Resonance: what do you think?


Prerelease Discussion

401 to 450 of 823 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
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.

I have often seen tables abusing a player because they thought someone Had to play the Healer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.
I have often seen tables abusing a player because they thought someone Had to play the Healer.

In that case, you are just better with another group, as they won't stop there.

Again, I stand by my opinion: when you can trivialize a role so important, the general reaction will be such characters being thought as useless.
Also, class-based games are class-based for many reason, but one of the main ones is: foster teamwork. Forming an adequate team is as part of strategy and tactics as creating each character. I want teamwork, not people fighting who shines most on DPR or something.
Also, usually a primary healer can be replaced by some secondary healers. That's okay, because you didn't trivialize the role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
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?"

I have two players in two separate games that would do exactly that if given the chance. I mean, I can just tell them to play nice, and that works most of the time. I just don't want to have to say https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E

It's going to get even weirder if, say, an alchemist is supplying the fighter with healing that eats through both his resonance resources in addition to the alchemist's resources. I feel like I've heard that somewhere, but I don't remember where, so correct me if I'm just being a rumor mongering fool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igwilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.
I have often seen tables abusing a player because they thought someone Had to play the Healer.
In that case, you are just better with another group, as they won't stop there.

THANK YOU! Every time I see that argument come up I just scream internally. Why are people blaming the system for problematic behavior of players instead of calling out the players? If the group is routinely bullying one or more people at the table then those players are an issue. Changing the rules to accommodate a-holes will not stop them being a-holes.


Leedwashere wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.

I think the ability to offload a lot of the healing duties onto magical items makes the classes with ability to heal more interesting, not less. It allows for expansion into other places the class can go, such as the undead-controlling negative energy cleric in my Mummy's Mask game. Prepped a handful of emergency heal spells, but used summon spells and existing enemies to soak up damage rather than try to keep on top of repairing it.

That player wouldn't have even tried such a thing if they didn't have the ability to rely on magic item sources to cover the bulk of the out-of-combat HP needs.

As I said, some secondary healers are enough to fill in the slot. And yes, some magic items can help the healer with that. The problem is: Not needing a healer in the first place. If that happens, main healers will be obsolete.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Igwilly wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.

I think the ability to offload a lot of the healing duties onto magical items makes the classes with ability to heal more interesting, not less. It allows for expansion into other places the class can go, such as the undead-controlling negative energy cleric in my Mummy's Mask game. Prepped a handful of emergency heal spells, but used summon spells and existing enemies to soak up damage rather than try to keep on top of repairing it.

That player wouldn't have even tried such a thing if they didn't have the ability to rely on magic item sources to cover the bulk of the out-of-combat HP needs.

As I said, some secondary healers are enough to fill in the slot. And yes, some magic items can help the healer with that. The problem is: Not needing a healer in the first place. If that happens, main healers will be obsolete.

I think when I made that post I was misunderstanding what you were referring to. I agree that if you make healing entirely obsolete, then there's no point in playing a dedicated healer. I think that other options should be inherently less good (or more resource intensive) than if someone chooses to specialize in healing, to make doing so a worthwhile choice. I just balk at making other options so ineffective by comparison that dedicated healer becomes a requirement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.
I have often seen tables abusing a player because they thought someone Had to play the Healer.
In that case, you are just better with another group, as they won't stop there.
THANK YOU! Every time I see that argument come up I just scream internally. Why are people blaming the system for problematic behavior of players instead of calling out the players? If the group is routinely bullying one or more people at the table then those players are an issue. Changing the rules to accommodate a-holes will not stop them being a-holes.

So... If nobody wants to play a Healer do you just cancel the campaign?

That sounds like a ton of fun


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who usually gets tasked with having to go healbot (be it in the traditional sense with a shaman or grabbing as many happy sticks as I can and spamming it with a bard), I have mixed feelings about Resonance.

On the one hand, I can appreciate it solely on the basis that it's further cementing Charisma as a magic-relevant ability on the basis of someone's force of personality influencing magic either around them or their ability to cast spells and nothing annoys me faster than seeing people trying to argue that sorcerers should cast off of wisdom, as well as making something akin to Use Magic Device a bit more universal. In addition, on paper it seems like a cool, less arbitrary way to determine how many wondrous items one can have equipped than relying solely on body slots.

On the other hand, from what I'm reading, there are a few... kinks in the design. I feel that everyone agrees that tying potions and scrolls to your resonance is arbitrary and hard to justify, especially with potions (with scrolls I can see non-casters having to use resonance and maybe a dice roll but it's a non-issue for spell casters). In addition, with what we know of Resonance right now there are a few loose threads on how magic items that would require being "attuned" 24/7 or otherwise have low "operating power" (for lack of a better term) would operate, like with Bags of Holding or Bookplate of Recall. Also, I don't know how I feel about having to attune to magic weapons and armor (unless they had an "x times/day" enchantment), but I'm withholding comment on that until I get the opportunity to actually use the Resonance rules.

Resonance is definitely something I'm going to scrutinize during the playtest; I'm not one who is against change, but a lot could potentially go awry here (especially in regards to consumable items and low-power magic items) and it should definitely be checked into before anything quite gets set in stone. I'm fine with tossing happy sticks as a healing crutch into the wayside so long as healing mechanics wind up being scrutinized as a whole to make them more universal (IE making the Medicine skill really good for non-magical healing and giving it to more classes than Heal was given in P1e).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get why 'healer' is such a coveted role.
I've had groups fall apart because everyone wanted to play an arcane caster. It's also happened where a group didn't have a rogue.

Seems like we can always complain about not getting to play the character you want in any group where someone else makes the same concept as you.

Dedicated healers aren't common in my experience, but often it's a secondary role every group agrees to. That said, I include condition removal as part of this role so my view may be skewed.


Leedwashere wrote:


I think when I made that post I was misunderstanding what you were referring to. I agree that if you make healing entirely obsolete, then there's no point in playing a dedicated healer. I think that other options should be inherently less good (or more resource intensive) than if someone chooses to specialize in healing, to make doing so a worthwhile choice. I just balk at making other options so ineffective by comparison that dedicated healer becomes a requirement.

Yeap, pretty much. Agreed!

Let me rephrase my thought: having healing should be a consideration. It doesn't *must* be by a primary healer, but consideration should be given to it.

It's like, let's say, damage. In the perfect world, it should be a consideration. Having an DPR-focused PC perfectly solves that. If you don't have of these around, other characters could do that as secondary* roles, and if needed resources can be reallocated.
The problem is: "wand that insta-kills everything on your path" or "raises all your damage to 9999". "It's super cheap to buy or make."

*That's why I love secondary roles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
Charisma has been due for a face lift

Heh.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm less against it because of its mechanics (not that I like what we've heard so far, mind you- just that it's not the main reason), and more because of what it might mean flavor-wise.

All of a sudden, potions are no longer 'spells in a bottle,' but rather 'some kind of magical potential, but that won't actually activate until exposed to a pseudo-magical field... or something?' It just really cancels out the feel. All of a sudden, potions aren't special. They're just another 'thing' that, despite having an entire spell crammed into a couple ounces of fluid, is completely inert until it enters the possession of somebody who isn't wearing too many necklaces.

Scrolls? Please. They aren't nearly-cast spells anymore. They're just a set of instructions that allow for someone who could cast the darn thing already to simply use a different magical source for the spell.

Oh, that cloak that allows you to fly? Yeah, forget having the Cloak of Levitation. The thing might be magical, but it's powerless until somebody comes along that isn't already wearing a few too many rings. (Actually, that might explain why, in the movie, he gets two super powerful Relics so quickly- everyone else near them had already hit the attunement limit)
(Heck, just look at some of the more recent Dr. Strange comics to see the sorts of characters this system would cripple. No longer could the Sorcerer Supreme use 'the crimson bands of hazathor!' for fear that he might not be able to use the Eye of Agamotto to teleport home later, or that the Cloak of Levitation might interfere with his ability to activate a magical trap)

Basically, it takes the magic out of magic items, by forcing the wielder/wearer to activate them somehow, and to not simply have arcana woven within the item at its creation. It just makes them feel more mundane, and less wondrous.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy that Charisma is now more important, and isn't just going to be seen as a dump stat any more. Every stat should have some importance, and some trade off for neglecting it.

Recently, I have been in a handful games where we realized that absolutely no one in the party was charismatic in any way, and as such had completely neglected any social skills. So when it came to making rolls related to role playing negotiations... Well, I'm just going to say that my character with 12 charisma was our best shot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.

This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
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.

Which sounds a lot like we're being distracted so what they really want in the game(which we might not/probably won't see in the playtest) can make it in and we'll get a "it's not as bad as resonance" response.


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

Hey there all!

.....
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.
.....

If resonance didn't limit anything, then what was this system doing? And if there is a lot more healing going around than one might think then all that has happened is that healing has been changed from a wand into something else?

Of all the changes so far this is the one that has given me the greatest pause. As has been asked before, what is the problem this system is addressing?

The best change to magic items I've seen so far was simply removing the stat/save boosters that had become must haves and opening those slots up for more interesting things. I've seen several situations where a player says some variation of "that is cool, but it takes the shoulder slot so I can't use it".

The reason my group never bought more powerful wands was just that their cost was out of whack with their efficacy. They absolutely loved finding a CMW or CSW wands, but would never purchase one because paying 6x the cost for 2x the healing or 15x the cost for 3x the healing just wasn't worth it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't quite understand the whole "Charisma is a dump stat" thing that seems to frequent here. Yeah, if you play a class that focuses on one or two particular ability scores, others need to take a hit.

Declaring that any single stat is THE dump stat seems weird to me, as it's the choice of class that dictates which ability score is the dump stat (if you're playing sorc, wizard or bard, then probably strength is going to be your dump stat).

As for resonance, yeah, still not sure about that. I've never had any problems with wands in the game (or 3.5 for that matter). It's almost quite the opposite, with the players not using the wands I place in their path. It seems to aim to fix something that isn't something that needed fixing for me. Some of my questions/concerns can only be answered by more detailed info, so yeah.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.
This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.

I noticed that you left out some key words there. Are you intentionally avoiding them, or was it an accident?

Those key words are "infused" and "innate." Charisma is how much innate magic is infused. Intelligence is how much you can study to control magic, regardless if you have it infused within you. Wisdom is how much a god will grant you magic.

None of those other classes talk about innate magic within you - and what classes do talk about that use charisma.

I suspect you know this, but you left all that out for some other reason.


graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.
This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.

Hypothetically we could go with this as an explanation-

Magic is hard to control, it almost seems like it has a will of its own. By default people attempt to control it by leveraging their sense of self, their firm belief in their own reality, and their desire that the thing they are holding does what they want. Certain spellcasters, however, learn to control magic via rote, ritual, and understanding or by sheer force of will/belief. Now print class feats for Int and Wis based spellcasters that let them calculate resonance based on Int or Wis. Everybody else (who is not trained specifically at this) uses Cha.

It's not really any more outlandish than the pragmatic activator trait in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Subparhiggins wrote:

I enjoy that Charisma is now more important, and isn't just going to be seen as a dump stat any more. Every stat should have some importance, and some trade off for neglecting it.

Recently, I have been in a handful games where we realized that absolutely no one in the party was charismatic in any way, and as such had completely neglected any social skills. So when it came to making rolls related to role playing negotiations... Well, I'm just going to say that my character with 12 charisma was our best shot.

So, traditionally, the situation you described has been part of the downside of not having charisma. Nobody likes you. That was the trade off.

I mean, that trade off really only works if you role play it, so I don't really know how that worked out in other groups.
I can't really speak on the CHA dumping power gamers, because I've never really had that happen. The groups I've played with always roleplayed the downsides of not having any interpersonal mojo. Actually, funny story. The game I'm playing in right now is filled with low charisma characters. We had people playing charismatic characters, and we kind of wanted to give them the spotlight, but they all had to move away. Now we're playing the background cast as foreground main characters, a bunch of unlikable dirt peasants that everyone spits on. It's kind of entertaining. A bit like Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My characters taking the leadership and face positions due to having the highest charisma at a ten. That's after he put his level four attribute point into it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, this mechanic is way more 'gamey' than the wand of CLW is, to quote Erik Mona.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.
This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.

I noticed that you left out some key words there. Are you intentionally avoiding them, or was it an accident?

Those key words are "infused" and "innate." Charisma is how much innate magic is infused. Intelligence is how much you can study to control magic, regardless if you have it infused within you. Wisdom is how much a god will grant you magic.

None of those other classes talk about innate magic within you - and what classes do talk about that use charisma.

I suspect you know this, but you left all that out for some other reason.

Personally I'd change "how much a god will grant you magic" to "how much outside influences will grant you magic" to account for shamans/spiritualists, but other than that I agree entirely.

All of the Intelligence based casters share the same common theme that that they directly study to gain their access to magic, be it a wizard in a lone tower or a witch being taught magic by her patron-infused familiar at least, that's how I flavor witches so that they maintain this common thread. All Wisdom based casters share the same common theme that they either revere or associate with an otherworldly power and directly gain their ability to cast magic through that association, with Clerics worshiping Gods, Druids embodying nature, Spiritualists having a close bond to the ethereal plane via their Phantom, etc.

Charisma is a bit of a black sheep in this regard in that, for the longest time, it's been left really ambiguous and there wasn't a very distinct explanation why someone could use Charisma to cast spells, but over P1e's lifetime there has been a trend developing; Charisma based spellcasters frequently use their force of personality tied to a magical power to cast spells; Sorcerers use their magically-infused bloodline, Oracles utilize the divine power forced onto them, Paladins use their righteous zeal in their divine dogma, Summoners can force their personality through the extraplanar forces that their magic brings up, Bards... do it through music? Like I said, P1e still suffers from the fact that there was never a concrete explanation as to why Charisma is so innately tied to magic, but P2e might be able to break the mold and finally set a distinct explanation instead of keeping things vague.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
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.
I have often seen tables abusing a player because they thought someone Had to play the Healer.
In that case, you are just better with another group, as they won't stop there.
THANK YOU! Every time I see that argument come up I just scream internally. Why are people blaming the system for problematic behavior of players instead of calling out the players? If the group is routinely bullying one or more people at the table then those players are an issue. Changing the rules to accommodate a-holes will not stop them being a-holes.

So... If nobody wants to play a Healer do you just cancel the campaign?

That sounds like a ton of fun

Any campaign is going to have specific roles that will need to be filled to overcome certain challenges. Four Gunslingers and a Barbarian are going to struggle in a campaign that doesn’t involve hitting things to solve every encounter. So with how many classes have access to healing magic, you are implying it should be cool that not one player is willing to take one for the team and play a class where they will be able to dedicate a couple Spell slots to healing to support the rest of the team and instead everybody else bullies somebody into doing it? This game is supposed to be about teamwork and cooperation, not every single member of the party focusing on their own DPR at the expense of the rest of the team. If nobody wants to take any support role at all then the party should be punished for it bybhaving a harder time, and if the GM doesn’t feel that way then they can dial back the challenge of the encounters. It doesn’t need to be one of two extremes, either everybody gets to play whatever class they want and whatever role they want or the game is canceled. That’s not what TTRPGs should be about.

Sovereign Court

1 person 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
Starfox_SFX wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

.....
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.
.....

If resonance didn't limit anything, then what was this system doing?

A limit can exist without players running head first into it all the time.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Starfox_SFX wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all!

.....
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.
.....

If resonance didn't limit anything, then what was this system doing?

A limit can exist without players running head first into it all the time.

Agreed, KingofAnything...

See: Hit Points

(Hopefully)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
P1e still suffers from the fact that there was never a concrete explanation as to why Charisma is so innately tied to magic, but P2e might be able to break the mold and finally set a distinct explanation instead of keeping things vague.

I think you already pointed to half of the explanation: all of the mental ability scores are tied to magic, because sentient beings are tied to magic; and different ability scores broadly map onto different ways of interfacing with magic that are more or less analogous to how they help you interface with the world generally.

So I would conceptualize wisdom-based casting as not just about reverence or association, but about receptivity - characters high in Wisdom are able to hear the signs and portents louder and brighter, so to speak, for the same reasons they can use Perception and Sense Motive. They feel the presence and will of the spiritual realm, whether that's gods or demons or the beating heart of the natural world as a whole; their dreams might be especially vivid, or they might have a sense for the "theme music" that might be playing in a scene. This doesn't mean every high-Wisdom character is tripping out on mystic visions, any more than every intelligent creature is studying mathematics or magical theorems, but it does explain how it's a route to go down.

Likewise, charisma can measure "force of personality" as, like, an active thing - being very brash and confident - but can also stand in more generally for anything (looks, magnetism, social skill) that makes people want to be on your good side. If the premise of magic is that a lot more of the world than physical people is conscious, then part of this is just charming the world. Charismatic characters might be luckier - not in terms of die rolls, but maybe in terms of being in the right place at the right time, that kind of thing. Self-confidence can obviously play into a lot of this - you walking up and taking the sword out of the stone with the same unselfconscious relaxation with which you'd ask someone out on a date - but part of it may just be that the baseline level of magic that infuses everything and is sort of aware is aware of you and wants you to like it. Doesn't mean that every likeable (or scary and intimidating) person gets superpowers, just like not every aware person gets mystic visions or every smart person studies topology, just that that's a route you can go down.

I think? This is probably not that different from what others are saying, and to the extent there's convergence it probably reflects that we do have a baseline understanding of what's going on, it just hasn't been spelled out yet.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of focus just on healing potions/ wands of clw, (which are usually the spam of choice true) but this resonance is also going to really limit how many of these "cool" magic items you can use. What good is a sword that shoots fire if you can only do it once or twice a day? Are you going to even bother with it when you have other items to equip that you can just invest and then not worry about all day?

Sovereign Court

3 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

I was mulling over the same ideas, Matthias. Wisdom as receptive, Charisma as forceful, and Intelligence as finesse. They map pretty well onto Con, Str, and Dex, actually.

To expand, Intelligence is knowing which levers you can use to effect magic rather than brute force. Much like a finesse weapon can deal a great deal of damage with careful placement.


I figure that without some kind of hard limit, the sword that shoots fire is going to be a big enough problem that you wouldn't give one to the party. Now, you might.

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
eljava77 wrote:

I see a lot of focus just on healing potions/ wands of clw, (which are usually the spam of choice true) but this resonance is also going to really limit how many of these "cool" magic items you can use. What good is a sword that shoots fire if you can only do it once or twice a day? Are you going to even bother with it when you have other items to equip that you can just invest and then not worry about all day?

That same sword in PF1 would be 1/day. No option to use it two or three times if you want to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I don't agree with the folks concerned about running out of Resonance, there's a pretty simple solution from a design perspective.

If key ability scores are used in PF2 (as they are in Starfinder), simply change Resonance to be level + key ability score. While I prefer the CHA route, it seems like a pretty easy compromise that could be easily shown to work during the actual playtest.


PF2 might just have to emphasize that it is focusing on older definitions of charisma that aren't limited to "How to win friends and influence people."

Between Charisma being viewed in the past as a divinely conferred power and animal magnetism starting out life as an actual, physical force there is plenty of historical precedent to justify Charisma as being a measure of metaphysical muscle.

If Occultists are going to wind up being the kings of resonance, then Mesmerists might wind up being the kings of Charisma itself; figuring out how to tap into it directly and direct it through their Stares and other techniques.


Cuttlefist wrote:
you are implying it should be cool that not one player is willing to take one for the team and play something they don't want to play

I don't know anyone who plays games to not have fun


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthias W wrote:
Friendly Rogue wrote:
P1e still suffers from the fact that there was never a concrete explanation as to why Charisma is so innately tied to magic, but P2e might be able to break the mold and finally set a distinct explanation instead of keeping things vague.

I think you already pointed to half of the explanation: all of the mental ability scores are tied to magic, because sentient beings are tied to magic; and different ability scores broadly map onto different ways of interfacing with magic that are more or less analogous to how they help you interface with the world generally.

(Cut for Size)

Exactly! All of the mental stats effect magic in a certain way, even outside of actual spellcasting (Intelligence affects your knowledge of how spells work, Wisdom affects your ability to fight back against mental effects due to better awareness, and Charisma affects how you interact with magical items by exerting your will). The main problem is that, especially with Charisma, there's no strictly defined way how spellcasting interacts with the different mental ability scores, which is mostly okay with Int and Wis because all of the classes work similarly to each other in that regard both in fluff and crunch, but historically Charisma has just been that "other" category, and I personally would like to see distinct explanations as to how Charisma ties into magic instead of keeping it frustratingly vague, especially for Summoners and Bards, because I haven't seen any real explanation for how they get spellcasting at all - my Summoner bit was based on conjecture and the Bard is probably the vaguest spellcaster of them all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
That same sword in PF1 would be 1/day. No option to use it two or three times if you want to.

http://www.archivesofnethys.com/EquipmentWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Longs word

http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Weaponwand
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Burning Hands
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Molten Orb
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Scorching Ray
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Fireball

I actually did it quite often. Outside of CLW, wands can really be quite fun.
It might also be fun to have it as a singular item in a treasure trove at the end of a dungeon, but I'm really going to miss feeling like the wizard equivalent of Heavy Weapons Guy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.
This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.
I noticed that you left out some key words there. Are you intentionally avoiding them, or was it an accident?

Neither really, as they seem moot/relevant.

Empyreal: Unlike most sorcerers whose innate magic is powered by force of personality, you use pure willpower to master and fuel your magic.
Sage: Unlike most sorcerers, whose innate magic is powered by force of personality, you use your intellect to understand and master your mystic powers.

SO, once again, EVERY mental stat is said to be able to control your "innate" magic you where "infused" with... :P

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Hypothetically we could go with this as an explanation-

Magic is hard to control, it almost seems like it has a will of its own. By default people attempt to control it by leveraging their sense of self, their firm belief in their own reality, and their desire that the thing they are holding does what they want. Certain spellcasters, however, learn to control magic via rote, ritual, and understanding or by sheer force of will/belief. Now print class feats for Int and Wis based spellcasters that let them calculate resonance based on Int or Wis. Everybody else (who is not trained specifically at this) uses Cha.

It's not really any more outlandish than the pragmatic activator trait in PF1.

Works for me: it makes as much sense as anything else. IMO, Cha was used for use magic device because Cha had the least going for it at the time [int = skill points/languages and Wis is a save].


I just realized that Resonance is basically a universal Mana pool. Do Cha based casters tap into this for faster metamagic?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
That same sword in PF1 would be 1/day. No option to use it two or three times if you want to.

Maybe, like the crown of blasting is 1x per day, but you can use it once, and also use your sword, and boots, armor, and a potion of comprehend languages,and a potion of see invisibility and a potion of darkvision etc. Which gives you a lot more versatility.


graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
bookrat wrote:
We also know that the more charisma you have, the more magic is infused within you, as proven by the sorcerer class.
This also means that the wizard class PROVES that the more intelligence you have the more magic you have and the cleric PROVES that the more wisdom you have the more magic you have. SO that would mean the we've proved that every mental stat affects your resonance right? I'm not seeing how this line of thought works in your favor for charisma making sense for resonance.
I noticed that you left out some key words there. Are you intentionally avoiding them, or was it an accident?

Neither really, as they seem moot/relevant.

Empyreal: Unlike most sorcerers whose innate magic is powered by force of personality, you use pure willpower to master and fuel your magic.
Sage: Unlike most sorcerers, whose innate magic is powered by force of personality, you use your intellect to understand and master your mystic powers.

SO, once again, EVERY mental stat is said to be able to control your "innate" magic you where "infused" with... :P

The Sorcerer is one of my favorite classes, so I would like to bring up that while Sorcerers with the Sage/Empyreal mutated bloodlines are Sorcerers that don't cast off of Charisma, they're the exceptions to the rule, and more accurately represent different ways of approaching their innate spellcasting:

A Sorcerer with the Empyreal bloodline has an extremely strong connection to divinty, and instead of just forcing themselves through that divine power to cast spells, they instead take a philosophical approach and compare their spellcasting in the context of the higher planes of existence as a whole. Thusly, they use Wisdom instead of Charisma.

A Sorcerer with the Sage bloodline, like other Sorcerers with the Arcane bloodline, are hyper-infused with general arcane power, likely because they're the eighth son of an eighth son of an eighth son, or a Wizard squared related to a lot of arcane casters. What if they decided to study magic as well, taking a more empirical (as opposed to empyrical) approach to magic as opposed to strong-arming their innate powers with not as much tact to how they function? With this strategy, they can then use Intelligence instead of Charisma - this logic actually ties in closely with Arcanists, especially Bloodline Arcanists, as they're just Sorcerers who decided to practice wizardry to further understand their powers.

I'm not necessarily trying to argue "spellcasting in this context has to work this way 100% of the time," I'm trying to argue for clearing up about how the mental abilities tied to spellcasting reflect both the method of spellcasting and, beyond that, the philosophy behind spellcasting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So yeah, the core rulebook defines charisma one way, and does literally nothing in action to really reinforce it.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Cuttlefist wrote:
you are implying it should be cool that not one player is willing to take one for the team and play something they don't want to play
I don't know anyone who plays games to not have fun

You can boil it down as much as you want, but a party is supposed to work together and players are going to have to make sacrifices to work together as a team. If all of the players are not willing to make any compromises to fill in any gaps that other people’s builds are leaving right there at the start of the campaign then it doesn’t sound like a group I want to play with. If FUN equals getting away with any party makeup whatever then again either the GM needs to accommodate by changing encounters so everybody is happy with heir special snowflake builds or you all play a different game. Pathfinder and it’s D&D ancestors were built with teamwork and party roles in mind.

Personally, I think it takes a special kind of entitled to never ever want to play a support class, especially to not be able to have fun not playing exactly the character you want. GMs make restrictions on what options and material is allowed in their games all the time anyway, so acting like having restrictions or expectations for party makeup is not the norm is just not reality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
The Sorcerer is one of my favorite classes, so I would like to bring up that while Sorcerers with the Sage/Empyreal mutated bloodlines are Sorcerers that don't cast off of Charisma, they're the exceptions to the rule, and more accurately represent different ways of approach their innate spellcasting

There are exceptions all over the place... Druids, rangers and clerics that can cast off cha, cha and wis for ki and psychic magic runs off all the stats and others so there is NO unified philosophical approach to spellcasting and innate powers.

401 to 450 of 823 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Resonance: what do you think? All Messageboards