Potency and Potions

Friday, June 29, 2018

Earlier this week, Logan gave you the skinny on Resonance and how it interacts with some iconic and all-new magic items. If you missed out on Logan's explanation of Resonance, you might want to take a look here before reading on, because we're going to come back to it at the end of the blog. You got how Resonance works? Good. Now forget about it, we're going to talk about weapons instead.

Potency and Properties

Unlike items with the invested trait or ones that you activate, weapons typically require no Resonance to use. You just pick one up and swing (or shoot, or sling, or thrust, or throw), and the magic weapon unleashes its punch, often with potency. Think as a weapon's potency as its "plus" and more. Potency still grants an item bonus to your attack rolls with the weapon, but now it also increases the damage dealt by an additional weapon die for each point of potency bonus. For example, let's say you find a +1 longsword buried in an otyugh's dung heap. Regardless of its current soiling, that weapon grants not only a +1 item bonus to attack rolls, but on a successful hit it deals 2d8 + Strength modifier damage, instead of the standard 1d8 + Strength modifier. A +2 longsword would instead grant a +2 item bonus to attacks and deal 3d8 + Strength modifier damage, and so on.

Of course, potency is only a part of the story. Magic weapons can also have properties. The maximum potency and the number of properties a weapon can have are based on that weapon's quality. Standard weapons can't have potency or properties, while expert-quality weapons can have up to +2 potency and one property. Master-quality weapons can have up to +4 potency and two properties, and legendary weapons can be +5 weapons and have three properties. Sometimes, special materials can affect the number of properties a magic weapon can possess. Since cold iron resists magic, weapons made of cold iron have one fewer property. Conversely, weapons made of highly magical orichalcum can have one additional property, but because the metal is so rare and difficult to work, these weapons must be legendary.

Both potency and property are imbued within a suitable weapon by etching magical runes upon it. Runes can be fairly easily removed or added (assuming the quality of the weapon allows it), and can even be found etched on a runestone, allowing them to be transferred separately from a weapon. Say you just found a handful of weapon property runestones in your adventure. What properties might they be? Well, let's take a look at one of the favorites of good and undead-hating clerics.

Disrupting Rune 5+

Method of Use etched, melee weapon


A disrupting weapon deals extra damage to undead. Undead hit by an attack with a disrupting weapon takes extra positive damage and additional effects on a critical hit.

Type standard; Level 5; Price 150 gp

The weapon deals 1d6 extra positive damage. On a critical hit, the undead is enfeebled 1 until the end of your next turn.

Type greater; Level 15 (Uncommon), Price 6,200 gp

The weapon deals 2d6 extra positive damage. On a critical hit, the undead creature must attempt a DC 32 Fortitude save with the following effects.

Success The target is enfeebled 2 until the end of your next turn.

Critical Success The target is enfeebled 1 until the end of your next turn.

Failure The target is enfeebled 3 until the end of your next turn.

Critical Failure The target is destroyed.

The disrupting property comes in two varieties. The standard disrupting property deals some positive damage and can enfeeble undead. The greater version deals more positive damage, and can force undead to attempt a save—if they critically fail that save, they're destroyed outright!

Of course, other types of properties can do even more incredible things. Sometimes, these properties can require an expenditure of resonance.

Vorpal Rune 17

Evocation, Magical

Price 15,000 gp

Method of Use etched, melee weapon that deals slashing damage

Activation [[R]] Focus Activation; Trigger You roll a natural 20 and critically succeed at a Strike with the weapon targeting a creature with at least one head.


When you activate a vorpal weapon, the triggering creature must succeed at a DC 35 Fortitude save, or it is decapitated. This kills any creature except ones that don't require a head to live (such as constructs, oozes, and some aberrations and undead). For creatures with multiple heads (such as ettins or hydras), this usually kills the creature only if you sever its lasthead.

If, like the vorpal property, a weapon property has an activation, you have to spend Resonance to activate it; however, unlike worn items, you don't have to already be attuned to a weapon to activate it. So roll those 20s and snicker-snack your opponents for as long as you've got the resonance to spare.

Armor Potency and Properties

Magic armor also features potency and may have properties. Like weapons, armor can hold a maximum amount of potency and properties based on its quality and special materials, and you can add, remove, or transfer potency and properties between armor via runes. The maximum potency and number of properties for armor is the same as for weapons, though it's worth noting that rather than granting an additional property, orichalcum armor instead grants a +1 circumstance bonus to initiative rolls and automatically repairs itself over time.

Armor potency grants an item bonus to AC (including Touch Armor Class) and to your saving throws. Magic and high-quality armors are also easier to use. Armors of expert quality have their armor check penalty reduced by one, while master-quality armors have their penalty reduced by two, and legendary armor by three.

Like other worn items, you must invest armor; that is, you have to spend resonance to gain its magical effects. If your armor has an activated property, you must have invested the armor before you can use that ability. Let's look at an example of such a property.

Invisibility Rune 8+

Illusion, Magical

Method of Use etched, light armor

Activation [[A]] Command Activation


Once per day, you can whisper the command word to become invisible for 1 minute, gaining the effects of a 2nd-level invisibilityspell.

Type standard; Level 8; Price 500 gp

Type greater; Level 10; Price 1,000 gp

You can activate the armor up to 3 times per day.

Craft Requirements You must supply a casting of invisibility.

This favored property of many rangers and rogues (and maybe a sneaky alchemist or two) allows the attuned creature to gain the benefit of an invisibility spell at the cost of an action and 1 RP. The greater version enables you to activate the armor three times a day instead of just once.

But not all properties feature activations or require expending Resonance beyond that spent for initial attunement. Here's a classic example of one—fortification.

Fortification Rune 12+

Abjuration, Magical

Method of Use etched, medium or heavy armor


Each time you're hit by a critical hit while wearing fortification armor, attempt a flat check with the listed DC. If you succeed, that critical hit becomes a normal hit. This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1.

Type standard; Level 12; Price 2,000 gp; DC 17

Type greater; Level 18; Price 24,000 gp; DC 14

Granting medium and heavy armor users the possibility to transform a critical hit to a normal hit, fortification provides an excellent constant effect for fighters, paladins, and more martial-focused clerics.

Potions

Now that you know how magic weapons and armor work, let's talk a look at something much less permanent, but often useful in a pinch—potions! While in First Edition, potions were spells of 3rd level or lower in a bottle; we wanted to go a slightly different route this time. Potions not only can have effects that reach into higher levels, but they also don't need to be tied to particular spell effects. All of that said, there are just some potions that are so iconic and necessary, you can't mess with them too much. Who doesn't need a healing potion every now and then?

Healing Potion Item 1+

Consumable, Healing, Magical, Necromancy, Potion

Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L

Activation [[A]] Operate Activation


When you drink a healing potion, you regain the listed number of Hit Points.

Type minor; Level 1; Price 3 gp

The potion restores 1d8 Hit Points.

Type lesser; Level 3; Price 8 gp

The potion restores 2d8+4 Hit Points.

Type moderate; Level 5; Price 20 gp

The potion restores 3d8+8 Hit Points.

Type greater; Level 8; Price 60 gp

The potion restores 5d8+12 Hit Points.

Type major; Level 12; Price 250 gp

The potion restores 7d8+20 Hit Points.

Type true; Level 16; Price 1,200 gp

The potion restores 9d8+30 Hit Points.

The first thing you'll notice is that there are six varieties of this point, ranging from level 1 (restoring 1d8 Hit Points) to level 16 (restoring 9d8+20 Hit Points) You'll also notice that this potion (and all potions) has an activation. Which, you guessed it, means you have to spend Resonance to gain its effect.

Of course, sometimes a healing potion does its best work when you're down for the punch and can't activate it yourself. No worries. The time-honored tradition of pouring a potion down your wounded friend's gullet is still in the game. Your companion spends an Interact basic action to administer the potion to you, but you still need to spend Resonance to gain the potion's effect (thankfully, you don't have to be conscious to do so).

Of course, this new flexibility for potions allows us to keep some items that in First Edition were called elixirs (a term that in the Playtest, we now use for alchemical concoctions). Here's one of my favorites:

Dragon's Breath Potion Item 7+

Consumable, Evocation, Magical, Potion

Method of Use held, 1 hand; Bulk L

Activation [[A]] Operate Activation


This liquid contains blood from a certain breed of dragon. For 1 hour after you imbibe the acrid concoction, you can unleash a breath weapon used by that breed of dragon. The potion's level and Price, as well as the amount of damage and the DC of the saving throw, all depend on the age of the dragon whose blood you used. This item has the trait matching the damage type of the breath weapon.

You can spend another Operate Activation action with no RP cost immediately after drinking the potion to exhale dragon breath. At any point during the potion's duration, you can use the breath weapon by spending 1 RP and 2 Operate Activation actions (one to inhale the necessary air and the other to breathe out). After you use the breath weapon, you can't do so again for 1d4 rounds.

Each creature in the area of the breath weapon attempts a save against your breath weapon.

Success Half damage.

Critical Success No damage.

Failure Full damage.

Critical Failure Double damage.

Type young; Level 7; Price 45 gp; Damage 4d6; DC 21

Type adult; Level 12;

Price 250 gp; Damage 7d6; DC 28

Type wyrm; Level 17; Price 2,000 gp; Damage 10d6; DC 35

Dragon Breath Weapon (Save)

Black or copper 30-foot line of acid (Reflex)
Blue or bronze 30-foot line of electricity (Reflex)
Brass 30-foot line of fire (Reflex)
Green 15-foot cone of poison (Fortitude)
Gold or red 15-foot cone of fire (Reflex)
Silver or white 15-foot cone of cold (Reflex)

This one is interesting because you spend Resonance when you first drink the potion and spew some draconic hate on your foes, and can then continue to do so for an hour after imbibing whenever you spend actions and RP. Pick the right kind of dragon, and you'll be the life of whatever party you join.

Very closely related to potions are oils. Like potions, you activate these consumable items, but you do so by applying the oil to an object or person. While it usually takes one hand to drink or administer a potion, applying oil takes two hands. This particular oil may be of interest to shield users.

Oil of Mending Item 3

Consumable, Magical, Oil, Transmutation

Price 6 gp

Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk L

Activation [[A]] Operate Activation


Applying this oil to an item casts a 2nd-level mending spell that repairs the item. If the item was broken, it is no longer broken. If the item has Dents, it loses those Dents. This restoration doesn't restore lost pieces. For instance, if used on a text with missing pages, it wouldn't recreate the lost pages.

A perfect backup when you fail your Crafting check to Repair an Item, or when you need to repair that dented shield in a hurry, the oil of mending has plenty of other uses.

Well, that's it for this week! Join us next week as we take a little walk in the woods.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Senior Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
551 to 600 of 883 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I was talking about the printing of the Pathfinder 2nd edition core rulebook that they need to do before August 2019.


I feel like even half a year would be plenty of time for feedback.

Dark Archive

Well yeah, it is possible test multiple solutions before deciding on one even with half year printing deadline. At least if its done smart and fast?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, I personally prefer fantasy settings have abstract units of measurement instead of implying people on Golarion know what kilograms are.

I can see that, maybe the antiquated Imperial system might be better, otherwise you have the prospect of Golarians saying things like "I am 1.2 Squares in height, I weigh 21 Bulk, and my homeland is about 37,000 Squares north of here."

Dark Archive

Would you really need to have character state out their height on most situations?

And even i you did, even if game mechanics use abstract terms doesn't mean characters need to. Like, in 1e just because character is 6 tall doesn't make them into large creature. Technically rules don't say they need to squeeze in 5 foot cube shaped hallway, but obviously thats how you would describe the situation when it happens, mechanically it won't have a mechanical effect(since making medium sized creature squeezing just because flavor wise they are that tall is kind of jerk move), but thats flavor of the situation


CorvusMask wrote:
Would you really need to have character state out their height on most situations?

Could come up, and for the DM, describing how tall an NPC, monster or building might be, or how wide a cavern entrance is and want-not. Weights, too (how much does its body weigh, how heavy is this boulder).

Dark Archive

Well yeah, but as in out of game situation havnig it be squares wouldn't be that bad. And like I said, if its immersion breaking, you could still have gm describing how many foots or meters it is.

Like even if game mechanics worked in abstract terms it could still be something like "cube size of one square would be 5 ft/2 meters square".

That said, has anyone else thought about how weird it is that a lot of large sized giants are about 15 meters tall while they take space of 10 feet? Meaning that in 10 feet corridor they aren't squeezing even though they don't actually fit the room without crouching down.

Like, you can short of think creature's reach as their "true" size(like 15 giant who puts his arms up would take about 20 feet maybe) but squeezing rules don't care about reach at all. And that doesn't even take in account massive kaiju creatures which by logic should be too huge on the map but take about 6x6 squares and 30 feet reach.

So yeah, my point was that game mechanics of this game are already abstract and ignore common sense, so having game mechanics only mention abstract units while leaving flavor as completely non mechanical thing that only comes up when GM describes things wouldn't actually change anything.

Ya know, this thing actually bothers me enough that I'm gonna make a thread about it


CorvusMask wrote:
So yeah, my point was that game mechanics of this game are already abstract and ignore common sense, so having game mechanics only mention abstract units while leaving flavor as completely non mechanical thing that only comes up when GM describes things wouldn't actually change anything.

So, it's all cool, as long as no one refers to any form of weights and measures, in character?

Dark Archive

More like, you can be 7 feet tall dude but mechanically you still only take space of 5 feet box. So why should game mechanics refer to feets when flavor of the character doesn't connect with mechanics?

You can always in character refer to your size as 7 feet tall muscle guy, but out of game why should squares be referred as 5 feet tall squares if 7 feet tall medium character doesn't need to squeeze in one square sized box?

Anyway, I made the thread, so you can go to read there whats my pet peeve is xD

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Voss wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Etching a rune is a magical process

>.>

No, it isn't. Etching is a normal thing mundane people actually do with metal and stone work.... unless you want to claim that anyone's great-great grandparent's headstones are magical objects.

This discussion is in the context of creating magic items in the Pathfinder 2 game, not an earthly cemetery. Creating a magical rune of potency or sharpness on a scimitar is a magical process. Removing that rune is a magical process. Transferring that rune to another item would also be a magical process.
True---and none of those magical processes should be referred to as "etching." Just make the method keyword "rune" or "runic" and talk about "applying/removing/transferring" runes.

A alternative can be "inscribe" a rune and "transfer" a rune.

But I think people that care will use their terminology, while those that don't care about roleplaying that aspect of the game will not.

Our languages don't have a term for the magical process so we need to adapt common terms. Almost any term can be argued against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With the amount of people already clamouring to house rule it out before trying it, if Resonance actually has problems I'm sure they'll be found in weeks. We should have plenty of time to test it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
You can always in character refer to your size as 7 feet tall muscle guy, but out of game why should squares be referred as 5 feet tall squares if 7 feet tall medium character doesn't need to squeeze in one square sized box?

Yeah, I'm fine with that, game-speak, a medium creature takes up one 5x5 square, but in game an individual medium creature might be described as "Well over 7-feet tall!"

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
"Diego-Rossi” wrote:

A alternative can be "inscribe" a rune and "transfer" a rune.

But I think people that care will use their terminology, while those that don't care about roleplaying that aspect of the game will not.

Our languages don't have a term for the magical process so we need to adapt common terms. Almost any term can be argued against.

True, yet this is where pf2 is losing me and a few of my friends. I actually like all the concepts revealed, although resonance needs some work since it has a very clunky feel, especially in light of the presence of the uses per day and charges mechanics :(

The terminology being used though seems really clunky and awkward. The repeated use of the word action after every action, the mixture of tenses in the conditions - sick vs sickened for example, while other conditions are past tense - nauseated, paniced, concealed for example.

It might not be much but for some reason it really irks me. Maybe im getting to old.

Also while im thinking about it why do we need the mixed dice types in weapon properties. Why cant the disruption ability just be +1 damage dice rather than a flat d6? To OP or unbalanced? This would let me roll all those d12’s i have, or even all those d10’s


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Actually I was assuming the merchant rents their spaces from the nobleman... owning land was what made you noble in feudal society.
Golarion is really profoundly not feudal if you actually look at the example towns and the like. It's pretty clear in context that most people own their own home and business. Nobles do also serve as landlords to some degree, where they even exist, but not for most people most of the time.

I actually have read up on cannon cities and nations, and I got the opposite impression. Though I'll admit I'm most familiar with Sandpoint, Thornwood, Fort Inevitable, Daggermark and Korvosa from past campaigns I've run or played.

A quick check of ISWG shows that quite a few of the major nations are Monarchies, Dictatorships, or are functionally so. Being a "Noble" in such societies was generally a requirement to own land... otherwise all that land is owned by the monarch. That is a vital part of what allows a monarchy to function.

Also note that "owning" a shop didn't necessarially mean you owned the land it was built on, just that you had the right to use it. If you can't pay your taxes (or piss of the local noble) the government takes back their land.

I think the existance of the printing press, early firearms, and inexplicably high literacy rates are the only elements Golarion shares with out renesaince period. Otherwise the feel is distincly more dark-ages the further you get from Absolom.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cantriped wrote:
If you can't pay your taxes (or piss of the local noble) the government takes back their land.
How is that different from RL?
Cantriped wrote:
I think the existance of the printing press, early firearms, and inexplicably high literacy rates are the only elements Golarion shares with out renesaince period. Otherwise the feel is distincly more dark-ages the further you get from Absolom.

Orrrrrrr the fact that Golarion is a made up fantasy planet set in a fantasy setting means it doesn't map to any period of Earth's history since it isn't Earth?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Anecdotal statements based on every game I've been in, but HP (and the ability to recover it, whether through spells or items) has never been a determiner for when we call an adventure outing early, it has always been when the Spellcasters run low or out of spells, regardless of everyone's HP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Orrrrrrr the fact that Golarion is a made up fantasy planet set in a fantasy setting means it doesn't map to any period of Earth's history since it isn't Earth?

And your point is what exactly?

Of course it doesn't "map out. Nobody here claimed that Golarion was equivalent to 18th century France (or any other real specific place and time)... If it was there wouldn't be Goblins!
Your statement takes the defeatist stance that Golarion cannot be analyzed or compared meaningfully to earth, despite the many obvious similarities.
However Golarion was made up by modern-earth natives (most of which I assume are human)... so it stands to reason they might use Earth's history as a basis for inspiration. Therefore it is aslo reasonable to assume one can draw corolaries between aspects of golarion and earth.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
I actually have read up on cannon cities and nations, and I got the opposite impression. Though I'll admit I'm most familiar with Sandpoint, Thornwood, Fort Inevitable, Daggermark and Korvosa from past campaigns I've run or played.

You might want to re-read Sandpoint then (just for one example). There's a lot of evidence there that nobility, while a prestige title and associated with wealth, confers little actual authority over actual people. Or Korvosa (which has numerous examples of people owning businesses without noble titles). Thornwood and the surroundings I'm less familiar with, but that's also in the River Kingdoms and thus unusual almost by definition.

Additionally, and importantly, nothing is stated anywhere to prevent PCs (or anyone with money) from buying buildings, including those like farms that necessarily include land. Indeed, many things make reference to the downtime rules with the assumption that you can, in fact, do so. Since most PCs are not nobility, this sorta shoots holes all through this theory.

Cantriped wrote:
A quick check of ISWG shows that quite a few of the major nations are Monarchies, Dictatorships, or are functionally so. Being a "Noble" in such societies was generally a requirement to own land... otherwise all that land is owned by the monarch. That is a vital part of what allows a monarchy to function.

No it isn't. It's a vital part of how feudal systems function. Having a king or dictator of some sort and being feudal get equated a lot in media but are almost completely unrelated when examined.

Indeed, actual dictatorships are rarely feudal, since having feudal lords in the classic style concentrates power among the nobles in a way that diminishes the dictator's authority.

A ruler can easily hold power over people without feudalism in a wide variety of ways I can go into, but really, just look at how many farmers are listed as 'tenant farmers' or 'serfs' or even 'peasants'. All are actually quite rare terminologies in Golarion and are so for a reason. A number of monarchies have also existed in the real world without this sort of land ownership restriction.

The number of actual hereditary monarchies among Inner Sea Governments is not high, and of those only Brevoy, Irrisen, and maybe Taldor are especially feudal (well, and a few River Kingdoms, though there are lots of other things going on there, too).

Many others are unpleasant, barbaric, or dictatorial in other ways, but restricting land to nobles is typical only of societies in which a strong, hereditary, noble class is found, and not even in all of those.

Cantriped wrote:
Also note that "owning" a shop didn't necessarially mean you owned the land it was built on, just that you had the right to use it. If you can't pay your taxes (or piss of the local noble) the government takes back their land.

Arguing that a game written by modern authors uses a non-standard definition of ownership when all the actual evidence points the other way is kind of a weak argument.

Cantriped wrote:
I think the existance of the printing press, early firearms, and inexplicably high literacy rates are the only elements Golarion shares with out renesaince period. Otherwise the feel is distincly more dark-ages the further you get from Absolom.

Not really. As mentioned above Brevoy and Irrisen are feudal in the classical sense, and Taldor is pretty close to feudal in many ways, but there are few other truly feudal states with hereditary nobility people care about. I mean, there is also Cheliax, but Cheliax is not feudal per se, and there are several indications you can make it far just by praying to the right God (hint: it's Asmodeus).


Rysky wrote:
Anecdotal statements based on every game I've been in, but HP (and the ability to recover it, whether through spells or items) has never been a determiner for when we call an adventure outing early, it has always been when the Spellcasters run low or out of spells, regardless of everyone's HP.

That is because Spells can equal HP but HP doesn't equal Spells. The party's spell slots (and now RP) are more valuable than the HP becaude they can be converted into HP in addition to any number of other things.

Plus there is the simple fact that HP alone cannot obviate an encounter or advance the plot... but Spells (and their equivalents) can (or they can restore HP). So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP... HP meanwhile can only be lost. It doesn't actually do anything else.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cantriped wrote:
However Golarion was made up by modern-earth

Precisely, or more to the point, it's based on modern people using a combination of history and various other media (namely DnD) to make a fantasy setting, which may draw styles and influences to certain real life areas and eras, but by no means can be mapped to them beyond that. Blanket statements such as "this has a Renaissance/Dark Ages feel" just don't cut it. This is a fantasy setting.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cantriped wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Anecdotal statements based on every game I've been in, but HP (and the ability to recover it, whether through spells or items) has never been a determiner for when we call an adventure outing early, it has always been when the Spellcasters run low or out of spells, regardless of everyone's HP.

That is because Spells can equal HP but HP doesn't equal Spells. The party's spell slots (and now RP) are more valuable than the HP becaude they can be converted into HP in addition to any number of other things.

Plus there is the simple fact that HP alone cannot obviate an encounter or advance the plot... but Spells (and their equivalents) can (or they can restore HP). So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP... HP meanwhile can only be lost. It doesn't actually do anything else.

This doesn't make any sense.

Spells can be converted into HP... if you're playing a Cleric (with the spontaneous CW ability).

"So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP"

... if you have the right casting class and spells...

"HP meanwhile can only be lost."

I honestly can't parse what point you're trying to make with this. If you lose all your HP you go unconscious and possibly die, can't really advancing the story that way.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Additionally, and importantly, nothing is stated anywhere to prevent PCs (or anyone with money) from buying buildings, including those like farms that necessarily include land. Indeed, many things make reference to the downtime rules with the assumption that you can, in fact, do so. Since most PCs are not nobility, this sorta shoots holes all through this theory.

Of course not, the grogards would have rioted. One of the classic "end-game" activities for adventurers was becomming a lord/lady and building your own keep (circa 1st & 2nd edition D&D, when I started playing). This is why the Leadership feat even existed in 3rd+.

Adventurers don't have a mechanically defined social status anymore because that would lock you into using a feudal society. A PC buying land is a campaign issue, not something the ruleset needs to comment on (except for an optional downtime system of course).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
However Golarion was made up by modern-earth
Precisely, or more to the point, it's based on modern people using a combination of history and various other media (namely DnD) to make a fantasy setting, which may draw styles and influences to certain real life areas and eras, but by no means can be mapped to them beyond that. Blanket statements such as "this has a Renaissance/Dark Ages feel" just don't cut it. This is a fantasy setting.

Vague blanket statements such as "this has a Renaissance/Dark Ages feel" are exactly what the authors of D&D/PF have been aiming for for as long as the game has existed.

You know a "feel" isn't the same as "strictly maps to," right? D&D/PF is pseudo-medieval (and always has been). The literature it's based on, namely LotR & other fantasy, is generally pseudo-medieval. Authors (of books or games) don't generally want to define an entire culture of their own detail by elaborate detail.

Now remind me what this issue has to do with magic items and resonance?


Rysky wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Anecdotal statements based on every game I've been in, but HP (and the ability to recover it, whether through spells or items) has never been a determiner for when we call an adventure outing early, it has always been when the Spellcasters run low or out of spells, regardless of everyone's HP.

That is because Spells can equal HP but HP doesn't equal Spells. The party's spell slots (and now RP) are more valuable than the HP becaude they can be converted into HP in addition to any number of other things.

Plus there is the simple fact that HP alone cannot obviate an encounter or advance the plot... but Spells (and their equivalents) can (or they can restore HP). So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP... HP meanwhile can only be lost. It doesn't actually do anything else.

This doesn't make any sense.

Spells can be converted into HP... if you're playing a Cleric (with the spontaneous CW ability).

"So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP"

... if you have the right casting class and spells...

"HP meanwhile can only be lost."

I honestly can't parse what point you're trying to make with this. If you lose all your HP you go unconscious and possibly die, can't really advancing the story that way.

I think what Cantriped is trying to say is that Spellcasting PCs who have only a couple of hp remaining (but still have 90% of their spell slots remaining) are more likely to continue the adventure's plot than a Spellcasting PC at full health (but only 1 spell slot remaining).

HP does nothing by itself to advance the plot. HP does let the party fly across the chasm, HP doesn't identify the mcguffin, HP doesn't grant bonuses to necessary skill checks. HP does nothing. Spells on the other hand can do all this and more. So when HP drops, the party is likely to continue, while if spell slots are low, the party immediately drops to a halt until they are recovered.

EDIT: The reason why Spells can equal HP, but HP cannot equal Spells is because Spell slots can be used to restore HP, but HP cannot be traded for additional spell slots. For this reason, if given the choice between more spell slots and higher hp, most people will choose more spell slots.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
D&D/PF is pseudo-medieval (and always has been).
And what does that even mean? What does it imply? That's what I was getting at. It's too vague to mean anything.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Now remind me what this issue has to do with magic items and resonance?

No idea, I forgot what playtest blog I was on ( I bounce through a lot).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grovestrider wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Anecdotal statements based on every game I've been in, but HP (and the ability to recover it, whether through spells or items) has never been a determiner for when we call an adventure outing early, it has always been when the Spellcasters run low or out of spells, regardless of everyone's HP.

That is because Spells can equal HP but HP doesn't equal Spells. The party's spell slots (and now RP) are more valuable than the HP becaude they can be converted into HP in addition to any number of other things.

Plus there is the simple fact that HP alone cannot obviate an encounter or advance the plot... but Spells (and their equivalents) can (or they can restore HP). So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP... HP meanwhile can only be lost. It doesn't actually do anything else.

This doesn't make any sense.

Spells can be converted into HP... if you're playing a Cleric (with the spontaneous CW ability).

"So as long as you have spells you can advance the plot or replace HP"

... if you have the right casting class and spells...

"HP meanwhile can only be lost."

I honestly can't parse what point you're trying to make with this. If you lose all your HP you go unconscious and possibly die, can't really advancing the story that way.

I think what Cantriped is trying to say is that Spellcasting PCs who have only a couple of hp remaining (but still have 90% of their spell slots remaining) are more likely to continue the adventure's plot than a Spellcasting PC at full health (but only 1 spell slot remaining).

HP does nothing by itself to advance the plot. HP does let the party fly across the chasm, HP doesn't identify the mcguffin, HP doesn't grant bonuses to necessary skill checks. HP does nothing. Spells on the other hand can do all this and more. So when HP drops, the party is likely to continue, while if spell slots are low, the party immediately drops to a halt until they are recovered.

EDIT:...

Ah, okies, thanks for clearing that up. I understand that argument now, I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Something I just realized about why I'm okay with Resonance in certain things not in others, and in others I mostly mean potions, is that Resonance takes the place of UMD.

You needed UMD for wands and scrolls and the like.

You did not UMD for Potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
D&D/PF is pseudo-medieval (and always has been).
And what does that even mean? What does it imply? That's what I was getting at. It's too vague to mean anything.

Are you unfamiliar with the prefix "pseudo-"? It means roughly "kinda but not really" and is a useful part of the English language. Or is it just "pseudo-medieval" that throws you? Let's check a dictionary.

Wiktionary wrote:

Adjective

pseudomedieval (comparative more pseudomedieval, superlative most pseudomedieval)

Seemingly, but not actually, medieval; resembling the Middle Ages, or something from that era.
1969, John D. Bergamini, The Tragic Dynasty: A History of the Romanovs, G. P. Putnam's Sons (1969), page 321:

This pseudomedieval Grand Kremlin Palace may be the most apt symbol of a regime that was trying to go backward all the while it was going forward.

1992, Bruce Sterling, The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier, Bantam Books (1992), →ISBN, page 112:

The fantasy worlds of simulation gaming are commonly pseudomedieval, involving swords and sorcery — spell-casting wizards, knights in armor, unicorns and dragons, demons and goblins.

1996, David H. Richter, The Progress of Romance: Literary Historiography and the Gothic Novel, Ohio State University Press (1996), →ISBN, page 68:

Indeed, the national enthusiasm for matters medieval outran the ability to unearth the genuine article, and as a result manufacturing pseudomedieval texts became a cottage industry of the 1760s.

For more examples of usage of this term, see Citations:pseudomedieval.

So you see, not only does the word convey much meaning to fantasy gamers, it even has meaning in the mainstream. If you still don't get it you can go look at the other citations, I'm not really interested in spending more time defining a term I find fairly obvious.


On the success/failure order, I'm not overly worried, that will quickly bed in. I can see the logic, and a little bedding in for long term ease of use is a trade off I'll happily make.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
D&D/PF is pseudo-medieval (and always has been).
And what does that even mean? What does it imply? That's what I was getting at. It's too vague to mean anything.

Are you unfamiliar with the prefix "pseudo-"? It means roughly "kinda but not really" and is a useful part of the English language. Or is it just "pseudo-medieval" that throws you? Let's check a dictionary.

Wiktionary wrote:

Adjective

pseudomedieval (comparative more pseudomedieval, superlative most pseudomedieval)

Seemingly, but not actually, medieval; resembling the Middle Ages, or something from that era.
1969, John D. Bergamini, The Tragic Dynasty: A History of the Romanovs, G. P. Putnam's Sons (1969), page 321:

This pseudomedieval Grand Kremlin Palace may be the most apt symbol of a regime that was trying to go backward all the while it was going forward.

1992, Bruce Sterling, The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier, Bantam Books (1992), →ISBN, page 112:

The fantasy worlds of simulation gaming are commonly pseudomedieval, involving swords and sorcery — spell-casting wizards, knights in armor, unicorns and dragons, demons and goblins.

1996, David H. Richter, The Progress of Romance: Literary Historiography and the Gothic Novel, Ohio State University Press (1996), →ISBN, page 68:

Indeed, the national enthusiasm for matters medieval outran the ability to unearth the genuine article, and as a result manufacturing pseudomedieval texts became a cottage industry of the 1760s.

For more examples of usage of this term, see Citations:pseudomedieval.

So you see, not only does the word convey much meaning to fantasy gamers, it even has meaning in the mainstream. If you still don't get it you can go look at the other citations, I'm not really interested in spending more time defining a term...

I did not know pseudomedieval was an actual term, that helps. A little.

The Medieval time period lasted for a thousand years, so it kinda covers a lot of stuff. That's why I question the use of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Secane wrote:

Really hope that the designers are taking our words to heart. We are not posting to spite Pathfinder 2.0. A new system is great! Especially after so many years of material build up in PF1.0.

We are posting, cos we really care about Pathfinder and want PF2.0 to be great and fun to play in.
Don't alienate your fans...

I'd say the designers care more about PF2 than ANY fan, after all, their reputation and livelihood depends upon it being fun, and not alienating fans, writ large. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that, in particular.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the things worth noting about Golarion is that it's basically set up so you can tell any kind of story on some corner of it. Whether that's "go beat up Dracula" or "Godzilla is destroying the city" or "Conan fights Robots" or "King Solomon's Mines Redux" or "the French Revolution gone awry" or "the Golden Age of Pirates" or any number of other arch stories we have a corner of Golarion where we can tell that story and have the appropriate feel.

As a result the setting as a hollistic entity is kind of incoherent. But that's okay since games seldom hop all over the map in order to find unrelated themes.


Rysky wrote:
The Medieval time period lasted for a thousand years, so it kinda covers a lot of stuff. That's why I question the use of it.

And yet it was sufficiently of a piece in enough ways for historians who study this kind of thing to give it a name and refer to it as such in college course titles, book titles, and anything else their profession has occasion to name....

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a hyperbolic and baiting post. Please keep in mind that the design team (and many others) from the company actively read the forums. While critique is welcome, insults are not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:

Wasn't the whole point of Resonance to reduce the number of fiddly uses-per-day charges to begin with? Now I need to keep track of not only how many items I'm wearing, how many runes are on my armor/weapon (and what material it is...), how many potions I've drunk, how many times I've used my Invisibility rune, how many charges are left in my staff, and estimate how much I'll need healing for the rest of the day?

...Yeah, no. If we do keep resonance in the final version, it's going to have to bear little to no resemblance to how it is now or I imagine that'll be the first houserule that is in place in more tables than it isn't. All the speculative upsides of Resonance from when it was first brought up are gone if we still need to keep track of uses and slots.

This is kinda what is confusing me as well. I was following their train of thought on resonance and agreeing with it but to put this system in and still have charges AND per day activations seems like it is just an extra layer of record keeping for no real gain or only really edge case scenario gain. The easier solution would simply make more powerful things take more resonance and remove all the charge/per day stuff.

If you make wands invested then they can't be shared around the party so whoever has it would be the one using their resonance to heal a target so if somebody wants to totally tap out their own resonance wanding to heal I am not sure that is a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

The funny thing is, my players in my Runelords game almost never bothered using potions. They did have Heal Wands but mostly they used Channel Positive Energy to do the healing (the Cleric had Selective Channeling to be able to avoid healing the enemy and a Charisma nearly as high as her Wisdom) and the occasional Cure spell. The Cure Wands were used after battle when they'd remember (and sometimes I'd have to remind them though this might be my fault as a GM for not describing their aches and pains and wounds after the fight came to an end).

Requiring Resonance for Potions seems to be Paizo going "okay, potions are going to end up taking the place of Wands unless we limit their uses as well." And unless Potions are a LOT better than they used to be, it's pretty much pointless. People are not likely to buy potions and most potions will languish in someone's character sheet - especially if you have a resource requirement to utilize it.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Voss wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:
Etching a rune is a magical process

>.>

No, it isn't. Etching is a normal thing mundane people actually do with metal and stone work.... unless you want to claim that anyone's great-great grandparent's headstones are magical objects.

This discussion is in the context of creating magic items in the Pathfinder 2 game, not an earthly cemetery. Creating a magical rune of potency or sharpness on a scimitar is a magical process. Removing that rune is a magical process. Transferring that rune to another item would also be a magical process.
True---and none of those magical processes should be referred to as "etching." Just make the method keyword "rune" or "runic" and talk about "applying/removing/transferring" runes.

A alternative can be "inscribe" a rune and "transfer" a rune.

But I think people that care will use their terminology, while those that don't care about roleplaying that aspect of the game will not.

Our languages don't have a term for the magical process so we need to adapt common terms. Almost any term can be argued against.

Or go with their starfinder term fusions. You fuse your runes/magic with a weapon to upgrade/enhance it. They also have fusion seals that you can fasten onto a weapon and then later remove it. Adding fusions can change the whole look of the weapon so winds up being really neat and thematic and has less WTF connotations than etching which implies permanently engraving something onto a weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.


kaid wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.

On the bright side, it has been implied that this is mostly relevant for reactions (e.g. AoO). An operation action is still an action as default so it doesn't add much complexity there. As some people have noted though it could be useful to boil a lot of action types down to verbal, somatic/operational, or mental.


Elleth wrote:
kaid wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.
On the bright side, it has been implied that this is mostly relevant for reactions (e.g. AoO). An operation action is still an action as default so it doesn't add much complexity there. As some people have noted though it could be useful to boil a lot of action types down to verbal, somatic/operational, or mental.

That is my hope right now the range of really verbose action types seems like its going to confuse the hell out of people even when it all boils down to this is an action or this is a reaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaid wrote:
Elleth wrote:
kaid wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

IIRC, the lead editor is cray-cray. All "Activation" actions include that term every time they are used, likewise all "Casting" actions (spell components) include the term Casting... 'for clarity'

So we get s~%! like:
"I perform one Somatic Casting Action to cast [Blank]" and "I perform an Operate Activation action to use my [Blank], which lets met perform a Stride bonus action followed by a Strike bonus action."

I would agree one thing that is really worrying me is the really clunky action terminology. They made a big step forward in saying okay you have three actions every turn to help simplify things. But now it looks like there is a confusing amount of action types with confusing terminology and I am not sure if this starts to negate the benefit they got from simplfying to 3 actions only to turn around and make the action types that complex again.
On the bright side, it has been implied that this is mostly relevant for reactions (e.g. AoO). An operation action is still an action as default so it doesn't add much complexity there. As some people have noted though it could be useful to boil a lot of action types down to verbal, somatic/operational, or mental.
That is my hope right now the range of really verbose action types seems like its going to confuse the hell out of people even when it all boils down to this is an action or this is a reaction.

While we're on the subject, I suspect feat compatibility is a big part of the current system. E.g. imagine the following feat in a very technology heavy campaign:

Speedy hands: Once per turn, you may make two Operate activation actions as a single action


"You gain Haste 1, only to perform Somatic Casting actions."


You also have the luxury of creating spell effects that prevent actions by type rather than concept. You won't need to reference conditions tables if a spell says you can only take focus actions.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While there are a lot of changes I'm liking, I do not understand the point of Resonance anymore.

When the system was initially described, it was sold as: "Hey, players won't have to keep track of item uses her day anymore!" As of this article, though, we discover that not only is the resonance system going to be gumming up the use of armor, weapons, potions, and pretty much anything else you can think to do... it won't do away with item uses per day. Some items will STILL have "x times per day", which means the Resonance system is just another added layer of complication.

Pathfinder is already complicated enough with spells per day, spell books, learned spells, memorized spells, class resources per day, item uses per day, who knows how many kinds of bonuses, and an ever-expanding list of types of actions, skills, and the addition of proficiency to every aspect of the game. Now we're throwing in a universal system that every player has to keep track of just to make his magic hat work?

I'm sure that there are players out there who are not going to care, or even revel in as many layers of complexity as they can find. At my table, though, I promise this would be the first thing that would be house-ruled into a cornfield.

Or am I misunderstanding the system on a fundamental level?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

So resonance addresses a lot of different things from PF1. However, PF1 is so complex that resonance doesn't actually do away with any of them. It just reduces the problems with those things to varying degrees.

Whether it is worth it when all put together we'll have to see.


At this point looks like the main goal of resonance is to limit magic item usage, which I think is going to succeed although I don't like it. Sadly seems the part about replacing uses per day was mostly marketing.


I think there will be a lot less tracking of charges by the end of the playtest. I believe it was Mark Seifter who said they were iffy on things having charges per day greater than 1, besides staffs and wands. Also wands being similar to PF1 wands and just bulk price scrolls seem to be something they are super willing to move away from. Those changes would leave only staves that need to be tracked.

551 to 600 of 883 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Potency and Potions All Messageboards