Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the latest Playtest blog is Common Ground.
To make it easier for players and GMs to engage in worldbuilding, whether playing in Golarion or your own setting, we've created a formalized framework for the Pathfinder Playtest—using the categories common, uncommon, rare, and unique—that you can use to help determine the tone of a setting, region, or adventure. These are relative terms; while we list suggested rarities for various rules elements, they naturally vary from place to place even within the same campaign setting. For instance, in the playtest, a longsword is listed as common, and a katana is listed as uncommon, but in a game focused around Japanese fantasy (or, in Golarion, Minkai or Minkai-influenced nations in Tian Xia), a katana would be common and a longsword might be uncommon.
Is the common ground framework to be used in Pathfinder Society 2?
In Pathfinder Society 1, the only determinants for whether you could freely purchase an item are:
- 1) Do you own the resource it came from?
2) Is it allowed in additional resources?
3) Do you have the fame to purchase it? Alternatively, is it on a chronicle sheet?
In Pathfinder Society 2, will the list change to:
- 1) Do you own the resource it came from?
2) Is it allowed in additional resources?
3) Do you have the background that allows access -and- the fame to purchase it? Alternatively, is it on a chronicle sheet?
Will backgrounds be a new limiter on resource availability in Pathfinder Society 2? I can see this as an interesting constraint, in that it would make items on chronicle sheets very relevant. On the other hand, I could see this as frustrating for many character concepts, and possibly challenging to audit as a GM.
What are your thoughts? Is this something that should be part of Pathfinder Society 2?
Hmm
|
|
It depends on how important items will be to the character build. On the one hand, I really hope that the "big box store" magic item model goes away, since it does mean that everyone has the best items all the time, with no rhyme or reason. On the other hand, that means more record-keeping and goes against the idea of the Pathfinder Society as an organization having access to all of this information. I'm torn.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just magic items. It's spells and likely feats, too.
I freely admit that I was frustrated when so many players would take traits for mechanical advantage without working them into their character's backstories. If I got a regional trait, my goodness I roleplayed it. But I am worried that this system would not work well with global qualities of PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if a player says they're from Minkai they can have the 'better' weapons but if they're from that tiny village outside of Sandpoint they're stuck with a spear?
I'd prefer to see some clarification on this, please. I don't want to adjudicate this at the table as a GM.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
eastern weapons tend to be just plain better no matter what the system is. I'd rather not see every fighter having to be from minkai when that trope goes into effect.
They did mention in an earlier blog--the one on weapons, I beleive--that they're (going to try) doing away with that pattern. I.e. a katana is just another long sword. Exotic weapons are going to be weapons that do unusual things rather than coming from some other non-European-based culture.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I don't really like the Fame purchase limits and would be glad to get rid of them in favor of a combination of level and rarity.
I imagine basic access to common, level appropriate items/abilities/etc. with access to uncommon items unlocked via:
1. Codified character choices (homeland, deity)
2. Chronicle sheets (early level access, too); or
3. Easily available boon sheets (attend a game day, pick a region access).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the shattered Star Player’s guide one of the PFS options for spending prestige is:
A little expensive on a per spell base, but maybe access to a spell book of some previous Pathfinder. Simular idea for access to feats. Or market contacts for items.
I wonder if items that are rare or uncommon In one setting would cost more than a setting where they were common?
|
Without seeing the Playtest rules yet, I’m assuming that the items will all have only one listed rarity, not a smorgasbord of local rarities. If the GM wants to modify for a specific area, that would be up to her to codify for her campaign.
I really don’t see PFS wanting to be in a situation where a player’s choices may or may not be legal depending on where he arbitrarily decides his character is from. So I would expect the Core rarities to be the standard assumption.
I think this could be a good thing to keep character bloat down as long as there is a way to still allow customization. How’s this for an idea? (Levels arbitrary, probably need to change.)
Any uncommon, rare, or unique items found on your chronicle sheet can be purchased using the same rules as common items. You may learn any uncommon, rare, or unique spells on your chronicles at the times when your character would normally be able to gain a new spell.
In addition, you may have one bonus uncommon item OR spell not found on your chronicles beginning at 2nd level (purchased or gained as if common). You may have one additional bonus uncommon item or spell not found on your chronicles at 4th level and another for every two levels past 4th. You may have one bonus rare item or spell not found on your chronicles beginning at 5th level, and one additional bonus rare item or spell at 10th level and every additional 5 levels. As usual, you must provide a legal source for any item not found in the Core Rulebook.
If you select a bonus item or spell that later appears on a chronicle your character earns, it no longer counts against your limit of bonus items/spells once the chronicle is earned.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a player says they're from Minkai they can have the 'better' weapons but if they're from that tiny village outside of Sandpoint they're stuck with a spear?I'd prefer to see some clarification on this, please. I don't want to adjudicate this at the table as a GM.
Rarity is completely separate from weapon classifications in the new system. An exotic weapon is exotic because it's mechanically better than a martial weapon. A rare weapon (if such a thing existed, I don't think there are any in the playtest) would be rare because it only comes from a very specific source and you need to discover or gain access to that source organically through the game.
So as an example, there might be an uncommon martial weapon that is specific to a race, like an elven ancestry bow (totally made up), but if you're an elf you treat it as a common (still martial) weapon. The proficiency (simple, martial, exotic) of the weapon itself wouldn't necessarily change, and you would still need to be able to wield martial weapons even though it's common to you. There are almost certainly going to be options that also change the proficiency level of the weapon (similar to how Weapon Familiarity works in the current edition), but you would generally be spending an ancestry feat or similar resource on something like that and it would probably apply a broader array of benefits than just access to one weapon. Your origin could change the style and type of weapons available to you, but you're not going to have better weapons just because you're born in one part of Golarion and not another.
|
|
Common is common, but uncommon is pretty easy to acquire too.
An uncommon item might not be available on the road, but with PFS based out of Absalom, PCs should be able to purchase such things.
Rare items, on the other hand, are perfect candidates for chronicle sheet perks, while unique items could be PFS campaign awards or auction items.
I don't think either of those types should explicitly be tied to PC choices as then an item's mechanics overshadow the PC itself. (And iconic items should seldom be rare, if ever.)
And I like how the rule extends beyond items into races, sub-cultures, feats, spells, and so forth which I think should follow similar rules. Hopefully authors will recognize which of their favorite inventions should be gated behind rarity and which should be on the open market, at least in regards to Golarion if not PFS itself.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gates are bad.
No one likes feat taxes, and another gate for acquiring build options is just as bad.
"Oh, you want a rare archetype? Gonna need a boon for that guvner! Oh, that boon is only restricted to GMs who GMed 36 games? I guess you'll never be allowed to play that archetype/class you wanted!"
Race boons are one thing, but extending "uncommon" and "rare" beyond that to archetypes, feats, spells is brutal and punishing.
|
|
Gates are bad.
No one likes feat taxes, and another gate for acquiring build options is just as bad.
"Oh, you want a rare archetype? Gonna need a boon for that guvner! Oh, that boon is only restricted to GMs who GMed 36 games? I guess you'll never be allowed to play that archetype/class you wanted!"
Race boons are one thing, but extending "uncommon" and "rare" beyond that to archetypes, feats, spells is brutal and punishing.
Why are they okay for race boons, but "punishing" for other components? Would you prefer outright bans?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd prefer openly available material, with Boon methods addressing other concerns, such as things like 'Day Jobs', etc.
Really don't want to see 'cool stuff' completely hard-gated behind unreasonable convention/store GM requirements.
'super cool stuff that is in-canon legendary?'
That might be a different matter, but it still presents the 'folks who can GM a s%+$tonne' versus the 'folks who GM when they can afford to for any of a number of reasons' issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are they okay for race boons, but "punishing" for other components? Would you prefer outright bans?Gates are bad.
No one likes feat taxes, and another gate for acquiring build options is just as bad.
"Oh, you want a rare archetype? Gonna need a boon for that guvner! Oh, that boon is only restricted to GMs who GMed 36 games? I guess you'll never be allowed to play that archetype/class you wanted!"
Race boons are one thing, but extending "uncommon" and "rare" beyond that to archetypes, feats, spells is brutal and punishing.
Not to get side tracked on GM boons, but a rationale I see is that race is cosmetic while archetypes are not.
An elf is not that different from a sylph at the end of the day. So putting a sylph behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a +dex/+int/-con build.
A class (or archetype) cannot be reproduced by another class (or archetype). Clases (and archetypes) also tend to have a power element to them that races do not, so tying them to GM boons would be problematic.
|
In the shattered Star Player’s guide one of the PFS options for spending prestige is:
A little expensive on a per spell base, but maybe access to a spell book of some previous Pathfinder. Simular idea for access to feats. Or market contacts for items.
I wonder if items that are rare or uncommon In one setting would cost more than a setting where they were common?
I had not caught that, GlennH. Is the general rule that a spontaneous caster can’t take non-Core spells without doing spell research or finding them somewhere? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know where that rule is? Heck, I’m playing a level 1 oracle in a Shattered Star PbP campaign right now and have already violated it if that is a rule.
|
|
Why are they okay for race boons, but "punishing" for other components? Would you prefer outright bans?Gates are bad.
No one likes feat taxes, and another gate for acquiring build options is just as bad.
"Oh, you want a rare archetype? Gonna need a boon for that guvner! Oh, that boon is only restricted to GMs who GMed 36 games? I guess you'll never be allowed to play that archetype/class you wanted!"
Race boons are one thing, but extending "uncommon" and "rare" beyond that to archetypes, feats, spells is brutal and punishing.
Not to get side tracked on GM boons, but a rationale I see is that race is cosmetic while archetypes are not.
An elf is not that different from a sylph at the end of the day. So putting a sylph behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a +dex/+int/-con build.
A class (or archetype) cannot be reproduced by another class (or archetype). Clases (and archetypes) also tend to have a power element to them that races do not, so tying them to GM boons would be problematic.
???
Elf =/= Sylph
Rogue =/= Trapbraker Alchemist
"An elf is not that different from a sylph at the end of the day. So putting a sylph behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a +dex/+int/-con build." I'm not sure if I agree with this... but maybe. I'm willing to except your statement with qualifications.
BUT then,
"An Trapbraker Alchemist is not that different from a Rogue at the end of the day. So putting a Rogue behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a Stealthy/Lockpicking/Trapsmith build." works just as well.
Contributor
|
Not to get side tracked on GM boons, but a rationale I see is that race is cosmetic while archetypes are not.
An elf is not that different from a sylph at the end of the day. So putting a sylph behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a +dex/+int/-con build.
A class (or archetype) cannot be reproduced by another class (or archetype). Clases (and archetypes) also tend to have a power element to them that races do not, so tying them to GM boons would be problematic.
It's worth noting that, considering PFS policy on Advanced Race Guide material and similar books, most race boons effectively are boons that allow access to various archetypes, feats, and other options.
In PF2, material of that sort might have an Uncommon tag instead. ^_^
|
|
"An Trapbraker Alchemist is not that different from a Rogue at the end of the day. So putting a Rogue behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a Stealthy/Lockpicking/Trapsmith build." works just as well.
Nobody has to agree with my speculation, but that comparison doesn't work just as well.
Only the Trapbreaker Alchemist gets extracts (including the use of wands without UMD investment), discoveries, and bombs.
Only the Rogue gets sneak attack and dex to damage.
What does a sylph get that an elf doesn't? Darkvision, feather fall 1/day, and electricity resistance 5. Elves get immunity to sleep and resistance to enchantment and, if they want, can trade elven magic for energy resistance 5 or a suite of SLAs. So... darkvision vs. low-light vision.
However, my only point is that gating races behind a boon has less of an impact than gating a class. We can disagree on the magnitude of each of the impacts, but I will be hatd to convince race > class.
|
|
I had not caught that, GlennH. Is the general rule that a spontaneous caster can’t take non-Core spells without doing spell research or finding them somewhere? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know where that rule is? Heck, I’m playing a level 1 oracle in a Shattered Star PbP campaign right now and have already violated it if that is a rule.In the shattered Star Player’s guide one of the PFS options for spending prestige is:
A little expensive on a per spell base, but maybe access to a spell book of some previous Pathfinder. Simular idea for access to feats. Or market contacts for items.
I wonder if items that are rare or uncommon In one setting would cost more than a setting where they were common?
Tusk, that is one of several prestige options in the Shattared Star Player’s Guide. While most of the Shattared Star is PFS legal , the Shattared star Player’s Guide is not listed as a PFS legal source, so it dosn’t apply to PFS play. As far as I can tell there is no restriction on the legal PFS source of spell lists other than owning a copy of the source.
For Non-PFS games it would be up to you GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are they okay for race boons, but "punishing" for other components? Would you prefer outright bans?Gates are bad.
No one likes feat taxes, and another gate for acquiring build options is just as bad.
"Oh, you want a rare archetype? Gonna need a boon for that guvner! Oh, that boon is only restricted to GMs who GMed 36 games? I guess you'll never be allowed to play that archetype/class you wanted!"
Race boons are one thing, but extending "uncommon" and "rare" beyond that to archetypes, feats, spells is brutal and punishing.
Not to get side tracked on GM boons, but a rationale I see is that race is cosmetic while archetypes are not.
An elf is not that different from a sylph at the end of the day. So putting a sylph behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a +dex/+int/-con build.
A class (or archetype) cannot be reproduced by another class (or archetype). Clases (and archetypes) also tend to have a power element to them that races do not, so tying them to GM boons would be problematic.
For me it may just be that in the decades of playing it is very common for there to be limits on what races you can be, whereas what classes are allowed is usually not restricted in this way (other than guns? yes/no).
We've had a set list of races available for PFS with boons to allow more, and even that DOES feel a little crappy to all the people who will never get to play so many cool races.
But accepting that's a THING doesn't mean accepting the idea that it should be expanded FURTHER.
You can't get to a place where the GM is playing the equivalent of PF2RPG and players are playing the equivalent of PF2CORE if they don't GM, and a guy who GMs every single time at the local store game, I hate the idea that the only chances I get to play (at cons) I have to also give up 1/3rd or 1/4th of those chances in order to GM to try to get a Con specific GM boon if I want to have those options.
If more effort has to go into collecting boons to be able to play the character you want than playing the character you want people aren't going to be that interested in participating.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
"An Trapbraker Alchemist is not that different from a Rogue at the end of the day. So putting a Rogue behind a boon doesn't prevent you from making a Stealthy/Lockpicking/Trapsmith build." works just as well.Nobody has to agree with my speculation, but that comparison doesn't work just as well.
Only the Trapbreaker Alchemist gets extracts (including the use of wands without UMD investment), discoveries, and bombs.
Only the Rogue gets sneak attack and dex to damage.What does a sylph get that an elf doesn't? Darkvision, feather fall 1/day, and electricity resistance 5. Elves get immunity to sleep and resistance to enchantment and, if they want, can trade elven magic for energy resistance 5 or a suite of SLAs. So... darkvision vs. low-light vision.
However, my only point is that gating races behind a boon has less of an impact than gating a class. We can disagree on the magnitude of each of the impacts, but I will be hatd to convince race > class.
A sylph has the option to gain blanket immunity to some of the worst spells in the game.
EditI misspoke. You'll invalidate a lot of tactics early on but after a point higher level versions negate that advantage.
|
|
X fame to purchase uncommon items, Y fame to purchase rare items is a simple system to implement. I like the idea of 1PP to ignore the uncommon limitation, 2PP to ignore the rare limitation. Bypassing the limitation is more to track but gives oddball character concepts a chance.
Rarity is not intended to be attached to power in the Playtest but I have my doubts on how well that will work with spells, where more options can be more power. Having a PP cost per purchase is a spall cost for characters trying to pick up a single item/weapon but a large cost for a spellcaster trying to pick up every corner case spell / scroll.
I'd like options locked behind a chronicle to be the exception, and not the norm.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
X fame to purchase uncommon items, Y fame to purchase rare items is a simple system to implement. I like the idea of 1PP to ignore the uncommon limitation, 2PP to ignore the rare limitation. Bypassing the limitation is more to track but gives oddball character concepts a chance.
Spending PP for access to rare and uncommon items makes some sense. But, I think the prices should be a little higher to keep rare options rare. Discovering magical secrets while visiting Jalmeray and seeing them on a chronicle sheet should be awesome, not "Oh, I could spend 2 PP and get that already".
|
|
X fame to purchase uncommon items, Y fame to purchase rare items is a simple system to implement. I like the idea of 1PP to ignore the uncommon limitation, 2PP to ignore the rare limitation. Bypassing the limitation is more to track but gives oddball character concepts a chance.Spending PP for access to rare and uncommon items makes some sense. But, I think the prices should be a little higher to keep rare options rare. Discovering magical secrets while visiting Jalmeray and seeing them on a chronicle sheet should be awesome, not "Oh, I could spend 2 PP and get that already".
I think you are right, but how common uncommon is and how uncommon rare is will influence this. My benchmark is; can a level 1 martial afford his odd and unusual weapon that is not of his culture? Or can a level 1 ice wizard afford a that uncommon level 1 ice evocation? Is this a good or bad benchmark?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing in my two cents, but I think that it might be interesting depending on how the common vs. uncommon rarity bit to make the existence of pathfinder society play a role in it.
So, let's say for example that in the "Base game" of the playtest players have access to common items no problems, but uncommon is tougher to gain access, and GMs might parse out rare or better items on super rare instances.
However, in pathfinder society the interconnectedness of the pathfinders and our lodges means that we can find both common and uncommon items with no trouble, BUT rare and unique items are kept by the pathfinder society for study but can be "Bought back" or "Placed on indefinite loan" by the society to a player.
Let's face it, that's kinda how it works already, or at least how we explain why people don't keep the cool powerful sword they find on their adventures and buy it back. This will just make life easier for adding books in by going "All common and uncommon items from book A. are legal for pathfinder society. Rare items can only be purchased if they are on a chronicle sheet."
It also gives us the ability to say that anything that is pathfinder society specific rare, like if a wayfinder ended up being a rare item, could be purchased as if it where a uncommon by virtue of it's "Pathfinder Society" tag. (Again, I'm just doing theoreticals. hard to be firm until I get my grubby paws on the actual playtest.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's something to be said for using this framework in PFS2, but it needs to be done right;
1) Common items should be available without special effort. (Possibly level/fame gated.)
2) Uncommon items should be available with known effort. You can plan a build using it, and undertake steps to gain access to it. You're not at the mercy of it dropping from a chronicle sheet. However, because it's uncommon, you do have to do something to gain access - fame with the right faction, playing X scenarios in that part of the world, being a particular race, something like that. Something you can work your way towards without having to read scenarios before playing, using just the blurb text.
3) Rare items are things that you shouldn't be planning a build around, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get access to them. They might appear in chronicles, but then they should unlock for all your characters, so there's no angst about playing the scenario with the wrong character.
|
|
linking in Chronicle access - something I'd like to see...
All of our PCs are actually Pathfinders, and work out of the Grand Lodge... So when my barbarian drags in a bag of loot and drops a partially charged wand of bless weapon off at the Lodge, why couldn't ANOTHER of my PCs buy it. On Barbies CR it would be listed as:
wand of bless weapon: (CL1, 5 charges) (Limit 1).
When my Paladin is next checking down in "Loot Processing" he sees it listed and buys it (perhaps at a discount?). I mark the Paladins ITS as he bought it from PC #5 CR10, and I mark on the Barbarian (my PC#5) CR#10 as sold (to PC#6 - the Paladin).
Heck, if we could get some kind of discount (10%? even 5%?) it would be totally worth it - even for just the RP factor. ("Yeah, I understand the former owner of this fine Willow Wand of bless weapon died fighting Demons in the World Wound, and it was just recently recovered on an expedition there...").
And suddenly the equipment on CRs becomes MUCH more important...
And we are equipping our PCs more with loot gained on adventures than from the local Magic Mart...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much to dislike here. I would be disheartened if PFS2 were more restrictive than PFS1. Sure, it might offend your sensibilities if joe smith has an item that doesn't match his background, but to someone else it makes perfect sense. There are people who enjoy playing off the wall combinations and idiosyncratic characters that do not conform to your expectations.
Organised Play should stick to the same process it uses now. Rarity should not be a factor.
|
|
So much to dislike here. I would be disheartened if PFS2 were more restrictive than PFS1. Sure, it might offend your sensibilities if joe smith has an item that doesn't match his background, but to someone else it makes perfect sense. There are people who enjoy playing off the wall combinations and idiosyncratic characters that do not conform to your expectations.
Organised Play should stick to the same process it uses now. Rarity should not be a factor.
I think that if approached from the right direction, it could only improve play. So for example, in my mind you should be able to pick up a katana no matter where your from because that's the backstory you wrote. But, I would like to see something that makes it a little less "Default items" for characters where you HAVE to pick up a cloak of resistance x and ring of deflection x.
Again, it's hard without the actual stuff to compare to, but in my mind, pathfinder society should be able to go "Your katana is uncommon, sure, but your a pathfinder so weird goes with the territory." but also be able to go "This cool, unique, and not particularly amazing item is actually pretty cheap, but it's rare so you can't get it unless you jump through some hoops."
I love my niche items, but I also hate that pathfinder feels it has to balance them against the "Standard" items when there is no way their going to, so let's do interesting things like making them more powerful so you'd actually want to use them, or cheaper so you can justify picking it up instead of the standard item, and just make it so you have to jump through some hoops so they don't become the new "Standard".
|
|
But, I would like to see something that makes it a little less "Default items" for characters where you HAVE to pick up a cloak of resistance x and ring of deflection x.
Those are two separate issues and--as far as I can tell--unrelated.
You might be encouraged to know that the goal of PF2 is to remove that sense of needing 'The Big Six' items.
However, if rarity is going to be integrated into PFS2, I would like it to apply only to things that really matter: magic items.
I don't care if someone from the Mwangi Expanse came to Absalom (The Center of the World) and picked up a suit of four-mirror armor. I don't care if a half-orc is wielding an elven curve blade. But if some magic item is supposed to be rare, I wouldn't mind an enhanced level requirement (on top of requiring the resource) to purchase it because of that rarity. It would make chronicle finds more valuable.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I enjoy PFS1 a lot, sometimes it does feel as if it's a completely different sort of game from a regular campaign, in terms of how comprehensive your item access is.
In a typical campaign you're often in a hurry to chase after Bad Guys About To Do Bad Things, you're using some of the loot you found, and don't have time to buy exactly all the items listed in an internet build guide for your class.
I wouldn't mind if PFS2 mixed it up a little bit. But I think the relative freedom in PFS to make weird characters is a good thing too. I originally came into PFS after just getting too annoyed with a home campaign with a very restrictive GM, so I appreciate that freedom.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
I prefer that PFS2 be more restrictive. I would like the chronicle sheet to be far more important for what it gives players access to than it is now. I think it would be awesome for items and spells that are next to impossible to get any other way to be made available through Chronicle Sheets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer that PFS2 be more restrictive. I would like the chronicle sheet to be far more important for what it gives players access to than it is now. I think it would be awesome for items and spells that are next to impossible to get any other way to be made available through Chronicle Sheets.
Chronicle sheet loot doesn't matter very much in PFS1 and I'd like that to change, but I'm not sure restricting some items to only chronicle sheets is a great plan. It will encourage people to sneak a peak/be selective about what characters they bring to certain scenarios. If that one item that would be great for a wizard and pointless for a rogue is only available on one chronicle I'm going to be a bit gutted if I play that scenario with a rogue - especially if that is likely my one chance at getting that item.
If you go with an additional PP cost for rare items, maybe chronicles can give you a discount on the PP cost?
|
|
One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so. Sure, around level 5 and 9, sometimes, you may have to wait a couple scenarios or even levels to have enough gold or fame, but largely you can figure that into your build plan.
Planning for the Big 6 items and then immediately being able to purchase them when your build plan calls for it, has become a huge issue with power of characters vs. challenge of scenarios. The power creep and escalating power war has become a huge issue in the last couple seasons in PFS, and has significantly affected my enjoyment as both a player and a GM.
I suggest that some way is found that keeps it nearly impossible to create build plans that include items and their bonuses.
|
|
One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so. Sure, around level 5 and 9, sometimes, you may have to wait a couple scenarios or even levels to have enough gold or fame, but largely you can figure that into your build plan.
Planning for the Big 6 items and then immediately being able to purchase them when your build plan calls for it, has become a huge issue with power of characters vs. challenge of scenarios. The power creep and escalating power war has become a huge issue in the last couple seasons in PFS, and has significantly affected my enjoyment as both a player and a GM.
I suggest that some way is found that keeps it nearly impossible to create build plans that include items and their bonuses.
But wait... What if I plan to get those "Big Six" at 2nd level? Your objection seems to be more with the "Predictability" of when your PC will have the Gold/Fame. I mean you say: "One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so" yet you go on to point out that "you may have to wait a couple scenarios" wait till you have the gold and fame... which you will get "around level 5 and 9". Isn't that more of an issue with using a Wealth By Level system? Richer, more experienced PCs have better/more expensive stuff... "By the time I am 5th level I will be able to afford XXX item" - or even "By the time I have XX,XXX GP - what would I like to have on this PC in the way of magic?" The "Wealth By Level" lets us plan that out - it's "Predictable". Do we what this to change? to become something more "random/unpredictable"? I ... don't think so. IMHO
"I suggest that some way is found that keeps it nearly impossible to create build plans that include items and their bonuses." I'm not sure if players would buy into the randomness of this ... I mean, I notice I'm pretty random in my character advancement (I tend to think ahead two or three games... maybe), but I know other players who plot out their character advancement thru 10th level before they play the PC once. Not my cup of tea, but they enjoy this. And I am not sure I want to "break" that for them. "Why are you taking Weapon Focus with this guy?" - "I need it to get this Feat chain..." - "But that's your next 4 Feats! It'll take you what? 6 or 8 levels!" - "Four actually". Yeah - how can people play that way? I don't understand it... but then "...I am not sure I want to "break" that for them."
In a home game once (long ago) I had one of my players running a VERY rich PC. ("Spoiled rich kid goes adventuring for kicks"). Magic in that game was not something easily gained, but mundane items could be bought normally. So this player spent thousands on her (mundane) equipment - fur trimmed, gem set, silver/gold inlaid leather armor (which was just leather armor). She even used gemstones as sling ammunition... anyway, access to magic items was restricted to what could be found/recovered and a few sparse items that came on the market... Access to magic items was thus "Gated" by means other than Wealth. PCs couldn't BUY them, they had to ADVENTURE to get them. Do we want something more like that in PFS2? Well... maybe not?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Well, hopefully PF2 will succeed in moving away from the "these X items are the obviously best things to have" paradigm.
I think that paradigm can be a bit overstated in PF1 too; while almost everyone buys a couple of the Big Six, I really don't have that many characters that have all of them. Once you start looking at specific builds for characters, other items can be more optimal. But it's a mental shorthand when selecting gear for your umpteenth character, or for someone building a character after a guide they found on the internet.
I would like more forking paths - you can go in either one direction with gear, or into another three; but it's hard to do all of them. And all of them are attractive, it's not like how cloaks of resistance heavily outclass everything else. They're real choices where there's something to be said for either direction.
And "uncommon" items could play a role in this. Choose direction A; that's closing off direction B for a while. Later on you might unlock B, C or D; but not all of them.
I think there should be interesting choices, not walls.
|
|
One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so. Sure, around level 5 and 9, sometimes, you may have to wait a couple scenarios or even levels to have enough gold or fame, but largely you can figure that into your build plan.
Planning for the Big 6 items and then immediately being able to purchase them when your build plan calls for it, has become a huge issue with power of characters vs. challenge of scenarios. The power creep and escalating power war has become a huge issue in the last couple seasons in PFS, and has significantly affected my enjoyment as both a player and a GM.
I suggest that some way is found that keeps it nearly impossible to create build plans that include items and their bonuses.
But wait... What if I plan to get those "Big Six" at 2nd level? Your objection seems to be more with the "Predictability" of when your PC will have the Gold/Fame. I mean you say: "One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so" yet you go on to point out that "you may have to wait a couple scenarios" wait till you have the gold and fame... which you will get "around level 5 and 9". Isn't that more of an issue with using a Wealth By Level system? Richer, more experienced PCs have better/more expensive stuff... "By the time I am 5th level I will be able to afford XXX item" - or even "By the time I have XX,XXX GP - what would I like to have on this PC in the way of magic?" The "Wealth By Level" lets us plan that out - it's "Predictable". Do we what this to change? to become something more "random/unpredictable"? I ... don't think so. IMHO
** spoiler omitted **...
I probably did a bad job of communicating my exact point. But you missed it.
The point is, standard home games that I've ever played, you typically don't get to buy whatever you want. You deal with the gear the GM doles out during the adventure or you invest feats and time to make the stuff you want.
Getting to create build plans that include, essentially, using the fame and most likely gold totals at any given experience, to figure in what items you need to bump a stat up to a particular point so you can get some feat, etc. is part of why power creep is so pronounced in PFS.
I'm proposing creating a system by which you don't just get whatever you want given the fame/gold strictures in place. You have to actually earn stuff in game play.
|
|
In a home game I can feel confident that the game will "fit my PC"... I will find items that seem to work with the way my PC is growing. That's hard to do in a Living Campaign. Not impossible, but hard.
Judge: "You have recovered the Lost Sword of the Ages!"
Billy the Ax: "gee... wish I could use it. - of it weren't for my Specialization in Axes..."
Wizard Clyde: "Don't look at me!"
Druid Dave: "Yeah, sure - wait, it's not a scimitar?"
Rogue Fred the Halfling: "Guess it's going in the 'bag to sell' - How come we never get stuff we can use?"
Judge: "I don't write them guys, I just Run-It-As-Written..."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a home game I can feel confident that the game will "fit my PC"... I will find items that seem to work with the way my PC is growing. That's hard to do in a Living Campaign. Not impossible, but hard.
Judge: "You have recovered the Lost Sword of the Ages!"
Billy the Ax: "gee... wish I could use it. - of it weren't for my Specialization in Axes..."
Wizard Clyde: "Don't look at me!"
Druid Dave: "Yeah, sure - wait, it's not a scimitar?"
Rogue Fred the Halfling: "Guess it's going in the 'bag to sell' - How come we never get stuff we can use?"
Judge: "I don't write them guys, I just Run-It-As-Written..."
That's why I support, unless its a unique item like Luckblade, that if you find an enchanted weapon, you get to apply that enchantment to any weapon you have. So Chronicles open up access to types of items, not just specific items.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big issues I have with PFS1 is the ability of people to essentially buy whatever they want once they have the gold to do so. Sure, around level 5 and 9, sometimes, you may have to wait a couple scenarios or even levels to have enough gold or fame, but largely you can figure that into your build plan.
Planning for the Big 6 items and then immediately being able to purchase them when your build plan calls for it, has become a huge issue with power of characters vs. challenge of scenarios. The power creep and escalating power war has become a huge issue in the last couple seasons in PFS, and has significantly affected my enjoyment as both a player and a GM.
I suggest that some way is found that keeps it nearly impossible to create build plans that include items and their bonuses.
Sounds unfun to me. It would adversely affect my fun if they put those restriction in place. I enjoy planning and building characters as much as I enjoy playing them. Having to wait until I can afford it in fame and/or gold I can live with. A minor cost associated I can live with. Banned items I can live with. Hard level limits I dislike, but can live with. Having to jump through arbitrary hoops that may or may not be effective, however, is unacceptable.
But we obviously have vastly different expectations - my home games have been largely unrestricted item wise (it's either available or not, no faffing about) - whether I play or GM.
