It's actually not, as I'd take 2d8+4 for 8 gp over 1d8 for 3 any day.Bad news, the standard healing potion (the least one) is still the most cost efficient in the game - and all the others get worse as you go higher.
Good news, the Cure spells are gone and have been replaced with a single Heal spell that heightens and heals waaaaay more effectively than Cure did.
Actually it is - the fact that you'd prefer one over the other doesn't change the math. The first is 1.3 gold per hit point - the second is 1.5 gold per hit point (average healed). Assuming you are about to sleep for the night you'd be way better off using standard potions to top up - unless you are down to just a single resonance - in that case you are punished by spending more to heal.
|
Actually it is - the fact that you'd prefer one over the other doesn't change the math. The first is 1.3 gold per hit point - the second is 1.5 gold per hit point (average healed). Assuming you are about to sleep for the night you'd be way better off using standard potions to top up - unless you are down to just a single resonance - in that case you are punished by spending more to heal.It's actually not, as I'd take 2d8+4 for 8 gp over 1d8 for 3 any day.Bad news, the standard healing potion (the least one) is still the most cost efficient in the game - and all the others get worse as you go higher.
Good news, the Cure spells are gone and have been replaced with a single Heal spell that heightens and heals waaaaay more effectively than Cure did.
You mean hit point per gold, right? And I'm getting 1.6 hp/gp for the 2d8+4/8gp option. Did you do your addition wrong?
Actually it is - the fact that you'd prefer one over the other doesn't change the math. The first is 1.3 gold per hit point - the second is 1.5 gold per hit point (average healed). Assuming you are about to sleep for the night you'd be way better off using standard potions to top up - unless you are down to just a single resonance - in that case you are punished by spending more to heal.It's actually not, as I'd take 2d8+4 for 8 gp over 1d8 for 3 any day.Bad news, the standard healing potion (the least one) is still the most cost efficient in the game - and all the others get worse as you go higher.
Good news, the Cure spells are gone and have been replaced with a single Heal spell that heightens and heals waaaaay more effectively than Cure did.
Last I checked, 13 average / 8 cost gets you 1.625 HP per gp, while 4.5 average / 3 cost gets 1.5 per gp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is not broken don't fix it.Who decides what isn't broken?
Not you, certainly.
Ultimately, the consumer decides by purchasing, or not, the completed PF2e.
You mean hit point per gold, right? And I'm getting 1.6 hp/gp for the 2d8+4/8gp option. Did you do your addition wrong?Actually it is - the fact that you'd prefer one over the other doesn't change the math. The first is 1.3 gold per hit point - the second is 1.5 gold per hit point (average healed). Assuming you are about to sleep for the night you'd be way better off using standard potions to top up - unless you are down to just a single resonance - in that case you are punished by spending more to heal.Bad news, the standard healing potion (the least one) is still the most cost efficient in the game - and all the others get worse as you go higher.It's actually not, as I'd take 2d8+4 for 8 gp over 1d8 for 3 any day.
Also, one can argue that a minimum of 6 healed is much higher value than a minimum of 1.
Ultimately, the consumer decides by purchasing, or not, the completed PF2e.Ah, so broken is in the eye of the beholder.
A beholder with levels of accountant, yes.
Last I checked, 13 average / 8 cost gets you 1.625 HP per gp, while 4.5 average / 3 cost gets 1.5 per gp.Actually it is - the fact that you'd prefer one over the other doesn't change the math. The first is 1.3 gold per hit point - the second is 1.5 gold per hit point (average healed). Assuming you are about to sleep for the night you'd be way better off using standard potions to top up - unless you are down to just a single resonance - in that case you are punished by spending more to heal.It's actually not, as I'd take 2d8+4 for 8 gp over 1d8 for 3 any day.Bad news, the standard healing potion (the least one) is still the most cost efficient in the game - and all the others get worse as you go higher.
Good news, the Cure spells are gone and have been replaced with a single Heal spell that heightens and heals waaaaay more effectively than Cure did.
Yeah I rounded down. If I were honest and using my dice I'd half each result again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: If it's not intuitive, don't do it. Why would a Cleric value a box full of Wand of CLW more than a single Wand of CSW?Why might a soldier value a box full of small-calibre ammunition more than a single grenade? Why might UPS/Fedex value a fleet of small trucks over one giant supertruck?
The CLW/CSW dichotomy is a false one. Both spells have their place, which is good design. CSW is king when a caster needs rapid spike-healing. CLW is more economical when time is on the caster's side. That hp-healed-to-time-consumed math is why CLW is cheaper. It... makes sense.
All of this. The lowest level healing is for out of combat, when you have time to spare. Higher level healing is (theoretically) for in combat, when you don't have time to sit there, and need that action economy.
Unfortunately it doesn't really work in practice because healing sucks in Pathfinder. They're seemingly afraid of giving good healing effects that can actually restore a substantial amount of hit points. Even though you have to be a minimum of two character levels higher to cast the next higher tier of healing spell, that next healing spell only gives one extra die, as if you had only gained one level instead of two. Healing rapidly falls behind level and hit point progression, and certainly way way behind damage dealing capability.
People would be more inclined to use higher level healing effects if they leveled up appropriately and scaled with damage. Say that your second tier Heal restores 3d8+X (or even better, 6d4+X or a flat 15+X) instead of 2d8+X. Your third tier Heal restores 5d8+X (or 10d4+X or a flat 25+X) instead of 3d8+X. And so on... That would make healing much more viable.
They don't even have to change the current action structure of the Heal spell. Just say a given caster can't Heal a given target more than once per round. That way you aren't breaking the game by casting the now-appropriately leveled Heal spell 3 times in a round on a single target.
|
People would be more inclined to use higher level healing effects if they leveled up appropriately and scaled with damage. Say that your second tier Heal restores 3d8+X (or even better, 6d4+X or a flat 15+X) instead of 2d8+X. Your third tier Heal restores 5d8+X (or 10d4+X or a flat 25+X) instead of 3d8+X. And so on... That would make healing much more viable.
Uh...each level of Heal does, in fact, add 2d8 of healing on single targets in PF2. No restrictions necessary. A 3rd level healing spell is 5d8 + Wis in healing.
Look If I had the money to fix my bumper I would Frickin get a new bumper and not use the duct tape. Only reason I would use the duct tape is because I don't have another options. Its for sure not my preferred choice!
You might. That doesn't change the fact that I know someone that DOES have the cash but does this AND goes to the trouble of finding someone that will let it slide for inspection. Not everyone buys the most expensive option possible. Something isn't better because it costs more.
For healing, if I'm only expecting to use healing items out of combat why would I go for the cadillac of healing item when the Lumeneo healing does everything I need?
Look If I had the money to fix my bumper I would Frickin get a new bumper and not use the duct tape. Only reason I would use the duct tape is because I don't have another options. Its for sure not my preferred choice!You might. That doesn't change the fact that I know someone that DOES have the cash but does this AND goes to the trouble of finding someone that will let it slide for inspection. Not everyone buys the most expensive option possible. Something isn't better because it costs more.
For healing, if I'm only expecting to use healing items out of combat why would I go for the cadillac of healing item when the Lumeneo healing does everything I need?
I think this metaphor has officially made it impossible for me to visualize what we are suppose to actually be referring to because now I want to talk about cars and complain about how stupid a Lumeno looks and the fact that I wouldn't want to drive a lumeno should be self evident by looking at the Lumeno.
Also I'm pretty sure the caddilac has better safety features and looks nicer and is probably a lot more comfortable to ride in!
I think this metaphor has officially made it impossible for me to visualize what we are suppose to actually be referring to because now I want to talk about cars and complain about how stupid a Lumeno looks and the fact that I wouldn't want to drive a lumeno should be self evident by looking at the Lumeno.
Also I'm pretty sure the caddilac has better safety features and looks nicer and is probably a lot more comfortable to ride in!
As to comfort, from what I say the test driver said it was pretty comfy. Add to that the whole think tilts into a turn 25 degrees and it really feels like a bike except you have climate control. Heck I'd have bought one if I had $7000 around and was in france.
** spoiler omitted **I think this metaphor has officially made it impossible for me to visualize what we are suppose to actually be referring to because now I want to talk about cars and complain about how stupid a Lumeno looks and the fact that I wouldn't want to drive a lumeno should be self evident by looking at the Lumeno.
Also I'm pretty sure the caddilac has better safety features and looks nicer and is probably a lot more comfortable to ride in!
Interesting. I guess that isn't to bad. Still it is pretty ugly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er, is anyone who doesn't like resonance advocating for sticking with body slots?
Since they aren't completely removed and aren't the focus of many discussions about the problems with resonance... I don't know that its really a thing. It certainly doesn't matter for wands, potions or items activated with resonance per use.
WBL isn't necessarily gone, either. Obviously price wanders up for higher level stuff, so some form of economy is in place.
The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.
Ki powers iirc what I heardI'm just annoyed they apparently removed 4e monk's good parts in 5e because folks hated 4e that much xDWhat parts are those?
I think the whole "ki focus" mechanic was pretty nifty too, but 5e did their magic items all optional and janky so I am not entirely surprised that ki-focuses got left on the cutting room floor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.
The rest of my gaming group that doesn't frequent this forum would disagree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.The rest of my gaming group that doesn't frequent this forum would disagree with you.
I think a more fair statement from Secret Wizard would be to the effect of: "People who feel put out by the removal of cure light wound spam are disproportionately represented on the forums".
I would say that is probably true in large part because people who disagree with the change are the ones who are going to be most driven to post in general because they feel they need to do something the change PF2E's course.
At one point, Mark said something interesting:
Forum polls basically fail to predict the results of general surveys and may paradoxically swing the opposite way of general opinion (though this latter effects is in no way statistically significant).
I believe this result is being driven by essentially the same sample bias as described above; those who disagree most with prevailing opinions are also going to be unusually likely to create polls and make posts on boards that voice their opinion.
The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.
That seems unlikely.
The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.That seems unlikely.
LOL I know it isn't true as I'm looking at one now that doesn't get on the forums. ;)
LOL I know it isn't true as I'm looking at one now that doesn't get on the forums. ;)The only people who are attached to CLW wand spam are in this forum.That seems unlikely.
PICTURES OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! (kidding.)
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.
LOL Myself, I'm more bothers by people trying to change my mind when I hate something than when I like something. I think it's because a lot of the time you get the 'well if you just look at it differently, you'd really love it' like I could just flip a switch and change my mind. I'm old enough to be set in my ways and my perspective/POV might move a bit but it's not going to do a 180 because of an internet post. ;)
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.LOL Myself, I'm more bothers by people trying to change my mind when I hate something than when I like something. I think it's because a lot of the time you get the 'well if you just look at it differently, you'd really love it' like I could just flip a switch and change my mind. I'm old enough to be set in my ways and my perspective/POV might move a bit but it's not going to do a 180 because of an internet post. ;)
So your saying your stubborn then? What stubborn you? Nooo....
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.LOL Myself, I'm more bothers by people trying to change my mind when I hate something than when I like something. I think it's because a lot of the time you get the 'well if you just look at it differently, you'd really love it' like I could just flip a switch and change my mind. I'm old enough to be set in my ways and my perspective/POV might move a bit but it's not going to do a 180 because of an internet post. ;)
So you know if everyone had your perspective it means that it is completely pointless for you to argue with anyone about anything ever right?
I feel like I have a pretty open mind about things and if you can make a good enough argument using logic well I have changed my mind before about things.
However now I know not to waste my breath trying to argue with you anymore. You will apparently just ignore it or figure out some reason to still be set in your way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.LOL Myself, I'm more bothers by people trying to change my mind when I hate something than when I like something. I think it's because a lot of the time you get the 'well if you just look at it differently, you'd really love it' like I could just flip a switch and change my mind. I'm old enough to be set in my ways and my perspective/POV might move a bit but it's not going to do a 180 because of an internet post. ;)So you know if everyone had your perspective it means that it is completely pointless for you to argue with anyone about anything ever right?
I feel like I have a pretty open mind about things and if you can make a good enough argument using logic well I have changed my mind before about things.
However now I know not to waste my breath trying to argue with you anymore. You will apparently just ignore it or figure out some reason to still be set in your way.
You misunderstand. I'm more than willing to debate things about why myself or someone else likes/dislikes something. What I don't like is someone assumes I haven't thought out my ideas and feelings and that if they just show me the right way to think, it will look awesome.
So I'll be the first to admit I'm stubborn but I can be swayed by debate but it has to be evidence/fact based: bringing up something I didn't think of is far different than 'if you played the game different, you'd like it'.
Its true I get tired of arguing over things that I like faster. I don't feel like I got to get up in peoples faces about it. but if it is something I don't like I feel I'm more aggressive about it.LOL Myself, I'm more bothers by people trying to change my mind when I hate something than when I like something. I think it's because a lot of the time you get the 'well if you just look at it differently, you'd really love it' like I could just flip a switch and change my mind. I'm old enough to be set in my ways and my perspective/POV might move a bit but it's not going to do a 180 because of an internet post. ;)So you know if everyone had your perspective it means that it is completely pointless for you to argue with anyone about anything ever right?
I feel like I have a pretty open mind about things and if you can make a good enough argument using logic well I have changed my mind before about things.
However now I know not to waste my breath trying to argue with you anymore. You will apparently just ignore it or figure out some reason to still be set in your way.
You misunderstand. I'm more than willing to debate things about why myself or someone else likes/dislikes something. What I don't like is someone assumes I haven't thought out my ideas and feelings and that if they just show me the right was to think, it will look awesome.
So I'll be the first to admit I'm stubborn but I can be swayed by debate but it has to be evidence/fact based: bringing up something I didn't think of is far different than 'if you played the game different, you'd like it'.
Hmm so you don't respond well to the " appeal to emotion" argument type then? Thinking back I don't think (and I say I don't think cause its possible I have done it but just can't remember) I hardly ever try to use that one it doesn't seem to be the most effective way when left to a typed media. Appeal to character probably wouldn't work to well either since you have to know the person somewhat. So pretty much left with appeal to logic.
...but have you tried playing the game different.. it will look awesome...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but have you tried playing the game different.. it will look awesome....
Well I play without alignment restrictions - and use it *only* for roleplaying and how it might interact with spells (when people don't take one of the many legal ways that make you neutral to all alignment spells).
That's different - and you are right - it looks awesome :)
...but have you tried playing the game different.. it will look awesome....Well I play without alignment restrictions - and use it *only* for roleplaying and how it might interact with spells (when people don't take one of the many legal ways that make you neutral to all alignment spells).
That's different - and you are right - it looks awesome :)
Lol I like it.
I mostly just put that there to mess with Gray.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: If it's not intuitive, don't do it. Why would a Cleric value a box full of Wand of CLW more than a single Wand of CSW?People in real life do it ALL the time though. They get in a wreck and have the option for a new bumper or a roll of duct tape to put it back together: you'd be surprised how many go for the cheaper option. SAme with things like light bulbs: plenty of people still want incandescent bulbs instead of the superior Fluorescent ones because they are cheap.
SAFTEY MESSAGE
VERY off topic, but I'd like to kick in and say MANY people choose not to use Florescent bulbs due to the fact that Florescent bulbs are some of the most dangerous lightbulbs out there in relation to human health as well as the environment.
After we broke a few and had a rash of people getting sick we started to do some research. It turns out that new bulbs have a high mercury content. It slowly decreases as the bulb ages, but a new bulb that is hot releases mercury both into the air and on the ground if it shatters, breaks, or has problems otherwise.
Bulb manufacturers have tried to spread campaigns that try to pacify people so they are not concerned about the mercury or even claim mercury is safe (clue: mercury is NOT safe for humans to handle or breath innately, and no amount is something that should be written off casually).
IN addition, mercury released into the environment is bad. A Majority of those who buy lightbulbs do NOT recycle them or return them like they should. In fact, at times, it has become almost impossible in some areas of the world as no one wants to take the effort to dispose of them properly, so there are no areas for people to drop the bulbs off at. More and more of these hazardous bulbs are being sent to landfills where eventually the mercury leaks into the ground. This is an extremely hazardous thing to animal and plant life, especially as it works it's way down to the water tables and ends up in drinking water.
This may be a reason people go for incandescents, especially in areas of the world where incandescents are actually MORE expensive than Florescent lights these days.
However, I have gone with LED lights. Yes, they are even more expensive than Florescents, but at least I don't have to worry about poisoning my friends if one shatters all of the carpet, or having the carpet replaced instead.
It could turn out that LED's have some sort of damaging effect on health in the future or maybe research has shown they do already (I haven't found it or seen it), but thus far, from everything I've seen, they are probably the safest and most environmentally friendly while affordable light bulb out there.
Use your lightbulbs with care.
This safety message brought to you by an avid LED users of lightbulbs.
PS: AS far as the game analogy goes though, this post probably more reinforces your point to a degree than it did even before with the fluorescents.
A beholder with levels of accountant, yes.Ultimately, the consumer decides by purchasing, or not, the completed PF2e.Ah, so broken is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course, which eye are we talking about...the main one...or one of the smaller ones on eyestalks?
Some break things easier than others...depends on the eyestalk...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait Why are we not encouraging using higher level spells? Why is using lower level spells an option that should be encouraged?
Why should we? Why not use whatever is the best option. The pricier or higher level option isn't always the best option.
Even if PF1 we have overpriced magic items that almost never get chosen.
If we want people to use the higher level option it should be good enough to supplant the "lesser" option.
Er, is anyone who doesn't like resonance advocating for sticking with body slots?
Since there has been mention of "characters have 3 primary magic items.." in one of the blogs, why not simplify resonance and reduce "item slots" to three? i.e., every character gets 3 "item slots" for items that "are", whatever they have access to and choose to use/wear. Armor, weapons, bracers, robes, shields, Rings of Phenomenal Cosmic Power, what ever. They get three, end of story, no exceptions.
Characters may not get Three Items right away. Which should be fine. Gandalf has a Ring of Power and a spiffy Magic Sword. Bilbo and later Frodo have a Mithral Shirt and Sting. Poor Sam got stuck with Magic Elf Biscuits and a Rope of Climbing. Aragorn got a Ring of Power and later his own spiffy Magic Sword. The Grey Mouser had two spiffy Magic Swords. King Arthur had both Excalibur and [Excalibur's Scabbard], the latter of which the numbskull went and lost. Etc, etc.
Resonance runs consumables or whatever the heck it does with all of the rest of the stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 3 is too low for the game PF is, but I am totally for "you can have this number of active items at this level" (although I personally think that item slots are pretty common, simple and intuitive). And then you could have resonance for powering-up the one-shots and daily items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(although I personally think that item slots are pretty common, simple and intuitive)
I'll admit that I've not read all the playtest blogs, forums, and posts as well as I could, but I'm still not clear on why item slots are a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Item slots are a restriction that gets harder and harder to design around the more content you produce, and is especially arcane for homebrewers to create items. Slots were generated to prevent certain content from being mixed easily with certain other content and that was alright when considering one books worth of items. But with years it is getting harder and harder.
I'll be honest. I don't understand this argument, unless it's a reference to slotless items. If so, just put a restriction on the number of slotless items rather than this whole wacky resonance thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er, is anyone who doesn't like resonance advocating for sticking with body slots?Since there has been mention of "characters have 3 primary magic items.." in one of the blogs, why not simplify resonance and reduce "item slots" to three? i.e., every character gets 3 "item slots" for items that "are", whatever they have access to and choose to use/wear. Armor, weapons, bracers, robes, shields, Rings of Phenomenal Cosmic Power, what ever. They get three, end of story, no exceptions.
Because that reduces to three 'Must Haves' and anything with interesting effects might as well not exist.
Personally a better solution in that direction is to fold the effects of the '3 primary items' (which is to say weapons, with bonus to hit and lots more dice of damage, armor which gives bonuses to AC and saves and... whatever the third one is) into proficiencies as skills. I'd rather see accuracy and damage a function of character skill rather than a product of (or limited to) whatever they happen to pick up. Then all magic items can be interesting rather than math fixes.
Er, is anyone who doesn't like resonance advocating for sticking with body slots?Since there has been mention of "characters have 3 primary magic items.." in one of the blogs, why not simplify resonance and reduce "item slots" to three? i.e., every character gets 3 "item slots" for items that "are", whatever they have access to and choose to use/wear. Armor, weapons, bracers, robes, shields, Rings of Phenomenal Cosmic Power, what ever. They get three, end of story, no exceptions.Because that reduces to three 'Must Haves' and anything with interesting effects might as well not exist.
Personally a better solution in that direction is to fold the effects of the '3 primary items' (which is to say weapons, with bonus to hit and lots more dice of damage, armor which gives bonuses to AC and saves and... whatever the third one is) into proficiencies as skills. I'd rather see accuracy and damage a function of character skill rather than a product of (or limited to) whatever they happen to pick up. Then all magic items can be interesting rather than math fixes.
I would absolutely be down with that approach, Voss. The current information from the playtest leads me to believe that this will, sadly, not be the case. Thus the aforementioned suggestion.