| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you will blame the game for people in forums giving horrible advice?Not to mention the fact that the "GM will make everyone at the table negotiate the power level" concept requires you to have a GM who knows the power level issues well.
Most GMs aren't forum goers who can recall the whole Crane Wing Saga from memory or can tell you which Hunter archetypes are blue and which ones are green or are retired/independently wealthy/working as car park security guards leaving them with oodles of time to research the game.
Most of them are family people who expect the game to run as it's written, start their game telling everyone that all Paizo material is allowed, first 5 levels it's all cool and then the Shkigami Style person starts overshadowing the game. Then those GM head to the bif Pathfinder Facebook group and ask for advice, getting replies such as "use traps", "Tucker's kobolds" or "make a special NPC that targets all the weaknesses of that PC" which is everything non-advice that only makes the situation worse.
Hey Temperans, good to see you! Have you managed to play a single game of PF2 since August 2019? It's been over two years, plenty of time.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you will blame the game for people in forums giving horrible advice?Not to mention the fact that the "GM will make everyone at the table negotiate the power level" concept requires you to have a GM who knows the power level issues well.
Most GMs aren't forum goers who can recall the whole Crane Wing Saga from memory or can tell you which Hunter archetypes are blue and which ones are green or are retired/independently wealthy/working as car park security guards leaving them with oodles of time to research the game.
Most of them are family people who expect the game to run as it's written, start their game telling everyone that all Paizo material is allowed, first 5 levels it's all cool and then the Shkigami Style person starts overshadowing the game. Then those GM head to the bif Pathfinder Facebook group and ask for advice, getting replies such as "use traps", "Tucker's kobolds" or "make a special NPC that targets all the weaknesses of that PC" which is everything non-advice that only makes the situation worse.
I think Gorbacz's point there is that our previous discussion had been taken as granted the fact that the GM new that there were issues in the balance of game, and was taking steps to correct that. It's very easy, especially as a new GM, to not realise quite how large the difference between good and bad options becomes in PF1. Unless you're at an extreme end of the spectrum, it's normally not overly disruptive for the first few levels, but quickly starts to become disruptive after levels ~5-7 or so, depending on the options. At that point, you can't easily retroactively change characters to be of a similar power level even if you had realised what the issue was, and so you're likely to look for in-game solutions to a problem that is fundamentally out of game. Ideas like building encounters specifically to target one PC's weakness in a regular fashion is bad advice for sure, but the game enables that advice by making the difference between optimised and unoptimised characters huge (necessitating the inexperienced GM to try and address the problem), and then making the weaknesses of a character very targetable in a way that isn't fun for the player(s).
If you've got a ranged DPR monster of a PC with a +3 Will save at level 7, you could consistently throw enemies that Dominate Person or Hold Person them at the party, but that's not fun for anyone. The reason that's being said as an issue for PF1 is that this really shouldn't be a situation you can easily find yourself in - that ranged DPR PC shouldn't be so far ahead of everyone else's damage that you need to address them. Not only that, you shouldn't be able to follow the games' enemy design rules and easily throw a single saving throw at the PC that either removes them from the combat entirely, or turns them to the enemies' side, with a DC that means they'd fail if they rolled a 19.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean bad advice will happen regardless of design.
It actually won't. Gorb's point is that for a well balanced system people never need to seek advice in the first place-- they can just run the system as is. Lots of people won't go to the forum for advice (if at all) until they have actually played the system and ran into the issues firsthand.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I can run PF2 out of the box and not have to worry about balance as I had in PF1. Optimising gets you 10-15% ahead of not optimising in PF2 - just enough to give that flurry Ranger a nice feeling of being an inch ahead but nowhere close to people telling me that there's problem because it's been 3 fights in a row that were over before their initiative came up.
I'm 41, I have a full-time job, a mortgage loan and a family, Netflix, Playstation and other hobbies. I don't have the time to fix legacy design mistakes from 20 years ago to make the game playable. I'm cool with what PF2 gives me.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance of combat proficiency isn't really what's in question, though. I am trying to draw attention to the more long-term, higher-level thinking, side of roleplaying. if one character can build a fortress made from walls of force and another character has figured out a way to become an attuned guardian of the forest, can you say which is more powerful? Yes probably in a strict mathematical sense but that's not usually how players think. having one player stomp everyone else sucks, but macro play tends to be a party-wide affair anyway, and even when it's not you don't usually have anyone made entirely obsolete.
And that higher level macro play is better suited to campaign specific encounters, story lines, items, rituals, etc. It's very ill suited to being something any old caster can start doing with their default class features in their downtime at level 13 or so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While "written but optional" great niche for 3P, it's also something that's built into the base game. This kind of thing could be added by Paizo, but kept as "rare".
It could, but... in some ways it's not ideal. Paizo is trying to keep the core game (even the rare bits) balanced. "rare" basically exists as a "balanced but potentially disruptive" tag - not for things that are particularly higher power level than their alternatives, but for things that might not fit in all campaigns. So that does fit to a degree, but it also still calls for a degree of effort to be put into balancing and so forth - the implication being that the rare stuff they publish is stuff that's in the world, but that the PCs may not have access to.
If you really want this kind of "I can assemble a terrible widget-engine with which to break the world" thing, you're going to need a lot of widgets. Part of the point is that it's weird, quirking special-case stuff that you assemble awkwardly into something that fits what your specific character wants. 3.x could do it because they had book after book after book of stuff to dig through, that arose organically from the fact that they were tossing a bunch of stuff into the pot without a lot of effort to balance it already. PF2 isn't going to have that. It might fit in one or two or three rare options per book that start pointing in that direction, and probably not every book, but that's not really going to scratch the itch. If you actually want the big pile of stuff to draw from, someone's going to need to write a "big pile of stuff" book. On the financials, that burns Paizo twice. First, it's filled with lots of little things that are inherently hard to even try to balance. Producing something that fits the PF2 standards of balanced, even with the "rare" tag, is the sort of thing that would take a lot of effort (ie, time, and therefore money). Second, "all of this is rare, and many/most GMs won't want to use it" is a really terrible opener for trying to sell the book to their customer base. (For starters, this is a book that PFS won't use any of.) This is a book that, for them, isn't all that likely to break even... and, honestly, I'd rather have them spend their time expanding the core as they have been.
For a 3P book, though, a lot of that changes. Third party books aren't really trying to capture as large a slice of the available PF2 customer base to begin with, so the fact that this is a bit more niche isn't as much of a problem. They also don't have the same need to maintain the PF2 brand's reputation for balance... and the whole idea of this thing is that it would be a bit more gonzo, with a lot of the control being in the hands of the GM adding interesting complications along the way as needed, rather than just being a matter of balancing feats or cost in gold. Yes, third party publishers have their own brands to nurture and protect, and that matters but they can be different brands. I'd bet that if you can release one book of "wacky interesting widgets to build macro stuff on that may not be all that well-balanced but give some fun jumping-off points for adventures" then you can develop the kind of brand that will help you sell a second one, later. You know - "here's a widget, here's what it does, here's a bit of fluff, here's a few quick adventure hooks, here's a few lines worth of potentially interesting complications if it's getting too easy to exploit, next."
Yeah, I can run PF2 out of the box and not have to worry about balance as I had in PF1. Optimising gets you 10-15% ahead of not optimising in PF2 - just enough to give that flurry Ranger a nice feeling of being an inch ahead but nowhere close to people telling me that there's problem because it's been 3 fights in a row that were over before their initiative came up.
I'm 41, I have a full-time job, a mortgage loan and a family, Netflix, Playstation and other hobbies. I don't have the time to fix legacy design mistakes from 20 years ago to make the game playable. I'm cool with what PF2 gives me.
And I agree with your assessment, though I will add the system does expect you to achieve a certain baseline. But it is one that is very easy to hit. Buy the right armor, Get an 18 in your key stat, and get a good weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that higher level macro play is better suited to campaign specific encounters, story lines, items, rituals, etc. It's very ill suited to being something any old caster can start doing with their default class features in their downtime at level 13 or so.
Well... the actual issue is when the casters get it with downtime and their default class features, and the martials don't. Back in AD&D, fighters were busy building castles and developing retinues while wizards were pursuing their version of macro play. One of the big problems on that side was that they carved it off the one side and left it on the other.
That's part of what I'd like to see in something like this, really. You'll have druids becoming One With The Forest. You'll have necromancers turning themselves info undead. If you want real balance, you need some way for the various martial classes to get into the macro play side of things while still being the martials that they are. My fighter wants a keep. My swashbuckler wants to start a dueling school.
|
So I actually have a question for people saying that Paizo should make any subsystems.
What makes any subsystem that helps a GM create stories any different from any of the systems in the GMG? Because as far as I can tell as long as you make it explicit that these are rules for GMs, players will have no access to it. Even if a player asks for it it would be on the GM to decide to allow it. Just like it's on the GM to decide if they want free archetypes or different ability score rules.
Asking for 3rd party to do it will just make it even more unbalanced. Which is apparently something that you all are really against. So either Paizo makes a balanced subsystem designed by them to perfectly fit PF2 that GMs can easily access (cause AONPRD and pfsrd). Or a 3rd party makes a potentially very unbalanced system because, "I don't want Paizo making subsystems"?
I am quite honestly confused by the logic that the GMG can exist, specific campaign systems can exist, but the idea of general subsystems for GMs would be bad.
I think if I read the discussion right, that the fear is that if Paizo makes the subsystem, players will insist they have a right to use it. But if a 3PP makes it they don't assume that right.
Which I don't think is all that reasonable, especially since just with the magic of a "rare" tag you can make anything into a don't count on it option.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather Paizo focuses on making the mechanics for encounters more exciting and leave any mechanics for high-scale changes to the setting in the hands of the GM. The former needs a shared and precise Rules understanding far more than the second IMO.
I do not want my PC's impact on the setting becoming the topic of ruleslawyers threads on Paizo forums.
The whole energy of devs and posters is better spent on micro design.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's part of what I'd like to see in something like this, really. You'll have druids becoming One With The Forest. You'll have necromancers turning themselves info undead. If you want real balance, you need some way for the various martial classes to get into the macro play side of things while still being the martials that they are. My fighter wants a keep. My swashbuckler wants to start a dueling school.
I agree with you that part of the problem was leaving the martial out of macro abilities as class features.
My opinion on the other hand is that no macro abilities should be class features in the first place.
You want to start a dueling school? Talk to the GM and party and work it into the storyline. You want to build a castle made of force walls? Talk to the GM and party and work it into the storyline. You want to become one with the forest? Same answer, etc. etc.
Almost all of the macro level abilities are things that affect the world as a whole. If you are affecting the world as a whole there should be storylines and adventures about affecting the world as a whole.
The default shouldn't be 'oh, hey, GM I got a keep to start a fighter's guild at last level, how does that fit into the game?'
It should be 'Hey fellow gamers at the table, I'd really like to establish a base of operations as part of my character's ambitions to run a fighter's guild, can we work that in?'. The One with the Forest and force wall castle should be similar conversations, not class features.
Now, some macro abilities are tamer than others of course. Those can probably be worked in with a rare ritual or some such instead, but for the really big ones?
The leadership and reputation subsystem work pretty well for creating a material organisation and developing it over time, with relation to other groups in the area. The only thing I'm really missing os how much it costs to build and maintain structures. If this were in place (maybe there are some rules for it in Age of Ashes?) you can pretty happily have players build any kind of organisation.This should be coming whenever Kingmaker 2e finally comes out.
Hasn't James said that the Kingmaker systems are pretty explicitly built for Kingmaker? Not saying that they can't be adapted, but it might require more work than some expect.
So, this post will be super long and I need to explain the background but I think that it will be really illuminating on the fundamental pros and cons of 2e...
One of the goals of the design of 2e was to make it more balanced, and by most accounts, it was a success. 2e is probably the most balanced d20 system ever...
There's a lot to comment on here, so I'm dotting for future discussion.
|
|
But the game is going to give you zero help in what he needs to do to do that, and what the benefits of it will be. That means chances are a player is diving into it blind, and just as likely to be disappointed.I think the problem I that unless something is inherently magical, I don't really need specific mechanics. Your Swashbuckler already can start a duelling school.And that higher level macro play is better suited to campaign specific encounters, story lines, items, rituals, etc. It's very ill suited to being something any old caster can start doing with their default class features in their downtime at level 13 or so.Well... the actual issue is when the casters get it with downtime and their default class features, and the martials don't. Back in AD&D, fighters were busy building castles and developing retinues while wizards were pursuing their version of macro play. One of the big problems on that side was that they carved it off the one side and left it on the other.
That's part of what I'd like to see in something like this, really. You'll have druids becoming One With The Forest. You'll have necromancers turning themselves info undead. If you want real balance, you need some way for the various martial classes to get into the macro play side of things while still being the martials that they are. My fighter wants a keep. My swashbuckler wants to start a dueling school.
TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.
Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But a robust rules system could at least be a jumping off point. I just don’t get this mentality where the mere existence of a rule will lead to adversarial Dm ing . After all the artifact gift rules are in the gm guide and there isn’t a big problem of players demanding a specific artifact. Even if they did a Dm could incorporate into play. I think there is a middle ground between the gm just hand waiving everything and the gm being held hostage. After all the whole “rulings not rules” thing is a big part of the problems with 5e
TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.
Wow. Did you miss on the whole "rules lawyer" era where DMs had to deal with players forcing them to follow a ruling in a game that made the game trivial? This is especially true in PFS where they tend to follow the rules as much as possible.
I'd rather Paizo err on the side of balance, then let DMs adjust to their table and preferences if they can handle it.
|
|
But a robust rules system could at least be a jumping off point. I just don’t get this mentality where the mere existence of a rule will lead to adversarial Dm ing . After all the artifact gift rules are in the gm guide and there isn’t a big problem of players demanding a specific artifact. Even if they did a Dm could incorporate into play. I think there is a middle ground between the gm just hand waiving everything and the gm being held hostage. After all the whole “rulings not rules” thing is a big part of the problems with 5e
TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.
I think Paizo's time is better spent on the micro-level rules and the setting that in macro-level rules were they would have to imagine rules while being ignorant of both the GM's setting and the players' wants for their PCs.
Now they could try to create a whole new rules system to try to encompass as many possibilities as they can, but I think it would take huge efforts for a product most people will not buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When one of my players wanted to kill a high level monster by using Create Cottage to smash it with a house, I said “you can try but you have survive direct attacks and concentration checks for 10 rounds” I’ll be darned if he didn’t pull it off. And that was a more interesting outcome for everyone. It was only possible because he saw and took one of the few open ended spells and took it.I can only speak for myself, but that's not something I want in my games (both as player and GM). So I'm happy it's not something that can be pulled off in PF2.
Cottagecore can be so creative.
Honestly though, that sounds super fun and quite inventive. As a DM I’d allow it, and if ai was a player I’d be pumped if someone in my party materialised a cottage to wipe out an evil…witch.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When one of my players wanted to kill a high level monster by using Create Cottage to smash it with a house, I said “you can try but you have survive direct attacks and concentration checks for 10 rounds” I’ll be darned if he didn’t pull it off. And that was a more interesting outcome for everyone. It was only possible because he saw and took one of the few open ended spells and took it.I can only speak for myself, but that's not something I want in my games (both as player and GM). So I'm happy it's not something that can be pulled off in PF2.Cottagecore can be so creative.
Honestly though, that sounds super fun and quite inventive. As a DM I’d allow it, and if ai was a player I’d be pumped if someone in my party materialised a cottage to wipe out an evil…witch.
It sounds like a fun thing to happen once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But a robust rules system could at least be a jumping off point. I just don’t get this mentality where the mere existence of a rule will lead to adversarial Dm ing . After all the artifact gift rules are in the gm guide and there isn’t a big problem of players demanding a specific artifact. Even if they did a Dm could incorporate into play. I think there is a middle ground between the gm just hand waiving everything and the gm being held hostage. After all the whole “rulings not rules” thing is a big part of the problems with 5e
TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.
It's not the existence of the rule that's a problem. In fact. I'd love for the rules to exist as rare options.
The problem in past editions was that instead of a rare rule requiring discussion among the gaming group to use, it was in many cases a default class feature as part of a base class. So it required the GM to ban vanilla options, or deal with problematic abilities.
It existing as a 'can we do this as a group?' Is nice thing for a game.
It existing as 'oh hey, I got this thing two levels ago and forgot about it, let's deal with it suddenly'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an enthusiast of the world, I think something was lost in translation in PF1-->PF2. It enhanced versimilitude to know that, say, a wood golem's fragments were worth (x) amount of gold in exchange, rather than "A player should have (y) amount of gold by the time they reach level 5".
As a GM I feel like I have to work harder to enforce the illusion of a real world since everything is adaptive to your level like a MMORPG or a video game. What makes a sword dropped by a CR 15 opponent worth more than a CR 1 opponent if they're both regular swords? Who knows! Gotta make something up.
More brainpower required than usual. Kind of annoying. But I also respect there's more staying power in a system that is adaptive to whatever encounter there is, even if I have to do more work to keep it consistent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an enthusiast of the world, I think something was lost in translation in PF1-->PF2. It enhanced versimilitude to know that, say, a wood golem's fragments were worth (x) amount of gold in exchange, rather than "A player should have (y) amount of gold by the time they reach level 5".
As a GM I feel like I have to work harder to enforce the illusion of a real world since everything is adaptive to your level like a MMORPG or a video game. What makes a sword dropped by a CR 15 opponent worth more than a CR 1 opponent if they're both regular swords? Who knows! Gotta make something up.
More brainpower required than usual. Kind of annoying. But I also respect there's more staying power in a system that is adaptive to whatever encounter there is, even if I have to do more work to keep it consistent.
What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.
In my example, neither item is magical. Please read my post before patronizing me with "wHAt GaME aRE yOU pLAyIng?"
If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist. Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables. The +3 sword exists in a state of quantum superposition -- if the party has already earned enough wealth by level then the sword ceases to exist, because to give it to them would put them over the reward threshold. If they have not earned it, then they find a +3 sword.
Again -- I understand why. But it's still more work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.In my example, neither item is magical. Please read my post before patronizing me with "wHAt GaME aRE yOU pLAyIng?"
If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist. Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables. The +4 sword exists in a state of quantum superposition -- if the party has already earned enough wealth by level then the sword ceases to exist, because to give it to them would put them over the reward threshold. If they have not earned it, then they find a +4 sword.
Guards weren't in the bestiary in PF1 or PF2 other than some different types of monstrous guards maybe. High level guards were often built using character rules and did end up having some nice magic items to make them challenging and provide the wealth by level for an NPC of their challenge level in PF1.
You can very much build a guard without striking weapons if you so choose and make them a lower level guard. They just won't be very challenging for your players just like low level PF1 guards.
I find PF2 easier to maintain verisimilitude because I don't have to build NPCs and monsters using character rules. I can design the creature as it should be without requiring feats, magic items, or anything of the kind.
Don't limit yourself building monsters and scenarios. Make it as you think it should be in the world, let your players interact with it as they should according to their level.
One thing that has greatly improved running PF2 in this edition is learning to make the system do what I want it do to make the game world breathe and react as a real world should. I don't worry about wealth by level or what not. About the only thing characters really need to survive is martials need a striking weapon. Every other magic item is a nice boost, but not necessary.
You can even get rid of striking weapons if you want with an optional game mastery guide rule where you advance in dice damage with your weapons as you progress in level.
PF2 is a very flexible game. You can build the world to look and act as you wish, while still making combats challenging.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.In my example, neither item is magical. Please read my post before patronizing me with "wHAt GaME aRE yOU pLAyIng?"
If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist. Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables. The +3 sword exists in a state of quantum superposition -- if the party has already earned enough wealth by level then the sword ceases to exist, because to give it to them would put them over the reward threshold. If they have not earned it, then they find a +3 sword.
Again -- I understand why. But it's still more work.
Sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?
Creatures and NPCs have the items listed in their statblock, like they always have. A non-magical sword is worth the same no matter who carries it, and if the statblock gives the character a better sword than it doesn't disappear based on what the party owns.
There are also plenty of examples of this, in the bestiary and also a section in the creature building rules in the gamemastery guide - Archives of Nethys seems to be having technical difficulties tonight, or else I'd link some examples, but they're not exactly hard to find.
When one of my players wanted to kill a high level monster by using Create Cottage to smash it with a house, I said “you can try but you have survive direct attacks and concentration checks for 10 rounds” I’ll be darned if he didn’t pull it off. And that was a more interesting outcome for everyone. It was only possible because he saw and took one of the few open ended spells and took it.I can only speak for myself, but that's not something I want in my games (both as player and GM). So I'm happy it's not something that can be pulled off in PF2.Cottagecore can be so creative.
Honestly though, that sounds super fun and quite inventive. As a DM I’d allow it, and if ai was a player I’d be pumped if someone in my party materialised a cottage to wipe out an evil…witch.
It sounds like a fun thing to happen once.
Exactly. But you’re right, and I’m being naive. Sure if someone weaponises the quite-fun-once little tudor cottage of crushing doom as a tactical go-to for their daily arsenal I as a player or DM would get pretty pissed off pretty fast. But the seat-of-the-pants, last ditch hope it works with a huge and risky investment - that’s what fireside stories are made of. Even outside of Oz.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist.
Specific creatures or NPCs have more leeway to break these guidelines because you can plan the rest of your adventure’s loot around them. Also, giving a boss villain a powerful magic item makes the fight and its aftermath more interesting.
Table 2–4: Safe Items
Creature Level Safe Item Level
3 or lower 0
4–5 1
6 2 (+1 weapon)
7 3
8 4 (+1 striking weapon)
9 5 (+1 armor)
10 6
11 7
12 8 (+1 resilient armor)
13 9
14 10 (+2 striking weapon)
15 11 (+2 resilient armor)
16 12 (+2 greater striking weapon)
17 13
18 14 (+2 greater resilient armor)
19 15
20 16 (+3 greater striking weapon)
21 17
22 18 (+3 greater resilient armor)
23 19 (+3 major striking weapon)
24 20 (+3 major resilient armor)
As an enthusiast of the world, I think something was lost in translation in PF1-->PF2. It enhanced versimilitude to know that, say, a wood golem's fragments were worth (x) amount of gold in exchange, rather than "A player should have (y) amount of gold by the time they reach level 5". Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables... But it's still more work.
PF1 had WBL tables as well, and they were harder to stay within because PCs and humanoid NPCs had to be so kitted out, PF1 didn't have handy dandy item levels, and crafting feats could effectively double your gold.
And your specific example with the wood golem isn't based on anything as far as I can tell. Archive of Nethys and d20pfsrd don't have anything about what the broken shards of the golem are worth, just its construction cost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What game are you talking about? High level magic items in pf2e are pretty dramatically different from low level ones.In my example, neither item is magical. Please read my post before patronizing me with "wHAt GaME aRE yOU pLAyIng?"
If you can point me to the Bestiary entry that says a CR 15 guard always carries a +4 sword, then I'll gladly cede the point. But you can't, because they don't exist. Again, I have to make that up on the spot. Which also requires that I check the "wealth by level" tables to make sure that I haven't already over-indulged them on the loot tables. The +3 sword exists in a state of quantum superposition -- if the party has already earned enough wealth by level then the sword ceases to exist, because to give it to them would put them over the reward threshold. If they have not earned it, then they find a +3 sword.
Again -- I understand why. But it's still more work.
I see, your confusion stems from treating the Wealth by Level table as a boundary, in reality players can acquire more treasure than the table-- this happens automatically if they have any downtime days at all, and the game suggests sprinkling more treasure for sandbox games where some of the treasure can be missed. There's no reward threshold where you have to stop rewarding them, the table is providing guidelines.
Also, since you've already agreed to cede the point, here's a listing where just such an NPC is featured with a description of the weapon that gives them their bonuses. look under the item entry right above their AC and Defenses.
This angel is a really good example too, less on the humanoid NPC side, not only can you see the scimitar they're carrying, but also a built in ability that gives them the effects of a potency rune to explain its fire damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never understood why people were so enamored with following those tables. Either you liked the PC having a lot of money, were fine with something around what the table said, or you hated PCs having any money or items.
Why the third ?
Me, they were an easy and useful reference for what would not break the game.
|
|
Never understood why people were so enamored with following those tables. Either you liked the PC having a lot of money, were fine with something around what the table said, or you hated PCs having any money or items.Why the third ?
Me, they were an easy and useful reference for what would not break the game.
Because from what I have seen some people really hate the PCs having a lot of items. I have heard of some people going as far as making it almost impossible to get magic items in their games. Granted that was a story from PF1, but I doubt their opinions have changed much.
I guess I did miss the ones between hate and wanted PCs to have less items.
I read it more as a problem with magic shops where PCs could buy whatever item they needed to overoptimize even if it made no sense within the GM's setting.