Mandatory Items

[Fumarole]

Temperans wrote:

By comparison, a PF2 character without the mandatory items is pretty much dead.

In my Age of Ashes game the party are level nine. What "mandatory items" would the wizard in my group need to not be "pretty much dead?"

[thenobledrake]

Fumarole wrote:

Temperans wrote:

By comparison, a PF2 character without the mandatory items is pretty much dead.

In my Age of Ashes game the party are level nine. What "mandatory items" would the wizard in my group need to not be "pretty much dead?"

If you don't have potency rune adding to your AC and resiliency rune adding to your saves, or the spells you can compensate for lacking those with, you are a lot more likely to have the character end up dead than you'd be if you did have those.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Maxed out main stat item (Highly desirable for martials and Necessary for casters)

People usually put belt and headband as two of them, because most characters would really like both. Still...

With regards to PF2, while the lack of number bonuses outside the obvious runes is nice, I keep feeling like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Like I've missed something really important, and any minute now someone is going to point it out, and I'm going to facepalm so hard I knock myself out.

[nick1wasd]

Fumarole wrote:

Temperans wrote:

By comparison, a PF2 character without the mandatory items is pretty much dead.

In my Age of Ashes game the party are level nine. What "mandatory items" would the wizard in my group need to not be "pretty much dead?"

Bracers of Armor, a Staff of some kind, probably a wand or two. A backup melee weapon never hurts, so probs a +1 S. dagger, a skill item of some form. Even casters need some equipment, some more than others, but all of them need at least an AC/save boost to not instantly die from a stray fireball or arrow volley, and a staff to eek out more spells per day.

[Lightning Raven]

Let me just remind everyone that not having mandatory items in the system doesn't mean that there are no powerful magical items that the players might want or that there will be upgrades to existing items.

Believing that without mandatory items players will automatically not have anything to expert or have interesting surprise is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that if you think mandatory items are benefits, you're dead wrong and that is a fact. They are math fixers and the only players that think they're boons are either RPG newbies that don't know any better or players that didn't give it proper thought to what they mean for the game.

Unlike most games where you get a lot loot to customize your build, such as Diablo or the dreadful recent trend of "looter shooters", TTRPGs are far more limited and require a different kind of balance. While in those games the goal is to find synergistic combos that may or may not break your power level as well as feel satisfying in play for a single person, TTRPGs have a much more limited number of items (just the fundamental runs) and the goal is NOT to break the power curve because it cause problems, so they basically don't replicate the idea that you're getting actual "pluses/bonuses" like you would in those games, thus they're just "you pay up so you're not left behind", which by extension means that higher level characters are just basically a guy with a powerful item.

Mandatory items are irrelevant and you do not lose anything whatsoever by making the transition. You don't lose anything that the normal system allegedly provides. Item upgrades that make loot interesting? Yep. Magic "wow factor"? Not only yes, but far more because the GM doesn't need to award +X loot and can give the interesting stuff. Actual build choices? Also yes.

Seems like the argument has been recycled over and over, but I'll say it as long as it's needed: The lack of mandatory items doesn't mean that the PCs won't find magical items. The alternative is not 5e! The alternative is MORE Pathfinder2e.

[Claxon]

I would like to say one thing that is unappealing for me (as someone who likes interesting magic items rather than numbers boosters) is the 2E doesn't seem to provide much in this respect.

I feel like I need the fundamental runes in 2E, so if I don't get the weapon and armor fundamental runes my character is useless or dead. I hate that feeling. But to make it worse, outside of those rune, magic items (at least in the CRB, haven't look that hard at what's available since then) have been mediocre. Some are a little interesting. The most appealing items are skill number boosters, but occasionally some of them have interesting additional effects.

Compared to 1E, I feel 2E has less room to do interesting things with magic items because the general power level is lower.

Again, this may have gotten better since the CRB and I haven't been looking closely.

[thenobledrake]

Claxon wrote:

Again, this may have gotten better since the CRB and I haven't been looking closely.

That really comes down to what you find interesting.

Myself, for example, I've got all my old favorites which are still appealing to me despite having had them in 7 different systems now and their current versions not necessarily being the most potent they've ever been (necklace of fireballs, ring of wizard, bag of holding, staves in general, aeon stones, to put names to a few) and the game has added in a few things which probably aren't new but feel new to me that I also find interesting (like the everyneed pack from the Pathfinder Society Guide and various worn items that have an activatable power like Bracelet of Dashing).

[Staffan Johansson]

As for me, I don't so much mind having items as part of the math. My preference would be for items that do Cool Stuff, not just give Big Numbers. For example, Mjölner isn't cool because it hits real hard, it's cool because you can throw it and it returns, and because it conjures lightning. But I recognize the allure of Big Numbers too, and I don't mind it so much.

What I do mind is connecting them to the economy. It warps the way the world works too much. It's just so weird to me that someone would buy a moderate healing potion for the same amount of money you could live comfortably off for a year, and that's at relatively low levels. It means there's a direct translation between money and badassitude, and I don't like that. I want rich lords that pay their elite guards well, but not "I could hire a whole company of soldiers instead" well.

It also makes it hard to include any other economic aspect in the game, because you need to wall it off from the PCs' personal funds. For example, why should a character spend money on upgrading their keep when they could save up to get another +1 to AC instead? Starfinder at least did something to fix that by making your spaceship independent of money and handwaving it away.

I'd much rather have money do the things that money does: it lets you live in comfort, it lets you travel, it lets you pay people to do things for you, and it lets you solve some problems by throwing money at them. But it shouldn't translate into ass-kicking ability.

[Staffan Johansson]

Temperans wrote:

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.

That is to a large degree driven by how the power curve works in these games. Take World of Warcraft, for example. When a new expansion comes out, getting to max level is a fairly quick affair, usually taking like a week or maybe two of casual gaming. Hardcore players often do it in a day or two instead. But that's when the "real" game begins, and that progression usually comes in the form of items that provide marginal stat upgrades but together allows you to defeat things that were previously beyond your abilities. But the level progression? That's just a thing to get out of the way before you get to the "real" game.

[Lucas Yew]

Capitalism (the heartless variation, at the very least) working its usual way even in a fiction-land denizen's existential ascension progress seems awful...

----

Anyway, if I ever run a game, I'd run ABP with the following adjustments so magic items still function in-universe;

(1) Item and potency bonus are separate, but only the better one applies; this also explains why that sword you looted from the stronger NPC boss suddenly drops in power in a RAW manner.
(2) Base item bonus from armour is now just "armour bonus" to avoid grave errors within (1).
(3) Each devastating attack feature lets you treat your proficient non-magical weapon and unarmed damage as something else for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance; magic, cold iron and silver, then adamantine (Monks get the same upgrades on their appropriate attack methods a few levels earlier, as usual).

[WWHsmackdown]

Looking at the abp table the only thing I'd really wanna use from it is the damage dice on weapons. Characters getting stronger seems a better explanation for the difference between 1d12 and 4d12 of damage on a greatsword. Everything else seems like stuff that I would want to explain with either craftsmanship or imbued magic. If somebody wants to use all of the table though, more power to em. I'd just rather give it out as loot.

[Ruzza]

I'm not certain that I'm someone that needs to at all weigh in on this as I seem to view this quite differently than other posters here. I actually run a few tables and some have ABP and some don't. I do it because the different systems feel different and change the players' and characters' relationship with magic items.

For instance, I'm running Abomination Vaults with the Core rules for advancement. It feels very cool and fun to push into a place you don't belong, grabbing up treasure, and booking it out of there before the real nasty stuff shows up. The treasure is very much a part of the goal in my game. Classic dungeon delving.

However, I'm also running Agents of Edgewatch using ABP. I didn't want "get more treasure and get stronger" to be a core theme to a game where players have day jobs protecting the city. This has worked wonders as my players happily catalogue weapons and armor as evidence and then spend their gold on consumables that will give them an edge in hunting down criminals.

I personally feel like deciding on the role of items in the game is something that the GM (and to some extent, the players) should come up with. Coming from "Christmas tree-lightbulb town" of 3.5/PF1 and the "I have exactly the items that I need and require zero more" of 4e, I'm happy to have progression in my items, but consider much of the mandatory nature to have been stripped away.

[Lightning Raven]

Yet another using the same fallacy.

APB doesn't mean "no magical items", it means the party gets cool loot, no mandatory stuff. That's just it.

Playing Abomination Vaults with APB would net exactly the same kind of accomplishment that you described if the players managed to get higher level stuff. The difference between low level magical items (1-4 roughly)a and middle to later levels is staggering. Under the same example, the players could wind up finding treasure that can allow them to do stuff outside of their normal bounds and completely change their approach to dungeon crawling (for example, if they found a Cloak of Elvenkind at level 4, it could allow the party's scout do a lot of dangerous stuff knowing that Invisibility without taking away the casters' slots is available).

The alternative the APB offers is not an adventure without magic items, it's an adventure where every major loot will have items that will give the party new things to do, rather than just paying the system tax. It will also increase build variety and encourage players switching their weapons if they feel like it without fearing losing their precious mandatory runes.

[Ruzza]

Lightning Raven wrote:

APB doesn't mean "no magical items", it means the party gets cool loot, no mandatory stuff. That's just it.

Playing Abomination Vaults with APB would net exactly the same kind of accomplishment that you described if the players managed to get higher level stuff. The difference between low level magical items (1-4 roughly)a and middle to later levels is staggering. Under the same example, the players could wind up finding treasure that can allow them to do stuff outside of their normal bounds and completely change their approach to dungeon crawling (for example, if they found a Cloak of Elvenkind at level 4, it could allow the party's scout do a lot of dangerous stuff knowing that Invisibility without taking away the casters' slots is available).

The alternative the APB offers is not an adventure without magic items, it's an adventure where every major loot will have items that will give the party new things to do, rather than just paying the system tax. It will also increase build variety and encourage players switching their weapons if they feel like it without fearing losing their precious mandatory runes.

Not everyone here is coming after your head, so no need to be confrontational.

You seem to be misconstruing my point. I didn't consciously choose to play by Core rules because of AV, I consciously chose to use ABP because of AoE. The rules work and work well for what I want in a traditional game. AoE is anything but a traditional game, however. I don't want them chasing down criminals to steal their stuff. I don't want them busting into homes to pick off some low-level bandits so that they can make it to the next level. (Which is why I run it with milestone leveling as well)

But that's what I want in AV. I want players to say, "Aw, man, my sword isn't really going to do the trick against these creatures, but the mace I have doesn't have any runes." Only to take stock, retreat, and come back with different preparations. I want them turning over stones to get another rune because maybe that's exactly what they needed to get past the monster on the floor above. I want them hunting down monsters and solving quests even if it's just to get a few more points of experience. I want that feeling for that style of game.

I don't want "Oh cool, this item fits in to replace my other item," when I want my players weighing the pros and cons of moving forward with the gear they have. At the end of the day, we have two sets and thousands of levers to pull and tweak on our own as GMs. If you feel like something isn't working for you or for the mood that you're trying to create, then change it.

[AnimatedPaper]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The truth is that if you think mandatory items are benefits, you're dead wrong and that is a fact. They are math fixers and the only players that think they're boons are either RPG newbies that don't know any better or players that didn't give it proper thought to what they mean for the game.

Or they're players that enjoy having math fixer magic items, like Derevin's players.

His group is hardcore powergamers. They play to beat the game. So, yeah, it makes perfect sense that his players would be uninterested in magic items that do not provide a direct, clear upgrade path, or other uses for gold besides mathematical character upgrades.

We all approach this hobby in different ways to different ends. I prefer ABP myself because it allows for that wider array of more niche item without sacrificing character power, but someone that disagrees with me isn't objectively wrong. They just want something out of the game that I don't.

[thenobledrake]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

His group is hardcore powergamers. They play to beat the game. So, yeah, it makes perfect sense that his players would be uninterested in magic items that do not provide a direct, clear upgrade path, or other uses for gold besides mathematical character upgrades

The thing I question isn't that they like items that give them clear upgrade paths and all that - that makes sense, they like bigger numbers so bigger numbers provided by items makes items appealing.

What I question is the specific part that they supposedly like that they are genuinely mandatory, because to me it seems more logical that they'd like number-adding-items even more if having them meant be above the baseline rather than at the baseline - especially if, as you suggest, they are powergamers (for whom being stuck at the baseline, or worse, even if they put in maximum power-finding efforts would seem to me like an unappealing situation).

Or to phrase that differently: I know for absolute certain that players like magic items. I am also just about as certain they don't view "you can't get by without them" as a feature.

[Claxon]

I guess the thing I really dislike in PF2 is that fundamental runes on armor are absolutely required (you will die and/or fail saves at too great a rate compared to those with them). They're also required for anyone who plans to use a weapon at all, which can include some casters if they don't have attack cantrips.

If you do not have them, you will absolutely fail due to the way the math in the system works.

To me, it's abysmal. The math of the system is so tight, it doesn't feel like a reward to get that +2 greater striking rune. I'm sitting there thinking "It's about damn time! I've needed this for 2 levels to keep up with these monster!"

In PF1 everyone felt that getting the next +1 on your weapon was very important.

But the truth was that attack scaled really fast in that game, outside of a relatively small number of classes (that get maligned for this fact greatly) everybody had internal number booster for attack and damage. This made the next +1 less important compared to PF2, because you could buff yourself or had innate bonuses. The weapon basically meant your last iterative attack wasn't going to miss, because your first 3 were going to hit fine unless you rolled like a 5. And then people reckoned that "yeah, it's okay to miss when I roll that poorly anyways". The damage from magic weapons was basically irrelevant compared to all the other sources of damage.

The truth is magic weapons are less important to PF1 characters than they are in PF2. And I hate the direction we've moved in.

Except that ABP is an option that gets rid of it, and actually does a better job the PF1's version of ABP.

[Lightning Raven]

Ruzza wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

APB doesn't mean "no magical items", it means the party gets cool loot, no mandatory stuff. That's just it.

Playing Abomination Vaults with APB would net exactly the same kind of accomplishment that you described if the players managed to get higher level stuff. The difference between low level magical items (1-4 roughly)a and middle to later levels is staggering. Under the same example, the players could wind up finding treasure that can allow them to do stuff outside of their normal bounds and completely change their approach to dungeon crawling (for example, if they found a Cloak of Elvenkind at level 4, it could allow the party's scout do a lot of dangerous stuff knowing that Invisibility without taking away the casters' slots is available).

The alternative the APB offers is not an adventure without magic items, it's an adventure where every major loot will have items that will give the party new things to do, rather than just paying the system tax. It will also increase build variety and encourage players switching their weapons if they feel like it without fearing losing their precious mandatory runes.

Not everyone here is coming after your head, so no need to be confrontational.

You seem to be misconstruing my point. I didn't consciously choose to play by Core rules because of AV, I consciously chose to use ABP because of AoE. The rules work and work well for what I want in a traditional game. AoE is anything but a traditional game, however. I don't want them chasing down criminals to steal their stuff. I don't want them busting into homes to pick off some low-level bandits so that they can make it to the next level. (Which is why I run it with milestone leveling as well)

But that's what I want in AV. I want players to say, "Aw, man, my sword isn't really going to do the trick against these creatures, but the mace I have doesn't have any runes." Only to take stock, retreat, and come back with different preparations. I want them turning over stones to...

Just pointing out that you as well was using the same fallacy several others used here between APB and Mandatory Items. I am not taking offense, or trying to offend, whatsoever.

Also, confrontation is part of a discussion, specially when two interlocutors have diametrically opposed views. It is normal. I'm not offending anyone as far as I know and I'm only making a counterargument.

And I didn't misconstrue your point, it was very clear that your rationale behind choosing APB or Mandatory items making sense, I was just pointing out that the arguments you used for Mandatory items can be easily achieved by APB in the exact the same way, which is undeniably true. Everything you said did not require mandatory items to be in place.

My effort, because it became really clear here in this thread, is to clarify the misconception that apparently lots of people have the APB is used solely to enable magic-less adventures which is not it's main purpose. The whole point is to put the character progression into the characters, while leaving their money and potential loot open for magical items that have interesting effects and actions, special magical items that you otherwise wouldn't be able to or even interested in, if you had to hoard money to get that next mandatory bump.

[Ruzza]

I'm not under any misconception about the way ABP works and why I'm using it for my games. ABP takes away my levers of control as a GM for where and when my players get access to items and the power it brings. With the Core system I can play with those and offer up challenges differently. I enjoy a lot of that "texture" in my encounters.

A lot of people are approaching this from a player-side, which I completely understand. From that perspective, just give me the bonuses as the level I should have them and be done with it. But that's not looking at the why of it all. It's much akin to the "ghost problem" in that... what's the point of ghosts having resistances doubled against non-magical items at a point when everyone should naturally have magical weapons? And without magical weapons, there's very little chance to actually hurt a ghost.

As a GM, I have the ability to look at these abilities and see how they interact with items available to my players (or, importantly, not available) and create encounters that I couldn't with ABP.

Honestly, when you look at this "problem," do you see it as a player who should just have those systems built into the system or as a GM who may have reasons for running it Core?

[AnimatedPaper]

thenobledrake wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

His group is hardcore powergamers. They play to beat the game. So, yeah, it makes perfect sense that his players would be uninterested in magic items that do not provide a direct, clear upgrade path, or other uses for gold besides mathematical character upgrades

The thing I question isn't that they like items that give them clear upgrade paths and all that - that makes sense, they like bigger numbers so bigger numbers provided by items makes items appealing.

What I question is the specific part that they supposedly like that they are genuinely mandatory, because to me it seems more logical that they'd like number-adding-items even more if having them meant be above the baseline rather than at the baseline - especially if, as you suggest, they are powergamers (for whom being stuck at the baseline, or worse, even if they put in maximum power-finding efforts would seem to me like an unappealing situation).

Or to phrase that differently: I know for absolute certain that players like magic items. I am also just about as certain they don't view "you can't get by without them" as a feature.

Again, powergamers. It might be hyperbolic to say "Everything is either mandatory or trash", but not very. I don't say this to mock them, as I was a powergamer in different games (just not this one), so I feel like I can understand this mindset even if I don't share it. In any case, I doubt they have nearly as much objection to the concept as you're assuming.

And yes, doubtless they'd enjoy being able to break the game instead of merely beat it, like with Verdyn's group, but Derevin said upthread he enjoys not having to rebalance everything because the items are accounted for in the game's math. So it is again a confluence of competing goals that results in mandatory items being actually, genuinely, fun for some groups.

[Zapp]

Gaulin wrote:

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.

At best, it results in a rules revision where Paizo, in this case, shuffles the variant for the core.

At worst, it provides wisdom for PF3.

So you did nothing wrong, and anyone saying you are complaining for "no reason" should be read as "I don't like that you point out valid concerns; I'd much prefer if my game of choice was unassailable."

[Zapp]

thenobledrake wrote:

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.

I too find "but use the variant" far too lazy and dismissive.

It really doesn't fix the core issue: that magic items are either too powerful (and completely mandatory) or... to be honest, far too weak and/or conditional.

More immediately, it kind of solves the issue by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The complain wasn't "I don't want a magic item economy", it was "these items are so dominant choosing them is not a true choice". (The variant IS great for those having that issue. But here we're discussing being directed towards the same variant even though the concern is completely different)

The variant basically removes vast swathes of items from the game. That's not a good solution.

Also, the variant is completely silent on the significant economical change: upending the gold balance between martials and casters. Per RAW, most gold looted by fighters have to go towards weapons. Suddenly all that gold is freed up. Meanwhile, casters never had anything even remotely as powerful to purchase.

[Zapp]

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.

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.

The complaint isn't "I want to be able to never buy a new magic weapon".

The complaint is "I have to get the exact same sequence of upgrades in every single game (where I play someone using weapons)".

[Zapp]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The point is that they are not upgrades, they're mainly the illusion of one.

Also this.

It just isn't fun to basically realize you will never have much money or feel rich because all your gold needs to go towards not-upgrades.

[Zapp]

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.

And that something would have been internalizing the weapon die upgrades.

Basically, to hand them out for free as part of your character's own power.

In PF2 math, the +1 part and the various extra effects, still make a marked difference, and so will remain nice to have.

But the Striking dice? Nah. It's utterly must have, and so it was a poor candidate for external loot and/or an item on the purchasing menu.

Z

PS. I realize some of you might be arguing "but even the +1 is must have not nice to have".

In that case I can't help you, because that's a criticism against the very core of PF2: it's (very) tight math. If the game math doesn't even allow a variance of the smallest unit (plus minus one) then the game needs to loosen up, full stop.

Any attempt to create conditional bonuses "it gives +1 but only on Tuesdays" to make the must-have only a nice-have is doomed to futility. In the end, plus minus one is the smallest unit in the game and it can't be that important. Redesign the game so a span of 2-3 points remains playable to provide the necessary space for upgrades that remain optional.

There really can't be another analysis than this.

[Zapp]

thenobledrake wrote:

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

The property runes do work.

In fact, it would have been great if Striking runes didn't exist, because they kind of constrict the ability to have more varied such runes.

Again it biols down to what's expected and what's a bonus on top.

If the game expects each property slot to be filled with a bonus d6 damage, then +3d6 at high level isn't cool and exceptional - instead NOT having it feels like a penalty.

At least it's a fixed die. Even at low level +1d6 isn't making or breaking the game.

Striking runes should not exist. Instead you should gain maybe +4 per such die (a static number that doesn't balloon the number of dice you need to roll, and a number that doesn't benefit larger weapons much much more than smaller ones).

If we squint let's say +1 damage per every other level to a) keep it simple b) not veer too far off course - you get +10 instead of +12 for a d8 weapon - so monsters need redesigning) c) allow space for cooler weapon upgrades.

[AnimatedPaper]

Zapp wrote:

In fact, it would have been great if Striking runes didn't exist, because they kind of constrict the ability to have more varied such runes.

I agree with this. I don’t mind the potency runes as much, because those are very easy to just homebrew out if you decided they didn’t exist in your world. The striking runes would require overhauling several feats and the HP of basically every NPC if they did not exist.

I would have greatly preferred this to simply be a part of a martial’s power scaling, the way spells increase in damage die as they become higher level.

[thewastedwalrus]

From my experiences fundamental items like +X striking weapons and +X resilient armor still open up some interesting options, mostly about who in the party actually gets the first few that are found.

Maybe the front-line character gets them first because they're most in danger of being hit, or maybe the caster gets them because they dumped Constitution and keep nearly dying. Weapons typically are a bit clearer to distribute, but some players have really enjoyed getting a new weapon type to prompt some different combat gameplay options (new traits/handedness/etc.).

Separately, I've enjoyed having the option to give out these magic weapons well before they're necessary by the game's math. It really, shakes up the expectation and even party tactics as they group around helping a few characters get the damage in through clever positioning, de-buffing, or other plans.