How is 5E forced Low Magical Gear? (Note the distinction. High Magic Settings don't require High Magical Gear)
The way 5e handled magic items made it amazingly prohibitive to try and craft items, 90% of items required attunement, and that any magic items that actually modify things like skill numbers basically break the game because of it's bound accuracy.
The weird thing that happened btw Is it became a lot easier to aquire the magic item you want. In first you pretty well got what dropped and what you traded other party members for. in 3rd they at least had a straight forward mechanic for making them but it cost EXP so not getting used to much. In Pf you just throw enough money and get what you need. The side effect was the big 6 etc.
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 idea of magic having "preferences" is something that comes up in another D&D-based game, 13th Age. Each magic item is, in a way, semi-sentient. Each item comes with a quirk, some way in which it tries to influence you and your personality, sort of similar to the old Ego mechanics but without the numbers and Will saves assigned to individual items.
If you constrain the number of items you wield, those influences are minor and in the background; you remain in control, though it's certainly fun to roleplay them a bit. If you wield too many items though, or items that are too powerful for you, the effects become more pronounced.
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.
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.
Use-activated seems like the best way to handle items like these and still have them in the game. I really do feel things like Thor's Strength-increasing belt are both thematically and power-appropriate to a game like Pathfinder. I just don't want them to be always-on items because the instant they can always be on they are mandatory for optimization.
I think resonance is being considered to get rid of the notion that you can carry a pocket full of 1 use/day items and just replace them every time you use one. Like there is a cheap necklace that confirms crits once a day that some crit builds recommend you buy lots of and change them out after every use.
Under resonance you can still do that, but with limits. And similar to spell pools there is a good chance there will be ways to increase your resonance if you feel its too restrictive to be 'limited' to one magic item per level + cha bonus.
As for getting rid of the big 6: good for Pathfinder in the long run. Instead of having a single best choice having to make decisions and choices with positive and negatives is good. There really isn't anything in Pathfinder that is more bland than a +1 to AC.
Or you know, maybe not expect players to do that in large enough numbers to effect the game as a whole? And the few tables that actually like doing that, why stop them?
Easiest way to deal with it is to handwave away Resonance. Which is what I'll be doing. Probably not during the playtest but if I still don't like it or see anything interesting or cool done with the system, out it goes.
I've railed against this already but I'll word it differently this time. I do hope the new set of Magic items aren't so clear cut in what is best to avoid a new big 6.
Though I do question, and this is probably going to be a topic in the actual Pathfinder forum, not playtest; How many people used Auto Progression. It seems set up to kill the big 6 already. Too confusing on the Magic Weapon/Armor section?
I will however, take any replies to PM. This is off topic. I am interested in seeing what they do with both Magic and Tech in PF2
The weird thing that happened btw Is it became a lot easier to aquire the magic item you want. In first you pretty well got what dropped and what you traded other party members for. in 3rd they at least had a straight forward mechanic for making them but it cost EXP so not getting used to much. In Pf you just throw enough money and get what you need. The side effect was the big 6 etc.
This.
If you can buy/craft items, players will always buy/craft the ones that benefit them more. Given a possibility to add to attacks (be it +1,rerrolls, whatever) or the same bonus to Profession(gardener), players will pick the first in games where they regularly have combat and the later in games where they regularly have to take care of flowers.
There are 2 ways to deal with this:
1) ban or hamper crafting/buying (what 5e did)
2) make a game where having +3 to sense motive is just as important as having +3 to will save
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.Know its a bit far back in the conversation but I just woke up and I had a thought on this. With Resonance as it seems to be I think having a setting adjustment of "Resonance is equal to 5 + level + Cha (as opposed to just level + Cha)" would be an easy way to supe up the commonality of magic items in your setting. I feel this is an easy system to mold to your personal campaigns and a few desicions are being made with this "easy maths to change if you want" in mind, experience being 1000 to level up for example.
There will be many ways to houserule resonance away. Short of dumping the concept entirely, you can either increase the pool numerically, or reduce the number of things that cost resonance to use, or alter the effects that running out of resonance have.
For example, I think alchemical items (like alchemical healing) should be non-magical in nature and hence outside the resonance system. Several live play sessions have shown that it hasn't been run this way so far, but change is possible.
Or you could say that empowering a healing potion (or other item for use on yourself) causes the dice to be maximized, and without resonance you have to roll, or you could say that resonance allows a roll but without resonance you still get a minimum (die = 1) result.
IMHO we need to keep at least some aspects of resonance, since that's the new mechanic that replaces the body slot system to limit how many magic items a guy can effectively use.
I hope that some more nuanced form of resonance will make it into the final iteration of PF2.0.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, I think alchemical items (like alchemical healing) should be non-magical in nature and hence outside the resonance system. Several live play sessions have shown that it hasn't been run this way so far, but change is possible.
This might not be strictly true. All the Demo Games so far showing Alchemical Item use have been using the unstable items made by an Alchemist with Resonance.
Based on something one of the designers said specifically about unstable items not being cost effective when used by those other than the Alchemist, I'm actually inclined to believe that non-unstable alchemical items made conventionally with the expenditure of gold might not cost Resonance to use.
That's purely a theory, though, and could easily be 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.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?
How exactly is it 'solved'? I have never seen a wizard suffer from a Str penalty.
What 'required for all characters' mechanic requires Str that would make dumping it worth rethinking for a pure caster wizard?Are there links to these rules somewhere I can look at? I was not able to find them.
thanks
There aren't any in PF1. Just like there aren't any for CHA. What I'm advocating is to make both for PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well resonance at least makes charisma a lot less tempting of a dump stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. And bulk is an attempt for the same for strength. Probably will need more. Making effects and spells "save" on str bonus (entangle for example) might be a way.
It would be nice if every stat felt like constitution. I always felt like its the most well designed. You know its important you know you should put some in it but sometimes you might be willing to let is drop a little to be particularly good at something else.
There aren't any in PF1. Just like there aren't any for CHA. What I'm advocating is to make both for PF2.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.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?
How exactly is it 'solved'? I have never seen a wizard suffer from a Str penalty.
What 'required for all characters' mechanic requires Str that would make dumping it worth rethinking for a pure caster wizard?Are there links to these rules somewhere I can look at? I was not able to find them.
thanks
Why? Why can't we have characters that are simply not good in some thing, rather than characters who have to cover every stat because unless they do, they are crippled in half the game. I'd rather de-emphasize the importance of certain stats (like Dex) than have necessity of everyone playing with 14s.
Well resonance at least makes charisma a lot less tempting of a dump stat.
My concern is that it makes a moderate to good charisma mandatory.
Mandatory no your still thinking in PF1 where you needed certain magic items
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Why can't we have characters that are simply not good in some thing, rather than characters who have to cover every stat because unless they do, they are crippled in half the game. I'd rather de-emphasize the importance of certain stats (like Dex) than have necessity of everyone playing with 14s.There aren't any in PF1. Just like there aren't any for CHA. What I'm advocating is to make both for PF2.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.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?
How exactly is it 'solved'? I have never seen a wizard suffer from a Str penalty.
What 'required for all characters' mechanic requires Str that would make dumping it worth rethinking for a pure caster wizard?Are there links to these rules somewhere I can look at? I was not able to find them.
thanks
Actually now you CAN be bad at things. Having 6 in a stat that you never use is totally irrelevant and it doens't affect your character. Now you actually have a weakness that actually does something. If you choose to have no low stats, then all your stats are gonna be 12-14. If you want to have a 18, you have to decide if it'll be with less resonance, less HP, less AC, etc. Though now you can't even dump deep into negatives as far as I know.
It's not a weakness if it doesn't affect you. It's just "gaming" the system. This is why I always tell my players I will track carrying capacity to keep them from dumping STR to 7 unless they wanna play around it. (But it's still a pain to enforce)
|
How is 5E forced Low Magical Gear? (Note the distinction. High Magic Settings don't require High Magical Gear)The way 5e handled magic items made it amazingly prohibitive to try and craft items, 90% of items required attunement, and that any magic items that actually modify things like skill numbers basically break the game because of it's bound accuracy.
Currently, any stat boosting item already break PF too.
The oppposition is just too low.
Mandatory no your still thinking in PF1 where you needed certain magic items
We don't know what we'll need or what the math shows we'll need just yet. Though if I had to take a guess;
-Magic Weapon(Because it's better than mundane still and gets around Resistances)
-Magic Armor(See above)
-Movement Item(Either to get around, through or teleport)
-Defense Item(Yeah the +1 To saves might be gone but any item that gives you bonuses vs Energy, Sickness, or anything that can be popped to save your butt can work)
-Any "Class based item" (Any bonus to Channel for Cleric, Ki for Monk, Tools for Rogue, etc)
-Racial coverage(Don't have Darkvision? Here you go. Want more speed? Get this)
Just a few guesses as to the "Average, Standard" picks
And we know that, at least, magic weapons don't cost resonance unless they have an activated effect. So 5ish things. Well you can have all that at level 5 with 10 Charisma.Mandatory no your still thinking in PF1 where you needed certain magic itemsWe don't know what we'll need or what the math shows we'll need just yet. Though if I had to take a guess;
-Magic Weapon(Because it's better than mundane still and gets around Resistances)
-Magic Armor(See above)
-Movement Item(Either to get around, through or teleport)
-Defense Item(Yeah the +1 To saves might be gone but any item that gives you bonuses vs Energy, Sickness, or anything that can be popped to save your butt can work)
-Any "Class based item" (Any bonus to Channel for Cleric, Ki for Monk, Tools for Rogue, etc)
-Racial coverage(Don't have Darkvision? Here you go. Want more speed? Get this)Just a few guesses as to the "Average, Standard" picks
Never said they all had to cost Resonance. I still think you'll NEED a Magic weapon past a certain point depending on campaign and DM. Even if you can get around not needing it, you'll probably either want it OR an item of some kind that lets you hit things that don't take physical damage easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not as simple as Low Magic or High Magic. Remember, a stated design goal is that martial characters will be able to leap tens of feet into the air to knock down dragons and swim across entire oceans, so in practice everyone is magical, while maybe the more powerful aspects of true spellcasting will be powered down a bit so the two camps will meet in the middle.
So it's going to be high magic in that everything is silly and fantastical and low magic in that wizards won't be single handedly breaking entire campaigns. The major change is not in magic level but tone, as paizo is heading in a world of Warcraft/Harry Potter/Marvel/Saturday Morning Cartoon direction and away from the relative grit and hardship of 3.5.
I doubt it's going low level, look at what was said about tenth level spells in the Gameinformer article:
"But this also gave us the opportunity to write other cool tenth-level spells. There’s one for druids that can wreck an entire environment by invoking a devastation on an area. Don’t make a high-level Druid angry because they will ruin your town! I think we’ve got another spell floating around there that allows you to turn into Godzilla or something akin to it. There are some crazy things floating around with the high-level spells of the game, but that’s appropriate for that level. At that point in time, characters are able to do amazing, almost god-like things when you’re up at the nineteenth-level or something. You know, the magic system is really exciting."
That sounds like a spell that turns you into the Tarrasque...and that environmental destroying spell also sounds intense.
|
I see lots of people talking about dump stats...haven't they said they are doing away with the point buy system and your stats will be based purely on your race/background/class and your floating bonuses...with no reason to dump a stat beyond flavor?
If that is the case, the absolute lowest I ever see anyone actually having in a stat in PF2 is maybe an 8 if your race gives you a -2 in something.
I also agree that even if they do away with the "boring" flat bonus items, they will never get rid of optimal items, and we will just end up with a new version of the big 6. Gamers will almost always go for the items that give them a mechanical edge over flavor items, whether that comes in the form of a flat bonus or in some other form.
The entire concept of resonance is still one of the things I absolutely hate, and sincerely hope it does not make it into the final version of the game...at least not in any way that resembles how they currently have it.
|
|
Filling up all your item slots has been a fundamental part of RPGs since...well the beginning.
Slots only existed as of 3e. And Gary Gygax spoke out against Monty Haul games and magic item Christmas trees back in 1e.
So... not really.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?
Options.
If the rules of the game don't assume magic items, you can choose to go low magic.
But, in a game that is balanced around low magic, you can still choose hand out lots of magic items, making combat slightly harder in response.
Currently, you can't go low magic. Not without breaking the math or heavily hacking the system.
Why? Why can't we have characters that are simply not good in some thing, rather than characters who have to cover every stat because unless they do, they are crippled in half the game. I'd rather de-emphasize the importance of certain stats (like Dex) than have necessity of everyone playing with 14s.
Oh, you can. Mark has confirmed Starfinder rules for that in PF2. You can lower your stats if you want, so you can totally play with a STR 7, CHA 7, or CON 7 character if you want.
You just don't get free points from it to raise the other stats.
But if your character concept really depends on having the strength of a dog or the charisma of an otyugh, for whatever reason, you can.
Why? Why can't we have characters that are simply not good in some thing, rather than characters who have to cover every stat because unless they do, they are crippled in half the game. I'd rather de-emphasize the importance of certain stats (like Dex) than have necessity of everyone playing with 14s.
Oh, you can. Mark has confirmed Starfinder rules for that in PF2. You can lower your stats if you want, so you can totally play with a STR 7, CHA 7, or CON 7 character if you want.
You just don't get free points from it to raise the other stats.
But if your character concept really depends on having the strength of a dog or the charisma of an otyugh, for whatever reason, you can.
I'm talking about Charisma being forcefully necessary now, not dumping for gaining points.
I still don't think its going to be that much more important then any other stat. I put my extra +2 in dex my ac is a bit higher I but 2 into con for more hp I put 2 into charisma so I could get healed one more time per day from my wand etc.
I also agree that even if they do away with the "boring" flat bonus items, they will never get rid of optimal items, and we will just end up with a new version of the big 6. Gamers will almost always go for the items that give them a mechanical edge over flavor items, whether that comes in the form of a flat bonus or in some other form.
The flat bonus is the problem in itself. That's because it gives a mechanical edge in every conceivable circumstance. So, it crowds anything else out. With the big 6 simply removed from the game, there will still be strong items, but they will always either require a cost, or give an edge only in some circumstances, or both. So, it will be much harder to define something as "the item" or "the ultimate list of items" one must carry in order to win.
The entire concept of resonance is still one of the things I absolutely hate, and sincerely hope it does not make it into the final version of the game...at least not in any way that resembles how they currently have it.
The big 6's elimination and resonance are not necessarily tied together. I can see the system work without resonance. Characters will then become more reliant on magic items as opposed to their innate and acquired powers. Those classes (such as alchemist) that use resonance for other purposes will need a different point pool. It could work, it would just be a slightly different game tone. I suspect a good number of groups will houserule that way.
Personally I remain on the fence about resonance. We'll need to see a specific blog post about it, or, missing that, the playtest book itself.
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.
I want to build Craftsmen. I think Item Creation has been the weakest part of D&D/PF since time immemorial.