Reason why damage on magic items bothers me


Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I was not a fan of that aspect of 5e and I really like what I am seeing in the way of treasure in PF2 comparatively.

Which is a point I think a lot of folks advocating against the current potency model lose track of-- having lots of damage dice tied to weapons isn't bad design, as some people really like it. I suspect the folks who like it might be the majority.

Even if that is not the case, it is still easier to make the current model the norm and make the APB optional and easy to implement than it would be to make the APB model the norm and make potency runes optional. Adding mechanics is usually harder than streamlining them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I was not a fan of that aspect of 5e and I really like what I am seeing in the way of treasure in PF2 comparatively.

Which is a point I think a lot of folks advocating against the current potency model lose track of-- having lots of damage dice tied to weapons isn't bad design, as some people really like it. I suspect the folks who like it might be the majority.

I mean, I guess that's true. I don't understand the appeal of being dependent on an inanimate object to be useful. It might be "realistic," but it's an aspect of reality I find depressing, and would rather keep out of my fantasy as much as possible.

Quote:
Even if that is not the case, it is still easier to make the current model the norm and make the APB optional and easy to implement than it would be to make the APB model the norm and make potency runes optional. Adding mechanics is usually harder than streamlining them.

That's a good point I guess, though I suspect most gms will have some players that want things one way and some who want it another and end up just not implementing the APB mechanics.


To be clear, I am not saying I like potency runes exactly as is. I think there is room for improvement to be sure - particularly around small die weapons, martial/caster balance, the power of spells and effects like Magic Weapon at low levels, etc.

I am also not saying I am pro unfettered magic item use. I honestly dont have an issue with limited slots or the like.

I am just saying that, conceptually, I like having magic items MATTER in core mechanical ways.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the constantly upgrading. If potency were +1 die and +1 to hit and the other 4 die and +4 to hit came from innate item progression I would be happy. That way having a magic sword is better than a non magic sword but not so crazy better. Higher level weapons would just have more fun property runes.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Why not both? Potency runes add dice up to their bonus or your proficiency, whichever is smaller.


That would still require alot of redesign to ensure that bonus damage comes online later and that would throw the current prof implementation into dissarray.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:


I don't really have a horse in the ABP race, since it does some things I conceptually like and others I'm more hesitant on, but I will say that 2e already effectively solved the latter issue, due to runes, and their transferability between items. So the GM doesn't need to drop a +2 Gnome Flickmace in a scenario where it wouldn't make sense, the PC just needs to transfer that +2 to their existing item.
Cyouni wrote:


Well, if you somehow disable Excalibur, King Arthur should be less dangerous, yes. I just don't want him to go all the way down to nonmagic.

One of the things I don't like about runes is it eliminates the myth of the special weapon. Weapons are no longer special, runes are.

Here is what we have now:

DM: "The Lady of the lake grants you Excalibur"

Player: "I take the runes off and put them on my glaive"

Sure its convenient to be able to shuffle runes around from one weapon to another, but the loss of story telling around legendary weapons make me sad.

I think I would favor a solution where everyone gets damage die bonuses based on weapon proficiency. TEML Weapon proficiency gets rebalanced so that martials are closer in ability (ie there shouldn't be a a 12 level difference between fighters and barbarians getting expert in weapon proficiency).

Have the rune system go away. The flexibility that it offers is narrative killing. Have weapons give bonus to hit based on quality, have weapon properties be the magical effect and make them a bit stronger and rarer:
elemental damage could be 2 or 3 extra dice instead of 1.
truestrike seems like it was made to combine with a weapon, I would love to see a truestrike longsword as a high level rare magic weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think there's room for both. The rules don't explicitly say that you can't have inherently magical weapons, they just don't provide any.

Besides which, Excalibur is certainly an artifact, which is it's own entire rule set.


Add d6 damage dice based on proficiency.
Untrained - none
Trained - +1d6
expert - +2d6
master - +3d6
Legendary - +4d6

Weapon Quality added to hit bonus
poor: -2
normal: +0
expert: +1
master: +2
legendary: +3

weapon Magic Bonus adds damage to each dice.

Examples before adding stat and level adjustments.

Normal dagger in untrained hands would be -4 1d4+0

Normal dagger in trained hands +0 1d4+1d6

Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6

+2 Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6+6

+2 Master dagger in legendary hands +4 1d4+4d6+10

+5 Legendary dagger in Legendary hands +6 1d4+4d6+25

Normal dagger in Legendary hands would be +3 1d4+4d6


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont mind the runes. Feels very Final Fantasy 7 (materia!) to me. Which is fine. How a magicky item gets magicky doesn't kill a narrative for me. I can actually see a Rune Hunting campaign as being quite satisfying both narratively and otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

The game is built so you can be successful with almost no magic items at all. You need a magic weapon to get past damage resistance of some monsters, but beyond that, you dont really need any magic items in 5E to succeed at the game as written.

Ultimately, that means less treasure and less excitement around treasure.

I've rarely been excited about finding loot in Pathfinder, because in most cases that translates to "Here's some stuff we can sell in town and then I can upgrade my cloak of resistance from +2 to +3."

By comparison, the loot I give my players, or that I've found myself, in 5e tend to be things that will actually get used and make the players go "Wow, neat!"

I mean, I can't imagine a party looking at a rod of the viper in PF and not see it as something to sell. But when I gave my party a staff of the adder in 5e, the cleric loved it.


GlennH wrote:

Add d6 damage dice based on proficiency.

Untrained - none
Trained - +1d6
expert - +2d6
master - +3d6
Legendary - +4d6

Weapon Quality added to hit bonus
poor: -2
normal: +0
expert: +1
master: +2
legendary: +3

weapon Magic Bonus adds damage to each dice.

Examples before adding stat and level adjustments.

Normal dagger in untrained hands would be -4 1d4+0

Normal dagger in trained hands +0 1d4+1d6

Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6

+2 Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6+6

+2 Master dagger in legendary hands +4 1d4+4d6+10

+5 Legendary dagger in Legendary hands +6 1d4+4d6+25

Normal dagger in Legendary hands would be +3 1d4+4d6

No to static bonuses.

A +5 great axe should do much greater damage than a +5 dagger. Exactly like a nonmagical axe deals much greater damage than a nonmagical damage.

Scaling damage being extra dices is good.

In your example, the +5 dagger does 41.5 damage and a +5 great axe deals 45.5 which would be hilariously bad imo.

Strictly tieing this to potency runes is the only problem imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly "how PF2 does weapons (including magic ones)" is probably my single favorite aspect of the playtest.

If low die weapons aren't effective, it's possible some of the specific weapons need attention (it seems pretty hard to use a Katar effectively) or to provide more options which provide synergy (PF1 had a dozen whip feats, after all.)


I still want the innate magic +hit/dice to be a factor of the character .
I'm less inclined to want it related to Profiency.. because classes like alchemist.. who are what I call "off martial". They don't get martial combat bonuses, but, their class set up sort of relies on some combat ability. if it went with profiency-then at a point alchemists would basically never hit.
(Fun fact... (1.4 might've changed this) but Fighters are more profient with bombs than Alchemists. cause bombs are martial weapons)

I always love the idea that special attributes is how things are legendary.
WIth legendary attribute being something that bypasses the innate to give a higher or lower bonus. For story elements where you want some legendary item that is a +5 monster at like lv 8 for a plot


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think there's room for both. The rules don't explicitly say that you can't have inherently magical weapons, they just don't provide any.

Besides which, Excalibur is certainly an artifact, which is it's own entire rule set.

Ok let me give an example from the playtest part 1:

Final Rest: +1 ghosttouched dagger Here we have a named weapon, but the runes on it are clearly harvestable. It just feels wrong to have a named item just turned into runes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My vote is to just eliminate potency runes completely and develop a more robust selection and mechanics of Property runes. 1 item being the absolute best and most common of all, and required by the math is just a bad tradition at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapons aside:

Monsters "autoscale" their AC and their ability DCs accounting for the +armor and +to saves from magical armor.

Then why bother even making armor potency runes?

I mean, if the math automatically assumes that you have +x to saves and ac from +armor, then why even bother putting that in?

At least, for weapons it's the damage value that actually matters, but again, +to hit is already assumed in monster AC (it jumps by 1 in the levels you're assumed to get a magic weapon)

Why are they even a thing?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Snickersnax wrote:

Ok let me give an example from the playtest part 1:

Final Rest: +1 ghosttouched dagger Here we have a named weapon, but the runes on it are clearly harvestable. It just feels wrong to have a named item just turned into runes.

I see what you are saying, although I will counter by saying that giving names to swords is a tradition that exists even in the real world, where as far we know such swords are not magical. :P

Also, having just checked the rules again, specific magical weapons that are not just empowered by removable runes do exist (such as the holy avenger).

I'm of two minds here. I really like PCs being able to transfer magic properties from one weapon to another as a gameplay conceit, but I do like named weapons as well from a flavor perspective.

My usual stance is that "flavor should bend knee to gameplay", but I acknowledge the importance of both.

Not sure what solution I would like to see, but I definitely don't want to see property runes go away. Maybe make it so that you can only remove the property runes from a weapon by destroying the weapon? That makes it a meaningful choice, at least.


Snickersnax wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I think there's room for both. The rules don't explicitly say that you can't have inherently magical weapons, they just don't provide any.

Besides which, Excalibur is certainly an artifact, which is it's own entire rule set.

Ok let me give an example from the playtest part 1:

Final Rest: +1 ghosttouched dagger Here we have a named weapon, but the runes on it are clearly harvestable. It just feels wrong to have a named item just turned into runes.

I generally agree with you but I also know that there is a common problem or authors just writing a back story for a item for flair vs just saying "magic item".

For example I know some GM's that think every magic item should have a back story unless it is a potion, low level wand, etc. So in their game everything else has some info for it that can be gleaned from spells to piece together its history and in some cases its owners. I do agree this is a story telling element and also has some game play issues with common story elements (such as murder adventures and having retrieved a weapon rolling very well and getting into on killer. But then almost all killers have items that erase their personal history on items.)

MDC


I also agree that having abilities become stuck on items might be a good idea or a locking rune that by locking abilities on items it enhances all of the abilities in some ways.
MDC


They could go all Diablo III on it. If you lock different combos, you get special bonuses. But, that may be going too far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:


I see what you are saying, although I will counter by saying that giving names to swords is a tradition that exists even in the real world, where as far we know such swords are not magical. :P

A [Real World] legend tells of a test where Muramasa challenged his master, Masamune, to see who could make a finer sword. They both worked tirelessly and eventually, when both swords were finished, they decided to test the results. The contest was for each to suspend the blades in a small creek with the cutting edge facing against the current. Muramasa's sword, the Juuchi Yosamu (十千夜寒, "10,000 Cold Nights") cut everything that passed its way; fish, leaves floating down the river, the very air which blew on it. Highly impressed with his pupil's work, Masamune lowered his sword, the Yawarakai-Te (柔らかい手, "Tender Hands"), into the current and waited patiently. Only leaves were cut. However, the fish swam right up to it, and the air hissed as it gently blew by the blade. After a while, Muramasa began to scoff at his master for his apparent lack of skill in the making of his sword. Smiling to himself, Masamune pulled up his sword, dried it, and sheathed it. All the while, Muramasa was heckling him for his sword's inability to cut anything. A monk, who had been watching the whole ordeal, walked over and bowed low to the two sword masters. He then began to explain what he had seen.

"The first of the swords was by all accounts a fine sword, however it is a blood thirsty, evil blade, as it does not discriminate as to who or what it will cut. It may just as well be cutting down butterflies as severing heads. The second was by far the finer of the two, as it does not needlessly cut that which is innocent and undeserving."

The real world is filled with magic like this.

MaxAstro wrote:

I'm of two minds here. I really like PCs being able to transfer magic properties from one weapon to another as a gameplay conceit, but I do like named weapons as well from a flavor perspective.

My usual stance is that "flavor should bend knee to gameplay", but I acknowledge the importance of both.

Not sure what solution I would like to see, but I definitely don't want to see property runes go away. Maybe make it so that you can only remove the property runes from a weapon by destroying the weapon? That makes it a meaningful choice, at least.

When you run runes like this it takes the magic out of magic weapons; They just become another statistic to optimize for the sake of murder hobo convenience. Take their runes, put them on the best weapons. Why ever have a magic dagger? Take the runes off and put it on a better weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That problem is fixed by giving characters a reason to want a dagger; it is unrelated to the issue of runes.


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

The game is built so you can be successful with almost no magic items at all. You need a magic weapon to get past damage resistance of some monsters, but beyond that, you dont really need any magic items in 5E to succeed at the game as written.

Ultimately, that means less treasure and less excitement around treasure.

That sounds fine to me. Let leveling up be the exciting part. Not every monster you defeat need have items that make you cheer in awe.

There are other games designed around little or no magic gear, there aren't as many where magic items play such a large role - I play PF partly because I love acquiring those items. take that away and it isn't PF anymore.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree with dragonhunterq, but as with feats, I want my magic items to be awesome.

A greatsword that catches fire when swung and hungers for the blood of orc-kind is awesome.

A greatsword that gives +1 to accuracy and +1d10 to damage is... useful, I guess? Awesome is not the word I would use.


MaxAstro wrote:

I agree with dragonhunterq, but as with feats, I want my magic items to be awesome.

A greatsword that catches fire when swung and hungers for the blood of orc-kind is awesome.

A greatsword that gives +1 to accuracy and +1d10 to damage is... useful, I guess? Awesome is not the word I would use.

Hehe, you would love the Dungeon Crawl Classics magic sword creation tables.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot would be fixed just by compressing the weapon damage band upward. Basically nothing should do d4, except maybe darts. If daggers were d6, short swords were d8, and long swords were d10, the damage boost from a magic weapon would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
A lot would be fixed just by compressing the weapon damage band upward. Basically nothing should do d4, except maybe darts. If daggers were d6, short swords were d8, and long swords were d10, the damage boost from a magic weapon would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided.

if a one handed did d10s, then why even go for two handed?

d8s for a martial one hander is fine.
as is d6 and agile.

daggers could just have some extra traits like the backstabber trait and be more specialized instead of flat damage boost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Potency scales too high for the damage to work, even between d6 and d12 weapons.

Deadly is the attempt to fix this, but given how little crit chance you actually have it's not very useful.

People can like fistfulls of dice, but when I play tested with starknife throwing, it became clear how useless my 'optimized crit fighter' was compared to a paladin just swinging a d12 weapon.

It didn't feel fun to need crits just to compare to the other guy's average hit. I multiclassed rogue, and built up Dread Striker for crit chance. Double Slice and a +3 to hit still didn't help.

The math just doesn't work. At least in PF1 magic weapons could be a bit lower in + and still be effective weapons.

I do like that idea with just pumping up a high quality gauntlet and using the Doubling Rings to get your golfbag build to be effective, but said golf bag is going to have a lot of the same weapons in it because of how punishing the math is. Additionally, every class but the fighter only increases their weapon proficiency with a single weapon group, so no switch hitting and no changing your style when you find cool loot.


shroudb wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
A lot would be fixed just by compressing the weapon damage band upward. Basically nothing should do d4, except maybe darts. If daggers were d6, short swords were d8, and long swords were d10, the damage boost from a magic weapon would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided.

if a one handed did d10s, then why even go for two handed?

d8s for a martial one hander is fine.
as is d6 and agile.

daggers could just have some extra traits like the backstabber trait and be more specialized instead of flat damage boost.

Two handed weapons should get more traits, as well as double Str mod. In conjunction with compressing the dice range upward, it will make lesser die weapons a touch more viable at higher levels will still letting two handers hit hard and be more consistent in exchange for giving up that second hand.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
A lot would be fixed just by compressing the weapon damage band upward. Basically nothing should do d4, except maybe darts. If daggers were d6, short swords were d8, and long swords were d10, the damage boost from a magic weapon would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided.

if a one handed did d10s, then why even go for two handed?

d8s for a martial one hander is fine.
as is d6 and agile.

daggers could just have some extra traits like the backstabber trait and be more specialized instead of flat damage boost.

Two handed weapons should get more traits, as well as double Str mod. In conjunction with compressing the dice range upward, it will make lesser die weapons a touch more viable at higher levels will still letting two handers hit hard and be more consistent in exchange for giving up that second hand.

given that 3rd action strike is usually useless, having a 3rd action being a +2AC plus some temp hp is a big deal.

if on the other hand we give traits, like, as an example making falchion a d12 forceful up from d10 forceful, we really didn't fix much.

damage wise, the 2 damage/die difference that the d8 longsword had with the greataxe is replaced by examply 2 damage/die difference that the d12 forceful now has over the d10 (1damage/die going from d10 to d12, and 1 damage/die on average difference from forceful)

plus

i mean, we give more "damage traits" (really, only forceful for two handers) to the d12 greataxe. Now, we have 2 identical weapons, a d12 forceful greataxe and a d12 forceful falchion. Where's the fun in that? should we just replace all two-handers with "big weapon" and be done with it just because we run out of dice sizes?

plus

we're setting up ourself for only having the "good" traits on two-handers, and leaving smaller weapons and one handers just with raw damage.

it's actrually the OPPOSITE that needs to be done:

give traits to low damage dice weapon. So, a dagger is not the best weapon to slice someone with, at least compared to a greataxe. But a dagger is agile, finesse, and let's add backstabber and another d6 or so deadly.

so, now, we have a weapon that strait up doesn't do that much damage, but when he crits you from the back, it friggin hurts. Because that's it's purpose, not striaght up damage like a huge effing axe.


could mix the two
Each rank of proficiency after trained grants +1 step of damage
Each rune of Potency grants +1 step of damage.

So an Expert (+1 step) and two runes (+2 steps) gets +3 steps of damage

how you define a step of damage could be as simple as an extra weapon dice or what ever.

So some of the damage is skill and some of it is magic.


Greylurker wrote:

could mix the two

Each rank of proficiency after trained grants +1 step of damage
Each rune of Potency grants +1 step of damage.

So an Expert (+1 step) and two runes (+2 steps) gets +3 steps of damage

how you define a step of damage could be as simple as an extra weapon dice or what ever.

So some of the damage is skill and some of it is magic.

so, a fighter would do 8 steps of damage?

at 3 he would do +2 steps of damage, equal, as an example, to a level 9 barbarian

the way they have the proficiency setup, it can't be proficiency based.

it has to be level based regardless of proficiency modifier. that gives +attack, and that's plenty enough (plenty enough to push fighters to the top dpr atm either way)


On the issue of increasing dice vs increasing flat damage, I think that both are, if not equally problematic, probably both less than ideal. I personally think I prefer PF2e's more dice solution over 1e's bigger static numbers solution, not because I like rolling more dice, but because it's closer to an equivalent ratio of damage over levels. That said, it's still not ideal, because I think it overly emphasizes greatswords, ect, over smaller weapons, as level increases. Perhaps the best solution would involve having +weapons be static damage increases, while extra dice come from some other source, be it weapon quality or some innate benefit, such that maybe a d12 weapon is always about 1.4-1.6x the damage of a d6 weapon, depending on the user's investment into strength, as opposed to growing, fairly easily to nearly double that damage, as it currently stands, or growing nearly inconsequential as 1e did it.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

The game is built so you can be successful with almost no magic items at all. You need a magic weapon to get past damage resistance of some monsters, but beyond that, you dont really need any magic items in 5E to succeed at the game as written.

Ultimately, that means less treasure and less excitement around treasure.

That sounds fine to me. Let leveling up be the exciting part. Not every monster you defeat need have items that make you cheer in awe.
There are other games designed around little or no magic gear, there aren't as many where magic items play such a large role - I play PF partly because I love acquiring those items. take that away and it isn't PF anymore.

It doesn't have to be little or no magic gear, just not making your sword better at fighting than you are would be great. Even the monk's handwraps do more damage than the monk at high levels. Like if you're gonna do that why not just go whole hog and make a class whose thing is being an intelligent magic item.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
I feel like this makes disarm an extremely powerful option too.

You will be thrilled to note that they've made Disarm all but impossible to actually pull off. A character who is fully optimized to perform a Disarm maneuver has a magnificent 20% chance against the average same level monster (must roll 17 or higher). In order to disarm the monster, your best bet is to have two fully optimized characters each perform the disarm action as their first attack, assuming both are able to act before the target gets their turn. Then you'll have a 30% chance of success!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Two major problems that damage tied to the weapon creates:

1 - Martial characters will only have one level-appropriated weapon at a time, backup weapons will be meaningless and insanely expensive, specially with Pathfinder's insane cost progression.

2 - It creates that uncanny feeling of having weapon-focused characters only be "good" because they have a magical weapon, not because they're incredibly skilled at their craft.

I've seen this idea thrown around, but I definitely would prefer damage either tied to proficiency or level itself. If it's tied to proficiency, then it will need some adjustments across the board. If tied to level, then it would be simpler, but it will leave proficiency kinda meaningless, like it is right now (just a boring +1-3).

To me, the best option would be to get rid of +X enhancements altogether, this way, all runes can be of cool effects and not an illusory choice like these weapons are. Currently it's basically "You have the option to buy these +X weapons, but if you don't, you'll fall behind the damage curve and drag your party down".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Perhaps they can just do at X level, you gain an extra die of damage (maybe at three points like 6, 12 and 18 or something) AND have weapon enchantments give a more standard +x bonus to damage.

That would reduce the outsized impact of spells and abilities that increase your weapon enchantment, improve how well lower die weapons "stack up" and allow both items and character advancement to have similar impacts to raw damage output.

This would also lead to a slight net loss of martial damage output and maybe make non-martial options more valuable.

That's essentially how the damage scales in the super hero RPG I've written but I think it makes more sense for that genre since items are not usually what makes a character strong and a lot of the times they don't use items at all.

I think in PF people expect magic items to make them noticeably more powerful. So Its probably a thin line to walk.


I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.
I want my magic to make me better at whatever it is all (I'll accept 'nearly all') the time.

I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.

I want my magic to make me better at whatever it is all (I'll accept 'nearly all') the time.

I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.

Having numbers decoupled from magic weapon doesn't inherently mean they will be small numbers in the end. The numbers that most +X items offer would be baked into the character's progression and everything that offers a +X bonus will be extra for those characters that want to excel at that particular thing they're investing their money. Currently, and in PF1e, these bonuses are forced choices.

As for new cool effects, they can be tuned up and changed to fill the gap left by the potency runes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think ultimately this comes down to "some people want their fighters to be Conan, and some people want them to be Drizzt".

Hard to have a system that accommodates both...


Snickersnax wrote:

A [Real World] legend tells of a test where Muramasa challenged his master, Masamune, to see who could make a finer sword. They both worked tirelessly and eventually, when both swords were finished, they decided to test the results. The contest was for each to suspend the blades in a small creek with the cutting edge facing against the current. Muramasa's sword, the Juuchi Yosamu (十千夜寒, "10,000 Cold Nights") cut everything that passed its way; fish, leaves floating down the river, the very air which blew on it. Highly impressed with his pupil's work, Masamune lowered his sword, the Yawarakai-Te (柔らかい手, "Tender Hands"), into the current and waited patiently. Only leaves were cut. However, the fish swam right up to it, and the air hissed as it gently blew by the blade. After a while, Muramasa began to scoff at his master for his apparent lack of skill in the making of his sword. Smiling to himself, Masamune pulled up his sword, dried it, and sheathed it. All the while, Muramasa was heckling him for his sword's inability to cut anything. A monk, who had been watching the whole ordeal, walked over and bowed low to the two sword masters. He then began to explain what he had seen.

"The first of the swords was by all accounts a fine sword, however it is a blood thirsty, evil blade, as it does not discriminate as to who or what it will cut. It may just as well be cutting down butterflies as severing heads. The second was by far the finer of the two, as it does not needlessly cut that which is innocent and undeserving."

The real world is filled with magic like this.

That was cool.

Quote:
When you run runes like this it takes the magic out of magic weapons; They just become another statistic to optimize for the sake of murder hobo convenience. Take their runes, put them on the best weapons. Why ever have a magic dagger? Take the runes off and put it on a better weapon.

Yeah, this is the big issue to me. Why even put magic weapons into treasure? The sword itself is unremarkable in every way. It's the rune on it that is special.

Just cut out the middleman and stick a +3 rune in the loot.

I understand what they're trying to do here, but the fact that most weapons have it relatively trivial to suck the magic off them and stick it on something else makes the details of it trivial and irrelevant. I don't really care that I found a +3 Shortsword of whatever, I care that I found a +3 rune that happened to be attached to something else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I suggested this elsewhere, but one option may be to move Potency Runes off of weapons and on to other magic items- gloves, handwraps, the sacred family necklace.

This would allow the character to switch weapons without a massive dropoff in damage. The weapons themselves would still bear the other Runes, so your Holy Longsword would still be your weapon of choice but you aren't totally screwed if you need to bust out your giant Maul or Longbow.

It has the added benefit of avoiding the problem of Fighters being innately magical but giving GMs the option of make the item into an inherent bonus if it suits their game.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ooh, having potency runes be attached to the character instead of the weapon is a really cool compromise.

I like that! I like it enough that I might even use it instead of ABP...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 had those gloves that gave magical enhancement bonuses to whatever improvised weapons you felt like picking up. I figure you could do something like that as a magic item (which costs resonance to attune, like handwraps, and is expensive) which just empowers whatever you pick up.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.

I want my magic to make me better at whatever it is all (I'll accept 'nearly all') the time.

I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.

In PF1, cool effects are underwhelming because they almost always have DCs that are too low to be useful, or are too expensive to have compared to items with passive bonuses to numbers.

My hope with PF2 was that the cool effects meaningfully affected the game, and didn't need to be compared to the passive bonuses provided by other items (eg. PF1's cloak of resistance vs ... any other cloak). I don't think it's happened. For example, the saves bonus is now tied to an armor potency rune, which still competes with property runes, if only in GP cost.

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells / Reason why damage on magic items bothers me All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells