(Feel free to add more or respond with your own theories)
1. Resonance: Will resonance be something that exists in world and characters are aware of? Will BBEGs be able to perform horrible rituals utilizing the resonance of their minions or an unsuspecting populace?
2. The economy: Magical item markets seem like they are going to be radically different places after the switch to the new system. Now there is still a bunch we don't know about how much stuff will cost and how much adventurers will be selling the stuff they find or re-crafting or any number of possibilities, but it seems certain to be different. I am curious if whole city economies will be affected and how that will spill over into setting content and adventures.
3. Magic: So many questions yet, about what long term and permanent effects will be spell driven. A lot of APs have made interesting use of what spells can do to shape the setting in interesting ways, I am excited to see how a system designed for telling stories in Golarion adapts, challenges or reinforces these kind of details!
1. Well, flavor wise Resonance seems to be a combination of Use Magic Device and the "personal energy field" mentioned in the PF1 Alchemist class. So I don't think how people think about it in-setting would change. Certainly I could see monsters or rituals that feed on a person's "magical energy" that would stay in flavor while just working more cleanly mechanically. Because they would now be able to be effective against everyone (draining Resonance) instead of only spellcasters (draining Spell Slots).
2. Magic Items have always been handwaved out of the economy and not taken into account. Because items are so expensive that should create either boom-town effects or wildly wealthy merchant princes more powerful than any ruler, but those are never mentioned. So I assume it will continue to operate on the "please don't think about this too hard or reality will break" principle.
I'm hoping resonance is put into play through some classes since it might be an interesting way to give a power supply to semi magical class features like monks as a consolidated points pool.(the only side affect I can see is that it would make quasi magical classes better with magic items if you give them bonuses to resonance generation or capacity)
|
1. Yeah, Resonance doesn't seem like much of a lore change to me. Alchemists and Occultists were already cleary using it in-universe and UMD was tied to it, so it's a rule change not a lore change.
2. Magic items are still a thing and have not even been implied to be 'super rare' or anything. Also, anyone with Crafting and the right Skill Feat can make them, so I don't see that being a huge lore change either. the items for sale will be more interesting and less '+1 to this thing', but that doesn't effect the economy too much.
A way I think of it is that things like "magic item shops" and "potion sellers" did their business exclusively with PC types, since ordinary folks didn't need or couldn't afford most of this stuff. So any change won't affect anybody who wasn't already an adventurer so hardly anybody will even notice. Like nobody except adventurers should ever be hitting their resonance limit, and adventurers are pretty rare.
They’re minor changes, not significant ones. NPCs weren’t spamming CLWs, they bought inefficient items like potions of CSW, and weren’t walking around with more magic items than their level. None of that will change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They’re minor changes, not significant ones. NPCs weren’t spamming CLWs, they bought inefficient items like potions of CSW, and weren’t walking around with more magic items than their level. None of that will change.
I mean, PF1 has had more than one low level bad guy that used consumables to make up for their lack of capabilities (examples: Dagio the Great in Crownfall, quite a few of the enemy party in The Half-Dead City) and Resonance kinda puts a giant lid on that and goes "Ha ha no".
At higher levels it's a different story, but then again we don't know the full rules of Resonance yet. When we do, we'll see how many PF1 published NPCs (if any) it breaks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They’re minor changes, not significant ones. NPCs weren’t spamming CLWs, they bought inefficient items like potions of CSW, and weren’t walking around with more magic items than their level. None of that will change.I mean, PF1 has had more than one low level bad guy that used consumables to make up for their lack of capabilities (examples: Dagio the Great in Crownfall, quite a few of the enemy party in The Half-Dead City) and Resonance kinda puts a giant lid on that and goes "Ha ha no".
At higher levels it's a different story, but then again we don't know the full rules of Resonance yet. When we do, we'll see how many PF1 published NPCs (if any) it breaks.
That could be a matter of the playtest simply tweaking numbers instead of the base rule. For example, if Resonance changes from level + Cha mod to level + half your Charisma score, that would probably make a lot of people a lot happier. It means low level healing capacity wouldn't be ganked, and it would help keep PF1 opponents like those you mentioned from being nerfed.
And while that extra 5 points at 1st level would help low level play, it would eventually be minimized over time once level overcame it. You'd still have more overall, but not so drastically as to break the system and give infinite CLW spam again.
They’re minor changes, not significant ones. NPCs weren’t spamming CLWs, they bought inefficient items like potions of CSW, and weren’t walking around with more magic items than their level. None of that will change.I mean, PF1 has had more than one low level bad guy that used consumables to make up for their lack of capabilities (examples: Dagio the Great in Crownfall, quite a few of the enemy party in The Half-Dead City) and Resonance kinda puts a giant lid on that and goes "Ha ha no".
At higher levels it's a different story, but then again we don't know the full rules of Resonance yet. When we do, we'll see how many PF1 published NPCs (if any) it breaks.
Another thing to consider is how much resonance elixirs cost. If they cost the same as options then nothing changes, but if some are free then it could explain this.
|
|
I mean, PF1 has had more than one low level bad guy that used consumables to make up for their lack of capabilities (examples: Dagio the Great in Crownfall, quite a few of the enemy party in The Half-Dead City) and Resonance kinda puts a giant lid on that and goes "Ha ha no".
Huh? Of the party in The Half Dead City, nobody who casts prep-spells with an Item would have Resonance below 5 (both Khelru and Velrianna have Level + Cha Mod of 5), and even Azaz would have a 3 (as would Idorii). I certainly don't recall them using items any more than that when the party I was in fought them. Nor do their tactics suggest doing so.
Dagio also has a Resonance of 3 if converted (4 HD -1 Cha Mod), and that seems more than enough in combination with his own offensive options.
At higher levels it's a different story, but then again we don't know the full rules of Resonance yet. When we do, we'll see how many PF1 published NPCs (if any) it breaks.
This seems pretty unlikely when even your low level examples have few problems if given Resonance limits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, PF1 has had more than one low level bad guy that used consumables to make up for their lack of capabilities (examples: Dagio the Great in Crownfall, quite a few of the enemy party in The Half-Dead City) and Resonance kinda puts a giant lid on that and goes "Ha ha no".Huh? Of the party in The Half Dead City, nobody who casts prep-spells with an Item would have Resonance below 5 (both Khelru and Velrianna have Level + Cha Mod of 5), and even Azaz would have a 3 (as would Idorii). I certainly don't recall them using items any more than that when the party I was in fought them. Nor do their tactics suggest doing so.
Dagio's also has a Resonance of 3 if converted (4 HD -1 Cha Mod), and that seems more than enough in combination with his own offensive options.
At higher levels it's a different story, but then again we don't know the full rules of Resonance yet. When we do, we'll see how many PF1 published NPCs (if any) it breaks.This seems pretty unlikely when even your low level examples have few problems if given Resonance limits.
Note all their tactics though:
Azaz: "Makes liberal use of his wand of vanish" "Uses grease and flaming sphere to control the battlefield" (grease comes from a wand of grease, flaming sphere from Scrolls). In fact he'll only cast actual spells other spells if stuff goes wrong. He's Resonance 3.
Khelru: "Khelru is the group’s primary healer, using his wand of cure light wounds, channeling energy, or spontaneously casting cure spells as needed." Resonance 5. Also note he carries a ton of scrolls.
Velriana: "Velriana uses her spells to control the battlefield and weaken the opposition, favoring her wand of scorching ray." "Given time, Velriana uses her scroll of warding weapon to defend herself while casting spells". Resonance 5. Also note she carries, again, a ton of scrolls.
Also note Valeriana has Bracers of Armor and a Ioun Torch. Both of which may or may not consume Resonance (reducing her Resonance from 5 to 4 or 3).
Dagio himself actually probably only has 2 Usable resonance (remember, he has a ring of protection +1), and after 3 spells he's supposed to use his wand of shocking grasp offensively.
So yes, they all have problems (especially Azaz and Dagio), in that they can use the stuff they're supposed to be using as much as they can 3-4 times before it starts to get failure chances under the Resonance system, which is clearly not something that should happen.
|
|
Note all their tactics though:
Azaz: "Makes liberal use of his wand of vanish" "Uses grease and flaming sphere to control the battlefield" (grease comes from a wand of grease, flaming sphere from Scrolls). In fact he'll only cast actual spells other spells if stuff goes wrong. He's Resonance 3.
Flaming Sphere is ongoing, so that's only 1 Resonance. The other two do theoretically present an issue, but not enough of one to be a big deal over most combats. Also, he does have spells and uses them if things look bad (actually, he may use Magic Missile even if things don't look bad). And if things don't look bad for his side after three or four combat rounds...well, maybe the PCs need a bit of a break and for Azaz to let up, y'know?
There may also be a way to increase Resonance, in which case Azaz is a prime candidate. His Feats certainly aren't gonna be the same after an edition change after all. Also, cantrips are better in the new edition, and him supplementing his actions with them would make a fair bit of sense.
Khelru: "Khelru is the group’s primary healer, using his wand of cure light wounds, channeling energy, or spontaneously casting cure spells as needed." Resonance 5. Also note he carries a ton of scrolls.
Resonance 5 is plenty for all of that over the course of a 5 or 6 round combat. Like, seriously, that's more than enough to do everything suggested. He casts his own spells on at least two rounds of combat, after all (Spiritual Weapon and using his own healing at least once).
Velriana: "Velriana uses her spells to control the battlefield and weaken the opposition, favoring her wand of scorching ray." "Given time, Velriana uses her scroll of warding weapon to defend herself while casting spells". Resonance 5. Also note she carries, again, a ton of scrolls.
Also note Valeriana has Bracers of Armor and a Ioun Torch. Both of which may or may not consume Resonance (reducing her Resonance from 5 to 4 or 3).
An Ioun Torch isn't gonna cost Resonance to attune. That's just idiotic on a profound level. A serious ioun stone probably will, but the torch? No.
And 4 Resonance is more than enough for a combat if you're using it on offensive spells exclusively (which she is) and have other spells to supplement it (which she does) even using it more than anything else she's got 5 rounds of combat at least, and that goes to 6 if she uses it half the time (which is still favoring it, IMO).
Dagio himself actually probably only has 2 Usable resonance (remember, he has a ring of protection +1), and after 3 spells he's supposed to use his wand of shocking grasp offensively.
Rings of Protection have been stated not to exist in PF2. So...
And even at 2 Resonance, that gives him 4 rounds of offense, which is probably enough most times. But really, in the new edition, he just wouldn't have the ring and thus would have 5 rounds of offense.
So yes, they all have problems (especially Azaz and Dagio), in that they can use the stuff they're supposed to be using as much as they can 3-4 times before it starts to get failure chances under the Resonance system, which is clearly not something that should happen.
Combats in PF1 seldom last more than 4 rounds. And of the listed characters, only Azaz has any problems with their Resonance lasting 5 or even 6. And even he can do fine if he dips into his spells (which is pretty nearly a certainty before the combat is over).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
7. How does the world change to reflect that fact that any task that could theoretically be done without training, no matter how ludicrous or improbable, is successful 5% of the time?
I imagine this will be handled by the guidelines for the GM for "when not to ask for/allow a roll".
I will certainly not be asking for rolls in case a player's modifiers exceed the DC, or fall short of the DC by 20 or more.
I'm hoping resonance is put into play through some classes since it might be an interesting way to give a power supply to semi magical class features like monks as a consolidated points pool.(the only side affect I can see is that it would make quasi magical classes better with magic items if you give them bonuses to resonance generation or capacity)
If monks spent resonance instead of ki, then they would drain their resonance pools for their own abilities and not have any left for magic items. That would reinforce the image of monks eschewing material goods. The preview said that alchemists gain their Intelligence bonus to resonance instead of their Charisma bonus, so monks could gain their Wisdom bonus instead of their Charisma bonus.
The 10,000gp Ki Mat can let a monk gain 1 ki point per hour of meditation on the mat. That and sleeping are the only methods I know to restore ki. Restoring resonance could be as difficult.
I think resonance is designed to address an issue I attempted to address in a different way via house rules. Specifically, I used a magic cache that held a certain amount of magical power (measured in gp value). It had a positive impact because the lore around magic was that all magic has a preference to be a certain way. If you cram too many items together to make them just another tool, weak magic items tended to suicide, go bad, or get lost. In short, magical items became more magical, which was the stated goal for resonance.
I recommend an additional change that kind of stemmed from the same goals, but it requires slaughtering a sacred cow. Make healing spells heal up to a % of the target creature's hp. For example, CLW would heal a target up to 20% of hp (no effect if the target was already above 20%). There is no reason to ever spam CLW in my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can imagine a lot of public agents working with resonance. Like in Nex to empower the huge golems and the flying towers you will have en entire guilde of people using their resonance just to make it work.
It could be nice you got a story plot if they ever going on a stroke!
7. How does the world change to reflect that fact that any task that could theoretically be done without training, no matter how ludicrous or improbable, is successful 5% of the time?I imagine this will be handled by the guidelines for the GM for "when not to ask for/allow a roll".
I will certainly not be asking for rolls in case a player's modifiers exceed the DC, or fall short of the DC by 20 or more.
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the "when not to ask for/allow a roll" section boils down to use your gut which can cause serious problems when playing a game where you're eventually supposed to be able to do normally impossible things
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the "when not to ask for/allow a roll" section boils down to use your gut which can cause serious problems when playing a game where you're eventually supposed to be able to do normally impossible things7. How does the world change to reflect that fact that any task that could theoretically be done without training, no matter how ludicrous or improbable, is successful 5% of the time?I imagine this will be handled by the guidelines for the GM for "when not to ask for/allow a roll".
I will certainly not be asking for rolls in case a player's modifiers exceed the DC, or fall short of the DC by 20 or more.
They'd better not use that copout, especially given the exact reason you describe. If that text shows up in the playtest rules, I will definitely call them out on it in the surveys.
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the "when not to ask for/allow a roll" section boils down to use your gut which can cause serious problems when playing a game where you're eventually supposed to be able to do normally impossible things7. How does the world change to reflect that fact that any task that could theoretically be done without training, no matter how ludicrous or improbable, is successful 5% of the time?I imagine this will be handled by the guidelines for the GM for "when not to ask for/allow a roll".
I will certainly not be asking for rolls in case a player's modifiers exceed the DC, or fall short of the DC by 20 or more.
I think we'd get the EXACT same answer as the take 10 non-FAQ. Do whatever feels right for 'pacing'... Lame...
I fail to see how "whether or not to roll being left up to the GM's sense of what's best for the story" is unreasonable. Since the game relies on a GM making a whole bunch of these calls anyway.
Like if there's a rule for when you must or must not ask/allow a roll, I'm going to ignore that rule if (and most likely when) it gets in the way.
I fail to see how "whether or not to roll being left up to the GM's sense of what's best for the story" is unreasonable.
IMO, it's unreasonable to not know ahead of time if you have to roll or not. If I build a character that's awesome at one skill and for some reason the DM wants a roll on a simple task that I'd need a -27 roll to fail on, it's SUPER, SUPER lame if 'pacing' forces me to fail 5% of the time.
"sure your dwarf blacksmith is 20th level, has max proficiency and max tool levels and a magic smithing item that boosts it all to mythic levels but because it sounding interesting to make a roll, you just failed to make a simple nail..." :P
I have NO issue with exceptions for truly epic reasons, but I'd rather not see 'on a whim' as a reason and certainly wouldn't want 'whatever the Dm wants at the time' as the standard.
I really do hate that their is DM's out their that would do that. Normally I would say don't play with them but I guess not everyone has that option? Run the game yourself would be the next one but no one likes to run all the time. It can be exhausting. Still I just don't know I feel like a Jerk DM is going to mess you up no matter what.
That said I don't get the impression that the dc is to low to roll is going to be the same in pf1 I'm getting the impression that it will be a bit harder rule then DM decides. I'm not for sure but if it isn't that would probably be a good thing to push for in PF2 say if your modifier is higher then the DC then you auto succeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "whether or not to roll being left up to the GM's sense of what's best for the story" is unreasonable.IMO, it's unreasonable to not know ahead of time if you have to roll or not. If I build a character that's awesome at one skill and for some reason the DM wants a roll on a simple task that I'd need a -27 roll to fail on, it's SUPER, SUPER lame if 'pacing' forces me to fail 5% of the time.
"sure your dwarf blacksmith is 20th level, has max proficiency and max tool levels and a magic smithing item that boosts it all to mythic levels but because it sounding interesting to make a roll, you just failed to make a simple nail..." :P
I have NO issue with exceptions for truly epic reasons, but I'd rather not see 'on a whim' as a reason and certainly wouldn't want 'whatever the Dm wants at the time' as the standard.
This is especially bad for me since the reason I favor d20 skill systems in general is because target numbers and taking 10 give a good idea of what a character can just do.
I've seen enough arguments over how reasonable it was to make someone roll for a skill to know how bad grey areas are.
So, if someone is really good at a thing and they have a good plan and explained it well, to keep things moving I'm not going to ask for a roll... even if they might have failed on rolls other than a 1. We'll just say you pass and keep things going. If a PC is going to attempt something they can plausibly do for which failure is not interesting or does not enhance the story in my estimation- they pass, no need for a roll.
If someone wants to use their diplomacy skill to convince the BBEG to switch sides at the end, recreating the ending of Fallout, I'm going to say "well, you didn't have Vree's autopsy tape, so you can't persuade the Master, sorry" and we'll have the planned fight instead of a single die roll.
I just don't think it's a good idea to make rules to bind the GM since the GM is the person who can change the rules. Better to phrase things as guidelines.
I did in fact think it was fun in the first mass effect talking the bad guy into shooting himself. kind of blew me away (no pun intended) But I kind of see what your saying but i feel if we made the rule well enough it would be very unlikely thing to have happen. Like if the DC is lower then like 3-4 CR's worth then give it without a roll. or like I suggested if your modifier is higher then the dc call it without a roll or maybe allow a reroll if your mods are higher then the dc?
So, if someone is really good at a thing and they have a good plan and explained it well, to keep things moving I'm not going to ask for a roll... even if they might have failed on rolls other than a 1. We'll just say you pass and keep things going. If a PC is going to attempt something they can plausibly do for which failure is not interesting or does not enhance the story in my estimation- they pass, no need for a roll.
If someone wants to use their diplomacy skill to convince the BBEG to switch sides at the end, recreating the ending of Fallout, I'm going to say "well, you didn't have Vree's autopsy tape, so you can't persuade the Master, sorry" and we'll have the planned fight instead of a single die roll.
I just don't think it's a good idea to make rules to bind the GM since the GM is the person who can change the rules. Better to phrase things as guidelines.
I don't understand how you can complain about rules that bind a GM since by definition that literally all rules.
Edit:also for your first point I feel like the success of a course of action shouldn't be so dependent on how well you can convince the GM.
Still I just don't know I feel like a Jerk DM is going to mess you up no matter what.
it's not the jerks I'm worried about: they're inevitable but you can avoid them once found. it's more the issue of a DM that truly think it'd be interesting or cool to do it for whatever reason. if the rule is on a whim, some are GOING to do just that. If it presented as 'in extraordinary situations you can...", people will treat it differently.
That said I don't get the impression that the dc is to low to roll is going to be the same in pf1 I'm getting the impression that it will be a bit harder rule then DM decides. I'm not for sure but if it isn't that would probably be a good thing to push for in PF2 say if your modifier is higher then the DC then you auto succeed.
This is my feeling too but that darn 'take ten' non-FAQ makes me worried for anything like this.
I've seen enough arguments over how reasonable it was to make someone roll for a skill to know how bad grey areas are.
You and me both. I LIKE knowing what I can to without a roll and what I can do most times and what I MIGHT be able to do. Throwing a wrench into it is bad IMO.
I just don't think it's a good idea to make rules to bind the GM since the GM is the person who can change the rules. Better to phrase things as guidelines.
I don't think anyone is trying to do this though. I want a set, established rule and some suggestions when it might be reasonable to ignore it if needed. What I DON'T want it 'just all up in the air depending of the phase of the moon' rule. One sets an expectation of how things works unless there is a good reason to have it work otherwise. the other is literally ambiguity in practice.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, while I have more faith/optimism that Paizo will actually provide concrete guidance on what skill checks cannot generally be attempted than some here, I do agree entirely that some concrete guidance on that front is necessary in order to maintain verisimilitude and a reasonable set of expectations as to what works that extends beyond a single GM's table.