| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turns out DMs don't usually design their games so that they give players an item that lets them stomp over encounters and then don't up encounters to compensate.That's their choice, though.
There's no inherent reason to keep adding this and counter-balancing with that when you could choose to either just not add whatever in the first place, or let it actually matter that you included it.
It's just like the old "this is a high-powered campaign" fallacy where the GM would hand out extra ability score points or start at higher level, but would then set up the opposition as just as much more powerful. That's not a "high-powered campaign" that's a normal power campaign with extra steps put in with no effect but for their to be extra steps.
Are you implying that the constant complaints of high-level or mythic PF1 characters breaking difficulty over their knees was "just a choice"? That the questionable level of mythic PF1 difficulty was a desired state?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Turns out DMs don't usually design their games so that they give players an item that lets them stomp over encounters and then don't up encounters to compensate.That's their choice, though.
There's no inherent reason to keep adding this and counter-balancing with that when you could choose to either just not add whatever in the first place, or let it actually matter that you included it.
It's just like the old "this is a high-powered campaign" fallacy where the GM would hand out extra ability score points or start at higher level, but would then set up the opposition as just as much more powerful. That's not a "high-powered campaign" that's a normal power campaign with extra steps put in with no effect but for their to be extra steps.
YES! My god that's a pet peeve. If you're increasing the monster power level because you let me be stronger, than you're just making things more complicated.
It's valid to just say no.
You want a high powered PF2 campaign? Give everyone a flat +2 to attack rolls, AC and saves and don't change the monsters. That's a high power campaign. If you give the monsters a bonus to compensate you're basically playing the base game with extra steps.
Are you implying that the constant complaints of high-level or mythic PF1 characters breaking difficulty over their knees was "just a choice"? That the questionable level of mythic PF1 difficulty was a desired state?
Mythic is not remotely balanced I'll agree to that. Though in theory mythic players should be balanced against mythic enemies. If you were to let players be Mythic Plus and then buff the enemies further too, that's what we're saying is silly.
If you play mythic, and say "this isn't balanced so I need to compensate" then it's just admitting what people know, the rules were bad in the first place (to achieve a style of game that isn't nuke it from orbit before the first actual turn of combat).
High level PF1 is similar. Not balanced. If you give the players extra and want to call it a high power campaign then turn around the buff the monsters you're not really doing things sensibly.
If your buffing monsters because the base game isn't balanced (and it isn't) then you're correcting the rules system.
As with giving anything that helps the players, the GM has to adjust for it in their expectations, if you give out ABP, it affects the game. If you give out some powerful magic item early, you have to keep that in mind until it becomes less significant (or gets used up if a consumable). I will point out however, for those who insist that striking runes don't provide flavor, and are just math boosters... they are basically nearly identical to properties runes, but have a variable die size based on the starting weapon, and do the slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage that the weapon starts with.
Sorry but I have to call BS here, or at least semi-BS.
The property runes that deal damage, such as flaming frost and shock, do as you suggest. However, I also hate those runes:
1) Because they're the most popular
2) I feel it's necessary to get them to keep up with damage expectations
They are again, numbers adders. And bad in my opinion for being so.
Ancestral Echoing is an example of interesting property rune. It increases your proficiency with a weapon you might not otherwise have used (but not above what you normal max would be) and provides some side benefits for lore related to the weapon.
Spell storing is an interesting option too. It may be focused towards damage, but it's a more interesting mechanic because you can use any targeted spell of level 3 or lower in it.
To me those are good examples of interesting magic.
Flatly increasing damage (though you may have to worry about resistance/immunity) is as boring as the striking rune.
Meanwhile I gave players +1 striking katana in jade regent at level 3 <_< (I started campaign basically at level 2 xP)
I gave each of my players a level 5 Relic, didn't have to adjust anything so far, because when you're not buying straight power ups with money or given as rewards, the GM has a lot more freedom to give the players cool stuff because the balancing factor will often be either limited uses, action investment or pure utility.
My players loved it and I only chose to use relics because I thought it would be cool for us to check out this new system, but I could have just as easily awarded them with other nifty magical items.
I wanted to do relics the next time I get around to a homebrew campaign (in Golarion but not an AP). I was just wondering how to prevent all my players feeling like power rangers or he-man......but maybe that's not a bad thing idk. I just liked the idea of each player having a plot related weapon.
I wanted to do relics the next time I get around to a homebrew campaign (in Golarion but not an AP). I was just wondering how to prevent all my players feeling like power rangers or he-man......but maybe that's not a bad thing idk. I just liked the idea of each player having a plot related weapon.
I made vastly different items and they were given spread out. I really didn't like the idea of them finding five relics in a single loot.
So far, I planted them in places that made sense and replacing mandatory items that they would've won in the normal system.
I created a pair of gloves (for the Draconic Bloodline Sorceress), a maul (Dragon Instinct Barbarian), Longspear (Ancestral Oracle) and a Staff (for a Storm Druid).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll state this nicer as my earlier posts were deleted.
Magic items are part of advancement experience in D&D type of games. They have been incorporated as part of advancement since the creation of the game.
I think Paizo was smart to include certain mandatory magic items as a measure of advancement. I think the majority of their customers enjoy magic items being part of the experience of advancement. I think just as getting new spell levels or a new higher level feat is part of increasing your power, getting a new powerful, meaningful, and necessary magic item is part of the character advancement experience.
Paizo has always been the company trying to keep some of the traditions and tropes of D&D that the old school gamers love, while smoothing over some of the rough edges that went a little overboard in older iterations of the game. Magic weapons and armor being part of the advancement experience for characters is one of those traditions I'm glad they kept.
Players love getting their new magic items. And making them required makes sure the GM has to provide them as part of the advancement experience. Not some optional tacked on rule that breaks the math of the game, but an inherent part of the character advancement experience players expect and look forward to as much as they expect and look forward to getting higher level spells, more powerful feats, and advanced class abilities.
I don't look at "mandatory" magic items as a tax any more than I look at 5th level spells or Whirlwind Attack or Greater Weapon specialization as a tax. I look at mandatory magic items as part of the advancement experience of a level-based game that players look forward to and have looked forward to for the four decades I've been playing D&D and the PF offshoot.
I'm happy Paizo incorporated magic items as part of the PF2 advancement experience. My players are happy to be assured of getting more powerful and necessary magic items. They have always looked forward to magic items being part of the D&D/PF character advancement experience of these type of games. As a DM I'm glad Paizo incorporated magic item character advancement into the math of the game as it would have made it a lot more difficult to balance encounters had they not done so as it was in 5E where adding magic items pretty much broke the math of the game.
I hope this better illustrates my view.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this better illustrates my view.
It does and it doesn’t for me. I feel like I get your perspective, but if these items should be considered part of the normal progression of power, then making them part of the normal progression of power as ABP does should seem more compelling, not less.
I keep in mind something James Jacob’s said, that magic items provide a feeling of “leveling up” mid level, as you can and often do get them after every challenge instead of all at once at the end of the level. While I think any magic item might be able to provide that, math fixers DEFINITELY do. After all, the item bonus directly effects D20 and damage rolls, which is otherwise a function of either temporary buffs or leveling up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this better illustrates my view.It does and it doesn’t for me. I feel like I get your perspective, but if these items should be considered part of the normal progression of power, then making them part of the normal progression of power as ABP does should seem more compelling, not less.
While that's technically true, I'm pretty sure my players would lynch me if I told them their sword could not physically increase in sword effectiveness before level 7-8.
And no, telling them "but you get the bonus innately" wound not help.
Are you implying that the constant complaints of high-level or mythic PF1 characters breaking difficulty over their knees was "just a choice"? That the questionable level of mythic PF1 difficulty was a desired state?Mythic is not remotely balanced I'll agree to that. Though in theory mythic players should be balanced against mythic enemies. If you were to let players be Mythic Plus and then buff the enemies further too, that's what we're saying is silly.
Well, yes, that's the point I'm making. You don't fight non-mythic enemies as a mythic character (or if you do, they're increased in difficulty some other way). In the same token, if your 5e players get magic items, they're going to be fighting enemies appropriate to that. That's how the game works.
In the same way, PF2 assumes you're going to be getting magic items, because that's what the game is built around (without default changes like low magic), and has enemies appropriate to that level.
I hope this better illustrates my view.It does and it doesn’t for me. I feel like I get your perspective, but if these items should be considered part of the normal progression of power, then making them part of the normal progression of power as ABP does should seem more compelling, not less.While that's technically true, I'm pretty sure my players would lynch me if I told them their sword could not physically increase in sword effectiveness before level 7-8.
And no, telling them "but you get the bonus innately" wound not help.
Well there’s always the Ghost touch rune.
(I’m being sarcastic if that was unclear).
More seriously, I do hope more interesting low level permanent items make it into the game soon. The items in the beginner box were neat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll state this nicer as my earlier posts were deleted.
Magic items are part of advancement experience in D&D type of games. They have been incorporated as part of advancement since the creation of the game.
I think Paizo was smart to include certain mandatory magic items as a measure of advancement. I think the majority of their customers enjoy magic items being part of the experience of advancement. I think just as getting new spell levels or a new higher level feat is part of increasing your power, getting a new powerful, meaningful, and necessary magic item is part of the character advancement experience.
In old D&D (3.x and older) you could get bumped ahead of the curve with a couple of items or well-chosen spells and stay there. In PF2 the entire game is designed to stop anybody from getting ahead. So that feeling of getting something over on the game just doesn't exist in PF2 and thus magic items should have be reimagined.
Players love getting their new magic items. And making them required makes sure the GM has to provide them as part of the advancement experience. Not some optional tacked on rule that breaks the math of the game, but an inherent part of the character advancement experience players expect and look forward to as much as they expect and look forward to getting higher level spells, more powerful feats, and advanced class abilities.
Higher-level spells, feats, and class abilities can change the way you play and allow you to tackle entirely new classes of problems (or at least they used to...) whereas mandatory items rarely ever do that. Even in video games, you have choices as to where your power comes from, you can progress and upgrade your gear or grind and upgrade your character by forcing your way ahead of the curve.
TLDR; I don't think PF2 allows magic items to have the same effect as they have in past editions and thus their role as a pure tax is even more clear than it has been before.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kinda missing the point of Mythic:
Are you implying that the constant complaints of high-level or mythic PF1 characters breaking difficulty over their knees was "just a choice"? That the questionable level of mythic PF1 difficulty was a desired state?Mythic is not remotely balanced I'll agree to that. Though in theory mythic players should be balanced against mythic enemies. If you were to let players be Mythic Plus and then buff the enemies further too, that's what we're saying is silly.Well, yes, that's the point I'm making. You don't fight non-mythic enemies as a mythic character (or if you do, they're increased in difficulty some other way). In the same token, if your 5e players get magic items, they're going to be fighting enemies appropriate to that. That's how the game works.
In the same way, PF2 assumes you're going to be getting magic items, because that's what the game is built around (without default changes like low magic), and has enemies appropriate to that level.
- It's not about characters being much more powerful than their foes than in a 'normal' campaign.
- It's all about the players feeling more powerful than they did in 'normal' campaigns.
This is a basic issue with how game mechanics make the players feel:
- A major complaint about D&D5e is that due to bounded accuracy, martial characters often only need to change their total HP when they level up, which leaves a lot of players feeling like they are not actually progressing.
- PF2e takes the exact opposite approach and increases pretty much everything at every level.
- Both systems work fairly well mechanically, but personal preferences can easily push a player into strongly preferring one (some want to feel advancement, while others might not like having to update everything on their character sheet every couple of sessions).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having DM'd a D&D5e adventure where the players drove a dragon from its lair and didn't even ask about its treasure hoard, I gotta say I favor the PF2e approach personally...
I keep hearing things like this and I wonder what you as a GM are doing to make your players feel this way. Your players should never feel like they have nothing to spend on because other powerful players in the world should start expecting things from the party. If the Cleric or Paladin passed up the horde instead of passing it on to his church they'd better be ready to explain why the next time they ask the church for a favor. The Wizard should want to fund some space where they can research in their downtime. The Fighter or Barbarian should want a space to train his skills against other warriors.
If your players are just playing a sheet of numbers and abilities in a game like 5e there's something wrong. 5e just doesn't play that way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
.You say 5e doesn’t play that way, but if you keep hearing this statement - clearly it does.
Perhaps consider that maybe it isn’t that you’re doing something right and the other person is doing something wrong. Neither 5e nor Pathfinder have only one play style that the game can support.
Going straight to “what did you do wrong as a GM?” is an unnecessary response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.You say 5e doesn’t play that way, but if you keep hearing this statement - clearly it does.
If it did Taja's players would actually care about using the gold they found to upgrade their pages of stats to even larger numbers. 5e simply doesn't support the hack and slash Monty Hall gameplay that their group seems to enjoy.
Perhaps consider that maybe it isn’t that you’re doing something right and the other person is doing something wrong. Neither 5e nor Pathfinder have only one play style that the game can support.
Going straight to “what did you do wrong as a GM?” is an unnecessary response.
I've run systems where the players usually break even, at best, after each job and you'd be lucky to level a single mid-level skill over the course of several months of play I can firmly say that this is a GM problem. You can keep people invested even if their numbers rarely change. You can even keep them invested in games where you drop a high-powered item into their laps and the first thing they want to do is get rid of it to avoid the complications it's sure to bring. You just need to make sure that it's a style of game that your group is cool with and then keep setting plot hooks that the party just can't refuse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope this better illustrates my view.It does and it doesn’t for me. I feel like I get your perspective, but if these items should be considered part of the normal progression of power, then making them part of the normal progression of power as ABP does should seem more compelling, not less.
I keep in mind something James Jacob’s said, that magic items provide a feeling of “leveling up” mid level, as you can and often do get them after every challenge instead of all at once at the end of the level. While I think any magic item might be able to provide that, math fixers DEFINITELY do. After all, the item bonus directly effects D20 and damage rolls, which is otherwise a function of either temporary buffs or leveling up.
I believe players want part of their advancement in the form of meaningful, impactful, and necessary magic items rather than an innate increase in the math of the game.
As in they much prefer the illusion that they've grown far more powerful due to their magic sword, armor, or staff. A system is already in place for them to feel more powerful innately with increases to proficiency, feats, and other level based increases.
So you have a combination of power increases from innate abilities and part of it from an increase in the power of their magic items. It is the combination that creates the illusion of increasing power that they like.
Whereas APB makes all the power increases seem innate and similar to level based power increases like Greater Weapon Specialization or higher level spells. This method makes magic items seem unnecessary and lacking that real feel of power that advancement provides.
If you use APB, you don't even need magic items. They become completely optional as all increases are innate. It is my experience that players want their magic items to feel like part of their character advancement. It is an expected trope of fantasy gaming across pen and paper RPGs, video games, and even board games.
I haven't really played many fantasy RPGs of any kind where magic item advancement wasn't an expected and desirable part of the game advancement. It is often the primary motivation for adventuring and the primary driver of why players write gold or valuables down.
When you been playing fantasy for decades whether pen and paper RPGs like PF or D&D, board games like Talisman, or video games like Everquest and World of Warcraft, you think about it a bit and realize that players love magic items as part of character advancement. It makes them want to grind through APs, draw cards in Talisman decks, and grind hours of time in dungeons and raids in video games.
|
Meanwhile I gave players +1 striking katana in jade regent at level 3 <_< (I started campaign basically at level 2 xP)I gave each of my players a level 5 Relic, didn't have to adjust anything so far, because when you're not buying straight power ups with money or given as rewards, the GM has a lot more freedom to give the players cool stuff because the balancing factor will often be either limited uses, action investment or pure utility.
My players loved it and I only chose to use relics because I thought it would be cool for us to check out this new system, but I could have just as easily awarded them with other nifty magical items.
I don't have context of what level you are though in that example, not that I get how that was reply to my original post either.
I will note that technically you could give level 12 ring of climbing at level 2 and you wouldn't really break the game... Besides that players could sell the ring for pretty high price and get much more other equipment in return :p
Meanwhile I gave players +1 striking katana in jade regent at level 3 <_< (I started campaign basically at level 2 xP)I gave each of my players a level 5 Relic, didn't have to adjust anything so far, because when you're not buying straight power ups with money or given as rewards, the GM has a lot more freedom to give the players cool stuff because the balancing factor will often be either limited uses, action investment or pure utility.
My players loved it and I only chose to use relics because I thought it would be cool for us to check out this new system, but I could have just as easily awarded them with other nifty magical items.
I don't have context of what level you are though in that example, not that I get how that was reply to my original post either.
I will note that technically you could give level 12 ring of climbing at level 2 and you wouldn't really break the game... Besides that players could sell the ring for pretty high price and get much more other equipment in return :p
I forgot to mention that but they were level 3 at the time. The point is that once you don't fiddle with mandatory items, it is a lot more comfortable for the GM to give out interesting items, because they won't be straight power up such as giving an item with fundamental runes of far higher level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earning powerful weapons by defeating dangerous enemies is absolutely a measure of personal accomplishment. Magic items aren’t only reliant on magical crafters. They are treasures fought for and won.
|
|
On complete sidenote, doesn't lot of enemies have +1 striking weapons as well?
I realized that I'm not sure where this idea was that you always have to "buy" them came from. Not that it really changes arguments either way (since finding/buying/getting automatically is pretty same mechanically speaking, especially if GM follows tables religiously)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one here more bothered by the OTHER clearly best-in-slot Magic Items that are pitched at individual types of Characters than they are by Runes? To me Runes are ... yeah required, but they're at least something that more or less is universally assumed as being part of the normal advancement of a character through their career.
Ring of Wizardry, Doubling Rings, Lifting Belts, and the dozens of great Wayfinder+Ioun Stone combos are just absolute no-brainers for the concepts they support that NOT picking them up represents essentially just choosing to worse at your role than pretty much everyone else. In many ways, some of these things are actually even more powerful and impactful than another mere +1 to hit with a single Weapon or a bonus to Saving throws you rarely have to actually check on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even in ABP, property runes represent a pretty desirable effectiveness increase and still need to be earned or bought, its especially the case since ABP also encourages situational weapons to be more of a thing-- so having a cold iron longsword you add a frost rune to, and a silver longsword you add a flaming rune to is a lot more viable, but gives you more stuff to buy simultaneously-- or like, bow and blade for finesse weapon fighters, or whatever, I could even see that same character packing a shield too.
I could see this especially in a sandbox environment that emphasizes the idea of preparation, and not pulling punches with the brutal end of the encounter scale where you want every advantage you can get your hands on.
We're talking about doubling rings, but on a dual wielder I'd prefer bespoke rune setups for elemental coverage if its at all economical-- a single fire weapon along with a frost weapon can let you lean on one and make you way better than two fire weapons should you come up against something resistant against fire or vice versa.
Heck, things with the fire trait straight don't work underwater, there's def scenarios where you want lots of different runes and such.
Uncommon items by definition can't be "required" since each campaign which uncommon things are or aren't available can change, and it's defaulted into the realm of "this is a thing the GM deliberately added" which means the effect on the campaign is up to the GM (and hopefully the GM isn't just throwing them in, then complaining that they are in and/or reworking other things to negate the effect of having thrown them in).
Doubling rings, on the other hand... they aren't as essential as they might first appear. For example, let's look at one of the parties I've played in so far:
A wizard that doesn't use weapons. A cleric that doesn't use weapons. A bard that doesn't use weapons. And a champion with a deity favoring daggers that has gone dagger and shield in combat style. There's no need for a doubling ring, even if the champion decides to start dual-wielding, because we've gotten plenty of weapons and runes as treasure so they could just use those and come out a bit ahead, even.
Though yes, it's an item that is easily the item for a particular player's character in a particular campaign. That's just not actually a problem because it's a confluence of factors rather than "if you don't have this in literally every case you are in trouble."
Is that a Dex-focused champion then? 'Cause he could totally get doubling rings to pump up his shield bashing capabilities. Might be great if you're fighting something like an ooze where bludgeoning damage would prevent it from splitting. Sure you could just use any number of other weapons from your loot pile, but then you'd have to waste actions dropping the shield and drawing out the new weapon.
Ring seems pretty valuable to me in that case.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon items by definition can't be "required" since each campaign which uncommon things are or aren't available can change, and it's defaulted into the realm of "this is a thing the GM deliberately added" which means the effect on the campaign is up to the GM (and hopefully the GM isn't just throwing them in, then complaining that they are in and/or reworking other things to negate the effect of having thrown them in).
Doubling rings, on the other hand... they aren't as essential as they might first appear. For example, let's look at one of the parties I've played in so far:
A wizard that doesn't use weapons. A cleric that doesn't use weapons. A bard that doesn't use weapons. And a champion with a deity favoring daggers that has gone dagger and shield in combat style. There's no need for a doubling ring, even if the champion decides to start dual-wielding, because we've gotten plenty of weapons and runes as treasure so they could just use those and come out a bit ahead, even.
Though yes, it's an item that is easily the item for a particular player's character in a particular campaign. That's just not actually a problem because it's a confluence of factors rather than "if you don't have this in literally every case you are in trouble."
Is that a Dex-focused champion then? 'Cause he could totally get doubling rings to pump up his shield bashing capabilities. Might be great if you're fighting something like an ooze where bludgeoning damage would prevent it from splitting. Sure you could just use any number of other weapons from your loot pile, but then you'd have to waste actions dropping the shield and drawing out the new weapon.
Ring seems pretty valuable to me in that case.
Personally, my Halfling Thief used (at endgame) Doubling Rings (Greater) + a Holy Shifting Frost (Greater)* Adamantine (High Grade) Gauntlet** on my offhand + either a Cold Iron (High Grade) or Silver (High Grade) Shortsword in my main hand, allowing me to cover all likely weapons resistance scenarios: If I needed adamantine, I could shift the gauntlet into a light mace or shortsword. Otherwise, my mainhand blades would be fine (possibly as a light mace or even a nonlethal Poi).
The downside of the gauntlet is that you need to keep that hand empty, but that didn't turn out to be much of an issue.
*I went with Frost because our party didn't have another source of cold damage, which was a problem at times.
**Technically speaking, it was actually a Pick we found and I shifted into gauntlet form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that a Dex-focused champion then? 'Cause he could totally get doubling rings to pump up his shield bashing capabilities. Might be great if you're fighting something like an ooze where bludgeoning damage would prevent it from splitting. Sure you could just use any number of other weapons from your loot pile, but then you'd have to waste actions dropping the shield and drawing out the new weapon.
Ring seems pretty valuable to me in that case.
I ran a campaign where the paladin did that exact same thing. He put a boss on his shield and used a doubling ring so all he needed for s, p and b damage was his longsword and shield.
On topic, I can understand why people don't like the mandatory items as presented in the game. For me, I guess I like my character to gain power from more than just leveling up. I know what feat I'm taking when I level up. It's planned. I don't know when I'm getting that new rune. It can be assumed I get a mandatory rune at level x but not at what point at level x. By giving it out automatically it feels less organic to me than finding one as treasure or by earning enough gold to buy one that happens to be available at the level I just attained. For me it adds another power dimension separate from what is completely within my control as a player. I may have to go through some of level x without that bonus or I may get it a level early. Not having that complete control adds some flavor to the game.
That being said I wouldn't mind being in a game that used the automatic progression or even running one if my players preferred.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone thinks it's unfun to have to get fundamental runes to keep pace with monsters... aren't levels artificially inflating already?
I don't know, it seems to me the complaint about needing fundamental runes is part of a larger complaint of PF2 feeling like a "treadmill" in that your percentage chance of succeeding on attacks and skill checks stays constant as you go to high levels. (Personally, I think it doesn't feel that way, particularly with Legendary proficiencies.)
The way PF2 approaches it is similar to many strategy games (I'm thinking of XCOM as an example), where the opponents are getting more powerful, and you want to not only win battles but also secure long-term advantages to help you meet the greater challenges coming tomorrow. It's a "gamey" approach that I rather like.
The alternatives that PF2 could have taken would have been a 5E approach, where magic item bonuses are not assumed but the game becomes harder to balance, or a PF1 approach where the PCs' math bonuses outpace the challenges, and the PCs become more and more likely to succeed as they level up.
Personally, I prefer PF2's approach of giving a default assumption. And there is the added benefit that we able to tinker with it to get any one of the other styles/approaches.
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?"None.
But that doesn't mean the criticism is unfounded.
It just means that there are no must-have items for casters the way there are for martials.
And to be clear: striking runes. It's only striking runes that is unquestionably mandatory.
Sure AC bonuses are more vital than just "nice to have" but the reality is that just one point doesn't qualify as mandatory.
If a level 19 character can't even find +1 AC runes, you might have a point, but that is just not what the hyperbole is about. (And I could argue that at level 19 you're fine even if you lack 3 AC; just use a more cautious approach)
In contrast (sharp sharp contrast) you MUST get a Striking rune, full stop
Yep. Armor is nice, but plenty of PCs have fun with subpar armor and been just fine.
The only must have caster item or highly desirable is at high level: a stat enhancing item for their caster stat. It's not as necessary as striking runes, but you definitely want it. Whereas every other magic item just ok. You can live with it or without it and you won't care. But that extra 2 points on your casting stat is the closest casters get to a must have item.
|
|
On complete sidenote, doesn't lot of enemies have +1 striking weapons as well?They do, but mostly by the time you already have one. The creature creation guidelines in the GMG recommend not giving enemies +1 weapons until level 6, and +1 striking until level 8. Higher-level weapons than that should be part of proper treasure placement.
I realized that I'm not sure where this idea was that you always have to "buy" them came from. Not that it really changes arguments either way (since finding/buying/getting automatically is pretty same mechanically speaking, especially if GM follows tables religiously)In my experience with APs, there's usually going to be a single striking weapon by level 3 or maybe 4, and at roughly the same time the party will have enough money to buy a second one for a secondary combatant. But there's absolutely no guarantee that the striking weapon you'll find will be one you want. Your party's main melee might be a fighter with a polearm and Brutish and Powerful shove, and then you find a +1 striking starknife, and that means you need to transfer the runes to the right weapon. Which again means visiting Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. "Hey, I got this sword here that says Excalibur on it, but I'm more of an axe guy, you know?"
It's less of issue though since 2e allows moving weapon runes from weapon to another weapon <_<
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone thinks it's unfun to have to get fundamental runes to keep pace with monsters... aren't levels artificially inflating already?Levels are inflating, but not artificially so.
Yes, there is a bit of artificial feeling to only ever having encounters with creatures that fall within a range of +/- 4 from your own level, but it's still an actual scaling rather than a false one because the creatures are unique enough that one level -2 creature doesn't feel the same as another, and especially not if you're comparing level -2 at 5th level to level -2 at 15th level.
I've been mostly following this discussion with little to add, but one thing that can help players feel like they are "progressing" is to have them face level -2 creatures of the same type (or even the same creatures, if one side or the other retreated) that they previously faced as a level +2 encounter four levels prior.
I've been mostly following this discussion with little to add, but one thing that can help players feel like they are "progressing" is to have them face level -2 creatures of the same type (or even the same creatures, if one side or the other retreated) that they previously faced as a level +2 encounter four levels prior.Absolutely, and I love that kind of thing.
I particularly like when you take a "boss monster" from an early adventure in the campaign, like an ogre warrior which the party fought at level 1, and bring it back as an easier-difficulty encounter but there's 4-6 of the creature involved, like having 6 ogre warriors up against the party at level 7.
And also when you have an encounter with creatures that used to be a threat and now they aren't, and they act differently as a result. Like having orcs in the campaign early on and they attack with reckless abandon, and then later on in the campaign the party comes out of the den of some dragon they just killed and runs into some more orcs, but the orcs have zero interest in fighting because they can see how bad-ass the characters are so they are running away, trying to negotiate, or something like that.
This was definitely something PF2E did right!
I’ve considered using ABP, but I’m not sure how it interacts with alchemy and alchemists. For example, devastating attacks says to increase dice size of weapons from one to two but bombs (which are martial weapons) already increase die sizes.