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
901 to 950 of 1,064 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

Ok, tracked something down from Logan and I was wrong. I couldn't track down the thread I recalled but it didn't seem relevant after finding Logan's post.

Logan Bonner wrote:
For items you drink, the person drinking it has to activate, and there's a special rule for this happening while you're unconscious.


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

Ok, tracked something down from Logan and I was wrong. I couldn't track down the thread I recalled but it didn't seem relevant after finding Logan's post.

Logan Bonner wrote:
For items you drink, the person drinking it has to activate, and there's a special rule for this happening while you're unconscious.

Cool! thanks for finding it!

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

Aside from whatever the 'special rule' is the person using the potion is the one using it to get their friend back up. The person benefiting from the potion is the one healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.
Aside from whatever the 'special rule' is the person using the potion is the one using it to get their friend back up. The person benefiting from the potion is the one healing.

I feel like we don't really know the rules on potions yet. you guys are going on misinformed information.

There is no point to arguing that magic doesn't make sense. It makes sense or doesn't because its magic. It works that way because that is the way the magic works. You can add whatever else you want on the end there but magic by definition doesn't meet normal rules


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
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.
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?

I have no idea what point you were trying to make here which I didn't already refute in my last post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:

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...

Dude. I've been playing Pathfinder for the last ten years and I have been talking all along about THIS system which I'VE BEEN PLAYING. Please don't try to do some tea leaf reading what system "I would probably like" when I am already talking about the EXISTING SYSTEM. I don't give a fig about what kind of system YOU think I would like, because I like the system WE ALREADY HAVE. Which could still use some improvements, but resonance seems to go the exact wrong way.

Do I need to make this even more clear?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even RotRL which is an excellent AP had those moments when you would go door/meaningless encounter, door/meaningless encounter and so on ad nauseam

Just because attrition had to happen in the paradigm of PF1 AP design

I think PF2 would gain much from choosing a different paradigm


It seems to me now that we will be getting Resonance, the only tweak will be where the lines are re: investiture and consumables.

I pretty much skim through the back and forth on consumables/wands/staves/CLW/15 min adventuring day and general ease or profligacy of healing - I'm still just not wanting to have Resonance, period.

@DMW - it's not the in-character investing the bugs me (except that few if any of my characters would be so inclined if given the choice - obviously they would have to if it was story-required) it's the added tracking and deciding and noting etc. Each item would need to be invested, and tracked/written/ticked etc. it may seem a little thing, but with all the tracking going on anyway, a tracking I'm not interested in completing.

I get that Resonance is not likely to run out, so it's not like I need to choose between invested items. Or is it? Why am I required, as a Player to denote which items are invested? Just seems like unnecessary complicatoria to me. Sorry to sound like a broken wheel.

@Everyone - given the number of posts, and their candour, I'm impressed at the level of helpfulness and general lack of snide and snark. Keep on, community.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it that it isn't likely to run out, or their playtest crews so far have been really conservative with resonance out of fear they'll need it later? I've known a lot of people that accumulate but don't use potions for the exact same reason.

On the other hand, I've known others that if they had the cloak of elvenkind, they'd burn through their entire pool screwing around with invisibility trying to steal trivial nicknacks in town.

Of course, the third possibility is playtest groups that don't have that many items (especially not use ones) and literally can't burn through their resonance


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

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...

Dude. I've been playing Pathfinder for the last ten years and I have been talking all along about THIS system which I'VE BEEN PLAYING. Please don't try to do some tea leaf reading what system "I would probably like" when I am already talking about the EXISTING SYSTEM. I don't give a fig about what kind of system YOU think I would like, because I like the system WE ALREADY HAVE. Which could still use some improvements, but resonance seems to go the exact wrong way.

Do I need to make this even more clear?

This comes across as a mixed message, primarily because, if you like the system you already have, then a wholly fundamental change to what you already like doesn't seem like the best way to improve a game that, you said, could simply "use some improvements."

I'm not telling you what to play or anything, I just think the idea that a whole new system to fix the minor tweaks you may want to implement instead is precisely what Paizo is doing with Resonance (which you have expressed distaste for), and is honestly something that you would have expressed distaste for from the beginning due to how much this system fundamentally changes what you already liked into something that you may or may not like. It's just an unnecessary risk when simple tweaking is probably all you need.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

Is it that it isn't likely to run out, or their playtest crews so far have been really conservative with resonance out of fear they'll need it later? I've known a lot of people that accumulate but don't use potions for the exact same reason.

On the other hand, I've known others that if they had the cloak of elvenkind, they'd burn through their entire pool screwing around with invisibility trying to steal trivial nicknacks in town.

Of course, the third possibility is playtest groups that don't have that many items (especially not use ones) and literally can't burn through their resonance

This is a legitimate concern. Sure, the Paizo devs have reported that expending all of your resonance is a rare occurrence, but we don't know if this is because players are conservative with their points (thereby always having some left over), or if the players have been using all they felt like they needed or had to, and just so happened to have points left over, or even that they are physically incapable of burning through all of their resonance due to lack of options that let them go through resonance if they so wish.

The reasons behind why the developers are reporting what they are reporting are much more important than the report itself, simply because it gives more information to what sort of playstyle we can expect to be functional in PF2. Simply saying "Yeah, so-and-so never burned through their resonance" just gives us an answer, it doesn't give us the equation to compute how and why that answer is what it is, which is much more important than simply spouting answers/results.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also: if none of the playtesting groups so far have had to worry about running out of Resonance, how can that possibly support the idea that it "encourages player choices" (or whatever buzz-speak people have been using)?

If it's a resource that you basically aren't going to run out of but nevertheless have to keep track of, then that just strikes me as the worst of all possible options.

On the other hand, if it clearly has little to no in-game effect, then I can house rule its removal without too many difficulties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
If it's a resource that you basically aren't going to run out of but nevertheless have to keep track of, then that just strikes me as the worst of all possible options.

Yeah, it was an odd sort of comment. it's like, hey, there is this new thing to keep track of, but we never really had to...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

I also have to admit I'm curious how firearms are going to be handled in the new Pathfinder. That's another thing that has been kept close to the vest.

If I were to actually suggest one modification, it would be to include a Point Blank Range for crossbows so they act similarly to guns in regards to touch armor class - maybe have heavy crossbows use touch AC for ranges of 30 feet or less, and light crossbows for ranges of 15 feet or less. Given crossbows take time to reload that would allow them to be a one-shot weapon in this regard...

If I remember correctly some devs have stated they actually want to move away from firearms, further away then PF 1e already is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nogoodscallywag wrote:


If I remember correctly some devs have stated they actually want to move away from firearms, further away then PF 1e already is.

That would be a shame. Lots of people like firearms, so it'd be better to handle them properly now before they're forced to kludge something later.


nogoodscallywag wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

I also have to admit I'm curious how firearms are going to be handled in the new Pathfinder. That's another thing that has been kept close to the vest.

If I were to actually suggest one modification, it would be to include a Point Blank Range for crossbows so they act similarly to guns in regards to touch armor class - maybe have heavy crossbows use touch AC for ranges of 30 feet or less, and light crossbows for ranges of 15 feet or less. Given crossbows take time to reload that would allow them to be a one-shot weapon in this regard...

If I remember correctly some devs have stated they actually want to move away from firearms, further away then PF 1e already is.

Interesting, as the Gunslinger is such an iconic PF1 class, nothing like it any other edition/version of D&D. The whole tech thing seems big in Golarian, kind of like Blackmoor, you got Iron Gods and alchemists and firearms. Golarian borders on Science Fantasy for me, which is great, as I am a big fan of Ralph Baksh's Wizards, film.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:


If I remember correctly some devs have stated they actually want to move away from firearms, further away then PF 1e already is.
That would be a shame. Lots of people like firearms, so it'd be better to handle them properly now before they're forced to kludge something later.

I must have not seen those comments. The devs felt that firearms weren’t a good fit for core (lots of GMs feel they don’t fit the flavor, and they’re rare even in Golarian), and also felt that they were something that deserved more dedicated playtesting. I imagine they’re keeping them in mind this time around, though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I got much more "we're gonna give that it's own playtest that's not competing with the system as a whole" than "we're gonna try not to include that at all" vibe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Also: if none of the playtesting groups so far have had to worry about running out of Resonance, how can that possibly support the idea that it "encourages player choices" (or whatever buzz-speak people have been using)?

If it's a resource that you basically aren't going to run out of but nevertheless have to keep track of, then that just strikes me as the worst of all possible options.

On the other hand, if it clearly has little to no in-game effect, then I can house rule its removal without too many difficulties.

[Emphasis mine] Nicely said. I guess this is where I'm getting quite confused. I'll admit that from the get-go I haven't been a fan of the new subsystem.

But to be told that is a major function of interacting with magic items; that you'll rarely run out of but nevertheless need to keep on top of where it is invested and how you use it to make items function; and that if you do happen to run out it becomes a static 50/50 roll to succeed to use basic items seems....not so elegant.

It feels like there are a bunch of perceived problems that were diagnosed, and this was a catch-all system that scattershots solutions - some of which stick, some of which create new problems and some of which don't solve the problems that were diagnosed or hit problems that some folks disagreed existed in the first place.

Other than that it seems interesting. With great potential for design implementation moving forward. I just don't like it.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Yeah, I got much more "we're gonna give that it's own playtest that's not competing with the system as a whole" than "we're gonna try not to include that at all" vibe.

That's cool, but then I don't want the tacked-on vibe.


I think the +3/+5 bonus on the cloak is too low. If I have 11 Dex that just makes me as stealthy as the guy with 16 Dex. I should be WAY more stealthy than that - it's a fricken magic item!!!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Leopard Star wrote:
I think the +3/+5 bonus on the cloak is too low. If I have 11 Dex that just makes me as stealthy as the guy with 16 Dex. I should be WAY more stealthy than that - it's a fricken magic item!!!

One of the stated goals of this edition is to make non-magical options more competitive. I think it's fine that between two stealthy individuals, the one with the cloak has a big advantage.


Leopard Star wrote:
I think the +3/+5 bonus on the cloak is too low. If I have 11 Dex that just makes me as stealthy as the guy with 16 Dex. I should be WAY more stealthy than that - it's a fricken magic item!!!

Just gotta say, dig your handle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leopard Star wrote:
I think the +3/+5 bonus on the cloak is too low. If I have 11 Dex that just makes me as stealthy as the guy with 16 Dex. I should be WAY more stealthy than that - it's a fricken magic item!!!

You are way more stealthy. You can turn invisible.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

People in the playtests have run out of Resonance. When they knew it was the last fight and burned hard, or when they tried to get by only using low level magic items for healing.

They mostly don't because they're reasonable people who can avoid situations where it runs out, not because it's actually impossible. It's apparently decently easy to budget, but that's actually an argument for it not being too hard to track.


Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Also: if none of the playtesting groups so far have had to worry about running out of Resonance, how can that possibly support the idea that it "encourages player choices" (or whatever buzz-speak people have been using)?

If it's a resource that you basically aren't going to run out of but nevertheless have to keep track of, then that just strikes me as the worst of all possible options.

On the other hand, if it clearly has little to no in-game effect, then I can house rule its removal without too many difficulties.

Chest Rockwell wrote:
Yeah, it was an odd sort of comment. it's like, hey, there is this new thing to keep track of, but we never really had to...

Wandering Wastrel means that Paizo designers want us to track resonance yet told us that we will almost never run out of it. If we don't run out of resonance, then the effort of tracking resonance merely proved that we did not run out of resonance. Why do paperwork in every encounter to check for something that would not happen whether we tracked it or not? It is not like hit points were being low on hit points makes PCs more cautious.

Perhaps the Paizo designers found a few rare cases where the party ran out of resonance but those cases were forms of play that they wished to discourage. Spamming wands of Cure Light Wounds is an obvious example. For a clearer example, imagine a spell called Silver Coin that permanently creates a silver piece. 1 sp is not worth a 1st-level spell, but if I had a wand of Silver Coin that cost only resonance, then I would use up all my leftover resonance at the end of the day creating money.

On the other hand, the Staff of Healing takes one resonance to invest and then offers three charges that can be combined with resonace for healing spells. Routine use of the staff would cost 4 resonance per day. The staff would be an appropriate item for a 5th-level character, whose investment would charge it fully each day, but might have only 5, 6, or 7 resonance. Add in magic boots, magic armor, and a magic ring and that character will run out of resonance every day without drinking a single potion.

Or I could be wrong. Logan Bonner's explanation of the staff has already confused me. Emeric Tusan corrected me in comment #568 that using the staff for +1 to healing did not cost one resonance per healing spell, despite its text, "Activation Cast a Spell (1 RP)." Maybe it requires one resonace per day not one resonance per charge used.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
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?
I have no idea what point you were trying to make here which I didn't already refute in my last post.

I wasn't trying to refute it. I was trying to understand your reasoning behind it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

Also: if none of the playtesting groups so far have had to worry about running out of Resonance, how can that possibly support the idea that it "encourages player choices" (or whatever buzz-speak people have been using)?

If it's a resource that you basically aren't going to run out of but nevertheless have to keep track of, then that just strikes me as the worst of all possible options.

On the other hand, if it clearly has little to no in-game effect, then I can house rule its removal without too many difficulties.

Chest Rockwell wrote:
Yeah, it was an odd sort of comment. it's like, hey, there is this new thing to keep track of, but we never really had to...
Wandering Wastrel means that Paizo designers want us to track resonance yet told us that we will almost never run out of it. If we don't run out of resonance, then the effort of tracking resonance merely proved that we did not run out of resonance. Why do paperwork in every encounter to check for something that would not happen whether we tracked it or not? It is not like hit points were being low on hit points makes PCs more cautious.

Playtesters managing just fine without blowing through their magic budget doesn't prove the resource meaningless. Those playtesters made decisions based on how much resonance they had remaining and didn't find the limits overly taxing or detrimental to their success. You don't have to run out of something for it to have an impact on gameplay.

Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.


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

Playtesters managing just fine without blowing through their magic budget doesn't prove the resource meaningless. Those playtesters made decisions based on how much resonance they had remaining and didn't find the limits overly taxing or detrimental to their success. You don't have to run out of something for it to have an impact on gameplay.

Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.

The point, I think, is when asked if Resonance would be restrictive the response was that playtester rarely ran out.

If they rarely ran out because they were restricting themselves, then it's still a restrictive system, right?

If it's restrictive only when players try to do things badwrong, that's one thing. If it's restrictive such that it forces people to carefully choose between various items and resources, that's another.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Playtesters managing just fine without blowing through their magic budget doesn't prove the resource meaningless. Those playtesters made decisions based on how much resonance they had remaining and didn't find the limits overly taxing or detrimental to their success. You don't have to run out of something for it to have an impact on gameplay.

Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.

The point, I think, is when asked if Resonance would be restrictive the response was that playtester rarely ran out.

If they rarely ran out because they were restricting themselves, then it's still a restrictive system, right?

No. If that one extra buff is just overkill, skipping it is not a straitjacket. It would be a restrictive system if players were constantly hitting the limit while using basic or minimum amounts of magic.

Quote:
If it's restrictive only when players try to do things badwrong, that's one thing. If it's restrictive such that it forces people to carefully choose between various items and resources, that's another.

People choosing carefully between items and resources is not a bad thing. As long as there is a choice to be made. It would be a bad thing if there were no choice to make.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The resource has a couple valuable uses even if you don’t run out:
- It discourages behavior that would cause it to run out, or risk it. It’s not something people necessarily like, because folks generally want more stuff for cheaper, but it’s still something that can improve the quality of the game.
- It allows for cheaper magic items. They don’t have to worry about people stocking up on copies of a 3/day item of those uses are instead drawn from the same pool.
- Flexibility. If I want to get a bunch of uses of my tunic of cats, I can do that. If I want a bunch of uses of my gauntlets of percussive maintenance, I can do that instead. I can balance between them how I like, rather than them being limited to three and one uses per day respectively.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:


When you MUST save your spare Resonance for HEALING quickly because if you don't you could DIE then there is something wrong.

I coudn't disagree more, a PC who isn't willing to reserve some of their personal equipment and "potential" for healing themselves should they get hurt (At least in a party without a dedicated Healer) SHOULD be punished.

If a PC can go in loaded to the gills having spent EVERY Copper piece they own on magic equipment to buff themselves, they would be remiss not to reserve some of that potential for healing. This is EXACTLY the kind of character who thrives in a 15 minute Day, they blow all their APL on powerful x/day effects and just wait until they can exploit them again.

I just don't understand why people think magical healing should be cheap, free, or easy.

Because I don't want to go through two rooms of a dungeon and then have to return to town to heal naturally for 4 days.

Because I don't want to be in a situation where one player is expected to be 'the healer' when no-one at the table wants to.

Because you say broken, I say working just fine thank you - as both GM and player.

We could have all PC reset to Full HP once combat is over. That would solve the Healing issue with Resonance, and you can diminish overall gold made by a tiny margin to make up for all those CLW Wands


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
People choosing carefully between items and resources is not a bad thing. As long as there is a choice to be made. It would be a bad thing if there were no choice to make.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I'm saying there's a wide difference between never running out of Resonance because you're swimming in it and never running out because you have to think hard about every choice you make.

Personally, if I'm thinking about Resonance all day I will find it a nuisance. I would prefer to think about all of my items rather than the pool they're all limited by.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
People choosing carefully between items and resources is not a bad thing. As long as there is a choice to be made. It would be a bad thing if there were no choice to make.
I didn't say it was a bad thing. I'm saying there's a wide difference between never running out of Resonance because you're swimming in it and never running out because you have to think hard about every choice you make.

Well, we know that playtesters have run out. It's just been on their terms, by putting all their resources to bear.

Quote:
Personally, if I'm thinking about Resonance all day I will find it a nuisance. I would prefer to think about all of my items rather than the pool they're all limited by.

You might gravitate more toward invested items then.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:

The resource has a couple valuable uses even if you don’t run out:

- It discourages behavior that would cause it to run out, or risk it. It’s not something people necessarily like, because folks generally want more stuff for cheaper, but it’s still something that can improve the quality of the game.
- It allows for cheaper magic items. They don’t have to worry about people stocking up on copies of a 3/day item of those uses are instead drawn from the same pool.
- Flexibility. If I want to get a bunch of uses of my tunic of cats, I can do that. If I want a bunch of uses of my gauntlets of percussive maintenance, I can do that instead. I can balance between them how I like, rather than them being limited to three and one uses per day respectively.

I want to talk about the Flexibility point. I think that's a nice idea, but will likely result in dominance of certain items over others. Say you have two equally leveled items, one that shoots a death ray and one that lets you read people's thoughts.

Combat math means you're more than likely going to be pressured to spend your resonance on the death ray, and by the end of the day you may stop and wonder "Hey, Resonance was cool for dumping my resources into blowing up bad guys, but it kind of turned my magic hat into decoration."

I don't care for that. If I give a player an item, I'd like to proceed under the assumption that they can use it later.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Smart people managing resources intelligently [...]

Well, it's a good thing I'll be involved in play testing in order to explore other approaches to play.

More seriously, as someone who has done a very small amount of game design and play testing, it's useful for play testers to deliberately do weird and out of the box things in order to "stress test" the design.

It's all well and good to learn how rational people will play a game. The real trick is finding out how a design responds when the crazies get hold of it.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

If that is the game you want then the whole game should be balanced around resources that are predominantly per-encounter rather than resources that are predominantly per-day.

It is totally fine for that to be a game, but it is a very different game than I have been playing for years.

No, because you are still limited by spells per day and powers per day and all that good stuff. But healing should not be the deciding factor on that, because of the problem that every new encounter could have that heavy hitting guy who crits you from 100% to 20% of your HP... or from 50% to -30% if you go into it wounded, because reasons, Die Hard is how I want to play, blablabla.

And since I've been playing officals adventure paths for the last ten years, I have to assume that the game you've been playing is very different from the official baseline.

I do not understand how what you are saying is a counter point to my proposition.

If you want every encounter to be potentially deadly and challenging rather than occasionally being a resource puzzle then that game should be designed around short rests and resource management within the encounter (ala the warlock in 5e DnD) to make that happen. Most things should be encounter driven with a small handful of dailies to get you out of trouble when things go pair shaped. If things go pair shaped too many times in one day then it is probs a party wipe.

Also, if you want to look at the sort of games that I am describing then you should listen to the glass cannon podcast playtest. That podcast was almost all low threat encounters that ate through healing and other daily resources and then a high threat encounter at the end.

I am really lucky to get 10 hours a month to play, and I don't get to house rule, please don't build the game around attrition, it eats that little time on uninteresting grind encounters...
I don't think lower...

then we totally and profoundly disagree, they are boring, they are pointless and they are not fun (apart from extremely rarely as a 'time to look like badasses' moment.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.

Depends on if it's a meaningful resource to track.

How many games do you run where rations/water are tracked?

How many games do you run where encumbrance is kept track of down to the smallest degree?

How many games handwave treasure bulk? My guess is quite a few considering the new 'bulk' system is designed to make it easier to track and use.

How many people still cast silence as a standard action (not a full round action)?

Having another tracker doesn't actually make for compelling gameplay - and I'd argue that if it's easy to not run out of the resource - then tracking it is not worth the effort. Every dev comment I've seen has not said 'Oh they managed wise and had to sweat resonance' - they have all said 'we believe people should not run out in regular play' - if this is the case then what's the point - an entire system, all the tracking, all the goofy action types, all the extra words and complications, so that the rules can STOMP on the few players who are abusive to magic items?

If the expectation is that you shouldn't run out during normal play - what isn't being said is what 'normal play' is - I am serious when I say - this seems like alot of work and effort - to enforce a specific type of play.

At the end of the day if they want to punish people for playing wrong wouldn't a rule that stops *just the wrong way to play* be more effective than an entire system that is designed to do the same thing without actually saying what they consider 'wrong'?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
You might gravitate more toward invested items then.

You're right about that, given the system as it's been presented.

Still a bit irksome that my playstyle would go from keeping a handful of emergency tricks up my sleeve and squeezing everything I can out of use/day items in PF1e, to keeping tricks up my sleeve and only using passive items in PF2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

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...

Dude. I've been playing Pathfinder for the last ten years and I have been talking all along about THIS system which I'VE BEEN PLAYING. Please don't try to do some tea leaf reading what system "I would probably like" when I am already talking about the EXISTING SYSTEM. I don't give a fig about what kind of system YOU think I would like, because I like the system WE ALREADY HAVE. Which could still use some improvements, but resonance seems to go the exact wrong way.

Do I need to make this even more clear?

Maybe if it was all yelling.

THAT WASN'T YELLING. THAT WAS JUST EMPHASIS. THIS IS YELLING! CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?


WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

The resource has a couple valuable uses even if you don’t run out:

- It discourages behavior that would cause it to run out, or risk it. It’s not something people necessarily like, because folks generally want more stuff for cheaper, but it’s still something that can improve the quality of the game.
- It allows for cheaper magic items. They don’t have to worry about people stocking up on copies of a 3/day item of those uses are instead drawn from the same pool.
- Flexibility. If I want to get a bunch of uses of my tunic of cats, I can do that. If I want a bunch of uses of my gauntlets of percussive maintenance, I can do that instead. I can balance between them how I like, rather than them being limited to three and one uses per day respectively.

I want to talk about the Flexibility point. I think that's a nice idea, but will likely result in dominance of certain items over others. Say you have two equally leveled items, one that shoots a death ray and one that lets you read people's thoughts.

Combat math means you're more than likely going to be pressured to spend your resonance on the death ray, and by the end of the day you may stop and wonder "Hey, Resonance was cool for dumping my resources into blowing up bad guys, but it kind of turned my magic hat into decoration."

I don't care for that. If I give a player an item, I'd like to proceed under the assumption that they can use it later.

I don’t know about that. I don’t know when I had an activated item that I used every combat. Class features have been better in the general cases, and action economy is at a premium during fights. Now, I’ll grant an exception for buffs and movement stuff, but you can’t spam that- it already lasts for the combat. It’s going through a dungeon or solving a mystery where I usually need to grab one of those items.

Not to say that activated items aren’t useful in combat, I’ve just found them more circumstantial rather than something I’d usually spam. But, the ability to spam that minor fire blast when encountering a swarm? That’d be nice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
QuidEst wrote:


- Flexibility. If I want to get a bunch of uses of my tunic of cats, I can do that. If I want a bunch of uses of my gauntlets of percussive maintenance, I can do that instead. I can balance between them how I like, rather than them being limited to three and one uses per day respectively.

I want to talk about the Flexibility point. I think that's a nice idea, but will likely result in dominance of certain items over others. Say you have two equally leveled items, one that shoots a death ray and one that lets you read people's thoughts.

Combat math means you're more than likely going to be pressured to spend your resonance on the death ray, and by the end of the day you may stop and wonder "Hey, Resonance was cool for dumping my resources into blowing up bad guys, but it kind of turned my magic hat into decoration."

I don't care for that. If I give a player an item, I'd like to proceed under the assumption that they can use it later.

Well, sure, on days your PC is in a dungeon or a wilderness fighting monsters, they're more likely to use the death ray. But on days they're in town attending the queen's court, they're more likely to use the magic hat of thought-reading.

With resonance (theoretically), instead of saying, "I already used my death ray three times today and now I can't blast anyone else until tomorrow," or "I already used my thought-reader on three courtiers and none of them were the spy; too bad I have to wait for tomorrow to try someone else," you could put all your eggs in one basket and keep blasting/reading.


nogoodscallywag wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:

I also have to admit I'm curious how firearms are going to be handled in the new Pathfinder. That's another thing that has been kept close to the vest.

If I were to actually suggest one modification, it would be to include a Point Blank Range for crossbows so they act similarly to guns in regards to touch armor class - maybe have heavy crossbows use touch AC for ranges of 30 feet or less, and light crossbows for ranges of 15 feet or less. Given crossbows take time to reload that would allow them to be a one-shot weapon in this regard...

If I remember correctly some devs have stated they actually want to move away from firearms, further away then PF 1e already is.

In their first podcast about 2e, Erik Mona said that he wanted guns to have a more focused playtest. There was also a matter of how many people hate guns in their fantasy (I'm one of them, I'll freely admit... unless I'm running a pirate campaign), but it was more a question of getting the base system correct before adding more exotic options.

Exotic options included both summoners and kineticists, as I recall.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
You might gravitate more toward invested items then.

You're right about that, given the system as it's been presented.

Still a bit irksome that my playstyle would go from keeping a handful of emergency tricks up my sleeve and squeezing everything I can out of use/day items in PF1e, to keeping tricks up my sleeve and only using passive items in PF2e.

I understand the concern that you'll want to use all your points for combat, rather than utility. But, if you want to leave room for your magic hat, treat your death ray amulet as a 1/day item and make use of your other combat tricks. Your feats get lonely if all you do is magic blast all day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
whew wrote:
THAT WASN'T YELLING. THAT WAS JUST EMPHASIS. THIS IS YELLING! CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

Thank you.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.

Depends on if it's a meaningful resource to track.

That is a logical fallacy called begging the question. You can't assume that resonance is meaningless to prove that it is meaningless.

Quote:
Having another tracker doesn't actually make for compelling gameplay

Right. Meaningful choices make for compelling gameplay.

Quote:
- and I'd argue that if it's easy to not run out of the resource - then tracking it is not worth the effort.

Again, people managing their resources comfortably does not make it worthless. Players made choices with tradeoffs and used strategic thinking.

Quote:

Every dev comment I've seen has not said 'Oh they managed wise and had to sweat resonance' - they have all said 'we believe people should not run out in regular play' - if this is the case then what's the point - an entire system, all the tracking, all the goofy action types, all the extra words and complications, so that the rules can STOMP on the few players who are abusive to magic items?

If the expectation is that you shouldn't run out during normal play - what isn't being said is what 'normal play' is - I am serious when I say - this seems like alot of work and effort - to enforce a specific type of play.

At the end of the day if they want to punish people for playing wrong wouldn't a rule that stops *just the wrong way to play* be more effective than an entire system that is designed to do the same thing without actually saying what they consider 'wrong'?

Curbing low-level magic spam is not the only outcome or objective of the resonance system. Cheaper magic items, greater flexibility between combat and utility items, and a single pool rather than 3-20 sets of X/day are all benefits of the system. Framing the system as merely enforcing a certain style of play does a discredit to the designers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

The resource has a couple valuable uses even if you don’t run out:

- It discourages behavior that would cause it to run out, or risk it. It’s not something people necessarily like, because folks generally want more stuff for cheaper, but it’s still something that can improve the quality of the game.
- It allows for cheaper magic items. They don’t have to worry about people stocking up on copies of a 3/day item of those uses are instead drawn from the same pool.

Have I misread your post? Because it sounds like you're saying 2 mutually contradictory things: (1) Resonance is good because people want cheaper things, which is bad; (2) Resonance is good because it allows for cheaper magic items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
People choosing carefully between items and resources is not a bad thing. As long as there is a choice to be made. It would be a bad thing if there were no choice to make.

But there isn't.

Your choice is "Use the best". The system expects you to use the biggest numbers.

Also;

KingOfAnything wrote:
Smart people managing resources intelligently does not prove the resource meaningless.

So those of us worried are just Dumb now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

The resource has a couple valuable uses even if you don’t run out:

- It discourages behavior that would cause it to run out, or risk it. It’s not something people necessarily like, because folks generally want more stuff for cheaper, but it’s still something that can improve the quality of the game.
- It allows for cheaper magic items. They don’t have to worry about people stocking up on copies of a 3/day item of those uses are instead drawn from the same pool.
Have I misread your post? Because it sounds like you're saying 2 mutually contradictory things: (1) Resonance is good because people want cheaper things, which is bad; (2) Resonance is good because it allows for cheaper magic items.

Ah, I’m sorry! That was terribly unclear of me.

New, shiny things can be cheaper- cooler stuff available earlier without upsetting balance down the road. The low-level stuff is probably cheaper too, but it’s no longer efficient enough to use after a certain point.

I don’t mean to say that more/cheaper stuff is inherently bad; just that it’s inherently desired even if it’s a situation where it’s bad (for some significant subset of gameplay experiences). “Health outside of combat becomes meaningless” is one of those things that people want, but might actually hurt gameplay experience. I don’t know the right balance there, though.

Being able to get shinier new things, though, I’d guess that’s good for gameplay experience. (There’s clearly a point where that stops being true, though.)

1 to 50 of 1,064 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Trinkets and Treasures All Messageboards