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
1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

None of the changes mentioned in the New Updates section of this blog are in the rules update file linked above. In fact, I can't see any evidence that you have changed that file since August 27th.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

None of the changes mentioned in the New Updates section of this blog are in the rules update file linked above. In fact, I can't see any evidence that you have changed that file since August 27th.

Really? The file I downloaded has these changes it seems and is clearly labeled Update 1.2 with a release date of today.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Huh... I'm also getting the old file. I suspect that there's some caching going on somewhere.


Well I'm having the same issue so David Knott is definitely not the only one with that problem.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there folks,

If you are getting the old version, it is a cache issue, quite possibly on our end as the servers roll over to the new version of the document. No need for alarm, the changes are coming.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I managed to get the new file by doing the following:

1) I logged out.
2) I shut down the browser I was using (Firefox).
3) I opened a new browser (Chrome).
4) Signed in and downloaded the correct file.

It's also quite possible they fixed it on the server end and I just feel like the above fixed it.


32 people marked this as a favorite.

I have important feedback: the errata documents need to highlight or otherwise mark new changes from the last version. They're long documents, and asking us to read every single one through completely to find the new changes over the old is excessive.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I for one am getting the new update.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Well doesn't look like I'll be testing this section as my group gave up. I'll be following to see how everyone else does though.

Updates: I'll be looking at those too. Good to see skills opened up.

"Barbarians, monks, and paladins, for example, seemed to have a bit of trouble with the manticore fight, since they tend to lack ranged options": shocking... I complained about this one the instant I saw monks had every weapon proficiency removed.

"twitch": grumble, grumble, grumble... not everyone can or wants to watch an entire video to pull out the few things they want out of it or has to rewatch it and reference a time code if they wish to reference it. An official overview that lists important points in a thread here on the forums would be a huge boon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:

I managed to get the new file by doing the following:

1) I logged out.
2) I shut down the browser I was using (Firefox).
3) I opened a new browser (Chrome).
4) Signed in and downloaded the correct file.

It's also quite possible they fixed it on the server end and I just feel like the above fixed it.

That didn't do the trick for me.

If anyone has the new errata and happens to be able to share it via another platform, I won't say no to it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I am very happy to hear that Signature Skills as a concept dies today. One of my frustrations in my initial readthrough was the inability of characters to be good at things that they may have character reasons to be good at while being outside their class.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

29 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Love these changes. Great job Paizo.

Dark Archive

Thank you for the update! As far as the playtesting, I have a general question - are we going to get the ability to report other pieces of the Playtest, or are we just to use the Lost Star line for all pieces (I am talking about the OP reporting system, not the surveys).

Thanks!!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Woohoo! Glad to see Signature Skills gone and stuff on the way for Barbarians.


Ok, got updates downloaded and looked at them.

Tricky Tinker: I might be nice to rework this somehow instead of removing it. Being able to one kit for the other skill seems useful: both for bulk and improving a single kit.

Hazard Finder: I like it! It might make a rogue feel bad though.

Skill Mastery: Wow, that's pretty good... like really good.

Overall, all changes seem good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, all classes now have more skills trained at 1st level than before, except for the Ranger and Sorcerer, both of which still start with the very same number.

Is there any specific reason for this?

Rangers and Sorcerers are already quite underpowered and a frequent subject of complaint on these forums.

One would think they need some love but instead, they just got the shaft...

Silver Crusade

FedoraFerret wrote:
I have important feedback: the errata documents need to highlight or otherwise mark new changes from the last version. They're long documents, and asking us to read every single one through completely to find the new changes over the old is excessive.
Update 1.2 wrote:
Updates that are new to this document have their page references marked with bold text.

Liberty's Edge

I'm liking these particular updates a lot. A little disappointed that the game with my superstition barbarian just started, but it's a juicy change.

The skill system is looking much better this way, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
swordchucks wrote:

I managed to get the new file by doing the following:

1) I logged out.
2) I shut down the browser I was using (Firefox).
3) I opened a new browser (Chrome).
4) Signed in and downloaded the correct file.

It's also quite possible they fixed it on the server end and I just feel like the above fixed it.

That didn't do the trick for me.

If anyone has the new errata and happens to be able to share it via another platform, I won't say no to it.

I had to mash the download button repeatedly until it messed up and accidently let me download it. It's what I had to do with the last one.


I like this change. Removing signature skills and a few static skill trainings when it makes sense for the class. Good job.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Thanks, lots of good and useful updates.

Sad there is still no errata for the monster skills. These make big difference.


graystone wrote:
I had to mash the download button repeatedly until it messed up and accidently let me download it. It's what I had to do with the last one.

Yeah, I did just that, except with two different browsers opened and...it finally worked!


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nice job with the skills. That addresses my concerns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very happy with the skills change.

We no longer can have situations where a character can be trained in only 3 non-lore skills which they subsequently advance to legendary leaving every other skill untrained, which was a weird consequence of "some classes having 3 signature skills and 3+IntMod trained skills."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Some initial thoughts on the new Character Sheet:

The Senses section should have a place to note what senses the character has. Checkboxes for the most common would be nice. (I saw the checkboxes on some fan-modified version of the sheet somewhere.)

The proficiency-modifiers included is nice, but putting them in the AC block is likely to confuse new players into thinking those numbers only apply to AC.

The Actions/Reactions/... blocks are a nice idea but so few lines that they'll quickly be inadequate past a level or two.

Still no decent way to record an Alchemist's formulae and daily preparations.

Perception walks like a Skill and talks like a Skill. Why are we still pretending that it's not a Skill? Is it just to control who can/how to improve it?

The TEML checkbox rows are probably larger than needed. Four boxes/circles with the TEML in the center (in a slightly lighter font) would work as well and be more compact. Or vertical like the BPS boxes on weapons.

Player name needs a spot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And I just finished running The Lost Star last night. I suppose this means my party will benefit from the dea... experiences of all of you before they go once more unto the breach.

Paizo Employee Web Product Manager

8 people marked this as a favorite.

For folks having trouble downloading the new version of the file, please click the "Problems downloading this file? Click here." link. It will tell the download service to "let go" of your download and refresh.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
For folks having trouble downloading the new version of the file, please click the "Problems downloading this file? Click here." link. It will tell the download service to "let go" of your download and refresh.

Thanks, Chris! That just worked for me when signing out and back in again didn't.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
we're removing the concept of signature skills from the game.

HALLELUJAH!!!

Also very glad to see that animal totem barbarian can use weapons outside of rage now, as that was some of the feedback I was going to give once I finish Pale Mountain (I was actually just gonna ask for ranged weapons or even just alchemical bombs, but I'll take it!).

Also THANK YOU for the black & white character sheet. Those colorful ones may have matched the aesthetic but they were not great for something that's going to be repeatedly erased.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

Hmm, every class got bumped up to a minimum of 5+int trained skills (effectively). Plus, we got rid of the needless confusion and complexity of signature skills, yay!

Skill Mastery looks like a really great way for any class to do a bit of a dip into rogue to become great at some new skills!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

Wow. And here we are, an hour and a half into character creation for Pale Mountain and we haven't even finished them at level one yet.

We're really struggling with character creation in this game, maybe because it seems like the stuff you need to know is scattered throughout several different chapters of the book. My main problem is that I've been unable to follow the A-B-C steps in order because I feel like I don't know where to put my floating boosts until I know where all my fixed boosts will be. Then I have to wade backwards and remember where I can legally put the extras.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

When I click the link to download the full rulebook, I'm only getting the Rulebook Updates document.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I was hoping the new character sheet would be vertical instead of horizontal.

A landscape character sheet is awful because horizontal space is at a premium when you're clustered around a table with 7-8 people.


27 people marked this as a favorite.
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 to at least be fixed if not nuked entirely (I prefer the later option).

I always try to stay respectful with my criticism, but this constant defense is infuriating and makes it really hard. If you find yourself constantly having to defend a decision, maybe it was just a bad decision.

In more positive feedback, I do like the changes to skills. Many classes get more skills now, which is rather nice. And taking out signature skills removes a straight-jacket from some character concepts. I'm hoping this easing up on class-gating will continue into feats, allowing other playstyles.

And a request. These updates are starting to get substantive, and it's getting hard to track just what changed and what hasn't. It's easy to overlook a change that you didn't know happened. And many players aren't really watching these updates like a hawk. Would it be possible to get a marked up version of the core rules that points out updates? I'm not asking for a rewritten rulebook, that would be too much work with all the layout and such. But I believe PDFs have the functionality to add notes to the document. Putting a little note at every changed section that points out the update, and striking out deleted sections would be incredibly helpful. It is more work for sure, but it'd be incredibly helpful.

The Exchange

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

For the character sheet could I make a recommendation. Change the Spell Roll and DCs box so it looks like this instead:

DC = 10 + Spell Roll = Ability + Prof + Item

One of my players complained that the current way is kinda counter-intuitive but putting the order like this could also help get across the idea of Perception DC, Fortitude DC, etc.

Just a thought.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
They seem extremely protective of it for some reason.

Just take a look at Jason Bulmahn's most recent video on Youtube.

I disagree with about 90% of what he said on the matter at hand but it will make it clear that Resonance is here to stay.

No matter how hard players try to demonstrate with empirical proof that the concept is failing, they'll want to keep it going because someone or a bunch of someones at Paizo staff came up with it and doesn't or don't want to even start to acknowledge that it wasn't the awesome idea they thought it would be.

They believe, for some reason, that PF 2.0 will fail without Resonance and don't seem intent on listening to our feedback on this particular matter.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
For folks having trouble downloading the new version of the file, please click the "Problems downloading this file? Click here." link. It will tell the download service to "let go" of your download and refresh.

For myself, this just put me into an eternal loop: Click download, click problem with download, click new download button, click new problem with download, ect.

The only solution that's worked is 'mash download several dozen times until it works.'

Grand Lodge

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance needs to stay. The reasoning for it justifies its existence. It could be tweaked a bit, but it should remain in the game for the reasons stated.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we at the very least want to wait until we see the first thing they do to tweak resonance before we decide "Resonance must go" is non-negotiable.

A playtest is a process, which we can see now from how skills are now less limiting, more numerous, and you don't get anomalies like "clerics who are untrained in religion".


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
Resonance needs to stay. The reasoning for it justifies its existence. It could be tweaked a bit, but it should remain in the game for the reasons stated.

Hard disagree. The reasoning for it is fundamentally faulty. It aims to eliminate a solution (Wand of CLW) to a problem (out-of-combat healing is necessary but not fun to most parties). Or, alternately, it aims to "solve" a problem (player wearing too many magic items) that is already solved (limited slots). Or, alternately, it aims to "solve" another problem (swapping multiple copies of X-day items) that is already solved outside of PFS (GM controls flow of magic items in the first place).


14 people marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
They seem extremely protective of it for some reason.

Just take a look at Jason Bulmahn's most recent video on Youtube.

I disagree with about 90% of what he said on the matter at hand but it will make it clear that Resonance is here to stay.

No matter how hard players try to demonstrate with empirical proof that the concept is failing, they'll want to keep it going because someone or a bunch of someones at Paizo staff came up with it and doesn't or don't want to even start to acknowledge that it wasn't the awesome idea they thought it would be.

They believe, for some reason, that PF 2.0 will fail without Resonance and don't seem intent on listening to our feedback on this particular matter.

I haven't seen that, but it sounds pretty dreadful. Is this the Economics of Fantasy RPGs one? I'll watch that later tonight, I don't have time now for a half hour video.

It must be rough when something you think is of vital importance is panned. But continuing to defend it and cherry-picking the survey data to support it, are completely counterproductive to the playtest. Hopefully when the open surveys come out, the majority will say that Resonance needs a least a major overhaul, in which case they might have to finally face the facts. Regardless of the intent or how real the 'problems' it sets out to fix are (they sure aren't in my game), it's just not fun. There are other solutions to perceived issues. On the other hand if it turns out that most people like it (I doubt this will be the case), then it's time for me to find a new game because the audience is 180 degrees from me. Resonance is a deal breaker.

And for the Cure Light Wounds Wand issue. Increase the price of 1st level wands, decrease it for higher level wands, so the first level one no longer gives the best bang for the buck. Problem solved. Potions should get a similar treatment, 1,200 gp for a true healing potion is just plain nuts. You can get a +2 weapon, +2 armor and still have 340 gp left over at that price. For a consumable, that's an insane price-tag. All high-level consumables need their prices fixed, they're crazy. Trowing thousands of gold for a single use? Alchemist items need to get a similar treatment, but at least their Alchemical Crafting ability can eliminate the price of most of the ones they use.

And if for some reason they can't let go of resonance, they need to remove it's cost from all consumables, remove and all items that don't have limits in PF1 (Like Immovable rods, they wisely backed down on the Bag of Holding, but still have it on the Knapsack of Halflingkind, which would otherwise be a really cool item), decouple it from the Alchemist and remove x-times a day and charge limitations from all items.

Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The removal of signature skills is a good change. The signature skills system felt like it took away a lot of the, "Make your character your own" feel of PF1 because it reinforced classes taking certain skills in ways that PF1 never did. (Even by the Advanced Player's Guide, it was pretty easy to have almost any skill you wanted as a class skill on any class.)

Thanks for keeping us updated and cognizant of how feedback is affecting the design of the game, Jason, Stephen, Logan, and Mark! :D


16 people marked this as a favorite.

The resonance data is interesting. At first glance, it seems to support the assumption I had from the get-go that people were thinking it was going to be more limiting than it actually is.

However, given that if you're out of RP then a crucial healing potion might fail to take effect, I think that a lot of players likely stop frivolous RP use at 1 RP and save that for an emergency. It's like asking a cleric how often they ran out of spell slots vs. how often they ran out of non-healing spell slots -- they likely usually end an adventuring day with spell slots to spare (or use them right before camping to eke out some extra healing), but chances are those slots are allocated to healing. In reality, they ran out of non-heals long before.

I think a better (or great add-on) metric is how many players got down to 1 RP. Maybe include a 'if yes, did you save your last RP for emergency healing / did you stop at 1 RP so you had an emergency point?' question.

I think if we find the numbers for those to be really high, we might find RP to be more restrictive than if we just look at who ran out: players feeling like they shouldn't tap out RP for fear of failed activations is certainly restrictive even if they technically can still use resonance at minimum 1, maybe even 2 or 3 times before they get 'locked out.'


2 people marked this as a favorite.

something like resonance is 100% needed however i think resonance itself is just too artifical a construct.

A better solution would be tighter controls on who can use at will magic items.

and a better understanding of how magic items are used. for example orginal feather step slippers to me, was the best foot item, even though it was exceptionally cheap and very simple.

often times the game assumes that just because an item does a lot of things or a really cool thing that it should be be priced high when the thing player's value is utility. so those magic items need to designed more carfully.

if they want players to go for higher priced magic items, then those magic items need to provide more utility than the bunch of cheaper ones i can get instead.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The text about resonance in the blog seems entirely neutral to me, so I don't see how it can be interpreted as negatively as above.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Excellent. I'm very pleased by these changes. I particularly like each Class getting specific Skills on top of the Signature Skill removal and plenty of free skill picks. It's a nice balance of factors.


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

I'm sure everyone will disagree with me, but here are my 2 wooden cents. I think the resonance system needs to be redone. I like the idea of having a certain amount of resonance (mana/magic/power) points to use on spells per day and for you to be able to use them on ANY spells you have access to. I hate how in tabletop rpgs you have to pre-select exactly which spells you're going to use for the day. Doing that typically makes you pick a standard list of normal vanilla spells, just to be safe, and you rarely get to use any of your more unique specific purpose spells. So having a set amount of resonance points to use on ANY of your spells is cool. BUT, and here's where I dislike the resonance system, I hate that you have to spend them on your magic items. To me that doesn't make any role playing sense, as magical items are magical on their own, they contain their own magic outside of yourself. So aside from the annoyance of not being able to use all of your hard earned magical gear, it also doesn't make sense, since the item contains its own magic to use. So magic items either need to be free from the resonance system, or they need to be assigned their own amount of resonance points (like daily charges) giving them an appropriate amount of daily uses that doesn't affect your personal resonance points. Just my opinion.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
The text about resonance in the blog seems entirely neutral to me, so I don't see how it can be interpreted as negatively as above.

It's entirely possible that it's just my bias showing. But as I see it, basically every time it's mentioned at all by the devs they're minimizing the problems with it or restating the reasoning for it. I see the 1/4 statement as trying to say it's not an issue. Which just reeks of cherry-picking and completely missing the point that running out is not the only way resonance gets in the way of fun. As I stated in the previous update thread, my alchemist in the first part only ever used his bombs against the boss, because I was well aware of the very limited nature of resonance and needed to keep some on hand for emergencies. The threat of running out is a bigger problem than just the effect of doing so. But there is almost no acknowledgement of that, and they focus entirely on how many people are running out completely.

By itself that statement is fine. But it comes as part of a trend, that's why I get upset.

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: On the Road to Sombrefell Hall! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.