Aye but I still think allowing a person to only wear one helm one cloak one set of gloves etc. makes more since then being able to throw gloves over gloves over gloves.
But there are plenty of situations where that 'one helm' makes no sense. Knights usually wore the great helm over a mail coif (hood) sometimes in conjunction with a close-fitting iron skull cap known as a cervelliere. Right there we have a real world situation where people wore THREE things listed under helmets.
Boots? Anklets, leg chains and such fall under that and overshoes are a thing so that isn't anything that can't be combined.
Cloaks? That slot includes cords [wrap around the wearer’s biceps and shoulders], Pauldrons, Aiguillette and even a leather harness. You can combine several of those without issue.
Gloves? Handstraps/Hand Wraps, thin disk of woven material is 2-1/2 inches in diameter, Armguards*, bracers* and climbing claws all fall under hands. I can easily see hand wraps, arm guards, a 2" disk and gloves...
*before someone says 'but those are wrist items!', you'll also find items that list these items for hand slots.
Well the thing I actually like about it is it actually gives charisma a purpose for more characters. My personal thought would be to make all stats of equal importance but you would prioritize based on what you want to accomplish and focus on.
I guess what your saying is kind of similar to why I think items shouldn't have per day use and should run on just resonance. one or the other not both. In other words don't put 2 rules in place to govern the same subjects.
Aye but I still think allowing a person to only wear one helm one cloak one set of gloves etc. makes more since then being able to throw gloves over gloves over gloves.But there are plenty of situations where that 'one helm' makes no sense. Knights usually wore the great helm over a mail coif (hood) sometimes in conjunction with a close-fitting iron skull cap known as a cervelliere. Right there we have a real world situation where people wore THREE things listed under helmets.
Boots? Anklets, leg chains and such fall under that and overshoes are a thing so that isn't anything that can't be combined.
Cloaks? That slot includes cords [wrap around the wearer’s biceps and shoulders], Pauldrons, Aiguillette and even a leather harness. You can combine several of those without issue.
Gloves? Handstraps/Hand Wraps, thin disk of woven material is 2-1/2 inches in diameter, Armguards*, bracers* and climbing claws all fall under hands. I can easily see hand wraps, arm guards, a 2" disk and gloves...
*before someone says 'but those are wrist items!', you'll also find items that list these items for hand slots.
I hear nothing like 6 hats or 13 gloves however so it sounds more like your haggling the number then arguing the premise. At some point as a DM you don't think you'll ever say ok that is to many pairs of boots.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had my way, all magic items would have the codicil as follows (probably listed at the beginning of the items section):
'You can find this item as a ring or amulet or any other physical form of item that is readily available. The listed item type is merely the most common.'
Then you can have Resonance be the only thing that matters, with 'item slot' more or less completely superfluous. That eliminates a little design space, but makes things so much simpler that I feel it's worth it.
If I had my way, all magic items would have the codicil as follows (probably listed at the beginning of the items section):
'You can find this item as a ring or amulet or any other physical form of item that is readily available. The listed item type is merely the most common.'
Then you can have Resonance be the only thing that matters, with 'item slot' more or less completely superfluous. That eliminates a little design space, but makes things so much simpler that I feel it's worth it.
So pretty well any misc magic item could take up any slot you wanted? there is definitely a certain charm to that. Kind of throws item descriptions out. Hmm how about a default location and then a selection of other places you could put it. So the standard comes as a pair of boots perhaps but you could get similar abilities from it in ring amulet etc. form? Or just make it a rule I suppose that you can put magic runes on other items. So you get say you get a ring with a jumping rune carved into it. Well you don't need another ring so you get someone good at rune crafting to move the rune over to some boots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is this makes things like centaurs and kasatha a lot easier to handle than slots. Or awakened octopuses, if for some reason someone's playing that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing is this makes things like centaurs and kasatha a lot easier to handle than slots. Or awakened octopuses, if for some reason someone's playing that.
Boots eh let me move that boot rune to my horse shoes!
Heck this might seriously be a house rule I use.
|
|
So pretty well any misc magic item could take up any slot you wanted? there is definitely a certain charm to that. Kind of throws item descriptions out.
Well, the described version is still the most common, you can just get another version if you prefer.
Hmm how about a default location and then a selection of other places you could put it. So the standard comes as a pair of boots perhaps but you could get similar abilities from it in ring amulet etc. form? Or just make it a rule I suppose that you can put magic runes on other items. So you get say you get a ring with a jumping rune carved into it. Well you don't need another ring so you get someone good at rune crafting to move the rune over to some boots.
Runes would be one way to do it, sure. I'm also fine with it actually being per item and non-transferable, I just see no reason someone couldn't have a Ring of Elvenkind rather than a Cloak.
You could make it like the Occultist.
"This item can be worn, or stuffed in your rucksack to receive its magical benefit.
You could even give people access to that occultist feat that lets you use an items power if you're within 30 ft of the item. It obviously doesn't make sense for every item, but it shouldn't matter where your ring, belt or hat are at the moment.
Or something slightly more restricted but still general.
"This bias cut cloth is cut to serve as a cloak but thin enough to be used as a scarf, headwrap, belt, toga or skirt."
It's hard to get around some things like lenses being over the eyes, but for the most part it works.
So pretty well any misc magic item could take up any slot you wanted? there is definitely a certain charm to that. Kind of throws item descriptions out.Well, the described version is still the most common, you can just get another version if you prefer.
Hmm how about a default location and then a selection of other places you could put it. So the standard comes as a pair of boots perhaps but you could get similar abilities from it in ring amulet etc. form? Or just make it a rule I suppose that you can put magic runes on other items. So you get say you get a ring with a jumping rune carved into it. Well you don't need another ring so you get someone good at rune crafting to move the rune over to some boots.Runes would be one way to do it, sure. I'm also fine with it actually being per item and non-transferable, I just see no reason someone couldn't have a Ring of Elvenkind rather than a Cloak.
No I like it. With resonance to balance the number of items and of course similar bonuses don't stack I think it could be a good way of doing things.
I hear nothing like 6 hats or 13 gloves however so it sounds more like your haggling the number then arguing the premise. At some point as a DM you don't think you'll ever say ok that is to many pairs of boots.
AH... I put down 3 head coverings [hats]. I listed multiple things you could cover your hand with [glove]. I listed multiple things that fit on your feet. So yeah, it's number and premise. If someone can't come up with a plausible example for multiple items in the same 'slot', it's IMO a failure of imagination and not an impossibility of function.
If I had my way, all magic items would have the codicil as follows (probably listed at the beginning of the items section):
'You can find this item as a ring or amulet or any other physical form of item that is readily available. The listed item type is merely the most common.'
Then you can have Resonance be the only thing that matters, with 'item slot' more or less completely superfluous. That eliminates a little design space, but makes things so much simpler that I feel it's worth it.
If we do end up keeping Resonance as the item limiter, this seems like a fine idea. No reason to limit items to a type. I don't think that'll happen though as it seems they are linking function to form: for instance the cloak of elvenkind requires playing with the hood to make it work so it's not going to be possible to change its shape.
|
I'm at least under impression myself that problem wasn't "full heal between encounters" but "CLW for all twenty levels and never reason to buy the better ones". Like, I'm under impression that 2e should have enough different healing methods that you can get to full hp anyway, but I guess we won't really know that for sure until the playtest.
While you can have opinion about whether you should have full heal between encounters all the time(I myself as both gm and player prefer full heal, but I wouldn't want it to be automatic because if I play as healer, I'd actually like being useful out of combat :P Yes it is possible to like healers), you can't really say its good thing that cheap worse item is better than expensive item that is supposed to be better. I dunno whats best way to fix it, but yeah it is dumb that cure critical wound wands is worse than cure light wounds wand due to cost effectiveness. Maybe lower level wands should have had less charges than higher level wands or something?
Either way, I wouldn't mind the whole "Remove wands being spells in can and make them more unique" as solution. Because honestly, spells in can ARE bit boring items, they never really feel mystic and feel more mundane stuff as if you bought them for supermarket
And yeah, I think making it so that items can be any item type would be cool. Considering 1e already has "Ah this is special necklace of resistance unique to this loot pile" or "this is special ring of resistance because using cloaks underwater is silly and merfolks need it", it would make sense especially with resonance liming items instead of slot type.
you can't really say its good thing that cheap worse item is better than expensive item that is supposed to be better.
But that isn't universally true. CLW wands might be the best IF you have unlimited time out of combat. If you have only a few rounds before another wave of monsters come, that CLW wand isn't super useful to your 18th level party. Everyone seems to ignore the other resource involved in the equation. GP, points healed AND time required are all factors.
|
|
If you don't have unlimited time out of combat, folks usually use healing spells <_< I've never seen anyone in hurry to use wands outside of pfs really. And that is mostly because in pfs nobody might be able to use healing spells at all.
Either way, never seen anyone spend 20k on level 4 critical wounds healing wand. Thing is, high level wands are insanely expensive in 1e for consumables, folks prefer to spend that much money on permanent items since you can just use wands for healing and retreat if you really need to.(and if you are actually in hurry, you won't be doing much healing anyway)
So okay, because I have hard time seeing someone using 11k for serious wounds wand, at most they might use 4,500 for moderate wounds wand which is 2d8 + 3. If you are in emergency and need fast healing, you are probably gonna use your own spells and 2d8 + 10 is much safer emergency heal than wand that could on bad roll give you only 5 hp.
Basically, wands never eliminate need of good emergency healer in party, wands are mostly used for out of combat healing. If you don't have healer in party and are in emergency, well sucks to be you, you've just run out of your luck. So discussing "You might have bought higher level wands in 1e for emergencies" seems to be same as discussing hypothetical situation of high level party composed of ranger, fighter, barbarian and paladin where none of them have power attack or deadly aim: That is probably not going to happen in normal game
If you don't have unlimited time out of combat, folks usually use healing spells <_<
Oh course healing spells are the go to then, but there isn't always enough, not enough time to use them on all the people wounded and/or the healer is taking a nap from a critical kaiju bite...
Either way, never seen anyone spend 20k on level 4 critical wounds healing wand.
Spend? no. Find? yes. Honestly, a staff of healing is what people would buy and I think it's a good example of a higher level/higher cost healing item that makes sense and is actually worth it.
Basically, wands never eliminate need of good emergency healer in party, wands are mostly used for out of combat healing.
Eliminate, no, but they can supplement one if need be.
So discussing "You might have bought higher level wands in 1e for emergencies"
Ah... I don't recall ever saying 'buy'. I've found plenty of cure wounds wands that weren't light and used them without having to buy them. NPC's have this distressing tendency to not need out of combat healing nd don't care how much the wand costs.
|
|
We were discussing wands though, not staff. And of course you can use wands if you find them, but considering what you find is completely up to GM-
Actually, why would you even bring up FINDING high level wands in when I commented about BUYING the weakest wand to spam?
Like, of course you use the better item if you get it for free, but problem is that if you have to buy them its better to get the cheapest version ._. And you wouldn't ever buy higher level wand for emergency situations, you'd plan around them somehow else. And I don't think there is item that if you get it for free you would ever refuse to use it.(unless its eeeeeevil)
A lot of people seem to ythink it won't function, however. That bit was mostly for them.
No. What they actually think is that the game own't be functional in a way that allows them to continue playing the game the way they have up until now. Whether or not that remains the case we won't know until we actually playtest it.
|
|
A lot of people seem to ythink it won't function, however. That bit was mostly for them.No. What they actually think is that the game own't be functional in a way that allows them to continue playing the game the way they have up until now. Whether or not that remains the case we won't know until we actually playtest it.
A number of people have literally said things like 'Resonance won't work'. That's incorrect and what I was responding to, primarily.
And I think the evidence is quite strong that people will be able to keep playing Pathfinder the way they have been for the most part. Parties without a healer will clearly need to spend a bit more on healing via consumables, but evidence is strong that it'll be workable if not optimal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe classes not normally available to use wands or other magic consumables was revealed in the "Feats of Skill" blog post, with the "Trick Magic Item" Feat, requiring training in the relevant discipline.Aren't "PFS specific problems" best fixed with PFS specific rules, since PFS is, in essence, a shared set of house rules?
I'm still not sure what exactly a non-caster needs to take in order to use wands, but I imagine there's way (a skill feat say.)
So you'd need training in whatever the relevant skill is, then you burn a skill feat on Trick Magic Item. And then it still doesn't solve the problem, because everybody hands their wands to PC with the appropriate Trick Magic Item feat and then that PC rapidly runs out of resonance healing everybody.
It's like resonance is the worst of both worlds here. If you feed someone a potion it uses Their Resonance, which means you get the "oops, sometimes potions just don't work" problem if they happen to be out of Resonance. If you pick up someone's wand and cast Heal on them it uses Your Resonance, so one wand jockey can't heal the whole party.
A number of people have literally said things like 'Resonance won't work'. That's incorrect and what I was responding to, primarily.
Sure. When taken by itself you can literally respond to the fact that resonance will work (because it's a game mechanic that is adjudicated by a human being so it has to be worded pretty poorly to not function at all). I think it's clear they were speaking of something a bit more meaningful then "it won't work". But I leave them to respond to you if they so desire (I don't think I saw anyone state the sentiment shortly before your post)
|
|
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.
I read your post all the way through, even though I disagree with the bolded part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this analysis (and it's a very real one) is that it assumes only consumables can heal you or prevent your death. Indeed, it presumes that only healing consumables can do so, which we know from how offense/defense worked in PF1 is likely to be factually false (offense was better than defense most of the time in PF1, and seems to remain so point for point in PF2).
No it doesn't. While I've gone into this elsewhere I'll recap:
Almost all non-healing, RP-using consumables are a trap! Moreover, using RP to heal yourself at the wrong time is a trap too!A viable, if highly circumstancial exception being the Melee Martial that needs to Fly to engage the enemy, but all such exceptions are highly cirxumstancial.
The fact is that everything you could get from spending RP, you probably could have gotten without spending RP instead. So spending RP to do anything is inherently inefficient. Doubly so when you only retain the benefits of the spent RP for a few rounds or minutes. HP and condition removal are the only uses of RP (we know of besides Investment) which you retain after the encounter ends... further what we know of the system punishes you if you don't save RP explicitly for emergancy healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this analysis (and it's a very real one) is that it assumes only consumables can heal you or prevent your death. Indeed, it presumes that only healing consumables can do so, which we know from how offense/defense worked in PF1 is likely to be factually false (offense was better than defense most of the time in PF1, and seems to remain so point for point in PF2).No it doesn't. While I've gone into this elsewhere I'll recap:
Almost all non-healing, RP-using consumables are a trap! Moreover, using RP to heal yourself at the wrong time is a trap too!A viable, if highly circumstancial exception being the Melee Martial that needs to Fly to engage the enemy, but all such exceptions are highly cirxumstancial.
The fact is that everything you could get from spending RP, you probably could have gotten without spending RP instead. So spending RP to do anything is inherently inefficient. Doubly so when you only retain the benefits of the spent RP for a few rounds or minutes. HP and condition removal are the only uses of RP (we know of besides Investment) which you retain after the encounter ends... further what we know of the system punishes you if you don't save RP explicitly for emergancy healing.
Even if it's not a trap, every point used will be spent with the consideration of healing in mind unless the party has a dedicated healer. This *is* an assumption - but based on stated design goals. The end state here is that either the system is restrictive enough to make players think about each point used (what is expected) or it never matters to players at all, and so why even use it?
Given that the *goal* is to make players think about every point - then each point used will end up being evaluated based on 'if I use this will my potions be useless at a critical moment?'
I don't understand how this is fun. The entire system seems masochistic in nature - requiring just a bit of pain every time you use an item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No it doesn't. While I've gone into this elsewhere I'll recap:
Almost all non-healing, RP-using consumables are a trap! Moreover, using RP to heal yourself at the wrong time is a trap too!
...Even if it's not a trap, every point used will be spent with the consideration of healing in mind unless the party has a dedicated healer. This *is* an assumption - but based on stated design goals. The end state here is that either the system is restrictive enough to make players think about each point used (what is expected) or it never matters to players at all, and so why even use it?
Given that the *goal* is to make players think about every point - then each point used will end up being evaluated based on 'if I use this will my potions be useless at a critical moment?'
I don't understand how this is fun. The entire system seems masochistic in nature - requiring just a bit of pain every time you use an item.
I think the proper term is not "trap". The proper term is "trade-off".
Paizo is making magic items in PF2 pull from a more flexible universal system. Where flexibility is lacking in PF1, players don't need to make decisions. When flexibility is added in PF2, players will need to make decisions.
In general, this makes the game better. Players can do what they want.
A few players want to be 100% optimized and will always chose the most optimized use for resonance. All sub-optimal uses will be labeled traps, just as similar people have labeled some feats as traps. If you like that playstyle, then go for it.
But anyone who says, "The math tells me I must play that way!" will receive a rebuke from me. The math does not say to play optimized. It only tells which choices are optimal. Furthermore, the optimal decision differs with different goals of optimization. Is the player after optimal safety, optimal glory, optimal loot, or something else? Optimal safety says spend resonance on healing. Optimal glory says spend resonance on flashy attacks and buffs.
I have played a few barbarians and those characters charge into battle and do not shy away from pain. Pain is part of battle to them. I have played clerics and oracles and they are concerned about pain. None of their friends should suffer, not even the idiotic barbarian who charged into battle and became a human pincushion. (My elf cleric wondered why humans were so ready to become pincushions.) The choices about pain depend on the values of the character. The choices about resonance will be the same.
The problem with this analysis (and it's a very real one) is that it assumes only consumables can heal you or prevent your death. Indeed, it presumes that only healing consumables can do so, which we know from how offense/defense worked in PF1 is likely to be factually false (offense was better than defense most of the time in PF1, and seems to remain so point for point in PF2).No it doesn't. While I've gone into this elsewhere I'll recap:
Almost all non-healing, RP-using consumables are a trap! Moreover, using RP to heal yourself at the wrong time is a trap too!A viable, if highly circumstancial exception being the Melee Martial that needs to Fly to engage the enemy, but all such exceptions are highly cirxumstancial.
The fact is that everything you could get from spending RP, you probably could have gotten without spending RP instead. So spending RP to do anything is inherently inefficient. Doubly so when you only retain the benefits of the spent RP for a few rounds or minutes. HP and condition removal are the only uses of RP (we know of besides Investment) which you retain after the encounter ends... further what we know of the system punishes you if you don't save RP explicitly for emergancy healing.
By that argument, using spells for anything not healing is a trap, yet we know that's not really true in PF1, and very unlikely to be true in 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the proper term is not "trap". The proper term is "trade-off".
No, I used the intended term. In this context a "Trap" is a subtype of opportunity cost or trade off that punishs you for making the "incorrect" choice. For example, the Spike Trap punishs the party for not making the correct choice to send the Rogue to scout (or the choice to have one at all). Resonance punishs the party for not choosing the correct choice of saving RP for emergancy healing. Ergo it is a trap.
As for the "math tells me to play this way". It does, that is an unavoidable fact. It will punish you if you play the game wrong, so don't rebuke people just because you (or they) choose to play the game poorly for whatever reason.
Although it would suck to TPK because a party member prioritized glory over survival when spending their RP. Such a player will suffer additional social punishment in the form of their group's peer preasure to "stop sucking on purpose".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that argument, using spells for anything not healing is a trap, yet we know that's not really true in PF1, and very unlikely to be true in 2E.
No it doesn't... you misunderstand the concept of opportunity cost. Not every caster has Healing spells, so not every spell they cast has to be compared to Healing as its opportunity cost. Meanwhile everyone has Resonance they could spend on Healing/being Healed, so every other use of their RP must be compared to that as the potential opportunity cost.
There is only one notable circumstance where Healing Potions don't matter... when nobody has any, and the party is too far from town to get them that day. As you only compare the options you actually have... However Alchemist is a core class now... so yeah, lots of potions.
Also PF1's healing dynamics were very different... they never had the potential to drain you or your allies magic item slots before now
I think the proper term is not "trap". The proper term is "trade-off".No, I used the intended term. In this context a "Trap" is a subtype of opportunity cost or trade off that punishs you for making the "incorrect" choice. For example, the Spike Trap punishs the party for not making the correct choice to send the Rogue to scout (or the choice to have one at all). Resonance punishs the party for not choosing the correct choice of saving RP for emergancy healing. Ergo it is a trap.
As for the "math tells me to play this way". It does, that is an unavoidable fact. It will punish you if you play the game wrong, so don't rebuke people just because you (or they) choose to play the game poorly for whatever reason.
Although it would suck to TPK because a party member prioritized glory over survival when spending their RP. Such a player will suffer additional social punishment in the form of their group's peer preasure to "stop sucking on purpose".
Why do you assume that there is a static amount of healing that you're going to require? Spending resources (Resonance in this case) on a consumable that enables you to overcome the encounter more easily can easily prevent you from needing healing in the first place. You're just being proactive about it, rather than reactive.
Your "logic" is the same "logic" that would argue a (positive energy) Cleric in PF1 should never cast any spells except for heals. Because, you know, I'd always be angry if a cleric cast dispel magic, invisibility purge, or wind wall instead of saving that spell slot for cure serious wounds. After all, they've wasted potential healing and are going to lead to a TPK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EVERY CHOICE in the game is either a trap or the best choice by this definition.
Not every choice is a trap, but most of them can be yes. That is the inherent problem of a roleplaying game based on mathematical relationships. Math is absolute and doesn't lie (though it can be used to decieve)
Note that what is a Trap at any given moment is still subjective. To a PF1 Wizard, Power Attack could be a trap, despite it being the best option for most PF1 Fighters.
To me, anything other than healing potions and invested items look like traps... but I NEVER play primary healers either; which biases my view pretty heavily. A cleric might consider healing potions the traps. Since they can Heal without spending RP up to a point, the cleric might far rather spending their or your RP activating an Attack Wand instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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).
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. |
Why do you assume that there is a static amount of healing that you're going to require? Spending resources (Resonance in this case) on a consumable that enables you to overcome the encounter more easily can easily prevent you from needing healing in the first place. You're just being proactive about it, rather than reactive.
That is a big gamble, none of the magical consumables I've seen are "win-buttons", so whatever you just spent RP on probably could have been done just as quickly without RP by somebody else, saving your RP for when they couldn't.
Your "logic" is the same "logic" that would argue a (positive energy) Cleric in PF1 should never cast any spells except for heals. Because, you know, I'd always be angry if a cleric cast dispel magic, invisibility purge, or wind wall instead of saving that spell slot for cure serious wounds. After all, they've wasted potential healing and are going to lead to a TPK.
I'm not sure if you realize just how often that was a thing in pre-3rd edition... it was so bad they gave clerics "Channel Energy" and made Turning Undead based on it (not to mention giving them better attacks and hit-dice than wizards despite both being primary casters. Potions were called portable priests because having your cleric do anything other than healing was suicidal for the entire party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every choice is a trap, but most of them can be yes. That is the inherent problem of a roleplaying game based on mathematical relationships. Math is absolute and doesn't lie (though it can be used to decieve)
Math is not absolute. In my last job, statisictical support to intelligence analysts and data scientists, the key was using meaningful math. Many algorithms answered a different question than the customers wanted to ask, but they themselves lacked the expertise to formulate the right question. We had an interview process to figure out their true analytic needs. If the standard algorithm was not up to the job, I created new math. I loved algorithm development.
The main problem with labeling non-optimal choices as traps is that a lot of non-optimal choices are close to optimal, only a few percent worse. For example, suppose a bard is the wielder of the wand of Cure Critical Wounds in the party. He also wears a cloak of elven kind. Should he sell the cloak to have a few more uses of the wand? Nope, the cloak lets him sneak, which might be one of his other roles in the party. Should he switch to unenchanted armor to have one more resonance for the wand? Depends. Will the extra damage to him add up to less than one casting of Cure Critical Wounds? And if that answer is yes, will extra risk to him be worth the extra hp to the party? Optimization does not always have a clear and clean answer.
And what the party needs to optimize could depend on the circumstances. Suppose the party gives up enchanted armor in favor of channeling more resonance into healing, because they crunched the numbers and found they could maintain their health better that way. But later they encounter a group of mummies that have a chance of infecting their target with mummy rot on a hit. The party that optimized their hit points but not their defenses has encountered a situation where they should have optimized their defenses instead. Oops.
Your "logic" is the same "logic" that would argue a (positive energy) Cleric in PF1 should never cast any spells except for heals. Because, you know, I'd always be angry if a cleric cast dispel magic, invisibility purge, or wind wall instead of saving that spell slot for cure serious wounds. After all, they've wasted potential healing and are going to lead to a TPK.I'm not sure if you realize just how often that was a thing in pre-3rd edition... it was so bad they gave clerics "Channel Energy" and made Turning Undead based on it (not to mention giving them better attacks and hit-dice than wizards despite both being primary casters. Potions were called portable priests because having your cleric do anything other than healing was suicidal for the entire party.
When I read Cheburn's statements about clerics casting other spells besides healing, I was nodding my head and thinking that the elf cleric I mentioned above was a good example of that. And that cleric was a D&D 3.0 (and later 3.5) character. He was an elf archer cleric who shot arrows at 1st through 3rd levels so that he did not have use his spells on anything besides healing. But despite gaining the coveted Precise Shot as his 3rd-level feat, he changed his tactics at 4th level. The party was getting too damaged--my haughty elf was quite vocal about the humans' perilous tactics. He began summoning creatures to defend the party, preventing individuals from getting swarmed by foes and giving those foes other targets. Protecting the party used fewer spells than healing the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem with labeling non-optimal choices as traps is that a lot of non-optimal choices are close to optimal, only a few percent worse. For example, suppose a bard is the wielder of the wand of Cure Critical Wounds in the party. He also wears a cloak of elven kind. Should he sell the cloak to have a few more uses of the wand? Nope, the cloak lets him sneak, which might be one of his other roles in the party. Should he switch to unenchanted armor to have one more resonance for the wand? Depends. Will the extra damage to him add up to less than one casting of Cure Critical Wounds? And if that answer is yes, will extra risk to him be worth the extra hp to the party? Optimization does not always have a clear and clean answer.
This is a very fair argument, and I have tried to make it clear that what I consider a "trap" at any given time is somewhat subjective. For your example I agree the Bard should keep the cloak. Even as an Invested Item alone it is worth the cost (I highly value persistent bonuses). But he sure as hell should not trade his armor for one more wand use (that still costs a charge). I would openly mock a character (in-character) for making such a stupid decision. Likewise such a Bard would have to be pretty foolish to spend their last RP on temporary invisibility instead of saving it for an emergancy.
Also note that I can only base my suppositions on what I know. For all we know, there will be a level 1 Invested item that automatically stabalizes you, or a readily available non-magical elixir that can be used to stabalize a character in combat. Either of those would severely undermine the basis of my arguement (which is that your last RP is too valuable to spend on anything but emergancy Healing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've never found angst over out of combat healing as fun. Some things in the game works perfectly well without needing a meaningful decision. I also don't need to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and worry over rest, eating, drinking, ect... I don't fret over the fact that water and food don't dramatically leap upwards in cost as I level the way higher level healing items do.It's not about angst, it's about logistics and resource management. I'm not necessarily endorsing Paizo's solution, but having the healing be free if you have a store but not if you don't is just weird and broken in the sense that it doesn't work properly.
The cost of food is at least consistently a non-issue, whereas whether healing has a cost is wildly variable. Which is bad.
its not free, it costs 750 gp for a wand
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its not free, it costs 750 gp for a wandPersonally, I've never found angst over out of combat healing as fun. Some things in the game works perfectly well without needing a meaningful decision. I also don't need to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and worry over rest, eating, drinking, ect... I don't fret over the fact that water and food don't dramatically leap upwards in cost as I level the way higher level healing items do.It's not about angst, it's about logistics and resource management. I'm not necessarily endorsing Paizo's solution, but having the healing be free if you have a store but not if you don't is just weird and broken in the sense that it doesn't work properly.
The cost of food is at least consistently a non-issue, whereas whether healing has a cost is wildly variable. Which is bad.
From my experience, once you hit about 5th level, by virtue of wealth by level, might as well say "free" for the group, or at the very least dirt cheap.
In truth, 2nd to 3rd level is when our group starts having those conversations about "..hey, let's all chip in on a cure-light-wand..." so pretty early in the long game.
Even if the invis would allow him to reduce damage taken to someone by more than a wand would heal on average? It is all context relative.Likewise such a Bard would have to be pretty foolish to spend their last RP on temporary invisibility instead of saving it for an emergancy.
To spend their last RP on that? Yes, still foolish. If that were my bard I'd value still being healable over mitigating some damage (unless I'm too low to take the hit). If it were someone else's bard, I would still value them being healable (or able to wand me if I drop) over damage mitigation (except as above)
If I were using my last RP to escape (because I'm out scouting a rest spot, or am the last man standing), that is a far better use than saving it for a potion, as that use benefits the whole party, not just myself.
|
Basically this issue like so many others boils down to me to :
"Do you really want to play a game" ?
Do you want to be challenged by incertitude ?
Do you want to live an adventure and takes risks ?
Do you want to be an adventurer ?
If you answer yes to any one of those, wands of CLW and many other things must go and disappear from this game for good. Predictabilty and high bonuses are the way to boredom. IMO, YMMV and all that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, why would you even bring up FINDING high level wands in when I commented about BUYING the weakest wand to spam?
My entire reason for posting was " I dunno whats best way to fix it, but yeah it is dumb that cure critical wound wands is worse than cure light wounds wand due to cost effectiveness."
IMO, it's not worse in every situation: that was it. *shrug* I've said my piece so take from it what you want. It was never an argument on the economics [which we ALL no was a trainwreck] but actual usefulness if you do have one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Afterall hard choices are only interesting if you get them wrong sometimes.
For me, I don't want every round of the game day to be a "hard choice". I don't want every character I play to have to constantly balance resource pools. Add to that if I'm unhappy that I have all these choices to make, putting a timer on me isn't going to improve my mood.
Exactly. Any resource spent that doesn't reduce enemy combat rounds per day is a wasted resource. That's how we get initiative as a big draw in most class guides. Going first removes one enemy round per combat. With low duration high frequency encounters, going first is king.
Healing only comes in to play when there is a high likelihood that the character will otherwise be unable to act. Removing debuffs is potentially competitve at round 1, but healing won't be till a player is one round from being incapacitated and we have no way to remove that player as a target. Invisibility does a decent job of removing a player as a target, so if we have a potion of healing and potion of invisibility, we're better off using the invisibility potion.
In order for healing to be competitive, the damage load needs to be less than what healing provides, otherwise invisibility wins out. This means we have a minimum of 3 enemy rounds before healing could both be better than invisibility and be needed to prevent death. If we can use that resonance to shorten the combat to less than three rounds, then healing potions are never useful. If we're consistently winning initiative, then the players have 4 rounds before healing wins out. I haven't done the math on damage and healing ratios, but that's a long combat compared to most equal level pathfinder combats.
things like summoning that provide extra hitpoints and damage output for the party are heals but better. Temporary hitpoints are heals but better. Attack negation is heals but better.
The situations in which healing is great are:
1. Out of combat where it doesn't compete for actions, and the resource can't be used as a means of ending future combats early.
2. Damage intake is unavoidable by equal or lesser means.
3. Damage intake, health pools and healing are both exceptionally high when compared to damage output. In our 4 round combat, we'd need damage intake, and healing to be about three times damage output for comparative resource expenditures and health pools would need to be remain at about 3 times healing or nine times damage.
Assuming that HP between PCs and encounters is about equal, that also means 9 rounds of full party attacks. Which is 3 rounds if we assume a full healer. Healing is still worse than negation in this scenario, but provided negation and healing aren't competing for the same resource, we have a place for healing. Obviously we need tons of healing resources in order for that scenario to work.
This is why everyone says in combat healing sucks. It's not some random jab. It's a very precise jab. I don't think healing is a "trap option" but I do think building for healing could be. I don't know though, maybe combats are super long and damage is super weak in PF2.