One suggestion I think could work would be rolling a die, and having the wand be exhausted on a particular roll. I think being exhausted for the day, is better than being totally exhausted.
OPTION 3
When using a wand, you spend 1 resonance and roll 1d4. On a 1, the wand is exhausted for the day.So, there is a 25% chance that you only get 1 use of the wand that day. But there is also a 5% chance that you can use it 10 times that day. There is a 40% chance you can use it at least 3 times a day, and a 30% chance you can use it at least 4 times a day. These seems like fairly good numbers, if we are talking about spells 1 or 2 levels below your maximum. This would have to be balanced with WBL.
I think you could push your wand when it is exhausted, but if you roll a 1 on the d4 the spell works, but then the wand is destroyed.
D3 rather than D4
Ok, so some people hate d4s with a fiery passion. Using a d6 and counting 1 and 2 as a fail obviously reduces wand effectiveness, but this could be balanced with the cost of the wand. 33% chance of only 1 use; 44% chance of at least 2 uses; 30% chance of at least 3 uses; 20% chance of at least 4 uses; 5% of at least 7 uses.
I think this could be a goer as well.
I think that's an idea I like a lot more, though with some of the stuff we've seen so far, I'd suggest a DC 5 flat check instead of the 1d4 roll.
HMMmmmm... This is sounding a lot like "People are pushing through encounters by using wands instead of our nicely balanced power system" vs "Our spellcasters run short on power so that our other characters can't push through." So they are limiting the use of magic items to reduce the power boost that characters can get... which also feels a lot like "Characters can only own X gp worth of gear at their level." rules.ddd
I do not like these rules in general, because in an attempt to homogenize the character power levels they put artificial restrictions.. "Yes, you can loot the entire keep and sell the furniture in the market, but you can't spend the money 'cause that would put you out of capacity for your level."
Agree, I don't like those kinds of restriction, they break suspension of disbelief for me. In Starfinder there is even level limit on items, and I'm still not convinced that is not going to be in PF2.
Does anyone know if they will be applying this resonance use to multipowered magic items? Thus a breastplate that also has a "You can enter an otherdimensional space" like in Giantslayer uses 1 slot to wear plus 1 slot every time you hide in the space? If so, what about a sword that has 3 +1 enchantments on it? Does it take 3 slots to use? A sword that has 2 +1 enchantments and a Bane?I suspect they are using this to nerf spellcasters while fighters will get to use their magic items (armor, weapons, etc) while spellcasters will be limited... because they certainly aren't going to charge you resonance every time you swing your +1 sword.. they are going to charge you once in the entire day. But a spellcaster will be limited in uses per day with the magic items they use the most... which puts the rest of the group left waiting on spellcasters AGAIN.
Boojum
Agree too on the nerf on casters. I think Paizo is overcompensating the C/MD, I dread we end having PF martial edition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's an idea I like a lot more, though with some of the stuff we've seen so far, I'd suggest a DC 5 flat check instead of the 1d4 roll.One suggestion I think could work would be rolling a die, and having the wand be exhausted on a particular roll. I think being exhausted for the day, is better than being totally exhausted.
OPTION 3
When using a wand, you spend 1 resonance and roll 1d4. On a 1, the wand is exhausted for the day.So, there is a 25% chance that you only get 1 use of the wand that day. But there is also a 5% chance that you can use it 10 times that day. There is a 40% chance you can use it at least 3 times a day, and a 30% chance you can use it at least 4 times a day. These seems like fairly good numbers, if we are talking about spells 1 or 2 levels below your maximum. This would have to be balanced with WBL.
I think you could push your wand when it is exhausted, but if you roll a 1 on the d4 the spell works, but then the wand is destroyed.
D3 rather than D4
Ok, so some people hate d4s with a fiery passion. Using a d6 and counting 1 and 2 as a fail obviously reduces wand effectiveness, but this could be balanced with the cost of the wand. 33% chance of only 1 use; 44% chance of at least 2 uses; 30% chance of at least 3 uses; 20% chance of at least 4 uses; 5% of at least 7 uses.
I think this could be a goer as well.
Wand with flat DC5 checks
Flat DC 5, is essentially a d5, with 1 as a failure. So, wands can be used even more before they get shut off. 20% of failure, 64% chance of at least 2 uses, 51% of at least 3 uses, 40% at least 4, 20% of 7 and 10% of at least 10. How powerful this would be can be balanced through gold cost.Wands that allow cast your top level spells at should be too expensive; your top level spells -1 should be a substantial proportion of your gold but achievable; your top level spells -2 decent amount of gold but not enough to be your primary item.
The staff reveal
In other news staves having +bonus to particular spells or spell types means that they will likely be are quite powerful for certain builds. What this also means is that casters will probably have to choose between having a wand in hand or having a staff in hand. This definitely places another restriction on wand usage in combat in addition to resonance, gold and charges. This is a good thing.
Do we still need charges
I am not outraged that wands have charges (probably 10), but I think PFe2 might be a good opportunity to remove that as a bookkeeping overhead.
The argument for resonance
Also, I am definitely in favour of resonance. Feedback from play testing appears that people have enough (more than enough?) if they are not abusing low level wands and scrolls. This is good. Reducing the reliance on magic item slots to balance equipped items is also good. Balancing between Christmas trees and lots of consumable use is great.
Drawback of charges
Tracking charge use and limited use per day (albeit rare) in addition to resonance could be a bit of a downer.
Argument for attrition based paradigm
Clearly I am in the attrition encounter design camp. Not because it is the only way to balance encounters, but because it is very easy to build encounters without attrition under an attrition paradigm (i.e. give players chances to rest each encounter, therefore being at full resources for every fight, attrition becomes a non-factor), whereas it is not possible to build attrition based balance if the system allows for cheep regaining of resources.
In PFe1 you can get 50 charges of 1d8+1 healing for 750g, and 50 charges of 1d4 stat restoration for 750g (paladin lesser restoration is a level 1 spell). This means that mid level characters are immune to HP and stat attrition. It removes the GM option of attrition based encounter design. Reducing options is bad.
In essence, an attrition based system is the most flexible because it can be used or removed at the GM's discretion, whereas a system without attrition mechanics is far more limited.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they are playing whack-a-mole with a really annoying mechanic. At low levels, healing wands are being used to make up for a lack of power, particularly when a non-optimized healer is being played (or no dedicated healer.) They are applying this annoying mechanic to ALL magic items to fix one magic items problem.
I also feel a bit bitter that it seems to be targeting divine and arcane spellcasters to make them less effective. You are the healer. You spend your time healing, until resonance says you can't use the backup wand you got in case you ran out of healing in an encounter. You are a fighter, your job is hitting things.. you can hit them with YOUR magic item all day long without having to worry about resonance.
A 1xday resonance charge for a wand would seem to be reasonable to me. A 1xCharge resonance for a spellcaster is like a 1xSwing resonance cost for a fighter. Gee, I'm sorry, but you cant swing your magic sword anymore. This was done so that you feel the attrition and the excitement. Are you an archer? I'm sorry, but every arrow you shoot costs you 1 resonance.. you are all out and you can't shoot any more arrows.
It seems silly when applied to the fighters, doesn't it? But this argument is seriously taken for spellcasting classes. For the healer, the spot of excitement they get IS doing the healing. They are generally kept out of combat other than that. For the arcane caster, the spot of excitement they get IS casting spells. They are generally kept out of combat other than that.
I'm sure there are characters who take advantage of these items between encounters... but I think it is wrong to nerf spellcasters for the sake of attrition and intensity. If you ARE going to nerf spellcasters, then you might as well nerf all the classes for using magic, including fighers. Think how exiting it would be for them to have their sword stop working in midswing because of Resonance.
Boojum
Wand with flat DC5 checks
Flat DC 5, is essentially a d5, with 1 as a failure. So, wands can be used even more before they get shut off. 20% of failure, 64% chance of at least 2 uses, 51% of at least 3 uses, 40% at least 4, 20% of 7 and 10% of at least 10. How powerful this would be can be balanced through gold cost.
You know, I was forgetting that a 5 would succeed on that check. I meant a DC 6 I suppose, to make for a 25% failure chance. Changing to a flat check simply to fit in with all the other things that seem to be changing to flat checks.
No, it would be a D4 check, since each result has a 25$ chance of occurring based on sheer numbers. A roll of a 1 means it fails.
I think they are playing whack-a-mole with a really annoying mechanic. At low levels, healing wands are being used to make up for a lack of power, particularly when a non-optimized healer is being played (or no dedicated healer.) They are applying this annoying mechanic to ALL magic items to fix one magic items problem.
I also feel a bit bitter that it seems to be targeting divine and arcane spellcasters to make them less effective. You are the healer. You spend your time healing, until resonance says you can't use the backup wand you got in case you ran out of healing in an encounter. You are a fighter, your job is hitting things.. you can hit them with YOUR magic item all day long without having to worry about resonance.
A 1xday resonance charge for a wand would seem to be reasonable to me. A 1xCharge resonance for a spellcaster is like a 1xSwing resonance cost for a fighter. Gee, I'm sorry, but you cant swing your magic sword anymore. This was done so that you feel the attrition and the excitement. Are you an archer? I'm sorry, but every arrow you shoot costs you 1 resonance.. you are all out and you can't shoot any more arrows.
It seems silly when applied to the fighters, doesn't it? But this argument is seriously taken for spellcasting classes. For the healer, the spot of excitement they get IS doing the healing. They are generally kept out of combat other than that. For the arcane caster, the spot of excitement they get IS casting spells. They are generally kept out of combat other than that.
I'm sure there are characters who take advantage of these items between encounters... but I think it is wrong to nerf spellcasters for the sake of attrition and intensity. If you ARE going to nerf spellcasters, then you might as well nerf all the classes for using magic, including fighers. Think how exiting it would be for them to have their sword stop working in midswing because of Resonance.
Boojum
You have to remember that we don't know everything about PF2 yet and many things are going to be very different from PF1. Also, if you run out of healing spells and resonance you can still use the Heal skill to give people back HP in PF2.
Healers still have a role other than healing in combat. Clerics and paladins both have offensive spells and can wear armor, and if your favoured deity's weapon is good then you can use that, too.Arcane/divine spells are a lot more powerful and can do more things than a sword can. It makes sense that they're limited. Fighters still have a use for resonance with some of their abilities, and to atone magic armor and weapons.
|
Brought this up in the Potions and Potency blog.
Random Thought 2 (still reading)
Have multiple different types of wands that can be made.
This wand is an implement for a spell but can’t cast it on its own, so needs Resonance expenditure.
This wand has charges on its own (and you can buffer it with your own Resonance?).
This wand has unlimited charges but you have to invest a point of Resonance and it has limited uses per day.
Someone above mentioned the Flat Check and that could be interesting as well. Basic wand uses its own charges and then when you run out you can force it to use another with the d20 or spend Resonance for an auto-cast.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to remember that we don't know everything about PF2 yet and many things are going to be very different from PF1. Also, if you run out of healing spells and resonance you can still use the Heal skill to give people back HP in PF2.
Healers still have a role other than healing in combat. Clerics and paladins both have offensive spells and can wear armor, and if your favoured deity's weapon is good then you can use that, too.
Arcane/divine spells are a lot more powerful and can do more things than a sword can. It makes sense that they're limited. Fighters still have a use for resonance with some of their abilities, and to atone magic armor and weapons.
You are right we don't know everything and as such we can only comment on what they have shown us. They have not shown us how the heal skill works beyond first aid and legendary medic and neither of them really do any real HP healing. Mark has said that a barbarian was their primary healer but has not given any explanation to how or why. So we can't really say that is as good as healing through magic. Or what level the heal skill becomes able to heal good.
There are people that play clerics to heal and when they run out of that resource they either don't want to continue the adventuring day or stop having fun playing. It is the same idea of a player that plays a Bard because they like playing the character that helps make everyone better. With Resonance it looks like they are removing a way of playing because they do not like that way of play.
I and my group never went looking for CLW wands but I did play the Batman Wizard that had scrolls and wands to make him self more versatile and able to keep up with classes that could go all day. Resonance makes it so no matter what I do I am limited in how I play a wizard. I can still be very versatile but after a certain point I am done for the day and that is it. This is where people say that cantrips auto scale and are what you use after that but we don't yet know how cantrips scale. They might scale great but they also might scale like shit and not be up to your level challenges.
Spells are also getting nerfed with saves and non auto scaling spells so a sword might be just as good as spells your highest level spells now.
Brought this up in the Potions and Potency blog.
Someone above mentioned the Flat Check and that could be interesting as well. Basic wand uses its own charges and then when you run out you can force it to use another with the d20 or spend Resonance for an auto-cast.Random Thought 2 (still reading)
Have multiple different types of wands that can be made.
This wand is an implement for a spell but can’t cast it on its own, so needs Resonance expenditure.
This wand has charges on its own (and you can buffer it with your own Resonance?).
This wand has unlimited charges but you have to invest a point of Resonance and it has limited uses per day.
What's the effective difference between the last one and how staves apparently work? Like it seems like the last one is "Staves, slightly tweaked."
No, it would be a D4 check, since each result has a 25$ chance of occurring based on sheer numbers. A roll of a 1 means it fails.
What are you even talking about?
Oh snap See I am down for resonance just replacing charges and per day uses. That is what I wanted.
|
|
I have always thought the way wands and staffs were done were backwards any way wands should be limited to between 3 and ten charges with unique very expensive wands having 50 charges. Conversely wands can be crafted by el 1 casters when the graduate the college of magic or sorcers can just have the inmate knowledge to craft wands. Staffs can be crafted by 5th level casters and are rechargeable and have 50 charges use the casters Cl to determine the spells potency. I have always hated hbstaffs being found as treasure except for things staffs of the Magi and the like real powerful staffs. Wands are not recharaable.
Staffs should be a very personal item of power to a caster and have the spells casters place in them. Think of a staff as a very powerful spell battery. On that case staffs should also be able to contain metamagic abilities. Staffs in the the hands of any caster should be feared by all because if a caster can make a staff you know he problem kill you on the the spot.
A far as resonance goes if you use my model for wNds just spend one resonance to invest the wand per each day after their charges are used the are just wands of what ever they were made out of.. I once had a physic that used to collect the pretty wands of her caster friends after they were expended.
Staffs would require one point of resonance to invest each day and one point of resonance per spell they wish to recharge.
What could be simpler than that. Beware of the wizard walking down the street with his staff.
|
|
What's the effective difference between the last one and how staves apparently work? Like it seems like the last one is "Staves, slightly tweaked."Brought this up in the Potions and Potency blog.
Someone above mentioned the Flat Check and that could be interesting as well. Basic wand uses its own charges and then when you run out you can force it to use another with the d20 or spend Resonance for an auto-cast.Random Thought 2 (still reading)
Have multiple different types of wands that can be made.
This wand is an implement for a spell but can’t cast it on its own, so needs Resonance expenditure.
This wand has charges on its own (and you can buffer it with your own Resonance?).
This wand has unlimited charges but you have to invest a point of Resonance and it has limited uses per day.
Nothing I'm aware of, aside from Staves providing a constant bonus of some sort when invested.
The above was in favor of having a bunch of different wands, not one type over another as the sole wand mechanic.
So, I will give my take on these points.
You are the healer. You spend your time healing, until resonance says you can't use the backup wand you got in case you ran out of healing in an encounter.
See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.
You are a fighter, your job is hitting things.. you can hit them with YOUR magic item all day long without having to worry about resonance.
Clerics (the class that comes closest to a heal) can hit things with their magic deity's weapon all day. Or fire off cantrips all day. Healing is a limited resource. Maybe you think that is a mistake, but I do not.
A 1xday resonance charge for a wand would seem to be reasonable to me. A 1xCharge resonance for a spellcaster is like a 1xSwing resonance cost for a fighter. Gee, I'm sorry, but you cant swing your magic sword anymore. This was done so that you feel the attrition and the excitement. Are you an archer? I'm sorry, but every arrow you shoot costs you 1 resonance.. you are all out and you can't shoot any more arrows.
Wands are not a primary weapon. Cantrips and actual weapons are.
However, I think that investing in a wand and then being able to use an amount of charges (2-4) might be an idea worth thinking about. It is additional bookkeeping overhead though.
It seems silly when applied to the fighters, doesn't it?
No, how you are thinking about wands is different to how Paizo is thinking about wands.
If a +1 wand did 2d8+Cha worth of damage with a ranged touch attack, and required 1 essence per attack, then it certainly would be silly. But wands are not the caster equivalent of a weapon.
But this argument is seriously taken for spellcasting classes. For the healer, the spot of excitement they get IS doing the healing. They are generally kept out of combat other than that. For the arcane caster, the spot of excitement they get IS casting spells. They are generally kept out of combat other than that.
There is no healer class. Casters can always cast cantrips. Wands are not the weapon equivalent for casters.
If you ARE going to nerf spellcasters, then you might as well nerf all the classes for using magic, including fighers.
They have. Resonance applies to everyone and every class will use it.
|
Except that the classes using magic weapons have a free pass on Resonance so they can function as well as the other classes....
Still feels weird that Spellcasters are being almost forced to rely on their cant rips and orisons. That just seems so backwards.
Anyway, end threadjack.
Here is my idea: Three charges on a wand, five on a staff. Both require a point of Resonance in the morning to use throughout the day. You can expend a charge to use your own slots to cast from either, but only staves have the added benefits(like Staff of Healing's +1) and extra spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve spent a lot of time reading the various posts regarding magic items and Resonance and here is my take on how things might work better and solve some of the issues being discussed. If any of these ideas were posted previously, I give credit where it’s due.
Stay with the PF1e item slot list. This will prevent people from spamming the system with multiple hats, boots, etc. worn. Rings could be increased to two, or even three, per hand. Multiple brooches and necklaces could also be worn. Capes and necklaces could be worn together.
All slotted items, to include weapons, would need to be attuned to the user. This attunement period would be 15 minutes for each item during downtime. Once attuned, that item would stay attuned to that person indefinitely. There would only be three ways to de-attune a particular item.
#1 – If the PC or BBEG dies, the item would sense this and de-attune itself within a few minutes. This would allow PCs to loot and use items relatively quickly once found.
#2 – A PC could voluntarily de-attune themselves from an item, but this would take 30 minutes to accomplish. Magic items WANT to be attuned, and so they would resist this. After the 30 minute period, another PC could attune themselves as described above. This would limit spamming of wands, staves, etc.
#3 – PCs could remove attuned items as normal (removing armor at night, etc.) and the attunement would still be in place the following day. During downtime, as long as the owner maintained contact with the item at least every few days, the attunement would remain. If after a month of not being used or at least handled by its user, the attunement would fade away and need to be re-established, either by the original user or someone else. In this way, treasure looted from hoards would most likely not be attuned and could be picked up and used relatively quickly by PCs.
All items that have a static magical effect that is always on would not need Resonance to operate. If an item has a special effect that can be turned on and off, it would require 1 RP to activate. For example, a stealth cloak should grant a static +3 or +5 bonus to stealth checks all the time. For 1 RP, a PC could go invisible with it for five minutes. A +1 flaming sword would need 1 RP to activate the flaming property to gain additional fire damage.
Any single use consumable should not require any RP to use. This would include potions, rods, scrolls and trinkets. Their cost should be high, or availability low, so as to prevent spamming, but their effect shouldn’t be so negligible relative to cost/availability that they aren’t worth it. Crafting these items would require the expenditure of 1 RP per level of spell, effect, etc., along with an associated monetary cost. In this way, these items could be crafted, but the higher level ones would require a greater expenditure of resources which would reduce the amount that could be crafted.
Staves and wands would NOT have charges. Each use would require 1 RP to activate.
Each wand would have a particular spell, of a certain level, stored within it. It would cost 1 RP to activate. Another person could attempt to activate the wand without re-attuning it, but would need to make a check (not sure what that would be) in order to use it. On a fail, the wand stops working for 24 hours and must be re-attuned. On a critical fail, the wand is destroyed (wands are a fragile thing).
Staves would work in a similar way as wands in that they have a particular spell and level stored, however, they would also function as a +1 or higher melee weapon with reach. In addition, the staff could act as the material focus of any spell the caster has memorized. This would reduce the number of actions the caster needs to cast a more powerful spell. The staff could also be used to cast a spell through it and use it in a touch attack. Does the wizard want to cast shocking grasp on the Ogre, but not want to be adjacent? Cast it through the staff and make a touch attack with reach. There would be no melee damage rolled, but instead the spell would go off if he/she hit. Does your Bard have a staff of healing but can’t quite get to the heavily wounded fighter to help him? No problem. A single move action and a melee touch with reach casts that heal spell and gets your fighter those much needed HP. Attempting to spam the staff with additional PCs using it would be similar to a wand, but on a critical fail, the staff gains the broken condition and must be repaired.
I know some of this may need to be thought out more for viability, but hopefully, there’s enough in here that with some rework, Resonance may actually work as intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still feels weird that Spellcasters are being almost forced to rely on their cant rips and orisons. That just seems so backwards.
Honestly, the #1 thing I wanted when playing a non-martial in PF1 was a spammable option which was good throughout my career- this is a large part of why I liked the Kineticist so much.
So you have to/can rely on your cantrips, because other options are limited/your cantrips are good is a really positive change from where I sit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I will give my take on these points.
See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.
*lots of snippage*
Healer is a role, not a class.. just like dps, tank, blaster, controller are roles. Does your group play with no magical healing? In my experience, playing with no magical healing results in total party kill. Also, playing without a character who is designated "The one who will advance in healing skills/magic/whatever" results in total party kill at the higher levels when you can't dish out enough healing to keep up with the higher DPS at the higher levels.
If you pick one portion of one class and say "See! That one person can heal AND hit things!" Except that the priest who kits out as a healer really CAN'T hit the higher level monsters, and don't have the AC to stand on the front line with higher level monsters, and when they go down because they ARE in the front line, no more healing. That just happened in our last game. The Healer (in this case an Oracle Healer) put himself in the front line in our low level game. One hit, down and unconcious. No more healing for anyone.
The person who plays a character (not class) dedicated to healing is useful when healing. Taking a tool away at low levels that helps them to keep up with healing because their personal powers can't keep up yet results in them being left out of the game once their healing is used up... because they can't stand in the front line.
Now I am sure that you can come up with one class/power/feat combination that can both stand in the front line AND has enough healing. Wonderful, as long as that is the only character one player is allowed to play so that the group has healing.
Myself, I don't believe this is a good thing. Just as I like that there are multiple classes that can be DPS, and multiple classes that can be blasters, I believe there should be multiple classes who can be healers. I also think that rules which leave characters out of play because they "run out of power" are bad for overall enjoyment for those players.
Boojum
So, I will give my take on these points.
See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.
*lots of snippage*
Healer is a role, not a class.. just like dps, tank, blaster, controller are roles. Does your group play with no magical healing? In my experience, playing with no magical healing results in total party kill. Also, playing without a character who is designated "The one who will advance in healing skills/magic/whatever" results in total party kill at the higher levels when you can't dish out enough healing to keep up with the higher DPS at the higher levels.
If you pick one portion of one class and say "See! That one person can heal AND hit things!" Except that the priest who kits out as a healer really CAN'T hit the higher level monsters, and don't have the AC to stand on the front line with higher level monsters, and when they go down because they ARE in the front line, no more healing. That just happened in our last game. The Healer (in this case an Oracle Healer) put himself in the front line in our low level game. One hit, down and unconcious. No more healing for anyone.
The person who plays a character (not class) dedicated to healing is useful when healing. Taking a tool away at low levels that helps them to keep up with healing because their personal powers can't keep up yet results in them being left out of the game once their healing is used up... because they can't stand in the front line.
Now I am sure that you can come up with one class/power/feat combination that can both stand in the front line AND has enough healing. Wonderful, as long as that is the only character one player is allowed to play so that the group has healing.
Myself, I don't believe this is a good thing. Just as I like that there are multiple...
best case playing with no healer results in a lot of time spent resting and recovering.
If you pick one portion of one class and say "See! That one person can heal AND hit things!" Except that the priest who kits out as a healer really CAN'T hit the higher level monsters, and don't have the AC to stand on the front line with higher level monsters, and when they go down because they ARE in the front line, no more healing. That just happened in our last game. The Healer (in this case an Oracle Healer) put himself in the front line in our low level game. One hit, down and unconcious. No more healing for anyone.
The person who plays a character (not class) dedicated to healing is useful when healing. Taking a tool away at low levels that helps them to keep up with healing because their personal powers can't keep up yet results in them being left out of the game once their healing is used up... because they can't stand in the front line.
Neither the free Heal spells that positive energy Clerics get nor the Medicine skill really seem to affect a character's battle capabilities negatively. Especially in the case of skill feats - being dedicated to healing out of combat simply means that you're not dedicated to any other specific out of combat thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.
At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.
Finally, you come to "what you can do in a round." Let us say you are a character with some healing ability and some melee ability and some armor. You don't heal as much as someone who dedicated their characters upgrades for healing, and you don't hit very often, and you don't do much damage.. but you do a bit of everything. You are in the front line fighting a monster and a nearby companion has taken a lot of damage. You can either attack a monster and do a bit of damage.. or you can shift out of combat and heal some of the damage on your companion, but you can't do both... and sometimes you can't shift to do the healing. Also, the amount of healing you can do may end up doing just 1 hits worth of healing because you didn't ramp your healing up using feats.
That has been my experience, anyway. As it is, it seems that they are shifting the balance over to limit the usefulness of the dedicated healer/buffer roles. I am not sure how this will work out in real life, but I do not find it to be a good thing. That role is already having to use magic items at lower levels to fulfill their role and it seems they are trying to take that away.
Boojum
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.
At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.
Except you have different pools for class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats, etc. None of the skill feats you spent on healing could be spent on armor or increasing your attack bonus. You need class feats or general feats to do that. Investing in healing doesn't take away from your combat ability, you take it instead of investing in other skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.
At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.
Except you have different pools for class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats, etc. None of the skill feats you spent on healing could be spent on armor or increasing your attack bonus. You need class feats or general feats to do that. Investing in healing doesn't take away from your combat ability, you take it instead of investing in other skills.
But the skill feat you spent on medicine could have been spent on stealth,athletics, knowledge etc etc. Since stealth can be used in combat, being forced to put skills in medicine over stealth can effect your combat ability. I am sure other skills have skill feats that give you bonuses that can be used in combat too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the skill feat you spent on medicine could have been spent on stealth,athletics, knowledge etc etc. Since stealth can be used in combat, being forced to put skills in medicine over stealth can effect your combat ability. I am sure other skills have skill feats that give you bonuses that can be used in combat too.Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.
At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.
Except you have different pools for class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats, etc. None of the skill feats you spent on healing could be spent on armor or increasing your attack bonus. You need class feats or general feats to do that. Investing in healing doesn't take away from your combat ability, you take it instead of investing in other skills.
If I'm not mistaken, athletics is used for maneuvers so there is a second skill for combat.
If I'm not mistaken, athletics is used for maneuvers so there is a second skill for combat.Athletics and Acrobatics are used for maneuvers, yes. Of course, investing in maneuvers is very much a niche issue in many ways. At least as niche as Medicine is, IMO.
Well, they'd be used for defense too right so I can't see how they would be niche. If they are then monsters with an ability like grab are going to wreck people.
If you mean investing in making the maneuvers, well that depends how they work now. Who knows, they might actually be worth it now.
|
Well, they'd be used for defense too right
Actually, no. As far as we know only making maneuvers is a skill check. They attack against Save DCs (ie: Save Mod + 10).
I think escaping a grapple may be an exception, since that's you making an Athletics check (though not getting grappled is still a matter of Saves or AC), but that's a single very specific exception and still requires no Skill Feats.
Actually, no. As far as we know only making maneuvers is a skill check. They attack against Save DCs (ie: Save Mod + 10).
Seems odd but ok.
I think escaping a grapple may be an exception, since that's you making an Athletics check (though not getting grappled is still a matter of Saves or AC), but that's a single very specific exception and still requires no Skill Feats.
I was thinking more having to spend skill increases/assurances/signature skill to up defensive bonuses vs skill feats to make the maneuver.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems odd but ok.
I quite like it. It makes people who are good at dodging things via Reflex Saves good at avoiding being disarmed, people who are tough via Fortitude Saves being good at resisting things like Bull Rush, and very possibly people with good Will Saves being directly good at resiting Feints.
That all sounds very appropriate.
I was thinking more having to spend skill increases/assurances/signature skill to up defensive bonuses vs skill feats to make the maneuver.
Well, there are probably Skill Feats to improve maneuvers, but you seem able to make them at no penalty as long as you have the skill. They may (or may not) be a Trained only use, but you certainly don't need more than Trained.
For the most part I'm ok with the idea of resonence,the only issue I have is that you need it for Potions and Scrolls.
My wizard writes his own scrolls and what, can't use them because he's wearing too many magic rings?
That makes no damn sense to me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeeeaaaahhhh.. so I just read the part in the blog where warriors get a pass on resonance while spellcasters have to pay it for their magic items.. and all my enthusiasm for the new version just sort of drained away. Add reading about how charged items work (in the case of the staff) and there is an overwhelming amount to track.
You are a 3rd level sorcerer with a +3 charisma bonus, giving you 6 resonance points. Your day begins and you pick up your wand of healing, investing 1 resonance point to sync with it (which also increases the wands charge by 2 (highest spell level castable), apparently.)
If you use no other magic items that use resonance points, you can use your wand another 5 times that day. Ok... That IS quite a bit of healing at 3rd level (5d8+5 split through the party) so now your wand is at +2 but then -5 charges for the day.
A new day, ok.. +1 resonance point on your wand, you get +2 charge, but then you use the wand twice during the day, so now subtract two charges from the total.
A new day, +1 resonance point to equip your wand, you get +2 charge and didn't use it at all, so it stays at +2 charge.
This is NOT making tracking things easier. Worse, they are giving warriors a pass on the items they end up using.. so spellcasters have to track fluctuating charges and points for everything in addition to the points they track for their spells and the math for each charged item changes depending on the max level spell you can cast.
I'm sorry, but this is looking less and less like something I want to play, and this is from someone who was excited enough to buy the hardcopy of the playtest materials. Worse, since they are going to be shipping the books in mid july, it is really to late for any changes to be done. I think I'm going back to bed and just call today a loss.
Boojum
Yeeeaaaahhhh.. so I just read the part in the blog where warriors get a pass on resonance while spellcasters have to pay it for their magic items.. and all my enthusiasm for the new version just sort of drained away. Add reading about how charged items work (in the case of the staff) and there is an overwhelming amount to track.
You are a 3rd level sorcerer with a +3 charisma bonus, giving you 6 resonance points. Your day begins and you pick up your wand of healing, investing 1 resonance point to sync with it (which also increases the wands charge by 1, apparently.)
If you use no other magic items that use resonance points, you can use your wand another 5 times that day. Ok... That IS quite a bit of healing at 3rd level (5d8+5 split through the party) so now your wand is at +1 but then -5 charges for the day.
A new day, ok.. +1 resonance point on your wand, you get +1 charge, but then you use the wand twice during the day, so now subtract two charges from the total.
A new day, +1 resonance point to equip your wand, you get +1 charge and didn't use it at all, so it stays at +1 charge.
This is NOT making tracking things easier. Worse, they are giving warriors a pass on the items they end up using.. so spellcasters have to track fluctuating charges and points for everything in addition to the points they track for their spells.
I'm sorry, but this is looking less and less like something I want to play, and this is from someone who was excited enough to buy the hardcopy of the playtest materials. Worse, since they are going to be shipping the books in mid july, it is really to late for any changes to be done. I think I'm going back to bed and just call today a loss.
Boojum
I think there are a few issues with your understanding of things here:
First, I believe you are talking about staffs rather than wands. You attune your staff, but in exchange that can restore charges for the staff, lets you cast heal instead of one of your normal spell slots of the appropriate level, and increases the amount your healing does.Second, where did you get this thing about warriors getting a pass on resonance? Last time I checked, they still needed to burn their resonance to activate trinkets and capes of elvenkind and what-have-you. It is merely true that no one needs to spend resonance to use magic weapons.
I feel ya on resonance being a bit of a let-down in terms of it decreasing game complexity, however. It is still solving other problems, though.
|
|
To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Boojum
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think wands are just "Multi-use scrolls"- so no need to invest at the start of the day but 1 resonance per use.
To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Boojum
Other classes can use wands just fine with the appropriate skill feats. Also, we know from the glass cannon playtest that you don't have to attune wands in the same way that you attune a staff. It is also unclear if wands can be recharged at all. I will note that you DO have to attune a cloak of elvenkind and other worn items.
On a related note, I am fine with spellcasters having more complicated magic item options than martial characters. People who play spellcasters have a generally higher tolerance for complexity, after all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have less objection if that complexity made them more powerful, but in this case the complexity was added to make them LESS powerful. Warriors in our group already way out damage the spellcasters in combat, but that's ok because spellcasters are more versatile in what they can do... except that in the next edition will make them less versatile.
I think this is going to come down to people who don't play spellcasters very often going YAY! They are going to be nerfed! And people who play them going "Wait, we are getting nerfed? That's no fun!"
Boojum
I would have less objection if that complexity made them more powerful, but in this case the complexity was added to make them LESS powerful. Warriors in our group already way out damage the spellcasters in combat, but that's ok because spellcasters are more versatile in what they can do... except that in the next edition will make them less versatile.
I think this is going to come down to people who don't play spellcasters very often going YAY! They are going to be nerfed! And people who play them going "Wait, we are getting nerfed? That's no fun!"
Boojum
Well with the math re-balancing, hopefully spell blasting damage will have a place in the game along side martial DPS while the versatility of spellcasters won't completely obviate the other party members when outside of combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in our GiantSlayer game, the Cavalier was able to pump out about 75pts of damage per round if he charged with a lance (over a hundred if he crit.) The archer was pumping out around 150pts per round (lets hear it for abundant ammo.) And the spellcasters were hitting with a whole lot less and were limited by spells per day. If the cantrips scale to the point where they do as much damage as fighters at the higher levels and orisons so they can do as much healing as fighters need.. then I will take it all back. I'll have to wait until my books arrive to check. I am hoping they will ship mid July.
Boojum
This is starting to get off-topic, since your biggest gripe is with Resonance mechanics and not Sorcerer mechanics. While the two are meant to work together, nothing from the Sorcerer has anything to do with basic Resonance mechanics on rechargable items, and is mostly anecdotal in application (any spellcaster would suffice in this example).
Furthermore, your martials were hyper-optimized against typical enemies, whereas your blasters were probably not optimized whatsoever, and most likely invested resources in improving the martials instead of having their own schtick. I'd expand on this even more, but that won't get the topic back on track.
|
|
To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Boojum
Other classes can use wands just fine with the appropriate skill feats. Also, we know from the glass cannon playtest that you don't have to attune wands in the same way that you attune a staff. It is also unclear if wands can be recharged at all. I will note that you DO have to attune a cloak of elvenkind and other worn items.
On a related note, I am fine with spellcasters having more complicated magic item options than martial characters. People who play spellcasters have a generally higher tolerance for complexity, after all.
Where did you read that anyone can use wands as long as they have a special skill?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where did you read that anyone can use wands as long as they have a special skill?To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Boojum
Other classes can use wands just fine with the appropriate skill feats. Also, we know from the glass cannon playtest that you don't have to attune wands in the same way that you attune a staff. It is also unclear if wands can be recharged at all. I will note that you DO have to attune a cloak of elvenkind and other worn items.
On a related note, I am fine with spellcasters having more complicated magic item options than martial characters. People who play spellcasters have a generally higher tolerance for complexity, after all.
It is in the “Feats of Skill” blog. It is called Trick Magic Item.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is starting to get off-topic, since your biggest gripe is with Resonance mechanics and not Sorcerer mechanics. While the two are meant to work together, nothing from the Sorcerer has anything to do with basic Resonance mechanics on rechargable items, and is mostly anecdotal in application (any spellcaster would suffice in this example).
My gripe is how resonance mechanics affects arcane and divine casters.. but you are correct it has deviated from the original conversation. I still stand by my statement that the further you get from a warrior, the more complex they are making things... and the closer you get to a warrior, the simpler they are making things even to the point of waving resonance for magic weapons. I think the inherent depowering of low level controllers and healers turn off players of these sorts of characters. I know that I sort of am.
Boojum
So, I will give my take on these points.
See, I don't think "the healer" is something that Paizo are supporting. There is no healers class. There are classes that can do more healing than others, but it seems like a large number of the classes can bring some healing.
*lots of snippage*
Healer is a role, not a class.. just like dps, tank, blaster, controller are roles. Does your group play with no magical healing? In my experience, playing with no magical healing results in total party kill. Also, playing without a character who is designated "The one who will advance in healing skills/magic/whatever" results in total party kill at the higher levels when you can't dish out enough healing to keep up with the higher DPS at the higher levels.
Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this thread.
Defining "healer" as a roll does make a lot of sense. But, I do not agree that all roles should have limitless resources.
If you think attrition based play has any place in game design, then healing must be limited. But this also means that good class design must allow characters to have another roll in addition to healing.
In PFe1 all casters had limits on their damage. At low level you felt these limits with a long adventuring day, but at high levels, while still technically limited, in practise you have far more resources than you could reasonably expend. You could also use an almost trivial amount of gold to ignore heal and attribute attrition.
In PFe2, they are giving spell casters spamable spells (cantrips), but they are limiting potent spells a lot more. They are also limiting using gold to bypass these limitations. You can dislike resonance as a clunky mechanic, but with resonance taxing consumables, you can then drop their price and still keep attrition mechanics and allow people to use them more freely (from a gold perspective).
Also in PFe1, healing per round was generally a lot lower than what creatures where putting out (Heal being a stand out exception). I found that you would often mitigate monster damage through disable spells, or just flat out kill the monster before it had much of a chance to do damage.
If you pick one portion of one class and say "See! That one person can heal AND hit things!" Except that the priest who kits out as a healer really CAN'T hit the higher level monsters, and don't have the AC to stand on the front line with higher level monsters, and when they go down because they ARE in the front line, no more healing. That just happened in our last game. The Healer (in this case an Oracle Healer) put himself in the front line in our low level game. One hit, down and unconcious. No more healing for anyone.
Yeah, that is definitely a drawback in PFe1. Now everyone essentially gets full BAB progression and very similar saves. Therefore, there is a smaller gap in martial offence and defence.
The person who plays a character (not class) dedicated to healing is useful when healing. Taking a tool away at low levels that helps them to keep up with healing because their personal powers can't keep up yet results in them being left out of the game once their healing is used up... because they can't stand in the front line.
That is why good game design would make healing less of an opportunity cost. Having to build towards a dedicated healer by sacrificing your ability to perform other roles should not be required. I think healing should be a secondary roll for a number of classes. Yet it should still be limited.
Paladins are a good example from PFe1 of a class with healing, but still very good at another role: hitting things. Paladins can invest in Bracers of the Merciful Knight and drop a feat on Lay on Hands. This does make them substantially better at healing, but you do not really need to. You generally cannot out-heal incoming damage, but you do not need to out heal it, you just need to do enough to keep people alive.
With the action economy for PFe1 it seems like 1 or 2 actions can be spent on offence, and 2 or 1 actions can be spent on buffs, heals. With haste it gives an extra action for movement or a strike. This means healing AND... is the new normal.
Now I am sure that you can come up with one class/power/feat combination that can both stand in the front line AND has enough healing. Wonderful, as long as that is the only character one player is allowed to play so that the group has healing.Myself, I don't believe this is a good thing. Just as I like that there are multiple classes that can be DPS, and multiple classes that can be blasters, I believe there should be multiple classes who can be healers. I also think that rules which leave characters out of play because they "run out of power" are bad for overall enjoyment for those players.
Boojum
I definitely agree with what you are saying here. I think making healing a secondary role and giving half the classes in the game the ability to do it viably is the answer to this.
If people think their main role is to heal, I think maybe they are going to be left out in the cold. Running out of power is rubbish. But if they can heal AND... then they can always do their other role.