A Small Glance at PF2's Equip & Armour

[mach1.9pants]

The enhancement bonus on magical shields was absolutely necessary in order to balance the broken base math. A level 20 attacker gains +20 to hit baseline, even before factoring in their ability score bonus or feats or a magic weapon or anything. In order to get +20 over starting AC to balance that, you need a +5 armor and shield and ring and amulet. It was just nuts, and it ultimately led to AC becoming worthless past a certain point, as no amount of reasonable effort would ever keep your AC relevant.

Hopefully they have fixed the underlying math, such that those measures are no longer necessary. As long as you're adding the same level-based bonus to both attack rolls and AC (as in D&D 4E, for example), that minor +2 bonus from having a shield will remain relevant and meaningful indefinitely.

In PF2 you add your level plus proficiency (-2 if not proficient) to both attack and AC, so yes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In PF2 you add your level plus proficiency (-2 if not proficient) to both attack and AC, so yes.

That part is balanced, which is great (assuming there's no longer any such thing as a necklace or ring that increases your AC).

The worrisome part is, as mentioned upthread, weapon qualities range from -1 to +3 (according to the previous article) while armor potency goes up to at least +4 (according to this article). And we still haven't seen what magic weapons look like; which means either magic weapons will have their own bonuses to hit, and attack bonuses will outpace AC bonuses (again); or the bonus to hit is covered by the weapon quality, in which case AC comes out slightly ahead over time. Or maybe the bonus from weapon quality doesn't stack with the magical bonus to hit.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Charlaquin]

The worrisome part is, as mentioned upthread, weapon qualities range from -1 to +3 (according to the previous article) while armor potency goes up to at least +4 (according to this article).

Can you quote the part of the article you’re getting +4 from? Because I’m not seeing it.

And we still haven't seen what magic weapons look like;

Yes we have. This article talks about them. Potency Runes go on weapons and armor alike. On armorbthey add their bonus to AC, TAC, and saves, while on weapons they add to hit and damage dice. So even if Potency Runes go up to +4, they go on weapons too.

Also, the +X to hit/AC and TAC from quality and the +X to hit/AC and TAC from Potency Runes are both considered item bonuses, so they don’t stack.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Or just read more carefully.

 

[Sunseeker]

Where are you getting +4 from? The highest rune bonus mentioned in the article was +3.

For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus. You can even upgrade the potency of specific armor (and weapons) so you can hold on to your celestial armor at higher levels.

I’d say it’s well worth it. Instead of 7 different action types that you just have to memorize which type everything is and how the different types interact with each other on a turn, you just have one type of action that you get 3 of, and everything takes one of those unless it specifies that it takes more than one or no action. That’s more user-friendly any way you look at it. I think there are a few things that could stand to have the number of actions they take re-thought (for example, I think changing your grip on a weapon should cost zero actions), but the system is a significant improvement.

That's why I'm kinda 50/50 about it. Some things should be less of an action.

 

[mellored]

That's why I'm kinda 50/50 about it. Some things should be less of an action.

Perhaps increase it to 6 actions, with the majority of things taking 2 actions.
And small stuff like switching graps takes 1.

That said, I've rarely ever seen a good reason to switch grips in any D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

Perhaps increase it to 6 actions, with the majority of things taking 2 actions.
And small stuff like switching graps takes 1.

I really don't know. I get what they're doing with Actions, but there's something appealing about having different types of actions. Instead of trying to fit everything inside an apple-shaped box, we admit that some things just aren't apples. If they were asking me this is what I'd do:
2 Actions. Actions include attacks and Movement.
1 Minor Action. Includes drawing a weapon, dropping a weapon, loading a weapon, making a simple check, or shouting a short statement.

That said, I've rarely ever seen a good reason to switch grips in any D&D.

I'm sure it's part of PF2's "Make Weapons Great Again" approach. But I agree.

 

[mellored]

I really don't know. I get what they're doing with Actions, but there's something appealing about having different types of actions. Instead of trying to fit everything inside an apple-shaped box, we admit that some things just aren't apples. If they were asking me this is what I'd do:
2 Actions. Actions include attacks and Movement.
1 Minor Action. Includes drawing a weapon, dropping a weapon, loading a weapon, making a simple check, or shouting a short statement.

Then you would end up with a bunch of stuff being stuck into minor actions. i.e. thieves can hide as a minor action. Or this fast spells can be cast as a minor action.
Which make it no different.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can you quote the part of the article you’re getting +4 from? Because I’m not seeing it.

"For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus."

Also, the +X to hit/AC and TAC from quality and the +X to hit/AC and TAC from Potency Runes are both considered item bonuses, so they don’t stack.

That would solve this issue. It does mean that there's no reason to further enchant armor if it's already high-quality, but I guess that's fine. It also means there's no reason to worry about finding a high-quality base weapon, if you're going to enchant it anyway.

 

[Sunseeker]

Then you would end up with a bunch of stuff being stuck into minor actions. i.e. thieves can hide as a minor action. Or this fast spells can be cast as a minor action.
Which make it no different.

I don't have a problem with that. Different for the sake of different is a silly approach to things.

If "different" means "better, smoother, faster, more enjoyable, easier to learn" gameplay, or even some of those things, great! I'm down for that.

But different for the sake of different is just, dumb.

 

[Charlaquin]

[FONT=&]"For instance, studded leather with a [/FONT]+3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus."

Ahh, yes. That makes sense, thank youZ

That would solve this issue. It does mean that there's no reason to further enchant armor if it's already high-quality, but I guess that's fine. It also means there's no reason to worry about finding a high-quality base weapon, if you're going to enchant it anyway.

Well, the reason to put Potency Runes on high quality weapon or armor would be to get the extra damage dice or the bonus to your saves, or if you have a Potency Rune with a higher bonus than the item’s bonus from quality. The reason to get high-quality weapons and armor when you have as good or better Potency Runes is that there are other kinds of Runes besides Potency, and higher quality weapons and armor have more Rune Slots. This wasn’t in the article, but was confirmed on the comments by Mark Siefter.