How do we feel about specific magic weapons / armor in general?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I certainly wish there was a skill feat or rune or something that would boost the DC

I love me beast guns but it's has some annoyance in DC. I wish they were con based to represent the actual physical bond. And I feel like they aren't innate magic and shouldn't be charisma based. None of the trials make sense for it being charisma over con like a symbiosis.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy, and at times aim to purchase, many specific magic weapons and armor...when there are no DCs associated with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One the one hand, I see that many players avoid getting stuff with a static DC because it doesn't scale with your own.

On the other hand, I bet that granting a scaling with the character class DC ( or some feat which increases the DC itself in some way ) would have the opposite effect.

That's why I am fine the way it is.

What I'd consider to do, eventually, is to slighly lower their level, in order to have their DC to match a little better by the time the adventurers find them ( or have the golds to buy them ).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I would love to see item DCs scale better than what they do, which is not at all. It's the reason why Wands, Scrolls, and even Staves are some of the few "consumables" that are purchased, since the DC of the effect scales with your own, even if the effect's level does not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:


On the other hand, I bet that granting a scaling with the character class DC ( or some feat which increases the DC itself in some way ) would have the opposite .

I don't think it would have a strong one if it had a cost. Either in gold or feats resource.


Zwordsman wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


On the other hand, I bet that granting a scaling with the character class DC ( or some feat which increases the DC itself in some way ) would have the opposite .

I don't think it would have a strong one if it had a cost. Either in gold or feats resource.

That is how I intend to address it if I have a player who really wants a specific magic weapon or armor that has a DC. The GMG already has DC suggestions related to level, and also gold costs that increase for an item's level as well. Add to these facts the fact that items can also come in Greater and Major versions already and I don't have any problems with letting a character reforge a weapon to be at a higher level with a higher associated DC.

I'd probably allow it for free as a function of the Crafting skill, or at most have a new skill feat that grants a character the ability to do that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like much in this version. There are some great ideas that Paizo has had. All stopped by weird rules to "prevent them from being too strong". Regardless of what the actual usage might be.

In the case of specific magic items the fact that you cannot add property runes and that enhancing their abilities is questionable at best makes them feel off. If their abilities were level independent just had a gold cost attached to. Then maybe it would feel better; But I can see having to sell your item because "oh it from a few levels back" as nothing but just bad.

It's easy to like items whose effect always work, even if it isn't very strong. But trying to justify keeping an items that increasingly fails more and more... Yeah doesn't feel good in any edition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they are weak by design and comparing them to regular weapons with runes frustrates me to no end.

The most infuriating thing imo is the property rune limitation. It makes no sense as it is and makes them very weak in the long run. I understand that thematically a Weapon made of ice should not be able to get a flaming rune, but instead of prohibit further customization completely you could just put some limit to it and call it a day. An extra line when needed like "You can't enchant this weapon with a property rune that would add damage of x type".

With that and doing something about fixed DCs and modifiers those items would be in a perfect spot.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I find them a wasted opportunity, with a limited lifespan. So many ways to make them better, but generic steel with runes will serve you better every time. Man, scalding DCs and abilities with an Invested requirement would have been all it takes to make them awesome.

I personally have taken to run them as a rune, usually, and its say more fun for my players and allows me to give them out as loot without feeling bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely hate their implementation and promptly houseruled them. I count the unique abilities of the weapon (or armor) as being a single property rune that cannot be transferred. As for the DCs i am also considering on having the player choose the highest between the items and the class' DC


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Non scaling dcs are a bit of a non starter for me. I'm not the biggest fan of non consumables having a shelf life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I like giving out static DC items to parties as treasure, but I don't often look for them as something to buy. A level 3-4 rogue with a dagger of venom will have a good time for a few levels with those DC 19/21 poison abilities.

It would be nice if there were more scaled versions of the static DC items (like the sonic tuning mace), though that isn't particularly difficult to homebrew. Just slide up the DC and probably otherwise increase the power of the item's inherent property in some way.


RaptorJesues wrote:
I absolutely hate their implementation and promptly houseruled them. I count the unique abilities of the weapon (or armor) as being a single property rune that cannot be transferred. As for the DCs i am also considering on having the player choose the highest between the items and the class' DC

Our table made the same houserule re property runes. We then tied items' DCs to the Potency Rune.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Static DCs kill them, but they are very flavorful. If items just used the user's class DC, they'd probably be worth using, at least for a longer amount of time.

I kinda wish most specific items scaled up; I feel beast guns are some of the better specific weapons because they actually do scale.

At the moment, if I wanted to give the players special item though, I feel I'd use the relic rules vs a specific magic items available since they actually scale

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really liked them at first, especially because of action economy. Then I realized they do not scale. I would like guidelines to creating specific magic items and an IC method to upgrade their abilities, complete with due costs.

Dataphiles

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are some decent ones, but those are mostly the exception and not the rule. Most specific magic weapons and armour come in one of two categories

A) For the price paid, it’s just worse than an equivalent runed out X

B) Static DC makes it useless in 2 levels.

If I look at the specific weapons I consider “decent” then its because they avoid both of these issues

Smoking Sword/Storm Hammer - way before you can get good property runes.

Chatterer of Follies / Hundred Moth Caress / Mountebanke’s Passage - You will simply never attack with these, they aren’t weapons, they’re worn items mistakenly categorised as weapons.

Some items like the Ouroborous flail I want to like and use, but they run into both A) and B) as problems

Specific Armours I don’t think I’ve even looked at that much. Armor property runes aren’t amazing for the most part (though Fortification and Antimagic are both quite good).

Harmonic Hauberk might be ok, but again it seems like another item that is mistakenly typed as armour even though its basically just a worn item. I’d rather have my antimagic armour.

That being said, with scaling DCs, I can only see 2 items that would potentially be broken. The first, the brilliant rune, is already a near broken item anyway with 3 weakness triggers in one - the blindness crit is just gravy. The second, the new Dread rune, is also currently a pretty broken item on level - especially because it has no immunity so your whole party buying them is a) extremely annoying (roll 4 saves every turn) and b) still quite good even with the non scaling DCs because with 4 rolls one is going to be a low number and c) it’s passive so all it costs is gold no actions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, Paizo could fix the DC situation really quickly releasing (or errata-ing in) a general feat to fix this, something like:

Item Specialization - level 7 General feat

You learn how to bring the most out of a magic weapon, armor or item Choose an item during daily preparations that needs to be invested. Now its DCs or modifiers use the higher between the one set by the item or your own. Saves always use the higher between your Class or Spell DC, modifiers use your modifier in the relevant skill or your spell attack or attack roll modifier, depending on the effect. If a static modifier is something that it is not a DC, a skill modifier or an attack roll modifier, it can be substituted by the effect of this feat.

Special: You can pick this feat several times, increasing the number of items you can enhance this way by one.

This way you have to actually specialize in a magic item to get it to scale, it is generally low impact as it can only affect 1 item at a time and doesn't break consumables and such.

About property runes, just making it so those items can hold one less property rune than usual would work just fine, honestly.

Dataphiles

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That, or introduce a general rule for “up-pricing” your magic items with set DCs to get them to scale up.

I’d just prefer if all items could be invested and invested items use your class/spell DC (whichever is higher) as a general rule, but a feat or an upcost for higher DC option would also be acceptable.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires


Exocist wrote:
The second, the new Dread rune, is also currently a pretty broken item on level - especially because it has no immunity so your whole party buying them is a) extremely annoying (roll 4 saves every turn) and b) still quite good even with the non scaling DCs because with 4 rolls one is going to be a low number and c) it’s passive so all it costs is gold no actions.

I think that that may be covered under the general rule on duplicate effects.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Garulo wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

The desire to build towards a concept and use cool things you find is not an invalid one.

If a player finds a cool magic sword, they should be given ways to keep that cool magic sword up to par. Item DCs are just something that falls behind.


egindar wrote:
Exocist wrote:
The second, the new Dread rune, is also currently a pretty broken item on level - especially because it has no immunity so your whole party buying them is a) extremely annoying (roll 4 saves every turn) and b) still quite good even with the non scaling DCs because with 4 rolls one is going to be a low number and c) it’s passive so all it costs is gold no actions.
I think that that may be covered under the general rule on duplicate effects.

Would it? That rule seems like it really only applies to conditions or effects with a duration or on-going manifestation(?) [needed a synonym for "effect" to avoid confusion between 'effect' in common vernacular vs. 'effect' as a specific mechanics noun].

Dread rune just forces a save with a particular failure effect. Sure, multiple failures are meaningless pass the first. But are the individual instances of the forced save considered a persist... er... on-going effect... on the target or are they individual effects on each Dread-runed character?

Dataphiles

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
egindar wrote:
Exocist wrote:
The second, the new Dread rune, is also currently a pretty broken item on level - especially because it has no immunity so your whole party buying them is a) extremely annoying (roll 4 saves every turn) and b) still quite good even with the non scaling DCs because with 4 rolls one is going to be a low number and c) it’s passive so all it costs is gold no actions.
I think that that may be covered under the general rule on duplicate effects.

Don’t think it is - if you had already failed against a Dread rune effect the second one wouldn’t apply (unless it was higher level), but rolling the save is not the effect of the item. Similar to auras - if you’re near multiple Ancient Blue Dragons you take damage from all their auras, not just one. There’s a reason most auras have temporary immunity.


Golurkcanfly wrote:
Garulo wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

The desire to build towards a concept and use cool things you find is not an invalid one.

If a player finds a cool magic sword, they should be given ways to keep that cool magic sword up to par. Item DCs are just something that falls behind.

Yeah. Besides, this was an issue for 1E as well. Given how items were constructed most item DCs were real bad.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
Garulo wrote:
Karmagator wrote:

Now that we have a good selection of these, how do we feel about this system?

I'm personally rather split, tending towards a negative response. A lot of them are cool and inherently tell a story, but the majority of them are just as frustratingly impotent. Not everything is an Oathbow, where with a minor increase in price at worst, you can build an objectively better weapon from your existing one by just filling the rune slots. There are a couple Holy Avengers, Celestial Armours, Flame Tongues and Rowan Rifles out there, though not many.

My other gripe is their inherently limited lifespan (unless they are like level 17+), because their effects and most importantly their DCs don't scale, meaning within about 4 levels at best, you are basically required to take the cool ancient sword you found not too long ago, which has served you well until now, and sell it to the next merchant. It makes a lot of sense that they work this way, I just don't like it.

Maybe I just care about optimization a bit too much? Thoughts?

Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

The desire to build towards a concept and use cool things you find is not an invalid one.

If a player finds a cool magic sword, they should be given ways to keep that cool magic sword up to par. Item DCs are just something that falls behind.

Yeah. Besides, this was an issue for 1E as well. Given how items were constructed most item DCs were real bad.

just because it was an issue then doesn't mean it isn't an issue now as well.


Just because it was an issue then doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed now.

Specially considering how Paizo changed wand and scroll DCs to be your own, to fix the problem of them not working at higher level. But for some reason left it for all other items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That was my point? It was an issue in 1E and it's an issue now as well, though thankfully one that is easier to homebrew a fix for given the information in GMG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
roquepo wrote:

Honestly, Paizo could fix the DC situation really quickly releasing (or errata-ing in) a general feat to fix this, something like:

Item Specialization - level 7 General feat

You learn how to bring the most out of a magic weapon, armor or item Choose an item during daily preparations that needs to be invested. ...

Weapons can't be invested though. You can only invest specific worn items. Ergo, your feat does nothing to fix static weapons DCs.

Welcome to the world of game design. It's difficult. :P


from +1weapon to major striking and from +1armor to major resiliency, there are 6 "tiers" of fundamental runes for weapons and armors.

that gives a good coverage of level spread (weapons have a bit of an empty spot around level 7-8 i guess but meh) tied into runes that you can put into specific weapons/armors (2 to 19 for weapons, 5 to 20 for armor)

so tying static DCs to those may be a good solution for most tables.


I don't mind the fixed DC's it makes sense to me that the item's power is based on the item, and not the PC holding the item.

My only qualm is there should be a way to add runes or use crafting to modify the weapons.


Vlorax wrote:

I don't mind the fixed DC's it makes sense to me that the item's power is based on the item, and not the PC holding the item.

My only qualm is there should be a way to add runes or use crafting to modify the weapons.

It absolutely makes sense, which is probably one of the reasons they exist.

But it also makes a lot of sense for a PC experienced in that field to be able to modify DCs of both permanent items and especially consumables by, well, modifying them. The current system just leaves so many cool items completely by the wayside and there is simply nothing to replace them at those higher levels.

Having both feats and "reworking" guidelines (a bit more than what is in the GMG) really is the best solution and would be a great addition to the system. It would also give Crafting more of a purpose that isn't just repairing shields, which is always nice.


Proposed optional rule: You can invest in weapons. If you do so, you can use your Class DC rather than the item's DC.

What do you think?

Humbly,
Yawar


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
YawarFiesta wrote:

Proposed optional rule: You can invest in weapons. If you do so, you can use your Class DC rather than the item's DC.

What do you think?

Humbly,
Yawar

Class DC or Spell DC.

Not everyone has a Class DC (or rather, not one that's at least Trained proficiency).

Otherwise, I like it. It fixes the larger issues and makes the investment cap and Incredible Investiture feat matter more.

It would also work well as a General Feat or similar ability, rather than a general rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I would like guidelines to creating specific magic items and an IC method to upgrade their abilities, complete with due costs.

So, the Building Items rules and tables in the Gamemastery Guide? Pay the difference in item cost to have your weapon upgraded to higher level with higher runes and DCs. In-character that could be done using crafting to do it yourself, or have the weapon taken to various weapon smiths and mages and pay them to do it.

Generally I prefer Relics for the idea of a special particular piece of adventuring gear that is sentimentally important to the character or needed for the plot of the campaign.


Pretty much universal "Eh..."

Yeah, this could use an Errata or a stealth patch.

As for homebrew, there are some items that offer a higher-DC version of themselves for a higher price. Perhaps they can be a guide for pricing higher-DC versions of other items.


As a GM I pretty much only like them for times when I give the party above-level treasure so the static DC is pretty great for a couple levels before dropping behind. Otherwise I prefer working with Relics


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are there any static DC items (weapons or otherwise) that could become too powerful with a scaling DC house rule (such as that proposed above)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any static DC items (weapons or otherwise) that could become too powerful with a scaling DC house rule (such as that proposed above)?

I don't think any individual item that is normally balanced for play will cause an issue if it is opened up to scaling. If the item effect is too strong, the fact that it will be too strong and then stop working because you leveled out is only really limiting the impact it has on the system, the actual problem is still in the item's effect you just experience it less later.

I'm considering a houserule for my next campaign that players get a few items that they can replace the static DC with a scaling DC based on the item creation charts though. Opening it up to all items might discourage using higher-level items rather than selling them to buy lower level items for more versatility, but if the party gets a few (I'm thinking one per 5 levels) they can choose a few cool items they found that they want to keep with them through the campaign but they can't just buy a horde of low-level items scaled up to their level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garulo wrote:
Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

That's simply not true. PF2 has far tighter balance math, which makes the game of it quite a lot cleaner. I had little interest in building or kitting out for PF1, because it all just devolves to broken combos, and I got plenty of that in my dalliances with 3.x. PF2 is doesn't have that problem.

If you like "building characters and kitting out your PC" as an exercise in "what weird and extreme thing can I break the system with today", then yeah - PF1 will give you that. For those of us who like our games balanced, though....

So yes - the character-build game here is good (much better than 5e) and we want to help it become better. That's not a wrong or bad thing to want.

Dataphiles

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Are there any static DC items (weapons or otherwise) that could become too powerful with a scaling DC house rule (such as that proposed above)?

Dread rune, brilliant rune are the only two I think - which are already kind broken when you get them and just flip to useless (or well the crit effect of brilliant does at least - the actual damage effect is still probably the strongest weapon rune effect) due to the DC dropping off a cliff… then they become broken again when the devs have decided they get a new version with a higher DC and drop to useless again…

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Garulo wrote:
Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

That's simply not true. PF2 has far tighter balance math, which makes the game of it quite a lot cleaner. I had little interest in building or kitting out for PF1, because it all just devolves to broken combos, and I got plenty of that in my dalliances with 3.x. PF2 is doesn't have that problem.

If you like "building characters and kitting out your PC" as an exercise in "what weird and extreme thing can I break the system with today", then yeah - PF1 will give you that. For those of us who like our games balanced, though....

So yes - the character-build game here is good (much better than 5e) and we want to help it become better. That's not a wrong or bad thing to want.

Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels. Of course, you are correct that one character may have a +12 in a skill vs others having +11 and given the "tight math" that makes the characters completely different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garulo wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Garulo wrote:
Remember that 2e is about the play NOT the character. They have designed it so that your character and their gear is secondary/tertiary to the actual play (your decisions during the game). If you like building characters and kitting out your PC, then 1e is probably better for your desires

That's simply not true. PF2 has far tighter balance math, which makes the game of it quite a lot cleaner. I had little interest in building or kitting out for PF1, because it all just devolves to broken combos, and I got plenty of that in my dalliances with 3.x. PF2 is doesn't have that problem.

If you like "building characters and kitting out your PC" as an exercise in "what weird and extreme thing can I break the system with today", then yeah - PF1 will give you that. For those of us who like our games balanced, though....

So yes - the character-build game here is good (much better than 5e) and we want to help it become better. That's not a wrong or bad thing to want.

Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels. Of course, you are correct that one character may have a +12 in a skill vs others having +11 and given the "tight math" that makes the characters completely different.

2e is also about the character with the various mechanisms of customization with class feats and spell choices and skill proficiencies and so on and so forth.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Pf2 characters are so samey! Paizo even have the audacity to broadcast a One Shot with 4 pregens of the same class.


Garulo wrote:


Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels.

That's exactly my wiew, and I think that also Paizo is aware of this ( that's why balance is always put before anything else ).

It has to be also noticed that the new classes can be more different even at early levels ( take the gunslinger or the inventor for example ), but overall it's true. A character start differ from another one from the same class around lvl 8-12 ( lower your level if you play with FA ).

I am looking forward to see the 4 gunslinger oneshot ( Malk_Content mentioned it in the previous post ), mostly because I have the feel that it could really be entertaining as well as interesting ( and that the characters may be different from each other even by lvl 3 ).


Garulo wrote:
Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels. Of course, you are correct that one character may have a +12 in a skill vs others having +11 and given the "tight math" that makes the characters completely different.

You're overstating pretty significantly here. A paladin with a weapon and shield and a tyrant with a two-hander are going to play differently even from first level. A elvish bow ranger who takes Hunted Shot as their first feat is going to play rather differently from a half-orc who goes for flanking with their animal companion. A Harm Font cloistered Cleric and a Heal Font Warprest are not going to play the same, even before you take specifics of their deity into account.

Now, it's true that there is somewhat limited scope for customization at level 1... but that was pretty much true in PF1, too. Also, the limit in variation at level 1 (to the degree that it exists) isn't particularly pertinent to the question at hand, which was talking about how to treat specific magic weapons and armor - ie, exactly the sort of additional customization options that accumulate as you level up.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
Garulo wrote:
Nah - this is a tactical board game where you can make a plethora of characters that have very little difference within a class until the higher levels. Of course, you are correct that one character may have a +12 in a skill vs others having +11 and given the "tight math" that makes the characters completely different.

You're overstating pretty significantly here. A paladin with a weapon and shield and a tyrant with a two-hander are going to play differently even from first level. A elvish bow ranger who takes Hunted Shot as their first feat is going to play rather differently from a half-orc who goes for flanking with their animal companion. A Harm Font cloistered Cleric and a Heal Font Warprest are not going to play the same, even before you take specifics of their deity into account.

I think he meant to say that every ranged ranger play the same, as well as any companion ranger plays the same.

Feats which really enhances the class comes at higher levels ( a fighter is able for example to get different attacks depends the situation, while a champion will always rely on Strike + Reaction + shieldblock, if it has a shield. This regardless the tennets or build ).

You hit lvl 2?
Take a oath, which won't change a thing in your gameplay.
You hit lvl 4? How about an aura which doesn't change a thing? Or critical success against diseases?

I am almost lvl 12 and still i just "strike" or use my lay on hand ability. I now have a spellstrike per encounter, which I admit is nice to have. But that's it.
That's what make all characters of the same class so similar.

It's not an issue to me, but it's a fact that it take a few more level to just start really differentiate characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well even if we change what they meant to be an even more specific issue, they are still wrong. A ranger with a bow feels different than one with a crossbow. The choice of which animal companion along with your own choices will feel different (horse is way different to ape.)

I have never felt I've played a game with more actual gameplay variation at level 1 (excepting more obviously free-form games) than pf2.


Malk_Content wrote:

Well even if we change what they meant to be an even more specific issue, they are still wrong. A ranger with a bow feels different than one with a crossbow. The choice of which animal companion along with your own choices will feel different (horse is way different to ape.)

I have never felt I've played a game with more actual gameplay variation at level 1 (excepting more obviously free-form games) than pf2.

Well, a ranger with a crossbow is similar to any other ranger with a crossbow.

At higher level they might get class feats that differentiate the two of them, but at early levels it's quite difficult ( it depends the class though ).

I mentioned the fighter before it's a class that by lvl 4 could have up to 4/5 different attack pattern ( Strike + lvl 1 feat + lvl 2 feat + lvl 4 feat + natural ambition ). Other classes are not so lucky to have that big variety in terms of attacks and customization.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

Well even if we change what they meant to be an even more specific issue, they are still wrong. A ranger with a bow feels different than one with a crossbow. The choice of which animal companion along with your own choices will feel different (horse is way different to ape.)

I have never felt I've played a game with more actual gameplay variation at level 1 (excepting more obviously free-form games) than pf2.

Well, a ranger with a crossbow is similar to any other ranger with a crossbow.

n.

Character who makes same choices as other Character feels the same. Well duh.

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / How do we feel about specific magic weapons / armor in general? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.