Mandatory Items


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

CorvusMask wrote:

This is one of those "boths have pros and cons" things rather than "clearly one of these is better". You will have preference for one of them but other opinion isn't wrong just because its opposite :p

Like automatic bonus progress does serve role of "removing items everyone wants anyway from loot math", but at same time, some players REALLY like feeling of mathematical power boosts over "you do 1d6 more cold damage".

And it is fairly true that with automatic bonus progressions, armor and weapons are fairly interchangeable besides property runes.

Either way, I do think there is one shenanigan not mentioned in thread yet: magic items allow you to do shenanigans like "farmer found major striking weapon and now does way more damage than they should be able to" xD

You can defend it all you want, you're free to do that, but is quite obvious that Fundamental Runes are pretty much placebo effects, while your have nothing to lose with Automatic Bonus Progression only to gain. Seems like pretty straight forward to me, if i'm being honest.

Dark Archive

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You are being bit insulting and disrespectful there you know. That or I'm grumpy about being woken up by mosquito two hours ago and having slept only 3 hours. I'll have to go back to bed to see if I can sleep now again

But yes, obviously its better to get bonuses for free(even if you get less money in comparison), but the preference between two is ALL about preference and feel of it. That is it.

(though, I do still find it funny when players do things like "let's give our major striking weapon we found from boss to level 0 character because we don't need more money anymore" xD)


Lightning Raven wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

This is one of those "boths have pros and cons" things rather than "clearly one of these is better". You will have preference for one of them but other opinion isn't wrong just because its opposite :p

Like automatic bonus progress does serve role of "removing items everyone wants anyway from loot math", but at same time, some players REALLY like feeling of mathematical power boosts over "you do 1d6 more cold damage".

And it is fairly true that with automatic bonus progressions, armor and weapons are fairly interchangeable besides property runes.

Either way, I do think there is one shenanigan not mentioned in thread yet: magic items allow you to do shenanigans like "farmer found major striking weapon and now does way more damage than they should be able to" xD

You can defend it all you want, you're free to do that, but is quite obvious that Fundamental Runes are pretty much placebo effects, while your have nothing to lose with Automatic Bonus Progression only to gain. Seems like pretty straight forward to me, if i'm being honest.

The ability to feel like the Axe of the Dwarven Kings is a significantly better weapon than the stick I picked up off the side of the road. Sure, it's keen and has speed, but at the end of the day it does the same damage and is +1 to hit over any random stick.

And for casters, it eats a bunch of money for absolutely no gain on their parts.


Cyouni wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

This is one of those "boths have pros and cons" things rather than "clearly one of these is better". You will have preference for one of them but other opinion isn't wrong just because its opposite :p

Like automatic bonus progress does serve role of "removing items everyone wants anyway from loot math", but at same time, some players REALLY like feeling of mathematical power boosts over "you do 1d6 more cold damage".

And it is fairly true that with automatic bonus progressions, armor and weapons are fairly interchangeable besides property runes.

Either way, I do think there is one shenanigan not mentioned in thread yet: magic items allow you to do shenanigans like "farmer found major striking weapon and now does way more damage than they should be able to" xD

You can defend it all you want, you're free to do that, but is quite obvious that Fundamental Runes are pretty much placebo effects, while your have nothing to lose with Automatic Bonus Progression only to gain. Seems like pretty straight forward to me, if i'm being honest.

The ability to feel like the Axe of the Dwarven Kings is a significantly better weapon than the stick I picked up off the side of the road. Sure, it's keen and has speed, but at the end of the day it does the same damage and is +1 to hit over any random stick.

And for casters, it eats a bunch of money for absolutely no gain on their parts.

The fun part is that the APB does instruct the GM to shave off some money from the loot but it is not a straight requirement like PF1e.

Here's the direct quote:

Quote:
With this variant, you can ignore as much of Table 10–9: Party Treasure by Level on page 509 of the Core Rulebook as you want, though you’ll usually want to provide consistent currency. The main area your choice will impact is in spellcasting items, such as scrolls and wands.

This means that you can simply adjust as you see fit and as the GM you can compensate spellcasters with more loot geared towards them (More spells they can learn, more scrolls to use, wands, etc). You can even award them a staff at the appropriate level to compensate. They will have the "free staff" AND money to buy extra utility items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In RL, humans (mostly) conquered nature through the use of sophisticatedly designed weapons and other technological gear.

While this make weapons symbolize the power of the human species as a whole, it is also a double-edged sword in that by contrast it also shows how pathetic an individual human without one is against raw nature.

IME certain fantasy genres like wuxia(or xianxia)(*) which emphasize innate (& trained) strength over fancy weapons(**) tend to soothe over this bruised human ego.

----

(* / **) at least in South Korea, which traditionally had no clear distinction between wuxia and xianxia, and most fantasy fans have nurtured a natural disdain against the pay-to-win nature of relying on powerful magic weapons and other gear


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People do realize that you can get the same surprise power-up factor with ABP, right? When players are nearing the appropriate level (or nearing a milestone) and are in a tough enough fight have the boost kick in the first time a character is downed. The party gets a dramatic anime-style power boost for that fight and a once per fight ability to tap that power again for a single attack until they reach that level properly. Obviously, this isn't strictly by RAW, and I'd prefer it to be at least a sidebar when talking about ABP, but it's awesome and can make these automatic progression-type systems feel way less stale.

I'm firmly in the camp that says you don't need +X to combat stats loot in D20 fantasy games. That cool sword should glow when orcs are near and, unbeknownst to the party until much later, be a key part of defeating a specific brand of foe that will feature as challenging encounters and mid-bosses later. That armor should turn a felling blow into one that leaves the character on one HP. Steal from narratively-focused games and let the player and DM agree on a cool thing that magical sword they found can do, which conditions apply to that cool thing, and if there's any cost to it. That will always make for a cooler weapon than +X damage and +Y to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
In RL, humans (mostly) conquered nature through the use of sophisticatedly designed weapons and other technological gear.

Realistically we had most mega-fauna cut down to size with only pointy sticks, heavy rocks, pits/cliffs, and fire. Clothes allowed for expansion into colder regions. Tribes caring for the sick and wounded gave people a chance to survive something that would have killed a simple beast.

We had all of this set before we figured out farming and cities. Armor and better weapons were for killing other men, not for killing beasts great and small.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Welp I can report I couldn't fall asleep ye either x'D Sleep deprivation sucks

Anyway, just to clarify why that made me grumpy, to my sleep deprivation brain that reply to "It's pretty much preference based" was "To be honest, you are free to hold onto your stupid opinions."

I have learned tonight that I have extreme negative connotations of word "placebo" x'D


CorvusMask wrote:

Welp I can report I couldn't fall asleep ye either x'D Sleep deprivation sucks

Anyway, just to clarify why that made me grumpy, to my sleep deprivation brain that reply to "It's pretty much preference based" was "To be honest, you are free to hold onto your stupid opinions."

I have learned tonight that I have extreme negative connotations of word "placebo" x'D

I think the word placebo was actually a quite fitting word, if I say so myself.

Think about it, if you're a veteran player and never gave any thought on how the +X items factor into the game or if you're a newbie player that don't know how anything works, then all this loot seems awesome when you find it.

But once you know how these items work, I.E. you know that they are not actually giving you a benefit, only paying the toll to not to be left behind, then you simply don't see the same wow factor in gaining a level-appropriated +X mandatory item. Either finding it or having to buy it.

That's Exactly why there are double-blind research methods, to avoid bias and the placebo effect.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That specific example applies only if GM only awards players those on specific levels though. (players could also in theory save money to buy them in advance if they pool money)

Also again, its still fundamentally a preference thing. Player could be completely aware that "gm just gives you less money and you automatically gain the bonus on this level" is fundamentally 100% same thing, and they could still say they prefer having it as item because they like idea of "magic sword that is just better" over "out of nowhere my fists do extra damage dice". That is why it is personal preference question.


Gaulin wrote:
Yes I know about abp. Not to yuck anyone's yum, but I personally have a hard time playing with alternate or homebrew rules. Just makes me feel wrong, almost like I'm cheating. More power to those who like that sort of thing though.

I have the same issue. For me it's a result of my OCD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote:
A sword that once per day upgrades a hit to a critical hit is going to feel more epic than a sword that gives you a consistent 5% improvement even if mathematically it isn't.

I'll take 10!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
A sword that once per day upgrades a hit to a critical hit is going to feel more epic than a sword that gives you a consistent 5% improvement even if mathematically it isn't.
I'll take 10!

Ewwwww! I haaaate cooldowns like that. I'd take the 5% improvement 10 times out of 10.


Yeah, those 1/day crit confirm abilities are weird. Heck even with the Kensai Magus it was weird having it, and Kensai Magus could do it multiple times a day.

Take me for example. I would rather have a chance to actually hit, than to maybe have 1 crit.

Customer Service Representative

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have removed a couple of posts. If the only reason you are commenting is to insult someone, don't comment. We can disagree and still be respectful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
The Tage wrote:
Then why are striking runes and the assumption that weapon users have them, baked into the math of the game?
Because the playtesters wanted them.

Offering a public playtest is a delicate affair, and you should not hold one unless you are able to resist its needs and wants - you should not automatically do what the majority (or a vocal minority) tells you to.

In this case, listening to the playtesters was a clear mistake.

The game would have been clearly better if players with martial characters didn't find they need to spend their money on weapon upgrades, every single campaign, like clock work with zero choice or variance.

Really it should have been obvious from the start that a massive upgrade like a second (third...) weapon die is ill-suited to "optional choice".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
The Tage wrote:
Then why are striking runes and the assumption that weapon users have them, baked into the math of the game?
Because the playtesters wanted them.

Offering a public playtest is a delicate affair, and you should not hold one unless you are able to resist its needs and wants - you should not automatically do what the majority (or a vocal minority) tells you to.

In this case, listening to the playtesters was a clear mistake.

I disagree. For one, we don't know the % of people in favor of magic swords mundane fighter vs. magic fighter mundane sword. It could have been an overwhelming 90% landslide. Would you, as a developer, resist or argue with a 90% leaning? Over something that (at the time) was a rather minor aspect of a massive engine overhaul that had many other aspects getting renovated.

Quote:
The game would have been clearly better if players with martial characters didn't find they need to spend their money on weapon upgrades, every single campaign, like clock work with zero choice or variance.

And this is why the variant rules of ABP and Mundane Quality were printed within the first year of the game's lifespan, and not halfway through like 1e.

Quote:
Really it should have been obvious from the start that a massive upgrade like a second (third...) weapon die is ill-suited to "optional choice".

Except it isn't a choice? Is it a choice to use a train or semi-truck for moving a large amount of good? It's an equipment cost, because equipment is a necessity. Even if we didn't have a +X system, you still need to buy a dang sword if you want to use one to hack zombies to pieces, or a bow to snipe people from miles away like the No Face May King (Robin Hood, in case ya don't catch the reference). I don't really see an issue with incremental upgrades that are needed to stay relevant when, in all other aspects of life, that's looked at as the norm. Better car, better oven, better kitchen knives, better shovel, better gaming system, ect. ect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Except it isn't a choice? Is it a choice to use a train or semi-truck for moving a large amount of good? It's an equipment cost, because equipment is a necessity. Even if we didn't have a +X system, you still need to buy a dang sword if you want to use one to hack zombies to pieces, or a bow to snipe people from miles away like the No Face May King (Robin Hood, in case ya don't catch the reference). I don't really see an issue with incremental upgrades that are needed to stay relevant when, in all other aspects of life, that's looked at as the norm. Better car, better oven, better kitchen knives, better...

I think an issue here is that it is required but you aren't "entitled" to it like your other class features. In an AP or a homebrew campaign you might have the issue that you haven't combated foes with weapon and there hasn't been a good time to give your loot. Or you're in the wilderness without access to a settlement of proper level. Or maybe a GM isn't really aware of how necessary it is and you as a player is stuck with your worse weapon.

A better car is not something people get at the earliest opportunity but rather perhaps when the old one really doesn't gets the job done anymore or when you have a surplus of disposable income and you fancy something better.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

No, the mistake was not listening to the people that answer the questions asked during a public play-test. That's a significant part of the point of public play-test.

The mistake was asking questions that provide inaccurate or misleading information because the question itself is easily misunderstood.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Using the ABP variant completely solves this problem, at least for me. I don't understand why this thread even exists.

Even using the ABP not all weapons are equal and you can have your ultimate weapons of legend without needing fundamental runes.

It's the difference between a sword that is +1 to hit and +1dX and a sword that is +1 to hit and +1dX and shoots lightning and cuts people's head off on a 20. The very existence of property runes seems to defeat the idea that the ABP system renders all weapons identical.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Using the ABP variant completely solves this problem, at least for me. I don't understand why this thread even exists.

It's one of many threads on these forums designed by roleplayers and representatives of other systems/editions to diminish the appeal of PF 2E. Simple edition warring.

People today can't just enjoy their own things anymore, they have to make certain there is no competition. Anyone who is not with them in their chosen platform (be it a roleplaying system, game console, or vehicle brand, or whatever) is guilty of high wrongthink and must be made inferior, either by uplifting the chosen platform over all others or by diminishing all others in some fashion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Woah, I love your posts and have nothing but respect for you ravingdork, but I don't think that's fair to say. I am a huge pf2 fanboy and try convince what few friends I have to play it, including ones that play 5e or even pf1. I don't think even you have nothing about the system you wouldn't change. And yes, I know people are free to homebrew whatever they like, but some people don't like homebrew or play pfs.

The reason I post in these sorts of threads isn't just to complain for no reason. I do hope something constructive comes out of it, whether it be devs seeing people's opinions (hey there are a ton of people that love abp, maybe we should make a few feats that give a similar thing, etc) or some other posters having ways around it.

I will say recently I tried looking at your weapon getting destroyed/whatever reason you don't have the weapon as just another scenario to prepare for. I think of it like getting diseased or something; have a backup plan. Make sure you can use a cantrip okay, be trained in repairing and crafting, etc.


ABP is a fix for me too, but not a "complete" one because what I actually want is for the game math to work as intended across all levels without me having to choose between A) a specific roll-out of treasures whether found, purchased, or crafted or B) constantly reminding players that because of the variant rule we're using they also need to add stuff mentioned on the ABP table to what they do when leveling up, instead of just doing what's on their character's class table.

And I make a stink about the having asked the wrong question during the play-test thing because I'm wanting Paizo to have the best odds at doing it better if years form now when they go to make PF3 - and then maybe that game will end up with the base game working as intended and the option being actually optional and also giving folks that like items with plusses the feeling of actual plusses rather than the equivalent of the "why not make them go to 10, but make 10 louder?"/"...these one's go to 11" bit from This is Spinal Tap.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm kinda weirded out by idea that "updating your gear needs to be optional!" though.

Like yeah I get idea that "if you need to buy this anyway, then its just something either player or GM has to do or math goes wrong and might as well be included in level up in itself" but umm... I don't get whats wrong with idea of buying stronger items in general.

Like, is point that none of items should be required by math wise? Its still kinda weird idea if you could have level 20 character without any high level gear. I don't exactly like 5e style "system is designed to be playable from level 1-20 for characters without any magic items" approach.


CorvusMask wrote:

I'm kinda weirded out by idea that "updating your gear needs to be optional!" though.

Like yeah I get idea that "if you need to buy this anyway, then its just something either player or GM has to do or math goes wrong and might as well be included in level up in itself" but umm... I don't get whats wrong with idea of buying stronger items in general.

The point is that they are not upgrades, they're mainly the illusion of one. Also, story-wise it is much reasonable for characters to "upgrade" their stuff with things that go outside of the norm, such as weapons that can light themselves up, boots that allows crazy jumping or outright flight, invisibility cloaks, etc. Not a sword that randomly just does "damage" an abstraction that the game itself creates. I think the closes we can see normally in stories about weapons that do more "damage" are those that cut through most stuff quite easily, thus making so that enemies can't defend and their armor is meaningless, even so that's a stretch, in my opinion.

Quote:
Like, is point that none of items should be required by math wise? Its still kinda weird idea if you could have level 20 character without any high level gear. I don't exactly like 5e style "system is designed to be playable from level 1-20 for characters without any magic items" approach.

Here. This is the reason why you can't fathom the idea of a game without mandatory items. You think that because there's no Christmas-Tree Mandatory items that the players will have no magical items. That is plain wrong. In fact, the whole idea of using APB is so that the players can focus on the items that actually do stuff. They can buy more utility consumables, more wands, they can gravitate towards items that allow them to do stuff that their characters normally can't, like buying the combo Elven Boots and Cloak, for great stealth capabilities, swords with interesting effects instead of just damage.

Items I'm talking about:Eclipse,Sparkblade,Smoking Sword, Moonlit Chain, Electric Eelskin, etc.

This, of course, doesn't mean that players won't be finding Property runes, wands, talismans and even relics if the GM wants to spice things up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not that there's something "wrong" with the idea of there being stronger items.

It's that the entire conceit of "high level gear" is an artificially created paradigm that is now kind of circular in logic; the reason you need high level gear is because high level gear exists, and the reason high level gear exists is so that you can need it at high level.

And then you get into the reality that the system math adds a few points to the DCs you're rolling against at particular levels and the reason for those points to be there is so that items can provide numbers that offset those and get you back to the pre-determined chance of success, so the game is basically starting out saying "you get $5 to buy lunch with, and a burger costs $5" and eventually saying "congratulations! You now get $15 to buy lunch with... and btw, incidentally, not really related I promise, a burger is gonna cost $15." Some people think that still feels different, but to me it's just a really complex method of saying "you get 1 burger for lunch"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Like, is point that none of items should be required by math wise? Its still kinda weird idea if you could have level 20 character without any high level gear. I don't exactly like 5e style "system is designed to be playable from level 1-20 for characters without any magic items" approach.

That's kind of why I wish there was something in the middle between "magic items hardly matter at all" and "you basically can't function at high levels without your magic weapon."

It feels like there's a lot of room in between those two points, but we only ever see the extremes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Like, is point that none of items should be required by math wise? Its still kinda weird idea if you could have level 20 character without any high level gear. I don't exactly like 5e style "system is designed to be playable from level 1-20 for characters without any magic items" approach.

That's kind of why I wish there was something in the middle between "magic items hardly matter at all" and "you basically can't function at high levels without your magic weapon."

It feels like there's a lot of room in between those two points, but we only ever see the extremes.

I think some of the property runes do pretty well in that territory.

Like how a flaming rune only adds 1d6 on a hit and 1d10 persistent on a critical, which at low levels can feel huge but at higher levels isn't going to make-or-break a fight even if an opponent is resistant/weak to fire, and the greater version of the rune makes the rune more broadly applicable by ignoring resistance rather than risking making it a too-big-to-go-without level of damage by actually upping the dice across the board.

And if the difference between "has magic weapon" and "doesn't have magic weapon" stayed in that same realm rather than ending up being losing 2/3 or 3/4 of your damage dice I think that'd still be enough room for items to be appealing to people that want to have some magic oomph but not make it so that people like me feel stuck with homework we don't want to do but if we don't do the game sucks to play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd argue P2 is the middle ground between the extremes of P1 and 5e.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
I'd argue P2 is the middle ground between the extremes of P1 and 5e.

But magic weapons contribute vastly more to your overall power in PF2 than PF1, so that doesn't really make sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

* PF2 is the extreme where you need maxed out gear to even compete.

* PF1 is the middle point where as long as you are not totally negleting magic gear its fine.

* DnD5e is the extreme where you don't need to get magic gear what so ever.

People talk a lot about the big 6 in PF1. But not about how you maxing out those items was unnecessary. After all people didn't complain about having to buy items, they complained about how many magic items you could buy.

Like the entire complaint about PF1 is that some people didn't want to be "chritmas trees". Heck that's the entire reason why ABP was added to PF1.


Even video game RPGs are based around upgrading magic items and getting the next cool items. So yeah players love getting more cool items and power upgrades.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


People talk a lot about the big 6 in PF1. But not about how you maxing out those items was unnecessary. After all people didn't complain about having to buy items, they complained about how many magic items you could buy.

Like the entire complaint about PF1 is that some people didn't want to be "chritmas trees". Heck that's the entire reason why ABP was added to PF1.

I'd argue the big problem in PF1's Big 6 was more that they were unintuitive (seriously, who expects to have to keep upgrading a specific ring/amulet/cloak to stay on par defensively) and also ate up a lot of good slots that you'd want to have other things in. Not having a belt/headband/ring 1/amulet/shoulders slot, because they're tied to the Big 6, is a massive penalty for interesting items. Everything in one of those slots had to be compared to the Big 6.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Temperans wrote:


People talk a lot about the big 6 in PF1. But not about how you maxing out those items was unnecessary. After all people didn't complain about having to buy items, they complained about how many magic items you could buy.

Like the entire complaint about PF1 is that some people didn't want to be "chritmas trees". Heck that's the entire reason why ABP was added to PF1.

I'd argue the big problem in PF1's Big 6 was more that they were unintuitive (seriously, who expects to have to keep upgrading a specific ring/amulet/cloak to stay on par defensively) and also ate up a lot of good slots that you'd want to have other things in. Not having a belt/headband/ring 1/amulet/shoulders slot, because they're tied to the Big 6, is a massive penalty for interesting items. Everything in one of those slots had to be compared to the Big 6.

I found that real problem was that most other items compared unfavorably to the big six. And unless an item is a key factor to your build, a PC is just as likely to forget that they even have it. Players can't even keep track of their own class features, let alone all their item's special abilities.


Kasoh wrote:


I found that real problem was that most other items compared unfavorably to the big six. And unless an item is a key factor to your build, a PC is just as likely to forget that they even have it. Players can't even keep track of their own class features, let alone all their item's special abilities.

Fun story: guess how many times I've forgotten I have a pearly white spindle aeon stone.

And I'm at max investment, so I really need that slot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the big 6 in PF1 aren't even the big 6. They're the big 3 or the big 4 for MAD characters. All you need is a magic weapon, a cloak of resistance, and the belt/headband to upgrade the stats you want. AC is extremely easy to dump in that system without shooting yourself in the foot once you get into magic item territory. Just get something to cancel crits and you're good.

This goes double for GMs that heavily use natural attack monsters as bosses. You have to put yourself in debt to get the AC you need to have a 4 miss you unless you're a class that specializes in high AC like paladin. Can't even count on iteratives to give you a chance to evade the later attacks.

Onto PF2 I don't mind the PCs needing magic items to keep up with the big nasty monsters they're fighting that much anymore. What I do mind is that the NPCs get such high numbers without magic items. Especially when it's normal stuff like a jailer or a bandit.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Even video game RPGs are based around upgrading magic items and getting the next cool items.

That's a little bit cyclical, though. Most of the old-school video games of fantasy RPG nature are based on D&D to varying degrees, like the original Final Fantasy being almost straight-up D&D to the point of having mind flayers and beholders in it. So things based on those or table-top games that mirror elements from that genre of video game are still tracing the reason why they have item progression like that back to "because Gary & Dave put it in their game way back when."

Kasoh wrote:
I found that real problem was that most other items compared unfavorably to the big six.

Same. Players that understood the system would basically never choose a cloak for their character other than a cloak of protection with the highest plus they could afford unless said cloak was just a cloak of protection with extra enchantments on it.

Temperans wrote:

* PF2 is the extreme where you need maxed out gear to even compete.

* PF1 is the middle point where as long as you are not totally negleting magic gear its fine.

* DnD5e is the extreme where you don't need to get magic gear what so ever.

I think two of the three of these are kind of misleading.

In PF1 it's actually pretty extreme because the difference between maxing out your gear and being more moderately equipped is significant because of the game's core math and the flaws it inhereted from D&D 3.X, so the "its fine" comes with an asterisk statement of that only being the case if the GM is tuning encounters to your level of oomph rather than assuming you'd max out (in which case you're probably going to TPK because you don't have better gear) or assuming you'd have even less than you actually do (in which case you're probably thinking "why is this game so easy?")

And in D&D 5e it's not that you won't feel like you want/need to go get magical gear if you can, it's that you're fine if you don't, and you're also fine if you do.

More generally on the idea that players want items to be mandatory, I don't think that's accurate at all. I think players want items to be in the game, because yes it is cool to find a magic item and use it... but that's is not the same thing as wanting the game to make certain items genuinely mandatory in the sense of not getting them at the right time meaning the difficulty of the game spikes.

There is a reason, afterall, that what used to be "if your weapon isn't at least this magical, it does nothing to this enemy" has ended up being "if you weapon isn't magical it does a few less damage" instead of sticking with the hard-mandatory styling.

And at the end of the day I think players that enjoy magic items would not enjoy them less if they could viably go without one... because I'm pretty sure the "I actually have to have this or else my character dies" aspect isn't what they enjoy about magic items.

HyperMissingno" wrote:
What I do mind is that the NPCs get such high numbers without magic items. Especially when it's normal stuff like a jailer or a bandit.

Would your ideal solution be that they don't have high enough numbers to be relevant without GM intervention (likely by giving them magic items), or that they come explicitly pre-loaded with the magic items that put their numbers where the game needs them to be?

Also that's another thing which wouldn't be an issue if the game didn't already presume that PCs were going to have items because then NPCs wouldn't need quite so high numbers to be appropriately challenging.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I hated about magic weapons was that I felt like my character was useless without their magic weapon.

ABP was the remedy to that. My character is just that damn good.

I like some magic items to exist, but not ones that add to things like saves, attack rolls, and damage, and AC.

I don't like magical number adders. Magic that does stuff (besides increase numbers) is what I like to see.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

The thing I hated about magic weapons was that I felt like my character was useless without their magic weapon.

ABP was the remedy to that. My character is just that damn good.

I like some magic items to exist, but not ones that add to things like saves, attack rolls, and damage, and AC.

I don't like magical number adders. Magic that does stuff (besides increase numbers) is what I like to see.

Perfectly valid. Just to point out how contrary the customer base is, I prefer magical number adders over any other kind of magical item.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, its part of why I think people who have the "I never want to use variant rules" problem need to get over the hurdle.

Like unless every single future, present and past pathfinder fan answers in survey which they prefer, we won't ever know what is real ratio of which one people prefer. But it doesn't really matter which one is the "default one" if system has variant rule that allows for both. So its kinda coming across as silly to me to not use the variant rule because you don't want to check two tables or you think you are only allowed to play the game without house rules.(devs use house rules themselves all the time as well)

Like even if ABP was the default, then the people who want to use gear thing instead would have to manually replace those parts from table everytime they want to play game like that :p Someone would have to do extra brain math either way, and I think its easier to add extra stuff than remove stuff.

(plus gm could be nice and create level up tables for players' classes that include abp bonuses. Heck wouldn't be surprised if some nice person eventually puts that up in internet so it'd be prep free to do)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Even video game RPGs are based around upgrading magic items and getting the next cool items.

That's a little bit cyclical, though. Most of the old-school video games of fantasy RPG nature are based on D&D to varying degrees, like the original Final Fantasy being almost straight-up D&D to the point of having mind flayers and beholders in it. So things based on those or table-top games that mirror elements from that genre of video game are still tracing the reason why they have item progression like that back to "because Gary & Dave put it in their game way back when."

Kasoh wrote:
I found that real problem was that most other items compared unfavorably to the big six.

Same. Players that understood the system would basically never choose a cloak for their character other than a cloak of protection with the highest plus they could afford unless said cloak was just a cloak of protection with extra enchantments on it.

Temperans wrote:

* PF2 is the extreme where you need maxed out gear to even compete.

* PF1 is the middle point where as long as you are not totally negleting magic gear its fine.

* DnD5e is the extreme where you don't need to get magic gear what so ever.

I think two of the three of these are kind of misleading.

In PF1 it's actually pretty extreme because the difference between maxing out your gear and being more moderately equipped is significant because of the game's core math and the flaws it inhereted from D&D 3.X, so the "its fine" comes with an asterisk statement of that only being the case if the GM is tuning encounters to your level of oomph rather than assuming you'd max out (in which case you're probably going to TPK because you don't have better gear) or assuming you'd have even less than you actually do (in which case you're probably thinking "why is this game so easy?")

And in D&D 5e it's not that you won't feel like you want/need to go get magical gear if you can, it's that you're fine if you don't, and you're also fine if you...

You see, thats the thing. Items are mandatory in PF2 because the entire math is based around players getting those items. But PF1 by comparison is not built around players getting everything. And 5e barely has any magic items to speak off.

Were maxed out PF1 chars much stronger than the opposite? Yeah. Was it needed to get all the items to max? Not at all. By comparison, a PF2 character without the mandatory items is pretty much dead.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is difference though while math problems in 1e meant that players would be much stronger than enemies if they get all items, the big six where still so much better than other items that you were basically nerfing yourself on purpose when you got anything else.

(also I would argue that for characters that weren't min maxed since level 1, the big six are actually even more important <_< Like cloak of resistance is arguably most important magic item in 1e because you DON'T want to fail saves vs high level save or die spells)

Meanwhile in 2e, only things you have to buy to keep up with math is fundamental weapon and armor runes which don't really take "slots" from other items you could have instead gotten.


CorvusMask wrote:

There is difference though while math problems in 1e meant that players would be much stronger than enemies if they get all items, the big six where still so much better than other items that you were basically nerfing yourself on purpose when you got anything else.

(also I would argue that for characters that weren't min maxed since level 1, the big six are actually even more important <_< Like cloak of resistance is arguably most important magic item in 1e because you DON'T want to fail saves vs high level save or die spells)

Meanwhile in 2e, only things you have to buy to keep up with math is fundamental weapon and armor runes which don't really take "slots" from other items you could have instead gotten.

I can't remember what the big six are? Let me see if I can remember.

Cloak of Resistance (Necessary)
Ring of Protection (not necessary, but desirable)
Magic Weapon (Necessary for martials)
Maxed out main stat item (Highly desirable for martials and Necessary for casters)
Magic Armor with Maxed Fortification: Maxed fortification was first as crits were worse than just getting hit. All my players got +1 armor and maxed fortification before improving their armor plus.

What is the sixth one? As long as you had the above with a stat enhancing item for your weak save, you were usually good. Is the stat enhancing item for the weak save part of the big six?


Ring of protection
Armor
Weapon
Natural amulet
Cloak of resistance
Stat belt


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

You see, thats the thing. Items are mandatory in PF2 because the entire math is based around players getting those items. But PF1 by comparison is not built around players getting everything. And 5e barely has any magic items to speak off.

Were maxed out PF1 chars much stronger than the opposite? Yeah. Was it needed to get all the items to max? Not at all. By comparison, a PF2 character without the mandatory items is pretty much dead.

To me the differences could be phrased thusly:

PF2: Items are mandatory because the developers correctly assume that players will accumulate as much power for their characters as they are allowed by the rules/their GM, and the game balance works as a result. So yeah, a PC is probably dead without the right items.

PF1: Items are mandatory because the only way the game actually works on it's fragile inhereted math is if everyone in the party is tuned to the same power level and so are their enemies. So if anyone in the party is maxed out, the GM is probably trying to provide them some semblance of challenge so that they don't get bored and also bore everyone else by kicking all of the butt on their own, which means everyone else is either also maxed out to fit in, or probably dead.

D&D 5e: Items aren't actually force multipliers. Have them, or don't, your character probably won't die (unless that's the outcome the GM is aiming for) and you probably won't have your own contributions seem so much greater than the rest of the party that it feels like them not having just as potent of items is a problem.

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I can't remember what the big six are?

It's not exactly particular items or particular slots, it's the particular effects: weapon, armor & shield, stat booster, resistance bonus, deflection bonus, natural armor bonus.

101 to 150 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Mandatory Items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.