| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to say what the biggest flaw in this system is it would be how hard it is to justify using a specific magic weapon over just a regular weapon with some scribbles on it. Finding that one magical item should be a able to be major turning point for a character, sadly it is hard to do that narratively when you know as a player that you will be better off using other weapon later on.
Some magic items in general suffer from this due to fixed DCs, but weapons have it worse in general due to sometimes having fixed DCs as well and having on top the property rune limitation.
I hope Treasure Vault lets us pick that one weapon our characters really feel strong about and keep it relevant until level 20. Expanding property rune slots and having scaling DCs as an optional rule shouldn't be that hard to implement.
If my rogue gets a Gloomblade from a fallen friend or a mortal foe, I want to be able to keep using that weapon without feeling like I'm gimping myself.
IMO many special weapons have abilities that outstrip standard property runes, and many don't. How might one balance this? How many property runes does a Dwarven Thrower's abilities approximately equal? Or Holy Avenger's?
You say "finding that one magical item should be a (sic) able to be major turning point for a character" and I think it already is able to be such a moment. Increasing one's fundamental runes is enough IMO to keep a weapon competitive, assuming the special ability on that weapon also aids the PC.
I agree about DCs lagging fast (with other magic items too). But they are kinda set by the price of the item, regardless of the PC's abilities, so I'm not sure what might alleviate that (assuming Paizo won't retroactively make significant changes which I'd dislike more). Maybe a General Feat that does tie item DCs to a PC's DCs? That sounds viable, yet I suspect it'd unlock a host of shenanigans. We should factor in cheap items that might get too powerful if their DCs could be increased (depending on the cost of that, of course, but that's some hard mechanics to balance compared to set DCs). Locking it into one item (as you've suggested) would likely alleviate the bigger flaw of spamming cheap item usage.
Hmm...I could see a few General Feats tied to item use, or perhaps Skill Feats if tied to magic traditions, but I'm ambivalent about getting any. Maybe there will be generic ways to pour money ("magic ingredients") into items to increase an item's level and hence increase DCs to correspond. That seems sorta low risk, high reward in terms of power creep (and if kept Uncommon). Yet it's also a straight number increase, rather than "cool", so might not fit in w/ PF2's principles. Hmm.
I don't think there's a problem with just letting people upgrade the fundamental runes on specific magic items, since ABP effectively already allows you to do this.
The question then becomes one about adding property runes to specific magic items, since either the special ability occupies a property rune slot *or* everybody's always going to want to hunt for a specific version of whatever item since they can get their preferred set of property runes on top of it.
It will require some level of agreement/coordination/negotiation between the GM and the player, as well as an acceptance of limitations on what "upgrades" are available, but Relics could be a decent framework for a "specific" magic weapon. When the character reaches the appropriate level, they can "purchase" a new Relic ability (as if adding a property rune or special ability) of the player's choice instead of having the abilities set by the GM when the item introduced.
IMO many special weapons have abilities that outstrip standard property runes, and many don't. How might one balance this? How many property runes does a Dwarven Thrower's abilities approximately equal? Or Holy Avenger's?
You say "finding that one magical item should be a (sic) able to be major turning point for a character" and I think it already is able to be such a moment. Increasing one's fundamental runes is enough IMO to keep a weapon competitive, assuming the special ability on that weapon also aids the PC.
I agree about DCs lagging fast (with other magic items too). But they are kinda set by the price of the item, regardless of the PC's abilities, so I'm not sure what might alleviate that (assuming Paizo won't retroactively make significant changes which I'd dislike more). Maybe a General Feat that does tie item DCs to a PC's DCs? That sounds viable, yet I suspect it'd unlock a host of shenanigans. We should factor in cheap items that might get too powerful if their DCs could be increased (depending on the cost of that, of course, but that's some hard mechanics to balance compared to set DCs). Locking it into one item (as you've suggested) would likely alleviate the bigger flaw of spamming cheap item usage.
Hmm...I could see a few General Feats tied to item use, or perhaps Skill Feats if tied to magic traditions, but I'm ambivalent about getting any. Maybe there will be generic ways to pour money ("magic ingredients") into items to increase an item's level and hence increase DCs to correspond. That seems sorta low risk, high reward in terms of power creep (and if kept Uncommon). Yet it's also a straight number increase, rather than "cool", so might not fit in w/ PF2's principles. Hmm.
It appears Paizo addressed the DC scaling by making it a late-game Thaumaturge class feat. I mean, it's better than nothing, but most DCs will scale at some non-optimal manner, meaning the class feat doesn't do much to begin with except to make lower level items less useless. (It doesn't really affect at-level or above items, since those have equal or higher DCs.) And considering Thaumaturge will probably not have +7 Charisma with Legendary Class DC by 20th level, it won't be much of an improvement, if any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a problem with just letting people upgrade the fundamental runes on specific magic items, since ABP effectively already allows you to do this.
The question then becomes one about adding property runes to specific magic items, since either the special ability occupies a property rune slot *or* everybody's always going to want to hunt for a specific version of whatever item since they can get their preferred set of property runes on top of it.
You already can improve fundamental runes.
You can't:-Remove runes of either type.
-Add property runes.
You're not the first to read it the rules as disallowing both for both.
IMO many special weapons have abilities that outstrip standard property runes, and many don't. How might one balance this? How many property runes does a Dwarven Thrower's abilities approximately equal? Or Holy Avenger's?
Since something like this would probably be a 100% optional, GM dependent thing, I think it would be OK to let the GM decide which weapon deserves what. I see magic weapons in 4 possible groups: Its ability is better than a rune slot, its ability is worth a rune slot, it's ability is almost worth a rune slot and it's ability is not worth a rune slot. In the first group I would put something like the Holy Avenger and it could have a progression up to 2 property runes total with a level delay compared to a normal weapon (level 19-20 for a Holy Avenger second rune, for example). In the second I would put things like The Retribution Axe, with its ability tsking up 1 property rune space. I would put things like the Gloomblade or the Bloodletting Kukri in the 3rd category and I think giving them 3 runes max at a delayed progression seems fine. Finally, things like the Twinning Staff should not have any property rune penalty at all.
If something that allowed this costed money as well I don't see the issue, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO many special weapons have abilities that outstrip standard property runes, and many don't. How might one balance this? How many property runes does a Dwarven Thrower's abilities approximately equal? Or Holy Avenger's?Since something like this would probably be a 100% optional, GM dependent thing, I think it would be OK to let the GM decide which weapon deserves what. I see magic weapons in 4 possible groups: Its ability is better than a rune slot, its ability is worth a rune slot, it's ability is almost worth a rune slot and it's ability is not worth a rune slot. In the first group I would put something like the Holy Avenger and it could have a progression up to 2 property runes total with a level delay compared to a normal weapon (level 19-20 for a Holy Avenger second rune, for example). In the second I would put things like The Retribution Axe, with its ability tsking up 1 property rune space. I would put things like the Gloomblade or the Bloodletting Kukri in the 3rd category and I think giving them 3 runes max at a delayed progression seems fine. Finally, things like the Twinning Staff should not have any property rune penalty at all.
If something that allowed this costed money as well I don't see the issue, really.
I'm not sure why they'd bother adding rules for it if it will ultimately just be left up the GM to make balance choices like this. GMs who want to allow this can just homebrew solutions.
Also, relics.
A believe Micheal Sayre talked about a homebrew method of equivalent gold costs for upgrading set dc items to current PC lvl. A codified subsystem for that in treasure vault would be nice.
A believe Micheal Sayre talked about a homebrew method of equivalent gold costs for upgrading set dc items to current PC lvl. A codified subsystem for that in treasure vault would be nice.
Honestly it is pretty simple since the GMG has the 2-3 charts you would need. (Gold, atk bonus, save dc)
A believe Micheal Sayre talked about a homebrew method of equivalent gold costs for upgrading set dc items to current PC lvl. A codified subsystem for that in treasure vault would be nice.Honestly it is pretty simple since the GMG has the 2-3 charts you would need. (Gold, atk bonus, save dc)
Wait. What? It does?
How did I not know about that!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, wait, so by raw it isn't possible to upgrade specific items?
Incorrect.
You can upgrade the special materials it's made of* and its fundamental runes. ASAIK the only aspect you can't upgrade is its property runes.You also cannot remove fundamental runes so be wary that if you upgrade them, you can't transfer them later!
*Some, like the Holy Avenger, are called out as being made of a specific material, so I wouldn't be certain altering that's allowed. Similarly I'd assume Rhine Hide has to be made out of...ya' know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO many special weapons have abilities that outstrip standard property runes, and many don't. How might one balance this? How many property runes does a Dwarven Thrower's abilities approximately equal? Or Holy Avenger's?Since something like this would probably be a 100% optional, GM dependent thing, I think it would be OK to let the GM decide which weapon deserves what. I see magic weapons in 4 possible groups: Its ability is better than a rune slot, its ability is worth a rune slot, it's ability is almost worth a rune slot and it's ability is not worth a rune slot. In the first group I would put something like the Holy Avenger and it could have a progression up to 2 property runes total with a level delay compared to a normal weapon (level 19-20 for a Holy Avenger second rune, for example). In the second I would put things like The Retribution Axe, with its ability tsking up 1 property rune space. I would put things like the Gloomblade or the Bloodletting Kukri in the 3rd category and I think giving them 3 runes max at a delayed progression seems fine. Finally, things like the Twinning Staff should not have any property rune penalty at all.
If something that allowed this costed money as well I don't see the issue, really.
I'm not sure why they'd bother adding rules for it if it will ultimately just be left up the GM to make balance choices like this. GMs who want to allow this can just homebrew solutions.
Also, relics.
I believe most people, myself included, are not comfortable fully homebrewing stuff into their game if they are something that can end up having a big impact, like a weapon. I just think some guidelines for that would be a great addition to the game. I'm just a user, not a dev. My "job" is to find things I think are a problem, not finding a good solution. That my solution is bad does not mean this is not a problem.
Also, relics are heavily umbalanced, don't feel unique because they progress all in the same way and you need to give them to all players if you don't want to buff one in detriment of the others.
How on Golarion do you alter the fundamental construction material?
Wouldn't that be akin to cannibalizing the item for the formula, and then creating a whole new item with the new material?
I've not seen any rule indicating that you can swap materials.
You can't swap materials, but you can improve the grade of precious material weapons and armour so that they can accept higher level runes.
Can you show me that rule please?
Crafting with Precious Materials
After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material.Given the different grades determine the level of rune you can put on them, this is kind of mandatory.
Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.
Thank you! :D
Automatic Bonus Progression might be what you're looking for.
Automatic Bonus Progression might be what you're looking for.
ABP still leaves the problem of "I want to put a flaming rune on my holy avenger".
Be a Blade Ally Champion.
Well, the point stands if you want your magic cold iron longsword to have holy, flaming, and ghost touch. You can have that on a normal +3 longsword (+2 with blade ally) but you can't have that on a Holy Avenger.
The bugaboo with specific magic weapons is less fundamental runes and more property runes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be a Blade Ally Champion.Well, the point stands if you want your magic cold iron longsword to have holy, flaming, and ghost touch. You can have that on a normal +3 longsword (+2 with blade ally) but you can't have that on a Holy Avenger.
The bugaboo with specific magic weapons is less fundamental runes and more property runes.
This makes Specific Magic Weapons/Armor more powerful than non-Specific Magic Weapons/Armor if we made their other abilities stack with normal weaponry, and I don't think that's a power gap/creep that Paizo wants to indulge in.