On the Road to Sombrefell Hall!

Monday, September 10, 2018

As of today, we turn our focus to Part 3 of Doomsday Dawn, "Affair at Sombrefell Hall," written by one of the many talented developers of the new edition of Pathfinder, Amanda Hamon Kunz. If you've already played Part 3 of Doomsday Dawn, you can find the surveys at the following links:

Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

Before we move on, we'd like to look back at what we've learned from the first two parts of the adventure and talk about some additional changes we're making to the game based on your comments and feedback.

But first, a few important notes.

First off, you can still turn in survey results for Parts 1 and 2 of the adventure. Although we're moving on, your responses will still be counted and help us make further decisions about the game.

Second, I want to take a moment to stress that the various parts of Doomsday Dawn are meant to be tests that look at various parts of the game engine. This goal was more important to us, in some places, than creating a balanced play experience. This will make certain parts of the adventure a little challenging to run at times, but we hope you'll bear with us. We've tried to ensure you'll have a good time with the adventure, but the test goals have to come first. Thanks for understanding.

Finally, the rest of this blog may contain spoilers for Parts 1 and 2, so if you have not finished those chapters, you might want to go back and do that first.

Deconstructing Part 2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow

In case you missed the Twitch stream on Friday, Designer Logan Bonner sat down with Dan Tharp to talk through some of the things we've learned so far from the survey results from Part 2 of Doomsday Dawn. Here are a few of the highlights, along with a thing or two we might have missed.

As the first part of Doomsday Dawn to be set above level 1, Part 2 was our first chance to ask about archetypes. 15% of you took an archetype, and of those, most were arcane spellcasters picking up the fighter archetype.

This is also the first part of the adventure where characters start play with magic items. 62% of you chose magic armor as your 3rd-level item, but over 10% took a lower-level item or a consumable item instead. We might look into making changes in how you can select items in the future to accommodate players who want more flexibility.

It took players, on average, almost 10 minutes less to make their 4th-level characters that it did to make their 1st-level characters, which is great news.

Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

Finally, this part of the adventure was designed to test the game in situations with complex environmental and tactical challenges. Our results showed that players viewed these fights as a significantly greater challenge than the raw monster numbers—not counting the environmental advantages—would indicate. Players also rated the fights in this part as significantly longer and not quite as fun. Some of this was expected, but when we look at these results by class, things become really interesting, showing us which classes had the most difficulty with Part 2. Barbarians, monks, and paladins, for example, seemed to have a bit of trouble with the manticore fight, since they tend to lack ranged options. This shows us that there are adjustments to be made with these classes to ensure they have some way to contribute.

New Updates

With the start of a new part of Doomsday Dawn, we also have a number of changes to the game that we want to bring to your attention. All of these can be found in the download below (which includes all of the previous changes in one handy document). Here are a few of the highlights:

First up, we're changing the anathema for the animal totem barbarian to allow you to use whatever weapon you want while outside of rage. When transformed with fury, though, you still need to use those special animal unarmed attacks. Look for a few more barbarian updates as well.

Next, we're adding a longer range to soothe, the occult healing spell, allowing you to use it on targets up to 30 feet away. There's a bard update, as well; they now have a feat to gain access to 10th-level occult spells.

Finally—and this is the big change for the week—we're removing the concept of signature skills from the game. Now anyone can advance any skill up to any proficiency rank they want (assuming their level is high enough for them to do so). In addition, a number of classes are having their total number of starting skill choices increased to at least three, with each also getting one or more automatic skills, to represent basic class training.

This change also precipitates the need for a NEW CHARACTER SHEET! On top of removing signature skills from the game, we are also taking this opportunity to clean up a number of issues with the character sheet to make it a bit more intuitive and easy to use.

As always, none of these changes are final, but instead more steps toward the best version of Pathfinder we can make. Thank you for all of your feedback and assistance so far. We're looking forward to learning more from you in the coming months.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

In the "Positives and Negatives" blog, they've expressed that they're already looking into alternatives for resonance due to its lack of popularity, as well as highlighting some of the issues they've run into with it.


Playtest Update wrote:

in Pharasma,

change “9th: power word kill” to “4th: phantasmal killer”;

I remember the devs saying that they were improving Cleric domain spells by removing the divine spells they would already have access too and replacing them with spells from other lists. So why has Pharasma's domain spells been basically nerfed?

The Goddess of Death and Fate giving power over death itself is very thematic. It's a strong spell, sure, but it's using a 9th level slot and isn't actually likely to instakill an enemy that would be otherwise too challenging given the party's level when the Cleric would gain this spell.


These are great changes, but our group usually has their characters made by monday afternoons. Is there any chance that we can have these updates on Friday afternoon rather than monday, so we can have the weekend to review them and adjust accordingly?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

I don't want to be that guy, but if PF2 is finalized with its current resonance system, I'll most likely have to switch to D&D, because in my home game I'm typically the gm and my players want a more streamlined smooth flowing game. They already hated the need to confirm a crit in original PF, and were glad to see that go. They were also glad to see the automatic attack of opportunity system go. But if those cumbersome rules get replaced with a new cumbersome resonance system that restricts them from using all of their magic items, they will lose interest and not enjoy the game. I've mentioned above how I believe the resonance system can be redone and still be fun. I hope something is done about it, because I have a lot of years invested in Pathfinder and love Paizo's customer service. I also feel the current D&D isn't very well thought out. But, if switching to it to keep my players enjoying a streamlined non oppressive game is what has to be done, I'll sadly have to do that. Also sadly, it seems like the Pathfinder developers have no interest in considering what the players have to say about the resonance system. Just swallow what they give us to swallow :(

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

59 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

Is it hyperbole if we just don't like it and see it as a pointless system that only serves to make players feel worse without actually solving any problems? It's not like there's no good arguments for that position, after all.

Because if so, I guess my feedback isn't welcome. In any case, I certainly don't feel like it is. PF2 isn't a game for me or a lot of people who like PF1 I guess. Bye all.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

So a thing I am concerned about is that no matter how it plays on the table, a whole lot of people are committed to "no system called Resonance or no system resembling resonance is acceptable." So I would urge people to consider what systems short of "no limits whatsoever" they would be happy with or at least accept.

Because frankly if it plays well on the table, it should be not far from acceptable no matter what. It seems like a lot of people have very strongly held opinions for things that frankly could be handled pretty well with house rules. Like I've played with some GMs who loathed gnomes and all things gnomey, so they just banned gnomes, which is easy to do and a much better solution than complaining on the internet that there are gnomes out there and other people are having fun playing with them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Blog wrote:
It took players, on average, almost 10 minutes less to make their 4th-level characters that it did to make their 1st-level characters, which is great news.

One of my players mentioned that character creation moved a lot faster not just because he was more familiar with the rules, but because he went for the 'ABC' method that the book seems designed towards, rather than starting with a specific concept and looking for the pieces to make it work. I hope this is something they clarify when they give their feedback after we finish our run of Pale Mountain, and I hope a few other players clarify the same.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Still no clarification on how Shield Block works.


23 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

Is it hyperbole if we just don't like it and see it as a pointless system that only serves to make players feel worse without actually solving any problems? It's not like there's no good arguments for that position, after all.

Because if so, I guess my feedback isn't welcome. In any case, I certainly don't feel like it is. PF2 isn't a game for me or a lot of people who like PF1 I guess. Bye all.

No. That's feedback.

It is hyperbole when people say "they've already decided resonance is staying as-is and so giving feedback on it is a waste of time."

What they've been saying is pretty clear that they get that we don't like resonance. They don't have the answer on what to do about it right now, and they want data from higher level playtests where we're more likely to actually be constrained by it (in dd2 I didn't have enough items to need to care that resonance existed, let alone actually run out of it).

Can we maybe dial down the "they're ignoring us" stuff a bit, maybe?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't give up Jason. You guys are making a great game! Having a lot of fun and excited to part 3!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The first and foremost problem with resonance, is that it's brought in with the intent to solve three different problems (players spam money-bought, portable healing in PFS; Too many X per day use items with imbalance or tracking issues; too much imbalance in item slots with swapping in and out stuff to alleviate cost and/or best-in-slot non-variety)

It attempts to solve these three separate issues with poor balance in the design of individual items, by solving a different issue on another layer entirely: Item slots is a kind of really thin abstraction and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

It's a single solution to a non-issue (a hand-wave abstraction that everyone accepts and which no one cares about) meant to solve three other semi-issues (encounter balance, resource-opportunity cost and build diversity/viablitity), without trying to tackle them head-on at all.

Resonance could conceivably be designed to tackle one of those three issues, or to just replace item slots with a better and more functional abstraction.

Trying to make it the driving force behind consumables and activateable effects though... I mean, we already have Spell slots/points to limit the adventuring day. We don't need a third mechanic to do the excact same thing and nothing else except provide another way to render items beyond useless.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Paizo´s staff for all your hardwork.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Really happy to see Sig skills get the hammer, and all the additional options for training! Not just that, but that's my big happy-dance inducing note. Thanks for all the hard work, playtesters and Paizonians.

I don't know that it's been asked, or if it's remotely feasible, but is there any possibility of another version of the core book playtest doc being up for download sometime? With changes continuing I imagine it's only going to get more difficult to cram some of the changes into the existing one with edits.

I totally get if that's not a thing, I mean this is a playtest doc it'll get replaced with the core book down the line, but hey if you don't ask you'll never know, right?


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, what's up with the DC and roll bonus sections for AC? Wouldn't that kind of layout be better on the saves section, since a few things call for checks against Fort or Will DCs, but I don't believe there are any "armor rolls".


9 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

Is it hyperbole if we just don't like it and see it as a pointless system that only serves to make players feel worse without actually solving any problems? It's not like there's no good arguments for that position, after all.

Because if so, I guess my feedback isn't welcome. In any case, I certainly don't feel like it is. PF2 isn't a game for me or a lot of people who like PF1 I guess. Bye all.

Feedback is one thing, but there has been a TON of hyperbole.

I've been arguing for weeks on discord with people dropping hardcore hyperbole.

Claims like:

"I hate the new skills! A trained person can never succeed on a skill check!"

(The above is an actual claim)

To which I explained:

A trained person with a +0 stat in Puddles (Rose Street) to recall knowledge with the most common DC (12) succeeds 50% of the time. (That's a roll of 11.) While a trained person with a high stat (+4) will have a +5 bonus and succeed 70% of the time (rolling a 7 or higher) which is clearly much higher than never.

Only to get responses like, "Well I can never roll above a 10!"

Or

"I always roll a 5 or lower!"

-----

That is the level of hyperbole Paizo is dealing with right now.

I'm by far not the person who will jump to Paizo's defense (the devs have been on the receiving end of my ire more than once) nor am I any kind of yes man. That having been said, when they're right, they're right, and right now their right.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

Thank you Jason, for being open enough to accept criticism on your work, and to not being stuck on one idea as being THE right way. Don't get too frustrated: a lot of people like what you already have made, and trust that the design team can improve on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The change to signature skills is very good and shows that they're listening and finding ways to make the game better.

So as far as resonance goes, I trust that they'll replace it with something that does a better job at dealing with its design goals (maybe only to a lesser extent) and does a better job of feeling like an interesting mechanic, rather than a disappointing punishment.

Personally, I don't mind resonance (well, with a few tweaks) but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.

I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

Like I see comments like "Now let's get rid of resonance" made by people in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with resonance. I wonder if this is what they were talking about when they said "Make your point and move on. If you view every thread that touches on a particular topic as an opportunity to restate your opinion, people will notice, and will stop reading what you say, even on other topics."

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To me, the real issue with Resonance is the use of it for Consumables. If this aspect is changed or eliminated, then there will be a major refit for the Alchemist.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Brell Stormforge wrote:
I don't want to be that guy, but if PF2 is finalized with its current resonance system, I'll most likely have to switch to D&D...

You mean the game with 3 attunement slots and uber rare magic items?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.
I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

I like its goals (neutral on its implementation), but I don't think this particular version of "Resonance" is a hill worth dying on. If a new version can be less polarizing and still do its job, I'd put my vote behind that.

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.

I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

Like I see comments like "Now let's get rid of resonance" made by people in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with resonance. I wonder if this is what they were talking about when they said "Make your point and move on. If you view every thread that touches on a particular topic as an opportunity to restate your opinion, people will notice, and will stop reading what you say, even on other topics."

It was unpopular and a real mood killer at my table. One of my players had a 1st level Dwarf Fighter with 0 Resonance who nearly died in the final encounter because he couldn't drink his healing potion (I forget if he failed or crit failed his Res check).

Running out of Resonance can turn trying to use a healing potion into a Save vs. Death scenario.

-Skeld


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
swordchucks wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
I have important feedback: the errata documents need to highlight or otherwise mark new changes from the last version.
It actually does, just badly. When you're going through the long list of changes, the "Page xx" part of the entries are bolded for the newest updates. It is entirely too subtle and you are correct that it definitely needs to be called out better.
Yeah, considering the rapid fire nature of these, we could do a bit better in highlighting the new changes. I will see what I can do for the next update.

I've asked before, and I'm going to ask again... is there some reason you guys can't just update the .pdf of the rules to show the changes? Because trying to cross-reference seven-and-still-increasing pages of rules tweaks to GM this is ridiculous and a lot of extra work to duplicate something you already had to do to make the errata in the first place.

Example wrote:
Fish Mastery: While dual-wielding live trout fish of any type, you are are treated as completely ridiculous utterly laughable and non-threatening and opponents are flat-footed against your unexpectedly damp attacks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
To me, the real issue with Resonance is the use of it for Consumables. If this aspect is changed or eliminated, then there will be a major refit for the Alchemist.

My honest ideal situation would be for everything else to be set up so that consumables are never necessary (but are nonetheless still helpful) so I don't have to worry about them at all.

Like, how can we make "Pathfinder, but there are no consumables" work? If we can do that, I would consider resonance mostly solved.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
I don't want to be that guy, but if PF2 is finalized with its current resonance system, I'll most likely have to switch to D&D...
You mean the game with 3 attunement slots and uber rare magic items?

... And don't forget having a wonderful +6 to hit things at level 20!!!

Seriously, Resonance is a part of this system, in whatever form it ends up being. The question is how it can be changed or if it needs to be more focused on other aspects of Magical Item use and if double dipping can be eliminated. (Staffs, I am looking at you)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So a thing I am concerned about is that no matter how it plays on the table, a whole lot of people are committed to "no system called Resonance or no system resembling resonance is acceptable." So I would urge people to consider what systems short of "no limits whatsoever" they would be happy with or at least accept.

Because frankly if it plays well on the table, it should be not far from acceptable no matter what. It seems like a lot of people have very strongly held opinions for things that frankly could be handled pretty well with house rules. Like I've played with some GMs who loathed gnomes and all things gnomey, so they just banned gnomes, which is easy to do and a much better solution than complaining on the internet that there are gnomes out there and other people are having fun playing with them.

If I'm starting off the game by houseruling out major systems of the game to get it to a point of basic playability, I'll just move to a different game that doesn't need me to do that. I might feel differently if we were just talking about resonance needing a houserule/fix but that isn't the case for me. Looking at the playtest now, there would be more houserules than unaltered rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But if we're thinking about "how can I change this to make this work for me" instead of "this entire mechanic needs to be obliterated from orbit" then we're at least in a constructive mindset.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.

I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

Like I see comments like "Now let's get rid of resonance" made by people in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with resonance. I wonder if this is what they were talking about when they said "Make your point and move on. If you view every thread that touches on a particular topic as an opportunity to restate your opinion, people will notice, and will stop reading what you say, even on other topics."

I haven't been leading the torch & pitchfork brigade against resonance, and it hasn't affected the game I've been running much so far in practical terms, but it has affected in mindset. Consumables are incredibly unpopular, partly because it feels like you pay for them and then pay for them again, and then they still might not work - at least that's the vibe I'm getting from my players. It's no longer "I have this <thing> that could save the day! Lucky me!", it's "I have to hoard Resonance because I might fail if I don't have it and I need to use <thing>." and that's not fun.

What's the point of disarming and grabbing the villain's sword if you can't turn it against him? Pickpocketing the evil cleric is only half as much fun if you can't potentially use what you take. The reverse is true, too... the party isn't really going to be threatened if Archmage Grimpants takes the wizard's staff of fiery deathly death and threatens them with it because Ha! He's not invested in it! Joke's on him!

I'm already seeing my party not wanting to bother to identify items they find while adventuring because it's turned into a time sink, now let's add on already-apportioned-my-resonance-for-the-day as a disincentive. Apparently putting items into adventures that are supposed to be used in a timely matter as part of the adventure is no longer a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Data Lore wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
I don't want to be that guy, but if PF2 is finalized with its current resonance system, I'll most likely have to switch to D&D...
You mean the game with 3 attunement slots and uber rare magic items?

I also said "I also feel the current D&D isn't very well thought out.". So I'm in no way saying D&D is perfect or superior, exactly why I'm still with Pathfinder. I'm not against a resonance system, I just worry if it's left in its current form it could ruin the fun of gameplay. They've now admitted it is flawed and would need changing, so I feel better hearing that, but that was the first time I've heard them mention anything about listening to the critiques and responding to them. Maybe they have somewhere else, but I hadn't seen it. Love though when I give my opinion in a forum asking for our criticism, I get insulted for offering it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
thaX wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
I don't want to be that guy, but if PF2 is finalized with its current resonance system, I'll most likely have to switch to D&D...
You mean the game with 3 attunement slots and uber rare magic items?

... And don't forget having a wonderful +6 to hit things at level 20!!!

Seriously, Resonance is a part of this system, in whatever form it ends up being. The question is how it can be changed or if it needs to be more focused on other aspects of Magical Item use and if double dipping can be eliminated. (Staffs, I am looking at you)

In my first post I did say and acknowledge that I like things about the resonance system, it just needs to be changed around to be more player friendly and fun. I enjoy a challenging game that isn't over powered, but not one with an oppressive system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.
I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.
I like its goals (neutral on its implementation), but I don't think this particular version of "Resonance" is a hill worth dying on. If a new version can be less polarizing and still do its job, I'd put my vote behind that.

That's a better way of saying what I meant. Even if they keep a bit of the mechanics after fixing the most problematic bits (consumables are probably up there), they may want to come up with another way of describing it and probably even another name.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

my iaaue with resonance is that it is designed to solve a 'problem' that is actually part of why I like PF, the huge magic utility belt you can build, of useful and efficient items, the way you can beat the 'do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat' gameplay that plagued 3e by using items, the way wands made Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest) a mandatory pick someone has to play, like it or not. Basically resonance is solving a problem that isn't a problem for me, but a positive trait of the setting.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But if we're thinking about "how can I change this to make this work for me" instead of "this entire mechanic needs to be obliterated from orbit" then we're at least in a constructive mindset.

I don't think you understand me: my starting point is "this entire mechanic needs to be obliterated from orbit": that would be my houserule to get the game to a basic, usable stating place. "how can I change this to make this work for me" isn't a "constructive mindset" for me as it doesn't help me achieve what I want: a game without resonance.

Now if they burn it all down and want to come back with 'slot points' to JUST replace slots or Charge points to JUST replace limited use items or something like that I'd look it over but the 'one rule to fix 3 problems' has to die in fire.

For myself, far from having an issue with them, I LIKED the Christmas tree effect [I don't mind losing the big 6 though] and I never had a CLW issue. Resonance actively works to enforce a playstyle I don't want to play, hence my wanting it gone and my general disinterest in wanting to see it modified vs destroying it with extreme prejudice.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

my iaaue with resonance is that it is designed to solve a 'problem' that is actually part of why I like PF, the huge magic utility belt you can build, of useful and efficient items, the way you can beat the 'do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat' gameplay that plagued 3e by using items, the way wands made Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest) a mandatory pick someone has to play, like it or not. Basically resonance is solving a problem that isn't a problem for me, but a positive trait of the setting.

Rob - The hyperbole he was referring to are comments like -

"do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat"

This is not the case.

"Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest)"

This is not true.

Rob, I've been running a game PF2 that is documented in these forums.

They have the following party:

1 Bard
1 Ranger
1 Druid
1 Monk

0 Clerics

A typical set of encounters between rests has been:

(Level 1)

2 Goblin Warriors, 2 Goblin Dogs, 1 Goblin Commando

1 Goblin Warrior, 2 Goblin Dogs

4 Goblin Warriors

1 Goblin Commando

3 Goblin Warriors, 1 Goblin Alchemist

-----

That's 5 separate encounters.

-----

(Level 2)

3 Goblin Warriors

1 Giant Spider

1 Trap and 1 Goblin Commando

2 Skeletal Champions

1 Trap

-----

That's 5 separate encounters.

-----

4 Zombie Shamblers

1 Trap

8 Zombie Shambers and a trap

1 Skeletal Champion and 3 Zombie Shamblers

-----

That's 4 encounters.

0 Clerics.

So saying: "Two encounters then retreat."

"Clerics are mandatory."

Are both hyperbolic statements.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

As one of those who has been fairly vocal about the things I don't like, I just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate Paizo staff posting here with comments that show they appear to be genuinely listening.

Hang in there guys. I know it probably gets discouraging being told "you're doing it wrong" over and over and over again, but I hope you take it as a compliment to the great game you have designed that so many of us feel so protective about it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.
This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation

... And that's exactly what they say in the blog: that the current questions about resonance are not enough an that they will be asking more questions. There *people*, me for one, that actually like the concept o resonance and wouldn't rather have working resonance rules then playing with something like "you can have 3 magic items, period".

And there *are* people who don't want that magic items should be limited by GM decisions alone. I am currently playing in Magnimar, and it would feel just wrong if you couldn't buy healing potions or simple wands because "there is no trader who has them available".

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation.

I do like the Paizo does seem to actually listen to what people are saying. Except that really doesn't seem to be the case with resonance. They seem extremely protective of it for some reason. Other major bits like signature skills have been ripped out entirely, and others they've expressed openness to changing. But with resonance it's just full defense. Instead of fixing it just keep restating the reasoning for it and trying to show how it's not completely kneecapping every character, as if that's a good baseline. The fact is, it's not fun. Even those who don't mind it always point out the massive problems with it as is. And those of us who don't like it, really hate it. It needs...

Did you even read the part your quoted ?

They they know that these sheer numbers alone are not enough so they Will add new questions in the survey to understand how resonance is (or is not) used.
Like "Did you were in situation where an item could have help you but since it cost Resonance you chose to not use it because you might need potions later ?" Or something like that I guess.

Making your whole comment irrelevant.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm always seeing people claiming here that "we don't like resonance", just because a lot of people here on the forum say things to that effect. That is, however confirmation bias. Yes, if you as a forum poster don't like resonance, you get vocal avout it here, But if you, as a forum poster, are OK with resonance, you very likely don't. So even on the forum, which represents only a very small proportion of actual players this view is skewed. Most people very likely are just silent about it. No matter mow many here start crying about a certain rule change they are not "we". This is not useful data.

That is why the playtest exists, and why Paizo developers are waiting to have actual metrics from their surveys from at least mid level games, before they can even draw a starting conclusion about how the playtesters are feeling about resonance in general.

A hundred people raising hell on the forum is nothing in view of the whole of all players.

So you're doing yourself no favor by focusing on posting vitriol about a rule you don't like. Play an actual playtest game with that rule, if possible, try not to be too prejudiced about it, evaluate it, and submit useful feedback via the surveys. That is the only useful way to get your opinion taken into consideration.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Rob - The hyperbole he was referring to are comments like -

"do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat"

This is not the case.

This is what's happened in my playtest experience so far with playing and GMing part 1 and playing lv5 PFS and part 2. We do 1 or 2 fights and then need to rest cause we are out of spells and HP.

HWalsh wrote:

"Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest)"

This is not true.

While they aren't "required" the parties without a positive energy cleric struggled in fights far more as one lucky hit brought them to critical and there's not many fast ways back into the fight.

And the amount of healing they provide while providing more usefulness is FAR greater than every other class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hurray ! \o/ Only good things \o/

I'm pleased to see that the devs are no longer biased about Resonance and are willing to ask more precise questions.

The amount of updates this week makes me think we may have complete overhauls of the system during the playtest :3 Maybe we'll see those Resonance replacements before the final product ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

my iaaue with resonance is that it is designed to solve a 'problem' that is actually part of why I like PF, the huge magic utility belt you can build, of useful and efficient items, the way you can beat the 'do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat' gameplay that plagued 3e by using items, the way wands made Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest) a mandatory pick someone has to play, like it or not. Basically resonance is solving a problem that isn't a problem for me, but a positive trait of the setting.

Rob - The hyperbole he was referring to are comments like -

"do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat"

This is not the case.

"Clerics nice to have instead of (as they are in this playtest)"

This is not true.

Rob, I've been running a game PF2 that is documented in these forums.

They have the following party:

1 Bard
1 Ranger
1 Druid
1 Monk

0 Clerics

A typical set of encounters between rests has been:

(Level 1)

2 Goblin Warriors, 2 Goblin Dogs, 1 Goblin Commando

1 Goblin Warrior, 2 Goblin Dogs

4 Goblin
...

My 'hyperbole# was my played experience the cold truth of actual play,


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
I haven't been leading the torch & pitchfork brigade against resonance, and it hasn't affected the game I've been running much so far in practical terms, but it has affected in mindset. Consumables are incredibly unpopular, partly because it feels like you pay for them and then pay for them again, and then they still might not work - at least that's the vibe I'm getting from my players. It's no longer "I have this <thing> that could save the day! Lucky me!", it's "I have to hoard Resonance because I might fail if I don't have it and I need to use <thing>." and that's not fun.

Exactly. I don't think we need to wait to "See how it plays." Because how it plays is largely irrelevant. It's existence as a discouragement against using magic items is the problem. Any system that penalizes you for wanting to use magic is going to be a problem. The mechanics don't really matter. It's how it effects the experience of play. And I can say, that for me it's a very very negative effect, and I haven't run out yet. I want to want to use magic. Resonance makes me not want to use them. While PF2 has other features like the action economy that actually encourage me to use items that I normally would just toss on the sell pile in PF1 because now I can get my effect without dedicating the entire turn to it.

I find myself in an odd position. For this thread and others, I find that I'm apparently leading the torches and pitchforks brigade, while I normally pride myself on staying calm and being sympathetic to the Dev team. We all have out hot-buttons I suppose. Am I being hyperbolic? I don't think so, (well maybe in the previous thread where I brought out resenentia delenda est). but I guess I wouldn't would I? Nobody thinks that they're unreasonable. I'll try to restrain myself in the future from thread derailment like I fear I've been responsible for here.

Requielle wrote:
I'm already seeing my party not wanting to bother to identify items they find while adventuring because it's turned into a time sink,

Good point. The hour to identify each item is way too long. And 10 minutes for quick identify is still on the long side for my taste, especially when you have multiple items that need to be identified. 10 minutes might be a better baseline to be sped up with Quick identify.. Either that, or perhaps still take an hour to identify items, but allow a batch of items to be identified in that hour. So you can spend an hour per big treasure trove instead of an hour per individual item in that trove.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
FitzTheRuke wrote:
but it's so incredibly unpopular that I think it's obvious that it's got to go.

I am honestly uncertain if resonance is genuinely unpopular, or if just it's just that the subset of commenters who really hate it who will take absolutely every opportunity to point out how much they hate it.

Like I see comments like "Now let's get rid of resonance" made by people in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with resonance. I wonder if this is what they were talking about when they said "Make your point and move on. If you view every thread that touches on a particular topic as an opportunity to restate your opinion, people will notice, and will stop reading what you say, even on other topics."

Moreover it is mostly the same people that keep spamming "remove resonance" everywhere. That may look like a lot of people are complaining but if you look closely a fair amount is just the same 10 people again and again.

That being said I was pretty toxic about resonance before the playtest and I am quite surprised my account wasn't banned back then. But now that I played it several time with my table no one was really bothered by it yet. Not even the alchemist in Pale Mountain.
They also pointed that they don't have enough magic item to tell yet if resonance is an issue though so I Will be waiting.

I still think there could be a better system than resonance but right now I think there are other issues way more disturbing. Mainly skill related.

I can't make DC. I just can't. The method is totally insane. It is so vague that I could as well just roll dice to détermine the DC.

For god sake.
HANDLE AN ANIMAL for a mount in fight.
What is the DC ? I didn't found any indication (maybe I miss it though)

Do I use High DC level of the mount in the table ? But Why would an allied mount be more difficult as it is stronger ?

Or maybe I take the DC of the monsters opponent because they scare the mount so that is it ?
In that case I take the Monster level DC or his intimidation DC ?

Also on Skill I Would like MORE actions related and proficiency gated so that it feels great to improve and not just "Yeah. Got +2 instead of +1 now"

More feats on Classes would be good. No chain feats but feats that scale with level.

Ancestry Feats at level 1 (like 5 at once) that scale with level. General or class feats in place of the Ancestries feats gaigned by level.

Resonance rework ? Sure. But later.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

I've asked before, and I'm going to ask again... is there some reason you guys can't just update the .pdf of the rules to show the changes? Because trying to cross-reference seven-and-still-increasing pages of rules tweaks to GM this is ridiculous and a lot of extra work to duplicate something you already had to do to make the errata in the first place.

Example wrote:
Fish Mastery: While dual-wielding live trout fish of any type, you are are treated as completely ridiculous utterly laughable and non-threatening and opponents are flat-footed against your unexpectedly damp attacks.

I don't think it's really feasible to change the base text in the PDF, because that would involve a lot of formatting and layout issues with the extra text. But annotations are doable. I might end up doing some myself because Acrobat Reader lets you do so. The problem is, I think I wouldn't be permitted to distribute it due to intellectual property issues. So it'd basically be on everyone to do it themselves. It's a free PDF, but still Paizo property. Perhaps if I or someone else did the annotations and submitted them to Paizo, they could distribute it instead. The annotations could be available, and Paizo's rights fully respected. Win win.

Because yeah, as this goes on, it's getting really hard to coordinate what's in the updates to constantly use the newest version of the rules.

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: On the Road to Sombrefell Hall! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.