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
751 to 800 of 883 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be honest I don't think min/maxing is the reason anyone opposes resonance. I'm an optimiser, I optimise in PF1, I've optimised in Vampire, Traveller, Shadowrun and every other game I have played and I will optimise in PF2.

It's much more about maintaining a playstyle - there aren't many games structured like PF1 , it has a pretty distinctive 'feel' and the way magic items work is a central part of that. I am not aware of another system where I can be tricked out in magic items by level 6-8 and I love that, I don't want that aspect to materially change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Lets be honest I don't think min/maxing is the reason anyone opposes resonance. I'm an optimiser, I optimise in PF1, I've optimised in Vampire, Traveller, Shadowrun and every other game I have played and I will optimise in PF2.

It's much more about maintaining a playstyle - there aren't many games structured like PF1 , it has a pretty distinctive 'feel' and the way magic items work is a central part of that. I am not aware of another system where I can be tricked out in magic items by level 6-8 and I love that, I don't want that aspect to materially change.

You can be tricked out in magical gear all you want. Heck, you can spend all your Resonance on it if you want.

It just cuts into how much you can heal yourself from items and consumables, which means you have less net HP than someone who didn't, which means you're sacrificing effective HP to be tricked out for it.

Isn't this a fun game?


It's been stated that Mage Armor lasts 24 hours, and implied that it ramps up in defense w/ level. (Whether it gives the save bonuses needed to remain competitive w/ magic armor is my biggest question though!)

So one can either dedicate a slot to Mage Armor or 1 Resonance and a negligible amount of silver for a consumable.
I prefer that to increasing the silver cost or limiting access to such consumables.
It's not just CLW that we're dealing with, and a CLW wand's ability to fully handle a necessary party role for cheap even into the highest levels.

Speaking of which, I have GMed a no-healer group at 17th level. Limited Wish & CLW wands covered it all (Infernal Healing being too slow!). I'm not sure this is any better than having Limited Wish and a wand be the "face" of a party, or whatever other roles we might deem important.

ETA: I just realized with Heal, since there's a 1-action version, a person could cure a lot of their own wounds in one round. If prices were comparable to PF1, it'd effectively be cheap Fast Healing.
Weapon in one hand, wand in the other. Heck, if they used a shield as their weapon, they could strike/block/heal every round for 50 rounds, cheap. Seems a bit broken.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Lets be honest I don't think min/maxing is the reason anyone opposes resonance. I'm an optimiser, I optimise in PF1, I've optimised in Vampire, Traveller, Shadowrun and every other game I have played and I will optimise in PF2.

It's much more about maintaining a playstyle - there aren't many games structured like PF1 , it has a pretty distinctive 'feel' and the way magic items work is a central part of that. I am not aware of another system where I can be tricked out in magic items by level 6-8 and I love that, I don't want that aspect to materially change.

Your last 2 posts pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on this. I'll have a concept for my character and I'll optimize for that image I have but that isn't necessarily min/maxed. In fact I often have a dozen minor but interesting magic nicknacks instead of one or two top of the line power items. SO for me, the loss of numbers for enforced powerful items is a loss in enjoyment.

That then adds into the loss of consumable use. Having a stash of scrolls, potions and wands for those niche spells/effects really was fun. Now not only are they limited but pre-reduced by worn/used items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, primarily the reason I'm in favor of resonance limiting the amount of healing is because aesthetically "unlimited healing at negligible cost" is something I don't care for, and I especially don't like shifting the "what limits this resource" question to "money."

So if resonance decreases the number of wands and potions used- good; that's what I want. For my money PF1 was far too consumable focused, as I don't care for consumable items. I don't particularly care to use them, track them, buy them, or flip through books to find them. If I can get from 1-20 without ever drinking a potion and still being able to do everything I want, that's great. If I don't have to figure out what potions NPCs are carrying ever- even better.

But if, in reducing the number of wands and potions used, we make the game far too lethal and punishing then this is bad. I'd prefer to fix this by having mundane and alchemical healing solutions being able to carry most of the load than to remove the governor from the healstick, however. I'd like most potions more if they were "actually a big deal" not "a required part of being an adventurer."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
It's been stated that Mage Armor lasts 24 hours, and implied that it ramps up in defense w/ level. (Whether it gives the save bonuses needed to remain competitive w/ magic armor is my biggest question though!)

They've said it does.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm super okay with certain things being an issue at one level range and then later being a solved problem. I've been used to that paradigm for quite some time now.

At low levels, a big chasm is a significant obstacle. At higher levels you have a bunch of ways to cross it.

At low levels a hot desert could kill you. At higher levels it's trivial to buy a few endure elements scrolls or whatever.

At low levels you have to worry about the cost of healing out of combat. At high levels you spend the cash and get it done.

You still need to buy good wands and potions if you want them to be at all useful in combat, but there are bigger problems to worry about than patching the Fighter up for the thousandth time during his career.

Inter-planar travel. Kingdom/follower management. Surviving on the negative energy plane. Asking favors from the gods.

I *really* don't need out of combat healing to be a significant budget concern at high levels.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I'm super okay with certain things being an issue at one level range and then later being a solved problem. I've been used to that paradigm for quite some time now.

I'm fine with this paradigm as well. I just don't think 'being stabbed repeatedly' should ever be a solved problem, and I find that out of combat healing being free comes far too close to making it so.

And I don't want it to be a serious monetary budget concern. I just want it to not be unlimited per day without serious investment of some sort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, primarily the reason I'm in favor of resonance limiting the amount of healing is because aesthetically "unlimited healing at negligible cost" is something I don't care for, and I especially don't like shifting the "what limits this resource" question to "money."

My sticking point is that what limits healing also limits other consumables AND worn items. I'd hate it much less if it was an item limit OR a consumables limit. Unifying them is quite unpalatable to me.

For me, I think it better for a DM to control the availability of consumables if they are an issue instead of making it a mechanical issue. DM limits doesn't alter their cost and other aspects but removing resonance mucks with that and other factors.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So if resonance decreases the number of wands and potions used- good; that's what I want. For my money PF1 was far too consumable focused, as I don't care for consumable items. I don't particularly care to use them, track them, buy them, or flip through books to find them. If I can get from 1-20 without ever drinking a potion and still being able to do everything I want, that's great. If I don't have to figure out what potions NPCs are carrying ever- even better.

Im unsure why you'd need resonance to do that.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But if, in reducing the number of wands and potions used, we make the game far too lethal and punishing then this is bad. I'd prefer to fix this by having mundane and alchemical healing solutions being able to carry most of the load than to remove the governor from the healstick, however. I'd like most potions more if they were "actually a big deal" not "a required part of being an adventurer."

I'm good with that but I fail to see how this improves "I don't care for consumable items" by adding in different consumables. It seems easier to toss resonance and fix the costs of wands.


2 possible suggestions to test the waters.

I don't want to say anything definite before I can read through the whole playtest booklet but If it turns out resoance is to limiting at lower levels how about resonance be 3 +1 per level + charisma?

Also I suggested something that got ignored or noone was interested in it but how about if potions worked on a cooldown like in Diablo 3 instead of on resonance?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The more that I think about it, the more I like the idea of splitting resonance into two pools.

Pool 1 is resonance your innate magic and determines what magic items you can bond with and power their abilities.

Pool 2 is tolerance or your bodies natural rejection of too much foreign magic in you (thus would be similar to the system suggested up thread to replace resonance) and determines your ability to use consumables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

2 possible suggestions to test the waters.

I don't want to say anything definite before I can read through the whole playtest booklet but If it turns out resoance is to limiting at lower levels how about resonance be 3 +1 per level + charisma?

Also I suggested something that got ignored or noone was interested in it but how about if potions worked on a cooldown like in Diablo 3 instead of on resonance?

I think the CRB should have sidebars suggesting various tweaks that can change the tone of the game, and make clear that using those tweaks is still RAW (as some people get hung up on that.) In the same way Shadowrun (3rd edition?) have a couple of options for how Edge worked.

E.G: Resonance as written is designed to give players ample resources over the course of a typical adventure. They may occassionally run out but it should not be an oppressive mechanic. If you would prefer a game more liberal with magic items increase each players Resonance by 5. If you would prefer a game in which resources must be utilized more carefully, halve the Resonance bonus from level.

This can be done for many things. Like if you want a game where lower level threats maintain relevance for longer, you can halve the level bonus to proficiency etc.

Although I've suggested this several times and it hasn't been picked up on, so maybe it isn't as good a compromise as I think it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

It's been stated that Mage Armor lasts 24 hours, and implied that it ramps up in defense w/ level. (Whether it gives the save bonuses needed to remain competitive w/ magic armor is my biggest question though!)

So one can either dedicate a slot to Mage Armor or 1 Resonance and a negligible amount of silver for a consumable.
I prefer that to increasing the silver cost or limiting access to such consumables.
It's not just CLW that we're dealing with, and a CLW wand's ability to fully handle a necessary party role for cheap even into the highest levels.

Speaking of which, I have GMed a no-healer group at 17th level. Limited Wish & CLW wands covered it all (Infernal Healing being too slow!). I'm not sure this is any better than having Limited Wish and a wand be the "face" of a party, or whatever other roles we might deem important.

ETA: I just realized with Heal, since there's a 1-action version, a person could cure a lot of their own wounds in one round. If prices were comparable to PF1, it'd effectively be cheap Fast Healing.
Weapon in one hand, wand in the other. Heck, if they used a shield as their weapon, they could strike/block/heal every round for 50 rounds, cheap. Seems a bit broken.

So what you're saying is that I need to make a resonance vampire with a flock of thralls, in possession of a wand of Harm?


I kinda like the idea of resonance for powering permanent magic items and their powers, but not for consumables.

I've been kicking around an optional idea since out of combat healing is the root concern.

Heal vs rest only Hitpoints option:

Take the Hitpoint pool and split it into two. One pool can be healed by magic, the other pool can only be healed by rest.

Normal damage is applied to the healable HP pool first.

Critical damage is applied to the Non-healable HP pool first.

Any overflow is then applied to the other HP pool and only when both pools are at zero is when the character takes on the dying condition.

Consumable items scrolls, potions, and spell charges on wands and staffs no longer require resonance.

Resonance for other items and powers works as planned.

The reasoning behind this idea is that it gives away for earlier encounters to wear down the adventures before reaching the boss. Depending on how the combats go, a character could be reduced to half hitpoints by the end of the day. Remember that Hitpoints are an abstraction of wounds, stamina, luck, and will force not all of which should be healable via magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Hmmm... 1st level [+1 resonance] + dwarf starting Cha of -2 [-1] means a dwarf that doesn't increase cha had 1 resonance at 2nd. So seems like it's something that can come up. How often? How often does it have to to find it annoying? IMO once.

It took me a while to figure out why this bothered me, but if someone played an elf with 8 constitution and complained that they don't have enough hp, we wouldn't find that a valid argument, and if someone played a halfling of gnome with 8 strength and complained they weren't doing enough damage in melee, that wouldn't be acceptable, so why should we accept this?

The problem is that Charisma has always been a dump stat, well now it's not. You don't have to maximise it, but neither should you tank it. If you choose to tank it, you choose the consequences.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how the idea that we should actually, you know, WAIT and TEST the system is somehow so abhorrent to some of you guys you'll take it as me saying you're having "badwrongfun."

Would a compromise along the lines of "Consumables with instantaneous effects do not require RP investment" work for you guys?

For example, a potion of Heal, instantaneous, anyone can benefit, however a potion of Mage Armor, Energy Resistance, True Strike etc requires you to spend 1 RP


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
The problem is that Charisma has always been a dump stat, well now it's not. You don't have to maximise it, but neither should you tank it. If you choose to tank it, you choose the consequences.

There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

Themetricsystem wrote:
I love how the idea that we should actually, you know, WAIT and TEST the system is somehow so abhorrent to some of you guys you'll take it as me saying you're having "badwrongfun."

It might have something to do with the tone of your posts and how you word them. it didn't come of as a helpful hint to me but a condescending statement. Secondly, if they didn't want debate and discussion of these thing they wouldn't have a section of the boards dedicated to just that.

Themetricsystem wrote:
Would a compromise along the lines of "Consumables with instantaneous effects do not require RP investment" work for you guys?

Anything that separates Consumables from other items is a huge step in the right direction for me.

Themetricsystem wrote:
For example, a potion of Heal, instantaneous, anyone can benefit, however a potion of Mage Armor, Energy Resistance, True Strike etc requires you to spend 1 RP

For me, I wouldn't like this as you are still using the same pool between your every work/used items and your expendables. I don't find it 'fun' to potentially have to debate if putting on a new item is worth maybe not being able to use a potion of water breathing the quest giver gave us so we can finish the adventure.

If consumables NEED to use a pool of points to use [I'm, not convinced they do], I'd much prefer there was a pool JUST for them. If you also need a pool for real magic items to replace slots [again, not convinced] make that a different pool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first playtest character is going to be a Dwarf Monk with starting array Str 12/Dex 16/Wis 16/Con 16/Int 10/Cha 8.

I will be sure to keep people posted on how it goes. I'm honestly more concerned about "dealing appropriate damage" as a dex monk than I am with resonance. My first stat up will go to Dex/Wis/Con and either Str or Cha for the 4th one depending on how the first few levels go. I feel like "Dwarf monk largely eschews magic in favor of self-perfection" is at least a consistent characterization.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I love how the idea that we should actually, you know, WAIT and TEST the system is somehow so abhorrent to some of you guys you'll take it as me saying you're having "badwrongfun."

Would a compromise along the lines of "Consumables with instantaneous effects do not require RP investment" work for you guys?

For example, a potion of Heal, instantaneous, anyone can benefit, however a potion of Mage Armor, Energy Resistance, True Strike etc requires you to spend 1 RP

Two things need highlighting here.

A) Until I playtest it I don't know whether a compromise is even needed. It is still possible for resonance to blow me away when I actually use it. I don't think most of the people against the concept of resonance have said they won't be testing it - I certainly haven't.

B) I'm not looking for an answer or compromise to resonance. Resonance at it's heart is designed to answer a problem I don't have. It is unnecessary, and adding further complications at this stage just makes it more unwieldy and ugly looking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat? Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

"graystone" wrote:

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable? Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha. You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat? Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

"graystone" wrote:

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable? Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha. You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.

I wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength, but I would make a full caster with 8 strength, in PF1 the only stat you really shouldn't uh...'fail to invest in' is con really. One absolutely necessary stat. PF2 either makes that 2 or makes con less necessary and it's still 1 - I'm not sure that's a good thing.

And generally if you required a high ability score for your class you rarely get much of an incidental peripheral boost (wizards and skill points being an arguable exception - and the reason behind that con casting archetype was errata'd away maybe). Making such a potentially potent mechanic be an incidental benefit for charisma based characters is another worrying aspect to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat? Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

"graystone" wrote:

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable? Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha. You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.

All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into. It's actually one of the reasons why I don't play races (read: ancestries) that have a Constitution penalty, because having such an important attribute be forcibly dumped for you is just plain bad for your character's survivability, and there are no comparable upsides for it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think you are required. If you are we should give that feedback. But a dwarf that invests nothing into Resonance will be one behind a Human who does the same, which I hope is the baseline for balance. But as you get a Resonance per level that -1 quickly becomes an ever smaller amount of your expected Resonance. If you compare it to a -Str based race, they are always going to have to worry about how much they carry as that (presumably, could be wrong!) doesn't have a level based portion.

Now I think it should hurt a little, but not a lot. I think the same should be said for all stats. Intelligence funnily enough seems to be the least beneficial stat so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:


... generally if you required a high ability score for your class you rarely get much of an incidental peripheral boost (wizards and skill points being an arguable exception - and the reason behind that con casting archetype was errata'd away maybe). Making such a potentially potent mechanic be an incidental benefit for charisma based characters is another worrying aspect to me.

and clerics/Druids getting a bonus to their will save, and anyone investing in Con getting bonus hp and fort, and anyone investing in Dex getting bonus AC and Reflexes and anyone investing in Str getting bonus to hit and damage

In fact, whereas before cha was the only "dump" stat (and str if you were an arcane), now there is no natural "dump" stat (except perhaps Int if you aren't bothered about skills and don't need it for spells).

And high Cha doesn't give you a huge bonus. +4Resonance sounds good, but how many times are you actually going to need it? At first level, you would be lucky to find 1 scroll/potion, let alone actually use it. Most of that Resonance will be wasted. I should imagine other levels will be the same. The only character who would need/use a large pool of Resonance is the designated healer if they are using a wand. Other than that, most characters would probably get by with 10-12 cha and their level bonus. Compare that with bonus hp from con (always useful), bonus dmg/to hit from str (useful every time you melee), bonus ac/ref from dex (always useful), bonus will from wis (always useful), even bonus int is always useful! Cha is not a dump stat, but neither is it useful to have high (except where it empowers class features)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into.

I dunno, if Dwarves (with ancestry feats) can get some sort of "inherent resistance to magic" like they did in PF1, then "you have less resonance" is very much an appropriate counterbalance for that.

Like there are a lot of fantasy settings in which Dwarves just can't use magic at all, but the tradeoff is "magic isn't as effective on them." Like "Dwarves can be Wizards now" was somewhat controversial when 3.0 hit.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into.

I dunno, if Dwarves (with ancestry feats) can get some sort of "inherent resistance to magic" like they did in PF1, then "you have less resonance" is very much an appropriate counterbalance for that.

How so? If they do have access to any sort of magic resistance, they already have to spend a feat for it (races start with none of their racial abilities). Other races can just not play classes that they're designed to be bad at. This is just a global adventuring penalty specific (so far) to dwarves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat?

Yes I WOULD argue that. Dumping is a specific thing in pathfinder: lowering your stat from baseline in order to gain extra points for other stats. In NO was is someone that lets their stats stay at base "dumping".

Gavmania wrote:
Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

No, no it isn't. Dumping is actively making a stat worst while 'not investing' is keeping the status quo. Those are two entirely different concepts.

"graystone" wrote:
The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable?

I'm arguing it's not equivalent. A low hp guy that gets knocked out easier doesn't have to worry about items used to bring him back failing. Low con affects the PERSON with it while Resonance affects an unrelated object causing it to fail. A low strength doesn't make your crossbow have a change to snap a string.

"graystone" wrote:
Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha.

Easier solution: don't use resonance!

"graystone" wrote:
You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.

This again is a false equivalent. Take str: you're taking the main stat and saying you don't want it low: resonance/Cha is something everyone needs to function. As to 8 con, I've seen it. There are several ways to get bonus hp and fort saves and far from a lethal situation AND not something that makes equipment fail.


Voss wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into.

I dunno, if Dwarves (with ancestry feats) can get some sort of "inherent resistance to magic" like they did in PF1, then "you have less resonance" is very much an appropriate counterbalance for that.

How so? If they do have access to any sort of magic resistance, they already have to spend a feat for it (races start with none of their racial abilities). Other races can just not play classes that they're designed to be bad at. This is just a global adventuring penalty specific (so far) to dwarves.

LOL I must make sense to some that being unlikable extends to magic items. For me, "inherent resistance to magic" doesn't necessitate a reduction in diplomacy/bluff/ect skill checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this demonstrates is that Dwarves are unviable characters because they forcibly dump a stat that the game requires you to have some sort of investment into.

I dunno, if Dwarves (with ancestry feats) can get some sort of "inherent resistance to magic" like they did in PF1, then "you have less resonance" is very much an appropriate counterbalance for that.

Like there are a lot of fantasy settings in which Dwarves just can't use magic at all, but the tradeoff is "magic isn't as effective on them." Like "Dwarves can be Wizards now" was somewhat controversial when 3.0 hit.

This makes no sense. Why should I be forced into investing in anti-magic feats just because I'm a character who does not have as much resonance as someone else due to my ancestry choice? It's just asinine and further reinforces the point that Dwarves, like Elves in 3.X/PF1, are unplayable due to their inherent weaknesses not balancing out their strengths.

And the dumb thing is? You think it's okay, just because there are options to "help" with the weakness, but they don't become "options" when they're the only thing I have to balance out my weakness, they just become "the one thing everyone always takes with this ancestry," which means de facto-ness is brought back into the spotlight, something that PF2 is supposed to be eliminating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
LOL I must make sense to some that being unlikable extends to magic items. For me, "inherent resistance to magic" doesn't necessitate a reduction in diplomacy/bluff/ect skill checks.

I mean, there can be multiple dimensions to a species that make a stat penalty/bonus more acceptable.

Like traditionally in a wide range of media, Dwarves are often portrayed as both:
- Inherently resistant or incapable of using magic.
- Gruff, Direct, Quick-Tempered, Inflexible, Dogmatic, and prone to surprising cruelty when they believe they are in the right.

So either of those things separately suggest a CHA penalty is reasonable, but both of them together absolutely require it. So what if your level 1 character can't drink a potion? Healing is a Wis-based skill, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
LOL I must make sense to some that being unlikable extends to magic items. For me, "inherent resistance to magic" doesn't necessitate a reduction in diplomacy/bluff/ect skill checks.

I mean, there can be multiple dimensions to a species that make a stat penalty/bonus more acceptable.

Like traditionally in a wide range of media, Dwarves are often portrayed as both:
- Inherently resistant or incapable of using magic.
- Gruff, Direct, Quick-Tempered, Inflexible, Dogmatic, and prone to surprising cruelty when they believe they are in the right.

So either of those things separately suggest a CHA penalty is reasonable, but both of them together absolutely require it. So what if your level 1 character can't drink a potion? Healing is a Wis-based skill, after all.

The problem is that at this point, you're a half step away from 2nd edition AD&D where dwarves can't be Wizards and can only advance to like level 8 as a Cleric.

The more of that type of stuff that's been written out as editions progressed, the better off the game has been overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just don't see how "Dwarves have a penalty to Charisma, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Charisma is useful to everybody" is a problem when "Elves have a penalty to Constitution, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Constitution is useful to everybody" is a thing we've had a handle on for some time.

Like the only thing that's changed is that Charisma used to not be useful to everybody and now it is. It is possible to survive with a low score in a useful stat, and we're talking about 8s here and not like all the characters with multiple 7s in PF1.

I mean, if nothing else Dwarves now make excellent Alchemists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat?

Yes I WOULD argue that. Dumping is a specific thing in pathfinder: lowering your stat from baseline in order to gain extra points for other stats. In NO was is someone that lets their stats stay at base "dumping".

Gavmania wrote:
Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.
No, no it isn't. Dumping is actively making a stat worst while 'not investing' is keeping the status quo. Those are two entirely different concepts.

It doesn't matter whether its from dumping, failing to invest or some other name: the result is the same. You have 8 Cha. Hence semantics.

"graystone" wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable?
I'm arguing it's not equivalent. A low hp guy that gets knocked out easier doesn't have to worry about items used to bring him back failing. Low con affects the PERSON with it while Resonance affects an unrelated object causing it to fail. A low strength doesn't make your crossbow have a change to snap a string.

Again, semantics. Whichever one you choose, you have a nearly unplayable character. Your argument that one is somehow more unplayable than another I find spurious.

"graystone" wrote:
Gavmania wrote:


Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha.

Easier solution: don't use resonance!

I always find it grating when someones kneejerk reaction to a new idea is "don't use it!" "It will ruin things!" I have heard spurious argument after spurious argument that it will be bad, but have seen no evidence; nor have the playtesters who have tried it. That's not to say that it won't need tweaking if (after a full playtest) some problems are discovered, but to demand it be scrapped before it is widely tested? that just reactionary. I suspect that it will be nowhere as bad as the naysayers claim.

Quote:
"graystone" wrote:
You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.
This again is a false equivalent. Take str: you're taking the main stat and saying you don't want it low: resonance/Cha is something everyone needs to function. As to 8 con, I've seen it. There are several ways to get bonus hp and fort saves and far from a lethal situation AND not something that makes equipment fail.

and there will be no way to get round low resonance in standard pf2? you don't know that. I don't know that. Until we see the final document we can't know that at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the record, people dumping charisma was also not a problem in my games. Yet another point for the existence of resonance that falls flat for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I keep seeing people using, "We don't know everything that's in the playtest; until we see everything we can't know" to mean "the playtest is perfect and criticizing any part of it is tantamount to treason and you should be excommunicated from Pathfinderdom" and it's gotten very tiresome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
For the record, people dumping charisma was also not a problem in my games. Yet another point for the existence of resonance that falls flat for me.

Problem was less "too many people were dumping Charisma" and more "there simply weren't enough reasons to not dump Charisma" since people could often get by without rolling for any Charisma based skills.

Like I would put reasonably high numbers in Charisma because it fit the character I wanted to play and get almost nothing out of it. Like my 14 Cha fighter, who was a friendly, amiable, and well-liked sort still would get upstaged by the Oracle or the Sorcerer or the Bard or someone with a good incentive to get an 18 when it came time for diplomacy. At least now I'd be getting pretty good resonance out of it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait... so now people are worried that because Resonance is a thing that Dwarves will be unplayable because they get 1 less RP than others?

Talk about making a mountain out a molehill.

I still don't see how dumping Resonance is easier or better for your game than making players have to manage what gear they want to use. I'm really not trying to fan the flames here but the melodrama over this is really getting to be over the top.

I admit, Resonance has some weirdness to it, and it's not perfect, but it certainly beats the pants off of dealing with even 1 Batman Wizard at the table.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:


I admit, Resonance has some weirdness to it, and it's not perfect, but it certainly beats the pants off of dealing with even 1 Batman Wizard at the table.

For you...that's the important bit you keep forgetting in your own little melodramatic outburst right there.

I don't have a problem with batman wizards, or wands of CLW - and while this blog is about potions the reality is it cuts down hard on all consumable use - it will dramatically restrict the style of game I enjoy - call that melodramatic if you wish, but it is an indisputable fact - I will not be able to play the same style of game I do now with resonance in effect. whether the rest of the rules make up for that lack remains to be seen.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do have noticed that people have tendency to assume "We don't know for sure" means "Its perfect!" ._.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I do have noticed that people have tendency to assume "We don't know for sure" means "Its perfect!" ._.

If that were true, we'd have no need to playtest it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, there can be multiple dimensions to a species that make a stat penalty/bonus more acceptable.

I'm fine with that: I just disagree that if I want to play a gruff person that SHOULDN'T be charismatic, I'm forced to invest in resonance if I want to use items and consumables.

Gavmania wrote:
It doesn't matter whether its from dumping, failing to invest or some other name: the result is the same. You have 8 Cha. Hence semantics.

No, I disagree. There are 3 things you can do with a stat in pathfinder: dump it for extra points in other stats, not touch it or invest in it. Those are 3 individual activities. SO it's completely NOT semantics. In financial terms, spending your cash on snacks ISN'T the same thing as keeping your cash in your pocket or investing it. 3 different actions.

Gavmania wrote:
Again, semantics. Whichever one you choose, you have a nearly unplayable character. Your argument that one is somehow more unplayable than another I find spurious.

I wasn't debating that with you though. I was pointing out that you where using the term wrong. Dumping = lowering your stat.

Gavmania wrote:
I always find it grating when someones kneejerk reaction to a new idea is "don't use it!" "It will ruin things!" I have heard spurious argument after spurious argument that it will be bad, but have seen no evidence; nor have the playtesters who have tried it. That's not to say that it won't need tweaking if (after a full playtest) some problems are discovered, but to demand it be scrapped before it is widely tested? that just reactionary. I suspect that it will be nowhere as bad as the naysayers claim.

I find it grating when people assume my reaction was "kneejerk". I can see, without playtesting it, that it was made to make my playstyle harder or impossible. We've been TOLD it was made to do so. How is that any of the above?

Gavmania wrote:
and there will be no way to get round low resonance in standard pf2? you don't know that. I don't know that. Until we see the final document we can't know that at all.

How does any of that change what I said? How does 'if you spend enough resources at it, it might sucks less..." Gee, that sounds awesome... :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I do have noticed that people have tendency to assume "We don't know for sure" means "Its perfect!" ._.
If that were true, we'd have no need to playtest it.

It about people saying 'don't debate anything!!! Assume it's awesome/cool until the playtest because...' It's about those people going out of their way to complain about others complaining but not those that speculate on positive opinions. It's a clear bias from them to cut off only one type of debate.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I just don't see how "Dwarves have a penalty to Charisma, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Charisma is useful to everybody" is a problem when "Elves have a penalty to Constitution, which is consistent with their characterization, even though Constitution is useful to everybody" is a thing we've had a handle on for some time.

Like the only thing that's changed is that Charisma used to not be useful to everybody and now it is. It is possible to survive with a low score in a useful stat, and we're talking about 8s here and not like all the characters with multiple 7s in PF1.

I mean, if nothing else Dwarves now make excellent Alchemists.

Not really.

I never played Elves or any other race that had a Constitution penalty for exactly the same reason you stated: because a penalty to Constitution is a problem. The only difference between the two is that now that Charisma is such a required attribute (because Resonance is the difference between character life and death), more races are affected by this similar problem.

On top of that, with the new ABC attribute allocation system, one does not really have the ability to account or trade for their penalties appropriately, simply because there is no such thing as dumping something you don't need to improve something that you do; every sacrifice is now meaningful. Which is by design, I understand, but it also means penalties are more meaningful too, because you can't just powergame out of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Wait... so now people are worried that because Resonance is a thing that Dwarves will be unplayable because they get 1 less RP than others?

Talk about making a mountain out a molehill.

I still don't see how dumping Resonance is easier or better for your game than making players have to manage what gear they want to use. I'm really not trying to fan the flames here but the melodrama over this is really getting to be over the top.

I admit, Resonance has some weirdness to it, and it's not perfect, but it certainly beats the pants off of dealing with even 1 Batman Wizard at the table.

One Resonance Point is the difference between character life and death due to consumables (and by relation, your effective HP total for the adventuring day) now being reliant on Resonance. You can't realistically expect Medicine or other skills to cover your health issues, especially since the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.

Not only is the skill more complicated and less likely to work, it's also handled poorly, and we have zero information outside of a Dev saying "it works in this instance by this character build," with no other information besides that to go off of. As much as I want to trust a developer's word, the idea that one playtest group is a good enough measure to determine if XYZ is an acceptable solution is like saying "Give everyone milk because so-and-so isn't lactose intolerant." In short, it's a laughable and half-assed assumption that shouldn't be treated as a blanket statement for everyone and everything.

Maybe if they had, say, over a hundred groups that did something similar, it'd be believable. But one group with one estranged build (which appears to shoehorn them into the "healer" role regardless) does not make a proper survey. Heck, it doesn't even make a proper answer simply because we don't even know what that answer is.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

One Resonance Point is the difference between character life and death due to consumables (and by relation, your effective HP total for the adventuring day) now being reliant on Resonance. You can't realistically expect Medicine or other skills to cover your health issues, especially since the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.

Not only is the skill more complicated and less likely to work, it's also handled poorly, and we have zero information outside of a Dev saying "it works in this instance by this character build," with no other information besides that to go off of. As much as I want to trust a developer's word, the idea that one playtest group is a good enough measure to determine if XYZ is an acceptable solution is like saying "Give everyone milk because so-and-so isn't lactose intolerant." In short, it's a laughable and half-assed assumption that shouldn't be treated as a blanket statement for everyone and everything.

Maybe if they had, say, over a hundred groups that did something similar, it'd be believable. But one group with one estranged build (which appears to shoehorn them into the "healer" role regardless) does not make a proper survey. Heck, it doesn't even make a proper answer...

“Moving forward with the example of the Medicine skill, as long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can take the Battle Medic skill feat. This feat allows you to apply straight-up healing to an ally through nonmagical means, which is nice when your cleric is knocked to the ground or has run out of uses of channel energy.”

-Learning Takes a Lifetime Blog


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

One Resonance Point is the difference between character life and death due to consumables (and by relation, your effective HP total for the adventuring day) now being reliant on Resonance. You can't realistically expect Medicine or other skills to cover your health issues, especially since the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.

Not only is the skill more complicated and less likely to work, it's also handled poorly, and we have zero information outside of a Dev saying "it works in this instance by this character build," with no other information besides that to go off of. As much as I want to trust a developer's word, the idea that one playtest group is a good enough measure to determine if XYZ is an acceptable solution is like saying "Give everyone milk because so-and-so isn't lactose intolerant." In short, it's a laughable and half-assed assumption that shouldn't be treated as a blanket statement for everyone and everything.

Maybe if they had, say, over a hundred groups that did something similar, it'd be believable. But one group with one estranged build (which appears to shoehorn them into the "healer" role regardless) does not make a proper survey. Heck, it doesn't even make a proper answer...

“Moving forward with the example of the Medicine skill, as long as you are at least trained in Medicine, you can take the Battle Medic skill feat. This feat allows you to apply straight-up healing to an ally through nonmagical means, which is nice when your cleric is knocked to the ground or has run out of uses of channel energy.”

-Learning Takes a Lifetime Blog

Cool but I have to imagine there is harsh restrictions on that as a stated goal is to move away from low cost healing. If it alone can "cover your health issues" then they've traded CLW wands for a feat tax a lateral move at best. I'll be curious to see it's mechanics, like how it works if a 6 man group all takes the feat and what healing that can give you vs that same 6 man team with only it as healing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the goal was specifically to get away from low cost healing. Well I guess that depends on how you define low cost cause I suppose wands are super low cost. I think the real design goal was to make skills more important. Also I'm gong to need an actual definiton of feat tax because I feel like its meaning keeps changing. I thought feat tax was being forced to take a feat you couldn't or wouldn't use to get to a better one for example combat reflex for whirlwind attack. by context clues It seems your using it here to say a required feat to function? is that right? I feel like if the feat benefits you directly and is not just feeling in a prerequisite then it shouldn't be called a feat tax but maybe by definition is different then everyone elses

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cool but I have to imagine there is harsh restrictions on that as a stated goal is to move away from low cost healing. If it alone can "cover your health issues" then they've traded CLW wands for a feat tax a lateral move at best. I'll be curious to see it's mechanics, like how it works if a 6 man group all takes the feat and what healing that can give you vs that same 6 man team with only it as healing.

Sure, we don’t have details yet, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that ability is limited in some way.

But I was primarily addressing the specific claim that “the only thing we've been told is that it removes conditions at Legendary after taking a feat and an hour's worth of time, and that you can stabilize someone as (effectively) two actions, with a good risk of making things worse.”


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cool but I have to imagine there is harsh restrictions on that as a stated goal is to move away from low cost healing. If it alone can "cover your health issues" then they've...

I'm sorta confused why you expect everybody to need to be able to heal. Since all you really need is one character who can heal, and for that character to leave a point of resonance open so you can pour a potion down their throat (everyone can carry a healing potion for this purpose.) When the healer is out of resonance, you decide you've had enough adventuring for the day. It's not really that different from how we handle "so-and-so is out of spells".


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I don't think the goal was specifically to get away from low cost healing.

CLW were specifically called out because of that exact thing.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also I'm gong to need an actual definiton of feat tax because I feel like its meaning keeps changing.

For me, it's a feat you took because you HAD to and not because you wanted to. So for the party that doesn't contain a healer class MUST invest in the feat when before they could spend cash on it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I thought feat tax was being forced to take a feat you couldn't or wouldn't use to get to a better one for example combat reflex for whirlwind attack.

Yep. A party of people that wouldn't normally want to use the Medicine skill not only have to invest in the skill but also the feat because someone didn't like CLW wands...

Benchak the Nightstalker: Oh I understand your point. I wasn't disagreeing or anything. I was making a point in the feat and not why you posted it.

751 to 800 of 883 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Potency and Potions All Messageboards