| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a heads up, the actual scaling of DCs by level "skips" levels every so often.
So this formula to +1 for each gap level does help, but all item DCs would still fall behind. This could be seen as an issue, or a good thing to encourage upgrades (but that's often not possible).https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2627
It looks like these DCs are skipped:
17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37,
and last that should be player relevant is DC 41 being lost between levels 20 & 21.So exequiel759's mention of looking at the base item's "On level DC comparison" to then apply to the scaled level is the best for being accurate.
Basically, look at your item and compare to that chart. If it's +1 for it's base level, than it should always be +1 for its scaled level.
It falling behind is intentional, I mathed it out to ensure higher tier versions usually give a boost in accuracy at minimum.
A level 7 item has a ~35% chance to land against an at-level enemy at level 20. A level 17 item has a ~55% chance.
35% is a hail mary, 55% might be worth the actions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What seems pretty clear to me is that moving away from the static DC would require a massive readjustment of everything. I'm not sure if that's a practical option outside of an Edition change.
It's not, which is why I think it should be done as a feat. Thaumaturge already has one that does it, so we know it's doable.
But if you made a General Feat that let you activate an item using your class/spell DC instead of the item DC, that would let a lot of items remain relevant a LOT longer, even if the item effect doesn't scale at all.
That doesn't require changing anything existing, it's just adding an option. And I'd love to have more good general feat options so it's not "Fleet/Toughness/Robust Health/Canny Acumen" on the majority of characters.
I'm not sure a new feat would be a healthy way to implement this into pf2 as it is now.
That feat would be a "non-choice" where it's either an automatic must-pick that now takes away a slot from other feats, or it's 100% ignored.
IMO, that situation is *the* red flag signalling some ~bad / erroneous design concepts.
Basically, I don't think the opportunity cost of a PC's build options is the best place for the change.
(And yeah, this means I look at the Thaum feat and want to pull my hair out. Absolutely a terrible design choice to open pandora's box with that implementation, especially the 1 p day limit.)
It genuinely would be more annoying to me as a player as all my PCs are gp starved, but I do think the "spend the gp to upgrade the item level" version of increasing the DC is the best fit for pf2.
That method most aligns with the existing system, and essentially just increases the potential magic item pool in a way that all PCs can benefit from or ignore. Gold is a genuinely precious "build resource" in pf2, but one that right now can be maligned as often being too "pre-solved." Even the existing "just spend the gap in cost for the upgrade" rule greatly helps to make this version easy to run at a table.
This method also has no issues with the need to make frequency limitations, or invent other mechanics to reign in the power, or to increase the power to justify the feat slot.
KISS principle in action, just allow more expensive versions with a level and price to match.
Non-scaling factors like damage fall behind by default, but the GM could always tweak-up any numbers they see fit.
I’ve been thinking about the idea of allowing players to override an item’s DC with a level-based or class-based DC, and my first impression is that it’s generally a bad idea. Item creation rules are already somewhat arbitrary, and DCs are a core part of an item’s balance. Presuming all items should have DC's consistently based solely on item level seems like a bad step.
Examples:
Frost Breath (GM Core): Its standard DC is three less than the normal DC by level. Simply scaling it to “level-based DC – 2” could make the item unexpectedly powerful when a character advances a level.
AP Items (Mindrender Baton, Drover’s Band): These may intentionally not be scalable. Drover’s Band has a target-level limitation and the incapacitation trait, suggests to me the DC was designed to be a hard DC for its maximum-level target which is 3rd. The Mindrender Baton isn’t even intended as a proper magic item, so scaling it with investment could break its intended role.
Conversely, some items have higher-than-normal DCs by design. For example, the Ring of the Ram is roughly +2 DC above its expected level, implying it should be a hard DC. Automatically scaling DCs based on wielder level would undermine these intended effects.
A Potential Approach:
Rather than automatic level-based scaling, I prefer limited scaling tied to Investment and item level:
Modest natural scaling: Items could scale only 1–2 levels relative to the difference between the wielder’s level and the item’s base level. This could occur if the item is assigned as “invested” in the character’s morning preparations, even if it normally doesn’t require investment.
Further scaling via GP investment: Beyond 1–2 levels, scaling would require gold investment as well, again still capped by the difference between the wielder’s level and the item’s level. My recommendation, it could cost roughly half the difference between the base price of a permanent (or consumable) item of the original level.
Tier limits: If a higher-tier version of the item exists, this boost can only reach the level immediately below the next tier. Reaching a new tier would still require a full upgrade, although prior GP investment would count toward the cost of that upgrade.
This preserves design intent—hard DCs remain hard, easy DCs remain easy—while allowing low-level players to make newly found items functional without breaking balance. It also encourages strategic investment: hold onto lower-level items, gradually grow them, or upgrade to higher-tier items when available.
Exceptions & Considerations:
Some items, like Drover’s Band, should remain fixed to their intended target levels, as scaling could create unbalanced scenarios. Items that explicitly call out maximum target levels, for instance may fall into this.
Items with DCs far outside the normal range (±2) could be flagged as potentially “non-scalable,” be recommended to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the GM.
Consumables most specifically scrolls are unaffected, as they already scale with caster level.
Lore justification:
One could say a higher-level wielder could purchase costly oils and other materials to better care for an item. By investing time and attention into the item, the item gradually empowers itself, making future magical upgrades easier. This adds flavor while maintaining balance.
If one did the above, would it be reasonable to make the limit of (just daily Investment) allow boosting One (or should it be Two) levels worth of boost? Does the cost base being 1/2 the cost of the difference between items of the given levels seem appropriate cost for the natural upgrade cost for going past the first or second level boost? Or should it cost more/less than that?
Honestly, I think one of the potential weakest points on this idea is the question about how this would affect consumables such as poisons, as I haven't interacted with them nearly as much. Does scaling them make them too powerful, does requiring the investment usage limit the doses too much? Would/Should one investment cover 4 identical doses of consumables such as poisons, similar to crafting rules, or is that too powerful?
While obviously such changes/recommendations would have been something that could have more easily be implemented in Remaster, it seems like with some considerations, it isn't that impossible to put forward a set of generally viable guidelines. They could be adopted officially, or put forward as a set of optional rules, such as the ABP for Free Archetype rules, helping people hone into a more enjoyable play style. Admittedly it might be hard to find the right 'book' to include such an updated rules/option in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all my opinion.
Item DCs (and spell attack modifiers if targeting AC) are fine. If players want magic items that provide scaling DCs and/or spell attack modifiers on produced effects, that's what staves and wands are for.
Trying to use "fiddly trinkets" (items that are a few levels below the character level; essentially, inexpensive relative to the character's current wealth) to gain a similar benefit as the caster classes or those that invested in an archetype to gain casting is not balanced. It's an attempt to "exploit" the PF2e system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all my opinion.
Item DCs (and spell attack modifiers if targeting AC) are fine. If players want magic items that provide scaling DCs and/or spell attack modifiers on produced effects, that's what staves and wands are for.
Trying to use "fiddly trinkets" (items that are a few levels below the character level; essentially, inexpensive relative to the character's current wealth) to gain a similar benefit as the caster classes or those that invested in an archetype to gain casting is not balanced. It's an attempt to "exploit" the PF2e system.
"If you want items whose activate abilities stay relevant for more than 2 levels, play a caster" is not a satisfactory answer.
PF2 game balance will not be damaged if someone can use a Demon Mask past level 5 and have it's activate ability function.
It's very clearly not fine, otherwise this thread wouldn't be so long. There's a huge amount of items that go basically unused (or used only as passive bonuses) because the activate powers become useless so quickly that it's not worth bothering to learn what they do (or buy them if they don't provide a passive benefit).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd use the sparkblade from Troubles of Otari as a reference to make this argument. I'll avoid spoilers in case someone is playing the adventure.
The sparkblade you can get in the 1st chapter of Troubles of Otari is not the best weapon in the world, but because of the method that you acquire it it can potentially become a martial's main weapon for the rest of the campaign because it can have a ton of emotional value if the players invest into its story. The problem with the sparkblade is that it has a unique once per day action that allows its user to deal 2d4+4 damage to two foes which have to make a DC 19 Reflex save (it kinda works like electric arc). That's already kinda meh for 3rd level, but it becomes absolutely thrash at 5th level and above.
Yes, its still a shortsword so it will still be relevant since you can etch fundamental runes to it, but since I kinda think its likely for someone that gets this sword in Troubles of Otari to carry it on into Abomination Vaults I feel it kinda misses the point to restrict yourself from using property runes just to deal 2d4+4 on a DC 19. I know a sensible GM can fix that if a player wants to keep using the weapon (I did it) but I think the system should support this in some way.
"If you want items whose activate abilities stay relevant for more than 2 levels, play a caster" is not a satisfactory answer.This is all my opinion.
Item DCs (and spell attack modifiers if targeting AC) are fine. If players want magic items that provide scaling DCs and/or spell attack modifiers on produced effects, that's what staves and wands are for.
Trying to use "fiddly trinkets" (items that are a few levels below the character level; essentially, inexpensive relative to the character's current wealth) to gain a similar benefit as the caster classes or those that invested in an archetype to gain casting is not balanced. It's an attempt to "exploit" the PF2e system.
"Play a caster" or upgrade your gear.
Yes, there are some items that don't have higher level versions. However, there are often similar items that provide more powerful effects with similar themes.
Or use Relics.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also echo my previous "first pf2 experience" when we had our newbie collective discovery that the Ring of the Ram we had been using was not scaling the DC, and each later level use of it had been mathematically stupid to do.
It retroactively twisted what had been great vibes from that PC's signature magic item, and made us all feel like noob chumps for not noticing the static DC problem. We sure noticed that it didn't seem to work as often as it once had, though.
And yes, a system where your magic equipment becomes numerically worthless is just a bad unit of design.
Magical equipment is a part of characterization and role play.
One specific sub-cateogry, items with save DCs, being worthless over time while others scale just fine, is blatantly a chunk of poor design.
With martial classes in PF2e already being considered "more powerful" (at least, more reliable at damage against single targets and some other things) than casters, letting them get the benefits of scaling DCs/spell attack bonuses from (relatively) "cheap" items strikes me as just inverting the 3.x/PF1 problem (casters doing everything martials could do, sometimes better, plus even more on top of that).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly can't get behind your point. What would be so strong about an item having a scaling DC when the idea is to apply it to all items? It literally changes nothing since the already strong items are still going to be stronger, but the low level ones remain relevant (and not even all of them, because we are talking about scaling DCs not scaling damage since that one would be considerably harder to implement). If casters lagging behind one proficiency below on weapons when compared to regular martials doesn't make martials bad, I don't see how scaling DCs would break the whole game when lower level items would still have worse effects than higher level ones. Specially when magic items with DCs are laughably bad.
I also think is just wrong to assume "why play a caster if I can buy an item that can likely cast a spell once per day but its DC would scale like than a caster?" Ignoring the fact that a caster can do it more times per day and for free, their DCs are way better too. The average 6th level magic item DC is 20. A caster should have a spell DC of 22. The average 14th level magic item DC is 31. A caster should have a spell DC of 33. A caster is consistently ahead of magic items by in terms of both effects and DCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can even have "cast a spell" items just scale by (item level capped) spell DC instead, so no caster toes are stepped upon.
It's an actual joke that Spellhearts are >95% used for the cantrip and never upgraded for the spells. This static DC thing is very obviously affecting play in a bad way.
|
This is all my opinion.
Item DCs (and spell attack modifiers if targeting AC) are fine. If players want magic items that provide scaling DCs and/or spell attack modifiers on produced effects, that's what staves and wands are for.
Trying to use "fiddly trinkets" (items that are a few levels below the character level; essentially, inexpensive relative to the character's current wealth) to gain a similar benefit as the caster classes or those that invested in an archetype to gain casting is not balanced. It's an attempt to "exploit" the PF2e system.
Note that staves actually don't work all that well with this. At higher levels you're rarely gonna want to use low-rank blasts from a staff. The spell DC might scale up but if the damage doesn't scale up it's still not worth doing. Yeah, you can upgrade the staff to get higher rank effects, but the low rank effects become wasted word count on the staff.
Wands are a bit better. A rare few remain good at low level forever (rank 2 tailwind) but for most of them, the problem isn't the spell DC but again the spell rank. A wand with rank 1 Force Barrage is a nice bit of extra daily juice for a level 3 caster, but at level 9 you're not gonna bother anymore. But, you can upgrade wands because we have a pricing table for that.
I agree that you shouldn't be able to scale up item DCs for free, because that would cause imbalance with cheap low level items that do some useful effect that doesn't depend on level. For example, an item that causes Slowed 1 is still going to be good at high level if you can get the effect to land, because opponents don't get many more actions at higher level than at low level.
But I think we could work out a pricing formula that goes something like "if you raise an item's level by X, that costs 2^X of the original price and increases the save DC by X * 1.25".
I'm using Trip.H's numbers for the DC and wildly guessing at the pricing formula. Although I suspect it's exponential to some degree. I think Paizo likes to limit math to nothing more complicated than addition and multiplication, so maybe it should be presented as a lookup table that says "+X item level, +Y DC, *Z price".
This sidesteps trying to have a generic DC by level table that doesn't respect that some items have higher or lower DCs. We instead work with a DC change proportional to the level change.
I'd use the sparkblade from Troubles of Otari as a reference to make this argument. I'll avoid spoilers in case someone is playing the adventure.
The sparkblade you can get in the 1st chapter of Troubles of Otari is not the best weapon in the world, but because of the method that you acquire it it can potentially become a martial's main weapon for the rest of the campaign because it can have a ton of emotional value if the players invest into its story. The problem with the sparkblade is that it has a unique once per day action that allows its user to deal 2d4+4 damage to two foes which have to make a DC 19 Reflex save (it kinda works like electric arc). That's already kinda meh for 3rd level, but it becomes absolutely thrash at 5th level and above.
Yes, its still a shortsword so it will still be relevant since you can etch fundamental runes to it, but since I kinda think its likely for someone that gets this sword in Troubles of Otari to carry it on into Abomination Vaults I feel it kinda misses the point to restrict yourself from using property runes just to deal 2d4+4 on a DC 19. I know a sensible GM can fix that if a player wants to keep using the weapon (I did it) but I think the system should support this in some way.
Continuing on this, maybe if the effect deals damage, that should scale as well when you pay to increase item level. We can look at the typical scaling increases that cantrips, focus spells and spells from slots get, and compare that to how frequently you can use the ability.
Maybe sparkblade's damage should go up by 1d4 per item level, since it's a daily ability which means it's comparable to spells from slots (which tend to go two dice per rank = one die per level).
Another item with a damaging ability that can be used every round would be closer to one d4 or d6 per two levels (like a cantrip).
There's an item price by level chart, sorry would/should have said that before. If you really want, you can compared against it to see how much the base item deviates from it's on-level price (to modify the upgrade cost up or down).
But most of them are very dang close to the chart, and even just for simplicity I think I would set upgrade costs to just key off the mid point standard.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2950
The "Quick and Simple" method for scaling item DC I propose is seeing what that standard price of the desired upgraded item level is, then do some (no skill needed) Super Investment ritual that burns the gap in gp cost.
That little upgrade ritual clicks the edit button on Foundry, where you open up the item's static DC, hit backspace twice, then type the new number and hit save.
Upgrade cost math could be as simple as: [standard magic item @level price] - [current item price]
Just don't forget to also edit the item's new price & level numbers so future upgrading is just as easy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never used items with set DCs. Never will I ever touch items with set DCs as I do not wish to be stuck in the loop of liking items then it becomes useless then I see it then buy a new one and repeat. It feels sooooooo useless to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never used items with set DCs. Never will I ever touch items with set DCs as I do not wish to be stuck in the loop of liking items then it becomes useless then I see it then buy a new one and repeat. It feels sooooooo useless to me.
Your subscription has expired. Please enter your updated payment details to continue enjoying our item member benefits. Thank you in advance!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Set DC items in a game where stats rise fairly linearly don't really feel like a narratively permanent addition to your character. Imagine Sam and Frodo getting eaten by Shelob and the whole adventure ending there bc the vial of starlight from Galandriel had a static DC all the way back from tier 2 of play and couldn't so much as stun a rank-and-file orc in Mordor.
That impermanence leads those items to feeling more like clutter than some permanent momento from your adventure.
At that point id rather have more consumables (which is funny bc I'm not big on them). Less gear that's more impactful is better than a flood of stuff that isn't meant to stick around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.
So sad, so true.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never used items with set DCs. Never will I ever touch items with set DCs as I do not wish to be stuck in the loop of liking items then it becomes useless then I see it then buy a new one and repeat. It feels sooooooo useless to me.Your subscription has expired. Please enter your updated payment details to continue enjoying our item member benefits. Thank you in advance!
There's a good point here. One of the reasons we play RPGs is to take a few hours break from reality. And lately reality is full of annoying subscriptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.
70% of the content in PF1e was useless. That's not a reason to justify having useless content nowadays.
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.70% of the content in PF1e was useless. That's not a reason to justify having useless content nowadays.
. This is at least useful for a little while.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like a lot of complication could be streamlined if we were to just use class DC for pretty much every DC, whether it be for feats, spells, or items: while it would reduce the incentive to switch to new items, it would make the scaling for any DC much smoother and more consistent, and force higher-level versions of items to offer genuine improvements in order to be worth picking.
You're right, different classes have different class DCs, though I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. In general, anything with a DC falls into the bucket of offensive utility, crowd control, and AoE, which full casters are naturally good at and classes like the Magus are meant to not be so good at. It does suggest to me that crafter classes like the Alchemist or Inventor ought to have better class DCs, particularly as the Alchemist already uses their class DC right now for items and is capped at master proficiency, but otherwise I think the differences in DC could actually be a benefit in this case, as the different specialties of classes would be preserved.
And to be clear, the point here is to replace spell proficiency and item DCs with class DC, so casters would get class DCs scaling up to legendary. This in an of itself would be an overhaul, but in practice you could just do a find-and-replace from spell DC to class DC. This'd save a lot of text in the long run, in my opinion, as there have been increasingly more archetypes in particular that use the higher of your class DC and spell DC, and using class DC for items would avoid needing to specify an item DC each time (that, and you wouldn't need to specify which DC to use in feats or spells, as you'd just use the same DC each time).
My primary issues with item DC's scaling are that
1) In such a theoretical system, you get this issue where you can't really give players meaningfully new items. They'll just stick with their existing items, and sell the new items.
2) The wealth disparity between high- and low-level characters means that high-level characters are incentivized to buy a bunch of lower-level magic items that have very useful activated abilities.
Because of both of these reasons, higher-level items need to be much stronger to compete, leading to higher-level power creep, which damages balance, which leads to PF1e problems of level 20 games being mostly unplayable.
You can say problem #1 isn't a real problem because players can just stack non-invested magic items, but that sidesteps parties who would rather have more gold to reach up to higher-level runes early, exacerbating problem #2.
You can solve problem #2 by restricting investment slots more, and making the activated items require an investment slot, but that worsens problem #1 where the opportunity cost incentivizes you not to drop your level 3 item that gives you some activated ability that's unique.
There might be an elegant solution that solves both problems. I foresee a skill feat that lets you spend an action to upgrade an item's ability's DC for 1 round such that it can't be stacked with trick magic item, and makes the action economy less attractive at higher levels so that there's some opportunity cost to not upgrading. However, I get the feeling the people who want item DC's to scale wouldn't be happy with something like that since it still basically creates the incentive structures that they're chafing against in the first place.
I get that it feels bad to have to throw away old toys when they get outscaled, but getting rid of the system has a knock-on effect that removes a lot of mechanical incentives for character choices.
This is really good analysis and my general thoughts on the topic as well. I think the thing I want more of is just more intermediary versions of items. 3 is too few. If more items had level steps at every 3 levels, then if the level you get it has a strong DC, then its never going to become useless if the character wants to invest in it. Maybe some rules for upgrading existing items that makes it go a little faster so that crafting doesn't compare so badly to just buying new, especially when downtime is limited would be in order, or just better narrative advice about downtime and how essential it is to game expectations would cover it.
I really don't think the not scaling issue would be a big deal at all if there were just consistent options to upgrade at the point the DC would really start trailing.
IMO the best option is to simply houserule things to allow items to be upgraded by crafters, using similar rules to Crafting, adjusting gold costs and time (depending on rarity).
That way, there is a way to keep certain items the party wants, but it requires investment - so new items have a way to shine too.
This just means that you only bother to upgrade your fixed DC items if they're from a very small pool of items with outright broken effects only held back by their crippled fixed DC status. Stuff like security badge or ashen rune go from broken for 2 levels to broken for all levels.
For most anything else you'd rather just buy some lower level items not dependent on a fixed DC, get some actual bang for your buck. The item upgrade rules would have to be pretty cheap to compete with both that and buying on level items with better effects than your old items (since higher level items generally have better effects)
You're not going to get very many old fixed DC items still being useful unless you either set the upgrade cost of items very low or remove it altogether, there are too many auto scaling items you can get instead.
Do make sure to nerf ashen rune and related outliers though, lmao
You can even have "cast a spell" items just scale by (item level capped) spell DC instead, so no caster toes are stepped upon.
It's an actual joke that Spellhearts are >95% used for the cantrip and never upgraded for the spells. This static DC thing is very obviously affecting play in a bad way.
Spellhearts are actually a double joke because despite their description saying "[Spellhearts are] rather ingenious, combining the simple magic of talismans with the more complex and enduring spellforms typically used in wands—and without requiring innate magical skill from the user." they don't work for martials RAW.
So you have a "spellcasting" item that's more expensive than a wands/scrolls, crippled with a fixed DC, and doesn't even work for the only people who can't just use wands. The only spell you might ever actually cast out of a spellheart (besides cantrips) is air walk and that's because it doesn't have a DC anyways. Five Feathered wreath is the only spellheart actually used to cast *spells*.
Never used items with set DCs. Never will I ever touch items with set DCs as I do not wish to be stuck in the loop of liking items then it becomes useless then I see it then buy a new one and repeat. It feels sooooooo useless to me.
IKR, more than enough DC-less items to spend your treasure by level on. Why would I want some mediocre 13th level arrow that costs a tenth my wealth for the level when I could have like a hundred bola shots for the same price?
For the same reasons I'd rather have a bag of holding full of heroism wands than the typical 13th level permanent item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) In such a theoretical system, you get this issue where you can't really give players meaningfully new items. They'll just stick with their existing items, and sell the new items.If making the DC non-terrible means that players stick with older items, then that just shows that they were not excited by the new items' effects. So it is a good thing that they were not forced to change to them! EDIT: IOW, they will be selling them either way, even if only to buy upgraded versions of the items they already have.
2) The wealth disparity between high- and low-level characters means that high-level characters are incentivized to buy a bunch of lower-level magic items that have very useful activated abilities.Where are they getting the extra actions to activate "a bunch" of lower-level items?
Combination of prebuffs, no/free action items, action compression items, and sometimes just actually spending your limited actions.
No/free action items like the collar of the shifting spider just give you something always active or close enough to it. The collar is a free action at the start of every fight. So you can sink a good chunk of gold into that and some mutagens to use (typically moderate are best bang for buck, but greater juggernaught mutagens are great and that's certainty a gold sink). Echo receptors are another good example, you don't need to activate them or anything. You just get the precise sense.
Action compression items are abilities that just do something you wanted to do as an action better. Spring heels are the best example here, instead of striding once as an action now you can stride twice. Get to an enemy that's further away for less actions. Spider chair is also an example here.
"just using your limited actions" is stuff like dust of disappearance and quickness potions. These do just eat your actions, it's just that their effects are good enough to be worth it (and quickness potion kinda gives them back). You can easily sink like 10k gold into just dust of disappearance and let me tell you that is money well spent. Trudd's strength daggers are another example.
Prebuffs are self explanatory, you did use actions on it just at a prior time when it didn't cost much of anything. There are a bunch of different wand buffs, mostly split into 8 hour/day buffs and 10 minute buffs. 8 hour or day buffs you generally want the whole day (which can take 2-3 wands depending on how much you care on having it during the rare night ambush), these are things like mind blank (which really boosts your dust of disappearance), longstrider, and darkvision.
10 minute buffs you want to buy enough of that you can use them at the drop of a hat. If you think that there's even a 5% chance of combat or important skill roll in the next 10 minutes, you pick up your heroism wand and use it. For this purpose you have like 10 of the damn things and additional backup scrolls to boot. Never be moving around in a dungeon without your heroism. Some other examples include second rank invis (buys you time to use your dust of disappearance if you lose initiative) and clairvoyance.
There will of course be times where you do just get ambushed, and your 10 minute buffs aren't active, and for those times you can go harder on spell slot usage and other resources to compensate. Or just use your spring heels to run away and come back buffed.
With all these strategies combined you can comfortably spend your treasure by level without ever picking up a fixed DC item for it's fixed DC effect, and get great value for each and every GP you spend.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If making the DC non-terrible means that players stick with older items, then that just shows that they were not excited by the new items' effects. So it is a good thing that they were not forced to change to them! EDIT: IOW, they will be selling them either way, even if only to buy upgraded versions of the items they already have.1) But then how does the GM continue to provide treasure that interests the players? Shiny New Loot™ is fun. If players constantly get new loot only to find that they prefer their existing items, you begin to pavlov yourself into Shiny New Loot™ not being fun, because you expect the new loot isn't going to be worth swapping to.
How does the GM provide treasure that interests the players when the players see a fancy item, see a static DC, and go "we won't use that while its relevant, sell it"?
Because that's what happens now with the system training players that static DC items just don't stay useful very long. At this point half my players don't even remember their items have activate abilities with DCs at all because they're irrelevant so quickly. They're stat boosters at this point.
The ones that people like more are the ones that don't have DCs (because the effect doesn't need one) or otherwise keep up in some way.
A lot of the items in question only have 2 or 3 versions for the entire game, and that's not nearly enough for static DCs to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also doesn't help that most items with DCs aren't that good either, so even on the levels they are relevant they aren't worth the actions you need to use them when its likely you have better actions from your class or archetype. Items with DCs are pretty much always dumped into the selling bin.
Having more "all numbers are on the exact same treadmill" doesn't sound interesting to me and that is pretty much what would happen if item DCs were set by players DCs, whether that be class, or save or whatever.
I think there are some parallel issues that make it feel like the issue is static DCs, but it is perfectly fine if the DCs are a little powerful for when you first get them and underpowered by the time you can get the upgrade, as long as there is an upgrade and there are enough intermediary steps for it to be worthwhile.
Bombs pretty much already work this way and I see people use them fairly often, especially in the first 5 to 10 levels of play. When the damage type is right or the effect is really useful, players use them.
If players can never find items with DCs that are at the higher end of usefulness when they find them, then they definitely don't use them. That is an adventure writing issue, and it is a difficult one to work around when there aren't items to add in later to keep the forward momentum going. That is an issue that could either be solved by items that can attach to other items to boost a DC by +1 or +2, and/or making sure items with DCs get enough higher level versions to not just flatten out and never be worth using again.
Lower level items that are not supposed to particularly upgrade into higher levels probably should be consumables or limited use items to help make it clear "use these while they are good."
Which returns to the adenture writing component. Giving cool DC items that are not going to have good in game uses until several levels after they are found is a good way to make players hate those kinds of items and assume that they are terrible. Special Ammo, bombs, most consumables really can be powerfully encounter changing when used at the right levels, but expecting players to figure that out without some help from the GM (by finding examples that will be useful, for example) is pretty unfair and a good way to see players never use them.
Then there are the players that hate consumables and just don't use them ever and only ever want items that they can use a really long time. I get that desire, but if you look across the game, consumable versions always get the better damage and better DCs, so the DCs of permanent use items should be behind what you get for consumables, and probably should be behind what you get from your class abilities. Permanent items are not designed to be character defining items. Some classes have items that enable specific playstyles, but that is not DC items, that is items that allow worse options to be more feasible for what a character does (like doubling rings and bandoleers.
So consumables should (and generally do) have enough levels to be "upgradable" by just using them when you get them and then getting newer, higher level ones when you can. Permanent items should have slightly behind average DCs of class abilities at most levels (like it would be fine to find an item a level early that has a equal or better DC for a level or 2), but have enough upgrade options that a player that really wants to do that thing the item does can do it at around the archetype level of either a full rank behind on damage, or a DC that is usually a couple behind.
Static DCs are a much better way of maintaining this then trying to base it off a character's growing abilities, but where there are gaps will feel very bad to players that wanted to play where those gaps are
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then there are the players that hate consumables and just don't use them ever and only ever want items that they can use a really long time. I get that desire, but if you look across the game, consumable versions always get the better damage and better DCs, so the DCs of permanent use items should be behind what you get for consumables, and probably should be behind what you get from your class abilities. Permanent items are not designed to be character defining items. Some classes have items that enable specific playstyles, but that is not DC items, that is items that allow worse options to be more feasible for what a character does (like doubling rings and bandoleers.
So consumables should (and generally do) have enough levels to be "upgradable" by just using them when you get them and then getting newer, higher level ones when you can. Permanent items should have slightly behind average DCs of class abilities at most levels (like it would be fine to find an item a level early that has a equal or better DC for a level or 2), but have enough upgrade options that a player that really wants to do that thing the item does can do it at around the archetype level of either a full rank behind on damage, or a DC that is usually a couple behind.
Honestly, the biggest problem I see players running into with consumables is that there's just too many of them. Trying to find the ones that are actually relevant to you is hard, and finding ones that are relevant to your situation is even harder. It takes far more system mastery to do this than it does to just get a small number of reusable things and rely on them. Even more so when consumables get out-levelled and you have to find a replacement because there isn't a suitable version anymore.
Alchemy is one of the better implemented versions of this. There's a lot of alchemy and it does a ton of things, but there's some pretty standard items that have versions frequently enough that players get to know them. Need a way to have damage types you don't usually do in case of things like regeneration? There's probably a bomb for it, and there's enough versions of the same bomb that you can usually get one reasonably levelled. (Plus for the goal of "doing damage to break regeneration/hit a weakness", older bombs don't really stop working. All you have to do is not critically miss to get the splash damage, after all.)
Healing? Check. Protection against some afflictions? Check. Buffs? Check.
The alchemy list is huge and bloated, but it's got some core stuff that works well and that's what most players tend to use. Even if there is an alchemical item for some less common situation, a huge swath of the playerbase will have no idea it exists because they can't find it amid the 776 Alchemical items on Nethys.
Talismans are on the bad end of this, too: there's too many of them, they're too niche, and too many just aren't relevant often enough for players to really get used to using them. Even the ones that are good are an uphill battle with people because they need to carry a stack of them, reapply them, and such. The only time I ever see them used is when someone makes it a build defining thing, in which case they can use the same one repeatedly and will carry a LOT of them. It becomes treated like ammunition.
But in any other case? I've tried many times, but the niche ones get forgotten about before they're useful, and that's happen so many times that people at this point often don't bother unless its something that is obviously useful (like an Alloy Orb).
Hell, I've been GMing and playing this system since the playtest and if you asked me off the top of my head, I doubt I could name 10 out of the 176 talisman in the game. I could maybe tell you what 5 do, because those are the 5 that actually get used now and then. That's not even a judgement of power level: there's some really good talisman in the list. The list is just too bloated with too many niche items and it makes hard to use for players who don't want to invest a ton of effort into consumables, so they don't bother. And a lot of those don't even really have DC issues, they're just too niche in general.
Items that have static DCs are like bombs, except worse. There isn't nearly enough versions of them to keep them relevant, so rather than being something people rely on, people just don't bother. Like, if you removed the activate DC 20 Fear from the Demon Mask, would anyone care? Would it make someone who would have bought it not buy it? Probably not, right? Let's be honest: the Intimidation item bonus is why people are buying this.
Now remove the item bonus instead? Does anyone still want this item? It's basically obsolete three levels after you get it (generously), and you're waiting 3 levels after that for an upgrade, which will again be obsolete in 3 levels. No one is building their character planning to rely on this, and once your character is built to do certain things, you're probably not going to significantly alter your routine to stick an item activate Fear in there for 3 levels, only to go back to what you were doing before. Why bother?
Having more "all numbers are on the exact same treadmill" doesn't sound interesting to me and that is pretty much what would happen if item DCs were set by players DCs, whether that be class, or save or whatever.
I think there are some parallel issues that make it feel like the issue is static DCs, but it is perfectly fine if the DCs are a little powerful for when you first get them and underpowered by the time you can get the upgrade, as long as there is an upgrade and there are enough intermediary steps for it to be worthwhile.
Scaling DCs are a way to fix it, because it's less complicated than "add more upgrade levels of every item players might want" into an already bloated item list. It's not really an ideal solution, but the status quo mostly results in a gigantic list of items that don't really get used because they're useless for most of a typical campaign and there's no suitable replacements.
Spellhearts are kind of a perfect example of the problem: the extra spells in the expensive versions are very rarely worth the cost becuse most of them go obsolete so quickly. The real value in a Jolt Coil is Electric Arc, and you get that in the base version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't have to be the player's responsibility though. With Consumables in particular, put ones in the adventure that are good and useful. Players don't need to try to sort through them unless they really get into that.
I think the issue with permanent items and DCs is that they are typically providing a worse version of what a class or ancestry ability of the same level would allow, which I think is the intention, because "this item is my power source" is something that needs to be class defined, not gear defined, or it is a narrative thing that is best accomplished by giving an NPC a wildly over leveled item that they stole or found for a big effect, in which case that character is their special item, but that doesn't hold up for a PC for a campaign.
As a GM, I do tend to adjust the consumables up a level over the treasure by level recommendations, as it is an easy way to make sure the party gets fun toys worth playing with, it is especially fun to give lower level enemies a couple of bombs that a higher level boss gives them so they can be pretty inaccurate with them, but a little bit scary, and then the party gets a couple to use against the boss that are a level or 2 higher than anything they brought into the dungeon.
EDIT: Also 3 levels of functional play with an item before upgrading it or replacing it is about right in my opinion. Even with weapons you get your potency bonus, then your striking, then your property runes in about that that span, and that all feels like it works pretty well.
Item runes that you add to upgrade invested items would be a cool addition to the game and something that feels like it could fit with a book that has the Runesmith in it.
...Where are they getting the extra actions to activate "a bunch" of lower-level items?
Combination of prebuffs, no/free action items, action compression items, and sometimes just actually spending your limited actions.
** spoiler omitted **
Them not having DCs is exactly why they're good now. If fixed DCs got canned they'd have some real competition and you'd probably see a lot more use of items with DCs.
EDIT: Also 3 levels of functional play with an item before upgrading it or replacing it is about right in my opinion. Even with weapons you get your potency bonus, then your striking, then your property runes in about that that span, and that all feels like it works pretty well.
For my example item, you're not replacing it. You just have an activate that is useless and you're keeping the item for several more levels for the item bonus.
You're also not replacing a weapon potency rune. You get something in addition to it, then you upgrade it. But that rune remains useful for however long you have it.
It's not at all the same thing because the other parts of that paragraph are missing from the other items.
EDIT: Also 3 levels of functional play with an item before upgrading it or replacing it is about right in my opinion. Even with weapons you get your potency bonus, then your striking, then your property runes in about that that span, and that all feels like it works pretty well.For my example item, you're not replacing it. You just have an activate that is useless and you're keeping the item for several more levels for the item bonus.
You're also not replacing a weapon potency rune. You get something in addition to it, then you upgrade it. But that rune remains useful for however long you have it.
It's not at all the same thing because the other parts of that paragraph are missing from the other items.
I address that in the very next sentence left out of the quote. I agree that more modularity with items generally would be a fun addition and make sense for a book with the Runesmith in it.
And again, I don't disagree that there are gaps with many items that would be nice to be filled, I just don't think all items getting scaling DCs based awkwardly off of class DC would be a better solution than some set level item runes that boost the DC of an Item to a specific number.
Like a level 10 item boosting rune that set any static DC to 27. If there were versions of this every 3 levels, then any player could play the upgrade carousel with any item of any level that they wanted to keep around without suddenly giving classes with good class DCs the ability to give cheap items better save DCs than the items would have normally at the character's current level (Item DCs are already behind average character DC progressions). The pricing on an item like this could be relatively cheap, so that a low level item plus the rune could be a bit cheaper than a traditional item at that level would be, since items at that level should have more to them than just a DC boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I have myself used homebrew DC-boosting runes at my table, which helped items feel relevant, I do feel that misses the point of what Tridus is saying, which is that our item system is majorly bloated as-is and that adding more bloat via extra remedial items may only worsen the problem. I would go as far as to say that now that only a single formula is needed to Craft every version of the same item, it would be possible to condense many items, such that they have a per-level scaling as needed instead of specific versions, which would fill in item gaps without needing to come up with new versions each time.
And while it is true that certain items do receive improved effects as they level up, that I don't think is really relevant to the problem of fixed DCs: whereas a scaling DC could at least introduce the choice between a cheaper, but less effective lower-level item and a better, but more expensive higher-level version, that choice doesn't really exist when the lower-level item has such a low DC as to be unusable. For items that can be upgraded, this causes their effectiveness to nosedive in-between their upgraded versions, which feels all the more unnecessary considering how items like the searing blade have their special abilities auto-scale. To emphasize this last fact: we already have precedent for auto-scaling items, and it works perfectly fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that runes make any sense as a solution either. The point is to have items that just work, not items that function for a level or two at a time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to reiterate that the "Pay to get the new version that actually works" isn't a solution to the problems a lot of people are raising. It seems like those saying that we just need to make sure there are enough upgrades throughout the level range are ignoring this.
Players will *still* disdain items without scaling DCs because they don't want to get on the stupid upgrade treadmill. It doesn't matter if there are plenty of upgrade steps along the way. It's the same reason lots of people don't like consumables, a non-scaling item is just saying "Don't get attached."
Pouring money into a hole doesn't feel good and it's not weird that people prefer items that don't require you to do that.
Even if full automatic scaling isn't desirable, there are ways to give DCs that are at least relevant. Like my earlier suggestion, or like: "Use the item's DC or an Easy DC for the Character's level, whichever is greater"