have magic rings, amulets, and belts out the wazoo if you want, they'll just do things a tad more exciting than +1 AC or similarly bland bonuses.

Now active items, like a staff or wand take one Resonance per use...but that replaces their previous charges, so I'm not sure that qualifies as making the game 'lower magic' either.

[Slyme]

I personally like the idea of stat increasing items...giving every character massive stat boosts just makes stats unimportant in the long run. When every character has every stat at godlike levels, why bother even having numbers at that point?

[Vidmaster7]

Oh cloak of the manta ray that is a cool and flavorful item but I'm not giving up my cloak of resistance for it. Yeah I'm ok with that gone.

also I don't think you understand how the stats are going to work. Its more of a the bonus you were getting directly and only from magic items that you needed to keep up with CR will instead be built in.

[Nox Aeterna]

Well, personally that is far from turning it in a low magic setting.

If you can still get magic items at any time in even any small village. If magic can literally do absurd things like warping reality and controlling time...

Then it is still high magic to me.

So maybe one cant use the items as much as before, but what those items can do in those few times they can be used as well as how easy it is to get them matter more to me.

[Deadmanwalking]

Slyme wrote:

I personally like the idea of stat increasing items...giving every character massive stat boosts just makes stats unimportant in the long run. When every character has every stat at godlike levels, why bother even having numbers at that point?

Ability boosters (like a Belt of Strength) are actually not something they've stated they're ditching. They might be but we don't know.

They're just ditching boring items that give pure number bonuses like Ring of Protection and Cloak of Resistance. Which is a slightly different category.

Also, even if they are ditching stat-boosters, you only get bonuses to 4 stats every 5 levels. That makes the following stat layout totally possible at 20th (assuming +2s at every stage):

26, 22, 20, 16, 16, 10.

Even if everyone got that same set of stats arranged to taste (and they don't, 26, 24, 22, 20, 10, 8 is also a valid array assuming those bonuses) that's a very meaningfully different set of stats depending on where you put which stat.

[Unicore]

Is a ring of protection +1 even really a magic item in pathfinder? Would your character name it? Call it his precious and never let it go? Not if the plan is to ditch it in a short a time as a week or two (enough time to level up and make/find a better one). Why does the mechanic of getting a +1 to AC feel magical? It is never really even described as how you get that bonus. Same with Pathfinder's current +1 weapons. Especially since masterwork weapons give you the +1 to attack, the difference between a +1 and +2 weapon really makes no sense.

Personally, the change I most want to see out of Magic in Pathfinder's new edition is for magic to be less static boring mechanical numeric bonuses and more magical effects. Let the game engine handle numerical bonuses.

[Milo v3]

The issue with removing numerical bonuses from items is that it means the mages in the setting are seriously dumb. Especially since there are stat-boosting items in myth (Thor's +6 Strength Belt for example).

[Vidmaster7]

Speaking of that milo I do kind of wonder what they will do about that. I have a hard time believing all stat boosting items will be gone but at the same time I thought that was one of the goals.

[Vidmaster7]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Slyme wrote:

I personally like the idea of stat increasing items...giving every character massive stat boosts just makes stats unimportant in the long run. When every character has every stat at godlike levels, why bother even having numbers at that point?

Ability boosters (like a Belt of Strength) are actually not something they've stated they're ditching. They might be but we don't know.

They're just ditching boring items that give pure number bonuses like Ring of Protection and Cloak of Resistance. Which is a slightly different category.

Also, even if they are ditching stat-boosters, you only get bonuses to 4 stats every 5 levels. That makes the following stat layout totally possible at 20th (assuming +2s at every stage):

26, 22, 20, 16, 16, 10.

Even if everyone got that same set of stats arranged to taste (and they don't, 26, 24, 22, 20, 10, 8 is also a valid array assuming those bonuses) that's a very meaningfully different set of stats depending on where you put which stat.

Yeah with the current set up (PF1) you can get several stats around thirty by lvl 20 with tomes and items etc.

[Milo v3]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Speaking of that milo I do kind of wonder what they will do about that. I have a hard time believing all stat boosting items will be gone but at the same time I thought that was one of the goals.

Reducing the christmas tree does not require removing stat increasing items. One of the easiest ways to solve it in PF1e is to just remove the penalties on putting multiple effects in a single item and not restricting certain effects to certain body-slots.

They also said you'll still need two items in PF2e, which increases to 3 required items in the mid-levels.

[Deadmanwalking]

Milo v3 wrote:

The issue with removing numerical bonuses from items is that it means the mages in the setting are seriously dumb. Especially since there are stat-boosting items in myth (Thor's +6 Strength Belt for example).

We actually don't know stat-boost items in the sense of Thor's Belt are gone. They have said that at high levels there might be three necessary items. This would presumably be armor, a weapon and...something. Stat boosters (ie: actual +Str or +Int items) are a definite possibility for that third necessary item.

And this is magic. It's entirely possible any such items that don't exist are impossible to create. Why would that indicate people were stupid?

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Speaking of that milo I do kind of wonder what they will do about that. I have a hard time believing all stat boosting items will be gone but at the same time I thought that was one of the goals.

Their goal is to limit the number of items that are required by the math and get rid of those that aren't cool. Stat boosters that actually raise an Ability are not necessarily uncool, and they've never said they were getting rid of all items that were required, just most of them.

So we'll see how that works out.

[Vidmaster7]

Milo v3 wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Speaking of that milo I do kind of wonder what they will do about that. I have a hard time believing all stat boosting items will be gone but at the same time I thought that was one of the goals.

Reducing the christmas tree does not require removing stat increasing items. One of the easiest ways to solve it in PF1e is to just remove the penalties on putting multiple effects in a single item and not restricting certain effects to certain body-slots.

They also said you'll still need two items in PF2e, which increases to 3 required items in the mid-levels.

Ah OK cool! good info Thanks!

Edit: Same for your comment too deadman!

[Milo v3]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

We actually don't know stat-boost items in the sense of Thor's Belt are gone.

I know that...? I was replying to what people were saying in the thread.

Quote:

They have said that at high levels there might be three necessary items.

Yep, I actually said that in my post.

Quote:

And this is magic. It's entirely possible any such items that don't exist are impossible to create. Why would that indicate people were stupid?

Because stat increasing magic exists, randomly deciding that all magic can go into items Except for stat increasing items would be insanely arbitrary and ridiculous in-setting.

[Vidmaster7]

(not pushing for this just throwing out ideas) What about items that mimicked what attributes do without affecting the scores. Like a belt that increased your lifting and encumbrance a belt that give you + to reflex save and ac etc.

Yes I know at that point it would probably be simpler just to bump attributes.

[Talek & Luna]

Unicore wrote:

Is a ring of protection +1 even really a magic item in pathfinder? Would your character name it? Call it his precious and never let it go? Not if the plan is to ditch it in a short a time as a week or two (enough time to level up and make/find a better one). Why does the mechanic of getting a +1 to AC feel magical? It is never really even described as how you get that bonus. Same with Pathfinder's current +1 weapons. Especially since masterwork weapons give you the +1 to attack, the difference between a +1 and +2 weapon really makes no sense.

Personally, the change I most want to see out of Magic in Pathfinder's new edition is for magic to be less static boring mechanical numeric bonuses and more magical effects. Let the game engine handle numerical bonuses.

I agree. I want all of the ability stat boosting items gone from PF2 because they tend to cause huge game imbalances. It leads to save difficulties being to hard to make, attack rolls being too easy to make and host of other problems. If belts of giant strength and belts of Thor are still in the game they shouldn't effect combat rolls and should only effect skill checks such as giving bonuses to athletics, intimidation, diplomacy, bluff, perception, etc.

Rings of protection could stay in the game if they were limited to +3 maximum, did not effect saves and did not stack with magic armor. This is the way they always functioned in 1rst & 2nd edition of AD&D and it worked out fine.

[Wermut]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Also, even if they are ditching stat-boosters, you only get bonuses to 4 stats every 5 levels. That makes the following stat layout totally possible at 20th (assuming +2s at every stage):

26, 22, 20, 16, 16, 10.

Even if everyone got that same set of stats arranged to taste (and they don't, 26, 24, 22, 20, 10, 8 is also a valid array assuming those bonuses) that's a very meaningfully different set of stats depending on where you put which stat.

Thats the whole ruleset of character generation right there. Source please :D

[Weather Report]

Magic items are not what make a campaign high or low magic, it's the caster classes, I mean, wish, is still in the game, so it's hardly low magic.

As for the amulet of natural armour/ring of protection fiasco in PF1/3rd Ed, simply give characters +1/2 Hit Dice/character level to AC.

[kyrt-ryder]

Milo v3 wrote:

The issue with removing numerical bonuses from items is that it means the mages in the setting are seriously dumb. Especially since there are stat-boosting items in myth (Thor's +6 Strength Belt for example).

I am fairly certain Thor had a X2 belt (or is the strength belt's quantification at x2 a Marvel thing?)

[Wheldrake]

Although, FWIW, we don't know what restrictions will be placed on the Wish spell, nor how access to 10th level spells will be gated (perhaps by feat, forcing Cornelian choices).

But I agree, everything we've seen so far, including the live play sessions, does not suggest that the default PF2.0 setting will be low magic.

Our pals at Paizo have, much to the contrary, been trumpeting how cool the new magic item panoply will be.

And regarding AC, we don't know if level will be added to AC, or even how armor and magic armor will contribute to AC. I think we'll need to wait for a specific blog post on what armor is and how it will be handled.

[Malk_Content]

Milo v3 wrote:

Because stat increasing magic exists, randomly deciding that all magic can go into items Except for stat increasing items would be insanely arbitrary and ridiculous in-setting.

Maybe we still get them but they will be use activated. Your belt of giant strength might not give you an always on +str but you could spend a Resonance to get +4 str for the next minute. Still has stat imbuing magic but isn't so strong that in causes other items to not be worth considering.

[Weather Report]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

The issue with removing numerical bonuses from items is that it means the mages in the setting are seriously dumb. Especially since there are stat-boosting items in myth (Thor's +6 Strength Belt for example).

I am fairly certain Thor had a X2 belt (or is the strength belt's quantification at x2 a Marvel thing?)

Meginjarder raises Thor's Strength to 25 special!

[dragonhunterq]

Unicore wrote:

Is a ring of protection +1 even really a magic item in pathfinder? Would your character name it? Call it his precious and never let it go? Not if the plan is to ditch it in a short a time as a week or two (enough time to level up and make/find a better one). Why does the mechanic of getting a +1 to AC feel magical? It is never really even described as how you get that bonus. Same with Pathfinder's current +1 weapons. Especially since masterwork weapons give you the +1 to attack, the difference between a +1 and +2 weapon really makes no sense.

Personally, the change I most want to see out of Magic in Pathfinder's new edition is for magic to be less static boring mechanical numeric bonuses and more magical effects. Let the game engine handle numerical bonuses.

Your definition of magic items and mine are vastly different. I want magic items to be functional - not some overly romanticised fiction where you try and convince yourself that a bag of tricks is actually a useful item.

I like having a fistful of magic items, and yes I can easily have my level in magic items at nearly every level after 3rd.

And resonance is either a) going to functionally reduce that, even if because I'll need to save some for healing and/or activating class abilities (potentially - that may be restricted to the alchemist).
or b) so plentiful that it makes no difference so why have it anyway?

[Weather Report]

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

[Planpanther]

You get your level in resonance so I dont think it will be a problem. Of course there will always be playtesting to confirm. I was hoping to see big six go away but im betting its been downgraded to the vast five or the huge four.

Though I agree with folks that low magic isnt determined by Christmas tree alone.

[dragonhunterq]

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

[Planpanther]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

As long as players get their big six somehow the game should work as intended. Dialing up or down resonance levels should be easy enough to adjust play style..

[dragonhunterq]

Planpanther wrote:

As long as players get their big six somehow the game should work as intended. Dialing up or down resonance levels should be easy enough to adjust play style..

Well, as resonance is pretty much the only major concern I have about PF2 so far, I hope so - if nothing else if it survives to the final product I'm hoping for a sidebar about the consequences of removing it.

[Malk_Content]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

Well we already know two ways of improving your Resonance capabilities. Improve your Cha (a lvl 1 Character with 18 Cha could use 5 magic items!) or play an Alchemist (mentioned to get additionaly Resonance.) It isn't a stretch to believe there will be General Feats (E.G Extra Attuned: Gain an additional 1 Resonance, you may take this feat multiple times) or Class Feats (E.G a Wizard Feat called Wand Mastery: You may use a Wand a number of times a day equal to your Int modifier without spending Resonance)

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Weather Report wrote:

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

For so long as magic is rare enough that only adventurers and other such exceptional characters can get or make powerful items, it won't feel at all like tech to me. Every high-level adventurer having a pile of magic items doesn't mean magic items are common, because in Golarion as is, high-level adventurers are fairly thin on the ground.

Golarion isn't high-magic. High magic is settings where there is no agriculture because magically creating food is easier, there is no travel between towns in boats or on horseback because everyone can teleport, and so on. It makes for a fundamentally different world right down among the axioms.

Golarion isn't even high end of medium-magic, because NPCs above 15th level are rare in the world as a whole, not like certain settings where you can't turn around w3ithout tripping over Elminster disguised as a beggar.

[dragonhunterq]

Malk_Content wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

Well we already know two ways of improving your Resonance capabilities. Improve your Cha (a lvl 1 Character with 18 Cha could use 5 magic items!) or play an Alchemist (mentioned to get additionaly Resonance.) It isn't a stretch to believe there will be General Feats (E.G Extra Attuned: Gain an additional 1 Resonance, you may take this feat multiple times) or Class Feats (E.G a Wizard Feat called Wand Mastery: You may use a Wand a number of times a day equal to your Int modifier without spending Resonance)

Resonance being dependent on charisma is really not helping. I know they want to stop charisma dumping for some reason, but this is an obnoxious way to go about it.

I really don't want to forgo another ability just so I can reliably heal myself (which is what it amounts too, once you've attuned everything you want to) so many times per day.

There is not one single element of resonance that appeals to me.

[Planpanther]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

As long as players get their big six somehow the game should work as intended. Dialing up or down resonance levels should be easy enough to adjust play style..

Well, as resonance is pretty much the only major concern I have about PF2 so far, I hope so - if nothing else if it survives to the final product I'm hoping for a sidebar about the consequences of removing it.

We can take a guess right now. Your players will be slightly more powerful in magic items and have uncapped healing commodity potential. If you can GM around that it shouldnt be an issue.

[Weather Report]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

Ah, yes, D&D in the last 2 editions genre, but fantasy genre in general, characters are not usually walking around dripping with magic, Elric has his ring and sword, Gandalf has his ring and sword, Perseus had his helmet, shield and sword, etc.

[Malk_Content]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Resonance being dependent on charisma is really not helping. I know they want to stop charisma dumping for some reason, but this is an obnoxious way to go about it.

I really don't want to forgo another ability just so I can reliably heal myself (which is what it amounts too, once you've attuned everything you want to) so many times per day.

There is not one single element of resonance that appeals to me.

I don't see "here is a stat that does nothing for you" as a good bit of game design. So having something valuable based of Cha is a swell idea in my opinion. You can dump Cha, but it will have mechanical ramifications, just like dumping every other stat has mechanical ramifications. Although it also looks like dumping won't really be a thing anyway.

I guess that comes down to a difference of opinion then. I like restrictions that force hard choices. Do I take the extra movement speed from my boots, attempt to use that tactically to avoid damage, or hold back the Resonance so I can chug a potion if needs be? Should I put my bonus into Con and have more HP overall, thus needing to heal less, or into Cha and be able to heal (myself or someone else via a wand) an extra time per day? Or into dex and hope the AC bonus will reduce damage etc.

I'm guessing it will probably end up being a middle ground though. You might stop using your older stuff when the consumables become more worthwhile through their resonance, though you might keep them for utility situations (we are going to start are trek through the mountains tomorrow so I'm going to risk healing less in order to attune my Gloves of Climbing) but I'm guessing it is more likely that by (say) level 6 or 7 you'll attune 4 or 5 things and then Resonance serves to cause choices about which consumable to use and when rather than whether to use them at all. You might decide its worth using that wand now even though you might waste a few HP of healing because then you won't have to use the actions mid fight to do so, or you might value the HP:Resonance ratio more than the Actions:Resonance ratio. I'm glad this might come up as a player choice as opposed to just using the wand in both situations because it doesn't matter.

[Weather Report]

Malk_Content wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Resonance being dependent on charisma is really not helping. I know they want to stop charisma dumping for some reason, but this is an obnoxious way to go about it.

I really don't want to forgo another ability just so I can reliably heal myself (which is what it amounts too, once you've attuned everything you want to) so many times per day.

There is not one single element of resonance that appeals to me.

I don't see "here is a stat that does nothing for you" as a good bit of game design. So having something valuable based of Cha is a swell idea in my opinion. You can dump Cha, but it will have mechanical ramifications, just like dumping every other stat has mechanical ramifications

Total, that's why I dug in one of the playtest docs for 5th Ed, characters could attune a number of magical items = Cha modifier.

They settled on 3 attuned items for everybody, I have houseruled it to 3 + Cha modifier.

[Catharsis]

Malk_Content wrote:

Maybe we still get them but they will be use activated. Your belt of giant strength might not give you an always on +str but you could spend a Resonance to get +4 str for the next minute. Still has stat imbuing magic but isn't so strong that in causes other items to not be worth considering.

This makes by far the most sense to me. If you had static +Stat items, they would be mandatory and thus part of the Christmas Tree. A time-limited boost, on the other hand, would be strictly optional and could compete with other fun stuff.

I believe they said that magic armor and weapons are going to remain, presumably because they're so deeply rooted in lore. But who knows, maybe a meleeist will have either a magic weapon or a magic shield, not necessarily both (or maybe one lagging 5 levels behind the other).

Given the «Magic Mart» economy in current PF, there is certainly a need to dial back the prevalence of magic items in the system. I don't think it will become a low-magic system in the process; rather, the magic items you actually do have will become more meaningful.

[dragonhunterq]

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

Ah, yes, D&D in the last 2 editions genre, but fantasy genre in general, characters are not usually walking around dripping with magic, Elric has his ring and sword, Gandalf has his ring and sword, Perseus had his helmet, shield and sword, etc.

There are a lot of things seen in books and films that don't translate well to games and vice versa - it's one of the reasons you rarely see a faithful adaptation of books to film. They are all different mediums with different strengths and weaknesses. I do not want to play a game that faithfully reflects a book or a film - inspired and influenced by absolutely, but not faithfully emulating. It would make a very unfun game. For a start it would either require levelling at an extreme pace or little to no levelling at all. Elric, Perseus and Gandalf are pretty much just as powerful at the start of the story as at the end.

[Charlie Brooks]

I can't recall any adventure module or path mentioning things like a cloak of resistance as anything but a blurb on an equipment list. From a narrative perspective, I don't see how cutting out the "plus" items will change Golarion's flavor.

[Weather Report]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

I like having a fistful of magic items

I have always detested that, as it doesn't support genre and makes magic feel too much like tech.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to support both styles of play then :)

I'm really not sure I agree about supporting the genre - AD&D has always been about beating up critters and stealing their loot -which usually included lots of magic. AD&D and it's descendants as they have always been item heavy.

Ah, yes, D&D in the last 2 editions genre, but fantasy genre in general, characters are not usually walking around dripping with magic, Elric has his ring and sword, Gandalf has his ring and sword, Perseus had his helmet, shield and sword, etc.

There are a lot of things seen in books and films that don't translate well to games and vice versa - it's one of the reasons you rarely see a faithful adaptation of books to film

Not interested in adaptations, I just don't feel D&D/fantasy characters need to have magic items in order to function and/or be interesting.

[kyrt-ryder]

dragonhunterq wrote:

For a start it would either require levelling at an extreme pace or little to no levelling at all. Elric, Perseus and Gandalf are pretty much just as powerful at the start of the story as at the end.

Self contained campaigns that only spread a handful of levels (whether they start at level one or 17 doesn't really matter) and have good closure are great fun.

In fact I've participated in two particularly great campaigns without leveling at all, the entire games happened at level 9 and level 14 respectively.

[Dekalinder]

I'm not getting it. If instead of slot, you use as a limiting factor resonance, you are simply moving the goalpost. You still have a limited amount of magic you can use, and you will still have priority on what to use, so anything "fun but not usefull" is still going to be thrashed.

[Captain Morgan]

Slyme wrote:

Is it just me, or is it looking like they are trying to turn Golarion into a low magic setting?

Limited magic items and usage from resonance, etc?

Flavor wise? Absolutely not. The whole concept of Resonance is that magic is so prevalent that it has infused every living creature on Golarion, and that magic is how you can tap into the powers of magic items. This can also be used to explain some other things in the new system. For example, the massive ability boosts and the crazy impossible feats of physical prowess we have seen described.

Quote:

Charisma based pool to be able to turn on magic items for the day?

Charisma specially makes a lot of sense for this. It is the stat uses for magic in the blood. It is the stat for Use Magic Device. It's the penalty for Dwarves, the most resistant race to magic. And of course, mechanically Charisma just needs more to do so neglecting it is a meaningful choice.

Quote:

Why the sudden fundamental change in the way magic items work?

Why the sudden shift in how spell lists work? Where did all the Cure Light Wounds scrolls go? It's a new edition. Paizo COULD potentially explain it in narrative. The Return of the Runelords could very well completely change how magic and magical items work in Golarian. But I honestly think this is the sort of thing we should just handwave.

Quote:

Suddenly all those people out there with magic rings, amulets, belts, cloaks, boots, etc can only turn on a couple of those on any given day?

Man of the items you mentioned aren't going to exist anymore, and instead be granted as inherent bonuses. But if you are a high enough level to have obtained that many items, you probably have a lot of resonance.

Quote:

Filling up all your item slots has been a fundamental part of RPGs since...well the beginning.

It still will be. It is just that instead of only being able to wear 2 magic rings, you could wear a full set of 10 if you want to. I mean, you probably won't be able to use two pairs of magic boots at the same time, but within that amount of reason having your "slots" are body part agnostic makes a lot of sense.

[Charlie Brooks]

Dekalinder wrote:

I'm not getting it. If instead of slot, you use as a limiting factor resonance, you are simply moving the goalpost. You still have a limited amount of magic you can use, and you will still have priority on what to use, so anything "fun but not usefull" is still going to be thrashed.

The way I see it, it's not about items that are fun but not useful...it's about items that are fun but not essential.

The cape of the mountebank is a fun, useful item. But it's not a cloak of resistance, so taking that means you're at a disadvantage for saves. Eliminating that opens up more choices.

[Slyme]

Look at all the items Frodo had over the course of his adventure. Sword, Armor, Ring, Brooch, Cloak, and The Light of Eärendil. The elves also gave out magic items to the entire rest of the party.

I disagree with all the people complaining about the big 6 or the christmas tree effect. Half the fun of these games is gearing up your characters...if I wanted a game where gear wasn't important I would go play a game like Champions.

I never viewed items like rings of protection to detract from the game at all, and I personally have never run into this mythical party that carries around a sack full of wands of CLW to top off between fights.

To me it just feels like they are trying to dumb down every aspect of the game and make D&D 5.5...if I wanted that I would just go actually play D&D.

[dragonhunterq]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

For a start it would either require levelling at an extreme pace or little to no levelling at all. Elric, Perseus and Gandalf are pretty much just as powerful at the start of the story as at the end.

Self contained campaigns that only spread a handful of levels (whether they start at level one or 17 doesn't really matter) and have good closure are great fun.

In fact I've participated in two particularly great campaigns without leveling at all, the entire games happened at level 9 and level 14 respectively.

I'm sure they can be, but in a game such as pathfinder they are the exceptions not the default assumption. The game is neither designed nor intended to be played like that.

[Elorebaen]

Slyme wrote:

Is it just me, or is it looking like they are trying to turn Golarion into a low magic setting?

Limited magic items and usage from resonance, etc? Charisma based pool to be able to turn on magic items for the day?

From where I sit, it has always striven to be a fairly low magic setting.

Slyme wrote:

Why the sudden fundamental change in the way magic items work? Suddenly all those people out there with magic rings, amulets, belts, cloaks, boots, etc can only turn on a couple of those on any given day?

Filling up all your item slots has been a fundamental part of RPGs since...well the beginning.

I have played DnD since 1977, and it was never about filling up your "item slots." Ever. So, I do not see a fundamental change.

[A Ninja Errant]

I've long been irritated by the 3.x/PF assumption that for a character to be at his proper power level for his character level he needs to have X amount of magical equipment. I even moreso have been irritated by the fact that the majority of that has been taken up by a specific list of items you need to succeed, with only a little bit left over for items with cool flavorful abilities.
I'll admit, I'm not sold on the Resonance system, but it doesn't seem like it will make the setting "Low Magic" to me. If anything, I think the idea of "body part agnostic" magic item slots opens up a lot of cool ideas.

One of my favorite optional rules in Unchained was the Automatic Bonuses Rules (though it needed some tweaking to make sense) simply because it allows characters to
A. Be powerful on their own merits, and not just because they happen to own a spiffy magic belt.
B. Focus on what's actually cool, flavorful, and useful when they pick magic items.
I don't know if PF2 will be doing either or both of those things, I hope it will. So far it seems kind of promising.

I mean really, which sounds cooler to play? "An 8th level Fighter. He uses a Greatsword +2, wears a +3 Breastplate, and has a Ring of Protection +1 and a Cloak of Resistance +2. Oh, and his proudest possession is a belt of strength +4. He's amazing in combat, unless he loses his gear, or goes into a Dead Magic Zone" or "An 8th level Fighter. He uses a Flaming Greatsword, wears a magic breastplate, and has Ring of Jumping, and a Cloak of Arachnida. He's awesome in combat, has a few cool out of combat tricks he can use, and being in a Dead Magic Zone would just slow him down a little bit."

Elorebaen wrote:

I have played DnD since 1977, and it was never about filling up your "item slots." Ever. So, I do not see a fundamental change.

Agreed, the filling up the item slots thing came along with D&D 3rd edition. Before that magic items in the party depended on the whim of the DM or the roll of the dice. Nothing assumed that a character of X level would have a certain level of magical gear to be able to do his job effectively.