| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I've been playing almost as long and a) not all games played out that way - the ones that did were the least enjoyable for me, and b) it is a good thing that we have moved on from being held ransom to the whims of the GM. Whatever they do I hope they don't take a huge step backwards in that direction.
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.
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 as optimal" is still going to be thrashed.
I can't think of any good reason that both types of campaign can't be fully supported by the system. (The adventure publication is another story of course)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.
I'm not 100% sure I can agree with you. The system is inherently designed to use levels. While using a single level for an extended period may be possible I don't think it should be actively supported. It is contrary to the entire premise of the system.
You can only include active support for so much before you lose sight of what you are trying to accomplish, and/or lose so much focus you don't actually accomplish anything.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing almost as long and a) not all games played out that way - the ones that did were the least enjoyable for me, and b) it is a good thing that we have moved on from being held ransom to the whims of the GM. Whatever they do I hope they don't take a huge step backwards in that direction.
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.
The point isn't that we want to be held to the whims of the GM or the dice, the point is that the game system didn't assume that every 8th level character would have a fairly set loadout of magic items in order to be effective. In AD&D 2e, an 8th level Fighter was awesome because he was 8th level, not because he had filled all his magic item slots with level appropriate numerical bonus gear. I'm not saying I only want randomly assigned gear, I'm saying I want to be able to use magical items that are cool and flavorful, and maybe grant narratively useful abilities, instead of ones that give me bigger pluses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point isn't that we want to be held to the whims of the GM or the dice, the point is that the game system didn't assume that every 8th level character would have a fairly set loadout of magic items in order to be effective. In AD&D 2e, an 8th level Fighter was awesome because he was 8th level, not because he had filled all his magic item slots with level appropriate numerical bonus gear. I'm not saying I only want randomly assigned gear, I'm saying I want to be able to use magical items that are cool and flavorful, and maybe grant narratively useful abilities, instead of ones that give me bigger pluses.I've been playing almost as long and a) not all games played out that way - the ones that did were the least enjoyable for me, and b) it is a good thing that we have moved on from being held ransom to the whims of the GM. Whatever they do I hope they don't take a huge step backwards in that direction.
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.
The point was that AD&D games, because of a lack of guidelines, ran the whole range of 8th level and you only have a +1 sword, and the ones where you had a holy avenger, +5 full plate and a whole panoply of magic gear. Neither were very fun for very different reasons.
And in the games with minimal magic, magic never felt more special because of the lack of magic, it just made you feel weak and underpowered. You won't make magic items special by making it rare.
3rd edition giving appropriate guidelines instantly solved all those problems - it may have created new ones, but to me they were less problematic than the old ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point was that AD&D games, because of a lack of guidelines, ran the whole range of 8th level and you only have a +1 sword, and the ones where you had a holy avenger, +5 full plate and a whole panoply of magic gear. Neither were very fun for very different reasons.
And in the games with minimal magic, magic never felt more special because of the lack of magic, it just made you feel weak and underpowered. You won't make magic items special by making it rare.
3rd edition giving appropriate guidelines instantly solved all those problems - it may have created new ones, but to me they were less problematic than the old ones.
I disagree about the scarcity of magic items, but that's neither here nor there, because none of the devs have suggested making magic items more rare. Nor am I suggesting that.
I am merely saying that I think pure mechanical bonus items are boring and uninteresting, and worse that the items often overshadow the characters wearing them, and I want to replace them with flavorful items that do actual things instead of +x to y.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 as optimal" is still going to be thrashed.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.
The issue isn't "optimal." It is "mathematically necessary." Pathfinder never required you to be optimal to deal with most adventures, but it did require a specific set of items which added various +1s. This has been acknowledged by the devs numerous times.
You are correct that there probably will be "optimal" items that provides the most help in the most situations, but I think that's going to be a lot less pronounced if the optimal item grants a cool new ability over another +1. It won't help in EVERY situation, and it will be easy for DMs to create situations where less optimal items get to shine.
Also, for those of you who find yourself missing the big 6, here's an easy fix.
1) Eliminate the four +2 ability score increases every 5 levels.
2) Create 6 new items which represent each stat. They can be the same belts and headbands of PF1, or you can reflavor so a Ring of Protection grants a bonus to Dex, a Cloak of Resistance represents Con, etc.
3) Make sure they are accessible to players at a rate of 4 per PC over the course of every 5 levels. Easiest to do through loot drops, but probably possible through purchases with proper pricing.
4) Make these items not take Resonance, or increase the amount of resonance to match.
I think the biggest reason the ability score bumps come all at once every 5 levels is to make it so that someone can't pump all their gains into a single stat, without requiring a very convoluted rules explanation. As long as item access is properly regulated (either through loot or pricing) then doling these bonuses out incrementally over the course of 5 levels shouldn't hurt balance much.
I'm not even saying Resonance is a good system. I think it is weird if it also gets used up for alchemical elixirs that are specifically different from magic, and I want to be able to play a lot with my new toys. But losing body slots is good, and the big 6 being absorbed into something more akin to the automatic bonus progression is good too. If you don't like it, then patching in a fix should be no harder than implementing the automatic bonus progression in PF1.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yeah, my post was composed before you actually posted about that. Sorry about that.
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.
Uh...we have absolutely no evidence stat-boosting magic in the strict sense exists. I mean, I'd be shocked if there wasn't something, but it might easily all be of quite limited duration.
And we have no idea that all different kinds of magic can be made into magic items. It seems likely most can, but stat-boosting could easily be one that's very difficult if not impossible to do along with certain others.
Another possibility is that you can build an item that boosts stats, but only temporarily and thus at Resonance cost. We really just don't know enough to know how this is gonna work.
Thats the whole ruleset of character generation right there. Source please :D
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.
-1st level Kyra in the Demo Games has 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 stats (the 10s are actually speculative, but very likely). How that's arrived at it is still unknown, but it's pretty much a sure thing that she has those stats (the top four are a sure thing).
-All evidence seems to be that you could also arrange that more or less the same and have 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you weren't human.
-They've said you raise stats in a way very similar to Starfinder, which is bonuses to 4 stats each at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. It always being a +2 in PF2 is an assumption, but almost certainly a correct one if there are no stat-boost items.
-The rest is just math.
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.
And, aside from the armor, how many of those gave him a static +1 (or even +2 or +3) to something and did nothing else? Was he considered stupid for taking an Elven cloak for stealth instead of holding out for one that gave a Save bonus?
Because that's what they're getting rid of, not having a bunch of magic items if you want them.
You can still stock up on magic items if you want, I mean, assuming Cha 12 Frodo could have all those items at 4th level and have Resonance to spare (since the sword doesn't count and the Light of Earendil is almost certainly use activated).
You just aren't required to have all that many items if you don't want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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 as optimal" is still going to be thrashed.
If you have a resonance type of limit, you have a choice, for example, of using 10 items out of 20 you own, in a given day. What's optimal will depend on what happens that day and what tactics you plan to use.
In PF1, if you own 2 items for each slot, one of them giving you an flat always-on bonus to saves, AC, or an ability, then you don't really have a choice. The flat always-on boost is the optimal thing to take, period. At high levels, the optimal thing is not just best, it's must-have for survivability.
So, one allows for choices, the other doesn't. This makes a huge difference.
Beyond that I can see 3 reasons to get rid of the magic Christmas tree decorations, a.k.a. always-on flat +X bonus items:
- More choices, as discussed above: The game gains in depth.
- A +X bonus that applies 100% of the time is just boring.
- If the item is destroyed, or stolen in the middle of a fight, then a lot of things on the character sheet need to be recalculated on the spot: In the case of Str, maybe the character can't carry his load anymore, a bunch of skill bonuses change, attack and damage change, maybe the character no longer qualifies for certain feats, etc. If you don't have character builder software at hand, it's hard to make sure the fight continues correctly (of course this also applies to all ability-boosting and -damaging spell and effects).
This is why I'm hoping that all ability modifying effects in the game go away. Instead, spells, effects, conditions and magic items should directly modify saves, attacks, damage, etc. Instead of an effect that changes an ability that changes several stats, we just make changes to the end stat or stats. A one-level addition and subtraction, without having to refer to the rules: This would streamline the game without sacrificing any depth.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading some of the comments and explanations, I am more on board with doing away with flat bonus items.
I still HATE the idea of resonance for general magic items...I would be fine with it, if it were only for activated items like wands, or things like Boots of Speed...but for items which are supposed to be always on, it just makes no sense. Why would I need to spend resonance to turn on something like a Ring of Sustenance, which is supposed to be an always on ability?
Is resonance going to have an effect on things like Bags of Holding or Handy Haversacks?
|
|
After reading some of the comments and explanations, I am more on board with doing away with flat bonus items.
I still HATE the idea of resonance for general magic items...I would be fine with it, if it were only for activated items like wands, or things like Boots of Speed...but for items which are supposed to be always on, it just makes no sense. Why would I need to spend resonance to turn on something like a Ring of Sustenance, which is supposed to be an always on ability?
With those items it's only one Resonance per day, and it replaces the 'this only works after wearing it for 24 hours' thing (which was always a bit odd).
Is resonance going to have an effect on things like Bags of Holding or Handy Haversacks?
We don't know. Magic Weapons don't cost Resonance though, so things like a Handy Haversack might not either.
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?
Some uses will be at-will, other uses will be per resonance point.
The problem is the Christmas Tree effect is one people generally don't enjoy. It was complained about at the end of 3.5e's life cycle (and this was 3.5e players who complained about it in my experience). It was allegedly going to be fixed with 4th ed (it wasn't. In fact it seemed hardcoded into the core of the game). It wasn't addressed in Pathfinder due to backwards compatibility.
Also resonance is good in that you can have as many magic items as you want, you'll still be roughly balanced with the guy with a single magic sword because you'll both only be able to use the magic properties the same number of times each day.
However I honestly don't expect resonance to make it through the playtest. Best case scenario it becomes an optional rule in the final rules. Apparently it was floated around during the first Pathfinder playtest? If it was, the feedback was sufficient to get it pulled out at the end.
The "lower magic" portion will come in at enhancement bonuses no longer being magical but being the result of excellent craftsmanship. Also the speculated +level to AC I expect will remove the need for many of the Big Six so they'll simply stop existing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I will like resonance, just because we don't have enough information about it. I suspect it will take at least a specific blog post about it, or the playtest itself, to form an opinion. But the Big Six need to go away, regardless. The two issues are independent.
The point was that AD&D games, because of a lack of guidelines, ran the whole range of 8th level and you only have a +1 sword, and the ones where you had a holy avenger, +5 full plate and a whole panoply of magic gear. Neither were very fun for very different reasons..Having a +1 weapon at 8th level is not a problem in AD&D.
I didn't say it was a problem, I said not fun :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or is it looking like they are trying to turn Golarion into a low magic setting?
Low magic? I feel like magic's power level is expanding. Magic weapons are adding extra dice of damage for each "plus" of enchantment. Low level spells are scaling much higher than before. There are more attribute increases. It looks to me like the "common man" will be left in the dust by characters at lower levels than before.
Resonance, to me, feels more like their just rearranging the deck chairs of the magic item rules to suit their tastes. Its hard to tell right now if it will have any real effect on play.
From where I sit, it has always striven to be a fairly low magic setting.
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.
Everyone has their own concept of what makes a game high or low magic. One person was looking to what high level spells could do. Another was looking at how many high level characters were in the setting. You seem to be hinting at numbers of items. I tend to compare the progression of character capabilities due to magic versus the common man.
Anyways, I do agree that back in 1977 we weren't overly concerned about item slots, other than stuff that just didn't make sense, like wearing two pairs of boots, two helmets, two sets of armor... Perhaps that only arbitrary limit was the number of "rings" which seemed to depend on the GM.
In Pathfinder though the "item slot" rules weren't very limiting once you starting dabbling in custom items. You can make anything slotless.
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?)
I don't think the doubling strength is purely a Marvel creation but, as a side note, in Pathfinder, your effective strength for carrying things doubles every 5 points. So, a belt that gave you +5 strength would make you twice as strong, although it wouldn't necessarily double all your bonuses...
I don't think the doubling strength is purely a Marvel creation but...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?)
|
|
Ha, it's still fun, I don't need an extra + 1 or two to have fun.I didn't say it was a problem, I said not fun :)The point was that AD&D games, because of a lack of guidelines, ran the whole range of 8th level and you only have a +1 sword, and the ones where you had a holy avenger, +5 full plate and a whole panoply of magic gear. Neither were very fun for very different reasons..Having a +1 weapon at 8th level is not a problem in AD&D.
Agreed. But in AD&D, there were beasties that required a +2 or higher magic weapon to even hurt them. I mean, running away CAN be fun, if, while you're doing it, you make like you're the 3 Stooges. ;-)
Ha, it's still fun, I don't need an extra + 1 or two to have fun.I didn't say it was a problem, I said not fun :)The point was that AD&D games, because of a lack of guidelines, ran the whole range of 8th level and you only have a +1 sword, and the ones where you had a holy avenger, +5 full plate and a whole panoply of magic gear. Neither were very fun for very different reasons..Having a +1 weapon at 8th level is not a problem in AD&D.
Ah! you misunderstand - no magic at all except a +1 sword.
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.
Will this mean you can finally have 2 magic necklaces active at once ? I'm strongly against resonance, but if if allows you to have multiple magic items in the same slot, I will probably slightly reconsider my position...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never cared for magic items and would be delighted if they were expunged from the game, but reducing their number and availability is the next best thing.
Magic Items have been a core element of D&D since it's inception.
There are games out there that don't have magic items as a key conceit - this one does not need to lose them. I'm already fearful they will be greatly reduced, and they really don't need to be.
I'm not worried. Pathfinder always felt like a low magic game disguised as a high magic game. The mechanics mean that very few non adventurers will have magic equipment besides an emergence stabilize potion and magic doesn't really help with day to day jobs. farmers still farm, crafters craft and overall outside the realm of adventurers or GM fiat events it ends up building a place much like early renaissance Europe.
I've never cared for magic items and would be delighted if they were expunged from the game, but reducing their number and availability is the next best thing.Magic Items have been a core element of D&D since it's inception.
There are games out there that don't have magic items as a key conceit - this one does not need to lose them. I'm already fearful they will be greatly reduced, and they really don't need to be.
The whole point of the changes, as stated by the devs, is to get rid of the boring +X magic items. The other ones, ie the fun ones, stay, and there's room to expand them, since their slots won't be occupied by +X items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or is it looking like they are trying to turn Golarion into a low magic setting?Low magic? I feel like magic's power level is expanding. Magic weapons are adding extra dice of damage for each "plus" of enchantment. Low level spells are scaling much higher than before. There are more attribute increases. It looks to me like the "common man" will be left in the dust by characters at lower levels than before.
Resonance, to me, feels more like their just rearranging the deck chairs of the magic item rules to suit their tastes. Its hard to tell right now if it will have any real effect on play.
I expect it will have a big impact on play. I hope they use the opportunity to also inject the idea that magic has preferences that are not always understandable to humans; their preferences dictate when they are willing to be activated and when they are not. Make magic magic, ya know?
The point isn't that we want to be held to the whims of the GM or the dice, the point is that the game system didn't assume that every 8th level character would have a fairly set loadout of magic items in order to be effective. In AD&D 2e, an 8th level Fighter was awesome because he was 8th level, not because he had filled all his magic item slots with level appropriate numerical bonus gear. I'm not saying I only want randomly assigned gear, I'm saying I want to be able to use magical items that are cool and flavorful, and maybe grant narratively useful abilities, instead of ones that give me bigger pluses.I've been playing almost as long and a) not all games played out that way - the ones that did were the least enjoyable for me, and b) it is a good thing that we have moved on from being held ransom to the whims of the GM. Whatever they do I hope they don't take a huge step backwards in that direction.
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.
Someone obviously never faced a critter that needed a +2 or +3 weapon to be hurt at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF 1st edition wasn't designed with the idea that you were "required" to have every stat boosting item, every ring a +5, every bonus to your armor. It even says so in the conversion guide.
"The Pathfinder RPG changes certain assumptions about purchasing magic items. This is an important change, as it limits the types of items that the PCs can purchase and means that they will use less common items during their adventures. Not every PC should have a ring of protection, cloak of resistance, and belt of giant strength. The game does not assume that every PC has such items, so there is no reason to make them as common as they were in 3.5. The Pathfinder RPG encourages PCs to use some of the more exotic items that they find during their travels, instead of just cashing them in to buy the best item for their character statistically."
The reason people "need" every stat boosting item, is that that's how most people play. They are murder hobos and stat monkeys who take every item they find, cash it out, and go to Fantasy Costco to buy an item that gives a plus. It's a video game on paper to these players. The designers tried to make magic wonderful and awe-inspiring, and the players went, "Nah... I'll just take a +5 ring instead. kk plz thx."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so characters with low Cha are going to be penalized in terms of character power?
You'll need a decent Cha just to be able to use items?A wizard who dumps Str doesn't suffer much character power loss, so why should the surly barbarian lose the use of magic items for dumping Cha?
That doesn't seem balanced. Am I understanding this wrong?
That is solved adding a penalty to dumped STR. And yes, all stats should be meaningful. Dumping STR or CHA should be as hard as dumping Dex or Con.
I don't think the case to be true since what it seems to me it's that they are trying to make almost every magic item relevant/useful. And honestly, some folks have the ability to go and look their chosen 'image avatar' for their PC and ignore the fact that he is now overloaded with magical trinkets and stuff, I am not one of them. That's why I willingly paid overpriced items with combined effects.
Someone obviously never faced a critter that needed a +2 or +3 weapon to be hurt at all.Ha, yeah, that is a thing, as I experienced in a 2nd Ed session I DMed, the monk was useless against the Nabassu.
Ah yes, good old times. When literally nothing could be done when the fiendish neighbours started to succesfully gate to the infinity and beyond more companions to the battle.
If resonance were ONLY a replacement for item slots, and perhaps for wand charges I would be fine with it. It’s other functions seem unnecessary at best and counterproductive likely. Not fond of it as is at all.
My setting is high magic and extraplanar in nature, with some cultures where magic items were as common as electronics in the modern day, so I definitely hope it's still possible to have magic item shops everywhere with the party covered in magic items.
That's great as a possibility for a given setting.
terrible as a system demand. (Considering the game we're talking about. Bling the Gathering* could be a fun rpg with such a premise.)
That's incorrect. It's terrible for some game styles (a game style that hasn't been supported the game since 2e until 5e came back and forced that game style as the only option).
It's perfectly fine for others, especially since nothing prevents the Big Six from being fixed AND having the option for High Magic. I'm happy as long as the Option of having high magic still exists.
If it's a System Demand you get your option while I don't get mine.Far better to have a system engineered to accommodate both.
I agree that would be optimal for both styles to be accommodated. Good thing I never actually made it a demand, and just said I wanted the High Magic to remain an option.
Though I still disagree that it's a terrible system demand, it's just a demand that doesn't cater to some players. For example, the forced low-magic of settings of 5e isn't a terrible system demand, it's just that it doesn't carter to my GM style.
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".
To be fair at my table the big 6 DID disappeared. We just used the Paizo provided Automatic Progression.
As for how many you NEED, to me it's always been "Want". Or get. I usually have 1-2 items around level 4-5 depending on what they are(And how "Magical" we're talking about. *Stat UP* might be useful outside of Auto progress but I'll pick up a Boro Bead first on an Alchemist).
As for Low magic.... unsure. I want to see how they handle Tech items though, if only because I'm running through Iron Gods right now.