| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erik Mona says they break immersion, therefor we all must accept that they break immersion.
Then let's have stamina in PF2. Because the reliace on full hour bars seems to be the real sticking point against resonance.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is about 'None of the players wants to play the dedicated healer' but more of, 'We're 13 levels in and the player who played the healer suddenly has to leave the group because of reasons, so, is anyone not invested enough in his character at this point and wants to change? No? Well..."GM takes over the PC.
GM's too lazy to do that? Then he is going to have to modify future encounters to deal with the lack of a healer.
Too lazy for that? Find a new GM.
This isn't hard.
The GM has enough to do without trying to also do a player's job. It's got nothing to with "lazy" and everything to do with "I'm doing my job over here."
And if I'm running PFS, I can't modify jack OR run a PC. And if I'm running an AP, well, the reason I bought the AP is so the work of balance has been done for me (corner cases aside). If I have to reconceptualize every single encounter because the game demands a healbot and we don't have one then I might as well homebrew the whole darned thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a bit late to this, but I feel it is over complex and fiddly with no need.
I don't like this implementation of resonance, but I think there could be something to, using it to attune passive bonus items, avoiding an arbitrary limit on how many rings and amulets you can use while still providing a certain limit on buff-stacking--and a system that could spin off from that allowing the automatic scaling of passive items based on what you invest into them--and maybe spending some not necessarily on activating charged/consumable items, but perhaps on getting extra uses or supercharging the effect.
Overall, the idea seems to be to apply a certain degree of Occultist mechanics to magic items generally...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 5ish options for healers now (Alchemist, Cleric, Bard, Paladin, and Druid) assuming nothing major has changed. Hopefully someone wants to play one of these classes.
If the healing mechanically doesn't change then none of those are viable options. The only way that this ends up working with resonance if they end up just giving everyone a healing mechanic and if it scales far differently than the current spells.
I am a bit late to this, but I feel it is over complex and fiddly with no need.
How is it overly complex? It’s a pool of points with a simple calculation that is used to power magic items. If anything it is simpler than having to mark how many uses you have for five wands, two staves, and a sword that shoots fire X times per day.
Erik Mona says they break immersion, therefor we all must accept that they break immersion.
But Gandalf never used a wand of cure light wounds! Of course you never read about his party needing him to, but never mind about that.
Stupid pig question: Where can I read about resonance? I'm all "wha?" in this thread.
You can't, the info is in the podcast.
Oh FFSMS.
Thanks though!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) "Someone HAS to play a healer now."
Maybe.
There are 5ish options for healers now (Alchemist, Cleric, Bard, Paladin, and Druid) assuming nothing major has changed. Hopefully someone wants to play one of these classes.
Alchemist elixirs use... you guessed it... resonance!
If bards and druids work like PF1, the bard would have to spend a very precious spell known on a healing spell, and a druid would have to prepare healing spells instead of more interesting options.
So, either someone has to play a cleric or paladin, or else specifically play a bard or druid that is geared towards healing.
That's just not the game I'm interested in playing. It's nothing like PF1.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far I hate this implementation of Resonance enough that it feels like a dealbreaker.
Attuning magic items? Ok.
Magic item slots limited by Charisma? I can get on board.
This proposal feels like such a heavy-handed stretch to fix a minor annoynace of a problem.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic: It . . . actually doesn't seem bad. Are there still item slots? It seems like resonance might (in theory) suffice to solve the slot problem as well. Sure, go ahead and wear two amulets, it eats up the same resource as wearing an amulet and a ring. It'd open up more creative treasures that currently have to clear the hurdle of "oh no, it's off-slot".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erik Mona says they break immersion, therefor we all must accept that they break immersion.who (besides you just now) has ever expressed this sentiment that if Erik Mona says something no-one can question it?
Nice troll and entirely unhelpful post that lessens the discussion.
In the Know Direction podcast, Mona went on at some length about how much he hates -- and I mean hates -- CLW wands. Given the opacity of the devs thus far on the justification for this new system, we're semi-facetiously operating under the assumption that his pet peeve is the only reason for it. Not that we (or at least I) believe that, we're just having a bit of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knight Magenta raised a point I’d like to emphasize:
If we have Resonance instead of item slots, and only items that currently use item slots are affected by it, I have no problems. Then we could have a character wearing a ton of talismans, instead of boots, a cloak, a headband, a satchel, exactly two rings, glasses, and a mask to get the same effect. You could even have some items get more powerful as more resonance is invested into them (the fighter really needs his armor to have all the power he can get, the Rogue wants his Invisibility cloak to give him a huge bonus, etc.)
HOWEVER
It would have to not affect anything currently slotless- i.e. potions, wands, scrolls, figurines of wondrous power, bags of holding, feather tokens, flying carpets, etc. AT MINIMUM, Magic items need to have some effect (that could be boosted with resonance) that thy always have active, regardless of attunement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole talk of "I don't want to need any healers!" is what led 4e to such high amounts of non-magical healing, including 100% overnight healing. That's a dangerous path to go.
Also, the CLW spam problem is well know among players and people always ask for a way to fix it.
Semi-facetiously, indeed. What is the real problem being solved? I don't really find it that immersion-breaking if we just flavor it as activating the wand once and "tricordering" for a minute or two.
But from a "not fixing a problem, just shaking things up" perspective, I can't really fault this idea, at least until trying it out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole talk of "I don't want to need any healers!" is what led 4e to such high amounts of non-magical healing, including 100% overnight healing. That's a dangerous path to go.
Fair point. I'm not arguing against healers, though -- I am arguing against every table being obligated to have a healbot. There's a lot of territory between those two points, and I think what most of us are arguing about here is where the sweet spot is.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd much rather see something like diminishing returns from similar wands.
For instance: your first hit from a CLW wand (any CLW wand) heals you for the normal amount. The second is normal -2, then -4, and so on. Use whatever numbers/rate-of-decay balances best. You could even use other cure wands, potions, scrolls, etc., but the increasing penalty would apply to any/all CLW wands.
The more I think about it, givin how they've set up resonance to work, and the stated desire to make magic items more rare, makes me wonder if there'll even be a wand of CLW in PF2e.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole talk of "I don't want to need any healers!" is what led 4e to such high amounts of non-magical healing, including 100% overnight healing. That's a dangerous path to go.
Also, the CLW spam problem is well know among players and people always ask for a way to fix it.
I don't just want to need healers: I want having to proceed without healing to be a thing that can and does happen. Players are much more careful when having to proceed through a few APL-2 encounters might actually matter.
It's a different sort of game, though, and not everybody's cup of tea.
I'd much rather see something like diminishing returns from similar wands.
For instance: your first hit from a CLW wand (any CLW wand) heals you for the normal amount. The second is normal -2, then -4, and so on. Use whatever numbers/rate-of-decay balances best. You could even use other cure wands, potions, scrolls, etc., but the increasing penalty would apply to any/all CLW wands.
That was close to my first thought as well, but then we get into just keeping around wands of almost-the-same-thing to get around "similar", or else "similar" ends up nebulously defined, or else developers have to walk on glass whenever they release a new spell for fear of accidentally breaking the wand economy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a bit late to this, but I feel it is over complex and fiddly with no need.How is it overly complex? It’s a pool of points with a simple calculation that is used to power magic items. If anything it is simpler than having to mark how many uses you have for five wands, two staves, and a sword that shoots fire X times per day.
You leave off the skill checks and the ever changing pool , but yes as you laid, this is nonsensical and over complex
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance: your first hit from a CLW wand (any CLW wand) heals you for the normal amount. The second is normal -2, then -4, and so on. Use whatever numbers/rate-of-decay balances best. You could even use other cure wands, potions, scrolls, etc., but the increasing penalty would apply to any/all CLW wands.
That sounds awful, tons of bookkeeping for what exactly?
That was close to my first thought as well, but then we get into just keeping around wands of almost-the-same-thing to get around "similar", or else "similar" ends up nebulously defined, or else developers have to walk on glass whenever they release a new spell for fear of accidentally breaking the wand economy.I'd much rather see something like diminishing returns from similar wands.
For instance: your first hit from a CLW wand (any CLW wand) heals you for the normal amount. The second is normal -2, then -4, and so on. Use whatever numbers/rate-of-decay balances best. You could even use other cure wands, potions, scrolls, etc., but the increasing penalty would apply to any/all CLW wands.
I think there will be a lot of working around the Resonance economy though, and it won't just affect spells. We don't yet know how odious that burden will be -- whether it adds a little to the GM's plate or is manifested as a whole new heaping platter. It's going to add *something new* to the GM's consideration when writing or running a game, that's for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be more acceptable if instead of Resonance = Level + Charisma, were Resonance = 10 + half level + Charisma?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be more acceptable if instead Resonance = Level + Charisma, were Resonance = 10 + half level + Charisma?
I like 10 + the square root of pi x charisma rounded up to the highest prime number! ;)
PS: had to do a shout out to pi for pi day.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, in my experience, in PF1 you still kind of needed a healer, less so for HP restoring but moreso for a *lot* of condition removal. Party's in trouble if all they have is someone with a wand of CLW and no way to cast Restoration, Remove Curse/Disease/etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For instance: your first hit from a CLW wand (any CLW wand) heals you for the normal amount. The second is normal -2, then -4, and so on. Use whatever numbers/rate-of-decay balances best. You could even use other cure wands, potions, scrolls, etc., but the increasing penalty would apply to any/all CLW wands.That sounds awful, tons of bookkeeping for what exactly?
I have a feeling that we're going to get stuck with something that's extra bookkeeping, cumbersome, weird, etc. regardless, simply because CLW spamming and the Big 6 exist.
-Skeld
Would it be more acceptable if instead Resonance = Level + Charisma, were Resonance = 10 + half level + Charisma?I like 10 + the square root of pi x charisma rounded up to the highest prime number! ;)
PS: had to do a shout out to pi for pi day.
Eh, take it to Pizo's P1e forums. We here talking about PF2 are way too cool for that, and have been for what? 3.14 61-hour spans? Since it was announced, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erik said "my word is law and no player or employee besides James Jacob can dare question me"? Please give me the timestamp on that. I would love to hear it.
They were removed from the game in their current form and Erik has stated his dislike of them as a reason. Stop being a child.
CLW are a band-aid, they are not a problem. However, removing them because "Gandalf never used one" without drastically altering healing, attacking, and defense could be a massive problem. We currently don't have much of a good, rules-based, reason for removing them other than people not liking players using the most efficient and cost effective method in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more like CLW is a loophole to get a lot of healing for cheap price; Everyone was talking about the CLW spam, and honestly I'm happy to go away.
Everyone needs a healer. This is an almost omnipresent trope in RPGs. If were are going into a dangerous adventure, it is the wisest choice to have at least one person to take care of the wounds.
And by the way, what happened to CoDzilla stuff? Clerics are suddenly underpowered now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more like CLW is a loophole to get a lot of healing for cheap price; Everyone was talking about the CLW spam, and honestly I'm happy to go away.
Everyone needs a healer. This is an almost omnipresent trope in RPGs. If were are going into a dangerous adventure, it is the wisest choice to have at least one person to take care of the wounds.
And by the way, what happened to CoDzilla stuff? Clerics are suddenly underpowered now?
CoDzilla was sooooo 2 editions ago.
In 3.X it was a huge thing. Did this problem get solved by Pathfinder?
Still, Clerics don't seen "boring" to play now.
Also, this doesn't speak about the previous arguments.
You leave off the skill checks and the ever changing pool , but yes as you laid, this is nonsensical and over complexI am a bit late to this, but I feel it is over complex and fiddly with no need.How is it overly complex? It’s a pool of points with a simple calculation that is used to power magic items. If anything it is simpler than having to mark how many uses you have for five wands, two staves, and a sword that shoots fire X times per day.
I’m sorry but are you being facetious? The mechanic adds another situation to roll a D20 in a game full of mechanics that require you to roll D20s and that is an important part of it being complex for you? You just have to roll a 10 and if you roll a 1 you are cut off. I don’t see how that part is complex at all. And if you read my comment you would have seen the words “simple” and “calculation” next to each other. That references the amount that goes into the pool. Your level+ CHA modifier is neither complex nor ever changing, so I fail to see the issue with that point which was not left out of my comment as well.
I can get that if in your personal opinion you think it is nonsensical, but I think it is far from complex and don’t see where your criticism is coming from.
In 3.X it was a huge thing. Did this problem get solved by Pathfinder?
Still, Clerics don't seen "boring" to play now.
Also, this doesn't speak about the previous arguments.
PF1 got rid of most of the elements that made CoDzilla a problem.
Divine Power was changed to a better version of divine favor, which was also capped at +3/+3 (if it even had a cap before which idr).
Persistent Metamagic is completely different.
Divine Metamagic is tied to Mythic only characters and functions differently.
Polymorphing was also completely changed, making druids less effective at "I can do everything better than everyone else" builds.
Honestly, in my experience, in PF1 you still kind of needed a healer, less so for HP restoring but moreso for a *lot* of condition removal. Party's in trouble if all they have is someone with a wand of CLW and no way to cast Restoration, Remove Curse/Disease/etc.
"condition removal": this is often where scrolls/potions [or open slots, like from an alchemist with infusions] fill the gap. There is a BIG difference between a healbot 2000 and someone that can deal with conditions as a side job.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
CLW spammage is absolutely a problem.
For you maybe
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing no one has mentioned is that it looks like the Alchemit's class features create potions that other characters have to spend resonance to use. That seems kind of lame.
Consider PFS. If I build my character to function in any party, my resonance spending is probably planned out for the day in advanced. It seems like it would leave a very sad alchemist is all his allies say "your potions are nice, but not as nice as my laser sword. Keep them away from me!"
Also, can I say how lame potions that only heal 1d8 are? Rolling a 1 or a 2 feels so bad. Especially if you are using them as a hail-mary to save an ally in combat. In home games, we maximized the caster levels of all healing potions. That way CLW pots heal 1d8+5 and people are pretty happy to find and buy them at appropriate levels. Especially when a cure moderate will often full-heal a low-level character.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
CLW spammage is absolutely a problem.
I can say it absolutely isn't a problem... I'm not seeing how our personal view of that is going to move the debate in any one direction as there seems to be a clear divide in experiences with wand healing and game issues [or lack thereof].