Resonance: what do you think?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The boots example is more accurate, but you can't seriously expect players to not value their hit points enough to where they would risk losing their precious character over a few trinkets, no sane player (or character) would do that.

You only need one point in reserve to ensure you can drink a potion. And magic is not the only way to heal.

Sure, one potion, but what if you need more than one to compensate for a long adventuring day? You drink it, and have a 50% chance of it doing nothing, and a 5% chance of not getting anything period for 24 hours. Congratulations, the resonance you spent your nifty boots on practically just cost you your life.

As for the other forms of healing, we have very little information as to how useful and practical that is, which means expecting it to be a go-to solution isn't a very realistic expectation until further information is divulged.

[KingOfAnything]

If you are that roughed up, take the rest of the day off, or use the other methods of mundane healing that are reasonably available.

You claimed that putting on boots could kill you later. That's only true if you take a huge beating and decide to keep trudging on anyway.

[PossibleCabbage]

Here's how I would suggest this work, if it doesn't already-

If you are at 0 resonance, the first time you use a consumable magic item (e.g. a potion) it always works, then you roll to see if the next item is going to work or if you're cut off.

If you do this you can feel free to use your cool boots even if you're at 1 resonance since you know that the emergency healing potion is available. If you use the emergency healing potion and you find out that the next emergency healing potion won't work, that's a good sign to find a place to camp. (Related: do we know "resting" is the only way to regain resonance?) If you trudge on when you're out of resonance and the next potion won't work, it's really not different from continuing on once you're out of spell slots.

[tivadar27]

Generally I think it sounds like a fairly good system. It prevents wand/scroll abuse (Heightened Awareness, Shield, Cure Light).

I've also heard people asking questions about "bad" items. If someone zaps you with a wand or forces you to use a potion, I'm just kinda assuming this won't cost you resonance. It's pretty easy to make the rules state "when you use a magic item of your own free will".

I also see one of the weaknesses of 5e as being "okay, we've got some cash now, let's buy 50 potions of Cure Light, they're more efficient than one potion of Cure Serious." This addresses that.

Still, I will say that I wish magic item resonance and single-use resonance were separate entities. Sure, it's more to keep track of, but the fact that I'm wearing 5 amulets influencing my ability to use a potion/scroll does seem a bit silly.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

KingOfAnything wrote:

If you are that roughed up, take the rest of the day off, or use the other methods of mundane healing that are reasonably available.

You claimed that putting on boots could kill you later. That's only true if you take a huge beating and decide to keep trudging on anyway.

In a timed event where lives and quests are at stake, there is no "take the rest of the day off." At least, not unless you want to say "Screw this, I'm not getting paid enough for this crap," but that sparks a whole separate issue of character work ethics, which is largely irrelevant here.

Not particularly. Let's say a geared out 10 Charisma Fighter of 3rd level has some magic armor and a magic shield, using up 2 of his 3 Resonance points. He later gets a pair of boots that he finds worthwhile to use, potentially more than healing with a potion or wand, now using up his last Resonance point.

But when the big fight comes, the party's bitten off more than they can chew, and because the fighter has no resonance left, he has a 50% chance of going down and being left to die so the rest of the party can live.

Sure, the Fighter might get his consumable to work so he can safely run away, but the fact of the matter is that he risked his life on what is mathematically slightly more than a coin flip just because he thought using magic items to avoid damage and end encounters and/or overcome challenges faster was more important than healing.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

If you are that roughed up, take the rest of the day off, or use the other methods of mundane healing that are reasonably available.

You claimed that putting on boots could kill you later. That's only true if you take a huge beating and decide to keep trudging on anyway.

In a timed event where lives and quests are at stake, there is no "take the rest of the day off." At least, not unless you want to say "Screw this, I'm not getting paid enough for this crap," but that sparks a whole separate issue of character work ethics, which is largely irrelevant here.

Not particularly. Let's say a geared out 10 Charisma Fighter of 3rd level has some magic armor and a magic shield, using up 2 of his 3 Resonance points. He later gets a pair of boots that he finds worthwhile to use, potentially more than healing with a potion or wand, now using up his last Resonance point.

But when the big fight comes, the party's bitten off more than they can chew, and because the fighter has no resonance left, he has a 50% chance of going down and being left to die so the rest of the party can live.

Sure, the Fighter might get his consumable to work so he can safely run away, but the fact of the matter is that he risked his life on what is mathematically slightly more than a coin flip just because he thought using magic items to avoid damage and end encounters and/or overcome challenges faster was more important than healing.

That whole scenario sounds more like a feature than a bug to me. Needing strategic planning and risk/reward considerations for your adventure day? Perish the thought...

[QuidEst]

A third level Fighter with magic armor, a magic shield, and magic boots? I’d say the answer is “share”. Anyway, the shield is wielded, so it doesn’t cost attunement. The Fighter gets all three items and a spare point of resonance, facing no consequences for his greed or low charisma.

[KingOfAnything]

Yeah, that fighter is just going to use his shield a lot more often to mitigate damage and prevent the need to heal. That magic shield/ boots are going to prevent a lot more damage than a potion would have healed.

[PossibleCabbage]

FWIW WBL for PF1 for a 3rd level character is 3000 gp. If we assume they're doing something like ABP, the 3rd level fighter should have no more than like 2000 gold's worth of magic items. So this does seem like an example concocted to artificially exaggerate how tight the resonance limit is.

Now a 5th level fighter might be able to afford a magic weapon, shield, and boots, but they're also going to have 6 points of resonance with 10 charisma. So they can equip magic armor, an amulet, and awesome boots while wielding a sword and a shield and still have 3 resonance left over.

[WatersLethe]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

FWIW WBL for PF1 for a 3rd level character is 3000 gp. If we assume they're doing something like ABP, the 3rd level fighter should have no more than like 2000 gold's worth of magic items. So this does seem like an example concocted to artificially exaggerate how tight the resonance limit is.

Now a 5th level fighter might be able to afford a magic weapon, shield, and boots, but they're also going to have 6 points of resonance with 10 charisma. So they can equip magic armor, an amulet, and awesome boots while wielding a sword and a shield and still have 3 resonance left over.

So if, in general, at most levels of play a character can equip all of their magical gear and have enough Resonance left over for one or two potions, why are they a unified mechanic? Wouldn't it be simpler, and make more sense, if you just said a character can only drink X many potions a day? That is, if you want to limit potions/scrolls/wands at all.

To me, it doesn't seem like an interesting choice to decide in the morning to take off your boots so you can possibly quaff an extra potion. It's also not very intuitive. I usually pass a rule through a filter of explaining it to a new player. Do we really want to tell a new player "Yeah, if you put on those pants you won't be able to use as many potions later, so watch out!"?

I say get rid of Resonance for gear, go back to slots (which also explicitly covers whether a GM will let someone wear 3 pairs of pants or 2 pairs of shoes), let people wear as many rings or necklaces as they want baseline, and implement a version of Resonance *only* for consumables.

The moment Resonance limits how much gear a player wears is the moment it becomes a problem for me, and really does mean putting on a pair of boots could cost your life because you can't drink a potion.

[kyrt-ryder]

I frequently wear underpants under long pants (say lightweight sweats for example) under shorts

Sometimes in winter I also wear longjohn pants and depending on the task I am doing I might wear chaps.

That's up to five 'pants' at once.

[QuidEst]

Nah, we tell the new player that how many magic items they can use in a day depends in part on their charisma- potions and wands included.
“Hey, your character has a lot of magic items, and you’re running low on resonance. You might want to let another character use one of your items, at least until next level.”

[WatersLethe]

QuidEst wrote:

Nah, we tell the new player that how many magic items they can use in a day depends in part on their charisma- potions and wands included.

“Hey, your character has a lot of magic items, and you’re running low on resonance. You might want to let another character use one of your items, at least until next level.”

The 20+ charisma Sorcerer, festooned with everyone's gear, handing out potions: "Yes, hand it over. huhuhu"

[Arssanguinus]

resonance breaks things. Unnecessarily.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

QuidEst wrote:

A third level Fighter with magic armor, a magic shield, and magic boots? I’d say the answer is “share”. Anyway, the shield is wielded, so it doesn’t cost attunement. The Fighter gets all three items and a spare point of resonance, facing no consequences for his greed or low charisma.

I thought shields still counted, but okay.

As for the whole "sharing" thing, let's say this is a high magic (and therefore high difficulty) campaign and the other party members have their fair amount of items too.

@ Tarik Blackhands: Perhaps, but the question becomes if Resonance is supposed to be a strategic mechanic for players to plan around instead of simply being a limiting one to curb consumables and the Christmas Tree effect. I'd have to say that I highly doubt it was intended to be the former, and more of the latter, given the reasons why this mechanic was developed in the first place.

[QuidEst]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

A third level Fighter with magic armor, a magic shield, and magic boots? I’d say the answer is “share”. Anyway, the shield is wielded, so it doesn’t cost attunement. The Fighter gets all three items and a spare point of resonance, facing no consequences for his greed or low charisma.

I thought shields still counted, but okay.

As for the whole "sharing" thing, let's say this is a high magic (and therefore high difficulty) campaign and the other party members have their fair amount of items too.

@ Tarik Blackhands: Perhaps, but the question becomes if Resonance is supposed to be a strategic mechanic for players to plan around instead of simply being a limiting one to curb consumables and the Christmas Tree effect. I'd have to say that I highly doubt it was intended to be the former, and more of the latter, given the reasons why this mechanic was developed in the first place.

I feel like a high magic setting should come with a free +1 or even +2 to resonance scores- or else warn players that a low charisma will hurt more in the setting.

[PossibleCabbage]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

let's say this is a high magic (and therefore high difficulty) campaign

I would say that in a high magic campaign one should increase the resonance limit (and this should probably be in the book too).

Being able to tweak the resonance scores to match "how much magic there is in this game" is a better way to make a game feel more or less magical than simply having more or fewer magic items available, and is certainly a better option than "eliminating certain item slots."

[MerlinCross]

I stil don't see what problem this is supposed to fix besides just wands, and really what GM has a fully stocked magic shop in town? Oh wait it's also supposed to kill "the Big 6" too and let other less used item shine. Good point good point.

Why isn't this a problem at my table?

Why yes I know that's a lousy claim to make. 1000 groups with the same GM, premades, and adventure will play out differently each times. So it's silly to expect other people not to run into the problem. It's just, the reason I haven't seen it as a problem isn't due to some understand between players and GM, or some house ruled system but because of something Paizo put out.

I admit at high level the problem might remain(I've only gotten to level 12-13) but doesn't Auto Progression kill the Big 6? Hey I don't need cloak of Res, let me pick up something else. Sure it doesn't fix wands but outside of swapping where the numbers are, this system doesn't fix anything for me that Auto Progress already did.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think "getting rid of item slots" is of value in and of itself.

[WatersLethe]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think "getting rid of item slots" is of value in and of itself.

I think "getting rid of item slots" is a negative that needs to have a very good reason and various system wide benefits before I accept it as a necessary sacrifice.

[Arssanguinus]

I think it’s a neutral goal not worth putting a wrecking ball through many other things to achieve.

[MerlinCross]

15 capes. I'll be the most super of all supermen.

Honestly I expect rings to be the go to item now for terms of "expectation"

Actually both sides can make all sorts of claims but until we see the magic item list, all of this is guess work.

[technarken]

tivadar27 wrote:

I've also heard people asking questions about "bad" items. If someone zaps you with a wand or forces you to use a potion, I'm just kinda assuming this won't cost you resonance. It's pretty easy to make the rules state "when you use a magic item of your own free will".

"Bronji is unable to distinguish between different types of magic, and has a distrust of magic and magicians in general. Bronji is unwilling to consume your healing potions. He loses no resonance consuming them."

This hypothetical now becomes the norm. Sure, the characters make will saves to halve the healing they get, but hey, it's still cheaper than LOSING MONEY FAILING TO CONSUME POTIONS.

[ChibiNyan]

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

[WatersLethe]

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

[KingOfAnything]

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Gruff, unlikeable people can be commanding leaders, too. I don't think Charisma represents the traits you think it does.

[Scribbling Rambler]

I have concerns about how resonance will mesh with Golarion canon, though of course we are months away from the playtest release.

My first Pathfinder purchase was the variant version of Burnt Offerings, with Karzoug on the cover. Boy, he had a lot of pretty gems on him.

[thflame]

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Then you still get Resonance equal to your level.

How many on level healing items do you plan on using in one day? How many magic items do you plan on wearing if stuff like the ring of deflection, amulet of natural armor, and stat boosting items don't exist?

I only see this being an issue at low levels.

[Hargert]

How about just remove CLW, give low level clerics and other healers a class feature to do their basic heals and save healing spells larger amounts to use in combat. Boom problem taken care of. When healing requires a level 3 wand people are paying some actual costs for it.

[DM Alistair]

Still not liking resonance...

[Alzrius]

Looking resonance over, I don't particularly care for the idea. Although we don't yet know what Wealth-By-Level or magic item creation will look like in Pathfinder 2E, if it's anything like Pathfinder 1E then resonance seems like it's going to be an attempt to keep magic items ubiquitous and easy to create while simultaneously enforcing a limitation that makes their utilization comparatively limited.

From a design standpoint, those strike me as being contradictory goals to pursue. If you want to place a limit on how much the PCs rely on magic items, then make magic items rarer and more difficult/expensive to create. Don't try and say that they're easy to generate, are for sale everywhere, but can only be used so much (particularly for a reason that feels rather "gamist" in its implementation).

[Arssanguinus]

You can look at them and drool, but actually using them is out of reach

[MerlinCross]

thflame wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Then you still get Resonance equal to your level.

How many on level healing items do you plan on using in one day? How many magic items do you plan on wearing if stuff like the ring of deflection, amulet of natural armor, and stat boosting items don't exist?

I only see this being an issue at low levels.

The problem isn't just healing though. How many wands of Bless are going to be picked up? Is Potion of Enlarge Person going to still be considered? Shield, Mage Armor, Barkskin; how many buffs are going to not be considered in item form now? Espically early when your options are going to be "heal or buff"

[WatersLethe]

KingOfAnything wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Gruff, unlikeable people can be commanding leaders, too. I don't think Charisma represents the traits you think it does.

Okay, a gruff, unlikeable, loner who is terrible at getting other people to do what they want, failed leadership school with the worst marks ever seen? Is there a way to make a non-charismatic character in this paradigm? If absolutely everyone and anyone can be charismatic, why is it an ability score and not just a function of your level?

I'm confused.

Edit: I mean, I can make a clumsy character who leaves dex at 10 or below, a lily livered rogue with a bare bones con, a bumbling oaf with a low int, but I can't make an unlikeable dude with low cha?

[Dαedαlus]

WatersLethe wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Gruff, unlikeable people can be commanding leaders, too. I don't think Charisma represents the traits you think it does.

Okay, a gruff, unlikeable, loner who is terrible at getting other people to do what they want, failed leadership school with the worst marks ever seen? Is there a way to make a non-charismatic character in this paradigm? If absolutely everyone and anyone can be charismatic, why is it an ability score and not just a function of your level?

I'm confused.

Edit: I mean, I can make a clumsy character who leaves dex at 10 or below, a lily livered rogue with a bare bones con, a bumbling oaf with a low int, but I can't make an unlikeable dude with low cha?

Sure you can. I've met plenty of unlikable charismatic people (think of a few celebrities, you can find an example). A strong personality does not always mean a likeable personality. Similarly, a likeable personality isn't always strong. You could be super nice and have everyone like you, but be terrible at lying, getting people to do what you want, or scaring people. Similarly, you could be the gruffest, meanest character imaginable and still be intimidating, or just forceful. Charisma =/= likeability.

[AceOfOtters]

I like the idea of resonance for magic items, but not for consumables...at least if the system as-is must use CHA with no other way to improve the pool than with score and level increases, and the pool to use and invest is tied together.

I’ve processed through a lot with this, as so far it’s been my biggest concerning change of the previewed rules seen so far. Sorry this is long winded, I’m not sure what the tl;dr would summarize yet.

Programmer’s perspective, my opinions have been based on the version control “change and check in” approach to what I’ve seen for 2e: I’m assuming otherwise a system behaves as it is in 1e aside from other known changes applied. I recognize this fallacy which is why I’m disclosing it.
Because the systems are similar and it’s been called out as specific inspiration, my interpretation is that resonance behaves like the occultist mental focus, but has been modified to also apply to consumable items as well as magic items for all classes in 2e.

Occultists got level +INT (their primary star even) of mental focus per day - sounds familiar, and it should. Occultist invest multiple points into various implements (now resonance into magic items), and they spend them throughout the day, reset after a long/nights rest.

A solid unknown is now how this investment works each morning. For the occultist, investing 5 points gives a greater benefit than 1 or 2 points. I’m assuming for now that this is part of the resonance that has been brought over from the occultist implements feature, and likely makes it work. Occultist implements also burn up this invested resonance on use, so that also could be added complexity, more unknowns about how exactly it’s gonna work in the playtest.

Lastly consumables use this same resource pool.... If this costs more than one resonance per resource for any reason (say, to de-power a magic item to allow a healing potion to take effect) then no dice; throwing it out with the baby and the bath water. Yes, this is another assumption from how I know the occultist works with implements at 4th level (shift focus).

Based on my experience from playing an occultist at lower levels, level+INT wasn’t enough to get the fullest experience out of the class. There were so many options and very little to do without heavy consequences that left the character tapped out for the day after a LIGHT combat fight if he had to compensate for bad rolls at the table.

If I’m now adding consumables to this list, - assuming magic item resonance investment will play the same as mental focus implement investment - this disparity of points needed and points available is grotesque. That is what gives me the greatest concern about what’s been inspired by the occultist to develop resonance, and if the devs still believe level+stat is enough. Assurances from Jason That no one ever risked this limit do not comfort me; I’ve seen how it feels at the table to walk the stressful cliff edge of spending my mental focus and losing a cascade of functionality.

Occultists did get an “extra mental focus” feat, but it can only be taken once. It’s practically required to do much of anything with more than one implement.

If this whole system sticks, I’m probably going to houserule double resonance for my players. Level+cha just won’t be enough even for sorcerers.

Secondly, and better yet, the whole consumables burn resonance to use? PLEASE do not tie these together into the same pool! Even if I can draw the resonance out of an item at a 1:1 (something the occultist cannot do) it will cause problems.

Thirdly, I read somewhere that the design team was surprised people thought this was fiddly. Well, the occultist handling of mental focus and implements is FIDDLY AS F. So yes, designers, of course the attempt to use resonance to replace UMD, wand of CLW, slots, and big 6 will be perceived fiddly AF. It takes me hours of homework outside the game to determine the best general fit allotment for my occultist, and then various alternatives for any given situation. If I didn’t, each “morning” I wasn’t doing a dungeon crawl I’d take 15+ minutes to figure out my mental focus. SO FIDDLY! And yes, prepared spellcasters have to do the same thing, but their spell list doesn’t have non-caster consequences if they only put 4 points into a brooch instead of 5...

Low magic settings can also be narratively broken... say I have a half-orc fighter wielding this “shield of the protector” that’s so far been dormant... he goes up against a full orc warlord barbarian. As the orc baddie brings his great axe down to harm the fighter, he crits. The fighter had used a shield action, so the crit impacts against the shield. Unknown to the player the “shield of the protector” channels 1d6 positive healing energy whenever it takes a critical hit from an enemy. Narratively, now, I can’t force the fighter to spend resonance, the player didn’t know to invest any. The storytelling of this great moment for the players is lost because resonance cockblocked story, or worse, it’s diminished because “where’d his extra resonance come from? Does he keep it? Can I get some too?”

Also, are intelligent items a thing in 2e? Do they have their own resonance pool or draw from the wielder’s? Seems like an item that has a personality... a force of will, might resonate differently and whatnot...might be fine to spend resonance to “convince the armor” to give me booms, but I’d think that’d be enough in the morning? I’m not sure... we could really use the full detail on this change.

[WatersLethe]

Dαedαlus wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Gruff, unlikeable people can be commanding leaders, too. I don't think Charisma represents the traits you think it does.

Okay, a gruff, unlikeable, loner who is terrible at getting other people to do what they want, failed leadership school with the worst marks ever seen? Is there a way to make a non-charismatic character in this paradigm? If absolutely everyone and anyone can be charismatic, why is it an ability score and not just a function of your level?

I'm confused.

Edit: I mean, I can make a clumsy character who leaves dex at 10 or below, a lily livered rogue with a bare bones con, a bumbling oaf with a low int, but I can't make an unlikeable dude with low cha?

Sure you can. I've met plenty of unlikable charismatic people (think of a few celebrities, you can find an example). A strong personality does not always mean a likeable personality. Similarly, a likeable personality isn't always strong. You could be super nice and have everyone like you, but be terrible at lying, getting people to do what you want, or scaring people. Similarly, you could be the gruffest, meanest character imaginable and still be intimidating, or just forceful. Charisma =/= likeability.

Why do dwarves have a charisma penalty again? Oh right, it's more complicated than just charisma = force of will, it's *also* likeability and gruffness. At least pay a hint of homage to the actual definition of charisma.

[eljava77]

MerlinCross wrote:

The problem isn't just healing though. How many wands of Bless are going to be picked up? Is Potion of Enlarge Person going to still be considered? Shield, Mage Armor, Barkskin; how many buffs are going to not be considered in item form now? Espically early when your options are going to be "heal or buff"

Exactly! there is no versatility, especially for the poor martials who have such a gear requirement to keep up with the casters.

And at high level (especially with the greater amount of HP) you are going to need a LOT more healing after a tough fight.

Plus another resource to run out of is one more reason to shorten the adventuring day. Now it's going to be, when the fighter/barbarian/monk/paladin/rogue is out of resonance, "well, I'm done for the day, can't use my boots of flying anymore or get anything out of my bag of holding so I need to go rest." blech.

[AceOfOtters]

eljava77 wrote:

Plus another resource to run out of is one more reason to shorten the adventuring day. Now it's going to be, when the fighter/barbarian/monk/paladin/rogue is out of resonance, "well, I'm done for the day, can't use my boots of flying anymore or get anything out of my bag of holding so I need to go rest." blech.

And the cleric says, “oh thank Sarenrae! I can’t afford to heal your face-pulling any more today either!”

[eljava77]

WatersLethe wrote:

Why do dwarves have a charisma penalty again? Oh right, it's more complicated than just charisma = force of will, it's *also*likeability and gruffness. At least pay a hint of homage to the actual definition of charisma. ...

Well, I suppose they now have a story mechanic as to why dwarves have low charisma, it's not because they are gruff, distrusting grumpy people, it's because they are resistant to magic and as such they have naturally low resonance!

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like we really should read the book before we conclude "necessary buffs are now impossible" (since those buffs might no longer be necessary) or "a class might have nothing to do but heal or buff" (since we don't know what options classes even have).

But I will say that "A fighter drinks a potion to be awesome on the first round of combat" is not exactly a part of the fantasy I want to preserve. I will gladly take "fighters are better" (and also "you can wear many capes" but that's just a bonus) in exchange for "they consume fewer potions". I actively disliked how essential consumables were in PF1, and am happy if they are less important in PF2.

[KingGramJohnson]

Resonance is like cutting off a hand and calling it a fix. I like the item slot system. It's intuitive, it works, and out of anything in PF it has common sense. Want magic boots? You already have magic boots, pick the ones you want to use more.

No. No, no, no! Please no resonance! This is just not a good idea.

[Dαedαlus]

WatersLethe wrote:

Dαedαlus wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

In your theorycraft examples, you have to remember that PCs are gaining stat boosts at an insane rate, if the SF system they say will be used is any indication.

Shouldn't expet CHA to be at 10 very long, is what I'm saying.

Which is it's own problem. Perhaps my character concept means I don't want Charisma above 10? Abilities still represent character traits right? I guess there's some room for debate on this, but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to want a low charisma to represent their gruff, unlikeable concept.

Gruff, unlikeable people can be commanding leaders, too. I don't think Charisma represents the traits you think it does.

Okay, a gruff, unlikeable, loner who is terrible at getting other people to do what they want, failed leadership school with the worst marks ever seen? Is there a way to make a non-charismatic character in this paradigm? If absolutely everyone and anyone can be charismatic, why is it an ability score and not just a function of your level?

I'm confused.

Edit: I mean, I can make a clumsy character who leaves dex at 10 or below, a lily livered rogue with a bare bones con, a bumbling oaf with a low int, but I can't make an unlikeable dude with low cha?

Sure you can. I've met plenty of unlikable charismatic people (think of a few celebrities, you can find an example). A strong personality does not always mean a likeable personality. Similarly, a likeable personality isn't always strong. You could be super nice and have everyone like you, but be terrible at lying, getting people to do what you want, or scaring people. Similarly, you could be the gruffest, meanest character imaginable and still be intimidating, or just forceful. Charisma =/= likeability.

Why do dwarves have a charisma penalty again? Oh right, it's more complicated than just charisma = force of will, it's *also*...

Because dwarves aren't as personable as other races? They have plenty of force of *will*, but it's force of *personality* that Charisma is. It's why Undead use it instead of CON- instead of bodily strength that's keeping them alive, it's now their mental strength and force of personality (not will) that's tethering them to the Material Plane. Dwarves just don't come across very well. Their 'gruffness' is just them not fully communicating their personality.

[PossibleCabbage]

It is still not possible to wear two pairs of magic boots, since you cannot plausibly wear two pairs of shoes at the same time. We've just changed the limiter from "arbitrary item slots" to "sense". Now, however, you can wear two cloaks or seven rings or five amulets and there's no opportunity cost for not having a magic item for your eye slot or body slot.

Also "Dwarves are inherently resistant to magic, hence Dwarves have a harder time using magic" makes complete sense. After all, in older games in this family it wasn't possible for a Dwarf to be a Wizard and that was the exact justification.

[MerlinCross]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we really should read the book before we conclude "necessary buffs are now impossible" (since those buffs might no longer be necessary) or "a class might have nothing to do but heal or buff" (since we don't know what options classes even have).

But I will say that "A fighter drinks a potion to be awesome on the first round of combat" is not exactly a part of the fantasy I want to preserve. I will gladly take "fighters are better" (and also "you can wear many capes" but that's just a bonus) in exchange for "they consume fewer potions". I actively disliked how essential consumables were in PF1, and am happy if they are less important in PF2.

And the fantasy of "make sure your rings are turned on" isn't something I'd like to see introduced.

I admit I am biased as an Alchemist player

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Arssanguinus wrote:

resonance breaks things. Unnecessarily.

Hence the "sonic" damage type, presumably.

[kyrt-ryder]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It is still not possible to wear two pairs of magic boots, since you cannot plausibly wear two pairs of shoes at the same time.

Really?

[doc roc]

Im not a fan the whole system seems like a very convoluted way to approach the problem.

The CLW wand issue = healing for all on tap, did need addressing but not this way IMO

[1of1]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm kind of a fan of having to make everybody reasonable

Sounds unreasonably bland to me.

But it does have one entertaining side effect.
The party doesn't give loot to the guy who broke the mold and dipped below ten in his CHA, because he's ugly and nobody likes him.

"Screw you, Barby! Bardius Maximus gets the magic belt!"
"Ok..."

Kind of makes me giggle more than it should.