|3 people marked this as a favorite.|
Most of what I am going to say has been said before, but I have a few points I haven't noticed yet. Also, I will disclaimer this with saying that I have only played up to 4th level, so that is what I'm most familiar with.
I like the idea of resonance points. It's been pointed out that they remove CHA as a dump stat (not that dumping is really a thing right now) and they force the player to make conscious choices about his magic items.
As far as I can see with my limited amount of playtest games, the Resonance system has 2 faults:
1) It heavily reduces the adventuring day for parties without an innate form of healing, reducing the diversity in successful party comps, and
2) The resonance point economy still favors items which have passive effects, similar to how the Big 6 worked in PF1.
In regards to #1, I felt that the CLW wand spam was a necessary evil to allow players to freely choose what characters they wanted to use instead of having to be forced into the classic Wizard-Rogue-Fighter-Cleric basic 4 composition. Obviously this is over simplified, but cheap level 1 wands did allow for a greater diversity of party compositions (I remember a PFS scenario where my party consisted of 4 wizards, a sorc, and myself as a kineticist. We had our challenges and I had to be the frontliner but it was that kind of diversity that made random-party online PFS not only viable but exciting and unique, in my opinion at least) (I realize I say "diversity" when 5/6 of that party was arcane but that's not the point >.>)
Of course, if having a CLW wand is the equivalent of having a cleric, then you'll see the cleric role losing its identity as a healer class, but this can be addressed with specific nerfs to wands (like how they were reduced to 10 charges).
As for #2, I feel that there should be a revision of the RP cost-to-benefit of many of the magical items. The Bracers of Missile Deflection were mentioned before, but I agree in how terrible they seem. You need 1 RP just to invest them (with no passive attached) then another RP each time you want to use them. Removing either of these costs would be fine to me (although I would prefer removing the activation cost, as it already costs a precious Reaction and is against only a single ranged attack). Similarly, trinkets seem to cost far more than they're worth, both in GP and RP (making these invested 1/day items or something similar would be fine imo but I can see how trinkets can get out of hand).
At the moment, the items most useful for RP use are: Weapons, Armor, and Staves. Weapons and Armor are pretty obvious choices and are mandatory to any martial class, but for spellcasters a staff is also an incredibly useful item because of its passive investment bonus. Having to spend RP on any item other than these 3 generally feels bad, especially if it's a consumable. I feel like this only exasperates the "Big 6" problem.
As for potential solutions, I would prefer to keep the Resonance system, but do agree that the cost should probably be removed from consumables. As a compromise, I think it'd be okay to make wands invested items but remove the RP cost for activating them. With only 10 charges, this means you can't spam them quite as much as you'd like, making higher-level wands more appealing at higher levels. To compensate for this, I also think that the total number of RP should be modified (overall reduced). Level + CHA at low levels is -way- too little, esp for CHA8 dwarves, but also too high at high levels, where you really don't have many places to spend all of those points (unless you spam wands or consumables). If you both remove the RP cost from consumables and reduce the total number of RP available, not only do you make a decent replacement for item slots but you also make the Extra Resonance feat more appealing. I'm sure the Paizo PF2 team is a lot better at numbers than I am, but for reference I was thinking of something like 2+CHA at level 1, plus 1 at 5, 10, 15, and 20.
Those are my 2 cp on the matter, but I am also compelled by law to ask when you're going to add in kineticists to PF2 :)