| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This resonance mechanic that we learn about at the Glass Cannon podcast sounds intriguing, but potentially problematic. So I'd like to propose several ways that it might work without causing too many negative side effects.
1) Investing: Apparently, at the start of each day you need to invest resonance points in magic items so that they will function at all. This mechanic appears to replace the DD3.x and PF1.0 notion of magic item "slots" as a limiting factor. But it's highly problematical if everything costs resonance points.
2) Magic vs manufactured: If some gear with wonderful properties isn't "magical" as such, and thus doesn't need to be invested with resonance points, that might solve part of the problem. For example, alchemical items could be considered non-magical. Well-crafted but non-magical arms and armor wouldn't require resonance investing.
3) Use-activated items: A magic sword that shoots a ray of fire, or a wand with a spell in it, might require a point of resonance to activate. Although this seems like a good replacement for the charge mechanic, it does radically change the dynamic compared to charged items as they currently exist in PF1.0. It severely limits the use of wands as back-up magic for when spells prepared (or spell slots for spontaneous casters) run low. I'm not sure whether this should be considered a feature, or a bug.
4) Scrolls: If they are still classed as one-use consumables, scroll use is severely limited. You can acquire scrolls very early in your adventuring career, at a time where you only have a couple of resonance points at your disposal. I would suggest that scrolls not require resonance investment.
5) Potions: As one-use consumables, this is even worse, since you could potentially drink the potion, and have the effect wasted if you are out of resonance.
6) Fixing potions and scrolls: We can easily imagine a system where, without investing resonance, the potion or scroll works at minimum caster level and DC, but in you invest a point of resonance it works at your current character level. IMHO this would be the best way to handle resonance investment for these one-use items.
7) Healing: If alchemists can craft non-magical healing potions (possibly with a different name, like philters) then it would be logical not to require resonance investment in them. If the heal skill still exists, and the results of using the heal skill were beefed up, that would go a long way towards replacing potions and CLW wands.
8) Creating wands and potions: I think wands should only be able to hold arcane spells. That right there would eliminate the strange dynamic of CLW wands and wands of restoration or other divine spells. Potions could be crafted by both divine and arcane casters, using a mechanism like the one described in point (6) above, so that they still have limited effects when resonance is used up. Potions are one-use, in any event, and wands wouldn't need limited charges at all if they require resonance to operate.
Obviously, I'm hoping for comments from some of the Paizo guys on these proposals. But at the very least, I think I've demonstrated that there are ways that the resonance cost issues could be mitigated or solved with relatively limited and uncomplicated rules applied to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was said that an alchemist heal failed to work due to resonance in some game? So unfortunately they count too.
Agreed with you on the consumables. Yeah, we end up with the 5e "attunement" system, but at least that one doesn't punish consumables and only some perma-items use it up for balance concerns. Making it too widespreas is ugh.
Also who's gonna track all these points? My GM notes are already a lot and roll20 only gives you 3 gauges (Hp, AC, class-specific resource for me).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was said that an alchemist heal failed to work due to resonance in some game? So unfortunately they count too.
Yes, but that's in a playtest. There's no reason it has to stay that way. We have 15 months before PF2.0 is released and at least 12-14 months before it's sent to the printers. That's the main reason we're all spending huge swaths of time reading and posting to this forum. <g>
I think it was said that an alchemist heal failed to work due to resonance in some game? So unfortunately they count too.Yes, but that's in a playtest. There's no reason it has to stay that way. We have 15 months before PF2.0 is released and at least 12-14 months before it's sent to the printers. That's the main reason we're all spending huge swaths of time reading and posting to this forum. <g>
Sometimes I'm not sure if anything in the forum RIGHT NOW will affect the playtest document. Probably want only feedback from having played the thing.
Since you can Invest resonance, this makes smart investing 1 point in a wand and very cost effective.
So it means you still use Wands, but you don't use randomly found items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance needs to go! I hated similar mechanics in other systems. Besides I don't think everyone should be forced to play as an Occultist without the benefits.
Magic items don't need to be limited.
You have them, you should be able to use them without checks or other limitations other then class, alignment, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you can Invest resonance, this makes smart investing 1 point in a wand and very cost effective.
So it means you still use Wands, but you don't use randomly found items.
If this were true, you'd still need to track charges in some way.
Since wands are activated, the suggestion is that you'd need to spend a point of resonance for each use. If this is true, it replaces the need to track charges, but it makes wands extremely limited in what they can do - only a small handful of uses per day.
Why not just make wands 5 charges each day that renew itself every 24 hours.
Why not just make wands 5 charges each day that renew itself every 24 hours.
Buy 5 Wands to have 25 charges each day!
The limiting factor will be how resonance needs to be invested. Either:
a) You invest one point per item, then track charges; or
b) You invest one point per use, and don't have to track charges. But you also get very, very few uses per day.
I'm fine with Resonance. Wands do need to be reigned in, and more generally this allows you to have 10 magic rings and wear a magic robe with armor, or have a cape over your cloak: things that look really cool when done right and would be nice to get the effects of.
I just don't want it for potions specifically. I know I keep saying this in various threads, but it makes way more sense thematically for potions to be limited by Constitution instead. Roll for potion miscibility if you go over half your Constitution score in potions per day.
Resonence isn't much different from attuing items in Exalted so I have no problem on that point but having Potions and Scrolls tied to it has to go. If the rule stays in as it currently is, I'll be house ruling an exemption for One Shot items.
Also why is it a Flat test and not Use Magic Device?
Does the Use Magic Device skill exist in PF2E?
Does the Use Magic Device skill exist in PF2E?It was listed that you could roll past maximum resonance to still use items, which suggests either UMD exists or something to the same effect
Nah, it's a flat d20 roll, no modifiers, against DC 10. The DC goes up by 1 every time you attempt it, and once you fumble (DC-10) you can't try again for the day.
Sometimes I'm not sure if anything in the forum RIGHT NOW will affect the playtest document. Probably want only feedback from having played the thing.I think it was said that an alchemist heal failed to work due to resonance in some game? So unfortunately they count too.Yes, but that's in a playtest. There's no reason it has to stay that way. We have 15 months before PF2.0 is released and at least 12-14 months before it's sent to the printers. That's the main reason we're all spending huge swaths of time reading and posting to this forum. <g>
I very much hope that's the case. Having been through a number of playtests on these boards, I have to say reactions prior to full playtest release tend to include much more "sky is falling" rhetoric and poorly formed theory-crafting math than useful feedback.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think wands also need to be reigned in a bit - a lot of the "spells replace skills" issue in 3.x and PF1e comes from cheap wands and scrolls. Nobody every complained about wizards having knock or clerics having find traps in 1e because they had to use valuable spell slots to do those things, and thus it usually wasn't worth it. CLW wands also create the issue where an adventure of slow attrition is much less viable.
Not sure I want a system where the brave fighter can't grab the dragon-slaying sword out of the dragon's hoard and use it against the foul beast on the fly, though. I've actually run fights so desperate that PCs were drinking random unidentified potions from the treasure hoping to get lucky.
Sometimes I'm not sure if anything in the forum RIGHT NOW will affect the playtest document. Probably want only feedback from having played the thing.I very much hope that's the case. Having been through a number of playtests on these boards, I have to say reactions prior to full playtest release tend to include much more "sky is falling" rhetoric and poorly formed theory-crafting math than useful feedback.
The problem with disregarding anything that isn't "actual play experience" is not everything needs to be played to be judged on how it will work. I looked at the kineticisit in detail and knew there were severe issues with the class that went beyond poor layout. The Devs assured us it was mathematically sound. I ended playing with a kineticist. The class is ridiculous (it's an at-will caster with burn doing very little to reign it in). The biggest problem with the kineticist is what it represents at the playstyle level.
Resonance and limiting CLW wands is another one of those playstyle things. I will seek to playtest it. But I expect I know the reaction of my players to it. It's not a game balance problem but how the game is approached problem.
