|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The variation in price in the tables (concerning permanent items) is just way too big, resulting in weird situations like:
a +1 light/medium armor (60gp) is equal treasure as the +1 equivalent rune (25gp) resulting in a "free expert armor"
In the above example, you can start with an 60gp item (+1 medium armor) but not with a 50gp item (+1 heavy armor rune) simply "because".
In sort, separating equivalent stuff like heavy/medium/light armors seems arbitrary:
The main cost is armors is not the base armor, but the expert/master/legendary quality.
it's completely illogical AND unbalancing the fact that 2 suits of armor, that have identical amount of work to make them and offer identical combined AC, are differnt level of items just because one is made of metal and the other of leather. Because, really, that's the only difference: base material.
in sort:
a)Armor runes need to be equal regardless of armor type.
b)Level 1-3 Treasure Tables need to be redone by following strict price and not "gut feeling":
as an example, everything under 35gp: level 2 item.
36-60 gp: level 3 item
p.s.
A lot more consideration needs to be given on the TYPE of items one wants at each level:
a light/medium armored guy gets his +1armor at 3, gets his +1 weapon at 4.
A heavy armor user gets nothing at level3 and then at level 4 he needs to get: his +1 armor, his +1 weapon, his shield upgrade. His 3rd level item is all but useless but he needs 3 different level 4 items, which the system makes impossible to get.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Armors don't actually have "equal combined AC" by themselves - by which I mean without investment on the part of the player.
Getting a 12 dex is a very low-opportunity-cost investment, and it's all you need to have the best AC from heavy armor.
Getting the 16 dex you need to match that with medium armor is a much higher-opportunity-cost investment. And to make the above and this option feel "fair", the required item for the above has a higher opportunity cost than the required item for this option.
I think the tables are pretty well sorted out when it comes to the numbers that really matter (which price is not, strictly speaking, one of).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote:
I think the tables are pretty well sorted out when it comes to the numbers that really matter (which price is not, strictly speaking, one of). Not even close when it comes to heavy armors.
Case in point:
Exactly ZERO level 3 items to get. 3 different level 4 items to get.
Even excluding price, that's terrible design since it makes a heavy armor user unable to get his armor until he's level 6,and he never gets his shield either (since he needs his level 5 item to be a weapon with how jacked up magical weapons are)
Everyone else, light, med, dual wielding, etc, can pick up their respective level 3 item at level 4 but a heavy armored, shield user, is hosed hard and needs to wait TWO EXTRA LEVELS to get it.
Using the "estimated prices" as it's detailed before the tables to give up both 2nd and 3rd level item to get a +1 heavy (same cost as a 2+3) is doable but another can of worms, since someone might feel they should do the same and pick up a +1 weapon before they should be available.
P. S.
Your dex comment may have some merit for light armors, but by level 4 when you get the +1 medium armor, stats allow you to easily Max your AC.
Basically, as the items are set out, Heavy armor has the lowest AC of all armors until level 5,which,frankly,iz ridiculous and bad design.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Basically, as the items are set out, Heavy armor has the lowest AC of all armors until level 5,which,frankly,iz ridiculous and bad design. That doesn't match my experiences.
A dex-primary class can get a higher AC with light armor, until the heavy armor and only 12 dex character gets mundane full plate. But at the first few levels, when characters that aren't maxing their dex because it is what they use the most, heavy armor and a 12 dex can keep you 1-2 points of AC ahead of non-magical medium armor and light armor.
Then, once everyone hits level 5 and can have both their "ideal" dexterity for sure, and their magical armor, AC across the board is within 1 point (and it's light armor that is behind by that 1 point).
Personally, I think all Heavy Armor should grant FULL AC to Regular, and Touch AC to help bridge the gap.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote:
Getting a 12 dex is a very low-opportunity-cost investment, and it's all you need to have the best AC from heavy armor.
Except that's not true at all, because wearing heavy armor a) requires heavy armor proficiency, which currently only two classes have and b) carries massive and crippling penalties to skill checks and movement speed. Including the only skills that the classes with Heavy Armor Proficiency are capable of maxing out, STR and DEX-based ones.
Heavy Armor shouldn't be treated as a more powerful item than other armors, because it's not. As the rules stand, heavy armor is a punishment for low Dex characters, not an advantage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Did you notice that the distance a human character in heavy armor can move in a single round and still make a single attack has actually increased relative to Pathfinder 1?
I did. Used to be you could go 20 feet and make 1 attack, now thanks to the changes in the core of the system you can move 30 feet and still make 1 attack. So the speed penalty isn't actually as big of a deal as is being made of it.
Similarly, these "massive crippling penalties to skill checks" are not at all crippling. In practice a character not being good at a particular skill can be worked around, and in the case of heavy armor actually has it's own built-in aid in working around the penalty - such as some of the important uses of those penalized skills being exempt from the penalty, the added survivability of using the heavy armor rather than something lighter with a low dex, or the opportunity of having other ability scores higher specifically because of putting less emphasis on your dex.
The system goes even further by allowing for the stealth-invested character, the one area where heavy armor users really are at a disadvantage, the opportunity to alleviate the armor check penalty to stealth that their allies might be suffering so they aren't "crippled" by the penalty.
Also, "the only skills that classes with Heavy Armor Proficiency are capable of maxing out" sounds like a failure to keep up with errata - any class can max out any skill.
So heavy armor is not a "punishment" by any reasonable assessment of the word - it's the least resource investment way to achieve the best possible armor class, and has some downsides so that it isn't just entirely unfair when compared to other means of achieving the same that require more resource investment.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Did you notice that the distance a human character in heavy armor can move in a single round and still make a single attack has actually increased relative to Pathfinder 1?
I did. Used to be you could go 20 feet and make 1 attack, now thanks to the changes in the core of the system you can move 30 feet and still make 1 attack. So the speed penalty isn't actually as big of a deal as is being made of it.
Similarly, these "massive crippling penalties to skill checks" are not at all crippling. In practice a character not being good at a particular skill can be worked around, and in the case of heavy armor actually has it's own built-in aid in working around the penalty - such as some of the important uses of those penalized skills being exempt from the penalty, the added survivability of using the heavy armor rather than something lighter with a low dex, or the opportunity of having other ability scores higher specifically because of putting less emphasis on your dex.
The system goes even further by allowing for the stealth-invested character, the one area where heavy armor users really are at a disadvantage, the opportunity to alleviate the armor check penalty to stealth that their allies might be suffering so they aren't "crippled" by the penalty.
Also, "the only skills that classes with Heavy Armor Proficiency are capable of maxing out" sounds like a failure to keep up with errata - any class can max out any skill.
So heavy armor is not a "punishment" by any reasonable assessment of the word - it's the least resource investment way to achieve the best possible armor class, and has some downsides so that it isn't just entirely unfair when compared to other means of achieving the same that require more resource investment.
Did you noticed that everyone else got pounce for free?
Did you noticed that everyone else will do 2 attacks and you'll do only 1?
Basically, you trade having worse/equal AC AND get punished for it.
Also, it's far from the "least resources" it's 2 general feats resources over Light armor.
There's 0 justification for heavy being higher level.
And yes, it has the lowest AC in lower levels as added insult to injury.
Both med and light users at level 1 will have at least 16-17 AC where someone aiming for full plate would have max 16.
At level 2 the heavy will catch up, only to be left behind for levels 3-4-5 by 1 point, at which point he will catch up and simply stay on par.
shroudb wrote: Did you noticed that everyone else got pounce for free? Um... how so? I don't see anyone doing both as many attacks as they could and moving as far as they could in the same turn. Did you mean something else by "pounce"?
shroudb wrote: Did you noticed that everyone else will do 2 attacks and you'll do only 1? That makes assumptions about how far away the targets are, which isn't as fair a comparison point as the one I made is.
And with how small encounter areas tend to be in practice, I haven't actually seen moving 15' per stride instead of 25' being any more of a hindrance than moving 20' per stride instead of 25' because of ancestry - which is to say, I've not actually seen anyone miss out on making an attack that they would otherwise have gotten because of a difference in stride speed.
shroudb wrote: Basically, you trade having worse/equal AC AND get punished for it.
Also, it's far from the "least resources" it's 2 general feats resources over Light armor.
That's not really true, as some classes are given heavy armor proficiency automatically.
Saying "well, it'd cost 2 general feats for some classes to get it" is true, yes... but it is also irrelevant because at that point you aren't talking about heavy armor being level 2 and light armor being level 1, or even +1 light/medium armor being a level 3 treasure while +1 heavy armor is a level 4 treasure, because the "I spent 2 feats" character is 7th+ level, and oh look - at the +2 potency level, all armor is treated the same, because at that point, it effectively is - because you've either suffered the side-effects of a low-investment option for your class, or you've achieved the maximum results of a higher investment option for your class (or deliberately neglected your AC, so you have no right to complain that you aren't "keeping up").
And that is when you go the "I'm investing in my AC wrong to prove a point" route - heavy armor is not meant to be broadly appealing to classes that aren't proficient with it by default. You aren't supposed to think you need heavy armor for your Rogues and Rangers because they are likely to start with enough Dexterity (having invested numerous resources into it, and thus paid well for their high-AC in light armor) that heavy armor is clearly a step down.
If you look at a character that actually is encouraged to use heavy armor, and as part of that encouragement actually begins play with proficiency, their options are this:
A) 1 Ability Boost to Dexterity and get full plate ASAP
B) 2 Ability Boosts to Dexterity and get splint mail even sooner than that
C) Even more Ability Boosts to Dexterity to get the same AC out of light or medium armor
Clearly, using heavy armor is the lowest investment option for them.
shroudb wrote: And yes, it has the lowest AC in lower levels as added insult to injury.
Both med and light users at level 1 will have at least 16-17 AC where someone aiming for full plate would have max 16.
At level 2 the heavy will catch up, only to be left behind for levels 3-4-5 by 1 point, at which point he will catch up and simply stay on par.
I'm not sure that tracks.
Level 1, by my math, dexterity-key classes will have 16 AC (18 dex + studded or chain shirt), characters that are not dexterity-key but have decided to go for the 16 dexterity they'll need to get the best out of medium armor will have 16 AC (16 dex + scale or hide, because chain or breastplate is expensive enough to dissuade players from buying it right away), and the heavy armor enthusiasts that can afford 14 dexterity to start will have 15 AC (because they too will be dissuaded by price, and start with hide or scale) while the plate-aimers will have 14 AC.
By level 2, everyone will be in the mundane armor they desire, but their ability scores will not have had a chance to increase. Putting the dexterity-key characters at AC 16, the 16-starting Dexterity crowd at AC 17 with medium armor, and the heavy armor-enthuisiasts of both the splint and plate persuasion at AC 17.
So really, heavy armor is only behind 1 configuration: best available medium armor, but also heavily invested into Dexterity (because that 16 Dex is a lack of a useful 16 elsewhere, like with my fighter that wanted 16+ str, dex, and con, so did not have the boosts available to put into wis for more initiative or cha for more resonance) - and even that is only temporarily, all while having put less character build resources toward AC.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: Did you noticed that everyone else got pounce for free? Um... how so? I don't see anyone doing both as many attacks as they could and moving as far as they could in the same turn. Did you mean something else by "pounce"?
shroudb wrote: Did you noticed that everyone else will do 2 attacks and you'll do only 1? That makes assumptions about how far away the targets are, which isn't as fair a comparison point as the one I made is.
And with how small encounter areas tend to be in practice, I haven't actually seen moving 15' per stride instead of 25' being any more of a hindrance than moving 20' per stride instead of 25' because of ancestry - which is to say, I've not actually seen anyone miss out on making an attack that they would otherwise have gotten because of a difference in stride speed.
shroudb wrote: Basically, you trade having worse/equal AC AND get punished for it.
Also, it's far from the "least resources" it's 2 general feats resources over Light armor.
That's not really true, as some classes are given heavy armor proficiency automatically.
Saying "well, it'd cost 2 general feats for some classes to get it" is true, yes... but it is also irrelevant because at that point you aren't talking about heavy armor being level 2 and light armor being level 1, or even +1 light/medium armor being a level 3 treasure while +1 heavy armor is a level 4 treasure, because the "I spent 2 feats" character is 7th+ level, and oh look - at the +2 potency level, all armor is treated the same, because at that point, it effectively is - because you've either suffered the side-effects of a low-investment option for your class, or you've achieved the maximum results of a higher investment option for your class (or deliberately neglected your AC, so you have no right to complain that you aren't "keeping up").
And that is when you go the "I'm investing in my AC wrong to prove a point" route - heavy armor is not meant to be broadly appealing to classes that aren't proficient... What are you even talking about?
YOUR example used 2 move actions + 1 attack to showcase that's fine that now people in heavy walk at 10(!) and 15 feet per action.
Well, everyone else can do ONE move and 2 attacks.
Using YOUR example, wearing plate costs you 1 attack/round. Making it even worse.
Also, no, because you're getting the heavy armor proficiency does not in any way make it "free". Your class is balanced around that "2 general feat" cost.
Or, if we want to flip it around, light armor users get free +1 ac because they get "free" +2 dex.
Also, as you pointed out, level 1 light/med has higher armor than heavy.
Level 2 is STILL in favor of light/med. Full plate comes in place at level 3(level 2 item)
Then, at level 3 finally heavy catches up. But at
Level 4 light/med pulls ahead since it's now +1
Level 5 light/med is still ahead since everyone has to use that level to get their weapon.
Level 6, the 1st time you have 2 level 4 items, you finally catch up as a full plate user.
item table progression for heavy is beyond terrible. Unplayable terrible
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Did you notice that the distance a human character in heavy armor can move in a single round and still make a single attack has actually increased relative to Pathfinder 1? Did you notice that the distance that a human character NOT in heavy armor can move and still make a single attack has increased even more relative to Pathfinder 1?
A character in light or no armor can now move 50 feet and a character in medium armor can move 40 feet.
Did you notice that the distance that a character NOT in heavy armor can move and still make two attacks has increased, from 5 feet to 25 feet?
Did you notice that the percentage of your movement speed that you lose due to wearing heavy armor has increased, from 33% to 40%?
Did you notice that the percentage of your skill bonus that Armor Check Penalty costs you is much higher now than it was in PF1 because total skill bonuses are lower? The highest possible skill modifier at 1st level is +5. Full Plate reduces that to +0.
Did you notice that skill DCs in Doomsday Dawn assume that the players have a maxed out skill bonus to have even odds at succeeding? Or that having a low bonus means that you'll probably critically fail and harm yourself? So that a fighter who tries to make an Athletics check to climb something with the penalties of heavy armor will probably fall?
Did you notice that the Fighter in PF2 no longer gets an ability to reduce Armor Check Penalty like they did in PF1? And has to wait until 17th level to be able to reduce the speed penalty of heavy armor, as opposed to 7th level? Did you notice that the Fighter doesn't get higher proficiency in light and medium armor like he does in heavy, even though by the time he gets it at 11th level, there's a very high chance his Dex will be up to 16 and he'll be better off switching to medium armor?
"Heavy Armor was terrible in PF1, too!" isn't an excuse. Heavy Armor was terrible in PF1 and 3.X, so terrible that I never wore it. They should take the opportunity of a new edition to fix that instead of blindly repeating the same mistakes. And at least in PF1 they didn't charge you more for the magic bonuses on your armor if it was heavy.
I'm just talking about what I've seen in actual play with my players - heavy armor is doing just fine (as are other armors), players aren't building their characters to avoid heavy armor when it is an option for them to wear it (including a cleric that spent a feat on picking up heavy armor proficiency because it made it easier to have the str, con, wis, and cha scores they desired while not losing out on AC)
As for skill DCs... I'll have to take a look. I know a few of the DCs have been ridiculously high - but that's not "heavy armor sucks" as much as it is "setting difficulty that high is, and has been since 3rd edition started the trend, a terrible choice to make." All I remember right now though are ridiculously high lockpicking DCs, not Athletics.
"Heavy armor is so terrible that I never wore it." isn't a real flaw against the system - the system provides options with varying details, and you preferring the details of other options is perfectly fine, that's the point of the options existing, so that everyone can take what they prefer. But you preferring to get your AC to were it needs to be without engaging the heavy armor option doesn't negate all the people out there who do not hesitate to choose it despite what you personally view as deal-breakers.
shroudb wrote: What are you even talking about? I should probably ask you the same, because it looks like everything else in your post was wrong. Just, everything, at a fundamental level, wrong.
"My example" wasn't at all what you think it was; an illustration that PF2 works on a different system so that the scenario of "close in and attack" can actually happen at greater range than in could in PF1 despite the initial appearance being "everyone's speed is lower now" is not a specific combat scenario in which actual distances to foes from various character positions are known - so your "heavy armor makes you lose an attack" statement is no more accurate than my "combat will always start with the enemies only 1 heavily-armored Stride away from you" statement would be if I were to actually make it in a non-illustrative context.
And yes, a class getting the proficiency baked-in does make it "free". The player building the character has not paid any more of their character-building currency than they would have paid toward AC by choosing something else. And saying "Or, if we want to flip it around, light armor users get free +1 ac because they get "free" +2 dex." is patently ridiculous. Putting an ability boost in dex costs you that ability boost that could have been assigned elsewhere - you can't have chosen something other than heavy armor proficiency when you pick a class that starts with it. Completely different.
shroudb wrote: item table progression for heavy is beyond terrible. Unplayable terrible Luckily, you are wrong about your "unplayable" comment because you are wrong about how item progression works - you've written it all out as if every time you level up you have to use the treasure charts to figure out what items you have, when the reality is that a campaign progresses from its start onward and while the treasure tables influence what you come across as loot, doesn't stop you from using your accumulated coins on what you need to.
As a result, it isn't "3rd level finally heavy catches up", it is as I said; heavy armor catches up at 2nd level, and because treasure distribution is a human-element controlled part of the game, there is no guarantee that light and medium armors are going to catch up/get ahead just because the treasure tables are designed so that light/medium armor of +1 potency is rated as lower-level than heavy armor of +1 potency.
In the strange outlier case of building characters above 1st level but of low enough level not to have access to +2 armor, it looks like it is only 4th level when a light/medium armor using character could start with +1 armor and a heavy armor character couldn't. That seems like a non-issue, given that no one is going to be forced to assign their stats for their character without knowing that starting at 4th level means you can get a temporarily better AC if you choose not to use heavy armor and instead push your dexterity score just a little bit higher since you only have to wait until you gain 1 more level before you can boost whatever you would have chosen to prioritize over dexterity if not for starting at the dreaded single level at which heavy armor is barely behind other options.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: What are you even talking about? I should probably ask you the same, because it looks like everything else in your post was wrong. Just, everything, at a fundamental level, wrong.
"My example" wasn't at all what you think it was; an illustration that PF2 works on a different system so that the scenario of "close in and attack" can actually happen at greater range than in could in PF1 despite the initial appearance being "everyone's speed is lower now" is not a specific combat scenario in which actual distances to foes from various character positions are known - so your "heavy armor makes you lose an attack" statement is no more accurate than my "combat will always start with the enemies only 1 heavily-armored Stride away from you" statement would be if I were to actually make it in a non-illustrative context.
And yes, a class getting the proficiency baked-in does make it "free". The player building the character has not paid any more of their character-building currency than they would have paid toward AC by choosing something else. And saying "Or, if we want to flip it around, light armor users get free +1 ac because they get "free" +2 dex." is patently ridiculous. Putting an ability boost in dex costs you that ability boost that could have been assigned elsewhere - you can't have chosen something other than heavy armor proficiency when you pick a class that starts with it. Completely different.
shroudb wrote: item table progression for heavy is beyond terrible. Unplayable terrible Luckily, you are wrong about your "unplayable" comment because you are wrong about how item progression works - you've written it all out as if every time you level up you have to use the treasure charts to figure out what items you have, when the reality is that a campaign progresses from its start onward and while the treasure tables influence what you come across as loot, doesn't stop you from using your accumulated coins on what you need to.
As a result, it isn't "3rd level... Hahaha... Everything you wrote is wrong!
Seriously, all encounters are at 10ft?
You house rule equipment at lower levels (as I ask to be the correct thing) and because you give wrong item level equip, somehow the rules (that you don't follow) are correct?
Etc.
Basically, you're wrong.
shroudb wrote: Seriously, all encounters are at 10ft? Seriously, you think that I said that because I think it is true? Try reading my post again, you've failed entirely to pick up the message and have come out with something completely at odds to what I actually said as the meaning.
And... house rules? What? I didn't say anything about any house rules. What, specifically, are you confusing for me talking about house rules?
You not understanding me, or the rules, doesn't make either me or them incorrect - that's not how facts work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: Seriously, all encounters are at 10ft? Seriously, you think that I said that because I think it is true? Try reading my post again, you've failed entirely to pick up the message and have come out with something completely at odds to what I actually said as the meaning.
And... house rules? What? I didn't say anything about any house rules. What, specifically, are you confusing for me talking about house rules?
You not understanding me, or the rules, doesn't make either me or them incorrect - that's not how facts work. so... then everyone else DOES get 1 extra attack because the heavy needs to double move just to get his 1 attack off. That was my point.
in practice, there's always much more movement than 10ft in every single combat round due to the 3rd attack being not effective. This leaves the heavies always 1 attack short compared to evey other character. (assuming he doesn't invest even more feats TAXES like fleet and etc just o be able to function)
Secondly, answer me, a heavy wearing character, at level 4, what should he pick with his level 3 item?
at level 5, he obviously picks up his +1 weapon.
and finally, at level 6! he FINALLY picks up his +1 armor. That's not only 2 levels later, making him -1 to AC for 2 levels, but ALSO -1 to all saving throws for 2 levels.
Your "houserules" are giving him stuff earlier than the item level suggest, it's cool I do so too, i give them a level 4 item in excange for both level 2 and 3 (it's actually the smae cost), but that's strictly GM houserule teritory.
\
you have not made a single concrete statement except "i feel", " i guess" and all of them are wrong. learn to read and learn to answer with direct answers and not strawmaning arguments which is all you've done so far.
shroudb wrote: so... then everyone else DOES get 1 extra attack because the heavy needs to double move just to get his 1 attack off. That was my point. Incorrect. You have no point. You are making a concrete declaration where the only reasonable declaration is "Need more information before any concrete declaration can be made."
shroudb wrote: in practice, there's always much more movement than 10ft in every single combat round due to the 3rd attack being not effective. That's nonsense. You are acting like there is only two possible options, striding or striking, when there are tons of things that PCs and monsters alike can be doing with their "not effective" 3rd attack - including rolling anyway, because a high roll can still hit (yay, agile!)
shroudb wrote: Secondly, answer me, a heavy wearing character, at level 4, what should he pick with his level 3 item? Let's try this again... either this character is A) one that was built lower than 4th level that has been being played, and thus can just take accumulated wealth to a shop and buy the desired items, or B) is being constructed specifically at 4th level and has deliberately, while knowing this is the one level at which it will be sub-par to choose to use heavy armor because they will not be able to choose to start with +1 heavy armor but could choose to start with +1 medium or light armor, chosen to prioritize something other than their AC.
In the first case, the answer to your question is "That's not how the game works, you have misunderstood some part of the treasure distribution or item level rules in a big way". In the second case, the answer is "whatever the <expletive deleted> they want from the list, but I'd bet the +1 weapon is a popular choice."
shroudb wrote: Your "houserules" are giving him stuff earlier than the item level suggest Item levels are not the level a character must be to obtain an item, page 347 makes that very clear.
When I mention the heavy armor user doing something like buying full plate when they are 2nd level, that's because when you add together a few things like how much currency a party is supposed to gain while they are 1st level with the money that can be gotten from selling unwanted starting gear, and even found treasures like the 2nd and 3rd level items the book says should be handed out to 1st level characters (I mention those not because I suggest selling them is always the best choice, but because you seem to be declaring me following a table in the book "house rules" and this illustrates your error), and the party pooling together funds for the purchase because this is a team game after all, with a portion of what is gained during 2nd level, it is within the realm of reasonable probability that a character will do just that.
shroudb wrote: ...learn to read... ...and not strawmaning arguments... Somehow, and I'm not sure how, you appear to have become confused about whose posts are whose. Yours are the ones that contain evidence of misreading the rules and my posts, and going right ahead and arguing against something I didn't say.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: so... then everyone else DOES get 1 extra attack because the heavy needs to double move just to get his 1 attack off. That was my point. Incorrect. You have no point. You are making a concrete declaration where the only reasonable declaration is "Need more information before any concrete declaration can be made."
shroudb wrote: in practice, there's always much more movement than 10ft in every single combat round due to the 3rd attack being not effective. That's nonsense. You are acting like there is only two possible options, striding or striking, when there are tons of things that PCs and monsters alike can be doing with their "not effective" 3rd attack - including rolling anyway, because a high roll can still hit (yay, agile!)
shroudb wrote: Secondly, answer me, a heavy wearing character, at level 4, what should he pick with his level 3 item? Let's try this again... either this character is A) one that was built lower than 4th level that has been being played, and thus can just take accumulated wealth to a shop and buy the desired items, or B) is being constructed specifically at 4th level and has deliberately, while knowing this is the one level at which it will be sub-par to choose to use heavy armor because they will not be able to choose to start with +1 heavy armor but could choose to start with +1 medium or light armor, chosen to prioritize something other than their AC.
In the first case, the answer to your question is "That's not how the game works, you have misunderstood some part of the treasure distribution or item level rules in a big way". In the second case, the answer is "whatever the <expletive deleted> they want from the list, but I'd bet the +1 weapon is a popular choice."
shroudb wrote: Your "houserules" are giving him stuff earlier than the item level suggest Item levels are not the level a character must be to obtain an item, page 347 makes that very clear.
When I mention the heavy armor user doing something like buying... you know what's funny?
i asked you to answer simply, honestly, 2 simple questions, and you failed to answer either:
someone starting at 4th level, what level 3 item, as the rules say, would he pick?
picking a level 4 item through "accumulated wealth" is HOUSERULE, there's a detailed TABLE that lists what he SHOULD pcik.
and the answer is ZILTCH. There isn't a single useful item he can pick at level 4.
You continue to strawmaning, refuse to answer, and try to ruleslawyer yourserf that's "it's ok to have -1 to all saves if his CLASS is suppossed to use heavy armor. HE SHOULDN'T PICK SUCH A CLASS is your answer. Really?
Secondly YOU said that it's fine since they can double move and strike. YOU said that that's balanced because in 1E they couldn't do that. And when EVEYONE POINTS OUT THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN DO 1 MOVE AND 2 STRIKES. YOU ANSWER "ugggh why are you guys bring that up? that's irrelevant! hurdur" Get a clue. It really isn't. Having 10 or 15 movement is a tremendous penalty in this game as it is atm. Pretty sure it's worth WAY more than 1-2 more AC that heavy armor should have by default just by the grace of moving so slow in it
get a life and get out of my thread if you can't answer a simple question.
Go ahead, and make another page long answer that fails to answer simple questions that can be answered in 1 sentence.
You should aim for a career in politics, your non-answers have the same amount of weight in them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The heavy armor +1 potency rune disparity thing is off. I agree.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs429ni?Heavy-Magic-Armor-should-not-be-Higher-Le vel
shroudb wrote: <a poor attempt at sounding intelligent coupled with ineffective insults> Page 347. Look at it. Go on, it won't hurt you, I promise.
But, because I figure you aren't going to look at it - no room for facts in your point of view - I'm going to point out two important details from it here:
The table that says "Hey, GM, hand this stuff out at this time while the game is progressing through play" can be read to say that while the party is level 2 they find a low-level staff or some doubling rings (1 3rd level item on the table), and while the party is level 3 they get some +1 heavy armor and +1 medium armors (2 4th level and 3 3rd level items on the table). That means the only time anyone is actually suffering from an AC deficiency while in heavy armor is because they (or their GM, or a combination of both) have deliberately chosen to suffer that AC deficiency - the system didn't force it on them.
And as to your "but if you build your character at exactly level 4, what level 3 item do you pick?" there is no point to answering that question because there is no single correct answer that would apply regardless of campaign details.
Now, one last thing: please stop trying to insist that me saying "characters can spend their accumulated wealth on stuff" is a house-rule, unless you've got a page reference for the rule that is altered or ignored by allowing the money the GM has provided to actually get used on something.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: and while the party is level 3 they get some +1 heavy armor and +1 medium armors (2 4th level and 3 3rd level items on the table) Or they might get a bag of holding and a magic weapon.
That's why table 11-2 exists.
Draco18s wrote: thenobledrake wrote: and while the party is level 3 they get some +1 heavy armor and +1 medium armors (2 4th level and 3 3rd level items on the table) Or they might get a bag of holding and a magic weapon.
That's why table 11-2 exists. Yup, that's part of my point.
Folks saying medium armor AC scales up faster than heavy armor just because of the level assigned to the items involved are missing the very significant fact that distribution is not automatic; it relies upon the extremely variable human element that is the players and GMs actually playing the game.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ah, but see, medium armor is a level 3 item. There will have been 4 of those given out in the same time.
Draco18s wrote: Ah, but see, medium armor is a level 3 item. There will have been 4 of those given out in the same time. uh... yeah... and?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I say the light/medium +1 armor potency rune and heavy armor +1 potency rune should be merged (the +2,3,4, and 5 ones are already merged).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Draco18s wrote: Ah, but see, medium armor is a level 3 item. There will have been 4 of those given out in the same time. uh... yeah... and? By your logic, a 4th level player should also have two 5th level permanent items because that's what 11-1 says.
Here's the thing:
Table 11-1 is not what a 4th level adventurer has, it's the loot they will likely get to see this level AS A PARTY OF FOUR. Those 2 4th level items they get as a 3rd level character? That's split 4 ways and may not even be items that any given character can use (imagine a group finds two +2 daggers: does the full plate paladin care? No, he wants a war hammer because he invested heavily into his god's favored weapon).
That means, by necessity, if the group splits up and finds another group they aren't taking an entire 4th level item with them.
Draco18s wrote: By your logic, a 4th level player should also have two 5th level permanent items because that's what 11-1 says. Incorrect. You have clearly misread something that I said.
thenobledrake wrote: Draco18s wrote: By your logic, a 4th level player should also have two 5th level permanent items because that's what 11-1 says. Incorrect. You have clearly misread something that I said. Do you even realise that's one of the specific playtest materials is a level 4 quest.
You keep repeating that the GM should hand over level 4 items, that cost twice as much as level 3 and are [b] outside of what the guidelines show. THAT'S A HOUSERULE. [/]
You still haven't answered what level 3 permanent item a heavy user should pick.
You have exactly 0 arguments.
That shows because your "defence" was a personal insult against me.
Hint: the only one "trying" to appear intelligent (and failing miserably) is you. I only asked simple questions that you keep writing walls of texts that fail to answer every single one of them.
shroudb wrote: You keep repeating that the GM should hand over level 4 items, that cost twice as much as level 3 and are [b] outside of what the guidelines show. THAT'S A HOUSERULE. You are incorrect about what I said given the context I said it in.
shroudb wrote: You still haven't answered what level 3 permanent item a heavy user should pick. It's still not a relevant question, there's still not a one-size-fits-all answer. Doubling rings are cool. So could be bracers of missile deflection. Or maybe a silver dagger might end up being a life-saving choice to have made.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote:
And as to your "but if you build your character at exactly level 4, what level 3 item do you pick?" there is no point to answering that question because there is no single correct answer that would apply regardless of campaign details.
This is laughably untrue. Enemy attack rolls are assigned to have a 50% chance of hitting a PC if they have the maximum AC for their level. If a PC lags behind the AC curve, they will get hit and crit more often and take a brutal beating.
The second adventure of Doomsday Dawn is for 4th level PCs, and said PCs get to start with one 3rd level item. So this specific question is highly relevant for those of us running the playtest.
Everyone in my game (except the monk, who had to use bracers of armor, which were available a level earlier) chose +1 armor for their 3rd level item. I suspect that's probably going to be the overall trend. Other options aren't going to be an option until after you've secured a level-appropriate AC and saves. Because if you don't, you'll die.
The Narration wrote: ...take a brutal beating. That is an exaggeration.
Anecdotally interesting, just last night I heard a player complaining of how using circle of protection felt "useless" because the +1 AC it provided didn't happen to stop any hits from being hits, nor any crits from being crits.
The Narration wrote: The second adventure of Doomsday Dawn is for 4th level PCs, and said PCs get to start with one 3rd level item. So this specific question is highly relevant for those of us running the playtest. It isn't "highly relevant" for anyone what answer I give. It's "highly relevant" what answer they give, and as I said before there is no "one size fits all" answer.
The Narration wrote: Because if you don't, you'll die. More exaggeration.
But I can see how someone believing "My character will only live if I pick this item" would feel like the other options for items aren't really options. Of course, the solution there is to make the players' expectations of what a slight difference in AC means more accurate - it's not going to be the difference between life or death unless your character's true enemy is a statistical outlier of attack rolls that are just the right number for the choice of X AC or X+1 AC to have mattered.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote:
Anecdotally interesting, just last night I heard a player complaining of how using circle of protection felt "useless" because the +1 AC it provided didn't happen to stop any hits from being hits, nor any crits from being crits.
If you want to bring in anecdotes, I ran the first half of Pale Mountain yesterday, and even with the best AC they could manage, the entire party lost most of their hit points. At least once someone only avoided being crit on by a single point, so if they hadn't gotten +1 armor, they would have dropped.
That's weird... I've got my players complaining about how many times I roll a nat 20 in a night (it's a lot, usually 8+ times in a 4 hour session), and no characters hitting 0 HP since the 1st chapter.
I guess that just goes to show what I was getting at though: It's more the die rolls than the +1 AC that's going to be the difference between characters living and characters dying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Narration wrote: thenobledrake wrote:
And as to your "but if you build your character at exactly level 4, what level 3 item do you pick?" there is no point to answering that question because there is no single correct answer that would apply regardless of campaign details.
This is laughably untrue. <argument about how true thenobledrake's statement is> Um...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The moral of the story is, WBL needs to be gp, not X items of levels A-C. One of the more odd and gamey decisions that was made.
Frankly, I take issue with the very concept of item level, since I think a character should be able to save up to buy whatever they want, instead of it being limited to a specific pool because the local blacksmith hasn't deemed them strong enough for some equipment.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
sherlock1701 wrote: Frankly, I take issue with the very concept of item level, since I think a character should be able to save up to buy whatever they want, instead of it being limited to a specific pool because the local blacksmith hasn't deemed them strong enough for some equipment. That's not how item level is written.
It's just a "hey GM, this might be a bit more game-changing than you'd like if you give it to a lower level character" warning tag, not a literal forbiddence of the item being within a character's means to obtain.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Draco18s wrote: The Narration wrote: thenobledrake wrote:
And as to your "but if you build your character at exactly level 4, what level 3 item do you pick?" there is no point to answering that question because there is no single correct answer that would apply regardless of campaign details.
This is laughably untrue. <argument about how true thenobledrake's statement is> Um... In what way does what I said support his thesis that some characters not being able to get +1 to their armor at 4th level when the game's math assumes that as the default isn't a problem?
If it's that I said that everyone in my group of PCs had +1 armor, it's because none of them played a class with heavy armor proficiency in the first place. Frankly, they're all avoiding heavy armor like the plague even when they do play characters with proficiency because they're terrified of the penalties.
thenobledrake wrote: That's weird... I've got my players complaining about how many times I roll a nat 20 in a night (it's a lot, usually 8+ times in a 4 hour session), and no characters hitting 0 HP since the 1st chapter.
No one went to 0 HP but they all came awfully close, and would have gone down if their AC had been even one point lower (because the 30 attack from the manticore would have been a crit if their AC was 20 instead of 21) or if I had run the manticore more aggressively. They had to burn all their healing and resonance after that single fight.
The Narration wrote: In what way does what I said support his thesis that some characters not being able to get +1 to their armor at 4th level when the game's math assumes that as the default isn't a problem? That's not actually the case. As I've shown, characters that reach 4th level by playing up from 1st (or even just 3rd, really) can all get their "assumed" +1 AC from the table of what the GM is meant to be handing out as treasure. And as you've shown, any character starting at exactly 4th level can reach their "assumed" AC unless the player deliberately chooses not to.
The Narration wrote: No one went to 0 HP but they all came awfully close, and would have gone down if their AC had been even one point lower (because the 30 attack from the manticore would have been a crit if their AC was 20 instead of 21) or if I had run the manticore more aggressively. They had to burn all their healing and resonance after that single fight. I have no new response to this but to shrug. My group had no where near that much issue with the manticore despite being relatively severely weakened by their not having many ranged attack options. The barbarian was using the bard's short bow, the bard used a sound burst spell, and the alchemist kept missing with their acid flasks. And yet, because my dice clearly weren't at hot as yours (nothing to do with the AC of the party and whether +1 armors were or weren't involved in those calculations), the encounter was a mild annoyance at best.
thenobledrake wrote: The Narration wrote: In what way does what I said support his thesis that some characters not being able to get +1 to their armor at 4th level when the game's math assumes that as the default isn't a problem? That's not actually the case. As I've shown, characters that reach 4th level by playing up from 1st (or even just 3rd, really) can all get their "assumed" +1 AC from the table of what the GM is meant to be handing out as treasure. And as you've shown, any character starting at exactly 4th level can reach their "assumed" AC unless the player deliberately chooses not to.
you mean HALF of them right? because i see that only 2 out of the 4 party members get a level 4 item.
also, by the same logic, it's 100% more party effective to get early 2x +1 weapons than give the bloke with the heavy armor the early 4th level item.
shroudb wrote: you mean HALF of them right? because i see that only 2 out of the 4 party members get a level 4 item.
also, by the same logic, it's 100% more party effective to get early 2x +1 weapons than give the bloke with the heavy armor the early 4th level item.
Okay, sure. I'll admit miss-speaking slightly when implying the whole party could get their AC at that specific level.
However, in arguing against me you've proven my point: Either the GM is giving out the AC bonuses to the characters that "need" them the most (as is, in my experience, the normal procedure to give better armor to the front-line types - the ones most likely to be wearing heavy armor - before the other types of characters) at that level and everyone else the next level so heavy armor isn't "behind" unless the player chose to be behind...
or the GM hands out weapons first, then during 4th level hands out armor when the table allows for 2 suits of light/medium +1 armor and 2 suits of +1 heavy armor.
So we've all worked together to demonstrate that the reality of the game is that AC remains competitive throughout the vast majority of the game regardless of which category of armor the character is wearing (because even the "no armor, but I'll cover it some other way" crowd stay competitive), and the outcries of "this is broken" aimed at the difference in item level between +1 light/medium and +1 heavy armor are exaggerations.
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: you mean HALF of them right? because i see that only 2 out of the 4 party members get a level 4 item.
also, by the same logic, it's 100% more party effective to get early 2x +1 weapons than give the bloke with the heavy armor the early 4th level item.
Okay, sure. I'll admit miss-speaking slightly when implying the whole party could get their AC at that specific level.
However, in arguing against me you've proven my point: Either the GM is giving out the AC bonuses to the characters that "need" them the most (as is, in my experience, the normal procedure to give better armor to the front-line types - the ones most likely to be wearing heavy armor - before the other types of characters) at that level and everyone else the next level so heavy armor isn't "behind" unless the player chose to be behind...
or the GM hands out weapons first, then during 4th level hands out armor when the table allows for 2 suits of light/medium +1 armor and 2 suits of +1 heavy armor.
So we've all worked together to demonstrate that the reality of the game is that AC remains competitive throughout the vast majority of the game regardless of which category of armor the character is wearing (because even the "no armor, but I'll cover it some other way" crowd stay competitive), and the outcries of "this is broken" aimed at the difference in item level between +1 light/medium and +1 heavy armor are exaggerations. No dude. The only thing you've "proven" is that a GM can do whatever he wants, without bothering with the rules, in his game.
Well... Duh.
Rules wise, we've all pointed out, that you're wrong, and Heavy Armor has the least amount of AC till level 6 for absolutely no reason.
shroudb wrote: Rules wise, we've all pointed out, that you're wrong, and Heavy Armor has the least amount of AC till level 6 for absolutely no reason. The rules do not say "heavy armor wearing characters cannot be favored by loot drops, despite that they always have been since the start of this whole adventurers get magic items thing."
And on a more serious note: No, that's not true, you are exaggerating a minor detail - making a mountain of a mole hill. The rules say that a heavy armor character can get +1 heavy armor as early as 3rd level.
Sure, they also say a character can get +1 medium or light armor as early as 2nd level... but they don't guarantee that is going to happen, and the human element - what characters are being played, what items the players want, what the GM likes to hand out, etc. - tends to lean towards the not the thing they are going to complain about results, so there isn't going to be much opportunity for a person in practice rather than theory to be 'behind' on AC because they want their character to wear heavy armor.
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: Rules wise, we've all pointed out, that you're wrong, and Heavy Armor has the least amount of AC till level 6 for absolutely no reason. The rules do not say "heavy armor wearing characters cannot be favored by loot drops, despite that they always have been since the start of this whole adventurers get magic items thing."
And on a more serious note: No, that's not true, you are exaggerating a minor detail - making a mountain of a mole hill. The rules say that a heavy armor character can get +1 heavy armor as early as 3rd level.
Sure, they also say a character can get +1 medium or light armor as early as 2nd level... but they don't guarantee that is going to happen, and the human element - what characters are being played, what items the players want, what the GM likes to hand out, etc. - tends to lean towards the not the thing they are going to complain about results, so there isn't going to be much opportunity for a person in practice rather than theory to be 'behind' on AC because they want their character to wear heavy armor. Do you at least understand how much you contradict yourself?
Your own words:
A heavy user, at the earliest, can have a +1 armor at 3.
A light/med user, at the earliest, can have a +1 armor at 2.
But that doesn't mean it will happen!!!
Well, if the GM is biased to favor the heavy user then the tables are fine is your whole argument?
And no, it's not a minor issue. You know why? Because standardised settings, like, oh, I don't know PFS exist.
Settings where the GM can't be biased and must follow the guidelines.
And guidelines strictly say "heavy armor users have - 1 armor and - 1 to all saving throws until level 6"
Level 4 to level 6 is no small amount of time. It's 8+ adventures.
The thing is, the whole - 1 to all defences is 100% arbitrary.
Because, from +2 and onwards, somehow, armor potency runes are the same across all types, but +1 heavy armor runes are somehow "special".
I mean, the same exact weapon potency rune can go from a dagger to the most exotic and heavy weapon and be the same.
The same armor potency rune can go to both a padded shirt and a beast plate.
The +2 armor rune can go from a robe to a full plate.
But "somehow" the +1 armor runes break the rest 99.99% of the runes mechanics "just because".
And this "just because" also breaks the balance of the classes for 2 medium range levels.
P. S.
By your own reasoning:
+1 weapon potency for martial weapons need to be higher level item than +1 potency for simple weapons, right?
I mean, how dare the guy that can use a better weapon, actually have the same weapon potency as the guy who can't, preposterous!
shroudb wrote: Do you at least understand how much you contradict yourself? Yes, I understand how much I contradict myself. Zero, that's how much.
shroudb wrote: Settings where the GM can't be biased and must follow the guidelines.
And guidelines strictly say "heavy armor users have - 1 armor and - 1 to all saving throws until level 6"
That's not actually what the guidelines say, so there is no issue with settings where the GM is not the one inserting the bias. Luckily for those GMs, and the players that will play under them, the bias is written-in by the adventure authors (assuming, as I must since I am not a participant in PFS, that that treasure found by a character is determined by what is present in the adventures they participate in, rather than some other means that is both outside of each players' control and actively making sure this edge case you've noticed appears incredibly common)
shroudb wrote: The thing is, the whole - 1 to all defences is 100% arbitrary. You not understanding the reasoning is not indicative of a lack or reasoning. I'd be willing to bet that the guys at Paizo writing the game didn't arbitrarily decide their needed to be a difference at the +1 level, but not at others - I'm sure they have a reason, even if it isn't the one I already gave (that "I'll wear heavy armor" is the build-resource-cheapest way to hit particular AC values).
shroudb wrote: Because, from +2 and onwards, somehow, armor potency runes are the same across all types, but +1 heavy armor... That's because at those higher levels every character can already have achieved their prime AC if they are aiming for it, so there is no longer as much of an incentive towards one category of armor over another, nor as much of an advantage for the "I didn't spend as much character-build-resources toward my AC, but..." option.
shroudb wrote: Well, if the GM is biased to favor the heavy user then the tables are fine is your whole argument? That is no more my argument than your whole argument is "if the GM is biased to favor light and medium users, the tables are awful".
thenobledrake wrote: shroudb wrote: Do you at least understand how much you contradict yourself? Yes, I understand how much I contradict myself. Zero, that's how much.
shroudb wrote: Settings where the GM can't be biased and must follow the guidelines.
And guidelines strictly say "heavy armor users have - 1 armor and - 1 to all saving throws until level 6"
That's not actually what the guidelines say, so there is no issue with settings where the GM is not the one inserting the bias. Luckily for those GMs, and the players that will play under them, the bias is written-in by the adventure authors (assuming, as I must since I am not a participant in PFS, that that treasure found by a character is determined by what is present in the adventures they participate in, rather than some other means that is both outside of each players' control and actively making sure this edge case you've noticed appears incredibly common)
shroudb wrote: The thing is, the whole - 1 to all defences is 100% arbitrary. You not understanding the reasoning is not indicative of a lack or reasoning. I'd be willing to bet that the guys at Paizo writing the game didn't arbitrarily decide their needed to be a difference at the +1 level, but not at others - I'm sure they have a reason, even if it isn't the one I already gave (that "I'll wear heavy armor" is the build-resource-cheapest way to hit particular AC values).
shroudb wrote: Because, from +2 and onwards, somehow, armor potency runes are the same across all types, but +1 heavy armor... That's because at those higher levels every character can already have achieved their prime AC if they are aiming for it, so there is no longer as much of an incentive towards one category of armor over another, nor as much of an advantage for the "I didn't spend as much character-build-resources toward my AC, but..." option.
shroudb wrote: Well, if the GM is biased to favor the heavy user then the tables are fine is your whole argument? That is no more my... I'm flabbergasted at how much you can close your eyes, ignore reasoning and simply fail to realise that 1+1=2.
Math is simple really: for the same exact items, a light/med user will have higher armor AND saves than a heavy user. As already pointed out plenty of times. Giving the heavy higher level item than the rest of the party to "fix" that is favoritism and bias.
You either on purpose ignore the plain math shown to you, or you really need to go back and learn how to read.
P. S.
Adventures are written as such: give the party a level 3 item.
They do NOT say "give the party a level 3 item but if there is a heavy user give them a level 4" that would be moronic.
Pps
In addition, armor potency is also your cloak of resistance, just saying.
shroudb wrote: You either on purpose ignore the plain math shown to you, or you really need to go back and learn how to read. Physician, heal thyself.
You are doing some combination of the following: misreading things I've posted, ignoring what particular information in the rule book that disagrees with your findings says or means, focusing so hard on a single detail that you've become oblivious to all others.
shroudb wrote: Adventures are written as such: give the party a level 3 item.
They do NOT say "give the party a level 3 item but if there is a heavy user give them a level 4" that would be moronic.
I thought adventures were written as "On his body, the PCs can find a scroll of shocking grasp..." (and the like). Are you saying that Pathfinder Society adventures specifically are written as giving a particular item level, or are you wrong?
At any rate, let's go ahead and assume you are correct and the adventure does say "give the party a level 3 item."
That's not even kind of the same as telling the GM to give out any particular item before any particular other item even if doing that will result in an outcome the GM doesn't like.
Which I am going to rephrase and reiterate to be clear: I'm not saying the GM should hand out a different level of item. I'm not saying the GM should be biased toward any particular sort of character build.
I am only saying that the GM should not be making things they view as problematic happen when the rules and guidance provided by the game leave it up to them - not house-rules, just applying the actual rules.
thenobledrake wrote: wrong interpretation of actual rules At this point we're going in circles. Obviously, you've never played on neutral tables or strict formats but only on louse home tables where actual Wbl is free form. Also probably never played lot of preconstructed adventures.
So far, out of more than 2 dozens players that I've spoken with, all agree that +1 heavy armor runes are plain stupid.
So I'll stick with the view of the majority being right, and the view of the minority (singularity even) being flat out wrong.
As the thread responses suggest either way.
You're free to make whatever house rules you want for your table either way, but for the rest of us that play in official formats, this is a deal breaker issue against heavy armor.
shroudb wrote: So far, out of more than 2 dozens players that I've spoken with, all agree that +1 heavy armor runes are plain stupid. And if you ask 2 dozen people if it's bad to go swimming within 30 minutes of eating they'll probably say yes. The "everybody agrees with me" factor doesn't actually make you correct.
shroudb wrote: So I'll stick with the view of the majority being right, and the view of the minority (singularity even) being flat out wrong. You may believe that you are right, and even that the majority of people agree with you. You can't, however, prove that the majority opinion matches yours.
shroudb wrote:
You're free to make whatever house rules you want for your table either way, but for the rest of us that play in official formats, this is a deal breaker issue against heavy armor.
Read this carefully, because you have had repeated difficulty grasping it: I've never mentioned any house rules in this thread. Not one, not once. Not even a little bit.
By the rules, the "issue" of heavy armor users being behind other armor users in terms of AC comes up only in a small number of edge cases. All but one of those edge cases rely upon the GM making a choice - specifically the choice that answers the question "which item of that level do I give out?" in a way that causes the undesired effect (i.e. "I don't want pickles on my sandwich, so even though Subway clearly has them ready to put on a sandwich, I'll choose not to put them on mine since nothing mandates pickles being on my sandwich - hopefully you can follow such a simple analogy and won't, again, go on a misguided rant against 'house-ruling' because you don't understand how the rules as written work).
And that one last edge case is a specific level to start a character at, which is an optional thing to do, not the default.
So whether it is "plain stupid" for their to be a difference in item level or not, it is - if discussion is about the default, as played by the majority of players in the majority of campaigns, in the majority of different sorts of play groups - a tiny issue. A rough spot that pops up if, and only if, you engage that particular option in that particular way and put so much value on a +1 AC that it's a deal-breaker for you.
For a practical example, let's talk about one of my personal favorite tropes of a character: The farmhand turned warrior.
If this character is being aimed for full plate use, I can start with an 18 strength, get my dexterity as high as I'll ever need it, and afford a 14 constitution, and 12 wisdom & charisma. As soon as I am in the best full plate for my level, my AC is at its peak potential.
...if that same concept is being built but aimed at medium armor use, either I delay the point at which I reach peak AC potential by keeping the ability scores above, or I lower those scores not insignificantly to reach a high enough dexterity to cap out the better medium armor options. If I'm looking for "best AC, ASAP", that actually means giving up not just one of those 12s, but also taking my 18 strength down to 16 because of which ability score boosts are limited to which ability scores in this concept. So will I really feel "ahead" of the heavy armor option? I don't think so, and I don't think you would either - even though one little chart in the game has tweaked your "not fair!" sensor.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Heavy armor +1 potency rune being higher level than the light/medium armor rune is literally my only problem with magic items at present. I'm pretty easy going too. Even resonance doesn't really bother me.
Heavy armor is penalized enough (I'm ok with standard movement and ACP penalties, btw). The different rune thing for heavy vs light/medium is just bad though. Bad and pointless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: sherlock1701 wrote: Frankly, I take issue with the very concept of item level, since I think a character should be able to save up to buy whatever they want, instead of it being limited to a specific pool because the local blacksmith hasn't deemed them strong enough for some equipment. That's not how item level is written.
It's just a "hey GM, this might be a bit more game-changing than you'd like if you give it to a lower level character" warning tag, not a literal forbiddence of the item being within a character's means to obtain. A) This is exactly how item level works when starting a character above 1st level (which all the campaigns I choose to run or participate in do). You get a list of items of a specific set of levels, rather than just getting a lump sum to spend on whatever you want.
B) Many GMs will choose to run it this way, keeping players from purchasing (or even making) equipment above their level. I personally know several people who would run it like this, and that's an issue.
Players should be able to purchase any item they can afford any time they're in a reasonably large town, without needing GM fiat to help them out (or craft it whenever).
Games like PF1, Rogue Trader, and Shadowrun draw me in because of all the shopping you can do to tweak your character just so. it's a massive feature that this new edition needs to maintain to hold my interest. The lack of a magic item economy is one of my biggest beefs with...a certain game produced by a Hasbro subsidiary. I don't want to see Pathfinder take the same road. The lack of stat-boosting items is scary enough on its own.
|
