Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 823 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
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.
thflame wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So as I see it, there are 3 main complaints:

1) "I want to be able to be reliably at full health before every combat, without having to expend my daily resources."

Honestly, this doesn't sound fun at all. We have never used CLW wands in our game, partially because nobody had ever thought about it and partially because it would suck the fun out of the game. I get that fun is subjective, but seriously. HP is a resource that should have to be managed. Why not just house rule that PCs fully heal after every fight? That's effectively what you want. I'd prefer not to play Call of Duty: Pathfinder.

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.

If not, the GM can either tweak encounters to closer fit the party makeup, or play an NPC healer.

Apparently a Medicine Check at a certain level of proficiency lets you heal HP damage anyway, so anyone can be a healer if necessary.

Some other form of balance can be in the works. Apparently the big 6 are less necessary or even non-existent, meaning our characters are likely tougher than usual. This may be a non-issue.

3) "My one time use items can be wasted."

Don't wait until you are out of resonance to use one time use items. We also don't know if scrolls are used up even if you fail. Potions are, because you have to drink them to get the effect. (Maybe they will let us take a "wretch action" to refill the bottle?) Maybe scrolls just don't work if you fail?

I personally like the mechanic. It adds a more heroic feel to the game.

Besides, why hire the level 10 adventurers to go on a quest, when you can just give a bunch of level 5s CLW wands and have them accomplish the same thing.

I have never had a group use CLW wands, and, outside of early levels, we don't use potions. We rarely have issues with people going down.

Furthermore, the way the Resonance system works, you are going to get, on average 2+ extra uses beyond your base resonance, so even the CHA 6 character has a couple goes at drinking potions at level 1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


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.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
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.


master_marshmallow wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This doesn’t sound like a very elegant system to me.


Oh FFSMS.

Thanks though!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
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.


This remembers me a little about Sadowrun essence. And I do like it as a concept, lets wait to have more details to critique it properly


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.
Igwilly wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.
Igwilly wrote:

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.


Skeld wrote:

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.
Cuttlefist wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
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.
Skeld wrote:
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?


blahpers wrote:
Skeld wrote:

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.

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?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this is one of those "we've got a few ideas for how to change something, and we're putting the most extreme one in the playtest" situations.

I hope it is because, frankly, this (specifically potions maybe not working) is the first seriously bad change I've seen.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
Skeld wrote:
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


graystone wrote:
edduardco wrote:
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.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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.
Igwilly wrote:

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.


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
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

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.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So... like the feat taxes of P1 we now have the Ability Score Tax in P2?

This seems like a huge step back in order to make Charisma relevant.


Igwilly wrote:

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.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.


CLW spammage is absolutely a problem.

As for the comment about resting up before a fight, if it is a short rest like Starfinder (10 minutes) than that actually makes sense and provides some dramatic tension. Did you kill the lieutenant without him getting word to the bad guy? Is his boss expecting to hear in from him now and can you get away with bandaging up before the final fight? As it stands now there isn't really a choice, you just spam the heal stick and rush in.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
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.
Arakasius wrote:
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].

301 to 350 of 823 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards