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


Prerelease Discussion

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

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.

Right. When I read it, my first thought was "that's not low enough to matter". I felt you have room to lower it, certainly considering (besides CHA) specific classes/ feats/ items/ races/ spells will plausibly exist to boost it generically or per specific use cases. I don't get concerns of "it will hurt so bad if you drink Potion and it doesn't work", you implicitly know how many Resonance Points you have, if you try using something with 0 RP it isn't a surprise if it's wasted, it is "gift" if it does work. Obviously this does give a rather direct rationale for CSW/Mass Cure spell items, which is healthy IMHO.

Given the current value, I think it would be interesting for Resonance Points to also be consumed for 1/day attuning, maybe not every item, but more powerful ones (perhaps functioning off item vs character level differential, lowest level items free to attune), or ones which require that to activate more powerful aspects. This "enhanced investiture" could also be done at later point in the day if the user chooses to (and has sufficient points), like "choosing to prepare spells later". Besides broader need/usage for the pool which currently doesn't feel cramped at all currently, that sounds like more supple, nuanced system to build atop of.

Contrary to poster who seemed worried the terminology of their Occultist was being stepped on, I love how you are making the magic system your own rather than just the "vanilla D&D heritage", and obviously this tendency would make Occultist characters (when done 2nd Ed style) MORE of the center of the game than their current situation. If anything the complaint would be from people who like their vanilla and don't want it messed up with Occultist flavor. They can still play "1st Edition" OFC.

ChibiNyan wrote:
Levels 1-3 are when you see a looot of CLW potions in Adventure Paths to keep the party from slowing down since they run out of health and resources pretty fast. Please think of the potions!

P2E also seems to have buffed HPs at low levels, so it will be alot less swingy, thus less need for CLW and such to be provided and used non-stop out the gate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much kills cool oddball magic item use.

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Contrary to poster who seemed worried the terminology of their Occultist was being stepped on, I love how you are making the magic system your own rather than just the "vanilla D&D heritage", and obviously this tendency would make Occultist characters (when done 2nd Ed style) MORE of the center of the game than their current situation.

Indeed, we've had some delightful occultist-based thought experiments based on some of these ideas as the "kings of resonance."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am so very excited for the PF2 Occultist.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Pretty much kills cool oddball magic item use.

Not IMHO. As mentioned, actual usage isn't running against the hard limit given the current point pool. CLW spam is a major change, but there's others that also are not "cool oddballs" but just spellspam. Cool oddballs are by nature infrequently used so keeping them around to use occassionally will not be a big difference IMHO. You can find any rule that theoretically constrains what you consider good honest fun, but establishing functional, supple baseline is what rule system design is about.

And keep in mind, nothing about this stops Paizo from judging an item as being so non-power-impacting that it should not be subject to Resonance cost which is meant for balancing usage of more power-relevant items. AKA they can choose to make "Item Cantrips". Same as Wealth by Level really is meant as measure of adventure-relevant gear you are carrying, not whether you own a mangrove lumber mill whose proceeds you donate to an orphanage (or just collect in a vault somewhere).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Pretty much kills cool oddball magic item use.

Not IMHO. As mentioned, actual usage isn't running against the hard limit given the current point pool. CLW spam is a major change, but there's others that also are not "cool oddballs" but just spellspam. Cool oddballs are by nature infrequently used so keeping them around to use occassionally will not be a big difference IMHO.

And keep in mind, nothing about this stops Paizo from judging an item as being so non-power-impacting that it should not be subject to Resonance cost which is meant for balancing usage of more power-relevant items. AKA they can choose to make "Item Cantrips". Same as Wealth by Level really is meant as measure of adventure-relevant gear you are carrying, not whether you own a mangrove lumber mill whose proceeds you donate to an orphanage.

People aren’t going to ‘spend’ resonance on things like that and then not be able to use something they might _need_. So at best, it’s going to act like spell slots, limiting what magic items you use except limiting them by resonance points instead of by, say, the shoulder slot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am so very excited for the PF2 Occultist.

I wasn't overly excited with the original Occultist so the a PF2 Occultist doesn't exactly fill me with excitement. The only occult class I was draw to was the mesmerist. So the fact that 'Resonance' didn't thrill me originally is pretty much why it doesn't thrill me for the new game.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Pretty much kills cool oddball magic item use.

Not IMHO. As mentioned, actual usage isn't running against the hard limit given the current point pool. CLW spam is a major change, but there's others that also are not "cool oddballs" but just spellspam. Cool oddballs are by nature infrequently used so keeping them around to use occassionally will not be a big difference IMHO.

And keep in mind, nothing about this stops Paizo from judging an item as being so non-power-impacting that it should not be subject to Resonance cost which is meant for balancing usage of more power-relevant items. AKA they can choose to make "Item Cantrips". Same as Wealth by Level really is meant as measure of adventure-relevant gear you are carrying, not whether you own a mangrove lumber mill whose proceeds you donate to an orphanage.

People aren’t going to ‘spend’ resonance on things like that and then not be able to use something they might _need_. So at best, it’s going to act like spell slots, limiting what magic items you use except limiting them by resonance points instead of by, say, the shoulder slot.

I doubt many oddball items will get the 'worn' tag, though. Even if they are cloaks, they wouldn't require investment.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Contrary to poster who seemed worried the terminology of their Occultist was being stepped on, I love how you are making the magic system your own rather than just the "vanilla D&D heritage", and obviously this tendency would make Occultist characters (when done 2nd Ed style) MORE of the center of the game than their current situation.
Indeed, we've had some delightful occultist-based thought experiments based on some of these ideas as the "kings of resonance."

If occultist expands on resonance and can make it something truely its own when it comes to P2E, I'm very willing to see where it can go. My original stance on resonance has softened with some time, though I still have some concerns when it comes to teaching new roleplayers about the mechanic, as well as how it effects the ability of Alchemist to play a support role in the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I doubt many oddball items will get the 'worn' tag, though. Even if they are cloaks, they wouldn't require investment.

That was my immediate thought in reference to things like the campfire bead and traveler's tool. Until we see the magic item section, and whether the trinket type items even matter for Resonance, the concern over the hard limits is a bit premature. I'd wager a guess that the designers go more along those lines, with minor magic items not mattering for Resonance usage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dread Moores wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I doubt many oddball items will get the 'worn' tag, though. Even if they are cloaks, they wouldn't require investment.
That was my immediate thought in reference to things like the campfire bead and traveler's tool. Until we see the magic item section, and whether the trinket type items even matter for Resonance, the concern over the hard limits is a bit premature. I'd wager a guess that the designers go more along those lines, with minor magic items not mattering for Resonance usage.

If this is the case, what is the cut off/exception? Why does a sword need it but another magic item, like the tool, not? It's going to need a good explanation as to why there is an arbitrary difference between two wielded items [say a hand axe and a traveler's tool transformed into a wood axe]. If they can pull it off, I'll feel better about it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So if running out of Resonance is such a non-issue, why bother with it? Just change the costs of the damn wands instead of ruining magic items and forcing everyone to track another resource.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
So if running out of Resonance is such a non-issue, why bother with it? Just change the costs of the damn wands instead of ruining magic items and forcing everyone to track another resource.

Because giving every class some reason to value Charisma, not just in social situations but all the time, is a positive change?

Like it or not, but "It's more painful to dump Charisma" is good design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They're basing it primarily on character level like everything else anyway. Charisma isn't even the main factor to Resonance after the first couple levels. It's not really giving much extra value to Charisma. I'll also quote my previous post:

Bloodrealm wrote:
You know, I always figured the penalty of dumping Charisma was that nobody would give a damn about what you have to say because you're not charismatic enough. And that you can't be a Charisma-based character.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

13 people marked this as a favorite.

As a game designer, resonance opens way more space for me to play with than the elements it is replacing.

By removing most of the x/day special properties on magic items and replacing it with resonance and investing, I can do so many cool things with magic items. I can create sets that when used together need less investment. Intelligent items and artifacts can have their own resonance pools. I have have items with special properties that get way better when you use more than one point of resonance. I can have items that can be used without investment but do more cool things with it.

It also solves the issue of people saving items for "when we really need them." Now the issue isn't with certain items, and they can be used as freely as players want. Single use items like potions and scrolls of course still have that problem, but that flame ray from a flame tongue sword allows my fighter to have more cool tricks up his sleeve. In fact, this may be one way to bridge the cap between martials and spellcaster, especially if there are feats martials can use to gain more resonance that won't be as attractive to spellcasters.

Does it solve wand spamming? Judging by one dev comment it probably only lessons the issue, but that problem will need a couple other solutions to really be fixed. Healing spells should be using 2d4, not 1d8, per level. There need to be more meaningful ways to make players feel safe to continue without stopping to take a break or doing something to disrupt the narrative of the game.

But that isn't the only problem resonance is aiming to provide a solution to. If you have been paying attention to all the changes Paizo want to do, you'll also know they want to make PCs less reliant on what is often called "the big six". Weapon, armor, cloak of resistance, stat boosting item, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor. Now items can provide basic bonuses for investment but still have cool abilities that require resonance.

So, unless I end up reading the rules directly and hating them, I love the concept and look forward to playing around with it as a player and as a game designer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CalebTGordan wrote:
As a game designer, resonance opens way more space for me to play with than the elements it is replacing.

Agreed. Sometimes limitations help open up possibilities. The system feels both simple and open to modifications enough to hit what I call the "supple" factor you want from core rules.

And if it mixes up the way people play, great. I think it's bizarre how many spells (like CLW) lose their value as spells as you level up simply because they are fodder for wand spam. They don't need to be heavy hitters for the whole game, but there should be some trade space that makes it viable for somebody to use them as real spells.

I think people are also ignoring that since we know mundane skills can now do extraordinary things, characters will be able to heal by skill check without magic at all. And likely do other tasks previously dependent on magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Caleb. One of my first thoughts was if the Big 6 are mostly gone and magic items use up a daily resource then magic items must be hardcore. I immediately thought of flaming weapons that got more powerful with more resonance so you don't have to throw it away for something better when you level. Starts off as a sword on fire and at high levels it's a lightsaber that shoots lava.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
If you dump a stat, you should suffer for it.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like it or not, but "It's more painful to dump Charisma" is good design.

I... I don't play games to suffer. I don't play games to feel pain.

And I don't believe a Con-style "everyone must have 10-14 on this ability score" is good game design. Good game design stimulates varied builds that look different from each other. We don't want to force everyone to have a 14 in every ability score - that would be horribly boring. It's bad enough that you already virtually NEED Dex and Con, such that everyone puts at least 10-14 in those scores. We don't want to penalize everyone who dumps a certain score, we want to expand the range of viable builds. But if having a 7 Cha means I can't drink potions... well, then that's not viable.


4 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.

Well, yes, this is because heroes in stories have plot armor, so they can face encounter after encounter and never take significant damage unless there's a plot relevant reason for it.

Heroes in PF take significant damage randomly and repeatedly because, you know, dice are random and encounters with no risk of wounds/failure for the PC aren't really engaging from a game POV.


After listening to this pod cast, I've decided something. My next campaign will start with this modal.


RumpinRufus wrote:
But if having a 7 Cha means I can't drink potions... well, then that's not viable.

Tiny note: There's a pretty high chance that Resonance would work much like the various pools (grit, arcane, etc.) were handled in PF1. In those cases, a negative ability mod didn't reduce the pool. So the lowest a character would likely have would equal to level for starting Resonance. That's been the style of mechanic they've shown to use pretty consistently for previous resource pools. You could still run out certainly, but it would be a pretty major design change for them to start throwing negative mods into character resource pools.

I swear one of the reddit threads from the con players actually addressed this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dread Moores wrote:

it would be a pretty major design change for them

and it's not like we've seen pretty drastic design changes in this second edition yet, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

By the way, in current Pathfinder rules, you can actually make Knowledge skill checks untrained, if the DC is 10 or lower. And the DC, for example, for knowing where the grocery store in your home village is, is probably way below 10, which means everyone who is not too stupid can even take 10 to know this.


4 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, 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.

Then why not change how the wands work, rather than making an entirely new (& confusing) system?


I'm fine with everyone using a skill untrained unless the GM says otherwise. The resonance subsystem seems slightly ham fisted but not terribly so. It also sounds like UMD on steroids.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LuZeke wrote:
Sayt wrote:
As for analysing the tidbits that have been released so far, can we not doomsday the changes by plopping them into PF1E, without the context of the rest of the system?
I ask you the same thing, what would you have people do then?

Ideally, compare and contrast the rules between editions and posit on what the new rules imply for Pathfinder 2e's general design and new math / balance.

Consider the following statement: "We can't use Wands of CLW and potions to heal up after every fight like we used to? Now every group requires a cleric for healing!" This statement makes a few assumptions that utterly undermine it - we don't know about whether there are other methods of healing, such as resting or skills or non-magic items. We don't know if there are more classes with powerful healing abilities available to choose from that would reduce the need for a cleric. We don't know if we will absolutely need to heal after every fight like we were required to in Pathfinder just to survive a round of attacks. We don't know all the details of damage mitigation (although we do know some reactions can do so). We don't know if the available healing spells will be stronger in general, thus negating the need for supplementary items.

Judging the new tidbits based on Pathfinder 1e's ruleset is pointless. The new system almost definitely uses different standards of balance, math, and challenge than the previous edition, and until we know that information it's difficult to judge the merit of what we do know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
thflame wrote:
If you dump a stat, you should suffer for it.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like it or not, but "It's more painful to dump Charisma" is good design.

I... I don't play games to suffer. I don't play games to feel pain.

And I don't believe a Con-style "everyone must have 10-14 on this ability score" is good game design. Good game design stimulates varied builds that look different from each other. We don't want to force everyone to have a 14 in every ability score - that would be horribly boring. It's bad enough that you already virtually NEED Dex and Con, such that everyone puts at least 10-14 in those scores. We don't want to penalize everyone who dumps a certain score, we want to expand the range of viable builds. But if having a 7 Cha means I can't drink potions... well, then that's not viable.

Goal of CHA buff was not to "force" every character to have balanced stats. It was to make it so if characters wanted to have big strengths, it would come with a weakness. You would see pretty much every Magus guide tell you to dump CHA to 7 every time to pump DEX and things like that. Now the "best build" is not as cut and dry, there's consequences to every decision you take and no build is "perfect". This should encourage more variety in ability score spreads.

Now won't be yelled at for being "subpotimal" because you have 12 CHA on the martial dude, it might actually be a legitimate build!


Incidentally, the larger hitpoint base means characters (especially from classes that weren’t using a d6) are no longer forced into having a good Con. Poor fort saves might push it, but it seems like the Fighter is probably free to leave Con at 10 if need be, like a Wizard dumping Wis.


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

I have to say, Resonance sounds interesting. If it can help foster the notion that magic items are an important and rare resource, all the better.


QuidEst wrote:
Incidentally, the larger hitpoint base means characters (especially from classes that weren’t using a d6) are no longer forced into having a good Con. Poor fort saves might push it, but it seems like the Fighter is probably free to leave Con at 10 if need be, like a Wizard dumping Wis.

That's assuming the enemy damage isn't inflated similarly. We already know that player weapons have been given wildly variant damage dice when they're enhanced that potentially deal several times more damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I fear that at some point, somewhere, a GM is going to be in a difficult position where she is forced to either let something slide, or enforce a rule that causes a player to be faced with the situation where their character doesn't get to automatically do exactly what they want to do

And then, the boards will be swamped with threads decrying the "broken" resonance system and why it needs to be removed from player characters.


Bloodrealm wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Incidentally, the larger hitpoint base means characters (especially from classes that weren’t using a d6) are no longer forced into having a good Con. Poor fort saves might push it, but it seems like the Fighter is probably free to leave Con at 10 if need be, like a Wizard dumping Wis.
That's assuming the enemy damage isn't inflated similarly. We already know that player weapons have been given wildly variant damage dice when they're enhanced that potentially deal several times more damage.

Even if it is inflated similarly, Con increases represent a smaller percentage change in hitpoints, so there’s less marginal cost in passing them up. I’m also assuming that class hp/level is maxed hit die from Pathfinder, and that a Wizard won’t need more than18 Con if they want to enter melee.


Did anyone else notice when they said that Rings of Protection are now gone? As are almost all magic items that give a simple bonus to a stat. Cloaks of protection, etc...

It was towards the end of episode 4.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Did anyone else notice when they said that Rings of Protection are now gone? As are almost all magic items that give a simple bonus to a stat. Cloaks of protection, etc...

It was towards the end of episode 4.

I for one support the idea of removing items that are necessary (instead give people the bonuses they need to keep up with the math of the game) leaving people to instead spend their money and resonance on items that are fun.

Like one of the reasons I liked playing Occultists in PF1 is that the Abjuration resonant power means you can equip any cloak you want.


I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on, but Resonance also means you're going to need to keep replacing wands (especially healing wands) with better ones even though they never run out in the long term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting rid of the "required" stat items is my number one desired fix to the game.

Dark Archive

Bloodrealm wrote:
I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on, but Resonance also means you're going to need to keep replacing wands (especially healing wands) with better ones even though they never run out in the long term.

That is, assuming wands are still capped off at 50 charges. I think it would be pretty cool if wands basically just converted Resonance to charges / spells with a set CL / DC.

Let's say you find a Wand of Mage Armor (as an example). Instead of having 50 charges at a rate of 1 charge per cast you could always spend 1 Resonance to cast Mage Armor (CL 1). That saves a bunch of letters when placing treasure and ends wand spam while giving you a reason to want to purchase (and even upgrade) wands.

The same thing could work with staffs, but with the added benefit of having multiple spells available to cast from Resonance and using your spell DC on them. That way staves are powerful magic items instead of expensive ones.

Plus, there's another question to ask - how will wands and staves work with spells that have variable action costs for different benefits? Say I have a wand of the new cure spell - can I spend 3 acts to channel with it? Do I need to spend more Resonance? I want to know these things!


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am interested in seeing how the new Resonance rules affect play when the players know those rules in advance. In the playtests I have listened to, I get the idea that the players did not learn about the Resonance rules until they had already burned up all or most of their Resonance points.


LuniasM wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on, but Resonance also means you're going to need to keep replacing wands (especially healing wands) with better ones even though they never run out in the long term.

That is, assuming wands are still capped off at 50 charges. I think it would be pretty cool if wands basically just converted Resonance to charges / spells with a set CL / DC.

Let's say you find a Wand of Mage Armor (as an example). Instead of having 50 charges at a rate of 1 charge per cast you could always spend 1 Resonance to cast Mage Armor (CL 1). That saves a bunch of letters when placing treasure and ends wand spam while giving you a reason to want to purchase (and even upgrade) wands.

The same thing could work with staffs, but with the added benefit of having multiple spells available to cast from Resonance and using your spell DC on them. That way staves are powerful magic items instead of expensive ones.

Plus, there's another question to ask - how will wands and staves work with spells that have variable action costs for different benefits? Say I have a wand of the new cure spell - can I spend 3 acts to channel with it? Do I need to spend more Resonance? I want to know these things!

That's what I mean. Even if the wands never run out of charges, they're still using a point of Resonance each time you use them, so you'll need to throw out the perfectly good lower wand for a higher one if you want it to remain an effective use of Resonance.

Dark Archive

Bloodrealm wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on, but Resonance also means you're going to need to keep replacing wands (especially healing wands) with better ones even though they never run out in the long term.

That is, assuming wands are still capped off at 50 charges. I think it would be pretty cool if wands basically just converted Resonance to charges / spells with a set CL / DC.

Let's say you find a Wand of Mage Armor (as an example). Instead of having 50 charges at a rate of 1 charge per cast you could always spend 1 Resonance to cast Mage Armor (CL 1). That saves a bunch of letters when placing treasure and ends wand spam while giving you a reason to want to purchase (and even upgrade) wands.

The same thing could work with staffs, but with the added benefit of having multiple spells available to cast from Resonance and using your spell DC on them. That way staves are powerful magic items instead of expensive ones.

Plus, there's another question to ask - how will wands and staves work with spells that have variable action costs for different benefits? Say I have a wand of the new cure spell - can I spend 3 acts to channel with it? Do I need to spend more Resonance? I want to know these things!

That's what I mean. Even if the wands never run out of charges, they're still using a point of Resonance each time you use them, so you'll need to throw out the perfectly good lower wand for a higher one if you want it to remain an effective use of Resonance.

Yeah, the system would make waaaay more sense if there was some way to upgrade your low-level wands into higher-level versions of the same spells, like upgrading a Wand of CLW to a Wand of CMW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on,

I've always found that an interesting question.

A lot of people used to talk about rollplay vs roleplay and the stormwind fallacy, claiming that one can be an optimizer and a roleplayer at the same time. And theoretically, this seems true.

But over the years I've also discovered that some of those who make these claims are also unable to think of what they can spend their money on if not magic items. That just screams of "I can't roleplay or think of how money works in the world." If the only thing someome can possibly imagine spending their money on is items to increase their personal statistics, then that means the stormwind fallacy is false for these individuals - they cannot both optimize and roleplay at the same time.

And ever since 5e came out, that has been the #1 complaint of the system. "What can I possibly buy if I don't have magic items?!" Well, think about how money is spent in the real world - you can literally purchase all of that: property, political influence, donations, henchmen/servants, and thousands upon thousands of other options. You just have to think beyond the character sheet.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

There's a lot we don't know about resonance yet (unless I missed it), which will greatly impact how it works. Without knowing this, it's hard to decide if I'm a fan of it or not, but on the whole I'm not looking forward to this system.

Things I'd want to know:
1) how quickly can you invest resonance? For those items that are "nice to have situationaly" can you instantly invest resonance in them, or re-allocate already invested resonance? For example, a helm of water breathing. If you don't normally invest in it, because you're on land, but are unexpectedly dumped in a water filled pit, can you either invest unused resonance or remove some from some other item with an action? or is it part of a daily ritual type thing and un-invested points can only be used for wands, scrolls and potions?
2) will permanent magic items all behave like staves in a sense where different powers have different resonance costs to activate? And you could make a new item that costs 1 resonance to shoot a fireball, or costs 2 to shoot the identical fireball, but be a cheaper item?
3) how will resonance impact things like save DCs? Are they going to be static like items in PF1, or will more resonance allow you to increase them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
GM Tarondor wrote:
Getting rid of the "required" stat items is my number one desired fix to the game.

What annoys me is that "required stat items" were entirely an invention of Pathfinder.

I played for years through 2nd Ed, 3rd ed, and 3.5 and there were frequently a few rings of protection, occasionally a cloak of resistance, and the odd belt of giant strength from time to time.

Only with Pathfinder and the "every character must be able to purchase every item at essentially anytime" model and with the addition of the multi stat boosting items (str and dex and con where before it had been one at most) did this alleged "Christmad Tree" become a true problem.

In previous editions, you got the treasure you found, and it never added up to exactly the weapon you used, the armor you used, a ring of protection, and amulet of natural amor, a cloak of resistance, a headband of three stats plus 6 and a belt of three stats plus 6.

It seems like just outlawing these items (or making them rarer) in organized play and not doing an entire rewrite of the system would "solve" a Whole lot of the "problems" with Pathfinder.

Instead we have to switch to a whole new system, and have to resonance added and a bunch of other fixes, and have most of the classes eliminated, and choose between being healed or using items. . .


Game Master Q wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
I would say that everyone will be wondering what the hell to spend their money on,

I've always found that an interesting question.

A lot of people used to talk about rollplay vs roleplay and the stormwind fallacy, claiming that one can be an optimizer and a roleplayer at the same time. And theoretically, this seems true.

But over the years I've also discovered that some of those who make these claims are also unable to think of what they can spend their money on if not magic items. That just screams of "I can't roleplay or think of how money works in the world." If the only thing someome can possibly imagine spending their money on is items to increase their personal statistics, then that means the stormwind fallacy is false for these individuals - they cannot both optimize and roleplay at the same time.

And ever since 5e came out, that has been the #1 complaint of the system. "What can I possibly buy if I don't have magic items?!" Well, think about how money is spent in the real world - you can literally purchase all of that: property, political influence, donations, henchmen/servants, and thousands upon thousands of other options. You just have to think beyond the character sheet.

The thing is that a lot of those mundane things are really inexpensive and/or not portable.

You can only really take a house adventuring with you if you're on the ocean (a decently sized boat) or it's magic (like an Expedition Pavilion). Even a carriage can easily get left behind out of necessity or destroyed. Hiring people means more characters to keep track of for both you and the GM.
Meanwhile, the books your character wanted? Only made a tiny dent in your adventuring loot. Same with the climbing gear and spare clothes.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Or you know, sell the wand you no longer need? Like it doesn’t have to be binned.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Or you know, sell the wand you no longer need? Like it doesn’t have to be binned.

That's pretty much the same thing, though, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:

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.

A mayor difference between "nimble moves" and a shield, is that your shield not only raise your AC by 2, but also deflects the attack to the shield, reducing it by its hardness. With sturdy shields, that's a pretty big difference.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Or you know, sell the wand you no longer need? Like it doesn’t have to be binned.
That's pretty much the same thing, though, isn't it?

Do you have a philosophical problem with selling the +1 Longsword you no longer need once you have a +2 Longsword?

151 to 198 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion