I'm probably missing something, but it seems like it as it adds at least one more weapon die (which can be up to a d12), whereas the (usually) higher level "energy damage" runes only do xd6 damage (depending on the level.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Striking runes are the base line that makes your damage keep up with the increased HP of higher level enemies. Property runes like the elemental ones are extras you can add to that.
It seems a bit weird, especially if you come from PF1 or 5e, but it works perfectly fine in play. Note that the damage bonuses of all classes have taken a MAJOR hit in PF2. Without Striking runes, you'll fall behind in damage very badly rather quick. You don't want that to happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The striking rune is an expected damage upgrade that doesn't compete with property runes. The two aren't meant to be comparable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they are overpowered, but they're a basic assumption of the game's math.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 you collect bonuses, so you do 1d8+44 at high levels. In PF2 you collect dice and you do 4d8+10 maybe instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing fundamental runes (a key part of the damage scaling of the game) to property runes (an optional bonus) isn't really a valid match up, I think. If you want to ask if Striking runes are overpowered, you need to compare martial damage with and without them to enemy HP at various levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Striking runes are a vestigial mark of feedback from those back in the playtest who preferred upgrades to come from items over innate scaling (Automatic Bonus Progression), they're not "overpowered" because the math the game is built around assumes you'll have them at the appropriate levels, but yes compared to other items of similar level they are blatantly overturned.
As I personally run my home game utilizing the ABP optional rule from the GMG (and adjust loot accordingly), they don't stand out to me because I just have them apply automatically (as the game assumes). On a regular game of PF2 however getting striking runes is far and away the No.1 priority of a martial character around level 5, and a inevitable goldsink if you don't want to fall way behind the growing HP of monsters.
|
Note also that the entire balance of the game is based on the assumption that rogues have a d6 weapon (d8 with significant shenanigans), two handed fighters are wielding a d12 weapon (or a D10 fatal), reach weapons are a D10, etc.
And the assumption is that those dice increase at the designated levels.
If you mess with that logic suddenly the rogue will be overpowered or underpowered (depending on what changes you make) when compared to the two handed fighter.
Basically, the took stuff like 1e's power attack, and they put it into an item upgrade. Just think of it as another baseline upgrade like getting a +2 sword without any special energies on it.
Making these things into an upgrade isn't too much of a problem, since it is such a baseline that you are eventually going to get those items. It is likely everyone paying the feat tax to get power attack at early levels.
It does make some things funky. It makes smaller weapons into a bigger liability, when it was only just a slight addition to damage last edition, since all that damage comes from the dice. For example, I can't really see using a forceful weapon, since that property probably balanced by having a smaller damage dice when compared to a no frills raw damage weapon. However, it makes fatal weapons hilarious, since it increase dice size when you crit (so you are dealing tons of damage anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying the Striking Rune is overpowered is the same as saying higher level characters are overpowered. They are indeed extremely powerful in a vacuum, but in the context of the game, they're just a part of the power curve.
Saying the Striking Rune is overpowered is the same as saying higher level characters are overpowered. They are indeed extremely powerful in a vacuum, but in the context of the game, they're just a part of the power curve.
This, plus let's consider that curve.
Each level is supposed to make a significant difference, so much so that you should be twice as powerful ever two levels. That's a steep slope. So when you aren't getting a spike from weapon damage increase, maybe it's from a bump in proficiency, or specialization, or a new property rune should be available, etc.Not every level has such an increase, but it's unusual to go two levels without something added to numbers (above the +1/level which is already about a +16% bump in PF2's crit/fail system). NPCs have a smoother curve, but both curves overlap for similar averages over the course of the career (though NPCs keep snug with the upper arc of the curve and don't rely on their equipment much).
And yes, the Striking Runes are one of the bigger bumps because it's tied to potentially d12 increases, which makes the levels right before getting the next one a bit rough. :)
Recall the playtest. Originally a +1 to a weapon had you roll an additional die instead instead of adding a static value to your weapon. So a +5 Greatsword would roll 6d12 for damage.
What we got was a scaled back version of that (since playtest feedback indicated that people wanted more impact from character competency versus gear) and since "weapons go up to +5" was a legacy thing, we got potency andd striking runes instead.
So that you'd always rather have a better fundamental rune than a property rune is like how PF1 characters would rather have a +4 weapon than a +2 Holy weapon, even though they were priced the same.
Anti-tank weapons seem overpowered in a game where infantry fight tanks, imo
This is the kind of reply I was looking for when I run my campaign. I really don't want to make video game like rune replacement the norm. so I would prefer ABP but not in place of the idea of magic. Just additional dmg should be natural to the character gaining more knowledge of lethal hit areas.
Would love to discuss further how your campaign has worked out.
I envision some + weapons popping up but the dmg coming from characters. Some runes also seems ok but should not be transferable in terms of ambience and role play for the world I envision.
I can only second the suggestion to look at the Automatic Bonus Progression optional rule. It really makes the damage upgrades come from the characters themselves, and magic is left to do, well, magical things. Like enabling to fight incorporeal creatures, adding elemental damage, making the weapon able to shift form etc.
Random question: if Striking is so ingrained in enemy HP expectations, how much would you have to scale back enemy HP if Striking wasn't a thing?
I originally wanted to ask, "if Striking is so expected of players, why is it still a thing," but I guess that's already been answered. People want upgrades, that's all there is to it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just HP expectations. Quite a few other abilities PCs might have add "X per weapon die". Where X is usually damage but not necessarily.
Also, if you reduce weapon damage dice, are you also going to reduce spell damage dice?
Are you also going to change monster damage output? Or do you make the game more asymmetric because players are then doing fewer damage than monsters, but monsters also have fewer HP?
I don't personally think that's practical. You basically have two solid choices:
* The classic system, where A% of your power increase comes from better gear, and B% from your levels.
* The ABP system, where a much smaller % of the power increase comes from gear, most of it is from levels.
Which one is best I think would really vary by the kind of campaign you want to do. For example in Edgewatch, I think ABP makes a lot of sense. Police shouldn't be looting the criminals for gear, just to stay level-competitive. With ABP, you don't have to.
The classic system on the other hand is much better at causing temporary ups and downs. If you find a striking rune at level 3 (which the treasure table shows is a real possibility), then for a short time you're punching above your weight, which is cool. But it doesn't cause long-lasting power shifts that the GM would have to worry about.
With ABP, your power-ups come much more at a scheduled pace; you're absolutely not getting Striking before level 4. That's safer but maybe lack the excitement of an early power boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the primary flaw with ABP is that it takes the premise that those bonuses that you enable granting via ABP need to be completely removed from the magic system and the treasure needs to be likewise reduced.
I'm fairly certain the original playtest survey question was something on the line of "Should magic items be able to be significant power increases." Or something like that.
The two options we have are... these things progress the same for everyone the same despite equipment... or these thing primarily progress only by means of the value of their equipment investments. It precludes a situation that I think many people out there might have been expecting. That magic items help push them into the next power curve, ahead of schedule. A relatively simple adjustment to the ABP, reducing perhaps the quantity of fundamental runes, but not removing them completely. But making a point to indicate that ABP and magic bonuses do not stack. So if you get a striking rune at level 2, you are ahead of your curve until you get to the level where it becomes standard by way of ABP.
There is also the somewhat unfortunate (although it does add flavor, which does add value) fact that most casters do not depend on fundamental runes or magic items for their damage progression, so the suggested changes to loot value has a different impact on them (in reduced flexibility) without giving them very real bonuses to their damage output they would utilize. I also don't necessarily see the need for a typical mage to be doing striking damage right at 4th level.
In a way, the existing rules for Striking runes might be comparable to if casters had to have some sort of item (or rune to be placed on an item) to enable them to cast spells of 3rd or higher level from their 3rd or higher spell slots. (and then perhaps likewise a greater item for 6th and 9th level spell casting) It actually is not a horrible sounding idea, if one liked the flavor of it. But is is rather impactful, and is a dividing line in how the martial and caster classes are being treated differently within this system.
I strongly suggest anyone with question about the impact and requirement of striking runes, absolutely examine and strongly consider using the ABP rules... but also consider if you really want to eliminate the ability for magic to interact with this scope. You almost assuredly would not want them to be able to stack, but I don't think eliminating them completely is really always the best choice for story, flavor and fun.
|
|
I think in practice, the gear system actually achieves what Loreguard is describing;
- Striking is a level 4 rune, so you can't buy or craft it any earlier.
- The loot tables say the party should find some level+1 items, so a level 3 party can find Striking runes.
- Anyone interested in Striking Runes who hasn't found them by the end of level 4, is likely to use spare cash to buy them.
So the "automatic" part of ABP is handled by players prioritizing these purchases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Item level only limits purchases in that locations might not have access to them. A level 1 character could buy a striking rune in play, it is just unlikely they would have enough money for it.