Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

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

WatersLethe wrote:
Okay, what about the Chameleon Suit? The cameras, grenades, non-magical healing serums?

I mean are they magical? It seems likely that there is a metaphysical distinction between technology/alchemy and magic (I believe the Alchemist class bypasses resonance with its schtick.) If people are limited in the amount of magic they can use in a day or stick on their body, but not similarly limited in terms of technology that would explain why eventually technology becomes the dominant paradigm and Starfinder looks the way it does.

I mean "running out of resonance while trying to navigate the interstellar void" makes a spaceship seem awfully appealing by comparison. A spaceship generally gives you the opportunity to fix what has gone wrong before you die, at the very least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Just mark me in the camp of those skeptical of the resonance system as published.

Hmm.. maybe Paizo could do a poll when they unveil something new. Who likes it, who doesn't, etc..?

This is a decent idea, but I suspect the value gained from it is pretty much useless at this stage. Pathfinder is so complex with so many intertwined rules that until we have the full playtest package in hand to see how everything works together our feedback is mostly just guessing.

Agreed. My biggest fear is that all the major systems are already set in stone (like most betas in video games) and that either we are here just to squash bugs or our changes will make 2.0 a big, unbalanced mess (necessitating 3.0 in a few years).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
How much resonance will it take my players to use his rail gun?
Zero, since wielded items don't interact with resonance.
Okay, what about the Chameleon Suit? The cameras, grenades, non-magical healing serums?

What level is this guy again? From previous post you already disregard WBL, an even if WBL are just guidelines you should know that a character with wealth above WBL is more powerful and should be accounted for it. I don't think that even 3.0 was designed with the idea in mind of having low level characters with lots gear, you are already bending the previous system, even if you think you are not, and is totally OK. I think Resonance more than creating new limits is making the actual limits more clear, but is flexible enough to be tuned how you like it.


TheFinish wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

The rich lvl 1 merchant is an odd thing even in PF1, as NPC also have wealth by level.

If you are willing to break the rules for your PF1 NPC, you can do that for your PF2 NPC and give him heaps of resonance if you want to.
The problem with this is that it's much easier for the players to believe in a rich, low level merchant (he doesn't adventure, but he runs a business and makes money), than a high Resonance low level merchant (is he just more magically attuned? does he have a giant charisma? is he, in fact, not a low level merchant at all?)

I have been playing rpgs for almost 30 years. I have never met a level 1 merchant carrying a dozen of magic items he is actively trying to use simultanously, regardless of the game system or edition. I suspect I would have zero problems with this in PF2, and if somehow it is an issue once, it will be exactly that: once. A healthy dose of handwavium is good enough for me for stuff that happens maybe once every 30 years of gaming. YMMV of course


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Just mark me in the camp of those skeptical of the resonance system as published.

Hmm.. maybe Paizo could do a poll when they unveil something new. Who likes it, who doesn't, etc..?

This is a decent idea, but I suspect the value gained from it is pretty much useless at this stage. Pathfinder is so complex with so many intertwined rules that until we have the full playtest package in hand to see how everything works together our feedback is mostly just guessing.
Agreed. My biggest fear is that all the major systems are already set in stone (like most betas in video games) and that either we are here just to squash bugs or our changes will make 2.0 a big, unbalanced mess (necessitating 3.0 in a few years).

I think they are already set in store, sort of. Paizo has been building PF2 from the past 2 years, you really think they are going to drop a core component of it and make a new one in less than a year? Given the level of complexity and intertwined systems PF has is quite difficult to re-balance the whole system all over again. The playtest is more to discover corner cases and polish the rough edges.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
edduardco wrote:

What level is this guy again? From previous post you already disregard WBL, an even if WBL are just guidelines you should know that a character with wealth above WBL is more powerful and should be accounted for it. I don't think that even 3.0 was designed with the idea in mind of having low level characters with lots gear, you are already bending the previous system, even if you think you are not, and is totally OK. I think Resonance more than creating new limits is making the actual limits more clear, but is flexible enough to be tuned how you like it.

He was level 6. I was running a high powered, high wealth campaign, which PF1e was perfectly happy to let me do. I didn't have to bend any rules besides WBL for this particular villain.

If houseruling out Resonance allows me to play this same campaign in the same manner, then I'll be reasonably happy to shrug and do it.

My biggest concern with Resonance right now is how deeply it will be ingrained in the rest of the system. Are there going to be class features I'll have to also patch if Resonance is gone? Will keeping Resonance but upping the pool size have bizarre unintended effects, like a feat that lets you turn Resonance into an extra spell slot? Will magic items be listed without costs or slots, and require me to house rule those back in too?

If Resonance is keeping me from playing in a manner I choose (despite PF1e not having that problem), and everyone's first reaction is to tell me to handwave it, then I want to make sure the designers are aware of what consequences Resonance might have on tables like mine.

I'd also hope that people will refrain from accusing me of badwrongfun, when the old system supported my badwrongfun just fine. Having playstyles gutted for a new edition doesn't feel nice already.


WatersLethe wrote:
edduardco wrote:

What level is this guy again? From previous post you already disregard WBL, an even if WBL are just guidelines you should know that a character with wealth above WBL is more powerful and should be accounted for it. I don't think that even 3.0 was designed with the idea in mind of having low level characters with lots gear, you are already bending the previous system, even if you think you are not, and is totally OK. I think Resonance more than creating new limits is making the actual limits more clear, but is flexible enough to be tuned how you like it.

He was level 6. I was running a high powered, high wealth campaign, which PF1e was perfectly happy to let me do. I didn't have to bend any rules besides WBL for this particular villain.

If houseruling out Resonance allows me to play this same campaign in the same manner, then I'll be reasonably happy to shrug and do it.

My biggest concern with Resonance right now is how deeply it will be ingrained in the rest of the system. Are there going to be class features I'll have to also patch if Resonance is gone? Will keeping Resonance but upping the pool size have bizarre unintended effects, like a feat that lets you turn Resonance into an extra spell slot? Will magic items be listed without costs or slots, and require me to house rule those back in too?

If Resonance is keeping me from playing in a manner I choose (despite PF1e not having that problem), and everyone's first reaction is to tell me to handwave it, then I want to make sure the designers are aware of what consequences Resonance might have on tables like mine.

I'd also hope that people will refrain from accusing me of badwrongfun, when the old system supported my badwrongfun just fine. Having playstyles gutted for a new edition doesn't feel nice already.

What if I want to use Resonance in PF1? It's just as valid. Probably pretty easy to implement too!


edduardco wrote:


I think they are already set in store, sort of. Paizo has been building PF2 from the past 2 years, you really think they are going to drop a core component of it and make a new one in less than a year? Given the level of complexity and intertwined systems PF has is quite difficult to re-balance the whole system all over again. The playtest is more to discover corner cases and polish the rough edges.

Exactly. Which would make a lot of this discussion irrelevant. I would be completely shocked if they said "wow. you guys really don't like this mechanic. we're going to rework it from scratch", Because I don't think that they would do it, or that with the deadline they've set for themselves, that they CAN do it.

Quite the pickle. I wonder who is going to create the PF alternative ruleset?


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:

What if I want to use Resonance in PF1? It's just as valid. Probably pretty easy to implement too!

You're free to house rule as you please? I don't know exactly where you're going with that.

There's a difference between Paizo's new system pulling the rug out from under a long standing campaign and playstyle, and a person used to the new system deciding to try to use a brand new system's rules in a now unsupported system.

I refuse to stay quiet about a flaw I'm seeing in a system that I want to play, especially since their stated goal is to try to be an easy transition for players like me. We're all trying to make PF2e the best it can be, and from what I'm seeing Resonance doesn't look like a good way to achieve that for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm liking it. I have some concerns about the execution but I'm lacking information about the following point to complete my opinion:

1) I remember seeing some hints that the item prices will change. Depending on how (and the related WBL in the new economy), this may change a lot of things about how Resonance works.

2) We have heard that they are redoing alchemical items and that there will be a skill called Medicine. It seems likely that there will be non-magical healing options. If alchemical items do not use Resonance and we have 'alchemical healing poultices', then the impact on potion will be limited.

So, wait and see for now


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Just mark me in the camp of those skeptical of the resonance system as published.

Hmm.. maybe Paizo could do a poll when they unveil something new. Who likes it, who doesn't, etc..?

This is a decent idea, but I suspect the value gained from it is pretty much useless at this stage. Pathfinder is so complex with so many intertwined rules that until we have the full playtest package in hand to see how everything works together our feedback is mostly just guessing.
Agreed. My biggest fear is that all the major systems are already set in stone (like most betas in video games) and that either we are here just to squash bugs or our changes will make 2.0 a big, unbalanced mess (necessitating 3.0 in a few years).
I think they are already set in store, sort of. Paizo has been building PF2 from the past 2 years, you really think they are going to drop a core component of it and make a new one in less than a year? Given the level of complexity and intertwined systems PF has is quite difficult to re-balance the whole system all over again. The playtest is more to discover corner cases and polish the rough edges.

Here's a reason to be less pessimistic about the value and impact of the playtest.

The fear about the lack of impact of the playtest seems to stem from a picture of the developers as a group with a relatively homogeneous opinion of how things should proceed, who haven't seriously considering alternative ways of dealing with these issues.

From what I've gleaned from bits of developer comments, I think we have good reason to believe this is false. The developers, like the members of this forum, have widely varying preferences and opinions about a whole host of issues. I suspect that most developers have a favored way of addressing particular problems, and that a lot of them disagree about what the best way to deal with any given issue is.

Since they're smart people who are good at their jobs, I suspect that these many different proposals are interesting and viable options which they're trying to decide between after passionate and lengthy debate. And, to move forward, they've had to pick particular options (leaning toward options that are more radical) for the initial playtest.

But that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of other ideas in hand for how to deal with any particular problem. And, I suspect, pretty much every viable alternative way of dealing with any particular problem that's been proposed on the forums is probably being advocated by someone on the development team.

So I think the playtests could very well have a large impact on what the final game is like. Because:

  • (a) I think there are lots of alternative rules that have been advocated by some developer or another that are in contention (so if something doesn't go over well in the playtest, they're not going to have to start thinking about alternatives for the first time), and
  • (b) because the developers don't agree on what the final game should be like, but are advocating lots of different solutions, you're going to find developers championing (and using playtest data to champion) lots of different alternative ways of proceeding. And what the playtest data is will make a big difference as to who on the development team ends up winning these arguments.

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

TheFinish wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, this just raised another question for me: what if a character doesn't know something is magical? Can they still use it? Can they attune to it even though they don't know it's magical the same way a PF1 PC could slip on a Ring of Freedom of Movement and have no idea what it does until he goes for a swim?

This also raises the question of what about cursed items? Lets say you wear a ring of clumsiness, but don't invest resonance in it. Does the curse affect you? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but that leads to weird situations where you can use a volunteer (guinea pig) to try on items, and if the item seems to work as a ring of feather fall, you've found out it's actually a cursed item because it works on them even without investing resonance.

Alternatively, if cursed items don't work without investing resonance, then the threat of cursed items is reduced, since it's not an instant "ah-ha! you wore the poisonous cloak, take 4d6 Con damage!" Now this might be a good thing if it reduces the telekinesis the poisonous cloak on an enemy shenanigans, but it's a pretty major de-powering of cursed items.


JoelF847 wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, this just raised another question for me: what if a character doesn't know something is magical? Can they still use it? Can they attune to it even though they don't know it's magical the same way a PF1 PC could slip on a Ring of Freedom of Movement and have no idea what it does until he goes for a swim?

This also raises the question of what about cursed items? Lets say you wear a ring of clumsiness, but don't invest resonance in it. Does the curse affect you? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but that leads to weird situations where you can use a volunteer (guinea pig) to try on items, and if the item seems to work as a ring of feather fall, you've found out it's actually a cursed item because it works on them even without investing resonance.

Alternatively, if cursed items don't work without investing resonance, then the threat of cursed items is reduced, since it's not an instant "ah-ha! you wore the poisonous cloak, take 4d6 Con damage!" Now this might be a good thing if it reduces the telekinesis the poisonous cloak on an enemy shenanigans, but it's a pretty major de-powering of cursed items.

Apparently they've done away with Identifying items, so I'm not entirely sure how cursed items (which hinge on people failing to identify them for what they are) will translate, if they will at all.

Unless their bad qualities are hidden until you invest resonance and then they spring on you. I guess that could work.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
JoelF847 wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, this just raised another question for me: what if a character doesn't know something is magical? Can they still use it? Can they attune to it even though they don't know it's magical the same way a PF1 PC could slip on a Ring of Freedom of Movement and have no idea what it does until he goes for a swim?

This also raises the question of what about cursed items? Lets say you wear a ring of clumsiness, but don't invest resonance in it. Does the curse affect you? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but that leads to weird situations where you can use a volunteer (guinea pig) to try on items, and if the item seems to work as a ring of feather fall, you've found out it's actually a cursed item because it works on them even without investing resonance.

Alternatively, if cursed items don't work without investing resonance, then the threat of cursed items is reduced, since it's not an instant "ah-ha! you wore the poisonous cloak, take 4d6 Con damage!" Now this might be a good thing if it reduces the telekinesis the poisonous cloak on an enemy shenanigans, but it's a pretty major de-powering of cursed items.

oh oh oh! The cursed item automatically takes some resonance from you each day, you don’t get a choice!


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

I am thinking that you may have it there. You don't find out that an item is cursed until it forceably drains your resonance the next day. Maybe you get some sort of skill check just before that happens?


I would imagine that the new identification goes something like this:

Anyone trained in Spellcraft* can spend a round studying an object to glean its properties, but you need to succeed on a check to tell if it's cursed or otherwise has secondary effects.

*Or whatever the PF2 version is


WatersLethe wrote:
edduardco wrote:

What level is this guy again? From previous post you already disregard WBL, an even if WBL are just guidelines you should know that a character with wealth above WBL is more powerful and should be accounted for it. I don't think that even 3.0 was designed with the idea in mind of having low level characters with lots gear, you are already bending the previous system, even if you think you are not, and is totally OK. I think Resonance more than creating new limits is making the actual limits more clear, but is flexible enough to be tuned how you like it.

He was level 6. I was running a high powered, high wealth campaign, which PF1e was perfectly happy to let me do. I didn't have to bend any rules besides WBL for this particular villain.

If houseruling out Resonance allows me to play this same campaign in the same manner, then I'll be reasonably happy to shrug and do it.

My biggest concern with Resonance right now is how deeply it will be ingrained in the rest of the system. Are there going to be class features I'll have to also patch if Resonance is gone? Will keeping Resonance but upping the pool size have bizarre unintended effects, like a feat that lets you turn Resonance into an extra spell slot? Will magic items be listed without costs or slots, and require me to house rule those back in too?

If Resonance is keeping me from playing in a manner I choose (despite PF1e not having that problem), and everyone's first reaction is to tell me to handwave it, then I want to make sure the designers are aware of what consequences Resonance might have on tables like mine.

I'd also hope that people will refrain from accusing me of badwrongfun, when the old system supported my badwrongfun just fine. Having playstyles gutted for a new edition doesn't feel nice already.

If you double or triple WBL, then you can double or triple resonance as well. It can even be an optional rule in the book for high k (or low) magic campaigns


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:


If you double or triple WBL, then you can double or triple resonance as well. It can even be an optional rule in the book for high k (or low) magic campaigns

If they have rules set out for high Resonance games, or fixed Resonance (Level 1 has the same Resonance as a Level 20 character), I'll have a lot fewer qualms about the system. In fact, there may be a benefit to having only level 20 characters bumping into the Resonance limit.


edduardco wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:

Just mark me in the camp of those skeptical of the resonance system as published.

Hmm.. maybe Paizo could do a poll when they unveil something new. Who likes it, who doesn't, etc..?

This is a decent idea, but I suspect the value gained from it is pretty much useless at this stage. Pathfinder is so complex with so many intertwined rules that until we have the full playtest package in hand to see how everything works together our feedback is mostly just guessing.
Agreed. My biggest fear is that all the major systems are already set in stone (like most betas in video games) and that either we are here just to squash bugs or our changes will make 2.0 a big, unbalanced mess (necessitating 3.0 in a few years).
I think they are already set in store, sort of. Paizo has been building PF2 from the past 2 years, you really think they are going to drop a core component of it and make a new one in less than a year? Given the level of complexity and intertwined systems PF has is quite difficult to re-balance the whole system all over again. The playtest is more to discover corner cases and polish the rough edges.

They have said that where they have a couple of options they are putting the more extreme one out to the public first. As I've mentioned resonance had all the hallmarks of such a system. I imagine they have a back up plan or two if it is truly horrendous.

Nothing I have read since first reading resonance has reassured me. It's starting to look a lot like a sledgehammer to crack a nut from where I'm sitting, so I'm hoping that either it is truly outstanding in play (i'm not holding my breath) or that they do have an alternative.


Perhaps Resonance can scale like the Toughness Feat?

You get 3 or your level, whichever is greater, plus CHA mod Resonance per day.


WatersLethe wrote:
If they have rules set out for high Resonance games, or fixed Resonance (Level 1 has the same Resonance as a Level 20 character), I'll have a lot fewer qualms about the system. In fact, there may be a benefit to having only level 20 characters bumping into the Resonance limit.

It seems like tuning the resonance limit for games which are more or less magic-rich is pretty easy. All you have to do is change the formula from "Level + ChaMod+1" to any other formula you want. I feel like this is a much better way to tune for "low magic" games too than we had in PF1.

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

Rysky wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
TheFinish wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, this just raised another question for me: what if a character doesn't know something is magical? Can they still use it? Can they attune to it even though they don't know it's magical the same way a PF1 PC could slip on a Ring of Freedom of Movement and have no idea what it does until he goes for a swim?

This also raises the question of what about cursed items? Lets say you wear a ring of clumsiness, but don't invest resonance in it. Does the curse affect you? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but that leads to weird situations where you can use a volunteer (guinea pig) to try on items, and if the item seems to work as a ring of feather fall, you've found out it's actually a cursed item because it works on them even without investing resonance.

Alternatively, if cursed items don't work without investing resonance, then the threat of cursed items is reduced, since it's not an instant "ah-ha! you wore the poisonous cloak, take 4d6 Con damage!" Now this might be a good thing if it reduces the telekinesis the poisonous cloak on an enemy shenanigans, but it's a pretty major de-powering of cursed items.

oh oh oh! The cursed item automatically takes some resonance from you each day, you don’t get a choice!

So if you're out of resonance for the day, the curse doesn't take hold until you rest?!?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

“Quick, give me some potions to chug. I’ve got to carry this cursed weapon out of the castle!”

801 to 823 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion