I'll grant you there are some fringe benefits to the runes, sure.
Sigh... You're still being dismissive even of the best item based flying option. Why? It's clearly NOT a fringe corner case. Same with invisibility and actions in combat [1 action over 2 is hardly a fringe benefit].
But do you honestly think you'd ever trade those benefits for +2 AC at no additional cost? Really?
I sure would depending on the character: for instance, someone that snipes and moves from cover to cover can greatly benefit from one action invisibility and boosted speed and can make up the AC with greater ability to keep getting cover. Used at the right time, a DC 11 flat check to attack you is worth way more than a +2 AC.
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.
Why would you assume melee? By your own estimations, 35 puts you on par with the lowest flight, meaning you can keep at distance. Even without higher enemy speeds, any extra move means more options for places to Hide and/or take cover. But even in melee, a Gargantuan creature is 20' across and that 10' makes it easier to do things like flanking and other tactical movement with less actions.
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.
Really not one or the other IMO. Invisibility isn't a roll but going straight to hidden so it has more uses than avoiding the need for cover.
Well, I've at least gotten you to agree that there are more benefits than just investiture slots even if I can't get you to stop being overly dismissive of the benefits by brushing them off as "fringe" even for benefits that are the best in their category [like best item based flight]. And I should point out, I'm not arguing that not capping dex for AC has the same balance [my reply to Perpdepog covered that] as the base game: I've been debating your downplaying the benefits of armor runes and not really the exact balance of those benefits vs a possible +2 AC as no one would ever agree to what such a conversion rate would be and/or what all would apply to it: there is a lot of personal preference and bias baked into such a thing.
| 1 person 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.
I didn't "give" anything, the base rules already did this well before ABP was brought into the equation. But sure, go ahead and use me as a scapegoat for what is essentially bad rules balance put in check by baking the assumed math into an armor-specific mechanic that can technically and rules-legally be ignored if so chosen. Just because I make the choice and just because the rules permit it as a baseline doesn't make it an attempt to "cheese" the rules, when the mechanical intent, ABP or not, is already spelled out clear as day. No equipment or armor-like effect? No Maximum Dexterity Bonus limitation.
The game still does run largely the same, though. In fact, it runs more the same than if we arbitrarily decided that a certain attribute needs to be limited because it messes with the "game's math" too much, which is precisely what you're doing by saying "All AC bonuses cap at +5 Dexterity." It's not a rule, it never was a rule, and ABP does nothing to change that rule other than your preconceived notion of "balance" in the endgame. You want to change the rule for your own home game's math? Fine. But it's not RAW, ABP or not, professing that it's RAW is even more disingenuous an argument than what you claim mine to be.
If I wanted that kind of houserule, there are better ways around it that don't require that kind of backwoods logic or other unintended consequences. Such as by not mandating a Maximum Dexterity Bonus for items that are not Light, Medium, or Heavy Armor. Stupid simple. ABP messes with far more than that, across more levels of play. A middle level spellcaster can pick up a random stick on the ground and raze a lower level village without any magical effort with this rule. Tell me again how that's intended for the game's math, because you appear to believe that it is 100% intended, ABP or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under ABP, if you aren't wearing any armor at all, then you shouldn't be getting the armor potency bonus. Explorers clothes would work fine. Similar to how if you don't make an attack you won't be getting the attack potency bonus. You still have to use something to attack with even if it is an unarmed attack like your basic fist.
That is how the base game rule's math works out. That is how ABP should work out too.
I'll grant you there are some fringe benefits to the runes, sure.Sigh... You're still being dismissive even of the best item based flying option. Why? It's clearly NOT a fringe corner case. Same with invisibility and actions in combat [1 action over 2 is hardly a fringe benefit].
But do you honestly think you'd ever trade those benefits for +2 AC at no additional cost? Really?I sure would depending on the character: for instance, someone that snipes and moves from cover to cover can greatly benefit from one action invisibility and boosted speed and can make up the AC with greater ability to keep getting cover. Used at the right time, a DC 11 flat check to attack you is worth way more than a +2 AC.
But it is only a 2nd level invisibility. Even setting aside the proliferation of True Seeing and other ways creature can ignore invisibility, at this point you can be utilizing 4th level invisibility. One action is nice, but I'd rather use two actions to have the invisibility for the entire round than something which drops as soon as I attack.
As for boosted speed, it is still slower than what you can achieve on foot pretty easily at this level, so the winged rune mostly lets you bypass difficult terrain. Which ain't nothing, but the best sniper build is a ranger and they already bypass most difficult terrain.
Oh, and the alternative here: Greater Boots and Cloak of Elvenkind? It gives you 4th level invisibility, ignores difficult terrain, enhances your speed, and let's you bypass the Hide Action and go straight to unobserved with Sneak in natural terrain. Yeah, that's not better in every possible situation, but boy howdy is it better in many of them.
Why would you assume melee? By your own estimations, 35 puts you on par with the lowest flight, meaning you can keep at distance.
Kiting works really at low levels. I don't think it really works at higher levels. Creatures have too much speed, reach, and magic, or ways to lock you down like improved grab.
Even without higher enemy speeds, any extra move means more options for places to Hide and/or take cover.
Giving up +2 to AC so you can sometimes use an action to get +2 AC feels flimsy.
But even in melee, a Gargantuan creature is 20' across and that 10' makes it easier to do things like flanking and other tactical movement with less actions.
And are those things gonna be worth +2 AC? There's a lot of ways to achieve flat footed.
Really not one or the other IMO. Invisibility isn't a roll but going straight to hidden so it has more uses than avoiding the need for cover.
Sure, but again, this is compared to +2 AC. Or +2 AC with Greater Invisibility, for that matter.
Well, I've at least gotten you to agree that there are more benefits than just investiture slots even if I can't get you to stop being overly dismissive of the benefits by brushing them off as "fringe" even for benefits that are the best in their category [like best item based flight]. And I should point out, I'm not arguing that not capping dex for AC has the same balance [my reply to Perpdepog covered that] as the base game: I've been debating your downplaying the benefits of armor runes and not really the exact balance of those benefits vs a possible +2 AC as no one would ever agree to what such a conversion rate would be and/or what all would apply to it: there is a lot of personal preference and bias baked into such a thing.
Fair enough. From my own high level experience, I find the decision to turn down the AC for these benefits to be a really hard sell. There are lots of ways to be stealthy or mobile, and few ways to break the game's otherwise tightly controlled math. That's just my opinion though.
But it is only a 2nd level invisibility. Even setting aside the proliferation of True Seeing and other ways creature can ignore invisibility, at this point you can be utilizing 4th level invisibility. One action is nice, but I'd rather use two actions to have the invisibility for the entire round than something which drops as soon as I attack.
You'll note my wording: if you attack then go invisible, you are invisible throughout the entire enemy round: there isn't much difference then between 2nd and 4th level other than it's quicker to use. It's as niche or fringe as your 4th level options. Plus there is no reason you can't have BOTH types of invisibility as needed.
As for boosted speed, it is still slower than what you can achieve on foot pretty easily at this level, so the winged rune mostly lets you bypass difficult terrain. Which ain't nothing, but the best sniper build is a ranger and they already bypass most difficult terrain.
You skipped over the lack of a viable 'ground' like water, lava or just plain flying/elevated foes that make land speed untenable. There are lots of places flying comes in mighty handy that aren't difficult terrain. Traps and hazards aren't difficult terrain either. The higher levels in my experience make simple walking on the ground less desirable and more dangerous.
Oh, and the alternative here: Greater Boots and Cloak of Elvenkind? It gives you 4th level invisibility, ignores difficult terrain, enhances your speed, and let's you bypass the Hide Action and go straight to unobserved with Sneak in natural terrain. Yeah, that's not better in every possible situation, but boy howdy is it better in many of them.
It's not a direct alternative, but I never claimed it was. It's 2 items, takes up 2 slots for dm that don't like wearing 2 boots or cloaks, the speed boost wouldn't stack with flying so most times wouldn't be used and if you're getting legendary sneak the "Sneak in forest environments even when creatures are currently observing you" is redundant. But again, I never claimed that there wasn't invisibility options, just that the rune is a 1 action one and there isn't another option for that that I know of.
Kiting works really at low levels. I don't think it really works at higher levels. Creatures have too much speed, reach, and magic, or ways to lock you down like improved grab.
This really depends on group composition, tactics, setting and type of campaign. If you have a lower number of stronger targets, melee fighting them often leaves ranged the opportunity to attack without retaliation. The amount of crowd control, average encounter distance and many other factor are all part of how well a ranged character can stay at ranged.
Now I'll agree if the ENTIRE party is trying to kite, then I'd agree it becomes less tenable at higher levels but I never suggested that.
Giving up +2 to AC so you can sometimes use an action to get +2 AC feels flimsy.
If you pick 1 SINGLE thing out of everything, of course it seems flimsy: good thing I mentioned several things instead. Just all day fly at land speed +10 and feather fall 60' at will are nice, but then adding in one action invisibility too. Then add in a table + group that you can fairly reliably stay at range? Yep, I'll say I'd think about that trade every time. If you wouldn't, then you wouldn't but you asked if I would.
And are those things gonna be worth +2 AC? There's a lot of ways to achieve flat footed.
WHY do you continue to pick individual points and try to ask if that SINGLE point is worth the +2ac instead of taking the entire whole into account? The ability to flank easier? no it's not worth a +2ac. Now the ability to do so to a flying foe with your melee character and avoid the lava while doing so? Sounds like a better deal doesn't it? Now add the ability to feather fall another PC that when their mount gets punted. Then add in a single action invisibility that makes the foe need a DC 11 flat check to attack you?
Sure, but again, this is compared to +2 AC. Or +2 AC with Greater Invisibility, for that matter.
Sure but again, IT'S NOT A SINGLE THING FOR THE PLUS 2!!! So it's is 1000% immaterial if this one single thing isn't itself worth it: that wasn't what you ask and it's not what I was answering.
Fair enough. From my own high level experience, I find the decision to turn down the AC for these benefits to be a really hard sell. There are lots of ways to be stealthy or mobile, and few ways to break the game's otherwise tightly controlled math. That's just my opinion though.
That's cool. You don't have to agree that you'd trade the AC and I never expected you to. I just know that I personally would think it over instead of instantly going for one option.
Under ABP, if you aren't wearing any armor at all, then you shouldn't be getting the armor potency bonus. Explorers clothes would work fine. Similar to how if you don't make an attack you won't be getting the attack potency bonus. You still have to use something to attack with even if it is an unarmed attack like your basic fist.
That is how the base game rule's math works out. That is how ABP should work out too.
That's a misnomer. I always have a +3 Major Striking effect on anything I attack with, even a stick on the ground. The proper comparison is thusly that I always have a +3 Major Resilient effect on anything I wear, even basic non-equipment clothing like loincloths.
Heck, you could literally be in the nude and benefit; the RAW for ABP supports my claim, counter to yours.
At 5th level, you gain a +1 potency bonus to AC. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2, and at 18th level, to +3.
Is there any stipulation of armor or equipment in there? No? Then the preconceived notion that it has to be tied to only approved equipment items is not applied by the system, but by you. Which is fine. But don't tell me that it's RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
I mean, I have backbone and allow it, I think the lack of armor property runes, and the relatively low AC difference between them and plate wearers (+1) makes it fine, plate is benefitting from not needing dexterity at all due to the bulwark trait anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I have backbone and allow it, I think the lack of armor property runes, and the relatively low AC difference between them and plate wearers (+1) makes it fine, plate is benefitting from not needing dexterity at all due to the bulwark trait anyway.@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
I think you fall into "unless they think high level dex characters need a boost," the exception Awesome point out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
Because RAW is what matters when arguing what the rules themselves allow. When the rules are ambiguous, then RAI takes over. But the rules aren't ambiguous, the result is quite clear; you just simply don't like them. And that's fine. But don't then proceed to state what you like the rules to be as RAW.
The spirit of ABP is to remove the need for (scaling) equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Being able to be completely unarmored and naked while still being effective in a group fits a lot more in the spirit of that concept than forcing a MDB mechanic on someone for the sake of keeping balance (which was done poorly, I might add).
To be clear, I'm okay with a GM not ruling what the RAW is. What I'm not okay with is a GM treating their ruling as RAW when it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plate gets less speed, and they almost certainly have a much lower Reflex save even with Bulwark. They're, per the base game, supposed to get +1 AC to compensate. Reversing that is an unnecessary buff for anyone using DEX over STR because it means they have better speed, better Reflex saves (by +3 or +4 depending on if the Plate user took Sentinel and Mighty Bulwark) and better AC at the cost of, if you really wanted to, as little as a -2 to damage.I mean, I have backbone and allow it, I think the lack of armor property runes, and the relatively low AC difference between them and plate wearers (+1) makes it fine, plate is benefitting from not needing dexterity at all due to the bulwark trait anyway.@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
I'll call BS on this here.
Plate getting less speed can be fixed in a few ways if it is viewed as a factor. My Full Plate Champion has a move speed of 45 feet, with plans to have a Fly speed of 45 as well, and that's not full investment. They'd also still be slower than a Monk or even an Animal Instinct Barbarian anyway, and guess what? The +7 Dexterity Rogue and Ranger and Fighter will be just as slow by comparison.
Plate wearers having worse Reflex Saves is a staple even without a +7 Dexterity character factored in. Even a Ranger with +4 Dexterity will outpace my Champion simply because of proficiency scaling. Evasion gives an effective +10 to a successful roll. Heck of a lot more than the passive extra +3 might give by comparison. Hell, our Plate Fighter makes quick work of a lot more Reflex Saves than my Champion simply because of Evasion making them +2 better on top of that. Not to mention having Reflexive Shield makes a big difference too.
That +1 AC doesn't do a whole lot against credible threats. I avoided one hit due to my Heavy Armor in the last encounter. It would have been one that dropped me, but I would have changed tactics should that strike have hit me, which honestly isn't a big deal since the end result of "I didn't get dropped" is still being achieved. The biggest reason I don't get hit is because of both tactics and added armor proficiencies. The specializations are also a nice touch, but a bit circumvented by our Bard's Inspired Defense songs (too bad there isn't a Heavy Chain-like armor).
As for the Strength versus Dexterity argument, they, the +7 Dexxers are also less viable in Athletics-based rolls and abilities, and have less Bulk to work with. Speaking as someone who is a Wizard with 10 Strength, it is very hard in the higher levels to maintain your Bulk limit, Bags of Holding included, and not being trained or higher in Athletics with needing a good Strength means I have to circumvent obstacles in different ways that are more cumbersome or time-consuming or require non-permanent resources (like spells). But don't worry, it's that +1 AC difference crosses "the line" for some people, even for character roles where it makes sense for it to function (like a Tank Monk).
lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spirit of ABP is to remove the need for (scaling) equipment. Nothing more, nothing less.
If we agree on that and you still believe that dex characters should be better than there non-ABP counterparts at high levels, then we will never see eye to eye, as those ideas are fundamentally in conflict and there's no point in arguing with someone who can hold two contradictory points of view at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you fall into "unless they think high level dex characters need a boost," the exception Awesome point out.I mean, I have backbone and allow it, I think the lack of armor property runes, and the relatively low AC difference between them and plate wearers (+1) makes it fine, plate is benefitting from not needing dexterity at all due to the bulwark trait anyway.@Darksol I'm confused why you keep mentioning "RAW" for a variant rule. I mean... you know this will only ever be the case if a DM wants to use the rule, and then they make all the decisions about how that works, right?
What everyone on the other side of the issue from you is saying is that the exact words don't matter. No GM who has a backbone is going to allow this unless they think high level dex characters need a boost, and even then it'll most likely be a homebrew in a regular game rather than using ABP, since, again, buffing dex characters and/or mage armor at high levels isn't a core tenet of ABP and people who play with ABP aren't more likely to want to do so. It's just not within the spirit of the variant.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is RAI trumps RAW has never been more true than when you're playing with a variant, and RAI is obvious AF here:
ABP reduces the amount of items in a game, and, by extension, loot and shopping. This can be used if your players don't like shopping. If you don't like handling loot. If you want a more consistent power curve. If you want to have a low magic setting, etc.
I see it a little differently, because its not a matter of them needing a boost, its a matter of the game's balance being able to sustain that boost without breaking.
Like I don't think that the core game has unplayable dex builds or that they're underpowered, but I think that even with the boost, they aren't suddenly the dominant option either. Dex Characters (with the exception of Thief obviously) are too firmly bound to strength for damage (even bow users via propulsive) and lower damage dice for this to have that significant a change in the meta I feel, so the balance sustains.
This is all especially true since the boost happens at the highest levels, the levels where higher damage dice make the most practical difference (due to the higher average compounding over multiple dice on attacks) where strength is delivering its highest bonus-- heck before that last boost they have perfect parity with Plate builds (except plate has property runes) and prior to that are still below them in terms of raw AC.
It just isn't enough to really budge the system math and create a meaningful imbalance in my eyes, certain characters are tougher (with Monks being the only outlier in terms of current possible AC) at extremely high levels, and Dex Champions are better in a meta you didn't see them in much because Paladins are the best option and want to reinforce their off-turn attack reaction with as much damage as possible. In summary, its impact on the game's balance in minimal because I'm not sure the built-in +1 AC perk for heavy armor was actually load bearing in the first place.
Heck, as of that one clarification, you still need strength to really pull off maneuver builds since finesse apparently doesn't make your athletics checks dex based either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to Darksol's argument: in terms of damage, each die size increase its worth +1, and since finesse naturally drops the die size by one, using the closest possible weapons results in -1 damage on the part of the Dex user before factoring in other traits.
BUT, whenever we add another dice due to the built in striking runes, that compounds, 2 dice, means the dex build is losing 2 damage, 3 dice means they're losing 3 damage per attack.
Then, you're behind on strength by a bit too because its not your primary stat, so you lose a little more damage from that as well (-1 or -2 I think? I don't have it in front of me) but then that's to every attack you make, so the more attacks the two builds make, the wider the gap gets in absolute terms.
This isn't to say I consider dex bad, I don't, but you lose a bit of damage for the privilege of having Dexterity as your main stat anyway, which gets quite a bit worse if you dump strength entirely on a non-thief.
In summary, its impact on the game's balance in minimal because I'm not sure the built-in +1 AC perk for heavy armor was actually load bearing in the first place.Only heavy armor and Mountain Stance get it, so it was clearly intended to factor in. Otherwise every other option wouldn't cap out one lower.
Indeed. And only a couple classes get access to heavy armor naturally with others either being unable to get it or having to take a feat tax through sentinel dedication. In the same way that fighter has +2 to hit over other martials and monks have +2 AC (+1 before they get 20 dex at level 5), heavy armor users are supposed to have +1 AC and access to better armor runes. This comes with a -5ft penalty to speed and a high STR requirement to not get even worse penalties, but beyond that you also need to have the proficiency.
Arguments could go back and forth about whether that's necessary or not and whether DEX characters are still balanced with a bit of a boost, but I'm not too interested in questioning that in the same way that I'm not interested in looking at various spells and seeing if some of them are over or under powered. I just take what the books give me until and unless I run into a serious issue.
Also, for the record, ranged attacks exist. Just want to throw that out there. IMO that's kind of the main reason why someone would go DEX over STR outside of not having the proficiencies required (like with monks, for example).
If you're comparing melee attacks and heavy armor with STR to melee attacks and unarmored with DEX on the same character with the same proficiencies, then yeah, STR wins out... the system doesn't try to hide that. It's very clearly the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd always rule it as "If you're ahead or behind in AC compared to what the rules normally are/what characters are normally capable of, you're doing it wrong".
It's supposed to keep the math the same, while getting rid of "mandatory" magical items.
But it's your game, do with it as you want.
I believe the Automatic Bonus Progression potency bonuses are meant to be item bonuses and this is an oversight. Potency bonuses don't exist in the game (only status, circumstance, item). Runes that have a potency level give item bonuses.
The intent is that the ABP overwrites that general rule within the opening paragraph:
This variant removes the item bonus to rolls and DCs usually provided by magic items (with the exception of armor’s item bonus) and replaces it with a new kind of bonus—potency—to reflect a character’s innate ability instead. In this variant, magic items, if they exist at all, can provide unique special abilities rather than numerical increases.
It does create an interesting RAW interaction, since as you state, potency isn't an allowed bonus type within the base game, nor does the ABP rules by RAW supersede or replace that restriction.
Welcome to inconsistent rules writing. Weren't we supposed to have done away with this in PF2?
I believe the Automatic Bonus Progression potency bonuses are meant to be item bonuses and this is an oversight. Potency bonuses don't exist in the game (only status, circumstance, item). Runes that have a potency level give item bonuses.
Basically, yeah. Most issues collapse into nothingness (mage armor, alchemical items, probably other things) if potency bonus becomes an item bonus that just so happens to stack with armor's base item bonus for balance purposes. The only thing that's still different is that you can get an item bonus to armor despite being unarmored and not wearing explorer's clothing.
It seems as though not everyone agrees that's a good idea, but it does solve the problem that many people (myself included) see of it not being consistent with the power level of the game without ABP.