| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dear, this is a long one.
I never said it was only for one use. Well, it really is. Magic items. But it works the same for each of those items. You don’t need to pool it up for different uses, the different items will all be drawing from the same pool. You can choose to do so, but that is the user being overly fiddly, not the system itself.
How would you assign the points then? Unless you resign each day, I can't help but put them into smaller pools and I can't be the only one. And if you do resign them daily, this helps cut down the math why?
That is actually incorrect. They already confirmed that magic weapons will have their bonuses without being invested in. You only have to spend Resonance on usable effects like shooting a cone of flame or something like that. A +2 Longsword will be a +2 Longsword always. And those flaming cone effects and their like were usually once per day, so this will give you more uses usually. If you want it badly enough.
This kills magic weapons being required and expected how? Besides I'm still probably going to shore up some points to 'spare' into the weapon.
That and well, I'm sure we'll find the best "Per point" magic weapon effects after a couple months.
This I am following you on. And see no issue. This works for me.
I prefer static rather than "On, off, maybe on or off some of the time"
Or I don’t? Why are you assuming that every single character will be using wands every single day? Not every encounter goes the same, and not every player uses wands. I very rarely have in my 20 years playing DnD variants. Just not really a fan of them honestly. The game can be played without assuming that you need to constantly spam wands, and it looks like this edition is built around you not being able to, so let’s assume that you are going to have options to do what you want that won’t be locked inside of wands. Like, class features maybe?
I'm also not a fan, I usally pick up 2, maybe 3. Usually to do something without draining a spell slot like heal, bless, or maybe some sort of damage or support spell. Because you know it's real fun to be in the back not doing anything after using your small selection of spells already.
However, bad rolls happen. DM overtuned a fight. Maybe your build isn't working out. I fully expect most players to hold back a few points for either wands, potions or some other magic item tax on the premise of Safe than sorry. We do it now with spells and class abilities(Better pop a potion or wand so I can use this other thing when things get REALLY bad or in battle).
We have literally not said anything different on this. It is one use spread over multiple items. Just like Spell slots are one use spread over multiple spells and your equipment slots are one use spread out over multiple items.
Spell slots that usually go towards that level spell. Equipment slots that usually go to the best you can put on.
Magic Item Points that go towards the best across more than one type, along with some to go as backup.
The point difference is going to be like what, 2-3 points as long as the martial doesn’t put their Charisma below 10? And that is something they SHOULD face a consequence for. If your CON is below 10 you get a penalty to hit points. If your STR is below 10 you can’t carry as much. If your WIS is below 10 you are easier to mind control and so on. Before the only penalty to having CHA below 10 was people looked at you funny when you tried to seduce them. Now, you have to think about if you really can get away with having one or two less magic items or potions than your companions. And for all we know Martials have more cool abilities so they don’t need to rely on magic items to do cool stuff like before. In fact I would bet money on it.
Sure they might have cool abilities. Casters will have cool abilities, new ones too, and have more magic items.
Welcome back to the problem. Save for Martials needing to dump INT now. Maybe.
Actually, it does. Well maybe not a 50% exactly, but choosing classes or feats is all about choosing what you will be able to do reliably and what you won’t. Just because you could use wands with impunity before and now hat won’t be the case is not inherently a bad thing. Restrictions are what make these kinds of choices interesting.
We keep having debates about what should and shouldn't be restricted though based on varying ideas and the subject matter. I see no reason not to debate this. Which has more choices, this system or an open one.
Open one. "But the choices aren't as important". Debatable.
And I don’t need a dragon forcing me to consider fight or flight. But it’s called a challenge and it’s part of what makes the game what it is. Being forced to make choices because of your limitiations is not a bad thing. Resource management is part of the depth and strategy of Pathfinder.
Weird, I thought earlier you were arguing against this being, well, a GAME. And suddenly you want it to be. Hold up I really need to double back and check this.
If that wasn't you, here's an idea. It's a Team game. Ask the Wizard to make you fly, maybe perhaps get them to bring the dragon down. What is with people expecting characters to do everything. Right, years of people fully expecting wands and potions everywhere. You might have a point there.
I am not sure what I am supposed to be seeing, a direct answer would have been much more helpful. People arguing over what is most optimal does not tell me if complaining about choosing between class options is valid or not.
That in the long run this system will not fix such talk and the Neo Big 6 will be found and that renders a good reasoning behind this change rather moot?
They claim that the choices will matter more. I claim in maybe a year's time that idea will be out the door when the newest math has come out. And a couple weeks after each splat. We have mearly changed the tune.
Funny that you were responding to my arguing with people about this not being complex by spelling out how you felt it was complex then.
I don't find this anymore complex and yet at the same time, easier than what we already have. Just the numbers are flipped around and I need to spread them out from a source rather than each item having their own number by itself that doesn't interact with each other.
It's a swap in filing system and one that doesn't seem to actually add anything besides lowering the number count by 1.
And that’s a bad thing how? It’s another layer that removed like two other entire layers so we are at a net negative 1 layer. Seems good to me.
Depends, how many layers do I have to go through to hit the bad.
Do you just mean Resonance or 2ndE entirely? Because it definitely is looking like removing Resonance is going to put a lot of work on yourself as the GM rebalancing and rewriting all of the magic items and costs of them and so on.
Either. Or. Both?
None of my players like what they are hearing outside of cherry picks(The Shield idea for example) so I can easily take what they like into 1e.
As for the work, debatable. Based on their own converting rules(Hopefully coming) and just what the numbers look like on the magic items, along with if there's a possible equivalent to an item in 1e, it might not be as hard as you think. That or I just wait to see if they or someone comes up with an Auto Progression system for this ruleset.
I will admit, this doesn't sound as much as a problem the more I think on it. However, the more I think on it, the more I see it doesn't actually fix the things they seemed to think it will. We'll have a broad reach of new magic gear to pick from..., only for mundane items to be close to them, and the math will be found out on the best gear and the community/APs will fall back into the same routine. All it does is just swap the book keeping around.
Side note and this is so so very fringe but I'm bringing it up only because my AP group is about to bump into it; How the bloody heck will this system work with Cursed Items?
Wow. I'm a fan of Resonance, and I even missed that. That's...a whole lot of points then, and would really serve to address concerns on the particular concern of running out too quickly.As far as I can tell, it's level+Charisma. Not charisma modifier. Charisma, the stat.
So if you have Cha 13 and lvl 3, it's 16 resonance, not 4.
While it does address my own concern about running out epsically early, this to me makes it even worse at solving some of the problems it seemed designed for.
I mean if this is supposed to stop the Christmas Tree of magic items, how does having such a huge pool do that? Or the Bling Bling effect since Rings seem to be the hot new thing and easier to explain than 5 pairs of boots.
Not sure about what do you mean with rings being the new hot thing.
The idea behind resonance is that you have a common pool for your magic items. Some stuff, like, say, a ring of mind shielding, might cost you 1 resonance for the day, and works constantly. Some other stuff, like a ring of invisibility, need 1 resonance every time you use it. If you have, I don't know... 10 different rings or wands or boots that do 10 different things, and you have 10 resonance, you can choose between using each one once, or the ones you like more more times. But if I have a ring of invisibility and 10 resonance, I can make myself invisible 10 times, and there is a balance. You have more options to choose from, but I also have my 10 uses per day of magic items.
this is not so much to stop the christmas tree effect, as it is to reduce book keeping (one single resource, instead of tracking different resources for your wand, staf, rod, and ring), and to encourage the upgrade of magic items, instead of going with the one with the cheapest gold cost per hit point healed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure about what do you mean with rings being the new hot thing.
The idea behind resonance is that you have a common pool for your magic items. Some stuff, like, say, a ring of mind shielding, might cost you 1 resonance for the day, and works constantly. Some other stuff, like a ring of invisibility, need 1 resonance every time you use it. If you have, I don't know... 10 different rings or wands or boots that do 10 different things, and you have 10 resonance, you can choose between using each one once, or the ones you like more more times. But if I have a ring of invisibility and 10 resonance, I can make myself invisible 10 times, and there is a balance. You have more options to choose from, but I also have my 10 uses per day of magic items.
this is not so much to stop the christmas tree effect, as it is to reduce book keeping (one single resource, instead of tracking different resources for your wand, staf, rod, and ring), and to encourage the upgrade of magic items, instead of going with the one with the cheapest gold cost per hit point healed.
With nearly endless resonance points, the only thing you're stopping is absolute spam. Nobody is really equipping 20+ different magic items. But using 20+ charges of the wand on a SINGLE guy happened often at high levels.
This does make those "shoot lasers from sword" abilities be surprisingly generous in amount of casts.
Not sure about what do you mean with rings being the new hot thing.
The idea behind resonance is that you have a common pool for your magic items. Some stuff, like, say, a ring of mind shielding, might cost you 1 resonance for the day, and works constantly. Some other stuff, like a ring of invisibility, need 1 resonance every time you use it. If you have, I don't know... 10 different rings or wands or boots that do 10 different things, and you have 10 resonance, you can choose between using each one once, or the ones you like more more times. But if I have a ring of invisibility and 10 resonance, I can make myself invisible 10 times, and there is a balance. You have more options to choose from, but I also have my 10 uses per day of magic items.
this is not so much to stop the christmas tree effect, as it is to reduce book keeping (one single resource, instead of tracking different resources for your wand, staf, rod, and ring), and to encourage the upgrade of magic items, instead of going with the one with the cheapest gold cost per hit point healed.
Rings are easier to carry than anything else. Rings have no limit other than fingers(Hey if my Tiefling or other race has 4 arms). At this point I expect rings to see a slew of new abilities due to the system. No more Christmas Tree, hello players wearing so much Bling(Is that still a word, Bling? Is this my 90s showing)
Until the data comes in, getting the most bang for your Resoance buck will to me prevail. If this means 10 effects that super buff me then why should I not do that? "To make choices"?, um sure l. Or I can sit down with the team and go over what we have and address who turns on what. Or better, Scry to know what we need. Besides how many times are you going to need X(I'm betting no more than 3 times a day, oh wait) over Y turned on all day. More so if the pool is this huge you can easily still make do with everything.
The book keeping to me seems about the same. And you're telling me you never upgraded your magic items? Or feel the need to look at something and go, "I wish this was better"? I mean yeah the big 6 had better versions but some just gave a good flat bonus. So what, a magic item gives +1 to Disable trap and I have to find a + 2 or masterwork/legend copy to have it be +3? Such options.
And you brought up the wand issue. News flash I don't expect that aspect of "The Math says this is best" to die out with the new system. We have people arguing now about that stuff. Heck even without this system it sounds like they fixed it with the classes sound like they can at least splice some sustain in. And even disregarding that, if CLW do indeed had diminishing returns, we need another system to keep them in check?
The more I think on it, I don't see it as a bad idea. But I also don't see it as a good one that will fix the problems they want it to. And if this was all about book keeping, well I guess it does help there a tad. Seems overblown of a system to do just that though.
I have to ask, where's is everyone's magic shop located if the PCs walk out with 5 or more copies of the same wand at full charge?
Fingers is not the limit for rings either.
Toes, ears, nose, belly button, {REDACTED}....
I use my nose ring to cast flaming bolt, describe it as flaming loogie?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is more design space created with resonance than just unification of different pools to reduce bookkeeping. For example, some good magic items might cost more than 1 point of resonance, either to wear them or to activate them. You could maybe have spells that recover your resonance, or transfer it to another character, or a monster could have an aura that remove resonance or makes it harder to use it, for example damaging you if you use it. Some items might beheave differently if you spend more than 1 resonance, or have a better effect if you are above a certain resonance treshold.
It even helps to define a trope, where some items, like the One Ring, beheave differently when carried by a lowly hobbit or a mighty Wizard. The infinity Gems in Marvel also come to mind, or Mjolnir.
I mean if this is supposed to stop the Christmas Tree of magic items, how does having such a huge pool do that? Or the Bling Bling effect since Rings seem to be the hot new thing and easier to explain than 5 pairs of boots.I think most of that is going to fall less on the Resonance system, and more on how magic items are built in the playtest. If there's a pretty hefty redesign on what specific items can do, that's probably the easiest way for Paizo staff to balance the new paradigm.
Whether or not folks believe that is possible will likely require seeing the full magic item list in the playtest. So that part of your concern (one I share, though likely not quite as strongly) won't see an answer any time soon.
I fully admit, most my worries are indeed over numbers. If Passives On magic items are too strong, why use the active? If the actives are overturned, no one is going to care about the passives. And smaller issues between those extremes. And also if both sides are good enough to warrant some thought on either, or, both; what's this going to do towards encounters and othe points of balance? I can't help but feel the curve got moved and I'm not sure which way it's moving.
And more on point part of my arguement is on how the community reacts to the numbers when everything is in front of them, and the possible APs that listen in. I don't want to be expected to have Ring of Invis, or Ring of Temp Hp because they are that good and cheap enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is more design space created with resonance than just unification of different pools to reduce bookkeeping. For example, some good magic items might cost more than 1 point of resonance, either to wear them or to activate them. You could maybe have spells that recover your resonance, or transfer it to another character, or a monster could have an aura that remove resonance or makes it harder to use it, for example damaging you if you use it. Some items might beheave differently if you spend more than 1 resonance, or have a better effect if you are above a certain resonance treshold.
It even helps to define a trope, where some items, like the One Ring, beheave differently when carried by a lowly hobbit or a mighty Wizard. The infinity Gems in Marvel also come to mind, or Mjolnir.
Which defeats part of the point of book keeping if you have to always worry on again just everything you can possibly spend it on and have it reduced.
Besides I thought players hated losing resources so why would something that deals with it as an enemy be a good idea. Iconic as they are and a good way to mess with players, I don't know anyone that looks forward to fighting a rust monster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rust monsters destroy things permanently. That's pretty much different stuff.
I would find this more akin to a dispel magic that removes your buffs, or maybe a negative energy level. It's a temporary setback, which forces you to play a different strategy. If the "resonance rust monster" just drain you 1/3 of your resonance points, you still can play, and in the long run, you'll be good. But the next few encounters you might need to change the way you play, because you cannot be so happy with cure wands or your pew pew lazer sword.
Rust monsters destroy things permanently. That's pretty much different stuff.
I would find this more akin to a dispel magic that removes your buffs, or maybe a negative energy level. It's a temporary setback, which forces you to play a different strategy. If the "resonance rust monster" just drain you 1/3 of your resonance points, you still can play, and in the long run, you'll be good. But the next few encounters you might need to change the way you play, because you cannot be so happy with cure wands or your pew pew lazer sword.
Or you as a group decide to turn back because you lost too many resources. I can easily see people not wanting to forge ahead if their magic points go to 0 or down to X.
We can see any number of play styles occur but no offense, I haven't heard of a story of "Guys my Cloak of the Hedge Magician has run out time to rest". Replace the Cloak with magic item of your choice. With the Magic being a hard number now, well I can see it being as valued as HP and spell slots. And we all know what happens when those run out/low.
|
It will be Level + Charisma ModifierAs far as I can tell, it's level+Charisma. Not charisma modifier. Charisma, the stat.
So if you have Cha 13 and lvl 3, it's 16 resonance, not 4.
No, in the 3rd part of the Glass Cannon Podcast at the 58:45 point, Jason Bulmahn explains resonance, starting by stating that resonance is level + charisma modifier, so in this case, 4 is correct.
Rust monsters destroy things permanently. That's pretty much different stuff.
I would find this more akin to a dispel magic that removes your buffs, or maybe a negative energy level. It's a temporary setback, which forces you to play a different strategy. If the "resonance rust monster" just drain you 1/3 of your resonance points, you still can play, and in the long run, you'll be good. But the next few encounters you might need to change the way you play, because you cannot be so happy with cure wands or your pew pew lazer sword.
Or you as a group decide to turn back because you lost too many resources. I can easily see people not wanting to forge ahead if their magic points go to 0 or down to X.
We can see any number of play styles occur but no offense, I haven't heard of a story of "Guys my Cloak of the Hedge Magician has run out time to rest". Replace the Cloak with magic item of your choice. With the Magic being a hard number now, well I can see it being as valued as HP and spell slots. And we all know what happens when those run out/low.
Well, then don't worry, the Cloak of the Hedge Magician is less likely to run out with the resonance system. It's a 1x day normally, and you'll be able to use it more than once per day with resonance. If you really need that cloak, it's pretty much a given that you'll have to rest more with 1xday uses, than with resonance.
No, in the 3rd part of the Glass Cannon Podcast at the 58:45 point, Jason Bulmahn explains resonance, starting by stating that resonance is level + charisma modifier, so in this case, 4 is correct.It will be Level + Charisma ModifierAs far as I can tell, it's level+Charisma. Not charisma modifier. Charisma, the stat.
So if you have Cha 13 and lvl 3, it's 16 resonance, not 4.
Mmmm. I read it from Partizanski briefing, and I understood it differently, he did not said charisma modifier, but charisma. I suppose Jason was right, although I'd like to hear something about it (Jason said it once, during the podcast, and maybe he meant something different.)
If that's the case, I'm not sure how Mark says that no playtester has ever run out of resonance.I stand corrected, but will like to hear about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, then don't worry, the Cloak of the Hedge Magician is less likely to run out with the resonance system. It's a 1x day normally, and you'll be able to use it more than once per day with resonance. If you really need that cloak, it's pretty much a given that you'll have to rest more with 1xday uses, than with resonance.Rust monsters destroy things permanently. That's pretty much different stuff.
I would find this more akin to a dispel magic that removes your buffs, or maybe a negative energy level. It's a temporary setback, which forces you to play a different strategy. If the "resonance rust monster" just drain you 1/3 of your resonance points, you still can play, and in the long run, you'll be good. But the next few encounters you might need to change the way you play, because you cannot be so happy with cure wands or your pew pew lazer sword.
Or you as a group decide to turn back because you lost too many resources. I can easily see people not wanting to forge ahead if their magic points go to 0 or down to X.
We can see any number of play styles occur but no offense, I haven't heard of a story of "Guys my Cloak of the Hedge Magician has run out time to rest". Replace the Cloak with magic item of your choice. With the Magic being a hard number now, well I can see it being as valued as HP and spell slots. And we all know what happens when those run out/low.
I'm not sure how to read this other than sarcasm? I was trying to point out that in the current system, I'm some what certain groups don't stop if they run out of magic one use a day effects.
With the new system, espically if it is Level + CHA mod which results in a a smaller pool, I can believe people wanting to stop for the day since it's now just a hard measurable number now. Like Spell slots or HP.
If your intent was something else, it flew over my head.
Just change how wands and potions work and be done with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a few more days, I'm still not a fan of the Resonance concept.
I've never had a problem "tracking" magic item related charges, uses/day etc. As other posters have said, it's fun for me see all the different factors, and not at all a chore.
I don't see the need for yet another resource to track, which may sound counter to what I just said in the previous paragraph - I like pool point systems, but not blanket ones that have been foisted on every character I make.
I don't see Charisma as being particularly related to magic items except as "that's what Paizo decided the flavour of Charisma was extended too" regardless of whether Charisma need to be extended mechanically.
I don't want to have to have a meaningful relationship with every magic item, or for every character to have to have a relationship with their magic items. I like magic items, I like interesting magic items, and I'm sure this will provide more interaction with interesting magic items and interesting magic items' more interesting interactions. Fine. But I don't want it to have to be because of my Resonance pool I didn't want to have in the first place.
Pretty sure it won't change in the play test though. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the anti side has been talking about throwing up in their mouths and in particularly tasteless case, threatening self harm.
That's a nice BROAD brush you use there: you are saying that EVERYONE that's pessimistic as acting badly while everyone that's pessimistic as rational and level headed... You don't see that as just a little disingenuous? And even IF that was true, then thode bad actions should be debated or pointed out and not the fact that they aren't 'super-stoked' on the new game. Debate the facts and not whether they are pro/anti the new game. I've noticed a double standard with this with the pro side tending to say 'we don't know what's in the game so don't complain... Now let me tell you why it's SO awesome!': somehow they don't see how that argument goes both ways. If we don't know what's coming, then both pessimism and optimism and there should be nothing to post about... :P