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
201 to 250 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I honestly like the specificity. Questions about whether something is purely mental or not, and questions about how observable an action is, both come up often in Pathfinder and don't currently have concrete answers. Putting the answers in the individual items is a little cumbersome though, hopefully there's default answers for the various action types somewhere.

On another note. If Vorpal is being made less potent and useful in order to make it more accessible, why is it a level 17 item?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaemy wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Will there be a potion of resonance restoration?
Yes, restores 1 RP, and costs 1 RP to Activate it's Activable Activation Actiony Action. It's called water.

I legit lol'd

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am not much of a fan having to spend 2 actions on item usage with fixed effects.

I do find it interesting that we have damage effects mitigated by Fort saves now though


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Still overpriced potions and unneeded complexity. Yup, super streamlined and easier than PF1. Oh, wait a minute....
Everything but Resonance seems legitimately simpler. Resonance is an unfortunate exception at the moment.

The new conditions system doesn't look much better that it is in PF1. It will still result in arithmetics hell when a bunch of conditions is stacked on a character, each with its own duration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:
That flat check on the Armor of Fortification seems pretty rough.

As a flat check it still works out as 15/30% chance of critical negation (same as 1e) the big difference that with anything that's 10+ higher than your AC counting as a crit (and Frits doubling damage+higher level potancy of weapons) suggests that fortification may be stronger in 2e than it is currently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
(On the matter of the cloak, looking back at it after seeing this, I'd expect some people to try getting out of the operate activation action when the hood is already up for the stealth bonus.)

Which is a good argument for not specifying that you need to "raise the hood" in order to activate any of its properties, just indicate that it takes an action (unspecified) to make it do the things it does. (ie, you can use one action to grant a bonus to Stealth checks. You can also use an action to grant yourself invisibility.)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Jester David wrote:

So... if you're the healer, everyone else has an ass Medicine score, and you have too many magical items, there's nothing the party can do to stabilise you? They can pour a dozen potions down your throat and nothing happens?

o.0

Well they can start digging the hole... :P

I'm afraid the Shovel of Digging requires a RP per square foot dug, but on the bright side the Shovel of Hitting does not. If you attack the Earth enough I'm sure you'll whittle its HP down enough to get a hole.


36 people marked this as a favorite.

My two cents: went Resonance was first introduced, it felt weird, but also that there might be something in there. When I learned more about how you got it and what it was for, I started liking it more.

Now instead of having a shirt that gives you an extra move action 1/day and a cloak that turns you into a crow 3/day, you can wear both and decide with your 4 resonance points if you run 4 times, or turn into a crow 4 times, or any mix in between, and didn't have to track remaining uses for neither, just a global Resonance Pool.

When I learned potions costed resonance, I was also up for it. This encourages you to drink that one big level-apropiate powerful potion instead of drinking 20 crappy ones in a row after a fight, same for wands (wich I asumed would cost resonance to activate and would have no charges neither, so if you have 10 resonance points to use on wands, you want to make those 10 heals be better, so you buy better wands).
Making potions cost a valuable resource (Resonance) was also the perfect excuse to make them more powerful (since you are limited to how many you can use in any given day) so you would track your 3 AWESOME POTIONS instead of 20 crappy situational ones; and things like drinking a Healing Potion in Combat wouldn't be so much of a waste of actions (if it did for once heal more than what ANY enemy in the battle field could damage with half their attacks).

I was so into resonance, that I started homebrewing it in my current campaign, giving players wands and items that all have abilities that cost resonance, so they decide what/how they use them. And I do like having a resource similar to "How many spells do I have left? Do I want to burn one for this?" for all clases.

Then the last 2 Blog Posts happened... What a mess... 3 or 4 new kinds of actions that have never been explained to us and that seem that could be easily replaced with "Somatic, Verbal and Material". If you want to have a "Amazing Opperator" Feat later that removes the Opperation Action from items, you can just make it read "Removes Somatic Actions needed to Activate an Item", no need to call them Operation Actions...

And charges and X/day uses... Everything has them still... What a joke.
What's the freaking point then? You had all the pieces for a new elegant system based entirely on Resonance, and you threw it out of the window because it was too powerful if this armor could be activated multiple timess a day... I rather have items that requires 3RP because their abilities are too strong (or at least for their level) and make later upgraded more "magically-attuned" versions cost 2RP and 1RP. Having resonance and then requiring multiple armors that give you abilities X/day based on their level.... What a waste.
We are playing a game where we substract and add hit points non-stop. I think we can handle Resonance Point Costs greater than 1 if there are good reasons (cheap item giving nice spell, ability being really that powerful).

I can't speak the "One and Only Truth" until I have play the Playtest myself for reals, but so far I can see myself houseruling so much stuff related to resonance that is not even funny. And I DON'T want Resonance gone, I DO LIKE the concept of Resonance, but I really think Paizo are half-assing it by not going full-abord with the idea and keeping Charges and Daily Uses alongside with it... Make that invisibility in the cheap armor cost 3RP, problem solved. Have 6RP on your char and still wearing it? You deserve being able to turn invisible twice at the cost of not having resonance for other things, if you choose to.

On a side note, what bothers me is rolling for extra uses after you resonance is gone... Half of my players can't even remember what their ACs are, or sometimes surprise me with stuff like "Does DEX affect INIT?". Do you want those people to remember at what DC their resonance is after X uses? That sounds good on paper, but gets annoying on the table really fast.

Liberty's Edge

Dryxxxa wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Still overpriced potions and unneeded complexity. Yup, super streamlined and easier than PF1. Oh, wait a minute....
Everything but Resonance seems legitimately simpler. Resonance is an unfortunate exception at the moment.
The new conditions system doesn't look much better that it is in PF1. It will still result in arithmetics hell when a bunch of conditions is stacked on a character, each with its own duration.

Fair enough, I suppose. It's certainly not more complicated, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading about how potions has to use RP iffs me a bit. I always liked the dichotomy between Potions and Scrolls(and to an extent wands). Potions were neat that anyone could drink them. Do you have s!*+ UMD or are not magically inclined? Chug thus drink and you can breath underwater. Scrolls were a cheaper alternative I think and were good for users that had good UMD or had the spells on hand to cast. Are you magically illiterate? Do you have a working throat? CHUG CHUG CHUG now you can FLY FLY FLY.


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

I know I don't always sound like it, but I have way more positive feelings about both editions of pathfinder than negative. Paizo has boatloads of goodwill from me. I'm basically a Pathfinder evangelist in my social circles.

So when I say this, I mean it tenderly and with lots of love: This blog post made me laugh, and not in a good way.

Every time I read "Operate Activation" I laugh to myself like an owner watching a dog chase its tail.

When I see all these RP costs, I chuckle like someone is asking me to pay them in Schrute Bucks.

I just... I have so little faith in the PF2e item system I'm at a loss. Resonance is going to be such a hoot to playtest I can't wait.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

My two cents: went Resonance was first introduced, it felt weird, but also that there might be something in there. When I learned more about how you got it and what it was for, I started liking it more.

Now instead of having a shirt that gives you an extra move action 1/day and a cloak that turns you into a crow 3/day, you can wear both and decide with your 4 resonance points if you run 4 times, or turn into a crow 4 times, or any mix in between, and didn't have to track remaining uses for neither, just a global Resonance Pool.

When I learned potions costed resonance, I was also up for it. This encourages you to drink that one big level-apropiate powerful potion instead of drinking 20 crappy ones in a row after a fight, same for wands (wich I asumed would cost resonance to activate and would have no charges neither, so if you have 10 resonance points to use on wands, you want to make those 10 heals be better, so you buy better wands).
Making potions cost a valuable resource (Resonance) was also the perfect excuse to make them more powerful (since you are limited to how many you can use in any given day) so you would track your 3 AWESOME POTIONS instead of 20 crappy situational ones; and things like drinking a Healing Potion in Combat wouldn't be so much of a waste of actions (if it did for once heal more than what ANY enemy in the battle field could damage with half their attacks).

I was so into resonance, that I started homebrewing it in my current campaign, giving players wands and items that all have abilities that cost resonance, so they decide what/how they use them. And I do like having a resource similar to "How many spells do I have left? Do I want to burn one for this?" for all clases.

Then the last 2 Blog Posts happened... What a mess... 3 or 4 new kinds of actions that have never been explained to us and that seem that could be easily replaced with "Somatic, Verbal and Material". If you want to have a "Amazing Opperator" Feat later that removes the Opperation Action from items, you can...

Thank you. That is exactly how I feel, too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think someone in another thread had a great suggestion: If people are looking for automatic free full healing after every fight at a certain level, just pick a level and give everyone automatic free healing after every fight. In a system where a 16th level potion is worth 1,200 gp based on how much gold you get at that level, healing for multiples of 3 gp (or even cheaper from a wand) might as well just be free full automatic healing.

My rebuttal would be: if your goal is to keep the auto-heal aspect of the game down, wouldn't it be simpler to simply remove low-cost magical healing consumables from the game altogether instead?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
Is there a way of determining how much resonance I have? How about somebody else? Will this allow for "power level" detection?

I think only Jedi can determine a character's Resonance count.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
technarken wrote:
Is there a way of determining how much resonance I have? How about somebody else? Will this allow for "power level" detection?
I think only Jedi can determine a character's Resonance count.

Even they need to have a bloodtest kit in their belt.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The transferable runes are a great idea. This will solve the perennial problem of loot consisting of powerful weapons no one in the party can use. Famously, Small weapon and armor users were severely shortchanged by this, in most published adventures. PF2 brings them welcome relief.

Another good idea is the separation of potency and property, allowing for a lot more interesting weapons and armor types.

Unfortunately, I remain on the negative side of the fence, regarding the effects of Resonance. Based on this blog and the last, it's clear to me that complexity is increased overall. So... I'm hopeful that all notions of charges and uses per day can be removed entirely , after the playtest.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm beginning to get annoyed that "CLW spam" seems to be the go-to reason among the designers whenever they're asked why Resonance is necessary.

If that's legitimately the main reason (spamming low level items) for this mess that Resonance is shaping up to be, then it seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
If I had to guess, the reason they're using more verbose terminology is to prevent threads and threads of arguments about how imprecise their language is. It might be a bit harder to get used to, but it should also help make things clearer in the long run, and keep people on the same page.

That is PRECISELY what I am thinking every time I see someone complaining about the use of the keywords and the verbose labeling.

I bet if I were to do a search of forums on some of folks complaining I would find them complaining about imprecise verbiage in PF1. Heaven forbit, Paizo try and tighten up the rules language, and make it much more extensible for a product that has a long life cycle and will be adding many elements as time goes by.

The upside, is that there is a playtest, and, thankfully, there have been posters that have been willing to contribute in a positive way. I hope they continue to do so.


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

I'm beginning to get annoyed that "CLW spam" seems to be the go-to reason among the designers whenever they're asked why Resonance is necessary.

If that's legitimately the main reason (spamming low level items) for this mess that Resonance is shaping up to be, then it seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Designers haven't been using CLW spam as the go-to reason, it's just the commonplace example of something that Resonance solves, that has been touched on multiple times in different ways, on the subject of both resonance AND healing. Designers aren't the ones pointing at CLW constantly... it's the detractors and everyone else.

He didn't say "CLWs are the reason for reasonance", he said "other than the time the party cheaped out on the ability to heal hard, resonance didn't have a strongly grating effect on party effectiveness or playstyle."

Resonance has value in reducing (I'm not keen on the invisibility armor in this blog and it SHOULD be changed) the tracking of per day abilities for most gear, and setting an expectation for what a party can accomplish in a day, rather than having modules designed for not-so-perfect group of players that may not make the best choices for gear and items and then optimizers will roll it over without a second thought, and then have things like PFS slowly become a series of "You must be this efficient to ride", as I understand later PFS scenarios have been (though this is hearsay on my part, I can't really comment myself).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
If I had to guess, the reason they're using more verbose terminology is to prevent threads and threads of arguments about how imprecise their language is. It might be a bit harder to get used to, but it should also help make things clearer in the long run, and keep people on the same page.

That is PRECISELY what I am thinking every time I see someone complaining about the use of the keywords and the verbose labeling.

I bet if I were to do a search of forums on some of folks complaining I would find them complaining about imprecise verbiage in PF1. Heaven forbit, Paizo try and tighten up the rules language, and make it much more extensible for a product that has a long life cycle and will be adding many elements as time goes by.

The upside, is that there is a playtest, and, thankfully, there have been posters that have been willing to contribute in a positive way. I hope they continue to do so.

Discussing the language used and the chance that they are over-correcting is a way to contribute positively. Adding verbiage that doesn't help understanding isn't helping with the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Put me down for getting rid of wands as endless spell batteries and letting potions cost no resonance. They are expensive enough and bulky enough that people won’t want to carry around too many until they are a high enough level that it doesn’t really matter. Alchemists can still use resonance to make alchemical tinctures and please make all non-invested worn items usable 1x a day or per resonance point. Maybe make items higher level than your character level cost 1rp per level higher, maybe not. But wands as spell batteries already kinda sucks because we already have scrolls. Having an item that’s sole purpose was to be the Costco of magic items was a bad idea we can put to rest, especially if it gets charges and the fear of spammable consumables out of the picture.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

* That someone is suggesting adding a layer of interaction/facility to the Athletics skill that will require a character to invest more ranks (or proficiency? - sorry still grappling eith the terminology) in the Athletics skill to enable the character to better be enabled to....take a Deep Breath makes me want to take one just to stop from laughing with hilarity.

* Vorpal requires a nat 20, AND a critical success (ok, so it likely will be, but still) AND an expenditure of RP, AND the creature gets a save. I'll have read War and Peace by then. In Klingon. After learning Klingon. Conversational Klingon. For Dummies.

* Still want to bang on about not needing uber-specific activation flavor text. Cut down those words and let the players/GM choose. I get that it's an aid for creating your own, but let's not and say we didn't already.

* Etching runes seems ok, again I feel it is unnecessarily specific - obviously someone has a rune fetish in the sameway we got Skalds. I have no problem with the wipe-on/wipe-off mechanic - it's not really my bag but I'll wear it.

* Resonance is too busy, and not very clear. Let me be clear - as a designer it is interestig and I can see the mechanical interactions it will entail. But right now the system seems slightly overwrough, and I'm not liking it.

* Invisible armor? Ehmagherd.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That hireling resonance battery concept seems too funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
By the same token, a Throwing or Speed enchantment doesn't need to be on the blade where the CI is (Neither would frost or shock if we could get confirmation that CI is a decent thermal and electrical conductor). If CI's disruption doesn't "leak," any restriction is an engineering problem that can be solved (and considering you need better-made swords to stuff magic into in general, this is not a point against CI). If it does leak, why the [GOODNESS] isn't that leaking used to break opponent's magic?

No, the same token doesn't apply. If you are going to be enchanting a weapon, you probably have to have the enchantment be on or at least directed at and including the weaponiest part of the weapon. So if they blade/head/etc has enough Cold Iron in it to do anything mechanically sound like say, trigger a Weakness or overcome DR, then its natural resistance is going to make it harder to enchant effectively.

If the Cold Iron is only a small amount placed in the right spot of the item for a good description, then there is no need for it to be a disruptive presence to the overall enchantment.

Narrative example: "How did I get these burns on my hand? I figured out a rune to ignite a sword a long time ago. I was just an apprentice mind, so when I activated it the rune lit up the whole thing, grip and all. I wrapped the tang in a light layer of Cold Iron though, that keeps the Evocation on the blade where I want it. The professor said it lacked elegance and my runework was sloppy. Got a B- for it all the same."

Pathfinder is not an engineering simulator. Somethings are going to have to be considered below granularity and I'm fine with that. I'm going to leave this post with a quote from another game behind a spoiler tag. I think it might be fun to read, but it doesn't need to clutter up the thread.

GURPS Thaumatology:
Iron
A common, legendary resistor, iron harms faeries, drives off the Devil, and breaks charms and glamours. The blacksmith is traditionally considered holy, thanks to his constant, purifying exposure to iron. Casting magic on someone wearing iron, into a house protected by an iron cross or horseshoe, or on a blacksmith, may mean penalties as severe as -5; castings on or across iron itself may suffer as much as -7. Iron cannot serve as an insulator, and any iron item intended to contain magical power must be “magically degaussed.”
In some traditions, magnetized iron becomes a conductor akin to blood.
Fantasy novels and games sometimes restrict these powers to “cold iron,” an ahistorical concept likely based on misremembered Kipling poetry. If the GM wishes, he may define “cold iron” as cold-rolled iron, wrought iron, or meteoric iron.
Alternatively, meteoric iron might be a conductor, since it fell from the higher spheres. In that case, “star-iron” causes no negative effects, and in fact grants +3 to +5 (depending on purity and quantity) to magic using or cast through it. Whatever iron’s effects, the GM may rule that steel, as “impure” iron, doesn’t share them.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

When I first heard of Resonance, I was excited that keeping track of X/day items was going to be a thing of the past. But now it looks like that not only are X/day items still present, but that it is compounded with Resonance. I want to have to keep track of less resource pools, not more.

I also cannot express my unadulterated loathing for Resonance being forced upon consumable items (especially potions). There are so many ways to prevent people from just chugging potion after potion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A little late to the party, but I'll bite. Crunchy blogpost is crunchy, which is good. However, like the last blog post, it has some major flaws (some of which are repeated).

Let's delve into the first part...

Weapons:
So, we know that weapon quality affects how strong a weapon can be increased, with Standard being (effectively) nonmagical, and Expert, Master, and Legendary having the potential to have multiple bonuses and properties (the nice thing is that both have separate limits; the downside is I'm afraid that properties may either be too strong or too weak based on the examples I see here (more on this later), which makes either Potency or Properties become superior to the other. This isn't necessarily a good thing, because I think players who want properties or who want potency shouldn't be discouraged from pursuing what they want (better to-hit and damage or better options to utilize with their weapon) without fear of being screwed out of playing a "weaker" playstyle.

I'm also afraid that having "legacy" weapons (i.e. weapons you start with but want to improve into higher quality, and eventually into one of the most powerful weapons in the game universe) will be impossible if you are unable to improve existing weapons to higher categories of craftsmanship, meaning any form of heirloom weapon or weapon of legacy (such as a sword passed down from your father) become inviable choices as the game progresses due to lack of improvement. This also presents an issue with weapons made of special material not being possible for future weapons unless you outright buy it (since like in PF1, you can't just turn your weapon into a specific material by paying money for it), but I think this may be an issue that could be fixed via Rituals. (Maybe there is an alchemical transmutation ritual where you substitute the material of a weapon with the material you provide, and paying gold for the proper components, think Fullmetal Alchemist, equivalent exchange, and all that fun jazz, make it happen Paizo!)

Adding on to this, we are revealed a couple factoids about special materials (even technically introducing a new high level one), with Cold Iron being magically resistant (I hope it gives some neat benefits that would make Cold Iron more potent and worthwhile to not possess as many magical properties), and Orichalcum (this technically exists in PF1 as well), being magically empowered (but it is restricted to Legendary+ quality weapons, however).

Now to the specifics of weapon properties.

Disrupting:
I'm beginning to sense a theme between these lesser and greater options, where one is lowly priced enough, and the other is so obtusely priced that you can't really expect to get it later on. I hope these are placeholder prices, because this feels like gold conversion breaks down at a certain point in levels, where money just starts dropping everywhere for some godawful reason, which is bad design and immersion. (I wonder if upgrading from lesser to greater versions of a given effect is possible, such as with weapon properties, certain wondrous items, and so on.)

The lesser version isn't bad (though I'm curious if the enfeebled condition even works on Undead, if they have abilities similar to PF1, where they can ignore certain conditions, have special score generations, attribute conversions, and so on), but the greater version seems to have an unusual Save DC (32). Assuming you do get this weapon at 15th level, facing a 16th (or 17th) level undead BBEG, he most likely has a (17 level + 5 modifier + 2 proficiency bonus =) 24 saving throw against the effect, meaning he's fairly likely to make the saving throw, and has a decent chance of a Critical Success. He also can't ever Critically Fail it (even on a 1, since it's still less than 10), meaning the odds of using this weapon against comparable opponents and making them die from it is pretty weak and unlikely, which only gets worse as the levels increase. Wait, what?! I thought magic item properties (or even magic items in general) were supposed to scale better, making them not suck so bad against comparable enemies! I think this design goal has been missed utterly, simply because weapon properties, much like PF1, are being treated like crap again. Even a simple 15 + level + weapon proficiency modifier would have sufficed, since then you can have a decent chance of affecting bad guys with your weapon properties. I mean come on, Wizard spells still scale, why can't weapon properties, especially the higher level and powerful ones?

Did I also mention you have to spend resonance, and get a critical hit, JUST to make this happen? Congratulations, this property, much like PF1, can go to the scrap pile simply because you have to burn a relatively rare resource just to get a potential option to really debuff them (not destroy them, unless they're super weak mooks with bad saves, in which case, why are you wasting resonance on them?), which has a very good chance of simply not working, assuming you even get the option to do so to begin with. Yuck; this was this weapon's chance to shine, and instead it becomes enervated like someone hit with three Enervation spells in a turn by a Magus using a Spellstoring Weapon. (Not technically possible, but you get the idea.)

The next classic weapon property is...

Vorpal:
While this is an interesting take on this, this does suffer from what the Disrupting property above has, which is both lack of scaling, requiring resonance, and getting a natural 20 on the dice (not just a critical hit, but a very specific dice roll)? On top of that, it requires your Reaction to do, which means if you have any abilities you wanted to use which key off of your Reaction (because the fight isn't over), you now have to debate with (potentially, but most likely not) killing an enemy in front of you, or waiting it out with using Reactions for a more secure victory. Meaningful choices is one thing, but having to fight between options that can still get you killed isn't really fair.

On top of that, this suffers very badly from Legacy issues. For starters, the dice roll requirement. Why isn't this simply "a critical hit," when you are required to spend your Reaction to use this ability? The factor you have to burn Reactions to use this property (as well as Resonance, don't forget,) really kills the immersion of this weapon. It's too niche to not be worth the 15,000 gold it is (150,000 gold in PF1 currency, which is the equivalent of directly attaching it to an already +5 Weapon in PF1); if it was expanded more to work on any critical (or at the very least, didn't take a Reaction, or even Resonance), it might be more worthwhile. It otherwise goes on the garbage pile like normal, all for the sake of legacy.

To vent a bit more about "legacy," I really think that sometimes, people use legacy to its detriment way too often, and Paizo has done this before. These are supposed to be new, fleshed-out and completely revised rules that really set them apart from simply being a continuation of someone else's work (i.e. PF1 being a follow-up of D&D 3.X). So then why are we still having legacy things in here if we want a heavily revised game? Much less bad legacy things? I'm of the opinion that, legacy is fine to have until it no longer works appropriately with the things that we know can and will work. Once legacy becomes more of a burden than a help, it's time for that legacy to go for the good of the game. And in this case, I'm of the opinion that the natural 20 requirement (and either the reaction or the resonance) need(s) to go to make this weapon actually cool and useful, and worth its price.

Onto the next big impact item...

Armor:
I expected this sort of copy-paste effect to go here, but in my opinion it really helps the armor rules out, since this is meant to be a more streamlined version of the game; having majorly different rules for supplemental items would be a bad thing here. I do like how the armor quality does affect its armor check penalty (though we were never given some samples of what attributes we can expect with certain armors, or how proficiency with armor in general works, if it's anything like PF1 or not, and so on, making this information somewhat pointless to discuss). I'm also intrigued by the Orichalcum having different benefits for armor, but there is one telling thing here that really bothers me in regards to tracking things, and that is initiative roll bonuses versus skill bonuses (since in the current rules, we use skills to determine initiative now), which is a really bad thing. As I said prior, cutting down on things to keep track of is a primary goal for PF2. Now that we have Initiative bonuses, Skill bonuses, Item bonuses, and so on, we run the risk of creating characters having to keep track of multiple modifiers based on what they are using their skills for, which can be a big headache really quick (and is something they disliked in PF1, which is why Power Attack is Vital Strike, TWF doesn't incur typical penalties, and so on). I'm not saying I couldn't handle the different modifiers, but what I am saying is that there are people who struggle with doing so, and it is a big impact to those people.

Other than that, some of my concerns with weapons described above can be transcribed here to armor as well. To cut down on page space, I won't bother repasting it, and request you just re-read the above, replacing weapons with armor.

The first armor property to discuss is...

Invisibility:
Wow, I guess the developers really love creating invisibility options. We have a Cloak of Elvenkind that grants Invisibility, we have a Trinket that grants Invisibility, and now we have an Armor Property that grants Invisibility, all of which has been previewed thus far. Ironically enough, there aren't any items or spells discussed thus far that talk about whether you can see through these illusionary spells. I wonder if I can just gather all of these items, and never have to be in combat, ever, since nothing sees through invisibility so far? Wishful thinking perhaps, but a potentially legitimate concern if there is nothing that allows players and NPCs alike to see through invisibility in the game, especially if Greater Invisibility hits the pages (which we know to exist).

But at least the property is fairly cut and dry, with a one time use of Invisibility per day, costing one Resonance point to do. A Greater Version exists, tripling your uses per day (but also technically triples the Resonance cost for it as well). The nice thing about this property is that it only requires one action to do (a Focus action), meaning when you absolutely, positively need to go Invisible, this will help you out. I wouldn't, however, use it in an out-of-combat or pre-combat scenario unless it's all you got, since actions in-combat are really important. (It's also perhaps one of the few items I've seen so far today that I have little to no comnplaints for, so good job Paizo!)

Next up is this classic armor property...

Fortification:
This is a fairly nice cut-and-dry property which gives a basic bonus (and doesn't outright cost resonance to use!), but it does have some issues unfortunately.

First off is the Bulk increase. I'm not sure it makes sense for an item's Bulk to be increased by 1, especially if that item is of lighter (or heavier) construction. You may want something like an "Increase the item's Bulk by X%" clause instead, since percentage increases are still fairly simple, and shouldn't screw with the math too much. While a flat increase might make it simple and more generic, I don't think it's fair for someone who isn't as strong to be penalized for still wanting to have good defenses (but can't carry as much stuff due to lack of Strength).

The scaling for it is also a bit out of whack, and also doesn't include a lower tier to start out. In my opinion, the base effect should be a Lesser at 6th level, with the flat DC 17, followed by the Standard with a flat DC 14, and a Greater with the flat DC 11. At high levels, a 50% chance to negate a critical hit (but not sneak attack, an important distinction for Rogues and other Sneak Attack aficionados out there!) should be powerful and worth it.

Also, wonky prices are wonky. Why is it I"m paying (effectively) 20,000 gold for Standard Fortification, but 240,000 gold for Greater Fortification? I'm really beginning to think that either gold is expected to have a random spike in the higher levels, or that these prices are simply example placeholders, with the actual numbers being revealed in the playtest. Either way, it really throws off my ability to process the price differential, and whether those increases are really worth that price change.

Other than those things, it's not a bad property, and can still certainly have use.

Ah yes, it's time for the elephant(s) in the room...

Potions:
Not much has been revealed here, other than that potions don't necessarily mimic spell effects, and that potions can be made with higher level spells. Unfortunately, lacking specifics here I can't really give an accurate depiction, but I can say that in general, these are positive things that help change my opinion on the matter.

On the flip side, we all know that potions are consumables, and that consumables still cost resonance to use, which means that even if a potion isn't a simple "spell in a vial," it's difficult to gauge whether a consumable is worth it, and in my opinion, it's absolutely bad design. You have an item whose sole purpose is to be used when the user wishes to use it; when there is a mechanic that impedes a person's ability to use it, it creates a bad and horribly tasting relationship between the consumer and the consumed, one that is likely not to last (or even be pleasant if it comes up) simply because of counter-intuitive design. Why create something whose sole purpose is to be used, and then impose a mechanic that cuts down on a person's ability to use it? I just don't get it, and this applies to more than just potions, but other consumables as well, but potions being featured here is a prime example of why this makes no sense.

Even if it requires tinkering Resonance to only work on non-consumable items, I'd rather they do that than give me more reasons to just turn consumables into vendor trash.

Rant aside, let's move on to the most iconic fantasy item in this blog...

Potions of Healing:
The scaling on these is silly (but it does tell us that 9th level spells can be put into a potion, though the effect may not be the same as casting the spell of course). In PF1, there are 9 spells levels, with potions taking up 3 of the 9 levels they can. Each of them was able to heal as the spell, granting a proper scaling of healing per spell tier (well, relatively; the idea was that there was healing for each spell tier, though the scaling for each spell tier kind of sucked and was really wonky).

Here, you have it scale from 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, with arbitrary bonuses (which help make it more consistent, but it's still poorly drafted). In short, the scaling could use more work, and should have tiers from 1 to 9. It's not like hit points don't scale linearly in this game, so I don't see why we can't have linear scaling potions.

Once again, wonky item pricing is wonky. The 7D6 potion costs 250 gold. The 9D6 potion costs six times that amount. WHY?!

Otherwise, it's kind of par for the course. It does reveal that alchemical concoction equivalents, called elixirs, do exist in this game as well (I wish we had more previews of this than something I'll end up vendoring due to a condition that players can get that I will now dub Resonance Paralysis, but that's not up to me to have.)

Next up is an interesting form of potion...

Dragon's Breath Potion:
This is perhaps one of the better designed potions out there, although this does suffer from the staff conundrum of the last blog, which is you pay resonance to get some basic effect (in this case, the ability to use an ability for an hour; how silly and asinine is that?!), and then you spend more resonance and actions to gain or utilize effects you've been given. In this case, you spend 2 actions and one additional resonance point to create a special kind of boom-boom depending on which version of this potion you possess. (There are a lot of them, with differing grades and breeds of dragon; I thought we were going to cut down on this sort of stuff?)

The other thing that this potion suffers from, similar to the weapon properties of before, is the bad, non-scaling item DCs. I suppose it doesn't make as much sense for consumables to have them, since they aren't meant to last, but even the most basic version, against a level 8-9 BBEG (9 level + 3 modifier + 1 proficiency) still has a pretty good chance to make the saving throw, with some chance to critically succeed, and a comparable chance to fail (but never critically fail). In short, I wouldn't really use this on a BBEG, due to its area of effect properties; but against a group of mooks (with 6 level + 2 modifier + 0-1 proficiency), a potion like this works out really nicely, so at least it has a niche use. But of course, similar to consumables with Resonance in general, I just don't see how this would be cool or neat to have.

Now for the return of one type of item that I thought was gone due to Trinkets...

Oil of Mending:
If Oils are anything like PF1, they are Potions, but only work on objects, not creatures, in which case, welcome back, Oils. Not sure if I missed you or not, since I've never really had Oils to use in, well, any campaign I've played. Could just be me, but if others share that sentiment then I'm not sure if this is really something valuable, but let's delve into it.

Of course, this raises one big question: Do Oils also require Resonance to use? I'm going to say yes, simply because A. It's magical, B. It's consumable, and C. Oils aren't that different from Potions, and Potions require Resonance to use. So, it makes sense for Oils to likewise require Resonance.

If that is the case, then an item like this has just become the staple Cure Light Wounds consumable item (or wand) for Shield users. As we know, Shield use will be commonplace for tanky players to use, and will result in them being easily damaged (and perhaps even easily disposed of if they are bad quality shields). However, this oil makes it so that you can keep using a shield (assuming it doesn't just get destroyed in a given combat).

But, as I stated above, with this becoming a potential staple for shield users, they didn't really solve the CLW problem from PF1 like they wished to do, all they did is shift it and made it more of a niche problem. This may ultimately depend on how often a shield gets Dented, or even Broken, over the course of a given adventuring day (or session). If they get Dented once per session, or even broken? Boom, the new CLW consumable is here now as an Oil, and not a Potion or Wand. If not, then maybe it will just be something handy to have for those extremely long adventuring days, which may (or may not) be fine and dandy, but as with above, this may require shield users to be more careful in using Resonance, because now, if they burn their Resonance and are unable to fix a dented or broken shield later, they may have to end up replacing that shield entirely, which can cost an arm and a leg at the endgame, which is just bad design.

Also interestingly enough, this consumable doesn't scale, which makes an interesting case for how to fix higher level items when they break? Unfortunately, we don't know for sure how the Mending spell works, so I'm really just spitballing its usefulness.

Overall, we got good news and bad news. The good news is that the formatting is better (still not ideal), and the overall view of the blog subjects has improved in quantity, quality, and presentability. The bad news is that there is still a long way to go before I can say that this is a "natural progression" from PF1 to PF2, or that it is even a good progression. There are still many things to be done, such as even better formatting, fixing gold prices (seriously, almost every high level item is dozens of times more expensive than its lower level counterpart, and some of them aren't even that different in level comparison, and it's driving me insane), better weapon/armor property scaling, and potentially having more interesting items in print (as well as getting rid of bad legacy).

But we are improving, and that's the steps we need to take to get in the right direction. Just keep on the path, and eventually the final blog before the playtest will be absolutely awesome to read and review. Until then? We got work to do, Paizo. Let's get to it!


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

A little late to the party, but I'll bite. Crunchy blogpost is crunchy, which is good. However, like the last blog post, it has some major flaws (some of which are repeated).

Let's delve into the first part...

** spoiler omitted **...

On the Disrupting Property, it actually DOESN'T cost Resonance. It doesn't have an activation line.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

We finally get Orichalcum in Pathfinder to complete the fantasy metals collection!

So if the item says ACTIVATION that always means 1 resonance? It's kinda confusing.

Also, MATERIA SYSTEM!

I was wondering that too. It doesn't say resonance is required anywhere in the description.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The part about the "over-use of low-level items" arguement that irks me the most is that is that the problem had nothing to do with how good or bad the low and high level potions and wands were compared to one another... the problem was always the arbitrary and stupid pricing model invented by WotC for 3rd edition.
I would totally prefer to be buying potions of cure moderate wounds instead of cure light wounds when I hit 3rd level, if they were priced appropriately (I.E. a similar HP to GP ratio)... but they just aren't... and since everyone is always telling me in-combat healing is an inefficient use of my actions... why not pay less?
Similarly, I'd have upgraded my armor from +1 to +3 Armor before buying a +1 Amulet and Ring, except that the former costs three times as much for argueably much the same benefit.

Pathfinder Society only compounded the problem by making wands so readily available at 1st level. I had never seen a 1st level character with a fully charged wand before PFS, let alone have it be considered commonplace.

While RP costs will have the intended effect of encouraging use of high level consumables over low-level ones during encounters... They are a god-awefully stupid way of doing so, and much of the same effect could have been achieved simply by making higher-level consumables more cost effective, but magical consumables less cost effective in general. Even a margin of cost-efficiency as low as a few % per tier of healing item would be sufficient to have power-gamers always buy the highest level potions they can reasonably benefit from. Beyond that, there are plenty of much better ways of preventing people from loading themselves down with hundreds of consumables. Such as encumbrance, logical restrictions on how many potions you can drink in a given period of time (like alcohol tolerance)

Besides one of the stipulated benefits of having Item Levels was supposed to be that you don't need the artifically inflate equipment prices and strictly control the acquistion of wealth (to the point of it basically just being a secondary experience bar) just to keep inappropriately powerful items out of a low-level character's hands.


Azouth wrote:
Orichalcum that’s new. I like it.

I still remember hearing a shipwreck off of sicily was found to be carrying a shipment of orichalcum I am like GAMER SENSES TINGLING!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

A little late to the party, but I'll bite. Crunchy blogpost is crunchy, which is good. However, like the last blog post, it has some major flaws (some of which are repeated).

Let's delve into the first part...

** spoiler omitted **...

Reminder that a natural 1 is still a crit fail is the number was going to be a failure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand, and a few extreme stress test situations where I told them "This is the only fight today. Nova your heart out," my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma.

Is that the primary purpose of Resonance then? To make sure high level adventurers heal up with a reasonable amount of high level wand uses, rather than trickle-to-full with a more hp-per-gp efficient wand?

Edit: Eh, replied before seeing this was asked multiple times already.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The lesser version isn't bad (though I'm curious if the enfeebled condition even works on Undead, if they have abilities similar to PF1, where they can ignore certain conditions, have special score generations, attribute conversions, and so on), but the greater version seems to have an unusual Save DC (32). Assuming you do get this weapon at 15th level, facing a 16th (or 17th) level undead BBEG, he most likely has a (17 level + 5 modifier + 2 proficiency bonus =) 24 saving throw against the effect, meaning he's fairly likely to make the saving throw, and has a decent chance of a Critical Success. He also can't ever Critically Fail it (even on a 1, since it's still less than 10), meaning the odds of using this weapon against comparable opponents and making them die from it is pretty weak and unlikely, which only gets worse as the levels increase.

You're missing an important part of the critical hit/miss system:

Natural 1s make your roll count as one degree worse and your Natural 20s count as one degree better.

If you roll a natural 1, your result counts as one degree worse. Meaning, if it would have been a critical success (10 over), it's a regular success (at or slightly above DC), if it would have been a regular success (at or slightly above DC), it would have counted as a regular failure, and if it would have counted as a regular failure (less than DC but more than DC-10), it counts as a Critical Failure.

The reverse with Natural 20s.

Meaning, if said undead rolls a natural 1, and it's less than the DC, it Critically Fails and dies.

Not the highest percent chance, but that's the chance of insta-killing the Boss. If he's been swarming weaker undead minions/sub-bosses, you have a higher chance of killing them instantly.

Also, it still does 2d6 extra damage and even if he Critically Succeeds, he's still slightly enfeebled for a round, moreso if he fails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:


Designers haven't been using CLW spam as the go-to reason, it's just the commonplace example of something that Resonance solves, that has been touched on multiple times in different ways, on the subject of both resonance AND healing. Designers aren't the ones pointing at CLW constantly... it's the detractors and everyone else.

He didn't say "CLWs are the reason for reasonance", he said "other than the time the party cheaped out on the ability to heal hard, resonance didn't have a strongly grating effect on party effectiveness or playstyle."

Resonance has value in reducing (I'm not keen on the invisibility armor in this blog and it SHOULD be changed) the tracking of per day abilities for most gear, and setting an expectation for what a party can accomplish in a day, rather than having modules designed for not-so-perfect group of players that may not make the best choices for gear and items and then optimizers will roll it over without a second thought, and then have things like PFS slowly become a series of "You must be this efficient to ride", as I understand later PFS scenarios have been (though this is hearsay on my part, I can't really comment myself).

To be fair, the designers don't have seem to address the whole CLW issue till a small post here and a too board statement in the last blog post. I would actually like them to say something more about the issue if it's this wide spread as it's supposed to be.

Even with Resonance, a team that as a wizard can do more than a team that doesn't. Even two different teams of the same characters and players, BUT a different wizard, can do better or worse depending on how optimized the wizard builds. The only actual problem to the community is how many people decide to follow the Player that optimized to the point of ruining the game for everyone else.

You are right though. It is an Expectation. To me I feel Resonance can easily become, "You must be this efficient to ride". Why? Because my local PFS does that NOW. I'm fully expected there to buy X, Y, and Z. I can guarantee you those people will fully expect A, B, and C when it comes to the new edition. I just get a few months of them figuring it out.

Heck the whole Resonance thing seem to be even worse when at PFS. When you can't rely on getting items you actually want, or crafting rules to make what you want; it seems like this would really enforce the "Pick the best" Mantra. At in my area.

Cheburn wrote:
In PF1e at least, potions have unique tastes. I doubt they're going to complement the soup.

Do they? I just handwaved that into my character's potions. Makes for some fun RP at times.

Cantriped wrote:
Couldn't we instead have flasks that convert water into healing potions at the cost of RP? As well as prefabricated potions which only cost gold because they are intended to be magic you don't have to spend daily resources on!

Stealing this. But maybe reword it from Bountiful Bottle. Especially if that makes the jump to PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Bummer, I was expecting to never see a 1/day item again, it would be really that unbalanced that items could be activated as many times as resonance can be expended?

Yeah… as Mark pointed out, it's Quickened Invisibility rather than just Invisibility. I imagine Quickened Invisibility falls somewhere between regular and Greater (i.e. 4th level) Invisibility. If you can use it unlimited times, it's a very strong tool for Sorcerers and Bards, something of a must-have. So why is limited per day balanced? Because in addition to the cost, it takes up an armor ability slot, which you only have so many of. You can only get the great deal of Quickened Invisibility for just one RP so often for that slot.

I do agree with the idea that the upgraded version should probably just balance for slightly higher level unlimited use (a pay-lots-of-RP take on 4th level Invisibility) and avoid having something to track beyond used/unused.

But it will not be unlimited, it will still cost resonance per activation, resonance is the limit, that is the point, and is going to be competing for RP with other magical items too, on top of taking up the armor slot, so I really don't think it would be broken to be able to get a few more activations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I mentioned in the previous blog post, my main issue with Resonance that I hate with a passion is the concept of a failure chance when trying to use them. Potions and other consumables especially should never be "wasted". I believe it would be better if the Resonance system instead had that all magic items had a minimal/trivial function when used with 0 RP. At least then player would not feel like their item isn't wasted.

We could then allow the Resonance system to play along with magic weapons. Invest in them like armor, and spend points to activate awesome abilities at key moments in the fight. It seems silly that Resonance works with everything else that is magical, including armor, but not weapons, where it could be argued is where we would see the most use out of the system. Maybe include in the Resonance system the ability to spend more points for additional effects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Will I be able to upgrade the quality of my weapon?

If I have an Expert quality longsword that belonged to my beloved brother before he gifted it to me, will I be able to take it and have it reforged to Master quality so I can keep using it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

My two cents: went Resonance was first introduced, it felt weird, but also that there might be something in there. When I learned more about how you got it and what it was for, I started liking it more.

Now instead of having a shirt that gives you an extra move action 1/day and a cloak that turns you into a crow 3/day, you can wear both and decide with your 4 resonance points if you run 4 times, or turn into a crow 4 times, or any mix in between, and didn't have to track remaining uses for neither, just a global Resonance Pool.

When I learned potions costed resonance, I was also up for it. This encourages you to drink that one big level-apropiate powerful potion instead of drinking 20 crappy ones in a row after a fight, same for wands (wich I asumed would cost resonance to activate and would have no charges neither, so if you have 10 resonance points to use on wands, you want to make those 10 heals be better, so you buy better wands).
Making potions cost a valuable resource (Resonance) was also the perfect excuse to make them more powerful (since you are limited to how many you can use in any given day) so you would track your 3 AWESOME POTIONS instead of 20 crappy situational ones; and things like drinking a Healing Potion in Combat wouldn't be so much of a waste of actions (if it did for once heal more than what ANY enemy in the battle field could damage with half their attacks).

I was so into resonance, that I started homebrewing it in my current campaign, giving players wands and items that all have abilities that cost resonance, so they decide what/how they use them. And I do like having a resource similar to "How many spells do I have left? Do I want to burn one for this?" for all clases.

Then the last 2 Blog Posts happened... What a mess... 3 or 4 new kinds of actions that have never been explained to us and that seem that could be easily replaced with "Somatic, Verbal and Material". If you want to have a "Amazing Opperator" Feat later that removes the Opperation Action from items, you can...

Exactly how I feel. I really like RP even if I was a bit iffy on needing it for consumables, but understood why it was there and its benefits. But seeing charges and x/day still in the game makes me scratch my head. Why have RP at all if it's not going to be global for all magic item usage? It should remove fiddly tracking of charges and x/day on multiple items and condense it into one global pool. Having both just ups the fiddlyness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Will I be able to upgrade the quality of my weapon?

If I have an Expert quality longsword that belonged to my beloved brother before he gifted it to me, will I be able to take it and have it reforged to Master quality so I can keep using it?

I'd acutally like an answer to this too.

A player in one of the games I'm in made fordging his personal blade/sword a big thing about his character's story and motivation. He even gave up using a chainsaw sword(Iron gods), due to such a connection and drive because of this sword.

I would hate for him to be out of luck that he couldn't turn it into an Expert, Master, whatever sword of whatever + he needs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kwiqsilver wrote:

Rather than:

Success
Critical Success
Failure
Critical Failure

I think it would be more logical to list them in best -> worst (or worst -> best based on your POV) order:
C S
S
F
C F

Please, please, please! The order as written disrupts my reading comprehension greatly. (Pun Intended.)


I totally get why they can't have us Investing in our weapons... besides investing energy semi-permenantly in something you won't be holding most of the day being a little odd: it diminishes the "golf-bag o' weapons" concept that d20 has been trying to push for decades, having to pay to enchant each weapon is discouragement enough given the prices we can expect.

I do so hope this means shields will get a pass on investment cost too... I am very worried about what arbitrary stupidity they've yet to reveal to us about shields. For example, I want to know for sure that Shield quality improves it's AC bonus while raised. Per how the past blogs have indicated that it quality improves the same statistics as proficiency does... and (gods I hope) stacks?

I am glad that higher quality armor reduces check penalties in addition to the armor class bonus later supplanted by it's magical bonus. Feels like less of an arbitrary tax than 3.x's masterwork armor was.


So, is the weapon Potency different from the Weapon Tier? Does a Legendary +5 Longsword grant +8?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
worldhopper wrote:
graystone wrote:
worldhopper wrote:
I understand CLW spam is boring and bad
Well I understand some think this is so [including some devs], I don't think this is a universal truth accepted by the entirety of the gaming community. I personally have never found it either of those things.
I agree with those people (it's repetitive and doesn't make for engaging gameplay), but this is not a good fix. 5E's short rest system (or SF's, for that matter) was a much better way of handling healing everybody up after a fight, and if they don't like that either - well, a better solution would be writing adventures that don't require everyone to be at full HP every combat.

Oh, I understand that you do: You where just presenting it as if it was an accepted fact with "CLW spam is boring and bad". If you had said 'I THINK CLW spam is boring and bad" I wouldn't have said a thing. For some of us, it's a massive undertaking to fix something that's never been an issue.

As to your fixes, I don't really see the big difference between them and CLW spam except CLW spam costs some cash. If you find rolling the dice and acting out the healing the issue, montage it and just mark off x charges per out of combat heal 'action'. I can't see how the DM saying 'ok, you use your consumables and heal to full. Mark off 10 charges from your wand' is any more boring/bad than 'ok you take a short rest and heal up to max'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:

Rather than:

Success
Critical Success
Failure
Critical Failure

I think it would be more logical to list them in best -> worst (or worst -> best based on your POV) order:
C S
S
F
C F

There's already a thread about this from months ago where Mark explains why it's the way it is. Here's a summary:

Sometimes the Crit Effects are based on the normal effect. Example:

Failure: The target is flat-footed and enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
Critical Failure: As Success, but duration is 2 rounds.

So it's not about OCD aesthetics stuff, but logic readability of effects.

Even with that, I’d STILL rather have it in CS > S > F > CF order, because at a glance it’s still quicker to ingest to me.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

So, is the weapon Potency different from the Weapon Tier? Does a Legendary +5 Longsword grant +8?

They're different but don't stack. So you could have a +1 Legendary sword, which'd have +3 to hit, or a +5 Legendary sword which'd have +5 to hit.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Valeros had finally "procured" the last ingredient for the recipient stone, a milky white smooth stone from the depths of the Darklands, with a little help from Merisiel and her skills in both lockpicking and information gathering.
Waiting was the hardest part, since Ezren had said that it had to steep in the concoction of the other ingredients for at least 24 hours. But now it was finally time to perform the two etching rituals.
Ezren had laid out the items needed. The recipient stone. Valeros' sword with the ghost rune etched in it and the deep red ruby already etched with the new fire rune. And, of course, the pungent incense Ezren insisted on being necessary for the ritual. With baited breath Valeros took a small step back, to avoid disturbing the wizard as he concentrated on uttering the right words.

Ezren took a deep breath, the deep smell of the incense helping to block out the surrounding sounds, placed his left thumb on the sword before him, rythmically going over the rune etched like a ghostly remnant of something once prominent on the blade. A greyish mist formed around his left thumb as he whispered the transference ritual under his breath. Placing his right thumb on the milky white stone a similar mist rose around it. One last time he traced the rune on the sword while mimicking the movements on the stone and the ghostly rune now appeared on the surface of the stone while the sword was left blank.
Picking up a oily cloth the wizard wiped down the sword once, then dipped his right thumb in the small pot of salamander blood and placed his left thumb on the large ruby. Repeating the ritual he just performed on the ghost rune, the new fire rune appeared under a reddish glow of Ezren's thumb on the blade of Valeros' sword, looking like a small fiery scar etched into the metal.

Stretching his back while pushing a few sweatsoaked strands of hair out of his face, Ezren sighed and stood up. Picking up the sword with the newly etched rune he turned to Valeros with a tired, but stern look on his face.
"Remember, draw it from your scabbard before you activate the sword's new power!"

Yeah, I see no problem with calling it etching, seems very thematical. :-)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

So, is the weapon Potency different from the Weapon Tier? Does a Legendary +5 Longsword grant +8?

They're different but don't stack. So you could have a +1 Legendary sword, which'd have +3 to hit, or a +5 Legendary sword which'd have +5 to hit.

And I assume the same applies to damage? The +5 Legendary Longsword only has 6d8 damage?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Their stated reason for putting Success before Critical Success is that CS will often say "As success, +X." I don't think this is a good justification. If you do CS then S, Success is the very next line, it's trivial to look down to the next line to see what Success does.

If it gives someone an aneurysm to contemplate looking down to the next line, as if that's somehow infinitely worse than looking up to the previous line, I'd frankly rather they just fully write out the complete effect of a critical success without the shorthand, just to ensure it's in CS / S / F / CF order.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
So items can only have a certain amount of potency or properties depending on how well-made they are. So what happens if I'm a low-level starting character and I can only afford a lesser quality weapon, but it's important to me that that specific weapon (and not some substitute that I come across at higher levels) be the weapon I use for my entire career? Can it be reforged (by me or a hired NPC) into a higher quality weapon? Will the CRB have the Masterwork Transformation spell?

^This^

Sorry if me and Tectorman missed something, but I’d appreciate an answer to this question. Do I really have to Sell my trusty Longsword for a new or used Longsword of greater quality because my Old one can’t support the runes and/or Properties?

201 to 250 of 883 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Potency and Potions All Messageboards