Hmm now if you wanted to talk a compromise and say reduce how much magic weapons added by half and add the same from other sources like weapon specialization in star finder that doesn't sound to bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Erm... the existence of single use trinkets explains why enemies can use weapons at a higher damage dice for the entire battle until they happen to die? And all of these enemies just happen to have affixed potency crystals to their weapons, except better because they can give higher bonuses, be combined with already magical weapons, and last all battle? (Unless the enemy dies prior to attacking with that weapon of course) Not to mention that these trinkets are apparently never used up by situations prior to encountering the PCs (without spoiling too much, an encounter in Part 2 of Doomsday has an enemy which recently went through a bad fight yet still has multiple dice on both melee & ranged mundane weapons when they certainly would have used up their temporary items.)
What do I then tell the players when they want to buy or craft such an awesome accessory? Considering level 4 Gnolls & Hobgoblins apparently have access to this ticket, along with Elf and Human NPCs, it can't be that hard to obtain... unless you're a PC apparently.
Hmm now if you wanted to talk a compromise and say reduce how much magic weapons added by half and add the same from other sources like weapon specialization in star finder that doesn't sound to bad.
I had a draft to give +3dX from weapon runes and up to +3dX from proficiency, but it wasn’t well received due to Fighter related issues (mostly early levels).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah so it keeps disarm as a realavent tactic too.
Ah... Only for NPC's vs PC's. For PC's it's 1000% useless: at best a kind DM might make them use up an action. However, damage is based in the monster/NPC and NOT the weapon, so they can just punch or hit with anything to deal the same damage with the same to hit as the equipment listed is really all for show and loot.
you can still have an impact where you do a game where you take the players magic items away.
Well 1/2 the party... The other 1/2 is fine. IMO, the 'take equipment away' works FAR worse in this kind of situation from PF1: for instance, the fighter might have an awesome 1d12 while the sorcerer's dragon claws is +5 hit and 6d4 damage and the druid's wildclaws does +4 hit and 5d6 + 3d6 persistent damage... Yeah... that'll work... :P
Hmm well instead of it being tied to proficiency just tie it to character level. only problem is the +1 die per +1 on the weapon works really smoothly. +5 weapons = +5 die so its gets weird and mathy to reduce that. maybe limit just potency to +dice and have the enchantment stop at 3. then sya at level 5 10 and 15 (maybe 20 cause why not) give an extra die.
For proficiency my idea is to do things like evasion for them. so say maybe at master level 1's are no longer an auto fail (you would also get rid of the fighter ability that does that because it would be redundant.)
I don't think it is a good explanation. Just a possible one.
Erm... the existence of single use trinkets explains why enemies can use weapons at a higher damage dice for the entire battle until they happen to die?
Several of the trinkets that I have seen in the rulebook have a duration of 1 minute. That should be long enough for the monster to die in battle before expiring.
What do I then tell the players when they want to buy or craft such an awesome accessory? Considering level 4 Gnolls & Hobgoblins apparently have access to this ticket, along with Elf and Human NPCs, it can't be that hard to obtain... unless you're a PC apparently.
Yeah, if you or I wanted to go this route for explaining the discrepancy, I would absolutely create the improved potency crystals as items that the PCs could have access to. Potency crystals that last for a minute after activation and can give up to a +4 magical bonus (doesn't stack with permanently magical weapons but could supersede them).
^ I think its a good place for the magic weapon spell.
Ah so it keeps disarm as a realavent tactic too.Ah... Only for NPC's vs PC's. For PC's it's 1000% useless: at best a kind DM might make them use up an action. However, damage is based in the monster/NPC and NOT the weapon, so they can just punch or hit with anything to deal the same damage with the same to hit as the equipment listed is really all for show and loot.
you can still have an impact where you do a game where you take the players magic items away.Well 1/2 the party... The other 1/2 is fine. IMO, the 'take equipment away' works FAR worse in this kind of situation from PF1: for instance, the fighter might have an awesome 1d12 while the sorcerer's dragon claws is +5 hit and 6d4 damage and the druid's wildclaws does +4 hit and 5d6 + 3d6 persistent damage... Yeah... that'll work... :P
Eh gives those members a chance to shine at something they are usually only competent at. The one complaint about that Is the monk actually would need his magic items to shine in that situation and that does seem wrong.
Really though even still everyone is going to be hindered from there usual tactics by lack of magic. If you took away all the magic you shouldn't expect it to play out the same way. The idea usually for doing something like that is to make the players try a different way of doing things.
Ah so it keeps disarm as a realavent tactic too.Ah... Only for NPC's vs PC's. For PC's it's 1000% useless: at best a kind DM might make them use up an action. However, damage is based in the monster/NPC and NOT the weapon, so they can just punch or hit with anything to deal the same damage with the same to hit as the equipment listed is really all for show and loot.
Maybe I am reading this wrong. If so, forgive me.
In the Starfinder NPC/Monster creation rules, the damage listings are only for natural weapons on monsters. For humanoid type enemies the GM should find appropriate tier weapons (which will likely do about the same amount of damage) and use the actual weapon stats for damage amount and damage type.
So disarming a humanoid NPC enemy is a viable tactic if you can pull it off. They aren't going to be doing similar amounts of damage with an improvised weapon that they pick up off the ground or just by punching.
I think that magic weapons should all function as basic +1 weapons. But if a higher level character invests Resonance in it, it would increase the potency of the weapon based on their level. (Ditto for armor)
I think that magic weapons should all function as basic +1 weapons. But if a higher level character invests Resonance in it, it would increase the potency of the weapon based on their level. (Ditto for armor)
Interesting so how about for all items. say I have a belt a sword an armor and 10 res. I could say put 4 into sword for a +4 sword 2 into belt for +4 str and 4 into amor for +4 armor? or I could +3 armor and +6 belt. You would have to give more resonance then they do now. Oh I know what it reminds me of. It reminds me of Exalted.
Well, I was thinking along the lines that you'd just invest 1 resonance and the amount increased would be based on your level. Since Resonance isn't a resource that increases with level in the Resonance test.
Well, I was thinking along the lines that you'd just invest 1 resonance and the amount increased would be based on your level. Since Resonance isn't a resource that increases with level in the Resonance test.
Ah ok so you invest 1 res like we are used to and it gets automatically bumped up to your level gear. So kind of like automatic bonus progression mechanically but flavor wise more like exalted.
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.Not sure how that works out, a +5 shortsword almost doubles the damage output potential (1d6 + 5), but not so much for a longsword (1d8/1d12 + 5) or two-handed sword (1d10/3d6 + 5), let alone triple your output, and this is all before Str enters into it.
Double is easy 4.5 + 5 = 9.5 which is more then double. IF you got any penalties from str then it could be triple. If you got str bonuses then it would still be a big increas and if you factor in how much more often you hit then the number goes way up.
Hmm well instead of it being tied to proficiency just tie it to character level. only problem is the +1 die per +1 on the weapon works really smoothly.Outside the playtest, I houserule:
Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level:
Level
3-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage diceSo, as long as you are Trained in the weapon, and are a certain level, you are guaranteed to have the bonus to hit and extra damage dice you are expected to have at that level.
A 20th-level Fighter going from +34 to hit and dealing 6dX damage, to +39 to hit and dealing 1dX damage, is absurdly punishing.
Really drives home the fact the weapon is your power, not you.
To much math I'd rather see something simple like starfinder weapon specialization.
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.Not sure how that works out, a +5 shortsword almost doubles the damage output potential (1d6 + 5), but not so much for a longsword (1d8/1d12 + 5) or two-handed sword (1d10/3d6 + 5), let alone triple your output, and this is all before Str enters into it.
It increases your chance of hitting by a significant % too. If with an ordinary weapon you hit on a 10 for an average of 10 damage, and with the +5 bonus you're hitting on a 5 for an average of 15 damage, your overall DPR is increased by more than 100%.
That's average damage for a longsword, not output potential. Dealing 18 points of damage with your two-handed sword, and adding +5 from magic, does not double or triple anything.Double is easy 4.5 + 5 = 9.5 which is more then double.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.Not sure how that works out, a +5 shortsword almost doubles the damage output potential (1d6 + 5), but not so much for a longsword (1d8/1d12 + 5) or two-handed sword (1d10/3d6 + 5), let alone triple your output, and this is all before Str enters into it.
For a dagger which deals an average of 2.5 damage +5 is almost triple. People played more then fighters with high str and two handed swords. Also I don't remember saying output potential. I don't know where you got that from. But your overall damage would be doubled easy. you go from doing 1-8 to 5-13. if you roll a 1 its times 5 but that seems dishonest I feel average damage is more honest. 4.5 +5.
To much math I'd rather see something simple like starfinder weapon specialization.Hmm well instead of it being tied to proficiency just tie it to character level. only problem is the +1 die per +1 on the weapon works really smoothly.Outside the playtest, I houserule:
Trained Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level:
Level
3-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage diceSo, as long as you are Trained in the weapon, and are a certain level, you are guaranteed to have the bonus to hit and extra damage dice you are expected to have at that level.
A 20th-level Fighter going from +34 to hit and dealing 6dX damage, to +39 to hit and dealing 1dX damage, is absurdly punishing.
Really drives home the fact the weapon is your power, not you.Ha, too much maths, hardly, especially considering the Playtest.
Just simply add +1 to hit and +1 damage dice as you level:
Level-
3-4: +1 to hit (+1 damage dice)
5-8: +2 to hit (+2 damage dice)
9-12: +3 to hit (+3 damage dice)
13-16: +4 (+4 damage dice)
17-20: +5 (+5 damage dice)Pretty basic stuff.
You should of just posted that in the first place instead of back pedaling and throwing out fractions. Players would take one look at the other chart and be done with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, you mentioned a +5 sword...I can see where this is going...For a dagger which deals an average of 2.5 damage +5 is almost triple.That's average damage for a longsword, not output potential. Dealing 18 points of damage with your two-handed sword, and adding +5 from magic, does not double or triple anything.Double is easy 4.5 + 5 = 9.5 which is more then double.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.Not sure how that works out, a +5 shortsword almost doubles the damage output potential (1d6 + 5), but not so much for a longsword (1d8/1d12 + 5) or two-handed sword (1d10/3d6 + 5), let alone triple your output, and this is all before Str enters into it.
short sword isn't that different. Its all about the die, but I guess your just trying to start an off topic argument for the fun of it?
No just addressing a claim, related to the topic of magic weapons, is all, don't want people getting the wrong impression about how things work in AD&D.short sword isn't that different. Its all about the die, but I guess your just trying to start an off topic argument for the fun of it?Please, you mentioned a +5 sword...I can see where this is going...For a dagger which deals an average of 2.5 damage +5 is almost triple.That's average damage for a longsword, not output potential. Dealing 18 points of damage with your two-handed sword, and adding +5 from magic, does not double or triple anything.Double is easy 4.5 + 5 = 9.5 which is more then double.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.Not sure how that works out, a +5 shortsword almost doubles the damage output potential (1d6 + 5), but not so much for a longsword (1d8/1d12 + 5) or two-handed sword (1d10/3d6 + 5), let alone triple your output, and this is all before Str enters into it.
No what your doing is misrepresenting my words to try and start an argument. Obviously it worked too.
And IF you'll notice I said could (could you know as in its possible) triple. it is quite possible that a +5 sword could triple your damage especially if you didn't have a good str score. if your someone with a penalty say -2 (you wouldn't be a figther but I didn't specify fighter igther did i?) 4.5 becomes 2.5 with a long sword vrs +5 long being 7.5 which is close enough to triple and if it were a short sword it would be more then. I didn't say it would double the damage for a fighter with an 18/00 str. If a mage pick up a staff of the magi (which I think worked as a +5 quarterstaff but it could of been +3) IT would for sure double his melee damage. a rogue with a +5 dagger vrs a rogue with a regular one I'm not good at calculating DPR but I have a feeling the damage difference would be more then times 3.
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.
In my primarily PFS experienice, disarm is a great tactic for PCs as NPCs often don't have backup weapons and never have weapon cords or locked gauntlets. PCs, on the other hand, are usually better prepared to face NPCs with a disarm capability.
In my primarily PFS experienice, disarm is a great tactic for PCs as NPCs often don't have backup weapons and never have weapon cords or locked gauntlets. PCs, on the other hand, are usually better prepared to face NPCs with a disarm capability.But the potential for a 20th-level Fighter going from +34 to hit and 6dX weapon damage, to +29 to hit and 1dX weapon damage, is rather brutal.
I was just thinking of PF1e. I've not seen disarm in action in mid or high level PF2e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder is space opera, space opera doesn't typically have the "it's the warrior that matters, not the weapon" tropes that are common in fantasy, so the thematic complaints aren't as common either.
It's not a major theme, but which sounds more Space Opera?
(1) Han Solo defeats three stormtroopers in a gunfight because of his amazing skills.(2) Han Solo defeats three stormtroopers in a gunfight because his expensive blaster pistol is ten times as powerful as theirs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It is very fitting for Science Fiction/Science Fantasy...where sidearms can sometimes be the equivalent of modern day weapons of mass destruction. It would be bizarre for Captain Kirk to be able to fight as effectively with a revolver as with a phaser.
Fantasy is a bit different. King Arthur wasn't useless with a non-magical weapon. Aragon's legendary sword was broken for most of Lord of the Rings yet he fought effectively. Alternatively, Luke Skywalker couldn't cut through a metal bulkhead or deflect energy bolts with a mundane sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.It is very fitting for Science Fiction/Science Fantasy...where sidearms can sometimes be the equivalent of modern day weapons of mass destruction. It would be bizarre for Captain Kirk to be able to fight as effectively with a revolver as with a phaser.
Fantasy is a bit different. King Arthur wasn't useless with a non-magical weapon. Aragon's legendary sword was broken for most of Lord of the Rings yet he fought effectively. Alternatively, Luke Skywalker couldn't cut through a metal bulkhead or deflect energy bolts with a mundane sword.
Yeah, that is a thing to remember. (Almost) Nobody bats an eyelid when technology is the source of (most) power in a sci-fi game. Especially the more hard-science ones.
On this side we have classic Traveller for example. Of course, there is also the fact that, at least in the classic variant, characters stop growing outside of character creation. You want more bang? Get a bigger gun. And powered armour to even be able to wield the biggest guns.
However, the further we move into fantastic territory... Shadowrun anyone? Big guns are still a lot better the small ones, but the focus shifts towards making the shooter's skill more important. Of course 'a punk with a gun' can still lay your high-karma PC low with some lucky rolls, but that's cyberpunk for you.
But yes, even though FUNCTIONALLY, technology and magic perform the same in both genres, giving PCs the option to do thing they could not without and make them more powerful overall, the FEELING is different.
I wonder if it has to do with the escapism we seek in our games. In real life, technology is king. Hands down. If you have the better hardware, your chances of victory are disproportionally higher. So maybe it somehow does feel acceptable to have tech be useful in a sci-fi setting.
But on the flipside, when we do fantasy, we want to get away from real life as far as possible. And that includes reliance on technology. We want to be able to be awesome WITHOUT it. And given that magic subs in for technology...
Of course, it also doesn't help if game designers think to be cute and, for example, make a spell that is supposed to make rangers better at archery make a red dot appear on the target... really?
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.It is very fitting for Science Fiction/Science Fantasy...where sidearms can sometimes be the equivalent of modern day weapons of mass destruction. It would be bizarre for Captain Kirk to be able to fight as effectively with a revolver as with a phaser.
Fantasy is a bit different. King Arthur wasn't useless with a non-magical weapon. Aragon's legendary sword was broken for most of Lord of the Rings yet he fought effectively. Alternatively, Luke Skywalker couldn't cut through a metal bulkhead or deflect energy bolts with a mundane sword.
Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star using an ordinary run of the mill X-Wing.
Kylo Ren doesn't need his lightsaber to stop a blaster shot from reaching him.
In Rogue One, one of the characters literally has a stick and still defeats entire squads of Stormtroopers.
Space Opera isn't big on fancy equipment except when the equipment is itself a plot point. Science Fiction usually is, except for Starfleet Engineers and their seemingly magical ability to turn rocks into replicators.
I think there's a happier medium on this. Rogues are a better example than Fighters, since while better weapons do help them, Sneak Attack is entirely on their skill and doesn't go away if they suddenly don't have a +5 Dagger.
Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star using an ordinary run of the mill X-Wing.
He destroyed the Death Star using magic to guide a high powered torpedo to the super secret weak point. But I would still consider an X-Wing advanced equipment as compared to, you know, the mundane sword in my example.
Kylo Ren doesn't need his lightsaber to stop a blaster shot from reaching him.
Magic.
In Rogue One, one of the characters literally has a stick and still defeats entire squads of Stormtroopers.
You make a good point.
Space Opera isn't big on fancy equipment except when the equipment is itself a plot point. Science Fiction usually is, except for Starfleet Engineers and their seemingly magical ability to turn rocks into replicators.
I remember watching an interview with someone from TNG (or maybe DS9) who said something like, "I told them when in doubt say tachyon emissions."
I think there's a happier medium on this. Rogues are a better example than Fighters, since while better weapons do help them, Sneak Attack is entirely on their skill and doesn't go away if they suddenly don't have a +5 Dagger.
I agree. For Fantasy. For Pathfinder.
But for SciFi/SciFan I don't want a PC to be able to pick up a Revolver and do similar damage to a Singularity Cannon.
Eh gives those members a chance to shine at something they are usually only competent at. The one complaint about that Is the monk actually would need his magic items to shine in that situation and that does seem wrong.
I'm not sure how you would figure out what the party is fighting if you expect to challenge a 1d12 damage character and a +3 8d6 damage character. Or is the fighter just expected to do nothing while the casters deal with everything as weapon use is pretty much everything they do.
PS: I'm with you on monks... Lame.
Really though even still everyone is going to be hindered from there usual tactics by lack of magic.
Are they? Sorcerer's can be any spell list and don't need a book so every spell they normally cast, they can in this situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see tattoo/birthmark holy symbols in the actual game so I'd expect clerics to cast fine and even if they don't, channel alone lets them heal just fine. Bards can improvise an instrument easy enough to fill in almost every component of casting [like a leaf whistle].
If you took away all the magic you shouldn't expect it to play out the same way. The idea usually for doing something like that is to make the players try a different way of doing things.
Depending on your party makeup, the casters might not be hampered in the least. :P
Ah so it keeps disarm as a realavent tactic too.Ah... Only for NPC's vs PC's. For PC's it's 1000% useless: at best a kind DM might make them use up an action. However, damage is based in the monster/NPC and NOT the weapon, so they can just punch or hit with anything to deal the same damage with the same to hit as the equipment listed is really all for show and loot.
Maybe I am reading this wrong. If so, forgive me.
In the Starfinder NPC/Monster creation rules, the damage listings are only for natural weapons on monsters. For humanoid type enemies the GM should find appropriate tier weapons (which will likely do about the same amount of damage) and use the actual weapon stats for damage amount and damage type.
So disarming a humanoid NPC enemy is a viable tactic if you can pull it off. They aren't going to be doing similar amounts of damage with an improvised weapon that they pick up off the ground or just by punching.
I'm not sure what Starfinder rules have to do here. In the playtest, they do NOT have the 'appropriate tier weapons'. Weapons deal whatever damage is needed to challenge the party: as such, they can stab a character with a swizzle stick to deal the damage as they play by completely different rules much like they don't have to have appropriate levels of skill and stats to justify their skills: they just have the bonuses out of the blue no matter how much that doesn't make sense.
PS: I DID make a slight mistake. Disarm is slightly useful vs monsters. If you disarm them and they use another weapon they take a -2 attack and same damage. So if you disarm a monsters greatsword and they are forced to pull out a dagger, it deals the exact same damage. ;) [for unarmed damage, the die turns into 1d4's]
PPS: On 'appropriate tier weapons', look at the Janni for instance. The listed weapons are expert but deal 2 die of damage...
But yes, even though FUNCTIONALLY, technology and magic perform the same in both genres, giving PCs the option to do thing they could not without and make them more powerful overall, the FEELING is different.
I wonder if it has to do with the escapism we seek in our games. In real life, technology is king. Hands down. If you have the better hardware, your chances of victory are disproportionally higher. So maybe it somehow does feel acceptable to have tech be useful in a sci-fi setting.
But on the flipside, when we do fantasy, we want to get away from real life as far as possible. And that includes reliance on technology. We want to be able to be awesome WITHOUT it. And given that magic subs in for technology...
Thanks for writing that better than I could. The mechanic is very similar in the two games, so from an abstract game mechanics perspective it should work in an equivalently effective manner.
But the feeling is much different. The same mechanics that work fine in one setting fall flat in the other.
That is what I am trying to point out.