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
801 to 850 of 883 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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.

Thats because you aren't conducting a debate, you are conducting a diatribe.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm sorta confused why you expect everybody to need to be able to heal.

I don't think I implied that at all. Unless you mean potions and such, then yes I think they do.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
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".

From my point of view there is already a huge lack of RP as it is... Making the healing in essence be one point further behind seems mean.

Second, there are plenty of times when a single healer really doesn't do it. Before, everyone had the option of having a potion to use in an emergency. Now, the party has to make sure they move in formation because only the healer can use the potion so the healers has to be within range of you if you want healed... Did anyone complain about potion of healing spam? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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.

Who called it out? I would like to read it.

You know you still have to have a divine caster of some sort to use the wand in PF1. so someone had to play a class they didn't want to they could have someone to use the want. seems like a easier investment this time around.

Also I feel like useing the term Tax with it doesn't give that impression I feel like people are useing it interchangeably we need another term for when its a feat you don't want but that give you something directly as opposed to a feat that is required to get to another feat. heck just a forced feat would be fine.

Also a feel like if a group refuses to acknowledge that they might need healing and wants to do nothing about it and refuses to put anything into it deserves not to have healing. If a group all want to play melee they know what they are getting into without having an arcane caster or trap finder do we have to include a magic wand for those classes that can do there entire job by itself too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did you miss that there are specific rules for pouring a potion down the throat of an unconscious person.

It works like this-

Bill, the healer, handles all the healing for the party, has 2 resonance remaining, and is knocked out in a surprise attack. Sam, the Barbarian with no healing acumen, applies a potion to Bill. Bill is now conscious with positive HP and 1 resonance remaining and can go back to healing everybody. If Bill were left with 0 resonance after the fight, Bill's player should suggest stopping to rest, like we did back in the days before magic-marts when we were out of healing.

In the above example the role of Bill could be played by a Cleric, an Alchemist, or anybody else who has invested in Healing (which supposedly anybody can do now.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
graystone wrote:
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.
Thats because you aren't conducting a debate, you are conducting a diatribe.

Good thing YOU brought something to the table in the form of debate. I can clearly you're posting in good faith and brought up actual point to talk about. Good show. :P

If you want to debate the playtest, please do. What I don't want is people telling other not to because reasons... If you think I'm wrong say so and why. If you think it's too early to debate, then DON'T DEBATE. Trying to shame others into silence is bad form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

actually the entire thing kind of serves a purpose if you think about it. its all the give and pull of any social situation. for example If I wanted to push for a playable pink elephant race (and I might you don't know!) I could start spamming it everywhere and trying really hard to convince people to play one now It wouldn't surprise me if I got a lot of resistance to this idea because its a bit silly and because in this scenario I'm being obnoxious about pushing the pink elephants on people. on the other side lets say humans weren't going to be playable and I was pushing everywhere for that to be fixed cause it seems silly I would probably get a lot less resistance. Its kind of like the forums pushing back and forth to get a balance and try and get into a norm with everything trying to stay away from to far of an extreme.

So really there is very little anyone can do or should do individually to keep people from expressing there opinion in this medium. nothing anyone does is going to be that out of the ordinary and it could be argued it might even help contribute. even if you are argueing for pink elephants and if your obnoxious about it someone will let you know or you'll be ignored so its self-fixing too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what are the differences between pf1 and pf2 (that we know of)?

In pf1 you had to have someone who could cast a healing spell (preferably more than 1), and you have them all your wands of clw.
In pf2 you will have to have someone who can cast a healing spell or use medicine. If you have a wand of healing, they can use that. A bunch of people think this is badwrongfun.

In pf1 you didn't have to invest in charisma, unless you needed it for class feats it was nearly useless.
In pf2 you may have to invest a little in charisma, it's no longer a useless stat. A bunch of people think this is badwrongfun.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Who called it out? I would like to read it.

Mark at least and I think it was in other places. There are FAR, FAR too many threads to recall which one though. The only one I know offhand is from the trinket blog: "It puts the focus on the strongest items. Because you can't activate items indefinitely, your best bet is to use the most RP-efficient item, not the most gp-efficient item. You want a high-level healing wand because you get more healing for your Resonance Point rather than getting a bunch of low-level wands because they're cheap."

Vidmaster7 wrote:
You know you still have to have a divine caster of some sort to use the wand in PF1.

No they didn't. bard 1, investigator 1, occultist 1, skald 1, spiritualist 1, witch 1 + CLW wands. arcanist 1, bloodrager 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, summoner (unchained) 1, witch 1 and infernal healing wands. ANY class and a 1/2 elf with Arcane Training. There wasn't a real lack of ways to use a wand to heal or a real requirement of a narrow set of classes.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Also a feel like if a group refuses to acknowledge that they might need healing and wants to do nothing about it and refuses to put anything into it deserves not to have healing.

Before cash was a viable investment, now it isn't. I can want to spend cash on healing now but I have no guarantee that it'll work when needed.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Did you miss that there are specific rules for pouring a potion down the throat of an unconscious person.

I heard there was a rule, but not what it was. Looking at it, I don't see how it alters my last post.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Bill, the healer, handles all the healing for the party, has 2 resonance remaining, and is knocked out in a surprise attack. Sam, the Barbarian with no healing acumen, applies a potion to Bill. Bill is now conscious with positive HP and 1 resonance remaining and can go back to healing everybody. If Bill were left with 0 resonance after the fight, Bill's player should suggest stopping to rest, like we did back in the days before magic-marts when we were out of healing.

In the above example the role of Bill could be played by a Cleric, an Alchemist, or anybody else who has invested in Healing (which supposedly anybody can do now.)

I don't see how this plan is overly viable. What happens if sam is out of range or jill is in a pit out of sight and they need healed: individual players need backup/emergency healing. It's the reason they make potions that everyone can use. The idea of a single main healer is fine but situations happen where more than 1 person needs healed or situations conspire to make the target impossible. That's when we used to pull out the good old potion but not anymore unless it's to use on the healer I guess.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing to note in the "Dwarves will just die because they have 1 less Resonance" is that Dwarves are inherently the hardiest race, with 10 Racial HP and +2 Con to start.

At level one, that extra HP over many races (guessing not over Half-Orcs but we've not seen them yet) is the same as you would get on average for drinking a Healing Potion available to you at that level. So they aren't really trading out that survivability at the beginning at all, in fact if we look at it holistically they are more survivable that a person with an extra Resonance over them because they are also essentially saving on the action and monetary economy that would be required to drink that potion. Also if I remember resting correctly the extra Con means you heal more naturally between days.

Now this does fall off as later levels go on (although that depends on when you are expected to find/get the potions with more dice as your Con mod and Racial HP will become a smaller and smaller part of your HP (unless you are playing a low HP class I suppose) but the starting penalty to Cha becomes less punishing as you level up as well (the portion of Resonance that comes from your Cha decreases as you level and the stat upgrades system makes it less punishing if you decide you do want to pick up a Cha bonus later, perhaps even encouraging it depending on what level you expect the campaign to end.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
In pf1 you had to have someone who could cast a healing spell (preferably more than 1), and you have them all your wands of clw.

No you didn't. 1st level 1/2 elves can use an option for wand use no matter what class: a fighter can use a wand. Secondly, there were a LOT of classes with CLW or infernal healing in it's list, so they didn't have to focus on healing just be able to cast it.

Gavmania wrote:
In pf2 you will have to have someone who can cast a healing spell or use medicine. If you have a wand of healing, they can use that. A bunch of people think this is badwrongfun.

They think it's bad that it costs resonance or feats to heal. They think it's bad that potions also require resonance making emergency healing much more difficult: you can't always have a healer taped to yout leg to heal you even in a group that has one.

Gavmania wrote:
In pf1 you didn't have to invest in charisma, unless you needed it for class feats it was nearly useless.

Several classes used it and a bunch of other classes could use it with archetypes. Also plenty of skills use it.

Gavmania wrote:
In pf2 you may have to invest a little in charisma, it's no longer a useless stat. A bunch of people think this is badwrongfun.

I have no problem making the stat more useful: I think it's pretty bad that making a character unlikable limits my item and consumable use. It's linked charming to magic items: I don't like being forced to roleplay differently, and make every character to be the life of the party just so my equipment can work. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like all of the "I cannot play an X, since they have less [resource] and I need all the [resource]" comments are hyperbolic in light of all the weird suboptimal stuff you make work in PF1 (a fighter who is completely blind, a wizard with 12 Int, a Swashbuckler with neither dex nor charisma, etc.) Early on in PF2 hyperoptimization will be even less appropriate, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Who called it out? I would like to read it.

Mark at least and I think it was in other places. There are FAR, FAR too many threads to recall which one though. The only one I know offhand is from the trinket blog: "It puts the focus on the strongest items. Because you can't activate items indefinitely, your best bet is to use the most RP-efficient item, not the most gp-efficient item. You want a high-level healing wand because you get more healing for your Resonance Point rather than getting a bunch of low-level wands because they're cheap."

Vidmaster7 wrote:
You know you still have to have a divine caster of some sort to use the wand in PF1.

No they didn't. bard 1, investigator 1, occultist 1, skald 1, spiritualist 1, witch 1 + CLW wands. arcanist 1, bloodrager 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, summoner (unchained) 1, witch 1 and infernal healing wands. ANY class and a 1/2 elf with Arcane Training. There wasn't a real lack of ways to use a wand to heal or a real requirement of a narrow set of classes.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Also a feel like if a group refuses to acknowledge that they might need healing and wants to do nothing about it and refuses to put anything into it deserves not to have healing.

Before cash was a viable investment, now it isn't. I can want to spend cash on healing now but I have no guarantee that it'll work when needed.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Did you miss that there are specific rules for pouring a potion down the throat of an unconscious person.

I heard there was a rule, but not what it was. Looking at it, I don't see how it alters my last post.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Bill, the healer, handles all the healing for the party, has 2 resonance remaining, and is knocked out in a surprise attack. Sam, the Barbarian with no healing acumen, applies a potion to Bill. Bill is now conscious with positive HP and 1 resonance remaining and can go back to healing everybody. If Bill were left with 0 resonance after the fight,
...

Wait a minute I didn't type the part about unconscious people.

Frankly infernal healing Is complete BS and should of never made it into a book.

So now I have to be a play a race and have a forced feat to use the wands to heal?

Or UMD so I have a forced skill.

You act like there was absolutely not requirements to picking up the wands and that the skill investment and single feat is to much to ask for.

Heck anyone should be able to take medicine right? 1 skill 1 feat(maybe?)

Also you didn't respond to the last portion. Do we need to make a wand to deal every classes job in case the party doesn't for some reason want to play someone that can do melee, cast spells, find traps etc?

Because some people think playing a healer Is not fun we have to have a wand to make them irrelevant?

The one thing is a untended glitch in the system that somehow some people feel needs to remain a glitch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the interesting shift to me is that formerly a wand wasn't really enough to do the healer's job since somebody was gonna get diseased, poisoned, cursed, petrified, or some other nasty condition which required more magic than comes in a stick and needs to be dealt with ASAP. But now it's possible for a purely mundane healer in an AMF to cure all those things and to sew arms back on to boot.

So I really want to read the medicine skill feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean the interesting shift to me is that formerly a wand wasn't really enough to do the healer's job since somebody was gonna get diseased, poisoned, cursed, petrified, or some other nasty condition which required more magic than comes in a stick and needs to be dealt with ASAP. But now it's possible for a purely mundane healer in an AMF to cure all those things and to sew arms back on to boot.

So I really want to read the medicine skill feats.

I am happy to see viable mundane healing, just as I hope poisons are as viable as they sound. Both of those are things I quite like the idea of playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wait a minute I didn't type the part about unconscious people.

Maybe? copy/paste, editing and quoting aren't the easiest thing on this little device with these old hands. :P

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Frankly infernal healing Is complete BS and should of never made it into a book.

They doubled down with boots of earth so it must not have seemed too BS. My only complaint was the alignment issue that seems bogus.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So now I have to be a play a race and have a forced feat to use the wands to heal?

Just race and NOT a bad one: it's an alternate racial trait. And even if it was, it's not forcing you to alter your stats or take skills too.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or UMD so I have a forced skill.

You'll note I didn't mention this: it's only viable at higher levels.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
You act like there was absolutely not requirements to picking up the wands and that the skill investment and single feat is to much to ask for.

Seems apple and orange to me. For instance, the witch or JUST picks up the wand: period. None was forced to up a stat or take a skill. The only one with an investment was the 1/2 elf and IMO that's not a big one: they fir for every class and you only lose out on your FCB [and some classes have pretty bad ones]. So 'pick up the wand' seems a LOT different than the new version.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also you didn't respond to the last portion. Do we need to make a wand to deal every classes job in case the party doesn't for some reason want to play someone that can do melee, cast spells, find traps etc?

False equivalency IMO: it's why I passed it over. You find a locked door, you can break it down. A trap, you can set it off with a summons, toss a rock, ect. Every class can melee now so I don't see where that's going. Cast a spell IS what a wand is. Healing is in a different category: it's not something that clever thinking and a strong back fixes.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Because some people think playing a healer Is not fun we have to have a wand to make them irrelevant?

So we them tell people that you have to force someone to play it or you're playing wrong? I think the wand is the lesser of two evils. And lets not forget, a healer IS useful: the wand party has to also spend cash on those remove condition items so it's not a simple wand for healer trade.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
The one thing is a untended glitch in the system that somehow some people feel needs to remain a glitch.

No, people ENJOY playing that way better than the other. You re telling them that their fun is badwrongfun because you think it was untended. They think it was a boon that allowed groups unshackled from the traditional wizard, cleric, fighter rogue paradigm if they wished.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its obviously unintended. Your just trying to force that i"m saying its badwrongfun. are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the designers intent was for every party to buy a wand or 50 CLW to handle all the healing needs?

Also someone will still have to play a class that can use the wand even if its quite a few classes. that seems worse then making a single character take a feat and a skill. Plus they will most likely be able to do quite a few different things with the skills and feats.

Additionally I did't stat the glitch was positive or negative I stated its a Glitch If your playing a video game and you can clip the wall so thy boss can't hit you it might be good for you but that doesn't stop it from being a glitch.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its obviously unintended. Your just trying to force that i"m saying its badwrongfun. are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the designers intent was for every party to buy a wand or 50 CLW to handle all the healing needs?

I think it WAS intended as they wanted backwards compatibility with 3.5. They might not have LIKED it, but they intended for it to be there.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Also someone will still have to play a class that can use the wand even if its quite a few classes. that seems worse then making a single character take a feat and a skill. Plus they will most likely be able to do quite a few different things with the skills and feats.

I'll take your word that it seems worse to you. For my, it's a huge boon for SO many options to use the wand that no one class needs be picked. With the popularity of 1/2 casters, I can't recall a need to force someone to take something they didn't want.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Secondly, as I have already said, I doubt that the healing is going to be he equivalent of a healing want for amount or timeliness. I would be shocked if there aren't hard limits on use.

Additionally I did't stat the glitch was positive or negative I stated its a Glitch If your playing a video game and you can clip the wall so thy boss can't hit you it might be good for you but that doesn't stop it from being a glitch.

I didn't say you did, but saying it's unintended is saying they are playing wrong if they use it. If it's not, then what is the reason for saying it's unintend?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

So yes wrong maybe but not badwrongfun. When you use all those together they have a different meaning. I don't think its bad and it doesn't mean its not fun but its not how the game should work. it works differently then the rest of the system. Usually you are rewarded for using the highest level item you can find. casting the highest level spell etc. This is not the case for the wands. Also pathfinder and D&D have always been designed around and balanced by resource management. that wand bypasses a lot of the resource management aspect of the game.
It doesn't have a meaningful price at high levels and yet remains as effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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

Two things here.

1. That is extremely vague to not really warrant a mention. We don't know how much it heals for. It could just be a flat amount, equal to your Medicine skill, or it could be some random amount of D6s that can all roll 1's and be very crappy to use. We don't know how long it takes to use this option. It could take a full round's worth of actions, it could take minutes. We also don't know if you need things like Healer Tools or not (though I'm going to say so for obvious reasons), and if there are any arbitrary restrictions on the uses of this feat (such as you can only heal a person once per 24 hours). It's not really much of an answer, and more of a copout failsafe, similar to threads where "Ask your GM" is the absolute best answer you have.

2. If this is the one way characters can heal without magical means, then all this does is once again reinforce the "Tim/Jim" paradigm, or worse, the "one true build" paradigm. Now, everyone and their grandma is going to invest in Medicine and Battle Medic simply because you feel like you have to, because you're a bad player in others' eyes if you don't, or even worse, because the game, demands you to do it.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than dealing with stupid Resonance for consumables, but you're still shoehorning players into having to take stuff simply because the game demands it (and the alternative isn't likely). It's not something that's a template to existing mechanics that doesn't interfere with your original choices (such as magic weapons, armor, and so on), whereas something like this (or Resonance) does.

So now, everyone's gonna be forced to play healers, and nobody's gonna be able to do damage worth a damn because they have to worry about staying alive too much and wasting ranks and stuff on healing instead of doing the roles they want to do. It's a miracle they can even adventure outside the house, for fear of getting the dreaded paper cut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

2. If this is the one way characters can heal without magical means, then all this does is once again reinforce the "Tim/Jim" paradigm, or worse, the "one true build" paradigm. Now, everyone and their grandma is going to invest in Medicine and Battle Medic simply because you feel like you have to, because you're a bad player in others' eyes if you don't, or even worse, because the game, demands you to do it.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than dealing with stupid Resonance for consumables, but you're still shoehorning players into having to take stuff simply because the game demands it (and the alternative isn't likely). It's not something that's a template to existing mechanics that doesn't interfere with your original choices (such as magic weapons, armor, and so on), whereas something like this (or Resonance) does.

So now, everyone's gonna be forced to play healers, and nobody's gonna be able to do damage worth a damn because they have to worry about staying alive too much and wasting ranks and stuff on healing instead of doing the roles they want to do. It's a miracle they can even adventure outside the house, for fear of getting the dreaded paper cut.

I had to do a search to find the "Tim/Jim paradigm" from comment #258 in the Wand of CLW spam thread.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All this does is reinforce the "Tim, you have to play the Cleric/Druid" paradigm, or "Jim, you have to play the Paladin" paradigm, the only classes revealed to have innate healing abilities tied to their class, and plenty of PF1 players detested being shoehorned into burning spell slots or uses per day for healing because they either felt like they had to, or because their party members badgered them into doing so because they didn't (or couldn't) heal themselves.

To my eye, these threads have been offering alternatives:

Someone plays a dedicated healer, such as a cleric, oracle, or paladin;
or
Someone plays a character with lots of resonance who can use the not-yet-disclosed PF2 healing wands;
or
Everyone saves two points of resonance so we can be healed with potions;
or
Someone takes the Battlefield Medic feat.

We have legitimate arguments about whether particular alternatives work, such as will anyone have enough resonance to keep using the best wand the party can afford? But every workable alternative reduces the demand that the party has to have one particular method of healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Casts Summon Soapbox*

I don't think PF is a system where Hit Point healing should be a major thing, because it is missing something that makes it matter: that a major role's ability to perform their task is dependant on HP more than "Is it non-zero?" Your average MMO has aggro-based tanks that use their HP to tank. PF1 had few tanking options, and they were dependant on other things than HP. A support to a non-aggro tanks should not be healing as much as increasing and restoring whatever non-HP method they are using to tank (likewise, a support to a damage-dealer should be focused on increasing their offence). I would value the ability to quickly repair a shield more than HP restoration.

I don't see why I should care so much about managing out-of-combat healing when I personally think it would be bad for the game as it stands to be managing in-combat healing. A stack of HP simply doesn't have enough riding on it compared to a single point to be worth focusing on. If you want to make it so damage is debilitating, I'll accept a need for an emphasis on healing, but I'd probably also tell you that's not the kind of game I'm into.

*spell duration ends, fall flat on face*

Basically, I don't think PF2 needs this much space and effort devoted to hit point restoration, especially if the rest of the system is the worse for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

If it was unintended why haven't they fixed it before now - between 3.x and PF they've had 15 years to do something about it - or are they just a little slow off the mark?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

If it was unintended why haven't they fixed it before now - between 3.x and PF they've had 15 years to do something about it - or are they just a little slow off the mark?

Besides which, that's actually a problem with the magic item mart NOT with the inherent system itself.

Through 20 years of 3.0/3.5 and PF1 games it came up exactly zero times in my home games where I don't use the magic item mart.

It comes up regularly in PFS where the magic item mart is baked in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

If it was unintended why haven't they fixed it before now - between 3.x and PF they've had 15 years to do something about it - or are they just a little slow off the mark?

Because fixing it required quite a bit of effort that would have a knock on effect on the rest of the system, wouldn't overly change anything for anyone not playing be all the errata (it was a problem instantiated in the CRB) and would likely have led to a revolt on the forums.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, fixing non-typo issues created in the corebook is nearly impossible within the context of a single edition. They could've theoretically fixed it in the 3.5/Pathfinder changeover...but everyone was really focused on backwards compatibility at that point, making taking the magic item system apart (which is what fixing it would've required) a bit of a tall order.

In many ways, this is their first opportunity to do anything about it.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean they should seize that opportunity. I tend to think they should, but others clearly disagree, and even I'm not actually very happy with the details of the current solution, but saying 'If it was a real problem they would've fixed it before now' or similar things is both overly dismissive and factually inaccurate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess one of the problems with having such a long time between editions (11 years!) is that your mistakes in the core rules become some people's sacred cows by the end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure 'sacred cow' is the right term here, when you are referring to gutting at least one style of play.

It's about much more than the wand of CLW and potions of healing. The 'cure' to a supposed 'problem' has knock on effects.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
I'm not sure 'sacred cow' is the right term here, when you are referring to gutting at least one style of play.

Part of the reason I'm an advocate for this working (if not the details of the current variation), is that I don't think it does this. Playing sans healer is still very much a viable option, just no longer as optimal of one.

It weakens a style of play, but I don't think it guts it.

dragonhunterq wrote:
It's about much more than the wand of CLW and potions of healing. The 'cure' to a supposed 'problem' has knock on effects.

It does. So does HP damage not being a problem, of course. Which we respectively think are worse is clearly a matter of some disagreement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

I'm not sure 'sacred cow' is the right term here, when you are referring to gutting at least one style of play.

It's about much more than the wand of CLW and potions of healing. The 'cure' to a supposed 'problem' has knock on effects.

I'd have to agree with you. Magic mart was the cure to characters having obsolete items, and it did a lot to establish wbl, making it easier to build higher level characters. No-one foresaw that it would lead to wand of clw spam, which reduced investment on consumables, making wealth lopsided and encounters easier. This (and other problems) skewed the cr system so that it became unworkable


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly dislike magic marts and am glad the argument for their inclusion a la "How else am I going to get the items I need to survive" is largely removed from the game.

Like even if you use some obscure weapon, the DM doesn't have to make sure stores in Ustalav stock magic katanas, you can just move potency runes into your favorite katana is a huge blow to the "Magic Mart" paradigm.

If we move healing consumables from "practically necessary" to "nice, but inessential" that's even better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

As I said, backwards compatibility was KEY in the crossover from 3.5 to pathfinder. Pricing included. They MEANT to keep as many things usable from 3.5 to their new version. As I said, they might not have liked everything included with that but that was the strategy.

AS to why change it now? They are no longer shackled [or 'chained'] by 3.5 as they are making a new system from scratch.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So yes wrong maybe but not badwrongfun.

I'm not seeing much of a distinction here. The playstyle I like is wrong: that's pretty much badwrongfun. Or are you saying that you aren't in favor of the new way?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Usually you are rewarded for using the highest level item you can find. casting the highest level spell etc. This is not the case for the wands.

Are you? Plenty of low level spells hold up in the game. Wands of Comprehend Languages, Crafter's Fortune, Ears of the City, Endure Elements, Identify, Infernal Healing, Mage Armor, ect retain usefulness as you level. It's total myth that you NEED to spend more cash on everything. Secondly, you ARE rewarded for using costlier healing methods: when time is a factor, they are much more efficient.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Also pathfinder and D&D have always been designed around and balanced by resource management. that wand bypasses a lot of the resource management aspect of the game.

It doesn't have a meaningful price at high levels and yet remains as effective.

There is debate on hp as a resource though. PLENTY of the game's resources are handwaved. Take spell components: the game goes out of it's way to make sure you can ignore thet management. You have easy/low level spells/items to ignore food and water. So it's not like it's got a single unwavering thought on the idea. Some find hp attrition fun and some don't. Before, both could play the game equally. Now one group is told we're doing it wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am hoping the final CRB takes all of the resonance debates to heart:
If we can't get rid of the Resonance as the default rule for reasons (like for the sake of Paizo's PtP MMTTRPG: Pathfinder Society)...
Can we at least get a chapter on optional rules for Resonance, such as for higher and lower magic campaign setting. It would also be nice to include an article on how to use the economics of your campaign setting to regulate supply and demand for consumable magical items instead of an arbitrary and otherwise non-extant resource.
For example, why do we just assume that any given metropolis has as many of a given thing as the player can afford, and that they have no problem finding it. What kind of shop-keeper can afford to keep a dozen wands of Cure Light Wounds in stock (not to mention anything more expensive than that) when he could just make them on commission instead (and therby avoid the risk of them being stolen by the thieves guild, or taken in lieu of 'protection money').
Similarly, do things really need to cost astronomical prices just to use up all the raw wealth we're awarded? Couldn't we just go back to building oppulant castles (and paying the outrageous upkeep on it), wasting platinum on ale and wenches, and having our Bags of Holding occasionally pillaged by hungry Rust Monsters?
Or maybe... just not be awarded heaps of wealth for being glorified mercenaries. Instead we could acquire "wealth" in the form of rare, and effectively priceless treasures (potency runes, staves of healing, rings of invisibility... etc), but still have to scrimp, save, and sometimes hunt to put food on the table and potions in our belt.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:


Can we at least get a chapter on optional rules for Resonance, such as for higher and lower magic campaign setting. It would also be nice to include an article on how to use the economics of your campaign setting to regulate supply and demand for consumable magical items instead of an arbitrary and otherwise non-extant resource.

I've suggested for this to be the case several times. I think this would be the best way to appease large swathes of the community. Have a ruling that is the default state for PFS. Then give alternate points that are very clearly RAW options for everyone else. As someone who loves the idea of Resonance, I'd love it even more if it was explicitly stated to be one of the nobs groups can tweak to get just the right feel for their games. It should be the same for how much level scales into proficiency to create worlds in which large groups of commoners can fight off dragons etc, the same for how much xp it takes to level, how much HP characters get per level etc.

Ideally I'd like there to be a section in chapter 0 that makes it 100% that groups just discuss any of the optional rules sidebars when going into a new campaign. My copy of Mage 20th Anniversary Edition (while a massive tome) as lots of discussions on different ways of doing things and I think having that discussion fostered in the rulebook not just on the forums can only improve the game.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. That is extremely vague to not really warrant a mention...

I might have been willing to spot you "vague", but "extremely vague"? That's a stretch.

We got the name of the feat, a simple description of what it does, and even the proficiency rank it opens up at. That's practically the whole entry from the feat table. Plus, it bears directly on your argument.

Aside from that, make whatever argument you want. I just wanted to point out you weren't correct in saying "they only told us [two things]".

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All of this has already been mentioned likely a hundred times, but I feel this whole Resonance subsystem is messy with its "points-you-absolutely-need-for-magic-but-do-not-run-out-of" thing and less than elegant terminology. I mean, "Operate Activation Activation"... err, say that again! :/

I like how the design team strives to create a more structurized and explicit format for spells and magical items (I especially like the use of keywords). In 4E it worked fabulously, but I'm wondering if there are already too many disparate elements that are becoming harder and harder to grasp, let alone understand how they interact with each other? It doesn't really help that the format is not exactly universal with each element, certain elements (such as several hazards and magic items) seemed to include obscure descriptions that left me scratching my head.

For example, the Cloak of Elvenkind felt to me like it was a mess, and without the clarification in the preview I wouldn't have realized how it works properly. Do you spend Resonance or not, and do you always need to lift the hood to make it work, and does it both grant the bonus and the invisibility?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

As I said, backwards compatibility was KEY in the crossover from 3.5 to pathfinder. Pricing included. They MEANT to keep as many things usable from 3.5 to their new version. As I said, they might not have liked everything included with that but that was the strategy.

AS to why change it now? They are no longer shackled [or 'chained'] by 3.5 as they are making a new system from scratch.

Paizo did make one major change with wands from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder: crafting a wand no longer cost experience points.

Thus, my Pathfinder campaigns were slightly different than the D&D 3.5 campaigns I played in. In my Pathfinder campaigns, party members learned the magic item crafting feats and made their own items. The oracle in my Jade Regent campaign learned Craft Wand at 7th level and the skald in my Iron Gods campaign learned Craft Wand at 5th level. Others learned Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Items. And the wizards started with Scribe Scrolls (also happened in D&D 3.5 and my D&D 3.5 wizard used it sparingly) and the alchemist started with Brew Potion.

They preferred making their own items to the magic mart.

Asgetrion wrote:
All of this has already been mentioned likely a hundred times, but I feel this whole Resonance subsystem is messy with its "points-you-absolutely-need-for-magic-but-do-not-run-out-of" thing and less than elegant terminology. I mean, "Operate Activation Activation"... err, say that again! :/

I have an agenda to give playtesting reports about the language my players use instead of "Operate Activation action," in hope that Paizo will switch to their words.


Mathmuse wrote:
Paizo did make one major change with wands from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder: crafting a wand no longer cost experience points.

True but that fact didn't pose an issue with backwards compatibility: it's an in play issue. It made wands easier to make but I can't imagine that fact was missed by the devs that removing exp from the equation would do that.

Mathmuse wrote:
They preferred making their own items to the magic mart.

Everyone is different: some like making them and some buying. It seems a fair trade off, multiple feats for 1/2 cost and access to any items no matter the place.

Mathmuse wrote:
I have an agenda to give playtesting reports about the language my players use instead of "Operate Activation action," in hope that Paizo will switch to their words.

We can only hope. They seem to be going in multiple directions at once: symbols to encapsulate action type in an effort to save time and space only to turn around a sentence later and waste space/words with a long list of "Operate Activation action" type actions.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. That is extremely vague to not really warrant a mention...

I might have been willing to spot you "vague", but "extremely vague"? That's a stretch.

We got the name of the feat, a simple description of what it does, and even the proficiency rank it opens up at. That's practically the whole entry from the feat table. Plus, it bears directly on your argument.

Aside from that, make whatever argument you want. I just wanted to point out you weren't correct in saying "they only told us [two things]".

That only tells us what you need to get it, and what it's supposed to do, but that's basically requirements and flavor text. None of it tells us what it actually does, IN the game. Until we know that, it's like saying "Ask your GM."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

As I said, backwards compatibility was KEY in the crossover from 3.5 to pathfinder. Pricing included. They MEANT to keep as many things usable from 3.5 to their new version. As I said, they might not have liked everything included with that but that was the strategy.

AS to why change it now? They are no longer shackled [or 'chained'] by 3.5 as they are making a new system from scratch.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
So yes wrong maybe but not badwrongfun.

I'm not seeing much of a distinction here. The playstyle I like is wrong: that's pretty much badwrongfun. Or are you saying that you aren't in favor of the new way?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Usually you are rewarded for using the highest level item you can find. casting the highest level spell etc. This is not the case for the wands.

Are you? Plenty of low level spells hold up in the game. Wands of Comprehend Languages, Crafter's Fortune, Ears of the City, Endure Elements, Identify, Infernal Healing, Mage Armor, ect retain usefulness as you level. It's total myth that you NEED to spend more cash on everything. Secondly, you ARE rewarded for using costlier healing methods: when time is a factor, they are much more efficient.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Also pathfinder and D&D have always been designed around and balanced by resource management. that wand bypasses a lot of the resource management aspect of the game.

It doesn't have a meaningful price at high levels and yet remains as effective.
There is debate on hp as a resource though. PLENTY of the game's resources are handwaved. Take spell components: the game goes out of it's way to make sure you can ignore thet management. You have easy/low level spells/items to ignore food and water. So it's not like it's got a single unwavering thought on the idea. Some find hp...

Everyone has ways of playing wrong, house rules or just little rules people don't notice. Its not bad or unfun but its not the written rules. In this case it is the written rules but its glich. wands should cost more of have fewer charges for there cost.

If your play style ignores hp as a resource cost that's fine but it doesn't mean that is the way it was designed. Anyways were at a wall with this argument because you feel that the glich is an intended design and when I say intended I don't mean they just copied it over I mean they intended for it to be used that way and you keep changing my meaning just like you keep changing the meaning of other words. like badwrongfun or feat tax or what have you. Your using that like a smoke screen to obfuscate the point. like intended (which means planned or meant) It doesn't mean accidentally.

(Also you clearly haven't seen my thread on "ways we like to play wrong" to be fair It was from like 2 years ago.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
In this case it is the written rules but its glich. wands should cost more of have fewer charges for there cost.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think they made the choice, because of backwards compatibility, to not do a complete overhaul of pricing for magic. As such, it was completely intended/expected even if they wish they could have changed it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
If your play style ignores hp as a resource cost that's fine but it doesn't mean that is the way it was designed.

That's exactly how it was designed. Some people didn't like it, including some dev's but that's how it was.

TO be clear, this is NOT a "a smoke screen to obfuscate the point" but how the facts are laid out for me. The base game is set up for low cost healing from wands and was that way from the start: it was NOT a mistake or omission but a calculated maneuver to allow for backwards compatibility. They fact that that might not have been the way they would have wanted it to work has nothing to do with it. It boils down to them hooking their wagon up to 3.5 and having to deal with the consequences of that.

So when you say 'glitch' I find it wrong in its face as it's nothing like a houserule: I'm playing the game as written and as it was built and intended. This might be a fundamental difference in point of view, but I'll take umbrage and time someone calls it a glitch or loophole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
In this case it is the written rules but its glich. wands should cost more of have fewer charges for there cost.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think they made the choice, because of backwards compatibility, to not do a complete overhaul of pricing for magic. As such, it was completely invented/expected even if they wish they could have changed it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
If your play style ignores hp as a resource cost that's fine but it doesn't mean that is the way it was designed.

That's exactly how it was designed. Some people didn't like it, including some dev's but that's how it was.

TO be clear, this is NOT a "a smoke screen to obfuscate the point" but how the facts are laid out for me. The base game is set up for low cost healing from wands and was that way from the start: it was NOT a mistake or omission but a calculated maneuver to allow for backwards compatibility. They fact that that might not have been the way they would have wanted it to work has nothing to do with it. It boils down to them hooking their wagon up to 3.5 and having to deal with the consequences of that.

So when you say 'glitch' I find it wrong in its face as it's nothing like a houserule: I'm playing the game as written and as it was built and intended. This might be a fundamental difference in point of view, but I'll take umbrage and time someone calls it a glitch or loophole.

alright this isn't going to work till we get the same terminology. Ok so You may not of played this game but bear with me in Halo at one point the pistol was considered the best weapon in the game. They had machine guns sniper rifles all sorts of heavy weapons but because of the damage output and rate of fire and other factors a common hand pistol outclassed all of the other weapons. Now some people would see a problem with that even though the game was designed to work that way. Its just doesn't make since to most people that a hand pistol would be more effective then an assault rifle. What would you call this? What name would be appropriate to describe this phenomenon?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On side note, I'm kind of surprised that whenever it gets brought up with my players, they don't seem to mind idea of use of potions being limited by resonance ._. Not really sure why, but maybe I'll find out when playtest is out if they have misunderstood how it works or if they just don't mind the weirdness of spending resources to use one shot items


3 people marked this as a favorite.

When I mentioned to the group about how Resonance limiting the number of potions you can use in given day even if you're carrying more, the comment I got was pretty much "oh, like in Dragon Age: Inquisition?"

I honestly feel like resonance limiting the number of consumables is going to entice my group to be more interested in consumables, since unspent resonance is wasted.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
On side note, I'm kind of surprised that whenever it gets brought up with my players, they don't seem to mind idea of use of potions being limited by resonance ._. Not really sure why, but maybe I'll find out when playtest is out if they have misunderstood how it works or if they just don't mind the weirdness of spending resources to use one shot items

Purely anecdotal, but having explained this to my players I've heard no objections either. The one I've talked to about Wands and Staffs specifically agrees that charges + Resonance can get finicky and unwieldy, but nobody objects to consumables costing resources to use.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Well I do

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Well I do

Fair enough. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
On side note, I'm kind of surprised that whenever it gets brought up with my players, they don't seem to mind idea of use of potions being limited by resonance ._. Not really sure why, but maybe I'll find out when playtest is out if they have misunderstood how it works or if they just don't mind the weirdness of spending resources to use one shot items
Purely anecdotal, but having explained this to my players I've heard no objections either. The one I've talked to about Wands and Staffs specifically agrees that charges + Resonance can get finicky and unwieldy, but nobody objects to consumables costing resources to use.

Yeah I don't think charges and resonance is the way. not both. The one thing I've seen and can see where there coming from is not having enough resonance at low level. That's hard to say without seeing the whole system but I can understand that concern. I kept suggesting that if it is an issue however they could just have starting res be about 3 higher.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
What name would be appropriate to describe this phenomenon?

Intentional design. As I recall, the ammo was 12.7 x 40 [bigger than desert eagle .50AE ammo]. That and I recall Bungie's Jason Jones saying that the pistol's power was a deliberate design choice [which they have shifted wildly from game to game].

PS: I think we've explored this enough for a sidetrack in the potion thread.


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
What name would be appropriate to describe this phenomenon?

Intentional design. As I recall, the ammo was 12.7 x 40 [bigger than desert eagle .50AE ammo]. That and I recall Bungie's Jason Jones saying that the pistol's power was a deliberate design choice [which they have shifted wildly from game to game].

PS: I think we've explored this enough for a sidetrack in the potion thread.

Fine but I'm just trying to figure out why you think its a good choice and I still don't understand where your coming from. I don't understand your side of the issue at all. Which is why I feel we can't have any kind of resolution.

(also I thought this was all related to the potion thread.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
good choice

I think we've come to the crux of the issue: you're making a judgment call on it's being good or bad. Myself, I'm saying it is without a judgment as far as 'glitch' goes.

As to why I would want it in the game, I think I've covered that before. More latitude on party structure, more latitude on spell selections, more time adventuring and less retreating after a 15 min day, ect. For me, taking CLW wands away is a detriment to the game without any redeeming purpose. I don't find the out of combat 'meaningful resource management of hp attrition' fun as some seem to. It ranks up there with counting individual bat guano in a component bag or how many rations I have in a bag.

801 to 850 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