| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, Combat is supposed to be longer in PF2. From what I've read, there are lots of elements which can make NPCs harder to finish in one round. Not dying automatically to Overkill, being able to blow all their RP in one fight, consumables and shields that are just loot for your enemies if you don't use them... etc.
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.
This is my opinion too. While I generally do like resource balancing, I don't want to do them all the time. CLW wand out-of-combat-healing was one of those thing I didn't want to worry about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I describe it...
An "interesting choice" I like is having a handful of cards and selecting the right one for this moment.
An "interesting choice" I don't like is having a handful of cards and selecting one for this moment and discarding another so I can't use it later.
I don't like having to see that many moves ahead, at least not all the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are at the point you are using an RP every round you probably have enough to not worry so hard about each point. It isn't going to be every round, it'll more likely be once an encounter at most (less at early levels when you don't have that much to spare.)
RP runs EVERYTHING now, so every round you have to weigh if it's worth using your nifty fire sword's beam of fire vs healing later vs a blinking ring to get in a better position vs a diplomacy buff you might need later in the day... So no, it's not a once per encounter choice [even if you only use it that often]. Every use must be weighed against every other possible use in the entire day with a diminishing resource so every round is a cost analysis on the opportunity cost of possibly using a point. IMO that's not fun but tedious and tiring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people want a game where attrition is a serious problem and heavily restricts the number of fights you can manage in a day, and dislike the way a group can conserve resources by treating hit point damage as trivial. I suspect this is Paizo's main issue. But other people don't really care about that. (GM: "Aha! One of you used up your spells carelessly and now you all have to choose between setting up camp early and resting until the next day, or pushing on and probably dying!" Player: "Oh good, we get to stop having fun.")
Some people dislike the imagery of cheap wand usage ("My bard gets a wand from his bag of wands, jabs the fighter with it ten times, then chucks it away"), and others aren't bothered by that ("My priestess offers a prayer to Sarenrae as she kneels by the body of her ally, clutching her divine wand in one hand and tending to his wounds with the other.")
for the first issue I always liked how you could recover from a run of bad luck with retiring prematurely and forcing the cleric to use all his spells on you. For the second if that's an issue just remove the wands and replace them with 750gp field surgeons kits (heals 50 "injuries" of up to 1d8+1
|
How do I describe it...
An "interesting choice" I like is having a handful of cards and selecting the right one for this moment.
An "interesting choice" I don't like is having a handful of cards and selecting one for this moment and discarding another so I can't use it later.
I don't like having to see that many moves ahead, at least not all the time.
Do you prefer prepared casters to spontaneous casters?
Prepared casters/ buying gear happens in preparation and then is set and not a constant consideration. Which I think is a major consideration for graystone and WatersLethe.
If I make a caster, I know going in that I have to juggle spells: it comes with the class. I also, for the most part, don't have to spend spells to get my permanent bonuses and items to work before I even get into a fight. I don't have to weigh 'do I wear this item OR cast a spell' as a pathfinder classic wizard/sorcerer.
Now I want to play a fighter or rogue because I don't want to juggle resources. Resource forces EVERY class to deal with it now. My items don't just work. If I actually use an item, that might mean I can't get healed later or a new found item is unusable.
Then take an alchemist: including balancing healing and items worn/used they add in having to use the same pool to make items to use for the day...
Do you prefer prepared casters to spontaneous casters?How do I describe it...
An "interesting choice" I like is having a handful of cards and selecting the right one for this moment.
An "interesting choice" I don't like is having a handful of cards and selecting one for this moment and discarding another so I can't use it later.
I don't like having to see that many moves ahead, at least not all the time.
The fun thing is both have this issue!
Spontaneous Casters, whenever they cast they have to weigh all the other things they could cast using that slot.
Prepared Casters, whenever they prepare they have to weigh all the other things they could prepare using that slot.
Spontaneous is a bit closer to Resonance, while Prepared is a bit closer to PF1 decide what item slots have what in advance.
Now that you mention it, I *do* greatly prefer prepared spellcasters to spontaneous.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
They really aren't. This makes a vast number of assumptions, starting with them wanting people to have the same number of items as in PF1. If they want everyone to have twice as many magic items, WBL would still be quadratic, but also double what it was in PF1. That specific example is unlikely, but my point is we don't know.
The mere fact that it's still quadratic or thereabouts in no way indicates that it is the same.
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.
What I am saying is that Wands can area heal, and thus you can use a slightly lower tier one (fir vastly less money) and still manage all your healing needs.
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.
This is incorrect. In one of the pages revealed it notes that stat boosting items are usually level 14, but you can get and use them earlier if you pull them off an enemy.
So no, you can provably use items of higher level.
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.
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.
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.
There are usually a lot of people involved in Pathfinder products, and usually on a tight time scale. Mistakes certainly happen. Bad mechanics certainly make it in. But very rarely something like them not taking into account how the spell casting system works, and even less likely not taking that into account when they've got a small elite team and a lot of time (and remember, they've had years to work on this one).
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.
Even bad mechanics should be playtested. Why? Because systems are complex, and replacing one element (even a bad one) tends to throw things out of whack in ways you can't readily predict until you've seen the system working as intended. There are some low impact fixes you can do that will not have that effect, but removing a system wholesale is not among them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If low level ones are more cost effective per gold piece (and they have to be in a quadratic cost progression) this doesn't matter and everyone will still use level one Wands.
That's why some other limiting factor (like Resonance) is needed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.They really aren't. This makes a vast number of assumptions, starting with them wanting people to have the same number of items as in PF1. If they want everyone to have twice as many magic items, WBL would still be quadratic, but also double what it was in PF1. That specific example is unlikely, but my point is we don't know.
The mere fact that it's still quadratic or thereabouts in no way indicates that it is the same.
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.What I am saying is that Wands can area heal, and thus you can use a slightly lower tier one (fir vastly less money) and still manage all your healing needs.
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.This is incorrect. In one of the pages revealed it notes that stat boosting items are usually level 14, but you can get and use them earlier if you pull them off an enemy.
So no, you can provably use items of higher level.
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.You can't...
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.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do they have to make in quadratic progression?I think this as a game.I dont think they do need to make higher tier wands to be less cost effective.They can just change it if they wished too.
EDİT:5 clw wands heals for 5d8+5 costs 3750 csw wand heals for 4d8+7 costs 21k.Difference doesnt need to be that big and it is obvious people dont want to pay a cost like that just not to play a healbot cleric.Even though pf 2e seems to be trying to solve that problem I am not convinced that it will be affordable easly and difference of 17k will still stand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While he above is true, it is completely false that you can't see a mechanic is bad without playtesting it. I certainly have never allowed sacred geometry at any table I have run, precisely because I saw without testing it, that it it is broken as all hell. I would really like to see someone have a hint of reasonable argument for needing to playtest it.
Sacred Geometry is a much simpler rules interaction than an entire subsystem, and removing it is thus a much lower impact change. There are House Rules of a similar sort you can use in the playtest without radically reshaping the system (not letting people get to Legendary in Skills, for example, is fairly low impact)...but Resonance is not such a change.
Every item in PF2 is balanced around Resonance and its interactions with that resource. Getting rid of it before finding out exactly how that interaction works f~*@s the whole system completely, and any fix you come up with without even playtesting it is not gonna be sufficient to keep that from happening. It's as major a change as saying 'Let's just playtest this without magic items at all.' and that's not a valid test of anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do they have to make in quadratic progression?I think this as a game.I dont think they do need to make higher tier wands to be less cost effective.They can just change it if they wished too.
As low level characters, the pcs defeat an Orc raiding party and collect the loot. It's a few hundred gps.
A few levels later, they defeat a dragon. When they check the loot, will it be the same? No way! they expect a huge mound of gold! This is because the encounter is much tougher and the rewards should be too, but this means loot acquisition is quadratic (level 1 a few hundred gps, level 2 a thousand gps, level 3 two thousand gps, etc).
If acquisition is quadratic then pricing must be quadratic to match it, otherwise your ability to buy stuff would quickly outmatch your level and the whole system gets out of balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
|
|
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.
Oh oki, misunderstood why you brought it up, that makes more sense
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No, you're making a false dichotomy. My point was that, at level 8, a level 5 Wand is probably sufficient, and a level 7 one may be sufficient at 12, and so on, but the necessary level of Wand very much keeps going up.
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.
Lower, not lowest. And Wands being the best consumable was never the problem, some consumable will always be best, and Wands get a 'bulk discount' so it'll pretty much always be them.
The problem is that Wands of CLW were, unique among consumables, actually better than the spells they were duplicating for a major part of the game (non combat healing, specifically). And past the first few levels were better for so cheap they might as well be free. And that's a problem.
Before, methods of Out-Of-Combat Healing could be ranked like this at 20th level:
-Wand of CLW
-Channel Energy
-Healing Spells
-All other consumables
-Mundane Heal Skill
Now it ranks more like this at 20th level:
-Channel Energy (because it gives free spells solely to heal)
-Healing Spells and other Class-based healing features
-Medicine Skill Feats (this might actually be better than the above categories, their relative value is speculative since we lack info on Medicine healing HP)
-Level 13-15 Wands
-Level 9-11 Wands, level 17 Wands (both have exchange issues but are workable)
-Other on-level or slightly below consumables
-All consumables below about 15th level other than Wands. Plus Wands below about 9th.
The prioritization of non-consumables over consumables for healing is very intentional, and generally a good thing. It's certainly one thing they were going for.
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.
The issue with this (and it's huge) is that if you can get a Wand that heals 50 points for 10x the price of one that heals 5 points, people will pool their money and buy that 50 point Wand at 5th level and utterly break the game in every way by healing almost all the HP of up to three PCs every round.
| 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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still really unclear as to why it's a bad thing to use low level items.
If gold wasn't a factor at all, let's say you're playing in a mega dungeon without vendors, what would the problem be?
If gold really is the only reason, why couldn't the solution be in how the game handles the market rather than artificial resonance caps?
For example: Wands aren't available by the bushel. You can buy one type of wand a week/2 weeks/whatever. At high levels a wand of cure light wounds isn't going to last long at all. A shopping trip can turn up X number of scrolls and potions a week, better buy the effective one.
You could say there's a legal limit to how many you can buy so that a town's potential healing reserve isn't always bought out. If you want to go beyond that limit you may pay an extra exorbitant fee.
Or everything is custom made and they can only produce X number of items per trip to town.
Or lower level potions and scrolls deteriorate too quickly to keep a big stock of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
If gold wasn't a factor at all, let's say you're playing in a mega dungeon without vendors, what would the problem be?If gold really is the only reason, why couldn't the solution be in how the game handles the market rather than artificial resonance caps?
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I do not think we need to keep WotC's terrible "adventuring economy" where wealth equaled levels.
If the system needs arbitrary limits to the availability of upgrades, there are better solutions than quadratic increases in prices, even if we are assuming that adventurers occasionally find hordes of gold, or try to sell off entire pirate ships and castles worth of loot.
Limited Availability worked pretty well for the comparably lower-fantasy realms that 1st and 2nd edition D&D represented. By default, there really wasn't much you could do with wealth to increase your personal power. Even if you wanted to sell your old gear, there really wasn't a market for it. Heroes were considered rare enough that there wasn't a fledgling fighter somewhere with fifty platinum in their pocket to give you for the +1 Longsword you replaced six levels ago. Instead you gave that stuff to a Hireling (and later to Cohorts and Followers.
Similarly, in most of my campaigns the magic shop didn't keep large stockpiles of high-cost items like wands, rods, staves, etc. It was considered an invitation to thieves! Plus they can take years to sell, but usually only take a few days, or a week to craft. Sometimes they would have just what you need in stock, but otherwise they did most of their work by commision (meaning you still had to wait for them to actually craft the item). The plus side was I allowed custom enchantments. If the player told me what they wanted, and it was reasonable, I would offer to write it up and price it fairly. The downside was there simply weren't any bags-o-wands to be had. Merchants didn't have unlimited capital either, though enchanters could usually afford to buy some magic items.
Those campaigns never reached high-enough levels for players to start having to wait weeks to get their orders back. I'm sure it would have discouraged abusing the magic mart though.
How do I describe it...
An "interesting choice" I like is having a handful of cards and selecting the right one for this moment.
An "interesting choice" I don't like is having a handful of cards and selecting one for this moment and discarding another so I can't use it later.
I don't like having to see that many moves ahead, at least not all the time.
That's where I differ -- to me, I call the first situation the "safe choice", whereas the second one is the more interesting one -- the one where you can't turn back and pick a different path if the first option does not work out; it's more a "game of chance" in the way that real-life battles are, with momentum, opportunity, commitment of resources, and lost chances making the difference between success and defeat.
Both ways are quite fun to me, but for different reasons. The first I don't have to think about the consequences that much, and is more "heroic." The second situation is a little more "gritty" (not the best fit,but for lack of a better term) and means that if I make the wrong choice, I can risk not just defeat, but the loss of not only me, but other party members with my choices -- but pulling out those narrow wins are so much sweeter because there was no turning back.
|
|
So a wand of Heal 1 might be okay until you are level 5-6, then it isn't really good enough and a Heal 2 keeps you going 7-10 and so on. You can probably get a Heal 3 before hitting 10, DMW is just supposing that it likely wont be necessary. It is of course still good.
Just to be pedantically clear, it looks like, in terms of Wands (or Scrolls) for out-of-combat healing, Heal 1 gets obsolete really quickly (like you actually may need Heal 2 by 3rd level), Heal 2 is probably sufficient until 5 or 6, Heal 3 kicks in at 7th-8th or so, and it goes from there until you need Heal 7 or so by the highest levels (maybe Heal 8 by 19th or 20th).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want mundane (or at least non-spell) solutions to be viable for most problems, including healing.
I would say "all problems" but I suppose "win the wizarding competition" is a thing that should require spells.
We still don't know how "I have healing as a signature skill, I'm going to rank it up whenever I can, and I'm going to take good healing skill feats when they are available" manages the problem.
I don't - I prefer to think that monsters with 12 inch fangs and razor claws actually slice pieces of me off, and break bones. I like to think the only reason we keep going is because healing is magical.
I think the heal skill needs to be better, but not too much - frankly it's stupid if someone can patch you up with some dandelion herb paste and make you feel better. People try that in the real world - it doesn't work, and based on the martial/caster threads - I can guarantee that spamming healing is more palatable to a large group of people than making mundane act like magic.
nope. I prefer the martials be able to patch each other up with out begging the already powerful clerics for the right to live. also heal is less
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing spells' wands cost quadratic but the spells' effects are linear, as opposed to most other spells.
Maybe including the curing of ailments (what the PF1 Paladin's mercies do) in addition to the healing of hp in higher levels of the Heal spell might be worth the added price
| 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.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.
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.
I know for myself, I can clearly express why I dislike the system. As such, I don't see why articulate reasons with examples wouldn't be worthy of looking at even if they are ones you don't agree with. I don't agree with a lot of what Deadmanwalking posts on this but I read his posts as he's posting in good faith and I'd hope the reverse it true. I'd hope Paizo wouldn't ignore posts out of hand.
Now I will play with Resonance at least a few times [like I did with burn] but I know I'm not going to enjoy it. It's all going to be measuring how awful it is, not if it's awful or not.
|
|
They aren't trying to eliminate it. They are trying to make it not the defacto best option regardless of your wealth, level or character abilities.On this front, eliminating the "use lower/cheaper wands to heal out of combat" situations, which will still exist now.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?
Pretty much this. Nobody is trying to entirely eliminate the use of Wands, or even lower than max level Wands, they're trying to make it no longer an automatic choice to always use the level 1 version, even over actual healing spells.
At this, they have succeeded.
Their solution has, IMO, serious problems that I would like to see corrected, but in a purely binary 'have they succeeded at their goal' sense? They've succeeded at what they were trying to do with Wands and healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nope. I prefer the martials be able to patch each other up with out begging the already powerful clerics for the right to live. also heal is less
Nonmagical healing that is as good as a cure light wounds wand is currently - it's almost like you could just let the party heal up so many times a day...
You could even say you 'rested a short while'...
I feel like I've heard this before somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much this. Nobody is trying to entirely eliminate the use of Wands, or even lower than max level Wands, they're trying to make it no longer an automatic choice to always use the level 1 version, even over actual healing spells.At this, they have succeeded.
I wish you would admit that this is your opinion, and that attempts to call this a success in any format is premature when we don't have the full rules available.
You do not hesitate to point this out to others when they go into full speculation mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
its a bad thing. raising the barrier of entry is never good. also if you don't like clw wands just don't use them, as you already do. don't force the rest of us to adopt a clunky system to solve a non problem
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish you would admit that this is your opinion, and that attempts to call this a success in any format is premature when we don't have the full rules available.
You do not hesitate to point this out to others when they go into full speculation mode.
We have the basics of Resonance and the rules for the Heal spell, and Clerics getting it for free at max level several times per day. Combined, those are sufficient to say that consumables are no longer the best healing available.
Additionally, we have the repeated story from Mark Seifter about one of the only times people ran out of Resonance in the in-house playtests...by trying to get by with 1st level consumables.
We still don't know much about how healing works in many ways, it's true, but 'Using level 1 consumables as your main healing method at high levels is now a bad idea' is one of the few statements we can make with great assurance.
And that's basically all that's necessary for them to have succeeded in the binary way specified.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't opinion. They stated it as one of the goals and, mathematically they have achieved it. Magical Healing outside of combat is no longer unlimited and the limited nature of the resources being expended to achieve magical out of combat healing logically means that the items giving the worst ratio of health to that resource cannot be the best in all situations. I.E you have 1 RP left and two wands, one that heals 1d8 and one that heals 3d8 but costs more Gold per HP. Before we didn't have the first part of the sentence and the answer was always the first wand. Now we have the restriction and the answer is more varied (how much HP do I have missing, how many charges left on both wants, do we plan to do any more today etc)
Nope - that is totally irrelevant depending on a host of other factors - we also know that 'other systems' allow for healing but don't know what these are - low level wands may still be the best cost/heal ratio based on player wealth alone and how much dedication to consumables one wants to make in terms of gold outlay.
If the low level wand is good enough - then they didn't succeed - just because the math looks good doesn't mean it will hold up with all the other factors in play - including good old human stubborn behavior and the fact that people make irrational decisions that are not going to be in a perfect math box.
So no - without the full rules and actual playtime - it's way too soon to say they succeeded at that goal.
|
|
On this front, eliminating the "use lower/cheaper wands to heal out of combat" situations, which will still exist now.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?
See, this isn't the same problem others are evaluating. Cure Light Wounds refers to the cheapest possible wand, not any lower-level or cheaper wand option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, we have the repeated story from Mark Seifter about one of the only times people ran out of Resonance in the in-house playtests...by trying to get by with 1st level consumables.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do they wreck your game? Do they remove any danger you might place in front of players? Do they make a mockery of the Economy(A lot of stuff does but stay with me here)? Is it a problem to the point you can't run games anymore without having to bring a barrel of them? Is it a problem to the point the Devs have introduced something that will target it(Among other things) in the next edition, in hopes of NOT having it happen again?
to answer no. no. no. no. the devs are trying to solve a non issue.