The build that makes me shudder the most though, is the charisma melee alchemist. Feral mutagen supports demoralize. God's help the brave souls who would play that build.I play that build in PFS. I'm only up to 6th right now, so Feral Mutagen isn't in play yet, but it's been a lot of fun.
Of course, the thing is, I haven't put anything but the Class Increase into Intelligence. Mutagenists can get away with not a lot of Int.
So, my Half-Orc Mutagenist is currently Str 18, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 18 .
The plan is to finish with Str 20, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 18, Cha 20.
Of course, I dither a lot. Con 18, Wis 16? Dex 12, Con 18? Int 16, Con 18, Wis 18? I dunno. 10th level is a long way off, plenty of time to think about it.
Yeah, mutagenist can get away with low int better than other alchemists since mutagens are more sustainable than other specialties. It just hurts the rest of your toolkit and cuts into your versatility which is the main strength of the alchemist.
Those demoralizes will be pretty mean though. I salute you.
I've been pleasantly surprised on the versatility front. I took Alchemical Familiar at 1st, as it was the obvious choice for a Mutagenist. (Efficient Alchemy is flavorful, but not terribly practical, and the other three are for Bombers or Toxicologists, really.) So he has Level + Int + 1 Batches of Reagents per day, or, in other words, 2 Batches less than my Int-maxed Bomber. Given that he usually only needs 3 Bestials a day (or 1 Batch), it's not hard to buff up other folks (usually with Drakehearts, or the odd Silvertongue for the Swashbucklers.) Usually able to keep a couple Batches free for Quick Alchemy even.
Demoralize has been doing well so far, even without the Item Bonus, so I expect it will be quite nice once I get Feral. I'm not planning on racing to Cha 20 @ 15th though, so he's basically stuck at Attribute +4 for the rest of his Intimidating career (20th doesn't really count. :) ) Considering he's not a Cha Caster, I figure that's still pretty decent.
You can't reasonably expect to apply the same concept to the other two because they are fundamentally different from physical avoidance.I mean you absolutely can. It's all an arbitrary game construct anyways. There's nothing diagetically that ties your ability to resist mind control and your ability to notice where you left your car keys last night, except that that's historically how they've been linked. Literally nothing is stopping anyone from twisting that connection around or creating a new relationship. Especially when we're talking about magic items or feats, which deviate from normal by design.
And that's precisely why Bulwark exists and these hypothetical effects don't; there's no diagetic capacity to it. If the idea is that these new effects are supposed to be comparable to Bulwark, then they need to be diagetic, otherwise it's not comparable.
Twisting the connection around or creating a new relationship sounds like changing intended rules or adding new rules to me, which is essentially houseruling. In which case, you're right; I certainly can't stop people from houseruling these things. Nor would I want or need to. Doesn't mean it's feasible to do, though, nor would they be staples, unless they somehow become as popular and in-demand as Free Archetype (which we have only done Pseudo-Free Archetype games thus far, since we feel that Free Archetype as a full system adds too much power versatility to a PC).
It's relatively clear Paizo didn't make these types of effects exist as baseline, or even in a future book, for a reason. I highly doubt it's because they couldn't create those effects to work alongside Bulwark, since if anyone can make these effects work in the system, it's them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
there's no diagetic capacity to it. If the idea is that these new effects are supposed to be comparable to Bulwark, then they need to be diagetic, otherwise it's not comparable.
Right, and my point is that's just a matter of how you choose to right it. There's nothing indelible here as some people seem to be suggesting.
It's relatively clear Paizo didn't make these types of effects exist as baseline, or even in a future book, for a reason.
Sure, but clearly some people think those reasons are bad and would like to see improvements in the future. By definition nothing exists until it does, so I'm not sure what this really accomplishes.
The item bonus plus the circumstance bonus from intimidating prowess will serve 18 charisma darn well I'd say.
Yeah, Intimidating Prowess is great. Easy to justify when you're standing near the target with Alchemically huge jaws and claws. :) Be better @ 15th (Str 20) of course.
there's no diagetic capacity to it. If the idea is that these new effects are supposed to be comparable to Bulwark, then they need to be diagetic, otherwise it's not comparable.Right, and my point is that's just a matter of how you choose to right it. There's nothing indelible here as some people seem to be suggesting.
It's relatively clear Paizo didn't make these types of effects exist as baseline, or even in a future book, for a reason.Sure, but clearly some people think those reasons are bad and would like to see improvements in the future. By definition nothing exists until it does, so I'm not sure what this really accomplishes.
And I disagree with that sentiment, simply because you can't use equipment to cover up those factors the same way Bulwark can/does, both mechanically and in-setting. I highly doubt it can be justified in either case that wearing some "shirtless" Gi equipment gave you a +3 Wisdom bonus instead of your original modifier for Will Saves versus Fear effects. And that's just a poor example. Coming up with one for Fortitude saves is far trickier by comparison, something that I'm certain no equipment can manage without some "because magic' shenanigans.
There are also people that think games without Free Archetype are bad or underwhelming, and want that optional rule to be the baseline instead of what we have. Doesn't mean they are right, or that Paizo agrees with that sentiment, in which case, why try and bring this up if Paizo doesn't agree with it, and probably isn't going to care that you made up this houserule? Maybe other players might if they're looking for such content, but I don't suspect Paizo wanted to make these kinds of things an optional rule.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Armor have more of a role than "Take one that gives you the most from your Dexterity without having too high of a Strength score requirement," or "Just wear Full Plate and ignore everything else." Armor not having any pertinent choice beyond those two factors makes it extremely boring and unfun. And they also have worse property runes compared to weapons. But if Paizo didn't choose to implement those things, then I imagine it's because there's a reason they didn't, and not because they either didn't think of it or couldn't properly implement them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets be clear. Bulwark comes at a significant price (for most characters)
1) Many (NOT all) characters have to invest in Str because they can't afford the penalty
2) It only is useful until such point as your expertise in non heavy armor increases to expert+.
3) It only affects some Reflex saving throws so a low Dex is STILL something of a handicap (completely eliminated with Mighty Bulwark).
The OP is asking for something BETTER than Bulwark.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concept of this item is not to get more optimized characters but to remove one way of completely failing a character (there are few in PF2 and this one is treacherous as you may not expect at low level that not raising your saves makes your character unplayable at high level).
While I agree that it should probably be made clearer to newbies how important saves are it is the case that this has become pretty well known at this point. I think EVERY class guide I've read mentions it.
But yeah, ALL saves (and AC) ARE important in this game and that means that ALL characters need to worry about them to a significant extent. I completely agree with you on that.
But the game makes that very, very possible (almost trivial) for almost all characters. It really is only optimized characters that ALSO want to branch out from their core competency that are having an issue. Or, at least, so far I've yet to see an example to the contrary.
The example that YOU chose (Dragon Monk) is a good example of this. A Dragon Monk is pretty much optimized for damage while also having very good defences. Your problem is that it can't ALSO be very good at intimidate.
Now, if you want to play a monk who is slightly less damaging while still very good at intimidate that is trivial. Just take a stance that uses Dex, don't raise your Str as much, and you're golden. You do less damage and THAT is the tradeoff. Less damage for social skills.
What you can't currently do is to have
1) The most damaging Monk possible
2) The best defences consistent with that possible
3) A very good intimidate score (you can still have a decent intimidate).
That sure looks to me like you're complaining because you can't optimize your optimal monk even more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The concept of this item is not to get more optimized characters but to remove one way of completely failing a character (there are few in PF2 and this one is treacherous as you may not expect at low level that not raising your saves makes your character unplayable at high level).
While I agree that it should probably be made clearer to newbies how important saves are it is the case that this has become pretty well known at this point. I think EVERY class guide I've read mentions it.
But yeah, ALL saves (and AC) ARE important in this game and that means that ALL characters need to worry about them to a significant extent. I completely agree with you on that.
But the game makes that very, very possible (almost trivial) for almost all characters. It really is only optimized characters that ALSO want to branch out from their core competency that are having an issue. Or, at least, so far I've yet to see an example to the contrary.
The example that YOU chose (Dragon Monk) is a good example of this. A Dragon Monk is pretty much optimized for damage while also having very good defences. Your problem is that it can't ALSO be very good at intimidate.
Now, if you want to play a monk who is slightly less damaging while still very good at intimidate that is trivial. Just take a stance that uses Dex, don't raise your Str as much, and you're golden. You do less damage and THAT is the tradeoff. Less damage for social skills. No Dragon Roar (I've already agreed that putting Dragon Roar on a monk who can't easily afford Charisma was arguably a poor decision. Or perhaps was deliberately done precisely to avoid your being able to make the monk you want to make)
What you can't currently do is to have
1) The most damaging Monk possible
2) The best defences consistent with that possible
3) A very good intimidate score (you can still have a decent intimidate).
That sure looks to me like you're complaining because you can't optimize your optimal monk even more.
And no, throwing a bit of money at things so that you can have your optimal monk (or very nearly) with a very good intimidate isn't a valid tradeoff.
I've played a monk with high Charisma (Monk/Bard with free archetype) and the action economy advantages that a monk gets make them VERY good intimidators. A Dragon Roar Monk with their D10 attack would definitely have been significantly more powerful than the one I played.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you can't currently do is to have
1) The most damaging Monk possible
2) The best defences consistent with that possible
3) A very good intimidate score (you can still have a decent intimidate).That sure looks to me like you're complaining because you can't optimize your optimal monk even more.
But I can get a Fighter which is the most damaging class in the game, with good defenses (even if a Monk is slightly higher) and maxed intimidation (that the Monk can't get as they can't start with 18 in Strength, 16 in Dexterity and 16 in Charisma, unlike the Fighter who can start with a Full Plate, 18 in Strength and 16 in Charisma).
So, I fully agree that it opens up possibilities that are currently blocked. But what we need to look at is not the impact on an average build but the impact on optimized ones. If optimized builds don't move, then at most it closes the gap between them and less optimized builds.
Also, there's a matter of balance. Having low Wisdom impacts Perception (and Initiative), low Constitution impacts hit points and low Dexterity AC. All these 3 values are super important, so there's already a tradeoff and most optimized builds will try to max these 3 stats anyway. On top of that, the goal is to give a bonus that is slightly lower than what you are supposed to achieve through classical means, because I think it's important to reward the character who increased the stat. The tradeoff seems fair.
Right now, there's no tradeoff, that's why all guides tell you to max the save stats. I think there's a proper middle between nearly unplayable and overpowered.
And in that case, I think we have enough information to make a ruling to fill the gap properly. After all, we have Bulwark that gives us a value that should stay the maximum and a way to apply such rule. Also, we have multiple years of playing the game, so we start to understand what is fair in PF2 and what isn't.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree with the sentiment in the OP, Swashbuckler is another class that suffers from this because most of them are forced to get a lot of charisma so you're sitting there with a 10 strength score.
One thing I loved about 4e I'm surprised I have not seen ever since was saving throws being keyed to the highest of multiple stats.
Fort -> Highest of Str/Con
Will -> Highest of Wis/Cha
AC/Reflex -> Highest of Dex/Int
I'd love something like this and makes it so you can choose what stats you want instead of being slotted into "key stat + saves, if your class won the lottery of having a save stat as key stat you are allowed another one".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support the request for an item that improves a single save without having to go through hoops in order to do so, especially as some classes are set up in way that suggests to neglect an important save stat. For example Warpriest gets medium armor. Medium armor suggests a Dex cap of around 12. You can now go and start with higher Dex and raise Dex through the levels, eventually invalidating your medium armor entirely or spend 2+ class feats aquiring an archtype giving access to heavy armor and bulwark. For some levels Canny Acumen may also help you out, however there is a huge level gap in the effectiveness of this feat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how an item that can give you the equivalent of, let's say, a +2 or a +3 in a stat for save purposes would break anything that is already strong right now.
Fighter and Champion wouldn't care at all.
Bard could afford to boost INT easily, stat related to Enigma, probably the least used muse.
Thief Rogue already has 1 free stat.
Most casters in general just care about their main stat and their 3 saves.
If anything something like this, as long as it is available late enough, would increase build variety. Only builds that try to use 5 stats would care about something like this, and honestly, most builds like that are pretty bad RN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see this as a mid-tier magic item that is limited in scope: only applying on mental saves for Will and something like poison for Fort. That is still more limited than Bulwark, but you could have archetype/class feats also fill the gap a bit.
If we believe the worst in other people's reasons for suggesting changes, we certainly won't go very far.
There's believing in the worst, and there is going outside the intended scope of the game. This falls more with the latter, not the former.
If Paizo disagrees with that sentiment by simply not having such options exist, either from the Core Rulebook, or from all these hardcover books they've released thus far, then it really doesn't matter if players suggest said changes or not; it's not like these can't be homebrew items for their table, and that's really all this needs to serve as for them to enjoy the game. If other players think it's a good idea to homebrew it, then good for them too. Doesn't mean it should be baseline, akin to Free Archetype.
After all, I highly doubt Paizo didn't take a look and think "Hmmmm, it would make sense to actually have Bulwark-like effects and items for Fortitude and Will saves too," and then either chose to scrap the idea for balance purposes (didn't feel Wisdom or Constitution were as important to shore up for balancing), or realized it wasn't sensible to implement these other two ideas. It's been about 4 years since PF2 was playtested, and it's been nearly 3 years since PF2's release; I'm certain that Paizo would have thought up of a means to implement these features by now if they were either A. important to the game's function or B. intended to be implemented at a later date with some other equipment to balance the stats out a bit more.
As it stands, neither of those cases are true. Short of a Paizo Dev coming in and saying something, that's all we're left to believe, and that's all I'm leaving it as.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If Paizo hasn't published it by now they never will" is a weird sentiment when publishing new content is the backbone of Paizo's business model.
"If Paizo hasn't published it by now they never will" is a weird sentiment when publishing new content is the backbone of Paizo's business model.
Here we go with the one-liner strawmen again.
If Paizo doesn't feel that the system needs these options, then they won't publish anything about it. It really is that simple. And for people that feel the system does need it, they can homebrew the content for themselves, the Rulebook already gives them the ability to do this. And nobody else besides those people will care that they did this. Paizo won't barge into your home telling you that you're playing the game wrong, or take notes and add it to the game at a later date, especially if they don't feel the game needs it.
The ideal that it's somehow part of their "business model" when they haven't made any option identical to Bulwark post-Core Rulebook is both atypical as well as unprecedented. Last I checked, their "business model" refers to publishing books at regular intervals containing things like Lost Omens, Expanded Rulebooks, and Adventure Paths. None of those currently published contain anything remotely hinting at a Bulwark-like option.
To call my pointing that out a "weird sentiment" means you either have information the general public doesn't about something like this being in the works or having already been discussed by Paizo as a possibility, or are spouting things in an attempt to stick them to a wall without any actual basis behind it.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo did publish the shadow signet in a later book. Seems pretty obvious that they are open to learning and evolving. Maybe they just had not thought of this specific point earlier or they believed that people did not really care since there was no thread about it.
In both cases, this thread has great merit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo did publish the shadow signet in a later book. Seems pretty obvious that they are open to learning and evolving. Maybe they just had not thought of this specific point earlier or they believed that people did not really care since there was no thread about it.
In both cases, this thread has great merit.
I still remember all the doom-posting claiming that Shadow Signet would destroy the balance of the game.
Getting the same kind of vibes around here.
Coming at it from both sides.
-First, Paizo/PF2 has a lot of support for shoring up weaknesses. It's difficult to increase a strong ability, but to get a feeble ability to functional takes little investment. Such a cloak would fit that paradigm.
-It may have taken until seeing the expanded class list to notice that yeah, there are some super-MAD builds that don't mesh well with heavy armor + Sentinel and don't get an advantage equivalent to the disadvantage of a sub-par save.
-Also, it's an iconic magic item. It would not surprise nor vex me to see such an item, especially if said item only worked on one's lowest proficiency (much like Rings of Resistance in Starfinder IIRC).
On the other hand, Paizo might think it's job is done re: bolstering lower saves. The stat progression is very generous compared to PF2's predecessors, and saves have to be a major factor with that (as well as making MAD or even non-SAD builds attractive and/or viable). They also might be factoring in things like how Charisma has aids one's combat viability via Demoralize (which also aids one's saves by debuffing the enemy's DC).
-Also Apex items. One can get a +8 or even +10 bonus in one's weak stat. Sure it costs elsewhere, but that's an enormous increase. Only problem is this is late game only.
-Str & Dex + their interactions with armor have an obvious give and take, AC being so central to builds. Bulwark IMO interacts with that, making Str a viable choice in that dichotomy (while still capping at +3). I don't think referencing Bulwark works on behalf of the Cloak.
-Would it become a must-have? I'd dislike anything so attractive that it becomes required, even if only for a subset of builds (which would otherwise be unrelated and aren't tied by flavor, only mechanics like this seems to be).
-Ooh, that's another thing. It lacks the basic premise of (most) magic items in doing something cool. (Easily overcome by adding an ability, but something to factor in.)
-MCDs also help cover this gap, especially Monk (which a MAD character w/o heavy armor/low Dex likely qualifies for). Yeah, it uses one's archetype, but shouldn't there be some sort of cost for this bonus?
I guess that last question resonates with me most. What's the cost here?
The PC would be effectively be getting stat points to spend elsewhere, and that's pretty valuable. (Or one could consider the bonus as half-stats, granting only half the value of the low stat itself.)
Oh, and I'm of the mind that by only taking one's primary stat above 18, it's not that difficult to get five stats to 18, quite MAD, but doable.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it odd to dismiss the comparison with Bulwark and then give counter-arguments that would apply just as well to oppose Bulwark.
In other words, if you are ok with Bulwark, why would you not be ok with this ?
I now wonder if people who oppose this would have also opposed Bulwark with the same zeal if it had not been a Core element.
Paizo did publish the shadow signet in a later book. Seems pretty obvious that they are open to learning and evolving. Maybe they just had not thought of this specific point earlier or they believed that people did not really care since there was no thread about it.
In both cases, this thread has great merit.
The Shadow Signet is meant for Spellcasters to be able to take more advantage of Spell Attack Rolls for enemies with weaker saves. While unique in its approach (which potentially lends itself to a nigh "must have" item for offensive spellcasters, a bad thing to consider when this game wanted to do away with the "Big 6" expectation), it's not the same as shoring up a weakness that is purposefully neglected by not boosting the relevant stat or taking Canny Acumen for it.
Free Archetype is considered a great way to play the game, and is something people want as baseline for playing the game. Paizo disagrees with that by having it be an optional rule instead. The point is that Paizo may feel that the system is accommodated to have Bulwark, but not, say, Fearless or Fortuitous, for example. And if Paizo feels that way, then the entitlement that they have to take your suggestions and implement them into the game is childish and absurd when homebrew and houserules already accommodate this for you.
I find it odd to dismiss the comparison with Bulwark and then give counter-arguments that would apply just as well to oppose Bulwark.
In other words, if you are ok with Bulwark, why would you not be ok with this ?
I now wonder if people who oppose this would have also opposed Bulwark with the same zeal if it had not been a Core element.
Bulwark makes sense because it's rooted in mundane equipment and requires specific character investment for it to function. It's not for everyone. These new options aren't presented with similar limitations or with the same approach as Bulwark was. The fact they came up with this from Core, and the other two weren't, means those effects are far less likely to be published, even at a later date.
This is like asking why Spellcasters don't get Potency Runes for their Spell Attacks or Save DCs, but Martials get Potency Runes for their Weapon Attacks and Damage Dice; because Paizo didn't feel the balance needed those options implemented. Even when everyone clamored for that expectation from Secrets of Magic, Paizo turned around and "NOPE"'d that notion right out of the atmosphere.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, why are we pretending that an item that costs money does not have an opportunity cost? You can make the item give a +1 at level 10-ish, +2 at level 15-ish and +3 near 20. Fitting an item that scales in your character economy IS a steep cost.
Also, who cares something like this does not fit a mundane item? These effects do not have to work like Bulwark at all.
Why do people keep saying bulwark had a steep cost? Two classes get it by default.
It is also attached to the best armor in the game. Even if you don’t care about Bulwark, heavy armor is great. Not like you are sacrificing to use it. 1ac for 5 speed is a great trade, particularly later on when you can amp your speed up high enough that 5speed is a minimal difference.
Heck, I homebrew a medium armor with Bulwark just to keep heavy from being such an absolute must have.
It is a steep cost, especially if you don't get it baseline.
If you are a light-armored class, you need to invest a Dedication feat for it, which might not be feasible if you aren't running Free Archetype, or if you do have ideals for a different Archetype choice, that's now in competition of it, meaning you have to either delay Sentinel or delay your other desired dedication(s). Good luck if you don't run Free Archetype and/or have other important uses for your feat slots. If you're an unarmored class, you also need to sink a General feat on top of said Dedication, and those classes are the ones most likely to just simply keep their Dexterity high enough anyway. Just as well, if some genius thinks "Oh, I'll just take the Armor proficiency feat for it," the problem is that the scale is garbage. You need to take it multiple times if you are light-armored, and it never scales past Trained. It's really only there so if you are unarmored, you can take it and still qualify for Sentinel benefits, which don't kick in until way later in the game.
Heavy Armor for the +1 AC is nice. You know what's a better defense, though? Being skilled and prepared enough to not require that +1 AC to begin with. This is the place on the battlefield where most spellcasters are, and should strive to be. Having seen a "martial" spellcaster in action with this very thing, it wasn't very effective, and it really only drug them down. It was a cool flavor thing, but I didn't particularly care for it from a mechanical standpoint, because it was really that subpar at the time.
Just curious, why are we pretending that an item that costs money does not have an opportunity cost? You can make the item give a +1 at level 10-ish, +2 at level 15-ish and +3 near 20. Fitting an item that scales in your character economy IS a steep cost.
Also, who cares something like this does not fit a mundane item? These effects do not have to work like Bulwark at all.
Gold certainly is an opportunity cost, not unlike invested items. The problem is that Bulwark doesn't have the same sort of opportunity cost that these proposals do. If so, why should these hypothetical items have that opportunity cost if they're meant to just be the equivalent of Bulwark, but for Fortitude and Will saves, of which Bulwark doesn't have a steep gold or investment opportunity cost?
You do see what you're typing out, right? "We want Bulwark-like options for Fortitude and Will saves, but they don't have to function like Bulwark." Then how are they supposed to function if they don't mimic Bulwark? And if so, people are still going to argue why Fearless and Fortuitous doesn't have the same opportunity/gold costs as Bulwark, when they're just the same effects but for different saves.
Bulwark isn't free. It requires Heavy Armor proficiency, which ONLY two classes have natively OR using a class feat for an archetype, meaning you don't have access to any other archetypes until level 8.
Also while heavy armor gives you a +1 to AC v. medium, it also forces you to invest at least 18 in your Strength, meaning that those points aren't going elsewhere. Also means only PC classes with Strength as a key ability can use it before 5th level.
Finally, even with maxed Strength you still have a -5 to your speed. Meaning to keep up with everyone else, you have to spend one of your very few general feats on Fleet or something similar.
Again Bulwark has a ton of opportunity costs for just +1 AC. . It's a lot easier to go with a shield, for a +2. No investment needed.
What OP is suggesting is an item that does everything that Bulwark does, but at no cost. Also it only applies against damaging effect reflex saves which is not all reflex saves. You can still be tripped, spells like grease or whirlwind that knock you prone.
I am trying to think of a way to give Fort or Wis Bulwarks similar drawbacks, but I am struggling to find one.
Con and Wis don't have a similar trade-off attribute like Str and Dex do.
It should have a -5 to speed, it has to require at least an 18 in another stat. It has to be gated behind a rare proficiency or an archetype. And it can only work for a subset of the types of affects associated with that save.
Only with all the above does the OP's cloak of resistance have the same value as Bulwark.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am trying to think of a way to give Fort or Wis Bulwarks similar drawbacks, but I am struggling to find one.
Con and Wis don't have a similar trade-off attribute like Str and Dex do.
It should have a -5 to speed, it has to require at least an 18 in another stat. It has to be gated behind a rare proficiency or an archetype. And it can only work for a subset of the types of affects associated with that save.
Only with all the above does the OP's cloak of resistance have the same value as Bulwark.
Yep. But it also needs to respectively max your Perception or hit points per level and even give you more than what an 18 in the appropriate stat gives.
The main advantage of Heavy Armor is not Bulwark: It's max AC without Dex investment and even +1 above what others have. I'm pretty sure if you remove Bulwark from Full Plate people will continue to use it. But if you give Full Plate the same AC bonus than a Chainmail, no one will use it anymore.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do see what you're typing out, right? "We want Bulwark-like options for Fortitude and Will saves, but they don't have to function like Bulwark." Then how are they supposed to function if they don't mimic Bulwark? And if so, people are still going to argue why Fearless and Fortuitous doesn't have the same opportunity/gold costs as Bulwark, when they're just the same effects but for different saves.
I do not want a "Bulwark-like option", I want a solution to a problem. What shape it takes is of no importance to me. As mentioned before, Shadow Signet was a solution to attack roll spells sucking that do not look like spell attack runes. What I proposed had nothing to do with Bulwark. It seems you are the one not reading what others are typing.
You do see what you're typing out, right? "We want Bulwark-like options for Fortitude and Will saves, but they don't have to function like Bulwark." Then how are they supposed to function if they don't mimic Bulwark? And if so, people are still going to argue why Fearless and Fortuitous doesn't have the same opportunity/gold costs as Bulwark, when they're just the same effects but for different saves.I do not want a "Bulwark-like option", I want a solution to a problem. What shape it takes is of no importance to me. As mentioned before, Shadow Signet was a solution to attack roll spells sucking that do not look like spell attack runes. What I proposed had nothing to do with Bulwark. It seems you are the one not reading what others are typing.
You see it as a problem. I don't. And based on nothing being published about it for nearly 3 years, Paizo either doesn't view it as a problem as well, or can't find a way to balance those options out (as even we are struggling to do so without completely revamping what they do). Even despite Paizo's stance on the matter, that's the trade-off of investing in different resources. Want to be good at Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc.? Gotta give up a saving throw or your main attribute for it. As for the Shadow Signet trying to make Spell Attack Rolls not sucking, there are times where using it is actually worse off than it is more helpful, especially with enemies that have bonuses to Saves versus Magical Effects, and/or have a Fortitude or Reflex DC that is either equal or superior to their AC (as a result of said bonuses). It requires either extensive player knowledge (AKA meta gaming) to get the full use out of it, going up against specific enemies, or helpful Recall Knowledge checks (or similar abilities) to make proper use of it. Which, if your table either has poor Recall Knowledge rules, or doesn't let you meta game (as they probably shouldn't), then it's not the bee's knees. Even with favorable conditions, it still requires investment outside of the item's part to make it a valuable asset.
But I suppose if you aren't wanting a Bulwark-like option, then I at least apologize for strawmanning what you want with what others were wanting or proposing instead.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't mean to be insulting about this so please don't take it as that but... frankly, you had 25 years in the limelight to munchkin min/max your way to faceroll victories and PF2 finally came along and made a mainstream game where that is not allowed and in fact discourages, that's a feature of the system and not a bug.
I see this in the same category as people who view being unable to add Dex to damage rolls when they aren't the appropriate type of Rogue who want to appeal for a Feat, Magic Item, or some other Boon to allow it. They want it for a mechanical advantage to make up for their intentional and purposeful decisions to ignore stats in favor of getting a slight edge in something they are already specialized in doing.
You don't need it, if you are overspecialized there are supposed to be consequences you can't just buy away.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't mean to be insulting about this so please don't take it as that but... frankly, you had 25 years in the limelight to munchkin min/max your way to faceroll victories and PF2 finally came along and made a mainstream game where that is not allowed and in fact discourages, that's a feature of the system and not a bug.
I see this in the same category as people who view being unable to add Dex to damage rolls when they aren't the appropriate type of Rogue who want to appeal for a Feat, Magic Item, or some other Boon to allow it. They want it for a mechanical advantage to make up for their intentional and purposeful decisions to ignore stats in favor of getting a slight edge in something they are already specialized in doing.
You don't need it, if you are overspecialized there are supposed to be consequences you can't just buy away.
Doesn't this reasoning apply to Bulwark just as well ?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't mean to be insulting about this so please don't take it as that but... frankly, you had 25 years in the limelight to munchkin min/max your way to faceroll victories and PF2 finally came along and made a mainstream game where that is not allowed and in fact discourages, that's a feature of the system and not a bug.
I see this in the same category as people who view being unable to add Dex to damage rolls when they aren't the appropriate type of Rogue who want to appeal for a Feat, Magic Item, or some other Boon to allow it. They want it for a mechanical advantage to make up for their intentional and purposeful decisions to ignore stats in favor of getting a slight edge in something they are already specialized in doing.
You don't need it, if you are overspecialized there are supposed to be consequences you can't just buy away.
Or you just specialize in "the right things". The things the game already lets you specialize with virtually no downsides. Full plate Fighter? Go Str/Cha/Con/Wis and have amazing damage, good defenses and saves, great utility and great social skills. Is that how balance is supposed to look like? To me this sounds way more unbalanced than other builds also having ways to shore up their downsides.
Sometimes it seems like people are completely unable to assimilate the fact that others might not think the current balance of the game is perfect. No, they have to want to break things, it can't possibly be anything else.
If I got a penny every time I got told I want things to go back to how they were in 1e, despite never having played 1e and hating 3.5 with my guts for how much of an unbalanced mess it is, I would be rich by now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you just specialize in "the right things". The things the game already lets you specialize with virtually no downsides. Full plate Fighter? Go Str/Cha/Con/Wis and have amazing damage, good defenses and saves, great utility and great social skills. Is that how balance is supposed to look like? To me this sounds way more unbalanced than other builds also having ways to shore up their downsides.
Sometimes it seems like people are completely unable to assimilate the fact that others might not think the current balance of the game is perfect. No, they have to want to break things, it can't possibly be anything else.
If I got a penny every time I got told I want things to go back to how they were in 1e, despite never having played 1e and hating 3.5 with my guts for how much of an unbalanced mess it is, I would be rich by now.
Yeah, same here. Why does there need to be personal attacks so frequently on these boards.
And on top of that completely missing the point as this whole discussion is about making non functional builds functional, optimized builds will not use it as they already maximize their save stats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And on top of that completely missing the point as this whole discussion is about making non functional builds functional, optimized builds will not use it as they already maximize their save stats.
You might honestly see it that way but many of us don't.
It doesn't help that the example you chose (a dragon monk) is already pretty optimized and the end result of the suggested change is to make that dragon monk signficantly more powerful.
I can (and have) given you several ways to build a functional monk with high charisma. Functional, not completely optimal. Which makes me think that you have a blind spot with your motives. This does NOT seem to be about making a non functional build functional.
If I've missed an example of where this is necessary to make a non functional build functional (NOT optimal, functional) I apologize. Please post it again. But a Dragon Monk isn't that example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I've missed an example of where this is necessary to make a non functional build functional (NOT optimal, functional) I apologize. Please post it again. But a Dragon Monk isn't that example.
What the heck does functional even mean, though? In an easy enough game even the worst of builds can be considered functional. I think trying to set a baseline of "good enough" and throwing things against that line is kind of fruitless because no one will agree on what that even means. Unless you're talking inside the context of one specific table, you can only compare options relatively and with other options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't think the items are necessarily needed, I wouldn't be opposed to them existing. To be honest instead of an item, I feel like I would have preferred the will "issue" to be solved by the option of wisdom or charisma to be connected to Will. But that has set sell already, so maybe an item that allows the switch or what Bidi suggests could work.( I am currently playing a level 9 fighter with only 12 con)
I am someone who likes to see these flaws and allow for other players to shine when I fail. A failed dominate save, gives my teammate who picked dispel magic as a signature spell(or prepared it that day) a chance to save me and also opens up exciting rp potential. BUT I know not everyone plays like me, as long as the item isn't so good that its mandatory,and there is enough fluff around it, I don't see why it can't exist. I don't think the power would creep all too much.