Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8149906" data-attributes="member: 12731">I don't need to discuss the wider martial-caster balance either, but just to be sure: are you talking about my suggestion to reduce ABP to a minimum here?Not sure I follow you here. The whole point of 5E is that magic item provides bonuses above and beyond "the math". This is actually far preferable, at least if the alternative is magic items like Pathfinder 2 or 4th Edition, where you never really feel rewarded for getting an item - instead you feel punished when you aren't.Magic items in 3E or 5E have actual power. They can replace entire levels, and they can redefine your character (viewed from the "what can I achieve" lens). They are desirable and wondrous. If you like magic items that your players actually want and use, 5E is fun and easy.Magic items in PF2 on the other hand are utilitarian. Minimal. Drab. Sure, striking runes are noticeably flashy, but that's the exception, not the rule. Even something like a Flaming rune is far diminished (except against Fire-vulnerable creatures) not because it deals less damage (it's still a bonus d6), but because damage is generally inflated in this game, so a d6 more or less matters little (unless you get it at first level, and you won't). Most items simply grant a very small bonus - and very small bonuses only increases your chances on average, they have little narrative power to change the story when you really want to. There are a few items that have the power to transform your character, but for every such item, there's ten items the party will simply sell or even not pick up at all. And even then, items are far too often saddled with obnoxious restrictions and limitations, often ensuring the only one in the party that can use them is the one that needs them the least.Example: an item that grants a fairly powerful boost to, say, Stealth. Okay, but why does this item then have Requirement: must be Legendary in Stealth?  ✱headpalm✱Just about the only "advantage" of 4E/PF2-style magic items is that it's easy to just get rid of them altogether. And I regard the ABP variant to be a stealth removal of magic items.Yes, in 3E items were both powerful and part of the math, which of course leads to mandatory Christmas trees. But to me this wasn't even in the top 3 problem areas of the edition. (Admittedly the related issue of NPCs also being forced to become Christmas trees for the heroes to loot was in the top list, but that's much better resolved by having NPCs not be built according to PC rules; now a moot issue since both 5E and PF2 have adopted this)In my view 5E could have taken the top spot of my favorite magic item implementations hadn't they ruined everything by weaseling out of a robust magic item pricing structure. Not including items into math is actually quite liberating, and of course, having items be powerful is a must.So I'm forced to still retain 3E (including PF1) as the number one magic item implementation, despite all its many issues. For instance, when I prepared the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-many-and-fabulous-bazaars-of-port-nyanzaru-and-beyond.595068/" target="_blank">main hub of magic shoppes</a> in my Curse of Annihilation campaign (a 5E campaign) the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Item_Compendium" target="_blank">Magic Item Compendium</a> (a thirteen year old sourcebook) was outright invaluable.In third place comes... nothing. Pathfinder 2 does still edge out 4th Edition, whose magic items were the blandest beige-st collection of sorry useless junk I've ever come across (I routinely combined two items into one and the players still almost never cared to even remember having them!).  The chief reason is that Paizo wisely based their magic on d20, meaning that items with magical effects can still matter. The other reason is that thanks to how criticals work, a +1 is significantly stronger in PF2 than in d20.Okay rant over <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sounds like a good compromise.Or, I guess I mean simple and easy to understand. Because I still like the idea of a campaign where one player chooses to purchase a shiny magic sword and a good set of armor while another opts for a new level, but I guess you need to go back as far as AD&D to find a ruleset where levels matters relatively little* and items matter relatively much.*) again, nobody expects a level 1 character to ever choose anything else than multiplying her life expectancy by leveling up...Pathfinder 2 certainly doesn't work with such a campaign, of that I am sure. (Not unless you modify the game quite heavily, and I hope we can agree that the game with both PWL and ABP makes for a quite heavily modified PF2)</blockquote>

Verification