Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

451 to 500 of 823 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
I just realized that Resonance is basically a universal Mana pool. Do Cha based casters tap into this for faster metamagic?

I was actually thinking about this earlier. These players will have more Resonance than other players automatically, so having class abilities that tap into their resonance pool shouldn’t feel oppressive I think. It could be something that they would normally only need like once a day but in extreme circumstances they could use it several if they have the Resonance. Like a Sorceror Bloodline Blast as a spell-like ability or a Bard having a special captivate or charm ability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.

This is good to hear! However, there are probably far fewer items currently in the Playtest than there will eventually be in the version of the game we'll be playing 5 years from now.

I'll be very interested to playtest this!


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dαedαlus wrote:

Really, it solves one 'problem' while making two more. With tweaks, I could see it being brought down to solving one 'problem' while only exacerbating one more.

With extensive revisions, it might solve one problem and not create any more.

I really don't see how this could benefit the more 'fringe' magic items, in any form. In this system, you would never want to use a folding boat for fear that you might not have enough Resonance left over to light your sword on fire.

Yes.

This seems to be the theme with PF2: "look, we fixed this huge problem!"

"That was a minor problem and you made 3 new huge problems?"

"WE said we fixed the huge problem! Now go out there and die because you can't use your cure wands!"

This reduces the likelihood of using anything but the absolute best items.

And it increases every character's MAD except charisma casters.

And it creates another set of points you have to track, increasing the complexity of the game for no discernable value.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sorcerer is one of my favorite classes, so I would like to bring up that while Sorcerers with the Sage/Empyreal mutated bloodlines are Sorcerers that don't cast off of Charisma, they're the exceptions to the rule, and more accurately represent different ways of approach their innate spellcasting
There are exceptions all over the place... Druids, rangers and clerics that can cast off cha, cha and wis for ki and psychic magic runs off all the stats and others so there is NO unified philosophical approach to spellcasting and innate powers.

There are indeed exceptions all over the place, but these exceptions maintain these general conventions in their philosophy:

- Dandy Rangers, in addition to using Charisma, no longer casts off of their own spell list; they instead use a limited version of the Bard spell list, which to me gives off the impression that they cast in a similar way as Bards, if not becoming Arcane casters in the process (one of my players is a Dandy, and I've put a lot of thought and consideration as to whether they're Arcane or Divine due to how their spellcasting changes so dramatically, but it isn't specified)
- Feyspeaker Druids don't gain their spellcasting from nature, they get it from being closely associated with the fey. The fact that they cast off of Charisma leads me to believe that their spellcasting would be gained very similarly as to how Summoners gain their spellcasting due to close association with their Eidolon and extraplanar forces.
- I have not heard of a Charisma-based Cleric archetype so you're going to have to enlighten me on this one.
- Ki, while not spellcasting, still maintains these philosophies; while most monks focus on bettering themselves, looking beyond their mortal selves much in the same way Clerics or Druids would, the Scaled Fist Monks are directly inspired by the might of dragons, and the flavor text explicitly mentions how "scaled fists eschew passive introspection in favor of unshakable confidence," which still ties in to this philosophical approach.
- Just because the Psychic magic classes use all three mental ability scores does not mean they don't run off of the same principals. I'm going to ignore archetypes for sake of ease of explanation: Mediums and Mesmerists (Charisma) both rely on force of personality, the former using the sheer power of legendary spirits to (directly) empower their spellcasting and the latter instead focusing their mental might through psychic magic. Occultists and Psychics (Intelligence) both study to gain their powers, with the former studying the psychic energy in items and casting through the relics they inspect, and the latter focusing and honing their psychic powers by studying with various disciplines, which either rely on Wisdom and Charisma (and also follow the aforementioned philosophies). Spiritualists (Wisdom) gain their spellcasting due to their exposure to the ethereal plane and by looking beyond the mortal realms to heighten their psychic powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Friendly Rogue: The "general convention" is that there is NO unified philosophy IMO. The stat is a mechanical construct, not a logical one. there is no cha = innate, int = study and wis = divine as an absolute. At best you have a tenancy, or a 'more likely than not' situation. That's not something I'm going to 'hang my hat' on. Pathfinder is too much of a mishmash of interconnected exceptions to get a single unified theory on casting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Friendly Rogue: The "general convention" is that there is NO unified philosophy IMO. The stat is a mechanical construct, not a logical one. there is no cha = innate, int = study and wis = divine as an absolute. At best you have a tenancy, or a 'more likely than not' situation. That's not something I'm going to 'hang my hat' on. Pathfinder is too much of a mishmash of interconnected exceptions to get a single unified theory on casting.

Like I said earlier and multiple times, I'm not arguing that "Int=Study, Wis=Divine, Cha=Innate," I'm arguing that "Int=Magic Focused through Knowledge, Wis=Magic Focused through Higher Powers, Cha=Magic Focused through Self Power," and all of the examples I have provided tie directly in with this.

Besides, if there's no fluff with the crunch, then what's the point in creating world settings that go into depth with how magic works?

EDIT: I'm going to clarify real quick; when I'm saying this, I'm putting a large emphasis on focused - regardless of whether you're a bloodline arcanist or a hag-haunted spiritualist, whether you're arcane, divine, natural, or psychic, whether or not your ability to spellcast has been trained or you were born with the bloodline of a newt, the way a character approaches their spellcasting conceptually (not even in practice necessarily) is going to be reflected by the ability score tied to their spellcasting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Noir le Lotus wrote:

I hate this kind of thing !!

Resonance is just a gamist rule that will push people to optimize and ruin immersion.

If you want to limit magic items, then do it to the max : improve the system so that PCs don't need +X bonus to AC, ST or characteristics, remove the magical shop and the item creation, reduce the number of slots to a handful, make heal spells that can restore most HP of a PC but can't be use in combat.

I can't to see a game where the paladin will say that the group can't attacck the demon lord because his resonance is off today so he can't use his holy avenger ...

Here is the problem with that...

PC's already don't need +X Bonus to AC, ST, or Stat, nor do they need it to attack or damage.

I've run the numbers, if you follow the Big 6 as a "Rule" you are swinging so far over your weight class that it isn't even funny. The problem isn't that PCs need them, it is that PCs want to be as powerful as they possibly can be, even if it makes them overpowered.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
you are implying it should be cool that not one player is willing to take one for the team and play something they don't want to play
I don't know anyone who plays games to not have fun
You can boil it down as much as you want, but a party is supposed to work together and players are going to have to make sacrifices to work together as a team.

Wrong.

Characters have to make sacrifices in order to make a partnership as a team work. Players are there to roleplay the character they want to play.

Quote:
If all of the players are not willing to make any compromises to fill in any gaps that other people’s builds are leaving right there at the start of the campaign then it doesn’t sound like a group I want to play with.

If all the players are forced to create a group of interlocking parts rather than a group of individuals who have their own individual goals, dreams, objectives, identities and methodologies, that doesn't sound like a group I want to play with.

Quote:
If FUN equals getting away with any party makeup whatever then again either the GM needs to accommodate by changing encounters so everybody is happy with heir special snowflake builds or you all play a different game.

Fun is playing in a reactive world that is engaging and leaves plentiful opportunity for characters to make their mark in the way they so choose.

Playing in a world with all sorts of terrain and cultures and opportunities, not a bland white special snowscape that molds the characters according to the GM's preferences.

Quote:
Pathfinder and it’s D&D ancestors were built with teamwork and party roles in mind.

I dunno, I've read several pieces from Gygax that seem to imply highly individualistic characters that only worked together in temporary instances for profit.

Quote:
Personally, I think it takes a special kind of entitled to never ever want to play a support class, especially to not be able to have fun not playing exactly the character you want.

Personally, I think it takes a special kind of entitled to expect others to play a character that they don't want to, or to assume that because a player has a character in mind now that means they don't ever want to play one, or that Healers are the only type of support character.

Incidentally, you said 'support class.' That's part of the whole problem, the classes you mentioned earlier that have access to healing aren't support classes [with the exception of the bard.] They're Character Classes which can be built and played according to the player's vision which may or may not include a support oriented role.

Quote:
GMs make restrictions on what options and material is allowed in their games all the time anyway

Speak for yourself. The only thing I exclude from my games in heavily Anachronistic material, and I'm fairly flexible there

Quote:
so acting like having restrictions or expectations for party makeup is not the norm is just not reality.

I don't know about your reality, but in my reality the GM plays the world and the players have absolute agency over their own characters.


Friendly Rogue wrote:
I'm arguing that "Int=Magic Focused through Knowledge, Wis=Magic Focused through Higher Powers, Cha=Magic Focused through Self Power,"

I like this frame work a great deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Nathanael Love: To be honest, I'd say it is a huge problem, because if the assumption is every game has to have a cure wand or five to heal up between combats because the game assumes maximum HP at the start of each combat, then you defeat the entire point of having a need to have hitpoints outside of combat, and therefore any sort of "attrition" playstyles where managing resources and strategical allocating becomes worthless. Heck, this makes traps and hazards that inflict hit points worthless since you'll just be max when the next fight begins. Unless the traps are capable of killing you in one hit, which would be pretty funny or unfair, depending on which perspective you take (the onlooker or the expendable), or inflict other sorts of problems (such as conditions), they'll be equally worthless as well and only serve to drain wand charges.

You'd actually be better off hand-waving out-of-combat healing and just make hit points max at the start and end of each combat, especially if "ease of gameplay" and "introducing new players" is your main appeal; tracking hit points is a drag when you have to do it constantly, so making it only tracked at certain points in the game makes understanding the game easier and more intuitive to newer players as well.

Sure, this might require better encounter/adventure path planning, but you aren't going to wave away cure wands without sacrificing their ability to function in general, or having to completely rewrite how wands in general function. (Which I'm not opposed to, personally, but many other people absolutely are, so if we really want to treat Cure Wands as a sacred cow holdover, then quite frankly we better reintroduce THAC0 from 2E AD&D.)

I've played games where that very mechanic (max HP between combats at all times) is enforced between scenarios, and quite frankly, for those kinds of games to challenge you, make you think, and warrant the use of consumable items, each enemy and scenario has to risk your character's/party's very life (and I don't mean that they can "hurt" you and whittle down your wand charges, I mean that you are literally capable of dying to the enemies you face,) in order to warrant the managing of resources and strategical allocations (because you will easily die if you don't). It's actually from a popular video game franchise, one of my favorites in fact, and it's been fairly successful in conveying its mechanics (though it has fallen off as of late, diverging into other genres of gameplay..).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I realize I really only object to resonance and potions. I could get used to resonance in just about every other case, but potions just seem bizarre to me.

A silly example that helps illustrate my aversion: the most powerful evil wizard in the world brews a polymorph potion and forces a commoner to drink it. The commoner fails his resonance check. Nothing happens. To me that's just too absurd.

Since we don't really know the system we can't really say, but let's imagine that ultimate evil wizard can pay the cost himself for the poly potion to work... I would have no problem with that.

Otherwise we see villains with the heroes chained in the dungeon feeding them potions of spider climb all day to ensure that if they escape they can't invest or spend any resonance.

Frankly it's easy for me to imagine that the user, not the target pays the cost. If I pour a potion of healing down your throat I imagine it's up to me to meet the cost... though if the player is sensible enough to say yes maybe we decide between us.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I just realized that Resonance is basically a universal Mana pool. Do Cha based casters tap into this for faster metamagic?
I was actually thinking about this earlier. These players will have more Resonance than other players automatically, so having class abilities that tap into their resonance pool shouldn’t feel oppressive I think. It could be something that they would normally only need like once a day but in extreme circumstances they could use it several if they have the Resonance. Like a Sorceror Bloodline Blast as a spell-like ability or a Bard having a special captivate or charm ability.

We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I just realized that Resonance is basically a universal Mana pool. Do Cha based casters tap into this for faster metamagic?
I was actually thinking about this earlier. These players will have more Resonance than other players automatically, so having class abilities that tap into their resonance pool shouldn’t feel oppressive I think. It could be something that they would normally only need like once a day but in extreme circumstances they could use it several if they have the Resonance. Like a Sorceror Bloodline Blast as a spell-like ability or a Bard having a special captivate or charm ability.
We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way...

With blood of course


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there.

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.

Why are you trickling out information bit by bit then?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Why are you trickling out information bit by bit then?

Well, for one thing the playtest rules are not finished yet, so they can't give us everything yet. Another thing is that this was not an official announcement, it was a thing people figured out from an "example of play" podcast, so presumably the blog post on Resonance will do a better job of explaining and justifying the mechanic than "somebody had to roll to see if their potion worked on a podcast".

I think it would be incumbent on us to realize what we don't know and how much that's going to complicate whatever we think we know.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the feeling I'm getting from it. Not just because it fixes CLW spam and rebalances game around that. It also addresses item slots and separate use/day tracking. Some have compared this to "Item Level" and I think that is on the right track, but this is more flexible than that since particular item level doesn't matter (other than existing limitation of wealth, most of which tends to be tied up in existing WBL), it's more about the package (which you can swap out). I'm pretty sure I'm missing some more ways it impacts the game too.

I don't really get the complaint about this breaking continuity with Golarion WORLD. I never really got impression unlimited daily consumable usage was core narrative part of Golarion world, it was just way people ended up playing, not something Paizo ever really liked emphasizing. This isn't to mention that aside from mechanical implementation, the two systems can often be externally identical, 1) when you don't try CLW spam 2) when you roll extremely luckily after surpassing Resonance limit. Starwars has changed game mechanics vastly more radically than this, and it didn't matter, so I don't see how it does now.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cross-posting from Pathfinder Playtest parts 3 and 4 with the Glass Cannon Podcast thread.

CalebTGordan wrote:

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 remain cautiously optimistic and look forward to playing around with it as a player and as a game designer.

And to add to this: We still haven't read the full rules, maybe wait to read them before fully condemning or praising them?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if anybody on Golarion was chugging dozens of potions or burning through an entire wand in a single day except for people's PCs, and none of the specifics of "what PCs did" can really be considered canonical for more than just that one table.

So while it is canonical that Hell's Rebels happened (the Adventurer's Guide confirms this) it's not like the balance sheets for the Silver Raven's CLW wand budget are going to be referenced anywhere.


CalebTGordan wrote:
And to add to this: We still haven't read the full rules, maybe wait to read them before fully condemning or praising them?

You know this is the internet right? Reasonable responses aren't what goes on in these parts! ;)

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
And to add to this: We still haven't read the full rules, maybe wait to read them before fully condemning or praising them?
You know this is the internet right? Reasonable responses aren't what goes on in these parts! ;)

That may be true, but someone has to be a voice of reason, especially if they want to be taken seriously by people who matter.

Sarcasm aside, I've been on the receiving end of harsh and unreasonable internet criticism and it sucks. If you have any interest in being a game designer publishers take seriously don't go that route in your commentary on their work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I just realized that Resonance is basically a universal Mana pool. Do Cha based casters tap into this for faster metamagic?
I was actually thinking about this earlier. These players will have more Resonance than other players automatically, so having class abilities that tap into their resonance pool shouldn’t feel oppressive I think. It could be something that they would normally only need like once a day but in extreme circumstances they could use it several if they have the Resonance. Like a Sorceror Bloodline Blast as a spell-like ability or a Bard having a special captivate or charm ability.
We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way...

I feel like that's missing out on some design space. Unless charisma casters have some native abilities to generate magic items like the Bladebound Magus or a Wizard's bonded item. Not that that's far-fetched, a Bard's musical instrument, the Paladin's Divine Bond, a Sorcerer's scepter are all things that could be a class feature that interacts with resonance as an item.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
We avoided making class features that use Resonance Points unless they're directly tied to items. Resonance is a resource for items thematically and specifically. If you have abilities from a bloodline, you'll have to pay for those some other way...
With blood of course

wow spoilers

Dark Archive

Considering that one of design goals is to get rid of christmas tree characters, I don't think its con per say that characters' will be able to have fewer magic items in general?

Anyway, yeah, people are being angry about this too early. I hope when playtest comes, the feedback won't get drowned under because thing is that people really hate changing their first impressions :P


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Considering the only drawback to a wand vs. a scroll is that you have to make 50 charges... And wands are easier to use and don't provoke... so maybe they should just increase the cost of wands...

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't like what I've heard so far. As a way to make Cha useful to all characters, it feels forced. It also, from what we've head so far, feels like an unneeded nerf to scrolls and potions. And finally, it feels like even more bookkeeping to distract from adventuring.

I hope we get a blog soon on this topic to go into more detail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not very familiar with Golarion. I don't use it and I've never played in a campaign that uses it. So forgive me if this sounds stupid, but how does this fundamental change to how magic items work NOT require a massive restructuring of the world? If Golarion was built using a similar methodology to Eberron, then the fact that magic is a fundamental force of the universe should have an impact on how the world works in terms of economics and political power dynamics. You can't just go from guaranteed predictable magic items to "maybe it'll work, maybe it won't" magic items without a LOT of stuff changing.

This wouldn't be a problem, except that Paizo already said that Golarion won't have some sort of cataclysm to justify this kind of change.

The only way I could see this working is if the denizens of Golarion have an OOTS-like awareness that it runs on RPG logic, and thus everybody knows what a Charisma score is. I doubt very much that this is the case, since that inevitably leads to silliness and it's unlikely that any game trying to take itself seriously would have something like that be its default world.

As an aside, I see a lot of things in the playtest refer to "1d20 + x + level." This annoys me, because PF1e rarely cares about total class level, most often preferring to tie rules to total Hit Dice. As a GM, I liked the universal HD standard, so that I could be extra mean to my players when I toss a few class levels onto some monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Wrong.

Characters have to make sacrifices in order to make a partnership as a team work. Players are there to roleplay the character they want to play.

You’re just being pedantic here. You as the player make all of the decisions for your character, regardless of whatever role playing you are doing the decisions made in the game are yours. So yes the players have to make hard choices and sometimes give up or not do things they wanted to do. If your GM wants the game to be total wish-fulfillment fantasy time where everybody gets what they want they can do that, but that’s not how any of the games I have played work.

Quote:
If all the players are forced to create a group of interlocking parts rather than a group of individuals who have their own individual goals, dreams, objectives, identities and methodologies, that doesn't sound like a group I want to play with.

Everything is so extreme with you. It’s either complete and total freedom without consequence or it’s rigid machine-work. Going into a game knowing that your party needs to have a balance between dishing damage and supporting the squad is not some sentence to dreary no-fun zone. There are enough class options to make all sorts of balanced combinations possible.

Quote:

Fun is playing in a reactive world that is engaging and leaves plentiful opportunity for characters to make their mark in the way they so choose.

Playing in a world with all sorts of terrain and cultures and opportunities, not a bland white special snowscape that molds the characters according to the GM's preferences.

I don’t see how that is countering what I said? You can be told at the start of character creation “Hey kids, I want this campaign to be a challenge so a I definitely recommend that you all work together to make sure you can work around traps, overcome magic obstacles, and for sure have some reliable healing” and still get everything you described. It’s not one or the other.

Quote:
I dunno, I've read several pieces from Gygax that seem to imply highly individualistic characters that only worked together in temporary instances for profit.

Cool. Well there are a lot of things about the game that he wanted that got removed or changed in earlier editions of the game, so those articles probably haven’t been relevant to the design philosophy of the game for a while.

Quote:
Personally, I think it takes a special kind of entitled to expect others to play a character that they don't want to,

That just comes across as “I know you are but what am I?” snippery.

Quote:

or to assume that because a player has a character in mind now that means they don't ever want to play one, or that Healers are the only type of support character.

Incidentally, you said 'support class.' That's part of the whole problem, the classes you mentioned earlier that have access to healing aren't support classes [with the exception of the bard.] They're Character Classes which can be built and played according to the player's vision which may or may not include a support oriented role.

Again with the pedantry. I never said that healers are the only type of support class and whatever you want to call the classes (Oh excuse me, Character Classes) with the most support options we both know what I was talking about. The real problem here is you treating my comments like they are coming from a vacuum. You know perfectly well that I was responding to people talking about playgroups full of people who refuse to ever play support and instead bully one member to do so. You can go back to the previous page and go over the previous comments if you like. I’ll wait...

Back now? Ok, so those people are the ones I was calling entitled for never wanting to play a support class and instead decide to trample on another players fun to meet the party’s needs. The issue aside from those guys being terrible people to play with is that they share a view that Healing characters are not fun, which as someone who has made some crazy Bard and Alchemist builds that hold the team up while also casting shade on the enemies I can tell you they couldn’t be further from wrong.
Quote:
GMs make restrictions on what options and material is allowed in their games all the time anyway

Quote:
Speak for yourself. The only thing I exclude from my games in heavily Anachronistic material, and I'm fairly flexible there

Whoopty doo. You are aware that there are tables across the world other than yours right? So why bother making this statement that has no bearing on hundreds of other GMs?

Quote:
I don't know about your reality, but in my reality the GM plays the world and the players have absolute agency over their own characters.

My reality is the one where my words are not misinterpreted to the extremes of what I was saying. For the last time, balancing a campaign around the idea that the party will be made up of a balanced team that includes damage dealers and healing supporters and letting the players know that not meeting that will result in a more difficult time does not remove agency from the players. Unless you are doing a freeform sandbox campaign (I don’t care if you are, please do not respond saying that’s what you do) then you will have challenges that have to be met by certain types of characters. Whether it be crossing the country in seconds by using wizard’s teleportion or surviving a long underdark dive with the help of your cleric’s heals players need to be prepared to face the challenges of the story or face the consequences.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
To be fair this has the hallmarks of the most extreme version of a thing that they indicated they were going to put out there when they had several options.
Which sounds a lot like we're being distracted so what they really want in the game(which we might not/probably won't see in the playtest) can make it in and we'll get a "it's not as bad as resonance" response.

thank you! this is what I say since day one this 'extreme version' message was stated. It gives the playtesters the feeling they have achieved something, but the devs can the push the version the always wanted regardless


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The 2 major factors they brings to me are:

1) Hope they are fixing MAD classes then, cause if they are just adding an extra stat in that, some classes are clearly going to get the shaft, HARD.

2) Hope they are not AT ALL, trying to enforce a need for a healer in parties, this would be a MAJOR turn down in the system to me.

Since these are clear and obvious problems, i will simply assume they already fixed them and it is my lack of information the problem, lets see how it goes.

Dark Archive

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

Showed what we know to my group and they are not impressed especially the player of the halfling fighter who uses scrolls and wands (Basically a low lvl version of the Arcane pretender from pg 89 of the NPC Codex) as there seems like a pretty good chance this kills that concept dead till at least mid to late lvl's


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
arkham wrote:
Considering the only drawback to a wand vs. a scroll is that you have to make 50 charges... And wands are easier to use and don't provoke... so maybe they should just increase the cost of wands...

It's not even wands that are the problem. . . It's a single level 1 wand.

"Let's introduce a gamey, complicated mechanic because we don't like the way people are using one specific level 1 wand".

@Dakrsoul the Painbringer: yes, you are correct- simply giving all player's max hit points at the beginning of every encounter is a MUCH better idea than this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

1) Hope they are fixing MAD classes then, cause if they are just adding an extra stat in that, some classes are clearly going to get the shaft, HARD.

Thankfully there does seem to be some help on this side. The announced stat advancements with leveling let you boost four stats every five levels instead of one every four levels. That will go a long way to counter the MAD problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Why are you trickling out information bit by bit then?

Well, for one thing the playtest rules are not finished yet, so they can't give us everything yet. Another thing is that this was not an official announcement, it was a thing people figured out from an "example of play" podcast, so presumably the blog post on Resonance will do a better job of explaining and justifying the mechanic than "somebody had to roll to see if their potion worked on a podcast".

I think it would be incumbent on us to realize what we don't know and how much that's going to complicate whatever we think we know.

Having trouble seeing what would make resonance ‘good’ given the almost inherent flaws I see with the very concept.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

1) Hope they are fixing MAD classes then, cause if they are just adding an extra stat in that, some classes are clearly going to get the shaft, HARD.

Thankfully there does seem to be some help on this side. The announced stat advancements with leveling let you boost four stats every five levels instead of one every four levels. That will go a long way to counter the MAD problem.

Thanks for the info.

Yeah, i imagine this is one of multiple changes made to try to fix this, reality is i imagine what i said is fixed one way or the other in the system already or atleast i hope it is :P.


I'm not even sure I understand what we think we know of how Resonance works.

After thinking about it for another day, I like what I think I understand about it less and less.

On the one hand, I applaud an attempt to streamline, but I don't think I like "simplifying". And not by adding a another resource or trackable factor. Looking at it simply, the game is having a new resource added that it didn't have before, even though other things [slots?] are being removed. Maybe people liked slots though? So if you liked slots and now they are gone, and then the designers have added a new thing you also don't happen to like the flavor of [I definitely fit into this category, so from the start I'll need to be reflavouring the new added complexity] then one can see how this could be problematic.

I'm getting shades of what I felt reading the design blogs during the lead up to 4th edition. [I distinctly remember reading one where one hypothetical player was telling another hypothetical player that his fighter was "sword and board". Pretty sure that's where my heart broke into a million pieces and I knew my culture was broken]. Put simply Resonance doesn't resonate. As rumpinrufus said upthread, it feels too much of jump to a different game, much like what we were being told about 4th edition. And it was...different. [TBH I like a lot of 4e mechanics. In 4e.]

As others have said, this is definitely one of the mechanics the designers are "excited and interested to see" how we react. And that they have pushed way out so they can dial it back in, because it is, apparently, harder to do the other way around. And I have some sympathy for that.

I really get the feeling that Resonance is staying, and we'll all enjoy it and its attendant functions/options/new jazz. Eventually.

[Right now I hate it]

[Probably love it later]

[I don't mind playing healers. They can mash stuff as well. And heal themselves. Only. If they want. But totes I wouldn't do that. Unless I was evil. Or not a support healer. Which is ok to be.]


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So what problem is this solving, exactly? The problem of not pidgeonholing one of your players into playing a dedicated healer they likely don't want to do anyway? The problem of not having DMPC clerics no one wants?

Forgive me if I don't jump for joy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Was 'wand spam' informed by tougher opponents than their CR would indicate or a natural 'swinginess' of d20 rolls?

If so, shouldn't the focus be on correcting the sacred goat of CR and the swinginess rather than doubling down on both of those and then needing two fixes for a pet peeve?

I don't know, this is why I ask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, if wands are no longer limited total charges, this actually seems pretty nice for that. Before, playing an Oracle, the wand got used last to save money. If it’s limited by daily resonance instead, the wand comes first, leaving one resonance left for emergencies, then spells, and finally finishing off resonance.

Silver Crusade

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

Overall I like resonance, replacing charges on individual items and moving them to a character resource is less tracking, pure and simple. It also means you can buy one wand of Cure Light Wounds and use it for your entire career, but not necessarily use it to move you back to max hit points between every fight. Sometimes it will be necessary to push on at less than full strength.

I don’t think one-use items like potions and scrolls should take resonance to use. You automatically are paying a cost for using those items by losing access to them forever. Although I can easily see the resonance cost being moved from consumption to creation. So an alchemist creating potions of Healing would spend a point of resonance in the potion’s creation so that he can’t spam potions of healing all day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Would all this be a good compensation if wands are now permanent and won't crack anymore when "used up" like PF1?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

CR is such an unreliable metric that I wouldn't mind it getting an overhaul.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or if someone locks it out, it is only for their use vs. everyone else?

EDIT: Drawback: Only 'cool kids' can be adventurers...

...which is not very inclusive.


Well this opens the game more as know we just need one item giving ability to cast CLW x amount of times instead of dropping wands of CLW after every two encounters just because our players need to top them self each after each encounter and hopefully thanks to new item system this costs 1 resonance instead of 49 resonance at given level. Know since no milk spilled why are we crying out again. Ow right CLW wand spam and forced healbot status. Man sometimes we literally look silly. Resonance actually feels perfect for me as it gives more option to make fashionable characters instead of photo copied characters every time my party needs x class. So i hope it stays as it both reigns the Christmas tree effect and expends the loot tables for bunch of new neat items instead of must rush big 6 items before my enemies so i can do my job perfectly approach we probably learned from playing to much defense of ancients in past. SSo lets wait the item creation rules shall we folks as it will explain how we create neat items to exorcise the imp in the room which ever one funnily thinks rogue balor attacking everyone.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Slams the door shut on neat items. Who would use up their limited ‘magic item pool’ on them?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Overall I like resonance, replacing charges on individual items and moving them to a character resource is less tracking, pure and simple. It also means you can buy one wand of Cure Light Wounds and use it for your entire career, but not necessarily use it to move you back to max hit points between every fight. Sometimes it will be necessary to push on at less than full strength.

I don’t think one-use items like potions and scrolls should take resonance to use. You automatically are paying a cost for using those items by losing access to them forever. Although I can easily see the resonance cost being moved from consumption to creation. So an alchemist creating potions of Healing would spend a point of resonance in the potion’s creation so that he can’t spam potions of healing all day.

Ok Spending Resonence to MAKE Potions and Scrolls actually makes more sense to me than spending it to use them


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Or if someone locks it out, it is only for their use vs. everyone else?

My understanding is that it's just for you. You don't break the wand, it just ceases to work for you because your body has to much magic in it?

Resonance reminds me of the Shadowrun Essence mechanic that counted how many body mods you could have. Though that made more sense than this thing.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Slams the door shut on neat items. Who would use up their limited ‘magic item pool’ on them?

Its your table its your rules as far as i know there is no problem for me and few folks i talked. Hell do we have rules for custom magic items or not if you scared that much from rolling few extra dice and int checks. I am realy sorry for your DM as i can sympathize the headache he or she feels every time you play.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Let’s see:
Level 6, 0 charisma.
Resonance: 6

Investiture: 2 points (magic armor, magic shield)
Weapons don’t cost resonance.

4 points remaining.

That seems like plenty for spending on your odd feather token, or to activate the special ability on some other worn item.


I usually am the gm.

451 to 500 of 823 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards