| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 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.)
| 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.
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.
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. |
That problem is fixed by giving characters a reason to want a dagger; it is unrelated to the issue of runes.
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.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.
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. |
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.
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.
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
| 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. |
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. |
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.