Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

7,389 posts (7,412 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

edduardco wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
5) Bitterness. Okay yes this one is personal. I have said that one of the ways I curb CLW spam is limiting the ability to find them. I basically just moved them to Uncommon. This seems to be however a bad move on my part from some of the responses I saw over some of the topics. So everyone's cheering for something I did and got flak for. K.

This is actually (perhaps unintentionally) an interesting point. Not the bitterness, but the reference to the issue of CLW spamming.

From discussion in the Resonance blog post thread (as well as items and others), it was made clear that one of the reasons behind Resonance was as a stopgap to help ease the issue of CLW spam/healing and similar "abuses" of PF1.

However, with the introduction of this new Commonality/Rarity mechanic, wouldn't that serve just as well as Resonance, without adding yet another resource pool to keep track of? Simply rank certain types of items with different levels of rarity to prevent unlimited purchases.

Because Paizo loves to create entire new systems to limit 1st level spells, see:

Cure Light Wounds --> Resonance
Blood Money --> Rarity

*half joking*

I know it's a semi-joke, but it's important to understand that these are different spells with different problems.

Cure Light Wounds isn't a problem by itself (because as a spell it doesn't really do too much by 6th level onward), but is really a problem of Wands. Wands providing the cheapest cast to cost ratio while also having the convenience of keeping them all at once, while choosing to use them as you need and/or want to use them, is really the sole reason why this spell is a problem. The spell itself, when cast from a Cleric's spell list, becomes almost worthless when you get higher level, and those spell slots become better used on other spells. But when you put it in a portable can that you can have in bulk and eat like a bunch of spam to feed yourself? Yeah, it's gonna be problematic. But they aren't necessarily inherent of the spell, but of the "portable can" that they are being shoved in.

Blood Money was really only bad if people actually built around it. Logically speaking, a Wizard with over 50 Strength (for the requisite component for casting something like Wish whenever he wants without cost) was highly unrealistic unless it was an NPC or somebody who min-maxed to all levels of stupid. Even then, using it as a material component for spells like Wish was stupid because you're still going to have it perverted by the GM if you ask for anything outside of the recommended abilities it can do, so optimizing just to have the GM break the game on you being silly was both a ridiculous idea and also something very unfun that I don't think many people at the gaming table would appreciate.

While spells having costly material components are (mostly) a thing of the past, the concern with Blood Money now is with the Rituals section, which can honestly be easily solved by limiting it only to spells (and not rituals). In addition, since you can't realistically expect to have a Strength score past 30 (unless you're an NPC monster or the GM has ramped up the game's power level significantly because reasons), the concepts of the abuse you could expect from Blood Money were pretty weak.


While I may have been proven wrong on a couple things, one thing that is certain in relation to my previous statement was that "Combat Maneuvers that Rock" aren't really expanded upon any further than that.

Maybe they changed Combat Maneuvers to be other things (such as the Fighter's Stance and Open/Press abilities/feats), but if Combat Maneuvers were supposed to be a thing expanded upon further as a combat option without some different name or whatever, then I must have missed it (or they simply didn't expand upon it whatsoever).

Granted, I'm sure this will be definitive when the playtest hits, but I'm more curious about what it is that you can do with the Athletics skill (which has been stated to replace the old CMB/CMD system) that you can't do with class feats and such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if I like this. Sure, it has merits, but I don't think it outweighs the potential negativity.

On one hand, this gives GMs a heads up on what players can expect, and the players a heads up on what the GM may or may not allow within the rules, since I'm sure some GMs are sick of the "Can I buy X item in town?" question coming up every 5 seconds on downtime. (They'll probably ask it anyway because reasons, but that's besides the point.)

On the other hand, this seems a little arbitrary and not particularly any more defining than, for example, items in an MMO sorted based by colorgrade, which can kill immersion for some players, and also eliminates self-identification of items. "Oh, it's a green item? Sell. Purple item? We're keeping it."

What an item does or does not do should determine whether it is common, uncommon, rare, or unique for a given table. Not having this properly defined for ourselves gives these items some mysticism and "cool" factor that isn't completely outlined for us, filling our imaginations with wonder as to the potential of this legendary item.

In addition, as others pointed out, these items will change rarity based on region and setting. To use a mentioned example, a Katana might be uncommon (or even rare) in the Inner Sea, but in other regions it might be common. If that is the case, the value of this item (which I can presumably tie with its rarity, based on essential economic laws) varies on where I have it at, which can be silly and ripe for abuse.

On top of that, what if I homebrew a setting? I can almost assure you that I won't have an identical set of rarity values for my equipment (for example, +1 Full Plate may be rare for 1st level PCs, but it becomes common by 8th level, and a new rarity term, obsolete, by 12th level). I also might not have every little thing mapped out; I may not know if my players want XYZ items available, meaning I have to either fully flesh out things that I feel I shouldn't have, taking up more time than I care to spend, or I have to make something up on the spot (which I usually end up doing if the players veer off-grid, and I may have to retcon that stuff later if I have/had other plans for it).

I just think a system like this is too fiddly and better left to tables to decide, instead of shoehorning it onto players and GMs and expecting them to always play Golarion, or to always have a "rarity" thing mapped out for them. (Yes, Golarion plays more of a role here, but it shouldn't be the only way to play, which PF1 did a better job of doing.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like a feat which allows a Wizard to prepare a spell in the middle of combat would be inappropriate. Faster than "1 hour"? Sure. 6 seconds? No.

It'd require Legendary proficiency in Arcane Magic to do, which both seems fair and appropriate for what Legendary spellcasters are capable of. So I'm not sure what the problem here is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
What if the number of spells for Spontaneous Heighten increases at certain levels?

Then the sorcerer would be even more overpowered.

Consider, at 1st level the sorcerer gets 2 spells known, plus his bloodline spell. That's 3 spells.
At 3rd level and every other level after that they can get 2 spells picked, pus a bloodline spell, plus 2 spontaneously heightened spells. That's 5 spells. (except for level 10 spells for which there is no bloodline spell)

By the time he's 19th level he will know 3+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+4= 47 spells. He can cast any of them in combat, up to the number of spell slots he has.

A wizard gains 2+school spells known every other level, auto heightens them and can get more from scrolls and spellbooks but is still limited to what he can prepare. In combat, if hasn't got the exact spell prepared, tough.

Giving a sorcerer more isn't necessary. If he's careful in his choices he already has more than enough.

A Wizard can have every spell in his spellbook and prepare what he needs, when he needs it. I imagine there is a feat that lets him change his prepared spells on-the-spot (probably a higher level feat, but still), and I'm almost positive there are feats that let him prepare faster than usual, as there were in PF1.

In addition, Spontaneous Heightening shoehorns your spell selection choices into stuff you are most likely to use with your feature than with spells you just won't because they're garbage otherwise. I'd rather that players be permitted to take a feat once or twice to expand those choices, similar to how Clerics can choose to expand their Domain abilities with feats.


This is starting to get off-topic, since your biggest gripe is with Resonance mechanics and not Sorcerer mechanics. While the two are meant to work together, nothing from the Sorcerer has anything to do with basic Resonance mechanics on rechargable items, and is mostly anecdotal in application (any spellcaster would suffice in this example).

Furthermore, your martials were hyper-optimized against typical enemies, whereas your blasters were probably not optimized whatsoever, and most likely invested resources in improving the martials instead of having their own schtick. I'd expand on this even more, but that won't get the topic back on track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I suppose you could say they killed the "Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool" sacred cow from PF1, but then they basically raised it to "Sorcerers Rule and Wizards Drool," so I suppose they reanimated it as a unhallowed zombie cow. Frightening, really.

Huh? Sorcerer isn't any better than Wizard. Heck, absent Feats, a specialist has one more of their highest level spell every day than a Sorcerer and can select their spells daily as well.

Sorcerer as a Class is more flexible, but that matters little for any individual Sorcerer.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But hey, I can just be an Angelic Sorcerer, take the Divine Evolution feat, and be a Cleric Healbot+, since I can Spontaneously Heighten Heal and (presumably) Cure, thereby removing any condition and healing any amount of hit points I can, have a Channeling Heal battery as back up, with Legendary Medicine as yet another backup, and then of course Resonance as needed. Congratulations, I heal better than a Cleric ever can! The irony!
If you want to give up Domains and weapon and armor Proficiencies for extra Healing you certainly can, yes. I don't think that's ironic, or even a real problem.

Okay. How much Resonance does that 10 Charisma Wizard have? Not much? Oops, guess that potion/wand/staff/whatever didn't really work on you, better luck on your next character, buddy. Even despite that, Sorcerers being flexible means you can have a party full of Sorcerers doing completely different roles and it will be perfectly viable. Whereas a party of Wizards is still the same lame can of worms it was in PF1.

Domains are meh, and Bloodline Powers are an apt comparison. Armor Proficiencies might be an issue if you're trying to be a frontliner, but Sorcerer healers don't need to if they don't want to. Which can basically be "Never." As for weapons, you're now cutting into your healing ability for utilizing weapons; bad healing battery, bad!

I will say one thing they get that Clerics don't, and that's effectively full Spontaneous Cure Spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, work is done, now I can finally give a proper analysis of what's revealed thus far. (I might also want to add that, like the Cleric preview, this was very crunchy. Which is good; I like crunchy when it comes to blog reveals.)

Bloodlines:
This is perhaps the biggest change to the Sorcerer, since not only does a Bloodline determine what powers and bonus spells known you get, it also determines what spells you can even cast, period. Sorcerers are now "Wild Card" spellcasters, since you may never know for sure what sort of spells they may or may not have. They can cast Primal spells, Occult spells, Arcane spells (as was tradition), or even Divine spells. This sort of flexibility makes them highly unpredictable, highly varied, and also highly complicated as a result. People saying Sorcerer is a simple man's Wizard is going to be dead wrong in PF2 as a result, since Sorcerers can be just about any sort of spellcaster they want to be, and more. I suppose you could say they killed the "Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool" sacred cow from PF1, but then they basically raised it to "Sorcerers Rule and Wizards Drool," so I suppose they reanimated it as a unhallowed zombie cow. Frightening, really.

One big concern, as I stated prior to this post, was that some of these benefits feel quite frontloaded, making multiclassing to Sorcerer more ideal than it should be; most specifically, the signature skills gained. If a Rogue really wanted, they could dip Sorcerer, and get a boatload of new Signature skills that they can then make into Legendary, on top of the boatload of Signature skills they already have (and they can most certainly have the feats for it). While I understand this does come at a significant cost of combat value, and requires further investment to make it work, it is the sort of high level abuse one needs to watch for when this game is for 4 people, and you have one player with every single Signature skill in the game at Legendary+ proficiency, when it's probably not intended.

With the sample Demonic bloodline, I'm genuinely curious that, combined with ABC character generation, that a "melee sorcerer" is viable. We know that AC and TAC aren't much different, we know that BAB is level dependent, and we know that you can have a passable Strength score as a result (even though proficiencies and such can weigh you down). (Maybe we'll get some Dragon Disciple Prestige feats that will make it a passible build in the higher levels.) So, can it work in a pinch? Maybe. I'd rather see if even a Cleric can do it or not, since we don't even have proper confirmation if that works, and that's about as premium a concept (Battle Cleric) as it gets.

Spellcasting:
Thank god, the "Sorcerer is always behind" sacred cow is dead. D-E-D, dead. I really hated how Sorcerers got screwed just because they didn't want to play Batman in a certain way, since even if they don't want to prepare spells each day, they still have to select spells that they want to cast each day (and each time), thereby still being Batman in a way (just not the way everyone remembers Batman being).

The other good thing is that as levels are gained, you can replace previously known spells with other known spells, while (presumably) still learning spells at the same or higher levels. There was a similar rule to this in PF1, but it was restrictive. While we don't know the specifics to this, and unless they nerfed it (doubtful in this case due to the sheer boost of versatility they got), this is one of the few nice things PF1 did that they decided to keep.

Well, I can say for sure now the real reason why Resonance is kept; because it's a balancing point for Sorcerers to be more reliant on spell-like consumables, such as potions, wands, and staves, to which I say "Yuck." I'm not saying Sorcerers shouldn't have some sort of advantage with consumable items, given their limited spell selection, but firstly, Staves already give them an expansion to their already dwindled spell list with their inherent mechanics, and secondly, Wands don't scale worth a damn, so they don't last outside of the CLW wand spam (the HP/GP conversion being too good) that we had in PF1. Potions, as previewed in a previous blog post, are similarly poorly designed. So why are we defending Resonance for an entire system platform when (so far) it's been the balancing point for two classes, one of which uses a completely different attribute for it? Why not just limit these rules aspect to those classes (such as by granting additional charges or something to the consumables, or their own powers), and not require it to affect everyone? (Granted, this would still mean I wouldn't want to play those classes, but I'd rather have only a small subset of stuff I wouldn't play than an entire system I wouldn't play.)

Features:
Not gonna lie, the features section was very short, and very confusing. The first part is because the feats are largely Bloodline related. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be Bloodline specific feats, but that they shouldn't be the bulk of the preview. I'm wondering if Sorcerers are essentially paying Class Feats for those Bloodline powers, thereby having fewer Class Feats than anyone else as a result, which is bad, but it's speculation until it's been shown otherwise.

The latter is specifically because of Spontaneous Heightening, which I'm not sure I still understand correctly after reading it half a dozen times, and if I read it correctly, it does reaffirm one big problem with spell heightening, and that it is a bookkeeping nightmare.

From Spontaneous Heightening, we (presumably) are told that the Sorcerer can select 2 spells that they know (I wonder if there are Class Feats that can expand this pool of selection?), and each spell can be cast at a chosen spell level (assuming the Sorcerer can cast it, a Sorcerer of 3rd level can't just cast a 4th tier Invisibility spell with this feature), paying the proper spell slot as normal. While this does help with the Sorcerer's versatility in their spell choices (such as taking a common spell that's almost always heightened and making it your most flexible spell yet; Sorcerer healers are now confirmed and are a go as of this blog post!), it does highlight one major issue with spell heightening, and it is as I described above.

Picture this: You're a Druid. You're 9th level, and (presumably) a dedicated healer for your party, both of which whose Resonance isn't that great. You have the Heal spell, but remember, you're also a prepared spellcaster, which means you have to prepare that Heal spell for each spell tier you have access to. (Yes, I'm going with spell tier for clarity's sake, sue me.) Okay, so how many Heals of the 5th tier, all the way down to the 1st tier, do I prepare? What about condition removal spells, Dispel Magic (which has been confirmed by a developer to have an impact based on which spell tier you cast it as), and so on? This would drive people mad, since they now have to manage things like "How many Heals of the X tier do you have? How many of Y tier do you have? Are they enough? Do I need to move some from Z tier up to Y tier? If so, what spells from Y tier do I have to sacrifice, and what extra spells from Z tier do I need in order to warrant this sacrifice?" This sort of bookkeeping, while I understand it's necessary, is something that spell heightening enforces, and doesn't seem like much of a solution for condensing spell descriptions when it now reinforces another bookkeeping issue that people with analysis paralysis (or even choice paralysis) will struggle with significantly, especially if they are prepared spellcasters.

Sure, the Sorcerer is still easier in this regard if they are smart players and know what spells they want (with a bit of a failsafe to change it if they don't like it after some time), but I'm too worried about the above issue now applying to what spells they know, instead of what spells they prepare.

Class Feats:
I decided to call it "class feats," because "feats" and "features" sound too similar to help differentiate what's what. (Gee, I wonder why.) Maybe if they were split into "Static Features," ones that everyone of that class get, and "Variant Features," ones that everyone of that class can choose from (but are optional), there would be less confusion, but this is more of a nitpick than getting on with the topic.

Anyway, on to the Metamagic Feats, such as Overwhelming Spell. I'm not sure I like this one. My biggest gripes are that, at 8th level in PF1, you're getting into enemies who are largely Immune to one energy type, and (potentially) vulnerable to another. This is typical of most Outsiders, Elementals, and Dragons, 3 very common high(er) level enemies. Undead are similar, but they are (mostly) fixed in what they have benefits towards due to their base template. We also don't know how much of an increase in spell levels this demands, so we can't tell if it's worthwhile for its price or not (I'm guessing +1, but I could be wrong). Maybe if it was a +2 for bypassing 50% of an enemy's Resistances and Immunities, it would be cool and flavorful, with neat utility for those spells, without completely nullifying if an enemy is Resistant or Immune to a given effect. As it stands, it's just too niche. Granted, I don't want it to be something every Sorcerer wants to get, but this is great for those Blasters who don't want to waste their spell slots. (I'm also curious if Sorcerers can add Metamagic feats to their spells whenever they want or not, since I'm certain the old rule of "You have to prepare the Metamagic version" of prepared spellcasters is still enforced here. If so, how would that work for spontaneous spellcasters?

Dangerous Sorcery sounds nice on its face, but it has an inherent cost that isn't worth it. I understand they wanted to cut down on the flat number bonuses in this game, but for the amount it grants, and how few of spells you actually get, with it not affecting cantrips, the most common form of "Sorcery" there is, it's just not that good and not very widespread usable to be considered as a feat. At best, you're getting this bonus for every Fireball target you hit, which is decent, but considering Fireball is (presumably) a 3rd level spell, and increasing it up to the next level only adds an additional single point of damage, it's just not worth the apparent cost (a feat and the increased spell slot expenditure) for its benefits.

Blood Magic is even more niche than Overwhelming Spell (which only works on resistant but not immune enemies, of which there were tons of immunities in PF1, and we can expect a lot of classic immune enemies to return), since it requires you to be bleeding, and to affect an ally with a (seemingly) positive spell. At best, a Sorcerer might have some sort of silly "bleed" mechanic they want to instate themselves (maybe a cantrip?) to make use of this, similar to how people used Reach weapons or Bodyguard to utilize Combat Reflexes, but in those cases they were just niche options made viable. This isn't just a niche option, but also a detrimental one that requires actions on your behalf to make work, or a super niche condition that not many enemies from PF1 possessed.

The Evolution feats are cool and neat, but need to be rebalanced across all aspects. A once per day summon at maximum efficiency does not at all compare to having a full usable class feature (Divine), nor a full usable spell subset (scroll or "mental" subtype choice) as a part of your full spell repertoire to use as you see fit. The latter could technically let me use a single 10th level spell (a la Wish/Miracle) if I so wished, since it's added to my spells. But even not considering the ramifications of what these feats can do when stacked next to each other, the fact of the matter is that these feats might be too good, making them "de facto" options, which is a bad thing.

Also, Wellspring Spell as a metamagic feat? I'm not sure I understand how this works, since this breaks all the other rules of metamagic feats. Metamagic feats usually require expending more power for a high level benefit. My guess is that you can take a spell of up to 5th level, and cast it at a slot 4 levels higher (so 1st is 5th, 2nd is 6th, 3rd is 7th, and so on up to 9th level), but are allowed to cast that spell once per minute (AKA "all day). This feat already screams "TRAP!" (Ironic, since the blog post we got before this one was all about traps.) Because you're spending a feat so you can take a spell of a lower level, cast it at a higher level slot, and do so again once per minute (and in most cases, once per fight). In a lot of respectable combats, you will want your highest powered spells doing the things you want and need them to do. And considering spell power is toned down in this edition, the odds of it being affordable to burn one of your strongest spells for replenishable weaker spells is highly unlikely unless your GM likes throwing soft fluffy pillows at you every game.

Overall, I'm pleased with a lot of the directions the Sorcerer has taken, with their increased flexibility and the tables turning between Sorcerers and Wizards. I'm of course skeptical of several options and rules, but much like a bad or weird story, you go to the salt mines and take a grain of what they mine with it. With Resonance as it stands, I don't think I'd like playing a Sorcerer much, since people are going to be begging me to not burn Resonance on things outside of healing.

But hey, I can just be an Angelic Sorcerer, take the Divine Evolution feat, and be a Cleric Healbot+, since I can Spontaneously Heighten Heal and (presumably) Cure, thereby removing any condition and healing any amount of hit points I can, have a Channeling Heal battery as back up, with Legendary Medicine as yet another backup, and then of course Resonance as needed. Congratulations, I heal better than a Cleric ever can! The irony!


After a cursory read, it looks interesting and flavorful. Almost "blank-slate" like, even, which is neat.

I'll give a more in-depth review later on today, but my biggest concern right off the bat is with how multiclassing works in relation to how frontloaded all of those Bloodline abilities are.

Until we know for sure how multiclassing works (and it disallows frontload abuse), it's a glaring issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sure is.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. That is extremely vague to not really warrant a mention...

I might have been willing to spot you "vague", but "extremely vague"? That's a stretch.

We got the name of the feat, a simple description of what it does, and even the proficiency rank it opens up at. That's practically the whole entry from the feat table. Plus, it bears directly on your argument.

Aside from that, make whatever argument you want. I just wanted to point out you weren't correct in saying "they only told us [two things]".

That only tells us what you need to get it, and what it's supposed to do, but that's basically requirements and flavor text. None of it tells us what it actually does, IN the game. Until we know that, it's like saying "Ask your GM."


Castilliano wrote:

ABJURER: Never saw one in PF1, so just wondering if even attractive in PF2.

ARCHER (in an unsupported class): So Clerics, Barbarians, Paladins, et al. Classes that did well as archers in PF1, but likely have no class feats to support archery in PF2, and are in classes that don't encourage Dex builds. Do they contend with the natural archers or lag too far?

DIVINER: Saw several in PF1, all single level dips and/or gateways to Prestige Classes.

HARM CLERIC: Sure, Resonance makes a Heal Cleric more attractive, but maybe the Harm Cleric packs enough oomph to lessen the need. Maybe?

IMPROVISED WEAPON USER: Whether melee or thrown, it'd be cool to see a build for a PC that makes do with what's around, or with some offbeat beatstick.

NECROMANCER: So iconic. Can a Cleric, Wizard, or even Sorcerer make a competitive army of undead? Will it endure, overwhelm, or just overtax other players' patience? Undead Lord archetype?!?

POISONER: With poisons being upgraded to being both immediate and significant, we may see more, especially with Alchemists' daily free allotments (which include poisons, right?). It'd be overdue.

POLYMORPH COMBATANT: In PF2, the Druid appears to reference spells for Wild Shape, so does that mean Druids are weaker or other classes can now contend w/ some good polymorph builds? Will short durations make this resource-intensive? Will 3-action rounds (and more rounds per fight) make it easy to transform and participate?

THROWER: I love throwers, from shurikens to hatchets. With longbows being penalized in close combat, throwing options move up a notch. But can they vie with melee builds? With shortbows? Or at all? Are they going to be as slow to come online as in PF1?

TOUCH CASTER: Other than the Magus "touching" with a weapon, touch casters struggled in PF1. With the higher attack bonuses w/ the extra crit chances, can a full caster pull off focusing on touch spells?

WONKY WEAPONS: Whether daggers, spears, staves, or whips, there are several iconic weapons that took years to become competitive in PF1 (at least in any straightforward way). How will these perform in PF2? Will there be anything akin to a Warpriest or Brawler weapon progression for small-die weapons?

WONKY PARTY BUILDS:
Can an 8 Cha party of Dwarves get by on their Resonance? (and no Alchemists, duh)
Does a party of 16+ Cha PCs exploit the system too much?
Does an all-pets party w/ group buffs break the system?
How about all Clerics? Unstoppable?

**EDIT** Large post is large. Added bandaids to cut down on wall of text-ism.

Abjurer:
The problem with Abjurers is that they are a more defensive spell school. While they have attractive spells to select, they aren't something to specialize in primarily because it doesn't kill bad guys (or help allies kill bad guys). If there were more options for Abjuration schools to have more offensive capabilities (heck, even a "damage upon hit" spell could be useful), it'd be better considered as a school choice.

Archer:
Archers are going to be weaker for numerous reasons. MADness is one of those reasons, since Clerics need to now focus on numerous attributes equally (Wisdom for casting, Charisma for their channeling, Constitution for obvious reasons, Strength for damage, Dexterity for attack and AC). Archery can change the value of these attributes, but if a player wants to try and balance them all equally, they will be facing an uphill battle at best. At worst, it's not even viable anymore.

Diviner:
Diviners might not have the same broken issues that plagued PF1, simply due to how the new Initiative rules work. I'm actually curious as to how they may have been changed. Hopefully it's not in some other broken fashion.

Harm Clerics:
I doubt Harm clerics are going to be more attractive than Heal clerics, especially if the alternatives to healing (vague Medicine skill and annyoing and crappy Resonance mechanics) are any indication as to what you'll have to deal with if you don't take the Heal option. I mean, Harm clerics can be fun, but not having the heal battery option is just going to screw you over in the long run.

Improvised Weapons:
Unfortunately, we have zero rules on improvised weaponry. I didn't mind how they did improvised weaponry in PF1, but I didn't have much of a reason to use improvised weaponry in PF1 unless I specifically built around it, and numerous options to even make it viable didn't come until way late in the game's kickoff. If we could get more support for it sooner, then I'd be more interested in making it work.

Necromancer:
The "undead horde" character will not really be workable with how the current rules for summons (as we come to understand them) are, which is each summon takes an "Action" to direct them to do their actions (or if you don't, they do whatever they want). Which means at best, a Necromancer can only manage 3 or 4 comparably powerful undead at the cost of him not doing anything (which is fine, because managing more than that is pointlessly tedious). This is primarily due to how Summon Monsters in PF1 were so broken, so something had to be reigned in so that spellcasters didn't absolutely dominate the action economy. (They still can here, but it's nowhere near overbearing now.) I mean, maybe the proficiency rules can permit Necromancers to not have to spend actions to direct, but that's still extremely powerful for non-Necromancers as a result.

Poisons:
To clarify, the problem with Poisons weren't their mechanics, but rather their implementations and their impacts on the game. For NPCs using them against PCs, they were heavily debilitating, since most PCs aren't immune to Poisons (some had good Saves though), and their effects were lasting, since the PCs aren't likely to die or instantly remove it. The inverse (PCs using them against NPCs) is likewise a proper inverse. They weren't that debilitating (mostly due to bad saves and lack of proper implementation), numerous NPCs had Poison immunities, and because the NPCs were likely to die, Poisons had little to no impact on the game.

Maybe if Poisons helped to do damage (such as by applying debuffs), didn't have crap Save DCs, weren't overtly expensive for no reason, and were actually usable on a lot of NPCs you fight (seriously, every Outsider, Construct, Undead...basically anything that wasn't Humanoid, and even then, were all immune to Poisons), Poisons would be passable and viable for PCs to use. Until then, they'll remain the same waste of page space as they've always been known to be.

Polymorph Combatant:
The Druid referencing spells for Wild Shape hasn't changed from PF1, where the different forms referred to, for example, Beast Shape III. If anything, the Druid now has more viable forms (since if I remember, a T-Rex is now actually possible by the rules, whereas in PF1 you couldn't due to size restrictions). As for it being viable for other classes, that's more likely due to how the current character generation rules and the attack bonus rules go. However, I'm more concerned about how Proficiencies play a part in Natural Attacks (if at all), as well as the Natural Attack rules themselves in the new 3 Action/Reaction rules, since being a giant Pounce kitty isn't going to be the go-to form anymore due to these new rules.

Thrower:
I'm fairly certain throwing builds are going to still be as bad as they are, simply because you have to invest in them as physical melee weapons you draw from, as well as invest in them as ranged weapons due to their intrinsic nature. I imagine the same options for PF1 will exist in PF2, but they will still be clunky and non-viable due to how their mechanics really are. Unless there is more support for them, in a general manner (seriously, only Fighters in PF1 could actually pull off throwing builds in an acceptable fashion), it's not going to happen.

Touch Caster:
The Touch spells are probably going to be even more viable than typical means of attack, simply because affecting TAC makes it easier (even if slightly) for Touch attacks to hit and crit, and less likely to fail (or do so critically), and they don't have to deal with crap bonuses to hit in hopes of hitting an enemy with passable TAC. I am more curious if the Touch spells rely on spellcasting proficiency or hand-to-hand proficiency for bonuses to hit, though.

Wonky Weapons:
The problem I have with wonky weapons is that nobody cared to use them due to the intrinsic requirement to invest in the ability to actually use them. Bastard Sword is a prime example of this, and between it and the Lance, is perhaps the most "wonky weapon" in PF1 there is, due to its contradictory rules and such. If this issue is addressed, then maybe we can see some more of these "wonky weapons" in action to get a better judgement call on them.

Wonky Party Builds:
This ultimately depends on the Resonance requirement. I'm of the opinion that any lack of investment in Resonance will get you killed, similar to an Elf character running around with an 8 Constitution. Sure, we don't know if that is for sure the case, but until we get better confirmation through numerous levels of playtesting, I remain unconvinced of other opinions.

The biggest difference between a high Charisma and low Charisma party is their ability to utilize more magic items more often. At best, this means they have more options with their magic items, and don't have to worry too much about spending their Resonance. At worst, this means that it re-encourages the CLW wand paradigm, which gives the party more WBL to spend on other cool things (though they suffer the same as-is restriction with the low Charisma party as a result).

The all pets party will be balanced by reduced character action economy, as well as pets not being as strong as they could have been in PF1 (presumably). Not having a third action can be crippling. Throw in some Slow on top of that, and you're going to be a giant sitting duck for the enemy. So yeah, it's not really as great as you make it out to be.

The All Cleric party probably wouldn't be any more broken than the All Caster parties in PF1, or even current tier parties. They'd be very hard to kill if they all went Heal versus Harm, but they are by no means undefeatable. At best, it extends the "15 minute adventuring day" out, which is a good thing in a lot of people's eyes, so I'd certainly like to see that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

One Resonance Point is the difference between character life and death due to consumables (and by relation, your effective HP total for the adventuring day) now being reliant on Resonance. You can't realistically expect Medicine or other skills to cover your health issues, especially since the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.

Not only is the skill more complicated and less likely to work, it's also handled poorly, and we have zero information outside of a Dev saying "it works in this instance by this character build," with no other information besides that to go off of. As much as I want to trust a developer's word, the idea that one playtest group is a good enough measure to determine if XYZ is an acceptable solution is like saying "Give everyone milk because so-and-so isn't lactose intolerant." In short, it's a laughable and half-assed assumption that shouldn't be treated as a blanket statement for everyone and everything.

Maybe if they had, say, over a hundred groups that did something similar, it'd be believable. But one group with one estranged build (which appears to shoehorn them into the "healer" role regardless) does not make a proper survey. Heck, it doesn't even make a proper answer...

“Moving forward with the example of the Medicine skill, as long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can take the Battle Medic skill feat. This feat allows you to apply straight-up healing to an ally through nonmagical means, which is nice when your cleric is knocked to the ground or has run out of uses of channel energy.”

-Learning Takes a Lifetime Blog

Two things here.

1. That is extremely vague to not really warrant a mention. We don't know how much it heals for. It could just be a flat amount, equal to your Medicine skill, or it could be some random amount of D6s that can all roll 1's and be very crappy to use. We don't know how long it takes to use this option. It could take a full round's worth of actions, it could take minutes. We also don't know if you need things like Healer Tools or not (though I'm going to say so for obvious reasons), and if there are any arbitrary restrictions on the uses of this feat (such as you can only heal a person once per 24 hours). It's not really much of an answer, and more of a copout failsafe, similar to threads where "Ask your GM" is the absolute best answer you have.

2. If this is the one way characters can heal without magical means, then all this does is once again reinforce the "Tim/Jim" paradigm, or worse, the "one true build" paradigm. Now, everyone and their grandma is going to invest in Medicine and Battle Medic simply because you feel like you have to, because you're a bad player in others' eyes if you don't, or even worse, because the game, demands you to do it.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than dealing with stupid Resonance for consumables, but you're still shoehorning players into having to take stuff simply because the game demands it (and the alternative isn't likely). It's not something that's a template to existing mechanics that doesn't interfere with your original choices (such as magic weapons, armor, and so on), whereas something like this (or Resonance) does.

So now, everyone's gonna be forced to play healers, and nobody's gonna be able to do damage worth a damn because they have to worry about staying alive too much and wasting ranks and stuff on healing instead of doing the roles they want to do. It's a miracle they can even adventure outside the house, for fear of getting the dreaded paper cut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Wait... so now people are worried that because Resonance is a thing that Dwarves will be unplayable because they get 1 less RP than others?

Talk about making a mountain out a molehill.

I still don't see how dumping Resonance is easier or better for your game than making players have to manage what gear they want to use. I'm really not trying to fan the flames here but the melodrama over this is really getting to be over the top.

I admit, Resonance has some weirdness to it, and it's not perfect, but it certainly beats the pants off of dealing with even 1 Batman Wizard at the table.

One Resonance Point is the difference between character life and death due to consumables (and by relation, your effective HP total for the adventuring day) now being reliant on Resonance. You can't realistically expect Medicine or other skills to cover your health issues, especially since the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.

Not only is the skill more complicated and less likely to work, it's also handled poorly, and we have zero information outside of a Dev saying "it works in this instance by this character build," with no other information besides that to go off of. As much as I want to trust a developer's word, the idea that one playtest group is a good enough measure to determine if XYZ is an acceptable solution is like saying "Give everyone milk because so-and-so isn't lactose intolerant." In short, it's a laughable and half-assed assumption that shouldn't be treated as a blanket statement for everyone and everything.

Maybe if they had, say, over a hundred groups that did something similar, it'd be believable. But one group with one estranged build (which appears to shoehorn them into the "healer" role regardless) does not make a proper survey. Heck, it doesn't even make a proper answer simply because we don't even know what that answer is.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I just don't see how "Dwarves have a penalty to Charisma, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Charisma is useful to everybody" is a problem when "Elves have a penalty to Constitution, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Constitution is useful to everybody" is a thing we've had a handle on for some time.

Like the only thing that's changed is that Charisma used to not be useful to everybody and now it is. It is possible to survive with a low score in a useful stat, and we're talking about 8s here and not like all the characters with multiple 7s in PF1.

I mean, if nothing else Dwarves now make excellent Alchemists.

Not really.

I never played Elves or any other race that had a Constitution penalty for exactly the same reason you stated: because a penalty to Constitution is a problem. The only difference between the two is that now that Charisma is such a required attribute (because Resonance is the difference between character life and death), more races are affected by this similar problem.

On top of that, with the new ABC attribute allocation system, one does not really have the ability to account or trade for their penalties appropriately, simply because there is no such thing as dumping something you don't need to improve something that you do; every sacrifice is now meaningful. Which is by design, I understand, but it also means penalties are more meaningful too, because you can't just powergame out of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into.

I dunno, if Dwarves (with ancestry feats) can get some sort of "inherent resistance to magic" like they did in PF1, then "you have less resonance" is very much an appropriate counterbalance for that.

Like there are a lot of fantasy settings in which Dwarves just can't use magic at all, but the tradeoff is "magic isn't as effective on them." Like "Dwarves can be Wizards now" was somewhat controversial when 3.0 hit.

This makes no sense. Why should I be forced into investing in anti-magic feats just because I'm a character who does not have as much resonance as someone else due to my ancestry choice? It's just asinine and further reinforces the point that Dwarves, like Elves in 3.X/PF1, are unplayable due to their inherent weaknesses not balancing out their strengths.

And the dumb thing is? You think it's okay, just because there are options to "help" with the weakness, but they don't become "options" when they're the only thing I have to balance out my weakness, they just become "the one thing everyone always takes with this ancestry," which means de facto-ness is brought back into the spotlight, something that PF2 is supposed to be eliminating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat? Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

"graystone" wrote:

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable? Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha. You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.

All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into. It's actually one of the reasons why I don't play races (read: ancestries) that have a Constitution penalty, because having such an important attribute be forcibly dumped for you is just plain bad for your character's survivability, and there are no comparable upsides for it.


Power Attack was changed into Vital Strike, which is meh (and is still meh), meaning it's no longer de facto, or even good for two-handed weapons. Especially since we don't know how it scales.

Furious Focus was great for levels 1-6. It fell off in usefulness after that. I doubt this feat will see a return of as-is mechanics, if at all. (It might be a Barbarian only feat or something, maybe.)

Combat Reflexes had more uses outside of being usable with Reach weapons, mostly with feats like Bodyguard (which got nerfed into the ground hard), Swashbuckler mechanics, and so on. It did promote MADness though, and I don't see this making a return outside of "You may make one attack outside your turn without spending a Reaction" or something like that (putting it in as-is would be broken).

I'm still not certain this is worthwhile over burning feats for shield or bow usage. They have base benefits that are inherently valued by classes which need them (effective HP and free full attacking), so it would make more sense to invest feats into something that's already inherently nice over something that, on it's face, isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Lets be honest I don't think min/maxing is the reason anyone opposes resonance. I'm an optimiser, I optimise in PF1, I've optimised in Vampire, Traveller, Shadowrun and every other game I have played and I will optimise in PF2.

It's much more about maintaining a playstyle - there aren't many games structured like PF1 , it has a pretty distinctive 'feel' and the way magic items work is a central part of that. I am not aware of another system where I can be tricked out in magic items by level 6-8 and I love that, I don't want that aspect to materially change.

You can be tricked out in magical gear all you want. Heck, you can spend all your Resonance on it if you want.

It just cuts into how much you can heal yourself from items and consumables, which means you have less net HP than someone who didn't, which means you're sacrificing effective HP to be tricked out for it.

Isn't this a fun game?


Paradozen wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That argument likewise applies to how Fighters are going to be played now in PF2. There are zero logical reasons for a Fighter to not have a shield anymore, and there are zero logical reasons for a Fighter to wield two handed weapons since they don't get increased Strength like a Barbarian does (but that requires Raging, so)...
This pretty much requires there to be absolutely no worthwhile feats/abilities to support using a 2-handed weapon for fighters. Not sure I believe this to be the case in the playtest.

There wasn't in PF1 (and if there were, they sucked too much to use). I really am not seeing the design space they can implement for this, unless they want to make 1.5x Strength a General Feat or something.

@ Cyouni: Until we get the playtest data, we won't know how Power Attack scales outside of maybe two more dice (or 4 damage). We have no feats in PF1 that made two-handed fighting any good, and I'm not going to expect there to be any now since it was the melee meta, and the devs want that to change. (Then again, they wanted CLW spam gone and they introduced Resonance as a result, so I'm not sure I can trust them with implementing a valuable and fair THF option.)

We have no data on how Shields and Dents work. All we know is that they exist. Even so, Fighters are just going to stock up on Oils of Mending (in addition to healing potions and CLW wands), so that sort of thing isn't going to happen that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

I'm sorry, d12 damage vs d8 isn't good enough for a greatsword vs longsword? Also remember you can't use a shield if it's too dented.

Also remember these bow rangers are now more susceptible to being engaged on thanks to the higher number of movement options.

Not really. The difference between them is 2 points of damage per dice on average per attack. Even at a +5, an approximately 12 damage difference isn't worth losing all those hit points your Shield protects from. On top of that, 1.5x Strength is Raging Barbarians only, making two-handed weapons not as worthwhile for them. They don't have any other mechanic to restore their health (Paladins get LoH, Barbarian Rage gives "temp HP," and so on), and Rangers can just use bows because it best suits their schtick as well, so they're stuck using Shields just to be playable.

And those bowmen don't have to worry about range anyway because AoOs are a thing of the past, so the biggest drawback from ranged combat is likewise a non-issue, which gives them even less reason to use anything except a bow. On top of that, a movement action spent not attacking the bowman gives the bowman that much more of an edge when he can just pepper his enemies with arrows before they get a reliable means of hitting him. Cutting down on move actions is going to be the biggest reason why a bowman will be vastly superior to melee combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we still need to actually sit down and play the game before we figure out how much healing we need.
I don't think we need to know the overall healing dynamic to know that it'll suck if someone's down and the healing item the party has fails do to lack of resonance.
Is this a remotely likely scenario though?
Hmmm... 1st level [+1 resonance] + dwarf starting Cha of -2 [-1] means a dwarf that doesn't increase cha had 1 resonance at 2nd. So seems like it's something that can come up. How often? How often does it have to to find it annoying? IMO once.

Third level fighter with a 10 CHA has 3 resonance. . .

So he can drink at most 3 potions/day, and he's supposed to absorb most of the hits the party takes?

Even at 4th or 5th level if you use a single point of resonance on something else you out yourself at risk.

To be fair, said Fighter is using a Shield, and thereby reduces the amount of damage he takes significantly (assuming one-on-one combat). However, this is still a risk against uneven enemies (which is easily going to happen), or against powerful enemies who can demolish (or even ignore) shields, which can and will happen.

Needless to say, 3 potions aren't going to happen, as they're too expensive and too weak to justify their Resonance cost. At best, you're going to have a CLW Wand, and you're burning all your Resonance on that for out-of-combat healing (since you should be topped off before each combat, hopefully). Even then, this assumes CLW wands are affordable by 3rd level (which is doubtful, even as a "party funds" thing).


KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just with the Ranger preview, it promotes "full attacks" with the Hunt Target feature, which we were trying to get rid of in this edition. (Same was said for AoOs, but we made that Fighter-only instead.)
I’m not sure where the notion that there is a goal to get rid of full attacks came from. Sometimes standing still and full attacking is the best choice, sometimes it isn’t. PF2 is much less punishing when you don’t full attack.
Combat was stated to be more dynamic and interactive in PF2, compared to PF1's "I sit there and full attack" every round. Ranger's Hunt Target promotes that PF1 paradigm (since it only benefits from making numerous attacks), which goes against their design goal of "more interactive combat".

For a fighter, raising their shield every round makes sense. The ranger has a tougher choice. That is still dynamic. He still has options.

And just because the ranger wants to stand and deliver blows doesn’t mean the enemies do. A friendly game of Kite the Ranger can keep him from benefiting from Hunt Target.

It's not like the Fighter can be the only class that uses a Shield, and those other classes actually have relevant options. Paladins may have to consider burning their weaker attack for Lay on Hands, Barbarians have to determine whether now is a good time to Rage or not (and since they actually get 1.5x Strength on two-handed attacks, it's kind of relevant), Clerics may want to spend an action to use Channel Energy on themselves, and so on. Fighters don't have any of that, and as you pointed out, the Ranger doesn't really have that either, since Hunt Target is "fire and forget," until you kill your intended enemy.

Sure, there are ways to combat it, but that's effectively saying "Hey, let's throw a bunch of flying enemies at our melee characters!" Which is both unfun and heavily imbalanced to favor those who have practically unlimited access to the Z axis of the combat grid. On top of that, all this does is reinforce the "Longbow Master Race" issue that plagued PF1 simply because it was the most optimal way to full attack without having to really rely on combat positioning (as long as you had line of effect and was far away from melee bad guys, you were in a good spot). Congratulations, every Ranger worth his salt is going to be Legolas, using Bows for days, instead of being cool and different by using something other than a weapon that's been used to death simply because it's the easiest and most powerful way to play.

That argument likewise applies to how Fighters are going to be played now in PF2. There are zero logical reasons for a Fighter to not have a shield anymore, and there are zero logical reasons for a Fighter to wield two handed weapons since they don't get increased Strength like a Barbarian does (but that requires Raging, so)...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Just with the Ranger preview, it promotes "full attacks" with the Hunt Target feature, which we were trying to get rid of in this edition. (Same was said for AoOs, but we made that Fighter-only instead.)
I’m not sure where the notion that there is a goal to get rid of full attacks came from. Sometimes standing still and full attacking is the best choice, sometimes it isn’t. PF2 is much less punishing when you don’t full attack.

Combat was stated to be more dynamic and interactive in PF2, compared to PF1's "I sit there and full attack" every round. Ranger's Hunt Target promotes that PF1 paradigm (since it only benefits from making numerous attacks), which goes against their design goal of "more interactive combat".


Themetricsystem wrote:
ITT: People telling other people they are having badwrongfun.

Fixed that for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

With the opening date for PF2's public playtest rapidly approaching, I feel that we've seen enough of the game at this point to feel justified in starting a thread regarding my personal concerns about the version of the game that will appear in the playtest document.

Specifically, based on the previews we've seen up to this point, it would appear that PF2 amps up the degree of mechanical complexity well beyond the median seen in the game's first edition. Since a lot of the people I GM for don't really know the rules and have no interest in learning them, this constitutes a problem for us.

Therefore, my question is: Will it be possible to create characters on the lower end of PF1's complexity scale under the new rule-set?

Character creation is about as easy as it gets, it puts PF1 to shame. Leveling up has issues in level spikes and inconsistencies, IMO, but can be tweaked within a usable manner without being too confusing.

The fear I have is gameplay, which is the most important aspect of it. The skeleton is easy and nice to have, but that's about it. Certain combat options are shoehorny, such as a Paladin always being the best-armored character, a Wizard always being the best at spellcasting, and so on. Just with the Ranger preview, it promotes "full attacks" with the Hunt Target feature, which we were trying to get rid of in this edition. (Same was said for AoOs, but we made that Fighter-only instead.)

And Resonance...oh boy, Resonance...

Resonance mechanics are wonky and worryful on paper, using magic items is goofy and sometimes broken, not to mention confusing, has redundant wording, and down right contradictory in being "simplified" or "streamlined." Some of these things can be fixed with playtesting, but as a whole, I have a feeling this will be the backbreaker with a lot of converted and/or new players.

Spells can be confusing too, especially how upcasting works with certain spells, if at all, combined with the "four tiers of success," can slow down a game considerably. Not to mention people confusing spell points with spell slots...However, between this or dominating the game with Save/Suck spells, this is the lesser of two evils.

While this game has some good going for it, I don't think it will offset all the bad it currently has, even with playtesting (since all of these mechanics are set in stone).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Literally anything else except a fiddly complicated system based on Charisma that forces you to choose between worn items and potions.

I'm not even saying wands here, just potions!

So if they split the system apart into 2 separate systems, one dealing with worn items/worn item activations, and one dealing with consumables, you'd be okay with that?

It still seems like an incredibly finicky and complicated system designed to combat what amounts to a non-issue, but yes- resonance as a thing you use for worn item activations could be fine, though it will still result in channeling people even more into ONLY the absolute best items.

But if potions don't draw from it, then it isn't going to directly contribute to the party wipes and massive annoyance of requiring players to run heal bots.

The problem here is that wands will still use Resonance and serve as the best HP/GP ratio, so you're really only singling out the wand users, and every other character still has to deal with the "I can't Resonance on X because I might have to heal" problem.

Honestly, a "max after each fight" solution might be the best way to counteract everything. 5e does it, why can't we?

I'll be honest that is part of why I stopped playing 5e. Nothing ever really felt like it mattered.
It's not much different than the CLW wand spam we get all the time in PF1, so it makes sense to just alter it and adjust the WBL accordingly, since the CLW wand spam is just a glorified "handwaving" of out-of-combat healing.
Oh yeah don't like CLW wand spam either. We moved off DnD entirely for a bit because its HP mechanics didn't really make sense or facilitate the type of stories we wanted.

Which is fine, and leads into this question, then: What sort of HP mechanics would you think are appropriate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Literally anything else except a fiddly complicated system based on Charisma that forces you to choose between worn items and potions.

I'm not even saying wands here, just potions!

So if they split the system apart into 2 separate systems, one dealing with worn items/worn item activations, and one dealing with consumables, you'd be okay with that?

It still seems like an incredibly finicky and complicated system designed to combat what amounts to a non-issue, but yes- resonance as a thing you use for worn item activations could be fine, though it will still result in channeling people even more into ONLY the absolute best items.

But if potions don't draw from it, then it isn't going to directly contribute to the party wipes and massive annoyance of requiring players to run heal bots.

The problem here is that wands will still use Resonance and serve as the best HP/GP ratio, so you're really only singling out the wand users, and every other character still has to deal with the "I can't Resonance on X because I might have to heal" problem.

Honestly, a "max after each fight" solution might be the best way to counteract everything. 5e does it, why can't we?

I'll be honest that is part of why I stopped playing 5e. Nothing ever really felt like it mattered.

It's not much different than the CLW wand spam we get all the time in PF1, so it makes sense to just alter it and adjust the WBL accordingly, since the CLW wand spam is just a glorified "handwaving" of out-of-combat healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Literally anything else except a fiddly complicated system based on Charisma that forces you to choose between worn items and potions.

I'm not even saying wands here, just potions!

So if they split the system apart into 2 separate systems, one dealing with worn items/worn item activations, and one dealing with consumables, you'd be okay with that?

It still seems like an incredibly finicky and complicated system designed to combat what amounts to a non-issue, but yes- resonance as a thing you use for worn item activations could be fine, though it will still result in channeling people even more into ONLY the absolute best items.

But if potions don't draw from it, then it isn't going to directly contribute to the party wipes and massive annoyance of requiring players to run heal bots.

The problem here is that wands will still use Resonance and serve as the best HP/GP ratio, so you're really only singling out the wand users, and every other character still has to deal with the "I can't Resonance on X because I might have to heal" problem.

Honestly, a "max after each fight" solution might be the best way to counteract everything. 5e does it, why can't we?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Though you should probably invest if you are relying on the skill as your primary healing. A character with training and medium Wisdom score stops killing people accidentally by level 3.
As I said, lateral/sidegrade move at best. It's still forcing someone to take the healing role.

I get confused when you treat the goals of the system as problems of the system. Yes, the party needs to invest in and manage healing. You have options on how to do that.

A starting skill and some wisdom is still a lot lower investment to "take the healing role" than say, your entire choice of class.

I think the bolded part is what people have most contention with.

If I wanna make a Battle Cleric, I'm forced to have one (or more) of the following issues just because "healing is required":

-Select Positive Energy Channeling instead of Negative Energy Channeling for proper healing in-combat or out-of-combat, instead of having useful energy attacks against resistant enemies.

-Burn spell slots on healing instead of buffing or even damaging/control spells.

-Spend WBL on CLW wands until 10th level, moving to CMW by 15th, and CSW by 20th, and thereby ruin my ability to utilize multiple magic items, because the Wand debacle still actually exists.

If healing is really required (just like the Big 6 was in PF1), then everyone should have something built in to their class to heal (even if just for themselves) in some fashion, without any sort of choice or investment. I shouldn't have to shoehorn my character choices just because "the game requires healing." It's the same reason why people hated the Big 6 in PF1, because "the game required it."

You forgot “Invest in Medicine” on your list. Every class has options for providing healing. They are called skills. The cleric just has more and easier options should she choose to invest her class resources...

It's still something I have to sacrifice just because the game demands or expects me to do it, when that skill rank could instead be going to other skills that are valuable to the character's function, which is the whole point of removing the "Tim/Jim" paradigm.

Remember when everyone said "Always put skill ranks in Perception"? Congratulations, you just changed that to "Always put skill ranks in Medicine." Shifting the problem of "de facto" skills from Perception to Medicine is not a solution for cutting out or down things like the Big 6, much less the "Tim/Jim" paradigm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Though you should probably invest if you are relying on the skill as your primary healing. A character with training and medium Wisdom score stops killing people accidentally by level 3.
As I said, lateral/sidegrade move at best. It's still forcing someone to take the healing role.

I get confused when you treat the goals of the system as problems of the system. Yes, the party needs to invest in and manage healing. You have options on how to do that.

A starting skill and some wisdom is still a lot lower investment to "take the healing role" than say, your entire choice of class.

I think the bolded part is what people have most contention with.

If I wanna make a Battle Cleric, I'm forced to have one (or more) of the following issues just because "healing is required":

-Select Positive Energy Channeling instead of Negative Energy Channeling for proper healing in-combat or out-of-combat, instead of having useful energy attacks against resistant enemies.

-Burn spell slots on healing instead of buffing or even damaging/control spells.

-Spend WBL on CLW wands until 10th level, moving to CMW by 15th, and CSW by 20th, and thereby ruin my ability to utilize multiple magic items, because the Wand debacle still actually exists.

If healing is really required (just like the Big 6 was in PF1), then everyone should have something built in to their class to heal (even if just for themselves) in some fashion, without any sort of choice or investment. I shouldn't have to shoehorn my character choices just because "the game requires healing." It's the same reason why people hated the Big 6 in PF1, because "the game required it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

The first time, "Sorry, your character is dead because you have no resonance to activate that potion left" is uttered every person at the table is walking away from the game forever.

"Guess you shouldn't have used those boots of haste earlier, eh?"

How many times did that character's allies fail their Medicine checks?
Medicine will take more actions than simply using a potion as one action entirely, thereby making it a non-option.

It is a single action to Administer First Aid. An action that can be attempted untrained, even.

** spoiler omitted **

Because everyone carries around Healer Tools, which is required for use. This doesn't include an action to draw out Healer Tools for use (it's not like you can draw them out freely as part of the action), as well as any action to get within range of the downed character (which is also something a Potion user has to do).

Even so, at best this means you're wasting actions to give bad guys an excuse to outright execute them if you're bothering to try and save their lives (and doing so poorly, I might add).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ludovicus wrote:

I addressed all these things in the OP. (fwiw I do think you were totally on point in your reply to my "wand of CLW post", though, and should've replied saying as much.)

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Let's say Mr. Ranger is surprised by an adjacent enemy. On his turn, he could swing 3 times for 0-5-10 penalties, or he can spend an action, and attack twice for 0-4 (or 0-3 with Agile weaponry), thereby being more likely to hit (and crit) with his 2nd attack, and the third attack being negligible otherwise.

It was buried in the "math" part of my post, but the preview blog post implies TWF also reduces your multiple attack penalties, presumably by 1. On top of agile weapons, that's 0/-3/-6 or 0/-2. That -6 isn't negligible.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mr. Ranger is more consistent with "full attacks" than any other class due to significantly reducing penalties with his feature

Apart from maybe aesthetics, which is no basis for class design, the WHOLE POINT of "more consistent with full attacks" is getting more hits over time. As it stands, trading an attack to do this isn't worth it given plausible assumptions about the numbers. If you think my numbers aren't plausible, try some of your own and see if it looks different.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

later on he can activate it freely, no actions required.

When "later on" means "at 19th level," then "later on" means "never."

I meant negligible as in "not worth the action," but a -6 is certainly much better than a -10, and against enemies whom you know have reduced or outright low AC, even a -6 might be a worthwhile action if you just want to absolutely kill the guy.

The attack you are trading, however, is the one at -10 (or -6 with proper reductions), so trading a -10 penalty attack to have more chances to hit (or crit) with your second attack (and other follow-up attacks thereafter) is more often than not worth spending an action in place of that crude attack roll. It's not really gaining "more hits over time" if those attacks are made at horrendous penalties (which, by the way, can result in Critical Failures, and there are enemies who can trigger effects based off of that).

I will concur that the 19th level restriction is odd and not going to see much play, but considering you can confer these benefits to other allies through certain feat selections, and that PF2 APs are going to be (largely) designed to go to 20 (meaning level 19 will see some action), it makes for a solid way to boost martial buddies, and not just yourself. (I think there is a Barbarian feat which confers Rage benefits to allies as well; a shame Fighter doesn't get any of that similarly cool mojo, selfish jerk.)

I mean, cutting down up to -3 of your penalties, making multiattack options more viable, is an interesting mechanic on paper, but as I've said before, my fear is that it will now reinforce the "sit still and full attack" paradigm that PF1 was trying to get away from, and if players realize the optimal thing to do is just the same exact "garbage" that PF1 was, then people are going to be highly upset and just quit playing it (or even worse, ban Hunt Target, or change how Hunt Target works, thereby severely crippling the Ranger class).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's say Mr. Ranger is surprised by an adjacent enemy. On his turn, he could swing 3 times for 0-5-10 penalties, or he can spend an action, and attack twice for 0-4 (or 0-3 with Agile weaponry), thereby being more likely to hit (and crit) with his 2nd attack, and the third attack being negligible otherwise.

Mr. Ranger is more consistent with "full attacks" than any other class due to significantly reducing penalties with his feature, and later on he can activate it freely, no actions required.

The problem I have is how much that betrays the "no sitting still and full attacking" issue that we were trying to do away with from PF1, since on paper, that will be his biggest source of DPR, but also how to defeat him (just by denying him more than one attack).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

The first time, "Sorry, your character is dead because you have no resonance to activate that potion left" is uttered every person at the table is walking away from the game forever.

"Guess you shouldn't have used those boots of haste earlier, eh?"

How many times did that character's allies fail their Medicine checks?

Medicine will take more actions than simply using a potion as one action entirely, thereby making it a non-option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

The first time, "Sorry, your character is dead because you have no resonance to activate that potion left" is uttered every person at the table is walking away from the game forever.

"Guess you shouldn't have used those boots of haste earlier, eh?"

Boots of Haste will likely require an action to use, and have a 1 minute duration per use, so that shouldn't be an issue on that front.

Either way, fear the resonance, for it will kill your character 90% of the time because you thought fireballs were cooler than healing yourself with a CLW wand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
-snip-

Pedantic argument of what I meant by "investment" aside, this really doesn't change anything. A base feature with no add-ons to it is not really an investment, when it's a feature that everyone of that class gets regardless of what they do or do not choose to do.

I already demonstrated it has significant opportunity cost. You can't defeat swarms reliably without Channel Negative Energy (unless they're Undead Swarms, which are possible, but very edge-case), meaning you're stuck with doing the same investments as anyone else, which are Acid Flasks, Alchemist's Fires, and so on. You also may not be able to reliably affect enemies who may have some sort of strong resistance or immunity to your melee attacks. Even if the claim is that "Well, now you need to invest in Healing Wands," the opportunity cost is a two way street. I give up the ability to deal with swarms and other non-melee combatants in order to heal up conversely, which means that one way or the other, I'm paying for it.

That "going negative" statement sounds like sarcasm. Especially since that's not possible in PF2. In addition, going unconscious into Dying is effectively a death sentence as it is, since healing no longer makes you instantaneously conscious, and making a motion to heal your friend just gives the bad guys a reason to kill them outright, since they now know that an enemy who is now down and defenseless, was just healed (giving them information that they're still alive), and needs to be eliminated before they rise back up as a major thorn in their side.

That's just me hoping they realize the mistake in permitting Area Healing wands, since you've just essentially defeated the whole point of Resonance eliminating the "Weak Wand Out of Combat Healing" argument by allowing the Wand to heal for AoE (for more net damage curing), the "puff puff pass" system (where people pass around and "share resonance" to heal out of combat), and simply still being the nuisance it was in PF1, except more added steps.

Maybe if Wands had the "locked for 24 hours" rule in place, it might curtail these shenanigans, but that's easily solved by having the person with the most Charisma (Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin) being the "healstick," which just makes the problem more selective (and specifically abusable) than anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's certainly a feature that people who actually invest resources into being good at a thing are better at it (in this case, better meaning 'more cost effective') than those who don't.

But this isn't that, though. Getting a base class feature whose (automatic) scaling makes you better at XYZ by default isn't "investing resources" whatsoever. This is like saying Paladins from PF1 are the best tanks because they invest in the Lay On Hands and Aura/Immunity features. It's not an investment, it's part of the base package. Buying items like Bracers of the Merciful Knight, taking Extra Lay on Hands (or even Aura) Feats, and stuff like that? That's investment. Getting the base feature as a part of your class? Not investment whatsoever.

Clerics getting Channel Energy through a feat would be investment. Them getting it just from level advancement is not investment, it's par for the course, for any Cleric, really. That's why it makes no sense to say that.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Actually, given how Channel Energy works, you're a very solid healer just by being a Cleric who picks positive channeling, no resource investment away from being a battle Cleric needed. That's one of the whole points of Channel Energy being a separate pool.

As for being forced to play a healer, that was actually my whole point with Wands being a sufficient (if not ideal) option. You don't actually need a healer, they're just a nice perk. People may try to pressure you into playing one, but no more than they pressure you into playing an 'archer' or 'front line fighter' or several other useful but not strictly necessary roles.

It always was a separate pool, way back in PF1 Core. It's not like Channel Energy ate into your spells per day like you're saying it did, because that never happened, and wasn't really the issue I had here.

As for it eating into your "Battle Cleric"-ness, what if I wanted a non-melee damage alternative, choosing Negative Energy channeling (which never affects me unless I want it to, by the way) for dealing with Swarms and other melee-resistant enemies? Nope, can't do that now, because if I don't have some form of healing, in-combat or not, I'll end up dying due to having too much options available. And I sure as hell don't wanna burn my even more precious spell slots to do that.

Yes, Positive Channeling can be used to fight undead enemies, but that's pretty niche (even if they are a fairly common form of enemy, they aren't so common as to expect them to happen, similar to why they changed Favored Enemy for the Ranger preview), and I honestly wouldn't really spec into Channel Energy damage in that manner unless I knew I would be in a really heavy Undead campaign (such as Carrion Crown or other similar "Zombie Apocalypse" scenarios). Whereas if I have some investment in Negative Energy channeling, it can be a viable alternative to counteract some of my offensive weaknesses against swarms and similarly resistant enemies.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I specifically said I didn't know that, so I'm not sure why you're acting like I said I did. So...yeah. All my statements about what we know are about spell-based healing being superior to consumables. Which it is.

I suspect that Medicine Skill Feats will be a useful option in this regard and think the evidence points that way, but I sure don't know anything in this regard and never said I did.

What you said was:

Deadmanwalking wrote:
We know that magic and consumables have changed enough to make it true.

Until we get the full rules for magic items and consumables, as well as compare those rules to how Medicine skills and such function, you can't make that claim.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
They've confirmed multiple times that magic weapons still require no Resonance (which means the dagger thing works in theory), and the PaizoCon section of the Glass Cannon stuff occurred with the final rules that will show up in the Playtest, since it had already gone to print.

The point here was when they spent actions literally tossing the dagger around every party member to kill the Shadow, AKA the Peasant Railgun effect, Jason Bulmahn said that it's something he would find unintended in the rules. Whether that means there will be rules that discourage or prevent this sort of "shenanigans" or not, I don't know. But he even said something along the lines of letting them do it anyway to defeat the adventure (and because it was something that was both interesting and iconic to this specific adventure), which (from my knowledge) hasn't been brought up within the podcast itself.


No, it would be a D4 check, since each result has a 25$ chance of occurring based on sheer numbers. A roll of a 1 means it fails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This also assumes Wands can be used to cast a spell in any way you want; spells with variant cast times probably aren't something Paizo considered in their initial design, which means they either need to nerf Wands hard by locking in an action type (or limit the number of actions you can do with a Wand; maybe it can only be used for 1 action activations?), or completely revise how they work to disallow this broken BS.
Minor note on a point from a while ago, but in the Glass Cannon podcast, the party use a Wand of Heal for area healing, and Jason Bulmahn (who is the lead designer) acts like this is entirely normal and reasonable. So...this seems to be very much expected.

What they permit in a podcast and what they will publish (or change) in the final product are completely different things. It could be like other rules, or it could be like the whole "Magic Dagger puff-puff-pass" debacle that will most likely not be permissible in the existing rules, even if solely due to balance reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

This is another false dichotomy. If Wands are good enough and cheap enough that they're a viable option, but healers are more optimal, then you have some of the best of both worlds.

Groups where nobody wants to play a healer will do fine using Wands (though they'll need higher than level 1 Wands), but a healer is still something useful (ie: better than the Wands) so someone who wants to play one can do so.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And we still don't know if that's changed enough since all we know is that Medicine and Heal as skills exist. There was more than one reason a consumable was better for healing, and this only solves one half of that problem.

We know that magic and consumables have changed enough to make it true. Whether Medicine Skill Feats are equally viable is another matter, and unconfirmed right now, though evidence favors them being viable at the moment.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As for the cloak pricing, it granting at-will invisibility would be double that price in PF1 standards, converting to 20,000 gold in PF1 currency, the exact price of a Ring of Invisibility. While this doesn't explain the +3 Stealth benefits (which are mutually exclusive) and the Ghost Sound cantrips (which we can do without), I'd say a double-priced at-will option is fair and consistent, with the Greater Invisibility at-will being appropriately priced at half a million gold (which is easily into artifact territory).
That's a ridiculous tissue of assumptions regarding how...

Not really, because then it creates a big disparity between parties that do and do not have clerics or paladins or other class-ability healers, which is why the "Tim/Jim" paradigm exists to begin with; because a party using wands to heal up is significantly weaker than a party who can just use a Cleric or Paladin's innate features to heal, thereby sparing them WBL to use on other things they rather want, instead of something that they feel like they need to have, but don't want. You can call it a feature if you want, but that doesn't make it a good or even optional feature. (After all, it's not like Clerics can take a feat for Channel Energy options.)

You're missing the biggest point of this paradigm, which is forced shoehorning due to an apparent necessity, when it should be possible for someone to simply play a character they want, instead of something they feel like they have to because the game (or even the other players) feel like it's necessary (even if they don't want to). I shouldn't have to play a Cleric with healing spells just because I'm better at it, or I'm the only one who can. The Cleric class preview states that I should be able to play a "Battle Cleric" without issue, even though something like this is precisely an issue as to why I can't.

Again, no you don't. Just as I (apparently) don't know enough about WBL rules and what the expectations there are (even though we have examples of prices in regards to certain item levels and their abilities that can at least give us an idea what both abilities and items of certain levels can be worth), you don't know enough about skills and how they function in relation to consumables and magic to know if non-spellcasting healing is applicable to being a relevant "healer" role.

And yes, it is ridiculous. So is Resonance. Fighting fire with fire can sometimes be an appropriate tactic, especially if I'd rather deal with a lesser of two evils. Even then, if people wanna spend half a million gold (or in this case, 24,000 GP, or 240,000 GP in PF1 currency, which is artifact+-level value,) on At-Will Greater Invisibility (which takes 2 actions to recast each time it's down, and is most likely easily countered at the levels in which you can afford or acquire it), then sure, it is ridiculous. The irony here is that this is effectively what PF1 did in regards to Magic Item Creation rules, and "ridiculous" appears to be a fairly apt way to describe those very same rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I trust Mark - and I believe his story 100% - but it doesn't mean that is going to happen reliably or even be the norm for a party - by admission that party specifically was stress testing a single thing - we certainly don't have enough information about all the rules and how they interact to know how things will shake out in normal play.

There are many examples of games where the math worked out - but player behavior threw it out the window or some unforseen interaction made the math moot once thousands of eyeballs scoured the system.

I'm absolutely willing to believe there will be one or more completely broken and unforeseen system interactions, but given the data we've got I can confidently say that low level consumables being better than a dedicated healer is not one of those things.

It's one of very few things we can say that about given the current data, mind you, but I feel confident in that very specific statement.

Wultram wrote:
And I noted in the same post that for playtest data to be in a format that can be digested, you have to stick to the norm. Naturally superior playtest would allow for this but resources are limited and as such it isn't reasonable.

Indeed. Which was one of my main points.

Wultram wrote:
Only reason I used sacred geometry as an example is that I consider it the same level of screw up as resonance. You may change it with firearms rules if you prefer for a wider subsystem that sucks.

Sacred Geometry is pretty bad. The firearms rules are a better example because they have more interactions and fixing them is harder without breaking other system elements.

Wultram wrote:
Oh and for the record I could EASILY I might add to figure out a system that replaces resonance without f+$@ing up things, hell simple remove completely is better than having it.
The pricing of, for example, a Cloak of Elvenkind is predicated on it being able to give you Invisibility for Resonance at-will. How do you convert that...

All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

And we still don't know if that's changed enough since all we know is that Medicine and Heal as skills exist. There was more than one reason a consumable was better for healing, and this only solves one half of that problem.

As for the cloak pricing, it granting at-will invisibility would be double that price in PF1 standards, converting to 20,000 gold in PF1 currency, the exact price of a Ring of Invisibility. While this doesn't explain the +3 Stealth benefits (which are mutually exclusive) and the Ghost Sound cantrips (which we can do without), I'd say a double-priced at-will option is fair and consistent, with the Greater Invisibility at-will being appropriately priced at half a million gold (which is easily into artifact territory).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I am looking at it as binary, because this either does or does not solve the problem. In this case, I say it does not, unless you call shifting the problem a solution, which I don't.

What are you defining as the problem?

On this front, eliminating the "use lower/cheaper wands to heal out of combat" situations, which will still exist now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am looking at it as binary, because this either does or does not solve the problem. In this case, I say it does not, unless you call shifting the problem a solution, which I don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

You can't manage it with level 1 Wands any more. You can manage it with lower than your own level Wands, but not that far down.

And Resonance has a very real point: It makes using Wands to heal not the ideal choice. Which was one of their goals.

You just got done explaining that using wands healed more than any other form of consumable for an amount much cheaper than potions or other forms of consumables, making this a contradictory point.

Wands are still the #1 way to heal due to their "spell in a can" design, having ubiquitous amounts of charges for their price. The only thing that changes is that they can't just stock up on the lowest level ones anymore, but you then went on to say that still using lower tier wands is still viable.

This is literally a "trying to think outside but really stuck in the wall of a box" solution, which is just pointless and likewise convoluted, since the only reason people chose CLW wands was because of their HP/GP conversion value. If all Wands healed the same for the same price, there wouldn't be any issue in upgrading them to higher tiers (other than available funds, which is really a player/table issue, not an in-game issue), since that potentially increases their in-combat value for doing so, while still getting the same potential HP/GP conversion rate.

Lausth wrote:
Ehm...I have a solution for all your wand problems.Make high tier wands actually great and cost effective.There your problem solved.No need for something as useless as resonance.

This might make sense, but if the higher healing wands end up having better scale than lower healing wands, all this encourages is a group to pool their GP (not to mention their resonance) into a "Super" wand, so they just burn a charge, heal up (which is also crazy-viable during combat if it heals enough), and don't have to waste or worry about downtime. This is another "trying to think outside but really stuck in the wall of a box" solution.

Lausth wrote:
As I pointed out in the other thread, if you (Darksol) houserule out Resonance without even trying it, then Paizo has no reason to take your feedback into account. Which may mean it is even more likely we get Resonance in the PF2 final version, and definitely means you won't be able to influence what the final version of Resonance looks like if it stays.

I wouldn't expect them to anyway. All of the mechanics are here to stay in the playtest, and it's really more of a tweaking phase at this point. There won't be enough time to properly playtest any form of replacement in the new system (or a replacement to the replacement if that too falls through), much less time to properly design a replacement to begin with. (I'd rather they just didn't have one, but again, I wouldn't expect them to not have some form of replacement instead of just outright removing it in favor of using the traditional tracking methods.)

I guess you could say that they invested in Resonance with their Resonance, and they can't change it or trade it to anyone else for 24 hours (which is, in real life time, the duration it takes for PF3 to come out, which won't be for another decade if history repeats, but if it does, then there will be yet another annoying magic item system like before). The irony, really.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A very small preview.

So, apparently no spells, might help with giving them other options, and with it being expandable in later installments, just means it's not the base effect. They also must not have anything to preview with Animal Companion synergy until Friday (presumably), so not having even a couple options revealed there is disappointing.

The Hunt Target feature is powerful, and certainly works like Studied Target from Slayer in PF1 (even if modified to reduce iterative penalties). Unfortunately, this means that they can be more consistent offensively than most other martials in the game in terms of raw damage due to this.

Yes, they get feats that let them improve those options and spread them to allies, but isn't that a Bard's main schtick, to buff allies (and debuffs enemies)? Not saying other classes shouldn't get party buffing, but some of the stuff a Ranger grants to allies via Hunt Target is very powerful, perhaps more powerful than what anything a Bard can grant.

Snares seem very underwhelming and very niche in their use, so having it as a base feature isn't that great. They say it might be usable for combat purposes with feats, but without any previews here for the specifics on that, it's just a partially filled map with too much distance in-between to understand how they get there.

Overall, this wasn't a horrible blog post, but it was a little short, didn't have much crunch, and seemed to step on some toes. Passable is about the most adequate word I can use to describe it currently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Saving the RP to heal the person rather than mitigating is actually a bad choice...

Yeah sorry, I thought of that exception too and edited my post while you were still typing.

I guess part of the problem for me with Resonance is that it will compel me to engage in this level of critical thinking every time I have to spend it... That sounds exhausting.

Agreed. I'm now worrying about Resonance whenever items are brought up, which kills immersion too. Too busy worrying about Resonance to realize I'm fighting a BBEG that burned down an orphanage and needs to pay for his crime.

I think the only character I would play is a Dwarf Superstition Barbarian who fights naked and punches people to death. It's the only way I could ever play the game and never worry a damn thing about Resonance. (Or a 20 Charisma Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard, but I hate Resonance too much to try and beat the system.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That's not really an answer we can expect. Just because you make more gold doesn't mean that you will be expected to purchase more with it if the prices for things you need are likewise scaling in a similar fashion. (I suppose that would be linear scaling by technical definition, but I meant that it wouldn't increase in factors of 5 or 20 in such short spans of levels, as well as having completely different levels of scaling between item types, so even if it wasn't linear, it's still all over the place and needs to be fixed, hence why I"m going with the Placeholder theory.)

But my point is that it doesn't necessarily scale at exactly the same rate as PF1 so any analysis based on PF1's WBL is critically flawed.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It shouldn't matter that potions are terrible or not, the point is that consumables will end up running your Resonance one way or the other, instead of being able to activate cool things you want to use, like your Fireball Blade (which, if the existing weapon entries are any indication, would suck nuts after 2 levels of being able to have it, and even then against tough monsters, will be worthless), you're instead forced into activating consumables (usually healing ones) or you just die, even with those 14 Constitution PFS builds, not having HP to fight with just makes you worthless on the battlefield. Not only did they fail at making freeform choices, they shoehorned your choices to where, if you don't invest Resonance in healing, you'll just die and have to create a character that does. GG Paizo.

Except that, as I noted, you can manage full healing for an entire party for 8 or 9 Resonance total, with below level consumables. That's as much healing as most parties need most days and a workable amount of Resonance to manage (though more than would be ideal, providing an incentive to have other healing methodologies).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I don't remember them ever clarifying
...

PF1 scaling has nothing to do with fundamental math equations. It doesn't matter if you multiply the values if it all comes out to the same in the end. It's fraction work all over again, and PF1 to PF2 value conversions are proof of this.

Under what pretenses? Lower-tier wands will heal for less, meaning more Resonance will be required for expected results, not already include dice roll RNG which can throw that way out of whack.

Nothing in the rules says that you can or can't use items higher level than you, and while it matters for crafting, it's more conservative to say no until proven otherwise.

But you know what? Let's say you're right, people just pool resonance for out of combat healing via CLW wands. Now all they did was make using wands for out of combat healing more of a headache without (really) getting rid of the problem (low tier wands providing the best healing)like they expected Resonance to do, so all you're proving is Resonance is a pointless tracker that fails at solving the problems it was set out to fix.

And yes, I can expect designers to make amateur mistakes, and PF1 is full of prime examples as to how that is; numerous feats and rules that are written so poorly by professional designers that they implode upon themselves, abilities so broken they aren't even fair, the list goes on. Just because they get paid doesn't mean anything if people end up buying into a bad product like fools.

I shouldn't have to playtest a product to say it's bad and decide to use something else. I already know it will be bad simply because of the existing implications being such a hamper to the game's immersion. I'm too busy worrying about Resonance than anything else, it's that bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
-snip for brevity-

That's not really an answer we can expect. Just because you make more gold doesn't mean that you will be expected to purchase more with it if the prices for things you need are likewise scaling in a similar fashion. (I suppose that would be linear scaling by technical definition, but I meant that it wouldn't increase in factors of 5 or 20 in such short spans of levels, as well as having completely different levels of scaling between item types, so even if it wasn't linear, it's still all over the place and needs to be fixed, hence why I"m going with the Placeholder theory.)

It shouldn't matter that potions are terrible or not, the point is that consumables will end up running your Resonance one way or the other, instead of being able to activate cool things you want to use, like your Fireball Blade (which, if the existing weapon entries are any indication, would suck nuts after 2 levels of being able to have it, and even then against tough monsters, will be worthless), you're instead forced into activating consumables (usually healing ones) or you just die, even with those 14 Constitution PFS builds, not having HP to fight with just makes you worthless on the battlefield. Not only did they fail at making freeform choices, they shoehorned your choices to where, if you don't invest Resonance in healing, you'll just die and have to create a character that does. GG Paizo.

I don't remember them ever clarifying that Resonance always has a minimum of 1 in any blog post I've read. It's better than having 0, though I still think that's wishful thinking for them to grant a minimum of 1 for something that they clearly wanted people to pay for just for neglecting it.

That's not really relevant here. An 8th level item means it's built for 8th level PCs to use. Characters who have much weaker (or much stronger) items are going to be very rare, if not impossible, with this current system since at some point, something is going to break. It shouldn't matter if it gives more static HP or not (which is better design for consistent healing, I don't know why the spells don't work like that), especially since potions are no longer "spell in a can," meaning spell comparisons are worthless.

Oops on the HP. It does skew my results a bit, but not so much that the original point doesn't stand anymore.

Being able to buy them =/= Being able to use them. There's nothing in the rules that says you can just pick up a Holy Avenger and start swinging at 3rd level just because it's there, item levels exist both for crafting and for weapon availability. Not high enough level? Can't use the weapon then.

So now, instead of having a Wand that one person uses to stick everyone up, you have a Wand that everybody shares Resonance with to heal everyone up. Or hell, how about that person with 18 Charisma can start using all the Wands and such now, because he has the Resonance to spare. GG Paizo, you even failed at nullifying CLW wands from being the most effective, nice job side-grading the problem into something still completely unintended. This also assumes Wands can be used to cast a spell in any way you want; spells with variant cast times probably aren't something Paizo considered in their initial design, which means they either need to nerf Wands hard by locking in an action type (or limit the number of actions you can do with a Wand; maybe it can only be used for 1 action activations?), or completely revise how they work to disallow this broken BS. Either way, I will just houserule Resonance out of my PF2 games, and just stick with the old PF1 system for magic items. If I'm just getting more of the same BS, there's no reason to include a pointlessly complicated system to make it worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
I have never played a character at level 20, but from memory my level 10 character hardly used any consumables outside of clw (actually as a synthesist summoner

I stopped reading this post by the bolded point because it's not a typical character experience whatsoever. A broken class using an even more broken archetype that should have never seen the light of publishing day is not really a great or accurate measurement of what players can expect for magic item usage.

1 to 50 of 7,389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>