The Secret Weapon of Elite Athletes: Diadora Low Profile Magic Shoes

Diadora is a well-known brand in the world of sports footwear, offering top-quality products designed for athletic performance. One of their popular offerings is the Diadora low-profile magic shoes, which have gained a strong reputation among athletes and sports enthusiasts. The main idea behind the Diadora low-profile magic shoes is to provide athletes with a shoe that delivers exceptional comfort, durability, and performance. These shoes are designed to be low in profile, allowing for greater agility and mobility on the field or court. In terms of comfort, Diadora has integrated innovative features into the low-profile magic shoes. The upper part of the shoe is made from high-quality materials that ensure breathability, allowing the feet to stay cool and dry even during intense physical activity.

The upper part of the shoe is made from high-quality materials that ensure breathability, allowing the feet to stay cool and dry even during intense physical activity. The cushioning system is also carefully engineered to provide maximum comfort and support, reducing the risk of injuries and improving overall performance. Durability is another key aspect of the Diadora low-profile magic shoes.

Does the striking rune seem overpowered to anyone else?

I'm probably missing something, but it seems like it as it adds at least one more weapon die (which can be up to a d12), whereas the (usually) higher level "energy damage" runes only do xd6 damage (depending on the level.)

Striking runes are the base line that makes your damage keep up with the increased HP of higher level enemies. Property runes like the elemental ones are extras you can add to that.

It seems a bit weird, especially if you come from PF1 or 5e, but it works perfectly fine in play. Note that the damage bonuses of all classes have taken a MAJOR hit in PF2. Without Striking runes, you'll fall behind in damage very badly rather quick. You don't want that to happen.

The striking rune is an expected damage upgrade that doesn't compete with property runes. The two aren't meant to be comparable.

Yes, they are overpowered, but they're a basic assumption of the game's math.

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In PF1 you collect bonuses, so you do 1d8+44 at high levels. In PF2 you collect dice and you do 4d8+10 maybe instead.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Comparing fundamental runes (a key part of the damage scaling of the game) to property runes (an optional bonus) isn't really a valid match up, I think. If you want to ask if Striking runes are overpowered, you need to compare martial damage with and without them to enemy HP at various levels.

Striking runes are a vestigial mark of feedback from those back in the playtest who preferred upgrades to come from items over innate scaling (Automatic Bonus Progression), they're not "overpowered" because the math the game is built around assumes you'll have them at the appropriate levels, but yes compared to other items of similar level they are blatantly overturned.

As I personally run my home game utilizing the ABP optional rule from the GMG (and adjust loot accordingly), they don't stand out to me because I just have them apply automatically (as the game assumes). On a regular game of PF2 however getting striking runes is far and away the No.1 priority of a martial character around level 5, and a inevitable goldsink if you don't want to fall way behind the growing HP of monsters.

Note also that the entire balance of the game is based on the assumption that rogues have a d6 weapon (d8 with significant shenanigans), two handed fighters are wielding a d12 weapon (or a D10 fatal), reach weapons are a D10, etc.

And the assumption is that those dice increase at the designated levels.

If you mess with that logic suddenly the rogue will be overpowered or underpowered (depending on what changes you make) when compared to the two handed fighter.

Basically, the took stuff like 1e's power attack, and they put it into an item upgrade. Just think of it as another baseline upgrade like getting a +2 sword without any special energies on it.

Making these things into an upgrade isn't too much of a problem, since it is such a baseline that you are eventually going to get those items. It is likely everyone paying the feat tax to get power attack at early levels.

It does make some things funky. It makes smaller weapons into a bigger liability, when it was only just a slight addition to damage last edition, since all that damage comes from the dice. For example, I can't really see using a forceful weapon, since that property probably balanced by having a smaller damage dice when compared to a no frills raw damage weapon. However, it makes fatal weapons hilarious, since it increase dice size when you crit (so you are dealing tons of damage anyway).

Saying the Striking Rune is overpowered is the same as saying higher level characters are overpowered. They are indeed extremely powerful in a vacuum, but in the context of the game, they're just a part of the power curve.

Saying the Striking Rune is overpowered is the same as saying higher level characters are overpowered. They are indeed extremely powerful in a vacuum, but in the context of the game, they're just a part of the power curve.

This, plus let's consider that curve.

Each level is supposed to make a significant difference, so much so that you should be twice as powerful ever two levels. That's a steep slope. So when you aren't getting a spike from weapon damage increase, maybe it's from a bump in proficiency, or specialization, or a new property rune should be available, etc.
Not every level has such an increase, but it's unusual to go two levels without something added to numbers (above the +1/level which is already about a +16% bump in PF2's crit/fail system). NPCs have a smoother curve, but both curves overlap for similar averages over the course of the career (though NPCs keep snug with the upper arc of the curve and don't rely on their equipment much).

And yes, the Striking Runes are one of the bigger bumps because it's tied to potentially d12 increases, which makes the levels right before getting the next one a bit rough. :)

Recall the playtest. Originally a +1 to a weapon had you roll an additional die instead instead of adding a static value to your weapon. So a +5 Greatsword would roll 6d12 for damage.

What we got was a scaled back version of that (since playtest feedback indicated that people wanted more impact from character competency versus gear) and since "weapons go up to +5" was a legacy thing, we got potency andd striking runes instead.

So that you'd always rather have a better fundamental rune than a property rune is like how PF1 characters would rather have a +4 weapon than a +2 Holy weapon, even though they were priced the same.

Anti-tank weapons seem overpowered in a game where infantry fight tanks, imo

Striking runes are a vestigial mark of feedback from those back in the playtest who preferred upgrades to come from items over innate scaling (Automatic Bonus Progression), they're not "overpowered" because the math the game is built around assumes you'll have them at the appropriate levels, but yes compared to other items of similar level they are blatantly overturned.

As I personally run my home game utilizing the ABP optional rule from the GMG (and adjust loot accordingly), they don't stand out to me because I just have them apply automatically (as the game assumes). On a regular game of PF2 however getting striking runes is far and away the No.1 priority of a martial character around level 5, and a inevitable goldsink if you don't want to fall way behind the growing HP of monsters.

This is the kind of reply I was looking for when I run my campaign. I really don't want to make video game like rune replacement the norm. so I would prefer ABP but not in place of the idea of magic. Just additional dmg should be natural to the character gaining more knowledge of lethal hit areas.

Would love to discuss further how your campaign has worked out.
I envision some + weapons popping up but the dmg coming from characters. Some runes also seems ok but should not be transferable in terms of ambience and role play for the world I envision.

They are "fundamental" runes that are the base assumption of progression. The automatic bonus progression varient rule sets them in stone as just a part of class progression. Enemies scale their damage similarly.

This is the kind of reply I was looking for when I run my campaign. I really don't want to make video game like rune replacement the norm. so I would prefer ABP but not in place of the idea of magic. Just additional dmg should be natural to the character gaining more knowledge of lethal hit areas.

Would love to discuss further how your campaign has worked out.
I envision some + weapons popping up but the dmg coming from characters. Some runes also seems ok but should not be transferable in terms of ambience and role play for the world I envision.

I can only second the suggestion to look at the Automatic Bonus Progression optional rule. It really makes the damage upgrades come from the characters themselves, and magic is left to do, well, magical things. Like enabling to fight incorporeal creatures, adding elemental damage, making the weapon able to shift form etc.

Random question: if Striking is so ingrained in enemy HP expectations, how much would you have to scale back enemy HP if Striking wasn't a thing?

I originally wanted to ask, "if Striking is so expected of players, why is it still a thing," but I guess that's already been answered. People want upgrades, that's all there is to it.

It's not just HP expectations. Quite a few other abilities PCs might have add "X per weapon die". Where X is usually damage but not necessarily.

Also, if you reduce weapon damage dice, are you also going to reduce spell damage dice?

Are you also going to change monster damage output? Or do you make the game more asymmetric because players are then doing fewer damage than monsters, but monsters also have fewer HP?

I don't personally think that's practical. You basically have two solid choices:

* The classic system, where A% of your power increase comes from better gear, and B% from your levels.

* The ABP system, where a much smaller % of the power increase comes from gear, most of it is from levels.

Which one is best I think would really vary by the kind of campaign you want to do. For example in Edgewatch, I think ABP makes a lot of sense. Police shouldn't be looting the criminals for gear, just to stay level-competitive. With ABP, you don't have to.

The classic system on the other hand is much better at causing temporary ups and downs. If you find a striking rune at level 3 (which the treasure table shows is a real possibility), then for a short time you're punching above your weight, which is cool. But it doesn't cause long-lasting power shifts that the GM would have to worry about.

With ABP, your power-ups come much more at a scheduled pace; you're absolutely not getting Striking before level 4. That's safer but maybe lack the excitement of an early power boost.

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think the primary flaw with ABP is that it takes the premise that those bonuses that you enable granting via ABP need to be completely removed from the magic system and the treasure needs to be likewise reduced.

I'm fairly certain the original playtest survey question was something on the line of "Should magic items be able to be significant power increases." Or something like that.

The two options we have are. these things progress the same for everyone the same despite equipment. or these thing primarily progress only by means of the value of their equipment investments. It precludes a situation that I think many people out there might have been expecting. That magic items help push them into the next power curve, ahead of schedule. A relatively simple adjustment to the ABP, reducing perhaps the quantity of fundamental runes, but not removing them completely. But making a point to indicate that ABP and magic bonuses do not stack. So if you get a striking rune at level 2, you are ahead of your curve until you get to the level where it becomes standard by way of ABP.

There is also the somewhat unfortunate (although it does add flavor, which does add value) fact that most casters do not depend on fundamental runes or magic items for their damage progression, so the suggested changes to loot value has a different impact on them (in reduced flexibility) without giving them very real bonuses to their damage output they would utilize. I also don't necessarily see the need for a typical mage to be doing striking damage right at 4th level.

In a way, the existing rules for Striking runes might be comparable to if casters had to have some sort of item (or rune to be placed on an item) to enable them to cast spells of 3rd or higher level from their 3rd or higher spell slots. (and then perhaps likewise a greater item for 6th and 9th level spell casting) It actually is not a horrible sounding idea, if one liked the flavor of it. But is is rather impactful, and is a dividing line in how the martial and caster classes are being treated differently within this system.

I strongly suggest anyone with question about the impact and requirement of striking runes, absolutely examine and strongly consider using the ABP rules. but also consider if you really want to eliminate the ability for magic to interact with this scope. You almost assuredly would not want them to be able to stack, but I don't think eliminating them completely is really always the best choice for story, flavor and fun.

I'm probably missing something, but it seems like it as it adds at least one more weapon die (which can be up to a d12), whereas the (usually) higher level "energy damage" runes only do xd6 damage (depending on the level.)

The company has invested in high-quality materials and construction techniques to ensure that these shoes can withstand intense wear and tear over time. This durability is particularly important for athletes who engage in rigorous training and competitions on a regular basis. Performance is at the heart of the Diadora low-profile magic shoes. The low-profile design allows for improved agility, making it easier for athletes to change directions quickly and navigate through obstacles with ease. The shoes also offer excellent traction, ensuring that athletes can maintain a firm grip on the ground and make precise movements. Overall, the Diadora low-profile magic shoes are a great choice for athletes looking for a high-performance footwear option. These shoes combine comfort, durability, and performance in a sleek and stylish design. Athletes can trust in the quality of Diadora's products and rely on the low-profile magic shoes to help them perform their best on the field or court..

Reviews for "Diadora Low Profile Shoes: The Secret Weapon of Champions"

1. John - 2 stars: I was really disappointed with the Diadora low profile magic shoes. Firstly, they were not comfortable at all. The insoles were extremely hard and provided no cushioning for my feet. Additionally, the fit was off and I experienced some discomfort in the toe area. The overall construction of the shoes felt cheap and not durable. I expected better quality from Diadora.

2. Emily - 3 stars: I was not impressed with the Diadora low profile magic shoes. Although they had a sleek design, they lacked in functionality. The grip on the soles was poor, especially on wet surfaces. I found myself slipping multiple times while wearing these shoes. Moreover, the shoes didn't offer much arch support and I experienced foot fatigue after wearing them for extended periods of time. Overall, I don't think they are worth the price.

3. David - 2 stars: The Diadora low profile magic shoes didn't live up to my expectations. The sizing was way off, and even though I ordered my usual size, they were still too small. The lack of flexibility in the shoes made them uncomfortable to wear and I felt restricted. The material of the upper also felt stiff and didn't conform to my foot shape. I would not recommend these shoes to anyone in search of comfort and proper fit.

4. Sarah - 2 stars: I regret purchasing the Diadora low profile magic shoes. The quality of the stitching and construction was poor, and after just a few weeks of wearing them, I noticed the sole starting to come apart. The shoes also had a strange chemical smell when I first opened the box, which persisted even after multiple uses. I expected more durability and better craftsmanship from a reputable brand like Diadora.

5. Michael - 2 stars: I found the Diadora low profile magic shoes to be quite disappointing. The overall design and aesthetics were nice, but the functionality left much to be desired. The shoes offered minimal support and cushioning, causing discomfort during longer walks or runs. Furthermore, I experienced blisters due to the stiff material rubbing against my skin. I would not recommend these shoes for anyone seeking performance or comfort.

Diadora Low Profile Shoes: The Ultimate Comfort and Performance Combo