VampByDay |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I want to take you back for a moment to my childhood. Back in the Halcyon days of 3rd edition DnD, and even 2nd edition. Back when I was still in high school and we barely had enough money for the core books, let alone any APs or modules or adventures, before the internet was prolific as it is so you couldn't just download the PDF for cheap.
Back in those days where my friends would just make campaigns up off the top of their head and it was a miracle if we got past ten sessions before it pooped out (that part was bad, admittedly.) Back in the day when Baldur's Gate I and II were the hot videogames to play.
Back in those days our games usually didn't feature adventure marts or magic item bazzars. If, in your first adventure, you found a +1 dagger you held on to that puppy because the GM might throw a ghost at you and you'd need a magic weapon to defeat it. And besides, it wasn't like anyone in the local 100-person Hamlet had the gold to buy it anyway.
The thing is . . . I kinda miss those games. Where, if your Ranger who used a longsword found a magic axe, he'd just switch over to using the axe instead of selling the axe to make his longsword better. Where you'd don that Chainmail +2 because it was one better AC than your non-magical scalemail.
I dunno, I always liked it because it made the treasure feel more EARNED in some way. It wasn't just Magical Chainmail +2 you were wearing, it was the armor of Thogrog, the Orc Chieften who you slew while liberating a local Hamlet. You weren't just weilding some battleaxe +2 that you bought at a store, it was found in the horde of a Young Dragon that was trying to insert himself as the king of the land. It wasn't just some Leather armor +1, but the armor of some shadow assassin-you still don't know the name of- who tried to kill you in the middle of the night.
The problem is . . . the proliferation of builds needing VERY specific things to work has basically made those kind of games . . . less desirable. If your character is based around using an Aldori Dueling Sword exclusively, then . . . well it kinda sucks when you never find one. Or if you have built a throwing weapons character and all you find are swords and staves for the first few levels . . . again, not fun.
I dunno, how do you people feel about a campaign where you can't just go back to town and liquidate massive amounts of magic items into gold to buy the next +1 to your gear? What if your GM started the game by letting you know magic item shops would be rare? Do you like that kind of game where you use what you find, or are you more of a 'I need to be able to buy whatever I want because of a specific build.' kind of character. I'm not judging for or against, I just want to know what people think.
Sibelius Eos Owm |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have my greatest sympathy, friend, for it appears you have hit upon a trend that so many gamers before you have experienced and so many more: Why don't magic items feel special to me anymore? This even applies to treasure in general, but everybody remember their first magic item (or at least so it is said... at least everybody remembers the effect their first magic item had on them).
I don't pretend to know what will and will not work for everybody, but know that many before you have tried to fix this problem and few to my knowledge have succeeded. Perhaps making magic items rarer and difficult to purchase in your game will have the desired effect for your table. This is the same design philosophy that led to what many consider the frustrating choice by 5e D&D not to acknowledge its own built-in assumptions about how to distribute magic items to the party.
Mind you, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of establishing a setting where magic items are considered rare and valuable, with each having a more significant impact on your character. I believe that there is value to such a world of adventure where the knowledge that a powerful magic item is rumoured to be hidden at the top of an ancient and crumbling wizard's tower on the other side of the mountain. The caveat to this is that you may go to the effort of doing this plus ensuring that your players are all on-board with the premise and ensure that no problems with the math come up as a result... and it still doesn't rekindle that first magic item feeling.
The adage I have heard regarding this phenomenon is this: "Everybody wants magic items to feel like it did when you first played the game, but you can't open that Christmas present twice."
If you decide to go for this, I truly hope it works for you, and if anybody out there has had luck with this, please share.
Perpdepog |
9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be all for magic items being rare and impactful and super important to the story.
Then I started playing in said games where magic items were rare and impactful, and super important to the story. Or at least, they were super important to the story of their former owners, usually, because they were often random, since they were the treasures of some ancient whatsit who had different priorities than I or any of the party members did, or were rolled off a table to see what they did, or fell somewhere on that scale. The usual outcome was that we had a bunch of random junk that we either couldn't use, or felt silly using, or didn't mesh with the kind of character we wanted to be and the kinds of stories we wanted to tell, and it all fell apart.
I'm sure that kind of game can be done, and done well, but outside of running a rule-less, free-form roleplay scenario, I haven't encountered it yet.
thenobledrake |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am confused as to where this "we couldn't just do X back in the day, but now you can and I don't like it anymore" sentiment comes from because there is literally no actual difference.
Both then and now some build options are more open to using whatever comes along and some are more specific to only certain equipment.
Both then and now how much you can or can't buy and sell magic items is up to your GM and the books say as much despite presenting a particular default.
Even the aspect of being able to change your character's build to fit the equipment you find instead of changing the equipment to fit the build (retraining) isn't exactly new since it's been around since somewhere in the 3rd/3.5 era.
Run how you want to run. That was what you did then, and it will work now.
VampByDay |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@perpdepog I feel you. Back in PF1, when there was still a chart for designing your own magic items, I'd make things unique by adding special little bonuses to each magic item. Like a dress sword that was designed to help a braggart noble navigate social situations more adeptly by being a +1 sword and giving a +1 to diplomacy. Or a set of armor that gave +1 to Knowledge-Religion because it was enchanting by a fledgling cleric necromancer. It was a fun way to make magic items unique. Sadly there's not a way of making your own magic items in 2e (that I know of) so pricing them out is harder.
@thenobledrake I'm not saying it didn't happen back in the day. I'm just saying . . . that's how I personally experienced that and would like to again. I haven't had a campaign like that in quite a while. I'm sure some old campaigns had magic shops on every corner, just not the way I experienced it.
I think a campaign like that could work, but you'd have to be up front with all your players. Say something like: "There's not going to be a magic shop on every corner in this campaign, so it might behoove you to make a character that is flexible and doesn't require very specific gear to work."
As a side note, it doesn't have to be a low-magic campaign or a campaign where items are rare, just one where the players don't have constant access to ye olde magic item shop. I was thinking of a campaign that involved the PCs running the underground byways of the five kings mountains, finding ancient lost hamlets under the ground, and just generally spending a fair amount of time away from civilization. And sometimes when they did find a place to stay, it was just a small inn that couldn't really buy all the treasure the party had accumulated. OF COURSE they would sometimes hit major towns to be able to buy and sell, but it would be like, a once every few levels thing.
HumbleGamer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a matter of game system.
For example, this 2e allows tactics and brings the game more on a board game level than the other rpg I played. And I love it.
If I were to min max and do stuff, this 2e would be the right system to me.
The way ( and I mean something which may help) to bring the game rpg oriented rather than min/max and build oriented is IMO to play a system which doesn't require the player to tweak with his character that much.
Obviously you may be able to achieve what you are looking for on this 2e too, though I see no harm in using a specific system for its real purpose.
SuperBidi |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules fully support this style of play if you include a few variant rules.
As Exocist points out, APB is obvious so you don't need any magic item for your characters to maintain their power level and you can remove most of the loot as a result.
Relics are also very interesting if you want to give your players an item they will keep during their whole carreer.
You can also give rarer higher level items as drop instead of the important amount of on level items. I've given a Decanter of Endless Water to my level 5 party and a seemingly innocuous item became super important during a few levels.
You can reduce investment limit if you want to discourage your players to sell their high level items for a lot of low level items (as they won't be able to invest them all).
Also, one consequence of this type of game is that players can't be sure they will drop any item and as such they will favor "bland" build instead of choosing a playstyle that is highly dependent on a specific set of equipment.
One way to avoid that is to allow easy retraining, so they will retrain as soon as they find a new item to better fit the item type.
Another way of doing it is to give feats with items. For example, if they drop the axe of Thogrog, it can be a +1 Striking Flaming Greataxe giving the feat Swipe when you wield it. So, on top of being a very unique item, it'll allow the player to use a specific strategy with it, enhancing the importance of this axe.
*Khan* |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules fully support this style of play if you include a few variant rules.
As Exocist points out, APB is obvious so you don't need any magic item for your characters to maintain their power level and you can remove most of the loot as a result.
Relics are also very interesting if you want to give your players an item they will keep during their whole carreer.
You can also give rarer higher level items as drop instead of the important amount of on level items. I've given a Decanter of Endless Water to my level 5 party and a seemingly innocuous item became super important during a few levels.
You can reduce investment limit if you want to discourage your players to sell their high level items for a lot of low level items (as they won't be able to invest them all).Also, one consequence of this type of game is that players can't be sure they will drop any item and as such they will favor "bland" build instead of choosing a playstyle that is highly dependent on a specific set of equipment.
One way to avoid that is to allow easy retraining, so they will retrain as soon as they find a new item to better fit the item type.
Another way of doing it is to give feats with items. For example, if they drop the axe of Thogrog, it can be a +1 Striking Flaming Greataxe giving the feat Swipe when you wield it. So, on top of being a very unique item, it'll allow the player to use a specific strategy with it, enhancing the importance of this axe.
I agree. Unique magic items will be more memorable and less likely to be sold.
A folding bladed knife, which if you use it as a razorblade can create the most fantastic beards and moustaches will properly be a valued belonging.thenobledrake |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thenobledrake I'm not saying it didn't happen back in the day. I'm just saying . . . that's how I personally experienced that and would like to again. I haven't had a campaign like that in quite a while. I'm sure some old campaigns had magic shops on every corner, just not the way I experienced it.
Right, and I'm saying there's nothing stopping you from having that same experience again - especially not since you're talking about 3rd edition, which is the first edition that put price lists for effects and feats that granted specific permissions in front of players and also provided guidance that created the expectation that a particular size of settlement would have a particular level of NPC of particular classes available for buying services from, so you're already experienced at just not following those implications through to the conclusions you're saying are how things are now.
HumbleGamer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Unique magic items will be more memorable and less likely to be sold.
Talking about unique/rare items, My party wanted to sell them in either AoA and EC, when possible ( hello AoA ).
I don't expect that a unique item gives the players a "solutioN" for the chapter they are into, but at least some unique use they might benefit from.
Stuff like
is "less useful" ( let's not say useless ) than selling it and using the golds to buy something better.
And imo it's simply right for similar items to be sold, since they add "nothing useful" or "unique" to the game.
NielsenE |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to write a campaign that hits some of those notes.
Generally setting baseline is a region emerging from a dark age; 'learning' (arcane magic and alchemy) are significantly rarer. Magic items are practically unheard of. Some low-level divine potions would be about the extend of it in the region. There may be caravans from distant regions that could bring in things from regions were its more CRB baseline, but it would still be very high cost, very long time for custom orders, and vulnerable to banitry.
I'm writing my own 'crafting with monster parts' rules to give some ability to do the equivalent of baseline fundamental runes, with a bit more work. And making such weapons/armor non-upgradeable -- you're starting from scratch if you want to make a better one. However since the gathering monster parts puts you above WBL, it should balance out.
Around the mid-game I'm structuring it to allow the transition back to 'normal' availability or switch to ABP. Just in case my own math doesn't keep up correctly. But the story is around exploration of the history of this region and that history's impact on the present. As a result they will be finding lost libraries and spell books. They'll be finding various crafting manuals. They'll be making allies with some secretive NPCs. All of which work towards evolving back to the baseline.
The goal is to make the low levels feel some of that nostalgia; but by the higher levels if people have focused invested into a singular weapon/armor build they'll be able to stick with it. If their low level experience encouraged them to choose flexibility over specialization, then the modifications can carry through more easily -- and the payoff can be 'the PCs are now the primary controllers of arcane magic/magic item construction' in the region -- do they share the knowledge, do they hoard the knowledge? How do they deal with people who want need their help or those that want to exploit it. That's designed to be one of the major side-quests/RP hooks for groups to deal with as they see fit.
breithauptclan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I want to take you back for a moment to my childhood. Back in the Halcyon days of 3rd edition DnD, and even 2nd edition. Back when I was still in high school and we barely had enough money for the core books, let alone any APs or modules or adventures, before the internet was prolific as it is so you couldn't just download the PDF for cheap.
Back in those days where my friends would just make campaigns up off the top of their head and it was a miracle if we got past ten sessions before it pooped out (that part was bad, admittedly.)
It might feel bad having your campaign fall apart after a few sessions. But having you or your friend create the campaign off the top of their head is exactly what is causing this effect:
Back in those days our games usually didn't feature adventure marts or magic item bazzars. If, in your first adventure, you found a +1 dagger you held on to that puppy because the GM might throw a ghost at you and you'd need a magic weapon to defeat it. And besides, it wasn't like anyone in the local 100-person Hamlet had the gold to buy it anyway.
Because cities, villages, and wandering traders with their various magic marts hadn't been created. The GM was just making things up on the fly and hadn't gotten around to creating such things.
Now with less time and more money and running published adventures, such things exist.
Castilliano |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a major part of that early experience is the wonder. My first character was an Elf Fighter w/ 17 Str which made me happy because we rolled stats in order. I was a child at a con and never played him, but boy was I excited about him being an Elf. And strong! And wowsers.
And when I did play, magic led to questions because it was mysterious and "magic" had all sorts of cool connotations.
Fast forward to the Player's Handbook & DM's Guide being combined so that every player knows what magic's about, how much they're supposed to have, and there's a market for such things*. Detect Magic became a Cantrip, Cantrips became unlimited use, and IDing could often be done by careful examination rather than via a spell with a material cost.
So yeah, to any RPG veteran Elves are vanilla. Worse, magic has become mundane, and given the power curve, a hero's personal power both outweighs and requires magical items. Oy.
With that in perspective, I think switching to APB might actually dampen the importance of magic items as they become less and less a factor!
*Funny side note, in his novels Gygax's main character bought one of his signature magic weapons. It was out of a limited selection so that's something, but he kept that store-bought item forever w/o upgrading.
Castilliano |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possible solutions...possibly unpalatable, which is to say you'll need to check in with your players! A lot of people felt older "mysterious & rare" magic was a hassle keeping them from achieving their PC's final form. I think PF2 did us a favor by striving to have all magic items do something cool besides provide a numerical bonus.
Here are some idea seeds:
1. APB hybrid 1. In this version one can keep up with the APB power curve, but w/ magic adding a nudge. Perhaps the APB is a level behind or just at level while magic can get you to at-level or a level ahead, no matter what level you're at. Then the PCs can keep their favorite weapons throughout without having to bring it into the shop (so no worries about loot dropping so they can afford that), and the items will always matter.
2. APB hybrid 2. A more extreme version of 1, where the PC needs a magic item in order to progress along the APB at all. Or even to gain their level to proficiency! "This axe will only get you to 5th level of proficiency at most." Gosh does magic become important then! (Of course, you do need to provide it for the PCs to move on to fiercer obstacles.)
3. Alter the DCs re: magic. Make it harder to ID, harder to make, reintroduce trial-and-error as a valid methodology. There might be items available, but maybe only at auctions or for the wealthy. Scams are so prevalent nearly all merchants avoid such high risk purchases, as do customers.
4. Add mystery. Taking a page from Deadlands or Warhammer, make it so it's hard to find magic, nearly impossible to ID magic items, and many items come with (perhaps severe) caveats. A player/PC knowing his sword is worth wielding, yet not knowing what the sword is fully capable of (or what its agenda might be!) regains some of that wonder. "My sword just did what when it hit a fiend?!"
These abilities could still be tied to the APB, so the PCs' are unlocking abilities as they level.
5. More mystery. Randomness. Sure, PCs might desire a solid feel for what their PC can do (certainty being an appealing emotion), but perhaps when it comes to other magic it's more like a PF2 Ritual, where a variety of success/failure options might apply. NPC casters would be an obvious place to add this in, but maybe even with consumables, wands, or whatnot. Finding a reliable piece of magic becomes refreshing, though I know more than a few players that would prefer the random pieces! (And yes, they frequently bought Rods/Wands of Wonder!)
6. De-magic the most basic magic. So a +1 Striking Sword might only be a finely edged & weighted blade, but it's not "magic" per se. This takes a lot of magic (especially from NPC gear) off the table so it'd be many levels before PCs find a permanent magic item. Consumables might have to be tuned too.
7. Change the economy. Sell back (like in Starfinder) at 10% or increase the value of items tenfold. Perhaps change the timeline necessary for magic creation so it's not feasible for a PC to do so mid-campaign arc.
In other words, kill the magic market so that yeah, most items do come from a large yet limited pool that people kill each other for. Items often do have a history, and maybe somebody who feels they have rights to it. You have magic? You'd better protect it since that represents a fortune for bandits.
8. Tie magic progression to quests rather than coin. You want a better weapon? Then maybe you should dip it into the Pool of Gorum in them thar' mountains, though the spirits of Valhalla will fight to verify you're worthy!
9. Flatten the PC power curve. The main way would be to subtract level from proficiency (and DCs too!) Then magic bonuses carry more meaning (albeit in a mildly illusory way since mostly what this does is bring power levels closer between different levels than change the difficulty at one's own level).
10. And again, double-check with your players, and with specificity so they don't just check a box without knowing the terms and conditions.
I really didn't tackle consumables or low-level wands and staves here very well. Or how the power balance of alchemy fits in. PF2's such a complex, interconnected system there are sure to be unforeseen ramifications.
Castilliano |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and in answer to the initial question: I'd be wary, mostly because PF2 is so tightly tuned. I would love to recapture that sense of wonder of an innocent player, yet I'm so wired into game balance I'm not certain I ever could.
One thing I'd done (though in a looser RPG system) was ask the players if they'd let their item do something. Whether that was due to sentience, an intuition on the part of the PC, or whatever there'd be situations that an item they had would do well against, yet the player/PC didn't yet have knowledge of that. Then boom, a cool surprise in a bad situation, and a greater appreciation for the magic they had.
VampByDay |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are missing the point. I’m not saying build a low magic campaign, but more of a ‘ use what you find’ campaign. I’m not trying to adjust the power curve so much as say. . Like. . . let me give a scenario.
Let’s take a party of a standard melee champion, wizard, cleric, and rogue. They go on an adventure in the middle of the Stolen Lands where there aren’t a whole lot of villages around, and the ones that are around aren’t big enough to buy/sell magic armor.
Over the course of level 2, the champion finds a +1 battle axe. Not quite the long sword he was using but perfectly serviceable and it works for him. The rogue finds a +1 rapier, basically an upgrade to his +1 short sword. The cleric finds a +1 Longspear essentially an even trade with their quarter staff, and the wizard finds a +1 club, which is a bit different than their wizard’s staff, but works just fine.
Later on, as they go up in levels, the rogue finds a +1 chain shirt. Now he has 19 dex but he wears it anyway because it is still better than wearing his nonmagical leather. And maybe the champion finds a +1 striking returning Javalin. Not the best thing I the world but since there’s nowhere to sell it he keeps it as his ranged option just as a backup.
That’s the kinda stuff I’m talking about. Obviously my example is JUST AN EXAMPLE and shouldn’t be taken too literally.
MEATSHED |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue I see with this style of play is that it either doesn't really affect a lot of classes, like you said a champion can easily swap to a battle axe from a longsword without too much trouble, but if a player is playing a fighter (or even worse, a cleric focused on weapon attacks) then your options of what weapon to give them are limited without heavily reducing their offensive effectiveness unless its a low-level campaign.
Guntermench |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you have a fighter that ignores that new +1 weapon because it's not in his or her chosen group. A giant barbarian that doesn't use anything because they need to use a large weapon. A champion that bypasses the medium armor that has a rune because it doesn't have bulwark. Someone using a weapon with a maneuver finds a "similar" weapon that's an upgrade... except it doesn't have that maneuver they want to use. The stealthy rogue forsakes the chain shirt because it has Noisy and they're built around stealth.
Anyways, you can do this by simply banning transferring runes. Probably want to give ample retraining time as well.
Watery Soup |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the Halcyon days ... I kinda miss those games.
I suspect you won't find them as enjoyable as you once did. Human beings are really good at romanticizing the past, and on top of that, you have changed as a person and it's very likely you won't like the same things you liked 20 years ago.
I downloaded a DOS emulator a while back so I could play some of my childhood favorites - uMoria/Rogue, Ultima II, etc. It was far less interesting than it was in my mind. Best to just let the past be past, IMO. Pour one out and remember, and then move on.
If you miss those games, you can always go back and play them. I've seen D&D 3E and D&D 3.5E games offered at F2F conventions (pre-pandemic), and I'm sure they're being offered on VTT.
You're always free to incorporate things that you think were erroneously removed from the game. As someone above pointed out, though, sometimes those things were removed for a reason. We had our favorite, unique, customized magic items that worked for that character in that campaign setting for that player with that set of players in that real-life setting. Over time, we found out that the epic, forever-funny ring of farting wasn't as forever-funny, or our prized +2 orc chainmail just wasn't keeping up with the protection we needed ... and it ended up in some dingy pawn shop anyway.
I think PF2E does a decent job of describing stuff so it's a reminder of its rarity. For example,
Sibelius Eos Owm |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are missing the point. I’m not saying build a low magic campaign, but more of a ‘ use what you find’ campaign. I’m not trying to adjust the power curve so much as say. . Like. . . let me give a scenario.
Let’s take a party of a standard melee champion, wizard, cleric, and rogue. They go on an adventure in the middle of the Stolen Lands where there aren’t a whole lot of villages around, and the ones that are around aren’t big enough to buy/sell magic armor.
Over the course of level 2, the champion finds a +1 battle axe. Not quite the long sword he was using but perfectly serviceable and it works for him. The rogue finds a +1 rapier, basically an upgrade to his +1 short sword. The cleric finds a +1 Longspear essentially an even trade with their quarter staff, and the wizard finds a +1 club, which is a bit different than their wizard’s staff, but works just fine.
Later on, as they go up in levels, the rogue finds a +1 chain shirt. Now he has 19 dex but he wears it anyway because it is still better than wearing his nonmagical leather. And maybe the champion finds a +1 striking returning Javalin. Not the best thing I the world but since there’s nowhere to sell it he keeps it as his ranged option just as a backup.
That’s the kinda stuff I’m talking about. Obviously my example is JUST AN EXAMPLE and shouldn’t be taken too literally.
You're in luck, because PF2 allows this behaviours much better than 1e or 3.5 D&D did, but this still requires complete player buy-in, and is not something you can do as a function of the world or game setting so much as with player cooperation. The main issue here for as I see it is that your more experienced players will often have a much better idea who their character is and what they look like. While it's hardly realistic, the choice of one's weapon is often at minimum an expression of that character's aesthetics and personality, even when there is no mechanical difference for swapping weapons.
PF2e requires martial characters to specialize a lot less in a specific type of weapon, but a Fighter who picked a weapon specialization in swords is going to have to choose between the extra damage of a magic axe or the fact that they're built to be good at swords. In fact, since the difference is a matter of proficiency (+2), in many cases a +1 weapon is a direct downgrade in accuracy from specializing in the weapon they currently have without a striking rune to back it up.
Going beyond weapons... honesty most of my players to date have either barely touched or are still using some of the loot they've picked up. I think part of the key behind driving player behaviour to 'use what they find' is to just give them exactly what they want. Nobody in my party had a use for a glove of storing because they were monks, spellcasters, and a polearm wielder, but the paladin dropped his polearm and switched right away to the holy avenger he found in a linnorm's hoard.
It feels to me like there are probably ways to drive player behaviour toward getting the most use out of whatever items they get, but also this edition of the game is at least partly designed to make it easier for players to turn random loot they got into loot they actually want, particularly with the "This was my grandmother's sword" narrative, where they can keep the same sentimental tool but keep up with the math by adding runes to it.
Castilliano |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you want their magic items to overshadow their PCs' options. My first 3.0 game had that, with my dual-wielding Ranger landing a +1 Flaming Bastard Sword at low levels (and as part of a published adventure no less). Well that totally dominated my build choices even though I was Dex-based. It was such an awesome weapon...and it felt like a letdown for being mostly wasted in a party w/ no Str-based warriors.
So unless the world's low-magic I would not want to repeat that experience. It was great treasure, but not treasured.
Yet had it been perfectly suitable for her, IMO it would've been TOO powerful, especially since the other players would have been many levels behind with their items.
Dragonchess Player |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I want to take you back for a moment to my childhood. Back in the Halcyon days of 3rd edition DnD, and even 2nd edition.
The thing is . . . I kinda miss those games.
As someone who grew up in the days of 1st edition A&D/BECMI D&D, what you are looking for wasn't dependent on rules or lack of "adventure marts/magic item bazars." It was the sense of discovery in learning for the first time how things worked. Everything was new and therefore wonderful; in the most basic meaning of the term, evoking wonder.
A simple magic weapon was a prize simply because it was magic and made the character better at attacking with it. It didn't matter that it was just a bland +1 to attack roll/+1 to damage and let you do damage to some enemies that a non-magic weapon would not. A scroll with a spell different than what was already in the PC's spellbook was also great, because it let the character warp reality; not just a single time, but after learned and copied as often as desired/prepared. A captured spellbook from an enemy magic-user/mage/wizard was even better than a pile of gold. As you gained system mastery, such items went from being prizes to more of a tool; and tools seldom evoke wonder.
Also, you probably had only the most basic/general ideas for the character you were playing. Most of the details of the character's personality, preferences, and even fighting style/favored equipment/thematic spells/etc. were often determined during play instead of starting with a nearly fully developed concept and planned goals. On the plus side, starting with a fully fleshed out concept, personality, and goals in a character can make roleplaying more believable and engaging; on the minus side, such a character is less suitable for some scenarios and "random loot" may not mesh with the already well-defined preferences.
Instead of trying to relive the never-to-be-regained "glory days" or "wonder years" of your role-playing youth*, you may be better off with embracing your more nuanced and well-rounded approach to create/interact with the setting and its inhabitants in a more immersive roleplaying style. An occasional change of pace to indulge in a "kick in the door and kill the monsters" dungeon crawl can still be fun, but the simple accomplishments from when you were first learning are probably not enough of a challenge anymore to give the same thrill.
*- which would probably not be as enjoyable to you now, just as your taste buds would probably find much of the over-sweetened cereals and junk food you loved as a child to be less enjoyable
Tender Tendrils |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like magic shops as a general concept. I feel like magic items are the kind of thing you could only purchase privately or at the occasional auction, or that the occasional very wealthy merchant might have acquired a single magic item that they might sell.
That being said, if players can't purchase many magic items, you need to find other ways to satisfy the system math (I use a mixture of the GMGs automatic bonus progression and high-quality weapons and armour variant rules - I just remove the weapon/armour related parts of the ABP variant and let high quality arms cover that bonus.)
You also probably need to find other ways for them to spend money. This requires you to invest the players in the setting enough that they are willing to invest resources in it, or giving them other game systems to invest in. Giving your players a house or ship or a castle or an organization to run and upgrade can be a good way to do this.
HumbleGamer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are missing the point. I’m not saying build a low magic campaign, but more of a ‘ use what you find’ campaign. I’m not trying to adjust the power curve so much as say. . Like. . . let me give a scenario.
Let’s take a party of a standard melee champion, wizard, cleric, and rogue. They go on an adventure in the middle of the Stolen Lands where there aren’t a whole lot of villages around, and the ones that are around aren’t big enough to buy/sell magic armor.
Over the course of level 2, the champion finds a +1 battle axe. Not quite the long sword he was using but perfectly serviceable and it works for him. The rogue finds a +1 rapier, basically an upgrade to his +1 short sword. The cleric finds a +1 Longspear essentially an even trade with their quarter staff, and the wizard finds a +1 club, which is a bit different than their wizard’s staff, but works just fine.
Later on, as they go up in levels, the rogue finds a +1 chain shirt. Now he has 19 dex but he wears it anyway because it is still better than wearing his nonmagical leather. And maybe the champion finds a +1 striking returning Javalin. Not the best thing I the world but since there’s nowhere to sell it he keeps it as his ranged option just as a backup.
That’s the kinda stuff I’m talking about. Obviously my example is JUST AN EXAMPLE and shouldn’t be taken too literally.
I think it's something somebody might achieve during the first half of the game ( until elemental runes), while on a journey ( not in city, and because so unable to swap runes to a different armor or weapon).
Anyway, couldn't that be said also given the opposite situation?
"I am a mighty warrior, who wields the legendary family greatsword who was used by my ancestors for centu... Oh sweet, a +1 striking maul! "
*throws away the greatsword*
"Let's roll! "
HumbleGamer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@VampByDay: did you consider using the Magic Item variants Rules?
It may allow the characters to get their progresion, and the master to give them specific items they may like and even use.
Ubertron_X |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am on a love-hate-relationship regarding items in PF2. What I do love, love, love is the fact the games math does not break down when using level appropriate items. What I do hate is that the games math often seems to mandate that you have level appropriate items (from my limited experience using official material anyway). ABP will for sure solve the later, however it might also take away much of the desired wonder, which was the original issue raised.
While playing AoA our party indeed mostly used the items we found (some downtime activity rune tranfer included), and it was quite enjoyable, however by now all our characters are probably below the games intended power curve, not because we did not find enough treasure, but because of the remoteness of some of the locations. Of course this results in us getting our behinds handed to us more often then probably intended, which in turn at least somewhat dimnishes our game experience.
There seems to be a considerable difference in between a controlled environment like PFS, where magic items are easily and readily available and an "organic" campaign setting which might easily incur role-playing and/or "logical" limitations. As such I can often only wonder about some of the discussions regarding challenges and chances (for example bonus to skill checks) because the difference in between immediately having access to an appropriate item as soon as it becomes available and "we will eventually have access, but this may easily be a couple of chapters and levels later" seems to be quite considerable.
Temperans |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I as a player think that it all depends on a number of things.
1) The type of character. If the character is specialized then having to rely on random items that have nothing to do with my training, then the item is meaningless.
2) The item(s) found. If the item found is general purpose than it's much easier to swallow than one that is either super niche.
3) I do not believe that buying magic items in a medium to big city would be much of a problem. Even if it takes a few days to get it. If random creatures can consistently have a better item than I have, why wouldn't I be able to buy 1 myself? (I never understood the hate for buying items outside of "you are in the wilderness")
******************
I after GMing for a year, think that items are a weird thing. It's so easy to just add in an item that your players will like, but it's too often not done. It's also so easy to make getting those items more complicated then "just buy it". Like having to convince the store to buy/create it, having to deal with markups, finding out the item you got is more than it appears (say cursed items), etc.
Paradozen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, how do you people feel about a campaign where you can't just go back to town and liquidate massive amounts of magic items into gold to buy the next +1 to your gear? What if your GM started the game by letting you know magic item shops would be rare? Do you like that kind of game where you use what you find, or are you more of a 'I need to be able to buy whatever I want because of a specific build.' kind of character. I'm not judging for or against, I just want to know what people think.
I'd be fine with it, but find aesthetic choices and equipment to be less engaging and less interesting. The character aesthetic (the kind of armor and weapon they wield or magic items they wear) is determined somewhat randomly by whatever is in the nearby lair so there is no reason to get too invested in it. Similarly there's no agency over what equipment the character can use because it's just whatever they stumble upon so there's no use getting too interested in what you find. Also it's worth considering banning some classes unless you guarantee that they will find equipment that works with their equipment-dependent class features. For instance, Animal Instinct barbarian can't switch to something other than handwraps unless they violate their anathema or refuse to rage.
It still might be an interesting campaign with a different tone, but the magic item system would be actively less interesting and some classes/character concepts would be off the table for me.
OrochiFuror |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your DM wasn't giving your party loot that was at least useful to them in some way, they failed that part of their job. Same holds true today, when running a game you should find interesting and useful gear for your group, nothing's changed in that department.
One of the issues today is there aren't enough interesting gear pieces with cool effects, not math bonuses, especially for a lot of niche builds. Hopefully we get there, until then make up your own gear as you would have in AD&D.
Rerednaw |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people are missing the point. I’m not saying build a low magic campaign, but more of a ‘ use what you find’ campaign. I’m not trying to adjust the power curve so much as say. . Like. . . let me give a scenario.
Let’s take a party of a standard melee champion, wizard, cleric, and rogue. They go on an adventure in the middle of the Stolen Lands where there aren’t a whole lot of villages around, and the ones that are around aren’t big enough to buy/sell magic armor.
Over the course of level 2, the champion finds a +1 battle axe. Not quite the long sword he was using but perfectly serviceable and it works for him. The rogue finds a +1 rapier, basically an upgrade to his +1 short sword. The cleric finds a +1 Longspear essentially an even trade with their quarter staff, and the wizard finds a +1 club, which is a bit different than their wizard’s staff, but works just fine.
...
That’s the kinda stuff I’m talking about. Obviously my example is JUST AN EXAMPLE and shouldn’t be taken too literally.
I ran 1e so I remember. Now granted, even 1e had the “well crap I can’t use that +1 axe because I’m double specialized with the longsword.” as of UA anyway.
That said there are many ways of doing this. Probably the easiest (if maintaining efficiency is a concern) is recall that PF has retraining. So that axe-wielding barbarian can switch his specialization to that magical greatclub.Or you could retcon.
Or you as the DM simply state the ground rules for the game before you begin so players know what will happen with regards to rewards.
Alternatively you can change nothing. Even if Joe’s build is better with a kukri...when Joe as you said, runs into that ghost he will use that ghost touch dagger instead.
A bit of this IMO has to do with mindset. And so choose the path of most fun. :)
Captain Morgan |
I think it is fine as lo g as you communicate this expectation to the players and tell them not to use builds that depend on specific equipment. This is pretty easy to do, but does ironically take the most old school class in the game out of the running: the fighter. It also means monks and certain barbarian instincts are out. But besides that, you can go pretty nuts, as long as you make sure to include a good mix of strength, finesse, and ranged weapons. Armor is a little trickier-- characters need certain strength amounts to use them effectively.
You'd remove swappable runes, and probably need to decide how you feel about characters Crafting their own items. (Though, hey, giving the Craft activity some time to shine wouldn't hurt.)
You should still make sure you follow the WBL charts, maybe even dropping extra items since the gold won't help them buy more to round out their character. You can't go wrong dropping items to boost your players favorite skills, which are easy to spot based on where they put skill increases.
You'll probably want to create narrative ways for the party to spend their gold. Maybe they need to pay the back taxes on the orphanage they all grew up together. But you'll also want a setting where finding 4 or 5 permanent magic items every level makes sense, like exploring the ruins of a lost but highly magic civilization.
And consider how alchemy fits in-- it is pretty distinctly unnmagical at this point, and rooted in "science," so maybe alchemy shops are still a thing. That lets players access a wide range of consumables without making magic commonplace.
The-Magic-Sword |
If you're going to do this you can, but try to use the Automatic Bonus Progression variant so that the math upkeep side of items aren't represented by items and you can be scarce with them, then you can give as much or as little as you please, if you do that it'll work out just fine.
Arachnofiend |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon choice is a really important aesthetic piece of my character, more important to me than the mechanical benefits even. If you come up with some legendary sword and shove it into the hands of my hammer-wielding dwarf I am going to want to pawn it off for a better hammer. I'm so sick of swords...
HumbleGamer |
Weapon choice is a really important aesthetic piece of my character, more important to me than the mechanical benefits even. If you come up with some legendary sword and shove it into the hands of my hammer-wielding dwarf I am going to want to pawn it off for a better hammer. I'm so sick of swords...
I am on the opposite site, for the purpose of survival.
Everything which gives a character a better chance to survive and deal with enemies, is worth being taken/used.
For example, a flashy pink cold iron Greater striking greatsword +2 would give my character more chance to survive rather than a steel striking +1 Greatsword, and because so it's worth being used.
Same goes with stupid weapons like the flickmace.
Is it ridiculous? Yes
Is it stronger than any 1hand and allows my character to get more combat efficiency and because so better chances to survive? Yes
But it's not limited to weapons.
It's a reasoning which would go with anything.
I can't imagine anybody going on a journey renouncing to take the "best stuff" he can afford ( for his own survival and the team's )
Captain Morgan |
Arachnofiend wrote:Weapon choice is a really important aesthetic piece of my character, more important to me than the mechanical benefits even. If you come up with some legendary sword and shove it into the hands of my hammer-wielding dwarf I am going to want to pawn it off for a better hammer. I'm so sick of swords...I am on the opposite site, for the purpose of survival.
Everything which gives a character a better chance to survive and deal with enemies, is worth being taken/used.
For example, a flashy pink cold iron Greater striking greatsword +2 would give my character more chance to survive rather than a steel striking +1 Greatsword, and because so it's worth being used.
Same goes with stupid weapons like the flickmace.
Is it ridiculous? Yes
Is it stronger than any 1hand and allows my character to get more combat efficiency and because so better chances to survive? YesBut it's not limited to weapons.
It's a reasoning which would go with anything.I can't imagine anybody going on a journey renouncing to take the "best stuff" he can afford ( for his own survival and the team's )
It's not that the character wouldn't just use the superior but dorky looking weapon. It is that being forced to do that makes Arachnofiend lose interest in the character. So Arachno would be a bad fit for Vamp's style of game. The GM could make sure that every weapon upgrade that drops is a hammer, but that would become immersion breaking.
HumbleGamer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Arachno would be a bad fit for Vamp's style of game.
On this I agree ( never intented to claim the opposite), but once again it would be the player, not the character.
It's unlikely that having to survive or achieve important goals we'll ever see a spoiled character unable to recognize priorities.
"You have to fight the dragon in the next room... God, we are lucky we found this magic sword able to pierce through his armor..."
"But I don't like swords... I do want to use hammers..."
Anyway, I'd probably ( as a player ) feel the same, being forced to use specific items in addition to the better ones already in the game, but this wouldn't affect my character.
Guntermench |
I kind of ran into this issue in a 5e game I'm in since last posting. Hexblade with Great Weapon Master to use a greatsword, and the Paladin in the group uses a glaive with Polearm Master. We found a sun blade, which neither of us particularly want to use because it's actually less effective in most circumstances despite us fighting a ton of undead and it being a better weapon just because we aren't built to take advantage of it. I'm going to have to use it vs Strahd just for the sunlight but other than that it's meh. Fortunately it's a CG intelligent weapon and my character is NE so I can largely ignore it for now in character. The Paladin literally doesn't seem to care it exists because it doesn't let him fish for Smites.
In a game where we haven't been able to afford anything since character creation, and we are level 9, the only real weapon drop we've had in the game has been effectively entirely ignored.
Overall I'm kind of ambivalent towards this idea. I wouldn't want to play in that kind of situation again, but I'm sure someone would.
Captain Morgan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain Morgan wrote:So Arachno would be a bad fit for Vamp's style of game.On this I agree ( never intented to claim the opposite), but once again it would be the player, not the character.
It's unlikely that having to survive or achieve important goals we'll ever see a spoiled character unable to recognize priorities.
"You have to fight the dragon in the next room... God, we are lucky we found this magic sword able to pierce through his armor..."
"But I don't like swords... I do want to use hammers..."
Anyway, I'd probably ( as a player ) feel the same, being forced to use specific items in addition to the better ones already in the game, but this wouldn't affect my character.
Yeah, but the whole thread is about players. The title is "How would you, as a player, respond" not "how would you, as a character, respond." Posting about how it makes sense in character misses the point. A character that the player is disinterested in playing ceases to exist.
SuperBidi |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
HumbleGamer wrote:Yeah, but the whole thread is about players. The title is "How would you, as a player, respond" not "how would you, as a character, respond." Posting about how it makes sense in character misses the point. A character that the player is disinterested in playing ceases to exist.Captain Morgan wrote:So Arachno would be a bad fit for Vamp's style of game.On this I agree ( never intented to claim the opposite), but once again it would be the player, not the character.
It's unlikely that having to survive or achieve important goals we'll ever see a spoiled character unable to recognize priorities.
"You have to fight the dragon in the next room... God, we are lucky we found this magic sword able to pierce through his armor..."
"But I don't like swords... I do want to use hammers..."
Anyway, I'd probably ( as a player ) feel the same, being forced to use specific items in addition to the better ones already in the game, but this wouldn't affect my character.
I agree with that. If you play a dwarf with hammers, you play a dwarf with hammers. Finding better swords is irrelevant as you want to play a dwarf with hammers and not a dwarf with swords.
If it's only about making the "best choices" then let's all play Fighters and ignore the rest of the game. Our character is more than a bunch of numbers.HumbleGamer |
HumbleGamer wrote:Yeah, but the whole thread is about players. The title is "How would you, as a player, respond" not "how would you, as a character, respond." Posting about how it makes sense in character misses the point. A character that the player is disinterested in playing ceases to exist.Captain Morgan wrote:So Arachno would be a bad fit for Vamp's style of game.On this I agree ( never intented to claim the opposite), but once again it would be the player, not the character.
It's unlikely that having to survive or achieve important goals we'll ever see a spoiled character unable to recognize priorities.
"You have to fight the dragon in the next room... God, we are lucky we found this magic sword able to pierce through his armor..."
"But I don't like swords... I do want to use hammers..."
Anyway, I'd probably ( as a player ) feel the same, being forced to use specific items in addition to the better ones already in the game, but this wouldn't affect my character.
You are right, I missed the point.
Wel, as a player, yeah, I'd be pretty unsatisfied not being able to build and chase the setup I have in mind for my character.
This is something which shouldn't be done in "boardgame like" system like this 2e ( and I bet there are plenty of systems which fit for this purpose ).
Captain Morgan |
I think it can work fine in 2e, you just need player buy in. Arachnofiend would never play in that game, but I would. I'd expect the GM to tell me ahead of time and help make sure I don't create a pointless build. It just means I'm playing barbarians instead of fighters, really.
HumbleGamer |
Or, if you do play a fighter, that you have access to a tutor who can offer reasonably easy retraining.
I'd give the fighter his legendary proficiency in any weapon.
It would be a waste of time to untrain after every single expedition because the weapon of the day falls under a different category.
Captain Morgan |
I actually really like having the character's aesthetic get updated with new equipment. Getting new weapons signifies your character's evolution.
Perpdepog wrote:Or, if you do play a fighter, that you have access to a tutor who can offer reasonably easy retraining.I'd give the fighter his legendary proficiency in any weapon.
It would be a waste of time to untrain after every single expedition because the weapon of the day falls under a different category.
That's a reasonable house rule for this particular situation, though TBH I don't think the fighter needs that buff. Only getting one weapon group to excel in is part of the fighter's balance, IMO. Many people think the other martials are just playing catch up with them.
Every class doesn't need to fit every game.
HumbleGamer |
There's no real reason you couldn't do that in PF2, you just might have to warn people ahead of time so they don't play Fighters or whatever.
It's quite more complicated than "tell the players not to play a fighter":
- Flavor stuff ( though it's not the primary concern of mine, I can understand a player who wants his dwarf to use his warhammer and shield, rather than a magic rapier or flail ).
- Critical specialization ( though it occours on critical hits, and because so it's random, it's something a player would like to have because when it occours it synergizes with his build. For example, hammer/flail + AoO. but there are plenty of possibilities ). This would also fall into considering whether or not to invest into a Grevious Rune.
- Weapon runes ( Runes can only be put on specific kind of weapon. Here's Gisher's sheet which clearly explain what I mean )
- Reach ( a character may prefer to use a reach weapon rather than not. This is extremely clear for a paladin, whose reaction gives its best with a reach weapon ).
- Finesse weapons ( a character may be built on finesse weapon. Not being able to find finesse weapons would result in a great malus for him ).
- Agile weapons ( affects classes using double slice, the ranger flurry setup or any character who prefers to trade the damage die for a higher chance to hit ).
I think this should be all, but I bet I forgot something ( anybody feel free to add reasons to this list ).
...
Thrown Weapons ( for characters which also thrown weapons ).
Captain Morgan |
Squiggit wrote:It's quite more complicated than "tell the players not to play a fighter":
There's no real reason you couldn't do that in PF2, you just might have to warn people ahead of time so they don't play Fighters or whatever.
I think you're overstating it.
- Flavor stuff ( though it's not the primary concern of mine, I can understand a player who wants his dwarf to use his warhammer and shield, rather than a magic rapier or flail ).
This is legit, and enough to scuttle the campaign on its own. This just comes back to buy in.
- Critical specialization ( though it occours on critical hits, and because so it's random, it's something a player would like to have because when it occours it synergizes with his build. For example, hammer/flail + AoO. but there are plenty of possibilities ).
Crit specs are great, and some are better than others, but they aren't reliably enough to build around. Especially when you take the fighter out of the running.
This would also fall into considering whether or not to invest into a Grevious Rune.
- Weapon runes ( Runes can only be put on specific kind of weapon. Here's Gisher's sheet which clearly explain what I mean )
Given the intent is that you use the weapons you find, rather than simply use them to power up your existing weapon, and you can't buy magic weapons, this seems like a non-issue. PF2 runes would be effectively replaced with PF1 style permanent enchantments. And you'd be basically stuck with the runes you find.
- Reach ( a character may prefer to use a reach weapon rather than not. This is extremely clear for a paladin, whose reaction gives its best with a reach weapon ).
While you CAN build around reach, it is pretty easy not to. I've run a lot of games with non-reach Paladins and I can think of maybe one time the lack of reach prevented them from Retributing. As long as there's a frontline buddy you'll pretty much always be right up in there together.
- Finesse weapons ( a character may be built on finesse weapon. Not being able to find finesse weapons would result in a great malus for him ).
There are actually a ton of finesse weapons at this point, so it isn't that hard to make sure there are a few in the item drops.
- Agile weapons ( affects classes using double slice, the ranger flurry setup or any character who prefers to trade the damage die for a higher chance to hit ).
This could be concern, but if doubling rings are in play it pretty much solves things. (But again, you could also just... not take feats like Double Slice.)
Thrown Weapons ( for characters which also thrown weapons ).
Thrown weapon builds basically need returning runes to function anyway, so they were never gonna work great here. But the good news is they don't work great in the base rules either. IMO, throwing a weapon is a nice option to have on hand but relying on it is a sub-optimal strategy. A ranger using a shortsword instead of a hatchet isn't gonna have a huge drop in DPR.
HumbleGamer |
All you wrote is your personal approach to that specific game, while I presented facts.
Your statements are personal opinions which underestimate the importance of being able to choose what to take, especially in a similar game ( which is more similar to a boardgame rather than an rpg, because of its mechanics ).
You can argue that a change may be more or less impactful, but that's it.
Something like what you proposed "might be" a survival version of the game, where characters would take to be more generic ( no deep specialization ) and get anything the can to proceed and survive, without the chance of being picky.
Or even an extremely low magic campaign, where the adventurers would be adventuring through mountains, shrines and underground catacombs, being able to find a magic item once every month or less. A real discovery ( and suddenly, a fire dagger would be more interesting than a steel shortsword ).
But if we are talking about adventurers that go dungeoning and go back and forth to the city to sell/buy and get their rewards for the tasks they completed, is just forcing not to say entirely off.
also
There are actually a ton of finesse weapons at this point, so it isn't that hard to make sure there are a few in the item drops.
This quite invalidates anything... I mean, on the one hand we have a DM putting the loot he wants, on the other hands a character being able to buy and build his character the way he wants.
But to ask for a DM to add "some items for those characters" would be essentially the same as allowing them to buy whatever they want.
And also, it could be also said for those who use:
-Reach weapons
-Simple weapons ( becaue not all have martial proficiency )
-Shields
-Shields to perform shield block ( so essentially, sturdy shields )
and so on.
If the dm were to consider to add an agile weapon, a finess agile weapon, a sturdy shield, a polearm, and the best of all "The warpriest deity's favored weapon", then... it would be easy to just let the players do whatever they want.
Really, though a system may be used to do anything, it's like forcing things into one suited for customization.
Castilliano |
Yeah, Mummy's Mask has an awesome weapon at low-levels, one that a player could upgrade through to the end w/ zero qualms.
Number of player in our campaign that could use it effectively? Also zero.
One PC could use it poorly and the others had no proficiency at all. It was good enough to keep around until he could purchase a comparable upgrade for his weapons of choice, then it was ditched.
Should the GM have altered it to a weapon that PC used?
Perhaps, right? Except that PC specialized in a Tian weapon which would have been quite out of place on the other side of the world! It would've broken verisimilitude (w/o some fabricated backstory that is).
This is why I avoided Weapon Focus except for common weapons, and I'd advise my players similarly. Don't expect spiked chains to suddenly become popular among your enemies just because your PC favors them.
---
Separately, maybe one could focus on how special the Runes themselves are, rather than the weapon that they're on which is merely a temporary vessel. One, because it's true. Two, because then the players will feel that connection (perhaps) one wants them to have for found weapons.
"Gosh, that's a cool Rune, who's going to get it?" seems equivalent to when talking about a cool weapon, and much better than a weapon wielded begrudgingly or not at all.