Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 823 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Perhaps, I can say only that in every group I've played with using any kind of 3.X it was the first major purchase for all of them. Though I'd have to say, that to me, the nuclear option is the banning of wands of CLW.


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

“I have not encountered this problem”

Is not the same as “This problem doesn’t exist”

Players in my games no matter what the campaign will pool resources to buy a wand of Cure Light Wounds as quickly as possible. Precisely so that they can heal back to maximum hit points between almost every encounter.

It’s just smart: 750 gp now saves you 5,000 gp of Diamond Dust later. Or worse having to spend an hour in the penalty box making a new character.

It’s also the least narratively interesting thing to do between fights. However spending 15 minutes readjusting armour, bandaging wounds and roleplaying between characters feels like something that could happen in a fantasy novel.

First, I'd like to point out that from what you've said it seems the players don't have a problem with it, but you do. If that's the case, then your perspective is the problem, not the wand of CLW. If the players don't want to be using a wand of CLW, and you don't want them to either, then why are you letting them buy one? The game works just fine without them, you just have to find other ways to heal up that you seem to prefer over easy, cheap out of combat heals.

That's why I say CLW wand spam is a problem that doesn't exist. To some it's a nice feature, to others it's a non-issue because they don't have Ye Olde Wand Shoppes on every corner.

Second, the argument that using CLW wands to heal up is narratively uninteresting just doesn't hold water with me. Breaking up the action to run home and heal over a few days is uninteresting to me. Our groups gloss over the wand use so it's "Okay, I use X charges to heal everyone. Mind if I use average health per cast? Cool. Let's continue."

I actually prefer the idea that they get nervous because their wands are running low, rather than the idea that they have to decide whether to foolishly continue on with blood gushing from open wounds or come back the next day.

So implementing Resonance to solve the CLW "problem" does one thing: it removes the CLW option from games that like that playstyle, while leaving games that didn't use wands unaffected. Now the wand crowd has to house rule to get it back, whereas no house rule was required for limiting wands before because shopping was already well within the purview of GM discretion.


My concern with Resonance is that it is a method of limiting items and once that limit is reached nothing interesting happens. No method of overclocking a wand, no diminished returns on potions, no dice table of interesting outcomes, just failure. I've not encountered the wand problem mentioned by others in my games or in games I've played in(never played in PFS). Granted we all have our hacks and preferences with our games. Eternal wands and scrolls, dice tables, and other oddities have their place and use in the games I run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Easy way to fix CLW wand spam is change them to X/day items rather than 50 charges and done.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Easy way to fix CLW wand spam is change them to X/day items rather than 50 charges and done.

I think i'd prefer that. I never liked the whole idea of wands being consumables in the first place.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pandora's wrote:
Resonance isn't a solution in search of a problem. It's a unification of all per-day magic item usage as well as a replacement of the body slot system. That fits their design goals of fewer mechanics and mechanics that allow more meaningful decisions.

I have serious issues with using Resonance to replace the body slot system. Resonance increases as you level, so you can wear more stuff as you level. Why can a low level person wear less magical gear than higher level person? This system pulls the answer to that question out of thin air. "Wuhh, you have uh less magic charisma powers so uh you're not magically strong enough". Ignoring the hand waving, the reason is that the game designers want to limit how much gear low level characters can utilize in the name of balance. That's Item Level by another name.

If I let my players break into an ancient magical storehouse and get some really serious gear, they should be able to utilize it, not just one or two pieces. I designed my story around that possibility, but the game system is blocking me from doing that for no other reason than the developers want to give Charisma a shot in the arm and implement Item Levels in secret.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Perpendicular to the topic at hand, I've seen miscibility tables come up a lot so far. If you'd like a bland-but-serviceable one, I wrote one for alchemical concoctions - you can find it in Adventurer's Armory 2. I expect it'll work in PF2 with only minor tweaking. And yes, Counter Monkey fans, it can cause them to explode inside you. ^_^

If you'd like a more exotic and chaotic table, I'm sure there's one out there. I don't have one like that for you... at least, not yet.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

*nods*

I posted this in the wand threads but I wouldn't mind a Wand with limited uses per day, with higher quality wands having more uses per day.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Isabelle Lee wrote:

Perpendicular to the topic at hand, I've seen miscibility tables come up a lot so far. If you'd like a bland-but-serviceable one, I wrote one for alchemical concoctions - you can find it in Adventurer's Armory 2. I expect it'll work in PF2 with only minor tweaking. And yes, Counter Monkey fans, it can cause them to explode inside you. ^_^

If you'd like a more exotic and chaotic table, I'm sure there's one out there. I don't have one like that for you... at least, not yet.

Ooooooo I like that one! Especially with all the looks of the drinks.


Hythlodeus wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

and as soon as wands of CMN or wands of CSW are in the cards, no one thinks twice about CLW anymore, so it is not like a bunch of 14th level characters are jerking their wands in a circle for hours of gameplay.

And as you said yourself, these wands are a way to play without dedicated healer (which can happen sometimes), so it's in itself a solution to a problem

Unfortunately that isn’t true, as people tend to just stock up on CLW wands due to being significantly cheaper (and maybe having one CM or CS for use in combat of it calls for it).
in 18 years of playing 3.x I have never witnessed that behaviour, but again, if it comes up, why wouldn't the GM just restrict access to wands of CLW? why is the nuclear option the only way to adress a fringe problem?

Anyone sensible uses wands of CLW for most out-of-combat healing. Wands of CMW are a waste of precious money and healing spells are a waste of precious life-saving spell slots.

If your group prefers a less cost-efficient method, that's fine, but healing with wands of CMW isn't much different in its effect on gameplay. You're still rolling about the same number of dice, it just takes a fewer rounds (rather than less table time) and costs about three times as much.

The question isn't, "Why doesn't the GM just restrict access to CLW wands?" It's, "Is there a problem with the PCs using lots of CLW wands?"

The main impact on gameplay of healing with unlimited-use consumables is that it makes it very hard for the game designers to gauge encounters-per-day. A wand-healing group can handle maybe eight encounters a day, while a group that relies on spell slots to heal might only be able to handle four.

So the purpose of Resonance may be to make the encounters-per-day math actually work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
Perhaps, I can say only that in every group I've played with using any kind of 3.X it was the first major purchase for all of them. Though I'd have to say, that to me, the nuclear option is the banning of wands of CLW.

really? how many 'innocent bystanders' do you get rid off if you just don't allow wands, how many if you cap the ability to use magic items in general? Resonance clearly has the higher body count


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:
Nothing is more unheroic than sitting around for a minute or more after combat poking everyone with a clw wand.
Leaving the townsfolk trapped in a cultist-controlled cathedral while you go back to the inn for a night's sleep is significantly less heroic than sitting around for a minute or more after combat poking everyone with a clw wand.

And this is a problem with adventures that push you to keep exploring by presenting a ticking clock mechanic that is at odds with a system that rewards you for going at your own pace and conserving resources. You kinda get it in crypt of the everflame (save the sister) all the way to the war of the crown adventure. Burning the wand was a way to get around the mechanics and return to the narrative. Resonance implies a rather extreme change to adventure structure, and that makes me very wary. But, it’s also so tied into other things that we will have to wait to see how it interacts with all the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:
Nothing is more unheroic than sitting around for a minute or more after combat poking everyone with a clw wand.
Leaving the townsfolk trapped in a cultist-controlled cathedral while you go back to the inn for a night's sleep is significantly less heroic than sitting around for a minute or more after combat poking everyone with a clw wand.
I doubt that is the default solution people will opt for now. After all the wand-spam is a tool to help in fulfilling the quest. Going back to town for a nights rest is basically abandoning the quest. I doubt people will have that little interest in completing their task/continuing the story.

Seriously? "I'm slightly scuffed, I'm not moving another foot until I get healing" is a common sentiment at every Pathfinder table I've played at, from home games to PFS, as is "Rushing in when we're depleted will just get us all killed. We need to wait until tomorrow so we can get our spells/abilities back." The system doesn't encourage the kind of boldness you're talking about, and it never will as long as the last fight is the always the hardest and most taxing fight.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:


The main impact on gameplay of healing with unlimited-use consumables is that it makes it very hard for the game designers to gauge encounters-per-day. A wand-healing group can handle maybe eight encounters a day, while a group that relies on spell slots to heal might only be able to handle four.

So the purpose of Resonance may be to make the encounters-per-day math actually work.

I prefer when a party's decision to stop for the day is weighted by availability of combat resources like spells and use/day abilities, rather than just current HP totals. If removing easy healing options like wands of CLW makes parties more frequently leave the dungeon despite having ample combat options remaining, I think the solution is worse than the problem it tried to solve.

Also, as others have mentioned, it means you're more likely to force someone to play a healbot, which should never be a goal in this game.


On paper, I don't mind that permanent magic items need attunement to actually get benefits. Limits the magic christmas tree, stacks of fiddly mods, makes cha vaguely relevant, and all that nonsense combined with the fact the big six should be mostly dead are all nice things in my book.

Consumables though is a harder pill to swallow. I hated CLW wands as much as the next guy but, as others have mentioned, it sounds like a way to utterly kill game pace and heavily favor dragging around the token cleric UNLESS you add something like short rest or Starfinder's resolve point totally-not-short-rest to help alleviate that. If PF2 does pack a permutation of those, the system at least on paper seems vaguely workable.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Easy way to fix CLW wand spam is change them to X/day items rather than 50 charges and done.

That wouldn't fix the problem though. The problem isn't that the wands have 50 charges, it's that a wand of CLW is far more economically efficient than higher level wands. If you change wands to x/day items, the problem will still be there: it will still be cheaper to buy multiple wands of CLW and spam them over the course of the day than to buy one wand of a higher level cure spell. To fix this, you'd have to drastically change the math on magic item costs or drastically change the way healing spells work. It's difficult to do the first because that pricing method is an important balancing factor for non-healing spells, while it's difficult to do the second because the way cure spells work is an important balancing factor for them.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I hated CLW wands as much as the next guy

I love CLW wands.

I think they're a wonderful feature of the game, that allow you to play any character you want rather than forcing someone to play "the healer".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If resonance was a mechanic in a new RPG that wasn't set on Golarion, I probably wouldn't mind as much. As it is, this is a world in which you'd have to have some sort of Spellplague level event to explain why suddenly potions suddenly become unreliable. I know the "Big 6" are getting phased out, but the more drastic the changes you make to the rule system where it is welded to the setting, the weirder it'll get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I hated CLW wands as much as the next guy

I love CLW wands.

I think they're a wonderful feature of the game, that allow you to play any character you want rather than forcing someone to play "the healer".

There's other ways to solve that problem than sitting around as some clown throws d8+1 rolls (till your GM snaps and averages it to 5) and maybe UMD rolls as well. Short Rest and Resolve are far more elegant solutions in my mind and accomplish the same thing in terms of build variety.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It probably is part of reducing rocket tag issues (it also goes in with having higher hit point totals) Point is it is totally unrealistic for a party of adventurers to be at full health before every fight. Also the prevalence of CLW spammage basically means battles become a binary thing. Is the party dead? Nope, we just heal up to full and do the next battle again. Most damage classes in the game are not cooldown limited anyway (sub optimal blasters excepted) So it basically becomes each battle is the controller doing 1-2 spells to control the battlefield while the melee/ranged dps wade in to do rocket tag and then you repeat each battle until the controller no longer has relevant spells and you're forced to rest. Which doesn't make for very engaging gameplay, and certainly makes for even less engaging spectating.

House rules yes can fix the CLW spammage issue, but the core rules need to work for PFS play which means they need to take care of them in an official way. CLW encourages rocket tagging gameplay, undercuts the narrative of the game and the heroes, makes for tedious moments and is completely unrealistic.

We need to see more details on the magic item system too to see how this works. Are items no longer x/daily and you can use activatable items as long as you have resonance? That would be neat. We also need to know more on what abilities of items actually require it. I assume an item giving you a cantrip costs 1 at start of day, but something where you shoot a bolt of fire from your sword is probably 1 each time you use it.

I think removing potion usage from it could be useful as long as potions aren't made cheap enough to replace the CLW wand. Weight alone probably makes it not tenable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We could easily fix potion and scroll usage vs resonance investment with a simple mechanic like this one:

Without resonance investment, a potion or scroll works at its minimum caster level (ie CL 1 for 1st-level spells). But if you invest resonance either it works with maximum effect (d8 becomes 8) or it works at the user's current character level.

An easy way to get around the necessity of having a dedicated healer in the group would be to beef up the effects of the Heal skill. Maybe on a successful Heal skill check, with one minute of work, you could "treat serious wounds" and heal 1d6+LVL of hit points. Or something similar.


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

Just to be clear: It is my understanding that items that you "wear" or that are consumed to benefit you use up Resonance, whereas items that you "wield" or that are consumed for non-beneficial purposes do not. Do I have this right?

So, if I have this right, wands of Cure X Wounds use up the Resonance of the target who is healed, but wands of Fireball or Magic Missile do not use up any Resonance. I am less sure about how non-harmless buffs like Enlarge Person would be handled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resonance for consumables feels wrong.

It's fine as an item slot replacement, but for things like healing potions it feels wrong. You either force healers (like an MMO) or healing spells eat this resource turning them into healing surges (aka 4e D&D)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Nope, nope, and double nope on Resonance. Doesn't fit my concept of the game I've been playing for over 30 years and I just don't like it! Others may love it, and that's cool, but for me...no go.

Not a deal breaker, because I can easily house-rule it out, but I don't like it at all. If you want to limit spamming of wands...then limit the availability of wands, or limit how often per day they can be used.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
it will still be cheaper to buy multiple wands of CLW

then make them more expensive. restrict access. not every shop in the region will have dozens of CLW wands lying around just for your group to buy it. this is a 'problem' that's so easy to solve if you want.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I.. Really like defending 2e, but not this system... I really want to know what the design philosophy behind this system was. Was it simply top stop "CLW wand" spam? There's other ways to fix it. I don't see how this fixes the big 6 either way. So why exactly did this rule need to be created? You want to incentivize consumables and "non-optimal" magic items right? Those are fun! I don't believe this helps at all with that.


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

It doesn't seem that difficult to modify rules wise. Just dump it. Life goes on.

Hythlodeus wrote:
If coffee would stop working, I would have died years ago

The effects would plateau, and that appears to be the case with Resonance. Once it plateaus/depletes, then you are making checks to attempt to get use out of magical resonance.

I kinda like it actually. But I will reserve my judgment until we actually have more solid information on it.


I can see resonance working for most magic items including Wands/Staves as long s it is replacing the charge mechanic. Scrolls are a bit of a tough sell but I could see that working as well. Maybe anyone can use a scroll with resonance but a spell caster can use a spell on their list at/below their CL without it?

I don't think potions should be limited by resonance though it just doesn't make sense. You could but in a rule abut drinking too many potions in a short time making you sick. Or make healing potions have a non negligible weight/bulk and/or an expiration date.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I.. Really like defending 2e, but not this system... I really want to know what the design philosophy behind this system was. Was it simply top stop "CLW wand" spam? There's other ways to fix it. I don't see how this fixes the big 6 either way. So why exactly did this rule need to be created? You want to incentivize consumables and "non-optimal" magic items right? Those are fun! I don't believe this helps at all with that.

It also fixed the christmas tree item slot issue as well as the tracking 10 different items that have x/daily individually instead of in one collective pool. Yes it fixes CLW as well, but it also vastly simplifies item tracking.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I.. Really like defending 2e, but not this system... I really want to know what the design philosophy behind this system was. Was it simply top stop "CLW wand" spam? There's other ways to fix it. I don't see how this fixes the big 6 either way. So why exactly did this rule need to be created? You want to incentivize consumables and "non-optimal" magic items right? Those are fun! I don't believe this helps at all with that.

I actually see a problem here with 'getting rid of the big six'

If the goal of PF2 is to get rid of the big six and feats that are popular and standard to take, Resonance completely destroys that goal.
I'm pretty sure sooner or later there will be either a feat or an item that either helps you to get more Resonance points or bypass spending them in some form.
Guess what? That feat will be the first feat that will be the new standard feat that everyone takes. That item will be the first of the NEW big six.


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

Also, this is worse than item level in Starfinder, which was just a guideline. This is a hard item level.

Imagine all the equipment you own as a single item with all the effects combined. Let's say you have a ring of slow fall, a headband of true sight, a cloak of stealth, and boots of striding and springing. Together they're a Level 4 item, that is, without a +cha mod you have to be level 4 before you can use all of them. If you're lower level you have to stick with the a Level 3 item that doesn't have the boot effects, for example.

Sure, you are generally going to get less than or around 1 magic item per level in most games, but don't forget this also eats into your potion/wand use.

"I inherited my grandfather's magic cloak, but I can't use it right now because I just found a sweet pair of boots."

"These mythical gauntlets imbue the wearer with the crushing grip of a giant! Or at least they would, if you didn't chug three potions on the way here."

"You find the dying hero at the base of the mountain. With his last breath he begs you to take up his Angel Raiment and use it to fly to the peak and finish off the demon he left badly wounded. So, that'll have to wait until tomorrow when you get your Resonance back. You really shouldn't have put on those X-ray glasses earlier."


Although I'm all for giving more relevance to Charisma I'm not so sure that I like it tied to magic items, but anyway if someone can come up with a better name than Resonance that would be great.

Now I must confess that when I first read about Resonance I have knee-jerk reaction of NOOO, but after some though I can get behind that if it fixes some issues that I have with magic items:

First of all, that it replaces charged items, I have never liked that wands are consumables, or the uses per day in items like rods, an unified mechanic would certainly improve things, now you can decide how many times you want to use certain item instead of an arbitrary cap of 3/day.

And second, that potions and wands (or any other magic item for that matter) are no longer capped, I have never understood why wands and potions have a spell level cap, please get reap of caps.

Also, the other reason I can get behind this idea is that is not so uncommon to hear about limits of how much magic can a person wear or use, after so much their body or soul cannot resist or lose control of it, I think Resonance is trying to emulate that too.

As for the suggestion of using Constitution for potions I would vote no, maybe it will be more "realistic" but it would complicate things even more by tracking more scores, leave it all at Charisma.


Bardarok wrote:

I can see resonance working for most magic items including Wands/Staves as long s it is replacing the charge mechanic. Scrolls are a bit of a tough sell but I could see that working as well. Maybe anyone can use a scroll with resonance but a spell caster can use a spell on their list at/below their CL without it?

I don't think potions should be limited by resonance though it just doesn't make sense. You could but in a rule abut drinking too many potions in a short time making you sick. Or make healing potions have a non negligible weight/bulk and/or an expiration date.

Good call with Scrolls. They should be like potions in that they don't use resonance either. I think one-use consumables really need to be out of this system. They are used by low-level characters to increase their longevity and have never been a source of imbalance, just the wands.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that it's really unclear how Resonance should work with Potions and Scrolls. They just don't feel like they're in the same league as other items, and you can curb abuse by managing their price if necessary.

As for wands, one thing that jumps out at me is that by virtue of this even existing it radically changes the whole "you're responsible for your own healing" attitude in PFS. If you can't hand a wand off to the friendly neighborhood "person who can actually activate it" and expect them to actually have Resonance remaining to fire a charge off when you need it, then characters without the ability to use healing items are going to be in some trouble.

Other people have mentioned the idea of 5e style wands that don't have charges, with associated limited per-day charges as another way to prevent spamming of CLW. Assuming it's financially impractical for characters to buy them in bulk this can do that, but it has some awkward implications for world building. Essentially infinite healing (even if you have to spread those uses out over multiple days) in a world where crafting and purchasing magic items is the expected norm has some weird implications. Do large cities have hospitals well stocked with wands? The limited charges in PF1 wands put a cap on that, but what happens if they don't exist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our group almost never used consumables, so the one point of this that I would not like won't be an issue at our table.

But so far, this is the biggest change from PF1 for me.


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

Also, if we're getting rid of item slots I worry that they're going to start printing items without clarifying where they're worn, so house ruling out Resonance becomes a whole lot more difficult.

They mentioned being able to wear a bunch of amulets. How about 3 pairs of boots? 11 rings? 6 pairs of pants? I'd like it if they keep item slots to avoid that kind of confusion.

I hope they're not thinking that Resonance will help with loot distribution, because potion and wand users are going to be shafted in that regard. "I'm not going to attune this necklace because I might use a potion later. What? No you can't have it, you never gave me back the belt from last time."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rooneg wrote:

I agree that it's really unclear how Resonance should work with Potions and Scrolls. They just don't feel like they're in the same league as other items, and you can curb abuse by managing their price if necessary.

As for wands, one thing that jumps out at me is that by virtue of this even existing it radically changes the whole "you're responsible for your own healing" attitude in PFS. If you can't hand a wand off to the friendly neighborhood "person who can actually activate it" and expect them to actually have Resonance remaining to fire a charge off when you need it, then characters without the ability to use healing items are going to be in some trouble.

Potions and scrolls could have different effects without resonance and with resonance: minimum effect/CL without resonance and maximized or at CL=character level with resonance investment.

I just wrote a rather lengthy post suggesting several ways to finesse the suggested resonance investment mechanic so I won't repeat it all here. But there are ways to improve the mechanic we have only glimpsed so far.


WatersLethe wrote:

Also, if we're getting rid of item slots I worry that they're going to start printing items without clarifying where they're worn, so house ruling out Resonance becomes a whole lot more difficult.

They mentioned being able to wear a bunch of amulets. How about 3 pairs of boots? 11 rings? 6 pairs of pants? I'd like it if they keep item slots to avoid that kind of confusion.

I hope they're not thinking that Resonance will help with loot distribution, because potion and wand users are going to be shafted in that regard. "I'm not going to attune this necklace because I might use a potion later. What? No you can't have it, you never gave me back the belt from last time."

They specifically mentioned that no, you won’t be able to wear multiple pairs of magic boots.


Can't you attuned (invest) resonance at start so you can freely use CLW wand?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ulgulanoth wrote:
I don't know why there is so much hate on the idea of resonance, especially for potions. I think it is an elegant system that changes up the game enough to make it interesting again.

Because when you think about it, the resonance system for potions doesn't make any sense unless we overhaul all of Pathfinder's magic.

One could say, "There's only so much magical accoutrements a character can handle at once." Mandarin be damned, you can't have ten magical rings at a time. Perhaps the mortal body isn't suited to handle two rings, a necklace, a hat, a cloak, some armor, gloves, belt, boots, and a pair of weapons, all enchanted to constantly give you powers and abilities. Is that healthy? Could all that effectively have downsides such as draining your spirit? Maybe.

But potions are essentially spells being cast upon you, in a small (~1 oz. of fluid if I recall correctly) form, by you with no expenditure of effort or will. Is resonance going to limit how many spells can be cast upon you in a day? Will party buffs stop working if you've already exceeded your magical limits? Will you automatically save against hold person spells at a certain point because your body refuses to accept any more magic? If the answer to those is yes, well, it's stupid but consistent. If the answer is no, then there's no reason to limit potion usage, because that is just someone--anyone, even the commoner on the street--popping a cork and swilling some liquid. It doesn't take a command word, it doesn't take even the effort that activating a wand would.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gosh, there are some very funny (ha ha) posts in this thread! (Thumbs up)


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I genuinely don't get what problem this whole system is trying to solve. Is it *just* that some people on the design team don't like wands of CLW? Because there are many, many, many better and simpler solutions for that.

Is it that the design team wants to drastically limit the number of magic items that players can use? If so, why? Isn't the magic mart a core assumption of making effective characters in 3.x? Even if you don't need the Big 6 (and I applaud that idea, but that problem was fixed with Unchained) then this is still building an intrusive superstructure that never existed before to solve a relatively simple problem.

Besides, hasn't D&D always had as a significant goal the accumulation and use of magic items? Why limit that like this?

And if the idea is to make Charisma vital...well...why? If you're trying to streamline the system and you discover that a given stat is nigh-useless, then surely the logical reaction is to eliminate the stat, not create a bunch of new things that rely on the stat. Even barring that, why is it a bad thing that some stats are more useful than others? Is it such a bad thing that Charisma only gets pumped if you want to be charismatic?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Can't you attuned (invest) resonance at start so you can freely use CLW wand?

As I understand it investing resonance is for worn items, not activated ones. Activated items cost resonance whenever you use them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking on it some more, I don't think resonance should apply to potions or scrolls, but I do like this as a replacement for charges on wands and staves. It is a lot more interesting than charges, while giving a character a good method to specialize.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Is it *just* that some people on the design team don't like wands of CLW?

In the Know Direction interview, Erik Mona revealed that he doesn't like those wands.


ericthecleric wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
Is it *just* that some people on the design team don't like wands of CLW?
In the Know Direction interview, Erik Mona revealed that he doesn't like those wands.

This is more than just CLW wands, this is also replacing the body slots, and hopefully charged items.

I will also support the idea of exempting single use magic items of Resonance cost


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ericthecleric wrote:


In the Know Direction interview, Erik Mona revealed that he doesn't like those wands.

I saw that, and it occurred to me that the best solution to that problem, if a solution was deemed necessary for one guy's pet peeve, was to ban wands of CLW. There, problem solved. You don't need to build a whole new system to justify why using them is now suboptimal.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's another side effect of potions using resonance (that's the only thing I know for sure has to go, so that's what I'm pushing for strongest. Everything else, we'll wait and see):

Imagine the scenario:
In a climactic fight with a dragon, a fairly unpopular commoner, fleeing the fight, was struck by a collapsing building and is bleeding out on the ground. The fighter, wanting to help the commoner, rushes over, fumbling for his emergency potion. He pours it down the throat of the dying man.... and it does nothing. The poor guy, level 1 with a -1 CHA modifier, has no resonance points, and fails the coin toss for the potion to work. He dies anticlimactically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:


This is more than just CLW wands, this is also replacing the body slots, and hopefully charged items.

I will also support the idea of exempting single use magic items of Resonance cost

I understand the idea of wanting to get away from the Big 6, but doesn't simply banning stat/save/to hit boosts from items and giving inherent character bonuses already do that? The system in unchained was workable, and if tweaks were needed then tweaks could be made. How in the world is it better, or "more Pathfindery" to make everything you do tally against some score determined by how likable you are?

In thinking about it, it's partially the fact that this system is based on Charisma that's bothering me. There is no logical, in-game explanation for why people who are more fun at parties should be able to use magical items more often. It's strictly a metagame construct to boost the usefulness of a stat that the designers have decided is underutilized.

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

That's a really limited view of what charisma represents.

151 to 200 of 823 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards