Ah ha! There it is! I knew I must be missing something because it didn't make much sense that you couldn't use cooking to make food. Thank you! That will increase my food creation to 1 meal every hour.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
I've just done a search in the core rule book and the word Replicator doesn't appear. Please remember, I'm a player. It's not my universe and I don't get to make up things. I have to rely on what the rules say to understand what I can do... which it looks like I can make 1 common meal every 2 hours at a cost of 3 udp (provided I can find materials, like, by killing a bunch of animals on a planet or harvesting plants). If I spend all my UDP, that would let me create some 100 common meals in around 200 hours of work.. which is not enough.
Survival would let me make 3 meals per day, but I'd be eating one of them.
I was really hoping that there was something I was missing. Instead, I'll have to throw myself on the mercy of the GM and hope that he waves his hands to make up new rules.
The Artificer wrote:
Page 233 of my CRB just has Item, price and bulk for food.. no levels. And it looks like it is impossible to get food for the ships crew. No money to make it even if we had the materials. I'm sorry, but the crafting system is really starting to be more and more of a dissapointment. As for Profession Cook.. again, do you have a reference where is says they can make food? I would love it if it was so, because my cook skill is higher than life science.. but all I can find for professional skills is that you can get paid for it, crafting rules require other skills according to what I've read. I agree that it would make SENSE.. but there are lots of other things in the game that don't make sense.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Except that there is no replicators and not enough food to be had aboard ship. One of my characters jobs is going to be to get food and water for the ship. So I went and looked up what went into getting food. You can use Survival to get enough bare food to support 1 person per x points above 10 (which is far short of the food we are going to need) or you can pay money and craft it.. out of materials.. like dead animals (I presume) since nothing says what the proper materials are. and if you kill the animals yourself, it seems that you get a PRICE break on crafting, but you still can't craft for free.
You can craft with a relevant profession skill. Profession cook would definitely be the relevant skill for making food.
HMMmmmm.. Ok, where do you see that? I see where it says that with the GM's approval you can use a science skill (like engineer) to earn a living, but I don't see anything at all about using a professional skill to make anything. Under crafting, it specifically says that Life Sciences is the correct skill to craft food. I must be missing something.
Ok.. in our current game, the person in charge of us says that we need supplies, and food is one of the things we need. So I look some things up.
1. You use life sciences to craft food from unspecified materials.
2. You spend full cash cost for the food you craft, but if you find food (scavenge) then the GM will let you take 10% off the cost of crafting food.
3. If your skill level exceeds the level of the food you are trying to craft by 5, then it takes half as long to craft it. If it exceeds it by 10 then it takes a quarter as long to craft it.
Ok, so those seem to be the rules.
Now the problems, as in what is left out.
1. No levels are listed for food items... so there is no way to tell what crafting levels will decrease time...
2. Let us presume that a common meal is a level 1 thing. If my skill with life sciences is 1 then I can make 1 meal in 4 hours. If it is level 6 then I can make 2 meals in 4 hours. If my level is 11 then I can make 4 meals in 4 hours and there is no improvement after that.
3. In addition to having life sciences 6 I have Profession Cook 11. As near as I can tell, having the profession cook just lets you earn money for every week you spend working based upon your level. Is that correct? It doesn't let me make edible food?
So am I missing anything? We are a ship in a star system with no stores. The ship doesn't have food, we need to get food for the ship. Finding food doesn't count as food, it just gives me 10% off the cost of making food? And Food doesn't have levels?
I have to be missing something, so could someone point out where in the rules I need to go looking? Thanks!
Important thing to me. I want my character to magical with lots of low level, none combat, and weird magic items (like the Tengu jug, the hat of disguise, a magic hut that sets itself up.) I want my characters to live in a magical world, even if they are not wizards... and be able to use their wonderful little magic items without taking away from their combat abilities.
Making a roleplaying game an "It's the GM's Story" or "it's the PC's story" is the wrong way to design the game. A GM who demands the story goes according to their desires will soon find they have no players. Players who regularly and deliberately destroy a GM's adventure will soon find they have no GM. The story belongs to both, and.. to a lesser extend.. the module designer/game designer.
To me, the job of the game designer is to provide both the GM and the players with the tools they need to have fun. How versatile and easy (yes, two opposing designs) a game is determines how wide spread it becomes.
If pure ease of use is desired, just make everything a coin flip or rock paper scissors to determine the outcome. Very simple, not much fun, but fast. If pure versatility is desired then the game bogs down in complex and contradictory rules until it takes an hour just to decide what one character can and will do.
For me, I think it should be somewhere in the middle. PF2 looks interesting for people who like the low magic type of play. It doesn't look as interesting for people who like the characters dripping in minor magic items. I think that is the way they want to take the game, which is their choice. I hope they have good luck with it.
For the GM/Player balance, like any new game we are seeing bare bones rules. It leaves out a lot of the wildly different character races and types that we have gotten used to in PF1. I'm sure those things will be added into future books, but that the custom rules will make the game more complex again. At the beginning, this will make the GM's job to control/guide things much easier because there will be less options they have to account for. As future supplements come out, this will swing back in the direction of players having more control over the story as they pull some feat/power out of some rare supplement that the dungeon designer didn't know about. Then the habit of banning certain classes because they are to effective, game breaking, or slow the game to a crawl will start up again.
For now, I see the options that an adventure designer needs to account for is very limited in the current PF2 rules, so the GM's who want to have more control over the direction their game goes should enjoy that.
Do we still have to track Charges AND Focus points AND resonance? Please, if you are going to have Focus, please remove Charges and times per day. THEN I can see Focus making sense and making everybodies lives simpler. But if I also have to track x/day uses or charges as well as more point systems it just doesn't feel right.
Comparable to the OTHER DC checks in the game. It depends on how weird what happened was, so I can't give you a hard number. The GM would need to determine how easy/hard the check would be.
This is no different than using Nature Lore skill to determine things about a monster, or healing to determine cause of death.
Personally, if it was just determining if fire damage was magic or not I wouldn't make the DC more than 15. Determining which spell did it would be harder. But that is me.
Naturally, if the fire damage was done by a custom thing in the module, that would be significantly harder than if it was done by the produce flame spell.
Boojum the brown bunny
Ed Reppert wrote:
Fair enough. Would some grunt sent to find out what happened to the guys in the guard tower think of that? :-)
Almost certainly not, though a wizard sent from the main group might be able to use arcana. I do know that npc's are generally not fleshed out very much, but when I run a game I tend to assign them skill's if they are intelligent appropriate for their level. Someone with a skill check would normally be needed to identify exactly what happened. That is what skill checks are for, after all.
On the other hand, some things MAY be obvious. If you see a 20' radius scorch mark with no sign of wood or something else... then it's not THAT big of a leap to say that magic was involved.
Ed Reppert wrote:
How does one tell, after the fact (i.e. when finding bodies after the fight is over and the winners have left the area) that burns are "magical"?
I would say by making some lore rolls. Arcane and Healing are the two that stand out the most.
For example, a fire inspector, after a fire, can tell you if an accelerant was used, or if it was an electrical short, or a bunch of things based upon the patterns of the fire... particularly at the source of the fire.
So an expert would likely be able to tell if a fire was started by an alchemist, a magician, or a torch.
Your welcome, and side adventures are pretty cool when properly used. There are players who so optimize their characters for the adventure path they are going on that they completely ignore anything that doesn't help them in that adventure path. This allows their characters to monster that one adventure, but they would do less will in a different adventure.
For example, an adventure path titled "Lord of undeath" would have players optimizing for undead while "Lair of the giant king" would have them prepping for size large creatures with reach.
The secret to slipping in side adventures without complaint is to associate it with something to do with the characters. Look to the characters traits, languages, and backgrounds for ideas. It needs to be enough of a hook to get them off of the main adventure path for a little bit.
Modify your side adventure so that characters feel like their off path skills are useful. Did one of the players take gnomish? Include something they can practice the language on. An invite to a party is an EXCELLENT way to get people onto a side path, particularly to celebrate something they did.
Character weaknesses are kind of hard to quantify, so you have to go looking for them. An unhitable fighter might have a crappy will save, so a charm would be useful. An unspottable stealth character might be weak on area of effect, particularly entangles so they can't get into position. A Dedicated Healer might not be able to harm undead, so a lot of undead might give everyone a problem or two.
A man who uses precision pokey weapons will be weak against creatures with DR/Piercing. A man who uses smashy weapons vs DR/blunt. A ghostly figure takes less damage from almost everything. A cavalier I had got blindness from a failed save.. just think of the fun THAT was until the other characters helped him out.
Finally, don't make it obvious that this is what you are doing.. so don't just pile it on. A side encounter might include something that only the fighter has trouble with... allowing the other characters to shine as they rescue him. You are not trying to stop the characters on their main path, just giving them something to spice up the adventure with. Kind of like the Monster of the Week episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
After 30 years of play, I'm sort of tired of playing the base four classes. I like playing things that are different, even if that means I'm not the best at one of those core features.
More than that, roleplaying games are supposed to be ways that we can create stories... along with the other players and GM. It isn't just a what's the most effective thing to do, it's about what's the fun thing to do. If the story we want to have is about 4 bards who travel and snark at each other, then that should be a story we can play in Pathfinder. Yes, it will make some adventures harder than others, but that's by our own choice.
Boojum the brown bunny
Another suggestion, from a player who has lost his character more than once to a GM who did this, learn to use Tactics for your intelligent monsters. Many GM's I play under simply have the bad guys charge right into the fight with the adventurers, which can result in what you are talking about.
1. If the players do not exhibit an ability towards area attacks, intelligent bad guys should stick close together to support each other. Extra bad guys can make attacks to reduce the always hit fighters chance to hit. Getting flank can also help your bad guys to not miss.
2. Limit the summoners ability by the int of whatever they summon. If the creature is not very smart then have them end up using their own action (or movement) to give detailed instructions. Remember, if your summoner can't speak the language of what they summon, then only basic commands should be given.
3. Do not fall into the problem of silo'd encounters. If it makes sense, have a group of bad guys send of one of their own to warn the other bad guys you are coming. Don't have bad guys fight to the death if they are intelligent. You might have them surrender to a character who they feel is honorable and who will keep them from getting killed. Fighting isn't everything. Intelligent bad guys can use their minds to mess up your characters. If someone gets away to warn the other bad guys, then they can co-ordinate to increase the challenge level of the next fight.
4. Have your bad guys focus fire/attacks on WEAK members of the party. Have them take out the healer, if they know he's a healer, first. Take your your summoner or wizard second. Don't forget, when a summoner goes down, their summoners vanish. Do not fight one monster per one character, have all the monsters try to take down ONE character.
5. Have your bad guys take advantage of cover and use ranged weapons, if they can. A small wall can give them cover yet not give the characters cover for archery fire.
6. Once other groups have been warned you are coming, start using tactics against the good guys. Have someone with stealth hide near the entrance of the room so that when the good guys move in to attack the bad guys can attack from the rear. Be aware of your map. If you have two groups co-ordinating, then have one group suck the adventurers in while the second group circles to attack from behind.
7. As gm, you can give Followers whatever personality you want. The follower was hired to do something, so they should still do it. However they will not necessarily do more and, if not treated well, may want to leave. They can have whatever annoying personality trait that you want. The follower is NOT a second player character. If you feel that the player is taking advantage of the situation, then just take control of the follower as an NPC. The personality of the Follower a character has is just as important as the personality of the barkeep in town or the lord of a town.
8. Add in side adventures that address weaknesses of the party. By side adventure I mean a completely unrelated adventure that sucks the party in, but doesn't take long to complete. For example, your fighter character always hits for massive amounts of damage. Have a side adventure where he runs into someone with Sunder who attacks his weapon instead of him. The shadowstep character is impossible to spot, a side encounter with an area attack (like negative channel) will quickly make them remember they can be hurt. Side adventures that feed into the characters class/personality is best, because it gives the players a chance to play those aspects of their characters.
9. Always remember that extra things you do will cause players to advance faster, you will need to adjust the CR level of your encounters to give them a challenge. Always add some extra level/s for summoned creatures.
10. Take advantage of player greed and encumbrance rules. The occasional "throne artpiece" that weighs 500lbs, but is worth a lot of money can cause some interesting reactions.
Boojum the brown bunny
Which basically would turn a roleplaying game into a first person shooter, complete with spawn points. That would channel all modules into that one trope, which I would find boring after a couple of times.
I just hope that, whatever solution they come up with that they build an in game reason for it to work that way.
For example, it has been suggested that things made by alchemists not cost resonance (because it is a class feature) but that other things do. Ok, if that idea was implemented I would expect an in world reason why Alchemists were able to avoid resonance costs that no one else can.
So far we have been sort of focused on how we would like resonance to be changed from a game design level... but no discussion, particularly not from Paizo, on the IN GAME reasoning.
For example. Let us say that the rule is made that arcane casters can not wear armor while casting spells with a somatic component because it prevents them from moving properly. Ok, that's fine. But if you then allow a Magus to cast spells with a somatic component while wearing armor I would expect there to be an IN GAME reason why they get to do what other spellcasters can't. It would need to be one that felt correct to the players rather than something tacked on to support game design.
Boojum the brown bunny
I have seen it used before where healing magic heals a percentage of the persons life... So a full heal potion would heal all their HP, a half heal would heal half their total HP, etc. Of course, this would mean that at low levels you would only get 2-4hp per 1/4 heal potion, which would be the least expensive... but 4 of them would get a person up to full.
One group got by on one adventure without any fighters, just casters. So just get rid of fighters... Yeah, I don't think thats how it does, or should work.
Boojum the brown bunny
My personal favorite is a character who is both healer AND crowd control. At the beginning of the fight, you use crowd control spells to funnel opponents so they can't just run around the fighters... then begin healing when the damage starts coming in. Being able to summon a monsters to provide flank for the fighters is also pretty cool.
Boojum the brown bunny
I've noticed something with my time playing the low to mid level playtest... Healers eventually get to the point where they are only healing. They spend all of their actions to heal and move. Sure, it's their role in the party to be the one to get them out of trouble, but eventually it gets to the point that the healer can no longer do anything outside of healing during a nasty combat.
This gets back to the economy of actions. Make healing not use up your attack action and allow it to not provoke and front line fighters can happily use healing spells/powers/etc. A group of specialists is normally better than a group of generalists.
For example.. Let us say you have a single character with a Trap Disarm of +15 but is worse at melee combat, or every member of your group have a Trap Disarm of +7 and is better at melee combat than the specialist, but not as good as a completely dedicated fighter. Your groups ability to disarm the trap has gotten worse because no one specialized.
The same is true for healing. Someone needs to fight the monsters up close. They use all their actions to deal out damage. You have a healer who is not in melee combat keeping the fighter on his feet. Do do this you have to do nearly as much healing as the fighters is taking damage. If you don't specialize in healing, then you don't have the amount of healing needed.
4 characters with CLW wands is NOT as good at healing as one dedicated healer.. particularly one with channel. When they use their wands, they are not attacking. So the archer is keeping the fighter up instead of shooting opponents, and the arcanist is healing the fighter instead of crowd control, and the rogue is healing the fighter instead of backstabbing people.
If you specialize in healing, you CAN'T hit level equal monsters and do reasonable damage. In our last group, our archer was pumping out 150pts of damage a round with his arrows. Our Cavalier could do about 100pts per round with his lance. At high level, the ability to hit the AC of a creature is lacking in addition to doing enough damage to compare to the dedicated warriors.
Currently, the system doesn't support front line fighters keeping themselves healed without taking it away from their number of attacks. That would have to be changed to allow the healer to do combat instead of healing every round.'
I think that a Healer should be no more, or less, mandatory than a rogue, a fighter, or a wizard. I strongly feel that it should be up to the players what characters they want to play and what sort of fantasy world they want. That is one of the strengths, and one of the weaknesses, of roleplaying games.
If you build your adventure so tightly dangerous that having an unoptimized character means death for all the characters then you are forcing the players to run those characters in order to avoid a TPK.
Alternatively, if you build an adventure so loosely that an random group of adventurers can survive, then an optimized group will steamroll it.
If a game system is designed so that only the best suited race/class can fill a role, then I think the game system is to heavily specialized. If only a Cleric Healer will do, and a party will fail if there is an oracle healer, a paladin healer, a rogue healer, an alchemist healer, or an arcane healer... Then the system should be changed. As roleplayers, we are creating stories around our characters and they should be characters we love, not characters we were forced to play because if it wasn't a CLERIC healer then we couldn't have enough healing and everyone would die. The same is true of all the other roles.
Boojum the brown bunny
OK, it seems like I just can't stay away.. I tried, but I keep coming back and reading threads. I apologize for saying I was leaving and then not being able to.
I love the discussion on the magical economy and scaling, and the discussions on feeling heroic. I would like to bring up another problem I have with Resonance that I hope will be fixed.
My characters don't feel magical anymore, and I feel like all the color was drained out of the pathfinder universe. And it has nothing to do with the healing economy and playbalancing the combats, it has to do with the flavor and the fluff.
I enjoy my characters, even my non spellcasting characters, living in a magical universe. I like having the tengu jug for one of my characters with it's unlimited booze, or the disguise hat that makes almost human character look human, or a fun token of fill in the blank.
Resonance cuts us off from the FUN magic that fills the universe, not just the combat oriented magics. If it were me to fix resonance (rather than remove it) here is how I would change it to help keep magic in the universe.
1. If it is a consumable, it costs no resonance to use. Currently wands are a consumable and people have problems with wands. Either raise the costs of wands OR make them less available OR make then run of resonance INSTEAD of charges so they aren't consumable. Don't create hybrid items (like staffs) that require me to do complex math at the start of every day to figure out what I can do with it that day.
2. The crafting of items is flat, which increases the problem with things like wands. Separate the wands (and other items) into common, uncommon, and rare with different prices for each because some wands require hard to get materials that costs more, and put the wands you want LESS of in the rarer categories.
3. Allow characters to take feats that increase their resonance so that players who have fun with magic items can select that instead of an additional bloodline power/attack type/extra cantrips/etc. Also, by making this a feat then it is easy for GM's to not allow it in the game. If you build extra resonance into character classes then the GM has to block the whole class, not just the feat.
4. For items that the character should be using throughout the day (like a bag of holding) allow a scaled approach for use. 1rp to retrieve an item once, 2 or 3rp to equip the bag for unlimited retrievals during the day. This includes magic sword/armor/shields that have extra powers. So you spend 1RP to use your magic sword for the day, spend another 1RP to make it flame for a combat, or spend 3RP at the beginning of the day to both equip the magic sword AND use flaming whenever you fight.
5. For low powered fluff items, allow 1RP point to be used for a multiple of them. For example, let us say that 1rp point enables 5 "cantrip" level magic items. If you spend 1/5 a point on the magical seasoning spoon, you don't have enough left to power a 1RP magic item, but you could use the seasoning spoon another 4 times, or use the tengu jug 4 times, or however you want to split it up.
6. Charge 1RP to use magic armor for the day. Right now you are going to charge non-fighters 1rp for their armor (amulet of nat armor, cloak of prot, etc) so the same should be true for magic armor. If you don't, then you are really breaking your own magic system.
7. Allow for there to be items that do not use resonance, but add a large cost multiplier (like is done for exotic metal armors) and make them rare. This allows for higher level, more rich characters to buy armor (or the like) that doesn't take from their resonance, but costs a lot of money.
8. If you want to get people to use high powered healing wands rather than low powered healing wands, fix the cost/HP as healing items increase in power! When you have time, right now, it is always less expensive to use a low level wand a dozen times than use a higher level wand once.. so of course people are going to buy low level items for when they have the time.
At any rate, those are some ideas to add to all the other idea's being suggested. :)
Boojum the brown bunny
Sorry, I will do one more post because I think I was sort of abrupt when Stephan was talking about how they are going to work on Resonance. I also appreciate they are working on it and hope they improve the game a lot...
But before Playtest came out I had some concerns about what was happening to magic in the world and was told "Try it first" from people. Now that it is out, I've tried it, and discovered that my book keeping for magic using characters has ballooned, and that it just isn't fun for me. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who enjoy the game and will buy it... but rather than write my own rules for the new rules I just think I will bow out. I may change my mind, like I did when D&D 3.0 became D&D3.5.. but since the design seems to be moving away from what I enjoy I think its better that I allow the forum posts for the people who will be buying the game when it comes out.
Boojum the brown bunny
So I'll go ahead and drop out of the playtest forums since Pathfinder 2e is not a system I'm going to want to play. I purchased the playtest materials and tried it out, but the low magic design combined with the addition of resonance has simply made it unpleasant. I'll leave 2e for people who want to play in this system.
Because you can pick up Boost's from a variety of sources, I would recommend adding it to the Key Terms section in addition to the Abilities section. The other solution would be to reference the abilities page for a description of how Boost works at every place it appears, and it appears a lot! I found it a BUNCH of times before I ever got to Abilities.
I think this is more of a "You should listen to your players to make the game more fun" than a "You shouldn't do/play x." If your players are having fun while the dwarf is a bigot about elves... then that's ok. If they have a problem, then the GM should listen and modify their game so that more of the players will enjoy it.
Also, I think we need more things for adventurers to spend money on, not less. There are players who like their characters to be able to buy things, even silly things, that are in keeping with their character. Things like the Tengu Jug, or a hat that makes you look different, even though they aren't much use in combat.
What kept magic wands in check at low levels was the cost of the wand. Every charge spent cost you gold pieces. At the higher level, our group really never used wands of clw because the healer was powerful enough to keep people healed during the days adventures... and by the time the healer was low on healing pretty much everyone was ready for a long rest.
I understand that some GM's have had a problem with clw wands when they want the pacing of the adventure to be tight, but the simpler answer is to limit the availability of problematic items rather than to make book keeping more complex and rewrite how magic items work.
It should be pointed out that the huge Pathfinder cost listed includes all modules, all monsters, etc... To buy Hero Lab with the Pathfinder core books is $35. You can also add additional books (like the tiefling book, or blood of dragons, or the Iron Gods Module) in an ad hoc fashion.
Here is the blurb on starting out from their webpage:
Pathfinder players have two choices when purchasing Hero Lab: the Rulebook Entry Path OR the Class Pack Entry Path.
Each entry path offers a different approach to access the material from seven essential rulebooks: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Advanced Player’s Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Advanced Class Guide, Occult Adventures, and Ultimate Intrigue. Both entry paths feature the same initial price of $34.99.
I know that Oracles have different levels of bloodline in 1st edition from my Dragon bloodline oracle. There are feats he took that gain him additional bloodline things, provided he has the base of Dragon. I suspect something similar will be available for Sorcerers, where they can make choices to level up bloodline things rather than magic things.
Well, one good thing would be to move magic items traditionally crafted by a smith out of the hands of a spellcaster. Allow a Fighter to take "Craft Magic Weapons and Armor" and let them use their time between games to create their own while wizards are creating wands/haversacks/etc. This particularly works well if you add Strength or Constitution bonus to whatever roll might have to be made to create something.
I have never liked that all the magical crafting seems to fall to wizards when smiths were the ones who made magic weapons in most of the fantasy I've read.
If a sword doesn't have resonance because it is "in hand" and not in a slot, then I would expect wands to also not have resonance, because they are in hand and not in a slot. I don't think they left resonance off of swords because it is in hand, I think they did it so Fighters don't have to spend points in Charisma to use magic swords. I expect Magic Armor will also be exempt, but I haven't seen that stated either way... yet.
Schools are to the wizard/sorcerer what weapons and armor are to the fighter. It is what gives the class some depth so that a sorcerer or wizard can be better at some things than others and also to flesh out the roleplaying opportunities.
Wizards who raise the dead, wizards who make things blow up, wizards who turn people into frogs... all traditional roles. If you drop the classes, then you drop the ability to allow the Necromancer to be better at necromancy than the Transmuter or the Evoker to be better at evocation spells than the Illusionist.
The good side is that you can design exactly the sort of wizard you want without worrying about not being as good at something as another. The bad side is that you are ONLY as good at something as all the rest of the wizards of your level. I can see arguments both ways but by leaving in schools you give the ability for a wizard to specialize without forcing them to, since they can be a generalist wizard instead.
Um, yes.. the healer not in the front ranks is part of the point I was making. But they are correct that the discussion has digressed from Resonance, which was not my intent.
If Resonance is a good thing because it adds to attrition based adventures, then I think they should add it for warrior weapons and armor the same way it is being added to other magic items. If it is not a good thing, then I don't like they are adding it. If the problem is that warriors tend to tank their charisma stat, which results in them not having enough Resonance points, then maybe they need to rethink what gives people resonance points rather than to not charge warriors because they have more important things to spend stat points on.
More to the point, because how resonance works with some items changes based on your level I believe that we are approaching abusive levels of book keeping to track all your gear.
Does anyone know if they have talked about regaining points yet? For example, if it only takes the second edition version of a long rest to be able to spend points on my staff.. could I long rest, put more charges in my staff, long rest, put more charges in my staff, long rest, put more charges in my staff.. all in one day? So I can put more charges 3 x per day?
If resonance points don't come after a long rest, but at dawn instead.. does that mean that if we run low on resonance our group needs to stop at 10am, rest all day, dither about until dawn when Resonance updates, and then get going again? I'm not sure I like the idea of the party being stuck waiting for a day and a half at low levels while they wait for Resonance to come back so that characters can use their magic items again.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
My gripe is how resonance mechanics affects arcane and divine casters.. but you are correct it has deviated from the original conversation. I still stand by my statement that the further you get from a warrior, the more complex they are making things... and the closer you get to a warrior, the simpler they are making things even to the point of waving resonance for magic weapons. I think the inherent depowering of low level controllers and healers turn off players of these sorts of characters. I know that I sort of am.
Well, in our GiantSlayer game, the Cavalier was able to pump out about 75pts of damage per round if he charged with a lance (over a hundred if he crit.) The archer was pumping out around 150pts per round (lets hear it for abundant ammo.) And the spellcasters were hitting with a whole lot less and were limited by spells per day. If the cantrips scale to the point where they do as much damage as fighters at the higher levels and orisons so they can do as much healing as fighters need.. then I will take it all back. I'll have to wait until my books arrive to check. I am hoping they will ship mid July.
Personally.. all I have to go with is what is in the blogs so far. I admit that there may be other things happening that balance out my complaints, but a holistic view implies you can see the entire system, which I can't.
Hopefully my view will change when the playtest documents are published.
I would have less objection if that complexity made them more powerful, but in this case the complexity was added to make them LESS powerful. Warriors in our group already way out damage the spellcasters in combat, but that's ok because spellcasters are more versatile in what they can do... except that in the next edition will make them less versatile.
I think this is going to come down to people who don't play spellcasters very often going YAY! They are going to be nerfed! And people who play them going "Wait, we are getting nerfed? That's no fun!"
To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Yeeeaaaahhhh.. so I just read the part in the blog where warriors get a pass on resonance while spellcasters have to pay it for their magic items.. and all my enthusiasm for the new version just sort of drained away. Add reading about how charged items work (in the case of the staff) and there is an overwhelming amount to track.
You are a 3rd level sorcerer with a +3 charisma bonus, giving you 6 resonance points. Your day begins and you pick up your wand of healing, investing 1 resonance point to sync with it (which also increases the wands charge by 2 (highest spell level castable), apparently.)
If you use no other magic items that use resonance points, you can use your wand another 5 times that day. Ok... That IS quite a bit of healing at 3rd level (5d8+5 split through the party) so now your wand is at +2 but then -5 charges for the day.
A new day, ok.. +1 resonance point on your wand, you get +2 charge, but then you use the wand twice during the day, so now subtract two charges from the total.
A new day, +1 resonance point to equip your wand, you get +2 charge and didn't use it at all, so it stays at +2 charge.
This is NOT making tracking things easier. Worse, they are giving warriors a pass on the items they end up using.. so spellcasters have to track fluctuating charges and points for everything in addition to the points they track for their spells and the math for each charged item changes depending on the max level spell you can cast.
I'm sorry, but this is looking less and less like something I want to play, and this is from someone who was excited enough to buy the hardcopy of the playtest materials. Worse, since they are going to be shipping the books in mid july, it is really to late for any changes to be done. I think I'm going back to bed and just call today a loss.
Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.
At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.
Finally, you come to "what you can do in a round." Let us say you are a character with some healing ability and some melee ability and some armor. You don't heal as much as someone who dedicated their characters upgrades for healing, and you don't hit very often, and you don't do much damage.. but you do a bit of everything. You are in the front line fighting a monster and a nearby companion has taken a lot of damage. You can either attack a monster and do a bit of damage.. or you can shift out of combat and heal some of the damage on your companion, but you can't do both... and sometimes you can't shift to do the healing. Also, the amount of healing you can do may end up doing just 1 hits worth of healing because you didn't ramp your healing up using feats.
That has been my experience, anyway. As it is, it seems that they are shifting the balance over to limit the usefulness of the dedicated healer/buffer roles. I am not sure how this will work out in real life, but I do not find it to be a good thing. That role is already having to use magic items at lower levels to fulfill their role and it seems they are trying to take that away.