Positives and Negatives

Here's a question: Can anyone give a decent reason as to why heightening spells is so limited? Here are two really WTF choices:

1) Sorcerers need to re-learn a spell as a heightened version in order to cast it as a heightened spell.
2) Spontaneous Heighten isn't spontaneous at all. They need to be prepared at the beginning of the day.

If casters are already limited by spells per day, why even bother having a limit on heightened spells? If someone would rather cast a heightened fireball than greater teleport, why should they not be able to? It seems extremely reasonable to me to presume that if a caster knows how to put more into spells like Magic Missile for more missiles (adding in more components), then surely they also know how to put ever-so-slightly-more in (cast as a level 2 spell) in order to get one more.

I for one am house ruling these stupid limitations out of my games, but can anyone understand why they exist at all?

Well, your post is actually off-topic, but this is something I feel rather strongly about. I really don't know why all spellcasting classes are now so unbelieveably underwhelming, constrained, and generally worthless. All spellcasters got hit hard, but sorcerors in particular got pounded. Not only do they still have all the downsides that went with the boon of spontaneous spellcasting, the sole benefit of having more spell slots than other casters has been removed. While there are bloodline powers, these seem to be used as a reason to make it a major sacrifice to heighten spells, give them fewer class feats (2 less) than any other spellcasting class and 4 less than any "martial" class, and just generally make them completely unviable as a class.

The explanation given is that bloodline powers are so powerful that they had to be balanced against other classes. But other spellcasting classes got to have "class powers" either through domains or animal companions/shapeshifting. And lets face it, bloodline powers generally suck (there may be a few exceptions, depending on your play style). So why pound on Sorcerers so hard.

The only reference that I remember to this whole debacle was an early podcast where one of the devs (I won't name names) said something to the effect of 'we know there is an imbalance between casters and fighters (notice that they only mention the fighter class), and we intend to address the issue'. So that's the only justification that I have read or heard concerning the severe beating that spellcasters in general, and sorcerers in particular have taken under the new rules.

It is idiotic in my opinion since the complaint seems to revolve around sorcerers/wizards clearing entire rooms with a fireball before the fighter had a chance to swing. I personally have never seen that happen. Spell DCs for saves in PF1 are one of the few things that are pretty tightly controlled and unless all the mooks in the room were really low level or unanimously failed their Reflex saves, none of them would be killed by a single fireball. Average damage for a 6d6 fireball is around 21 points, which wouldn't be enough to kill anything that was 6HD. And the save damage of 10pts wouldn't kill a creature of half that level. True, some of the higher level spells could take out a boss if they rolled badly on the save (usually they had to roll a 1 or something under 5 to fail) but bad rolls do happen and not only to PCs.

It was much more likely, in my experience, for the fighter types to rush in without giving any thought to the fact that the caster could use an AoE to soften things up a bit. I almost never got a chance to use an AoE in a fight. Usually, I was casting buff spells the first round - something like Haste which granted me only the subsidiary benefits while everyone got extra attacks.

On the other hand, I have seen melee types and archers take out an enemy a round without expending a single resource besides a few arrows.

So if you ask me there is no reason except that someone has a lot of bias against spellcasters, since it is obvious that they did indeed address the issue mentioned above whether it was valid or not.

Personally I think Resonance Points are a great idea, that is simply poorly implemented. It tries to solve a fairly simple problem in an overly complex way.

It should be simplified, made straight forward and easy to understand.
First it shouldn't have any attribute association, period. It muddies the water.
Instead every character should have the same set amount of RP that don't increase as you level, but only via feats. Some classes having greater access to said feats then others.

With only two uses of said points.
A: Individual use for single use or charge based items.
B: Periodic upkeep for ongoing magical effects/items.

So you have a set limited pool that you can draw from each day, recharging on rest, that you can either spend on individual uses, like potions or wands, or to upkeep you magical armor, weapons, or accessories.
No over capping, it shouldn't even exist as a mechanic.
If you run out of points, you can't active any new magical items, period.

Having a largely fixed number would make it both easier to understand, but easier to balance around. Because as you already said, having an increasing number as you level puts you in the exact same position you were trying to avoid with the system.
You can't have too many points, but you can't have too few either.

A fixed number is the way to go.

If you want to fix CLW wand spam (and the CLW potion spam that would replace it if you nerfed wands specifically) then just make it so that any healing effect can only heal you up to 10 times its spell level in HP* (and give an effective spell level to any healing effect that doesn't replicate a spell).

If CLW can only take you to 10 HP, 10th level characters will stop bothering with it (except to revive unconscious people or heal NPCs), but 1st and 2nd level characters will still think it's great.

Hell, make any given healing effect take you straight to 10 times its level in HP (assuming you had less) and bolster you against healing for 10 rounds (or perhaps against healing of an equal or lower level), and you've probably solved "in combat healing is inefficient".

Non-Magical Healing could function in a similar fashion (effective spell level some fraction of character level, adjusted by proficiency, or full character level capped by proficiency) but bolster you for the entire day (skill feats could allow more than once per day, or reduce bolstered to several hours).

Then you can remove resonance from consumables, price them appropriately, and concentrate on a resonance system that solves the players have too many magic items "problem".

*or an appropriate number as dictated by the HP math for 2E.

So drinking too many potions can make you temporarily blind, or turn blue, or feel sick, or hallucinate, or tired, or emit bubbles from your skin, but you're not going to die from it.

This doesn't resolve the 10 minute adventuring day, it makes it even more unpredictable. On that table, most results will be bearable - but a few, like blindness, will not. If you roll one of the bad ones, you will have to turn back and rest. It becomes random and cannot be planned for.

Lets resonance to the rest of PF1. It actually fits with other parts of the design paradigm. What PF2 does is that it puts everyone on a clock - a very tight clock.

* Casters get about half the spell slots they used to have, and spell slots at less than max level are worth less as spells need to be Heightened.

* Martials basically get no healing at all until mid levels, because their resonance is locked up in permanent items.

The net effect seems to be that a PF2 adventure is much shorter than a PF1 adventure - a dungeon is 2-3 rooms/fights, no more. This reminds me of late 4E, where a "dungeon" was a single encounter with one big complex fight.

We all know what happened to 4E.

For a role-playing game to actually have any role-playing, there needs to be some leeway in the system. You must be able to play less than optimally. If you constantly have to go for the most effective solution, and only that, there is no room for the characters.

The good news is that this should be possible to see from playtest reports. If this is true, the playtest reports should show a higher mortality - until players learn that this is how it is. Then it will instead show multiple rest and a shorter adventuring day.

First sentence in the post above was a brain fart. This is what is should be:

Lets compare resonance to the rest of PF2.

Swiftbrook wrote:

"Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Case in point—let's talk about Resonance Points. Yeah, that's right. I'm going there.

Thank You!

"Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

A big issue is that a lot of folks just plain don't like Resonance Points.

+1! Resonance may attempt to solve perceived problems, but I still don't like it. It's confusing. It's not how magic is suppose to work. It's not fun!

"Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Designers, by nature, want you to use the items they created in actual play. But adventure designers are often under budgetary constraints to make not the best item for the story, but the one that does the trick while still conforming to the amount of treasure output in the design guides.

This is my main problem with all of Pathfinder Playtest, not just Resonance Points, and this is the first time I've seen it in print. Pathfinder Playtest is all mainly about making it easier for designers to create products, not about making it more fun for players to play the game. You're creating a 'balanced is boring' game. The PCs don't feel heroic, then seem balanced and common.

The Playtest has some good stuff - OK some very good stuff. I love the three action rules, they really make sense.

But in the end, I just hope you scrap Resonance Points. The negatives and negative consequences far out weigh the perceived positives. It's not worth it.

I totally agree on putting designers above players. It's why the biggest problem for me isn't Resonance, it's the Common/Uncommon/Rare system.

If the reason for your agreement is the Common/Uncommon/Rare classification system, then I could not disagree with you more.

I see that classification system as a valuable feature for DMing.

I believe Swiftbrook's point was that the application of the Rarity system and its ability to be abused.

Howard197 made the point "Scry, Teleport, Protection from Evil, Discern Lies" are all uncommon. In setting, why would those be uncommon? Those would be among the most useful spells, and thus, the most common. Just because something is valuable, doesn't make it uncommon, and just because something is rare, doesn't make it useful (or valuable).

A spell that transmutes all of the grass in the area to cheese could be unique. But that would be because no one wants it. A spell like Prismatic Globe (a level 10 spell from ?2nd Ed? I remember as a mobile PS) would be rare because the number of people able to cast it would be so few.

A level 1 spell with a ton of utility (PfE) could simply never be rare unless a cabal of Wizards hunted down people who learned it. In world, Dragonlance handled this by means of the Wizards of High Sorcery. People who grew powerful enough HAD to take the test, or they were killed.

Rarity must depend on the following:
Is there a constraining limit to the materials, people able to make, or able to use the item?

Is there a limited audience for the item? It may be rare to find, but not rare to make once you know about it. E.G. You may make the first and only adamantine Spork, but that doesn't mean others who choose to make one can't.

Simply, for something to be rare, supply must outstrip demand.

If you want to fix CLW wand spam (and the CLW potion spam that would replace it if you nerfed wands specifically)

This kind of adds to the feeling I'm getting that a lot of people haven't even looked at wands in PF2e yet.

In the context of spell knowledge, there are many factors shaping rarity that are not based on economic scarcity value. It advantages spellcasters who have a particularly powerful spell not to circulate it commonly, as they would then be more likely to be on its receiving end. Wizardry in particular is dependent on direct transmission. In a world full of active deities, some knowledge not in line with a faith’s ethos may be purposely obscured. States have a vested interest in reigning in the types of magic that endanger their power, making some spells less frequent. Cultural forces may predispose certain types magic to be more popular than others or outright viewed as rude or taboo. The types of material components and the intricacies of somatic and verbal casting may simply make some spells easier to cast than others, predisposing certain spells to wide circulation while others are not. Knowledge does not flow in straight lines. It is often lost, stagnates in certain cul-de-sacs, and is rediscovered much later. It is reasonable to imagine magic is not immune to such patterns.

So I was thinking about this and came to a revelation. Maybe the best option is to instead of dis-incentivizing the low level consumables, incentivize the higher level?

Using Round Math and names for simplicity:

Lets say a Wand of Cure I costs 1000 GP, has 50 charges and cures an average of 5 HP per charge. So it would contain 250 HP of healing for 1000 GP, or 1/4 HP/GP

Currently a Wand of Cure II would cost around 3500, have 50 charges, and cure an average of 10 HP per charge. 500 HP of healing for 3500 GP, or a little more than 1/8 HP/GP

You are getting less for your money. Economics is Economical. Without making resonance absolutely punishing, it will honestly continue to be around.

"I'm about to go to sleep and have 8 RP left. Hit me with the wand of Cure I until I fail a resonance roll"

That WILL happen.

But what if the Wand of Cure II cost 3500 and had cured 17.5 HP per charge? or even a round 20? Suddenly the economics line up (with the cost per HP being the same as, or a little higher than Cure I) and there is incentive to take the higher wand. Problem solved. Some people would still cheap out, but they would actually be spending more money in the long run.

Party HP increases more slowly than their wealth. A Fighter can gain go from 30 to 40 HP in a level up, but by WBL he could be going from 200GP to 500GP net worth. This means that if high level wands are just as cost effective as low level ones, they'd be a no-brainer. They could buy so many high level wands! Resonance is really the only fair restriction to them... Wands suck for balance.

"Low level magic items are a problem"

Really? Really?

Magic Wands were the problem! No seriously Paizo, where'd you get the info that people were mass spamming Potions? The only other thing that saw as much spam was Scrolls for wizards.

Nerfing the wands alone would and should have been enough to solve the "CLW Wand Issue" which was named due to WANDS.

If low level wands were the problem (which is a point in dispute), it is partially a function of the price. Why were wand charges only 30% of the cost of an equivalent potion? Raising the cost of healing wands will encourage players to focus more on defense and finding options other than pure melee.

The "wand issue" could also have been solved through adjusting the amount of hit points and the damage done. One of the results of the increase in hit points from older D&D to PF1 was that if a character lost 90% of his/her hit points, that character needed more healing. However, the effectiveness of healing spells were not increased, so this translated into needing more spells, encouraging CLW wands spam or shorter adventuring days. Proportionately slowing the growth of hit points and damage done will decrease the need for CLW wands, as would increasing the effectiveness of healing spells.

Resonance seems to be an overly broad "solution" with numerous side effects. In my opinion, it inhibits smart playing. If a party finds out information about a future opponent and his/her defenses, through scrying, diplomacy, intimidation, or other methods, I think that party should be able to find ways to improve their odds. One of the ways of doing this is through purchasing one shot or limited use magic items chosen specifically because of each layer of the defense or for the opponent himself/herself. Resonance makes this much more difficult.

I have also found resonance to reduce fun by adding one more set of resources to track. To me the game already has too much accounting, especially for PFS. If resonance were merely a substitute for slots -- for example being able to wear/use your character level worth of permanent item levels -- I believe it would simplify the game and allow players more choice in designing their characters.

Howard197 made the point "Scry, Teleport, Protection from Evil, Discern Lies" are all uncommon. In setting, why would those be uncommon? Those would be among the most useful spells, and thus, the most common.

That doesn't really apply as a general rule. Some of the most useful things in the world aren't common. I can see a great reason why such powerful tools are uncommon, because the folks who know them know how useful they are. I mean if you had the ability that could let you succeed almost completely in business or politics (a combination of Scry and Discern Lies would get you this) would you teach it to just anyone?

Useful things in the world that aren't common are often uncommon because of material costs. There are enough people in the world, and likely in the game world, who will disseminate this information. Look at pretty much anything today that doesn't have a lot of material costs involved.

Some people will no doubt want to keep these spells under wraps, perhaps even most, but unless the vast, vast majority of casters with these spells are in on the cover up and strictly enforce it by going after those who would share and the younger casters who want these spells respect the restricted access and will wait for 'their turn', these spells will proliferate.

Useful things in the world that aren't common are often uncommon because of material costs. There are enough people in the world, and likely in the game world, who will disseminate this information. Look at pretty much anything today that doesn't have a lot of material costs involved.

That would make sense for spells, too. I used to play a time oracle whose time sight gave her True Seeing and that was pretty useful. So I considered the spell for my next caster, and saw that the spell itself had a 250-gp material component with duration 1 minute per level. That caster did not learn True Seeing. (That was in Pathfinder 1st Edition. True Seeing in 2nd Edition lacks a material component cost.)

If Teleport had an expensive material component cost, then spellcasters would still use it, but we could justify it being an uncommon spell.

Useful things in the world that aren't common are often uncommon because of material costs. There are enough people in the world, and likely in the game world, who will disseminate this information. Look at pretty much anything today that doesn't have a lot of material costs involved.

Some people will no doubt want to keep these spells under wraps, perhaps even most, but unless the vast, vast majority of casters with these spells are in on the cover up and strictly enforce it by going after those who would share and the younger casters who want these spells respect the restricted access and will wait for 'their turn', these spells will proliferate.

That feels like a more modern attitude and expectation than really makes sense for Golarion, though. There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic, nor am I sure there's anywhere except maybe Andor where "people in general should have this information" feels a particularly plausible motivation for any significant number of people to spread it.

MerlinCross wrote:

"Low level magic items are a problem"

Really? Really?

Magic Wands were the problem! No seriously Paizo, where'd you get the info that people were mass spamming Potions? The only other thing that saw as much spam was Scrolls for wizards.

Nerfing the wands alone would and should have been enough to solve the "CLW Wand Issue" which was named due to WANDS.

If low level wands were the problem (which is a point in dispute), it is partially a function of the price. Why were wand charges only 30% of the cost of an equivalent potion? Raising the cost of healing wands will encourage players to focus more on defense and finding options other than pure melee.

The "wand issue" could also have been solved through adjusting the amount of hit points and the damage done. One of the results of the increase in hit points from older D&D to PF1 was that if a character lost 90% of his/her hit points, that character needed more healing. However, the effectiveness of healing spells were not increased, so this translated into needing more spells, encouraging CLW wands spam or shorter adventuring days. Proportionately slowing the growth of hit points and damage done will decrease the need for CLW wands, as would increasing the effectiveness of healing spells.

Yeah see, this is what I meant. There's so many things you could have done to try and nerf them. Or fix them. Or Balance them. Probably depends on your own viewing of if it's a problem or not and how much you use it yourself.

There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic

Anyone with access to Summon Monster III can move a lot of information rapidly across the entirety of Golarion by way of Lantern Archon. This isn't the only way of quickly disseminating information, just the first relatively low level way I found. There doesn't need to be that many people capable of doing this, as a percentage of the population it could be seriously tiny, to enable reliable global communication.

Whoever, or whatever organization, is doing this is making a killing in the markets too.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic

Anyone with access to Summon Monster III can move a lot of information rapidly across the entirety of Golarion by way of Lantern Archon. This isn't the only way of quickly disseminating information, just the first relatively low level way I found.

How many fifth or sixth level casters do you expect to be around, then ? Also, summoning large numbers of lantern archons and using them for personal gain seems likely to draw attention for more senior archons.

Whoever, or whatever organization, is doing this is making a killing in the markets too.

More so by creating competition than by keeping the information to themselves and selling their services ?

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic

Anyone with access to Summon Monster III can move a lot of information rapidly across the entirety of Golarion by way of Lantern Archon. This isn't the only way of quickly disseminating information, just the first relatively low level way I found. There doesn't need to be that many people capable of doing this, as a percentage of the population it could be seriously tiny, to enable reliable global communication.

Whoever, or whatever organization, is doing this is making a killing in the markets too.

It's a little harder than that:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

It's a little harder than that:

PRD wrote:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

Fair enough, knew about the summoning bit but missed the teleportation clause.

I have been very impressed with the Pathfinder version 2 so far. I have seen a couple of new versions of D&D (I still miss Birthright) and have never seen an edition where I'm constantly saying "Thats clever" or "I like that!" You guys have done an amazing job with the new edition.

That being said, I think I agree that resonance needs a bit of work... and I have a proposal, although it requires a lot more work on behalf of the Game designers. It essentially is doubling down on the resonance idea. Make it more important.

The idea that Charisma represents a characters magical force is great and I think resonance is a great way of representing that force. But instead of having an item fail when a resonance doesnt get off, why not have two levels to a consumable items... say a healing potion will always give you a base 1D4+1 hit points, but an infused (ie potion that someone just spent a resonance point on) unleashes the magics' full potential and now heals 2D4+2. The system already has 4 levels of effects (crit, success, failure and crit failure) ... now just bring that level of detail to magical items. Consumables have minor affects until infused with a little magic from the character.

More permanent items would require the character to again offer up their own essence to bond with an item. A +1 longsword will cost you one resonance point, which will reduce you daily max cap but want that Vorpal sword?, thats gonna really represent a huge part of your resonance pool. Do you want a powerful sword of wounding +3 that invests four of your resonance points or do you want the +1 sword of corrosion that only cost one investment but allows you to turn it corrosive three times a day for 1 minute.

It gets even more interesting when resonance points can be used to replace charges. Have a staff of the Magi with 1 charges and need to cast one last disintegrate to stave off that swooping dragon, well you have the option of spending three of you daily resonance points instead of using that charge or maybe just one resonance point to cast Magic missile. Or some items could only work on resonance points... Wand of cure light wound anyone... no charges but cost a resonance point every time you use it.

BUT... this causes some interesting change potential.

Dwarfs are not naturally Magical, so Dwarven made items now have a reduced resonance cost. Elves are naturally magical, so higher cost of resonance investment is required but allow for possibly different investment levels or abilities that cost a resonance point but are cool.

Many people are complaining about sorcerers being not as versatile as they used to be...but what if they received a class feat or ability at certain levels that allowed them to use resonance points to boost or heighten a spell that they can cast... or higher level abilities that let them directly translate those resonance points directly into spell slots. After all, these sorcerers are innately magical... they scoff at using magical items that the lesser, less gifted use.

Paladin been laying on hands too much or your Battle cleric need one more Enduring Might to defeat the hill Giant... convert that resonance point for that one more important heroic feat. Paladin need a bit of Divine intervention... feel the grace of your deities favor embrace you (and a couple extra Resonance points as well)

And speaking of Heroic... need a couple of extra resonance points... let the player buy back resonance points at a cost of one hero point = charisma modifier of resonance points.

Alchemist not powerful enough for you... They will be when every level they receive one extra resonance point. Sounds like a lot, but if that True Elixir of life can only be infused for 3 resonance points...is it really.

Elf and Gnome a little fragile for your taste... not if these inherently magical ancestries have feats that grant them more resonance points. High Elf Ancestry anyone... :)

Think that Wraith is to easy... not when you find out his touch drains you of your very essence...costing you both health and resonance. Bad touch, indeed.

And of course there should probably be a tiered General feat for resonance points... Remarkable Resonance +2 Resonance req: Cha 12 | Enhanced Essence +4 Resonance req: Remarkable Resonance and Char 14 | Soul of Magic +6 Resonance Points req: Enhanced Essence and Char 16... ect ect.

You can see what I mean about it being a little bit of work but I think it would be awesome. I always like more options and it seems like this system would confront many of the issues that resonance was designed for (and probably create some new ones)

Greetings. I am pleased to see you responded to the criticisms on resonance points, and happy to see that you are responding to the unofficial facebook posts. That you guys know how to seek out useful data gives me hope for your capabilities.
I like the "We only create worlds of fantasy, we don't live in one" line. It's thematically appropriate and clever. You're witty, at the very least. I'll give you benefit of the doubt if I see something that looks strange, and assume it makes sense in a way I don't get yet. I keep things simple so people know just how dumb I am. It helps a lot with communication.
I'm going to reword your article as I address it. This isn't meant to be disprespectful, or to put words in your mouth. This is to make sure I understand the gist of it. If I say you say something that you did not mean to communicate, please tell me. That way, I know which lines of thought I have are logically not valid, and I can build opinions with grounding in reality.
[A] You start by talking about the problems you were trying to solve. You said putting resonance in the game confused some people because they didn't know what problems you were trying to solve.
[B] The first was bad magic economy. In short, the best items were cheap magic items instead of expensive ones. The pathfinder group- you guys- used resonance to degrade lower level items. Some people didn't like that. The problem doesn't live alone.
[C] You say bad magic economy and 1e pricing play havoc with low-level, limited-uses-per-day items. You explain where it came from- book pressure. The treasure output design guide tells you how effective an item you're allowed to have. The adventure designers need magic 'keys' strong enough to open their magic 'locks,' but as the characters level up, the keys can open more locks than were intended. What was supposed to be a cheap solution turns into a very effective tool for other locks. You specify that it shows up the most during boss fights. (You call them climactic encounters.) You also say the problem is more prevalent among the core rulebook classes.
You continue.
[D] You speak on the Christmas Tree effect. As far as I see, the Christmas Tree effect refers to the idea that you're required to have so many magical items in order to stay relevant, that you 'look like a Christmas Tree.' ((You also talk about slots, but that's a different conversation, I think.))
We get to the last problem for resonance to fix.
[E] You wanted to get rid of tedious book-keeping (thank you for that, by the way. I mean it.) Resonance removes the item-based uses-per-day book-keeping. You state that you didn't use it as much as it could have been, but you get the point across- it was to help reduce book-keeping.
[F] With the problems stated, you move on to a paragraph stating that you are aware there are problems with the way it is currently implemented, specifically with how it isn't reducing the number of pools at higher level. You say you need to pound the system into shape a little more to achieve that goal.
[G] You state that many people do not like resonance points. Among the listed items: People don't like new things. People don't see what Res points fix. People don't think the problems it's trying to fix are problems at all. [1] What is 'more telling' is that many who understand the issues and agree that they are problems disagree with the method being used to fix them. Among the reasons cited are that the system feels too artificial, and that it punishes the players.
[H] You state that you anticipated the disagreements from the people who did understand and the people who did not understand the purpose of resonance. You said that you knew the current res point design would give you info regarding playing the game and item-useage. You then say the feedback is helping you better solve the problems res was supposed to fix.
[I] You finish by saying a good attitude and critical comments helped you. You say there are options you're considering to fix or replace it, and you want people to keep sharing opinions.
(A) Players not knowing what you're trying to fix means designers didn't work hard enough to spread that knowledge. It's good that you're fixing it now, but the team should be more transparent about what they're trying to fix if they want to avoid this headache in the future.
(B) If you want the better items to be more useful, why not make the expensive, high-level things better from an economic standpoint? I don't mean this as a suggestion, I am asking it legitimately. I understand the need to change the effectiveness of one or the other, but why reduce one rather than increase another? Is there a reason?
(C) I have several thoughts on this. One, the treasure guide. If it's giving constraints that make bad products, why not remove those constraints? Alternatively, as suggested in (B), why not change those constraints? Why not design around the concept of the low-item power ramp? Why have the high level items at all / Why not remove the high level items? If the low-level items are all that players value, then there shouldn't be a problem with removing them.
(D) I have never heard this term before this article, so thank you for using it. I just got a great idea for a high-level gnome with a pointy had and green clothing. Anyway. You say the Christmas Tree Effect is 'bad.' I put that in quotes because you don't say why you think it's bad. Is it because players think it's bad? Does it create the wrong image? I have no strong feelings on the CT effect.
(E) This raises a warning flag to me- many players LIKE book-keeping. Get more data on whether you need to fix this at all. From my perspective, you need more data on this. Not all builds are for all people.
(F) As stated above, are you POSITIVE this is a good goal? Will success make more players happy?
(G) There are people who understand the problems and disagree they are problems, and you state this yourself. In what way is this NOT telling people how to have fun? I understand you want to reduce book-keeping, and I like that. But not all people do. I can't even say that most people do.
(H) ... Yanno... I think I'm just going to actually quote you here...
"Even many who do understand the issues have some misgivings, feel that this solution is too artificial, or see it as just plain punitive. We anticipated that. But even with all of the issues, we knew that the current design of Resonance Points would give us valuable information about play patterns and consumable use throughout the playtest..."
You knew this was not a fun game model, and you knew people were going to dislike it for valid reasons, but you released it anyway so that you could gain data on play patterns and consumable item use. This is not a question. This is your statement.
You released something you knew people would dislike because it would get you data.
...
This is misleading and manipulative. Do not do this again in the future.
(I) If you don't release the other ideas, people can't playtest them. But I mean... how seriously can I take what you release when you admit you release certain things purely for the data, and have no intent to use it?
...
I mean... were you even trying to fix the problems you say you were trying to fix? In [A], you said people just didn't know about the problems you were trying to fix, but in [H], you said you knew it was bad.
What is going on?

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic

Anyone with access to Summon Monster III can move a lot of information rapidly across the entirety of Golarion by way of Lantern Archon. This isn't the only way of quickly disseminating information, just the first relatively low level way I found. There doesn't need to be that many people capable of doing this, as a percentage of the population it could be seriously tiny, to enable reliable global communication.

Whoever, or whatever organization, is doing this is making a killing in the markets too.

Bird Feather Tokens are amazing for quick information sending. They go 30 MPH, but there is no mention of ever stopping to rest, and there is no range limit. At 2 GP a pop, I could see these being used for First Class mail. And can a sparrow carry the weight of a key? If so, combine it with the Chest Feather Token (7 GP) to transport 10 bluk of cargo. Great for high-value, low bulk cargo like spices, or spellbooks. Just make sure you're at the drop-off location. I could see this being popular with smugglers. There is a risk of interception, but how would someone pick out a single magic sparrow with a key out of all the birds in the sky? I suppose Bird Pirates would pop up if this was done on a commercial scale. But that actually seems pretty awesome to me. Thieves on flying mounts with some kind of magic detection and bird-nets hunting for cargo carrying birds. There is plot potential there.

Bird-Pirate 1: "I hear you made a catch, what did yours have?"
Bird-Pirate 2: "It was a bust, just some letters from a merchant to his wife back home. What about you, I hear you caught a key-bird last week."
Bird-Pirate 1: "That was a nice score. The chest had a hundred pounds of refined pesh!"
Bird-Pirate 2: "Ok, you're buying drinks then."

I'm a lot more irritated and confused coming out of this than I was going into it. Which is it? Do you plan to keep the resonance points to fix the "PROBLEMS" people had? Or did you release what you knew was a bad system, wasting the time of everybody who wanted to test the system to make sure it worked? We're all here to playtest the system and make sure it works. You gain nothing by lying about the system other than the ire of the people whose attention and time you have wasted.

Whatever your answer is on what your original intent was, it is now irrelevant. You say there are other options and other ideas, but you have not talked about those ideas. We do not see those systems. Unless you plan on keeping the system- the system that many of the people who understood it disliked- then the systems and ideas you have in mind for fixing the problems you are trying to solve are currently not being tested.

I wanted to use my time to help improve the final model, not waste it on an elaborate survey system.

I'm done play-testing for now. Let us know when you know what you're going to do.

Of my issues, Resonance so far has been fairly low on the totem pole, as I think the biggest issues are more in the classes and general math, but I do wonder whether the suggestions people seem to suggest are the best solutions. People gripe at consumables costing resonance, and I understand that complaint, but I would almost go the opposite way, and say that only consumables should cost resonance, as if resonance is meant to solve the "People use lower level items, because higher level items aren't worth the cost" the place that I've seen this most is with consumables. Now, This comes with issues that I have in general, when it comes to healing, as my personal solution would be something like the 4e/5e/ect systems that allow for a certain amount of free healing, that doesn't cost some other resource, but the only reason that that wasn't an issue in PF was the immersion-breaking wand of CLW spam. I'd far rather see resonance in PF2e (alongside such free healing, preferably, though I'd probably accept it without, contingent on more playtest experience) than see the return of wands of CLW, but even if healing were removed as an issue, I think resonance is a concept that does more good than harm.

Of my issues, Resonance so far has been fairly low on the totem pole, as I think the biggest issues are more in the classes and general math, but I do wonder whether the suggestions people seem to suggest are the best solutions. People gripe at consumables costing resonance, and I understand that complaint, but I would almost go the opposite way, and say that only consumables should cost resonance, as if resonance is meant to solve the "People use lower level items, because higher level items aren't worth the cost" the place that I've seen this most is with consumables. Now, This comes with issues that I have in general, when it comes to healing, as my personal solution would be something like the 4e/5e/ect systems that allow for a certain amount of free healing, that doesn't cost some other resource, but the only reason that that wasn't an issue in PF was the immersion-breaking wand of CLW spam. I'd far rather see resonance in PF2e (alongside such free healing, preferably, though I'd probably accept it without, contingent on more playtest experience) than see the return of wands of CLW, but even if healing were removed as an issue, I think resonance is a concept that does more good than harm.

I rather like the idea because anything that reduces tedium is something I like. I rather dislike what was said in the article, because it paints them badly. Perhaps they misspoke.

Perhaps instead of having consumable items at all, you should have resonance-powered magic items, or even "x-times per day" items, so people don't have to keep buying more.

A Roguelike game I play (Tales of Maj'Eyal) does this to good effect, replacing consumables with Infusions, character-attached "items" that give you the healing and mobility every character needs without fiddly inventory management - instead they just have a relatively long cooldown so they can't be spammed in combat and additional cooldown penalties for using too many in a row (and a limit on how many a character can have available at once).

Thank you for showing us a little of what goes on behind the curtain and how your team thinks about problems and how to solve them. I find these sorts of insights fascinating.

Also, I think it's reassuring to know that you are listening to the voluminous feedback and taking it all into consideration as you tweak the game. I think most of us believe you are doing this, but it's always good to have confirmation.

Keep up the great work!

Indeed! I too appreciate the insight devs!

However, I too would like to echo that the real issue has always been the 15 minute a day adventure model. If there was a way to make it a per combat counter, instead of per day or the like, I think you'd have to temper the power of most magic/spells/items etc., but this, to me, is still and always the real issue regardless of the system.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Useful things in the world that aren't common are often uncommon because of material costs. There are enough people in the world, and likely in the game world, who will disseminate this information. Look at pretty much anything today that doesn't have a lot of material costs involved.

Some people will no doubt want to keep these spells under wraps, perhaps even most, but unless the vast, vast majority of casters with these spells are in on the cover up and strictly enforce it by going after those who would share and the younger casters who want these spells respect the restricted access and will wait for 'their turn', these spells will proliferate.

That feels like a more modern attitude and expectation than really makes sense for Golarion, though.

Unlike the perfectly Mediaeval/Renaissance attitudes towards gender and sexual equality, etc. These game worlds have an unholy mix of RL modern and archaic sensibilities, so why shouldn't some people want to help spread information?

There's not that much capacity to disseminate that information rapidly or on a large scale part from among people who already have access to high-level magic, nor am I sure there's anywhere except maybe Andor where "people in general should have this information" feels a particularly plausible motivation for any significant number of people to spread it.

Things don't have to be spread rapidly or on a large scale to become common. Back in pre 3.x editions swapping spells with casters you meet up with was an expected method of acquiring new spells. You do this over enough time, say a century or two, and even if you start out with a small number it becomes fairly easy to find a copy.

Plus there is the economic aspect of supply and demand. Once people find out that something really useful is possible they will want to have it. Unless you have some sort of governing body trying to restrict access, sheer demand will create a market for it. If everyone else is trying to suppress Teleport but Bahb the archmage wants to make some easy petty cash, he can sell scrolls or the right to copy the spell from him and make a killing.

Also, I'm not talking about Golarion. P1 was used to run many non-Golarion games so any assumptions based on that setting will likely not apply to others. Setting based reasons for mechanics are not good guidelines for a generic system unless P2 wants to be entirely based in Golarion at the expense of being a D&D game that can run more worlds than one.
The current P2 rarity system of spells is incompatible with several existing settings. Dragonlance's Order of High Sorcery restrict certain spells based on specialization and morality, not utility. FR has numerous schools of magic both large and small, and Mystra's aforementioned attitudes towards magic.

Mystara has at least two very magical nations: Glantri with its Great School of Magic where they teach everything, and only the secret crafts (which amount to prestige classes) and the Radiance are restricted. Alphatia has a population which is 25% casters (down from 99%), a political council of 1000 max-level casters (which doesn't exhaust the supply of max level casters in the country) and an overwhelming presence of magic. Teleportation and similar magics are trivial.

Now you can say that it's easy enough to ignore rarity. It is and as such it's a minor issue compared to my gripes about the rest of the system, but it is yet another example of a mindset which is at odds with mine and which is trying to tell me that the way we've been doing things for all this time, the way I enjoy doing things, is wrong. It's trying to justify vast changes to the basic assumptions of the game in name of balance. It is yet another example of trying to fix something some of us didn't consider broken by forcing assumptions on the game worlds which are equally arbitrary and ignore human nature as any others people rightly or wrong complain about.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Useful things in the world that aren't common are often uncommon because of material costs. There are enough people in the world, and likely in the game world, who will disseminate this information. Look at pretty much anything today that doesn't have a lot of material costs involved.

That would make sense for spells, too. I used to play a time oracle whose time sight gave her True Seeing and that was pretty useful. So I considered the spell for my next caster, and saw that the spell itself had a 250-gp material component with duration 1 minute per level. That caster did not learn True Seeing. (That was in Pathfinder 1st Edition. True Seeing in 2nd Edition lacks a material component cost.)

If Teleport had an expensive material component cost, then spellcasters would still use it, but we could justify it being an uncommon spell.

My groups ALWAYS have True Seeing available. It is far, far too useful to be without. So what if it has a minor cost attached - it's a lot cheaper to pay 250 gp than to pay to res friends who died because you couldn't see the horde of invisible mirror imaged killers in the shifting illusory maze.

I liked the way Star Wars Saga handled it. The amount of healing wasn't based on the healer, but on the healed.

Applied to Pathfinder, it might looks something like this:

Cure light wounds = heals target's level* in hit points x2
Cure moderate wounds = heals target's level in hit points x5
Cure serious wounds = heals target's level in hit points x10
Cure critical wounds = heals target's level in hit points x20
Heal = heals all of the target's hit points

* Or hit dice as appropriate, for monsters and the like

The only thing that will stop the 15 minute adventuring day is narrative pressure.

If it doesn't matter whether I clear this dungeon in an hour or a month, there is nothing stopping me from nuking every room and taking an 8 hour power nap to recover my nukes.

Realistically, why would anyone risk their lives more than necessary to accomplish a goal in the first place? If all I want is the loot from the dungeon, then taking it nice and slow makes perfect sense.

The problem with this is that some people don't like being forced to finish a dungeon in one day. It sucks when you have to rescue the "damsel in distress" before the dragon eats her, and you realize that you don't have the resources left to do it. Either you drop the hero act and let the damsel die, sacrifice yourselves in vain, or have the GM deus ex machina some reason why the dragon doesn't eat her, or that you miraculously get some of your resources back.

Then you have the people who have been spoiled by the 15 minute adventuring day and complain when they can't enter the boss fight with a full load out.

One thing I am trying to implement in my home system is a mana system where magic regenerates like hit points do. It takes a few days to heal wounds naturally, so it makes sense that it takes a few days to regenerate spells naturally. If you "go nova" you can't just rest for 8 hours and be ready to go the next day. You may have to camp out for a week, in which time there is plenty of narrative freedom to have all manner of beasts assail the party.

THIS.

If the problem is the spamming of CLW, why not just create some healing surge like D&D 4 (it's really good) or something like Starfinder's stamina points (but not creating two HP pools, which make the game slower)?

If the problem is the spamming of CLW, why not just create some healing surge like D&D 4 (it's really good) or something like Starfinder's stamina points (but not creating two HP pools, which make the game slower)?

I don't like either of those systems (have never really dug Wound/Vitality systems for d20), and Healing Surges are one of the first things we removed from 4th Ed (detest everything about them, down to the name); it seems like Resonance is Healing Surges in disguise.

I liked the way Star Wars Saga handled it. The amount of healing wasn't based on the healer, but on the healed.

Applied to Pathfinder, it might looks something like this:

Cure light wounds = heals target's level* in hit points x2
Cure moderate wounds = heals target's level in hit points x5
Cure serious wounds = heals target's level in hit points x10
Cure critical wounds = heals target's level in hit points x20
Heal = heals all of the target's hit points

* Or hit dice as appropriate, for monsters and the like

I like this a lot. Something always seemed off about the way that CLW could almost heal you full at 1st level but was nearly worthless at 12th. I'm a big fan of spells that scale up as the game goes and are just as useful at end game as they are at the beginning.

Ravingdork wrote:

I liked the way Star Wars Saga handled it. The amount of healing wasn't based on the healer, but on the healed.

Applied to Pathfinder, it might looks something like this:

Cure light wounds = heals target's level* in hit points x2
Cure moderate wounds = heals target's level in hit points x5
Cure serious wounds = heals target's level in hit points x10
Cure critical wounds = heals target's level in hit points x20
Heal = heals all of the target's hit points

* Or hit dice as appropriate, for monsters and the like

I like this a lot. Something always seemed off about the way that CLW could almost heal you full at 1st level but was nearly worthless at 12th. I'm a big fan of spells that scale up as the game goes and are just as useful at end game as they are at the beginning.

Yes, some sort of % of your Total hit points is good, so it is equal amongst all characters (high hit point characters don't get the shaft).

One way to solve the "combat attrition" design is just to assume the party will do one single long combat event per dungeon. The combat encounter literally never ends. When one wave of monsters is dead, the next one spawns. Or maybe put a delay of 1 minute until next wave barges in from the door for some emergency healing.

These factors often created a race to the bottom, design-wise, spawning tons of these little X-per-day buggers that characters could afford, featuring relatively powerful (and always useful) effects that often became more useful as you gained levels. All of this creates a sort of mini-nova during climactic encounters, as characters spend a handful of swift and immediate actions ramping up to their optimal tactics. This is especially true for classes in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, since they typically have fewer class-based options competing for the use of swift and immediate actions.

Another problem Resonance Points are trying to address is what is often called the "Christmas Tree" effect of games that impose limits based solely on magic item slots. This goes hand in hand with the cheap consumable (or X-uses-per-day items), as many players rush to fill their slots with items featuring charges or uses per day.

I never encounter this myself in PF1. Players always fill their slots with the stat boosting items (big six etc).

If the players get lots of consumables, they are often hoarded and not used, because they almost always take standard actions to use and are thus not worth using (not to mention the low DCs these items tend to have).

Am I missing something? What are all these swift / immediate action items that dominate the playspace in dev games, that I never encountered, that are one of the main reasons for introducing resonance?

One way to solve the "combat attrition" design is just to assume the party will do one single long combat event per dungeon. The combat encounter literally never ends. When one wave of monsters is dead, the next one spawns. Or maybe put a delay of 1 minute until next wave barges in from the door for some emergency healing.

Which basically would turn a roleplaying game into a first person shooter, complete with spawn points. That would channel all modules into that one trope, which I would find boring after a couple of times.

I just hope that, whatever solution they come up with that they build an in game reason for it to work that way.

For example, it has been suggested that things made by alchemists not cost resonance (because it is a class feature) but that other things do. Ok, if that idea was implemented I would expect an in world reason why Alchemists were able to avoid resonance costs that no one else can.

So far we have been sort of focused on how we would like resonance to be changed from a game design level... but no discussion, particularly not from Paizo, on the IN GAME reasoning.

For example. Let us say that the rule is made that arcane casters can not wear armor while casting spells with a somatic component because it prevents them from moving properly. Ok, that's fine. But if you then allow a Magus to cast spells with a somatic component while wearing armor I would expect there to be an IN GAME reason why they get to do what other spellcasters can't. It would need to be one that felt correct to the players rather than something tacked on to support game design.

Boojum the brown bunny

I actually quite like resonance points.
I haven't actually played the playtest yet officially, I've just been making characters and sorta self-GMing to test out features as both player and GM if that makes sense. But I do want to try to start a new game with my group soon and use Pathfinder 2 to do it (which will most likely be recorded as a podcast)

I thought resonance points were a welcome little addition to my character's stats and I thought it simplified a lot of magic item use. Using RP with magic items was something I found I understood very easily even while certain other parts of the playtest rulebook I found confusing. I found using RP easily limits the spamming of certain magic items that would always be too easily used, doesn't require you to keep track of how many times each thing can be used per day or what has how many charges ect. it is much easier to keep track of.

I just overall think the concept is very attractive and I welcome it as a system. It made writing my own magic items much easier and simpler too.

Most of what I am going to say has been said before, but I have a few points I haven't noticed yet. Also, I will disclaimer this with saying that I have only played up to 4th level, so that is what I'm most familiar with.

I like the idea of resonance points. It's been pointed out that they remove CHA as a dump stat (not that dumping is really a thing right now) and they force the player to make conscious choices about his magic items.

As far as I can see with my limited amount of playtest games, the Resonance system has 2 faults:

1) It heavily reduces the adventuring day for parties without an innate form of healing, reducing the diversity in successful party comps, and

2) The resonance point economy still favors items which have passive effects, similar to how the Big 6 worked in PF1.

In regards to #1, I felt that the CLW wand spam was a necessary evil to allow players to freely choose what characters they wanted to use instead of having to be forced into the classic Wizard-Rogue-Fighter-Cleric basic 4 composition. Obviously this is over simplified, but cheap level 1 wands did allow for a greater diversity of party compositions (I remember a PFS scenario where my party consisted of 4 wizards, a sorc, and myself as a kineticist. We had our challenges and I had to be the frontliner but it was that kind of diversity that made random-party online PFS not only viable but exciting and unique, in my opinion at least) (I realize I say "diversity" when 5/6 of that party was arcane but that's not the point >.>)

Of course, if having a CLW wand is the equivalent of having a cleric, then you'll see the cleric role losing its identity as a healer class, but this can be addressed with specific nerfs to wands (like how they were reduced to 10 charges).

As for #2, I feel that there should be a revision of the RP cost-to-benefit of many of the magical items. The Bracers of Missile Deflection were mentioned before, but I agree in how terrible they seem. You need 1 RP just to invest them (with no passive attached) then another RP each time you want to use them. Removing either of these costs would be fine to me (although I would prefer removing the activation cost, as it already costs a precious Reaction and is against only a single ranged attack). Similarly, trinkets seem to cost far more than they're worth, both in GP and RP (making these invested 1/day items or something similar would be fine imo but I can see how trinkets can get out of hand).

At the moment, the items most useful for RP use are: Weapons, Armor, and Staves. Weapons and Armor are pretty obvious choices and are mandatory to any martial class, but for spellcasters a staff is also an incredibly useful item because of its passive investment bonus. Having to spend RP on any item other than these 3 generally feels bad, especially if it's a consumable. I feel like this only exasperates the "Big 6" problem.

As for potential solutions, I would prefer to keep the Resonance system, but do agree that the cost should probably be removed from consumables. As a compromise, I think it'd be okay to make wands invested items but remove the RP cost for activating them. With only 10 charges, this means you can't spam them quite as much as you'd like, making higher-level wands more appealing at higher levels. To compensate for this, I also think that the total number of RP should be modified (overall reduced). Level + CHA at low levels is -way- too little, esp for CHA8 dwarves, but also too high at high levels, where you really don't have many places to spend all of those points (unless you spam wands or consumables). If you both remove the RP cost from consumables and reduce the total number of RP available, not only do you make a decent replacement for item slots but you also make the Extra Resonance feat more appealing. I'm sure the Paizo PF2 team is a lot better at numbers than I am, but for reference I was thinking of something like 2+CHA at level 1, plus 1 at 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Those are my 2 cp on the matter, but I am also compelled by law to ask when you're going to add in kineticists to PF2 :)

Of course, if having a CLW wand is the equivalent of having a cleric, then you'll see the cleric role losing its identity as a healer class, but this can be addressed with specific nerfs to wands (like how they were reduced to 10 charges).

This seems like a non-problem to me. Wand spam is around in PF1, and according to the survey done by the PFd20srd Clerics were the third most played class, close behind fighter and rogue and more common than wizards (and fighter was apparently boosted by being a common multiclass dip). It wouldn't be nearly that commonly played if it's core identity was threatened by wands.

vagabond_666 wrote:

If you want to fix CLW wand spam (and the CLW potion spam that would replace it if you nerfed wands specifically)

This kind of adds to the feeling I'm getting that a lot of people haven't even looked at wands in PF2e yet.

I've skimmed the description of wands. Nothing I've read leads me to believe that for the purposes of out of combat healing it's anything other than "a 1st level wand lets you cast a 1st level spell for the cost of one point of resonance and a charge from the wand. 1st level wands have 10 charges and cost 27 gp, therefore a 1st level heal is 2.7 gp and a point of resonance".

My initial look indicates that for these purposes, ignoring resonance, a 2nd level wand of heal is the cheapest form of healing, followed by a 1st level wand, then a potion of lesser healing, then minor. Value drops off pretty sharply after that.

Have I missed something somewhere in the rules that would mean that were resonance removed from the game and everything else left as is, players would not use a combination of 1st and 2nd level wands of heal to get back to full hp after a fight?

Renkosuke wrote:

Of course, if having a CLW wand is the equivalent of having a cleric, then you'll see the cleric role losing its identity as a healer class, but this can be addressed with specific nerfs to wands (like how they were reduced to 10 charges).

This seems like a non-problem to me. Wand spam is around in PF1, and according to the survey done by the PFd20srd Clerics were the third most played class, close behind fighter and rogue and more common than wizards (and fighter was apparently boosted by being a common multiclass dip). It wouldn't be nearly that commonly played if it's core identity was threatened by wands.

Honestly the best thing that could happen to Clerics is losing the "healer class" stigma. You can build a Cleric to be a pure healer, sure, but they're just as valid and viable when built in a variety of other ways, and retain the ability to act as secondary healers in a pinch. Plus throw in wands, potions, and abilities that let other characters heal without being Cleric'd and that opens up spell slots to do a lot more.

Alchemaic wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

If you want to fix CLW wand spam (and the CLW potion spam that would replace it if you nerfed wands specifically)

This kind of adds to the feeling I'm getting that a lot of people haven't even looked at wands in PF2e yet.

I've skimmed the description of wands. Nothing I've read leads me to believe that for the purposes of out of combat healing it's anything other than "a 1st level wand lets you cast a 1st level spell for the cost of one point of resonance and a charge from the wand. 1st level wands have 10 charges and cost 27 gp, therefore a 1st level heal is 2.7 gp and a point of resonance".

My initial look indicates that for these purposes, ignoring resonance, a 2nd level wand of heal is the cheapest form of healing, followed by a 1st level wand, then a potion of lesser healing, then minor. Value drops off pretty sharply after that.

Have I missed something somewhere in the rules that would mean that were resonance removed from the game and everything else left as is, players would not use a combination of 1st and 2nd level wands of heal to get back to full hp after a fight?

No, that mostly covers it. 10 uses per wand, and each wand would take approximately an entire 4th level character's free gold amount. That seems like a pretty good deterrent to spamming cure spells to me.

vagabond_666 wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

If you want to fix CLW wand spam (and the CLW potion spam that would replace it if you nerfed wands specifically)

This kind of adds to the feeling I'm getting that a lot of people haven't even looked at wands in PF2e yet.

I've skimmed the description of wands. Nothing I've read leads me to believe that for the purposes of out of combat healing it's anything other than "a 1st level wand lets you cast a 1st level spell for the cost of one point of resonance and a charge from the wand. 1st level wands have 10 charges and cost 27 gp, therefore a 1st level heal is 2.7 gp and a point of resonance".

My initial look indicates that for these purposes, ignoring resonance, a 2nd level wand of heal is the cheapest form of healing, followed by a 1st level wand, then a potion of lesser healing, then minor. Value drops off pretty sharply after that.

Have I missed something somewhere in the rules that would mean that were resonance removed from the game and everything else left as is, players would not use a combination of 1st and 2nd level wands of heal to get back to full hp after a fight?

No, that mostly covers it. 10 uses per wand, and each wand would take approximately an entire 4th level character's free gold amount. That seems like a pretty good deterrent to spamming cure spells to me.

It's a good deterrent for spamming cure spells along with Resonance.

The problem is this seems to be a Deterrent for using WANDS in general. I haven't flipped through the spell list entirely as I haven't made a spell caster just yet; but how many spells are going to be just fully dead in a spell slot and not worth the issue of getting as a wand?

I think I would have it so wands don't take charges but just resonance so basically they would give you the ability to cast a specific spell at a certain level without preparing or knowing it and that would be it.

Alchemaic wrote:

No, that mostly covers it. 10 uses per wand, and each wand would take approximately an entire 4th level character's free gold amount. That seems like a pretty good deterrent to spamming cure spells to me.

It's a good deterrent for spamming cure spells along with Resonance.

The problem is this seems to be a Deterrent for using WANDS in general. I haven't flipped through the spell list entirely as I haven't made a spell caster just yet; but how many spells are going to be just fully dead in a spell slot and not worth the issue of getting as a wand?

Pretty much.

If the gold piece cost of consumables is too prohibitive for them to be worth buying, then who cares about the resonance system's effect on them at all. They aren't going to see use if you have 1 free point of resonance a day or a million.

(Edit: My rough calculation is that for a 4th level character, charges from a 1st level wand are ~6 times as expensive in relative terms)

I think I would have it so wands don't take charges but just resonance so basically they would give you the ability to cast a specific spell at a certain level without preparing or knowing it and that would be it.

I'm tinkering with ideas for PF1 wands. I personally think they should be more than just spell in a stick. And I was hoping PF2 would change that.

NO such luck I'm afraid!

Pretty much.

If the gold piece cost of consumables is too prohibitive for them to be worth buying, then who cares about the resonance system's effect on them at all. They aren't going to see use if you have 1 free point of resonance a day or a million.

(Edit: My rough calculation is that for a 4th level character, charges from a 1st level wand are ~6 times as expensive in relative terms)

Too be fair, Wands seem more something you FIND now than craft or buy. But then you'll never know if you have ALL the charges on a wand you find(Hmm how many APs give a fully charged wand? OTHER Question why do we need 50 castings of any spell, Gah I will RAIL on that till the end of time, 50 charges WAT)

But with the Resonance on top of that, you find a wand of Bless. Or some other less viable spell. How often is that going to be just filed into "Sell" now?

Forgive me if i'm behind the times and these rule have already been changed or removed but adding level to everything is just silly and wrong. Why should my gnome sorcerer steadily get better at skills, and by default now maneuvers, that he's not investing in just because he's leveling? Why should I be able to better hit or grapple and pin a creature because i'm a higher level????? Still a gnome sorcerer....It's a silly mechanic. I don't want my character to get better at anything that I shouldn't be getting better at without resource and roleplay allotment. Am I missing or misreading something?