I thought the point of resonance was to get rid of the slot system. If I want to be Mr. T, I can. So why are they retaining the slots for neck slot items? Not even all of them, just half of them! Choker of Elocution and Gorget of the Primal Roar both say they're 'Collar' items and thus can't be worn together. But you can add a Necklace of Fireballs or Whisper of the First Lie just fine.
I get it for boots, but there shouldn't be a problem anywhere else.
It doesn't matter if they occupy the same slot, you can still wear them both... That's just there as a reference as to where it is worn.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not sure how you physically plan to wear both a choker and a gorget. They got rid of slots, they didn't turn every character into a giraffe.
Just to note, neither a gorget or a choker is a necklace.
I mean, isn't that like trying to wear 2 sets of Googles or 2 sets of boots, or etc.
You can wear multiple necklaces though and be like Mr. T.
But if the "Collar" keyword is not meant to prevent you from wearing two magic items with that keyword, what is it there for?
Themetricsystem wrote: It doesn't matter if they occupy the same slot, you can still wear them both... That's just there as a reference as to where it is worn.
That is what I thought too, as it's how the resonance system was pitched to us. And then I was pointed to page 345.
A choker is a strip of cloth close to the neck. A gorget is a piece of armor that goes around the neck and down the chest. I see no problem wearing both.
I also don't have a problem with more than one cloak - I've worn a waterproof cape over a warm cloak before, or two cloaks on a cold camping trip.
I don't think it would be comfortable at all to wear both a platinum choker and metal armor that goes over the neck. That's just asking for chafing.
But, that isn't as important as the narrative explanation- the requirements of their magical effects require contact with the throat. Wearing one precludes the other.
David knott 242 wrote: But if the "Collar" keyword is not meant to prevent you from wearing two magic items with that keyword, what is it there for?
The same reason someone calls boots of speed, boots.
In short, it is the opposite issue:
PF1 went and put all items into predetermined slots.
That forced items like, as an example, a vest and a shirt, being in the same "slot".
Same for necklaces and chokers, same for "eyes" and masks, and etc.
When in reality you can wear a shirt and a vest (hell, it's how you're supposed to wear a vest in the first place) and other clashes.
Pf2 takes a step back.
You no longer have "slots".
Now you have boots, gloves, necklaces, hats, necklace, gorget, etc.
The above is required to know where and what each item is.
But it is not restrictive in a magical way.
Can you wear 2 boots? Probably not
Can you wear 5 rings? Probably yes.
Etc.
Pf2 takes a step away from artificial "magical item slots". But that doesn't mean you somehow grow 2 heads to wear 2 hats.
So, pf2 item slots are really "what can a humanoid reasonably wear" instead if "this choker is not really a choker, magically it is considered a necklace for some odd reason"
I would personally prefer if players could flavor items as a base option, you are paying for the effect (like +2 to checks) how that item looks in your character or in which slot it has to be.
Personally, I kinda like magic tattoos and would welcome the option to get every effect as a tattoo.
GM OfAnything wrote: I'm not sure how you physically plan to wear both a choker and a gorget. They got rid of slots, they didn't turn every character into a giraffe. No they didn't, all they did is make it so I can be Sonic and wear a bunch of rings, or (as others have said) Mr. T and wear a bunch of necklaces without issue.
If that's the case, why isn't everyone just a bunch of naked adventurers with some bling? Bracers of Armor? Why not Necklace of Armor? Arm wraps of Mighty Fists? Why not Ring of Mighty Fists? I have no reason to confine my item powers onto boots or gloves or similarly limiting slots (especially based on previous rulings as to what item slots grant what kind of benefits) when I can just make it into jewelry and not have any issue with slots or anything of that nature. It probably saves on bulk, too!
The idea that slots don't exist is poppycock, and the idea that I can't be a naked adventurer is because of GM FIAT, both of which aren't very convincing arguments.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: GM OfAnything wrote: I'm not sure how you physically plan to wear both a choker and a gorget. They got rid of slots, they didn't turn every character into a giraffe. No they didn't, all they did is make it so I can be Sonic and wear a bunch of rings, or (as others have said) Mr. T and wear a bunch of necklaces without issue.
If that's the case, why isn't everyone just a bunch of naked adventurers with some bling? Bracers of Armor? Why not Necklace of Armor? Arm wraps of Mighty Fists? Why not Ring of Mighty Fists? I have no reason to confine my item powers onto boots or gloves or similarly limiting slots (especially based on previous rulings as to what item slots grant what kind of benefits) when I can just make it into jewelry and not have any issue with slots or anything of that nature. It probably saves on bulk, too!
The idea that slots don't exist is poppycock, and the idea that I can't be a naked adventurer is because of GM FIAT, both of which aren't very convincing arguments. GM fiat is a good thing in any and all rpg games.
i don't get why peo0ple keep throwing the term out there as if it's something bad and negative.
unless you want an rpg to turn into a boardgame you NEED gm fiat for the game to even run.
i mean, each and every encounter and challenge you encounter is by definition gm fiat. And obviously the gm sets those according to each individual party, and according to what each member can and can't do.
so, it's only reasonable for the gm to also arbitate the power of said group according to the challenges he wants them to face in his story.
as for what magic items exist, that's solely the purview of the setting. In golarion, the items are set, in a homebrew campaign, a gm, can use this fiat you loath so much to actually make/allow you to make whatever you want, as he sees fit for the setting he made and is running.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
GM FIAT is bad when you want the rules to decide something, they fail at it, and therefore the GM is left to pick up the pieces. Chances are, that GM is going to make a ruling that A. the players don't like, and B. is more often than not against what the original spirit of the rules is, or C. the spirit of the rule is unclear and as such GM FIAT becomes a variable that not all players can reasonably rely on to function between tables.
With the item slots example, the rules want to decide that there are no item slots, fails at expressing this rule clearly and/or concisely (because items are still limited based on slot in a more realistic manner than an arbitrary one), and so we're going to have GMs make the claims of naked adventuring being the best adventuring, and others where you can't ever have more than two rings because tradition.
So yes, it can be bad and negative in the correct circumstances, and this is a recipe for where it will fall under that perception.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: GM OfAnything wrote: I'm not sure how you physically plan to wear both a choker and a gorget. They got rid of slots, they didn't turn every character into a giraffe. The idea that slots don't exist is poppycock, and the idea that I can't be a naked adventurer is because of GM FIAT, both of which aren't very convincing arguments. Your idea of slots seems very limiting. Yes, body parts exist. That doesn't mean we are limited to exactly eleven slots. See the above example. Necklaces and collars don't occupy the same space on a person, so you get to have both!
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: GM FIAT is bad when you want the rules to decide something, they fail at it, and therefore the GM is left to pick up the pieces. Chances are, that GM is going to make a ruling that A. the players don't like, and B. is more often than not against what the original spirit of the rules is, or C. the spirit of the rule is unclear and as such GM FIAT becomes a variable that not all players can reasonably rely on to function between tables.
With the item slots example, the rules want to decide that there are no item slots, fails at expressing this rule clearly and/or concisely (because items are still limited based on slot in a more realistic manner than an arbitrary one), and so we're going to have GMs make the claims of naked adventuring being the best adventuring, and others where you can't ever have more than two rings because tradition.
So yes, it can be bad and negative in the correct circumstances, and this is a recipe for where it will fall under that perception.
Nope.
What you just described is you wanting something outside of the rules (items in different body parts in the current ecample) and the GM disallowing that.
In short, you wanted more power for your character and your GM thought that for his adventure you're fine.
You have to understand, that in an rpg, in general, only a part of it is made by rules, and the rest is composed of dm designing, ruling, and running it.
All this is be definition GM Fiat.
Saying "I want to climb in a rooftop and look around" is relying on the GM ruling what you see.
In order to eliminate GM Fiat you'd have to strictly only perform actions clearly defined by the rules. Since, according to you, undefined things/actions/items/whatever are somehow "bad" and evil.
All the freedom of an rpg describing what you want to do and the GM, on the spot, using his Fiat to make it happen, would be gone.
You'd have a game composed of Striding and Striking predetermined enemies on a board mat.
That's a board game, not an rpg.
thistledown wrote: I thought the point of resonance was to get rid of the slot system. If I want to be Mr. T, I can. So why are they retaining the slots for neck slot items? Not even all of them, just half of them! Choker of Elocution and Gorget of the Primal Roar both say they're 'Collar' items and thus can't be worn together. But you can add a Necklace of Fireballs or Whisper of the First Lie just fine.
I get it for boots, but there shouldn't be a problem anywhere else.
The choker of elocution is listed as "worn collar".
This means you can not wear any other item listed as "worn collar" at the same time. On the other hand, you could (theoretically) have a Collar Of Awesomesauce that is not listed as "worn collar", and you could then use that.
Personally I don't have a problem with this.
Recent threads in Magic Items
|
