I suggest that there be made some consistency to items that temporarily grant special material and rune effects to weapons and ammunition.
Cold Iron Blanch: 10 gp for 1 min of cold iron (level 3) [cold iron weapon is lvl 2]
Silversheen: 6gp for 1 hour of silver (level 2) [silver weapon is level 2]
Ghostbane Fulu: 40gp for 1 min of ghost touch (level 6) [ghost touch rune is lvl 4]
Disrupting Oil: 10gp for 1 min of disrupting (level 3) [disrupting rune is level 5]
No consistency in price to level of mimicking effect ratio, no consistency in duration, no consistency in level of item to level of mimicking effect ratio, no consistency in type of magic item. Further inconsistencies: the fulu only effects one target, the first two call out how it works with ammunition, the second two do not leaving it up to the players whether or not these work with them or don't like their mimicking runes do not.
I propose some consistency in the remaster.
Alchemical Oils that mimic the effect of special materials. Magical Talismans that mimic the effect of runes.
Both last ten minutes, cost X% of the rune/material, level is X% of the rune/material, and ranged weapons apply it to their ammo.
I don't care much on how good you think my example is, all of the above is meant to convey this:
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not gonna lie, I was expecting a completely different topic than this; nice bait title, 7/10.
That being said, I do agree that there should be more consistency with item prices, durations, levels, etc. And this extends to all consumables as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Timing needs a bit of work though. GM Core and Player Core are both printed already.
Not seeing the bait, however... OP had a suggestion to be included in the game. Unfortunate timing notwithstanding, there's nothing controversial about that phrasing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not seeing the bait, however... OP had a suggestion to be included in the game. Unfortunate timing notwithstanding, there's nothing controversial about that phrasing.
It’s the capitalised “Inclusion” that Darksol is alluding to. To, you know, make Pathfinder more…inclusive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word 'inclusion' has in recent years taken on a lot of connotation regarding civil rights.
Given the post, I would conclude that the title was not intended with that meaning.
Hmm, I suppose I was taking for granted that Inclusion was distinct enough from Onclusivity not to cause any cross confusion. It's a part of a title so the caps mean nothing, but on the other hand I've seen folks jump at paler ghosts than the spectre of inclisivity so I shouldn't be surprised. Only disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There really is no harm or foul here. The construction of the sentence is a little non-traditional for English and ending on inclusion that way is what created the confusion. The object of the sentence is actually the remastery, as the suggestion is the subject and include is verb. “A suggestion to include in the remastery,” or even “a remastery inclusion suggestion” probably would have caused less confusion, but I think everyone figured it out after reading the post anyway. It was just as a stand alone heading that it sounded more like inclusion was a noun that was the subject or object of the sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I suppose I was taking for granted that Inclusion was distinct enough from Onclusivity not to cause any cross confusion. It's a part of a title so the caps mean nothing, but on the other hand I've seen folks jump at paler ghosts than the spectre of inclisivity so I shouldn't be surprised. Only disappointed.
I’ll admit to thinking this was about inclusivity by the capitalisation of “Inclusion”. Titles might need caps, but thread titles don’t in my opinion. Once I read the original post it was clear to me that this was about a hoped for inclusion in the already printed Remaster Core books, not a call to make Pathfinder 2R more inclusive.
Paizo are already doing a pretty good job, but there is always room for more folx.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ll admit to thinking this was about inclusivity by the capitalisation of “Inclusion”.
I'll also be honest and admit that I didn't read it with that meaning until Darksol mentioned it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose some consistency in the remaster.
Alchemical Oils that mimic the effect of special materials. Magical Talismans that mimic the effect of runes.
Both last ten minutes, cost X% of the rune/material, level is X% of the rune/material, and ranged weapons apply it to their ammo.
That's problematic to change that. These items are already out, so creating a new item that does the same thing but with more consistency will just render one useless (preferably the old one as the goal is improvement, but it may also be the new one which may end up worse than the old one and as such you solved nothing). And changing the old items through an errata, especially when you change the price and/or the effect, may raise discontent (or worse, players buying the old item in batches in PFS to sell them when the errata breaks out for a net gain if the new item is significantly more expensive than the old one).
Overall, I don't see that happen. But it's a nice suggestion for PF3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've speculated for years that if Silversheen were released now, it would work like Cold Iron Blanch. I suppose it's possible they'll change it in the Remaster.