Do the AC bonuses of Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor function while using Automatic Bonus Progression? (I know the save bonus wouldn't)
It seems to me like it might be unbalancing in favor of high DEX casters and the like, since they receive the bonus to AC from ABP. However, Mage Armor and the Bracers also limit DEX-to-AC in the same way base armors do. So I'm unsure if they are supposed to replace the rune effects for AC (in which case they stop functioning) or if they are supposed to apply like baseline armors and explorer's clothing.
I don't want to take these tools away from my players without due diligence.
ABP gives you an item bonus to AC if I'm not mistaken (I would check but the archives are ridiculously slow right now). So that would simply not stack with mage armor or the bracers.
The whole point of ABP is not needing to invest recources into items like the bracers. Mage armor can still provide a higher bonus at some levels, like at character level 1-4 when the ABP doesn't yet give you an AC bonus.
ABP gives you an item bonus to AC if I'm not mistaken (I would check but the archives are ridiculously slow right now). So that would simply not stack with mage armor or the bracers.
The whole point of ABP is not needing to invest recources into items like the bracers. Mage armor can still provide a higher bonus at some levels, like at character level 1-4 when the ABP doesn't yet give you an AC bonus.
ABP gives a potency bonus to AC which is why regular armors still function at all and why I'm confused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All item bonuses are removed with ABP so Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor is effectivelly removed from the game.
Do the AC bonuses of Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor function while using Automatic Bonus Progression? (I know the save bonus wouldn't)
It seems to me like it might be unbalancing in favor of high DEX casters and the like, since they receive the bonus to AC from ABP. However, Mage Armor and the Bracers also limit DEX-to-AC in the same way base armors do. So I'm unsure if they are supposed to replace the rune effects for AC (in which case they stop functioning) or if they are supposed to apply like baseline armors and explorer's clothing.
I don't want to take these tools away from my players without due diligence.
It doesn't. In regards to the Bracers of Armor, the most obvious reason why it doesn't is because, statistically speaking, it's identical to Explorer's Clothing, but isn't actually armor. The Mage Armor spell has the same bonuses, and is actually the component spell used to create the Bracers of Armor item, if I remember correctly.
I actually don't know what sort of benefit Bracers of Armor is supposed to convey, but my guess is that it allows non-armor wearers who use robe/body slot-type items that don't give Potency/Resilience runes to actually still benefit by using a separate slot.
But since the benefits of Bracers of Armor is essentially subsumed by the ABP rules, it's basically a dead item. So is Explorer's Clothing by rights, unless you need it for property runes, or if you find some specific magical version of it (which, there are some that exist, so it's not unreasonable). Could technically do the same with the Bracers, with the same reasoning as mentioned in the previous paragraph, but that's awful niche.
|
I actually don't know what sort of benefit Bracers of Armor is supposed to convey, but my guess is that it allows non-armor wearers who use robe/body slot-type items that don't give Potency/Resilience runes to actually still benefit by using a separate slot.I think Bracers of Armor showed up slightly earlier than the equivalent resilient rune did, but at a slightly higher cost?
Slightly lower cost, same level as resilient runes.
450 for type 1 bracers vs 500 for +1 resilient
4000 for type 2 bracers vs 4500 for +2 resilient
60000 for type 3 bracers vs 72000 for +3 resilient
Advantages to Bracers
- Cheaper for same bonus
- Can equip talismans unlike explorer’s clothes
- Type 1 can just be used as an extra armor talisman slot, even at high levels.
Disadvantages to bracers
- No property runes
- You will be missing the AC bonus for a bit (level 5-7, 11-13 and 17-19) if you choose to go with bracers upgrades instead of armor runes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remove all potency runes, striking runes, and resilient runes. Items that normally grant an item bonus to statistics or damage dice no longer do, other than the base item bonus to AC from armor.
Bracers of armor really shouldn't be included, because they're clearly not a "base item bonus to AC from armor."
As for mage armor I think RAW you could come to a few conclusions, but let's remember that this is a variant, and therefore not everything in the base game is necessarily going to work exactly as intended, so I wouldn't worry about RAW too much. Personally I'd just say that it works in the same way as usual, but doesn't stack with the bonuses to AC or saving throws granted by ABP, since that matches the typical balance of the spell.
Bracers of Armor don't have a max Dex bonus to AC, whereas explorer's clothing does.
Remove all potency runes, striking runes, and resilient runes. Items that normally grant an item bonus to statistics or damage dice no longer do, other than the base item bonus to AC from armor.
Bracers of Armor clearly don't work to provide their item bonus to AC. They are items. They are not armor. They give an item bonus to AC. So that item bonus to AC does not work.
Mage Armor does work RAW. They do provide an item bonus to AC, but Mage Armor is not itself an item - which is one of the requirements for removal in the ABP rules. And I think that this is intended. Remember that this is what several spellcasting classes use instead of basic armor. Removing a spellcaster's standard AC bonus seems unjustly punishing considering that standard armor's AC item bonus was given explicit exception from being removed. That would just force them into a feat tax to get armor proficiency in order to keep their AC numbers on par.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing a spellcaster's standard AC bonus seems unjustly punishing considering that standard armor's AC item bonus was given explicit exception from being removed. That would just force them into a feat tax to get armor proficiency in order to keep their AC numbers on par.
Opposite take. Mage Armor has the same basic scaling as explorer's clothes and bracers of armor and doesn't stack with either of them. Defense and Saving Throw Potency both are designed to replace fundamental armor runes. Since Mage Armor functions the same way as armor runes, they clearly aren't designed to stack with ABP.
By allowing Mage Armor to work alongside ABP, you're essentially allowing a wizard to get double the benefit from armor runes, their AC and Saves can be up to +3 higher than they would in a non-ABP game. Not allowing mage armor doesn't remove anything, it just keeps their bonuses the same as they'd otherwise be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As another interesting take with ABP, truly unarmored Dexterity builds (no Explorer's Clothing or anything) can utilize their full Dexterity regardless while also benefitting from fundamental runes with the ABP rules, meaning a level 20 unarmored character with no bracers or explorer's clothing can utilize their full +7 Dexterity bonus for AC while also still getting the +3 fundamental bonus to AC, meaning they would actually have more AC than heavy-armored characters by 20th level, and be tied with them from 18th level onward.
Mage Armor has the same basic scaling as explorer's clothes
Hmm... Explorers clothes have an item bonus of 0. And stay that way.
How is that scaling the same as Mage Armor?
Defense and Saving Throw Potency both are designed to replace fundamental armor runes. Since Mage Armor functions the same way as armor runes, they clearly aren't designed to stack with ABP.
I would agree that the save bonus from Mage Armor shouldn't stack with the potency bonus from ABP.
Does the save bonus from Mage Armor stack with armor Resilient runes? It looks like they are both item bonuses, so no they wouldn't.
So yeah, I can agree on taking out the item bonus to saves from Mage Armor. But still, since the item bonus from armor is given exemption, I think that the armor bonus from Mage Armor should be as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Explorers clothes have an item bonus of 0. And stay that way.How is that scaling the same as Mage Armor?
You put potency runes on the clothes, which turns that 0 into a +1, +2 and eventually +3, mutually exclusive with mage armor.
In ABP, the potency runes are replaced with your ABP defense potency progression. Which is why it doesn't really make sense to have mage armor, which fill the same niche as those runes, to keep working.
Yep, as Squiggit said: the balance for mage armor is clearly based around armor with potency runes and resilient runes as you level. In ABP an armor's base item bonus still applies, but potency runes and resilient runes aren't a thing and don't apply, being replaced by the potency track.
For mage armor to work with ABP and not be flat-out busted it has to replace those bonuses, which are technically not item bonuses, but let's be real here: they're item bonuses. The one exception is the defense bonus, which functions as increasing your armor's base item bonus instead of replacing it, just like runes normally would.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, again, it's a variant rule, so this will never be in an "official" context where you have to respect RAW. If a player builds a character that's clearly taking advantage of the system you can always just say no. In the case of a full dex character just give them a dex cap of 5 (or lower depending on your armor, of course) while benefiting from the defense potency in the ABP track. Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it functions differently than the main game, I don't think it's a huge problem if those dexterity builds get a minor buff in this context. Your total modifier would be what +7 *with* an apex? that's only 2 more AC than your capped normal, while Plate was already one ahead of you in the normal game, so its really only +1 ahead of the plate build at the highest of levels.
Strength Builds still offer higher damage, and they beat you for AC at lower levels, so while its a buff, I think that the game can eat it and still be balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, again, it's a variant rule, so this will never be in an "official" context where you have to respect RAW. If a player builds a character that's clearly taking advantage of the system you can always just say no. In the case of a full dex character just give them a dex cap of 5 (or lower depending on your armor, of course) while benefiting from the defense potency in the ABP track. Problem solved.Neat and logic.
But I have to admit, especially reading on forums, that it seems to be a normal habbit to use the RAW to justify things which are cleary not what the creators meant.
And when it comes to "taking advantage of the system" it's pretty clear, in the majority of the cases.
Yeah, but the PF2 math is so easy to peg that it is really easy to clamp down on such things. And ABP is intended to catch up with the intended power curve, not boost past it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As another interesting take with ABP, truly unarmored Dexterity builds (no Explorer's Clothing or anything) can utilize their full Dexterity regardless while also benefitting from fundamental runes with the ABP rules, meaning a level 20 unarmored character with no bracers or explorer's clothing can utilize their full +7 Dexterity bonus for AC while also still getting the +3 fundamental bonus to AC, meaning they would actually have more AC than heavy-armored characters by 20th level, and be tied with them from 18th level onward.Hmm. That's mildly problematic.
Not any more problematic than having unarmored items implement a maximum Dexterity bonus because reasons. Yes, some clothes are more hampering than others, but this does come at a cost of denying armor talismans as well as armor property runes.
Sure, that pure Dexterity build has 1 more overall AC boost than our Full Plate Fighter, but they aren't benefitting from Greater Fortification, or Antimagic, or a slew of other armor properties. Plus, there is talismans, which provide neat one time effects that can give added utility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, again, it's a variant rule, so this will never be in an "official" context where you have to respect RAW. If a player builds a character that's clearly taking advantage of the system you can always just say no. In the case of a full dex character just give them a dex cap of 5 (or lower depending on your armor, of course) while benefiting from the defense potency in the ABP track. Problem solved.Neat and logic.
But I have to admit, especially reading on forums, that it seems to be a normal habbit to use the RAW to justify things which are cleary not what the creators meant.
And when it comes to "taking advantage of the system" it's pretty clear, in the majority of the cases.
How is not using Explorer's Clothing to get full Dexterity benefits not an intended consequence of the rules? You only have a maximum Dexterity bonus when using an item that has such a limitation. Otherwise, you don't have one by default, and this is intended based on that previous rule. When you choose not to use it, there are consequences, even beyond losing potency runes in an ABP game, and it makes a difference for those who actually invest in their armor and defenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's keep in mind that the ABP doesn't even account for mutagens doing anything as written. It is not a fully fleshed out system that perfectly intersects with every possible existing rule in mind. I'm positive the ABP is not intended to give a stealth boost to dex builds.
If you are ok with a bit of rules cheese and don't think it hurts balance much, you can allow it. But don't pretend it isn't cheese.
How is not using Explorer's Clothing to get full Dexterity benefits not an intended consequence of the rules? You only have a maximum Dexterity bonus when using an item that has such a limitation. Otherwise, you don't have one by default, and this is intended based on that previous rule. When you choose not to use it, there are consequences, even beyond losing potency runes in an ABP game, and it makes a difference for those who actually invest in their armor and defenses.I mean, again, it's a variant rule, so this will never be in an "official" context where you have to respect RAW. If a player builds a character that's clearly taking advantage of the system you can always just say no. In the case of a full dex character just give them a dex cap of 5 (or lower depending on your armor, of course) while benefiting from the defense potency in the ABP track. Problem solved.Neat and logic.
But I have to admit, especially reading on forums, that it seems to be a normal habbit to use the RAW to justify things which are cleary not what the creators meant.
And when it comes to "taking advantage of the system" it's pretty clear, in the majority of the cases.
With the basic rules, by lvl 20, you will be 1 point behind any unarmored ( clothes/bracers/magearmor ), light or medium armor, or 2 points behind a heavy armor. Leaving apart resilient and property runes.
With ABP rules is the same ( since you are forced to get potency bonus, you will suffer from the dex cap you'd have with bracers or mage armor ).
And if you think they are meant ( and I intend that "it was paizo intention" ) to give the no armor characters an exploit ( becuase it invalidates the whole system ) compared to any other armor, I think it's up to you.
You are implementing a Dexterity limitation rule in the game when there never was one outright stated in the rules to begin with. In fact, MDB contradicts your statement of "No equipped items still means you have a maximum dexterity limitation."
It doesn't invalidate anything. I do not get to benefit from armor property runes or talismans by not wearing any form of armor whatsoever, whether it be Explorer's Clothing or Bracers of Armor, whereas with those items equipped, I can. There's a price to pay for it. Just because you don't agree with that price doesn't mean there isn't one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But don't pretend it isn't cheese.
Giving up property runes and talismans to get a slightly higher AC sounds more like a meaningful choice instead of cheese.
Let's keep in mind that the ABP doesn't even account for mutagens doing anything as written.
I think that has more to say about the alchemist than the ABP rule. The actual mutagenist base ability [use others mutagens and unarmed attack prof] didn't do anything until the errata so is it a surprise the didn't take them into account? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a price to pay for it. Just because you don't agree with that price doesn't mean there isn't one.
It's also true however that the price is significantly smaller than it is in a non-ABP game and ABP isn't really designed to alter core balance assumptions about the game, so the discrepancy is worth pointing out to GMs looking to implement it in their games.
There's a price to pay for it. Just because you don't agree with that price doesn't mean there isn't one.It's also true however that the price is significantly smaller than it is in a non-ABP game and ABP isn't really designed to alter core balance assumptions about the game, so the discrepancy is worth pointing out to GMs looking to implement it in their games.
But it already does this as a side effect of the system's intended functions. The expectations of the game have already shifted the minute we decided to implement this optional rule. It's no different than if a game implemented Dual Class, Free Archetype, etc. into the game. The simple fact of the matter is that the expectations of the system are now different compared to the original expectation that you're comparing it to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it already does this as a side effect of the system's intended functions. The expectations of the game have already shifted the minute we decided to implement this optional rule. It's no different than if a game implemented Dual Class, Free Archetype, etc. into the game. The simple fact of the matter is that the expectations of the system are now different compared to the original expectation that you're comparing it to.
And it's your sincere belief that making dex based characters stronger at high levels is one of those things ABP is supposed to shift?
But it already does this as a side effect of the system's intended functions. The expectations of the game have already shifted the minute we decided to implement this optional rule. It's no different than if a game implemented Dual Class, Free Archetype, etc. into the game. The simple fact of the matter is that the expectations of the system are now different compared to the original expectation that you're comparing it to.There's a price to pay for it. Just because you don't agree with that price doesn't mean there isn't one.It's also true however that the price is significantly smaller than it is in a non-ABP game and ABP isn't really designed to alter core balance assumptions about the game, so the discrepancy is worth pointing out to GMs looking to implement it in their games.
Yes, but not from a balance perspective. Just from a simplicity and/or flavor perspective. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The point of ABP is to simplify items (or remove them for theme reasons) for the DM and for the players by effectively removing simple stat boosting items that pretty much everyone gets throughout the course of the campaign.
As Squiggit pointed out the point is not to change the balance of the game. If a GM wants to homebrew a balance change similar to the consequences of a strict RAW reading of the ABP track, then they can, but as with all variant rules it's 100% up to the GM. And I see no reason why the type of GM who wants to use ABP for it's main purpose would be more likely to want the balance changes associated with a strict RAW reading of it than any other GM.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's a lot easier to adjudicate a balance neutral system on the fly if someone comes to you with a question than it is for Paizo to not only list every exception to the variant rules that exists, but also to keep that updated as more content comes out. After all, all a GM has to do is ask themselves: "Is this more or less powerful than it would be without the variant that I decided to include for reasons other than balance?"
For mage armor that would mean having it not stack. For unarmored that would mean having a dex cap of 5. For alchemists it would mean not applying the potency bonuses to bombs, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Explorers clothes have an item bonus of 0. And stay that way.How is that scaling the same as Mage Armor?
You put potency runes on the clothes, which turns that 0 into a +1, +2 and eventually +3, mutually exclusive with mage armor.
In ABP, the potency runes are replaced with your ABP defense potency progression. Which is why it doesn't really make sense to have mage armor, which fill the same niche as those runes, to keep working.
Hmm... I'm not opposed to being wrong. Let me list out a few example levels of both systems and see what I see.
1st level, standard: Wizard with clothes. AC item bonus +0
1st level, ABP: Wizard with clothes. AC potency bonus +0
1st level, standard: Wizard with Mage Armor. AC item bonus +1
1st level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that works). AC item bonus +1
1st level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that doesn't work). AC item bonus +0
6th level, standard: Wizard with clothes and Potency +1 Rune. AC item bonus +1
6th level, ABP: Wizard with clothes. AC potency bonus +1
6th level, standard: Wizard with Mage Armor. AC item bonus +1
6th level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that works). AC item bonus +1 and potency bonus +1 = +2
6th level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that doesn't work). AC potency bonus +1
15th level, standard: Wizard with Clothes and Potency +2 Rune. AC item bonus +2
15th level, ABP: Wizard with clothes. AC potency bonus +2
15th level, standard: Wizard with Mage Armor. AC item bonus +2
15th level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that works). AC item bonus +2 and potency bonus +2 = +4
15th level, ABP: Wizard with Mage Armor (that doesn't work). AC potency bonus +2
Hmm... I see what you mean. Stacking both the potency bonus from ABP with the item bonus from Mage Armor is a bad plan.
But do you also see what I am talking about? At low level, when you don't have any potency bonus from ABP (or potency runes from standard rules), Mage Armor still should exist. It does and should give a boost to AC that low level mages might need. So maybe allow the spell to still exist, but change its bonus type to be the Potency bonus that ABP gives. That way it won't stack and cause problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But don't pretend it isn't cheese.Giving up property runes and talismans to get a slightly higher AC sounds more like a meaningful choice instead of cheese.
Not to me it doesn't. I've yet to actually see someone use a Talisman despite plenty being found as loot. And armor property runes are largely situational as heck. Most really just let you spend extra gold to save an investiture slot on what would otherwise be a cheaper alternative item. Light armor users can't get fortification, so really the only special ones are Antimagic and Ethereal, and both are uncommon and hella expensive.
Compare all that situational stuff to getting +2 AC for free? No contest. And if the designers thought it would be a meaningful choice, how come the choice isn't available in the base rules? Because with the base rules you're giving up +3 to saves on top of talismans and property runes to get that AC.
I've yet to actually see someone use a Talisman despite plenty being found as loot.
I agree with you, but people here keep saying talismans are the best things since slices bread so... who do I believe? Myself, I'd rather trade in a consumable to buy a permanent item but I recognize that that is a personal bias of mine against consumables as a whole.
And armor property runes are largely situational as heck.
Hmmm... All day flying [Winged (Greater)] that is 19th level to dispel is pretty universally good especially if it has Soaring too. As to the rest, I'll admit I don't get to play very much upper level characters.
I just noticed that slick and shadowed are item bonuses so they just kind of disappear. There is still Energy-Resistant (Greater) and Invisibility (Greater) that are pretty universally useful.
So losing the ability to have 35' fly speed [at will], feather fall [60', at will], and invisibility [2nd level, 3/day] seems like minus to me.
Given that a few classes and ancestries give you the ability to fly through feats I'm not sure that opportunity cost is comparable.
Like just about anything in the game, it depends on the table. Even the very existence of the rule we're debating. Secondly though, it's faster than a lot of them by the very existence of Soaring that adds 10' to fly speed [and feather fall at will]. So even those that get flying via class/ancestry can get faster flying with runes.
Those runes can be replicated through other avenues while this Dex trick cannot, and that weights things more in favor of the Dex.
Well it's not very easy to find a +10' to speed... As to being a perfect balance, I never said it was. Even if it favors dex, to what extent? It does shift power around a bit [which was inevitable with or without a dex cap to unarmored] but enough to take it take it out of balance? Not IMO and it seems a reach to place it clearly in the "cheese" category.
I've yet to actually see someone use a Talisman despite plenty being found as loot.I agree with you, but people here keep saying talismans are the best things since slices bread so... who do I believe? Myself, I'd rather trade in a consumable to buy a permanent item but I recognize that that is a personal bias of mine against consumables as a whole.
And armor property runes are largely situational as heck.Hmmm... All day flying [Winged (Greater)] that is 19th level to dispel is pretty universally good especially if it has Soaring too. As to the rest, I'll admit I don't get to play very much upper level characters.
I just noticed that slick and shadowed are item bonuses so they just kind of disappear. There is still Energy-Resistant (Greater) and Invisibility (Greater) that are pretty universally useful.
So losing the ability to have 35' fly speed [at will], feather fall [60', at will], and invisibility [2nd level, 3/day] seems like minus to me.
All of those can be replicated with other items at a cheaper price. Rings of Energy Resistance, Winged Boots, Cloak of the Bat, Cloak of Elvenkind, Broom of Flying... Or heck, just keep some potions on hand, those are hella cheap by that level. I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive, either, it is just off the top of my head.
You're at best saving an investiture slot. Which is nice and all, but not that big a deal, especially in a game where invested items aren't providing you numerical bonuses anymore.
Hmm... I'm not opposed to being wrong. Let me list out a few example levels of both systems and see what I see...
You can have it as a potency bonus though it would almost only matter at level 1-4. Kinda turns the spell into a defensive version of Magic Weapon.
1-4: Mage Armor is +1 AC ahead.
5-6: Equal
7: Mage Armor is +1 saving throws ahead.
8-13: Equal
14: Mage Armor is -1 saving throws behind.
15-17: Equal
18: -1 AC behind
19: +1 saving throws ahead.
20: Equal.
All of those can be replicated with other items at a cheaper price. Rings of Energy Resistance
*shrug* sure, it's cheaper if you buy these but no so if you find such runes as loot: it's cheaper to recycle runes found on armor than selling them at 1/2. As such, it might not end up cheaper to buy the ring.
Winged Boots
Not really as it works on ANYONE within 60', not only on the wearer.
Cloak of the Bat, Broom of Flying
At a slower speed [and needs reactivated every 10 min with an Interact action] or using with at least 1 hand and for a limited time, sure. The rune works all day with a single activation and after that requires no maintenance or hands along with your land speed +10' with Soaring. It's the best flying option as far as equipment.
Cloak of Elvenkind...
Invisibility was mostly added because of universal usefulness. As it's limited times per day, any single item may not be enough to cover your needs for the day: it's not the best rune use, but hardly the worst. That and it can save you a space if your DM doesn't like you wearing multiple cloaks and you have another cloak you like. [like that cloak of the bat you're trying to fly with]
Or heck, just keep some potions
At the cost of extra actions and manipulation ones at that where the rune is a single Command [auditory, concentrate]. Plus if you're using multiple potions per day [or encounter], it's just easier on logistics over a barrel of invisibility bought every trip to town. Plus the rune is easier as it's only a single command action to use, vs at least two manipulation actions with the potion or cloak
You're at best saving an investiture slot.
No, there are other benefits, it's just that you're ignoring them. :P
All of those can be replicated with other items at a cheaper price. Rings of Energy Resistance*shrug* sure, it's cheaper if you buy these but no so if you find such runes as loot: it's cheaper to recycle runes found on armor than selling them at 1/2. As such, it might not end up cheaper to buy the ring.
Winged BootsNot really as it works on ANYONE within 60', not only on the wearer.
Cloak of the Bat, Broom of FlyingAt a slower speed [and needs reactivated every 10 min with an Interact action] or using with at least 1 hand and for a limited time, sure. The rune works all day with a single activation and after that requires no maintenance or hands along with your land speed +10' with Soaring. It's the best flying option as far as equipment.
Cloak of Elvenkind...Invisibility was mostly added because of universal usefulness. As it's limited times per day, any single item may not be enough to cover your needs for the day: it's not the best rune use, but hardly the worst. That and it can save you a space if your DM doesn't like you wearing multiple cloaks and you have another cloak you like. [like that cloak of the bat you're trying to fly with]
Or heck, just keep some potionsAt the cost of extra actions and manipulation ones at that where the rune is a single Command [auditory, concentrate]. Plus if you're using multiple potions per day [or encounter], it's just easier on logistics over a barrel of invisibility bought every trip to town. Plus the rune is easier as it's only a single command action to use, vs at least two manipulation actions with the potion or cloak
You're at best saving an investiture slot.No, there are other benefits, it's just that you're ignoring them. :P
I'll grant you there are some fringe benefits to the runes, sure. But do you honestly think you'd ever trade those benefits for +2 AC at no additional cost? Really? If you care enough about flight speed to quibble over 10 feet, you're probably planning to close into melee range (or close enough to it) at which point every point of AC matters. (And as an aside, 35 feet may not do it anyway. Monster flight starts at 35 feet this level and can be anywhere up to 200 feet. If a dragon wants to keep its distance you will never catch it with a rune.) With maxed dexterity you are probably better off firing a bow. Unless you're a monk, in which your class feats give you access to much faster flight speeds. Oh, and Invisibility isn't actually an option for those monks either, as Explorer's closing isn't light armor, silly as it seems.
And there are just too many better alternatives for those fringe benefits, too. For example, if you care enough about stealth to use it in combat (really the only time the action cost and shorter duration make the Invisibility rune worth it) you have probably taken Legendary Sneak and don't need the rune to hide in plain sight. By contrast, there's no comparable alternative to getting that +2 to AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it's your sincere belief that making dex based characters stronger at high levels is one of those things ABP is supposed to shift?
But it already does this as a side effect of the system's intended functions. The expectations of the game have already shifted the minute we decided to implement this optional rule. It's no different than if a game implemented Dual Class, Free Archetype, etc. into the game. The simple fact of the matter is that the expectations of the system are now different compared to the original expectation that you're comparing it to.
I believe that arbitrarily implementing a hard cap on an attribute bonus isn't intended by the original rules except where it says it's supposed to be limited. That is literally the entire point of a Maximum Dexterity Bonus entry on equipment and abilities that provide armor-like functions. If it doesn't list one, it doesn't have one. Being fully unarmored does not have one whatsoever. This is the original rules, the RAW. Telling me it's not intended just because of an optional rule is like saying the base game is underpowered because we don't run Free Archetype or Dual-Class rules.
It's no different than if somebody decided to go full Strength, Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma, etc. Each of these attributes, when invested into, has an opportunity cost, even if it varies differently from class to class, character to character. Why don't we implement a +5 hard cap on those too, just so those who didn't invest don't feel so left out of all the benefits of the increased attributes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it already does this as a side effect of the system's intended functions. The expectations of the game have already shifted the minute we decided to implement this optional rule. It's no different than if a game implemented Dual Class, Free Archetype, etc. into the game. The simple fact of the matter is that the expectations of the system are now different compared to the original expectation that you're comparing it to.There's a price to pay for it. Just because you don't agree with that price doesn't mean there isn't one.It's also true however that the price is significantly smaller than it is in a non-ABP game and ABP isn't really designed to alter core balance assumptions about the game, so the discrepancy is worth pointing out to GMs looking to implement it in their games.Yes, but not from a balance perspective. Just from a simplicity and/or flavor perspective. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The point of ABP is to simplify items (or remove them for theme reasons) for the DM and for the players by effectively removing simple stat boosting items that pretty much everyone gets throughout the course of the campaign.
As Squiggit pointed out the point is not to change the balance of the game. If a GM wants to homebrew a balance change similar to the consequences of a strict RAW reading of the ABP track, then they can, but as with all variant rules it's 100% up to the GM. And I see no reason why the type of GM who wants to use ABP for it's main purpose would be more likely to want the balance changes associated with a strict RAW reading of it than any other GM.
Also, I'd like to point out that it's a lot easier to adjudicate a balance neutral system on the fly if someone comes to you with a question than it is for Paizo to not only list every exception to the variant rules that exists, but also to keep that updated as more content comes out. After all, all a GM...
Except that it does do it from a balance perspective as well, we just didn't fully elaborate it. A Wizard or other spellcaster wanting to be viable with weapons no longer has to contribute significant WBL to do so, whereas a Fighter who multi classes into a spellcasting class still has to sink WBL and downtime and skills into it. In the former case, that Wizard had to sacrifice gold for scrolls, wands, staves, and other items to be viable with maybe one weapon in the original rules. Now, they don't have to utilize weapons, and that's fine; expected, even, but if they didn't want to, they just lost half their buying power meant for those other items for it. And a Fighter that didn't want to multiclass might now have to consider it if they want better use of their gold other than for campaign progression or party fund purposes.
The optional rule literally alters the way you spend and view gold, magic items, etc. In a game where magic items are still mandatory, and some of those mandatory items coming with unwanted baggage, an optional system that sheds away the mandatory-ness also sheds away said the unwanted baggage that comes with it. In the same game where a +7 Dexterity character (such as a Tank Monk) can have the most AC in the game, and not have it be ridiculous or unintended, a -1 Strength spellcaster can (and will) punch or kick a commoner to dying/automatic death with a basic unarmed strike. Whereas in the original rules, said Monk can't have the most AC, and said spellcaster will be lucky to even do any damage to a commoner with a critical hit, no less. The system changes the balance of the game in multiple, unexpected ways. Suggesting one way is ridiculous while the other extreme is perfectly fine is hypocritical and hyperbolic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing 'arbitrary' about adjusting certain underlying aspects of the game's math when your houserule has unintended consequences on game balance. In fact it's pretty much the opposite of arbitrary, since you're doing it for a very specific purpose (maintaining default assumptions about the game's math). Contrast with "I gave dex based characters more AC... just because really" which seems very arbitrary.
Why don't we implement a +5 hard cap on those too, just so those who didn't invest don't feel so left out of all the benefits of the increased attributes?
Does Intelligence get some unique benefit under ABP they wouldn't get otherwise that would require such an adjustment to keep the game running largely the same? If there is one it's probably worth mentioning here. Don't be vague.
Suggesting one way is ridiculous while the other extreme is perfectly fine is hypocritical and hyperbolic.
No it isn't. Not having to spend gold on weapons and armor is the basic premise of the house rule. Making dexterity based characters stronger at level 20 isn't, at least for most of the people in this thread.
Now if that is your goal and you think that's important, you can... idk, just say that and not be spurious and vague about it.
There's nothing 'arbitrary' about adjusting certain underlying aspects of the game's math when your houserule has unintended consequences on game balance. In fact it's pretty much the opposite of arbitrary, since you're doing it for a very specific purpose (maintaining default assumptions about the game's math). Contrast with "I gave dex based characters more AC... just because really" which seems very arbitrary.
Why don't we implement a +5 hard cap on those too, just so those who didn't invest don't feel so left out of all the benefits of the increased attributes?Does Intelligence get some unique benefit under ABP they wouldn't get otherwise that would require such an adjustment to keep the game running largely the same? If there is one it's probably worth mentioning here. Don't be vague.
Suggesting one way is ridiculous while the other extreme is perfectly fine is hypocritical and hyperbolic.No it isn't. Not having to spend gold on weapons and armor is the basic premise of the house rule. Making dexterity based characters stronger at level 20 isn't, at least for most of the people in this thread.
Now if that is your goal and you think that's important, you can... idk, just say that and not be spurious and vague about it.
Here freaking here.
I believe that arbitrarily implementing a hard cap on an attribute bonus isn't intended by the original rules except where it says it's supposed to be limited. That is literally the entire point of a Maximum Dexterity Bonus entry on equipment and abilities that provide armor-like functions. If it doesn't list one, it doesn't have one. Being fully unarmored does not have one whatsoever.
1. It's not arbitrary at all. The ABP track gives you a bonus that functions pretty much identically to the standard game's typical unarmed options: bracers of armor and explorer's clothing. Bracers of armor and explorer's clothing both have a dex cap of +5. In the normal game if you don't want to have a dex cap you have to forgo any and all item bonuses to AC.
This is the original rules, the RAW. Telling me it's not intended just because of an optional rule is like saying the base game is underpowered because we don't run Free Archetype or Dual-Class rules.
2. The normal game is supposed to be THE SAME IN TERMS OF BALANCE as ABP according to the variant rule's own description of why you might want to use it. Seriously, can you stop brining up things that give everyone more resources like dual class and free archetype? It really brings the intelligence level of this conversation down like 50 notches. It's obviously not the same.
It's no different than if somebody decided to go full Strength, Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma, etc. Each of these attributes, when invested into, has an opportunity cost, even if it varies differently from class to class, character to character. Why don't we implement a +5 hard cap on those too, just so those who didn't invest don't feel so left out of all the benefits of the increased attributes?
3. We're not talking about implementing a hard cap of +5 to dex. Just for the AC part of it, which as mentioned many, many times before is effectively in the game already, because the only standard way to get an unlimited dex bonus to AC is to not get any item bonus. I mean, technically you're not wrong that there shouldn't be a dex cap to completely unarmored, but not for the reasons you state. The real reason is that completely unarmored with no explorer's clothing just shouldn't get a potency bonus at all. That would be consistent with how the game's balance is supposed to work. "But then what's the point of being totally unarmored?" I hear someone saying. Answer: there isn't one. There wasn't one in the base game either. Just wear explorer's clothing and cap your dex at +5. Or, as people have suggested within this thread: cut out the middle man and just say unarmored has a dex cap of +5.