Magical weapons in PF2 are actually magical.

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

And... this has to do with what exactly in pathfinder? What does 'it worked this way in d&d2' have to do with what feels magical in pathfinder? Nothing as far as I can tell. :P

As we are now, is I have to use a normal special material weapon to bypass DR, I could be losing 5d12 damage to do so... That better be a LOT of DR...

[Ninja in the Rye]

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

That doesn't sound all that different from PF2 ...

[Kaelizar]

RazarTuk wrote:

Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands.

THIS!

As discussed in the Proficiency talks, training should be more important than anything else I think otherwise why have Expert or Legendary, when the difference is a +2? As everyone has said, it then requires the arbitrary Magic weapon rules to even come close to a caster.

Not only that, but has anyone considered attacking a weapon? (AKA Sunder?)
We have hardness and dent rules for shields, but how does it work for weapons? I would be curious to see if how much hardness a magic sword gains. Additionally are characters able to target shields without the wielder of the shield?

With the current rules Any sort of Adamantine, Or magical, weapon would destroy any item, and heck structures without much problem. Going through the hardness no problem. I see current Magic Weapon rules combined with item/object damage as a big problem

[Claxon]

I'd like to add that I'd prefer to see magic weapons not increase accuracy or damage. I'd like that to just be a part of character advancement.

We can't link it to weapon proficiency if we did though, because several classes would get left behind in terms of damage.

But I really don't like how dependent characters are on weapons for accuracy and damage. It doesn't make me feel heroic. It makes me feel like a weakling that only triumphs through a external forces.

I would much prefer magic weapons do interesting things. The flaming enchant is a good example. It could also do things like allow you to teleport. They could do all sorts of interesting things, if they stopped linking them to attack and damage bonuses and instead made those inherent parts of character advancement.

[graystone]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

That doesn't sound all that different from PF2 ...

Yep and it sure doesn't make me go "wow that's magical!" but more "Wow, that's bad isn't it?".

[WhiteMagus2000]

HWalsh wrote:

Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical. They want them to slightly help with accuracy and add eh, a slight bit of damage.

I hated this in PF1 and earlier editions.

Even my beloved Paladin has this:

1d8+10(str x 1.5) +12(Power Attack) +3(magic weapon)

The difference between a normal sword and a supremely expensive magical weapon of great power is... 3.

1d8+25 vs 1d8+22

That is silly.

Some people hate, in PF2, that a +3 weapon would be 4d8 rather than 1d8+3

I don't understand that.

"If a commoner picked up a..."

Yes. A commoner would hit hard, but would have no chance vs the high level fighter because the commoner couldn't hit him.

In PF2 its realistic to a point. You can only do so much damage with muscles and skill. Magic is the force multiplier and I, for one, am happy.

I don't want to play a story of the heroic magic sword and the farmhand that carried it. I want to play the story of the heroic warrior with a sword that burns with holy fire.

This is actually a deal breaker for me. It is a very unheroic feeling to know that if you lose or drop your sword then your damage goes down the crapper. It also puts a huge burden on the GM to make sure that everyone has exactly the weapon that they are supposed to have at the exact level they are supposed to have it. I've read APs where a level 2-4 fighter can find a +3 frostbrand. That's strong but not game breaking. Now if a level 1 Barbarian happens to find a +1 ghost touch dagger (and transfers the rune to a greataxe), all of a sudden he's doing triple the damage of anyone else. Now that is game breaking and if it remains in PF2 then I'll remain in PF1.

[Fennris]

Kaelizar wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands.

I guess you haven’t seen what John Wick can do with a pencil.

I would be fine with damage dice tied to weapons for martials if they tied casters spell effects based on the plus of their weapon or focus. So they can only do base damage dice of the spell with no increasing and need the plus to add damage dice. It also affects the size of the AOEs, # of creatures affected, duration and the like. Once they do that, than I’ll be good with my damage coming from an item rather than my character

[Vic Ferrari]

Doodpants wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky played with words to introduce both the deadly Jabberwock and the vorpal blade that beheaded it with a snicker-snack.

No. Just... no.

Sorry for the off-topic rant, but you hit a major pet peeve of mine. The poem Jabberwocky uses a bunch of nonsense words whose meanings are to be inferred by context. When I first read the poem, my impression was that "vorpal" simply meant "trusty". I've always imagined the boy's sword as a simple peasant weapon, nothing special. When he fought the creature, he simply struck several good blows (snicker-snack!) with a decent weapon. He then severed the head and took it back to show his dad.

Later I found out that D&D had co-opted the term "vorpal" to mean some powerful magical quality, and have since always felt that they totally missed the point.
</rant>

*slow golf clap*

...yikes...old news.

[Vic Ferrari]

HWalsh wrote:

graystone wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

"PC's? Are you joking! Hire some NPC's! They have a cheaper wage and we don't have to spend hardly anything to equip them. Can you believe the last PC asked for a MAGIC weapon? What, he couldn't use the same weapons my guards use?"

The Alternative is to go back to 2nd Edition AD&D rules.

As in:
"Oh you don't have a magic weapon? You can't hurt it. No matter what."

Not DR, not resist, you just lose.

Ah, when the game was really popping...

[RazarTuk]

Kaelizar wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands.

THIS!

As discussed in the Proficiency talks, training should be more important than anything else I think otherwise why have Expert or Legendary, when the difference is a +2? As everyone has said, it then requires the arbitrary Magic weapon rules to even come close to a caster.

Fighters are supposed to be weapon masters, and what's more weapon-master-y than being able to use anything as a weapon?

Let's suppose Expert, Master, and Legendary proficiency each add an extra die of damage.

A level 13 rogue is an Expert with the rapier and would do 2d6 damage. Decent, but nothing to write home about. A level 13 fighter specializing in swords would be Legendary by that point, and would do 4d12 damage with a greatsword. But more impressively, that same fighter could pretend to be Jason Bourne and use random items as weapons. Say it's a prison break, and the only weapon available is the key to their cell they stole. They're a master in every weapon- including improvised ones- so they would do a solid 3d4 damage, assuming you treat it as a dagger.

That is a role for a character. Being so much of a weapon master that you can deal just as much damage with an improvised weapon as other people can with actual, manufactured weapons they specialize in.

EDIT: This might need to go along with a class feat(ure) that only fighters can get bonus dice on improvised weapons. Gotta protect their new role as the Jason Bournes of Golarion.

EDIT: A feat. Anyone can do extra damage with high proficiency. Fighters can take a feat to add extra damage dice to improvised weapons.

[Vic Ferrari]

RazarTuk wrote:

Let's suppose Expert, Master, and Legendary proficiency each add an extra die of damage.

I think they should drop whole UTEML thing, it has no grounding, legacy, it delivers no power, it comes to nothing.

[Vidmaster7]

Eh I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Magic items in 1st d&D the big thing for them was to effect enemies. Some enemies you had to have a certain + weapon. Then of course by 3.0-5 it started being more about the magic material used. I think this is a contentious issue for sure. Some people want everything to come from the characters but others want magic to have a real BANG! when they use it.

Some things I think that won't work.
1# having proficiency give the bonus dice. This won't work because of how not every class that is good at combat gets to legendary. Plus sometimes its only legendary with one specific weapon so they are exponentially better with a long sword but he picks up a short sword and might as well be level 1 again damage wise.

All classes getting a + dice at certain level to combat damage has no differing mechanical costs; Its entirely flavor whether it be that or the magic items.

I would say the way to go would be to add the optional system that unchained had in a later book. The automatic bonus progression thing for people that want to weaken magic items and strengthen innate abilities.

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre then the alternative but igther way its the same result frankly so meh.

[Mats Öhrman]

Kerobelis wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

The former is that issue where fighters are the only class where the class abilities are insufficient to fill their role. Fighters are supposed to be weapon masters, and yet they need to rely on wizards to actually deal large amounts of damage. If you make damage runes less common, though, and grant bonus damage dice for higher proficiency levels, they would be self-sufficient. Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands. But to be honest, I don't have a problem with that. As an example of that trope in fiction, it would let you build Jason Bourne. Meanwhile, if damage runes still existed, they would let other people upgrade one weapon to be as good as the fighter, or let the fighter go from massive damage to obscene amounts of damage.

It isn't just fighters. Its Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues. All need magic weapons of the appropriate plus or are next to useless in combat.

Well, it is not really that far from the skill DC table assuming you get the appropriate skill boost magic items at the designated levels, and that monster to-hit assumes a certain AC and saving throw progression through magic armor.

Key item acquisition is simply assumed to progress steadily and smoothly according to plan, with the required items available at the designated levels. That this actually occurs in a natural and smooth manner is unfortunately not something tested in the playtest, as the PCs simply gets a fresh pick of items for each scenario.

[gwynfrid]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Eh I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Magic items in 1st d&D the big thing for them was to effect enemies. Some enemies you had to have a certain + weapon. Then of course by 3.0-5 it started being more about the magic material used. I think this is a contentious issue for sure. Some people want everything to come from the characters but others want magic to have a real BANG! when they use it.

Some things I think that won't work.
1# having proficiency give the bonus dice. This won't work because of how not every class that is good at combat gets to legendary. Plus sometimes its only legendary with one specific weapon so they are exponentially better with a long sword but he picks up a short sword and might as well be level 1 again damage wise.

All classes getting a + dice at certain level to combat damage has no differing mechanical costs; Its entirely flavor whether it be that or the magic items.

I would say the way to go would be to add the optional system that unchained had in a later book. The automatic bonus progression thing for people that want to weaken magic items and strengthen innate abilities.

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre then the alternative but igther way its the same result frankly so meh.

There's a significant mechanical impact though, for at least 2 situations:

- The case where the party has lost their equipment somehow, been taken prisoner, or otherwise needs to improvise. If the magic sword is mandatory, then it means that type of story can only work at low levels when you aren't suppposed to have one in the first place.
- Switching weapons becomes really hard. In effect, everyone has to use their main weapon or be at a big disadvantage.

[pjrogers]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre

But I don't think it actually ever worked like that in any previous D&D game. Once again, this is something that may or may not be a fine rule for some game, but which majorly breaks the D&D feel of PF2e for me.

[Vidmaster7]

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away. Mostly the players hate it and I hate it as a GM . I have temporarily done it in the past (prison escape game the rogue dominated). I strongly suggest not doing it unless your players are ok with it. Still it is a tool that can be used when you want to do a specific kind of game where the players are inconvenienced. So one plus side is it keeps that kind of game doable. Otherwise the poor wizard has to go without spells but the fighter gets his full compliment minus a few pluses. So its really more a strike against then a positive.

2. I don't know about this one aren't runes suppose to be really easy to move around?

[Vidmaster7]

pjrogers wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre

But I don't think it actually ever worked like that in any previous D&D game. Once again, this is something that may or may not be a fine rule for some game, but which majorly breaks the D&D feel of PF2e for me.

Maybe not but it has been used in literature. Writers will put in a hero who is losing to a higher level villain until he picks up that magic sword and suddenly the tables are turned.

I don't see at all how it breaks the feel of the game. Its a mechanical system to balance out damage so combat doesn't take forever. as far as thematically its still magic items make you better at combat.

[Tridus]

If we're talking about losing weapons or secondary weapons, perhaps Greater Magic Weapon needs to come back as a spell option (or Heightened Magic Weapon, I suppose). I use that all the time in 1e on people who use a weapon that fell behind for whatever reason, and it would be even more important now.

As a support caster, giving up a spell to make the Fighter's bow effective in a fight with only flying enemies is a great trade and makes the person playing the Fighter a lot happier with that combat.

[pjrogers]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre

But I don't think it actually ever worked like that in any previous D&D game. Once again, this is something that may or may not be a fine rule for some game, but which majorly breaks the D&D feel of PF2e for me.

Maybe not but it has been used in literature. Writers will put in a hero who is losing to a higher level villain until he picks up that magic sword and suddenly the tables are turned.

I don't see at all how it breaks the feel of the game. Its a mechanical system to balance out damage so combat doesn't take forever. as far as thematically its still magic items make you better at combat.

We already have weapon features such as bane, holy, the overcoming of damage resistance, etc. that can "simulate" the situation you describe.

For me, it breaks the feel of the game because I started playing Pathfinder as a way of playing D&D. This is something that no D&D game has ever had. And I really don't understand the benefit of this new approach in light of the design goals that have come from Paizo. To be honest, this feels like change for sake of change which I find to be rather off putting and not at all an example of an "evolution."

[Vidmaster7]

No D&D game as ever had? You know how many changes the game has gone through? Have you ever played 1st to 3rd? You want to talk about a lot of changes. should they not have made those changes because "they were never in a D&D game before"

Change of the sake of change? The change is because there is fewer attacks and less feats that add to damage of those so they need damage to scale to keep fights from dragging on.

I think the idea I'm getting is you want 3.0 to 3.5 changes when really this is closer to 2nd edition to 3rd edition changes. If these kinds of changes didn't happen between editions you would of never had 3.5 for pathfinder to improve.

Also 1st edition AD&D a +5 sword would double the damage you dealt not even adding how much a difference that to hit bonus added the +5 damage alone could double or even triple your output. also you couldn't even effect creatures without a magic weapon. That werewolf yeah you can't hurt it at all without that magic sword.

I keep seeing that changes for changes sake being thrown around but I have seen people ask for almost every single change I've seen them make.

[pjrogers]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

No D&D game as ever had? You know how many changes the game has gone through? Have you ever played 1st to 3rd? You want to talk about a lot of changes. should they not have made those changes because "they were never in a D&D game before"

Change of the sake of change? The change is because there is fewer attacks and less feats that add to damage of those so they need damage to scale to keep fights from dragging on.

I think the idea I'm getting is you want 3.0 to 3.5 changes when really this is closer to 2nd edition to 3rd edition changes. If these kinds of changes didn't happen between editions you would of never had 3.5 for pathfinder to improve.

Also 1st edition AD&D a +5 sword would double the damage you dealt not even adding how much a difference that to hit bonus added the +5 damage alone could double or even triple your output. also you couldn't even effect creatures without a magic weapon. That werewolf yeah you can't hurt it at all without that magic sword.

I keep seeing that changes for changes sake being thrown around but I have seen people ask for almost every single change I've seen them make.

I actually own a copy of Chainmail. As I've written numerous times, I want a second edition Pathfinder which is a real "evolution" of and which constructively builds upon the existing PF1e. I do not see PF2e in its current form as such a game. PF2e in its current form may or may not be a fine game but in my eyes, it has only the most tenuous links to the D&D family of games.

I stand by my position that the new weapon damage system doesn't appear to make any sense in light of the design goals laid out by Paizo as such thus appears to be change for the sake of change.

[gwynfrid]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away. Mostly the players hate it and I hate it as a GM . I have temporarily done it in the past (prison escape game the rogue dominated). I strongly suggest not doing it unless your players are ok with it. Still it is a tool that can be used when you want to do a specific kind of game where the players are inconvenienced. So one plus side is it keeps that kind of game doable. Otherwise the poor wizard has to go without spells but the fighter gets his full compliment minus a few pluses. So its really more a strike against then a positive.

2. I don't know about this one aren't runes suppose to be really easy to move around?

1. That type of story is rare, but it needs to be possible. It doesn't necessarily imply losing your entire equipment, either. The character swallowed by the monster and unable to use her greatsword is a simpler example.

2. All this does is allow you to change your main weapon during downtime. It doesn't let you attempt any tactics that rely on changing weapons mid-combat. Such as, I charge with my lance, then I drop it and hit with my mace; or I use my bow until the enemy closes in and then switch to a scimitar.

[The Once and Future Kai]

gwynfrid wrote:

1. That type of story is rare, but it needs to be possible. It doesn't necessarily imply losing your entire equipment, either. The character swallowed by the monster and unable to use her greatsword is a simpler example.

2. All this does is allow you to change your main weapon during downtime. It doesn't let you attempt any tactics that rely on changing weapons mid-combat. Such as, I charge with my lance, then I drop it and hit with my mace; or I use my bow until the enemy closes in and then switch to a scimitar.

Also - it should be okay for a player to delay or even skip a piece of magical equipment. If a Martial character decides to spend their money on magical armor first instead of a magical weapon that shouldn't make them ineffective compared to the rest of their party. It should make them less effective at dealing damage...but not to the point of having trouble contributing as a character of their level.

[Lycar]

Also I would like to point out that players hate to lose their stuff *BECAUSE* they are so dependant on it.

Saying that you can have PCs be dependant on gear, because they hate losing it anyway, so this situation will never come up, is circular logic.

[Mathmuse]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Maybe not but it has been used in literature. Writers will put in a hero who is losing to a higher level villain until he picks up that magic sword and suddenly the tables are turned.

I don't see at all how it breaks the feel of the game. Its a mechanical system to balance out damage so combat doesn't take forever. as far as thematically its still magic items make you better at combat.

Literature also has the reverse situation, where the hero loses the magic item and discovers that the power was in themselves all along.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

What we want is for magical weapons to feel special, while allowing non-magical classes to be capable of performing their jobs without relying on magic as a crutch. A weapon isn't special when everyone is expected to have it as a default (if everyone is special, then no one is).

Let me explore the theme of magic items as a crutch.

Sometimes the characters find themselves in a high-challenge situation for which they are not prepared. For example, suppose they had been chasing evil cultists in the mountains, and then learned about a hidden branch of the cult in the city. They want to enter the city in disguise to find the cultists, but no-one has any skill in disguise. Nor does the sorcerer know a disguise spell. Disguises were not needed in the mountains. The solution is magic items: Hats of Disguise, purchased in another city.

Or perhaps the party needs to visit the Castle in the Clouds. The wizard cannot cast enough Overland Flight spells for everyone and an ordinary Fly spell would not last long enough. The solution: Flying Carpet.

It can even work in their area of expertise. The cleric channeled healing energy to heal everybody after the battle, but the fighter had taken a critical hit from the ogre barbarian and is still down in hit points. A scroll of Cure Critical Wounds, saved for emergencies like this, is finally put to use.

Magic is a fine crutch when the party is doing something outside their usual limits.

It works for NPCs, too. The shopkeeper was the head of the evil cult in the city, but he escaped the city guard. How did he escape with only a shopkeeper skills plus some minor religious magic? A potion of invisibility. And how does the GM make the cult leader a threat when the party tracks him down? A magic sword is an expensive magic item that a cult leader could have had hidden away. When the heroes disarm the shopkeeper of his magic sword, they can expect him to no longer be a threat, though he might have another magic item squirreled away. Once he is searched and delivered to the city guard, he is weak enough that the party does not have to worry about him escaping from jail.

But crutches are for temporary use. The point of forcing the adventure outside the characters' comfort zone is to force the characters to grow. Acquiring the crutch is not supposed to be the growth. The deficiency-correcting magic items are the training wheels of learning to ride a bicycle. While in disguise in the city, the skill experts in the party will master their Deception skills. While flying around the Castle in the Clouds, the wizard will learn better flying spells--or at least learn how to cast Overland Flight more often. After fighting the ogre barbarians, the fighter will learn to better defend himself and the cleric will learn how to deal better with heavy wounds.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

Not to mention, many heroes of myth and legend were capable of extraordinary feats without having special magic weapons, or with ordinary weapons which only became known as special after being used to accomplish legendary feats. In the playtest right now, this feels backwards - the fighter is special because they own a powerful sword rather than the sword being special because it was wielded by a powerful fighter.

That is another use of magic items. In 20th century novels and movies, the male hero often got the girl. Sometimes the girl was in the story only as a prize to reward the hero. Magic items can serve the same role as prizes, and they are not objectified in the process, since they are objects. The victorious party gets the treasure.

Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder can be played on a murderhobo looting cycle: the party kills the monster, gains xp and loot, uses that new level and magic to kill the next monster, and gets more xp and loot. The cycle is fun as a battle game, but not as fun as a storytelling game.

In storytelling, if the hero wields a powerful artifact, we want him or her to have earned that artifact. She climbed the mountain and passed the worthiness tests of the monks guarding the artifact. Or she forged it herself--that is why my wife likes learning magic-item crafting skills. If her character made the magic sword, then she feels the sword is an extension of the character's abilities. Buying or looting the magic sword does not feel like earning it, no matter how heroic the adventure that provided the loot to buy the sword.

Or, as Charon Onozuka said, the item becomes important because the hero has it. King Arthur was king before he acquired Excalibur. I had to look up Excalibur's magic abilities before I used it as an example earlier, because those abilities were not important to the myth of Camelot. Instead, Excalibur was important solely because it was King Arthur's sword. Excalibur was magic because it had to be worthy of Arthur.

I have not tried the Automatic Bonus Progression from Pathfinder Unchained, but other people have praised it in this forum. It might fulfill the goal of making magic items important because of the hero, rather than the hero important because of the magic item.

[The Once and Future Kai]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Also - it should be okay for a player to delay or even skip a piece of magical equipment. If a Martial character decides to spend their money on magical armor first instead of a magical weapon that shouldn't make them ineffective compared to the rest of their party. It should make them less effective at dealing damage...but not to the point of having trouble contributing as a character of their level.

Along those lines - Martials shouldn't be forced to spend their money on +1/+2/+3/+4/+5 weapons over Flaming/Returning/Vorpal weapons in order to just keep up with the Bestiary. It erodes player agency.

Again - I like the added weapon die, it makes that +1 feel impactful, but it's an unnecessary mandatory on Martials.

[Vidmaster7]

Mathmuse wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Maybe not but it has been used in literature. Writers will put in a hero who is losing to a higher level villain until he picks up that magic sword and suddenly the tables are turned.

I don't see at all how it breaks the feel of the game. Its a mechanical system to balance out damage so combat doesn't take forever. as far as thematically its still magic items make you better at combat.

Literature also has the reverse situation, where the hero loses the magic item and discovers that the power was in themselves all along.

Yeah but that's super lame. The answer was friendship all along!

[Definitely not being sarcastic]

pjrogers wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I do think magic items getting better dice fits more into the D&D genre

But I don't think it actually ever worked like that in any previous D&D game. Once again, this is something that may or may not be a fine rule for some game, but which majorly breaks the D&D feel of PF2e for me.

Maybe not but it has been used in literature. Writers will put in a hero who is losing to a higher level villain until he picks up that magic sword and suddenly the tables are turned.

I don't see at all how it breaks the feel of the game. Its a mechanical system to balance out damage so combat doesn't take forever. as far as thematically its still magic items make you better at combat.

We already have weapon features such as bane, holy, the overcoming of damage resistance, etc. that can "simulate" the situation you describe.

For me, it breaks the feel of the game because I started playing Pathfinder as a way of playing D&D. This is something that no D&D game has ever had. And I really don't understand the benefit of this new approach in light of the design goals that have come from Paizo. To be honest, this feels like change for sake of change which I find to be rather off putting and not at all an example of an "evolution."

Its change for the sake of change and I refuse to look at acknowledge anything that goes against that view point!

[The Once and Future Kai]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Yeah but that's super lame. The answer was friendship all along!

Aww... Just like on the forums!

[pjrogers]

Definitely not being sarcastic wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

For me, it breaks the feel of the game because I started playing Pathfinder as a way of playing D&D. This is something that no D&D game has ever had. And I really don't understand the benefit of this new approach in light of the design goals that have come from Paizo. To be honest, this feels like change for sake of change which I find to be rather off putting and not at all an example of an "evolution."

Its change for the sake of change and I refuse to look at acknowledge anything that goes against that view point!

I apologize for not being clearer. Implicit in my post was a set of criteria that I used to establish that this appears to be change for the sake of change.

1) It doesn't have any roots in PF1e or in the various versions of D&D that preceded PF1e.

2) It doesn't appear to serve any of the design goals laid out by the Paizo design team.

Insofar as it meets these two criteria, I would describe it as "change for the sake of change."

[Voss]

Of course, the other solution here is to discard the massive HP bloat that makes the silly extra damage dice necessary.

The current setup sadly makes me miss 2ed AD&D where fights moved along at a good clip, and didn't degenerate into hacking at walls of flesh for rounds and rounds and rounds. (And hours of game time). And missing that makes me very sad, because the system was a mess. Nothing should make me feel that PF2 is inferior mechanically to AD&D2, yet items, monsters and skills all do.

Like DCs and monster stats, this is a designer created problem.

[Megistone]

So, one side says that they want powerful magic weapons that have a big impact on the game (and I'll only talk about combat here, as we are debating about potency runes and not some special abilities that an artifact or special weapon may have).
The other side says that a martial character (typically a fighter, but I definitely add monks here) shouldn't absolutely need a top-tier magic weapon (or handwrap) to be meaningful.

We can have both things. The problem here is potency runes as they are.

A level 20 fighter is fighting against an AC 44 (appropriate) enemy with their +5 Legendary, Holy, Greater Frost, Vorpal longsword.
Considering 24 Str, their total proficiency is 20+7+3+5 = 35, meaning that they hit on a 9 and crit on a 19.
Let's not consider weaknesses or resistances here. Their Strikes are doing 6d8 +7 +1d6 (good) +1d6 (cold) = 41 average damage on a normal hit, double on critical, and considering hit chances that becomes 28.7.
If the legendary weapon is unavailable and they are forced to use a non-magical one, hit chances drop to 14+ (crit on 20), and damage to 1d8+7, for an average of 4.6. No chances of slowing the enemy, nor or cutting off their head.

Now let's remove the potency rune and give the level 20 fighter a baseline 5 dice of damage baked into themselves.
With the mundane sword they are dealing 5d8+7, hitting on 14+, average damage per Strike: 11.8.
When they pick up their magical weapon they go to 5d8 +7 + 1d6 + 1d6, and get a +3 to hit. Expected damage is about 20 points, plus a 5% chance of inflicting Slow 1 and to activate the Vorpal effect.

As things are now, without their weapon of choice the poor figther becomes utterly useless in regard of dealing damage (down to less than one sixth), and has to resort to a support role by trying to inflict some conditions on the enemy.
Without potency, but with 5 dice guaranteed damage, their baseline output goes down by about 30%, but drops by less than half of that with a mundane sword.
I would adjust this situation by allowing more runes on magical weapons, and even keeping a potency one (but limited to +1), but in general I'd say that even without potency at all, using a magical weapon does have a big impact, almost doubling expected damage output.

[Charon Onozuka]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Some things I think that won't work.

1# having proficiency give the bonus dice. This won't work because of how not every class that is good at combat gets to legendary. Plus sometimes its only legendary with one specific weapon so they are exponentially better with a long sword but he picks up a short sword and might as well be level 1 again damage wise.

I think that it needs to be stressed that we are still in the Playtest, not adding to a settled edition. How proficiency is gained by classes can still be changed before the official release, and I would argue needs to be considering that the current implementation is deeply unsatisfying. I think there is a good idea there, but it needs a lot of work to feel satisfying and exciting to look forward to.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I would say the way to go would be to add the optional system that unchained had in a later book. The automatic bonus progression thing for people that want to weaken magic items and strengthen innate abilities.

Again, we are not calling for magic items to be weak. We are calling for them to be less essential for basic competence and to do more interesting things than make number bigger.

Also, I hate the argument of, "live with it and hope a patch comes later." While ABP was one of my favorite things about Unchained, it was still noticeably a patch and had both mechanical and thematic issues as a result, not to mention it added an extra layer of complexity with players having to learn a new table. Part of the reason I argue so vehemently for a similar system to be incorporated into the core of a new edition is because I see this as the only time the underlying match can be adjusted in a way to make it a seamless part of the system. And I think that the system would be much better for it, along with allowing more types of stories to be told.

[Mathmuse]

pjrogers wrote:

Definitely not being sarcastic wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

For me, it breaks the feel of the game because I started playing Pathfinder as a way of playing D&D. This is something that no D&D game has ever had. And I really don't understand the benefit of this new approach in light of the design goals that have come from Paizo. To be honest, this feels like change for sake of change which I find to be rather off putting and not at all an example of an "evolution."

Its change for the sake of change and I refuse to look at acknowledge anything that goes against that view point!

I apologize for not being clearer. Implicit in my post was a set of criteria that I used to establish that this appears to be change for the sake of change.

1) It doesn't have any roots in PF1e or in the various versions of D&D that preceded PF1e.

2) It doesn't appear to serve any of the design goals laid out by the Paizo design team.

Insofar as it meets these two criteria, I would describe it as "change for the sake of change."

My hypothesis is that when the developers corrected the high-level weapon prices, they wanted to make the redesigned weapons worth the new price. In addition, since the PCs lost a lot of damage with the changes in Strength boosts and feats, increasing the weapon damage meant they would not have to adjust the inflated hit points of the higher-level creatures. This overcorrected the lower-level weapons that did not need the correction.

As for the pricing problem that needed to be corrected, a PC is assumed to spend 1/4 of his wealth on his best weapon, so the magic weapons become available at based on Wealth by Level.
+1 weapon, 2,000 gp affordable at 5th level (WBL 10,500 gp)
+2 weapon, 8,000 gp affordable at 8th level (WBL 33,000 gp)
+3 weapon, 18,000 gp affordable at 11th level (WBL 82,000 gp)
+4 weapon, 32,000 gp affordable at 13th level (WBL 140,000 gp)
+5 weapon, 50,000 gp affordable at 15th level (WBL 240,000 gp)
+6* weapon, 72,000 gp affordable at 16th level (WBL 315,000 gp)
+7* weapon, 98,000 gp affordable at 17th level (WBL 410,000 gp)
+8* weapon, 128,000 gp affordable at 18th level (WBL 530,000 gp)
+9* weapon, 162,000 gp affordable at 19th level (WBL 685,000 gp)
+10* weapon, 200,000 gp affordable at 20th level (WBL 880,000 gp)
*actual +6 or higher bonus not available, requires +1-equivalent magic property such as flaming or bane.

The PF2 weapons have level built in, for simplicity.
+1 magic weapon; Level 4; Price 100 gp
+2 magic weapon; Level 8; Price 500 gp
+3 magic weapon; Level 12; Price 2,000 gp
+4 magic weapon; Level 16; Price 10,000 gp
+5 magic weapon; Level 20; Price 70,000 gp
Multiply the prices by 10 to convert them to PF1 gold pieces.

[Crayon]

Neither the PF1 or PF2 versions of successive +s do much for me. The ability to hit harm creatures immune to non-magic weapons is cool and evocative, however, as are some of the other benefits you can realize.

The biggest weakness I see with the PF2 version is that monsters' HP will likely be scaled based on the idea that PCs will have magic weapons of a certain level which could cause familiar problems.

[ParcelRod]

Once again it seems people really want Martials to get the shortest stick on everything.

In a world where magic can summon the dead, extraplanar entities, plane shift, ressurect and bend the elements to their whim, are you guys Seriously telling me that you can't think of anything more magical than a +X to add to a magical weapon?

[Voss]

ParcelRod wrote:

Once again it seems people really want Martials to get the shortest stick on everything.

In a world where magic can summon the dead, extraplanar entities, plane shift, ressurect and bend the elements to their whim, are you guys Seriously telling me that you can't think of anything more magical than a +X to add to a magical weapon?

Not sure who 'people' and 'you guys' refer to. The most appropriate group would be the devs, since the +X and +XdY is required for the system math to work.

There _are_ interesting properties to add, but unfortunately they're completely secondary to having the appropriate + as soon as possible, because that's how PF2 was set up.

[Mark Carlson 255]

WatersLethe wrote:

I like to imagine a Fighter undergoing a risky procedure to be turned into an NPC in order to gain skill with a blade.

A guy I know asked if he could play a monster or NPC vs a PC class in both StarFinder and PF2 B1

MDC

[Mark Carlson 255]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

RazarTuk wrote:

Let's suppose Expert, Master, and Legendary proficiency each add an extra die of damage.

I think they should drop whole UTEML thing, it has no grounding, legacy, it delivers no power, it comes to nothing.

I agree.

But I can also see a lot of expansion for ideas if they start expanding on abilities and what skill level you have (more stuff if you are E vs T).
But again that does not seem to keep in mind that core idea of keep it simple and attract new and younger players. Why? Because, then you have more tables and things to look up and or print on PC sheets.
I like/love the idea of more detail as that is what I tend to look for in a game.
MDC

[Mark Carlson 255]

gwynfrid wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away. Mostly the players hate it and I hate it as a GM . I have temporarily done it in the past (prison escape game the rogue dominated). I strongly suggest not doing it unless your players are ok with it. Still it is a tool that can be used when you want to do a specific kind of game where the players are inconvenienced. So one plus side is it keeps that kind of game doable. Otherwise the poor wizard has to go without spells but the fighter gets his full compliment minus a few pluses. So its really more a strike against then a positive.

2. I don't know about this one aren't runes suppose to be really easy to move around?

1. That type of story is rare, but it needs to be possible. It doesn't necessarily imply losing your entire equipment, either. The character swallowed by the monster and unable to use her greatsword is a simpler example.

2. All this does is allow you to change your main weapon during downtime. It doesn't let you attempt any tactics that rely on changing weapons mid-combat. Such as, I charge with my lance, then I drop it and hit with my mace; or I use my bow until the enemy closes in and then switch to a scimitar.

Another example if some who is disarmed and then runs away because their opponent is so clearly superior and or some AoE spell that is cast over their now unattended weapon/equipment.

An example from my personal experience was a friend who fumbled and was on a narrow bridge so if he lost his weapon it would have dropped into lava. The GM said ok, it will fall on the bridge unless you roll a 1, he rolled a 1, so the player decided to spend a hero point to try and save his weapon, again same rule ok unless you roll a 1, he rolled a 1. Weapon gone and then we had a bunch of extra sessions rebuilding/finding items and stuff to replace his equipment.
What this fun? Yes and no it was just another obstacle to overcome and something for us to laugh at for years to come.

MDC

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away.

Disarm, sunder, theft, creature special abilities [swallow whole, adhesion, rust, ect], setting locals [prison/ship wreck/dead magic zone ect] and others I'm sure. Not common but I'd say not "exceedingly rare". In the playtest, you have to look no further than the grease spell or disarm action for a way to remove a weapon from someone's hands, turning a mighty warrior into a peasant as far as damage is figured out.

What's worse, a PC doesn't the same chance to remove damage as the damage isn't based on a logical connection to any weapon: anything they pick up will mystically deal level appropriate damage... Pure double standard.

[Tridus]

ParcelRod wrote:

Once again it seems people really want Martials to get the shortest stick on everything.

In a world where magic can summon the dead, extraplanar entities, plane shift, ressurect and bend the elements to their whim, are you guys Seriously telling me that you can't think of anything more magical than a +X to add to a magical weapon?

I don't understand who this is aimed at. What "people"? The majority of posts in the thread clearly want cool effects on weapons. It's the +X that is being debated and is more split opinion.

[Mudfoot]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away.

I'm guessing you only play D&D and PF. In most other games, PCs are rather less synonymous with their equipment lists.

[Corwin Icewolf]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away.

Disarm, sunder, theft, creature special abilities [swallow whole, adhesion, rust, ect], setting locals [prison/ship wreck/dead magic zone ect] and others I'm sure. Not common but I'd say not "exceedingly rare". In the playtest, you have to look no further than the grease spell or disarm action for a way to remove a weapon from someone's hands, turning a mighty warrior into a peasant as far as damage is figured out.

What's worse, a PC doesn't the same chance to remove damage as the damage isn't based on a logical connection to any weapon: anything they pick up will mystically deal level appropriate damage... Pure double standard.

This is a really good point as well, disarm is apparently a terrible tactic right now from what everyone is saying, but if the enemy does get lucky and disarms a PC fighter, it cripples his damage, while if a pc gets lucky and disarms an enemy, in most cases the enemy will simply draw his backup weapon and make 2 attacks that still deal a big pile of damage.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away.

Disarm, sunder, theft, creature special abilities [swallow whole, adhesion, rust, ect], setting locals [prison/ship wreck/dead magic zone ect] and others I'm sure. Not common but I'd say not "exceedingly rare". In the playtest, you have to look no further than the grease spell or disarm action for a way to remove a weapon from someone's hands, turning a mighty warrior into a peasant as far as damage is figured out.

What's worse, a PC doesn't the same chance to remove damage as the damage isn't based on a logical connection to any weapon: anything they pick up will mystically deal level appropriate damage... Pure double standard.

Ah so it keeps disarm as a realavent tactic too. I'm all for this then. I started out neutral but you guys convinced me. Magic items should be where the extra dice come from. that way disarm has a good effect. you can still have an impact where you do a game where you take the players magic items away. Cool.

[Vidmaster7]

Mudfoot wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It is exceedingly rare in my experience as a GM to take players magic items away.

I'm guessing you only play D&D and PF. In most other games, PCs are rather less synonymous with their equipment lists.

Sir I have played every RPG written by man but I wasn't talking about those was I?

[breithauptclan]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

We hate how enemies have to play by separate rules and gain innate damage bonuses on lower quality weapons - since otherwise they either couldn't compete or would break the WBL when looted.

As an explanation to give to the players (but not a justification for the game system itself), PF2 offers Trinkets. Which can explain why that goblin is doing 2d8 damage with a sword that only does 1d8 when the player characters take it from his warm corpse.

[breithauptclan]

What I find the most interesting about this entire thread is that Starfinder does effectively the same thing. The combat damage output of a character is based entirely off of the weapon that they are using.

But it isn't themed as magical. It is instead themed as a material or construction quality that is providing the additional damage dice.

The complaints that I have seen on that forum have been about the difficulty of upgrading your weapons without either having to switch weapon types (because the tiers are rather sparse for any particular weapon), or because it is a replacement of your weapon rather than an upgrade (it makes it impossible to have a 'inherited' or 'named' special weapon that you keep through your entire adventure). Potency runes fix both of these problems - but apparently create new ones.

[HWalsh]

breithauptclan wrote:

What I find the most interesting about this entire thread is that Starfinder does effectively the same thing. The combat damage output of a character is based entirely off of the weapon that they are using.

But it isn't themed as magical. It is instead themed as a material or construction quality that is providing the additional damage dice.

The complaints that I have seen on that forum have been about the difficulty of upgrading your weapons without either having to switch weapon types (because the tiers are rather sparse for any particular weapon), or because it is a replacement of your weapon rather than an upgrade (it makes it impossible to have a 'inherited' or 'named' special weapon that you keep through your entire adventure). Potency runes fix both of these problems - but apparently create new ones.

And enemies work the same way too over in Starfinder. They are arbitrary in damage vs equipment. That game is thriving, obviously that means it isn't a big deal.

[WatersLethe]

While I'm a big fan of Starfinder, it has to be said that enemies have to either be weird monsters or have some significant weapons to be a threat. It's not like a mook will jump you with an azimuth laser pistol at 10th level and do any appreciable damage. The setting also lends itself to really weird, awesome guns that do bizarre things like shooting a ten foot wide beam of electricity in a 60 foot line, or exploding in a blinding 10 foot radius blast on the target. People are more okay with technology being a big factor in the setting. Also, weapon Specialization damage is a large factor and is character dependent.

Even then, I would like Starfinder better if slightly more damage was shifted to the character. It's why i like Solarian weapons and weapon crystals so much.