The Resonance Test

Monday, October 15, 2018

Today, we're happy to release an alternate version of the item Resonance system for testing using the Raiders of Shrieking Peak adventure and an encapsulated set of rules. So, how did we get to this release, how do you use it, what's different, and what do we expect out of it?

The Survey Data

First, let's talk about what our survey data has shown us. All the surveys you've been filling out during the playtest process have helped us immensely, and the Rules Survey in particular is telling us a lot about how the rules are being received. The Rules Survey asked quite a few questions about the Resonance system. As you can probably tell from some of the questions on that survey, we looked at things people in the community were already saying to gauge how widespread those sentiments really were. For example, we had seen a lot of people comment that they thought it didn't make sense for potions to cost Resonance Points, so we included this in the survey to gather more information. The results so far show that 55% of respondents have said that while it makes sense that other items cost Resonance, it doesn't make sense for potions. (26% have said it doesn't make sense that anything costs Resonance.)

The main set of questions we asked about Resonance showed us pretty strongly that Resonance as printed was highly unpopular. Few people thought characters had the right number of points, there was too much tracking, the rules on overspending weren't engaging, and only about 20% of respondents thought the system was a clear improvement over First Edition. When introducing a new system, it's especially important that the system be seen as a clear improvement, or it's not pulling its weight.

However, not all of the feedback was negative. The rules had good ratings on being easy to understand, and there was strong support (both in the surveys and in forum posts we've been seeing) for Resonance as a way to make it easier to track multiple-use items. Though we didn't ask about it directly in the survey, we've also seen solid support for a more flexible system of worn items compared to First Edition's item slots. So, the new iteration of the Resonance system looks to expand on these few elements that were well liked, while reducing the elements that felt like burdens.

How to Test Resonance

I'm going to go into plenty of detail on why we're testing the changes we are, but some of that info is also in the test document. So, if you want to just get on with it and pick up the file, here's how.

To test the new Resonance system, you'll need to download two files: the adventure Raiders of Shrieking Peak and the Resonance Test file. The adventure is the same as the preexisting Pathfinder Society Playtest Scenario (and as we've mentioned before, you can run either version in Pathfinder Society for credit). The Resonance Test file contains the rules for this alternate system, design notes on our intent with various rules, lots of new versions of items, the pregenerated characters to use in the adventure, and a short GM section with the few thematic adjustments you need to make to the adventure and items that appear in the adventure.

When you're done, go to the Resonance Test Survey and tell us what you thought! This survey will give you questions depending on whether you ran it, played in it, read it, or any combination thereof. We expect this survey will remain open till the end of the year like the other surveys.

The Changes

So what did we change? As we said from the outset, the Resonance Points system in the Playtest Rulebook was highly experimental, and it was clear that experiment had failed. Jason quite correctly pointed out that we needed to show where our line of thinking is going in the wake of this and solicit additional feedback—telling everyone to wait for the final rules isn't enough. Hence, this new experiment takes what we learned from play and the surveys and takes a crack at something we think is more interesting and flexible, and that we hope you feel the same way about. Much of what I'm about to say here is replicated in the document, and just included here to give you the full perspective.

This test is checking to see whether some version of the system is satisfying. Resonance has its roots in concepts that appeared in First Edition through the occultist class, resonant powers between certain magic items, and several other places in the lore. Is there something valuable in the idea that items can be made stronger though the user's strength of personality and essence?

First off, let's clarify that while the term "Resonance Points" is still in the document, that's not what's being used to activate items any more (we'll get to those in a bit). Instead, Resonance Points are just to track your capacity to wear items. This aspect of Resonance had a favorable response, and so we're hoping to maintain the flexibility of item choice that comes with removing item slots. However, the point value for Resonance is now different. You get 10. At 1st level, at 20th level. This is because when we use Resonance for just worn items, we're only looking to prevent extreme cases of abuse and discourage extreme item loadouts. For most characters, 10 worn items is plenty. Think of it like Bulk, where the number is high enough that characters rarely need to worry about it unless they have extremely low Strength or they try to carry way too much.

As for getting more out of items, that's where Focus Points come in. This new pool unites two similar concepts: the extra spells you could cast via Spell Points and the extra energy you could put into magic items to get more out of them (think of this along the lines of the occultist's focus powers or the Charisma-based Use Magic Device skill from First Edition). Unlike Spell Points, all characters have Focus Points, and your number per day is equal to your Charisma modifier plus 1 or 2, depending on your ancestry. You can spend a Focus Point to cast a power (in the Resonance Test, this is a cleric's domain power or a sorcerer's bloodline power), or can spend a Focus Point when activating an item to improve its effect.

Notice I said improve it. In this test, items don't normally cost anything to activate. If you use a scroll or drink a potion, you spend nothing but the consumable itself. You can activate your bracers of missile deflection once per day, spending nothing to do so. What you get out of spending a Focus Point depends on the item: A healing potion doubles its healing, the bracers of missile deflection can be activated again, the splash damage from an alchemist's fire has a bigger area, and so on. One of my favorite little distinctions is the invisibility potion. If you only need to move into a combat and make an attack while invisible, you can drink the potion to get 1d4 rounds of invisibility. However, if you have a lot of sneaking around to do before you plan on fighting, you can extend the effect to 10 minutes instead by spending a Focus Point!

The pool of Focus Points doesn't grow as huge as the Resonance Point pool did, since your level isn't added to it and, unlike Spell Points, you don't get more points when you take new powers. The goal here is to make each use of Focus more exciting and interesting. When someone spends a Focus Point, it should be a capital-M Moment. One of the overall goals for the Second Edition is to make your individual decisions during play more impactful and exciting, with fewer set routines. The printed version of Resonance didn't do that, and we're hoping Focus Points give you something exciting to look forward to rather than a chore to carry out. If you look at the cleric and sorcerer powers from the Playtest Rulebook compared to the ones in the Resonance Test, you'll see that they got stronger, because they now cost a more precious resource.

I want to address a couple concerns briefly. One is that classes that thematically should have a decent number of Focus Points will be left out if the pool is Charisma-based. We expect that these classes would have solid methods to adjust their number of points. For instance, a wizard might get some points each day from his arcane focus, or a ki-using monk might meditate to refresh some Focus Points. However, we'd be looking at these remaining Charisma-based, so a wizard who wants to increase Charisma gets a Focus Point benefit from it just like a fighter would. The other concern is that we're weakening items to make room for these Focus Point abilities, such as the shorter duration for the invisibility potion mentioned above. Some of the baseline effects of these items are weakening for another reason. Namely, when removing the Resonance Point requirement for activation, we do need to rein in some of the baseline abilities, since now money is the only limit on how often you can use them. The Focus Point additions are on top of this adjusted baseline power, and if they were removed, the base items would not end up as strong as they are in the current printed version of the book, when they cost a Resonance Point each time.

Will having Focus Points be entirely optional satisfy people's desires for a different system? Will the folks who said spending Resonance on items doesn't make sense think any differently now that Focus is an addition that allows characters to gain more power or benefit out of their items? Will a substantial number of people think that it's a cool system, but that there's still too much bookkeeping? That's what we'll be looking for you to tell us in the survey and your comments.

The Long Term

So, if this test (or parts of it) goes well, what can you expect the long-term changes to be? First off, we need to be clear: Regardless of what people think of the system, there's just no way, logistically, to implement a full change within the playtest period. We might—and I stress might—be able to put out some more samples or previews of where we think we're going, and possibly even guidelines to adapt the printed Resonance system further, but you won't be seeing a total rewrite of the rules.

It's also unlikely that the final items in the book or the final system rules will look exactly like what you see in the Resonance Test, even if the test goes great. Opening up more free magic might necessitate some other changes once players would gain unbounded access to crafting magic items. For example, wands, staves, or scrolls might need to be a higher level or more expensive. And if we get feedback that the Focus Points system should be scuttled entirely, an item like a wand might need to go still higher regardless. We're going to try and minimize that as much as we can, though! Keeping magic items magical and coming to your character when their abilities are still useful is hugely important, and we don't want to go from one system that feels too restrictive to another that feels restrictive, just in a different way.

Some of the terminology and presentation of the rules might change too. "Resonance Points" might make a little more sense if phrased in a different way, such as an interference field that builds up from 0 to a limit of 10 rather than points you spend from 10 down to 0—for the purposes of this Resonance Test, some of the wording was just kept intentionally close to the printed text so it's easier to understand and compare for readers who've been keeping up with the playtest from the start.

We can say with confidence that the printed rules in the Playtest Rulebook won't be in the final version of the book as is. The Resonance Test is an experiment to see whether there's still an interesting idea in there. The most extreme case we might end up with looks more like Pathfinder First Edition, with something like the items you see in the Resonance Test, but with no extra benefits for spending Focus Points.

And all this, of course, relies on you and what you have to say. We deeply appreciate all the time you've put into playtesting this game. If you have time to playtest the Resonance Test, that's fantastic! The playtest schedule is tight, and if you only have time to give the test a read but not to play, that's also so, so helpful. We look forward to hearing more from you as you lament the fates of your characters, struggle against the clock, achieve the impossible, punch holes in the rules, and click through another set of surveys. From Jason, Stephen, Mark, and me, thank you all!

Logan Bonner
Designer

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
401 to 450 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.
In this scenario it sounds like you didn't prepare well enough.

I don't think blaming, passively insulting people's lack of preparedness is the way to go to champion a new mechanic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I'm still REALLY hoping Resonance gets dropped completely. Too many pools, too much bookkeeping, and too many headaches for it to be worth my time. When I sit down at the table, I want to play a game, not do algebra.

Resonance as a "count how many magic items you have equipped" is vastly simpler and easier than "item slots." I sincerely hope that stays.

It's the difference between "neat- a magic hat, I don't have 10 magic items equipped so I can put it on" and "hey, a magic hat- which of my magic goggles, circlet, and headband do I need to take off to use it?"

Yeah, this part is working fine. It's the focus part that gets fiddly and problematic.

They're still trying overcomplicated solutions to things they want to change, which is a comomn theme I find in the playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone noticed that example cleric still has spell points for domain powers?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance really doesn't exist anymore. What we have now is the ragdoll magic item slot system of 3.Pathfinder replaced by a flat 10 items. It's fine. It doesn't need a fancy term for it. Just say you can wear a maximum of 10 magic items. Put 10 lines for the magic items on the character sheet. Done.

What we're talking about now is the Focus system

I like it as a CHA based replacement for UMD. Having the Bard or the Sorcerer be masters of wringing extra power out of magical implements is flavorful and cool.

I don't like it as a replacement for class ability pools though.

I think Paizo should go back to the Spell Point idea, rename it Power Points, give Powers a more 'possibly mundane' feel than Spells (keeping the same layout for them as spells makes awesome sense though). And then let Focus be focused (hah) on UMD stuff.

Choosing between enhancing a magic item and using a class aiblity that's iconic to your character class feels bad man.

Things like Inquisitor Judgements, Brawler Martial Flexibility, Monk Ki Powers, Gunslinger grit etc from 1e are *awesome*. Powers and Power Points can replicate those pretty darn well. I don't see the need to mix those up with UMD.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.
In this scenario it sounds like you didn't prepare well enough.
I don't think blaming, passively insulting people's lack of preparedness is the way to go to champion a new mechanic.

It was a fictional scenario...

anyways back on topic.

Scenario: Sorcerer ran out of spell slots but needs to cast a spell.

Do you blame the system or do you blame the sorcerer for not saving spell slots? It's the same scenario.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For wands, Data Lore has proposed a change that I champion wholeheartedly: making them require investment, 1 Resonance and they can be used for the day; no Focus required for activation.
Combined with a max of 10 or so charges, this is a very simple solution for low level item spam, that doesn't overly punish characters that want more versatility through the use of wands.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:

Resonance really doesn't exist anymore. What we have now is the ragdoll magic item slot system of 3.Pathfinder replaced by a flat 10 items. It's fine. It doesn't need a fancy term for it. Just say you can wear a maximum of 10 magic items. Put 10 lines for the magic items on the character sheet. Done.

You don't have that though. Resonance is on top of the Slot system present in PF2. The slot system never went away. And it's kind of driving me mad seeing people say there's no more slots. The slots are still there. The only thing that got the slot limit removed was rings and amulets. The rest is still mostly there, with a few small changes.

Please don't take the above personally Azih, you were just the last one I saw to make mention of "Resonance replaces Slots".

More On Topic: Making a single pool that is used for both your class abilities and making your magic items "better" (in quotes because it's only that way for a few, and for others it feels you'repaying for what should be the baseline) just seems like very poor design. Particularly for classes like Druid and Wonk that didn't use Charisma and are now forced to in the never ending quest to force everyone to be MAD.

And my poor poor Dwarfs get shafted (geddit, Dwarfs, mine-shafts? Eh? Eh?) yet again. Why is it that 1st Ed Dwarfs could be resistant to magic without impacting their ability to use magic but now that's a big no-no or something?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Rysky wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Marc Waschle wrote:
The struggle to keep resonance when it appears to be very clunky and widely rejected.
Yeah, this feels like flailing about to me.
Are you talking about Resonance or Focus? Because I adore current Resonance since it's doing what it was originally stated to try to do. Don't really see any flailing or clunkiness there. You get 10 magic times you can attune to, there we go.
What seems to me to be doing something, anything to keep "resonance," even if it means more-or-less turning it into D&D5e's attunement system.
So you don’t like the name “Resonance”.

The name, the design philosophy behind it, and the to my mind unneeded complexity that it introduces.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:

Resonance really doesn't exist anymore. What we have now is the ragdoll magic item slot system of 3.Pathfinder replaced by a flat 10 items. It's fine. It doesn't need a fancy term for it. Just say you can wear a maximum of 10 magic items. Put 10 lines for the magic items on the character sheet. Done.

What we're talking about now is the Focus system

I like it as a CHA based replacement for UMD. Having the Bard or the Sorcerer be masters of wringing extra power out of magical implements is flavorful and cool.

I don't like it as a replacement for class ability pools though.

I think Paizo should go back to the Spell Point idea, rename it Power Points, give Powers a more 'possibly mundane' feel than Spells (keeping the same layout for them as spells makes awesome sense though). And then let Focus be focused (hah) on UMD stuff.

Choosing between enhancing a magic item and using a class aiblity that's iconic to your character class feels bad man.

Things like Inquisitor Judgements, Brawler Martial Flexibility, Monk Ki Powers, Gunslinger grit etc from 1e are *awesome*. Powers and Power Points can replicate those pretty darn well. I don't see the need to mix those up with UMD.

Limited to 10 magic items, hey we are all 1st ed AD&D paladins now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So why not just tie Focus (or whatever you want to call it) to your classes' main stat (set at character creation for str/dex classes?)?
Something about your personal "core".
Everyone's going to have a "best stat", why not use that to drive class abilities (spell points) and whatever you want "focus" to do with respect to magic items.
Yes, it might mean you need something else for Charisma to do for non-charisma classes so it's not so obviously a dump stat...

That being said, I'm still not sure why/how thinking/wishing/focusing/praying really hard should make magic items act better.

And I also think the whole "invisibility potion is more powerful with focus than a 20th level Wizard's casting of it" is really weird/broken (spell only ever lasts a minute, but focus makes potion last 10)??


Seoni has the old version of Ancestral Surge listed on her sheet, so I really though Sorcerers had gotten kicked in the ribs on this one. But no, the actual version is a lot better. Before, I was mainly eying Ancestral Surge as a way to trigger Magical Striker for just one action.

However, additional powers seem like a generally poor investment. It's more options for a very limited resource (one that could also be spent on boosting items).

Just armchair analysis, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:

Resonance really doesn't exist anymore. What we have now is the ragdoll magic item slot system of 3.Pathfinder replaced by a flat 10 items. It's fine. It doesn't need a fancy term for it. Just say you can wear a maximum of 10 magic items. Put 10 lines for the magic items on the character sheet. Done.

What we're talking about now is the Focus system

I like it as a CHA based replacement for UMD. Having the Bard or the Sorcerer be masters of wringing extra power out of magical implements is flavorful and cool.

I don't like it as a replacement for class ability pools though.

I think Paizo should go back to the Spell Point idea, rename it Power Points, give Powers a more 'possibly mundane' feel than Spells (keeping the same layout for them as spells makes awesome sense though). And then let Focus be focused (hah) on UMD stuff.

Choosing between enhancing a magic item and using a class aiblity that's iconic to your character class feels bad man.

Things like Inquisitor Judgements, Brawler Martial Flexibility, Monk Ki Powers, Gunslinger grit etc from 1e are *awesome*. Powers and Power Points can replicate those pretty darn well. I don't see the need to mix those up with UMD.

If resonance is a fixed number that can never change then we do not need a term for it. If that number can be changed then we need a name, if only for a way to label the change mechanisms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

You don't have that though. Resonance is on top of the Slot system present in PF2. The slot system never went away. And it's kind of driving me mad seeing people say there's no more slots. The slots are still there. The only thing that got the slot limit removed was rings and amulets. The rest is still mostly there, with a few small changes.

Please don't take the above personally Azih, you were just the last one I saw to make mention of "Resonance replaces Slots".

No offense taken. From my understanding it's left to GM discretion what magic items can't be worn on top of each other (like wearing 10 pairs of boots or something).

But to me that's easy to handwave away as a GM. If a player wants to wear boots of striding and springing AND boots of elvenkind or something then I'd let 'em do it and just say that the booth has 'charms' stiched into 'em or 'runes' engraved on the buckles or something to allow both effects. They can stride and spring silently in the forest if they want to use up 2 of their 10 magic wearable slots and spend the gold to do it.

And if somehow that becomes 'broken' then I can just chat to the player about it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

If slots are not a thing and there is just a resonance limit as a number of items, then there is no reason to limit item properties to a specific form/shape. So you can have earrings of bounding as well as boots of bounding.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Why do we need a separate point system, unique to character ability scores, to use magic items? What good does an item that contains charges do for a player who has run out of pool points and cannot use them. Seems rather discouraging. Magic items have commonly been used when player resources have run dry (at least in the groups I have played in). The concept of using a magic item to save your butt when you are out of resources is where the "Epic" comes from. I am curious to know why this system is a good one.

Because in a high-magic setting, where magical items are easy to buy or craft, characters can easily stuff twenty cheap items into their magical bag and use that cool 1/day ability over and over.

With the Focus rules that are in testing now, consumables can be used freely, so they are the safety net for when you are out of resources; what Focus does is just overpowering them a few times per day, if you want so.
^

There's so much irony in the fear of this. Not the least of which is that the two items that were named, by Mark Seifter, as being the problem were two items that Paizo created and were not in the 3.5 world that the game is, uh, "based on." The Jingasa and the Quickrunner's Shirt. Both were GROSSLY undercosted, which is where much of the issue comes from.

But what's even more ironic and hilarious is that Paizo's dev team is running around trying to craft elaborate and extremely restrictive rulesets to prevent this "exploit," when a simple rule can fix it all: Usage of magical essence from any named item uses up the per day usages of all items with that same name. Maybe clean up my language a bit there, but you get the idea. Use that 1/day Quick Runner's Shirt? That's cool, but putting on another doesn't get you another 1/day. Oh, man, what a simple rule change that completely blocks this "exploit." This whole Resonance/Focus thing is proof that for any problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and obviously wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resonance, as a concept, feels about right to me. It has a name, but so what? No one really needs to know about it at first level, so you can skip it when introducing new players, and most PCs will never have a major interaction with it. It's there to limit folks on the fringe of the system that want to really push the envelope with magic item swapping and the like.

That said, wands need work. While I don't dislike tying them to Resonance, that doesn't seem like a big cost over most levels since most folks could easily spare the resonance for several wands. It would only be a limit if you were planning to burn through several wands of low level spells in a day. I vaguely like having them require a flat check to not burn out if you don't pay a focus point, but their caster-only nature makes that a different kind of problematic.

I also feel like the caster/non-caster divide in focus needs some work. Something as simple as giving clerics, druids, monks, and wizards the option to use their key stat instead of charisma for determining their focus pool would help, I think. I like that everyone gets some focus that can do something. I just dislike that casters end up with a smaller pool and end up even more things to spend it on. Letting it default to Charisma when there isn't a specific "caster" thing going on feels alright, though.

Also, there's a lack of progression with level there that seems like it'd be annoying. The only reason a lot of the existing spell point feats are competitive with other feats of their level is because they also add to the spell point pool. Dropping that leaves a high level caster with little incentive to add yet another thing to his list for his 3-4 focus points per day (especially if the better ones are still going to cost multiple points).

Overall, I'm really wary of this system because it's, at best, half baked. That's understandable for a test, but the areas where those gaps exist are very worrying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.
I believe they mentioned classes with powers/ki getting extra focus points or something, but that could get messy.
It just feels a little too restrictive. There's gotta be a better way. Still thinking about how to do that.
Oh, I agree, I think they should keep the 10 (I would prefer less) items restriction, but scrap the Focus Points deal. Powers should be spells, or class features, or talents, or something.
I agree. I have no problem with using resonance to assign the 10, but this focus point system either needs to be gone or redone so your class abilities and magic item usage do not cancel each other out.
You don't need resonance points, either, you could just resonate with a max of 10 items. If you have 10 resonated items, and want to drop one and resonate with a new one, you would have to take a rest to resonate or whatever.

I don't understand this comment because that's exactly how Resonance works.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems unnecessary to tie class powers to item use and enhancement.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I'm still REALLY hoping Resonance gets dropped completely. Too many pools, too much bookkeeping, and too many headaches for it to be worth my time. When I sit down at the table, I want to play a game, not do algebra.

Completely agree - resonance is a monkey on the system's back, dragging it down. It detracts from every PF2 playtest game I've participated in, and the system would be cleaner, simpler, more fun, and simply better without it in my opinion as a long time player/GM of PF1.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
pjrogers wrote:
Rysky wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Rysky wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Marc Waschle wrote:
The struggle to keep resonance when it appears to be very clunky and widely rejected.
Yeah, this feels like flailing about to me.
Are you talking about Resonance or Focus? Because I adore current Resonance since it's doing what it was originally stated to try to do. Don't really see any flailing or clunkiness there. You get 10 magic times you can attune to, there we go.
What seems to me to be doing something, anything to keep "resonance," even if it means more-or-less turning it into D&D5e's attunement system.
So you don’t like the name “Resonance”.
The name, the design philosophy behind it, and the to my mind unneeded complexity that it introduces.

Okay so you don't like the name, but I don't see how opening up item slots makes things more complex, it helps now not having to choose between certain items, and I like the idea of opening up the item slots.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Greg.Everham wrote:
But what's even more ironic and hilarious is that Paizo's dev team is running around trying to craft elaborate and extremely restrictive rulesets to prevent this "exploit," when a simple rule can fix it all: Usage of magical essence from any named item uses up the per day usages of all items with that same name. Maybe clean up my language a bit there, but you get the idea. Use that 1/day Quick Runner's Shirt? That's cool, but putting on another doesn't get you another 1/day. Oh, man, what a simple rule change that completely blocks this "exploit." This whole Resonance/Focus thing is proof that for any problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and obviously wrong.

That sounds like a horrible rule, honestly. You can arbitrarily only use a magic item 1/day and can't use any more of that type of item? No thanks. This issue extended beyond the two items you mentioned (which to my recollection there wasn't much an issue with people stockpiling Jingasas as there was with Quickrunner's, the Jingasa was just way too good for the price).


Rysky wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
But what's even more ironic and hilarious is that Paizo's dev team is running around trying to craft elaborate and extremely restrictive rulesets to prevent this "exploit," when a simple rule can fix it all: Usage of magical essence from any named item uses up the per day usages of all items with that same name. Maybe clean up my language a bit there, but you get the idea. Use that 1/day Quick Runner's Shirt? That's cool, but putting on another doesn't get you another 1/day. Oh, man, what a simple rule change that completely blocks this "exploit." This whole Resonance/Focus thing is proof that for any problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and obviously wrong.
That sounds like a horrible rule, honestly. You can arbitrarily only use a magic item 1/day and can't use any more of that type of item? No thanks. This issue extended beyond the two items you mentioned (which to my recollection there wasn't much an issue with people stockpiling Jingasas as there was with Quickrunner's, the Jingasa was just way too good for the price).

How do you figure 1/day only? The idea would be (and I did say probably needs cleaner/more clear language) that if something says whatever per day, that's all you get from one copy of the item or ten copies. It stops the multi-purchasing thing entirely, without all this added hokey nonsense.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Greg.Everham wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
But what's even more ironic and hilarious is that Paizo's dev team is running around trying to craft elaborate and extremely restrictive rulesets to prevent this "exploit," when a simple rule can fix it all: Usage of magical essence from any named item uses up the per day usages of all items with that same name. Maybe clean up my language a bit there, but you get the idea. Use that 1/day Quick Runner's Shirt? That's cool, but putting on another doesn't get you another 1/day. Oh, man, what a simple rule change that completely blocks this "exploit." This whole Resonance/Focus thing is proof that for any problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and obviously wrong.
That sounds like a horrible rule, honestly. You can arbitrarily only use a magic item 1/day and can't use any more of that type of item? No thanks. This issue extended beyond the two items you mentioned (which to my recollection there wasn't much an issue with people stockpiling Jingasas as there was with Quickrunner's, the Jingasa was just way too good for the price).
How do you figure 1/day only? The idea would be (and I did say probably needs cleaner/more clear language) that if something says whatever per day, that's all you get from one copy of the item or ten copies. It stops the multi-purchasing thing entirely, without all this added hokey nonsense.

My apologies, I could have wrote that better, I didn't mean to say you were suggesting that all magic items be 1/day. I do not like there being a rule of the same type of magic item in effect sharing their charges for a character between all items of that type. Having more than one copy of an item isn't necessary bad, but having 10 shirts to use in a day is a bit silly.

The Resonance slots as they stand are much more elegant, and definitely not "hokey nonsense" compared to "all copies in existence of this item know every charge in them communally used by everyone in existence".

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
But what's even more ironic and hilarious is that Paizo's dev team is running around trying to craft elaborate and extremely restrictive rulesets to prevent this "exploit," when a simple rule can fix it all: Usage of magical essence from any named item uses up the per day usages of all items with that same name. Maybe clean up my language a bit there, but you get the idea. Use that 1/day Quick Runner's Shirt? That's cool, but putting on another doesn't get you another 1/day. Oh, man, what a simple rule change that completely blocks this "exploit." This whole Resonance/Focus thing is proof that for any problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, and obviously wrong.
That sounds like a horrible rule, honestly. You can arbitrarily only use a magic item 1/day and can't use any more of that type of item? No thanks. This issue extended beyond the two items you mentioned (which to my recollection there wasn't much an issue with people stockpiling Jingasas as there was with Quickrunner's, the Jingasa was just way too good for the price).
How do you figure 1/day only? The idea would be (and I did say probably needs cleaner/more clear language) that if something says whatever per day, that's all you get from one copy of the item or ten copies. It stops the multi-purchasing thing entirely, without all this added hokey nonsense.

My apologies, I could have wrote that better, I didn't mean to say you were suggesting that all magic items be 1/day. I do not like there being a rule of the same type of magic item in effect sharing their charges for a character between all items of that type. Having more than one copy of an item isn't necessary bad, but having 10 shirts to use in a day is a bit silly.

The Resonance slots as they stand are much more elegant, and definitely not "hokey nonsense" compared to "all copies in existence of this item know every charge in them communally used by everyone in existence".

I agree that this proposed rule feels far too metagamey to me


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Actually, why not do this?

Wands have only one Charge a day. However, you can use Spell Slots to charge the Wand instead, so long as your Spell Slot is of the same level or higher, to use the Wand. Wands now become an expensive version of Scroll that expand on the spell options that a limited number of spell slots kind of killed off. You might also consider limiting the number of Wands a caster can possess to half their level (for a nice quick number to remember).

Staffs, on the other hand, have multiple Charges. They should regain one Charge per Day but can be topped off by burning a Spell Slot.

Focus Points can be used as a last-chance affair by anyone. They are based off of Charisma and are the foundation behind Spell Points (which will be renamed Focus Points). Spell/Focus Points will increase as before and also get an initial boost by the number of Focus Points needed to activate a power.

Anyone with Trick Magic Item can use a Charged Item and use their own Focus in place of Spell Slots. Thus Martial Classes without spellcasting ability could try to trick that Wand into working for them and then cast it off of their force of personality... but can only do that a couple of times.

Now Charisma is an ability that is both useful but can also be a Dump Stat for anyone who has no desire to try and use charged magic items and has no skills that require Focus. While it makes most Casters slightly MAD, this was already the case with Clerics so basically only Bards and Sorcerers end up ahead in terms of Focus and they already have spell slots for use with Wands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Okay so you don't like the name, but I don't see how opening up item slots makes things more complex, it helps now not having to choose between certain items, and I like the idea of opening up the item slots.

Yes, the new rule is less complex than the previous version. However, no Resonance rule would be less complex than the new rule. I'm still not clear on how the cost of this new rule is less than the benefits produced by it. About the only swapping of items that I ever see is folks taking off a neck item and putting on a Swarmbane Clasp or replacing a used Lesser Talisman.


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

Okay, so, Resonance being an expendable resource over the course of a day, as opposed 10 reusable slots, solves this specific problem:

A high level player could buy or craft multiple low level items at an inconsequential cost that have a desirable X/day effect. This effect is balanced if the player is able to multiply it up to ten times a day, but more than that is unacceptable.

Example: Quick Runner's shirt. At high levels, it may be cheap enough to essentially mean an unlimited number of extra move actions a day (realistically 4, because that's about how many combats you generally have in a day). With Resonance, this would take up almost half their "slots".

However, with Resonance, you can wear all of them and get them all in one combat. (At least as some people have argued that body slots are negotiable).

On the one hand you can shift the limit to items (You can only gain the benefit of this one type of item once per day) and the other hand you can shift it to the player (You can only "Resonate" with this many items per day)

I would argue that shifting the limit to items is better because:

1. Item designers don't have to balance their effects against the possibility of someone wearing 10 of them.

2. It makes loot more interesting, because you don't have to go "Well, the effect on this is so nice, I'll just sell the new loot and buy another of what I already have"

3. It doesn't make you keep track of how many times you've switched equipment around during the day

4. It lets you freely switch up gear with permanent effects, that make sense. I like the idea of having some gear in reserve for different occasions, or, during desperate measures, sharing one item that has an effect the party needs. Expendable Resonance limits those options.

On the whole, though, Resonance has stopped being a concern of mine. It'll have minimal impact on my enjoyment.

Focus seems iffy, but easily house-rule-able as long as item design doesn't become too much of an issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "the only limit on how many magic items you can wear is 'how many magic items can you afford'" is going to run counter to the program of getting people to value higher level magic items. I mean "you can equip as many as you want" is going to get silly fast.

Personally I am fine with a flat cap, or with just "you can use as many magic items as your character level" but I would prefer to do away with all slots, just throw in a line explicitly empowering the GM to put the kibosh on combinations they find especially absurd. Since "5 hats, yes/no" is going to depend a lot on the tone of the game and the sensibilities of the people playing it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.

I agree that the All or nothing currently proposed for using Focus points with wands feels wrong.

I think it very likely that the devs are looking for the best way to improve it even as we speak


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "the only limit on how many magic items you can wear is 'how many magic items can you afford'" is going to run counter to the program of getting people to value higher level magic items. I mean "you can equip as many as you want" is going to get silly fast.

Personally I am fine with a flat cap, or with just "you can use as many magic items as your character level" but I would prefer to do away with all slots, just throw in a line explicitly empowering the GM to put the kibosh combinations they find especially absurd. Since "5 hats, yes/no" is going to depend a lot on the tone of the game and the sensibilities of the people playing it.

Maybe it's my video game side talking, but how many magic gear does a character REALLY need? Want okay, that probably varies from player to player, but my groups usually end with maybe 5 items per.

But about the 5 hats/boots/gloves/whatever; Question.

What happens when an enemy goes to dispel/sunder/steal/etc the item? Random, effects the top one, does it to all the items? Ignoring the arguments of should a DM steal the items or not, how would that work? Probably different from DM to DM.


WatersLethe wrote:

Okay, so, Resonance being an expendable resource over the course of a day, as opposed 10 reusable slots, solves this specific problem:

A high level player could buy or craft multiple low level items at an inconsequential cost that have a desirable X/day effect. This effect is balanced if the player is able to multiply it up to ten times a day, but more than that is unacceptable.

Example: Quick Runner's shirt. At high levels, it may be cheap enough to essentially mean an unlimited number of extra move actions a day (realistically 4, because that's about how many combats you generally have in a day). With Resonance, this would take up almost half their "slots".

However, with Resonance, you can wear all of them and get them all in one combat. (At least as some people have argued that body slots are negotiable).

On the one hand you can shift the limit to items (You can only gain the benefit of this one type of item once per day) and the other hand you can shift it to the player (You can only "Resonate" with this many items per day)

I would argue that shifting the limit to items is better because:

1. Item designers don't have to balance their effects against the possibility of someone wearing 10 of them.

2. It makes loot more interesting, because you don't have to go "Well, the effect on this is so nice, I'll just sell the new loot and buy another of what I already have"

3. It doesn't make you keep track of how many times you've switched equipment around during the day

4. It lets you freely switch up gear with permanent effects, that make sense. I like the idea of having some gear in reserve for different occasions, or, during desperate measures, sharing one item that has an effect the party needs. Expendable Resonance limits those options.

On the whole, though, Resonance has stopped being a concern of mine. It'll have minimal impact on my enjoyment.

Focus seems iffy, but easily house-rule-able as long as item design doesn't become too much of an issue.

This is the easy answer. Make it so they either have to invest all of the shirts for a lot of resonance, or that you can't invest on the same twice in the same day. Well that's 1 exploit out, but don't know if there's others we don't know about that they're trying to fix. Besides cheap wands, that is.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I will mention that one advantage of Resonance being a thing is it provides a potential hook to hang interesting mechanics off of.

For example, Ancient Blood dwarves getting a bonus in exchange for a small Resonance pool, or a theoretical feat that increases it... You could also have items that "Resonate poorly" with certain characters. For example, an unholy armor could require an extra Resonance point to attune for good characters.


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

I will mention that one advantage of Resonance being a thing is it provides a potential hook to hang interesting mechanics off of.

For example, Ancient Blood dwarves getting a bonus in exchange for a small Resonance pool, or a theoretical feat that increases it... You could also have items that "Resonate poorly" with certain characters. For example, an unholy armor could require an extra Resonance point to attune for good characters.

The dwarf thing always made me scratch my head. Dwarves always went together with magic items like bread and butter. Actually casting spells on the other hand...

But the unholy/holy armor requiring extra Resonance is something I hadn't thought about and honestly sounds like an interesting idea. I'd forgotten about the possibilities of extra Resonance costs, because they've been pretty focused on not varying them.

Other potential uses: A custom armor made for the buyer which costs anyone else 2+ resonance. Elves get a discount on Boots and Cloak of Elvenkind. A "Minor" tag that makes an item not cost resonance.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I guess it makes sense to me that a magic resistant character would have a harder time using magic items, so if that is an option dwarves are going to have then it seems like a logical way to handle it. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.
In this scenario it sounds like you didn't prepare well enough.
I don't think blaming, passively insulting people's lack of preparedness is the way to go to champion a new mechanic.

It was a fictional scenario...

anyways back on topic.

Scenario: Sorcerer ran out of spell slots but needs to cast a spell.

Do you blame the system or do you blame the sorcerer for not saving spell slots? It's the same scenario.

If you are out of spells, and you have a wand loaded with 9 charges and have already used your focus pool points on your class abilities, the players should have access to the charges in the wand. Failing to grant players access to resources is not a good idea, and can make a fun game not enjoyable. Class pools, spells slots, and magic item resources are separate things. I am telling you, I have seen my players very frustrated about the mechanic.


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

On the whole, I like this much better than the previous version, but I'm leery about putting magic item use and class power use in the same pool. I'd rather those not have to compete with each other.

(Related note: is it really an expectation among most tables that any given store you go to will have 10 quickrunner's shirts and 20 CLW wands in stock? If you play strict RAW, that isn't the case (since city statblocks list what types of items are available), and if you don't, it makes complete sense to rule a party can only find one or two of a given item, imo.)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
It seems unnecessary to tie class powers to item use and enhancement.

The benefit to doing this is that you give every character a pool of points and things to do with it. The wizard has a pool to do cool stuff from their class with, but the barbarian can also use a pool to do cool stuff (through items). Unified rules generally give a better overall play experience for all character classes.

The problem with this implementation is that you run a very real and immediate risk of casters not using any of their class abilities because items are usually better and their pools are small. The removal of the abilities that expand the pool just doubled-down on this (and will require pretty much all spell point abilities to be reviewed and rebalanced to work with focus since focus is inherently worth more).

---

From the spot I sit today, the biggest problem I have with this is that I just don't know enough about how these changes are going to look to judge. They're extensive and require half of the classes in the game to be reworked to a fair degree. All of the existing spell point powers have to be reviewed and most of them boosted up. The sizes of pools need to be reviewed and adjusted to compensate for the stat change (or the classes need to be given the option to use their casting stat). How, exactly, this is going to work with progression over levels needs to be decided and tuned.

What makes me nervous about this is that it's a huge change and the stated intention is to not playtest it. It's a big enough change it could invalidate most of the playtest experience we've had and do weird things to classes that worked well with spell points (Storm Druid is the first that springs to mind).


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

The more I think about this, the more I start to think that it's actually worse than resonance used to be. Now instead of your magic items competing with other items, they're competing with your class features instead. I really, strongly dislike that. In my mind, magic items have always been and should always be a supplement to your character's innate abilities, not a consideration against which to balance them.

The more I think about it, the more I think the best solution is to keep the way Focus interacts with magic items, it's exactly what I wanted resonance to be, and keep it as its own, separate pool. Why does bonus magic item activation (or bonus effects from doing so) need to compete with anything other than itself? There are still interesting choices deciding whether you want to buff this potion now or use your wand an extra time later. You don't need to dilute the pool by throwing everything together, and I strongly believe the only things that class features should have to compete with are other class features.

Honestly, the more I think about it, I prefer the previous incarnation of Resonance, but with the changes applied to the options as though they worked with Focus, to this new iteration of Resonance/Focus. At least that way your magic items are competing with magic items. Apples vs Apples and Oranges vs Oranges, instead of Apples vs Oranges with a separate set of bananas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Centurian 919 wrote:
Scenario: I am out of spell slots, no more focus points, I have a wand that is loaded with 9 charges and can cast a spell that I need at that moment. I have already used my once per day charge and need focus points to tap into its remaining power. Yet, I have no way to access this item because I do not have any focus points because I already used them on my class abilities. Sounds rather discouraging and I can see people at the table getting very frustrated on this restriction.
I believe they mentioned classes with powers/ki getting extra focus points or something, but that could get messy.
It just feels a little too restrictive. There's gotta be a better way. Still thinking about how to do that.
Oh, I agree, I think they should keep the 10 (I would prefer less) items restriction, but scrap the Focus Points deal. Powers should be spells, or class features, or talents, or something.
I agree. I have no problem with using resonance to assign the 10, but this focus point system either needs to be gone or redone so your class abilities and magic item usage do not cancel each other out.
You don't need resonance points, either, you could just resonate with a max of 10 items. If you have 10 resonated items, and want to drop one and resonate with a new one, you would have to take a rest to resonate or whatever.
I don't understand this comment because that's exactly how Resonance works.

Except they have tacked points onto it, no need.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

"Okay, I have 7 items left to resonate with, if I take one off and put another on I will have 6 left."

"Okay, I have 7 Resonance points left, if I take an item off and put another on I will have 6 left."

Still not seeing the difference?


What would be more interesting is a system where magic items — potions and wands in particular for this discussion — worked nothing like in 3.5. For example, Wands that are specifically tied to / enhanced by class features, or potions that do not directly mimic spells. I feel like really cool “flavor” design spaces like this where 2nd ed. could have gone have instead been tied up in making 2nd ed. mechanically “simpler” (or just different, TBH — many times in ways it didn’t need to be) — while failing to really spend enough time thinking about ways to make the game more immersive. That’s why, so far, my experience is that while the Playtest is easier to learn play than P1, it is less interesting to play. Even the mechanics I like gay buried in a lot of “samey”-ness during gameplay.

The Exchange

MaxAstro wrote:
Philippe Perreault wrote:

I've read the new resonance rules and I'm having a question about the alchemist's Alchemy ability.

It is my understanding, after reading the rules, that the alchemist who crafts his bombs at the beginning of the day using Advanced Alchemy is loosing items slots so he can use his bombs. Am I reading correctly?

Nope. This is actually one of the changes I'm happiest about, since I agree with you about Alchemist's main problems.

In the new rules, Alchemists use their new Reagents resource for both Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy.

I'm glad for that answer but, since you're contradicting me, I want to make sure about the right answer. Specifically, what does it mean when the rules for alchemy states:

"These items have the infused trait".

Does that not mean that the items then cost some of your 10 resonance points?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

"Okay, I have 7 items left to resonate with, if I take one off and put another on I will have 6 left."

"Okay, I have 7 Resonance points left, if I take an item off and put another on I will have 6 left."

Still not seeing the difference?

Simply leave out the middleman of points. You can only resonate with 10 items at a time, once you have resonated with an item, it counts toward your max (you can resonate 10 times, before needing a rest to resonate again).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I guess it makes sense to me that a magic resistant character would have a harder time using magic items, so if that is an option dwarves are going to have then it seems like a logical way to handle it. :)

I mean it is a logical way to handle it.

What makes it so Dwarves are more resistant to magic? I don't see anything in their race/ancestry feats that would say "We resist Magic better"

Mind you, I keep trying to keep up with updates and I almost always get the same base PDF. So maybe they added in new ones?


MerlinCross wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I guess it makes sense to me that a magic resistant character would have a harder time using magic items, so if that is an option dwarves are going to have then it seems like a logical way to handle it. :)

I mean it is a logical way to handle it.

What makes it so Dwarves are more resistant to magic? I don't see anything in their race/ancestry feats that would say "We resist Magic better"

Mind you, I keep trying to keep up with updates and I almost always get the same base PDF. So maybe they added in new ones?

I am confused. Is this sarcasm?

Ancient's blood is literally an ancestry feat to resist magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I will mention that one advantage of Resonance being a thing is it provides a potential hook to hang interesting mechanics off of.

Indeed, I am 100% about "trading my ability to equip a bunch of magic items" for something equally valuable. I want more things like Ancient's Blood now, since I'm pretty sure I can get by with 6 resonance on a bunch of characters I like to play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
On a final note, Focus is a VASTLY better name than spell points. :) But we don't need Resonance as a name for item slots. Just say you can invest 10 items per day. It doesn't need a name.
Uh, yeah it does need a name, in your suggestion you've just moved it to Invest/Investiture. Not having an official name for referring to the pool of 10 will just be really awkward when talking about it.

Wait, so the new wand rules are totally fine and immediately grokable, but not having a name to your slots is so incredibly awkward?

What!?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I guess it makes sense to me that a magic resistant character would have a harder time using magic items, so if that is an option dwarves are going to have then it seems like a logical way to handle it. :)

I mean it is a logical way to handle it.

What makes it so Dwarves are more resistant to magic? I don't see anything in their race/ancestry feats that would say "We resist Magic better"

Mind you, I keep trying to keep up with updates and I almost always get the same base PDF. So maybe they added in new ones?

I am confused. Is this sarcasm?

Ancient's blood is literally and ancestry feat to resist magic.

Woooooooooooooooooooow I'm stupid.

I read that as a different stated save not a general "All Magic" saving throw. My mind just glanced over it and went "Oh Will Save, okay."

I've just played around with Humans this whole time. Wonder if it's due to my tiny screen.

But I will try to save a little face; should we lower focus on Classes/Races that resist Magic? Like say..., Superstition Barbarian? It's the only one in the playtest right now but you can double back to see a fair number of Anti Magic classes or Archetypes so should we continue the idea from Dwarves to other things?

I recall people arguing over Resonance + Superstition, so I don't know how well that would go over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Philippe Perreault wrote:

I'm glad for that answer but, since you're contradicting me, I want to make sure about the right answer. Specifically, what does it mean when the rules for alchemy states:

"These items have the infused trait".

Does that not mean that the items then cost some of your 10 resonance points?

A new definition for the infused trait is given either on the same page or the page before, I believe.

Basically infused now only means "stops functioning after 24 hours".

@Vic Ferrari: I strongly feel like points are easier to intuitively understand.


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

I like the idea, having something additive is nice. I dislike that it might share space with class powers as I feel that will lead to an arms race to see Powers use. I like that right now the Powers don't have to be that strong to be used, because they aren't competing with other things. It lets them be minorly useful and flavorful.

I would like Focus to be something that improves naturally over time. Perhaps every 5th level, which currently don't feel that great anyway at 10/15/20 because most of the Ancestry feats are terrible.

401 to 450 of 527 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: The Resonance Test All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.