Slot Restrictions, Resonance. Are any magic item restrictions relevant anymore?


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Limiting items worn can also be about creating another layer of strategy, if you can always wear all your resistance items you have less incentive to research the damage type of the monster you are hunting.

At the beginning of the day you have to decide, what do I expect will be the most impactful? I personally enjoy that aspect, alongside choosing spells to prepare.

Also we keep talking about gold restrictions based on individual character level. With no restrictions you also have to wonder about when the whole party piles their magic items on to one character.


Jeven wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I don't intend to be rude but at this point I am unsure how you can keep not answering any of the questions anyone else puts forward, yet still keep saying that you are very open to see someone show why a limit is needed. It's beyond me honestly.

The OP's post contained a rhetorical question in which she provided the answer.

I think this type of thread is meant to elicit agreement not debate.

With how the posts have been playing out; I agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:

I think you are reading table 11-2 wrong if you think the example with 35 rings is unreasonable in terms of gold, as stated the 35 rings is off less value than the difference between a level 15th and 19th item.

Or to take your own example is the 7 rings not better than a single ring of swimming (giving you half your land speed (after amor) as swim speed. In terms of gold value the ring of swimming is the better item.

The question isn't, "Is 7 rings better than a ring of swimming?" or even "Are 35 rings comparable in price to the (purchase not sale) price of a 15th and 19th level item?"

The question is: Do you have an example of a mix of items you can afford that break the game simply because there is a lack of item limit?

You haven't provided any. I'm open to discussing it. I even put forward two examples with clear pricing and 11-2 comparable costing and estimations of what level you'd have to be to obtain them... and how they suck, not break the game with unfathomable power.

If there's a need for an item limit to prevent something abusible, I've yet to see a single example of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manarion wrote:
Also we keep talking about gold restrictions based on individual character level. With no restrictions you also have to wonder about when the whole party piles their magic items on to one character.

This sounds interesting. Rather than throw a theoretical out there and wonder, how about putting together an example? For a party piling all magic items onto one character, the example I would think would need to show that doing so would give their party (not just an individual) an advantage versus using those items in a distributed manner across the party. I would think the action economy alone would make it a weaker option to put all of the items on one character since they can only use 3 actions worth of items at a time whereas a party of 5 could use 15.


The DM of wrote:
Manarion wrote:
Also we keep talking about gold restrictions based on individual character level. With no restrictions you also have to wonder about when the whole party piles their magic items on to one character.
This sounds interesting. Rather than throw a theoretical out there and wonder, how about putting together an example? For a party piling all magic items onto one character, the example I would think would need to show that doing so would give their party (not just an individual) an advantage versus using those items in a distributed manner across the party. I would think the action economy alone would make it a weaker option to put all of the items on one character since they can only use 3 actions worth of items at a time whereas a party of 5 could use 15.

Not every encounter is the whole party in combat vs a balanced group of foes, many times in my campaigns a party member has gone off on their own. Without restrictions I know my players would throw every item on a player who is separating from the group.

An example being, party has a week of downtime in a city to do whatever, craft, put some time into retraining, find leads on some quest. The party rogue wants to try to infiltrate somewhere during this time, my party would definitely put every single magic item on them. Which would undoubtedly make that character stronger than they would be had they not had all of the items on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Nettah wrote:

I think you are reading table 11-2 wrong if you think the example with 35 rings is unreasonable in terms of gold, as stated the 35 rings is off less value than the difference between a level 15th and 19th item.

Or to take your own example is the 7 rings not better than a single ring of swimming (giving you half your land speed (after amor) as swim speed. In terms of gold value the ring of swimming is the better item.

The question isn't, "Is 7 rings better than a ring of swimming?" or even "Are 35 rings comparable in price to the (purchase not sale) price of a 15th and 19th level item?"

The question is: Do you have an example of a mix of items you can afford that break the game simply because there is a lack of item limit?

You haven't provided any. I'm open to discussing it. I even put forward two examples with clear pricing and 11-2 comparable costing and estimations of what level you'd have to be to obtain them... and how they suck, not break the game with unfathomable power.

If there's a need for an item limit to prevent something abusible, I've yet to see a single example of it.

Well you did use wrong numbers for your examples in terms of when you had that amount of gold available (like I stated in my reply to that post).

And if it isn't the question whether 7 rings are better than a ring of swimming you aren't thinking the question through. Without any limitations on magical items you can use the only limit is gold therefore any items need to be compared solely on the single factor of gold. So any item that has a higher gold price than a combination of other item should generally be better otherwise it wouldn't be purchased.
If you do include a limit on the number of magical items a single character can wield at a time then this dynamic changes.

I (and hopefully others including Paizo) sees the issue with all my 3 examples and why a limit is needed for a better game. If you think all my 3 examples is equally valuable or that the ring of swimming is just as good as the combination of the other 7 rings from your example, then fine you don't need any limitations on magical items in your game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit, I prefer the bodyslot system. This is mainly due to my gaming background, probably. I can't equip say "Body Armor" and "Leg armor", armor is just a 1 buy and done. I suppose that makes sense but I'm used to it from RPG video games so the slot system isn't too hard on me(Also auto progression so 6 six are dead to limited).

That out the way, I do believe there's a need to limit items otherwise we might end up with PF1's problem of spamming low cost gold items to get around issues. PF1 tried to limit this with body slots and the 24 hour wait time(Otherwise you might get people spamming Quick Runner's Shirts).

I can't recall if PF2 has the 24 hour wait time because all the testing in game was done over hours or maybe days to the point it came up either once or not at all. And 10 items is a responsible limit I would think.

Resonance being removed is probably the favorite thing they've done from the playtest. Having all magic items being gated felt waaaay too limiting to me and in playtest it was always in the back of my head.

But I do agree we need a limiter of some kind. I'll be interested to see how they finalize this at the very least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
I (and hopefully others including Paizo) sees the issue with all my 3 examples and why a limit is needed for a better game. If you think all my 3 examples is equally valuable or that the ring of swimming is just as good as the combination of the other 7 rings from your example, then fine you don't need any limitations on magical items in your game.

No, I don't think any of your examples showed a combination that broke the game without an item limit or were relevant to the question of the thread.

I'm legitimately looking for examples that make me think, "Oh yeah, you know if there wasn't an item limit, a player could afford to do... xyz... and that would be ridiculous." If you have an xyz that fits in this question, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, like the rest of you, I'm curious what systems the final rules use, and in the meantime I won't be using a slot or resonance limit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
I'll admit, I prefer the bodyslot system ... I'm used to it from RPG video games.

Yeah, anyone who plays video games is familiar with body slots. So why confuse people by trying to reinvent the wheel.

Although innovation is good, you should be very selective and not just innovate for the sake of innovation.

A certain familiarity (as in, this is what most video game and tabletop RPGs do), eases entry for new players into the system. Something like body slots is pretty standard because, you know, everyone dresses themselves in the morning!


Jeven wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I'll admit, I prefer the bodyslot system ... I'm used to it from RPG video games.

Yeah, anyone who plays video games is familiar with body slots. So why confuse people by trying to reinvent the wheel.

Although innovation is good, you should be very selective and not just innovate for the sake of innovation.

A certain familiarity (as in, this is what most video game and tabletop RPGs do), eases entry for new players into the system. Something like body slots is pretty standard because, you know, everyone dresses themselves in the morning!

Body slots work fine in most cases. Generally no problem. For some reason i’ve always had an issue with the ring limitations in particular. In dark souls and such, no problem. In ttrpg, it seems nonsensical and always bugs me.

A limit of 10-15 sounds perfect and I think for the most part it’s easy to keep to body slots for those that prefer it. I like the option to be decked out in rings and necklaces for some characters in place of armor and capes.


I feel like if we're pretty clear on "how many magic items a character of a certain level should have" a la tables 11-1 and 11-2, that's sufficient for me and better than a pure GP restriction which is way too granular since it sets up questions like "should I buy potions or save up for better armor".

But I do not in any way want bodyslots back.

If we can make it so consumables and permanent items do not compete for the same resources, I would be satisfied.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I (and hopefully others including Paizo) sees the issue with all my 3 examples and why a limit is needed for a better game. If you think all my 3 examples is equally valuable or that the ring of swimming is just as good as the combination of the other 7 rings from your example, then fine you don't need any limitations on magical items in your game.

No, I don't think any of your examples showed a combination that broke the game without an item limit or were relevant to the question of the thread.

I'm legitimately looking for examples that make me think, "Oh yeah, you know if there wasn't an item limit, a player could afford to do... xyz... and that would be ridiculous." If you have an xyz that fits in this question, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, like the rest of you, I'm curious what systems the final rules use, and in the meantime I won't be using a slot or resonance limit.

Fundamentally, you've asked a question and then systematically dismissed every single answer given to you. You're not looking for discussion. You're looking for people to agree with you, by changing your criteria to be so vague that no answer can possibly actually meet it.

Because really, if you don't think having 35 rings of Counterspell active simultaneously as opposed to increasing your AC by +1 is a problem, there is no possible thing that will and continuing this discussion is a waste of time.

The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ultrace wrote:


I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.

Speaking only for myself:

Around when my Council of Thieves party hit 12th level, the GM pointed out that the PCs were struggling badly with regard to AC and saves and I should fix things up.

Two hours later I was literally in tears. The characters had a few magic items that were personally meaningful to them, but this conflicted with the slots needed to get things to work out. I was shuffling items around among the six PCs, trying to hit the AC and save levels the GM had indicated were necessary for 12th level PCs, but I just couldn't do it without substantial losses to roleplaying. I needed combo items that were over the buy limit for where the PCs were, or slotless items (double cost, also often out of reach). I kept thinking that if I just gave Rose's belt to Chalico, and Chalico's amulet to Lily, and...and, and, it couldn't be done. I had enough gold for the needed bonuses,in theory, but not given the slot constraints. Or I could do it by abandoning stuff that was genuinely meaningful and replacing it all with boring stat-backers.

That, for me, was highly detrimental. Of course it is a collision between the Big Six and the slot system, and you could tackle it in many ways. I just want to say that for me the PF1 status quo has a very big downside at the higher levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if we're pretty clear on "how many magic items a character of a certain level should have" a la tables 11-1 and 11-2, that's sufficient for me and better than a pure GP restriction which is way too granular since it sets up questions like "should I buy potions or save up for better armor".

But I do not in any way want bodyslots back.

If we can make it so consumables and permanent items do not compete for the same resources, I would be satisfied.

I don't know, I dislike tables that kinda sit me down and say "You should have THIS by this point". That's kinda what the table feels like to me. Should you save up for potions or better armor? Well that's a question that varies from group to group, player to player. I dislike the more direct Answer the table seemed to be set up for but I might need to go look back over it.

I can respect the desire to not have body slots back. Slots probably encourages the idea of "best in slot" thought process and I've seen enough of that in PFS and MMOs that I want to just flip tables. But at the same time, for me keeping things slot based makes me measure and weigh things within their own group, rather than entire magic item catalog. "Is this cape better or more fitting than this cape" is easier I find than "Is this cape better or more fitting than this cape, ring, glove, hat, and boots". Having that outright slot narrowed down my focus where as slotless opens the door to choice paralyses. At least for me, this is a Your Mileage may Vary thing.

I do agree on the consumables and permanent shouldn't compete with the same resources but making both viable options without overshadowing the other is going to be tricky I feel. It'll be interesting to see.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Fundamentally, you've asked a question and then systematically dismissed every single answer given to you. You're not looking for discussion. You're looking for people to agree with you, by changing your criteria to be so vague that no answer can possibly actually meet it.

The criteria are very specific, easy to follow, and contained in the thread title. You are Nettah's second. It's easy to spot from your post stacking on "each other's" threads. Pretty lame.

Tridus wrote:
Because really, if you don't think having 35 rings of Counterspell active simultaneously as opposed to increasing your AC by +1 is a problem, there is no possible thing that will and continuing this discussion is a waste of time.

No, for the price it isn't a problem at all. It's a waste of time. To amass that much wealth to buy those rings, it's reasonable to say it's L20 or higher. At that level, a challenge would be a L23 encounter. Rings of counterspelling aren't automatic. They would give you a 35% chance to disrupt a spell, and they work as a reaction, so you could only use one per round. Two foes casting spells would decimate you. In the meantime, you would have no other magic items or defenses. Any GM looking to challenge you would put a few melees against you to trash you. It's lame you keep bringing this up. It doesn't break the L20 game in the slightest and is not proof an item limit is needed to counter it.

Tridus wrote:
The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.

I can't understand the point you're trying to make with this. If you use table 11-2 as a guide, then by Paizo's own standards, it's not an expected amount to have at L20.


Mary Yamato wrote:
Ultrace wrote:


I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.

Speaking only for myself:

Around when my Council of Thieves party hit 12th level, the GM pointed out that the PCs were struggling badly with regard to AC and saves and I should fix things up.

A different approach you could have taken - and one that I have taken is to explain to the GM that if the PC's numbers are incorrect, the best person to fix it is the GM.

This is why we have GMs.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am curious about how they will handle magic items that in PF1 had to be worn for 24 hours before you could use them. Resonance was supposed to solve that problem if nothing else. I hope Paizo has something better than having to wear an item continuously to prevent cycling through multiples of the same or similar items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

I am curious about how they will handle magic items that in PF1 had to be worn for 24 hours before you could use them. Resonance was supposed to solve that problem if nothing else. I hope Paizo has something better than having to wear an item continuously to prevent cycling through multiples of the same or similar items.

Wouldn't "bolstered" work?

Blah item can only be used X times per day. In addition, once you've activated this item at least once (or once, for items where X is 1), you are bolstered (or whatever word they use to communicate the same thing) from being able to activate any other such items (and for this purpose, Lesser blah items, blah items, and Greater Blah items count as the same).

Point is, the game already provides for the concept of magic sometimes interfering with immediately successive repeats of itself. Just extend it to this, and make sure consumables stay out of this paradigm.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
I've got to disagree. It tried to do much more than that, like half a dozen things at once, and was terrible at all of them. There was adding artificial importance of Charisma, ham-handedly dealing with the incentives caused by applying exponential pricing to healing consumables (instead of addressing that directly), replacing slots, replacing charges and uses per day (but then leaving those around anyway), limiting the total power you can get from magic items in a day and tying into the alchemist's abilities. There might have been a few other things they tried to make it do too that I'm missing.

My statement was to the reason it was created: I think it was purely a means to add weight to charisma. Now once the ball started rolling, yes they threw everything and the kitchen sink under it so slots, consumables, daily uses, ect all got tossed into the same circular file. I think it happened with several things in the playtest: For instance, rarity tries to cover actual how hard it is to find/make an item, how powerful an item can be and/or how much it might affect the plot...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tridus wrote:
You keep asking for examples and keep getting them. So lets try this: Why would it be better if the game allowed someone to simultaneously use 37 magic items?

because they would be Magi-tech Batman, and you should always be Batman if given the opportunity. More seriously it allows broad characters who can do something for pretty much every situation, even of its not the optimal thing, crazy prepared is a trope for a reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Tridus wrote:
You keep asking for examples and keep getting them. So lets try this: Why would it be better if the game allowed someone to simultaneously use 37 magic items?
because they would be Magi-tech Batman, and you should always be Batman if given the opportunity. More seriously it allows broad characters who can do something for pretty much every situation, even of its not the optimal thing, crazy prepared is a trope for a reason.

Or here's something crazy... Maybe a player ENJOYS having 37 magic items even if most of them don't have a big game effect. I know for myself, some of the items I LOVE are those quirky items like the tengu wine jug, those cantrip giving items and the adventurers all-tool. If prestidigitation, free plum wine or a basic tool throws everything out of whack then the game has got more issues that item slots...

So to answer Tridus, the game telling me I can't have fun and quirky items and MUST only ever have the bestest possible to keep up 100% makes the game worse for me, just from a fun perspective. And that's not even touching Rob's point on flexibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Tridus wrote:
You keep asking for examples and keep getting them. So lets try this: Why would it be better if the game allowed someone to simultaneously use 37 magic items?
because they would be Magi-tech Batman, and you should always be Batman if given the opportunity. More seriously it allows broad characters who can do something for pretty much every situation, even of its not the optimal thing, crazy prepared is a trope for a reason.

Or here's something crazy... Maybe a player ENJOYS having 37 magic items even if most of them don't have a big game effect. I know for myself, some of the items I LOVE are those quirky items like the tengu wine jug, those cantrip giving items and the adventurers all-tool. If prestidigitation, free plum wine or a basic tool throws everything out of whack then the game has got more issues that item slots...

So to answer Tridus, the game telling me I can't have fun and quirky items and MUST only ever have the bestest possible to keep up 100% makes the game worse for me, just from a fun perspective. And that's not even touching Rob's point on flexibility.

I love that kind of stuff too. The Decanter of Endless Water is one of the greatest items ever. Maybe because our games often end up in owning real-estate, and it's just awesome for irrigation. The Traveler's Any Tool is also great. I've taken to giving most of my characters tools like shovels and crowbars and such. They don't come into play much, but they just make so much sense. And a Traveler's Any Tool just saves so much weight. I also thought up a postal network using Bird Feather Tokens carrying the key from Chest Feather Tokens, and bird pirates preying on that network. And even the humble Everburnign Torch. There's probably a significant number of low level wizards making a comfortable living creating those things. The best new item in the playtest is the Knapsack of Halflingkind. Sure the bag of holding feature and healing pastries are cool, and the main utility of it in game, but it's the cookware feature that really makes it awesome. One of those things for character comfort that has no real gameplay impact. Resonance made it suck, but with no artificial limit it's nice. So I think I'm on the same wavelength with cool items.

But honestly, I don't think any of the items you or I mentioned would actually take up an item space. They certainly shouldn't. The kind of things that didn't take slots in PF1, shouldn't count against your item limit in PF2 either (except maybe ioun/aeon stones). If they do count against your limit, than I'm on your side, and against limiting items. But if it only serves to limit worn permanent items like Boots of Bounding or Cloak of Elvenkind, or magic armor and the like, then a limit of 10-15 items should be fine. So basically the "invested" items of the Playtest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.

I can't understand the point you're trying to make with this. If you use table 11-2 as a guide, then by Paizo's own standards, it's not an expected amount to have at L20.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misreading 11-2. A character of level X has both the list of items listed there *and* the currency beside it when created. And this exists for one of two reasons; either A) they just wanted really consistent equipment lists for Playtest characters to minimize that variable (which wouldn't be surprising) or else B) they themselves realized that gold alone is not a good balancing feature, and thus restricted where most of your wealth can go to prevent people just pouring gold into more cost-efficient items. Convert it to a straight-forward WBL chart and it'll look very different. For instance, I just did level 15. Taking the average cost for every non-consumable item of the indicated levels, and adding them appropriately a level 15 character should have 17,340 gp worth of items. The level 20 you keep bringing up has approximately 133,733 gp worth of items. That's a lot of Rings of Counterspell.

And say you even go by the chart. A level 18 item is worth 22,000 gp on average. Sell one of your two, and with the bog-standard 50% resale value that gives you 11,000 gp cash, on top of the 20,000 you already have from being level 20. That's enough cash right there for 33 Rings of Counterspell. Remind me how having a bunch of them isn't economically "reasonable"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting points, Shinigami02. I understand the chart, but I'm trying to also be reasonable from a play perspective. A player is not going to find dozens of counterspell rings. Getting them would take a very long time. I don't think many GMs or groups would sit around facilitating a player selling the magic items they found and devoting all their time to crafting, heavy shopping and traveling to find them, etc. Putting that partially aside, your point is a player at L20 could have more cash. That is fine. I counter that with two points. Please let me know what you think:

1) How are you going to get that many? That's rhetorical. I just don't think it's realistic in this game to get that many without annoying the rest of your fellow players.

2) This is the important piece: How does having 50 or even 100 counterspell rings break the game? As I pointed out in my last post, their effectiveness at this level is very poor (e.g. 35%), they require a reaction so max 1 per round, and spending all of your resources on them isn't going to make you awesome by a long shot. This is the crux of it. It's a ridiculous and poor choice and does not make the case that unlimited magic item slots break the game.

I'm not saying there isn't an example out there that might, but I'm calling for some, and I haven't seen any.


Shinigami02 wrote:
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.

I can't understand the point you're trying to make with this. If you use table 11-2 as a guide, then by Paizo's own standards, it's not an expected amount to have at L20.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misreading 11-2. A character of level X has both the list of items listed there *and* the currency beside it when created. And this exists for one of two reasons; either A) they just wanted really consistent equipment lists for Playtest characters to minimize that variable (which wouldn't be surprising) or else B) they themselves realized that gold alone is not a good balancing feature, and thus restricted where most of your wealth can go to prevent people just pouring gold into more cost-efficient items. Convert it to a straight-forward WBL chart and it'll look very different. For instance, I just did level 15. Taking the average cost for every non-consumable item of the indicated levels, and adding them appropriately a level 15 character should have 17,340 gp worth of items. The level 20 you keep bringing up has approximately 133,733 gp worth of items. That's a lot of Rings of Counterspell.

And say you even go by the chart. A level 18 item is worth 22,000 gp on average. Sell one of your two, and with the bog-standard 50% resale value that gives you 11,000 gp cash, on top of the 20,000 you already have from being level 20. That's enough cash right there for 33 Rings of Counterspell. Remind me how having a bunch of them isn't economically "reasonable"?

Hypothetically, there's nothing stopping say, a level 7 character, from just selling their two level 3 items to see if they can scrape enough cash up to afford a level 4 or higher one once the game starts. Besides the GM that is I suppose.

Also the table doesn't give advice for how many consumables a new players of that level should have, only that the party should have(And depending on the GM, ONLY HAVE) a certain number. Heck I could see myself selling lower level items to pick up some consumables but doesn't that throw off WBL or expected power? I mean someone who's tossed more gold at consumables(Cough cough, Alchemist, Cough, Arrows, cough) could be behind the expected Permanent item expectation.

There's also the fact that one of the problems WBL tends to have is magic items. Being sold. If you give a level 4 item as part of a treasure horde, and no one wants it so they sell it off, does that decrease or increase the expected WBL of the party? There's no guarantee that a permanent item you put down will be kept by the party, heck even consumables might be vendored. Was this taken into account when the tables were made? Maybe but there's nothing in the book about that. Fast example from PF1, Mummified Guardian does 2 things - stops a body from being raised as undead and fears people opening a coffin. Would it be better to give them that as a reward(Who's uses are pretty hard to justify in the hands of players) or toss 1750 GP at them(Half the cost)? PF2, does that count as a permanent item, would it be better to give them half the gold of it's cost(Say..fast math maybe 17 GP?) or if kept and then sold how much does that actually effect WBL? Heck, can you even make an item like that anymore for print due to item level and permanent items? Related, can you make an item that is permanent until it isn't anymore(Say it gives a small effect but you can burn the item out to get access to something else)?

This probably sounds like I'm spinning my mental wheels here. And I'll be honest, I am. Now I'm not going to say Gold was a better way of gating things off by itself. But the more I think about this, the befuddled I get. I didn't really bring this up in playtest because it was more "here's your adventurer's package, go do stuff". When play slows down through homebrew and APs, it'll be interesting to see how this shapes up.


I actually couldn't care less about counterspell rings, they're just the item that's been making rounds, and a simple example of a fairly cheap item. As a different point of comparison though, take the Ring of the Ram. For the cost of one Greater Ring of the Ram, you can buy 12 of the Standard quality. Not that you really need 12, just 10 makes it so at one shot a round the first one will come off cooldown by the time you fire the last one. So it winds up being a matter of 3d6 once per minute or 2d6 every round all day.

Or another example: The same 31,000 gold I showed for just selling one of your level 18 items? A Wizard or Arcane Sorcerer could use that same money to get up to 45 more spells of up to 3rd spell level (which can be quite the issue if the caster is anything but a Blaster, since most non-blasting spells are just as effective at high levels as they are at the level you got them.) As for how they'll get them... well they will have to find one to start with, since it's Uncommon, but once they have that one it takes a mere day to reverse engineer it (with a check that should be downright easy for you at that level) and then 15 days to make the 15 more for yourself. So 16 days altogether. And since it seems Downtime is supposed to be more expected now, taking a fairly measly 16 days to Craft your rings while the party takes those same 16 days to do their Downtime activities doesn't seem that unreasonable. Especially if someone else wants to, say, retrain some stuff at the same time, since Retraining can take as much as a month. And meanwhile the party's Diplomat can be out looking for your next quest, and gathering what info there is to glean, which will probably take a few days itself.


Shinigami02 wrote:

I actually couldn't care less about counterspell rings, they're just the item that's been making rounds, and a simple example of a fairly cheap item. As a different point of comparison though, take the Ring of the Ram. For the cost of one Greater Ring of the Ram, you can buy 12 of the Standard quality. Not that you really need 12, just 10 makes it so at one shot a round the first one will come off cooldown by the time you fire the last one. So it winds up being a matter of 3d6 once per minute or 2d6 every round all day.

Or another example: The same 31,000 gold I showed for just selling one of your level 18 items? A Wizard or Arcane Sorcerer could use that same money to get up to 45 more spells of up to 3rd spell level (which can be quite the issue if the caster is anything but a Blaster, since most non-blasting spells are just as effective at high levels as they are at the level you got them.) As for how they'll get them... well they will have to find one to start with, since it's Uncommon, but once they have that one it takes a mere day to reverse engineer it (with a check that should be downright easy for you at that level) and then 15 days to make the 15 more for yourself. So 16 days altogether. And since it seems Downtime is supposed to be more expected now, taking a fairly measly 16 days to Craft your rings while the party takes those same 16 days to do their Downtime activities doesn't seem that unreasonable. Especially if someone else wants to, say, retrain some stuff at the same time, since Retraining can take as much as a month. And meanwhile the party's Diplomat can be out looking for your next quest, and gathering what info there is to glean, which will probably take a few days itself.

And don't forget a Diplomat with the 'Bargain Hunter' skill feat could also be spending that time getting the materials to make those items at a cheaper rate, allowing you to make even more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
I actually couldn't care less about counterspell rings, they're just the item that's been making rounds, and a simple example of a fairly cheap item. As a different point of comparison though, take the Ring of the Ram. For the cost of one Greater Ring of the Ram, you can buy 12 of the Standard quality. Not that you really need 12, just 10 makes it so at one shot a round the first one will come off cooldown by the time you fire the last one. So it winds up being a matter of 3d6 once per minute or 2d6 every round all day.

Ok, here's an example we can discuss.

12 Standard Ring of the Ram - 1960gp total
Since you didn't specify, I'm going to set a reasonable level of L13 to acquire this.
Premise - Doing 2d6 per round at L13 breaks the game. I'm going to boost this by saying you spend all three actions on the ring to boost it to 6d6 per round all day.

To analyze this, we have to compare it to what a level 13 character could be doing. A level 12 item is a +3 magic weapon. Let's pick a really average damage die like a d8 for comparison. Every one of her swings with her sword does 4d8. Two swings in one round can do up to 8d8 damage with a critical potential of 16d8. The ring of the ram doesn't do critical damage. We're not even on the same scale of damage, and we haven't even considered that the swordsperson could be swinging three times in a round or even four times in a round with haste (which is a pretty easy effect at level 12 or 13 or whatever level you are imagining at this price range).

Conclusion (IMO): 12 rings of the ram does not break the game.

Shinigami02 wrote:
Or another example: The same 31,000 gold I showed for just selling one of your level 18 items? A Wizard or Arcane Sorcerer could use that same money to get up to 45 more spells of up to 3rd spell level...

I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you talking about what a character could do if they sold a magic item? If so, the economics scale of PF2 is not really what we're evaluating here, but I'm open to discussion if you can clarify what you're trying to demonstrate with this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
But honestly, I don't think any of the items you or I mentioned would actually take up an item space. They certainly shouldn't. The kind of things that didn't take slots in PF1, shouldn't count against your item limit in PF2 either (except maybe ioun/aeon stones). If they do count against your limit, than I'm on your side, and against limiting items. But if it only serves to limit worn permanent items like Boots of Bounding or Cloak of Elvenkind, or magic armor and the like, then a limit of 10-15 items should be fine. So basically the "invested" items of the Playtest.

Hat of Magi [invested] 150 gp

Hand of the Mage [invested [30 gp]

Traveler's Any-Tool [Activation Operate Activation, Focus Activation]

So even super, super cheap items like hand of magi that I was talking about are invested and the any-tool used to cost resonance and who knows what happens with those kind of items. I think I have reason to wonder what is forced under slots and what happens to being able to use those cool non-powerful items.


The DM of wrote:

Interesting points, Shinigami02. I understand the chart, but I'm trying to also be reasonable from a play perspective. A player is not going to find dozens of counterspell rings. Getting them would take a very long time. I don't think many GMs or groups would sit around facilitating a player selling the magic items they found and devoting all their time to crafting, heavy shopping and traveling to find them, etc. Putting that partially aside, your point is a player at L20 could have more cash. That is fine. I counter that with two points. Please let me know what you think:

1) How are you going to get that many? That's rhetorical. I just don't think it's realistic in this game to get that many without annoying the rest of your fellow players.

2) This is the important piece: How does having 50 or even 100 counterspell rings break the game? As I pointed out in my last post, their effectiveness at this level is very poor (e.g. 35%), they require a reaction so max 1 per round, and spending all of your resources on them isn't going to make you awesome by a long shot. This is the crux of it. It's a ridiculous and poor choice and does not make the case that unlimited magic item slots break the game.

I'm not saying there isn't an example out there that might, but I'm calling for some, and I haven't seen any.

1) Really depends on how the magical stores work in your game, but generally getting multiple copies of a low-cost magical item doesn't seem to be the biggest hassle. I would imagine if you were in a metropolis you could get several copies from that city alone, and maybe put in a large order for more, might take a couple of weeks before they all arrive, but not unreasonable.

2) If you are a high-level spell caster you can just use high-level spell slots to make the dispel 100% or 50% at the worst most of the time. And you are right it's "just" one counterspell each turn, but I still think that is a very strong effect. I'm not advocating spending ALL your resources on the rings, but 10-20% of your wealth could still make you pretty resilient to most magic. It's a defensive option so it doesn't "break" the game (in terms of being utterly OP or anything) but it does show that the cost compared to the effect you are gaining is not at all balanced if you only factor in gold. So more than anything with the current list of magic items it breaks the economy more than it "breaks" the game, but to me a completely broken economy is also a broken game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
2) If you are a high-level spell caster you can just use high-level spell slots to make the dispel 100% or 50% at the worst most of the time. And you are right it's "just" one counterspell each turn, but I still think that is a very strong effect. I'm not advocating spending ALL your resources on the rings, but 10-20% of your wealth could still make you pretty resilient to most magic. It's a defensive option so it doesn't "break" the game (in terms of being utterly OP or anything) but it does show that the cost compared to the effect you are gaining is not at all balanced if you only factor in gold. So more than anything with the current list of magic items it breaks the economy more than it "breaks" the game, but to me a completely broken economy is also a broken game.

If you would like to participate in this discussion, it would be more useful to state examples rather than "you can just" or "100% or 50% at the worst most of the time". This is not useful. Here's a non-theoretical example: You are L20 trying to stave off spells from a L23 challenge. You have the same level spell in your ring versus theirs. You have a 35% chance to succeed. Your plan to defend yourself from spells is poor. That goes out of its way to assume you have the spell cast by a fellow L20 person. You could get this to 100% by saying you're facing a low level challenge, but those aren't a threat anyway, so what's the point? It won't break the game to counterspell low level threats. We're talking game-breaking here. It's game breaking if you utterly counter a L23 threat at L20. This example falls way short, and we're only talking about spells, not all magic, not melee, not everything else that comes into play.

Nettah wrote:
...it doesn't "break" the game...

Finally, we agree. Do you have any examples that demonstrate how the game breaks by not having a magic item limit? I've been hunting through the magic item list, and I can't find any so far. Everything has a limit that doesn't stack, doesn't work with other items, or isn't better than options a player already has. It's actually pretty damning of the current list of available magic items. Other than magic weapons being cool, not much else is worth it when you factor the cost in.


graystone wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
But honestly, I don't think any of the items you or I mentioned would actually take up an item space. They certainly shouldn't. The kind of things that didn't take slots in PF1, shouldn't count against your item limit in PF2 either (except maybe ioun/aeon stones). If they do count against your limit, than I'm on your side, and against limiting items. But if it only serves to limit worn permanent items like Boots of Bounding or Cloak of Elvenkind, or magic armor and the like, then a limit of 10-15 items should be fine. So basically the "invested" items of the Playtest.

Hat of Magi [invested] 150 gp

Hand of the Mage [invested [30 gp]

Traveler's Any-Tool [Activation Operate Activation, Focus Activation]

So even super, super cheap items like hand of magi that I was talking about are invested and the any-tool used to cost resonance and who knows what happens with those kind of items. I think I have reason to wonder what is forced under slots and what happens to being able to use those cool non-powerful items.

The first two cost an item slot in PF1 as well, so taking a non-location dependent slot in PF2 isn't exactly a deal-breaker. And they'll be more flexible now, by not blocking your head or neck slot anymore. I agree about the Any-tool though, the requirement of resonance for it was just mind-mindbogglingly horrible, and indefensible. It shouldn't require a slot, resonance, focus, charges, have uses per day etc. Nothing, it should be usable all day every-day. This was almost as bad as the requirement of resonance for the bag of holding (which thankfully they got rid of) and nerfing Unseen Servant. But well, resonance is just terrible regardless, and thankfully will be removed. I agree that they shouldn't be adding restrictions onto these things, and the mindset they had about keeping items "under control" does worry me going forward too. When they tried out Focus, it was possibly even worse than resonance in some ways. And the nerfing of items to go with it were terrible. But this doesn't seem to be as much an argument against a limit on invested items, just for not including things that shouldn't require them (or nerfing them, unnecessarily).


The DM of wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
I actually couldn't care less about counterspell rings, they're just the item that's been making rounds, and a simple example of a fairly cheap item. As a different point of comparison though, take the Ring of the Ram. For the cost of one Greater Ring of the Ram, you can buy 12 of the Standard quality. Not that you really need 12, just 10 makes it so at one shot a round the first one will come off cooldown by the time you fire the last one. So it winds up being a matter of 3d6 once per minute or 2d6 every round all day.

Ok, here's an example we can discuss.

12 Standard Ring of the Ram - 1960gp total
Since you didn't specify, I'm going to set a reasonable level of L13 to acquire this.
Premise - Doing 2d6 per round at L13 breaks the game. I'm going to boost this by saying you spend all three actions on the ring to boost it to 6d6 per round all day.

To analyze this, we have to compare it to what a level 13 character could be doing. A level 12 item is a +3 magic weapon. Let's pick a really average damage die like a d8 for comparison. Every one of her swings with her sword does 4d8. Two swings in one round can do up to 8d8 damage with a critical potential of 16d8. The ring of the ram doesn't do critical damage. We're not even on the same scale of damage, and we haven't even considered that the swordsperson could be swinging three times in a round or even four times in a round with haste (which is a pretty easy effect at level 12 or 13 or whatever level you are imagining at this price range).

Conclusion (IMO): 12 rings of the ram does not break the game.

Shinigami02 wrote:
Or another example: The same 31,000 gold I showed for just selling one of your level 18 items? A Wizard or Arcane Sorcerer could use that same money to get up to 45 more spells of up to 3rd spell level...
I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you talking about what a character could do if they sold a magic item? If so, the economics scale of PF2 is not really what we're evaluating here,...

First point: 2d6 Force Damage (I can't actually find rules for how spending 3 actions on the Standard version works, while the Greater version has specific rules, so I'm just looking at 2d6) from 50 feet away every round when the equivalent cost item is rated to do 3d6 once per minute is a sizable buff in power. Especially since Force is generally a powerful damage type. While yes the martial might out-damage you, you are still roughly 6 and 2/3 times (average 70 damage per minute rather than 10.5 per minute) stronger with that money by using it on the multiple copies of the lower level item.

Second point: The reference to a sold item is strictly going off the "economic viability" that you yourself have brought up multiple times, going off my previous post (where I was talking about the Counterspell Rings) to show a level 20 character could have plenty of money using only a fraction of the resources available to them. The bigger issue is the whole thing about 15 Greater Rings of Wizardry which could be acquired in just over two weeks of downtime (which isn't supposed to be that much in PF2e.)

EDIT: On reviewing my previous post I forgot to mention the name of the item. That is my bad.


You make several points. None of them demonstrate what is being asked for in this thread: Does a lack of item limits break the game through some combo of (attainable or heck un-attainable even) magic items?

Rings of the Ram conclusion - Not by a long shot. They're not even on par with a Wizard using a +3 staff in both hands for melee damage.


Let me give a fictional example of what would break the game:

Jewel of the Blasticon - Wear this jewel anywhere on your body and get a 1d6 damage blast ray once per minute by shouting the word, "Blasticon!" Cost - 100gp

I buy 100 of these, shout, "Blasticon!" and I damage somebody for 100d6. Average damage - 350. Not balanced.

That's obviously a case where the more you have, the better you are. Rings of the Ram which do 6d6 per round whether you have 10 or 100 are not better than using a +3 magic weapon (same cost).

Anyone find any combos that break the game unless an item limit is introduced? (Warning, I'll push back if you come up with something with a ridiculous gold piece limit... still, you'll make a point IF you can find one.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So if a specific item is a problem when you have a bunch of them on your person, can't we just put the limit to this on the item in question rather than in the system?

Like that's what we get for dropping resonance- specific limits on items are back (boots of speed are 10 rounds/day, you gotta wear your quick runner's shirt for a full day, etc.)


Potentially absolutely. That's the sort of thing I'm wondering with all of this. I like not having slots other than what's reasonable (like obviously not being able to wear two magic boots at once or two magic suits of armor, because duh). Thinking on that more, I like the idea of not having any restrictions at all (other than the obvious of course). Are there any problems with the way items are written? What should we be concerned about to prevent abuse without the GM having to do so? At the same time, let's not introduce a bunch of ridiculous restrictions (resonance, feat and skill reqs, etc) that make magic items less fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
But well, resonance is just terrible regardless, and thankfully will be removed. I agree that they shouldn't be adding restrictions onto these things, and the mindset they had about keeping items "under control" does worry me going forward too. When they tried out Focus, it was possibly even worse than resonance in some ways. And the nerfing of items to go with it were terrible. But this doesn't seem to be as much an argument against a limit on invested items, just for not including things that shouldn't require them (or nerfing them, unnecessarily).

For myself, I worry that the existence of slots or a max number of usable items will be an excuse to add most things to it. For instance, hat/hand of magi have slots even though they JUST give cantrip power: so it's not a matter of power, or stacking or anything else but just things go in slots so they get one by default.

Or even if they do sort things well, you'll still have items that are worth a slot at the level they start at but when you put on a level 3 at 20th? Should it cost the same as a 20th level item? All of this is getting done behind the scenes without any playtest/preview we'll see so I'm left to wonder until the physical book comes out. :P

PS: Yes, we CAN agree how awful resonance was. ;)


I feel like what really was the death-knell of resonance is the surveys revealing that people really were not tied to the idea that wands were multi-use consumables (a bunch of the same scroll in a stick, that is). When "well, wands just don't have to work the way they did when they created problems in PF1, we can just make them work differently" was on the table, there was really no need for a global limiter on wand spam that catches everything else.

Still, having to track all of your "n uses/day" items separately again is nonetheless a cost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Still, having to track all of your "n uses/day" items separately again is nonetheless a cost.

Between that or tracking resonance AND charges for some items, I'll gladly track per day uses. ;)


The DM of wrote:

You make several points. None of them demonstrate what is being asked for in this thread: Does a lack of item limits break the game through some combo of (attainable or heck un-attainable even) magic items?

Rings of the Ram conclusion - Not by a long shot. They're not even on par with a Wizard using a +3 staff in both hands for melee damage.

So a Wizard sextupling their low-level spell output per day (again, any spell excepting blasting, mage armor, and probably summoning is still having the same effect now it had when you got them, with a DC that's just as relevant as it was then) isn't breaking the game? Because that's what picking up 15 Rings of Wizardry does, take them from 9 spells of level 1-3 to 54. And in the meantime that Wizard still has a level 19 item, level 18 item, level 17 item, 2 level 16 items, and whatever other gold was left since it wasn't a perfect multiplication, to do whatever they want with, just off the 'wealth' chart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shinigami02, this is from the rules on Ring of Wizardry:

Wearing more than one ring of wizardry has no effect.

So, no. It doesn't break the game.


The DM of wrote:

Shinigami02, this is from the rules on Ring of Wizardry:

Wearing more than one ring of wizardry has no effect.

So, no. It doesn't break the game.

/double checks

...

I swear that line wasn't there before. Okay I'll concede that one. I still feel that given the way price scaling works it's still better to have an item limit now if only to prevent abuse later. Even if nothing currently is capable of breaking the game (which is debatable, I'm just not invested enough to go do another major dive) every item made down the line would still have to be designed around "what if a higher level character had 5, 10, 20, 50, etc. of these instead of a level-appropriate item" and feel that having a second balance point would allow for cooler low-level items rather than locking everything neat and possibly semi-powerful behind high-level and the associated costs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess that without some kind of limit, no developer will ever print a Quick Runner Shirt again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
I guess that without some kind of limit, no developer will ever print a Quick Runner Shirt again.

It's not really a hard thing to balance in a system without a limit on items.

#1 Make Quick Runner Shirt
#2 add bolstered to Quick Runner effect [or wording like ring of wizardry]
#3 now wearing 1 or 1000 shirts a day does the same thing.

So I agree that developers would have to take extremely simple and easy methods when they make items if they don't want a situation where people swap out per day items, but it doesn't IMO seem like much of a burden. Heck, you could even have a general rule that multiple instances of the same item don't work together if it's a big concern.


Items that prevent their own ability to be abused sound like a good direction. Then you don't need hard coded limits that prevent people from giving up cool flavor items in favor of power items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My issue with relying on SP as the primary limiter is that it leads to players needing to hoard every single coin to spend only on what makes them stronger, which limits a lot of interaction with the world.

With the combination of item levels (which I'll probably use as scarcity) and a maximum number of equipped items, there will come a point where spending more money ceases to give a noticeable increase in power. For me, that's very desirable. That makes for a wonderful middle ground where I as the GM don't need to necessarily follow WBL religiously ("Sure, go build a church for your god, that ain't gonna mess up the game balance") and where getting a bunch of silver is still a very fun and exciting reward (even if you don't have something to spend it on now, you'll be ready to buy your next potency rune the second you come across it).

The difference between what an optimized character must spend on power and what they actually get from the GM can vary to a reasonable degree and the players can do the same sort of shenanigans they get up to in D&D 5e without also feeling money is just heavy yellow rocks that are useless once all the frontliners have their plate armor. Sometimes the party might be a bit broke and can't very everything they could possibly have, other times they're decked out and have enough left over to start building their own airship because that sounds line fun.

So I look at these "look it'll be fine, just assume the players will run out of gold" posts and my mind just goes, "Oh hell no, not that boring s!++ again." Money doesn't need to be that again, I don't want to withhold massive treasure hordes or look for ways to ruin player ran businesses because the power of capitalism is too stronk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
With the combination of item levels (which I'll probably use as scarcity) and a maximum number of equipped items, there will come a point where spending more money ceases to give a noticeable increase in power. For me, that's very desirable. That makes for a wonderful middle ground where I as the GM don't need to necessarily follow WBL religiously ("Sure, go build a church for your god, that ain't gonna mess up the game balance") and where getting a bunch of silver is still a very fun and exciting reward (even if you don't have something to spend it on now, you'll be ready to buy your next potency rune the second you come across it).

For me, this would end up with EVERYONE ending up with the exact same [limit] items as those give the biggest bang for your buck so 99% of the magic items NEVER see the light of day because they aren't the strongest and with a HARD limit on equipped items, you don't have the luxury of using quirky, fun interesting items when you NEED to optimize every slot. I'd rather hoard coins than slots... :P

So when you see "I don't want to withhold massive treasure hordes or look for ways to ruin player ran businesses because the power of capitalism is too stronk" I see your 'fix' as "sigh... no need to put in any new magic items in the hoard since they'll JUST sell it to fill in the the needed items for the slot limits."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Helmic wrote:
With the combination of item levels (which I'll probably use as scarcity) and a maximum number of equipped items, there will come a point where spending more money ceases to give a noticeable increase in power. For me, that's very desirable. That makes for a wonderful middle ground where I as the GM don't need to necessarily follow WBL religiously ("Sure, go build a church for your god, that ain't gonna mess up the game balance") and where getting a bunch of silver is still a very fun and exciting reward (even if you don't have something to spend it on now, you'll be ready to buy your next potency rune the second you come across it).

For me, this would end up with EVERYONE ending up with the exact same [limit] items as those give the biggest bang for your buck so 99% of the magic items NEVER see the light of day because they aren't the strongest and with a HARD limit on equipped items, you don't have the luxury of using quirky, fun interesting items when you NEED to optimize every slot. I'd rather hoard coins than slots... :P

So when you see "I don't want to withhold massive treasure hordes or look for ways to ruin player ran businesses because the power of capitalism is too stronk" I see your 'fix' as "sigh... no need to put in any new magic items in the hoard since they'll JUST sell it to fill in the the needed items for the slot limits."

There isn't really much stopping you from carrying a spare item that fascinates you with that money, though, and just investing it occasionally. With slots, you just don't need to bring EVERYTHING to be optimal so that you have the most choices at any given moment.

And honestly, you're going to have non+optimal items whether you like it or not. There's no more big sic so the comparisons between items aren't going to be that clear cut, but regardless you will get some selection of random magical items just by virtue of getting random treasure.

Hell, with slots it's even more OK for the GM to dump treasure on mid to high level parties. They can't wear the whole thing at once anyways. You only really need the big two or three, you've got wiggle room to try something new today. Just not literally everything where you now have no weaknesses.

Also means more sharing, both within the party and without. If everyone can wear infinite items, any treasure the party bumps into can potentially improve only one character, and everyone trying to optimize will want to have it for themselves. They would always be able to wear more. With slots, you don't need every little thing on the ground to be optimal. Call dibs if you think you'll use it, but otherwise most parties would want to make sure everyone has their slots maxed out first. And it's also not disastrous if a cleric donates the item to their church to make a throne to their god out of random magical crap.


Helmic wrote:
There isn't really much stopping you from carrying a spare item that fascinates you with that money, though, and just investing it occasionally. With slots, you just don't need to bring EVERYTHING to be optimal so that you have the most choices at any given moment.

If a player is going to hoard coin in the first way, why are that not doing so in the second? If optimal is the sole driving force of those players, why drop that is the second way?

IMO with slots, you really DO have to have everything optimal. Why would you keep extra item x when you'll need that cash to upgrade needed item #3? You fill in the best [limit] number items and then keep them upgraded...

Helmic wrote:
And honestly, you're going to have non+optimal items whether you like it or not. There's no more big sic so the comparisons between items aren't going to be that clear cut, but regardless you will get some selection of random magical items just by virtue of getting random treasure.

You have big items, just not as many: this will JUST mean that the next [x] items in the slot list will be figured out and looked for. It will be plenty clear cut days after the items come out which re the best to take for whatever level you're looking at.

Helmic wrote:
Hell, with slots it's even more OK for the GM to dump treasure on mid to high level parties. They can't wear the whole thing at once anyways. You only really need the big two or three, you've got wiggle room to try something new today. Just not literally everything where you now have no weaknesses.

They could but what's the point when it's JUST giving then coin in a less usable form. Do you REALLY think that someone will carry around a pile of items instead of upgrading one to the next item level when they can wear only one of them? Slots isn't a way to get people to use more items, it's to get them to use less and it will do that well. I can't imagine everyone having a sack of spare magic items to try to use on the off chance they might come in handy when they have items to upgrade or better ones to buy.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Slot Restrictions, Resonance. Are any magic item restrictions relevant anymore? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.