| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The math is the way you make something feel powerful and important.
It's the mechanical way to do that. Where I think we disagree is that this is where power starts and ends with you and your group. If magic sword isn't above x% level of improvement gold will be spent elsewhere or your players will sulk and buy nothing and dislike the game.
My tables go from loot being a party of every build and gained like clockwork at each level to the rusty sword example. If I'm being a bastard I can even get players to not take better gear because they don't want the added attention it would bring from foes well above their level. If you want to cure a party of their desire for loot really fast, just have a level+4 group waiting outside the dungeon ready to jump the players and take their loot.
There is a game where the math advancement isn't tied to magic items and it's called 5E. You don't need to even see a magic item. You can use the "rusty sword" with a legend example above.
If you want to make 5e follow PF2s math model, just give all enemies at certain levels +1 to AC for each tier of magic weapon the party expects to have. Do the same for their to hit numbers and suddenly the gear you claim makes 5e too easy works exactly the same as normal weapons but your players get a nice sugar pill of +1 goodness every few levels.
That was supposed to be the point of the proficiency system. A good weapon user with a bad weapon will beat a bad weapon user with a good weapon.
The thing is that way too many people want the weapons to be meaningless. When it is a veritable fact that weapons should be force multipliers.
A weapon versus an unarmed, non-monk, foe should be a decisive edge. Reach and good spacing should do the same. A hammer or dagger versus a cutting weapon versus plate should make a world of difference. Sadly PF2 does a poor job at making anything but damage, to hit, and a few hamfisted traits mean anything.
You just can't make an interesting weapon under such a tight system, especially when stuff like disarm is so worthless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that way too many people want the weapons to be meaningless. When it is a veritable fact that weapons should be force multipliers.
Nnnot really? I dunno why people keep pretending this is binary. There's a lot of grey area between "weapons are completely meaningless" and "you are completely dependent on your fundamental runes"
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that way too many people want the weapons to be meaningless. When it is a veritable fact that weapons should be force multipliers.Nnnot really? I dunno why people keep pretending this is binary. There's a lot of grey area between "weapons are completely meaningless" and "you are completely dependent on your fundamental runes"
Because binary thinking is very popular around here. Most of us fall into it at some point or another, might just be one of those things that happens in forum style discourse.
It's also kind of the only two options we've seen in this particular discussion.
The thing is that way too many people want the weapons to be meaningless. When it is a veritable fact that weapons should be force multipliers.Nnnot really? I dunno why people keep pretending this is binary. There's a lot of grey area between "weapons are completely meaningless" and "you are completely dependent on your fundamental runes"
A rules tight game like PF2 doesn't lend itself to operating in the middle ground. The non-fundamental magic gear tends to feel very specific in what it does and kind of bland. Maneuvers aren't really that amplified by having the right weapon for the job. Ranged weapons are bows and then the rest of the pack, armor is Bulwark plate or nothing past the mid game.
Where is the nuance to work with in PF2?
I would love it if there was at least some work arounds for weapons, feats or abilities that gave auto scaling weapons or some such. Starfinder does it and it's great - if you hate the arms race then you could play a solarian (auto scaling but can still get fusions, so still things to be excited about), vanguard, unarmed build, vanguard, toms of stuff. As it is there's very very few options like that in 2e, and the options that exist are very narrow in scope and usually not great (wild shape (still need +to hit runes), eldritch nails (lol), animal companions, not much else).
Decided a while ago that I'm just going to stick to casters in 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I was getting at:
Magic weapon that gives you stats that trivialize encounters = boring because now all the encounters are trivial.
Magic weapon that gives you stats that are bigger than when you don't have one but aren't so big as to trivialize encounters (because it's a "math fixer") = boring because why? because it's not providing you the other boring option, but it at least gives you something that isn't "and now the game doesn't even function anymore."
The game designers have to choose between A) the system actually making the character "helpless without their special tool", B) players feeling like they are "helpless without their special tool" because having it makes them so much of a bad-mammajamma they rip through encounters like wet paper, or C) not having magic weapons give significant enough increases to numbers on the sheet to make players give a hoot whether they have one or not.
All of the options are "the boring option" to someone (sometimes even to the same people), but one of them provides both a functional game and attempts to give the people what they asked for as far as magic weapons that feel like they matter.
Or you could make weapons with conditional bonuses that make simple stat fixing interesting.
Example:
-Blood Iron Blade: When the character wielding this weapon falls below half HP for the first time each battle they may choose to enter a rage. If they do, in addition to the normal effects of raging, they heal Con Modifier on each successful hit. If a character wielding this weapon is already able to rage, double the bonuses and penalties of that rage.
-Flying Dagger: Once per battle this weapon allows the character wielding it to gain a fly speed equal to their movement speed. If this movement is used to charge an enemy add an additional +2 to hit. If the enemy is hit by this attack they become flat-footed until the end of their next turn.
Just make every magic weapon along these lines. If you must include a pure damage weapon make it high level and add a rider to that damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game designers have to choose between A) the system actually making the character "helpless without their special tool", B) players feeling like they are "helpless without their special tool" because having it makes them so much of a bad-mammajamma they rip through encounters like wet paper, or C) not having magic weapons give significant enough increases to numbers on the sheet to make players give a hoot whether they have one or not.
Or y'know, D, something in the middle.
Again this obsession with binary options is silly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, given the 3 action system I think most magic items are not designed for the system.
The more I think about it, the more I think Magic Weapons as Martial Meta-Strikes would have been a good way to try it. I toyed with the idea when discussing Black Blades, and after some more thought (and taking a good long look at the Extending Rune) I think it'd be interesting enough for base magic weapons. Give *everyone* a Focus Point (call it Martial or Item Focus if we need to seperate it), make every magic weapon require a Focus to activate (with variable activation actions for balance if needed) and apply more interesting riders. The numeric bonus comes from Proficiency but the special effects are only there when the item is activated.
An action and a focus to ignite your Flaming Sword, changing the damage type instead of adding a dice but allowing a unique Strike. Greater Flaming adds another, more powerful, strike or an enhanced rider - maybe lighting things on fire with every strike instead of on a critical.
Beyond that, if Spellhearts scaled innately I think they'd have been more along the lines of what I was wanting from magic items. Ring of the Ram, for example. If it was just an action you could do, and greater versions gave a rider or new action, it would be interesting loot for the entire game. Could it invalidate ranged weapons? Maybe, but if magic weapons are as I described above I don't think so.
Does this sound a little like Resonance? Sure does, except without limitation and a more even accessibility - so not a lot like it aside from item framework.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math is the way you make something feel powerful and important.
Disagree. The story/narrative is the way you make something feel powerful and important. Math is just a tool like miniatures, grid maps, pictures, handouts, etc. that give us a framework to deliver that story.
...the power curve is not only expected, but desirable by MYplayers.
Fixed that for you. Just because your players want an ever-escalating power curve, does not mean everyone does. And I don't see how getting another +1 on your weapon would be considered exciting. You already improve your attack modifier by 1 every level anyway and the higher level you go, the less a single plus matters to the math. Alternative powers, and special effects are much more interesting, IMO. If potency runes are all that excite your players, then why not just use the alternate system from the GameMastery Guide? That way they can ensure they will get all their 'pluses' on time. You can reduce the burden of having to constantly come up with magic items as treasure and/or making them available to the bad guy who you have to slay in order to gain them.
Since the GM has complete and total control over the stats and power of the challenges, you cannot use math as a justification for magic item awards. They are only necessary if you make them necessary.
But, of course, everyone should play the game how they chose to. There is no such thing as a universally accepted rule. Everything is subject to our personal preferences. So, if your group wants all the magic items, then give it to them. Just don't make the mistake that it is required or it must be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could make weapons with conditional bonuses that make simple stat fixing interesting
I do not disagree fundamentally, but those types of changes start to sound a lot like the power system (daily/encounter/etc) that DnD4E had that was widely disliked.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will defend fundamental runes beyond the grave if necessary, but I will say that I don't miss stat belts/headbands ;P
Like my main issue with 1e magic items was that big six 1) took most of your money to get them unless you cheesed with crafting or got them as loot 2) they used body slots so you never had anything else in those body slots 3) there were whopping six of them, thats fricking lot of necessary items to stay up with math.
In 2e what do you really need to keep up is only +1 striking weapon runes and +1 resistance armor runes. And they don't take slot of any other magic items. That is truly nice
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... thinking about it, the issue is that magic items, especially the math fixers/big 6/etc. that any given system might have, tend to be incorporated in a way that makes them overcentralising. Either the math explicitly requires them and you fall behind if you don't have them, or the math doesn't absolutely require them but noticeably rewards you for having them (and thus makes you feel like you fall behind if you don't have them, even though you actually don't). Players want them to feel like they're meaningful (easiest way is to build them in as math fixers), but also want them to feel like they're interesting (which math fixers ultimately aren't, though making math fixers the key for weapon properties/runes is a good way to solve that).
Conversely, if they don't fall into one of those categories, they just plain don't feel important enough to most people (like a lot of 5e's magic items), break the math when players get them but GMs don't take them into account (like a lot of 5e's magic items), or are awkward enough that the easiest way to handle them is to just ignore them entirely (like a lot of 5e's magic items). This significantly limits the amount of design room available, especially if they also have to compete with something more general and/or especially useful (such as, e.g., a speed or Medicine bonus).
I'm starting to think that 5e could've had the best implementation of magic items, in theory... but completely squandered the opportunity, and just made a mess of it as a result. PF2 comes close, but typically makes the main draw into a rider on a math fixer, rather than a standalone item.
----
Honestly, I've been thinking that the best way to implement magic items might be as special properties/runes, which can either come attached to a specific item or just be on a runestone in the middle of a loot pile. Instead of designing the math to require magic items to keep up (so that players feel like their items are important), use the items to actually expand their functionality. 5e tried to do this, but flubbed it; it barely supplies any basic properties, and when it gives you, e.g., a neat weapon with a fun new function on it, that weapon typically has a numerical bonus that wasn'the game wasn't balanced around. PF2 does it better, in that the numerical bonuses are factored into balance... but goes too far for some players, using items as math fixers with fun riders (even runes are just riders, really; specifically, the rider is "you also get a rune slot"). Either way, the math makes them feel awkward, which makes me think it may be the weakest link. Goodbye!
It leaves me feeling like the key may be to focus on magic items giving extra abilities that expand on the character's "core" functionality, that are fun to use but don't significantly alter the math. Use the items to widen your skillset instead of adding more depth to a pre-existing ability. They need to enable something that characters can't do without magic items, so that they feel important, but shouldn't be blanket modifiers to difficulty or math, so they don't feel like checking off a box; the ideal is enabling new tactics that reward canny players for finding synergistic interactions, but still work just fine even if you don't specifically look for synergies.
[And also, as a note, I do think math adjustments are fine if they're for specific use cases, but blanket adjustments just turn into the sort of math fixers that lead to this very discussion, mainly because they have different psychological implications; a +1 when using Arcana to juggle buffalo with your mind encourages crazy new tactics, but a +1 to Arcana in general with a "you can also juggle buffalo for 10 minutes a day" Activate (Interact) effect is just a weird niche item that people will probably wear for the math bonus, but never actually use the effect.]
Something like, e.g., extending handwraps of mighty blows. It's not all that much of a difference, but being able to punch someone on the other side of the map like Piccolo or Luffy significantly changes the feel of a martial artist. Or maybe a pair of gloves that let you use Acrobatics to try to move faster when making a 90-degree turn, by adhering to a surface so you can slingshot off it (it's a bit hard to come up with good examples on the fly this early in the morning). Or defender from 5e, a generic sword property that lets you move the sword's attack bonus to AC instead (implying that it helps you parry; this one is admittedly subject to 5e's magic weapon bonus woes, but the idea of making Combat Expertise into a weapon property has a lot more potential than making it a feat). Or, hell, even just returning or flaming weapons in general, or an eyepiece that lets you diagnose curses or magical ailments that would normally be invisible visually (and maybe gives you a Medicine bonus when doing so).
Those are just a few examples (and an example of how 5e had the right thought but flubbed the implementation), but the idea is there. Rather than just fix the math and add a special use case rider, design the math to stand by itself, and make magic items that enable special uses you wouldn't normally be able to do (possibly, but not necessarily, with a math bonus for those special use cases alone, depending on the item and use case). The use cases need to be interesting, they need to be something that can change the way you play your character, and they should ideally be something that's flat-out impossible (or signicantly more difficult) without the magic item, so that they feel like they make a big difference. If done well, this would even help keep them exciting without forcing or encouraging players to focus on the almighty +1s first and everything else last.
(...That said, if something like this was the norm, I'm not sure how it would be able to accomodate the players that do get excited over flat numerical increases, without turning into another Big Six fiasco.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math is the way you make something feel powerful and important.Disagree. The story/narrative is the way you make something feel powerful and important. Math is just a tool like miniatures, grid maps, pictures, handouts, etc. that give us a framework to deliver that story.
...the power curve is not only expected, but desirable by MYplayers.Fixed that for you. Just because your players want an ever-escalating power curve, does not mean everyone does. And I don't see how getting another +1 on your weapon would be considered exciting. You already improve your attack modifier by 1 every level anyway and the higher level you go, the less a single plus matters to the math. Alternative powers, and special effects are much more interesting, IMO. If potency runes are all that excite your players, then why not just use the alternate system from the GameMastery Guide? That way they can ensure they will get all their 'pluses' on time. You can reduce the burden of having to constantly come up with magic items as treasure and/or making them available to the bad guy who you have to slay in order to gain them.
Since the GM has complete and total control over the stats and power of the challenges, you cannot use math as a justification for magic item awards. They are only necessary if you make them necessary.
But, of course, everyone should play the game how they chose to. There is no such thing as a universally accepted rule. Everything is subject to our personal preferences. So, if your group wants all the magic items, then give it to them. Just don't make the mistake that it is required or it must be done.
I can't disagree more. Some players might find it appealing to have the magic item solely defined by the story, but my experience is that players want their power increased by magic items and DMs find it far easier to DM if the designers incorporate magic item math into the power curve.
Like I said, you just have a preference and are trying to make the argument for your preference which I believe is a minority preference.
I've played systems where magic items don't do much. Not everyone cares about getting them, but you can put them in the game as part of the narrative and at least one or two of your players will like it enough to role-play it up even though they don't really add much to the character's power.
But for my group ss long at least a few key magic items are part of the math advancement, my players will be happy to get them. If they end up like 5E where they barely do anything or they break the math of the game, I can do without that. I can also do without the magic item Christmas Tree.
Striking weapons make at least one magic item feel really necessary and powerful and give all my martial players something to look forward to that makes them feel like they got something real nice.
If your players don't like striking weapons, you have an option to get rid of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I was getting at:
Magic weapon that gives you stats that trivialize encounters = boring because now all the encounters are trivial.
Magic weapon that gives you stats that are bigger than when you don't have one but aren't so big as to trivialize encounters (because it's a "math fixer") = boring because why? because it's not providing you the other boring option, but it at least gives you something that isn't "and now the game doesn't even function anymore."
The game designers have to choose between A) the system actually making the character "helpless without their special tool", B) players feeling like they are "helpless without their special tool" because having it makes them so much of a bad-mammajamma they rip through encounters like wet paper, or C) not having magic weapons give significant enough increases to numbers on the sheet to make players give a hoot whether they have one or not.
All of the options are "the boring option" to someone (sometimes even to the same people), but one of them provides both a functional game and attempts to give the people what they asked for as far as magic weapons that feel like they matter.
Or you could make weapons with conditional bonuses that make simple stat fixing interesting.
Example:
-Blood Iron Blade: When the character wielding this weapon falls below half HP for the first time each battle they may choose to enter a rage. If they do, in addition to the normal effects of raging, they heal Con Modifier on each successful hit. If a character wielding this weapon is already able to rage, double the bonuses and penalties of that rage.-Flying Dagger: Once per battle this weapon allows the character wielding it to gain a fly speed equal to their movement speed. If this movement is used to charge an enemy add an additional +2 to hit. If the enemy is hit by this attack they become flat-footed until the end of their next turn.
Just make every magic weapon along these lines. If you must include a...
That would bore most players. Totally weak and useless in most battles.
They want things that work all the time with no caveats or DM requirements of anything of the kind. They get them and they work.
Situational items can add to a trusty reliable item, but should not form the basis for the items.
Items should feel powerful and activated all the time. Like a belt of giant strength. You have that strength all the time. Or a magic weapon provides that bonus to hit all the time. Then you can toss on some cool unique additions once you have the foundation item that provides the constant increase in power.
I've seen this across every edition of D&D I played. That system was not broken. It made people like magic items.
Sure, PF2 could have done something different than striking weapons and people would have been fine with it just like they were fine with bonuse to hit or property runes or what not. As long as there is a foundational increase in power with anything situational just being an occasional add on.
The thing is that way too many people want the weapons to be meaningless. When it is a veritable fact that weapons should be force multipliers.Nnnot really? I dunno why people keep pretending this is binary. There's a lot of grey area between "weapons are completely meaningless" and "you are completely dependent on your fundamental runes"
It's all just a different way to do the same thing.
Just make it the way you want and convince your table this is cooler.
The debate on striking weapons is all over for now. They provided APB as the alternative.
Hell, I hate the new summoner. It sucks compared to the PF1 summoner. I have to live with it now for this entire edition. My favorite class sucks to play.
I tried to play one. Kept getting knocked down. Never had casting on par with a real caster. Action economy boost didn't really exist as you just boosted eidolon to keep up damage with another class. I was knocked down so many times sending my summoned creature into battle. I'm not even sure I'm the one who is supposed to make death rolls every round or my eidolon when I drop. Their damage output is terrible and their play-style nothing like PF1. Man, a terrible play experience.
But hey, they made their choices and knew everyone will not be happy with them. At least you have a decent option for eliminating magic items, whereas I doubt they will do much with the summoner for years to come if ever.
The magus is pretty good though. They definitely made the magus feel a lot like the old PF1 class. Gotta give them props on that. Design job on the Magus was good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The +1 to 3 are fine it's the striking runes I object to, no one would choose not have that 1 to 3 bonus given the tight maths of 2e so making the entire damage scaling based on magic items feels excessive.
In the playtest the "add an extra weapon die" was a property of the numerical bonus (so a +5 greataxe would roll 6d12 for damage), but based on playtest feedback the (greater) weapon specialization class feature was added to reduce the impact of the specific weapon and the numerical bonuses were capped at +3.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What amuses me about this argument is that both sides are right -- for their playstyle. If you are not using ABP, your PCs will absolutely need Fundamental Runes to keep up with the monster math over time. That is why they are fundamental. If you are using ABP, you can concentrate more on other kinds of magical items -- though be aware that some players may love that and others will be asking, "Where is my +1 weapon?"
THOUGHTS ON ABP
I would not mind doing ABP. I think it's a cool alternate rule, but I only play one AP and a whole lot of PFS. I am not going to ask my GM to do extra work to figure out gear and stuff at this point. Besides, I am already lobbying for the free archetype rule in our Agents of Edgewatch game... So ABP is going to have to wait.
THOUGHTS ON DIVERSIFYING THE CHRISTMAS TREE
Keep in mind that most players have trouble reading through all the magic items and picking. So if one person picks those Boots of Bounding, chances are, others who cannot figure out how to spend their money are going to say, "Oh, that sounds like a great idea!" And players really have to pay for the Fundamental Runes to keep up with math. So... gift them some weird crap, and tie it in with their back story or with a cool NPC that they are working for. Or gift them the fundamental runes, and provide more cash to experiment.
THOUGHTS ON LITTLE SKILL ITEMS
I love them, because most of them have weird extras included - a cantrip, a once-a-day cool effect, or other things. I have come to find that they are little delights that I really enjoy as a player.
Hmm
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who enjoys attempting to fully stat out NPCs from 1e adventures into 2e with player loot by level (yes, this is weird), I am often struck by how often there -isn’t- a clearly optimal choice. Yes, fundamental runes are ubiquitous, but beyond that nearly every character I’ve built has had -different- gear.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
HMM really makes a bunch of great points. As a GM, my primary issues with ABP are that it takes too much work to do in APs, which are usually over stocked with loot anyways, and in home games, where it could work, It can create too much incentive for leveling up to be the end all, be all focus of the party, because it is the only time their characters really grow or change…
But as a player I’d probably be fine in a game with it if the GM preferred it. I think a lot of it comes down to what the table wants out of the narrative of where the power is coming from and people will probably have strong feelings about that.
But I really wanted to second how much I enjoy the skill boost items also having a secondary thing that is usually pretty cool. I think weapon property runes do this effectively too with crit riders. It is really just fundamental runes that don’t also do something else, and that is because the number boost is too important to tie on to my Barbie accessorizing that is spending the big pile of loot on my character.
Also I think it should be pointed out that characters don’t all have to get the newest upgrades right as the party hits the expected level. Some parties enjoy bundling their loot to get the tank the Armor rune and the sturdy shield first, while the striker prioritizes getting weapon runes and the casters skimp for a level or two picking up some extra consumables until a powerful new staff drops or a spell book is found.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The +1 to 3 are fine it's the striking runes I object to, no one would choose not have that 1 to 3 bonus given the tight maths of 2e so making the entire damage scaling based on magic items feels excessive.
The main point of contention is whether the math should depend on fundamental runes, really. It currently does, for better or for worse, so no one can contest that choosing not to use them is a bad idea. The issue is more about whether people should have to "choose" to buy their actual intended power progression or not, and whether literally turning the ability to keep up with on-level challenges into a treasure tax to make players feel more powerful was a good idea.
Hmm...I agree with you with most of it.
The one thing I disagree with is that most players are weird and if the items doesn't help them attack/defend better they will ignore the item unless going for a specific build.
Just look at how no one talks about the cool non-combat items except when someone finds out about it. For example: Did you know that there is a PFS item from PF1 that 1/day gave Tiny Hut along with effectively infinite supply of writing equipment? I only found out about it this year and people rarely talk about it. The item was released in 2011.
In PF2 you can just use Wand of Cozy Cabin and supply your own paper/ink. But again no one talks about it.
That is strange, yeah, but understandable. I half think it's a subtle form of conditioning that previous versions have developed over the years, where the big six have given the impression that anything that doesn't give you +X to whatever is weak and doesn't improve your character by definition, combined with many players' tendency to focus on combat specifically when optimising.
Like Deriven pointed out, most players feel like items that don't up the numbers on their sheets don't actually make them more powerful, likely thanks to a long-standing history of magic items making players more powerful by upping their numbers. Personally, I consider "you get +X to some stat or other" to be the worst, and least interesting, type of magic item that could ever possibly exist. Like you, I'd much rather see something that increases my power level by, y'know, actually giving me a new power, and honestly find it really weird that a lot of people don't share that sentiment.
Hmm... One semi-fix that comes to mind is conditional bonuses, but they'll just encourage specific playstyles and/or feel weak compared to generic math fixers. They could have their conditions tailored to individual characters' playstyles, but then they essentially become always-on fixers, so why even bother making them conditional to begin with. Some video games solve it by giving you equipment that gives you a new skill or spell when equipped, which is a viable way to approach it; a magic sword that can cast fireball once per day, using your class DC, would be a nifty find (and a good power boost early on, at that), for instance, as would the item and wand you mentioned. Similarly, a dawnflower sash, merform belt, or cape of effulgent escape would be a nice find that clearly increases your power level... but nope, they compete with the big six! Magic items, and player desire for them, thus fall into the trap of requiring a numerical bonus to feel like they do something, to the point that even a mechanically superior item would feel "useless" compared to something that just gives you a +1. And this in turn leads to magic items being designed with upping the math in mind, which in turn leads to them being turned into math fixers that the game's balancing outright depends on, in turn feeding a toxic environment where anything that competes with a math fixer is automatically bad, which leaves math fixers feeling like the only magic items that actually matter, and thus leads devs to focus on math fixers if they want magic items to be relevant, which leads to anything competing with the math fixers being bad in comparison, in a vicious cycle that constantly tears itself apart but never truly goes away, and slowly seeps out into other games (by making players expect the math fixer cycle, and thus feel like any game that doesn't use math fixers just makes magic items useless)...
I think the only way it'll change is if more people realise that the only reason math fixers feel good is because they were built into the system's math specifically to appease players that felt like anything that isn't a math fixer is bad.
|
|
Or you use ABP and Milestone levelling. I'm giving that a go in the AP I'm running and it's working good so far. Milestone curbs the worst of their XP bloodthirst (well, they're adjusting to it still but there's less nickel and diming over creature value. They have started trying to guess where the plot climaxes are though) and ABP is awesome.
|
|
One thing I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned is property runes that add damage and how they're taken into account when it comes to monster math to keep "strikes to kill" roughly steady in the latter half of levels.
I think those are more frustrating than the fundamental runes, since they're both immediately recognizable in their strength (since they actively add more to what you're already doing) and only come in a handful of varieties. It feels bad when you can either choose to "keep up" with your sword of shocking frost blade of fire or experiment with some of the other property runes that are less universally useful.
That frustrates me to no end. I have players that want the interesting riders but really need the damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I picked up ghost touch instead of an extra damage rune on my elven fighter at the same time I picked up the resilient rune and the boots of bounding mentioned in the OP. I actually could have sold some items to pick up an added damage rune, but honestly, for a maul fighter, an extra D6 is not nearly as useful as being able to use my maul against incorporeal creatures. As the party of three’s primary striker, it was far more important to pick up sudden leap and a ghost touch rune, so I can be reliable even in circumstances that negate melee efficacy.
I think magic items are pretty great at expanding these options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, we tend to go months between level ups (my party is kinda... uncoordinated in combat. The triad quarry in book 3 of Age of Ashes took them about 6 sessions on its own). And the GM always has control of when you level, we make everything you encounter happen. With my group Milestones also helped non combat encounters shine because they can't assess the XP/encounter/session time anymore and resolve everything with fists to faces to level faster.
And gear is absolutely important, they just get to look for fun things and not math fixers now. Special materials, property runes, held/worn items, etc. They were particularly jazzed about that magic pot that fills with food every day and the Gourd Home they found.
So I am playing in a AoA PbP campaign and my toon is a Fighter, whose primary fighting style is Double Slicing with sword & shield. Now Doubling Rings are a thing, making sure that two-weapon warriors aren't as boned on the 'keep your weapons math up to snuff' front as in PF1, which is also dearly necessary because of the tight math.
Still, it means that once fundamental runes enter the game, your toon will be 'shotgun-wed' to the weapon(s) that have the required runes on them and lose a lot of power if they can't access their 'main' weapon.
Now since Blazons of Shared Power are a thing, my GM has agreed to let my toon use those on the Cinderclaw gauntlet he is currently wielding as his main weapon on a bow he wields. By RAW, a 1 handed weapon isn't a 1+ handed weapon, but it is a ranged weapon and the gauntlet is a 1 handed melee weapon...
So basically, my fighting man is allowed to use most of his armoury with the required +1 Striking now. Which is kinda ABP with extra steps (and costing 102 gold), but it allows him to, well, not be in a monogamous relationship with just one martial implement.
But what I am really looking forward to? Shifting rune on his main-hand weapon. Because then he isn't forced to main a d4 weapon, just to not suck with a bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, we tend to go months between level ups (my party is kinda... uncoordinated in combat. The triad quarry in book 3 of Age of Ashes took them about 6 sessions on its own). And the GM always has control of when you level, we make everything you encounter happen. With my group Milestones also helped non combat encounters shine because they can't assess the XP/encounter/session time anymore and resolve everything with fists to faces to level faster.
And gear is absolutely important, they just get to look for fun things and not math fixers now. Special materials, property runes, held/worn items, etc. They were particularly jazzed about that magic pot that fills with food every day and the Gourd Home they found.
I agree, milestone promotes better behavior out of PCs. Less murdohoboing when doing so doesn't make you more powerful. You actually have to interact with the story at that point and think bc the story dictates your progression. I'll never use XP again unless it's a sandbox campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, milestone promotes better behavior out of PCs. Less murdohoboing when doing so doesn't make you more powerful. You actually have to interact with the story at that point and think bc the story dictates your progression. I'll never use XP again unless it's a sandbox campaign.Oh, we tend to go months between level ups (my party is kinda... uncoordinated in combat. The triad quarry in book 3 of Age of Ashes took them about 6 sessions on its own). And the GM always has control of when you level, we make everything you encounter happen. With my group Milestones also helped non combat encounters shine because they can't assess the XP/encounter/session time anymore and resolve everything with fists to faces to level faster.
And gear is absolutely important, they just get to look for fun things and not math fixers now. Special materials, property runes, held/worn items, etc. They were particularly jazzed about that magic pot that fills with food every day and the Gourd Home they found.
I don't appreciate this stereotyping though x'D
(that said I personally think exp incentives players to seek out more content and encounters rather than just "eh, let's skip as much as possible to speed run this campaign"
So ironically my view is that milestones encourage players to avoid interacting with story)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think ABP and milestone leveling are good for some campaigns, but not all of them.
ABP makes a lot of sense in campaigns where finding lots of power loot doesn't make sense. I use it in my Iron Gods campaigna because Numeria doesn't have a good economy for going around shopping for magic items, and besides much of your wealth goes into finding glitchy tech items that cause lots of trouble if you try to sell them. And I'd also use it in Edgewatch because I don't want treasure to be a big theme in a police AP. But if I was going to do some classic Conan style campaign where finding ancient relic weapons was a big theme then ABP would detract from that for me. Finding the "unbalanced" striking weapon at level 3 is part of that experience.
Milestone, similar. I think it's good for campaigns with a very storyline-driven bent, like a typical AP. You should be level X by the time you get to Y? Ok, that's a milestone. You can't grind for a few sessions more to level up before the bossfight, you also won't be too low level because you thought the main plot was urgent and didn't get lured on a sidequest. But for a sandboxy campaign where there's a theme of scouting and "whelp, that's big, let's come back in a few levels" then milestone leveling doesn't do what I want.
|
|
I have played games with milestones and games with XP. I don't like the fact that with a game using milestones I don't know my progress.
Given how Paizo literally puts XP for social encounters as well as combat encounter, the whole "of XP incentivizes fights" just feels off. Like people are talking about a different game and projecting. Specially given that XP is shared among the full group, not based on participation.
XP incentivized fights because my players saw every warm body as a bundle of XP, where as a social encounter requires something to be overcome existing beforehand that picking a fight doesn't - or at least, that's how they saw it. Figured they could beat up other drifters and drunks whenever, and that the XP was easier than talking to everyone. Could just be my players.
Not knowing your progress is actually what I like about it. No system pressure to act out of character to eke out that last few XP for a level. And we still play if we're missing a player, so there's no XP punishment for missing a session.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(that said I personally think exp incentives players to seek out more content and encounters rather than just "eh, let's skip as much as possible to speed run this campaign"
Man I cannot fathom at all playing D&D with this kind of mindset. It feels so alien to me to approach the game that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean if that's how your tables approach D&D I suppose that's fair, everyone is entitled to their own fun, but like I said can't really fathom approaching the game that way myself, so I'm glad none of the groups I've ever run with have done that.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(that said I personally think exp incentives players to seek out more content and encounters rather than just "eh, let's skip as much as possible to speed run this campaign"Man I cannot fathom at all playing D&D with this kind of mindset. It feels so alien to me to approach the game that way.People optimize the fun out of anything. If you know the BBEG is on the top floor, the first thing a player does is see if they can scale the outside of the keep. Nevermind that they need the gear and encounters in the lower floors to stand a chance of beating the villain.
This is an interesting example - on a meta level we as players have the genre savvy to know that we should do the dungeon in order. But as our character told that dire things are at stake and the BBEG is going to do something really bad, it makes a lot of sense to try to bypass all those encounters in between and stop the boss today, instead of perhaps needing multiple days to clear the dungeon in between (and level up twice).
So what's the optimizing part? Going straight to the top, or grinding the whole dungeon in between to maximize XP/levels/gear?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The +1 to 3 are fine it's the striking runes I object to, no one would choose not have that 1 to 3 bonus given the tight maths of 2e so making the entire damage scaling based on magic items feels excessive.The main point of contention is whether the math should depend on fundamental runes, really. It currently does, for better or for worse, so no one can contest that choosing not to use them is a bad idea. The issue is more about whether people should have to "choose" to buy their actual intended power progression or not, and whether literally turning the ability to keep up with on-level challenges into a treasure tax to make players feel more powerful was a good idea.
Hmm...I agree with you with most of it.
The one thing I disagree with is that most players are weird and if the items doesn't help them attack/defend better they will ignore the item unless going for a specific build.
Just look at how no one talks about the cool non-combat items except when someone finds out about it. For example: Did you know that there is a PFS item from PF1 that 1/day gave Tiny Hut along with effectively infinite supply of writing equipment? I only found out about it this year and people rarely talk about it. The item was released in 2011.
In PF2 you can just use Wand of Cozy Cabin and supply your own paper/ink. But again no one talks about it.
That is strange, yeah, but understandable. I half think it's a subtle form of conditioning that previous versions have developed over the years, where the big six have given the impression that anything that doesn't give you +X to whatever is weak and doesn't improve your character by definition, combined with many players' tendency to focus on combat specifically when optimising.
Like Deriven pointed out, most players feel like items that don't up the numbers on their sheets don't actually make them more powerful, likely thanks to a...
I think a big portion of the issue is that combat power increases are the benefits that are most cemented in the game play loop. Its easy to have a campaign where traps or secret passageways aren't really a thing, or where the GM under utilizes social rolls or the reactions of NPCs don't have a meaningful impact on the outcome, or where encumbrance isn't really counted, where ammo isn't counted, where rations aren't tracked, where a long rest just auto-heals to full, just over and over stripping away a layer of the game's subsystems.
Even many of the games that have these things will de-prioritize them-- or smooth over them because they're not considered points of game play, for instance, character optimization has traditionally undervalued linguistic options because... if you say, need to translate a stone tablet to find the secret entrance to a vault of an ancient civilization, and you don't have an immediate way to do that, the GM will likely just provide one because to do otherwise is really just inconveniencing themselves. Typically, underwater adventures feature the GM giving the PCs a way to handwave their need to breathe, which devalues character build choices that prepare for that.
But the tables that do those things, will generally still fight monsters. So when we're talking about the usefulness of a magic item, and we're thinking about how often it's effects come up, anything that isn't a direct increase to combat effectiveness is probably going to be the first thing to go. The only way to fight that burn, is to recenter all of the bits and pieces of adventuring that normally get streamlined, so that someone who is fully engaged with problem solving in the game, has to think about magic items and other options that don't just increase their combat power, because they know they need to put effort into not failing in other areas of the game.