Pathfinder Playtest parts 3 & 4 with the Glass Cannon Podcast is released!


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Hythlodeus wrote:

I hope resonance is one of those 'extreme rule versions' were they have a more conservative backup plan, because I cn already tell, this will not be popular during playtest.

'Lore' being an untrained skill however, makes sense and we houserule that on our tables since, I don't know, knowledges were a thing. You lived your whole life in that village? Good, roll Knowlede (local). What? You haven't invested a rank in it? Sorry, you have no idea where the grocery store is.

Some knowledge checks were DC. If you have neutral int, you can take a 10 on something like knowing where the grocery store is.

That being said, I do hate the idea of untrained/trained skills, and glad to see it go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand, and a few extreme stress test situations where I told them "This is the only fight today. Nova your heart out," my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma.

Honestly, the whole thing sounds pretty cool to me. Seems like it'll work well with managing a pesky issue that has plagued the game for a long time. I really look forward to working with it and testing it out!


They’re good enough that wand spammage is no longer an issue. Works for me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SorrySleeping wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I hope resonance is one of those 'extreme rule versions' were they have a more conservative backup plan, because I cn already tell, this will not be popular during playtest.

'Lore' being an untrained skill however, makes sense and we houserule that on our tables since, I don't know, knowledges were a thing. You lived your whole life in that village? Good, roll Knowlede (local). What? You haven't invested a rank in it? Sorry, you have no idea where the grocery store is.

Some knowledge checks were DC. If you have neutral int, you can take a 10 on something like knowing where the grocery store is.

That being said, I do hate the idea of untrained/trained skills, and glad to see it go.

I'm the opposite I like some untrained/trained skills. Knowledge local is not one of them admittedly. But sword smithing for example? No way anyone could do that untrained, unless you put a -10 modifier or something on it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?

I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.


mach1.9pants wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I hope resonance is one of those 'extreme rule versions' were they have a more conservative backup plan, because I cn already tell, this will not be popular during playtest.

'Lore' being an untrained skill however, makes sense and we houserule that on our tables since, I don't know, knowledges were a thing. You lived your whole life in that village? Good, roll Knowlede (local). What? You haven't invested a rank in it? Sorry, you have no idea where the grocery store is.

Some knowledge checks were DC. If you have neutral int, you can take a 10 on something like knowing where the grocery store is.

That being said, I do hate the idea of untrained/trained skills, and glad to see it go.

I'm the opposite I like some untrained/trained skills. Knowledge local is not one of them admittedly. But sword smithing for example? No way anyone could do that untrained, unless you put a -10 modifier or something on it.

I agree on the craft skills, but knowledge skills were always something were it was possible that even particularly obscure lore could have been read about at any given time.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.

so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the whole issue with the CLW wand was a glitch in the item creation price which made healing *really* cheap. If experienced PF2 folks have to spring for the wand of CSW instead, I don't think it will be the end of the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.
so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them

Player 1 is down 45 points of damage.

Strategy 1: Cure Light Wounds wand x10.
Strategy 2: Cure Critical Wounds wand x2.

One of these is unlikely to run into problems from resonance.

That's definitely a design decision. In the Know Direction podcast, I remember one of the participants (sadly, I don't remember which one) say that they felt that cracking open a CLW wand like guzzling it down like a Gatorade was a crappy system, and one that was not found in any fantasy story ... ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.
so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them

Player 1 is down 45 points of damage.

Strategy 1: Cure Light Wounds wand x10.
Strategy 2: Cure Critical Wounds wand x2.

One of these is unlikely to run into problems from resonance.

That's definitely a design decision. In the Know Direction podcast, I remember one of the participants (sadly, I don't remember which one) say that they felt that cracking open a CLW wand like guzzling it down like a Gatorade was a crappy system, and one that was not found in any fantasy story ... ever.

okay, that's something, I admit, wouldn't happen on my tables, so I was not aware that this might be a proble at other tables. simply raising the cost for CLW wands might be the less complicated way to tackle that problem (if it is not just a theoretical problem, but something some players actually do)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Partizanski wrote:

Spoilers ahead:

Falling damage is 1 foot = 1 damage, and someone critically fumbled their reflex save, so they took double damage.

Starfinder non-lethal damage rules, only the last hit matters, no more separate tracking.

EDIT 1:

Thievery is a skill, a fumble caused the characters lock pick kit to be "dented",which gives an unspecified penalty

Occultism is a skill, having to due with "strange runes or symbols"

EDIT 2:

Crits are no longer confirmed, there is a weapon property called deadly. It was on a short bow, and it mean that a crit did double damage +1d10. Rapier also has deadly.

Cantrip called "Forbidding Ward" that selects 1 enemy and 1 ally, giving the ally +1 to AC and "improved your saving throws against the target enemies attack spells and effects"

EDIT 3:

Knowledge(Religion) is still its own skill (not sure if that had been confirmed yet).

It appears that knowledge skills are now called lore instead.

Lore skills can be done untrained, it is up to the GM to decide if someone with out training would know a specific piece of lore/knowledge with no training.

Lore(underworld) which applies to "criminal elements, like thieves guilds, criminal syndicate or network"

Everything about this is bad news except for what I've bolded. That one is just common sense, so I guess it's good they've pointed it out that you can rule that way.

The part you've bolded is the worst possible solution,

It will lead to huge table variance with no means of resolving what can and cannot be learned untrained.

Why is it bad? It changes the skill from, "you can't know this, ever" to "let's talk about it at the table, maybe your specific character with her past would know something."

It opens up options. I thought Pathfinder players liked options.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they are scared of the "up to the GM" part, since that can cause problems at the table.

"My level 1 character has been everywhere! Seen everything! I should know every knowledge!"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance as a limit to magic item abuse seems alright. My main concerns with it are resource tracking and that nothing interesting occurs once that limit is reached. With potions I'd prefer something akin to the Potion Miscibility table being used once resonance has been exhausted over the potion simply doing nothing.


enrik wrote:
Resonance as a limit to magic item abuse seems alright. My main concerns with it are resource tracking and that nothing interesting occurs once that limit is reached. With potions I'd prefer something akin to the Potion Miscibility table being used once resonance has been exhausted over the potion simply doing nothing.

You and I have the exact same issues with resonance. I love your suggestion about potion miscibility. That's awesome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resting gives you Con mod x level hitpoints back.

Alchemist can prepare healing elixirs. They don't count against the Alchemist's resonance, but they do count it for others. Heals 1d6, or if you're at full health, you gain +1 item bonus vs. toxins for an hour instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also think the Resonance idea will be unpopular, which is sad, because I rather like the idea.
Also I would be totally okay with potion miscibility being a thing. (though that might make for a lot of sad alchemists)

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So far, the only thing about PF2 I don't like is that they kept Vancian magic. Everything else, especially some of the cool tidbits in this podcast, just keeps making me more and more excited to play come August. Constitution modifier times level for healing on a rest, simpler (and more deadly) falling damage, a unified mechanic for magic items, so many great changes coming up. Especially with Resonance, I can see a lot of interesting choices, deciding if you want to go with a lot of passive items that require investment, or have a toolkit of items that cost Resonance to use, or a mix of both.ay" abilities on items, they'll all use Resonance. So for most players, that's less to track, not more. Instead of having ten items that each have a use per day limit, they'll all pull from the same pool, so you'll only have to keep track of Resonance.So far, the only thing about PF2 I don't like is that they kept Vancian magic. Everything else, especially some of the cool tidbits in this podcast, just keeps making me more and more excited to play come August.

And for people worried about Resonance adding "another" thing to track, remember that there will no longer be any "X/day" abilities on items, they'll all use Resonance. So for most players, that's less to track, not more. Instead of having ten items that each have a use per day limit, they'll all pull from the same pool, so you'll only have to keep track of Resonance.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SorrySleeping wrote:

I think they are scared of the "up to the GM" part, since that can cause problems at the table.

"My level 1 character has been everywhere! Seen everything! I should know every knowledge!"

Good. People are so hell bent afraid of the GM that they hide behind the rules and complain every time they're "forced" to talk to the gm about something in game.

This is a social game. Part of socializing is talking to each other like mature adults.

Talk to me. We can work it out. But if you're so God awful afraid that I might say "no," then the problem isn't table variance or a bad gm.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Game Master Q wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

I think they are scared of the "up to the GM" part, since that can cause problems at the table.

"My level 1 character has been everywhere! Seen everything! I should know every knowledge!"

Good. People are so hell bent afraid of the GM that they hide behind the rules and complain every time they're "forced" to talk to the gm about something in game.

This is a social game. Part of socializing is talking to each other like mature adults.

Talk to me. We can work it out. But if you're so God awful afraid that I might say "no," then the problem isn't table variance or a bad gm.

The problem here is that a lot of people, Pathfinder players especially, are involved in organized play. Where if you get stuck with a GM that's not willing to discuss or compromise, there's not really much you can do about it. In organized play, it's important for players to have a specific rule they can fall back on if they encounter a GM that's making unreasonable rulings regarding something that's left vague like this.

And it's much easier for you as a good GM to talk to your players and say "I might end up ruling differently on some things, I just need you to trust that I'm not out to get you." because you know that you're not going to abuse your ability to make those rulings in a home game. Players going into organized play often have no idea what kind of GM they're getting, or how open they are to discussion and communication, so people beeing wary of vague rules like this doesn't mean they're not "mature adults".


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Resting gives you Con mod x level hitpoints back.

Resting overnight, or sitting down for ten minutes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

I think they are scared of the "up to the GM" part, since that can cause problems at the table.

"My level 1 character has been everywhere! Seen everything! I should know every knowledge!"

Good. People are so hell bent afraid of the GM that they hide behind the rules and complain every time they're "forced" to talk to the gm about something in game.

This is a social game. Part of socializing is talking to each other like mature adults.

Talk to me. We can work it out. But if you're so God awful afraid that I might say "no," then the problem isn't table variance or a bad gm.

The problem here is that a lot of people, Pathfinder players especially, are involved in organized play. Where if you get stuck with a GM that's not willing to discuss or compromise, there's not really much you can do about it. In organized play, it's important for players to have a specific rule they can fall back on if they encounter a GM that's making unreasonable rulings regarding something that's left vague like this.

And it's much easier for you as a good GM to talk to your players and say "I might end up ruling differently on some things, I just need you to trust that I'm not out to get you." because you know that you're not going to abuse your ability to make those rulings in a home game. Players going into organized play often have no idea what kind of GM they're getting, or how open they are to discussion and communication, so people beeing wary of vague rules like this doesn't mean they're not "mature adults".

PFS is very selective about the rules they allow in their games. If it's such a problem that people aren't able to talk to each other like adults, or - god forbid - that a player might occasionally hear a "no," then they can remove that rule from PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Resting gives you Con mod x level hitpoints back.
Resting overnight, or sitting down for ten minutes?

Overnight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like resonance.

1) It gives CHA a use for characters that aren't Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Paladins, etc. and punishes people for dumping it. If you dump a stat, you should suffer for it.

2) Prevents someone from spending a pittance on low level healing items and trivializing all but horribly lethal encounters. Now you have to upgrade your gear to stay prepared and GMs don't have to throw CR+4 monsters at PCs just to challenge them.

A wand of Cure Light in PF1 costs 50 gp for 50 uses of 1d8+1 healing, for an average of 275 healing for an average of 5.5 healing/gp.

A wand of Cure Moderate costs 300gp for 25 uses of 2d8+3 healing, for an average of 300 healing for an average of 1 healing/gp.

The only advantage of a Cure Moderate wand over a Cure Light wand was if you HAD to use it in a time sensitive situation. Usually, you would use your spells for that.

I like magic weapons doing damage x (1+bonus). Just adding 5 points of damage was boring and didn't feel special in 3.P. Now fighters get to throw fistfulls of dice!

I also like that some swords may be able to shoot fire at the cost of resonance.

***Now for complaints. If you don't want to hear them, skip down below. ***

(Note: I overall have a positive impression of this game, so please take these complaints as constructive, but admittedly harsh, criticism.)

I see that Shields STILL require an action to use. (Someone said that they got to play a game at a Con and this wasn't the case for them.) This is beyond idiotic. It makes no sense. Look at some actual martial arts involving shields. It is nothing to keep it raised while fighting. Fighting styles involving shield use specifically involve moving your weapon arm and shield arm in specific simultaneous motions to close off angles while you attack. Maybe there is a feat that allows you to raise a shield as part of an attack action? If so, that helps, but I feel like being proficient with shields should automatically give you this benefit. (In other words, I would consider someone NOT proficient with shields, if they couldn't use one defensively while attacking with their other weapon.)

I get that your third attack is probably less useful than raising a shield, but just plain moving away is probably more useful than raising a shield seeing as I can negate one attack by just forcing them to chase me, as opposed to reducing one attack's damage by my shield's hardness at a risk of damaging my shield. If I don't even get attacked, I wasted an action. Realistically, intelligent enemies should probably just ignore the shield user if he used the block action and go after other targets.

To be excessive, using an action to raise my shield burns an action for +2 AC and gives me the option to soak damage with a shield at the cost of not being able to use an off hand weapon and not being able to use a 2 handed weapon (like a bow).

Let me make it clear that the idea of spending your reaction to soak an attack with the shield IS COOL, but having to spend an action to make it an option is NOT COOL. Make it automatic, and I have no problems with it.

Also, it appears that TWF works the same way shields do, in that, it takes a separate action to attack with an off hand weapon. Why would I even bother using two weapons if I'm still going to get the same penalties, other than to get some damage type coverage? Apparently there is a Versatile property that gives one weapon options on it's damage type, which makes that irrelevant. Maybe there is a feat that lets you attack with both weapons as part of one action, and if so, I withdraw my complaint.

I also still don't like that only Fighters have AoOs now. The Lesser Shadow that they were fighting didn't have ANY reactions, and while that probably saved the party, I think any creature intelligent enough to attack someone should be able to react in SOME way (and that that reaction should include being able to swipe at someone who does something defenseless.) Unlike my 2 previous complaints, this is NOT acceptable to be rectified by purchasing a feat. It is a feat tax to do something that you should be able to do naturally.

I may have heard this wrong, but preparing an action costs TWO actions? Maybe it was just for a 2-Action, action, in which case, sure that makes sense, but if it was for a 1-Action action, then that sounds terrible. Prepared actions have a pretty decent chance of being wasted, so if I have to burn 2 of my actions AND my reaction to do one action's worth of stuff ONLY IF my given condition is met, that just plain sounds wasteful. (Again, I could be mistaken.)

***End negative feedback.***

Pretty much everything else I really, really like. If the game were to come out now, as written, (assuming I like everything else) I'd probably buy it and just house rule my grievances out of the game. I know this doesn't give Paizo much incentive to deal with my issues with the game, but I want to be honest.

Current "hype" score for the game is 8-9/10.


I have to say about the shield, someone mentioned it earlier, they have to raise it once and they were done. Not sure if they were able to keep using the block reaction, but you only need to "raise" your shield to get a bonus, like drawing a weapon.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
SorrySleeping wrote:
I have to say about the shield, someone mentioned it earlier, they have to raise it once and they were done. Not sure if they were able to keep using the block reaction, but you only need to "raise" your shield to get a bonus, like drawing a weapon.

I don't think that's the case, having watch the GTM Live broadcast. You raise your shield to get the bonus for the round. Or, Valeros had the option to raise it as a reaction to get the bonus against all enemy attacks for the round.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just don't make resonance apply to potions. They were already balanced by being very cost-inefficient, requiring double the actions to spam them in combat and actually being relevant to carrying capacity.

Nobody should be punished for carrying the beloved potion! That item never caused issues with the game. 50x potions would never replace the CLW Wand! It costs 4x as much and weights infinitely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, perhaps someone knows. With Resonance, does this apply each time someone uses a magic weapon? If it only applies to things like potions and such, it's not so bad.

If it means a Fighter can only use his +1 sword once or twice a day...I don't like it (that creates the Christmas tree effect all over with him having two swords, two pieces of armor, two shields...etc.) even if it's in a different manner than P1E.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

So, perhaps someone knows. With Resonance, does this apply each time someone uses a magic weapon? If it only applies to things like potions and such, it's not so bad.

If it means a Fighter can only use his +1 sword once or twice a day...I don't like it (that creates the Christmas tree effect all over with him having two swords, two pieces of armor, two shields...etc.) even if it's in a different manner than P1E.

Wielded items don’t use resonance, at the beginning of each day you can invest resonance in items you’re wearing to keep them functioning all day even without resonance if it gets used up. If your sword has a special ability (example used was shooting fire, that particular ability costs resonance but that’s it).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand

Did this group habitually use wands of CLW in Pathfinder 1st ed as standard operating procedure? How have they reacted? Are you simply charging them more money on healing and they continue to ensure they're at full HP for most fights? Have they changed how they fight and focused more on defense as opposed to offense?

Fixing CLW wand spam with higher level wands is easy and doesn't require resonance. Using PF 1st ed cure spells:
Level 1 Wand: 750 (each charge restores 5.5 HP meaning each HP restored costs 3.33 gp)
Level 2 Wand: 1,800 gp (each charge restores 12 HP meaning each HP restored costs 3 gp)
Level 3 Wand: 2,500 gp (each charge restores 18.5 HP meaning each HP restored costs 2.7 gp)

This avoids punishing the PCs and instead gives them an incentive to purchase higher level wands. I was under the impression using wands of healing is what the devs were trying to get rid of in PF 2nd ed, not simply getting rid of wands of CLW.

Of course, I don't know what that does for other spells. Because I've never known anyone to make or purchase a wand higher than a level 1 wand. Found as treasure? Sure. But never made or purchased.

Finally if wielded items don't use resonance, why do wands? Do potions and scrolls use it? That makes minimal sense.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Except for a particular time when my playtesters explicitly tried to see if they could get away with saving money on CLW wand spam despite being high level adventurers who could afford a better wand

Did this group habitually use wands of CLW in Pathfinder 1st ed as standard operating procedure? How have they reacted? Are you simply charging them more money on healing and they continue to ensure they're at full HP for most fights? Have they changed how they fight and focused more on defense as opposed to offense?

Fixing CLW wand spam with higher level wands is easy and doesn't require resonance. Using PF 1st ed cure spells:
Level 1 Wand: 750 (each charge restores 5.5 HP meaning each HP restored costs 3.33 gp)
Level 2 Wand: 1,800 gp (each charge restores 12 HP meaning each HP restored costs 3 gp)
Level 3 Wand: 2,500 gp (each charge restores 18.5 HP meaning each HP restored costs 2.7 gp)

This avoids punishing the PCs and instead gives them an incentive to purchase higher level wands. I was under the impression using wands of healing is what the devs were trying to get rid of in PF 2nd ed, not simply getting rid of wands of CLW.

Of course, I don't know what that does for other spells. Because I've never known anyone to make or purchase a wand higher than a level 1 wand. Found as treasure? Sure. But never made or purchased.

Finally if wielded items don't use resonance, why do wands? Do potions and scrolls use it? That makes minimal sense.

that means new cost of cure light wounds is 25 per cast. that's look perfect as this gives charisma classes legit reason to sell their resonance.


He didn't change the cost of CLW wands khadgar...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
khadgar567 wrote:
that means new cost of cure light wounds is 25 per cast. that's look perfect as this gives charisma classes legit reason to sell their resonance.

Not sure what you mean. But are you advocating PCs sell their ability to use magic items to other PCs? That would be terrible. Does a fighter charge for each swing of their sword? What about a wizard for every single magic missile? But that's getting wildly off topic.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:

As both an occultist lover and someone who seeks to teach an easier system to her boyfriend and his friends that still has the customization I want, the magic system has me concerned and I want clarification and ideally confirmation that they aren't scrapping occultist for this form of magic item usuage.

The terminology used is almost an exact rip of the terminology used for occultist and it's class resource, all you need to do is shove focus somewhere in there. Is this intentional, because investment involves picking and choosing where your "focus" or resonance points go, or is it more along the lines of attunement, where you can only used attuned items with points. Either way doesn't really sound too great for me, as even my more experienced friends have had some trouble with focus management when they've tried occultist.

The way Resonance works came partially from the occultist because he defines the in-world concept of putting a piece of yourself into items to power them. As we do in many places, we’re expanding a PF1 concept by exploring its broader implications in our world. If we keep this system, the occultist would have new and more versatile ways to use his Resonance, just like a certain other class in the book!

Dark Archive

I do like charisma being more relevant and I do think resonance sounds like it might make things feel more mystical, or at least explain why there isn't nation wide welfare with healing potions in good aligned nations :p


John Lynch 106 wrote:
khadgar567 wrote:
that means new cost of cure light wounds is 25 per cast. that's look perfect as this gives charisma classes legit reason to sell their resonance.
Not sure what you mean. But are you advocating PCs sell their ability to use magic items to other PCs? That would be terrible. Does a fighter charge for each swing of their sword? What about a wizard for every single magic missile? But that's getting wildly off topic.

kinda yes since eventually you gotta need that heal in tight spot smart goblin in me says put price to my resonance equal to 1/50th of wand then sell my service with good abadar and asmodeus checked contract. as iomedae is my witness you gonna pay willingly when your resonance gone for day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I seriously hope ‘if we keep’ isn’t true at least not in current form. If one of the goals was encouraging the use of diverse magic items, this seems to kill that stone cold dead.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, we will find out how it works when playtest comes out, but I do have to note that at lower levels PCs don't usually have lot of magic items anyway and later levels they should easily be able to afford to invest resonance without being paranoid of "Okay, I can't afford to invest 3 points of my 15 resonance in my items, what if I need all those 15 heals?!" especially since system seems to favor "Do lot of healing at once, not tons of tiny heals"

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Well, we will find out how it works when playtest comes out, but I do have to note that at lower levels PCs don't usually have lot of magic items anyway and later levels they should easily be able to afford to invest resonance without being paranoid of "Okay, I can't afford to invest 3 points of my 15 resonance in my items, what if I need all those 15 heals?!" especially since system seems to favor "Do lot of healing at once, not tons of tiny heals"

That’s generally been the case in internal playtests! We’ll see if that holds true at large scale. As you say, low levels have less pressure on Resonance. Still, those are the biggest challenge here and we know we’ll get a lot of data on those.

Dark Archive

There is also that resonance system makes it cost effective upgrade to moderate/serious/critical wound wands instead of just buying multiple cure light wound wands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Well, we will find out how it works when playtest comes out, but I do have to note that at lower levels PCs don't usually have lot of magic items

Speak for yourself: Ioun Stones start at 150gp, Ioun Torch 75gp, Traveler's Any-Tool 250gp, Wayfinder 500gp, Boro Bead/Preserving Flask/Page of Spell Knowledge/Pearl of Power/Spell Lattice/Shard of Psychic Power/minor bag of holding 1000gp + armor, shield and weapons. I don't think I'll EVER have enough resonance to power what I would normally carry now, let alone to power per day abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not against the Resonance rules as mechanics, but the flavor of them is not something I like. It smacks of attuning items, and the investing of personal power via a Cha-informed resonance seems forced. It feels like a brutal blanket to force ALL characters to interact with magic items this way, no matter that it will necessarily allow even the meanest of +1 swords be able to have extra powers accessible provided the burly Fighter wielding it has resonance left for the day.

And on that note, a dwindling resource/per day also seems verisimilitudinally uninspiring.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Well, we will find out how it works when playtest comes out, but I do have to note that at lower levels PCs don't usually have lot of magic items
Speak for yourself: Ioun Stones start at 150gp, Ioun Torch 75gp, Traveler's Any-Tool 250gp, Wayfinder 500gp, Boro Bead/Preserving Flask/Page of Spell Knowledge/Pearl of Power/Spell Lattice/Shard of Psychic Power/minor bag of holding 1000gp + armor, shield and weapons. I don't think I'll EVER have enough resonance to power what I would normally carry now, let alone to power per day abilities.

Umm, while I do have to admit that I almost never see any players using most of those items, I do have to point out that you do realize that those items might not even exist in 2e so before we know what kind of magic items there are, complaining about resonance based in 1e magic item system might prove really inaccurate?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I must admit to uncertainty about "Resonance". Maybe it's the way the discussion headed but it feels like an entire system introduced solely to limit the use of wands (which could've been achieved by altering the wands themselves alone). How will this affect other items? Like those that are " activated" at the start of a day. If you have a flaming sword, do you have to spend resonance every time you turn the flame on? If so, that's probably not gonna be super attractive. If not, why is it different from effects that are activated on the spot but not at the start of the day? More info is definitively needed.

Sidenote: Is it only me that twinge a bit when they say "Natural" for numbers other than 1 or 20? I've had players that do the same and it just makes for unnecessary confusing language.

CorvusMask wrote:


Umm, while I do have to admit that I almost never see any players using most of those items, I do have to point out that you do realize that those items might not even exist in 2e so before we know what kind of magic items there are, complaining about resonance based in 1e magic item system might prove really inaccurate?

Singing its virtues without knowing the full extent of the system and its potential pitfalls could be equally inaccurate. Maybe even moreso since at least magic items in PF1e is not a matter of speculation.

Dark Archive

I don't think its bad thing to be skeptical, but I think its rather clear that whenever edition changes, you usually can't do identical build between editions. So thats why I find it bizarre to speculate based on 1e, I do think it makes more sense to speculate based on Starfinder since 2e clearly does share some aspects(such as the way of handling non-lethal combat I find annoying because its essentially up to gm whether they want to give pcs chance to interrogate foes :P)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:

I think they are scared of the "up to the GM" part, since that can cause problems at the table.

"My level 1 character has been everywhere! Seen everything! I should know every knowledge!"

Good. People are so hell bent afraid of the GM that they hide behind the rules and complain every time they're "forced" to talk to the gm about something in game.

This is a social game. Part of socializing is talking to each other like mature adults.

Talk to me. We can work it out. But if you're so God awful afraid that I might say "no," then the problem isn't table variance or a bad gm.

The problem here is that a lot of people, Pathfinder players especially, are involved in organized play. Where if you get stuck with a GM that's not willing to discuss or compromise, there's not really much you can do about it. In organized play, it's important for players to have a specific rule they can fall back on if they encounter a GM that's making unreasonable rulings regarding something that's left vague like this.

And it's much easier for you as a good GM to talk to your players and say "I might end up ruling differently on some things, I just need you to trust that I'm not out to get you." because you know that you're not going to abuse your ability to make those rulings in a home game. Players going into organized play often have no idea what kind of GM they're getting, or how open they are to discussion and communication, so people beeing wary of vague rules like this doesn't mean they're not "mature adults".

Finally I understand. Organized play is broken! But instead of fixing the PFS, we get the Resonance pool which fixes a 'problem' that any experienced GM can get around with without starting to sweat


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Resonance. Why not?
Apparently, there will be far fewer magic items in play to start with. If we no longer need to have belts and headbands of +stat, cloaks of +saves and rings and amulets of +AC, we'll be able to "invest" resonance in items that do cool stuff. However, having the resonance pool be LVL + CHA bonus is extremely limiting for low-level characters. A 1st-level guy with a 12 CHA score will only have 2 resonance points available. Now one might argue that a 1st-level guy isn't going to have any magic items anyway. OK, I'll buy that. But even at 5th level he'll only have 6 points. A wizard who has a couple wands is going to burn through those very, very quickly.

Currently, my PF1.0 wizard character uses scrolls and wands as a backup resource for when he is low on spells or out of spells. With resonance, that will be a finite resource, especially if he's got a few other items he wants to use regularly.

If there are feats to increase resonance, some items which act like potions but are really alchemical in nature and so don't require resonance, and some mechanism for recharging resonance during a dungeon crawl, this will feel like less of a problem. But it will require additional bookkeeping.

I'm unconvinced that this is a desireable mechanism to limit CLW wand spamming and potion juggling. It feels like it'll have a negative side effect on other aspects of the game.


thflame wrote:


***Now for complaints. If you don't want to hear them, skip down below. ***

(Note: I overall have a positive impression of this game, so please take these complaints as constructive, but admittedly harsh, criticism.)

I see that Shields STILL require an action to use. (Someone said that they got to play a game at a Con and this wasn't the case for them.) This is beyond idiotic. It makes no sense. Look at some actual martial arts involving shields. It is nothing to keep it raised while fighting. Fighting styles involving shield use specifically involve moving your weapon arm and shield arm in specific simultaneous motions to close off angles while you attack. Maybe there is a feat that allows you to raise a shield as part of an attack action? If so, that helps, but I feel like being proficient with shields should automatically give you this benefit. (In other words, I would consider someone NOT proficient with shields, if they couldn't use one defensively while attacking with their other weapon.)

I get that your third attack is probably less useful than raising a shield, but just plain moving away is probably more useful than raising a shield seeing as I can negate one attack by just forcing them to chase me, as opposed to reducing one attack's damage by my shield's hardness at a risk of damaging my shield. If I don't even get attacked, I wasted an action. Realistically, intelligent enemies should probably just ignore the shield user if he used the block action and go after other targets.

To be excessive, using an action to raise my shield burns an action for +2 AC and gives me the option to soak damage with a shield at the cost of not being able to use an off hand weapon and not being able to use a 2 handed weapon (like a bow).

Let me make it clear that the idea of spending your reaction to soak an attack with the shield IS COOL, but having to spend an action to make it an option is NOT COOL. Make it automatic, and I have no problems with it.

***End negative feedback.***

TOTALLY AGREE. The shield bonus to AC should be always there.

Also, a new comparison: a character used the "Nimble Moves" reaction and received a +2 AC bonus, but without the need to spend an entire action in his turn to be able to reaction later. If you have a shield, instead, you do need to spend an entire action to receive the same bonus (and have the possibility to spend your reaction to DR). Just seems a little unbalanced to me, once an action seems more important/expensive than a reaction.

Nevertheless, with this comparison or not, you still should receive the shield AC bonus in a passive way regardless of anything.

thflame wrote:


Also, it appears that TWF works the same way shields do, in that, it takes a separate action to attack with an off hand weapon. Why would I even bother using two weapons if I'm still going to get the same penalties, other than to get some damage type coverage? Apparently there is a Versatile property that gives one weapon options on it's damage type, which makes that irrelevant. Maybe there is a feat that lets you attack with both weapons as part of one action, and if so, I withdraw my complaint.

Feel the same. Let's wait and see.

thflame wrote:


I also still don't like that only Fighters have AoOs now. The Lesser Shadow that they were fighting didn't have ANY reactions, and while that probably saved the party, I think any creature intelligent enough to attack someone should be able to react in SOME way (and that that reaction should include being able to swipe at someone who does something defenseless.) Unlike my 2 previous complaints, this is NOT acceptable to be rectified by purchasing a feat. It is a feat tax to do something that you should be able to do naturally.

I may have heard this wrong, but preparing an action costs TWO actions? Maybe it was just for a 2-Action, action, in which case, sure that makes sense, but if it was for a 1-Action action, then that sounds terrible. Prepared actions have a pretty decent chance of being wasted, so if I have to burn 2 of my actions AND my reaction to do one action's worth of stuff ONLY IF my given condition is met, that just plain sounds wasteful. (Again, I could be mistaken.)

TOTALLY AGREE AGAIN.

thflame, you just said what I think. Thanks! Haha


SorrySleeping wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
At least crit fishing won't be the go-to for the magus.
The class that can resolve all attacks as touch attacks?
You mean the class that turns touch attacks into normal attacks? His shocking grasp may be able to crit more often by itself, but it no longer gets weapon damage or Str (or dex) to damage.

Completely aside from spell combat and spellstrike, the magus has the ability to convert all attacks in a given round into touch attacks at the cost of two arcane pool points.

It is a very popular option at higher level.

The Phantom Blade gets this option baked right into the Archetype.

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pathfinder Playtest parts 3 & 4 with the Glass Cannon Podcast is released! All Messageboards