Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

551 to 600 of 823 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One thing I am wondering about is whether consumables other than those that cure use up resonance, and (in the case of a wand of curing) whose resonance they use up. If Resonance is not handled well, I could see it making whole classes of consumable magic items virtually unusable because of people wanting to conserve their Resonance for more important things.


1of1 wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Isabelle Lee wrote:

For the record, since someone mentioned "antisocial characters who are good with magic items" earlier: it seems like the easiest design in the world to create a feat to handle this type of character.

Studied Artifice (General Feat)
Lacking the force of will to drive magic items, you've studied their underlying principles and figured out how to make them work.
Benefit: You use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Charisma modifier when determining your available resonance.

Considering the Backgrounds (from what I understand) are going to be largely based off of the Traits/Drawback system in P1e, and there was a trait that let you use Intelligence for UMD instead of Charisma, I'd go as far to theorize that it might just wind up being a background option instead of just a feat.

That said, if I did take that option, I'd probably passive aggressively grumble about having to sink a feat into a sidegrade, or relying the background system, which was something I did not enjoy in either Starfinder or 5e D&D. But that's really just me being a grumpy b%!~+.

A personal problem that's irrelevant to mass appeal game design.

Now, because that post was kind of bitter, have a Spoonful of Sugar help it feel slightly nicer, and hopefully make your day slightly nicer.
https://youtu.be/_L4qauTiCY4

Well like I said, I've read around that the background system is going to look more like Pathfinder's trait system than Starfinder/5e's backgrounds. Ever since I've started playing Pathfinder I've used the trait system, and I've always loved it - you get to pick two minor details with implications of your character's background with a nice little bonus to reflect that, and you can take a third minor detail with another bonus if you also decide to take a drawback, which works in the opposite. It's flavorful, had a wide variety of mechanical benefits, and because no two traits were directly tied to each other you maintained a wide repertoire of options, meaning you could have a Paladin who grew up on the streets and learned how to pick locks through this turbulent part of her life, but because it only made wide-stroke assumptions of your character's history, you're not forcing yourself into flavoring yourself as a professional thief. if P2e's background system is like this, I have little to no concerns.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that being mad for five months is a bad idea.

No matter how much people rail about resonance in here, it's going in the playtest, and if actual instances of play don't run into these hypothetical problems anywhere in the playtest then it's probably fine. If those problems show up in the playtest that's when feedback is useful.

That's why the slow drip has been less than helpful. They release an out-of-context snippet and then they're all "settle down, you don't have the big picture" when the community pounces on it like raw meat. It would have been much, much better to hold off on the announcement until a few days prior to the release of the playtest. As it is, people's opinions are becoming firmly entrenched over scraps of information, and firmly-entrenched opinions don't change easily.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a very big fan of traits as well. ^_^

I didn't know what all character customization options were planned, so I went with a feat for my example. It could easily be a background instead, depending on how much investment they want it to require.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that being mad for five months is a bad idea.

No matter how much people rail about resonance in here, it's going in the playtest, and if actual instances of play don't run into these hypothetical problems anywhere in the playtest then it's probably fine. If those problems show up in the playtest that's when feedback is useful.

That's why the slow drip has been less than helpful. They release an out-of-context snippet and then they're all "settle down, you don't have the big picture" when the community pounces on it like raw meat. It would have been much, much better to hold off on the announcement until a few days prior to the release of the playtest. As it is, people's opinions are becoming firmly entrenched over scraps of information, and firmly-entrenched opinions don't change easily.

Yeah, but they couldn’t do that. It wouldn’t work. They need this much time to do public getting-ready things, like ordering a print run, getting preorders, and informing retailers.

I mean, imagine the boards if this were instead leaked as “Paizo asking gaming stores how many copies of Pathfinder 2 they want.”

Silver Crusade

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

Maybe people gotta relax and be patient instead of jumping to conclusions and stating Uninformed opinions with inflammatory language as game design axioms delivered by the gods.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that being mad for five months is a bad idea.

No matter how much people rail about resonance in here, it's going in the playtest, and if actual instances of play don't run into these hypothetical problems anywhere in the playtest then it's probably fine. If those problems show up in the playtest that's when feedback is useful.

That's why the slow drip has been less than helpful. They release an out-of-context snippet and then they're all "settle down, you don't have the big picture" when the community pounces on it like raw meat. It would have been much, much better to hold off on the announcement until a few days prior to the release of the playtest. As it is, people's opinions are becoming firmly entrenched over scraps of information, and firmly-entrenched opinions don't change easily.

Yeah, but they couldn’t do that. It wouldn’t work. They need this much time to do public getting-ready things, like ordering a print run, getting preorders, and informing retailers.

I mean, imagine the boards if this were instead leaked as “Paizo asking gaming stores how many copies of Pathfinder 2 they want.”

Then say, "Hey guys! Big announcement -- we're doing a second edition! We'll tell you more when we're close to the date!" Then a week before the release start dropping the things they're dropping now, one or even two a day. You still lose the "How dare you betray me by doing another edition!!1!eleven!" folks but you were gonna lose them anyway. As it is, people are really getting worked up over fog and smoke.


Friendly Rogue wrote:
If P2e's background system is like this, I have little to no concerns.

I, too, liked the trait and drawback system for the same reasons. I didn't like monolithic prefabs, but smaller bites that added a little character to my characters was good.

But we don't really know much about them yet, so I'll wait to see what they mean by the word, "Backgrounds."

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cha has always been sort of "Force of personality" in Pathfinder though. Unless you want to argue that Purple Worms are really charming


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Unless you want to argue that Purple Worms are really charming

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Maybe people gotta relax and be patient instead of jumping to conclusions and stating Uninformed opinions with inflammatory language as game design axioms delivered by the gods.

You can't expect people to receive out-of-context snippets of information about something they're excited about/dreading without knowing they're going to immediately engage in rampant speculation about what it means. That's just not how human brains work.

"Here is an isolated piece of information for the thing you're eagerly awaiting three months from now. Make no speculations! Draw no conclusions! Form no opinions! IGNORE ME!" is never, ever gonna fly.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The reason we had such SAD Charisma classes in PF1 was that the abilities were unbalanced to begin with. Attempts to make Charisma valuable ended up boosting Charisma users more than it enticed Charisma-dumpers to rethink.

Starting fresh with Charisma more valuable will prevent a lot of that Charisma power creep from returning to haunt PF2.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that being mad for five months is a bad idea.

No matter how much people rail about resonance in here, it's going in the playtest, and if actual instances of play don't run into these hypothetical problems anywhere in the playtest then it's probably fine. If those problems show up in the playtest that's when feedback is useful.

That's why the slow drip has been less than helpful. They release an out-of-context snippet and then they're all "settle down, you don't have the big picture" when the community pounces on it like raw meat. It would have been much, much better to hold off on the announcement until a few days prior to the release of the playtest. As it is, people's opinions are becoming firmly entrenched over scraps of information, and firmly-entrenched opinions don't change easily.

Yeah, but they couldn’t do that. It wouldn’t work. They need this much time to do public getting-ready things, like ordering a print run, getting preorders, and informing retailers.

I mean, imagine the boards if this were instead leaked as “Paizo asking gaming stores how many copies of Pathfinder 2 they want.”

Then say, "Hey guys! Big announcement -- we're doing a second edition! We'll tell you more when we're close to the date!" Then a week before the release start dropping the things they're dropping now, one or even two a day. You still lose the "How dare you betray me by doing another edition!!1!eleven!" folks but you were gonna lose them anyway. As it is, people are really getting worked up over fog and smoke.

Why is that Paizo’s fault and not the fault of people who are making much ado about nothing?

People control their own perceptions and attitudes, why should I skip dinner because someone else can’t chew steak without choking on their own bile?

Scarab Sages

CorvusMask wrote:
Cha has always been sort of "Force of personality" in Pathfinder though. Unless you want to argue that Purple Worms are really charming

I agree, but there are several ways to reflect that.

My opinion on this topic, from my previous post :

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

WIS is mental CON
CHA is mental STR

[...] CHA would be used to enhance an activable magic item, not to using it. The user can imbue more power because is spirit/soul is fiercer, stronger, more "alive".

[...]

The pool could be "spent 1 point" to improve effect (flat bonuses to dice roll or increased range / duration of the item capability).

Or even drop the pool idea and make a flat permanent bonus equal to CHA modif (Apply anytime but will increase very little since it won't increase with level and there likely will be less stat improvements in PF2)

[...] If you dump it wou will get a malus at using magic item, and nobody like having -2 to every damage on an item which already deals only 1d6 damage, but it won't prevent you from having a lot of items and use what you need when you need it. You will just be less efficient, like a STR dump made you less efficient at surviving underwater or climbing or pushing that rock to your escape route.

[...]

I'm not saying it would be balance or healthy, but I definitely found that less problematic.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I am not a fan of the use of Charisma for managing the amount of resonance. I get that the new system looks likely to encourage people spreading out points more but there are many character types that already suffer from having to spread points across multiple stats to be effective with their abilities, also needing charisma to allow you access to magic items and consumables makes this even worse.

I am not against the system as a whole but would far prefer to see something that uses a flat number per level keeping the playing field more even when it comes to magic items. None of this: Sorry, your fighter can't effectively use potions at all because his dice are unkind and he has the generally more important magic armor on.

I get the need to make the higher level heal items more appealing, no more buying up several cheap and more accessible wands of cure light wounds and basic healing potions then just guzzling them all down to heal up between fights. I just am not keen on the potential imbalance this creates between characters of all types based on a single stat. If they'd like it to vary in some way for different character types I'd prefer to see it based of race and/or class rather than a single stat. For example, Starfinder provides a defined Key Ability Score for each class and this determines their available Resolve Points, maybe carry this over and have it determine your resonance for PF2. I think this would be far more effective and balanced in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:

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

- I have not heard of a Charisma-based Cleric archetype so you're going to have to enlighten me on this one.

The Elder Mythos Cultist, who "grasping, secretive, and thoroughly mad, Elder Mythos cultists open their bodies and minds to horrifying realities not meant for the sane as they strive to prepare the world for the eventual return of their alien masters."

This 100% runs against my account upthread of what Wise vs. Charismatic casting means in general, because "opening your body and mind" to supernatural forces and messages is pure receptivity (and does indeed fit with the classic image of the mythos cultist, or at least one of the classic images,[1]) and is more in line with thinking of WIS as just plain old sense. I'm inclined to chalk it up to measurement error, as in the Physicist's Proof That All Odd Number Are Prime[2], but maybe that's cheating.

[1] There's a great essay out there, can't recall where, laying out how the social composition of the evil cults in Lovecraft's mythology - a mix of alienated intellectuals and regarded-as-racially-inferior lower classes - fits the social composition of the political movements Lovecraft most disliked.

[2] "1 is basically prime. 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. 9 isn't prime, hmm. 11 is prime, 13 is prime. Accounting for the likelihood of measurement error (9), we can conclude that probably all odd numbers are prime."


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems really gamey.

And not in the kind i like to chew.


Gregg Helmberger wrote:

You can't expect people to receive out-of-context snippets of information about something they're excited about/dreading without knowing they're going to immediately engage in rampant speculation about what it means. That's just not how human brains work.

"Here is an isolated piece of information for the thing you're eagerly awaiting three months from now. Make no speculations! Draw no conclusions! Form no opinions! IGNORE ME!" is never, ever gonna fly.

I think though that we should all know well enough:

- the information we are getting is incomplete and lacking context
- extrapolating based on incomplete information is fraught with peril
- this thread is going to still be here (probably) in August

So while it may be some deeper reptile brain impulse to scream "Gamist! Overcomplicated!" or whatever, we can still aspire to be better than that. It is a long time until August, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
This makes basically sure that none of my players will ever want to play PF2, which is fine by me. but even if I would want to switch and sell the new system to them, Resonance is a deal breaker
Limiting player power and forcing people to make choices is a big hit for me.

It's a big benefit for me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Yeeeeeeeeah, I wouldn't really expect many Extra [THE THING] Feats in this edition...

I think you're right; Paizo has been moving away from that for years.

That said, personally I think it's a shame. I have a tendency to avoid consumable. Back in the days of the Wing Commander space flight-sims, I likely landed back on the Tiger's Claw with my missiles unexpended 90% of missions. You never know when a Kilrathi is going to just suddenly jump you on the way back to the carrier. Saving the missiles for that sort of emergency is... a pervasive mind-set with me.

So if I've two two uses of Smite Evil per day, you can count on me to smite maybe once per day. If I've got five, I'll probably use three. Extra [THE THING] for me really just lets me comfortably use the ones I'm given.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
This makes basically sure that none of my players will ever want to play PF2, which is fine by me. but even if I would want to switch and sell the new system to them, Resonance is a deal breaker
Limiting player power and forcing people to make choices is a big hit for me.
It's a big benefit for me.

Same here.


So am I reading resonance right in that now someone can wear, say 10 magic rings if they have enough resonance to do so? Honestly, that's pretty cool.


I like the concept of Resonance but thats mainly because it fits the way my settings tend to think about magic. Everything has some magic,and magic effects occur when a user channels magic and it reacts with the items magic. That being said I don't like the idea of it being used on potions, or other smaller items. I think it is abit to restrictive. Also because I tend to think of potions and consumables as a bit more "common" like those are the items you find at magic marts not a +3 flaming longsword

Also, I think it does fix the idea of cha being an easy dump stat. It maybe the people I hang out with/see play but there are a whole lot of 7 cha gritty fighters.... or 7 cha fighters who really should have at least a 12 based on how they are roleplayed. By making each stat significant it means making important character defining choices.

I do hope the consumables thing was one of those more extreme versions that can be fixed in the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darius Alazario wrote:

Personally, I am not a fan of the use of Charisma for managing the amount of resonance. I get that the new system looks likely to encourage people spreading out points more but there are many character types that already suffer from having to spread points across multiple stats to be effective with their abilities, also needing charisma to allow you access to magic items and consumables makes this even worse.

I am not against the system as a whole but would far prefer to see something that uses a flat number per level keeping the playing field more even when it comes to magic items. None of this: Sorry, your fighter can't effectively use potions at all because his dice are unkind and he has the generally more important magic armor on.

I get the need to make the higher level heal items more appealing, no more buying up several cheap and more accessible wands of cure light wounds and basic healing potions then just guzzling them all down to heal up between fights. I just am not keen on the potential imbalance this creates between characters of all types based on a single stat. If they'd like it to vary in some way for different character types I'd prefer to see it based of race and/or class rather than a single stat. For example, Starfinder provides a defined Key Ability Score for each class and this determines their available Resolve Points, maybe carry this over and have it determine your resonance for PF2. I think this would be far more effective and balanced in the long run.

It's important to keep in mind that all of the ability scores are being reworked in general, not just Charisma being tied to magic items; Dexterity is no longer tied to Initiative on top of AC and Reflex saves, so it's no longer the primary stat in so many different fields. The HP characters get are going up, so it's no longer crucial to keep Constitution high whenever possible - hell, it might even be possible to dump Constitution now without it being a death sentencing which would make characters such as a sickly wizard more possible, both for a PC and an NPC. Strength is still important for carrying capacity, Wisdom is still important for Perception and Will, and Intelligence is still good for Skills and Knowledge checks.

With all of these changes in mind, now there's more incentive to think over how you want to prioritize your stats on a character-to-character basis, instead of now having stats that are near-universal dump stats unless you explicitly need it, or a stat that if you don't always keep moderately high, you're doomed. Besides, Resonance already scales with level as well, so it's not like if you're playing a Dwarf you're not gonna be using magic items ever, it's just a nice extra bonus for those with higher Charisma. With the way things are panning out, it appears that there's less punishment for being MAD and more circumstantial benefits that one should keep in mind during character creation.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

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.

Why are you investing? What activated abilities are you expecting in your armor/shield?

Weapons have activated abilities more often (Flaming, shocking, etc).


Matthias W wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:

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

- I have not heard of a Charisma-based Cleric archetype so you're going to have to enlighten me on this one.

The Elder Mythos Cultist, who "grasping, secretive, and thoroughly mad, Elder Mythos cultists open their bodies and minds to horrifying realities not meant for the sane as they strive to prepare the world for the eventual return of their alien masters."

This 100% runs against my account upthread of what Wise vs. Charismatic casting means in general, because "opening your body and mind" to supernatural forces and messages is pure receptivity (and does indeed fit with the classic image of the mythos cultist, or at least one of the classic images,[1]) and is more in line with thinking of WIS as just plain old sense. I'm inclined to chalk it up to measurement error, as in the Physicist's Proof That All Odd Number Are Prime[2], but maybe that's cheating.

[1] There's a great essay out there, can't recall where, laying out how the social composition of the evil cults in Lovecraft's mythology - a mix of alienated intellectuals and regarded-as-racially-inferior lower classes - fits the social composition of the political movements Lovecraft most disliked.

[2] "1 is basically prime. 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. 9 isn't prime, hmm. 11 is prime, 13 is prime. Accounting for the likelihood of measurement error (9), we can conclude that probably all odd numbers are prime."

Oooh, yeah, that's probably the biggest exception to the philosophical rule behind casting stats. I would argue that, because they're now Charisma-based instead of Wisdom-based, that their casting is somewhat more in-line with Oracles, as in Hastur or Cthulu gives them power and the cultist forces their personality to channel their master's agenda, but I'm willing to admit that it's somewhat of a stretch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:

You can't expect people to receive out-of-context snippets of information about something they're excited about/dreading without knowing they're going to immediately engage in rampant speculation about what it means. That's just not how human brains work.

"Here is an isolated piece of information for the thing you're eagerly awaiting three months from now. Make no speculations! Draw no conclusions! Form no opinions! IGNORE ME!" is never, ever gonna fly.

I think though that we should all know well enough:

- the information we are getting is incomplete and lacking context
- extrapolating based on incomplete information is fraught with peril
- this thread is going to still be here (probably) in August

So while it may be some deeper reptile brain impulse to scream "Gamist! Overcomplicated!" or whatever, we can still aspire to be better than that. It is a long time until August, after all.

Aspire to be better than that. Huh. Well, I've yet to encounter a web board that could double as a self-improvement group, but I must concede that it's possible, in theory. As a wise man once said, "In theory, Communism works. IN THEORY."

It must also be conceded that it was always much, much more likely that their strategy would produce exactly the results we now see. Humans are and shall remain human.

Dark Archive

Friendly Rogue wrote:
Darius Alazario wrote:

Personally, I am not a fan of the use of Charisma for managing the amount of resonance. I get that the new system looks likely to encourage people spreading out points more but there are many character types that already suffer from having to spread points across multiple stats to be effective with their abilities, also needing charisma to allow you access to magic items and consumables makes this even worse.

I am not against the system as a whole but would far prefer to see something that uses a flat number per level keeping the playing field more even when it comes to magic items. None of this: Sorry, your fighter can't effectively use potions at all because his dice are unkind and he has the generally more important magic armor on.

I get the need to make the higher level heal items more appealing, no more buying up several cheap and more accessible wands of cure light wounds and basic healing potions then just guzzling them all down to heal up between fights. I just am not keen on the potential imbalance this creates between characters of all types based on a single stat. If they'd like it to vary in some way for different character types I'd prefer to see it based of race and/or class rather than a single stat. For example, Starfinder provides a defined Key Ability Score for each class and this determines their available Resolve Points, maybe carry this over and have it determine your resonance for PF2. I think this would be far more effective and balanced in the long run.

It's important to keep in mind that all of the ability scores are being reworked in general, not just Charisma being tied to magic items; Dexterity is no longer tied to Initiative on top of AC and Reflex saves, so it's no longer the primary stat in so many different fields. The HP characters get are going up, so it's no longer crucial to keep Constitution high whenever possible - hell, it might even be possible to dump Constitution now without it being a death sentencing [s]which would...

I still, personally, feel this will put too much focus on one stat. Most other things have alternatives to them, got a low strength then use weapon finesse instead. Can't wear heavy armor than bump up your Dex. Maybe they will account for this with resonance as well, but so far it seems that if your Cha is low, then your ability to use magic items will always be low. I am hoping they provide an alternative to this.. and for me, I think the Key Attribute makes good sense for this but maybe it'll be a feat like Toughness or Weapon Finesse but for your Resonance. I will have to wait and see.


I'm assuming that continual use items just work. Low resonance sounds like it would apply to low magic races like dwarves in particular.

But to me the one thing that stands out is that charisma is no longer a "dump stat". Low charisma means low resonance and you just have to accept that.

Charisma does not get role-played.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
So am I reading resonance right in that now someone can wear, say 10 magic rings if they have enough resonance to do so? Honestly, that's pretty cool.

That is right, as far as we know Resonance also replaces body slots, you could also have 3 amulets for example.


Darius Alazario wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Darius Alazario wrote:
Personally, I am not a fan of the use of Charisma for managing the amount of resonance. I get that the new system looks likely to encourage people spreading out points more but there are many character types that already suffer from having to spread points across multiple stats to be effective with their abilities, also needing charisma to allow you access to magic items and consumables makes this even worse.
It's important to keep in mind that all of the ability scores are being reworked in general, not just Charisma being tied to magic items; Dexterity is no longer tied to Initiative on top of AC and Reflex saves, so it's no longer the primary stat in so many different fields. The HP characters get are going up, so it's no longer crucial to keep Constitution high whenever possible - hell, it might even be possible to dump Constitution now without it being...
I still, personally, feel this will put too much focus on one stat. Most other things have alternatives to them, got a low strength then use weapon finesse instead. Can't wear heavy armor than bump up your Dex. Maybe they will account for this with resonance as well, but so far it seems that if your Cha is low, then your ability to use magic items will always be low. I am hoping they provide an alternative to this.. and for me, I think the Key Attribute makes good sense for this but maybe it'll be a feat like Toughness or Weapon Finesse but for your Resonance. I will have to wait and see.

I said this earlier, but considering Resonance somewhat resembles UMD, there's a good chance that Backgrounds will resemble the P1e Trait system, and there was a P1e Trait that changed UMD from Charisma to Intelligence, I'd say it's possible that they will introduce a background that ties Resonance to Intelligence instead of Charisma.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing I am wondering about is whether consumables other than those that cure use up resonance, and (in the case of a wand of curing) whose resonance they use up. If Resonance is not handled well, I could see it making whole classes of consumable magic items virtually unusable because of people wanting to conserve their Resonance for more important things.

The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.


Logan Bonner wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing I am wondering about is whether consumables other than those that cure use up resonance, and (in the case of a wand of curing) whose resonance they use up. If Resonance is not handled well, I could see it making whole classes of consumable magic items virtually unusable because of people wanting to conserve their Resonance for more important things.

The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.

How would this operate with potions if another character is the one pouring it, IE trying to bring an unconscious party member up? Would the person pouring the potion spend a resonance point to activate the potion, or would the one unconscious be the one having to use a resonance point to activate it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Logan Bonner wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing I am wondering about is whether consumables other than those that cure use up resonance, and (in the case of a wand of curing) whose resonance they use up. If Resonance is not handled well, I could see it making whole classes of consumable magic items virtually unusable because of people wanting to conserve their Resonance for more important things.

The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.

That would certainly make people reluctant to use wands of any sort then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It just sounds like there are no magic items but the user's belief in himself powers items and makes them magical;)

Charisma is belief in yourself

Wisdom is belief in god and nature

Intelligence is belief in logic, science, math, etc.


Dragon78 wrote:

It just sounds like there are no magic items but the user's belief in himself powers items and makes them magical;)

Charisma is belief in yourself

Wisdom is belief in god and nature

Intelligence is belief in logic, science, math, etc.

I wouldn't go that far, especially since things like Magic Weapons don't require attuning. A more fair assessment is that, with worn magic items, you have to metaphysically attach yourself to it as well as physically attach yourself to it in order for it to function for you, kinda like going "hey buddy, I want you to give me that sick +5 to my athletics checks" so you magically forge a connection to the magic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So am I reading resonance right in that now someone can wear, say 10 magic rings if they have enough resonance to do so? Honestly, that's pretty cool.

Or they can wear two shirts, and 3 pairs of shoes...

Or we still have slots in addition to resonance

Dark Archive

Friendly Rogue wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

One thing I am wondering about is whether consumables other than those that cure use up resonance, and (in the case of a wand of curing) whose resonance they use up. If Resonance is not handled well, I could see it making whole classes of consumable magic items virtually unusable because of people wanting to conserve their Resonance for more important things.

The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.
How would this operate with potions if another character is the one pouring it, IE trying to bring an unconscious party member up? Would the person pouring the potion spend a resonance point to activate the potion, or would the one unconscious be the one having to use a resonance point to activate it?

In the case of a wand, while one player is receiving the benefit a different player is the one using it. In the case of a potion, salve, or similar... despite someone pouring the potion into their mouth for them, it is the act of consuming it that is considered the usage and thus the player 'drinking' it uses the resonance. This is just my guess but it is a question I had wondered as well and this is what I see as the most likely ruling and reasoning.

Dark Archive

arkham wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So am I reading resonance right in that now someone can wear, say 10 magic rings if they have enough resonance to do so? Honestly, that's pretty cool.

Or they can wear two shirts, and 3 pairs of shoes...

Or we still have slots in addition to resonance

In the podcast they said they did away with slots but expect people to use reason. Like wearing two pairs of shoes just doesn't make sense but you can wear multiple amulets and rings.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
arkham wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So am I reading resonance right in that now someone can wear, say 10 magic rings if they have enough resonance to do so? Honestly, that's pretty cool.

Or they can wear two shirts, and 3 pairs of shoes...

I've seen those people with their popped collars. Multiple shirts should work fine. Shoes is the only limit I've seen specifically called out. But, that's a physical limitation of your body, not some kind of secret slot mechanic.


Here is a suggestion for the healing wands issue - how about using a "law of diminishing returns" kind of rule? Say, if you use a CLW wand on someone more than once every 30 min, it has a diminished effect (50% for the 2nd use, 25% for the 3rd, etc...) That would seem more realistic, still allow wand use both in and out of combat, but get rid of the "I hit myself 10 times with the happy stick, ready for Encounter 2!" problem.

Thoughts?


My feet are small enough that I did put my shoes inside my larger friend's shoes as a gag once. Kind of made me look like a clown.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.

Yikes, a UMD equivalent still exists? I was assuming the existence of resonance meant anyone could use any wand, regardless of whether it's on their spell list or anything.

Will monks then have an in-class way to get Mage Armor or an equivalent? Because it sounds like the old "Hey wizardy fellow, take this wand and use it on me" is now going to be a really hard sell!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:
My feet are small enough that I did put my shoes inside my larger friend's shoes as a gag once. Kind of made me look like a clown.

I suspect it's also quite awkward to walk around like that and would make it difficult to do something like dance. Which means, at a bare minimum, would impose some kind of skill and attack penalty if someone REALLY wanted to argue they can physically do it.


David knott 242 wrote:

That would certainly make people reluctant to use wands of any sort then.

I feel like the wand you use once per combat (Shield or Mage Armor, say) will survive whereas the wand you use a dozen times between combats will not. Or at least that's the needle they are trying to thread.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For the "Charisma makes no sense" people: in addition to the fluff behind Cha-based casting classes, I would like to point you to spell-like abilities, which are just about as innate-y as innate magic gets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
The person who activates the item spends the resonance. So if you're using the wand on someone (by being able to cast heal or by having a UMD equivalent), you're spending it.

Yikes, a UMD equivalent still exists? I was assuming the existence of resonance meant anyone could use any wand, regardless of whether it's on their spell list or anything.

Will monks then have an in-class way to get Mage Armor or an equivalent? Because it sounds like the old "Hey wizardy fellow, take this wand and use it on me" is now going to be a really hard sell!

Well, if they are fixing the martial/carter disparity, or atleast dimishing it, then this becomes an even harder sell.

Before atleast the wizard could pity the monk, if there is no need for this, then the monk better know how to use his wands himself :P.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like arguing over in game explanations and lore for game mechanics is just asking to get lost in the weeds. Keep it in mind, but don't dismiss things just because there's no P1e explanation for a rule.

I dismiss Resonance because as a game mechanic it's either restrictive or pointless, has far reaching negative consequences, and was introduced to solve two things I never thought were a problem (Charisma's strength and CLW wand usage). That it doesn't make sense to be able to accept a spell from a friend but not drink a potion is secondary.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Now we know why people like Sorcerers better- they’re a lot freer on helping out with wand castings.

551 to 600 of 823 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards