Trinkets and Treasures

Monday, June 25, 2018

Wayfinder. Bag of holding. Ring of the ram. Staff of power. Holy avenger.

The magic items you find during your adventures become a part of your story and let you do things beyond the techniques you've mastered and the spells you know. So how do these essentials of the game work in the Pathfinder Playtest?

Magic items are used in three major ways: by investing them, by activating them, or automatically. Invested items are ones you wear that you have to prepare as you don them, after which they work continuously. Activating items follows a system similar to that used for spells. Just as casting a spell requires you to spend actions to supply the somatic, verbal, and material components of the spell, activated items require you to use the Command Activation, Focus Activation, or Operate Activation action, or a combination of multiple actions. A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions to unbind a bead and throw it. Activating a luck blade to reroll an attack just takes a mental nudge with a Focus Activation reaction (though you get to do that only once per day). Automatic activation happens with a small category of items that give their benefit whenever they're used for their normal purpose. A prime example is a sword with the frost property rune, which is always coated with frost and needs only hit a foe to deal extra cold damage.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Resonance

Activating or investing an item costs 1 Resonance Point (RP). You might have heard a bit about this on the Glass Cannon podcast! Resonance is a new resource all characters have that can be used to activate items. Your innate magic item resonance is represented by a number of Resonance Points equal to your level plus your Charisma modifier. This ties back to the Pathfinder First Edition concept of Charisma as the main ability score tied to innate magic, as seen in the Use Magic Device skill and the fact that Charisma is used for spell-like abilities, oracles, sorcerers, and so forth. However, in Pathfinder Second Edition, true scholars of itemcraft *cough*alchemists*cough* might get to use their Intelligence instead.

The idea of resonance stems from the Pathfinder First Edition occultist, who was able to tap into the magical potential of items, and even before that to the idea of resonance between creatures and various magic items, as seen with the resonant powers of wayfinders. We've expanded that concept to apply to everyone. In practical terms, you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items, and you're at the greatest risk at low levels. You still have a chance even if your pool is empty, though. You can overspend Resonance Points! If you're at 0 RP, you can attempt to activate or invest an item anyway. You need to attempt a flat check (a d20 roll with no modifiers) against a DC equal to 10 + the number of points you've overspent today. So the first item has a 50% chance of working, and it gets more risky from there.

We expect Resonance Points to be a contentious topic, and we're really curious to see how it plays at your tables. It's one of the more experimental changes to the game, and the playtest process gives us a chance to see it in the wild before committing to it. Here are the advantages we see from a design perspective:

  1. Using items is clear and consistent. Spend the required actions and 1 RP, and you activate or invest your item. If someone else wants to use the same item, you can remove it and let them put it on and invest it themselves.
  2. You have less to track. We get to remove some of the sub-pools that individual items have (such as "10 rounds per day which need not be consecutive" or "5 charges") because we know you have an overall limited resource. There are still some items that can't be used without limit, but they get to be special exceptions rather than being common out of necessity.
  3. It puts the focus on the strongest items. Because you can't activate items indefinitely, your best bet is to use the most RP-efficient item, not the most gp-efficient item. You want a high-level healing wand because you get more healing for your Resonance Point rather than getting a bunch of low-level wands because they're cheap.
  4. Investiture limits what you can wear. That means we don't need to rely heavily on an item slot system, creating more flexibility in what kind of worn items are useful. You'll read more about this on the blog on Friday, when we talk about removing the magic item Christmas tree!

Will those benefits be compelling? Will people prefer this system over the Pathfinder First Edition system? We look forward to finding out!

Want to look at an item to see how this works in practice?

Cloak of Elvenkind Item 10+

Illusion, Invested, Magical

Method of Use worn, cloak; Bulk L

Activation [[A]] Focus Activation, [[A]] Operate Activation


This cloak is deep green with a voluminous hood, and is embroidered with gold trim and symbols of significance to the elves. The cloak allows you to cast the ghost sound cantrip as an innate arcane spell. When you draw the hood up over your head (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, giving you an item bonus to Stealth checks. If you activate the cloak, you pull the hood up and are affected by invisibility for 1 minute or until you pull the hood back down, whichever comes first.

Type standard; Level 10; Price 1,000 gp

The cloak grants a +3 bonus.

Type greater; Level 18; Price 24,000 gp

The cloak grants a +5 bonus, and invisibility is 4th level. If you're also wearing greater boots of elvenkind, the greater cloak of elvenkind allows you to Sneak in forest environments even when creatures are currently observing you.

Here's a fairly complex item to show multiple parts of the system at once. The cloak of elvenkind is level 10, and there's also a greater cloak of elvenkind with an item level of 18. In case you missed it in the crafting blog, items have levels now, which indicate the point at which you can craft them (as well as being handy for the GM when making treasure hoards). Method of use indicates that this item is worn and that it's a cloak. A few items have this two-part listing because they're hard to wear multiples of. Multiple cloaks, multiple boots... not practical. Multiple rings or amulets? No problem.

This item is both invested (note the invested trait) and activated (as you can see by the activation entry). Investing the cloak lets you cast ghost sound. You get this benefit as long as the cloak is invested, which means you can cast the spell whenever you want without activating the cloak and therefore without spending more Resonance Points. You can also get an item bonus to Stealth checks from the cloak (+3 or +5 for a greater cloak). Finally, you can activate the cloak as you raise the hood, spending 1 Resonance Point to turn invisible! Certainly not every item has as much going on as a cloak of elvenkind, but several classic items seemed like they needed a little extra special treatment! What do you think? Too much?

How about something simpler?

Floating Shield Item 13

Magical

Price 2,800 gp

Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L

Activation [[A]] Operate Activation


This master-quality light wooden shield (Hardness 6) protects you without requiring you to spend actions each round. When you activate this shield, you can release it from your grip as a part of that action. The shield floats in the air next to you, granting you its bonus automatically, as if you Raised the Shield. Because you're not wielding the shield, you can't use reactions such as Shield Block with the shield.

After 1 minute, the shield drops to the ground, ending its floating effect. While the shield is adjacent to you, you can grasp it with an Interact action, ending its floating effect.

You can hold this and use it just like any other shield. Activating it lets you free up a hand to cause the shield to float, where it protects you without you spending an action! While the floating shield offers far less Hardness than many magic shields of a similar level (some have Hardness up to 18!), it's not meant for Shield Block, and its abilities allow you to use it even with a character who needs both hands for other things.

Now let's look at two special types of items: one revamped classic and one brand-new category!

Staves

We went through several different iterations of staves. They needed to remain a powerful tool for spellcasters, but we also wanted them to appear earlier in the game so you didn't have to wait for most staves to appear at higher levels. Let's see the staff of healing!

Staff of Healing Item 3+

Invested, Magical, Necromancy, Staff

Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk 1

Activation Cast a Spell (1 RP)


Made of smooth white wood, this staff is capped at each end with a golden cross adorned with a multitude of ruby cabochons. A staff of healing adds an item bonus to the Hit Points you restore any time you cast the heal spell using your own spell slots, using charges from the staff, or from channel energy.

Type minor; Level 3; Price 60 gp; Maximum Charges 3

The item bonus to heal spells is +1.

  • stabilize (cantrip)
  • heal (level 1)

I've included only the level 3 minor staff of healing here. There are also versions at levels 7, 11, and 15, and they add higher-level heal spells, plus restoration, remove disease, restore senses, and more! A staff is tied to you, which means you have to invest it, unlike most held items. This investiture has two extra benefits. First off, it links the staff to you, preventing anyone else from investing the staff for 24 hours. More importantly, it restores charges to the staff equal to the highest level of spell you can cast. You don't have to expend any spells to do this; it's all part of using your Resonance Points. You'll notice this also means that if you find one of these as a 1st-level character, it will take you longer to recharge it than if you're a higher-level spellcaster. You also get the item bonus to healing as long as you hold the invested staff.

Now how do you cast these spells? Well, you activate the staff as part of casting one of the spells in it (spending 1 RP as usual). Then you have two options: You can either expend charges from the staff equal to the spell's level (1 charge for heal here) or expend one of your own spells of that level or higher. Yeah, your staff essentially lets you spontaneously cast the spells in it!

Trinkets

How about something completely different? One thing we wanted to add was a type of item that was like scrolls for martial characters. Spellcasters use scrolls and everyone uses potions, but how about something special that relies on nonmagical skills? Trinkets were the answer! Our first example was designed specifically for fighters.

Fear Gem Item 4

Consumable, Enchantment, Fear, Magical, Mental, Trinket

Price 11 gp

Method of Use affixed, weapon; Bulk

Activation [[F]] Focus Activation; Trigger You use Intimidating Strike, but haven't rolled for the attack yet.


Dark smoke seems to writhe within this obsidian gem. When you activate the gem, if your Intimidating Strike hits, the target is frightened 2 and flat-footed against your attacks until the end of your next turn. If the attack roll is a critical success, the target is flat-footed against your attacks for 1 minute.

Trinkets all have the consumable trait, meaning they're used up after being activated once. They have the "affixed" method of use, and as this one indicates, it has to be affixed to a weapon. You can activate it with a Focus Activation as a free action when you use the Intimidating Strike action from the fighter feat of the same name. This makes the Intimidating Strike more severe, increasing its effect to frightened 2 instead of frightened 1 and making it especially strong on a critical success.

Now how about a trinket that's less specific?

Vanishing Coin Item 9

Consumable, Illusion, Magical, Trinket

Price 85 gp

Method of Use affixed, armor; Bulk

Activation [[F]] Focus Activation; Trigger You attempt a Stealth check for initiative, but haven't rolled yet.

Requirements You are a master in Stealth.


This copper coin dangles from a leather strip strung through a hole drilled into the coin's center. It's usually tied just below the throat on a suit of armor. Until it is activated, the coin becomes invisible for a few seconds every few minutes, but always at random intervals. When you activate the coin, you gain the benefits of a 2nd-level invisibility spell until the end of your next turn.

Anyone with master proficiency in Stealth can use this trinket by affixing it to her armor. She can turn invisible by activating the coin when she rolls a Stealth check for initiative. Pretty useful in the first round of a fight!

Well, there's a lot to say about magic items, and we'll have more to say on Friday. For now, I'm going to leave you with a short list of some of the new items appearing in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook in addition to the classics.

  • Anklets of alacrity
  • Feather step stone
  • Forge warden
  • Grim trophy
  • Handwraps of mighty fists
  • Oil of weightlessness
  • Persona mask
  • Potency crystal
  • Runestone
  • Spell duelist's wand
  • Third eye
  • Virtuoso's instrument

Tell us what sorts of items you'd like to see in the final rulebook!

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
851 to 900 of 1,064 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:


That said, I am not sure I understand why you don’t think it makes sense for trinkets to be treated like other magic items in their use of resonance.

What story, movie or archetype is is capturing? What narrative need is it fulfilling?

Elric of Melinborne

Key blade users of Kingdom Hearts
The Soul Gem from Marvel
Mob Psycho 100
Green Lantern
Mjolnir from Marvel

Off the top of my head, all of these things have items of power which intermingle with some reservoir of power within the wielder. Honestly, I feel like the narrative extrapolation of Resonance is one of the bigger selling points for me.

Also, I'm not sure "does this emulate fiction well" is a great criticism for a game, at least when Resonance is being presented as an alternative to various things which also break from the genre. How many stories, movies, or archetypes feature a character being decked out in 10-20 magical items, many of which only give minor bonuses or niche powers? How many times do we see characters using cure light wounds wand type solutions? Hell, if you go down this road you have to start thinking about how injuries actually work in PF compared to fiction and why healing magic is so much more common in games than any other medium of fantasy fiction.

I certainly think that if you set out witgh the design goal of making an Elric or Green Lantern or Thor (MCU / MC Thor) based game and you came up with Resonance then you would have failed badly.

If you have resonance for things like staves and wands and then after the fact decide "Hey, if I squint I can use this to make a Elric thing" then you are back to my complaint about the narrative following the mechanics rather than the other way around.

Don't ask "can I do Elric?"? Ask "Is this the best way to do Elric?"
I'd have a hard time taking any "yes" to that as a thoughtful and non-biased response.

Edit: Truly, thinking about it this way for a few minutes makes me go from being unhappy with Resonance to totally hating it. If it is supposed to capture Elric is is just such a massive miss on that mark that it is repulsive. I won't keep thinking of it this way. But when I do....


magnuskn wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?
No, because they leech valuable playing time, i.e. real life time, away from the few hours we have per week. An higher level encounter in Pathfinder which is not challenging at all will still take more or less half an hour to play through, because of set-up, player dithering and rules checks. That's one sixth of a regular weekly session for something which in the end didn't do much at all to change the status of the party and got nobody excited.

Again, I couldn't disagree with you more. Those weaker challenges puts the players' strength in contest and requires different kinds of decision making. That said, I get where you are coming from.

So you would like a game where there are one or two really intense/dangerous fights each session? I still think you would want a game that tends toward per-fight resource management. Otherwise, fighters and builds that don't have daily resources to burn don't really have a good place in the game. Also, the game for even wizards is pretty radically different if you are expecting to blow 1/3 to 1/2 of your daily resources on every fight rather than expect a longer adventuring day of more fights.

Have you ever heard of a free game called Mythender? Its setting and tone may not be for you (its really different!) but I'd be quite interested to know what you thought of that combat system and how it manages its resources. Honestly, I don't know of any other games that really hits that kind of pace well and is balanced around every fight being a tough challenge. 4e kind of does that, but it sounds like fights in that are way too long for your needs. Either way, I think you are looking for a game with a different structure than what Pathfinder/DnD traditionally has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Kringress wrote:

To me the big thing this is going to do is make HEALERS a prime class again, not being able to use a resource like a wand all the time makes having a healer a big consideration on party composition and weather you can get through dungeon or not. Otherwise it will depend upon how many stat points you get with leveling. If it is like starfinder and getting 4 stats with a +2 then getting your CHA up is no big deal that would give you at level 15 between 3-5 items active (on average). At low levels this is going to suck, but thats the breaks.

IF that is a consequence, then that is a boon. Every party should consider hiring a cleric if they want to do any serious adventuring!

I've never been the biggest fan of running whatever healbot NPC the players haven't gotten killed yet. Maybe running a resonance battery NPC will be more fun.

If they want to make playing healing focused characters more appealing, then they should look at how the Oradin works and try to emulate that as it seems much more popular than your standard healer. In combat recovery isn't going to work out to a good use of an action unless it hampers the enemies in some way. Right now we have a solution that wasn't derived from an understanding of the importance of action economy, they're just hoping to introduce a second economy for competition. I don't think it's going to do what they hope.

Cure light wounds spam outside of combat saves combat actions, and saves money. Attacking just the money aspect won't do much. If you want something that functions within what we've seen so far, that could actually encourage people to use level appropriate healing tools mid combat, then you should focus on healing trinkets and passive healing options.

Liberty's Edge

Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Redesigning the economy from the ground up so the efficiency curve actually encourages the kind of play you want to see is very much the better choice.
I think that designing the game system so that it doesn't enforce only One True Way of playing is very much the better choice.

How is that what's happening here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

You said 'no', but your description reads as 'yes'. It didn't change the status of the party, and nobody got excited. Even an encounter that doesn't pose much challenge should still do some damage. Why does that not count as changing the status of the party?

The tendency is for everyone to sandbag resources and the vulnerable party members to just take cover and wait till its over. A few arrows may get spent but lots of time is spent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

don't think you are necessarily wrong want to have super easy out of combat healing, but if that is the core assumption of the game then I think things need to be redesigned around that rather than leaving an "exploit" in the game's wealth system. For clarity, I don't like auto-healing after combat, but I recognize that is a personal preference.

I think the batman wizard and the clw healing issue are essentially the exact same problem and it flows from the gold scaling in the game's economy. Things that are good at barely affordable at level 1 quickly become vanishingly cheap and thus you have a situation where higher level characters have a nearly unlimited supply of low level effects.

You are right that the "christmas tree" is a somewhat separate problem but I think that it is is mostly solved by collapsing cloak of resistance bonuses into armor and all the other AC bonuses into automatic scaling with your level.

Do you not like that resonance makes your constantly effective gear compete with consumables and daily uses in general? I kind of like that. I think deciding between the two is interesting.

I can understand why some people might find managing that pool to be either stressful or tedious, though: hard decisions are stressful and keeping track of a number can be tedious. I still like it, though. I like thinking through that problem and planning ahead.

I agree it should be redesigned. CLW wand spam gets old after a while (my players have admitted this to me a couple times), and quite frankly I can't really throw any exciting consumable items at my players without mostly disregarding WBL expectations and magic item creation rules (which are also getting a major overhaul here in PF2, hopefully we get more rules on this in a future blog post).

They are and they aren't. The Batman Wizard really only exists because of how SAD Wizards are and how little they need magic items in comparison to any other class. PF2 has addressed this some by cutting out a lot of the Big 6 (it's instead now the Big 3, of which the Wizard really only needs/wants one of), but more needs to go into the Wizard being less SAD, and him spending his money on things that he actually needs, instead of things that are "Oh, this is neat, I'll hold on to this just in case it ever comes up." (Which isn't bad, but it's not great either.) The key thing to understand is that SADness and little requirement of magic items (since they can't use armor, weapons, shields, or numerous other Big 6 items) is what causes the Batman Wizard to exist. Once you make the Wizard less SAD (like other classes) and more reliant on gear like everyone else (maybe Wands, or even Rods, can be "Magic Weapons, but for Spells?"), the concept of the Batman Wizard really only exists by choice only, and isn't something that's truly baked into the class concept like in PF1.

While cutting down on the Big 6 is a big step toward cutting down the Christmas Tree effect, one thing I'd like to bring up is that there are certainly a lack of cool or interesting items in PF1 as well. Very few items had neat versatility that were worth the price. I end up having to custom-craft items for my players to use with their features more often than not because a lot of the items in PF1 were unimaginative and didn't really offer versatility and options for players. Here's an example of what I created for PF1 when a Paladin used his Lay on Hands to save an ally's life from death, after paying a heavy price.

The Hands of Benevolence wrote:

Aurafaint conjuration; CL 5th

Slot Hands; Price 5,000 gp
DESCRIPTION
These gauntlets are made of gold and silver, with ivory etching and inlay depicting angel wings. Only usable by a Paladin, they possess an inviting and warm aura that helps those in need.

When an adjacent ally is struck by an attack, once per day, the wearer may use their Lay on Hands ability on that ally as an immediate action. The healing granted by this use of Lay on Hands counts against the damage dealt to the target, with any excess healing the ally as normal. A Paladin must obey all of the requirements of his Lay on Hands ability (such as by having a free hand) in order to use this magic item.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be a Paladin of at least 2nd level

Converted to PF2, it would look something like this:

The Hands of Benevolence wrote:

ITEM 6

Magical, Necromancy
Price 500 gp
Method of Use worn, gloves; Bulk L
Requirements You are a Paladin, or possess the Lay on Hands class feat(ure?); Trigger An adjacent ally has been hit by an attack, but damage hasn't been rolled yet.

Description
These gauntlets are made of gold and silver, with ivory etching and inlay depicting angel wings. They possess an inviting and warm aura that helps those in need.

Activated Abilities
[[R]](use class feature), Pay 1 RP: The wearer may use their Lay on Hands class ability on an adjacent ally as a Reaction to protect them from a potentially fatal blow. The healing granted from this ability applies instantly as the attack occurs, counteracting damage dealt to the ally, with any excess healing them as normal. This ability may only be used once per day.

(P.S. it took longer for me to match the formatting than it did for me to actually combine the rules elements together.)

An item like this is both cool, thematic, and useful. Very rarely do I see items designed or tailored like this, which is a problem. (Yes, gaming groups are different, but this is a pretty general magic item I designed here, any Paladin could and would want it.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Redesigning the economy from the ground up so the efficiency curve actually encourages the kind of play you want to see is very much the better choice.
I think that designing the game system so that it doesn't enforce only One True Way of playing is very much the better choice.
How is that what's happening here?

Because the options you have now are tied to a smaller more precious resource?

Rather than thinking about what is either fun or helpful, the system now feels like it's forcing you to go pick up what is the best by way of Math.

Is a Bless Wand worth it anymore? Is Obscuring Mist Wand? Hydraulic Push, Thunderstomp, Stone Shield, Shadow Trap or any number of I suppose niche or okay spells worth it?

Or will the Math show that Burning Hands/Magic Missile has a Damage/Gold/Impact to Resonance spent Ratio that puts it ahead of every other option.

Before I could and do ignore what the community says and wants when playing at my tables. But now I also have Paizo telling me, IN their blog no less, to put the focus on the strongest items.

Hey Paizo, make it so where you put the focus on the strongest feats too why don't you?

Edit: Also I'm seeing people bring up the Big 6 in a couple of posts in the last page or so.

That seems incorrect. It was the Big 7. For something supposed to be so overused, it's disturbing to see that CLW wands aren't counted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?

It's pretty clear he finds them a waste of time because he wants as much game time as possible to be meaningful, not wasted against trash mobs. It has zero to do with resources and everything to do with maximizing the parts of the game his groups find fun, not cluttering it up with stuff they don't.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?
It's pretty clear he finds them a waste of time because he wants as much game time as possible to be meaningful, not wasted against trash mobs. It has zero to do with resources and everything to do with maximizing the parts of the game his groups find fun, not cluttering it up with stuff they don't.

What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

don't think you are necessarily wrong want to have super easy out of combat healing, but if that is the core assumption of the game then I think things need to be redesigned around that rather than leaving an "exploit" in the game's wealth system. For clarity, I don't like auto-healing after combat, but I recognize that is a personal preference.

I think the batman wizard and the clw healing issue are essentially the exact same problem and it flows from the gold scaling in the game's economy. Things that are good at barely affordable at level 1 quickly become vanishingly cheap and thus you have a situation where higher level characters have a nearly unlimited supply of low level effects.

You are right that the "christmas tree" is a somewhat separate problem but I think that it is is mostly solved by collapsing cloak of resistance bonuses into armor and all the other AC bonuses into automatic scaling with your level.

Do you not like that resonance makes your constantly effective gear compete with consumables and daily uses in general? I kind of like that. I think deciding between the two is interesting.

I can understand why some people might find managing that pool to be either stressful or tedious, though: hard decisions are stressful and keeping track of a number can be tedious. I still like it, though. I like thinking through that problem and planning ahead.

I agree it should be redesigned. CLW wand spam gets old after a while (my players have admitted this to me a couple times), and quite frankly I can't really throw any exciting consumable items at my players without mostly disregarding WBL expectations and magic item creation rules (which are also getting a major overhaul here in PF2, hopefully we get more rules on this in a future blog post).

They are and they aren't. The Batman Wizard really only exists because of how SAD Wizards are and how little they need magic items in comparison to any other class. PF2 has addressed this some by cutting out a lot of...

I really like both versions of that item, actually. However, I think a "2e" version of that same item might limit the healing granted by your reaction (limit what "level" of lay on hands that you would apply) but allow you to use it any number of times a day as long as you can spend the RP.

Towards our ongoing conversation: I am not sure what a wizard's SADness has to do with the existence of "Batman wizards". Frankly, a "Batman Cleric" or a "Batman Druid" is almost as big a problem (though those classes don't have quite as large of a spell selection).
Do you mean that a wizard doesn't have to buy as many attribute boosting items? I guess that would make sense. Still, even if a player decided to buy a +5 sword instead of a +5 flaming sword in 1e, that still gave them 22k money for low level consumables which is essentially a lifetime supply, especially if someone can craft those items themselves.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?
It's pretty clear he finds them a waste of time because he wants as much game time as possible to be meaningful, not wasted against trash mobs. It has zero to do with resources and everything to do with maximizing the parts of the game his groups find fun, not cluttering it up with stuff they don't.
What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.

I'm not convinced this needs much explanation. Plot/story related fight= meaning. d6 displacer beasts in an open plain = trash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?
It's pretty clear he finds them a waste of time because he wants as much game time as possible to be meaningful, not wasted against trash mobs. It has zero to do with resources and everything to do with maximizing the parts of the game his groups find fun, not cluttering it up with stuff they don't.
What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.

I actually wanted to address this either here or another topic but I seem to be in enough trouble as it is already.

Even if it's not meaningful or tough and is trash, that's not your place as DM to say. It's what the players do. An example of just some trash I tossed at my players;

2 Fire Elementals(small) and a Doru Div. Softballed too. Players easily killed 1 elemental, and drove the two remaining enemies to run.

My players didn't walk away with "OH that was too easy" or "I didn't need to use that spell" or "Let's break out the wands" or "That was trash".

My players walked away with a funny story of how the Cleric used Murderous Command, got lucky, and had the remaining Fire Elemental chase down the Div to the next room over after it fled.

Was the fight trash? Yeah if they just took it on as a numbers game. "We shouldn't use anything because the numbers aren't enough to be a threat yet" seems like a bad way to play the game as it sounds like you just skip your turn depending on your class.

But they just rolled with it and had a good event happen. RNG yes but still they walked away liking that fight.

Just what is your conditions as a player/dm that makes a fight actually mean something or be memorable? (Though this isn't aimed at KingOfAnything but a more global/thread wide question.)

Probably better to ask it in another topic.


I like the idea of the RP to invest in an item at the start of the day. but do i then have to spend more RP to cast a spell from the staff and use a charge. seems like a lot of tracking. If you are going to activate things with RP just use RP, or better yet use RP to bind to the item for the day and then just have charges per day that you can use after that.

If i slay an bad guy and take his items that he invested in. it looks like i will not be able to use that item for 24 hours. I understand wanting to make items more personalized but this could minimize the usefulness of items in PFS where most of the adventures are very short one off adventures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.

IMO, it's like watching COPS and seeing 15 min of jaywalkers getting tickets... It's cops going after criminals but it's far from exciting...

In situations where real life time is precious, 'speed bump' encounters do FAR more to suck out the fun/energy of the group instead of create any kind of interest or challenge: They are the 'commercials' of the adventures that most players I know just want to hit the 'fast forward' button on. A quick 5 second 'montage' is about as much time/effort most want to take on them.

KingOfAnything wrote:
See, I was thinking tabletop games such as Power Grid or Splendor.

I have NO idea what those are so I have no point of reference. IMO Resonance isn't a problem to solve/balance but an attempt to make me play in a way that I don't want to. IMO because some people [and dev's] don't like CLW wands, we all are forced to play that way. Resonance + charges + class features [at least with alchemists] all seem to to be a LOT to try to tell me I've been playing badwrongfun... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:


What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.

IMO:

If a mob is such a small threat that the only thing it can do is hope to shave off a few HP before Team Rocketing away, it's a waste of time.

If a mob requires a few spells, a few use/day charges, and maybe a consumable or two, it's not a waste of time. That's what is meant by a fight being intended to expend 20% of your daily resources.

Resources spent during the fight are fun and interesting. Slowly wearing down HP between one easy fight and the next is not.

In all of my campaigns, if a fight poses essentially zero risk to the party, it's a rare occasion for them to flex, not 4 out of 6 of the fights during a session.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
I'm not convinced this needs much explanation. Plot/story related fight= meaning. d6 displacer beasts in an open plain = trash.

Trash to you. Something for me to try out my new feat/weapon/tactic before the boss.

Possible funny/easy encounter for the Bard/Enchantment user if they can get one on their side.

Threat to the local people for the Paladin/champion of good.

Mobs should have some kinda of purpose. If draining resources is the sole reason they exist or that's what the party thinks of them, then yes. They are just trash.

WatersLethe wrote:


IMO:

If a mob is such a small threat that the only thing it can do is hope to shave off a few HP before Team Rocketing away, it's a waste of time.

Then make it. I had some trash skeletons used a few weeks ago. But the skeletons weren't a challenge to the players. I did however play up the fear of "The BBEG seems to be just animating skeletons enmass to throw at you".

So rather than stick around, they picked to retreat after dealing with pack of Skeletons. Trash yes, but it was a thematic encounter that in the grand scheme of things, did nothing to the plot.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I don't think lower challenge/danger encounters are uninteresting. They give classes with fewer daily resources a chance to shine, they challenge a player to use their resources wisely rather than flail for survival, and they make the truly deadly encounters stand out even more; the game can't always be at 11.
I find them an incredible waste of everybody's time and as I have gotten older I have found that I have much less tolerance for them than I had when we all were younger and had less real life commitments.
Why do you find them a waste of time? Is it because you can be back at full health without really spending resources right after?
It's pretty clear he finds them a waste of time because he wants as much game time as possible to be meaningful, not wasted against trash mobs. It has zero to do with resources and everything to do with maximizing the parts of the game his groups find fun, not cluttering it up with stuff they don't.
What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.

And I don't get why some people think a 'speed bump' encounter that has no risk of leeching resources or doing anything much but waste IRL time can be interesting without something else going on (like plot significance) - one mans meat and all that I guess.


MerlinCross wrote:

Then make it. I had some trash skeletons used a few weeks ago. But the skeletons weren't a challenge to the players. I did however play up the fear of "The BBEG seems to be just animating skeletons enmass to throw at you".

So rather than stick around, they picked to retreat after dealing with pack of Skeletons. Trash yes, but it was a thematic encounter that in the grand scheme of things, did nothing to the plot.

For me this isn't really a combat encounter though: a quick 'montage' of me telling them how they dispatched those skeletons fills the same role without having to take up pointless time and rolls.


graystone wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Then make it. I had some trash skeletons used a few weeks ago. But the skeletons weren't a challenge to the players. I did however play up the fear of "The BBEG seems to be just animating skeletons enmass to throw at you".

So rather than stick around, they picked to retreat after dealing with pack of Skeletons. Trash yes, but it was a thematic encounter that in the grand scheme of things, did nothing to the plot.

For me this isn't really a combat encounter though: a quick 'montage' of me telling them how they dispatched those skeletons fills the same roll without having to take up pointless time and rolls.

To be fair, a little more was going more was actually going on to the point I wanted to have them do combat(Invisible mocking and a few blows from said Invisible foe, them figuring out if the risk of dragging some treasure out was worth it or not).

You could easily just cutscene that yes but I know a lot of players that would dislike the GM making their characters pick the choice of "We have to run".

The fight still took out a Channel or two from the Cleric which also helped to push them out of area.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Either way, I think you are looking for a game with a different structure than what Pathfinder/DnD traditionally has.

Pathfinder/DnD has had the "heal to full after every fight" structure for almost 18 years now. It's pretty hard to say that's not how it has "traditionally" worked. There are Pathfinder players who haven't been alive during a time when DnD/Pathfinder worked differently to that.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
What makes a mob meaningful? What makes it trash? I get that meaningful is fun, but I'm not seeing an explanation for why one kind of encounter is more meaningful than another.
I'm not convinced this needs much explanation. Plot/story related fight= meaning. d6 displacer beasts in an open plain = trash.

That doesn't have anything to do with the challenge of the encounter...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Either way, I think you are looking for a game with a different structure than what Pathfinder/DnD traditionally has.
Pathfinder/DnD has had the "heal to full after every fight" structure for almost 18 years now. It's pretty hard to say that's not how it has "traditionally" worked. There are Pathfinder players who haven't been alive during a time when DnD/Pathfinder worked differently to that.

That's not the structure he's talking about (he's talking about the number/difficulty of fights per day).

Also, I don't think healing up entirely between fights is going away at all. It's just now going to have a meaningful cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

You could easily just cutscene that yes but I know a lot of players that would dislike the GM making their characters pick the choice of "We have to run".

The fight still took out a Channel or two from the Cleric which also helped to push them out of area.

I wasn't suggesting taking the "We have to run" choice out of there hands, just the actual combat: I'd just ask if they wanted to use any resources and describe what happened.

My point was more on thematic/setting encounter that where there for something other than a combat threat: for me, unless they are meant to also challenge the party I wouldn't play them out.

As an example, I once had an encounter with a cannibal eating a corpse that the party encountered: she was no real combat threat and would have easily died without the party trying much but let the party know dangerous cannibals where in the lost city and they thought the group looked mighty tasty. This is for me what I think of as a 'combat' encounter that doesn't require actual combat.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's just now going to have a meaningful cost.

We'll see if it's meaningful OR palatable: so far I'm unconvinced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Either way, I think you are looking for a game with a different structure than what Pathfinder/DnD traditionally has.
Pathfinder/DnD has had the "heal to full after every fight" structure for almost 18 years now. It's pretty hard to say that's not how it has "traditionally" worked. There are Pathfinder players who haven't been alive during a time when DnD/Pathfinder worked differently to that.

That's not the structure he's talking about (he's talking about the number/difficulty of fights per day).

Also, I don't think healing up entirely between fights is going away at all. It's just now going to have a meaningful cost.

The point remains - I don't recognise his 'traditional' structure at all in the 18 years I've been playing - it certainly isn't reflected by any of the APs or modules I've played or GMd - which you would expect would reflect any supposed structure on fights/day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
They are and they aren't. The Batman Wizard really only exists because of how SAD Wizards are and how little they need magic items in comparison to any other class. PF2 has addressed this some by cutting out a lot of the Big 6 (it's instead now the Big 3, of which the Wizard really only needs/wants one of), but more needs to go into the Wizard being less SAD, and him spending his money on things that he actually needs, instead of things that are "Oh, this is neat, I'll hold on to this just in case it ever comes up." (Which isn't bad, but it's not great either.) The key thing to understand is that SADness and little requirement of magic items (since they can't use armor, weapons, shields, or numerous other Big 6 items) is what causes the Batman Wizard to exist. Once you make the Wizard less SAD (like other classes) and more reliant on gear like everyone else (maybe Wands, or even Rods, can be "Magic Weapons, but for Spells?"), the concept of the Batman Wizard really only exists by choice only, and isn't something that's truly baked into the class concept like in PF1.

This is a big part of why I am so keen on 4E/5E-style implements - casting foci as "caster weapons" that can not only add numbers but also cool tweaks when casting. It gives casters an extra item to care about, like the martials, and can still be very thematically cool in its own way.

But apparently the PF2 devs don't agree, since they've already said flat out there won't be anything like that in the game. :|

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
The point remains - I don't recognise his 'traditional' structure at all in the 18 years I've been playing - it certainly isn't reflected by any of the APs or modules I've played or GMd - which you would expect would reflect any supposed structure on fights/day.

Uh...the structure Excaliburproxy is talking about (which is 'about 4+ fights a day, most of them CR=APL or CR=APL+1') is well established in the vast majority of APs.

I hear Kingmaker violates it, being open-world, but I've read through a lot of APs, played in a couple and run a couple. All came pretty close to that pattern most of the time. They certainly aren't one or two fights a day at CR=APL+3 or +4 or anything like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In comment #779 Excaliburproxy said,

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I want to accentuate a point here:

Resonance is not just here to solve the "wand of cure light wounds problem".

It is trying to solve broader family of issues that come with balancing low level items (non-consumable AND consumable) in the face of having an exponential-scaling gold system.

I think that resonance was proposed to simplify the X uses per day issue of magic items. Making them all pull from a common pool would give the player more control and less paperwork. From there, the Paizo developers looked for other problems that would benefit from resonance.

  • No more "X uses per day" paperwork on magic items.
  • Resonance could replace tracking charges on wands.
  • A resonance limit on worn magic items is much simpler than the PF1 magic item slots.
  • It favors powerful magic items over weak magic items, reducing the Christmas tree effect of wearing minor magic items to fill every magic item slot.
  • It could replace the "A character must wear this item continuously for 24 hours before he can activate this ability" requirement designed to prevent abuse of once-per-day items such as the Quick Runner's Shirt.
  • It would eliminate going through four wands of Cure Light Wounds instead of using one wand of Cure Critical Wounds. Expending wands down to uselessness breaks the mythology of wands.
  • It could replace the Use Magic Device skill.

A big potential problem with resonance is balance. Flexible mechanics are hard to balance. And no-one has lengthy experience balancing this new mechanic. The Paizo developers tested it for balance, but they haven't shared their insights yet.

Another big problem is that resonance has no in-game flavor. It was created as a unifying mechanic without a basis in fantasy lore. It gives the impression that characters are powering their magic items with their own inner magic, which goes against prior convention, as some people discussed in comments #679,
#686, and #692:

WatersLethe wrote:
Resonance definitely feels like a highly magical resource which doesn't make much sense for the characters who are based on being as non-magical as possible. Sometimes you just want to be a dude with a magic sword, not a dude with a growing pool of magic that you use to empower your sword.
graystone wrote:
I can't help but think of the barbarian with the superstition totem... 'Magic bad! Now let me take some time out and use my magic to activate my items...'.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I see it is time that I go back to disagreeing with graystone. It was inevitable really. I don't think you necessarily have to look at resonance in that way. I don't think you have to think of it so much as a magical energy pool. I'm looking at it as more of a tolerance rating.

Hmm that would be an interesting way to do it. It starts giving penalties when you get over your resonance. Magic tolerance real low guys i'm about to pop!

Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.

Imaginary Rules for Resonance as Tolerance

The powerful magic in enchanted items puts a strain on a living body using the magic item. Fortunately, most individuals can attune their lifeforce with the magic item and work in harmony with its magic. This resonance can also provide direct control of the magic items as opposed to the indirect control via command words or spell completion.

Every character starts with an amount of resonance equal to their level plus their Charisma modifier. This represents their tolerance to magic items gained from personal talent and lengthy experience with magic items. When he or she uses a magic item, such as donning magic armor or activating a magic staff, he loses one resonance for the day.

Donning a wearable magic item, such as a hat, boots, a ring, an amulet, or armor, automatically steals one resonance. Removing the item and donning it again does not take further resonance. Instead, on the first donning, the item becomes invested in the character and needs no further resonance for into continuous abilities. Some activated abilities may consume further resonance. If a character wears a magic item continuously though the period when his daily resonance renew, the magic item claims one new resonance.

For a wand, staff, rod, or weapon, it can claim a resonance and become invested for the day through a command action [[A]]. Once invested, a staff, rod, or weapon may offer a continuous effect while held. Wands and staffs must be invested in a character before her or she can cast their spells. The first investment of the day on a staff also recharges a staff. Activating a wand by casting its spell consumes a resonance, too.

Scrolls, potions, trinkets, and non-worn wondrous items claim a resonance when activated. They do not have to be invested in advance. Magical traps steal a resonance from the victim that triggered the trap.

When a magic item would take a resonance from a character but the character has none to give, the character suffers a backlash instead. The item does not become invested. If it was invested, then it is no longer invested in the character. The default backlash is 10 minutes of stupefied condition, starting at stupified 1. After the stupification reaches stupified 3, further backlash instead increases the duration of stupified 3 by 10 more minutes. The backlash of some magic items gives the enfeebled, sluggish, or fatigued condition instead.


I thank DMW profusely for answering for me. #nosarcasm
#hashtagsarekindasarcasticbutthesentimentsofthepreceedingstatementandhashta gisgenuine


Mathmuse wrote:

In comment #779 Excaliburproxy said,

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I want to accentuate a point here:

Resonance is not just here to solve the "wand of cure light wounds problem".

It is trying to solve broader family of issues that come with balancing low level items (non-consumable AND consumable) in the face of having an exponential-scaling gold system.

I think that resonance was proposed to simplify the X uses per day issue of magic items. Making them all pull from a common pool would give the player more control and less paperwork. From there, the Paizo developers looked for other problems that would benefit from resonance.

  • No more "X uses per day" paperwork on magic items.
  • Resonance could replace tracking charges on wands.
  • A resonance limit on worn magic items is much simpler than the PF1 magic item slots.
  • It favors powerful magic items over weak magic items, reducing the Christmas tree effect of wearing minor magic items to fill every magic item slot.
  • It could replace the "A character must wear this item continuously for 24 hours before he can activate this ability" requirement designed to prevent abuse of once-per-day items such as the Quick Runner's Shirt.
  • It would eliminate going through four wands of Cure Light Wounds instead of using one wand of Cure Critical Wounds. Expending wands down to uselessness breaks the mythology of wands.
  • It could replace the Use Magic Device skill.

Those are indeed functions that I omitted from my consideration earlier.

Towards two of your points, though: We do now know that resonance has not completely abolished charges (the charges on wands are essentially "bulk purchase consumables") and I think using magic items w/o spells is now either a skill feat or a function of having a sufficient proficiency in arcana/occult/nature/religion. So it seems that resonance won't quite solve all those problems.


If you have resonance, Do you have to use it to activate a potion, scroll or wand or can you save it for when you absolutely need that item to work?

I can see a situation where you don't want to spend your last few points of resonance but would take a chance on failing an activation roll.

For example, After a battle, you take a short break to use potions and wands to heal, but you want to save your resonance for the next battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


This is a big part of why I am so keen on 4E/5E-style implements - casting foci as "caster weapons" that can not only add numbers but also cool tweaks when casting. It gives casters an extra item to care about, like the martials, and can still be very thematically cool in its own way.

But apparently the PF2 devs don't agree, since they've already said flat out there won't be anything like that in the game. :|

Good news in my view. I hate the idea of magic by props rather than will, talent or pacts.

And the feel of it (especially in 4e and mostly so in 5e) is diablo style loot drop props.
I just wish PF2 had also dropped components, as they're literally bad jokes.


Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.

This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your one innate magic. ;)

The mother bird method of potion delivery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

I really like both versions of that item, actually. However, I think a "2e" version of that same item might limit the healing granted by your reaction (limit what "level" of lay on hands that you would apply) but allow you to use it any number of times a day as long as you can spend the RP.

Towards our ongoing conversation: I am not sure what a wizard's SADness has to do with the existence of "Batman wizards". Frankly, a "Batman Cleric" or a "Batman Druid" is almost as big a problem (though those classes don't have quite as large of a spell selection).
Do you mean that a wizard doesn't have to buy as many attribute boosting items? I guess that would make sense. Still, even if a player decided to buy a +5 sword instead of a +5 flaming sword in 1e, that still gave them 22k money for low level consumables which is essentially a lifetime supply, especially if someone can craft those items themselves.

That's one aspect of it. Another is to consider the Luck Blade, which has a once/day ability that likewise costs resonance, but allows a reroll of a dice as a reaction. This fits more with that design than the other way around, since it's not based off of a spell that can be upcast, and requires a class feature to utilize, similar to the Luck Blade. (You could probably create a "Trinket" version of it for ~1/10th the value.)

It appears I confused your definition of Batman Wizard, which was commonly called Schrodinger's Wizard in the PF1 forums for that definition. That is a problem, but mostly because spells could do anything and skills became irrelevant past 5th level, where magic could emulate most anything you wanted and not be bogged down by tedious skill ranks. With spells being nerfed (which was necessary unfortunately) and skills being buffed, Schrodinger's Wizard doesn't really apply here anymore (at least, without further investigation to the relationship paradigm between spellcasters and skill monkies). However, Wizard SADness and their ability to eschew most all forms of magic items and still be relevant to combats hasn't changed.

Wizards requiring Intelligence only makes for a problem. The good news is that it's not as important to him anymore, but it means he doesn't have to have any other attribute be high and he makes just as much of an impact on combat as someone who does. This also affects WBL spending (assuming it's still present in PF2), since the Wizard can spend more of his money on things like scrolls, wands, staves, and other neat little baubles, whereas martials have to spend their money on things like weapons, armor, shields, etc. The idea isn't necessarily that the Wizard is spending more or less money on items, but more that he has increased freedom in items he purchases that don't affect how his class as a whole performs, which means the ideal that Resonance and such become important choices for the Wizard isn't really a proper sentiment.


KingOfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your one innate magic. ;)
The mother bird method of potion delivery.

I think that's going to have to take another action... Now is it a Focus Activation or an Operate Activation or...

I don't really see using a charge off a staff as tolerance either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.


graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

Resonance as tolerance would have some differences from the current version of resonance. That will be one of them. Being fed a potion would consume the drinker's resonance, not the handler's resonance. The tolerance version would have the advantage that the potion won't have a failure chance; instead, the resonance-less unconscious person would wake up stupefied.

I would prefer that potions be declared to be alchemical items rather than magic items, so that they don't require tolerance. Even potions made by arcane casters and divine casters would be alchemical. Then potions would work as they do in PF1. But that would mean that PF2 alchemists don't need extra resonance, so it conflicts with the alchemist preview.

graystone" wrote:
I don't really see using a charge off a staff as tolerance either.

That is another difference. I said, "Some activated abilities may consume further resonance," but not all activated abilities. I intended activating staffs to not consume resonance. The first investment gives three charges for the day and spending the charges does not also require spending resonance. Tracking two sets of numbers, charges and resonance, in a single casting is too much bookkeeping. Resonance is supposed to streamline PF2 rather than make it more complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

Resonance as tolerance would have some differences from the current version of resonance. That will be one of them. Being fed a potion would consume the drinker's resonance, not the handler's resonance. The tolerance version would have the advantage that the potion won't have a failure chance; instead, the resonance-less unconscious person would wake up stupefied.

I would prefer that potions be declared to be alchemical items rather than magic items, so that they don't require tolerance. Even potions made by arcane casters and divine casters would be alchemical. Then potions would work as they do in PF1. But that would mean that PF2 alchemists don't need extra resonance, so it conflicts with the alchemist preview.

As I understand it, the alchemist can still make permanent alchemical items by spending money, which theoretically don't cost resonance. What they spend resonance for is to whip up their temporary versions of bombs and elixirs and other alchemical items, the ones that only last 1 day. I would still argue that even the unstable compound held together only by the alchemist's magic should not cost resonance from the end recipient though, especially as resonance has already been paid for it, by the alchemist.

Alchemy should be its own pool separate from Resonance though. Int mod + alchemist class level, with the points ONLY able to be used for making alchemical items. The alchemist shouldn't interact with resonance at all, they shouldn't be able to burn off their resonance to make more stuff in a day. At least not without building for that with feats.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)
Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.

It hasn't been. You can't do that. You can approximate this with Wands, but that's a very different thing thematically.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't use your resonance on a potion you're pouring down someone's throat but you can use a wand to cast the same spell on them?

I can't be the only one that thinks that makes no sense at all.


Makes complete sense with Resonance representing tolerance.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.
It hasn't been. You can't do that. You can approximate this with Wands, but that's a very different thing thematically.

Thanks, I thought that sounded weird being constantly stated as though this was a fact.

Dark Archive

Cyouni wrote:
Makes complete sense with Resonance representing tolerance.

Only makes sense in one direction not both. Resonance as tolerance would mean that if you used a potion then you spend a point to accept it into you vs. someone casting a spell from a staff or wand would need to spend a point to cast the spell and then you would have to spend a point to accept it again because another persons resonance could not get by your tolerance unless your character knew it was coming.

If you say he does not need to spend a point because another person already spent a point then you come to a problem with spells being cast at you by anyone and as long as they spend the resonance then you don't get a say in what spell is cast at you cause your tolerance was appeased by the resonant point.

Tolerance is more your saves. Resonance is your will and ability to manipulate magical energy fields.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

Alchemy should be its own pool separate from Resonance though. Int mod + alchemist class level, with the points ONLY able to be used for making alchemical items. The alchemist shouldn't interact with resonance at all, they shouldn't be able to burn off their resonance to make more stuff in a day. At least not without building for that with feats.

If resonance stays in the final product, I strongly disagree with this sentiment. For one, adding a bunch of special pools of points was supposed to be cut back by spell points and resonance. It hasn't yet succeeded (channel energy anyone?) but still I'd rather we try and move forward on this goal than backward.

Also, the PF1 alchemist interacted with an effect similar to resonance before anyone else. It was how elixirs and mutagens worked. The alchemist combines significant materials and uses the alchemist's own personal magical field to bring out magical properties which triggered upon consumption. The elixir and the alchemist are closely tied, and if the alchemist wants anyone else to use it they have to infuse it with a spark of that magical field, which stays away until the item is used and the magic can return. That was why elixirs only worked for the alchemist unless they used the infusion discovery, and why infusion prevented the alchemist from preparing some elixirs if they weren't used. This was one of my favorite conceptual parts of the alchemist.

I would be rather disappointed if resonance stayed in the game and alchemist didn't interact with it at all, instead getting a pool of "totally not spell points."

Now, if resonance does get dumped (which wouldn't surprise me too much) I'd like alchemist to keep a bit of the flavor of their connection to special alchemical elixirs.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:

You can't use your resonance on a potion you're pouring down someone's throat but you can use a wand to cast the same spell on them?

I can't be the only one that thinks that makes no sense at all.

Probably not, but it makes perfect sense to me. The person using the item spends the Resonance. You can justify that a few different ways, but in almost all of them the Wand/Potion dichotomy works fine.


We could solve the potion problem by saying that an unconscious and incapacitated person is also incapable of rejecting excess magic, even reflexively, so the person whose throat receives the healing potion is healed even if they are at 0 resonance.


graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

I do actually feel like it would make more sense if it uses the person who is drinking the potions resonance and not the person delivering it unless you describe it like hes actually putting his magical energy into the potion before its deliver (which also sounds a little weird if not maybe a little dirty >.>). Of course I also think that potions shouldn't work on resonance and should cost more so since they could (in this scenario i'm concocting) be used without.

OR just have it be the person drinking the potion that has to burn the RES.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)

Resonance as tolerance would have some differences from the current version of resonance. That will be one of them. Being fed a potion would consume the drinker's resonance, not the handler's resonance. The tolerance version would have the advantage that the potion won't have a failure chance; instead, the resonance-less unconscious person would wake up stupefied.

I would prefer that potions be declared to be alchemical items rather than magic items, so that they don't require tolerance. Even potions made by arcane casters and divine casters would be alchemical. Then potions would work as they do in PF1. But that would mean that PF2 alchemists don't need extra resonance, so it conflicts with the alchemist preview.

As I understand it, the alchemist can still make permanent alchemical items by spending money, which theoretically don't cost resonance. What they spend resonance for is to whip up their temporary versions of bombs and elixirs and other alchemical items, the ones that only last 1 day. I would still argue that even the unstable compound held together only by the alchemist's magic should not cost resonance from the end recipient though, especially as resonance has already been paid for it, by the alchemist.

Alchemy should be its own pool separate from Resonance though. Int mod + alchemist class level, with the points ONLY able to be used for making alchemical items. The alchemist shouldn't interact with resonance at all, they shouldn't be able to burn off their resonance to make more stuff in a day. At least not without building for that with feats.

Oh ok that makes more sense. See I really need to see the whole thing. There is just to many blind spots still.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)
Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.
It hasn't been. You can't do that. You can approximate this with Wands, but that's a very different thing thematically.

yeah OK that confused me. People putting out false information is not helpful. What the heck people! Don't make up stuff then complain about it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)
Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.
It hasn't been. You can't do that. You can approximate this with Wands, but that's a very different thing thematically.

I thought that Mark had said that was possible [that someone could use Resonance to give another a potion, like a downed person]. I think it was talking about the person not being able to use the action and/or actively spend the point.

Now I'll say I have NO idea where that was as I think it was in the earlier stuff when we first heard about Resonance. I guess I might be misremembered it but I don't think so.


graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Vidmaster7's idea might fit the setting. Resonance is not a way to power magic items. Resonance is a way to tolerate magic items.
This view doesn't work though: you feed a potion to a party member and you can spend the Resonance to make it work: How does this represent tolerance? IMO it doesn't but it DOES work with it being your own innate magic. ;)
Does feeding a potion to someone else actually use your own resonance? I don't recall that being stated anywhere.
It hasn't been. You can't do that. You can approximate this with Wands, but that's a very different thing thematically.

I thought that Mark had said that was possible [that someone could use Resonance to give another a potion, like a downed person]. I think it was talking about the person not being able to use the action and/or actively spend the point.

Now I'll say I have NO idea where that was as I think it was in the earlier stuff when we first heard about Resonance. I guess I might be misremembered it but I don't think so.

Well If it was a legitimate mistake I'll do the ice princess thing.

This has been kind of my issue so far about arguing to much about the rules before we the full play test comes out it keeps causing confusion.

851 to 900 of 1,064 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Trinkets and Treasures All Messageboards