Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

351 to 400 of 823 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Good to know.
Still, needing a healer is something everyone can deal with, and Clerics still don't seen to be boring.

There are already people who like to play healers. Instead of making healers "fun" for everyone else, why we don't think about healers being better at healing while still doing something else, improving healers for people who like healers? Healing should be the main thing of a healer, but not the whole thing, neither a side-job.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This subsystem stinks on ice. Streamlining rules shouldn't lead to MORE per-day bookkeeping.

If you remove the need for the Big Six, item slots work just fine. The problem before was this stupid arms race, where no one would give up their Big Six item in favor of a cool new item if it used up the same slot.

If CLW Wands are the real problem, make wands limited per day, make them more expensive, and remove the magic item shops. Seriously, throw all that wealth by level and formulaic magic item pricing out the damn window. You can't abuse wands you don't have.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey there all!

Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there.

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or just get rid of wands and have staves be cheap?

I like turning UMD into a core mechanic on all classes, but I'm not sure I like it being a limited resource.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there.

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.

I blame Erik!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TwoWolves wrote:


This subsystem stinks on ice. Streamlining rules shouldn't lead to MORE per-day bookkeeping.

If you remove the need for the Big Six, item slots work just fine. The problem before was this stupid arms race, where no one would give up their Big Six item in favor of a cool new item if it used up the same slot.

If CLW Wands are the real problem, make wands limited per day, make them more expensive, and remove the magic item shops. Seriously, throw all that wealth by level and formulaic magic item pricing out the damn window. You can't abuse wands you don't have.

Body slots is only half the issue, the other half are charged items not only CLW wands. I really fail to see how Resonance cause more bookkeeping than having multiple wands, rods, and staves, each one with their one pool of resources.

Resonance is an elegant systems that address two clunky systems, body slots and charged items. Taking care of CLW wands is just icing on the cake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:

CLW spammage is absolutely a problem.

Again: where? In organized play? Can be. But if you can't control your players at your home table, it's probably not a problem of the system


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:


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.

Yes, it is complex, they basically took 5e's solution and went "how could we make this more complex and fiddly then it need be?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the issue with CLW spam is that it breaks the assumptions of certain scenarios. If you're the sort of person who writes modules, APs, etc. I figure it's reasonable to make "the party is going to just power through the entire dungeon without ever resting, because their non-wand resource expenditure is minimal" go away.


Sure we can control it at the table, and I've done it by doing wand buying by item rolls (to see what's available) and they only got CLW once. But if I had a crafter in my party who could make them it would be more of an issue.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there.

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.

With no context this isn't the most helpful of posts. How many magic items did they have? Did they use wands? Potions? Scrolls? What level were they?

Is there going to be an archetype for people that want to be a walking wand armada? That's still a concept that has never worked out. Eternal Wands in 3/3.5 got close though.

I apologize, but at this point in time I don't see how this streamlines the game at all.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:


Resonance is an elegant systems

You call it an elegant system, I call it a blunt weapon. We will see in August


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the issue with CLW spam is that it breaks the assumptions of certain scenarios. If you're the sort of person who writes modules, APs, etc. I figure it's reasonable to make "the party is going to just power through the entire dungeon without ever resting, because their non-wand resource expenditure is minimal" go away.

The CLw issue is not a wand issue, its not magic item issue. Its a lack of healing issue. And that needs addressed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
Sure we can control it at the table, and I've done it by doing wand buying by item rolls (to see what's available) and they only got CLW once. But if I had a crafter in my party who could make them it would be more of an issue.

If you had a crafter in the party he'd still need time to actually craft


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Finally got around to listening to the podcast section that covered resonance. Another thing to track daily YAY! (sarcasm) I know we don't know the whole picture yet, but it sounds terrible to me. I get they want to reduce magic items, but why link it to charisma, other than it's your typical dump stat, once again nerfing the fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the issue with CLW spam is that it breaks the assumptions of certain scenarios. If you're the sort of person who writes modules, APs, etc. I figure it's reasonable to make "the party is going to just power through the entire dungeon without ever resting, because their non-wand resource expenditure is minimal" go away.

I think just as many scenarios assume you HAVE CLW spam, so you break something no matter what you do. Myself, I think it's just as reasonable to KEEP it as is. I can see a optional rule for those that want to make a 'punishing' adventure without adequate healing but I don't see why it MUST be made the standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

As I've said before, arguing over whether wands of CLW present a problem or not feels to me like it's kind of missing the point entirely. From the most abstract standpoint (ignoring both flavor and mechanics) there currently exists a way for a group to spend money resources on their healing instead of class choice or spells known/prepared. In its current form, this trade-off is effective enough and efficient enough that large portions of the player base are comfortable using this alternate resource for their healing needs.

As it is now, the changes being made going into PF2 are removing the current iteration of that exchange (CLW wands specifically). What we don't know yet, based on the information we've been presented so far, is whether or not that ability to exchange has been replaced with something similarly effective. Because who really cares if you can or can't use a wand of CLW fifty times in a single day if you can approximate a healer with "option Y" instead?

As long as there's some way to spend resources other than class choice or spells known/prepared to approximate a healer (it doesn't have to, and probably shouldn't, be exactly as good as having one), I'll be satisfied by the system. I think most people arguing for the existence of CLW wands in their current form really mean to be arguing for the existence of anything that allows a group to function sufficiently well without requiring a specific role, because there exists sufficient numbers of players who don't enjoy filling that role. The specifics of the exchange are less important than its existence, I think. So far I've been impressed enough by the changes we've seen so far to be willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt and believe that they aren't just stripping an important element of choice from the game entirely. If that new option makes more thematic sense for people than CLW spamming, then both camps can be happy with the result.

Until we know for certain whether or not some "option Y" exists, all we can really do is go in circles about the importance of having one.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:

Good to know.

Still, needing a healer is something everyone can deal with, and Clerics still don't seen to be boring.

Golarion has many gods that would slap a cleric of theirs for serving as a Primary Healer.

Cleric is a great class. Give it (and other classes) fantastic feats for a Primary Healer, but do *not* expect a party to have a Primary Healer, and do *not* expect any given Cleric to fill that role.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

Good to know.

Still, needing a healer is something everyone can deal with, and Clerics still don't seen to be boring.

Golarion has many gods that would slap a cleric of theirs for serving as a Primary Healer.

Cleric is a great class. Give it (and other classes) fantastic feats for a Primary Healer, but do *not* expect a party to have a Primary Healer, and do *not* expect any given Cleric to fill that role.

Not Pathfinder,but I play cleric of Tempus in a ongoing 5e game. I can count on one hand how many times I have healed, well anyone. Clerics re not walking bandaids or medics. So I agree with you here


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Rabble! rabble! rabble! rabble!

At least the pitchforks and torches aren't out yet. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Rabble! rabble! rabble! rabble!

At least the pitchforks and torches aren't out yet. ;)

Looks up from sharpening his pitchfork.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Rabble! rabble! rabble! rabble!

At least the pitchforks and torches aren't out yet. ;)

Looks up from sharpening his pitchfork.

conceals tindertwig and torch behind back


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason -it seems like far from encouraging the acquisition and use of cool and unusual magic items other than the plus stat and the like, this is going to kill stone cold dead anything but absolutely the most efficient uses of magic items at all. None of the unusual and flavorful stuff; no way a precious resonance point will be spent on that!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they're willing to back down on some of these changes if needed and aren't totally committed to every new system they came up with. Because resonance sounds like utter dreck. Extra complication and arbitrary restrictions. Just no. I'm willing to give it a look when more info is out, but I doubt I'll be able to be convinced that this isn't horrible based on what's already out there.

If wands are really that much of an issue (I've never seen it) just make them more expensive or something.


We should most likely wait until the blog is released, it's also possible that the podcast wasn't using the correct or complete rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the idea for resonance as it is a rule for the game sake of a rule where it should be the DM slapping the players and saying no. Change how wands work and/or are built. The fact is people do it because it is the most cost-effective way to heal. Remove that cost/ease and the problem goes away.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair this has the hallmarks of the most extreme version of a thing that they indicated they were going to put out there when they had several options.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I mislike getting information piecemeal and in dribs and drabs. It makes it very hard to discuss it properly.

I understand the need for teases or whatnot, but it is things like this that get people riled up LONG before the playtest documents ever hit their hands.

My opinion: Either give us a full idea of what the thing is -- in this case, resonance -- or focus on one set of spoiler topics at a time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Resonance is a system that we knew was going to come with some controversy. It's really hard to give you a full sense of what the system allows us to do with the design space without going on a deep dive on magic items. This is a topic we are going to hit soon, so hang in there.

I will say this before I go to run more demos at GAMA. Players have rarely run out of resonance in our games, and there is a lot more healing to go around than you might think.

I don't think people care that they aren't going to run out. They care about the feeeel of a consumable item character resource pool.

BUT. Caveat. If this is a way to make "wielding magic items" to feeeel like part of being a high level character then you may get people on board.


knightnday wrote:

This is why I mislike getting information piecemeal and in dribs and drabs. It makes it very hard to discuss it properly.

I understand the need for teases or whatnot, but it is things like this that get people riled up LONG before the playtest documents ever hit their hands.

My opinion: Either give us a full idea of what the thing is -- in this case, resonance -- or focus on one set of spoiler topics at a time.

It leaked from a convention game thing. They were probably saving it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
We should most likely wait until the blog is released, it's also possible that the podcast wasn't using the correct or complete rules.
graystone wrote:
Rabble! rabble! rabble! rabble!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To all those complaining about additional things to track daily, it probably reduces the amount of the amount of things to track. If all daily use items are tied into the resonance pool, that is a significant reduction


Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:


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.

Yes, it is complex, they basically took 5e's solution and went "how could we make this more complex and fiddly then it need be?"

Except by RAW the default 5e solution isn't what you are thinking it is but to do away with magic items entirely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
To all those complaining about additional things to track daily, it probably reduces the amount of the amount of things to track. If all daily use items are tied into the resonance pool, that is a significant reduction

As well as a massive reduction in usage of anything but 100% strictly necessary magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

Good to know.

Still, needing a healer is something everyone can deal with, and Clerics still don't seen to be boring.

Golarion has many gods that would slap a cleric of theirs for serving as a Primary Healer.

Cleric is a great class. Give it (and other classes) fantastic feats for a Primary Healer, but do *not* expect a party to have a Primary Healer, and do *not* expect any given Cleric to fill that role.

Not Pathfinder,but I play cleric of Tempus in a ongoing 5e game. I can count on one hand how many times I have healed, well anyone. Clerics re not walking bandaids or medics. So I agree with you here

First, I've never said that all Clerics are walking bandaids.

Second: having a healer is the most sensible decision one can ever make if s/he is walking into a dungeon full of perils. That does not mean that the medic has to do only healing, but as I have explained:
There are already people who like to play healers. Instead of making healers "fun" for everyone else, why we don't think about healers being better at healing while still doing something else, improving healers for people who like healers? Healing should be the main thing of a healer, but not the whole thing, neither a side-job.

Also, as I have explained, the "I don't want a healer" stuff is the main reason why 4e has such absurd non-magical recovering. That is a dangerous road.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
To all those complaining about additional things to track daily, it probably reduces the amount of the amount of things to track. If all daily use items are tied into the resonance pool, that is a significant reduction
As well as a massive reduction in usage of anything but 100% strictly necessary magic items.

We'll have to see what magic items there are and how they work first. One of their stated goals is to have less of the 'absolutely necessary items' and instead want magic items more flavorful and interesting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
instead want magic items more flavorful and interesting.

But makes you less likely to be able to use them? Well unless you play a pretty PC... :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There may be less absolutely necessary items, but you aren’t going to be able to afford to use anything that isn’t one of them because, resonance.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Noir le Lotus wrote:

I hate this kind of thing !!

Resonance is just a gamist rule that will push people to optimize and ruin immersion.

So true. It falls into the 4th ed trap of things that drive character decisions but are impossible to explain IC.

Imagine the scene -

"Brother John, why didn't you use the scroll of breath of life? We know you're able to cast it normally"

"I'm sorry Pete, I don't know, somehow its because I'm just not cool and outgoing enough"

"Sally died because of you, you anti-social git!"

"I'm so sorry Pete, this is why I never have any friends. I guess I am just a worthless person."

(OK so maybe it explains why Brother John has such low self esteem in the first place, but its still ridiculous)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
JulianW wrote:
Noir le Lotus wrote:

I hate this kind of thing !!

Resonance is just a gamist rule that will push people to optimize and ruin immersion.

So true. It falls into the 4th ed trap of things that drive character decisions but are impossible to explain IC.

Imagine the scene -

"Brother John, why didn't you use the scroll of breath of life? We know you're able to cast it normally"

"I'm sorry Pete, I don't know, somehow its because I'm just not cool and outgoing enough"

"Sally died because of you, you anti-social git!"

"I'm so sorry Pete, this is why I never have any friends. I guess I am just a worthless person."

(OK so maybe it explains why Brother John has such low self esteem in the first place, but its still ridiculous)

While I agree with you that resonance seems clunky (I'd like to try it before passing final judgement), I think this is an overly harsh review of something you've not quite used yet.

I appreciate and applaud a mechanic focused on making magic items feel special.

PF is already pretty much an optimization game for many--hard to make it more so. As a once heavy 4e player, I'd say it wasn't so much optimization but, unfortunately, the illusion of choice. You either were optimized or not, in a sense.

And while the rule is gamist...so, so many elements of PF (and other RPGs are). If this is the one that breaks narrative immersion for you, I get it. But, saying your FORCE OF PERSONALITY helps you maintain and harness the powerful magic of these wondrous items isn't that much different to me than saying Bob is better at wizard spells because his intelligence is higher.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:


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.

Yes, it is complex, they basically took 5e's solution and went "how could we make this more complex and fiddly then it need be?"

You keep saying it is complex without actually giving any reasons. “Your level combined with your charisma modifier determines how many magic items you get to use each day before needing to make rolls” is not a complex idea. It just isn’t. I get that it is a change and you don’t agree that it needed to be introduced, but calling it complex is just not accurate. If the player can look at their character sheet and automatically know how many more uses of their wand or how many potions they can drink before it gets more difficult then complexity is not an issue.

I’m sorry if I am harping on this a bit much, but out of all of the pitchfork waving people are doing in this thread, hating on this for being too difficult to for players to wrap their heads around is the biggest head scratcher for me. It would take like five minutes to explain and have everybody in at the table add two numbers together then write the sum in a space on the sheet of paper in front of them. When the players level up they add one point to it. If there is some level of complexity that i am overlooking here please point it out to me.


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

The sorcerer, while strapping on his sixth magic item: "Fighter, don't equip that cloak, you might need your resonance for potions. You're a frontline guy after all. Actually, why don't I take that off your hands?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gamist? It's actually pretty easy to explain it, world-wise.

Also, Charisma isn't just about being cool - you can do that with very low Charisma, let me tell you - but also about force of personality, presence and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
instead want magic items more flavorful and interesting.
But makes you less likely to be able to use them? Well unless you play a pretty PC... :P

I think we need to stop looking at Charisma as just meaning attractive and meaning more of “Having a forceful personality and presence.” The issue with a charisma in the past has been that it was only useful in social situations, so looking at it more as lending one to having a powerful influence makes the attribute more flexible and desirable for all PCs. After all, there are plenty of charismatic leaders who are not even a little bit attractive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
graystone wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
instead want magic items more flavorful and interesting.
But makes you less likely to be able to use them? Well unless you play a pretty PC... :P
I think we need to stop looking at Charisma as just meaning attractive and meaning more of “Having a forceful personality and presence.” The issue with a charisma in the past has been that it was only useful in social situations, so looking at it more as lending one to having a powerful influence makes the attribute more flexible and desirable for all PCs. After all, there are plenty of charismatic leaders who are not even a little bit attractive.

Honestly, even in good old-school D&D, the use of Cha as "beautiful/handsome" is pretty rare, and Cha as forceful personality is actually better in any of them.

Like, Charisma in AD&D 2e helps you with your henchmen, let you lead more people, and just make people react better when talking to you. I don't know how any of this is necessarily linked with physical beauty
Really, it's an odd piece of Cha that has no need to stay.
(In fact, sometimes in old editions, designers tried to create a separate score for beauty. It didn't went well...)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
having a healer is the most sensible decision one can ever make if s/he is walking into a dungeon full of perils.

You keep saying that, but 3P has worked great without a 'healer' for 18 years. Consumables or daily use items carried the load until now, we could let them continue or finally bring the Heal Skill up to par, or use a stamina/hp mechanic.

There are many ways to solve this problem without forcing a Healer.

Here's the thing. If the game expects a Healer, then the Healer stops being special and becomes an obligation.


I have never seen a party working correctly without a healer without abusing the rules. Honestly, when magic items make one primary function obsolete, that's when people think characters who focus on that are useless.


Aye, that is one thing I agree with. Charisma can be thought of as the Strength of the soul.

351 to 400 of 823 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards